Historical Views on Creation

[callmeMurph]

I know there are several views on creation today... Young Earth, Old Earth, Evolutionary, etc. What did the Church believe in the past? Did they read it literally or figuratively? (Please provide sources)

Does it matter what they believed in the past?

From what I've read it seems like many theologians were unclear on how to interpret it.

 

[Dark_Lite]

If by "in the past" you mean the Early Church Fathers, then they were indeed divided on the issue. Granted, none of them thought the earth was 4.3 billion years old. But that's a consequence of the time. The knowledge simply wasn't available. Some of the ECFs interpreted the creation account literally. Others interpreted in a sort of OEC way. Others even though the whole thing was instantaneous (can't remember who though).

Early Church Fathers Didn't believe Young-earth Creationism is a good list that shows the variations on ECF beliefs about Genesis. It's also good for showing to YECs who say that all Christians history believed in YECism.

 

[Jazer]

I know there are several views on creation today... Young Earth, Old Earth, Evolutionary, etc. What did the Church believe in the past? Did they read it literally or figuratively? (Please provide sources)

Actually, you need to go back to Moses and Abraham themselves. They both had all of the education that man had to offer at the time. Moses was taught by the Eyptians, Abraham was Chaldean from the city of Ur. If you remember, God told him to come out from among them and be seperate. We are clearly to be taught by God and not follow the teaching of man. The Holy Spirit will guide and lead us into all truth. He will help us to seperate truth from error.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I haven't read the entire book, but Saint Augustine wrote a surprisingly modern interpretation of genesis back in 3-4 A.D.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth ... and this knowledge he holds 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?​

The Literal Meaning of Genesis
(pages 42 - 43)​

Google books never provides the entire text so unfortunately book six 'The Creation of Man's Body' isn't available.​

 

[Mallon]

There's an excellent article about the history of the doctrine of creation here:

http://www.meetthepuritans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Letham-Creation.pdf

In short, YECism is not, and never was, the only way to interpret Genesis.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

The views we have on Genesis now are quite new in the Christian world. Even the standard model of TE's to use Ancient Near Eastern Mythology as a backdrop for the narratives is a new approach (while the original readers may have been in that tradition, it was definatly not talked about for thousands of years in between).

I think that creation is a secondary theology. There are things that have been defined and present since the dawn of the church, and things that constantly shift - I don't think we should be willing to die defending those secondary doctrines that change every 1-200 years. Even modern evangelical eschatology only dates back to the 1700's. For 1600 years of Christianity, the rapture wasn't even a concept.

 

[Mr Dave]

With regards to the opening chapters of Genesis in particular, Philo talked about how there was always a literal and a metaphorical meaning to Biblical passages, and that the two creation stories show that the lack of consistency does not negate the truth of the passages but shows how a metaphorical reading must take precedence over the literal.

 

[RefCath]

Actually, you need to go back to Moses and Abraham themselves.

What did they believe?

 

[Research1]

I know there are several views on creation today... Young Earth, Old Earth, Evolutionary, etc. What did the Church believe in the past?

Young Earth Creationism, or those that believed the Earth could have been older (Augustine) still believed in a young age of man.

Note that Augustine seperated the 'age of the earth' to the 'age of adam'. So he believed while Adam (man) was created around 5, 600 BC, the Earth could have been far older.

Augustine, City of God, XII. 10 -

Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World's Past

''...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''

The evolutionists above who are claiming Augustine did not read the Bible literally clearly have not read his City of God.

Did they read it literally or figuratively? (Please provide sources)

Literally.

Does it matter what they believed in the past?

Yes.

 

[Research1]

Dates for the creation of Adam (from ancient, medieval and early modern sources) -

 

[Research1]

Dates for the creation of man from non-biblical sources -

India (Hindus)

The ancient Greek traveller Megasthenes (350-290BC) went to India as part of an embassy organised by Seleucus I of Syria.

Megasthenes wrote the Indica detailing his journey and discoveries, it comes down to us in fragments from later classical authors such as Strabo and later by Clement of Alexandria.

Asiatic researches, Vol. 10, p. 118-119:

From Megasthenes we learn that the Hindus dated the creation of man to 5042 years before Alexander the Great's invasion of India in 326 BC.

326BC + 5042 = 5368 BC for the creation of man (as Indians traced back their history).

* The 6042 variant is found in Arrian.

These ancient sources are compiled and free to read below:

Ancient India - Described by Megasthenes and Arrian

Another manuscript gives 6542 years prior to Alexander's invasion.

Encyclopaedia of hinduism (1999) edited by Nagendra Singh, p. 1739 -

 

[Assyrian]

With regards to the opening chapters of Genesis in particular, Philo talked about how there was always a literal and a metaphorical meaning to Biblical passages, and that the two creation stories show that the lack of consistency does not negate the truth of the passages but shows how a metaphorical reading must take precedence over the literal.

I was wondering how far back people realised the two accounts contradict each other if take literally. Do you have a reference for that?

 

[Mr Dave]

I was wondering how far back people realised the two accounts contradict each other if take literally. Do you have a reference for that?

I first came across it in the video below, it's a few minutes in that he mentiones Philo.

I don't have a copy of Philo's works though, am searching for a relvant quote

YouTube - Did Darwin Kill God? (1/6)

 

[Research1]

Philo was not a Church Father, he wasn't even Christian.

Also the video you linked is typical anti-creationist propaganda. The guy presenting it wrongly states that Augustine rejected scriptural literalism and therefore did not subscribe to creationism. Yet throughout Augustine's City of God, Augustine wrote that Adam was created in 5600 BC, and that mankind was no older than 6, 000 years old. So Augustine certianly was a creationist. Why are evolutionists so dishonest?

 

[Mr Dave]

Philo was not a Church Father, he wasn't even Christian.

So what? He was a first century Jew born before Christ, and only alive for 8 years when Christianity was in Alexandria. Being a Jew at the time, we can take his views as decent in showing how people of the time, who took these passages as part of their Holy Scriptures, understood the creation narrative.

Also the video you linked is typical anti-creationist propaganda.

No it isn't, it's a programme by the BBC from 2009 when there was lots of programmes about Darwin. Channel 4 had shown Dawkins' anti-religious programmes, and the BBC had a respectable scholar from a highly respectable theology/religion dept to present a programme outlining the historical understandings of the creation narrative.

The guy presenting it wrongly states that Augustine rejected scriptural literalism and therefore did not subscribe to creationism. Yet throughout Augustine's City of God, Augustine wrote that Adam was created in 5600 BC, and that mankind was no older than 6, 000 years old. So Augustine certianly was a creationist. Why are evolutionists so dishonest?

He says that Augustine rejected literalism when it caused the non believer to mock Christians as holding to ridiculous ideas and said that 'when what we know of the world contradicts our interpretation of scripture, it is the interpretation of scripture that is wrong.' Augustine may well have thought that then, he had no reason not to, but if he had the benefit of all we know of the world, then Augustine would very well say something different. The principle of understanding the Bible that was taught by Augustine wouldn't have changed.

 

[Research1]

I don't have a copy of Philo's works though, am searching for a relvant quote

Genesis 1: 5 -

''God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.''

Philo in On The Creation (chapter 35) on Genesis 1: 5 -

''...Maker called Day, and not 'first'’ day but 'one,' and expression due to the uniqueness of the intelligible world, and to its having therefore a natural kinship to the number 'One'.''

Philo therefore did not believe that there was a creation over 6 days, but that the days had different meanings. The 'first day' he believed was an expression for God - and not a day of the creation.

However Philo still believed everything was created by God.

 

[Mr Dave]

However Philo still believed everything was created by God.

As do I and all other TEs.

 

[Mallon]

As do I and all other TEs.

Amen!

 

[Research1]

So what? He was a first century Jew born before Christ, and only alive for 8 years when Christianity was in Alexandria. Being a Jew at the time, we can take his views as decent in showing how people of the time, who took these passages as part of their Holy Scriptures, understood the creation narrative.

Philo was influenced by Hellenistic Platonic theories, or paganism. He was not a typical Jew of the period.

Typical Jews of this period, were strict Young Earth Creationists, or believed in a young age of man.

Seder Olam Rabbah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Seder Olam Rabbah and Hebrew Calander date the creation of the earth to 3761 BC.

No it isn't, it's a programme by the BBC from 2009 when there was lots of programmes about Darwin. Channel 4 had shown Dawkins' anti-religious programmes, and the BBC had a respectable scholar from a highly respectable theology/religion dept to present a programme outlining the historical understandings of the creation narrative.

Its evolutionist propaganda. It was filmed to convince people that Christians can believe in the Bible and evolution at the same time.

I've watched it - twice (had too for a course).

The video repeatedly mocks James Ussher's dating (4004 BC), and also portrays the American creationist movement as being for dumb hicks. The programme presenter also wrongly credits the first emergence of young earth creationism to Henry Morris' book The Genesis Flood.

He says that Augustine rejected literalism when it caused the non believer to mock Christians as holding to ridiculous ideas and said that 'when what we know of the world contradicts our interpretation of scripture, it is the interpretation of scripture that is wrong.' Augustine may well have thought that then, he had no reason not to, but if he had the benefit of all we know of the world, then Augustine would very well say something different. The principle of understanding the Bible that was taught by Augustine wouldn't have changed.

The programme was dishonest to not mention that Augustine was a YEC (or believed in young age of man). Instead it lied and twisted a quote of his, to imply he didn't believe in a literal creation.

 

[Mallon]

The programme was dishonest to not mention that Augustine was a YEC. Instead it lied and twisted a quote of his, to imply he didn't believe in a literal creation.

But he didn't believe the literal creation account(s).