I need this blog like a...   

Banned, huh? I was wondering how long that would take...
 

Boruch, I know you mean well, but you really should just forget about these guys. I mean, as you yourself pointed out, all of the reasoning is so convoluted it's painful, and when people like you comment it simply provides fuel for the leitzonus that they endlessly spew. Very few people actually care what they think, so there's no real danger in the blogs--as such, you would do better to spend the time you use reading them for an extra sugyo of Gemoro or another page in Chovos HaLevovos. Hatzlocho rabbo, and don't waste any more of your time.
 

You're probably right about my time being better spent learning. I disagree with you, though, that "very few people actually care what they think." I know from my own site statistics that many people read these blogs, not just the ones who comment. Someone has to present the other side to those who may be being influenced by these people.

For know, I've stayed off his blog. The ban is functionally meaningless, since I can simply mask my IP if I want. But I haven't decided whether or not I should do that.

The truth is that his most recent posts seem to indicate that he himself is starting to realize that he has no idea what he is talking about, so perhaps I need only to sit back and watch.
 

Nice one. Do you have a record of the conversation that precipitated the ban? I'd love to see it. I don't follow this or GH regularly, so I must have missed the fireworks.

I, like you, disagree with the previous comment that GH is not taken seriously. Many comments left on GH's site make it quite clear that he *is* taken seriously (at least by some).
 

I found it in the comments on his site. The following is a transcript of the conversation. I removed any comments not directly related to this thread. I had two more posts at the end but he removed them when he banned me.

---------------------------------------
The fact that RHG is not asking to debate R' Slifkin means one of three things:

1) He asked and R' Slifkin refused.
2) He doesn't think he could defeat R' Slifkin.

or most likely

3) He considers Nisht Godol to be a bigger threat to emunas chochomim than R' Slifkin.

...something to be proud of.
Boruch | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 2:10 pm | #

If I am a threat to emunas (fundamentalist extremist) chachomim then I am very proud of that, yes.

Boruch answer THE question, you loser.
Godol Hador | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 2:13 pm | #

I've answered it many times. I can't say it any better than I already have. You're beginning to sound tired.

And the name-calling makes you sound foolish.
Boruch | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 2:16 pm | #

You haven't answered it once, except with some waffle about science is practical truth and torah is absolute truth.
Is the world 15 billion years old or not ? Are you unable to answer ? Or should I assume taiku ?
Godol Hador | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 2:17 pm | #

I think its quite possible that its some form of myth / moshol. I don't think the Torah was ever written as a Science Book.
So its not a question of right and wrong. The discussion really boils down to this:
Did the original Writer of Breishis believe it to be literally true or not ? And if not, was that deceitful or not ?
I think not, though I am not sure about what the Dor Hamidbor believed. This is the subject of another debate ! (But not with Rav Heshy).
Godol Hador | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 4:53 pm | #

>I think its quite possible that its
>some form of myth / moshol. I don't
>think the Torah was ever written as a
>Science Book. So its not a question
>of right and wrong. The discussion
>really
>boils down to this: Did the
>original
>Writer of Breishis believe
>it to be
>literally true or not ?

So it seems we can boil down all of this to 4 viewpoints:

The Torah is
1) literally true and precisely described (RMS)
2) literally true and imprecisely described (me)
3) untrue because Hashem was just trying to teach us some important lessons via allegory (NTGH)
4) untrue because Hashem didn't write it (infidels)
Boruch | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 5:53 pm | #

The questions we must ask on each of these are:

switch(shita) {
case 1:
why does the teva appear to contradict the Torah?
break;
case 2:
why is it imprecise?
break;
case 3:
why would Hashem choose this method and yet not make it clear that He was allegorizing?
break;
case 4:
why are you reading this blog?
go rape and pillage somewhere.
}
Boruch | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 6:01 pm | #


>literally true and imprecisely described

Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle Waffle
Godol Hador | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 6:53 pm | #

Boruch: Are you ever going to get a clue ? "Literally true and imprecisely described" - what the heck does that mean ?!
It means nothing, expect in bizaro-boruch-consulting-world, where reality is thrown out of the window and replaced
with phrases such as 'utilize the synergy of our paradigms'.

I hope your code is more precise than the rest of your waffle.
Godol Hador | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 7:04 pm | #

to hold of 2 is no less of a waffle than to hold of 3 is it?

If there is one thing we learn from comments by #4 people like Mikeskeptic, it's how thin the line is between his view
and yours. Are you just trying to convince yourself that you believe in Torah min Hashamayim? Is it is myth or not?
Boruch | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 7:11 pm | #

> to hold of 2 is no less of a waffle than to hold of 3 is it?

So clueless ! 3 makes sense. It might be apikorsus, it might be apologetics, but it makes sense. 2 doesn't MAKE ANY SENSE.
How can something be literally true yet imprecisely described ? Is the universe 15 billion years old ?
Then 6 days is NOT literally true.
Godol Hador | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 7:14 pm | #


> Are you just trying to convince yourself that you believe in Torah min Hashamayim? Is it is myth or not?

More cluelessness. Many people way more important than I hold its min hashamayim and a myth. There are quite a few
possibilities here. I will admit they are apologetics, but at least they make SENSE.
Godol Hador | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 7:16 pm | #

>3 makes sense. It might be apikorsus,
>it might be apologetics, but it makes
>sense.

if its apikorsus, then it's wrong, even if it is logical. if its apologetics, then its mostly posturing.
anyway, go ahead and answer the question on it.


>2 doesn't MAKE ANY SENSE. How can
>something be literally true yet
>imprecisely described ?

see my earlier post and comments.
Boruch | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 7:24 pm | #


> see my earlier post and comments.

Which one ? This piece of waffle ?:

I think it is fine that people like Slifkin, Schroeder, and Aviezer attempt to reconcile Torah and science and their
works make me confident that science is moving in a positive direction, as it becomes closer to realizing the truth of Torah.

Please answer the question. How can 6 days be literally true yet imprecise enough to mean 15 billion years ? You are just
playing with words.

You know what, I will just refine my views, and then according to yourr standard of waffle, I am okay.

I now hold the following: The Torah is literally true, but its a myth/moshol.

Everything Chazal say about science is literally true, but also completely wrong.

Waffle !
Godol Hador | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 7:45 pm | #
| 04.06.05 - 9:30 pm | #

You still didn't answer my question.
Boruch | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 9:43 pm | #

What question ? There was a question ? If you follow this thread, I am still waiting on you to explain what the heck
"Literal but imprecise" means.
Godol Hador | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 9:45 pm | #


My question was:


> why would Hashem choose this method and yet not make it clear that He was allegorizing?

What, you couldn't read the code?
Boruch | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 11:31 pm | #

He did make it clear. Haven't you seen the science ? You might as well ask, why did He use words like 'Yad Hashem' and not
make it clear he is not corporeal ?

I answered your question. Please answer mine. What the heck does 'Literal but imprecise' mean. When the torah says the
world was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago, is this literally true or not ?
Godol Hador | Email | Homepage | 04.06.05 - 11:36 pm | #

Your answer makes no sense. It has always been well understood that Hashem is incorporeal. The Rambam has to explain it to
counter the fools who could not understand that.

Has it always been well understood that maaseh b'reishis and the mabul were intended to be understood as fables? Until
quite recently the entire world understood it quite literally. Why was it that rabbanim throughout history took it as
axiomatic that Hashem has no body but not that He created the world in any way other than He stated?

It is obviously not clear.
Boruch | Email | Homepage | 04.07.05 - 12:01 am | #

I'll give you another chance to answer.
Boruch | Email | Homepage | 04.07.05 - 12:02 am | #

Answer my question, dopey. Also for many years people thought G-d WAS corporeal. Haven't you seen the famous Raavad
who blasts the Rambam for making it one his ikkarim ? So that belief went out the window sooner rather than later.
The age of the world took longer. Whats the big deal ? Even if people understood something literally incorrectly for
one year the same kashye still stands. Its a kashye, but its not a bomb kashye.

Now stop trying to evade my question. You are really getting annoying. Is the world 15 billion or isn't it ? Answer
properly or I will ban you (sorry thats the only threat I have).
Godol Hador | Email | Homepage | 04.07.05 - 12:10 am | #

But why would Hashem create a situation where we are forced to believe sheker for thousands of years?
Boruch | Email | Homepage | 04.07.05 - 12:14 am | #

Nobody was forced to believe anything. And what were the consequences ? None, except for the present day extremists
of course.

Rav kook explains this. Have you not read Rav Kook ? He says ancient man would not have been able to cope with the
knowledge that the universe was so old (some modern men too I think). Hence Hashem slowly reveals things like this to
the world. Its not a great answer but its an answer.

Now PLEASE answer my question. How many times do I have to ask you ? Or at least have the decency to explain yourself.
Godol Hador | Email | Homepage | 04.07.05 - 12:19 am | #

Ah, so now we come to it.

Those who hold of my shita #1 will likely answer something like:
Hashem made a mature world...that is, he constructed nature in a way that deceives us...for our own good of course.

I asked you how you would answer the question posed on your shita (#3). You responded that Hashem made a falsified
Torah...that is, he constructed the Torah in a way that deceives us...for our own good of course.

It seems to me that you are just as extremist as those chareidim you mock. You have presented the exact same argument
from the other side.


I, on the other hand have presented a view of a constantly unfolding Torah, always true, and always containing the
precise amount of relevance to the needs of the dor.
Boruch | Email | Homepage | 04.07.05 - 12:28 am | #

We'll pick it up in the morning. That will give u a chance to construct a real response instead of the usual inane
gibberish and insults.

G'nite
Boruch | Email | Homepage | 04.07.05 - 12:32 am | #


> It seems to me that you are just as extremist as those chareidim you mock. You have presented the exact same argument
> from the other side.

You are such a DOPE Boruch. I posted that very point weeks ago. The conclusion was that a falsified Torah was way
different than a falsified world. A falsified Torah was just misunderstood. A falsified world requires fake evidence to
be planted, which in the general opinion was much worse. I really can't be bothered arguing with you if you can't even
pay attention to the basics.


> I, on the other hand have presented a view of a constantly unfolding Torah

You have presented no such thing. You have presented waffle and you think it makes sense. I really have no patience for
you anymore. You are wasting my time. Please refrain from commenting on this blog in future. Thanks.
Godol Hador | Email | Homepage | 04.07.05 - 12:33 am | #
 

Boruch, I never followed the original GH discussion, so I am curious. What DOES "literally true but imprecisely described" mean? Is it six days or isn't it? Thanks.
 

It means that the Torah describes the world in a way that is sufficiently imprecise to allow for logical interpretations at all levels of scientific discovery.
 

Boruch, please can you give an example of such imprecision?
 

To say that the world was created in 7 days is a good example. What is intended by the word "day" is subject to debate. I say that the Torah should be taken literally in that

a) it was created
b) the time of creation spanned seven periods called "days"

Thoughout history, people have found ways of understanding this in scientific terms. And it has always been possible to reconcile, even though thr science kept changing. This is what I mean by imprecise. Hashem gives us a way to make sense of it no matter where we are in our scientific progress. Had He been precise, the Torah would have seemed ridiculous to us for millenia until science could catch up.
 

But Boruch, if you are allowing that the "days" might actually be periods that are much longer that what we usually refer to as "days," then surely that means that the Torah is not literal!
 

Or to put it another way - you are saying that "created" and "six" is literal, but "days" is not literal!
 

There is a difference between "false" or "allegorical" and "imprecise", "ambiguous", or "subject to interpretation". It is not that "six" is more literal than "day" but rather less ambiguous. Certainly, it is not clear what is meant by "day", especially since the sun had not yet be been created.

Perhaps you could do the same thing with "created", saying it could mean a creation ex nihilo at every step or perhaps only one such creation and then a refining process.

It's hard to do it with "six" due to the fact that numbers are generally precise.
 

So the bottom line is that the word "day" does not mean what we usually take it to mean, which is the dictionary definition.
Hence, it is not literal.
It might not be allegorical or false. It might be an idiom, or something like that. But it isn't literal!
 

> Please join me in wishing Nisht Godol much hotzlocho with his search for truth...we pray you will find it.

Maybe, but evidently not here. Your waffle is incredible. Day doesn't mean day but its still literal ? Thats idiotic. If day doesn't actually mean day then day is non literal. Hence you are interpreting the Torah non literally. Maybe you need to go read a dictionary. Even basic dictionaries will contain the word 'literal'.

> If you find yourself in NY, please come to us for shabbos.

Thanks but I think I will pass. The waffle will probably destroy my brain. You can come to me instead. Maybe I could teach you the meaning of the word 'literal'. Its not a difficult concept.
 

While we're at it, what does "and it was evening, and it was morning" mean?
 

If by "literal", you mean conforming to the definition that most people today use for a word, then no, not everything in the Torah must be literal. However, I use it here to mean "factual". This only furthers my point about the Torah not being tied to the understanding of a particular dor.
 

>The waffle will probably destroy my >brain.

Maybe, but the cholent makes it worth it.

>You can come to me instead.

That would be difficult given that you are afraid of anyone knowing who or where you are.
 

Ah, I get it, so you don't mean "literal" literally, you are using it allegorically.
 

> However, I use it here to mean "factual".

So you use words differently than their actual meaning. Is it possible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who uses words in this way ? Seemingly not.

Literal means literal. Factual means factual. Two entirely different meanings. Perhaps you should go back and rethink. And apologize to the Godol in the meantime.
 

This is a perfectly valid use of the term "literal". In our context it means that the events the Torah described actually happened. I think this is the sense in which we are all using it, Godol's backpeddling notwithstanding.
 

"In our context it means that the events the Torah described actually happened." But did they actually happen in the manner that the Torah describes them as happening? To describe a statement as "literal" means that it adheres to the ordinary meaning. Godol is not doing any backpedalling. He was not denying that the world was created. What he, and all of us, are saying, is that to say that "days" means "aeons" is a non-literal usage of the term "day."
 

Boruch says: This is a perfectly valid use of the term "literal".

No it isn't. A perfectly valid use of the term literal would be to use it in the sense of 'literal'. To use it to mean 'factual, but not literal' is a completely invalid use of the term 'literal'. Give it up Boruch, admit you were wrong and move on.
 

Boruch, I thunk what you are trying to say (though failing miserably), is that while you don't take Breishis literally, you also don't feel its all completely allegorical, but that there is some truth in there somewhere. So while the world is obviously not 5765 years old, there was some type of 6 era's of creation. So you take Breishis non-literally, but also non-allegorically. This would put you in the kofer camp, according to the Gedolim.
 

I say backpedalling because he has said many times on his blog that he does not consider the Torah to be literal or factual in any way but rather is completely allegorical. To say now that it may be describing actual events is backpedalling.

In any case, for the sake of clarity, let's say factual, not literal. Fine. If Nisht Godol and all of you anonymous commenters want to admit the Torah is factual, albeit not literal, I will be quite satisfied.
 

But if its not literal, then how can it be factual ? You can pretend its talking about facts, but since you are really supplying your own meaning to make it fit with whatever theory you are trying to, then in reality its neither literal nor factual. Its just a bunch of words which you take non literally to mean anything you want. Is this what you are advocating, Boruch ?
 

I don't understand the argument about Factual or Literal. Surely the important thing is that it came from Hashem and teaches us moral lessons ?
 

> Its just a bunch of words which you >take non literally to mean anything >you want.

Interpretation and nonsense are two very different things.
 

>the important thing is that it came >from Hashem and teaches us moral >lessons ?

That is important, but the Torah is not simply a nice book of lessons but emes l'amito...total truth.
 

> That is important, but the Torah is not simply a nice book of lessons but emes l'amito...total truth.

But you yourself just admitted that the only way to make the Torah speak the truth is to take the words non literally. So if I say the moon is made of green cheese, and you take my words non literally and reinterpret them as saying made of rock, how is that emes leamito ? Its not. I spoke nonsense and you reinterpreted it. If the Torah says 6 days (which you admit is not true), and then you reinterpret that to fit with the pevailing science of the day, then you have supplied the truth, not the Torah. You can't have it both ways.
 

Oy Boruch, Give it up ! Your theory makes no sense. Either its literal, or its not. If its not, then its not factual either.
 

>if I say the moon is made of green >cheese, and you take my words non >literally and reinterpret them as >saying made of rock, how is that emes >leamito ?

It's not, of course, since rock is not consistent with cheese (unless you leave it uncovered in the fridge long enough). My point, which you seem to constantly miss, is that imprecise language allows for multiple interpretations which are consistent with the text. It does not allow you to say whatever you want.

>I spoke nonsense and you >reinterpreted it.

You usually do, but I do try to find a limud z'chus when I can.

>If the Torah says 6 days (which you >admit is not true)...

I assume you mean 6 modern days. I don't admit that. I have not challenged the validity of such a position. I happen to believe that there are other ways to undestand the text, but I do not jettison positions based on our mesora and held by many greater than I.
 

Nisht Google: I have asked you this before and you refused to respond, but here goes again. Please provide some mekoros for this position. From where in our mesora do you learn the idea that the entire Torah is an allegory?

If you just made it up yourself, then we can certainly still discuss the idea on its merits, but let's not call it Judaism.
 

> From where in our mesora do you learn the idea that the entire Torah is an allegory?

I never said any such thing. The most I have said is that the first 11 chapters of Breishis are mythology. Mythology and allegory are different.
 

> My point, which you seem to constantly miss, is that imprecise language allows for multiple interpretations which are consistent with the text. It does not allow you to say whatever you want.

WAFFLE. Yom means day. Find me ONE place in the entire tenach where yom does not mean day. Its not imprecise at all. Re-explaining day to mean 15 billion years divided by 6 is not consistent with the text at all.