If a person calculates the age of the universe based on the Torah, he'll get an age under 6,000 years. If a person studies the Earth and universe scientifically he'll get a much larger age (around 14 billion years). At first, religious people just dismissed the evidence of a much older universe by saying the science was wrong, but as the evidence grew they accepted Gosse's Theory. Gosse's Theory basically says the universe was created as an old universe. It's not 14 billion years old, it just was created looking like that, it's really 6,000 years old. One problem with this is there have been stars over 6,000 light-years* away that have exploded (supernovas) and become invisible from Earth. If the universe was created old, it means these stars never existed. There was simply a fake beam of light and a fake supernova. A pretty strange idea. There are many other problems.
I think that the whole claim is meaningless anyways. What a person sees is what exists, even modern physics recognizes that. If in every single way a scientist looks at the universe, its 14 billion years old, than how in the universe is it not 14 billion years old? To who? G-d? G-d is beyond time. There's no such thing as saying it has an absolute age of 6,000 and just looks like 14 billion. That's the same thing as saying it is 14 billion years old. To make my point clearer, imagine if the theory was that the universe is 6,000 years old, just the first second had 14 billion years compressed into it. Clearly, no one could claim this second is a second in any way. A 14-billion year second is 14 billion years. The same for a moment, and the same for no moment at all.
Q: But what about the Torah? Now you're going to claim 6 days aren't literally 6 days? You wouldn't have said that before this scientific evidence, it's a forced answer!
A: No, not at all. How could 6 days be 6 days if there were no people, and for the first few days, not even a sun or moon? The only way they could be literally six days, is if scientifically that is the age determined. It's not, so the six days are clearly something much deeper.
But why did G-d make such an old universe? Why couldn't He have done it in six days?
I may discuss this further in another post, but I think the key may lie in the Mishna in Avos (5:1) that asks why G-d created the universe with 10 ma'amaros (utterances)**, He could have just created it with one ma'amar! The mishna answers that G-d did it to take retribution from the resha'im who are destroying the universe that was created with ten ma'amaros and to give more reward to the tzadikim who are sustaining (she-m'kaymin) the universe that was created with ten ma'amoros.
A similar answer may be applied here. A universe that took 14-billion years and ten ma'amaros to create is inherently more consequential than a universe that was created in an instant.
*A light-year is the distance light travels in a year. So if you look through a telescope and see a star a million light-years away, you're seeing how it was a million years ago. If you see the star explode, it means it exploded a million years ago. If the universe is only 6,000 years old, it means the star could never have existed and what you saw was just an illusion.
** The beginning of B'reishis says 9 times "and G-d said" + "B'reishis bara E-lohim" = 10 ma'amaros. (Bartenura) But why couldn't G-d just have said created everything with one ma'amar?
11 comments:
I'm not sure what ur saying.
According to our belief of 5766 years why does the universe appears 14 billion years old?
See post.
MuserJew said...
nice, but i dont quite unnerstand the 1st answer of 10 maamars or the supernova thing. otherwise its reel good
I added in some (possibly) clarifying comments at the bottom of the post. I suggested that the age of the universe and the ten ma'amoros might add importance, to the world.
In summary, God created the world 5766 years ago and made it appear to look older.
Possible? If you firmly believe in God, then anything is possible.
Lakewoodyid,
u appear to have not read my post. it wasn't about possibility. (though saying "If you firmly believe in God, then anything is possible." is rather problematic, since we shouldn't just accept things on faith if they don't make sense.) I said that it's a meaningless distinction.
this doesn't really have a/t 2do with the post but whatever. (revised comment)
The existence of G-d and the divine origins of His Torah are both facts that can be backed up with evidence, they're not just accepted on blind faith. There will still be many things we don't understand, but as long as there's no complete inconsistency, we don't have such a problem. We need faith in G-d and the Torah, since we can't understand things like the holocaust (even Moshe Rabbeinu couldn't). But that doesn't mean we're accepting irrational beliefs, we just don't understand e/t. On the other hand, to say “If you firmly believe in God, then anything is possible." means you would also except irrational things. You're saying “even if s/t is completely irrational, i simply believe it.” A christian could say the same thing about his belief in the trinity. I don't think Jews are supposed to believe irrational things. The belief that the universe was created old is both somewhat irrational and unnecessary, besides being rather meaningless, as i explained in my post.
acc. to the ramban (i think i remember hearing this) the firs 6 days were 24 hrs each
glunk this might somewhat contradict u
its unclear exactly what the ramban means, but he does say that. the ramban said it when there was no reason to say otherwise, but if he knew the evidence we now have, he probably would not have. by rainbows, he interprets the passuk differently b/c of the Greek scientists:
Ramban Bereishis 9:12
"This is the sign of the covenant that I give" - It would seem from this sign that the rainbow which appears in the clouds is not part of the acts of creation, and only now did God create something new, to make a rainbow appear in the sky on a cloudy day… But we are compelled to believe the words of the Greeks, that the rainbow is a result of the sun's rays passing through moist air, for in any container of water that is placed before the sun, there can be seen something that resembles a rainbow. And when we look again at the wording of the verse, we will understand it thus. For it says, "I have set my rainbow in the cloud," and it did not say "I am setting it in the cloud," (in the present tense) as it said, "this is the sign of the covenant that I am giving." And the word "My rainbow" indicates the rainbow previously existed.
The Ramban writes that we are compelled to believe the Greeks that a rainbow is a natural phenomenon that has existed since the beginning of creation even though it contradicts the simple pshat in the pasuk.
http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2005/07/is-kabbala-proof-that-chazal-could-not.html
so to here, the 6 days can be explained not-literally. (see also Chazal, Ramban, & Science post)
P.S. there are other views among the rishonim about what the 6 days mean.
Read Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Schroeder o how the 6 days were 24 hours each and yet took 15 billion years. It's all about relatavistic time. From The creation of man, the passage of time was based on Earth, but befroe that, it was based on another point in the universe.
Q: how was it six days if we detect stars billions of light years away and rocks millions of years old?
A: maybe for some point in space it was six days.
that sounds slightly ridiculous and meaningless. whats difference does this point of space make? G-d is beyond time and everything man looks at shows the universe is more than 6,000 years old. if the torah was being literal it would be saying the age the universe is to man. Schroeder's answer is basically saying the 6 days are not literal, just in a weird way. (i didn't read the book though, i'm trusting the comment)
2 years later...
I read both of schroeder's books, and i'm not really sure what he's saying. he tries claiming everything really took 6 days because the background radiation is 3K.
I found a source for taking the 6 days literally: Fray Paul, the apostate, in his debate with the Ramban! he argued that "yom" always means a literal day and proved his point by asking a random Jew on the street! (I knew s/o who argued similarly). they were debating a passage in Daniel 12 that described the End. based on this, he argued that jesus was the messiah. the ramban told him Day doesn't literally mean a day, and it wouldn't work out anyways.
Anyways, the ramban clearly felt that Yom didn't have to mean literally 24 hours, so if he had reason to (such as scientific evidence), he would have explained bereishis accordingly.
Post a Comment