Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Discuss the March 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God’s Plan by Daniel Friedmann.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Sushan »

Alias wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 2:07 am
Sushan wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 8:11 pm But it is not a secret that many scholars are trying to argue and prove that religious beliefs are scientifically accurate, while some scientists who believe in physical material and evidence based facts are trying to disprove these beliefs.
Which scholars are are attempting to prove that which religious beliefs are accurate in what way?
Which scientists are are trying to disprove which beliefs?
Is it not, rather, the case that some religionists are misrepresenting science and some scientists are refuting their bogus claims?
Here the author has tried to bring reconciliation for this cold war which has been there for quite some time.
Why?
since the author has taken the first step let's see whether his attempt is acceptable or not
Who is the author, and what is the book?
Here we are discussing about the book The Biblical Clock by Daniel Friedmann, and the initial quote that I included in my question was taken from this. And we are discussing about this reconciliation thing because it was the author's intent in writing this book. So all the above points and arguments were in relation to the content of this book
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 5164
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by LuckyR »

Sushan wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 4:11 am
LuckyR wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 3:10 am If there was a god, the idea that their texts would be written in a way that the Iron age audience of such writings would understand it makes sense, yet proves nothing.
Quite correct. Many people say that the bible is written either in riddles or in old language which cannot be understood by just understanding the words. Yet, even if we try to argue and assume things related to its content, numerous occasions can be found that we cannot put them in anyway which is acceptable to the currently accepted knowledge. So the biblical teachings usually prove no scientific data, and all we can do is this sort of reconciliation
We can, but should we? IMO the metaphysical should be satisfied staying on that plane and not try to bully it's way onto the physical (where it will be trounced by science).
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Sushan »

LuckyR wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 4:39 am
Sushan wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 4:11 am
LuckyR wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 3:10 am If there was a god, the idea that their texts would be written in a way that the Iron age audience of such writings would understand it makes sense, yet proves nothing.
Quite correct. Many people say that the bible is written either in riddles or in old language which cannot be understood by just understanding the words. Yet, even if we try to argue and assume things related to its content, numerous occasions can be found that we cannot put them in anyway which is acceptable to the currently accepted knowledge. So the biblical teachings usually prove no scientific data, and all we can do is this sort of reconciliation
We can, but should we? IMO the metaphysical should be satisfied staying on that plane and not try to bully it's way onto the physical (where it will be trounced by science).
We do not have to do everything that we can. So, yes, it is better for the metaphysical to be on a seperate plane while physical is in its own plane. Actually science has not gone to the extent of trying to disprove religions, because science has more important things to do. Seemingly it is the religions that try to peek into the field of science and actually try to bully it. This book seems like such an attempt and it uses the word 'reconciliation' for that effort
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 5164
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by LuckyR »

LuckyR wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 4:39 am
Sushan wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 4:11 am
LuckyR wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 3:10 am If there was a god, the idea that their texts would be written in a way that the Iron age audience of such writings would understand it makes sense, yet proves nothing.
Quite correct. Many people say that the bible is written either in riddles or in old language which cannot be understood by just understanding the words. Yet, even if we try to argue and assume things related to its content, numerous occasions can be found that we cannot put them in anyway which is acceptable to the currently accepted knowledge. So the biblical teachings usually prove no scientific data, and all we can do is this sort of reconciliation
We can, but should we? IMO the metaphysical should be satisfied staying on that plane and not try to bully it's way onto the physical (where it will be trounced by science).
Exactly, but such behavior is predictable when atheism is growing faster than any religion and the coffers are running dry.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Sushan »

LuckyR wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 1:00 pm
LuckyR wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 4:39 am
Sushan wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 4:11 am
LuckyR wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 3:10 am If there was a god, the idea that their texts would be written in a way that the Iron age audience of such writings would understand it makes sense, yet proves nothing.
Quite correct. Many people say that the bible is written either in riddles or in old language which cannot be understood by just understanding the words. Yet, even if we try to argue and assume things related to its content, numerous occasions can be found that we cannot put them in anyway which is acceptable to the currently accepted knowledge. So the biblical teachings usually prove no scientific data, and all we can do is this sort of reconciliation
We can, but should we? IMO the metaphysical should be satisfied staying on that plane and not try to bully it's way onto the physical (where it will be trounced by science).
Exactly, but such behavior is predictable when atheism is growing faster than any religion and the coffers are running dry.
Religions and the religious people feel threatened when atheists are growing in numbers. In today's society the atheists are found often because many are realising that there is no real support from the religions to today's lifestyles. Either the religions have to be updated or the people have to go in their own paths.

In this situation what religions are trying to do is to prove that they are legit and scientifically accurate, because they see that most people accept what science says. This book and its attempted reconciliation is another effort to this goal.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 5164
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by LuckyR »

Sushan wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 1:08 pm
LuckyR wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 1:00 pm
LuckyR wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 4:39 am
Sushan wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 4:11 am

Quite correct. Many people say that the bible is written either in riddles or in old language which cannot be understood by just understanding the words. Yet, even if we try to argue and assume things related to its content, numerous occasions can be found that we cannot put them in anyway which is acceptable to the currently accepted knowledge. So the biblical teachings usually prove no scientific data, and all we can do is this sort of reconciliation
We can, but should we? IMO the metaphysical should be satisfied staying on that plane and not try to bully it's way onto the physical (where it will be trounced by science).
Exactly, but such behavior is predictable when atheism is growing faster than any religion and the coffers are running dry.
Religions and the religious people feel threatened when atheists are growing in numbers. In today's society the atheists are found often because many are realising that there is no real support from the religions to today's lifestyles. Either the religions have to be updated or the people have to go in their own paths.

In this situation what religions are trying to do is to prove that they are legit and scientifically accurate, because they see that most people accept what science says. This book and its attempted reconciliation is another effort to this goal.
I agree, but I think a much better strategy would be to embrace science for the physical plane but make the case that there is more to the human experience than that: the metaphysical, and appeal to folk's ability to appreciate that. Science by and large would steer clear and religiosity would own an albeit smaller realm rather than losing influence on a gigantic realm as they are now.

True that would put religion in direct competition with mystics, but they are kind of doing that right now.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Sushan »

LuckyR wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 2:24 pm
Sushan wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 1:08 pm
LuckyR wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 1:00 pm
LuckyR wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 4:39 am

We can, but should we? IMO the metaphysical should be satisfied staying on that plane and not try to bully it's way onto the physical (where it will be trounced by science).
Exactly, but such behavior is predictable when atheism is growing faster than any religion and the coffers are running dry.
Religions and the religious people feel threatened when atheists are growing in numbers. In today's society the atheists are found often because many are realising that there is no real support from the religions to today's lifestyles. Either the religions have to be updated or the people have to go in their own paths.

In this situation what religions are trying to do is to prove that they are legit and scientifically accurate, because they see that most people accept what science says. This book and its attempted reconciliation is another effort to this goal.
I agree, but I think a much better strategy would be to embrace science for the physical plane but make the case that there is more to the human experience than that: the metaphysical, and appeal to folk's ability to appreciate that. Science by and large would steer clear and religiosity would own an albeit smaller realm rather than losing influence on a gigantic realm as they are now.
There are things that science cannot explain, and maybe won't be able in near future as well, since they are not approachable in the physical world. Apparently the rules and theories of physical world cannot be applied to such content, and usually they are considered as metaphysical. This is where religions come to play, and they give quite a reasonable and logical explanation to such things. Science cannot say what happens after death, but religions have said many things related to the subject. Since no one can approve or disapprove that, it remains as a property of the religions, and with such stuff religions keep their influence, though their realms are getting smaller day by day
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 5164
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by LuckyR »

Sushan wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 2:30 pm
LuckyR wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 2:24 pm
Sushan wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 1:08 pm
LuckyR wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 1:00 pm

Exactly, but such behavior is predictable when atheism is growing faster than any religion and the coffers are running dry.
Religions and the religious people feel threatened when atheists are growing in numbers. In today's society the atheists are found often because many are realising that there is no real support from the religions to today's lifestyles. Either the religions have to be updated or the people have to go in their own paths.

In this situation what religions are trying to do is to prove that they are legit and scientifically accurate, because they see that most people accept what science says. This book and its attempted reconciliation is another effort to this goal.
I agree, but I think a much better strategy would be to embrace science for the physical plane but make the case that there is more to the human experience than that: the metaphysical, and appeal to folk's ability to appreciate that. Science by and large would steer clear and religiosity would own an albeit smaller realm rather than losing influence on a gigantic realm as they are now.
There are things that science cannot explain, and maybe won't be able in near future as well, since they are not approachable in the physical world. Apparently the rules and theories of physical world cannot be applied to such content, and usually they are considered as metaphysical. This is where religions come to play, and they give quite a reasonable and logical explanation to such things. Science cannot say what happens after death, but religions have said many things related to the subject. Since no one can approve or disapprove that, it remains as a property of the religions, and with such stuff religions keep their influence, though their realms are getting smaller day by day
If only religions would be satisfied with that.
"As usual... it depends."
Alias
Posts: 3029
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Alias »

Sushan wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 2:20 am Here we are discussing about the book The Biblical Clock by Daniel Friedmann, and the initial quote that I included in my question was taken from this.
I did not realize this. All right, he's attempting to reconcile Genesis with - which sciences, specifically?
BTW Does he reconcile Genesis I with Genesis II?
I gather he figures those first six days were very, very long. And the seventh? When he got finished creating and patting himself on the back, God took a rest day. Is that Friedman suggests all the fossils were laid down - say three billion years - while God was napping? Or did God experiment with primitive stuff like ferns, snails and lobsters before he felt confident to make petunias, bluejays and sheep? Why do the fossils come in layers?
In any case, by the end of Genesis III, God has normal-sized, modern-looking animals roaming the earth, eating ordinary seasonal plants (and each other, I guess, out in the wilderness, though not in the garden) living ordinary lives in regular short days.
The two normal-sized humans are still in the garden. Have their days been shortened at the end of Chapter I? Or not until they exit the garden? If the second, and Eden exists in a dimension of very long days, no regular person can enter, because he'd be dust in under a second. So, how does the writer of Chapter II know about the rivers and mineral deposits?
Gen II: 10 - And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
Does Friedman say how come, even though he had rough times ahead:
Gen II:17 cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
,
Adam lived 930 years, yet his descendants, after farming and industry had been developed, get a paltry four score and seven at the outside?
Does the book attempt to reconcile anything in the other 39 books, or just the first three pages?

I haven't read the book, and the Goodreads reviews, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/448 ... er_reviews though positive to the point of gushing, are devoid of detail.

If you really want to discuss the arguments in the book, I think you need to present them clearly.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Sushan »

Alias wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 8:17 pm
Sushan wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 2:20 am Here we are discussing about the book The Biblical Clock by Daniel Friedmann, and the initial quote that I included in my question was taken from this.
I did not realize this. All right, he's attempting to reconcile Genesis with - which sciences, specifically?
BTW Does he reconcile Genesis I with Genesis II?
I gather he figures those first six days were very, very long. And the seventh? When he got finished creating and patting himself on the back, God took a rest day. Is that Friedman suggests all the fossils were laid down - say three billion years - while God was napping? Or did God experiment with primitive stuff like ferns, snails and lobsters before he felt confident to make petunias, bluejays and sheep? Why do the fossils come in layers?
In any case, by the end of Genesis III, God has normal-sized, modern-looking animals roaming the earth, eating ordinary seasonal plants (and each other, I guess, out in the wilderness, though not in the garden) living ordinary lives in regular short days.
The two normal-sized humans are still in the garden. Have their days been shortened at the end of Chapter I? Or not until they exit the garden? If the second, and Eden exists in a dimension of very long days, no regular person can enter, because he'd be dust in under a second. So, how does the writer of Chapter II know about the rivers and mineral deposits?
Gen II: 10 - And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
Does Friedman say how come, even though he had rough times ahead:
Gen II:17 cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
,
Adam lived 930 years, yet his descendants, after farming and industry had been developed, get a paltry four score and seven at the outside?
Does the book attempt to reconcile anything in the other 39 books, or just the first three pages?

I haven't read the book, and the Goodreads reviews, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/448 ... er_reviews though positive to the point of gushing, are devoid of detail.

If you really want to discuss the arguments in the book, I think you need to present them clearly.
Sorry for the trouble. But I believed that this forum is to discuss the philosophical book of the month, so we discuss topics which are related to it.

Actually the author mainly concentrates on the first six days. And the author mainly concentrates on the events that happened in the sixth day. He has stated the events with timings, and that he applies to the later happenings which occurred in a similar pattern. His reference is not only the bible but Kabbalah and work of various other scholars.
The final pattern to explore here is how the timing of Adam’s activities on the sixth day of Creation shed light on the sixth millennium, at the End of Days, when we at last will have undone Adam’s sin. First we need to understand the correspondence between the timing of events on the sixth day of Creation and in human history. As we’ve discovered, each Creation day corresponds to a millennium of history. The sixth day corresponds to the biblical years 5000 to 6000, and the second half of that day—its daylight hours—parallels the years 5500 to 6000. Eve’s creation, her enticement by the snake, the sin, and all that followed upon their disobedience, culminating in their expulsion from Eden, occurred between noon and 6pm. The clock shows that this corresponds, in our time, to the period from 1990 to 2240 CE. Adam ate the fruit at precisely 3pm, which corresponds to 2115 CE. Making this connection between the sixth day’s daylight events and our near future is the final step, as we can revisit the general pattern of history, how we now know this pattern will play out in the End of Days, and how Adam’s sin will therefore be rectified. The events of the sixth day should correspond inversely to the events predicted for the End of Days. Here are the correspondences one by one: 1–2pm. Adam consummated his marriage and had children. This corresponds to the beginning of the bad events. Why? Because as we saw, Adam jumped the gun, had marital relations early and in front of the animals (including the snake), and in doing this set in motion the events that would lead to Eve’s dialogue with the snake and eventually to sin. In the speculative story of Chapter 10, this is the time of global warming, environmental decline, resource scarcity, disease, and increasing conflict between nations, leading to the war of Gog and Magog. 2–3pm. God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit. This corresponds to the time when the Messiah will appear and command humanity. 3–4pm. Adam sinned at the beginning of the hour. This corresponds to the time of the Gog and Magog War—the final war with Amalek—and the subsequent building of the Third Temple. Why? The sin began when the snake instilled doubt in Eve, in the same way Amalek has done throughout history. In fact, scriptural sources view the snake as the root of Amalek. Notably, the numerical value of the letters in the Hebrew words for Amalek and for doubt both add up to 240. We know that the envious angels introduced the evil inclination in the form of the snake, and that this evil inclination accompanied Adam, Eve, and their offspring when they left Eden. Having eaten of the fruit, they no longer could clearly discern between good and evil, and their selfish natures were constantly at war with the part of them that wished to be close to God. This battle continues in all of us. In the form of Amalek and his descendants, the evil inclination continues to affect human history, through Amalek’s repeated—often irrational—attempts to thwart the completion of the Divine Plan and the coming of the Messianic Era. So each war with Amalek corresponds to the initial “war” with the snake, which it won by convincing Eve to eat the fruit. In the sixth millennium, the final defeat of Gog and Magog will rectify Adam and Eve’s downfall when they ate the fruit. 4–5pm. After the sin, the Divine Presence was repelled from the Garden. Adam was judged and condemned to leave the Messianic existence in the Garden and enter our world of struggle to make a living. In the End of Days, we will do the opposite: win the war against Gog and Magog, build the Third Temple, thus drawing the Divine Presence back to Earth, and transition from our current existence and our secular world into a Messianic existence very similar to the original one in the Garden.
This is how the author has fitted the seven days of creation into the lengthy history of the world.
The first day, when God made light, corresponds to the life of Adam, who in the first millennium (he lived almost 1,000 years) was to be a light to the world. Figure 3. Parallels between Creation days and history The second day, when God separated the upper and lower waters, corresponds to the time of Noah in the second millennium, when the waters of the flood separated the righteous from the wicked. The third day, when the Earth was made (which would later, on the sixth day, house the key creation—humanity), corresponds to the time of building the nation of Israel, from Abraham through to King David, in the third millennium. The fourth day, when the sun and the moon were made, corresponds to when the two Temples (the spiritual luminaries) stood, during the fourth millennium. The fifth day, when the waters swarmed with living creatures, corresponds to the fifth millennium, when the population expanded without much rule or stability. The sixth day, in the morning, when the beasts of the field were made, corresponds to a period of domination by secular kingdoms and violent wars. The completion of Adam, his subsequent sin, and his expulsion from the garden in the afternoon of the sixth day correspond to late in the sixth millennium, which will therefore culminate with humans correcting Adam’s sin in the End of Days and ushering in the seventh millennium. The seventh day, which is the Sabbath, when God rested, corresponds to the seventh millennium, the beginning of the era of universal reward that will bring rest for life everlasting. This era is known as the World to Come and follows the End of Days.
And through this explanation he is telling that actually a reconciliation is possible in between scientific data and the biblical creation.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Sushan »

LuckyR wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 7:15 pm
Sushan wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 2:30 pm
LuckyR wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 2:24 pm
Sushan wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 1:08 pm

Religions and the religious people feel threatened when atheists are growing in numbers. In today's society the atheists are found often because many are realising that there is no real support from the religions to today's lifestyles. Either the religions have to be updated or the people have to go in their own paths.

In this situation what religions are trying to do is to prove that they are legit and scientifically accurate, because they see that most people accept what science says. This book and its attempted reconciliation is another effort to this goal.
I agree, but I think a much better strategy would be to embrace science for the physical plane but make the case that there is more to the human experience than that: the metaphysical, and appeal to folk's ability to appreciate that. Science by and large would steer clear and religiosity would own an albeit smaller realm rather than losing influence on a gigantic realm as they are now.
There are things that science cannot explain, and maybe won't be able in near future as well, since they are not approachable in the physical world. Apparently the rules and theories of physical world cannot be applied to such content, and usually they are considered as metaphysical. This is where religions come to play, and they give quite a reasonable and logical explanation to such things. Science cannot say what happens after death, but religions have said many things related to the subject. Since no one can approve or disapprove that, it remains as a property of the religions, and with such stuff religions keep their influence, though their realms are getting smaller day by day
If only religions would be satisfied with that.
Well, that satisfaction will never come because humans are never satisfied of anything. When we grab a little, we get the need to grab more, and like that we go on. So this conflict between religions and science will persist. And also those grey areas which cannot be explained by evidence, but only by some sort of magical or metaphysical explanations will remain forever, and give some leverage for the religions in this never ending conflict.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
Alias
Posts: 3029
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Alias »

Sushan wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 10:25 pm Actually the author mainly concentrates on the first six days. And the author mainly concentrates on the events that happened in the sixth day.
So - two pages of a 900-1200 page book (the latter including the NT) on which four and half billion (half of them adhering to the possibly ignored NT) people base their religions.
Do you feel that this is sufficient for reconciling faith with knowledge?
Alias
Posts: 3029
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Alias »

Sorry, I didn't read the wall of text before. When I looked at it, this jumped out:
As we’ve discovered, each Creation day corresponds to a millennium of history.
A millennium is 1000 years, so he's saying that from the big bang to Adam was only 6000 years. Scientific data places estimates of life on earth at 3.5,000,000,000,000, years and the universe at 13,000,000,000,000 give or take a couple of millennia.
When you're off by that many zeros, you're in the whole wrong theme park!
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Sushan »

Alias wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 11:34 pm
Sushan wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 10:25 pm Actually the author mainly concentrates on the first six days. And the author mainly concentrates on the events that happened in the sixth day.
So - two pages of a 900-1200 page book (the latter including the NT) on which four and half billion (half of them adhering to the possibly ignored NT) people base their religions.
Do you feel that this is sufficient for reconciling faith with knowledge?
Not at all (and I am not considering any reconciliation, since in the first place I don't believe in this stuff). But the author thinks so, and he says so. And he presents various facts and figures from various scriptures and scholarly articles to support his argument. So we can't merely neglect him (though we want to and we may still do so). That is why I decided to forward this question and see the opinions of other thinkers. He has done some extensive research, so, I think, atleast we have to give him the honour of considering his point of view
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Sushan »

Alias wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 11:45 pm Sorry, I didn't read the wall of text before. When I looked at it, this jumped out:
As we’ve discovered, each Creation day corresponds to a millennium of history.
A millennium is 1000 years, so he's saying that from the big bang to Adam was only 6000 years. Scientific data places estimates of life on earth at 3.5,000,000,000,000, years and the universe at 13,000,000,000,000 give or take a couple of millennia.
When you're off by that many zeros, you're in the whole wrong theme park!
I agree. But he has also said that the God has made it to look old (don't laugh) though it is actually young.
God created a theoretical timeline of all of existence, starting from the Big Bang and spanning billions of years. In this theoretical timeline, stars were born and died, dinosaurs roamed the Earth, and different human-like creatures came and went. Then, at a very specific point in this timeline, God took a snapshot of the entire universe, exactly as it would look at that moment, and that’s what He created. In other words, God brought a world billions of years old into existence fewer than 6,000 years ago.
He has made a tempting argument that we can neither accept nor reject since there is no way to actually know this. However ridiculous this idea seems, this book contains several scholars who actually believed this concept, and they have had a reasonable acceptance in their times
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
Post Reply

Return to “The Biblical Clock by Daniel Friedmann”

Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021