Vouthon ji thanks for your post. Couple of comments if I may.Regards.
My dear brother Ambarsaria peacesignkaur
Thank you for your comments! The Bible has many scientific inaccuracies in it because its not a book of science, but one of faith, to guide us spiritually. It was revealed too people 2,000 - 3,000 years ago in a less advanced culture and society. However it contains perrenial divine truths. Much of the Bible speaks in allegories and metaphors. For example there never was a real "Adam and Eve" and the fall of man (eating of the fruit) can be understood as a metaphorical understanding of the change from a hunter gatherer society to a settled agricultural one, which transformed human existence ever more. The Church Fathers of the first three centuries AD interpreted the Bible not scientifically like modern 'bible-bashers' amidst Protestantism but allegorically.
Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt—one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world—provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.
Best known for
On First Principles and
Against Celsus, Origen - a church father - opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen’s views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.
St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for
Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.In
The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.
In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.
Pope John Paul II wrote to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences back in the 80s on the subject of cosmology and how to interpret Genesis:
Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one attains to [the state of] heaven
In terms of the Granth, I agree with everything you say, and I would read it in the same manner as espoused by Blessed Pope John Paul II above. My only point was that I was deeply impressed at how the Gurus seemed to touch upon - in their own language and within the boundaries of their time and culture - truths about the nature of the universe that were later
confirmed by science. I am well aware that Sr Guru Granth Sahib ji is not a science textbook, but a book of timeless spiritual wisdom to help us grow towards union with God and properly understand our relationship with both the divine and creation, in this day and age.
To me this demonstrates quite clearly that divine inspiration underlies the authorship of the
Adi Granth, its spiritual and moral wisdom that is, although the cosmological truths later confirmed by science - which I would rather class as 'cosmological' truths rather than scientific to avoid the kind of interpretations you have just outlined to me - certainly do come as a pleasant surprise and I very much appreciate the far-sightedness of the Gurus, which I can only attribute to God working through them
. Cosmology is the discipline that deals with the nature of the Universe as a whole. Since the Granth does deal with the
nature of the Universe, I should have said 'cosmological' rather than 'scientific'.
I recognise though that it isn't the
Origin of the Species by Darwin but a book of
infinte spiritual wisdom! (No pun intended peacesign) I was merely saying that the cosmology expounded by the Gurus in those passages is perfectly aligned with modern scientific consensus, and that this consensus seems to suggest that the rapid expansion of space by dark energy will eventually reverse in on itself, resulting in the collapse of our present universe which will then end in a 'black hole singualrity'.
In saying this I was not suggesting that the Guru Granth be read as a science textbook. That kind of literalism is an abuse of every sacred scripture and misrepresents their true purpose.
In terms of "theories", I also know that the Holy Granth isn't a book of theories. I was simply referring to brother Prakash's
interpretation of the Granth in that one instance, which to my mind, actually agreed with the portions of the sacred text I had read in terms of the creation and ultimate fate of this temporal universe.
I think that I have led you to misunderstand my meaning in this second regard because of my use of the word 'theory' rather than 'interpretation' which is what I meant, for which I apologize!
I do not understand his views on '
Rama' though peacesign Perhaps he could explain them to me in a clearer fashion.
Much love to you brother, your wisdom and guidance will always find a listening and appreciative ear in me :whatzpointkudi:
