Lots of people held beliefs that was thought to be by someone a ludicrous idea.
We’re not talking about SOMEONE thinking it’s ludicrous, we’re talking about the majority of mankind, including the most highly educated and progressive thinkers in history. And even if that condition did apply, chances are those people didn’t turn out to be precisely right, and if they did it’s because they were scientists or something of the sort who were ahead of their time. This is clearly not the case with the Book of Genesis.
It might be simple by your standards, but i bet some people held views that were to the contrary of indivisible packets of matter. Not everybody agreed with the idea that the whole world was made up indivisible packets of matter (atoms), and it wasn’t at one point a widely held belief.
And some people believed the world sat on the back of a giant turtle. What’s your point? People with a well developed faculty of logic are pretty much bound to arrive at that conclusion. The Greeks who did so were indeed very intellectually developed.
That the scriptures have meaning beyond the literal sense of the words that are used has no bearing on whether there is a hidden cosmology encoded in to scripture; and even if there is it does not mean that it is anything more than a philosophical theory that just happens to follow along the same lines as the Big-Bang theory.
What are you talking about? If it matches modern cosmology point for point, it sure as heck DOES have a bearing on whether or not there is a deep truth to Scripture. And it doesn’t stop with the Big Bang theory, either. Among the other things these ancient Torah scholars revealed to be written into the Genesis narrative are: the spontaneous generation of life on Earth, the common descent of all animal species, the presence of homo sapiens for ages before Adam.
Not only this, but comparing the “days” of Genesis to their corresponding epochs shows these developments to be described pretty much spot on, from the Big Bang up until the emergence of modern man.
Its not ad hominein. I am simply pointing out the rational quality of your argument. It doesn’t get much better than the bible code, sorry to say.
You haven’t even broken the surface of my argument, and besides that, depending on which Bible Code you’re talking about, certain forms of it have been peer reviewed and confirmed.
Does he say that there is a hidden cosmology encoded in to scripture representing word for word what your scribe had said in the 12 century. Yes or no.
More or less, yes. Find a copy of “Genesis and the Big Bang.” He illustrates some of the ways this was done (i.e. manipulating the Hebraic characters to add additional information to them)
The fact that there was an ancient tradition that had a cosmological theory tells me nothing, other than the fact that whoever invented the theory coincidentally described something that happens to reflect the belief shared among cosmologists today.
If someone managing to describe, in a nutshell, 15 billion years of cosmic development from the creation of the universe to the formation of matter from formless energy to the formation of the Earth to the emergence of life is what you call a “coincidental description,” then I’d like to know at what point you draw the line on coincidences.
If scientists found evidence that debunked the big-bang, you would see your theory for what it truly is, a belief that happens to have strong similarities with a currently held scientific theory. Nothing more. It is not evidence that Judaism is true, or that the world has beginning.
Well, they spent a lot of time trying to do that for well over half a century after it was formulated. It’s pretty much an accepted fact now. We don’t need evidence that the world had a beginning anymore. The Big Bang theory is proof. And the fact that Genesis accurately describes both the Big Bang and the development of the universe thereafter is indeed evidence of some incredible source of information for Scripture (dareIsay it… God.)
That’s Catholic philosophy you are talking about here. Your statements have a very misleading quality.
Ummm… Catholic philosophy is a part of Catholic tradition.
I think what you meant to say is my statements have a very “refutational” quality.
Evidence for what exactly?
That Scripture is true revelation.
What relevance does it have that an ancient philosophical tradition held views that reflect current thinking today? So what?
Because that current thinking was only reached in modern culture through centuries of rigorous scientific research, whereas it just appeared as revelation in an ancient, pre-scientific culture. I can’t stress enough: it doesn’t stop with the Big Bang itself, it keeps going until we get to the beginning of human history.
If pagans had written in their scriptures some theory that accurately portrays current scientific understanding, i am quite sure you would reject the idea that their religious beliefs are therefore true.
If it did to the extent that Genesis does, it would certainly give me pause.
