How do we explain Neanderthals?

[YCGP]

What does this all mean? Is our population getting too large for us all to make it into heaven? Are the end times near? Is this just a phase, or a test?

I want to know God, and at the same time I am excited about aliens!

 

[~Anastasia~]

OK, I am confused here. I have read every post and still I feel like I haven't learned what I wanted to learn.

If what you are saying is true, that we may not just choose to believe anything we want to believe, for it would go against what the Church has been teaching from the beginning, then how do you deal with evolution? You just say flatly that evolution is wrong? (And that the fossils found are inexplicable perhaps?)

Please help me understand.

Thank you

Something I'd like to point out here that I posted in another thread ...

Hello LoveGodHateSin, and welcome to CF. I pray that you are blessed by being here.

If one focuses on the idea of Creationism (or anti-Creationism) there are MANY ways people have tried to get around the issue. Christians have proposed a number of scientific theories to make a literal interpretation of Scripture jive with current scientific consensus. There are those that question the scientific consensus and reinterpret it, some quite rationally (though those appear to be in a minority) and some rather irrationally (but sadly, very vocally). Some Christians propose various philosophical or quantum theories and such to make things "fit". And then some avoid the problem altogether by avoiding a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

I'm not trying to solve your problem in saying all of this. I'm underscoring that there are many ways of looking at it.

But the biggest problem I see in your case (and it is common to many others) is that it seems possible to you that your faith might be endangered over this one issue.

No one can prove creationism. But I'll tell you something else - no one can prove evolution.

I was trained by some of the finest teachers in the biological sciences, and my first education was in biology/zoology. I also developed an interest in education. And I recognized that the rather frenetic pace of academic training amounted to being given volumes of material to assimilate, specimens to deal with, and being told to memorize the theories that went along with it (which were largely about evolution). I recognized a few gaps, so then when I started in with more practical applications, I set myself a task. I wanted to develop a curriculum in which I would DEMONSTRATE evolution, not just throw a bunch of material at students and tell them to memorize it. I was quite proud of my ambition, and very invested in my project, and had invested quite a bit in my education. So I set zealously to work.

What I found was one disappointment after another. The sources that I had expected the experts to have built their theories upon - didn't exist. I tried and tried to find real evidence, proof, evolution demonstrated for all to see, and I failed. The only things I found conclusively were that a few mistakes had been made. Those mistakes were not sufficient to disprove evolution, but it became apparent that I wasn't going to prove it either.

Evolution is a story that provides one possible (though quite plausible) explanation for the evidence one sees. There is not another scientific theory that competes favorably against it, but neither does evolution neatly account for every question.

Creation is quite the same. If we approach with a Christian mindset, the literal explanation of creation is quite a plausible explanation for the world as we observe it, and we do not see another spiritual explanation that competes favorably with it. Yet it also fails to answer every question.

So in the end, we are left with a choice of who to believe.

From a Christian point of view, many of the aspects don't matter (though some clearly do). For the sake of one's faith, it is vital (imo) to ask whether one can accept that there is a God Who purposed Creation, and is responsible for it. Once that is settled, one can take time and delve into what is necessary to know about the how and why. Not everything needs to be known. But it will become necessary to consider man, God, sin, and redemption. Dinosaurs and three-toed "horses" aren't really important one way or another.

I'm not sure if this helps. After my frustration and eventual failure regarding my attempts to demonstrate evolution, I spent a couple of years studying alternative explanations (and still have a passing interest in such things). But I met a lot of sincere people who loved God who were VERY invested in certain "Creation Science" information. I will just urge caution there. Some of the questions posed, observations, etc. are thought-provoking and good. But much of it is an embarrassment to science, and I cringed to think that it was being used as an education to keep children connected to the faith. If they are more rigorously educated in the sciences, they will begin to see some flaws, and that could damage their faith if such teaching = Christianity to them.

There ARE good scientific questions that challenge the commonly held theories that are part of overall evolutionary theory. And there is no need for our faith to suffer because such theories seem to exercise themselves above the possibility of a God Who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that fill them. But the path to learning that can be dangerous. Tread carefully, and give yourself time.

Hold to your faith. Remember that it should be in God Himself, not in a particular doctrine of inerrancy, or a particular school of human thought regarding matters of science, or any other thing. God Himself.

God be with you.

I decided to leave the whole post, in case you're interested in where I was coming from, but here is a relevant portion:

"Evolution is a story that provides one possible (though quite plausible) explanation for the evidence one sees. There is not another scientific theory that competes favorably against it, but neither does evolution neatly account for every question.

"Creation is quite the same. If we approach with a Christian mindset, the literal explanation of creation is quite a plausible explanation for the world as we observe it, and we do not see another spiritual explanation that competes favorably with it. Yet it also fails to answer every question."

I do have a background in the sciences, specifically biology and zoology (which is heavily focused on and invested in evolution). And I get rather frustrated seeing people feel backed into a corner, thinking they must EITHER believe the Church OR believe "science" (current scientific explanations).

As far as what we are allowed to believe, Orthodoxy gives us a great deal of freedom in many things. It is certainly not all spelled out for us. But there are certain things we cannot go against.

I don't like stepping into this particular discussion.

Disclaimer: this next part is specifically my opinion, developed from what I have learned of the Orthodox mindset.

THAT God created is a non-negotiable belief. To be perfectly honest, HOW He did so, in and of itself standing completely alone, wouldn't really matter. But ... we also need to understand that death is the enemy, the result of the curse that came upon man, and that Christ defeated death specifically as part of our redemption - the most important part.

It may be more comfortable to accept this, at least for now, as something that cannot be completely understood. We don't, for example even TRY to explain how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood, how a virgin became pregnant, how Christ resurrected from the dead. "Science" wouldn't accept these things as possible either. Yet we have unshakeable faith and know that they happened.

I hope this can help. I know it's something I struggled terribly with at one point, essentially became at best agnostic because of it, and when my "faith in evolution" was likewise shaken as described in my longer post above, I was able to see more clearly what we know, what we don't, and was presented with a decision of how to think of it. Along with that crossroad, God was gracious to make Himself so real that, no matter what I might eventually find myself to understand wrongly, HE is Truth.

God be with you.

 

[rusmeister]

Theology, doctrine and dogma come with a huge built-in problem --- a serious inability to adjust to new information. Sometimes it takes centuries and in the meantime much damage is done to the faith and to the faithful.

This thought does not seem to understand what theology, doctrine and dogma are. Not being Orthodox, you are at a serious disadvantage from the get-go at understanding what we do about these things.
Theology is generally acknowledged to be the understanding, noetically and otherwise, of the things of God. In Orthodoxy, it has been said that the true theologian is one who prays. It is by accepting doctrine of divine revelation - a thing that cannot be mistaken or "improved" by any scientific discovery - that a person can come to know Truth as a person, and incidentally, truths as springing from the Truth.
Dogma and doctrine mean the same thing - to us it is certain teaching that has been questioned thoroughly and needs no longer be questioned: continued questioning becomes simply a refusal to accept the answers.
You speak from a paradigm that suggests that truths purported to be eternal can change if "new information" is discovered. That is neither Orthodox nor Christian, and one who holds it will at some point cease to be Christian, for if any doctrine can be changed or proven "in error" by new information, that means that the Faith itself is not divine, and is vain. The Resurrection can be challenged as easily as Creation, by anyone who is in a slightly different mood than you on your very principle of "new information". It is dogma on which all scientific claims are founded; you cannot claim dogma as the province of religion alone.

There are two types of people: those that have dogmas and know it, and those that have them and don't know it. And it is the latter type that is most completely unable to adjust to anything that conflicts with their dogmas.

 

[rusmeister]

OK, I am confused here. I have read every post and still I feel like I haven't learned what I wanted to learn.

If what you are saying is true, that we may not just choose to believe anything we want to believe, for it would go against what the Church has been teaching from the beginning, then how do you deal with evolution? You just say flatly that evolution is wrong? (And that the fossils found are inexplicable perhaps?)

Please help me understand.

Thank you

I say that it is more important to not deny that sin entered the world by one man, and death by sin, than it is to explain fossils. I think there is nothing wrong with scientific inquiry as a form of intellectual play, but when we elevate its playful findings to certain dogmas, more certain than Holy Tradition about the origin of death (and chide Tradition for holding dogmas) we have taken the unimportant game of fallible men and made it into an idol.

I used to be more tolerant of evolution, but in recent years have become more and more convinced of its thorough denial of the divine origin of man and his Fall through sin, introducing death into the world. That certainty has been compounded by my extensive knowledge of the extreme fallibility of modern education and its absolute lack of any philosophical and theological basis, the only basis on which any real truth could stand.

 

[gzt]

OK, I am confused here. I have read every post and still I feel like I haven't learned what I wanted to learn.

If what you are saying is true, that we may not just choose to believe anything we want to believe, for it would go against what the Church has been teaching from the beginning, then how do you deal with evolution? You just say flatly that evolution is wrong? (And that the fossils found are inexplicable perhaps?)

Please help me understand.

Thank you

That seems to be what he's suggesting, yes. I would note that nobody here says we can just choose to believe anything we want to believe (well, you could, it's a free country, but you may find yourself outside the bounds of the Church then!). What I would say is that there are some theological truths you must affirm and there are some things the Church has not definitively spoken on yet, and this leaves room for a believe in evolution and the theology of the Church. Hope that helps.

 

[YCGP]

Alright. I believe in JC and the Orthodox Church. I recognize that not all answers are available yet, and that there is a chance they may never appear in this lifetime. I'm fine with knowing what I need to know and letting the rest just be.

Check this out:
One of the 'Seven Lies of Success' (lies because they are not necessarily true, though if one adopts one of these lies-or beliefs-then he or she will reap the benefits of it) is that you don't need to understand everything to use everything. The example is of electricity; we flip the lights on and off without any understanding of how it works. Faith is similar

God Bless
+++

 

[YCGP]

As far as I understand, Orthodox Christians believe the bible is literal (does this include NT?) and is without errors. However, there are certain translations that contain mistakes, because man can make mistakes. So, essentially it is man's fault that there are discrepancies.

Is that accurate?

 

[rusmeister]

As far as I understand, Orthodox Christians believe the bible is literal (does this include NT?) and is without errors. However, there are certain translations that contain mistakes, because man can make mistakes. So, essentially it is man's fault that there are discrepancies.

Is that accurate?

No, it is not, if "literal" means that "there is no such thing as allegory, metaphor, hyperbole, poetical language, etc".
Scripture IS without error, though poor translation can muddy understanding, and when disconnected from the understandings of the fathers, can and do produce actual error of understanding.

 

[gzt]

As far as I understand, Orthodox Christians believe the bible is literal (does this include NT?) and is without errors. However, there are certain translations that contain mistakes, because man can make mistakes. So, essentially it is man's fault that there are discrepancies.

Is that accurate?

No - frankly the category "literal" is kind of vague - it means a lot of different things, a lot of them we don't believe. We believe the Bible is a book written, assembled, and read by the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit to all truth. The language of scripture is further the language of the Church. This doesn't mean that every event and every fact is something that, if you were to go back in time and video tape it, you would see. But it does mean that the Bible tells the story of God working on Earth and that the way the Church interprets it leads to the truth of God.

 

[gzt]

So when you look at the Genesis 1 narrative, this is not what you would see if you went back in time, obviously. It was composed to express a theological truth in distinction to the pagan myths of the surrounding culture and we think the authors were inspired by God to do so. The Church has added further interpretation which express additional theological truths. (see my previous posts on the first couple pages on this thread). Reading it literally kind of misses much of the point and is by no means required by Orthodox thought, though certainly some people have done so.

 

[jckstraw72]

what gzt has said is not accurate. if you were to go back in time, you would in fact find what you read in Genesis, as attested to by the saints of the Church who acquire the mind of Christ in the Church. Моses himself didn't simply write a story told to him, but wrote what he saw. in fact going back in time BEFORE the fall is only possible in the Church -- only revelation can open that period to us. before the Fall there was no corruption or death, and so there is nothing left from that period for scientists to investigate. the world was in a different mode of being that is only regained by life in the Church, and all artifacts we have are from after the Fall. to say there are artifacts from before the Fall is to deny there is any such thing as the Fall. Fr. John Romanides said it well when he said scientists and philosophers always confuse the Fall of the world with being the creation of the world, cause that's as far back as they can go.

the division between history and theological truth is not Orthodox -- as if the actual history itself did not contain theological truths.

God does not simply weave fancy theological tales, but He actually acts IN history, IN the world. history itself makes theological points.

also, the division between literal and figurative meanings is also not Orthodox. the truth is not so narrow as to fit only into one category or another. symbolic meanings with deeper spiritual value only, again, show us that God is actually acting within history. they don't contradict the historical level of Scripture. but unfortunately evolution forces you into this mold. Protestant Fundamentalists pick only literal. evolutionists pick only symbolic, and both are missing the Orthodox boat.

 

[gzt]

But what he saw in his vision may not be the same as actually going back in time and watching. A vision is God revealing some truth, not necessarily what you'd see if you actually went back in time.

 

[jckstraw72]

But what he saw in his vision may not be the same as actually going back in time and watching. A vision is God revealing some truth, not necessarily what you'd see if you actually went back in time.

if you can support that from within the 2000 year Tradition, go ahead.

 

[gzt]

Anyway, @YCGP, here is an example of a sort of treatment of historical material in the Bible besides Genesis (the early parts are of course not "historical"). https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/depa...ld-testament-critical-patristic-perspectives/ You may find this very interesting. The web-log in general has some very helpful perspectives that you may enjoy and find enlightening when it comes to Orthodox readings of Scripture.

 

[gzt]

For instance, I have mentioned Hebrew Bible as using polemic reappropriation of mythological imagery common in their milieu to express the truth about the one true God - here are a couple articles off that web-log that touch on that idea (not in a Genesis context):

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/departinghoreb/baal-and-leviathan/

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/departinghoreb/mythology-and-the-bible-psalm-93-as-a-case-study/

 

[jckstraw72]

YCGP, here is a sample of Patristic witnesses, both Antiochian and Alexandrian, Eastern and Western, that show you how those speaking from within the Church deal with literal/history and symbolism in Genesis:

1. St. Methodios of Olympos, Concerning Chastity 3.2:

For it is a dangerous thing wholly to despise the literal meaning, as has been said, and especially of Genesis, where the unchangeable decrees of God for the constitution of the universe are set forth, in agreement with which, even until now, the world is perfectly ordered, most beautifully in accordance with a perfect rule, until the Lawgiver Himself having re-arranged it, wishing to order it anew, shall break up the first laws of nature by a fresh disposition. But, since it is not fitting to leave the demonstration of the argument unexamined-and, so to speak, half-lame-come let us, as it were completing our pair, bring forth the analogical sense, looking more deeply into the Scripture; for Paul is not to be despised when he passes over the literal meaning, and shows that the words extend to Christ and the Church.

2. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah 1.4, PG 70.192AB

Those who reject the historical meaning in the God-inspired Scriptures as something obsolete are avoiding the ability to apprehend rightly, according to the proper manner, the things written in them. For indeed spiritual contemplation is both good and profitable; and, in enlightening the eye of reason especially well, it reveals the wisest things. But whenever some historical events are presented to us by the Holy Scriptures, then in that instance, a useful search into the historical meaning is appropriate, in order that the God-inspired Scripture be revealed as salvific and beneficial to us in every way.

3. St. Nilus of Sinai, Letter 2.223, PG 79.316BC

If something has been recorded in the Old or New Testament to have happened historically, and this or that deed was manifestly accomplished, and we interpret it for our own purposes, using ideas and thoughts for our own spiritual edification, do not suppose that we have disregarded the letter, or rejected the history. By no means! We neither condemn nor reject the perceptible event that has been committed to history. Since, however, we are [in] the world, we benefit today by interpreting everything that happened yesterday for our own purposes.

4. St. Augustine, City of God 13.21
... These and similar allegorical interpretations may be suitably put upon Paradise without giving offence to any one, while yet we believe the strict truth of the history, confirmed by its circumstantial narrative of facts.

On Genesis: The Refutation of the Manichees 2.3,

So then, this whole text must first be discussed in terms of history, and then in terms of prophecy. In terms of history deeds and events are being related, in terms of prophecy future events are being foretold. One should not look with a jaundiced eye, to be sure, on anyone who wants to take everything that is said here absolutely literally, and who can avoid blasphemy in doing so, and present everything as in accordance with Catholic faith; on the contrary one should hold up such a person as an outstanding and holy admirable understander of the text.

5. Venerable Bede, On Genesis:

But it must be carefully observed, as each one devotes his attention to the allegorical senses, how far he may have forsaken the manifest truth of history by allegorical interpretation.

6. St. Anastasius of Sinai, Hexaemeron1.5.2, p. 19,

We do not seek, however, to annul the literal meaning. Rather, we seek the meaning that the Holy Spirit, in its great goodness and love for humanity, mystically encrypted within the literal. Toward this end we will examine the text first in its bodily or physical sense.

Hexaemeron 1.11.3, p. 41

We, however, while making the anagogical observations that have been discussed above, are not destroying the literal meaning. Come now. We clearly know that a perceptible darkness was lying upon the perceptible deep, and that a breath of God was borne upon the perceptible water …

Hexaemeron 3.2.1, p. 63

Remember me, O reader, as one who said that we are not destroying the literal meaning, but are pursuing its unwritten anagogy.

Hexaemeron 4.1.1, p. 95

I consider it reasonable, deserving full acceptance, and helpful to remind the readers throughout our exegesis of the Hexaemeron that, when we allegorically interpret the physical creations for their spiritual significance, we do not destroy the literal story about the works of God.

 

[jckstraw72]

as for whether Moses' vision was legit, or moreso a fancy story:

St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on Genesis 7:3
The blessed Moses, instructed by the Spirit of God, teaches us with such detail ... so that we might clearly know both the order and the way of the creation of each thing. If God had not been concerned for our salvation and had not guided the tongue of the Prophet, it would have been sufficient to say that God created the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and living creatures, without indicating either the order of the days or what was created earlier and what later.... But he distinguishes so clearly both the order of creation and the number of days, and instructs us about everything with great condescension, in order that we, coming to know the whole truth, would no longer heed the false teachings of those who speak of everything according to their own reasonings, but might comprehend the unutterable power of our Creator.

 

[YCGP]

Let me see if I got this straight:

The bible is to be read and preached through allegory. Still, the exact writings are to be looked at as literal. Through science we will make a connection between faith and human logic.

It is up to us to choose if we believe in God or not, and if we do then no number of worldly findings shall make us stray from the truth (JC).

Inevitably, all loose ends will be tied in good time.

 

[gzt]

I certainly don't think we can reject the historical aspects of Scripture by any means.

 

[gzt]

There is some uncertainty in how exactly we're supposed to read this, yes. There is always some aspect of historicity when the Bible makes a historical narrative, yes, but it doesnt' always mean everything happened exactly as written, and some more theological and poetic sections, such as Genesis 1, express very little in terms of historical data, though sometimes people in the Church have read them as if they do. In the end, we're doing the best we can but some things are still unanswered. I am sure that as time goes on the Church will have better models of how the earth is old, animals were eating each other hundreds of millions of years ago, etc fits in with the creation narrative. Until then, we just have to wait patiently.