Sunday, September 30, 2007

Proving the Biblical Story of Creation - among others

The book, “Why Human Beings Do Not Need Blind Faith to Believe in Creationism” should, among other things, resolve the conflicts between those that believe in the timeless truths of the Bible and the findings of modern science. This is so because with the translations of key Hebrew words in Genesis 1 based on their etymological derivate meanings and usage during the period of the Exodus, and incorporating the findings of the Sages and foremost scientists that made contributions, our research has literally proved that the Biblical story of creation is actually in sync with the teachings of modern science. The ramifications are myriad.

Science and every detail of the Biblical story of creation being in sync makes it clear that only a Supreme Power could have issued the Torah (Bible) to Moses. It would have been humanly impossible for Moses or 1000 like him to have known the exact chronological order of creation, that life started in the oceans, and other details of the creation process. Thomas Jefferson had noted that the problem with many organized religions is that they call for blind faith and what is really needed to bring people to the Bible is a rationale for belief. By proving the creation story’s sync with science, the book provides that rationale and thus the first consequence of the project is that it should make people aware that the Bible is to be taken seriously as now there is no question that the world was formed by design.

The biggest challenge we found to address was the mindset of man in chapter 1 of the Bible where the verses translated as ‘and it was evening, and it was morning, day one (2, 3, etc.).’ Taking that to mean a 24 hour day has become an article of faith even though evening to morning was not 24 hours and great Sages like Nachmanides said it should be considered as periods of time and not single days.

The challenge is resolved by using the etymological derivate meanings of the key words. The word for ‘evening’ as used by the Israelites of the Exodus also means among other things, ‘forms mingle and become indistinct,’ and this refers to having embryonic or early shaping up of land structures being developed during which time we can not tell one entity from another at that point of their development even though they are each developing independently of the other creations. That word for ‘evening’ was metaphorically not referring to a period of time but to a mix of entities that were not yet recognizable as they were starting to develop.

The word for ‘morning’ also etymologically means ‘to distinguish differences.’ This means that at the end of the period in question, the entities created became developed enough to be recognizable, as opposed to the metaphorical interpretation referring to a particular period of daytime.

The word for ‘day’ also etymologically means ‘ascend,’ as move on to a higher point or level. This means that at the end of the period of creation in question, that creative process was now ready to move onto the next and higher level.

The book addresses the issue of the many erroneously forced Biblical translations to justify interpretations based on the assumptions of the past. Example, all Bibles, both Christian and Jewish, translate Genesis 3:7 as Adam and Eve using fig leaves (leaves as in the plural) to make clothes for themselves. However, the original Bible of Moses uses the word ‘leaf’ as in the singular. As clothing was part of the metaphor demonstrating and expressing contrition, a proper interpretation of the parable of the Garden of Eden story could not be made if we do not use a correct translation.

We learned from the Garden of Eden story that women are the equal of men and are not responsible for the sins of mankind.
Biblical enigmas are addressed in other chapters. There are also secular political issues discussed as we tell of the Koran teaching that the ‘Promised Land’ is to belong to the Israelites. We also learn from Muslim scholars and supported by the Egyptian Government Publication that the Al Aqsa Mosque should have been built in Medina, Saudi Arabia and not in Jerusalem, Israel.

Every scholar is entitled to their interpretation of Scripture. However, the challenge always arises if they can ‘prove’ their position. Contributors to our book claim our proof being the sync with science and everyone is invited to peruse the website for more details.

The project is not confrontational as it does not question the integrity of any of the religions using the Bible of Moses. The challenges presented are all academic and they should bring us all together to reason. All will be able to offer their followers a greater appreciation of the Bible as well as that myriad of other benefits.