Answers in Genesis promotes UFO book, aliens are really demons

[SBG]

You just said Augustine REJECTED six day creation. Your words: "but he utterly rejected a six day creation,"

Can we ever stay consistent, Vance?

 

[Vance]

You just said Augustine REJECTED six day creation. Your words: "but he utterly rejected a six day creation,"

Can we ever stay consistent, Vance?

He did, he completely rejected the idea that the creation took place over six literal 24-hour days, according to his analysis of Genesis. He still found it TRUE in the theological sense, even though he did not think it happened over six 24 hour days. Instead, he believed all of Creation took place in an instant, with "seminal seeds" being planted within God's Creation to come to fruition later on.

He seems to have no problem with this idea of it being TRUE while at the same time being very clear that he does not think that it happened literally. That is the point I have been making all along.

 

[Biliskner]

He seems to have no problem with this idea of it being TRUE while at the same time being very clear that he does not think that it happened literally. That is the point I have been making all along.

too bad Genesis is literally narrative = Augustine was wrong in his belief.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm

but... we are all human, i'm sure i believe false things of God.

 

[Vance]

If you are sure you can believe false things of God, why would you take a dogmatic position on a non-salvation issue?

 

[SBG]

I am rather curious how you can say 'he utterly rejected six creation' when He says six day creation is equally true as God creating everything in an instance. Am I the only one here who sees that this type of thinking just doesn't go mesh?

 

[Vance]

I am rather curious how you can say 'he utterly rejected six creation' when He says six day creation is equally true as God creating everything in an instance. Am I the only one here who sees that this type of thinking just doesn't go mesh?

What he utterly rejected is that God created over six literal 24-hour periods. He said that the reference to "six creation days" is still true because it is not false, in that it was not meant to convey actual history, but to provide an understandable framework for those who would not be able to grasp the idea of God creation everything in an instant (with seminal seeds of the rest of his Creation to come to fruition later). So, since it was not meant to convey an actual historical account, but to provide a convenient framework for thinking about the creation, it TRULY and accurately conveyed that message.

He believed that God created everything in an instant. In purely historical terms, it can not be LITERALLY both "in an instant" and "over six 24-hour periods". Only one of these can be what historically happened. He accepted that the former literally happened, and the latter was just a figurative frame of reference. Thus, he rejected the six day reference as literal history, but fully accepted it for what God intended it.

 

[SBG]

Ah so he utterly rejected six day creation and also believed it was true at the same time. LOL!

And Augustine never said that Genesis was not history. You really need to read what he writes before you spew out this false information of yours.

Try reading my signature for starts.

 

[Vance]

Where you are having a problem is seeing how someone can see something as "true" while rejecting it as strict literal history. This is the core problem I have been trying to explain to you for a long time, but you don't seem to be getting it. Augustine is just another example of what I have been saying.

Here is an analysis of Augustine's view from a Creationist who has reviewed the positions of the early Church fathers on the "days" issues.

"In his earlier works Augustine maintained that these were literal 24 hour days,(52) but later in his Literal Meaning of Genesis he changed his view.(53) The days of Genesis 1 were not for Augustine temporal periods at all, but a way of describing creation as it was revealed to the angels.(54) Six days are described, not because God needed that length of time, but because six is the first perfect number.(55) Thus the “...story of the six days is a dramatic representation of what took place at once as a whole.”(56) Augustine even suggests a logical framework for the six days, based on the numbers which make up the number 6 (1, 2 and 3) . . . He admits that there may be a better interpretation of the meaning of the passage, but admits that after years of study he has been unable to find it. To those who disagree with him he wishes God’s help in finding the true meaning."

You can find that here:

http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm

 

[SBG]

Yes, I am aware of this 'core problem' that you have been trying to explain to me. It is either I don't get it, or I don't believe it.

Call me silly, but I will just have to refer to the Bible instead of you or science.

 

[Vance]

Yes, I am aware of this 'core problem' that you have been trying to explain to me. It is either I don't get it, or I don't believe it.

Call me silly, but I will just have to refer to the Bible instead of you or science.

So, do you reject the analysis of that Creationist (and every other commentator on Augustine who agrees he did not accept a literal six days)?

 

[SBG]

Actually, I go by Augustines works in City of God where he says six day creation is also correct.

I like to go to the actual source of things, the writers themselves.

 

[Vance]

Ah, but I have provided you with his exact writings. The problem is that the man changed his mind, and you are simply choosing what suits you best. I, on the other hand, don't even care where he ended up on this issue, since it was obviously one he struggled with. Instead I look to his very clear and dramatic statements about the proper exegesis and hermenuetics, which includes NOT taking a dogmatic position AND allowing scientific facts to inform and clarify our interpretation.

But what is very important is the commentator I was quoting above is a creationist whose agenda on that very page is to show that most early church fathers accepted a literal six days. It is thus contrary to his agenda to conclude that Augustine reached a different conclusion, so there is no bias in his analysis.

Another important point is that, at least at one point in his thinking about Genesis, he had no problem accepting that something could be TRUE without being literal history. This is something you seem to think that the ancients did not do, but there is Augustine doing it, plain as day. Regardless of what he thought before or after, this shows that such an approach was not contrary to the ancient mindset.

You seem to reaching the hands over the ears and "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" point of this discussion.

 

[SBG]

You will also see in one of the threads here I have also said Augustine, Origen and another held a figurative view on the word yom.

My point is that even though Augustine held his figurative view of yom, he also believe a literal view was also correct.

Now this theology, I have no problem with. As I have said over and over, I have no concern with how old the earth is. I know you have a vested concern with the earth being old, because as you said in another thread, if the earth is not old then evolution could not have had enough time to happen.

The point I have made, with the words of the Fathers themselves, is that they refuted the earth being old against the Greeks, they refuted the philosophical view that everything that is created came about from spontaneous production. These philosophical views are not that far off from the scientific theories of today.

The point is, the Church Fathers unanimously believed the earth was young, because Scripture supported this view. They also unanimously believed that God did create a real Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him, and Eve was created from Adam's rib.

Lastly, the Fathers refuted the Greeks who said there were men before Adam, and upheld the theological point that there was no death before the fall of man.

Now this is completely off the subject of the topic you created to bash a book you have never read because it was on a website by a group of Christians you cannot stand. Shall be get back to that? Have you read the book?

 

[Vance]

That is a long way around to admit that Augustine did not accept that God created in six literal days.

The issue of the age of the earth among the early fathers is irrelevant, since they did not have the data we do today. To try to guess how they would react to this information is guesswork. Personally, I believe many of them would have fully accepted an old earth, but that is besides the point. It is unfair to them to hold them to scientific conclusions when they did not have all the data. What we do know about Augustine, at least, is that he would have definitely taken the scientific evidence into account and let it inform his reading of Genesis. Everything in his analysis of Genesis shows this, just as it shows that he did NOT think this stuff was crystal clear, and he did NOT think Christians should take dogmatic positions on it. And he DID think that Christians could hold different interpretations on this without it damaging faith.

 

[SBG]

That is a long way around to admit that Augustine did not accept that God created in six literal days.

The issue of the age of the earth among the early fathers is irrelevant, since they did not have the data we do today.

Actually, they did. They had the Old Testament Scrolls, and it was very common for the letters and Gospels to be read in Church and passed around to many Churches.

You say it is irrelevant because it goes against your world view. Fact of the matter is, the Fathers argued that it was a theological point, not a science point - the age of the earth.

If it was irrelevant, why did they spend time talking, preaching, and refuting others who taught differently than this? Why did they say Scripture clearly teaches it and that their modern day science that said the earth was very ancient, was wrong?

All of the Fathers said the earth was young, and they said this we can be certain of because the Bible clearly teaches it. The Fathers that were taught by the Apostles, all taught the earth was young.

But of course all of this is irrelevant, because of YOUR world view.

To try to guess how they would react to this information is guesswork. Personally, I believe many of them would have fully accepted an old earth, but that is besides the point. It is unfair to them to hold them to scientific conclusions when they did not have all the data. What we do know about Augustine, at least, is that he would have definitely taken the scientific evidence into account and let it inform his reading of Genesis. Everything in his analysis of Genesis shows this, just as it shows that he did NOT think this stuff was crystal clear, and he did NOT think Christians should take dogmatic positions on it. And he DID think that Christians could hold different interpretations on this without it damaging faith.

Of course you believe that, that is what you want to believe. You MUST believe an old earth, otherwise evolution could not have happened. You have NO choice in believing this, to uphold evolution.

No, it is unfair to them that you say these teachings of their are irrelevant, that their refutes to the Greeks are irrelevant, that Pauls teachings against the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers on the creation of the earth, are irrelevant. These Greeks believed in an ancient earth, spontaneous production of life from the earth, a local flood, and many gods. These same Greeks Paul refuted on these matters, and Clement who studied under Paul refuted them on the age of earth, and the flood - which he taught to be a global one.

But tell me, we are never going to agree, so why do you keep trying to get me to agree with you? I will not follow your liberalism of taking the Bible and picking and choosing what you shall believe and what you shall call a myth. We have yet to have a dialogue, because even when I have given you concessions on certain issues (ie. some Church Fathers believing yom to be figurative) you still turn around and tell me I miss the whole point. You don't ever concede, nor do you listen with an open ear, you just want to prove anyone who believes God created in six days to be wrong.

You know, being a lawyer, you would think you would understand how to negotiate with people. But all I have seen is you telling any creationists, every chance you get, that we are all wrong. That the early Church was wrong. The Apostles were wrong. Vance is right. And you talk so much about humbleness.....

 

[Vance]

I am not trying to get you to agree that Theistic Evolution is the proper approach in the least. What I am trying to do is get you to see is that there are viable and arguable positions that you should not dogmatically reject because you are not infallible. Yes, I think Young Earth Creationists are wrong about their view of origins. Most Christians think YEC's are wrong, it is not just me. All I want is for all YEC's to approach this subject the way Augustine did, with the idea that we should not hold ANY view on these issues as absolute, for the very reason he gave in my signature line. That is my ultimate goal, since no matter who is ultimately right, a great stumbling block will have been removed.

Now, at the same time, this forum is set up to discuss and debate these very issues. Do you think they should do away with this forum?

Lastly, it is not really even you who I am primarily talking. Have you noticed that for every member, there are many more non-members reading these discussions? This is a mission field.

 

[SBG]

Yes, a mission field to let those non-Christians know that those Apostolic Fathers who wrote the NT were wrong and those whom they taught were wrong. Yes, I can see how that helps people to trust the Apostles on other issues concerning Jesus Christ. ::rolling eyes::

 

[SBG]

Do I think they should do away from this forum? Yes. Nothing good has come out of this forum other than a bunch of Christians saying the Apostles were wrong, we today are right.

BTW, Jesus Christ, the One who those Apostles wrote about, the ones who are wrong about their other writings, He is the Savior of the world. How do I know? Because those Apostles - who were wrong - testify about Him.

You shoot yourself in the foot and you will never see it because you are blind.

 

[Biliskner]

If you are sure you can believe false things of God, why would you take a dogmatic position on a non-salvation issue?

i laugh at the word.

 

[Biliskner]

Ah so he utterly rejected six day creation and also believed it was true at the same time. LOL!

And Augustine never said that Genesis was not history. You really need to read what he writes before you spew out this false information of yours.

Try reading my signature for starts.

i know SBG. i'm following this thread and dang, is it hard to understand HOW that is possible!

i might go think about time traveling and quantum fluctuations in the multiple universes theory just to ease my mind...