Revelation

From the book "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Gerald Schroeder.

"When the writers of the Cosmos series claimed that without the modern equipment available to those involved in cosmic research we would not suspect that the universe is expanding, that we would have no inkling that the universe probably expanded from a primordial state of high density, that is, we would not have discovered the phenomena of the Big Bang -- they were, of course, correct. Discovering the phenomena related to the original Big Bang required sophisticated radio waves and optical telescopes and all technology related to high-energy particle accelerators. These became available only in the last 50 years or so.

Now consider the writings of Nahmanide who lived from 1194 to 1270 C. E.

He writes, "At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was so thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this ethereally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed."


So did God give him a revelation or was it just a really lucky guess?

A Originally posted by whodey

Gerald Shroeder's (an Orthodox Jew (?) ) talks are very interesting.
I have read his book "The Science of God" .

He seems to survive quite well as a professor at MIT, the last I heard.

Originally posted by sonship
Gerald Shroeder's (an Orthodox Jew (?) ) talks are very interesting.
I have read his book [b]"The Science of God" .

He seems to survive quite well as a professor at MIT, the last I heard.[/b]

He is parte scientist and part theologian.

And yes, he is a Jew.

Originally posted by whodey
He is parte scientist and part theologian.

And yes, he is a Jew.

Thought provoking scientific concepts, I find, can be found in many people. They can be Christians or non-Christians.

In The Science of God have you ever read his discussion of his model of the improbability of evolution given even the most generous scenario ?

See chapters 7 and 8. - 7 - "Evolution: Statistics verses Random Mutations"

8 - "The Watchmaker and the Watch: Concerning the Statistical Probability of Chimps and Human Evolving by Randon Mutations from a Common Ancestor"

Originally posted by whodey
So did God give him a revelation or was it just a really lucky guess?

Well given that people didn't speak modern English back in the 1200's methinks there has been some translation - and likely manipulation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well given that people didn't speak modern English back in the 1200's methinks there has been some translation - and likely manipulation.

Here's the proposed English of the quotation of the rabbi's writing.

"At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was so thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this ethereally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed."

Could you provide your evidence for what "methinks" about mistranslation or modification ? I mean we could all just take your word for it. But it be more interesting see your precise supporting evidence.

Giordano Bruno is another interesting fellow.

Giordano Bruno is another interesting fellow.

Giordano Bruno (Italian: [dʒorˈdano ˈbruno]; Latin: Iordanus Brunus Nolanus; 1548 – 17 February 1600), born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician, poet, and astrologer.[3] He is celebrated for his cosmological theories, which went even further than the then-novel Copernican model. He proposed that the stars were just distant suns surrounded by their own exoplanets and raised the possibility that these planets could even foster life of their own (a philosophical position known as cosmic pluralism). He also insisted that the universe is in fact infinite and could have no celestial body at its "center".

Beginning in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges including denial of several core Catholic doctrines

Bruno kept having these "visions" about an infinite universe. These visions so engulfed his thinking that he willingly died for them

Originally posted by whodey
From the book "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Gerald Schroeder.

"When the writers of the Cosmos series claimed that without the modern equipment available to those involved in cosmic research we would not suspect that the universe is expanding, that we would have no inkling that the universe probably expanded from a primordial state of high density, that is, ...[text shortened]... and will be formed."


So did God give him a revelation or was it just a really lucky guess?

Well, if god told him that stuff, it kind of refutes the 6 day creation Egyptian myth.

Originally posted by sonship
Could you provide your evidence for what "methinks" about mistranslation or modification ?

I said nothing that requires evidence nor do I have any. I merely said that there is no doubt whatsoever that it was translated and that leaves significant room for taking liberties with the translation

I mean we could all just take your word for it.
No need for that, why don't you dig up the original? Or must we take your word for it that Gerald Schroeder's word for it is reliable?

Hint:
Wikipedia has a somewhat different translation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahmanides#Views_on_death.2C_mourning_and_the_resurrection

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, if god told him that stuff, it kind of refutes the 6 day creation Egyptian myth.

What explains his fanaticism in regards to his visions?

What would cause a man to surrender his life like that?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I said nothing that requires evidence nor do I have any. I merely said that there is no doubt whatsoever that it was translated and that leaves significant room for taking liberties with the translation

[b]I mean we could all just take your word for it.
No need for that, why don't you dig up the original? Or must we take your word for it that Gera ...[text shortened]... ation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahmanides#Views_on_death.2C_mourning_and_the_resurrection[/b]

Maybe you said nothing that requires evidence. But you could make your hunch about your opinion proved. You're suppose to be a very logical and rigorous thinker.

I could just say - methinks your post was entirely plagiarized from someone else.
It was done on the Internet which means there is no doubt whatsoever that it could have been plagiarized from another poster somewhere.

You probably would ask for evidence.


You do not you have specific evidence to demonstrate this "likely" munipulation.
I just asked for your evidence on your hunch. Your "no doubt whatsoever" room for taking liberties with translation is just an unvalidated charge.

Originally posted by twhitehead

No need for that, why don't you dig up the original?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why don't you and check out if there is more than one translation ?
You are the one sure that manipulation and misrepresentation has been most likely.

Or must we take your word for it that Gerald Schroeder's word for it is reliable?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You made a charge of what is most likely. You don't want to do any work to verify your assumption. You want to put all burden of any kind on the one who asks you to demonstrate in this specific case manipulation has occurred.

Originally posted by whodey
What explains his fanaticism in regards to his visions?

What would cause a man to surrender his life like that?

Posessions by demons. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Posessions by demons. 😏

I am SO glad I don't live in your demon obsessive world.