Thomas: Did the sun stop moving?

[wil]

Lot to go on here, first of all I believe as this is the comparative section a great place to compare stuff. If one can't look critically at their own texts be they the bible, quran, or whatever without blood boiling at folks who disagree, then maybe you aren't ready for this sandbox and should stay in safer environs.

What does amaze me is what we've discovered before that Atheists and others who have issues with biblical texts always take them literally, despite the fact that so many Christians and Jews do not. Now there is a portion that sticks with the 5 books coming off the mountain and the whole thing being written with the finger of G!d, but that clearly is not all of us, nor a majority of us in the UK or USA.

So did the sun stop moving? Nick have you never a time when you experienced an event whereby in your description you thought it was as if time stood still? And if we are going to ignore the poetic license and stick to scientific phenomena, me thinks it is the earth that moves in this relation ship and in order for the sun to stand still in the sky it is the sun which would have to start moving, rendering the original premise and question void. Oh, am I being to obtuse in this regard or simply answering the OP in kind?

As for Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 since they are two versions of the same story, not sequential by any means how can one follow the other? This question is void as well as it's premise is.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Wil, you said,

"...they are two versions of the same story, not sequential by any means ...."​

--> I see no reason to make that assumption.

"...how can one follow the other?"​

--> Because the events of Day Six do not (according to my belief system) refer to the events of the story of Adam and Eve.

 

[bananabrain]

er... everyone, it is a lot easier to make sense of the ma'aseh bereishit (the creation/eden section of the Torah) when you understand that it is a) complicated b) non-sequential c) intertextual d) multilayered and e) in biblical hebrew. it is notoriously the most difficult bit of the Torah to understand. however, i don't see the problem with genesis 2:5. humanity didn't have to work for a living until after it got chucked out of the garden. chronology is also not an issue here - jewish tradition understands that the Torah is not a linear, sequential narrative, nor is it understandable without the oral tradition that goes with it. what appear to the literalist observer as apparent sophomoric contradictions are all reconciled by the various traditional interpretations.

in terms of the non-literalism of the ma'aseh bereishit, it should be a bit of a giveaway that the sun and moon are Created on the third day - that ought to give you a clue that we're not talking about 24 hours here, because that would require the heavenly bodies to actually be orbiting the earth.

it is interesting that you understand the "men" of the sixth day to be other than those put into eden; i can see where you'd think that. however, due to the Torah not actually working that way, it's not correct. our understanding is that humans are humans are humans. there's no concept of "elder races" or any such thing; this is, from our perspective, a fundamental misreading of the Text.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[wil]

Wil, you said,

"...they are two versions of the same story, not sequential by any means ...."​

--> I see no reason to make that assumption.

"...how can one follow the other?"​

--> Because the events of Day Six do not (according to my belief system) refer to the events of the story of Adam and Eve.

no reason to make that assumption?

Gen 1
Day 1 Heaven and Earth, light, waters, darkness, separation of same and evening, morning, night, day.

Day 2 firmament on waters below and firmament in the waters above, heaven

Day 3 gathered firmament on earth, called it land, added grasses, trees, fruits

Day 4 added lights in the sky, sun, moon, stars

Day 5 whales, fish, fowl, animals (every creature that moveth)

Day 6 animals again, beasts and cattle and things that creepeth, and man. (male and female created he them.)

Gen 2

Day 7 ended work and rested.

Gen2:4 in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. (what day did G!d make earth and heavens (day 1) and what day did G!d make plants? (day 3) therefore in days 1 and 3 there was not a man...hmmm)

So then G!d made man, and then trees, and then animals, then woman.

So if one were to take that literally without the mitzvah, there are either two stories of creation that literally differ in order or ...

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Wil,

...or Day Six saw the creation of a man who could not till the ground. This fits with my version of the story.

 

[wil]

Wil,

...or Day Six saw the creation of a man who could not till the ground. This fits with my version of the story.

and what of all these trees and animals that were created previously, what were they that G!d had to create new ones for Adam to find a help meet?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Wil,

I am not sure what the trees represent, but the animals of the Seven Days represent (according to my belief system) the animals of the zodiac, which means it refers to the creation of specific constellations. I see the Seven Days as representing more the story of the creation of the universe than that of the Earth.

 

[wil]

Wil,

I am not sure what the trees represent, but the animals of the Seven Days represent (according to my belief system) the animals of the zodiac, which means it refers to the creation of specific constellations. I see the Seven Days as representing more the story of the creation of the universe than that of the Earth.

It wasn't just trees, but in Gen2 there was no rain prior to man being created and no plants or animals, just dry earth (again more reason to assume a new and different not sequential story)

My question relates to if it isn't two versions of the same story (some believe the first is the idea/thought of G!d, the second the manifesting in reality) and as you say in your belief system is the creation of the universe. Then why the concern with no man to work the ground? What is this man that was created in the universe in Gen1 vs. the man created in the universe in Gen2?

If animals represent the Zodiac, which animals Gen1 before tilling man or Gen2 after Adam prior to Eve (does Lillith fit into your story? Gen1 or Gen2?) And if the Gen1 or Gen2 animals are the zodiac, (still got more questions as to whether the twins, virgin, scales and water bearer are animals, but) what are the stars in Gen1 Day4 representing?

In addition if it is a story of the creation of the universe why be so earthnocentric? ie the zodiac is only visible from our solar system, and relates to our rotation of our planet, and the annual travel of the Sun and moon relation to these constellations.

Lastly, in your belief system when was this the zodiac was created, 5,000 years ago when the stories were written or eons ago when this planet/universe was formed? We know these stars which makeup the zodiac are moving and there is actually a very short window of time that they will be seen as we see them now. A few hundred thousand years ago, or a few hundred thousand years from now, they were and again will be, completely unrecognizable as the animal, human shapes we perceive today.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Will you said,

"...in Gen2 there was no rain prior to man being created and no plants or animals, just dry earth...."​

--> The use of four elements — fire, water, earth, air — symbolize various levels of consciousness, and conditions of "matter" at each level of consciousness. For example, water has long been a symbol of the astral plane.

"What is this man that was created in the universe in Gen1 vs. the man created in the universe in Gen2?"​

--> Gen1 deals with the "creation" of humanity at a spiritual level — the emanation of the human "soul". Gen2 deals with the connecting of our "souls" to physical bodies — and the events that immediately followed.

"If animals represent the Zodiac, which animals Gen1 before tilling man or Gen2 after Adam prior to Eve...."​

--> The information we have is that the "animals" of Gen1 are the Zodiac. Unfortunately, that is the only information that was given out.

"...what are the stars in Gen1 Day4 representing?"​

--> I have not seen the actual teachings on this, so I can only guess. They seem to me to be the Great Beings of the Universe. We are told there are seven of Them. The number seven appears often in the Bible, and we are told these sevens refer to Them.

"In addition if it is a story of the creation of the universe why be so earthnocentric?"​

(1) That story was set up so people of that time could understand it. (I suppose asking people many centuries ago to think about different levels of consciousness, formed vs. formless cosmic beings, etc., was asking too much.) It was decided to use an ethnocentric set of symbols for those people. I have always felt there is waaay too much symbolism in these stories, but that is the reality of the situation.


(2) The story deals mainly with the creation of the universe, the creation of our planet, and the creation of humanity. If all the other parts of the entire story had been included, the story would have filled an endless number of libraries.

"...the zodiac is only visible from our solar system, and relates to our rotation of our planet, and the annual travel of the Sun and moon relation to these constellations."​

--> While I am not familiar with the system of Zodiacal Beings which influence the Earth, I am sure there is a system which takes into account siderial movement. Zodiacal influence is there for whatever reason, so I am sure it will still be there billions of years in the future. Perhaps the Zodiacal Beings are assigned a certain arc of our terrestrial sky, no matter which stars are lined up out there on a particular day? I am not an astrologist, so I do not know.

"Lastly, in your belief system when was this the zodiac was created, 5,000 years ago when the stories were written or eons ago when this planet/universe was formed?"​

--> I would imagine the Zodiacal Beings were in place eons before our sun even appeared.

"We know these stars which makeup the zodiac are moving and there is actually a very short window of time that they will be seen as we see them now. A few hundred thousand years ago, or a few hundred thousand years from now, they were and again will be, completely unrecognizable as the animal, human shapes we perceive today."​

--> As I said before, I am sure the Beings which run the Zodiac allow for siderial movement. I studied a little bit of esoteric astrology many years ago, and I found it fascinating.

 

[wil]

"What is this man that was created in the universe in Gen1 vs. the man created in the universe in Gen2?"--> Gen1 deals with the "creation" of humanity at a spiritual level — the emanation of the human "soul". Gen2 deals with the connecting of our "souls" to physical bodies — and the events that immediately followed.

"If animals represent the Zodiac, which animals Gen1 before tilling man or Gen2 after Adam prior to Eve...."​

--> The information we have is that the "animals" of Gen1 are the Zodiac. Unfortunately, that is the only information that was given out.

"...what are the stars in Gen1 Day4 representing?"​

--> I have not seen the actual teachings on this, so I can only guess.

Are you telling me the teachings do not allow you to interpret and grow beyond the teachings especially where they are lacking? Seems they provide fish rather than fisherman.

If Gen1 is a spiritual being, a spiritual manifestation, what is all the discussion with Thomas regarding 'tilling man' vs Adam. And that tilling man was required to till and harvest the plants and fruits, if this is the case what are the plants and fruits representing and what is tilling man?

We've got fish and animals in the Zodiac and even some creeping and crawling things, but no fowl. What do the fish represent in your belief system?

 

[bob x]

Thomas: believing every word of the scriptures may not be Catholic doctrine now, but it was for a long time. Cardinal Bellarmine, the prosecutor in the Galileo case, and author of a catechism which was used for centuries, said "It is just as wrong to deny that Abraham had two sons as it is to deny that Christ was born of a virgin, for the Holy Spirit states both." Belief in geocentric astronomy was "infallibly" proclaimed to be necessary to the Catholic faith, by the standards for infallibility set by Vatican I, when Pope Alexander VII in his Bull Speculatores domus ordered, "by virtue of our apostolic authority as the vicar of St. Peter" that all the faithful be enjoined "to abjure the pernicious Pythagorean doctrine that the Earth is subject to a double motion, a diurnal rotation about its axis and an annual revolution about the Sun" (this was part of a ratification of an Index Librorum Prohibitorum prepared by the Vatican censors; the Pope evidently felt it necessary not just to condemn the most recent Copernican books, but to make a blanket denunciation of any further such books that might appear).
It was not until the beginning of the 19th century that the Vatican allowed the imprimatur to be given to an astronomy book which introduced heliocentrism by saying "Modern astronomers believe that..." (that is, it was still not allowed to say it was true, only to let the faithful know what was being said by certain people!) In the 1880's and 1890's, the somewhat modernizing Pope Leo XVI revised all the catechisms (the "Baltimore Catechism", which is still the basis for the catechisms used in the American churches today, is from this period) and quietly removed all of Bellarmine's stuff about Biblical literalism. Many conservatives, fond of the old catechism, were upset about the tacit slight to Bellarmine, which the next Pope (the rather reactionary Pius X) rectified by declaring Bellarmine a "Doctor of the Church" (alongside Aquinas and a few other worthies).
The "infallible" pronouncement that all faithful have a duty to disbelieve in the rotation and revolution of the Earth has never been repealed, of course, because the Catholic Church has no mechanism for repealing such a thing.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Wil, you asked,

"Are you telling me the teachings do not allow you to interpret and grow beyond the teachings especially where they are lacking?"
​

--> They do allow you to interpret. Many of the teachings have been given in an incomplete form. Other teachings have multiple meanings. Interpreting is a large part of the task.

"If Gen1 is a spiritual being, a spiritual manifestation, what is all the discussion with Thomas regarding 'tilling man' vs Adam."
​

--> Thomas sees Gen1 man and Gen2 man as the same man. The way I see it, they are different, and the "tilling" part is the key difference.

"...what are the plants and fruits representing and what is tilling man?"
​

--> The Gen2 plants and fruits seem to be ... plants and fruits. The tilling man is a physical man.

"What do the fish represent in your belief system?"
​

--> I have not seen an explanation of that symbolism. Fortunately, more and more symbols are explained as the centuries go by.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Thomas sees Gen1 man and Gen2 man as the same man.

Once more I must request you try and desist from attributing your own unqualified assumptions to others — especially when trying to rustle up a defence of your own untenable position.

For my part I have said no such thing ... in fact have expressed a view distinctly other than this.

Thomas

 

[iBrian]

Wil,

I am not sure what the trees represent, but the animals of the Seven Days represent (according to my belief system) the animals of the zodiac, which means it refers to the creation of specific constellations. I see the Seven Days as representing more the story of the creation of the universe than that of the Earth.

That's an interesting suggestion - could make a good thread in it's own right, if you wouldn't mind providing a little more background on this idea (preferably a few starter paragraphs, than an essay).

 

[Thomas]

Hi Bob —

You're right in many respects, but for the sake of balance, can I throw in a couple of points?

... believing every word of the scriptures may not be Catholic doctrine now, but it was for a long time.

Indeed it was. But questions were raised inside and outside the faith, and the Catholic convert Jean Astruc (1684-1766) was a pioneer in the field and the first to offer a workable hypothesis that the Pentateuch derived from multiple sources.

Cardinal Bellarmine, the prosecutor in the Galileo case,

And yet who was good terms with Galileo personally, and actually defended him on another occasion ...

Belief in geocentric astronomy was "infallibly" proclaimed to be necessary to the Catholic faith, by the standards for infallibility set by Vatican I,

I don't think one can retrofit doctrine in this manner. Infallibility was proclaimed according to what was understood then, not according to what would be defined centuries later. Nor was geocentricity infallibly proclaimed.

The Church's statements of infallibility apply to religion, not science. Many choose to read the texts as you do ... many choose to read otherwise ... I only ask for balance.

"The Victorian biologist Thomas Henry Huxley (who had no brief for Catholicism), once examined the case and concluded that "the Church had the best of it.

"The most striking point about the whole affair is that until Galileo forced the issue into the realm of theology, the Church had been a willing ombudsman for the new astronomy. It had encouraged the work of Copernicus and sheltered Kepler against the persecutions of Calvinists. Problems only arose when the debate went beyond the mere question of celestial mechanics."
The Galileo Affair

Galileo thought he could tell the Church what it must believe. He insisted that the Church must review its understanding of Scripture in light of his unproven theories. One by one he alientated the many friends he had within the Church, inclusing the Pope.

He was as wrong in this assumption, as he was wrong in his theory — Jesuit astronomers had observed, for example, that the orbits of the planets were not circular but elliptical, and Galileo's tidal argument just did not wash.

What has come down as the Church v Science is in fact the Church v the not-altogether accurate opinions of a scientist who considered himself infallible ...

"Galileo was finally condemned by the Holy Office as "vehemently suspected of heresy." The choice of words was debatable, as Copernicanism had never been declared heretical by either the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. In any event, Galileo was sentenced to abjure the theory and to keep silent on the subject for the rest of his life, which he was permitted to spend in a pleasant country house near Florence. As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead wrote, "In a generation which saw the Thirty Years' War and remembered Alva in the Netherlands, the worst that happened to men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof, before dying peacefully in his bed." And it is notable that three of the ten Cardinals who sat on the Commission did not sign the judgment, although we do not know their precise motives for abstaining.

Galileo's condemnation was certainly unjust, but in no way impugns the infallibility of Catholic dogma. Heliocentricism was never declared a heresy by either ex cathedra pronouncement or an ecumenical council. And as the Pontifical Commission points out, the sentence of 1633 was not irreformable. Galileo's works were eventually removed from the Index and in 1822, at the behest of Pius VII, the Holy Office granted an imprimatur to the work of Canon Settele, in which Copernicanism was presented as a physical fact and no longer as an hypothesis.

The Catholic Church really has little to apologize for in its relations with science. Indeed, Stanley Jaki and others have argued that it was the metaphysical framework of medieval Catholicism which made modern science possible in the first place. In Jaki's vivid phrase, science was "still-born" in every major culture--Greek, Hindu, Chinese--except the Christian West. It was the insistence on the rationality of God and His creation by St. Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic thinkers that paved the way for Galileo and Newton.

So far as the teaching authority of the Church is concerned, it is striking how modern physics is playing catch-up with Catholic dogma. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council taught that the universe had a beginning in time--an idea which would have scandalized both an ancient Greek and a 19th century positivist, but which is now a commonplace of modern cosmology. Indeed, the more we learn about the universe, the closer we come to the ontological mysteries of Christian faith.
The Galileo Affair

Sad times indeed, but nowhere near as bleak, or as black-and-white, as people like to paint it.

Thomas

 

[bananabrain]

did you guys not read my post at all? man didn't have to work for a living until after we got chucked out of the garden. that happened after the end of the first seven days. "didn't have to" does not presuppose "couldn't" - all the Text says is "there was not".

genesis 2:4 does not mean that all the stuff it mentioned happened on the *same* day of Creation. it has more of a sense that "at the time that". it's ridiculous, you're trying to deconstruct a piece of biblical hebrew without understanding what it actually says, let alone what it means.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[wil]

did you guys not read my post at all? man didn't have to work for a living until after we got chucked out of the garden. that happened after the end of the first seven days. "didn't have to" does not presuppose "couldn't" - all the Text says is "there was not".

genesis 2:4 does not mean that all the stuff it mentioned happened on the *same* day of Creation. it has more of a sense that "at the time that". it's ridiculous, you're trying to deconstruct a piece of biblical hebrew without understanding what it actually says, let alone what it means.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Namaste BB, enlighten us my brother, tis why we are here, discussion. Yes we read your post...

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20). from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

Without the background it sort of reads like this...there was no rain and there was no plants because there was no man to work the earth, and the G!d formed man, and G!d formed the Garden and put man into it.

simple 1+1=2 would say the first part says no garden cause no man, so we made garden and put man in it....to work it, till it it would seem. Yet you say he didn't have to till he left...I know where that comes from, but what do you say about what it says here?

 

[bananabrain]

well, looking at the hebrew, it doesn't state that the lack of man was the cause, simply that it was the case. the word used was "ki", which *can* mean "because", but may not do here. and if it *can also* be understood as "because", you'll note that the bit about man is the second clause - the only causal thing is the lack of water - the lack of man is a secondary condition. the reason i'd say the sentence was constructed in this way was to teach us that one of the ultimate purposes of humanity is to contribute to the stewardship of its environment. rashi (C12th, france) explains the traditional understanding further:

Where it is written:“Let the earth bring forth,” they [the plants] had not yet emerged, but they stood at the entrance of the ground until the sixth day. And why? Because G!D had not caused it to rain, because there was no man to work the soil, and no one recognized the benefit of rain, but when man came and understood that they were essential to the world, he prayed for them, and they fell, and the trees and the herbs sprouted. — [from BT Chul. 60b]

Chumash with Rashi - Bereishit - Parshah

the garden itself was planted for the benefit of the man, but it is not clear that this refers to plants in general. the point here is to teach us of man's purpose and function, not give a blow-by-blow sequential account. and either way there is nothing in the Text to suggest that we are talking about some putative second humanity. in fact, the hebrew says "ha-adam", which is a definite article, not "a man" but *the* man.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bob x]

Belief in geocentric astronomy was "infallibly" proclaimed to be necessary to the Catholic faith, by the standards for infallibility set by Vatican I,
I don't think one can retrofit doctrine in this manner. Infallibility was proclaimed according to what was understood then, not according to what would be defined centuries later. Nor was geocentricity infallibly proclaimed.

You are missing the point. Vatican I says that everything the Pope has declared 1) by virtue of his apostolic authority and 2) as a duty enjoined upon all the faithful is "infallible". Since then, Popes have been very wary of saying they were acting in their apostolic authority and enjoining duties on the faithful; but those assertions used to be "boilerplate" attached to a lot of Bulls, and Vatican I was declaring that all of those old pronouncements were infallible.

The duty to reject Copernicanism was enjoined on all the faithful by the Pope acting ex cathedra. Whether or not Alexander VII himself thought this was an "infallible" pronouncement, Vatican I claims that it was-- and was, obviously, erroneous in so claiming.

The Church's statements of infallibility apply to religion, not science.

The Pope declared, ex cathedra, that this question WAS a matter of religion. Maybe he thought he was being infallible, but he was mistaken?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Wil,

I just had a synchronistic moment. Just this morning, I was reading my Theosophical study-guide. It mentions that, in Gen1 the animals were created before man, yet in Gen2 man was created before the animals. You had just mentioned that in your post.

Synchronisity!