The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟899,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Now all you must do, is show that Moses would not have written an allegory for creation, rather than a literal history.

1. Augustine admits it.
2. All scholars of OT studies and Heb language in all world class universities admit it.
3. The Bible makes it clear in legal code - that the same "days" at Sinai are the days in Gen 1-2

Then you're set.

BTW, it's obvious that Moses didn't write the first five books as we have them.

Deuteronomy 34:7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, neither were his teeth moved. 8And the children of Israel mourned for him in the plains of Moab thirty days: and the days of their mourning in which they mourned for Moses were ended.

Writing about his own death would have been pretty much impossible.

A number of books in the OT have a scribe adding the ending comments about the author - no "news here"

Your own Augustine admits the ages/timelines are literal in Genesis - and he is not even god at all, so how much more reason to just accept the Bible
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟899,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
That's not his idea. He said that creation was ex nihilo and instantaneous, from which all things developed as a consequence of the initial creation.
.

As already noted - Augustine does not allow even as much as 6000 years for the history of the Earth - and does not allow for figurative language in Genesis and he provides for both the instant creation of all -- and also the "seed" that later produce even more trees etc coming up later.

He was trying to compromise Genesis with Sirach 18:1 about instant creation -- not with Darwinism. He was going the opposite direction.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Psalm 27

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2020
1,072
512
Uk
✟114,865.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Now all you must do, is show that Moses would not have written an allegory for creation, rather than a literal history. Then you're set.

BTW, it's obvious that Moses didn't write the first five books as we have them.

Deuteronomy 34:7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, neither were his teeth moved. 8And the children of Israel mourned for him in the plains of Moab thirty days: and the days of their mourning in which they mourned for Moses were ended.

Writing about his own death would have been pretty much impossible.
All I have to do, is maintain my faith in what The Lord tells me to. But Thankyou :)
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,304
76
✟363,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
All I have to do, is maintain my faith in what The Lord tells me to.

Yes, it's worth mentioning that none of this has anything to do with salvation. Unless one makes an idol of one's beliefs in this regard, it won't mean anything to God.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,304
76
✟363,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
As already noted - Augustine does not allow even as much as 6000 years for the history of the Earth

Yes. In his day, even academics were unaware of the evidence for the great age of the Earth. However, Augustine, being relentlessly interested in the truth, did say that where scripture is not clear and there is difference among Christians, one should always be open to new information that might clarify it.

and does not allow for figurative language in Genesis

No, that's wrong. Augustine points out, for example that the text itself indicates that the "days" of creation are not literal periods of time.

and he provides for both the instant creation of all -- and also the "seed" that later produce even more trees etc coming up later.

Actually, he talked about this in terms of animals appearing:

For Augustine the seminal reasons have a real physical existence, but in the creation act recorded in Genesis 1 they were not produced with definite bodily form. They did not exist actually but only potentially,35 and contain as potential all possible species of particular things. This potentiality is actualised through the causative power God built into them, and which is sustained by God’s causative will.36 Indeed the seminal reasons do not and cannot exist apart from God’s continuing causal activity. God works internally in the seminal reasons as the highest cause. By this means he is working through the essence of things, whereas all other causes work externally on the seminal reasons.37As, therefore, in the case of spiritual life itself, no one except God can work righteousness in our minds, yet men also are able to preach the gospel as outward means, not only the good in sincerity, but also the evil in pretence; so in the creation of visible things it is God that works from within; but the exterior operations, whether of good or bad, of angels or men, or even of any kind of animal... are applied by Him to that nature of things wherein he created all things.38All change and development is ultimately dependent on God.39 As the seminal reasons develop they give form to matter by developing that which they are capable of becoming.40 When the earth was created it contained potentially within it as seminal reasons all the things which were to develop later.41 These seminal reasons were actually in only two of the elements, water and earth, since all living creatures came from these two elements.42 It was the causative power of God which enabled the living things to develop from these elements. The seminal reasons do not act independently but are dependent on external natural conditions. God does not interfere with his created order to induce the seminal reasons to act, but his ordering of all things provides suitable conditions for their development. The external conditions induce the activity but do not determine its direction.43...therefore we do not call parents the creators of men, nor farmers the creators of corn, although it is by the outward application of their actions that the power of God operates within for the creating of these things...
https://reformational.webs.com/Creation order and miracle according to Augustine.pdf

He was trying to compromise Genesis with Sirach 18:1 about instant creation -- not with Darwinism.

Well, that would be about 1500 years in the future. So he can be excused for not knowing that. And of course, Augustine lived before Luther trimmed out the books that didn't agree with his new doctrine of "faith only."
 
Upvote 0

Psalm 27

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2020
1,072
512
Uk
✟114,865.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Yes, it's worth mentioning that none of this has anything to do with salvation. Unless one makes an idol of one's beliefs in this regard, it won't mean anything to God.
Believing in Jesus has everything to do with salvation. Jesus gave me the answer/message, confirmed in Luke 16:31 and Jesus is God
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟899,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:
As already noted - Augustine does not allow even as much as 6000 years for the history of the Earth

Yes. In his day, even academics were unaware of the evidence for the great age of the Earth.

Neither Moses nor Augustine were arguing for Darwinism or 7 days of long ages. Both reject the symbolic view - since in Ex 20:8-11 Moses hard wires the days of Gen 1 to the days of Exodus 20 - day for day.

"six days you shall... for in six days the LORD (YHWH) made..." - same word, same context, same author same audience, same text section.

So apparent that even the scholars of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities accept it.

Augustine was not trying to bend the text to fit Darwinism but rather the instant creation of Sirach 18:1. He did not say that his a priori bias toward Sirach 8 was due to something "in the text" of Genesis 1 or had anything at all to do with the Hebrew grammar of Gen 1... and modern scholars of Hebrew and OT studies admit that this is the case.


The City of God
“Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. "

Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, The City of God, Book 12: Chapt. 10 [AD 419]
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟899,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
In speaking of the early chapters of Genesis, Augustine writes:

“All these things stood for something other than what they were, but all the same they were themselves bodily entities. And when the narrator mentioned them he was not employing figurative language, but giving an explicit account of things which had a forward reference that was figurative.” (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis VIII.4.8)​



No, that's wrong. Augustine points out, for example that the text itself indicates that the "days" of creation are not literal periods of time.

You appear to be saying that Augustine's statement on his own belief is not correct about what he himself believes. That is not logical.

The City of God
“Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. "

Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, The City of God, Book 12: Chapt. 10 [AD 419]
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟899,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
He was trying to compromise Genesis with Sirach 18:1 about instant creation -- not with Darwinism.

Well, that would be about 1500 years in the future. So he can be excused for not knowing that. And of course, Augustine lived before Luther trimmed out the books that didn't agree with his new doctrine of "faith only."

No doubt he lived before Darwin - the point is that exegesis of the text cannot presume Augustine was arguing for a longer timeline - he thought Sirach 8 made it clear that it was shorter than 7 days and was trying to "get there" by ignoring details in the text and relying on philosophy "to get there" not on Hebrew language syntax etc.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,304
76
✟363,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
No doubt he lived before Darwin - the point is that exegesis of the text cannot presume Augustine was arguing for a longer timeline

The known evidence in his day didn't indicate an ancient Earth, so it's not surprising.

he thought Sirach 8 made it clear that it was shorter than 7 days

His understanding was for an ex nihilo creation in an instant, followed by the unfolding of creation to produce everything else in time, such as animals.

Which turns out to fit pretty well, given the evidence an given God's word in scripture.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,304
76
✟363,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You appear to be saying that Augustine's statement on his own belief is not correct about what he himself believes. That is not logical.

You've missed what he said. This is his view:
When the earth was created it contained potentially within it as seminal reasons all the things which were to develop later.41 These seminal reasons were actually in only two of the elements, water and earth, since all living creatures came from these two elements.42 It was the causative power of God which enabled the living things to develop from these elements. The seminal reasons do not act independently but are dependent on external natural conditions. God does not interfere with his created order to induce the seminal reasons to act, but his ordering of all things provides suitable conditions for their development.

However, he did point out that the days of the creation week were clearly not literal days:
St. Augustine explains: "The sacred writer was able to separate in the time of his narrative what God did not separate in time in His creative act." In his view, the six days of creation convey the logical order of and relationship of created things, rather than a passage of time. He wrote, "But in the beginning He created all things together and completed the whole in six days, when six times he brought the 'day' which he made before the things which He made, not in a succession of periods of time but in a plan made known according to causes."
Just Genesis : Days of Creation: Literal or Figurative?
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,304
76
✟363,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Neither Moses nor Augustine were arguing for Darwinism or 7 days of long ages. Both reject the symbolic view - since in Ex 20:8-11 Moses hard wires the days of Gen 1 to the days of Exodus 20 - day for day.

"six days you shall... for in six days the LORD (YHWH) made..." - same word, same context, same author same audience, same text section.

It's an interesting new idea, but what is your evidence for your belief that if Moses cites an figurative verse, that converts it to a literal one?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PhantomGaze

Carry on my wayward son.
Aug 16, 2012
407
109
✟29,450.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It's more of a philosophical position than a research platform. But I think Denton might be onto something real, even if ID is a delusion.

"According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies. In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview."
From Nature's Destiny

I'm actually with you there. Philosophy can be a good tool for science though. Think of the utility methodological naturalism has had in science. It is neither a scientific hypothesis, nor an attempt to prove the underlying philosophy, rather merely a methodological tool. Even if naturalism is false, (something I believe) it has had a kind of natural utility. I think the same can be said for teleology. Both the language of design, and the position that various aspects of biology, cellular structures, proteins, etc. Have a purpose that can be discovered is a useful methodological tool. This also lays aside the question of whether ID is an illusion, and focuses on its usefulness.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,304
76
✟363,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I'm actually with you there. Philosophy can be a good tool for science though. Think of the utility methodological naturalism has had in science. It is neither a scientific hypothesis, nor an attempt to prove the underlying philosophy, rather merely a methodological tool.

Yes. Exactly.

Even if naturalism is false, (something I believe) it has had a kind of natural utility. I think the same can be said for teleology. Both the language of design, and the position that various aspects of biology, cellular structures, proteins, etc. Have a purpose that can be discovered is a useful methodological tool. This also lays aside the question of whether ID is an illusion, and focuses on its usefulness.

The major problem for ID in science is that it makes no testable predictions. "Design"is an unfortunate word, because it entails planning or ratiocination, something that would be inconsistent with an omnipotent Creator. Nevertheless, it is often used in a vague way by scientists and religious leaders alike to mean something else. I don't like it used in reference to an eternal God.

On the other hand, it certainly has a role in seeing God's hand in creation. While it's perfectly within God's ability to make a universe in which we could evolve, the number of events and physical constants required for it to be, is so large as to seem to have been impossible without a Creator to produce them.
 
Upvote 0

PhantomGaze

Carry on my wayward son.
Aug 16, 2012
407
109
✟29,450.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes. Exactly.



The major problem for ID in science is that it makes no testable predictions. "Design"is an unfortunate word, because it entails planning or ratiocination, something that would be inconsistent with an omnipotent Creator. Nevertheless, it is often used in a vague way by scientists and religious leaders alike to mean something else. I don't like it used in reference to an eternal God.

On the other hand, it certainly has a role in seeing God's hand in creation. While it's perfectly within God's ability to make a universe in which we could evolve, the number of events and physical constants required for it to be, is so large as to seem to have been impossible without a Creator to produce them.

I agree. I think "Design" lacks some important nuances. I think the term "Final Causes" might be more adequate to carry the meaning in some cases.

I don't think ID should be the theory per se, as it isn't really a counter to Evolution, but an argument toward (or hypothesis that) design could be evidenced empirically.

To replace or even contest Evolution as an idea we'd probably be looking at something more like this as an alternative hypothesis. But even that isn't challenging the idea that things evolve per se, but the stochastic mechanism that tends to be assumed.

(Personally I would like the term "Methodological Teleology," but that might just be me.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MittenMaven

Active Member
Mar 14, 2021
29
25
Mars
✟1,587.00
Country
Wallis And Futuna
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I believe in abiogenesis. The totality of general revelation speaks strongly toward the idea that known chemical and physical reactions left on their own in the observable and non observed universe will spontaneously generate simple life. Some of these earlier process can and have been proven under direct observation.
The Universe was created by a loving personal Gd who exists outside of the space time continuum. God created a universe that has hundreds of finely tuned physical properties that support and obviate the generation of life. It speaks to the Glory of our creator that He can do such wondrous things in creation of a universe that is designed to support and generate life.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
3. Young Earth Creationists - believe that the earth and universe are both young (less than 10,000 years old) and that all the diversity of species is the result of special creation, based on a literal reading of Scripture (even if not AS literal as those above).


So, where do you fit in? I don’t necessarily want everyone to post their "number", but it is interesting to see it all laid out like this. If any have suggestions or tweaks to make to the this list, go ahead and say so.

I would pick 3 because I am a young YEC however I believe anywhere from 6-15 thousand could be correct.

You can be a YEC and not follow James Ussher, since that is where the 6 thousand years comes from. Since I disagree with anyone who makes such outrageous claims as knowing the date of creation (October 23, 4004 BCE according to him) This makes anything else he says untrustworthy.

I also disagree with your assertion that flat earth is Biblical, I have studied many passages suggested by those who believe the earth is flat and none of those verses teach flat earth. The only teaching in scripture on the shape of the earth is that earth is a circle when looked at from a distance. Which both a flat disk and a sphere can look like. I see no other teaching on the shape of the earth whatsoever. They also use science to try and prove it is flat so that proves false on being only scriptural.
 
Upvote 0