Evolution and the age of the universe

[kangarruu]

I said read Rashi in it's entirety. He actually says the opposite of what you're saying. He says that because it's out of order, we are forced to translate the pasuk differently. It's not recounting events at all because the Torah wouldn't recount them out of order.

In other words, a textual difficulty requires us to depart from a literal reading of the text.

And again, the Rambam saying that we can't understand the depth of it, not that it didn't happen.

Rambam says that the account is not entirely literal.

[kangarruu]

Your butchering of this Rashi is killing me.

Ad hominem. If you have a problem with the way I'm reading Rashi, please explain the Rashi line-by-line instead of declaring that I'm wrong.

[Menachem613]

Ad hominem. If you have a problem with the way I'm reading Rashi, please explain the Rashi line-by-line instead of declaring that I'm wrong.

+1

[Achas Veachas]

I agree that Rashi is generally a literalist. The reason I cited this Rashi was because I was asked for traditional opinions that Bereshis is not literal. Rashi, in the face of a textual difficulty, departed from his literalist approach and held that the account of Creation in the Torah is not complete and not intended to be complete. I think this is sufficient to demonstrate that departing from the literal account is not a novel view.

Rashi is not saying the text shouldn't be taken literally, he is saying that the Chumash did not give us the order of creation of Shamayim, Eretz, Mayim and Ruach. That is the literal understanding of the first 2 Pessukim of Bereishis.

I'm not following how this disproves my point. The literal account of Bereshis does not discuss metaphysics, and so learning metaphysics from it is necessarily nonliteral. Please let me know if I've missed the point you were trying to bring out.

Yes you did. My point is that with the words מעשה בראשית The Rambam is not referring to the account of Sheishes Yemey Bereishis rather to מעשה בראשית in the sense that Chazal said (Chagigah 11b)

ולא במעשה בראשית בשנים:

מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן (דברים ד, לב) כי שאל נא לימים ראשונים יחיד שואל ואין שנים שואלין יכול ישאל אדם קודם שנברא העולם ת"ל (דברים ד, לב) למן היום אשר ברא אלהים אדם על הארץ יכול לא ישאל אדם מששת ימי בראשית ת"ל לימים ראשונים אשר היו לפניך יכול ישאל אדם מה למעלה ומה למטה מה לפנים ומה לאחור ת"ל (דברים ד, לב) ולמקצה השמים ועד קצה השמים מלמקצה השמים ועד קצה השמים אתה שואל ואין אתה שואל מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים מה לאחור

[good sam]

Ad hominem. If you have a problem with the way I'm reading Rashi, please explain the Rashi line-by-line instead of declaring that I'm wrong.

Again, Rashi is reading the posuk a different way exactly because he didn't want to say that it was written out of order. He doesn't depart from pashut pshat. He changes where you put the commas. The portion of Rashi you quoted makes it sound like he says the psukim are written out of order. But if you read the entire Rashi, he says no such thing.

[Achas Veachas]

Rambam says that the account is not entirely literal.

Even according to your Pshat in מעשה בראשית, "not entirely literal"≠"entirely not literal"

[kangarruu]

Rashi is not saying the text shouldn't be taken literally, he is saying that the Chumash did not give us the order of creation of Shamayim, Eretz, Mayim and Ruach. That is the literal understanding of the first 2 Pessukim of Bereishis. Yes you did. My point is that with the words מעשה בראשית The Rambam is not referring to the account of Sheishes Yemey Bereishis rather to מעשה בראשית in the sense that Chazal said (Chagigah 11b)

ולא במעשה בראשית בשנים:

מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן (דברים ד, לב) כי שאל נא לימים ראשונים יחיד שואל ואין שנים שואלין יכול ישאל אדם קודם שנברא העולם ת"ל (דברים ד, לב) למן היום אשר ברא אלהים אדם על הארץ יכול לא ישאל אדם מששת ימי בראשית ת"ל לימים ראשונים אשר היו לפניך יכול ישאל אדם מה למעלה ומה למטה מה לפנים ומה לאחור ת"ל (דברים ד, לב) ולמקצה השמים ועד קצה השמים מלמקצה השמים ועד קצה השמים אתה שואל ואין אתה שואל מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים מה לאחור

I may still not be following. The Gemara in Chagigah is discussing the pre-creation period, about which Bereshis says nothing. Rambam says that the account in Bereshis is not intended to be entirely literal. Since there is no literal account of the pre-creation period, how can Rambam mean that the pre-creation account is not entirely literal? It seems to me that he must be saying that the textual account is nonliteral.

[kangarruu]

Even according to your Pshat in מעשה בראשית, "not entirely literal"≠"entirely not literal"

The harder part is showing that there is at least some part of Bereshis that is not literal. That opens the door to figuring out which parts are nonliteral and how to find them. I figured it was more important to first establish whether or not we agree that any part of it is nonliteral.

[kangarruu]

That's all for me tonight, folks. Someone else pick up the torch and I'll check back in the morning.

[Achas Veachas]

I may still not be following. The Gemara in Chagigah is discussing the pre-creation period, about which Bereshis says nothing. Rambam says that the account in Bereshis is not intended to be entirely literal. Since there is no literal account of the pre-creation period, how can Rambam mean that the pre-creation account is not entirely literal? It seems to me that he must be saying that the textual account is nonliteral.

Yet that is what the Rambam (and the Gemarah in many places) refers to when he says מעשה בראשית as seen in Perek 4 Halachah 10 I quoted earlier!

[Achas Veachas]

The harder part is showing that there is at least some part of Bereshis that is not literal. That opens the door to figuring out which parts are nonliteral and how to find them. I figured it was more important to first establish whether or not we agree that any part of it is nonliteral.

I'm sorry, there's a HUGE jump from saying there are things about Bereishis that aren't literal (after all, EVERYONE agrees that when it says ויאמר אלוקים, וירא אלוקים that it's not literal) to saying that the WHOLE STORY is not to be taken literally.

I make my assertion again, you will not find a single source from the Rishonim or earlier that will say that the world wasn't created in 6 days 5775 years ago.

[Aj3042]

I'm sorry, there's a HUGE jump from saying there are things about Bereishis that aren't literal (after all, EVERYONE agrees that when it says ויאמר אלוקים, וירא אלוקים that it's not literal) to saying that the WHOLE STORY is not to be taken literally.

I make my assertion again, you will not find a single source from the Rishonim or earlier that will say that the world wasn't created in 6 days 5775 years ago.

You are 100% correct. And this forum is not the place to bring Jews with heretical views back into the fold. Nobody is getting convinced of anything.

[HP58]

I'm sorry, there's a HUGE jump from saying there are things about Bereishis that aren't literal (after all, EVERYONE agrees that when it says ויאמר אלוקים, וירא אלוקים that it's not literal) to saying that the WHOLE STORY is not to be taken literally.

I make my assertion again, you will not find a single source from the Rishonim or earlier that will say that the world wasn't created in 6 days 5775 years ago.

The Abarbanel in Bereishis understands the aforementioned Rambam to mean that the six days were not 24 hours, but rather six steps of creation. I believe there's a Professor Schroeder IINM who quotes that as a Torah source for an Old World.

[Achas Veachas]

The Abarbanel in Bereishis understands the aforementioned Rambam to mean that the six days were not 24 hours, but rather six steps of creation. I believe there's a Professor Schroeder IINM who quotes that as a Torah source for an Old World.

Have you read the Abarvanel?

First of all he understands the Rambam to say that the world was created complete on the first day (a.k.a. last thursdayism) and then the next six days the six levels of creations were "celebrated" (Light and Dark, rain, minerals, plants, animals, man).

Second of all he blasts that interpretation completely saying

ואומר שדעת הרב חוץ ממעלת תורתו הוא שקר מבואר, ויתבאר זה מפנים: הא' שהכתובים בספור הבריאה מעידים ששה פעמים ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר יום כך, ואיך יכחיש אותם שום בעל תורה לומר שלא היה שם מספר ימים ולא ערב ולא בוקר? האין זה הכחשת הכתובים והכזבתם?

and then brings 5 more refutations to his understanding of the Rambam (including, interestingly, the question I brought all the way in the beginning about keeping Shabbos on the 7th day).

And if someone will tell me that "ok it's a Machlokes between the Rambam and Abarvenal and I follow the Rambam", most Meforshim don't understand the Rambam that way so it's only a Machlokes between the Abarvenal and the Abarbenal's understanding of the Rambam which he discredited in pretty strong terms...

[AI-TRAVEL]

I've been following this thread. Pretty fascinating stuff. Right now AV is winning by at least 20 points. But that could just bec I agree with everything he says....

[noturbizniss]

The Abarbanel in Bereishis understands the aforementioned Rambam to mean that the six days were not 24 hours, but rather six steps of creation. I believe there's a Professor Schroeder IINM who quotes that as a Torah source for an Old World.

Schroeder, IINM is the one who uses bad physics to argue that in the primordial universe tu me functioned differently and therefor 6 days can be 6 days. His arguments are inherently flawed.

[Achas Veachas]

I've been following this thread. Pretty fascinating stuff. Right now AV is winning by at least 20 points. But that could just bec I agree with everything he says....

ALOL (and I actually mean that literally )


It's uncanny, somehow anyone I agree with always wins every argument

[noturbizniss]

You are 100% correct. And this forum is not the place to bring Jews with heretical views back into the fold. Nobody is getting convinced of anything.

If you have nothing constructive to say or to add then take your 5 posts and go elsewhere. This discussion, while definitely controversial has been very mature, so let's try to keep it that way.

[Achas Veachas]

If you have nothing constructive to say or to add then take your 5 posts and go elsewhere. This discussion, while definitely controversial has been very mature, so let's try to keep it that way.

+1

Somehow, despite the tone of the first post I'm surprised how civilized a conversation on such a (to some) touchy subject has been playing out...

[noturbizniss]

+1

Somehow, despite the tone of the first post I'm surprised how civilized a conversation on such a (to some) touchy subject has been playing out...

To further refute him, I am learning alot about the various ways of learning the explanations of bereishis and it is very enlightening.
I do have a question. If we are to follow the generally accepted idea of creation ex nihilo, is it then against the Torah to say given that the world is 5778 years old,hkbh did put is in a world that was created with all the physical properties of one that is 6 orders of magnitude older therefore I want to learn what the story (read that in the literary since - not a true accounting) behind the creation is.
If we are not supposed to or allowed to do that, what reasons are given?
Again,  I stress that this question is posed from a given that what we see was created in that way as old.