Orthodox Church and the reading of book of Genesis

[Joshua G.]

I think PE and JS are right.
I would add that saints are saints, and say many right and true things - I'll dare say most to all things, but not all are gifted with equal clarity of expression and precision of speech. So I'd say that they are right, but can be expressed differently.

It seems to me that the context is modern scientists claiming to have answers that disprove general truths of the Bible, and St John rightly rebuking them - if nothing else, for presuming contradiction when they don't really know enough to know if there actually IS any contradiction.

It is likely the lack of precision that throws off people inclined to believe whatever the popular scientific theories are. As for myself, I am much more inclined to believe that discoveries may well, and probably WILL be made that will transform all modern (ie, current, contemporary, that is temporary) understandings and bring us back to Biblical truths.

It may surprise some to know that I am increasingly finding myself in this camp (although, I always need time to perculate things). I just feel that a lot of the blanket mischaracterizations (unintentional, to be sure) of those on the other side, and conclusions drawn about the state of their faith and struggles, unhelpful and misinformed. So, I am not arguing for a figurative (over literal) understanding, only trying to reveal a bit of the mindset that exists among many who follow an apparently less traditional view on things.

Josh

 

[jckstraw72]

thanks Josh for your patient insight. i think i would just say that i think its possible to sin against Scripture without intending to. i think any Christian group outside of Orthodoxy does this to one degree or another, for instance, and although the Orthodox Church is immune to this problem, its individual members are not.

 

[Photini]

Well, I have some ponderings, but there is really no answer to my questions because only God knows them, but I'll share them here anyway. LOL

So, I've been reading the Life and Works of Fr. Seraphim Rose for the past year or so. I'm into the mid 600s (page wise lol). Anyhow, I was reading the other day in the book how there was no sexual intercourse in heaven. Adam and Eve did not procreate, according to Fr. Seraphim and others he quoted (Chrysostom and some other CF's). It said that procreation came after the Fall. It got me thinking about how babies were born and I thought it was interesting that Adam and Eve were made as adults, basically, with immature spirituality. So, I thought, "why weren't they little babies and then grew up?" Because pregnancy and childbirth wasn't happening in heaven? So I asked my priest what he thought. He said there are two schools of thought on this, and he did not say which one he agreed with but just that there were two schools of thought on the subject. That the pain of childbirth was made after the Fall, and the other about go forth and multiply. Anyway, I just thought it was interesting.

Interesting, indeed. I'm not sure I really understand the reason for thinking that Adam & Eve had a different way of procreating though.

 

[Montalban]

Well, I have some ponderings, but there is really no answer to my questions because only God knows them, but I'll share them here anyway. LOL

So, I've been reading the Life and Works of Fr. Seraphim Rose for the past year or so. I'm into the mid 600s (page wise lol). Anyhow, I was reading the other day in the book how there was no sexual intercourse in heaven. Adam and Eve did not procreate, according to Fr. Seraphim and others he quoted (Chrysostom and some other CF's). It said that procreation came after the Fall. It got me thinking about how babies were born and I thought it was interesting that Adam and Eve were made as adults, basically, with immature spirituality. So, I thought, "why weren't they little babies and then grew up?" Because pregnancy and childbirth wasn't happening in heaven? So I asked my priest what he thought. He said there are two schools of thought on this, and he did not say which one he agreed with but just that there were two schools of thought on the subject. That the pain of childbirth was made after the Fall, and the other about go forth and multiply. Anyway, I just thought it was interesting.

I thought that the pain of childbirth was part of the curse on Eve. Adam's was to work, sweat and toil on the land. Eve's was to bear children

Gen 3:16 To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

Whether that is for all women, or just Eve is contensious

I find it odd that part of the curse is that she shall desire her husband

 

[Dorothea]

Interesting, indeed. I'm not sure I really understand the reason for thinking that Adam & Eve had a different way of procreating though.

Was there a different way? I thought it was either there wasn't any procreating vs. there was one after the Fall. Anyhow, what I was really interested in was the fact that Adam and Eve were created as adults. Then I thought, why weren't they babies and then grew up? But then I thought if there wasn't any procreating, babies weren't happening then. Yes, my mind works very strangely.

 

[Dorothea]

I thought that the pain of childbirth was part of the curse on Eve. Adam's was to work, sweat and toil on the land. Eve's was to bear children

Gen 3:16 To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

Whether that is for all women, or just Eve is contensious

I find it odd that part of the curse is that she shall desire her husband

yeah, I have the same thoughts, minus the curse of desiring the husband because I hadn't thought about that til now.

 

[rusmeister]

It may surprise some to know that I am increasingly finding myself in this camp (although, I always need time to perculate things). I just feel that a lot of the blanket mischaracterizations (unintentional, to be sure) of those on the other side, and conclusions drawn about the state of their faith and struggles, unhelpful and misinformed. So, I am not arguing for a figurative (over literal) understanding, only trying to reveal a bit of the mindset that exists among many who follow an apparently less traditional view on things.

Josh

Thanks, Josh! (Really!)

But to me, at any rate, that mindset has already been revealed. I've actually journeyed from fundamentalist traditionalism to academic reinterpretation and have come a fair way back toward a deeper understanding that the people who defend tradition, perhaps mindlessly, are nevertheless right, if only by blind instinct. It is the intellectual mind that I have come to trust a little less, even while remaining stolidly intellectual (and opposed to anti-intellectualism).

 

[jckstraw72]

this just in! I've been reading Beauty for Ashes for my Pastoral Theology course - tis quite an amazing book. Anyhoo, on p. 107, n. 69 it mentions that Bishop Meletios (who many consider to be a living Saint) translated an anti-evolution book by Duane T. Gish back in the 1980's. Just throwin' that out there.

 

[Dorothea]

this just in! I've been reading Beauty for Ashes for my Pastoral Theology course - tis quite an amazing book. Anyhoo, on p. 107, n. 69 it mentions that Bishop Meletios (who many consider to be a living Saint) translated an anti-evolution book by Duane T. Gish back in the 1980's. Just throwin' that out there.

I was thinking a while ago while I was working on one of my jigsaw puzzles....lol.... Does anybody know if any scientists have an estimated time of existence of the dinosaurs? Meaning, do they know how long the dinos were present on earth before their demise?

 

[jckstraw72]

im sure the scientists have an answer to that, probably easily Googlable.

 

[Dorothea]

im sure the scientists have an answer to that, probably easily Googlable.

Thanks. I was just curious.

 

[Montalban]

yeah, I have the same thoughts, minus the curse of desiring the husband because I hadn't thought about that til now.

It had me thinking - what were the alternatives? Was she loving someone else?

 

[Dorothea]

It had me thinking - what were the alternatives? Was she loving someone else?

I don't think so.

 

[Montalban]

this just in! I've been reading Beauty for Ashes for my Pastoral Theology course - tis quite an amazing book. Anyhoo, on p. 107, n. 69 it mentions that Bishop Meletios (who many consider to be a living Saint) translated an anti-evolution book by Duane T. Gish back in the 1980's. Just throwin' that out there.

Translated? It's in English. What's he translating it into?

 

[jckstraw72]

Greek. he's the bishop of Preveza in Greece.

 

[Montalban]

Greek. he's the bishop of Preveza in Greece.

excellent

 

[Montalban]

I don't think so.

Like herself?

I couldn't work out how she'd be compelled to love him, if he was the only one to love

 

[Dorothea]

Like herself?

I couldn't work out how she'd be compelled to love him, if he was the only one to love

I really couldn't tell you. I don't know.

 

[Montalban]

I really couldn't tell you. I don't know.

I don't know either. I think I'll leave it at that.

 

[Protoevangel]

I was thinking a while ago while I was working on one of my jigsaw puzzles....lol.... Does anybody know if any scientists have an estimated time of existence of the dinosaurs? Meaning, do they know how long the dinos were present on earth before their demise?

Dinosaurs are thought by scientists to have first appeared sometime in the Triassic period (from about 250 million years ago), and died out at the end of the Cretaceous period (ending about 65 million years ago).