"Torah from Heaven". And this time: how many stars are there in the "Kima" system, as the stars of the sky for the most part, since when is the length of the moon's renewal and the sun's pouch known.
Syberdine
As I promised in my previous article, here are some more gems from the other "Awakening" booklet,
"Torah from Heaven". And this time: how many stars are there in the "Kima" system, as the stars of the sky for the most part, since when is the length of the moon's renewal and the sun's pouch known.
^^How many stars are there in the "Kima" system?^^
Did sages know fifteen hundred years ago what the world discovered with the help of telescopes only a hundred or two hundred years ago? This is what the brochure says: "In the star cluster called "Kima" (Pleiados), which is about three hundred light-years away from us, the eye notices six stars. The sharpest eye can distinguish normal viewing conditions in the seventh and eighth stars. Indeed, for many generations, astronomers believed that "Kima" contained eight stars. [With the invention of telescopes
The various ones] It turned out that apart from the eight mentioned above "Kima" contains over a hundred stars that the normal eye is unable to see.
In the Talmud (Barchot Noah, XNUMX) it is written in this language:
"May Kima? Shmuel said about a hundred stars. Tell her (some say) Damknafi (that they are grouped and next to each other) and tell her (and some say) Dambadran (that they are scattered)" and see in Rashi's interpretation that the meaning of the question "May Kima" is about "the power of Kima". That is, its main stars, but there are even more than a hundred"
A bit of astronomy for the masses: the "Pleiades" star cluster is part of the well-known "Taurus" group from the zodiac. This cluster is also known in the scientific world as Messier Object No. 45 or M-45. The trivia lovers among you will be happy to learn that the Japanese oil of the Pleiades is "Subaru", and indeed the popular car is named after oil (remember the symbol?). The Pleiades cluster is an open cluster - a fairly common phenomenon, of a relatively small group of stars (a few dozen to a few thousand) located somewhere in the spiral arms of the Milky Way. The brochure made a slight mistake in stating the distance - the Pleiades cluster is 380 light years away, not three hundred.
Let's remember what Shmuel said from the Talmud: a hundred stars, some say clustered and some say scattered. Who are they saying? What, God could say that there are a hundred stars but could not add that they are clustered (or scattered)? interesting. I opened the old Eben Shoshan dictionary at home about "Kima" - and behold it's a miracle, it says there are 230 stars. It is very nice of Rashi (and also the authors of the booklet) to make a reservation and say that there are "more than a hundred" - that way no matter how many stars there are, even a million, the sages of the Talmud were still right because they supposedly said that there were more than a hundred. Divine accuracy indeed. More up-to-date sources on the Internet say that the Pleiades cluster has over five hundred different stars, and the experts in the field point to more than a thousand, and we see how the divine accuracy in the Talmud is fading away right before our eyes.
Everyone is talking about over six hundred and fifty solar masses in the Pleiades, which means at least 1200 stars. One of the scientific articles even mentions 1067 known stars in the Pleiades cluster.
But still, how did the sages know that there were more than the eight visible stars? For this we must investigate what the Sages called "Kima". Is this really the star cluster "Pleiades"? I got the first hint in this direction from one of the books I looked at, a relatively new and professional book on the subject of the universe, in which it is claimed that "Kima" is actually the star cluster "Yadod", which is also in the "Taurus" group. I therefore turned to the source - the Babylonian Talmud (Blessings of Noah, XNUMX), and there I found the following passage:
"If it were not for the heat of Kesil [the constellation Orion], the world would not exist because of the coldness of Keima, and if it were not for the coldness of Keima, the world would not exist because of the heat of Kesil." Only God knows what kind of heat and cold that destroys the sages of the Talmud were talking about in the same quote, and this calls into question their astronomical knowledge as Also, how to put it gently, their direct connection with the facts. They brought up the whole issue of Kasil and Kima following verses from Job and Amos in which the words "Kasil" and "Kima" are mentioned. Orion is a large and prominent constellation, much more so than the Pleiades. Can the tiny cluster serve as a rival to the giant Orion? Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that the Talmud was referring to the entire Shor group? And in this context it is interesting to mention that the ancient Greeks also saw the constellations Orion and Taurus as being in a constant struggle. Let's also mention verse XNUMX of the Book of Job, chapter XNUMX: "Communicate with subtleties like chemises or snares that you will open" - subtleties here in the sense of cables, forbidden. And what makes more sense, to ban a Taurus or a tiny constellation on cable?
And if it is indeed the Taurus group, it is much easier to imagine why they thought there were a hundred stars there, not to mention the round number that must have pleased them. What, can't it be that the sages of the Talmud used the same word as we do to describe something else? After all, this is a very common excuse of various converts (Arabic, for example). Why are they allowed and I am not allowed?
Of course, this is just a guess. I don't have enough information at the moment about the definition of the zodiac signs of the Sages (as far as I know they did not deal with it in depth but contented themselves with general statements). But in any case, it doesn't matter: there are ten times more stars in the Pleiades than the "divine" knowledge of the Talmud revealed.
^^Like the stars of the sky for the most part^^
Speaking of stars, in my research in the Talmud I also came to an estimate of the number of stars in the entire universe. Amazingly, this kit didn't make it into the booklet, but I'm bringing it up anyway to pre-empt a cure for the blow.
I am quoting from the Babylonian Talmud, in Baruchot, Daf Lev, in the Gemara: "...the Almighty said to her [the Knesset of Israel] of the twelve zodiac signs, I created the sky and for every luck and fortune I created for it thirty troops and for every troop and troop I created for it thirty legions and for every A legion and a legion I created for him thirty Rahtons and for each Rahton and Rahton I created for him thirty cartons and for each carton and carton I created him thirty Gastra
And on each gastra and gastra I hung three hundred and sixty-five thousand multiplicity of stars in it against death
I did not create the heat and all of them except for you"
Let's count.
1 Gastra = 3650000000 stars (3.65 X109)
Carton = 30 Gastra = 1.095 X 1011
Rahton = 30 carton = 3.285 X 1012
Legion = 30 Rahton = 9.855 X 1013
Legion = 30 Legion = 2.9565 X 1015
Fortune = 30 khil = 8.8695 X 1016
There are 12 signs in the sky, which means a total of 1.06434 X 1018
The first problematic point is the promise that God gave to our father Abraham after the cruel exercise he did to him with Isaac. Genesis XNUMX:XNUMX: "...many will lie in wait for your seed like the stars of the sky and the blue that is on the shore of the sea..." Assuming that G-d meant Abraham's descendants and nothing else, and according to the number of stars in the Talmud, it is a billion billion descendants. Let's make a disturbing assumption that each such lovable offspring needs only one square meter of space for its living. It is a thousand billion square kilometers. The total area of all the Earth's continents (in a rough estimate I found somewhere on the Internet) is less than two hundred million square kilometers. Where exactly did God intend to place all these descendants? one on top of the other?
The second problem is that the modern estimates speak of a hundred more stars than what is indicated in the calculation from the Talmud. Well, so be it. We've seen bigger mistakes before.
^^Since when is the length of the new moon known?^^
Also regarding astronomy, a calculation from the Talmud regarding the length of a month (between birth and birth of the moon) appears in the booklet. This calculation is almost as accurate as the best scientific calculations today, and this correspondence leads the authors of the booklet to the firm conclusion that the Torah and the Talmud are divine in origin. What else? As was clearly explained in Da'at Emet's Contras #5, the length of the month was calculated long before the writing of the Talmud by the Babylonians, with the same level of accuracy and through a simple mathematical calculation. Two possible conclusions follow from this: either the Babylonians were divine as well, or this testimony to the divinity of the Torah is vanity and evil spirit. Whoever thinks the first option is correct, vote. By the way, the level of accuracy is up to the 1080th part of an hour (three seconds and a third). How did the Babylonians or anyone else manage to measure at that time with such precision? In order to understand the answer, you need to know a little astronomy, but the logic is almost the same as measuring the diameter of a shekel coin by using a 20 cm long pencil. Think a little, and you will understand. More surprising revelations about this divine wisdom can be found in Contras, and I will not repeat them here.
^^The pouch of the sun^^
In the Genesis midrash it is said: "Hema wheel has a pouch". In other places it was stated that if it were not for this pouch all the inhabitants of the earth would be burned. And here, X-rays of the sun show that there is an outer layer of gases on the surface of the sun, a sort of "shell", which stops most of the dangerous and powerful radiation from the center of the sun from breaking out. This layer is called the photosphere and the temperature in it is 6000 degrees, compared to several million degrees in the core of the sun. So how did sages know about this layer? And one must first ask, did sages even talk about this layer, or did they think of something completely different? Tractate of Vows, page XNUMX, XNUMX of the Gemara says: "There is no hell in the world to come, but the Almighty takes heat out of its sheath. The righteous are healed by it and the wicked are condemned by it." How exactly do you take the sun out of an integral part of it? And why do the dangerous radiations at its center - X-ray, gamma, ultra-violet, etc. fry only the wicked and the righteous can sunbathe to their pleasure? And what about the strong x-ray emissions from this layer, which are revealed in the x-ray images from the satellites, and other types of dangerous radiation that our atmosphere, not the sun's, protects us from? In the brochure it is written that the sun is "visible to all eyes and there is no sign of an envelope or case", but what about the corona of the sun which is clearly visible during a total solar eclipse? And what about the fact that this corona is boiling at millions of degrees even though it is outside the photosphere?
That is, there are more than enough reasonable doubts to neutralize any "divine knowledge" that allegedly appeared in the Sage. But that's not all. In the Babylonian Talmud (in Baba Metzia, page XNUMX, in Gemara) the holster appears in a different context. In Genesis XNUMX:XNUMX it is written that our father Abraham sat at the door of his tent like the heat of the day. What do you mean as the heat of the day? The sages of the Talmud do not hesitate and give the following simple and plausible explanation: God wanted to speak to Abraham in private, so he took the heat out of its sheath so that it would be warm and no one would come to bother them. How is it that the entire human race was not burned on that day, as it is written in the brochure? God has the solutions.
In addition, a quote from the book of Dr. Vidal, a senior astronomer, is quoted in the brochure. The things are presented as if he came to corroborate the sage's words, but it turns out that he never meant the sage's words except as an interesting metaphor, and the "scientific" connection was made in his name and while disrupting his words - at first in the Chabad newspaper, and now in this Divine Truths booklet .
Thanks to "Deat Emet" for the kind help.
The article has been published on the freedom site
30 תגובות
If Nissim and Raphael were to win this debate (regardless of who is right, but as in the battle of who gave stronger blows and managed to defeat his opponent) then Nissim you win big!!!!
* In the Bible it was already written thousands of years ago, that there are many more stars above, without number or number. As it is written in the Psalms XNUMX: "A number is given to the stars." And see there in the interpretation of the Radak, that the stars are without number, and only their creator knows their number. And he brought the verse in the book of Job, "There is a number to his regiments" [Job XNUMX] This is how it is in our tradition, that it Known in prophecy, already thousands of years ago. Before it became known in scientific research, after sophisticated telescopes were invented. [At the beginning of the twentieth century AD]
** The words of Rish Lakish in the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Barachot page XNUMX, refer only to the huge star clusters that we would see, if we looked up into the sky up far away, in the direction of the twelve known zodiac signs, which are only a part of the multitude of stars.
*** Science nowadays also says that we cannot know the number of stars. But they are a lot without a skin and a number. Because there are many dark brown stars, and because, from the galaxies [except for the Andromeda Galaxy and the Magellanic Clouds] we cannot see individual stars, because of the great distance, but to measure the light or radiation coming out from there. And it can be relatively redundant stars, with a relatively lower radiation intensity, or fewer stars, with a higher radiation intensity.
****And amazingly, Shreesh Lakish describes the stars, in huge groups, and groups of groups. Which is reminiscent of star clusters in a galaxy, and galaxies in 'galaxy clusters' and galaxy clusters in 'superclusters'. [And the interpretation seems to be that the number 30 that repeats itself there is a rounded number as the sages sometimes do in the words of the Haggadah]
*****And the words of Rish Lakish and the words of Shmuel, are related to this tradition written in the Bible and in the words of the Sages, that there are many more stars above without Shaur. And see also in my "Books" - a midrash of conditions on the book of Deuteronomy, on Parshat 'Aqab' on "And if she heard Shimon" etc. it appears there that "the stars are sects without a skin".
Raphael
And if you have nothing to say, then let's end the discussion.
Raphael
In my opinion - I am very focused. I say one simple thing - what you think is true, you need to check. I say this in many words, because I feel that you are not ready to accept it. Feeling … you say it openly 🙂
The idea is to focus only on what you are comfortable with? So please, I get it. What exactly do you want to focus on? Where is this discussion going?
This discussion started with my statement about the words of a heretic. All you have to say is "You are arrogant, arrogant, don't understand anything..." Actually you said a lot of things.... well done!!! (I forgot - opaque, locked, emotionally involved.... as if emotional involvement is a negative thing).
Please - try to explain to me - why you are right and I am wrong.
Miracles
I thought we were finally starting to focus and here comes your latest comment and left me speechless...
Raphael
Just because you start looking closely doesn't guarantee you're on the right track. I brought the example of Descartes to make it clear to you. I didn't ask if you are in the right direction - I asked how do you know what you found is indeed true?
Note that all the scientific method says is - check yourself. That's all - 3 holy words - "check yourself". Do you agree with me that loving opera is something spiritual? What about loving the taste of olives? I used to think I didn't like these things. So guess what I did? exactly!!!! So I discovered that I love opera, and hate the taste of olives....I tried.
Raphael, I also tried religion, or rather, religions. In my family (parents, uncles and cousins) there are ultra-Orthodox, knitted kippah wearers, traditional, reformist, Buddhist and two priests (both of whom are married). And I have Druze friends, Muslims, Hindus, Kathleen, Protestants, Mormons and even a Baha'i family. "I tried" - that is, I listened to them and tried to understand what was common and what was different between them.
I don't want to start writing a book here... But what sets them all apart (and also sets apart homeopaths, believers in crystals, believers in conspiracies, deniers of global warming and so on) is the refusal to put faith to the test.
And what distinguishes a person who believes in science is exactly this: the only way to discover the truth is to test our conclusions, our ways of thinking and even what we take for granted.
You answered the second part - there is never a situation where you reach the final truth, but you have to constantly keep learning and researching. You should perhaps ask how do you know you are in the right direction? To this I answered - start the investigation from the things closest to you.
Regarding the scientific method - I do not disagree with it, but it is limited only to the physical side of reality and does not refer to the spiritual side of reality at all. You will of course claim that there is no spiritual reality and bring proof that it cannot be measured or proven with scientific tools, but this is exactly the point... science does not encompass all reality.
Raphael
This is true for everyone - they say that the size of the article in the newspaper depends on the number of victims in the disaster divided by the distance to the disaster.
You didn't answer me about the second part - how do you check if what you found is true or not? Descartes wrote about this in the "Essay on the Method". He wrote that everything we know is absorbed through our senses, but how do we know that the senses are right? His answer is: "Because God would not deceive us". It is clear that there is a logical fallacy here of "assuming what is desired".
Therefore - they invented the scientific method: if you think something is true, then try to disprove it. Because of this method, our knowledge of the world (truth) has advanced in the last 300 years by orders of magnitude than in the 300,000 years before that.
I think this is the essence of the difference between us. Everything I claim, I am ready to check if it is really true. Including my principles.
Miracles
Start with the things closest to you
The search never ends, it only gets sharper
Raphael
I got you. Where do you think the truth should be pursued? And more importantly - how do you know you found the truth?
Raphael
Chasing the truth (from the word righteousness righteousness pursuit) differs in my opinion from the search for the truth in these points:
1. The search for the truth is not necessarily a permanent thing but an action you do sometimes, as opposed to the pursuit of the truth which is a constant search at every point, in every act and in every matter in life.
2. Searching is not always mandatory, compared to the pursuit of the truth in which a person accepts in advance that he must live according to the truth he is constantly searching for and even if it turns out that he needs to change his lifestyle and worldview for this.
Raphael
The search for the truth sounds like something positive to me. You hear something and want to know if it's really true. So, you search, research, experiment.
Chasing the truth sounds bad to me. You're chasing something because it's trying to run away from you. Persecution has another meaning - the "persecution" of the gypsies, the Jews, the blacks, who ever.
But - I think you mean something else. You believe in absolute truth, which basically answers all the questions I asked, and many other questions. Questions of morality mainly, in my understanding. And if so - I understand that you don't get the idea of searching for truth at all.
Raphael, how is your religious belief different from the belief of any other religion? As someone watching from the side - why is your Judaism the right one (if you really think so)?
Miracles
Do you think there is a difference between seeking the truth and pursuing the truth? And if so, what is it?
Raphael
If you mean the search for truth, then I'm with you! The question is - where do you look for the truth? Let's take for example the book "Chariots of the Gods" by Erik von Daniken. If you don't know - the book claims that there is a lot of evidence that in the past we were visited by intelligent beings from other planets.
Will you look for the truth in the text of this book, or in the world where the events are described in the book? Would you be willing to accept the interpretation of those who believe von Daniken's claim, without investigating the real world?
What I am saying is - you cannot determine that a book is the truth by the contents of the book, or by the arguments of those who claim that the contents of the book are the truth. Let's say you've heard that vaccines are dangerous - would you check this claim on anti-vaccine websites, or would you turn to experts like doctors and epidemiologists?
Raphael
I don't think the truth is above all. Imagine a lovely and happy 6-year-old girl who is diagnosed with a brain tumor. She has a short time to live. do you tell her that Do you tell that to her 4 year old sister? to her friends?
Imagine another happy child, adopted at a young age by a loving Muslim family. You find out, and only you know, that the boy is actually Jewish. Do you think it is your duty/right to tell your parents that? to a child?
Should the country's leadership tell the whole truth about the country's security secrets?
Will you tell your children that your religious beliefs are what you think is right, but, like everything we believe in - you may be wrong?
Think about the answers to these questions. I guess you know what I will answer each question. Are my answers arrogant? and yours?
Miracles
In my opinion, every person should adopt only one principle and throw away everything else, and the principle is the pursuit of the truth.
Raphael
For me the Torah is a book. Apparently the book was written quite badly, otherwise they wouldn't have had to try so hard to interpret it.
Are you ever ready to stop showing off your "knowledge" in this book, and say something? No parables and no stories - show me where I'm wrong.
If you haven't noticed, you are the arrogant one among us
Miracles
You didn't understand what I was saying about the Torah. The intention in a low place is that the Torah is absorbed only by meek and humble people and not high-hearted and high-spirited people. Therefore, even if I explain to you a thousand times, you will not understand until you correct your level of pride and start behaving humbly.
Raphael
I suggest you do an experiment. Instead of insulting, attacking and slandering - maybe try to say something relevant?
I think I understand what you are saying about the Torah - it fills every empty space. I really think that a person whose life is full has no place for the Torah.
Raphael, you are truly a Torah scholar - I don't know many who stoop as low as you. Please - what's the point of this discussion if you don't say anything?
Miracles
There is no doubt that your arrogance is the main obstacle. Do you know why Torah is likened to water? Because water only flows to low places!
Raphael
Why do my principles scare you? because you don't have any? All you do is what you're told?
One of my principles is to try to leave my descendants a better world than the one my ancestors gave me.
A second principle is to treat all human beings as equal - women, gays, disabled and so on.
A third principle is not to do to others what I do not like. I admit that sometimes I sin against this principle, especially when I get angry at the utter emptiness and hypocrisy of certain religious people.
Oh yes, this reminds me of another principle - not to forgive people who are willing to sacrifice my life and the lives of my children so that they can play with themselves...
Are there any of these principles you don't agree with??
Miracles
thanks for reminding me. There are 2 other things that contribute to your inability to understand. One is, of course, arrogance and conceit and the other is your "principles".
Raphael
On what basis do you say I'm locked? I would appreciate it if you could explain to me where I am wrong.
Raphael, I wish I could believe that good deeds will be rewarded in the next world. Not for me - but for Elv, without which they do bad deeds. I personally do not seek direct personal benefit from my actions. I have principles and I follow them.
Miracles It is impossible to explain this to you because you are locked up anyway and also extremely emotionally involved, which makes you lock up even more to the point of complete opacity.
come to silence
Why do small children get horrible barrage tumors that cause a slow death in terrible agony?
The genius Greek heretic understood from this that God does not exist. It's a shame that there are fools who still don't understand what one Greek knew 2300 years ago. What a shame that their lack of understanding is considered "holy".
Greetings. I am shocked by the judgmental stupidity you have described here. Let's start with the first argument.
1. In the Genesis midrash it is said: "Hema's wheel has a sheath." In other places it was stated that if it were not for this pouch all the inhabitants of the earth would be burned. And here, X-rays of the sun show that there is an outer layer of gases on the surface of the sun, a sort of "shell", which stops most of the dangerous and powerful radiation from the center of the sun from breaking out. This layer is called the photosphere and the temperature in it is 6000 degrees, compared to several million degrees in the core of the sun. So how did sages know about this layer? And one must first ask, did sages even talk about this layer, or did they think of something completely different? Tractate of Vows, page XNUMX, XNUMX of the Gemara says: "There is no hell in the world to come, but the Almighty takes heat out of its sheath. The righteous are healed by it and the wicked are condemned by it." How exactly do you take the sun out of an integral part of it? And why do the dangerous radiations at its center - X-ray, gamma, ultra-violet, etc. fry only the wicked and the righteous can sunbathe to their pleasure? And what about the strong x-ray emissions from this layer, which are revealed in the x-ray images from the satellites, and other types of dangerous radiation that our atmosphere, not the sun's, protects us from?
First, you must understand, dear professors, that if God wants to do some action, to cause something only to certain people, and not to certain other people, then he does not need the constitutions of the stars that we know. And I don't want to go into the details of the Kabbalah here, how the Almighty will make sure that the tzaddiks will not be harmed by the removal of the 'holster'.
But he is not 'subject' to the results of the vagina, and he does not have to, if he 'takes' the vagina out of the sun, then the sun will disappear or be destroyed.
As we know, the purpose of the photosphere is to stop gamma radiation, the sun's furious burst of heat, so that the inhabitants of the earth do not burn to death.
2. Regarding the 'argument' regarding the fact that if it was really so that guests would not disturb Abraham because he was circumcised, the Holy One removed a sheath from his mantle, then the question arises, how come the inhabitants of the land are not burned?
very simple.
In the beginning (it could be just speculation) the Almighty removed the vagina bit by bit from its place, and there was a burst of sweat and heat and gamma radiation that no human being in the vicinity could have been at temperatures but, and so the Almighty did.
And it emerges from the simple explanation that God does not need the laws of nature to carry out actions that go against the nature he created. Therefore he is not subject to laws but
For risk, it is known that you are fat owners and fat scientists. Literally.
A so-called 'scientific' site, which comes to tease and seemingly refute religious claims, so that the esteemed readers will think that the more the site tries to slander religion, the more important and worthy of praise it is.
Good luck with your childish exploits.
I recommend you take a look at the following website: http://mysterium.co.il/
Maybe start with this:
http://mysterium.co.il/ArticleView/tabid/268/ArticleId/204/.aspx
I think you'll gain some new insights into what you think you know (or don't).
Moshe,
Why are you only now commenting on an article from 2001?
How is it possible that there are only 2 comments on such an article, when another Evolution POST has over 500 comments
To the website editor, I recommend locking POSTs for comments, after a year has passed since they were published
Moshe, if you really have a degree in astronomy, then why don't you refute the claims in a cultural and scientific way step by step, as others do on the site: you will learn from XIANGUA from the posts about evolution, for example, he does not get angry and does not lose his composure even when he is whipped and if He is wrong.
damn,
My father, for your attention and everything that adds, subtracts
Let me prove to you how wrong you are, first of all say thank you to the Creator of the world for knowing that you are a human being and not some monkey in generations.
Second thing, pray to him because most of the time you are confused, you don't respect your mother
And even more disgusting, you do not respect the one who created you
3 If you notice, there was no such thing as Kima with was not mentioned in the Gemara
4 Since you bored me, I will reveal a secret to you... you want to go abroad
5 Listen well to what you say because it is your belief that you should not leave it in life
And bro, a good advice for you, just understand that everything you wrote down is not just human beings like the zodiac signs you put in here... The chemistry is not the stars around, these are the stars concentrated as one and here you have it from all my teachers, I have perfected it and it's good for you because I have a degree in astronomy studies and everything Shazal said they were right but you are (wrong) good luck
In addition, think carefully before you count something, because you don't know about sweets, just so you know there were other people before you, but for you they don't count... because you are a scientist