Zohar Predicts Industrial Revolution

I challenge anyone here - and not of arrogance, but sincere inquiry - whether they can find another document from any other religious tradition which makes any predictions of the industrial revolution.

This is a big deal, because, well, the industrial revolution is SO unusual. Imagine the progress civilization made between 3500 BCE and 1800 CE.. Nothing much in terms of technology, although, Christianity did serve to unify the western world under the banner of one culture, which has some significant sociological purposes; but there is obvious a paradigmatic shift between those first 5,300 of Human civilization, from Ur, till the 1800's. Now look again from 1800 CE to 2012. It's simply astounding. How could anyone possibly have predicted this???

Well, the Jewish Zohar did. If you aren't acquainted with this body of literature, the Zohar was written by Moses De Leon, although some believe he merely redacted it from older texts, the bulk of which derive from the mystic insights of the Talmudic sage Shimon Bar Yochai. Now, this book deals with mostly metaphysical subjects, particularly as exegesis of the Torah. But in some places, it makes predictions.

In the Exegesis on the biblical verse:

In the six-hundredth year in the life of Noah... all wellsprings of the great deep burst open, and the windows of heaven were opened...

The Zohar interprets along prophetical lines:

“in the sixth century of the sixth millennium, the gates of the supernal wisdom will be opened, as will the springs of the earthly wisdom, preparing the world to be elevated in the seventh millennium.
Zohar, part I, 117a.

Now, the Jews have a very old calendar. The current year in this calendar is 5773, from the 'time of creation' (which I interpret to be the beginnings of civilization, circa 3500 BCE, in Sumeria, Eridu, Ur etc). The 6th century of the 6th millennium would correspond to the Hebrew year 5600, which would correspond to the secular year 1840.

The Zohar actually uses the term 'lower' for earthly wisdom, in line with the usual metaphysical axiom of 'above' corresponding to spiritual things, and 'below' to physical things. So lower wisdom is physical wisdom, which is SCIENCE!

I cannot for the life of me explain this. You may reject the antiquity of the Zohar as being no more then 800 years old (to the time of Moses De Leon), but even then, how on earth could a Rabbi predict something that would happen - pretty much on the spot - 600 years before it happened???

Is there any other example of such foresight in any other religion?

Suffice to say, this is highly unusual. The Zohar explains that this 'growth' in physical knowledge is for the purpose of 'preparing' the world for the 7th millenium, the 'shabbat', or period of rest, for man and the earth. The shabbat, according to the Hebrew Calendar, is the year 6000 - 7000. We are some 227 years from that time.

reply to post by dontreally


Many ancient cultures had ideas that things would advance and change to an incomprehensible point. (implying this would happen with increasing rapidness). The 2012 doomsday scenario literature (of which there is a fair amount of real scholarly work on as well as others) has a lot to say on that matter.

reply to post by dontreally


OK. I'll bite. That quote sounds extremely... what's the word I'm looking for... nebulous. It could mean anything or nothing at all. How do you get Industrial Revolution out of that?

reply to post by auto73912621


No, I mean a specific date. The Zohar gave the year 1840, which, at the time of its composition, couldn't possibly been predicted based on current conditions.

reply to post by Ex_CT2

It could mean anything or nothing at all.

Huh? I have read some pretty "nebulous" predictions. This cannot be classified as nebulous as it:

1) Refers to an exact type of wisdom i.e. Lower wisdom, which can only mean knowledge of physical processes

2) Gives an exact date, the year 1840, which corresponds to the 'peak' of industrialization in western Europe.

So what is nebulous, or what is being manipulated to fit into a certain context?

reply to post by dontreally

whether they can find another document from any other religious tradition which makes any predictions of the industrial revolution

"It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.
Revelations 13:16-19

Does this count?
Seems fairly industrial and economic to me......and as you keep reading it gets pretty war-like as well.

reply to post by Sublimecraft


No. That would be an example of what ex_ct2 complained about: ambiguity.

There is no general context specified.

Conversely, the Zohar takes from the Biblical verse and makes a specific sort of prediction: not 'supernal wisdom', which in the terminology of the Zohar means esoteric or spiritual knowledge, but 'lower wisdom'. The 'lower wisdom' can clearly only be identified by contrasting it to 'supernal' wisdom. It can mean nothing other than science.

And then it specifies an exact date according to the Hebrew calendar. The date corresponds to the 'height' of industrialization in western Europe: 1840.

It's an impressive prediction that avoids the pitfalls of ambiguity. It describes the type of knowledge that will 'burst forth' from the springs of heaven, and at what time.

Good Post. S+F

I will just add this comment to send it back to the first page to remind all denialists that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

reply to post by dontreally

If that's supposed to be the start of something and related to the Industrial Revolution, why is it closer to the end than to the beginning (it started in the previous century)?

reply to post by ArMaP


It hardly began in the previous century. The real advancements didn't come until the early 1800's. In any case, it was within the 'general' period. One can almost say, in the "heart" of the revolution, where people began seeing with their own two eyes explicit changes in the world around them.

Technological advancements began in the late 18th century. But society wasn't 'refaced' with this technology until the 1820 onwards. One could even say 1840 is a pretty good date for the advancement of scientific knowledge. It's also of supreme interest to note that Darwin penned his theory of natural selection in 1838 - the theory of evolution being a prime candidate for knowledge described by the Zohar as 'lower wisdom' i.e how species developed.

Originally posted by dontreally
It hardly began in the previous century.

It did, some of the things that were used in the 19th century were better versions (or steam-powered versions) of things that were invented in the 18th century.

In any case, it was within the 'general' period. One can almost say, in the "heart" of the revolution, where people began seeing with their own two eyes explicit changes in the world around them.

Wasn't it supposed to be about "physical knowledge"? That knowledge came before people seeing the changes, as you put it.

One could even say 1840 is a pretty good date for the advancement of scientific knowledge.

One could say that Justin Bieber was the best thing that happened to music since Britney Spears, but that doesn't make it true.

The advancement of scientific knowledge never stopped, not even during what is called "the dark ages", so we cannot point to a start of the advancement.

It's also of supreme interest to note that Darwin penned his theory of natural selection in 1838 - the theory of evolution being a prime candidate for knowledge described by the Zohar as 'lower wisdom' i.e how species developed.

That's also before 1840, so I guess you can just change the dates to what you want, so I guess this discussion is going nowhere...

reply to post by ArMaP


Or, you are taking a general date far too literally. In fact, at any point, if it was 1790, or 1838, or some other date, I'm sure you would complain that it didn't meet any fundamental changes.

You could of course argue that the 'advancements' of the 18th and 19th centuries were predicated in the thought of Descartes, Spinoza, Newton and others centuries earlier.

The advancement of scientific knowledge never stopped, not even during what is called "the dark ages", so we cannot point to a start of the advancement.

And not a shred of it made a fundamental impact on the standard of living until the 19th century.

Originally posted by dontreally
Or, you are taking a general date far too literally.

Well, when you said "1840" I got that as definite date, not a "general date". Considering the original words "in the sixth century of the sixth millennium", it even looks as if it could be a date between 1840 and 1940, since there's no reference to a specific year in that sixth century.

You could of course argue that the 'advancements' of the 18th and 19th centuries were predicated in the thought of Descartes, Spinoza, Newton and others centuries earlier.

As were all advancements, as I said, there's no way we can point to a date and say "this is where things started to change", all things are/were affected by what was done before.

reply to post by ArMaP


The idea is this: in the 12th century (when the Zohar was either written, or redacted) there was no way to know for certain what the future had in store. The sheer idea of an 'industrial revolution' or an explosion in knowledge of 'lower' things, would have been too obscure a thing to conceptualize. There was simply no indication of it.

So the fact that it makes a general prediction of an explosion of 'lower knowledge' around the year 1840 (obviously referring to the beginning of the 6th century of the 6th millenium, and not the end of the century) is very meaningful.

reply to post by dontreally


I just don't see where you get that "explosion of knowledge" at (or near) that date to fit with the prediction, so it looks more like a solution searching for a problem.

reply to post by ArMaP


You mean you don't see a vastly different world between 3500 BCE -- 1700 CE, and 1700s onward? That's the "problem" you imagine I'm searching to create. The problem is that there was no indication of that future development. The Zohar makes a prediction, and that prediction came into fruition.

explosion of knowledge

I can list ad infinitum the explosion of knowledge in the empirical sciences. This knowledge was hamstringed, didn't quite exist until the law of cause and effect began being emphasized in philosophy. 1840 is a pretty good date for this 'explosion' in real life society.

You can of course chalk it up to coincidence.

reply to post by dontreally


I thought there was something in Revelations about horseless chariots, but I couldn't find it.

But I did find this, from the Book of Nahum, from 700 BC:

Nahum 2:3-4
King James Version (KJV)
3 The shield of his mighty men is made red, the valiant men are in scarlet: the chariots shall be with flaming torches in the day of his preparation, and the fir trees shall be terribly shaken.

4 The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings.

Fire engines! Rush hour traffic!

Originally posted by dontreally
You mean you don't see a vastly different world between 3500 BCE -- 1700 CE, and 1700s onward?

I don't see a vastly difference between 1700 and 1701, or between 1500 and 1501, etc., I see it a continuous process since humans started thinking.

The problem is that there was no indication of that future development. The Zohar makes a prediction, and that prediction came into fruition.

But you are the one adjusting the dates to make it look like the prediction came to fruition, I just don't see a definite date for it, so, to me, that prediction (or any other prediction of an explosion of knowledge) cannot ever come to fruition.

I can list ad infinitum the explosion of knowledge in the empirical sciences.

You can do that because there wasn't a start of that explosion of knowledge, knowledge has being built upon itself for a long time.

You can of course chalk it up to coincidence.

Then why did I say that things have been evolving along the centuries? Is that chalk it up to coincidence?

reply to post by ArMaP

I don't see a vastly difference between 1700 and 1701, or between 1500 and 1501, etc., I see it a continuous process since humans started thinking.

This reductionist approach of yours doesn't make sense.

I asked you a simple question. Look at the pace of development and thinking between 3500 BCE and 1700, and you sidestepped the question.

The difference is this: the world was looked at in completely different ways. There was no 'natural progression' and your insistence on such a progression is a fantasy.

What do you think is meant by the "dark ages"? It was the turn away from the pagan science of Greek empirical philosophy. Where is your organic "continuation" from A to B? There was an interruption, a falling back. The sciences, and indeed, the world around man, didn't change very much for 5000 years of human history.

Until you recognize this, you'll just be engaging in a game of sophistry, simply because you refuse to concede.

But you are the one adjusting the dates to make it look like the prediction came to fruition

What do you mean I keep "adjusting" the dates. I simply placed the date - 1840 - in the middle of the industrial revolution, where train tracks began connecting cities the world over. When the natural sciences were picking up steam. Yes, you are correct in saying it actually 'began' about 60 or 70 years earlier, with the main foundations being laid in the 16th century. But it's the 19th century in particular where the world 'takes off'. Look at how far we've come in a matter of 170 years since that date.

Again, I feel the need to remind you at this point that for 5000 years the world LOOKED the same. It took the 19th century to create substantial changes in appearance.