Let's Discuss The Bible: Genesis 1 and 2

Hoghead1 · May 13, 2016

St_Worm2 said:
The jury is out for me Hoghead. Until then, I'll keep the more literal understanding of God's word as what I believe, at least until something comes along that causes me not to (and so far, I'm not convinced by the things I've learned ).

Also (for whatever it's worth), I don't believe in a "passive reception" of the word of God. Rather, I believe that God worked through the human authors and their personalities, perspectives, etc. (which He is responsible for creating) when the Bible was written, and I believe that He did so in such a way that every verse and passage says exactly what He meant them to say.

Otherwise, the Bible is simply a collection of the sayings of men and not the word of God. So that explains the literary style differences. As for true contradictions, I've read the entire Bible at least once or twice and have yet to find any (or at least any of grave significance). Please post a couple so I/we can see what you mean. Thanks!

And if it's true that God is not omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, or for that matter, if there is a single "maverick molecule" that is outside of His purview and ordination, then at least two other things are true as well, 1) He's a very powerful being, but He's not "God" and 2) there isn't a single thing He's said to or promised us that I would be able to depend on coming true.

How does the saying go, "He's either God of all, or He's not God at all" .. or something like that.

God ordaining whatsoever comes to pass can simply mean that He has "approved" of it happening (IOW, that He's "allowing" it to happen), it doesn't have to mean that He is the "cause" behind it This is especially true, for instance, when He ok's something that is sinful.

We're getting pretty far away from Genesis 1-2, yes?

--David

Well, the fact of teh matter is, there are about 100 major contradictions in Scripture. We could devote a whole thread to just those. I find Genesis provides two conflicting chronologies, for example. I don't see how one can miss that. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. Also there is the matter of 2 Sam. 21:19, which, in the original Hebrew, states that Elhanan killed Goliath of Gath. If you Bible says "brother of," that was something added in by the translators. So there two for you right here to think on. Also, there is the sticky matter of the canon. Which Bible is the right one? The Septuagint or the Masoretic? In other words, should the Bible include the Apocrypha or not? Largely, that whole matter rests on some arbitrary human decision-making down the line.
Next, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be assuming that God is a cosmic dictator with complete and total monopolistic control over the universe. Everything that happens was all predetermined by God to happen. I take issue with the model of God. I believe divine omnipotence is a major theological mistake. It undercuts any sense of freedom and choice. If wee have some real degree of freedom, then we have to decide for ourselves. God cannot decide for us. Also, omnipotence makes God the author of all evil. I view the universe as more like a democracy. I believe it takes far more skill to rule over a democracy, participate in the free self-decisions of others, than to be a dictator.

Hoghead1 · May 13, 2016

St_Worm2 said:
I know, you already told us that. I was simply disagreeing because I don't see the same things that you do. The difference I see is a matter of emphasis or focus within the narrative (Genesis, as I mentioned before is written as a story is written, not as a scientific textbook ).

You can take a 4 yr old to the zoo and say something like, "see those apes, we used to be just like them, but we're less hairy now". And they'll think about it for a moment and say, "wow, really"? I'm bett'n an adult in either the Bronze Age or the Iron Age would have been able to understand that, and quite a bit more, actually!!

I do agree however that Bronze Age Israel (or even Iron Age Israel .. when Jesus was here) would have been lost trying to understand all that is involved with modern evolutionary theory. But, "as the apes are now, you once were" (and other such sentiments), would not have been beyond them. So why make up a story like the Biblical account of Creation since it wasn't necessary to do so This would also mean that Jesus taught us many truths about life (truths that were somehow tied to the Creation Story and/or our progenitors) that He knew were all based upon a lie.

Why would He do that?

Yours and His,
David

I don't think it would have been a simple matter like telling a child he's related to apes. Incidentally, I've seen that done with children and they generally really freak. Even in our modern, scientific culture, people freak out over the notion that we are somehow related to apes.
Jesus was not here as a science teacher. In fact, he taught nothing at all about nature. Ask yourself a question, The Resurrection obviously marked a turning point in human history and our relationships with God, but what does the Bible have to say about how this affected all the dogs and cats of the world, what was its impact on the natural order? In the Bible, God's major revelations occur in history, not nature. The fact that Jesus spoke about Adam and Eve does not mean he was lying. It just means he was speaking in the custom of the time. Truth had a different meaning in biblical times than it does today. For example, in ancient times, it was OK to take later ideas and project them back to some earlier major figure in order to legitimate them. Hence, the ancient Israelites attributed all those OT laws back to Moses and credited Moses with writing the Pentateuch. Of course, all this "funny business" with authorship and sources is viewed with abhorrence today. But we live in a very different world, with all sorts of copyright laws and rules for citations, etc., many of which are unique to the 20th century.

Kenny'sID · May 13, 2016

St_Worm2 said:
His Kenny, as Christians (or Jews) I think that is always the best advice Since God has already revealed all that we need to know, love and obey Him (Deuteronomy 29:29), there's certainly no problem investigating things of this nature, but we can find ourselves in trouble if we start to believe something with absolute certainty about God (or about how He did something) if the understanding of what or how God did something is still somewhat shrouded in mystery (and especially when it differs greatly from His own account of things).

Again though, I love looking into this, especially the theory of evolution (since it has so much physical evidence behind .. it as LoAmmi has already mentioned).

--David

I like looking into it as well and even imagining how he did what he did. Since we were made in his image, I often see God doing some of the same things we might do when we create things..experimenting, trying it this way and that way, even talking it over with others to come up with the best end product. Yes he speaks things into being, but did he always? or did he have to work up to that point...IDK?

We were made to be inquisitive, and I think it even says in the bible somewhere in so many words, it is for man to figure out the wonders of his creation/the universe. I'm a tinkerer/jack of all trades, and like others, it's somewhat because it's always been less expensive to DIY, but also because I just want to know how things work for myself...why should the experts have all the fun.

FrancesJames · May 13, 2016

No, I don't read Genesis literally. I think that they're both trying to say something about the nature of creation--what that is is dependent upon the reader. What I take from it is that the universe is in order by God--it is under His direction. What that order is or how things are meant to turn out can only be seen by Him. His creation does not begin and end with Genesis--Genesis, as the title implies, is merely the beginning. It is not the end product. In Genesis we see many different kinds of beginnings starting and finishing, and with each new generation we see in the book we see a beginning and end. But the work of creation goes on.

That's what I get out of it anyway.

An allegory is exactly what St. Augustine suggests, saying,

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]"

In the book, Genesis ad Literam he suggests that the interpretation of Genesis ought to change depending on new information.

St_Worm2 · May 13, 2016

FrancesJames said:
No, I don't read Genesis literally. I think that they're both trying to say something about the nature of creation--what that is is dependent upon the reader. What I take from it is that the universe is in order by God--it is under His direction. What that order is or how things are meant to turn out can only be seen by Him. His creation does not begin and end with Genesis--Genesis, as the title implies, is merely the beginning. It is not the end product. In Genesis we see many different kinds of beginnings starting and finishing, and with each new generation we see in the book we see a beginning and end. But the work of creation goes on.

That's what I get out of it anyway.

An allegory is exactly what St. Augustine suggests, saying,

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]"

In the book, Genesis ad Literam he suggests that the interpretation of Genesis ought to change depending on new information.

Hi FJ, the CCC (whose writers were obviously privy to much newer information than St. Augustine was) speaks at length and in very non-allegorical terms about Adam. I'm certain you are familiar with it, so do you believe that the CCC was mistaken in taking such a position (which is obviously different than yours), or do you mean that even newer evidence has surfaced since it was first published?

*(I realize that the RCC has also taken a somewhat different stance since JP2 lifted the condemnation against Galileo, but that was at about the same time that the CCC was published, wasn't it?).

Thanks!

--David

FrancesJames · May 13, 2016

If the CCC is speaking in literal terms about Adam, then yes--I would say that it is mistaken. The Pope, or several Popes, having accepted evolution as a scientific truth have as much as done away with the idea that there could have been a literal Adam.

St_Worm2 · May 13, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
I don't think it would have been a simple matter like telling a child he's related to apes. Incidentally, I've seen that done with children and they generally really freak. Even in our modern, scientific culture, people freak out over the notion that we are somehow related to apes.

You could be right in most cases, but I've had the opposite experience at the zoo (the kids were elementary school age though, not 3-4).

Hoghead1 said:
Jesus was not here as a science teacher. In fact, he taught nothing at all about nature. Ask yourself a question, The Resurrection obviously marked a turning point in human history and our relationships with God, but what does the Bible have to say about how this affected all the dogs and cats of the world, what was its impact on the natural order? In the Bible, God's major revelations occur in history, not nature. The fact that Jesus spoke about Adam and Eve does not mean he was lying. It just means he was speaking in the custom of the time. Truth had a different meaning in biblical times than it does today. For example, in ancient times, it was OK to take later ideas and project them back to some earlier major figure in order to legitimate them. Hence, the ancient Israelites attributed all those OT laws back to Moses and credited Moses with writing the Pentateuch. Of course, all this "funny business" with authorship and sources is viewed with abhorrence today. But we live in a very different world, with all sorts of copyright laws and rules for citations, etc., many of which are unique to the 20th century.

We'll have to discuss the authorship of the Five Books of Moses at another time. As for the rest, you're right, the Lord regularly refers to natural events, but normally in the context of spiritual ones. St. Paul talked a little bit more about the cosmos and nature (i.e. Romans 1) and he, in fact, speaks directly to the impact that the Resurrection (and the redemption of mankind) will have on dogs and cats (as well as the rest of the created order .. see Romans 8:19-25).

We will also need to discuss the times in which the Lord lived, and whether or not there were minds back then that could have properly assessed the truth about Creation (assuming that Darwinian theory is the truth, of course).

--David

Papias · May 13, 2016

St_Worm2 said:
Hi FJ, the CCC (whose writers were obviously privy to much newer information than St. Augustine was) speaks at length and in very non-allegorical terms about Adam.

A literal Adam as a transitional ape-human is consistent with both scripture and evolution. The CCC is fully consistent with a modern, mainstream acceptance of evolution. Not only is this clear on reading it, but Popes have confirmed this too. I'll explain a bit more about Adam as a transitional ape below.

St_Worm2 said:
*(I realize that the RCC has also taken a somewhat different stance since JP2 lifted the condemnation against Galileo, but that was at about the same time that the CCC was published, wasn't it?).

Thanks!

--David

Yes, both were in the 1990's - they are all consistent with modern evolution. It's not "a different stance". See below.

FrancesJames said:
.....The Pope, or several Popes, having accepted evolution as a scientific truth .....

Yes. The Catholic support for modern evolution is so consistent and strong that I'm surprised when I come across Catholics who aren't aware of it (which happens regularly).

Here is a large paper overseen by the Pope on this:
Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p80.htm

From it:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

Prior to Benedict XVI's 2007 comments, Pope John Paul II also said evolution was "effectively proven fact."

John Paul II in 1996:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points."

A list showing the RCC acceptance of evolution:

Humani Generis, an official papal encyclical by Pope Pious XII which allows evolution.
Interpretation of Humani Generis by Pope John Paul II, just in case anyone was unclear that Humani Generis allows for evolution
The fact that evolution is openly taught by Catholic teachers to Catholic students in Catholic Universities and Schools, this means that the Catholic church teaches evolution to more people than any other worldwide group - religious or secular. The Catholic church teaches evolution to thousands of times more people than all atheist groups combined.
Confirmation of open support of evolution by the Vatican in a commissioned report chaired by Pope Emeritus Benedict, saying evolution is "virtually certain",
Many of the most outspoken evolution supporters are Catholic, such as Ken Miller, Dr. Ayayla, etc.
Clear statements from the last three Popes (Francis, Benedict, JPII) in support of Evolution over Creationism.

Note that the list includes at least three popes, an official encyclical, a Vatican commission report, and the actions of thousands of Catholic officials doing their jobs, right now.

FrancesJames said:
.....the idea that there could have been a literal Adam.

Adam as a transitional ape is both literal and fully consistent with evolution. Thus, there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. (he was not literally made of mud, nor literally made before the other animals, etc.) He was a member of a community (of non-human apes, who were only very slightly different from him), and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today – he was the first to whom God divinely gave a soul. Understanding how populations interbreed makes it obvious that all humans today are descended from him. Original sin did enter the human race though him, because he was the first to be divinely given a soul by God, and perhaps to be developed to the point of being able to conceptualize God, and hence to be able to rebel against God. The idea of Adam as a real, single, historical person, who brought about original sin, and who is the literal ancestor of all humans alive today, is fully compatible with modern science, and an important part, for some, of theistic evolution.

In Christ-

Papias

FrancesJames · May 13, 2016

I see how it's possible to understand Genesis saying that; but that's not what I take out of it. I think that the better way to read Genesis--and this is just my take on it, of course--is to see Adam not as a single man--because science seems to suggest that when creatures evolve they do in fact evolve in groups--but as a metaphorical transitional ape-man which represented the whole group of transitional ape-men who had evolved to the point where they might according to their DNA be called human and had been endowed with souls. The Fall of Adam and Eve is therefor an allegory for the initial disobedience committed by that collective group of ape-men and women.

Now, that's just another interpretation.

Papias · May 13, 2016

FrancesJames said:
I see how it's possible to understand Genesis saying that; but that's not what I take out of it. .....
Now, that's just another interpretation.

Yes, of course! Your metaphorical interpretation is good too. I only pointed out the transitional ape Adam because many Catholics do see Genesis saying a literal, single, Adam - and so this interpretation allows that, while still being consistent with reality.

FrancesJames said:
-is to see Adam not as a single man--because science seems to suggest that when creatures evolve they do in fact evolve in groups-

I think you misunderstood the "Adam as transitional ape" interpretation. That's OK, it's not something that's intuitive. The "Adam as a single transitional ape" idea still has creatures (humans) evolving as a group. It's completely consistent with science. The humanoid population never is small - never less than, say, thousands of individuals.

Let me explain.

Consider the hominid population that is evolving to be more and more human. It consists of all non-humans (apes that are nearly human), each represented by an asterisk, below, with around a million individuals in the population:

Gen 1 ****************************************** (+ a million more or so)

Call that Generation 1 (Gen1)

Now, in Gen 2, A hominid is born whom God gives a soul. This is the first human, Adam. Note that Adam is nearly indistinguishable from the other individuals. Along with his human wife, Eve (who also has a soul), generation 2 looks like this, with humans marked in bold :

Gen 2 ******************************************* (+ a million more or so)

Now, Adam and Eve have many kids, and each of them is human, has inherited original sin, and is marked in blue. Polygenism is avoided because only Adam and Eve are human, thus we are descended from a single pair of humans, but not a single pair of ancestors.

Gen 3 ***************************************** (+ a million more or so)

Of course, a child of whom one parent has original sin will also inherit original sin, and be human, so, like the descendants of Jacob, the descendants of Adam and Eve increase with each generation, EVEN IF THE WHOLE POPULATION ISN'T INCREASING:

Gen 4 *************************************** (+ a million more or so)

So even after just a few generations, most of the nearby hominids are descendants of Adam, and are human, and over time this will spread to the whole population.

Gen 7 ********************************************* (+ a million more or so)

So fast forwarding just a few thousand years, the whole population is human.

Gen 583 **********************************(+ a million more or so)

Notice that at no time was the whole breeding population limited to just two individuals. See Dr. Ayayla's statement:

We know that our ancestors were never at any time just two individuals. Modern genetic analysis allows us to conclude that through millions of years of our history, there have been always at any time at the very least several thousand individuals. So we don't descend from a single pair. (Dr. Francisco Ayala - a Catholic)

See? We don't descend from only a single pair of ancestors, as the good Dr. is pointing out. At the same time, we can be descended from a single pair of humans, as shown above.

In Christ -

Papias

Isaacsname · May 13, 2016

The " creation account " will never be literally true no matter how badly people want it to be

It's a complex mathematical puzzle meant to be solved by the " Son of Man "

The truth contain therein is far more profound than what anybody is aware of, currently

dzheremi · May 13, 2016

It seems that the Early Church Fathers, even those known for their allegorical perfection such as St. Ephrem, believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis (you can see this in St. Ephrem's commentary on Genesis, where he writes that we are not to suppose that Genesis ought to be taken allegorically), at least in the sense that it describes what actually, literally did happen. And I agree with that 100%, and see no reason not to (scientific, religious, or otherwise).

What is less clear to me is whether or not the fathers also taught that "days" as spoken of in the Bible are literal 24-hour periods, as we think of them today. I am inclined to believe that they did not, due to the varying uses of the word "day" in the Bible itself, and in their commentaries about it. As it is written in 2 Peter 3:8 (admittedly not a source that is authoritative for the OP as a Jew, but it darn well should be for the majority of this website, and anyway it is a paraphrase of Psalm 90) “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

So while it may seem weird, I think there is room for both allegory (sorry, Mor Ephrem) and literalism in Genesis, so long as we're careful about which passage should be understood in which way. Even my own bishop, HG Bishop Youssef, who has written against evolution and claims in those writings that God does not create using evolution, makes that point by pointing out that, when it comes to the scriptures, a "day" cannot be assumed to be a 24-hour period.

LoAmmi · May 13, 2016

dzheremi said:
It seems that the Early Church Fathers, even those known for their allegorical perfection such as St. Ephrem, believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis (you can see this in St. Ephrem's commentary on Genesis, where he writes that we are not to suppose that Genesis ought to be taken allegorically), at least in the sense that it describes what actually, literally did happen. And I agree with that 100%, and see no reason not to (scientific, religious, or otherwise).

What is less clear to me is whether or not the fathers also taught that "days" as spoken of in the Bible are literal 24-hour periods, as we think of them today. I am inclined to believe that they did not, due to the varying uses of the word "day" in the Bible itself, and in their commentaries about it. As it is written in 2 Peter 3:8 (admittedly not a source that is authoritative for the OP as a Jew, but it darn well should be for the majority of this website, and anyway it is a paraphrase of Psalm 90) “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

So while it may seem weird, I think there is room for both allegory (sorry, Mor Ephrem) and literalism in Genesis, so long as we're careful about which passage should be understood in which way. Even my own bishop, HG Bishop Youssef, who has written against evolution and claims in those writings that God does not create using evolution, makes that point by pointing out that, when it comes to the scriptures, a "day" cannot be assumed to be a 24-hour period.

I'd say one of the problems with that interpretation is that the days are specified as being evening then morning. We're not being given just "a day" we're being told that it's the rotation of the Earth that's being shown as a day.

Kenny'sID · May 13, 2016

FrancesJames said:
The Pope, or several Popes, having accepted evolution as a scientific truth have as much as done away with the idea that there could have been a literal Adam.

That's too bad.

Papias · May 13, 2016

dzheremi said:
It seems that the Early Church Fathers,..... believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis

Simply and demonstrably false. As already shown on this thread, some Early Church Fathers rejected a literal interpretation (such as St. Augusting, already shown on this thread), and some others used a literal interpretation (St. Ephrem, as you mentioned). The upshot is that there was a mix of views, and so if some claims that all the Early Church Fathers were one way, they are wrong (and not reading the whole thread).

In Christ-

-Papias

Born Again2004 · May 13, 2016

I have nothing in me so far that contradicts the faith that God has sub-planted in me. It is by this God given gift that I believe, that I am saved, resurrected have eternal life. It is in this same faith that I believe in the infallible word of God. Does that mean I take him literally, word for word? For what he has done for me and, so yes as best as I can, until something else better comes along and, something tells me this is it. A "Literalist" will argue I am sure but, though I believe in the Genesis account, it really doesn't make any difference one way or another. I live in the New Covenant and the power of Grace. So, he says this to me: 2 Corinthians 12:9 and that is good enough for me. If I were to say that the Genesis account is all hype with no accuracy, then I would say that John 1:1 is possibly in error also...but I don't!

St_Worm2 · May 13, 2016

Here is something else to consider:

Perhaps we ought not to think of these creatures at the moment they were produced as subject to the processes of nature which we now observe in them, but rather as under the wonderful and unutterable power of the Wisdom of God, which reaches from end to end mightily and governs all graciously. For this power of Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps. It was just as easy, then, for God to create everything as it is for Wisdom to exercise this mighty power. For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation. Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated by John Hammond Taylor (1982), Vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 33, paragraph 51–52, p. 141, italics in the original. New York: Newman Press.

And just one more short excerpt for now:

“Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.” Augustine. The City of God, translated by G. G. Walsh and G. Monahan (1952), Book 12, Chapter 11, p. 263. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.

It seems that at least this ECF was not onboard the Darwinian bandwagon, at least not as much as we were led to believe earlier in this thread. Perhaps he changed his views later in life? (though I don't believe The City of God was one of his earlier works)

Yours and His,
David

dzheremi · May 13, 2016

LoAmmi said:
I'd say one of the problems with that interpretation is that the days are specified as being evening then morning. We're not being given just "a day" we're being told that it's the rotation of the Earth that's being shown as a day.

Does the Hebrew literally say "rotation of the Earth"? Because of course it does say that "God separated light from darkness", but I see no indication in the text itself or from the fathers that this is to be understood in the sense of a day as we understand it today, namely a definite period of light and a definite period of darkness that is calculable by man. In fact, in his homilies on Genesis, St. John Chrysostom says by saying "He separated", we are to understand that "He gave each its own place and defined its appropriate time" -- so the definition of "day" is relative to what God did in process of creation, rather than referring to the rotation of the Earth. Granted we know these things to occur because of the Earth's rotation, but if, like the early Church, we presuppose that concepts such as "morning", "evening", etc. did not exist until the separation of the light and the darkness (and their naming as "day" and "night"), then it is not a problem. Of course there is morning and evening and those make a day, because that's what the text tells us "one day" is. But where does it say it is a 24-hour period, as we understand "a day" to be in the scientific, secular sense? Are we dealing with the matters of God or modern man? In fact, if I'm going to be quoting St. John Chrysostom (who is far from the only early Christian writer of note on this topic, but is the only writer whose sermons on Genesis I have available to me right now, since my books are all in storage), he strongly suggests later on in his sermons that the division into days is a kind of concession to man, so that we might understand how the creation happened: "Then, when He had assigned to each its own name, He linked the two together in the words: 'Evening came, and morning came: one day.' He made a point of speaking of the end of the night and the end of the day as one, so as to grasp a certain order and sequence in visible things and to avoid any impression of confusion." In the same homily, he makes the point that God is certainly capable of creating all things in one day, so why even bother to enumerate them, as He did? I could be wrong, but it seems that this is for our sake. Whether or not it should therefore be taken literally is a matter for some debate, but I think that those who do take it so literally might be confusing their own experience of time (in the sense of 24-hour days) with God's, which is necessarily not the same (since, after all, He's the one who made day and night in the first place).

LoAmmi · May 13, 2016

dzheremi said:
Does the Hebrew literally say "rotation of the Earth"? Because of course it does say that "God separated light from darkness", but I see no indication in the text itself or from the fathers that this is to be understood in the sense of a day as we understand it today, namely a definite period of light and a definite period of darkness that is calculable by man. In fact, in his homilies on Genesis, St. John Chrysostom says by saying "He separated", we are to understand that "He gave each its own place and defined its appropriate time" -- so the definition of "day" is relative to what God did in process of creation, rather than referring to the rotation of the Earth. Granted we know these things to occur because of the Earth's rotation, but if, like the early Church, we presuppose that concepts such as "morning", "evening", etc. did not exist until the separation of the light and the darkness (and their naming as "day" and "night"), then it is not a problem. Of course there is morning and evening and those make a day, because that's what the text tells us "one day" is. But where does it say it is a 24-hour period, as we understand "a day" to be in the scientific, secular sense? Are we dealing with the matters of God or modern man? In fact, if I'm going to be quoting St. John Chrysostom (who is far from the only early Christian writer of note on this topic, but is the only writer whose sermons on Genesis I have available to me right now, since my books are all in storage), he strongly suggests later on in his sermons that the division into days is a kind of concession to man, so that we might understand how the creation happened: "Then, when He had assigned to each its own name, He linked the two together in the words: 'Evening came, and morning came: one day.' He made a point of speaking of the end of the night and the end of the day as one, so as to grasp a certain order and sequence in visible things and to avoid any impression of confusion." In the same homily, he makes the point that God is certainly capable of creating all things in one day, so why even bother to enumerate them, as He did? I could be wrong, but it seems that this is for our sake. Whether or not it should therefore be taken literally is a matter for some debate, but I think that those who do take it so literally might be confusing their own experience of time (in the sense of 24-hour days) with God's, which is necessarily not the same (since, after all, He's the one who made day and night in the first place).

Of course the Hebrew doesn't say rotation or anything like that. But the Sun and the Moon are created and the same words continue.

14 Then God said: Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the seasons, the days and the years, 15 and serve as lights in the dome of the sky, to illuminate the earth. And so it happened: 16 God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night, and the stars. 17 God set them in the dome of the sky, to illuminate the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 Evening came, and morning followed—the fourth day.

So, we're talking the Sun, the Moon, and Evening and morning after that.

FrancesJames · May 13, 2016

Kenny'sID said:
That's too bad.

Nope.

Let's Discuss The Bible: Genesis 1 and 2

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Love is patient, Love is kind

Simul Justus et Peccator

Love is patient, Love is kind

Simul Justus et Peccator

Listening to TW4

Love is patient, Love is kind

Listening to TW4

Newbie

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Dispassionate

Well-Known Member

Listening to TW4

Well-Known Member

Simul Justus et Peccator

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Dispassionate

Love is patient, Love is kind

Similar threads