Nahmanides and the Big Bang

[DannyM]

The Big Bang theory is believed to have been first proposed in the 20th century, but was actually proposed much earlier by biblical scholars, taken from information in the Old Testament.

The earliest existing reference is in a commentary on the book of Genesis written by Nahmanides (1194-1270) Of course, Nahmanides never referred to it as the 'big bang', but this is basically how he described the first moments of the universe. Here it is in Schroeder’s own words:

From Gerald Schroeder: Genesis and the Big Bang

“In the thirteenth century, Nahmanides quoted a commentary on Genesis written 600 years before him, noting that prior to the existence of the universe, time did not exist. This was learned from the wording of Genesis 1:5, ". . . and there was evening and there was morning, day one." It is not stated "the first day." For the use of first would have implied an already existing series of days or a continuum of time when in fact on this "day one" there had been no prior time to this one day. Not a before and not an after. There was nothing to which one could relate this day. It stood alone as "day one." For all the remaining days in that week of Genesis, the ordinal terms, second, third, etc., are used and. logically so. By day number two, and thereafter, a series of days had been established. Although it is difficult to comprehend, the creation of the physical universe brought with it a concurrent creation of time…

“Note the difference between this account of our cosmic origins that results from the revelation at Mt. Sinai and the myriad of pagan myths that told of our beginnings. We have here no mythic cows, no gaping voids, no primeval superstuff to shackle a deity to the limitations and frailties of material existence. Even Plato and Aristotle, amid the intellectual society of Greece, were not able to grasp the biblical concept of creation. Although both believed that there exist a god or gods that exercise power over the universe, for the Greeks these gods were incapable of creating matter. Their gods were bound by, and dependent on, the matter of the universe…

“The start of the universe, according to biblical tradition, is described by Nahmanides in his Commentary on Genesis. Nahmanides's amazingly perceptive description of the early moments of the universe presents a scenario totally unlike normal, or even abnormal, human experiences. Considering the lack of scientific knowledge at the time that Nahmanides lived, he must have had either extraordinary gumption or absolute faith to have taught such notions. In fact, he explicitly states in the introduction to his biblical commentary that his description will be incomprehensible to readers who have not "received hidden wisdom." "I give proper counsel to all who look into this book not to seek explanations of the hints I write concerning hidden matters of the Torah. For I make surely known that the reader will not grasp my words by reasoning.

Nahmanides's account of the first seconds of the universe reads like this:

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.

Back to Schroeder:

“Nahmanides's reference to a grain of mustard is the traditional way of saying, "in the language of man," the tiniest imaginable speck of space. Nahmanides taught that at the beginning, all that is on and within the Earth and all the heavens, in fact all the universe, was somehow packed, compressed, squeezed into this speck of space, the size of a mustard grain."...

Read more...

http://www.word-gems.com/god&religion.s ... g.ink.html

[RickD]

Great find, Danny. The "Big Bang" is just a fairly modern term for a theory that has been around quite a while. It's good to see OLD evidence that supports the notion that the Big Bang is indeed biblical.

[DannyM]

Great find, Danny. The "Big Bang" is just a fairly modern term for a theory that has been around quite a while. It's good to see OLD evidence that supports the notion that the Big Bang is indeed biblical.

I agree, Rick. I'd been meaning to persue this for some time as I had read excerpts from Shroeder's book. It's fascinating to read this stuff.
-
-
-

[1over137]

Interesting reading indeed. Don't you know what is the attitude of well-known non-Christian scientists to this?

[CeT-To]

Interesting reading indeed. Don't you know what is the attitude of well-known non-Christian scientists to this?

What is it? I'm keen to know

[1over137]

I still do not see (and would like to) based on what Nahmanides guessed the energy transformation to matter.

[DannyM]

Interesting reading indeed. Don't you know what is the attitude of well-known non-Christian scientists to this?

I still do not see (and would like to) based on what Nahmanides guessed the energy transformation to matter.

It doesn’t matter.

From o p:

Considering the lack of scientific knowledge at the time that Nahmanides lived, he must have had either extraordinary gumption or absolute faith to have taught such notions. In fact, he [Nahmanides] explicitly states in the introduction to his biblical commentary that his description will be incomprehensible to readers who have not "received hidden wisdom." "I give proper counsel to all who look into this book not to seek explanations of the hints I write concerning hidden matters of the Torah. For I make surely known that the reader will not grasp my words by reasoning."

The point is about Nahmanides' “amazingly perceptive description of the early moments of the universe”. This is hidden wisdom stuff, man.

[1over137]

The point is about Nahmanides' “amazingly perceptive description of the early moments of the universe”. This is hidden wisdom stuff, man.

Yes, but what I wonder is if he was looking for the hidden wisdom only in the first chapters of Genesis to describe the beginning, or he also found some clues about the beginning elsewhere in the Bible. It seems to me that he used only Genesis. I already learned that according to the shape of the first letter one can conclude that there was no information what was before the Big Bang. Then according to Gen 1:5 time did not exist before. Then according to 1 chapter of Genesis space did not exist. But what about the energy-matter transition? Somehow I missed that.

Regards,
Hana

[DannyM]

Yes, but what I wonder is if he was looking for the hidden wisdom only in the first chapters of Genesis to describe the beginning, or he also found some clues about the beginning elsewhere in the Bible. It seems to me that he used only Genesis. I already learned that according to the shape of the first letter one can conclude that there was no information what was before the Big Bang. Then according to Gen 1:5 time did not exist before. Then according to 1 chapter of Genesis space did not exist. But what about the energy-matter transition? Somehow I missed that.

As Schroeder says, Nahmanides “must have had either extraordinary gumption or absolute faith to have taught such notions.” So he either possessed a shrewd initiative or an absolute faith here. There is a difference between “having an energy, and that energy is zero” and “not possessing the property of having an energy”. If the universe came out of nothing , wouldn’t that mean a zero energy?
So I don’t really see any inconsistency scientifically. Aside from not seeing this from Genesis, what problem do you have with this?

[1over137]

There is a difference between “having an energy, and that energy is zero” and “not possessing the property of having an energy”.

Sorry but I do not see why you wrote this.

If the universe came out of nothing , wouldn’t that mean a zero energy?

Yes, it would mean.

So I don’t really see any inconsistency scientifically.

I was not looking for inconsistencies. By the way, his commentary suits very well. This is from one MIT article
(http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physics ... mology.pdf):

"Eventually the false vacuum decays, and the energy that had been locked in the false vacuum is realeased. This energy produces a hot, uniform soup of particles, which is exactly the assumed starting point of the traditional big bang theory. At this point the inflationary theory joins onto the older theory, maintaining all of its successes. In the inflationary theory the universe begins incredibly small, perhaps as small as 10^-24cm, ..."

Aside from not seeing this from Genesis, what problem do you have with this?

My problem was not seeing that from Genesis and not understanding what 'kicked' Nahmanides to make a, let us say, scientifically consistent comment.

Last note: Since God created everything ex nihilo he might created the false vacuum at the very beginning.

[DannyM]

I was not looking for inconsistencies. By the way, his commentary suits very well. This is from one MIT article

Thanks.

My problem was not seeing that from Genesis and not understanding what 'kicked' Nahmanides to make a, let us say, scientifically consistent comment.

Mysterious, eh?