Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!genrad!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!browngr!dk From: dk@browngr.UUCP (David Kantrowitz) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Creationism is not science. Message-ID: <1332@browngr.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Sep-84 14:08:44 EDT Article-I.D.: browngr.1332 Posted: Wed Sep 19 14:08:44 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 21:58:10 EDT Lines: 120 Information about the source of my explanations of miracles and nature can be found at the end of this article. As for our latest interchange, I must clarify a point which I hope answers your question/defense: >> If we can accept the histories of the Greeks and Romans, why do we not >> accept histories that date a mere additional 1000 years further back in time? >To defeat your argument, I simply turn it against yourself. I ask you to >live by your argument. If you are going to accept the Bible as clearly >true for the reasons you mention, then you must accept all such works, by >the same reasoning. "If we can accept the histories of the Greeks and >Romans...." Really? Then I assume that you believe in Zeus and Apollo, >etc. And of course you must accept ALL biblical works, Old Testament >*and* New [which leads to amusing contradictions] as well as all of the >apocraphal works. In addition, there is Gilgamesh and any other ancient >texts [do you fear the wrath of Humbaba?], there are the Islamic writings, >there is simply a wealth of understanding from many sources from these >ancient times. Thousands of Egyptions witnessed the power of Ra, and >observed that their Pharohs [ok, I can't spell] were gods. No way that By "histories of the Greeks" I mean *our* histories of the Greeks. By "histories that date a mere additional 1000 years further back in time", I mean *our* histories of that period. I did not mean to accept the Bible as a work of history (although that is a reasonable next step). I mean that we have certain beliefs about the Greeks and the Romans -- we believe they did certain things, such as waging wars -- we do not believe their claims about Gods, but we do believe their own histories of themselves -- e.g., we do believe that they held certain beliefs about Gods, like Zeus. My only conclusion from all this is to believe with equal strength that about 2500 years ago, the Jews for the most part believed in a certain tradition, just as I believe that the Babylonians had a certain tradition then. Therefore my reasoning so far does not compell me to accept any tradition, be it Greek, Roman, Christian, or Jewish, or at least NOT YET. NOW, however, I pose a new question: given that almost all the Jews 2500 years ago believed that something happened to them (Revelation on Mount Sinai) roughly 500 years earlier, HOW did that come about? This is not like the Greeks, because they had no such mass revelation, nor did they claim to. This is like NO OTHER claims in history (*thousands* of Egyptians witnessed Ra? -- I didn't know that. maybe they witnessed the *power* of Ra, but we see the power of creation all the time-- it depends on your interpretation. Also, I was taught in grade school that the Pharoahs were believed to be gods, but never directly *observed* to be Gods. The difference with Mount Sinai is that tradition holds it to be an event not subject to different interpretations -- the revelation of Godliness in the world was a clear sign of spirituality in the world, not a physical event that can be explained away, and that it was heard and seen by a million people all at the same time) Nor is this like people today believing the National Enquirer, because: as you said yourself, the people believing that stuff today will not affect its acceptance as historical truth 2000 years from now. I am dealing with an event or piece of information from 2500 years ago that DID affect accepted historical truth -- the fact that people are gullible only concerns me if that gullibility gets transfered to accepted historical truth. It seems not to be the case. How can you imagine a whole nation of gullible people? How can you imagine the "Enquirer"-type of gullibility affecting the history books? Furthermore, the acceptance of the New Testament or of Jesus, to name a few examples, is not as astonishing a gullibility as the one you'd need to explain away Mount Sinai -- it's easy to convince people that you alone have seen a revelation. The acceptance of Ra and Zeus does not relate at all to revelation or historical events; rather they relate to an acceptance of an explanation of the world that needs no verification at all. Also, you said, in comparison, > And I don't think it that farfetched to see people believing the Dec. of > Ind. to be divine in a few thousand years. The key is a *few thousand years*. We are not dealing with a few thousand years. We are dealing with 500 years, for if you accept the histories of the Jewish people 2500 years ago, then you accept that they have a belief about events dating 3000 years ago, or 500 years before their time. That is what you have to explain. Also, I retract my use of the Declaration of Independence as a good example, because it does not involve a large group of people all witnessing an event in the same place and the same time. In fact, I cannot imagine any significant historical event or scientific fact that even compares to Sinai, except for the sun rising and setting each day (and similar ones). To summarize, it is an event that is unparalleled, in scope or in nature, by any other historical events, real or claimed. It is historically evident that this event was claimed about 500 years after it happened. I still feel there is no reason to reject the event's verity, and no better explanation of the accepted events, than to accept the Bible as being true. I hope my arguments are a little clearer. I welcome all further comments, arguments, etc.. By the way, I like the way you put this: >because as time marches an and scientific awareness increases, people are >less likely to resort to the supernatural to explain historical events. >But the world of a few thousand years *ago* was much more susceptible >to such things because they had so much less science to explain their >world. The only thing I don't like about it is the word "susceptible" which implies a disease. Otherwise, it is a nonpartisan statement. You can view science as having enlightened us, or you can view it the way I do: it has had the opposite effect of enlightenment, making us think that our models of the world are all there is to the world. Indeed, I see this world as a very dark age, and no difference in susceptibility between then and now. But this is a different discussion from the more important one. ---------------------------------------- The source for the explanations of nature and miracles that I sent before is from Kabalah (mysticism), which is by all means part of the Torah, though not the part that most people are familiar with. In fact it is wholely consistent with the rest of the Torah, including the Written Law, or Tanach. (Hebrew Testament). This version of the explanation I learned by reading various works (Tanyah, and others) within Chabad Chassidus, which is derived from the Kabalah of Isaac Luria (first name may be wrong), who lived in Ts'fat in Israel in the 16 century (I believe). The earliest written source of Kabalah is the Zohar, which was written about the 2nd century C.E., by Rabbi Shimeon Bar Yochai. The information in the Zohar and Lurianic works are accessible to the layman only through more lucid explanations such as those of Chabbad Chasidus.