Historical Views on Creation

[Research1]

As do I and all other TEs.

No they don't.

Evolutionists believe in big bang, or cosmic evolution.

Philo in contrast believed God directly created/shaped the earth out of creatio ex materia.

 

[Mallon]

No they don't.

Yay. Another neocreationist telling evolutionary creationists what they believe.

Why do you associate creation with miraculous 'poofing' into existence? Why is it not possible to view evolution as a mechanism by which God creates?

 

[Mr Dave]

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.



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

Christians can believe in the Bible and evolution at the same time.

They weren't really YEC's; that implies that they rejected other views/ followed things such as creation science etc... To them God was the creator, and they may have used some of what the Bible said to come up with a date. This does not mean that they read the creation narrative as a modern YEC does. To call them YEC's is to align them with the modern YEC movement which would be wrong. The circumstances are completely different.

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

Go on, do it again, third time lucky
Out of interest, if you don't mind my asking, what was the 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.



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.

As I said I described in my last post, and partly in this one. You cannot describe Augustine using modern terms like that.

 

[Research1]

Yay. Another neocreationist telling evolutionary creationists what they believe.

I pointed out that none of the Church Fathers (or early Jews) had anything in common with modern evolutionists.

Why is it not possible to view evolution as a mechanism by which God creates?

Evolution is not taught in the Bible. What is taught is the polar opposite. It amazes me how people can sleep at night knowing they hold to a faith, but believe in a theory which is not apart of that faith.

 

[Mallon]

I pointed out that none of the Church Fathers (or early Jews) had anything in common with modern evolutionists.

Imagine that. Probably didn't have much in common with modern atomic physicists or modern geneticists, either.

As Mr. Dave pointed out, though, many of the early church fathers (Augustine, for example) did share a biblical hermeneutic in common with modern evolutionary creationists: that the Bible must be interpreted in light of the evidence from God's creation. Knowing this, it is unlikely that Augustine would have held to the concept of a young earth if he were alive today.

Evolution is not taught in the Bible. What is taught is the polar opposite. It amazes me how people can sleep at night knowing they hold to a faith, but believe in a theory which is not apart of that faith.

Lots of things we accept today are the opposite of what is taught in the Bible: heliocentrism, epigenesis, spherical earth, etc. These were the preconvictions of the ANE people. You should know that.
Regardless, none of what you said negates the fact that evolutionary creationists still believe that God created, as Mr. Dave said. It isn't something you can deny. It's fact.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Research1: Obviously early church fathers didn't believe what we currently believe because they did not have either the knowledge or the evidence we have. St. Augustine for example believed that the Earth was less than 6000 years old because they did not have carbon dating or any other of the age-measuring methods we have today, so he dated it from the Bible. YECs don't believe the Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so (the Bible does not mention the age of the Earth at all), they believe it's 6000 years old because earth church leaders said it was.

I mentioned earlier that St. Augustine did reject a literal interpretation of Genesis, since he did not believe the Earth was created in six 24hr periods.

 

[Research1]

Lots of things we accept today are the opposite of what is taught in the Bible: heliocentrism, epigenesis, spherical earth, etc. These were the preconvictions of the ANE people. You should know that.

Odd, these are arguments only Atheists raise to attack the Bible. They have been debunked over and over. No where does the Bible teach geocentrism or a flat world, the only people who repeat these lies are Atheists on websites like skepticannotatedbible.

 

[Research1]

Research1: Obviously early church fathers didn't believe what we currently believe because they did not have either the knowledge or the evidence we have. St. Augustine for example believed that the Earth was less than 6000 years old because they did not have carbon dating or any other of the age-measuring methods we have today, so he dated it from the Bible. YECs don't believe the Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so (the Bible does not mention the age of the Earth at all), they believe it's 6000 years old because earth church leaders said it was.

I mentioned earlier that St. Augustine did reject a literal interpretation of Genesis, since he did not believe the Earth was created in six 24hr periods.

The Bible gives a rough date for the creation of Adam. You can check the genealogies in Genesis and calculate when Adam was created. It doesn't though give the age of earth (as you pointed out) - only when Adam was created. The problem for evolutionists is that they believe man is over a hundred thousand years old but this is contradicted by Genesis, its far too high a figure.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The problem for evolutionists is that they believe man is over a hundred thousand years old but this is contradicted by Genesis, its far too high a figure.

Fair enough. Evolutionists estimate homo sapiens to be roughly 200,000 years old. Whether the Bible is charting the geneology of Adam (or the house of Adam?) or the human species is a debate which continues today.

Since the early church fathers didn't know about non-sapien hominids i.e. neanderthals, homo erectus etc. they were incapable of taking the modern evolutionist view. This doesn't mean that they took the view of modern YECs either though, as creationism itself has changed radically over the centuries.

 

[Research1]

Fair enough. Evolutionists estimate homo sapiens to be roughly 200,000 years old. Whether the Bible is charting the geneology of Adam (or the house of Adam?) or the human species is a debate which continues today.

We covered this in the other thread. Its impossible everyone on earth today came from just Adam 6, 000 - 10, 000 years ago. However if you believe only a small portion of the world's populations descends from Adam (as i do), then you have a literal reading of scripture compatible with modern science.

Since the early church fathers didn't know about non-sapien hominids i.e. neanderthals, homo erectus etc. they were incapable of taking the modern evolutionist view. This doesn't mean that they took the view of modern YECs either though, as creationism itself has changed radically over the centuries.

I think there are possible references to Hominids in scripture.

You can read a book on this, called Theozoology, or the Science of the Sodomite Apelings -

Theozoology, or the Science of the Sodomite Apelings and the Divine Electron, by Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels

I don't support this, or the author (he was pretty crazy), however his research on the Biblical references to ape-men type beings is the best i have yet discovered. I'm still researching this.

According to ToE the last Hominid lived around 12, 000 BC called Homo floresiensis, however it is possible they survived into more recent time periods and perhaps account for the ape-men of folklore and myth around the world. I also created a thread on living hominids.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

We covered this in the other thread. Its impossible everyone on earth today came from just Adam 6, 000 - 10, 000 years ago. However if you believe only a small portion of the world's populations descends from Adam (as i do), then you have a literal reading of scripture compatible with modern science.

Please don't start this rubbish about race again.

I think there are possible references to Hominids in scripture.

Scriptures I'm unsure about. Historically however there have been descriptions of 'fabulous races' which have turned out to be apes, humans with mutations or are still left unanswered.

 

[Mallon]

Odd, these are arguments only Atheists raise to attack the Bible. They have been debunked over and over. No where does the Bible teach geocentrism or a flat world, the only people who repeat these lies are Atheists on websites like skepticannotatedbible.

Well, I'm not an atheist, but I am advocating that the Bible does, in fact, describe a flat earth (Job 38:13-14, Isaiah 40:22, Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11, Psalm 19:4, 104:2) that does not move (1 Samuel 2:8, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, 96:10, Psalm 104:5) and about which the sun revolves (Joshua 10:12, Psalm 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Habakkuk 3:11). I'm also advocating that, given this, we ought to be careful not to get our science from the Bible, but directly from God's creation, which strongly attests to evolution.

And if poisoning the well was a logical form of argument, I could point out that racists use the polygenism you subscribe to in order to support their hatred of other races.

 

[Research1]

Well, I'm not an atheist, but I am advocating that the Bible does, in fact, describe a flat earth (Job 38:13-14, Isaiah 40:22, Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11, Psalm 19:4, 104:2)

I believe we already covered this. In Hebrew erets (meaning earth) only means a localised area or zone of territory, not the entire globe.

The authors of both the Old and New Testament had a limited geographical knowledge.

Erets in Daniel 4: 11 for example is translated in YLT as ''whole land'', or Ferrar Fenton Bible as 'country' - meaning not the Earth or globe.

The earth's 'ends' 'corners' or 'circle' were merely terms reflecting the known territory mapped, while beyond it was unknown land.

that does not move (1 Samuel 2:8, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, 96:10, Psalm 104:5)

The earth (land) doesn't move. We can't directly observe continental drift etc happening.

and about which the sun revolves (Joshua 10:12, Psalm 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Habakkuk 3:11).

When stationed on earth we observe the sun move across the sky, we don't feel or observe the rotation of the earth. These passages just reflect what man saw.

I'm also advocating that, given this, we ought to be careful not to get our science from the Bible, but directly from God's creation, which strongly attests to evolution.

Everything you wrote above i just debunked.

And if poisoning the well was a logical form of argument, I could point out that racists use the polygenism you subscribe to in order to support their hatred of other races.

On the contrary polygenism is against racism. Did you know it was 19th century American polygenists (Samuel Morton) who defended the history of the Native American Indians?

''American Indians supported Morton's conclusions, whilst some white archaeologist's supported Morton others such as William Pidgeon did not accept Morton's conclusions because at the time some white archaeologist's such as Pidgeon could not believe that Native Americans had created the archaeological remains they saw around them, instead William Pidgeon wrote a book called Traditions of Dee-Coo-Dah and Antiquarian Researches in 1858. In the book Pidgeon attempts to prove that a vanished race, culturally superior to and existing earlier than the American Indians, occupied America first and that The Mound Builders were not Native Americans. Pidgeon's book was revealed mostly to be a hoax. The famed archaeologist Theodore H. Lewis later revealed that Pidgeon had fabricated most of his research, and distorted much of the rest of it, mapping mounds where none existed, and changing the arrangement of existing mound groups to suit his needs. Morton's work gained more support because his work was considered to be evidence of true objective science unlike others such as Pidgeon. Morton won his reputation as the great data-gatherer and objectivist of American Science''

Polygenism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mallon]

I believe we already covered this. In Hebrew erets (meaning earth) only means a localised area or zone of territory, not the entire globe.

"erets" CAN mean a localized area, OR it can refer to the entire earth. It isn't true that "erets" only means a localized area. To distinguish between the two meanings, we have to refer to the Scriptural context in which the word is used. It's pretty obvious from many of the passages that I cited you (especially those referring to the creation of the world) that the latter meaning is intended (unless you seriously want to argue that God only created the Near East). The above argument just doesn't work in refuting the Bible's flat-earthism.

The authors of both the Old and New Testament had a limited geographical knowledge.

It's amazing that you affirm the limited geographic knowledge of the ANE people but refuse to affirm their limited scientific knowledge.

The earth (land) doesn't move. We can't directly observe continental drift etc happening.

1) The passages that refer to the movement of the earth refer to the entire globe (known and unknown by the ANE), not just to Israel. And the entire globe both rotates about the sun and spins on its own axis. It is not stationary.
2) Even if we assume that said passages refer only to Israel within the reference frame of the globe, are you seriously denying that continental drift occurs? Because it does. And we can measure it directly using geodynamics.

When stationed on earth we observe the sun move across the sky, we don't feel or observe the rotation of the earth. These passages just reflect what man saw.

Bingo! The motion of the sun and stars are described with reference to man's fallible, earth-bound perspective. That is, God's message, as related in these passages, was accommodated to the ANE people using imagery and themes they were familiar with. God did not simply override their limited scientific presumptions in order to teach them about heliocentrism (which was entirely besides the point). This accommodationist hermeneutic is the same employed by evolutionary creationists when interpreting the message of Genesis. And getting back to the point, it's the same hermeneutic that many early church fathers, like Augustine, subscribed to, also.

Everything you wrote above i just debunked.

On the contrary, I think you helped me make my point.

On the contrary polygenism is against racism.

And yet so many racists used polygenism to support their views.
Regardless, that's neither here nor there. I brought up polygenism to demonstrate your use of the 'poisoning the well' fallacy.

 

[jckstraw72]

the Church has ALWAYS accepted the history of the Genesis account, while also seeing deeper meanings to it. allegories and spiritual meanings does not rule out the literal level. this blog provides a wealth of quotes that are rather clear on this matter: Orthodoxy and Creationism « Old Believing’s Blog

 

[Mallon]

the Church has ALWAYS accepted the history of the Genesis account

So what do you make of the instances cited here when the church didn't accept the history given in the Genesis accounts (including one of the fellas quoted in your signature)?

 

[jckstraw72]

well honestly i didnt read the thread before posting, which posts should i look at?

 

[Mallon]

well honestly i didnt read the thread before posting, which posts should i look at?

Probably the best place to start would be to read the paper given in post #5. I'll link to it again for your convenience:

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

 

[jckstraw72]

ok, well i guess i should clarify that when i say the Church, im referring to the Orthodox Church, as I am Orthodox. Thus, the only two of interest in that article for me that do not interpret the days literally are Origen and St. Augustine, who from my understanding both interpret the 6 days to be one instantaneous moment. however, as the author points out, Origen's cosmology and understanding of Genesis was whacked, and accepted Fathers of the Church corrected him. as for St. Augustine, he is insistent that allegory cannot exclude literality in Genesis, the length of days seemingly being the one exception. in my research, these are the only 2 in the early Church that i have found that do NOT believe in literal days of creation, and thus they do not represent a different view of the Church, but rather just of 2 ppl within the Church, both of whose theology in the eyes of Orthodoxy is somewhat suspect.

 

[Mallon]

ok, well i guess i should clarify that when i say the Church, im referring to the Orthodox Church, as I am Orthodox. Thus, the only two of interest in that article for me that do not interpret the days literally are Origen and St. Augustine, who from my understanding both interpret the 6 days to be one instantaneous moment. however, as the author points out, Origen's cosmology and understanding of Genesis was whacked, and accepted Fathers of the Church corrected him. as for St. Augustine, he is insistent that allegory cannot exclude literality in Genesis, the length of days seemingly being the one exception. in my research, these are the only 2 in the early Church that i have found that do NOT believe in literal days of creation, and thus they do not represent a different view of the Church, but rather just of 2 ppl within the Church, both of whose theology in the eyes of Orthodoxy is somewhat suspect.

Duly noted. Maybe the word "ALWAYS" was a bit strong, then?