Young Earth Creationism

[Willtor]

But Augustine argued for a narrative approach to Genesis, and even argued against long age theories of origins that were common in his day. Augustine believed Genesis a book of historical events including a global flood, and he believed the earth was about 10,000 years old.

He wasn't right about everything, but he was a young earth creationist and literalist. And most of the other early fathers believed the days were literal, as evidenced by their typological beliefs that the world would only last 6,000 years.

I don't want to talk about the age of the earth. If Genesis is to be interpreted literally the age of the earth may follow from that. But until it's resolved between us it's another discussion. For the purposes of this discussion, I will concede that the earth is 6000-10,000 years old.

Augustine was not a literalist. His reasoning was that everything needed to be evaluated on its own terms, like I'm advocating. He even said: "In the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as to whether everything must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or whether it must be expounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened." (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) This is an argument (and you can read the book to see this idea worked out more fully) that narratives ought to be treated figuratively by default, but that they may also have a literal meaning. He wrote this work, in fact, to rebuff the literalists of his day who were making evangelism hard because their literal interpretation was conflicting with known physical realities -- they were subjecting the Scriptures to ridicule by their literalism.

 

[Calminian]

...Augustine was not a literalist.

You're simply wrong. He was very much a young earth creation literalist and even argued against the deep time arguments of his day which would require a non-literal approach to Genesis. Augustine believed in a literal recent creation and literal global flood to boot.

You're ripping his quotes out of context, claiming that because not everything in the Bible is literal, he must have argued against literalism. This is fallacious reasoning. Augustine took Genesis literally, as historical narrative. He did not shy away from its claims just because the modern scientists of his day (greek philosophers) didn't agree with it.

 

[Willtor]

You're simply wrong. He was very much a young earth creation literalist and even argued against the deep time arguments of his day which would require a non-literal approach to Genesis. Augustine believed in a literal recent creation and literal global flood to boot.

You're ripping his quotes out of context, claiming that because not everything in the Bible is literal, he must have argued against literalism. This is fallacious reasoning. Augustine took Genesis literally, as historical narrative. He did not shy away from its claims just because the modern scientists of his day (greek philosophers) didn't agree with it.

Deep time arguments are not especially relevant. I've conceded (for the sake of this discussion) that the world is 6000-10,000 years old. Again, think of me, now, as a YEC, who thinks that the figurative interpretation is preferred.

Everything I read from Augustine makes it appear that he took the creation account figuratively. BobRyan seems to think he did so, too. Can you cite something in Augustine that indicates otherwise?

You say I'm simply wrong. I heard the same arguments about the ECFs when I was a YEC, too. And then I read them. And I found out that what I had heard was not so.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes. Not T.E., specifically. It supports those who argue that the creation account should be taken figuratively.

Augustine insists that it all happened in a single literal day - obviously the Bible does not say that - and nature does not say it.

Those who rely on Augustine to get the facts on what really happened in Genesis 1 and 2 are settling for a poor bible indeed.

James Barr does better.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Calminian]

Deep time arguments are not especially relevant. I've conceded (for the sake of this discussion) that the world is 6000-10,000 years old. Again, think of me, now, as a YEC, who thinks that the figurative interpretation is preferred.

No, your position is that the bible does not teach the earth is young. This is the same position OEC's and even TE's take. A YEC is someone who takes the text of the Bible in a plain straightforward way and comes to the conclusion the earth cannot be old (millions of years) without violating the plain meaning.

Everything I read from Augustine makes it appear that he took the creation account figuratively. ....

You've read very little of augustine, in fact, you've just read snippets of people who have quote-mined him. You're simply wrong that he took the text of Genesis figuratively. I don't know how else to explain this to you.

 

[Willtor]

No, your position is that the bible does not teach the earth is young. This is the same position OEC's and even TE's take. A YEC is someone who takes the text of the Bible in a plain straightforward way and comes to the conclusion the earth cannot be old (millions of years) without violating the plain meaning.

For the sake of this argument, I am not a TE. I concede! The earth is young! Let's talk about the Bible, now!

You've read very little of augustine, in fact, you've just read snippets of people who have quote-mined him. You're simply wrong that he took the text of Genesis figuratively. I don't know how else to explain this to you.

I've read the book I cited. I've read* his Confessions. And I'm most of the way through The City of God. That isn't quote mining. That's trying to understand what he thought. You can see that BobRyan agrees with me, and for that reason he doesn't like Augustine.

You don't know how to explain it to me? You can explain it to me by citing a primary source. If Augustine took it literally, tell me which of his writings I should read for that!

* Actually, I listened to that one as an audio-book. Just to be complete.

 

[Willtor]

An addendum: I forgot, I've also read his correspondence with Jerome. More relevant to discussions of canonicity, than to this discussion.

 

[Percivale]

Calminian, how much of Augustine have you read? And how much by Christians that are not YECs? I was a YEC too until I started reading other Christian sources.

Creation was a miracle, and the Big Bang theory illustrates that beautifully. The Steady State theory was much more favorable to atheism, but the evidence was too strong in favor of the Big Bang. Fred Hoyle rejected it in favor of steady state because he said it sounded too much like the first verses of Genesis.
What happened since creation is what science studies, and Flood geology just doesn't fit the evidence well enough for me to accept.

 

[Calminian]

Creation was a miracle, and the Big Bang theory illustrates that beautifully.

Oh, I agree, the BB does require a miracle. But how does that make you want to abandon the Genesis account? I'm not following the logic.

 

[Calminian]

....You don't know how to explain it to me? You can explain it to me by citing a primary source. If Augustine took it literally, tell me which of his writings I should read for that!.....

Augustine actually believed a lot of things I disagree with, and he did dabble in allegory a little too much for my taste. But the fact is, the took Genesis as historical narrative.

Here are some article for your consumption.

Augustine on the Days of Creation
A look at an alleged old-earth ally

An Examination of Augustine’s Commentaries on Genesis One and Their Implications on a Modern Theological Controversy

The fact is, the early fathers were literalists and perhaps the most allegorical of them was Augustine who was also a literalist when it came to Genesis.

 

[Willtor]

Augustine actually believed a lot of things I disagree with, and he did dabble in allegory a little too much for my taste. But the fact is, the took Genesis as historical narrative.

Here are some article for your consumption.

Augustine on the Days of Creation
A look at an alleged old-earth ally

An Examination of Augustine’s Commentaries on Genesis One and Their Implications on a Modern Theological Controversy

The fact is, the early fathers were literalists and perhaps the most allegorical of them was Augustine who was also a literalist when it came to Genesis.

Okay! I understand the confusion! Sorry, that's my fault -- I try not to use technical terms, but sometimes I forget. Let me restate what I meant when I said, "You can explain it to me by citing a primary source."

---

When I cited St. Augustine, I posted a particular link to The Literal Meaning of Genesis. That actually wasn't a TE or YEC document, or even someone who didn't care one way or the other. It's St. Augustine's book (or an English translation of it, anyway).

The reason that I do that is that it doesn't require you to trust me that the quote is in context. It doesn't matter whether you trust me. You can find the quote that I made in context and see for yourself one way or the other. You can read what the man, himself, wrote about what he thought, rather than some other person's analysis of it.

When I say, "you can explain it to me by citing a primary source," what I mean is that you can give me a link to one of St. Augustine's writings, itself, and tell me where to look in his own text. This is different from posting a link to, say, AiG or ICR (for YECs), or the BioLogos Foundation (for TEs) -- these are all people who take quotes and do analysis on them. They are "secondary sources" because they aren't actually St. Augustine. And you and I might worry that somebody else is trying to push an agenda and not being completely truthful, so it's better for us to cite St. Augustine's own writings: the "primary sources." Then we can see the quote in its original context, ourselves. And why not? Why rely on someone else to tell us what the context is? No need, if we have the original document (the "primary source") right in front of us.

---

Let's back up a couple of steps:

You can persuade me that St. Augustine thought that creation happened in 7 days by finding one of his books or letters, posting the quote you find, and posting a link to the original book or letter.

To reiterate: Find something in his writings that points to an historical 7 day creation. It need not even mention Genesis (although, it's better if it does, of course). It will be enough that he says that creation happened in 7 days, and that the context supports that reading.

 

[Calminian]

...You can persuade me that St. Augustine thought that creation happened in 7 days by finding one of his books or letters, posting the quote you find, and posting a link to the original book or letter.....

Wiltor, I will do that as soon as you show me where I stated Augustine believed in 7 literal creation days. Brother, you need to listen (i.e. read carefully).

If you would considering reading the articles I posted, you'd at least understand where I'm coming from.

 

[Willtor]

Wiltor, I will do that as soon as you show me where I stated Augustine believed in 7 literal creation days. Brother, you need to listen (i.e. read carefully).

If you would considering reading the articles I posted, you'd at least understand where I'm coming from.

I don't really want to read AiG any more stuff. They were one of the two big sources of what I discovered to be misinformation, upon looking into things, myself. If you insist, I'll read these articles, but I'd appreciate hearing from _you_ and what _you_ have found in your research, more than what AiG has to say.

 

[Calminian]

I don't really want to read AiG any more stuff. They were one of the two big sources of what I discovered to be misinformation, upon looking into things, myself. If you insist, I'll read these articles, but I'd appreciate hearing from _you_ and what _you_ have found in your research, more than what AiG has to say.

Suit yourself.

 

[Willtor]

Suit yourself.

Okay, then. I'll continue.

Augustine got what he called the "allegorical" method of interpretation from his mentor, Ambrose. This method was fairly consistent among the ECFs from Alexandria. I have only read a few of them, personally, but this is not an especially controversial statement.

Therefore, it's worth noting that the gospels were treated differently. I assert, therefore, that there was something about Genesis that seemed different to them than the gospels. Does that follow?

 

[Calminian]

Okay, then. I'll continue.

Augustine got what he called the "allegorical" method of interpretation from his mentor, Ambrose. This method was fairly consistent among the ECFs from Alexandria. ....

But you've already been corrected on this. What they called allegory, we call typology. There's a difference. Once you get that you'll see why your argument has no foundation.

BTW, from the article you refused to read:

That all said, we would be remiss if we claimed Augustine was an orthodox young-earth creationist. Augustine rejected the seven-day creation beliefs of Ambrose, who was instrumental in Augustine’s conversion to Christianity.​

As I said, Augustine was an anomaly among the ECF's. He actually moved away from the teachings of the earth fathers. But this is coming from a source you've blindly chosen not to believe. I have another source here which you'll likely reject as well.

I always find it amazing though how old earthers like Wiltor say the early fathers were allegorists but then only talk about Augustine, who really wasn't that early.

 

[Willtor]

But you've already been corrected on this. What they called allegory, we call typology. There's a difference. Once you get that you'll see why your argument has no foundation.

BTW, from the article you refused to read:

That all said, we would be remiss if we claimed Augustine was an orthodox young-earth creationist. Augustine rejected the seven-day creation beliefs of Ambrose, who was instrumental in Augustine’s conversion to Christianity.​

As I said, Augustine was an anomaly among the ECF's. He actually moved away from the teachings of the earth fathers. But this is coming from a source you've blindly chosen not to believe. I have another source here which you'll likely reject as well.

I always find it amazing though how old earthers like Wiltor say the early fathers were allegorists but then only talk about Augustine, who really wasn't that early.

Two 'l's in Willtor, please. Also, for the purposes of this discussion, don't think of me as an "old earther." Since we're discussing Biblical interpretation, let's just deal with the text, itself.

As for Augustine not being very early, that's fair. If you like, we'll do Athanasius, next. Or Origen.

As to the current topic, how about something that Augustine said about himself, rather than what someone else said about him? Since people seem to say different things about him, let's go straight to the source and bypass all of this. Why not? Then it isn't a big deal if I reject AiG, or if you reject some commentator I might otherwise bring up. Can't do better for finding out what Augustine thought about a thing than what he, himself, wrote about Augustine thought about it.

Regarding allegory vs. typology: Augustine's conversion to the orthodoxy was sped by learning about the allegorical interpretation of passages he'd found to be monstrous when taken literally. '... I now thought [the Catholic faith] might be maintained without shamelessness; especially after I had heard one or two places of the Old Testament resolved, and ofttimes “in a figure,” which when I understood literally, I was slain spiritually.' (Confessions -- this is from Ambrose' preaching; he later cites Ambrose' preaching as a factor in the speed of his conversion)

What does this mean if not that he found, in some cases, the literal interpretation altogether unpalatable, let alone preferable? I don't dispute that the allegory often involved pre-figuring, as in typology. Rather, it appears as though the literalness was occasionally so off-putting, that he was "slain spiritually" by it. This is not someone who was persuaded by, let alone tied to, the literal meaning of the text.

 

[Calminian]

Two 'l's in Willtor, please. Also, for the purposes of this discussion, don't think of me as an "old earther." Since we're discussing Biblical interpretation, let's just deal with the text, itself.

Sorry, Will, there is not a single soul here buying that. You're an older earther through and through. Own it and embrace it.

As for Augustine not being very early, that's fair. If you like, we'll do Athanasius, next. Or Origen.

No, actually I'll pick for while. You've steered the ship long enough. Hmmm, let's see. Let's talk about:

Theophilus of Antioch
Methodius
Victorinus of Pettau
Ephrem the Syrian
Epiphanius of Salamis
Basil of Caesarea
Cyril of Jerusalem
Ambrose of Milan (Augustine's mentor)

Those are just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure you won't mind discussing them, being as open-minded as you are.

 

[Percivale]

I read the AiG articles, and they made clear that Augustine was not a six day creationist, and that he believed in our theology being informed by science. Therefore I would conclude that he would have been an old-earther if he had access to today's science. That he rejected old earth theories of his time is irrelevant, because they did not have science to back those up at that time. I don't think anyone claims he was OEC, and AiG admits he interpreted Genesis 1 allegorically, so apparently we are in agreement regarding him. The only ECF that might have believed in an old earth would be Origen I think (who was earlier than Augustine).
I haven't seen AIG lie outright, but they do ignore facts that don't support them, oversimplify things, and interpret everything through a very specific theological filter. Yet it was from them and ICR that I learned about science growing up, and it was their RATE project that convinced me the earth is old.

 

[KWCrazy]

I don't think the word "day" in Genesis 1 is literal. Instead "day" refers to a stage or phase of creation.

Sadly, no passage of Scripture concurs. As was pointed out, God personally inscribed in a stone tablet that He created the Heavens and the Earth in six days. Kinda hard to argue that point.