The historicity of Adam

[MKJ]

Typo---"A Day Without a Mexican"

That sounds a lot less fuzzy.

 

[AndrewEOC]

Just saw this article on Google News- a good example of what I meant when I said I could be wrong on evolutionary theory! I.e. aspects of it, in this case...

U.S. NEWS
Skull Suggests Single Human Species Emerged From Africa, Not Several
Well-Preserved Find 1.8 Million Years Old Drastically Simplifies Evolutionary Picture

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304384104579141600675336982

A newly discovered 1.8 million-year-old skull offers evidence that humanity's early ancestors emerged from Africa as a single adventurous species, not several species as believed, drastically simplifying human evolution, an international research team said Thursday.
...
By comparing these five extinct creatures at Dmanisi to each other, and to other specimens from the same era in Africa, the researchers concluded that all of the primordial peoples of the Homo genus—the root-stock of the modern human family tree—likely belonged to just one species spreading out across the continents, not three or more as many experts have argued.
...
Through a computer analysis, the researchers determined that the variations among these five early humans were no greater than the differences normally found between members of any single primate species, including chimpanzees, bonobos or modern humankind.

If their analysis proves true, experts will have to reconsider the pattern of early human evolution.

"There are these jaw-dropping moments in the life of a scientist," said neurobiologist Christoph Zollikofer at the University of Zurich, who analyzed the skull and the other Dmanisi fossils. "You can feel in your brain how all these preconceived ideas you had start falling to pieces."

 

[truthseeker32]

For good philosophy of science I recommend Karl Popper and Bas Van Fraasen. Van Fraasen is a Roman Catholic convert.

 

[rusmeister]

I wonder if it would be possible to have a discussion about Orthodox opinions without Chesterton? LOL....

I am growing in my interest and fondness for GKC, but I just wonder what these discussions would be like if we were discussing them before the birth of Chesterton or if he had never been born.

Could we make Orthodox arguments and citations without him? Our discussions always get down to "well, that's not what GKC meant!" or "I would refer you to GKC," or "you're taking Chesterton out of context" and other such commentary?

I know Rus will likely want my head severed on a platter after this comment, but it just sometimes seems odd that all our conversations in an Orthodox forum talk more about Chesterton than the Catholics do! It seems these days that Father Seraphim Rose or GK Chesterton are pretty much our only modern go-to's....I'd just love to hear some insight from other theologians, saints, and holy men....Hit me with some Father Hopko, a touch of Schmemann, anybody!

I think the problem with the discussion Meghan (MKJ) and Rus are having is it is devolving into a battle over what Chesterton meant rather than a discussion about the historicity of Adam. I love both of these posters, so it's just an observation.

Remember that national "a day with a Mexican" thing we had in the U.S.? We just need a day without Chesterton in TAW! Then bring him back....

I'll take the head with lettuce for garnish, as in "Lettuce abandon such silliness!"

There WAS a time before Chesterton. It was a time when sanity had not been so drastically eroded. The"Age of Reason" had done its damage, but the consequences had not seeped down to the point they have dropped to in our time, though they had begun and you already had people - ostensibly theologians - denying a literal Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Gurney, I'll tell you what. I'll claim all of the quotes as my own. Then you can demand for a day without me. But is it not the ideas, rather than the person, that are really at issue?

 

[rusmeister]

Ok, so what the heck is "a day with a Mexican?"

Anyway, as far as Adam: I think if we consider the idea that Adam is an archtype only, we very quickly see that is a problem. You can't have an archtype that is metaphysically creative without an actual thing it is the type of. It has to be real as well as a type, for the same reasons we would say Christ has to be real in order to actually create or repair the old archtype.

So properly speaking, I can't see how we could say anything other than he was both a type and a real individual.

I suspect when people want to say he was a type only, they are thinking of art. Typically in art when we see archtypes, they are abstractions that the author has drawn from concrete examples, moving from all kinds of imperfect examples around us to contemplate a sort of perfect and almost spiritualized version. And if the artist is any good, he manages to tap into a deeper reality when he does so (which is why Aristotle tells us that poetry can often be more true than history).

So, the artist may be trying to grasp at something which does have a metaphysical reality - and we see that, I think, in some non-Christian religions as well as in art. But his depiction of the type does not create the reality.

But with Adam, or Christ, we are starting from the other end - we are speaking of the reality that creates the types artists are trying to show us.

Now THIS is good sense!

 

[rusmeister]

Rus,

I don't have a problem with Chesterton on this. I don't think he misunderstood the difference between science and scientism. I am, without a doubt, not a follower of scientism - I tend far to much to the mystical and mythological for that. I think literature is a better guide to most things then science.

But you are just factualy wrong here - scientism is not the philosophy behind science. It really just isn't - it does not describe how science works, how it is related to epistemology, or how it understands things. It isn't what science teaches, it isn't how philosophy understands science.

Have you ever tried to read any other kinds of sources, good ones, on the philosophy of science? Scientism generally is described in them in rather poor terms, to say the least. Even scientists do not generally believe what scientism says, beyond a few idiots like Richard Dawkins. The Victorians often seem to have believed it as well, though I don't think universally.

Now, scientism is widely believed by the quivering masses who substitute it for religion, and by the media, who tend to like black and white answers and reductionist descriptions. They get it about as right as they usually get their theological reporting.

The one point I will concede is that scientism is not really the philosophy behind science, or what any scientist would admit is good philosophy (if and where there are such scientists that truly philosohize at all) - but it IS the philosophy behind the unphilosophical thinking of most scientists, who, as a rule, get their education and upbringing in the most unphilosophical of institutions, public education, reinforced by the mass media. It is precisely true philosophy, the kind not limited to science, in which the overwhelming majority (95% will be no exaggeration and probably understatement) of people, INCLUDING (possibly especially) scientists. I have seen how they are educated as children, MK. I know the forces that shape them (despite your objections to my observations and conclusions on that matter). And I know that they are very explicitly taught scientism by attitude, atmosphere and assumption. I say that scientists themselves are part of the quivering masses you describe.

So in going off on what good there is among the 5% or less - among scientists - that are not so poorly educated does not help us deal with the massive assumptions that have been imposed everywhere by the overwhelming majority, who eagerly accept the mantle of priesthood they have been granted, and will be quite unwilling to give up that level of authority in people's minds. So what you have left to defend is a small percentage of the total, made even smaller as many of them do not accept Christian truth. My educated guess is that you are left with maybe 0.5% of scientists who correctly grasp, at least in general terms, the metaphysical nature of the universe AND philosophize about it, employing both general philosophy and how it relates to science. And such voices are not, generally speaking, heard, nor do their conclusions and interpretations sway or color the whole, which is motivated to seek God in self, to deny authority over us outside of ourselves. I would argue far less with those that you CAN defend.

Science is pretty much never "pure". Not that you say it is, but the implications lean that way.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

When you say "person" are you referring to yourself or Chesterton?

I don't want a day without you, Rus. I'm merely saying that which several other posters have said: Chesterton isn't the be-all end-all of theology and Orthodoxy. I merely said it would be refreshing to have a discussion in which other theologians are cited (preferably an Orthodox one occasionally! ), and I think maybe you could think outside the box a bit. I'm glad he has informed your thinking in so many wonderful ways. I'm glad he has helped you morally and theologically cope and survive in a world of rapidly dwindling faith and increasing atheism as well as semantic brainwashing. I'm impressed by him. In fact, I bought "The Everlasting Man" for a fellow parishioner friend of mine at St. Peter's where I go to church. He and I read a lot and talk about the blessings and ideas that we've gleaned from our latest reads. I bought him GKC as he had never heard of him and he seemed interested. Chesterton is a blessing, so don't get me wrong.

I'm merely saying that every discussion we have ultimately gets down to either someone improperly understanding Chesterton or trying to appeal to you with Chesterton or somehow the conversation becoming CHESTERTON-driven ideas. Perhaps we could talk through the prism of Father Schmemann, Father Hopko, the Cappadocian Fathers, Metropolitan Kallistos, Father Seraphim Rose, just....somebody else? Don't take it as a put-down, but just a bit of GKC-fatigue at the moment.

I pray for you and your wife and kids. I pray for your health, spiritual comfort, for you to hang in there living as an ex-pat, and for your spiritual batteries to be recharged. I enjoy your posts. Frankly, if EVER I see "Rusmeister" as the latest poster on any thread, I read it! I never skip your posts. And when you're absent, it's keenly felt. You're a wise man with a good heart, a strong passion, and you care, genuinely care. So please accept my apology if you took my post to mean "I wish we had less Rus around these parts!" because that was NOT my intention. Your absence is a loss. Apologies if I sounded either dismissive or unfriendly to you.

I'll take the head with lettuce for garnish, as in "Lettuce abandon such silliness!"

There WAS a time before Chesterton. It was a time when sanity had not been so drastically eroded. The"Age of Reason" had done its damage, but the consequences had not seeped down to the point they have dropped to in our time, though they had begun and you already had people - ostensibly theologians - denying a literal Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Gurney, I'll tell you what. I'll claim all of the quotes as my own. Then you can demand for a day without me. But is it not the ideas, rather than the person, that are really at issue?

 

[27B6]

...

 

[jckstraw72]

I'm merely saying that every discussion we have ultimately gets down to either someone improperly understanding Chesterton or trying to appeal to you with Chesterton or somehow the conversation becoming CHESTERTON-driven ideas. Perhaps we could talk through the prism of Father Schmemann, Father Hopko, the Cappadocian Fathers, Metropolitan Kallistos, Father Seraphim Rose, just....somebody else? Don't take it as a put-down, but just a bit of GKC-fatigue at the moment.

did you see the link i posted?

 

[rusmeister]

Hi,Gurney.
I guess I'd say that I offer what I have to offer, what I know something special about, that I see as incredibly helpful for Orthodox Christians, insofar as it lines up with Church Tradition and teaching.

You can take it or leave it. I really appreciate your kind and thoughtful words about me, and am glad that you have found helpful and true things in some of what I have said. Anywhere you think something untrue or unhelpful, you are free to leave it.

I have found people like Schmemann incredibly helpful. And if someone is asking how often to commune, I'll point to his "Holy Things for the Holy" and quote from it. It's just that the topics I am drawn to and get involved in are not about "Church-y" subjects, but about everything else. In issues of sexuality, for instance, things that a LOT of people are really unsure about are really clear to me, and the person I have gotten the most from in those things in which the world has gone insane is, well, that fat, jolly man.

I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam.

Popeye, the tautological marine philosopher

 

[JeremiahsBulldog]

G.K.CHESTERTON: THE EVERLASTING MAN

The whole chapter is an excellent condemnation of scientism, or the worship of science, the conversion of observations we can make today into global theories that are only used to attack the faith.

Dale Ahlquist said "To argue with Chesterton is to lose", and I agree with him.

My general objection to the claims of modern science is that I CAN'T prove them. I have to accept, on faith, whatever they claim. I have to accept, on faith, that they have a million pieces of evidence I have never seen, AND both their stated conclusions, and unstated assumptions about the alleged evidence. I "know" that e=mc2 because I first believe it. And that is a process that CAN undergo experiment. But never yet has a scientist gone back in time to confirm his ideas with his own eyes. He has never seen his arbireal ancestor falling from the tree. We are to believe in "Lucy", or whoever, on the authority of the claims of scientists, and the leap of imagination from actual evidence to imaginary conclusions is never considered, because we believe in science as we believe in the teachings of the Church.

Very well put. By both Chesterton and Rus.

 

[AndrewEOC]

My general objection to the claims of modern science is that I CAN'T prove them. I have to accept, on faith, whatever they claim. I have to accept, on faith, that they have a million pieces of evidence I have never seen, AND both their stated conclusions, and unstated assumptions about the alleged evidence. I "know" that e=mc2 because I first believe it. And that is a process that CAN undergo experiment. But never yet has a scientist gone back in time to confirm his ideas with his own eyes. He has never seen his arbireal ancestor falling from the tree. We are to believe in "Lucy", or whoever, on the authority of the claims of scientists, and the leap of imagination from actual evidence to imaginary conclusions is never considered, because we believe in science as we believe in the teachings of the Church.

Presenting evidence to the common man is often a goal of natural science museums, universities, and other public institutions where the evidence is stored. I know when I took biology and introductory evolution classes in university they produced many fossils and bone replicas for the students to examine. It's true that most scientific theories or conclusions are not empirically verified in laboratories or research labs by all of the people who accept them. That's what makes peer/adversarial review and a reproduction of results so important. But using evolution as a framework has produced results that we all tangibly benefit from, in diverse ways ranging from pest control and agricultural efficiency, to improving biofuel production, to producing effective vaccinations and medicine, to forensics and DNA identification that solves crimes and identifies family members, to finding genes in chimpanzees, mice or even yeast that can help cure genetic disorders in humans (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/science/27gene.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp). We believe in science insofar as we believe knowledge of the physical world is attainable through empirical methods, just as we believe spiritual knowledge is attainable through the teachings of the Church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Presenting evidence to the common man is often a goal of natural science museums, universities, and other public institutions where the evidence is stored. I know when I took biology and introductory evolution classes in university they produced many fossils and bone replicas for the students to examine. It's true that most scientific theories or conclusions are not empirically observed in laboratories or research labs by all of the people who accept them. That's what makes peer/adversarial review and a reproduction of results so important. But using evolution as a framework has produced results that we all tangibly benefit from, in diverse ways ranging from pest control and agricultural efficiency, to improving biofuel production, to producing effective vaccinations and medicine, to forensics and DNA identification that helps solve crimes and identify family members, to finding genes in chimpanzees, mice or even yeast that can help cure genetic disorders in humans (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/science/27gene.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp). We believe in science insofar as we believe knowledge of the physical world is attainable through empirical methods, just as we believe spiritual knowledge is attainable through the teachings of the Church.

but the whole basis is on the idea that the laws of nature were consistent with what we see today. as an example, say some star is 400 million lightyears away. looking at it through only physical means, one would assume that you are looking at the star as it existed 400 million years ago. however, it is possible that God could have created that star visible from earth from it's creation. if the latter is true, the star could be much younger than you would get looking at it only through physical means. the reason is what you know is the distance and how fast light travels. what you do not know, and can never test, is how long that light has been shining on earth.

so one cannot gain knowledge of the world through empirical methods, if the "tint to your glasses" as you look is based on wrong assumptions.

 

[AndrewEOC]

but the whole basis is on the idea that the laws of nature were consistent with what we see today. as an example, say some star is 400 million lightyears away. looking at it through only physical means, one would assume that you are looking at the star as it existed 400 million years ago. however, it is possible that God could have created that star visible from earth from it's creation. if the latter is true, the star could be much younger than you would get looking at it only through physical means. the reason is what you know is the distance and how fast light travels. what you do not know, and can never test, is how long that light has been shining on earth.

Well... the most distant point in the universe as of 2011 is known as GRB 090429B, at a distance of 13.14 billion light-years, making the age of the universe at least 13.14 billion years old, plus half a billion or so to account for the age of the star. This means that 13.14 billion years ago, a star died and exploded that was 30 times the sun's mass, resulting in a GRB or gamma ray burst, and we just saw it on Earth four years ago in 2009. Gamma ray bursts are very distinctive (you could have seen it in the sky) and variations in brightness and wavelength produced by their afterglow allow us to measure their distance of travel. You can read more about it here: NASA - NASA's Swift Finds Most Distant Gamma-ray Burst Yet

 

[jckstraw72]

if you believe in a cosmic Fall you can't believe in uniformitarianism ...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I have heard variations from pious Orthodox that range from literal Genesis to God taking an early hominid and imbuing it with a soul. Even heard an argument that those hominids were a source of spouses for Adam's children since incest was forbidden.

I don't know about an official Church position so I can't say.

Perhaps it's just me...

But the early, original Fundamentalists weren't Young Earth Creationists, at least not most of them - as is often told. For young Earth Creationism didn't come into vogue until much later after the "Scopes Monkey Trial". The 1961 book, "The Genesis Flood" more-or-less is credited with bringing Young Earth Creationism from a view held by some Fundamentalists to the view of Fundamentalism. And with the political ans social upheaval of the 60's, it shouldn't be surprising then that evolution became attached to "the opposition" by the growing, conservative religious right and moral majority...and and thus Young Earth Creationism (including the view of taking all aspects of Genesis literally) was hoisted up as a banner of Christian moralism against the secular immorality and evil in such things as evolution.

Many of the early Fundamentalists were actually Old Earth Creationists, fully accepting of ancient geology (as it had been a long established fact in the scientific community, before Darwin, that the earth was at least millions of years old; and that didn't seem to bother many).

From Justin Martyr to Clement of Alexandria, Origen and many others - many of the early church fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a figurative sense, and subscribed to the notion that that the "days" referred to in Genesis 1 were probably not literal 24 hour days - with there being room for differing interpretations.


Specifically, There were many Church Fathers who did not view the 6 days of Genesis as literal days. And since the early church was not unanimous in taking the days of Genesis as 24-hour days, there's no reason why the modern church should be. Giiven the fact that many in the early church viewed the days of Genesis to be something other than 24-hour days, I think the modern church is free to believe that as well. For if some Christians want to postulate that the days were something else (not an attempt at order, but instead, long ages of time), it's disingenious to act as if you can suddenly say they don’t believe the Bible. For those who believe that the Genesis days represent long ages believe the Bible as much as Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, Augustine, Hilary of Poitiers, etc., etc.

THree very influential church fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine) did not see the Genesis days as 24-hour days.

And they were not the only ones since there were many very influential people in the early church who did not believe that the Genesis days were 24-hour days. This was a view that has existed from the earliest writings of Christianity.

Origen is one of those who stands out (who, in the following excerpt, argues AGAINST a strictly literal interpretation of the Scriptures):

And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone), and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." (Contra Celsus, Book VI, Chapter 60; )

​

Outside of him, there are others to consider that say much on the issue. In example, when dealing with the scriptures, there are certain things which come to mind:

"You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Genesis 2:16-17)
​

Truthfully, how does one reconcile this with this passage later from Genesis?

Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty (930) years... (Genesis 5:5)
​

Logically, if the Lord meant "day" in the former passage as YEC define define "day"--i.e., 24 hours, sunset to sunset--then how did Adam live for 930 years? THis is where study of the Church Fathers is important - for in example, one can consider how St Justin Martyr sees this:

For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' (2 Peter 3:8 ) is connected with this subject. (Dialog with Trypho, Chapter 81; )

​

The SAME theme of a day being as a thousand years to God comes up in the following:

St. Ireneaus of Lyons:
And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin. (Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 23; )
​

Additionally, one can see the same here as well:

St. Cyprian of Carthage:
As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years, as the seven spirits and seven angels which stand and go in and out before the face of God, and the seven-branched lamp in the tabernacle of witness, and the seven golden candlesticks in the Apocalypse, and the seven columns in Solomon upon which Wisdom built her house l so here also the number seven of the brethren, embracing, in the quantity of their number, the seven churches, as likewise in the first book of Kings we read that the barren has borne seven. (Treatises 11:11; )

​

To note, The Church actually owes the greater part of her ecclesiology (i.e., our understanding that there are no Sacramental Mysteries outside the Church) to Cyprian, and his teachings were ratified pretty much without reservation by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
We also have St.Augustine, (who deems it impossible to conceive what kind of days the six days of creation were):

But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say! (City of God, Book XI, Chapter 6; )

​

Clement of Alexandria is one of the most intriguing people to study on the issue - as this theologian did most of his work in the late 100s AD and the early 200s AD as well as being the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. According to Clement:

Wherefore those things were announced first, from which came those that were second, all things being originated together from one essence by one power. For the will of God was one, in one identity. And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist....That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: "This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth." For the expression "when they were created" intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression "in the day that God made," that is, in and by which God made "all things," and "without which not even one thing was made," points out the activity exerted by the Son. As David says, "This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice in it; " that is, in consequence of the knowledge imparted by Him, let us celebrate the divine festival;

-Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book 6, Chapter 16, 205 AD

​

Clement of Alexandria echos the thought that we cannot know from the Scriptures exactly when or how long, in human reckoning, creation took place. On a side note, it should be remembered that Origen and Clement and the Alexandrian School as a whole were very allegorical in approach - with them never denying the Historicity of Jesus Christ and noting He was a real character/person. But their allegorical views went hand in hand with how Church Fathers thought in general.

It is a well known thought that for the Church Fathers many events do not have to flow in sequence or in step-by-step order - for they had a very strong concept of mysticism and the reality of contrast. For Clement, the Church Father advocated that things were not created in succession and were instead all created at once. Essentially, all things (the earth, stars, sun, moon, animals, even time itself) all leapt into being instantaneously and the “days” in Genesis are simply present so that the reader may know which creations were most important to the Lord. In his view, the larger the day, the more important to God the creation was.

This is the view known as “instantaneous creation” - a fairly popular view in the early church. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 293 -373 AD), Augustine (354-330), and Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300 – 368 AD) all believed in the concept as well - and the reasons why it was important/popular in the early Church were largely due to how a prominent Jewish theologian who was a contemporary of Christ believed it. Specifically, it was the case that Philo Judaeus (20 BC – 50 AD) said the following:

And he says that the world was made in six days, not because the Creator stood in need of a length of time (for it is natural that God should do everything at once, not merely by uttering a command, but by even thinking of it); but because the things created required arrangement; and number is akin to arrangement

-Philo Judaeus, The Creation of the World, III, 30 AD
​

There is clear similarity to Clement of Alexandria’s reasoning when studying Philo’s. For Philo said directly that the days in Genesis are not days...but instead merey a means of ordering/arranging the creation.

What many in YEC do not understand is that it was not simply a matter of all things being seen as they do today - for in many ways, the CHurch Fathers were opposite of Old Earth Creationists (what I lean toward often) because they believed in a younger earth, due to the fact that they believed that all creation happened instantaneously. It was not a matter of not believing that many things did not take substantial time - and that is why many in YEC tend to take a lot of things OUT of context when claiming that all things the Fathers believed had to deal with the creation days taking place in 24 hour days.

For according to the Church Fathers, there were no creation days. Rather, God said it and it happened all at once, immediately. ....and from there, the lineage from Adam began, with counting generations telling them that only a few thousand years had elapsed. Essentially, when things began, it was quick - but the time leading to the beginning of all things was substantial (as Old Earthers and others in TE hold to) _ and the point in noting that is that none of them thought the days in Genesis were strict, 24-hour days.For young-earth creationists to insist that the early church was virtually unanimous on this point is avoiding the facts as they happened.

There's no logical way to escape the fact that what the Fathers believed in with regards to the Bible where Genesis [and the 4th Commandment] was concerned was “instantaneous creation.” - supposing that because God could do anything [He can] and can make whatever He wills occur in a moment [He's not bound by time] that He would never take 6 days to create everything. And this occurred because, in their worldview, they seemed to feel that it impugned on God’s omnipotence for Creation to take an entire week. ..for why should God speak, they reasoned, when He can accomplish His will with a thought instead.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I have heard variations from pious Orthodox that range from literal Genesis to God taking an early hominid and imbuing it with a soul. Even heard an argument that those hominids were a source of spouses for Adam's children since incest was forbidden.

I don't know about an official Church position so I can't say.

One may wish to consider John Tobin - who did an excellen job compiling list of references, his arguments being that the Early Church Fathers didn't believe Young-Earth Creationism as is expressed today - and that their version of what a Young Earth model was like differed VASTLY from how many in Evangelical culture see it today.

Philo (a Jewish scholar) was distinct in rejecting attempts to date the origin of the world (Questions and Answers on Genesis 1.1) - which leaves open the possibility that he would be open to an old-earth - and his views were well regarded amongst many in the early body of believers when it came to the original Fundamentalists. For more, one can consider Philo, Allegorical Interpretations 1.2; Who Is the Heir of Divine Things 34....

Ernest Lucas. "Interpreting Genesis in the 21st Century," Faraday Paper No 11: PDF is an excellent source of study - as his paper suggests that the early chapters of Genesis should be read as a theological text expressed in symbolic stories addressed to ancient Hebrews, and not as a scientific text - for when reading it in this way the narratives become highly relevant to us today. Moreover, an excellent resource dedicated to addressing the issue of how the Church Fathers saw issues can be seen in Andrew J. Brown, The Relevance of Augustine’s View of Creation Re-evaluated, PSCF 57 (June 2005): 134-145 and Davis Young’s 1988 article, “The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine’s View of Creation,” both of whic contributed to the debate over the interpretation of the days of creation in Genesis 1 by drawing on Augustine’s most significant work on this biblical text

For other places to consider...

• On the Six Days of Creation
• Genesis, Creation and Evolution - Orthodoxy
• Genesis 1: days or ages? - Evidence to Believe
• The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary
• Young Earth, Old Earth, and Not Having To Know the Answer
• Early Church Fathers Didn't believe Young-earth Creationism
• "Young Earth Theory" and the Early Church Fathers - Orthodox Christianity
• Were the Early Church Fathers Young Earth Creationists? - Evidence for God/Science
• Reasons To Believe : Coming to Grips with the Early Church Fathers' Perspective on Genesis

As said best elsewhere by one believer:

One can be a faithful, committed Christian and believe that evolution is very likely scientifically true. You can be a Christian and believe that God perhaps intentionally set the path of life on its evolutionary path, that He intentionally drew human beings out of the line, breathed His Spirit into us and made us in His Image. Some people call this “theistic evolution” – as opposed to “naturalistic evolution,” which I described in the previous paragraph. It’s not about a huge cosmic accident, but rather, about God doing exactly what He wanted how He wanted to do it. Believing this does not necessarily need to conflict with a belief in God, Jesus or even in the Truth of the Bible as God’s Word.

​

Growing up, my thoughts were similar to others such as Tim Keller - who noted the following in his paper from Bio Logos (for brief excerpt):

God took one out of the population of tool-makers and endowed him with ‘the image of God’. This would have lifted him up to a whole new ‘plane of life’. On this view, then what happened? “If this…alternative implied any doubt of the unity of mankind it would be of course quite untenable. God…has made all nations ‘from one’ (Acts 17:26)….Yet it is at least conceivable that after the special creation of Eve, which established the first human pair as God’s vice-regents (Gen 1:27,28) and clinched the fact that there is no natural bridge from animal to man, God may have now conferred his image on Adam’s collaterals, to bring them into the same realm of being. Adam’s ‘federal’ headship of humanity extended, if that was the case, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinherited both alike.”
Can Genesis Be Compatible with Evolution? Tremper Longman and

​

It seems reasonable to say that Genesis 3 the creation is finished. And it's at this point I don't see an easy reconciliation between a 6,000-year human genealogy and the conclusions of natural history. The most controversial genealogies, in Genesis 5 and 11, seem designed to prevent us from extending them via the usual method of inferring missing generations

I wonder on whether creation was "finished" in the sense of no more development - for even after the Lord saw that his creation was "good", there was still the dynamic that the creation itself goes through periods of change/alteration and adaptation. Differing species can arise over time, be it due to environment change or breeding and many other things.


Nearly all Christians hold to the view of progressive revelation....meaning that God started simple w/ humanity and moved forward with more detail, knowing that certain things would need to be conveyed a certain way to get a job done. For some examples, consider how you talk to your children...or how I talk to my 5yr old sister in simple terms that she can understand and identify with. When my sister is 20yrs, of course it'd be insulting to speak to her as I do now when she's 5...as her understanding is more developed.

For another example......I recall an incident happening in another country--- South America, I believe....where there were doctors working with some primitive tribes who had a very high infant death rate. They tried to explain to the midwives how they needed to wash before assisting in a birth on account of germs. However, the people had no idea what they were talking about and would not heed the advice. Finally, in desperation, they used the people's own spiritual outlook by telling them that by going through a special ritual of hand washing they would ward off the evil spirits that were causing the deaths of the infants. For that was something they could identify withj and it worked. Now, was it true in an absolute sense? Of course not....but nonetheless, it became a vehicle to get these people to do what they needed to do to save lives.

And likewise, so it can be seen with the scriptures. For Humanity was much younger when Genesis was written and did not have the benefit of thousands of years of change in their perspective. One often assumes that they would even understand or be helped what what concerned them by telling them the whole evolutionary story...but these people lived in constant fear of impending anarchy, invading armies, disease, starvation, weather, wild animals and many other dangers. Truly, they were far more at the mercy of the elements than you and I are.

The Story of Genesis tells the story of a God who was in complete control of all things...and things came about as a result of this God's power. God used their understanding of the world that was based on their observation of the world around them to teach them these things. What possible good would it have been to tell them things they could not possibly understand or relate to? That would hardly give them any sense of security in following this God. Look at your own life now. What you understand about God now and life with Him is going to be quite different to what you will know in 30 years. For God meets us where we're at, coming down to our level. And thus, the truths conveyed by the Genesis account are what we need to know and believe.

 

[jckstraw72]

all of those you quoted believed in a young earth. various websites selectively quote them interpreting the days symbolically, but they ignore the passages where they interpret them literally. this is because the evolutionist position CANNOT interpret them literally, whereas the Creationist position can accept all levels of meaning.

St. Justin Martyr, 1st Apology, chapter 67 But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.


Fragments, XI
When God formed man at the beginning, He suspended the things of nature on his will, and made an experiment by means of one commandment. For He ordained that, if he kept this, he should partake of immortal existence; but if he transgressed it, the contrary should be his lot. Man having been thus made, and immediately looking towards transgression, naturally became subject to corruption.


St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.28.3
For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: “Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works." This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.


Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata 2.21
From Adam to the deluge are comprised two thousand one hundred and forty-eight years, four days. From Shem to Abraham, a thousand two hundred and fifty years. From Isaac to the division of the land, six hundred and sixteen years. Then from the judges to Samuel, four hundred and sixty-three years, seven months. And after the judges there were five hundred and seventy-two years, six months, ten days of kings.


The Stromata 4.25
Whence He commands them not to touch dead bodies, or approach the dead; not that the body was polluted, but that sin and disobedience were incarnate, and embodied, and dead, and therefore abominable. It was only, then, when a father and mother, a son and daughter died, that the priest was allowed to enter, because these were related only by flesh and seed, to whom the priest was indebted for the immediate cause of his entrance into life. And they purify themselves seven days, the period in which Creation was consummated. For on the seventh day the rest is celebrated; and on the eighth he brings a propitiation, as is written in Ezekiel, according to which propitiation the promise is to be received.


The Stromata 5.6
Now the high priest’s robe is the symbol of the world of sense. The seven planets are represented by the five stones and the two carbuncles, for Saturn and the Moon. The former is southern, and moist, and earthy, and heavy; the latter aerial, whence she is called by some Artemis, as if Aerotomos (cutting the air); and the air is cloudy. And cooperating as they did in the production of things here below, those that by Divine Providence are set over the planets are rightly represented as placed on the breast and shoulders; and by them was the work of creation, the first week. And the breast is the seat of the heart and soul.


The Stromata 6.16
Wherefore Solomon also says, that before heaven, and earth, and all existences, Wisdom had arisen in the Almighty; the participation of which-that which is by power, I mean, not that by essence-teaches a man to know by apprehension things divine and human. Having reached this point, we must mention these things by the way; since the discourse has turned on the seventh and the eighth. For the eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh, and the seventh manifestly the sixth, and the latter properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work. For the creation of the world was concluded in six days.

St. Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1.1 The enemy is more to be feared and to be guarded against, when he creeps on us secretly; when, deceiving by the appearance of peace, he steals forward by hidden approaches, whence also he has received the name of the Serpent. That is always his subtlety; that is his dark and stealthy artifice for circumventing man. Thus from the very beginning of the world he deceived; and flattering with lying words, he misled inexperienced souls by an incautious credulity.


Treatise 9.11
But that it may be more manifestly and fully known how useful and necessary patience is, beloved brethren; let the judgment of God be pondered, which even in the beginning of the world and of the human race, Adam, forgetful of the commandment, and a transgressor of the given law, received.


Treatise 9.24
Let us wait for Him, beloved brethren, our Judge and Avenger, who shall equally avenge with Himself the congregation of His Church, and the number of all the righteous from the beginning of the world.


Treatise 11.2
It is an ancient adversary and an old enemy with whom we wage our battle: six thousand years are now nearly completed since the devil first attacked man.
(this responds to 11.11 which says “As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years.” Evolutionists put this forth as proof of non-literal reading, but 11.2 proves a literal timeline. If each day was 1000 yrs then 6th and 7th days are 1000 yrs each and time from first attack of Satan to St. Cyprian would be more like 8000 years.)

Treatise 12.20 1st Book
Also in the first book of Kings: The barren has borne seven and she that had many children has grown weak. But the seven children are the seven churches. Whence also Paul wrote to seven churches; and the Apocalypse sets forth seven churches, that the number seven may be preserved; as the seven days in which God made the world; as the seven angels who stand and go in and out before the face of God, as Raphael the angel says in Tobit; and the sevenfold lamp in the tabernacle of witness; and the seven eyes of God, which keep watch over the world; and the stone with seven eyes, as Zechariah says; and the seven spirits; and the seven candlesticks in the Apocalypse; and the seven pillars upon which Wisdom has built her house in Solomon.

St. Augustine, City of God, Book XVIII.XL In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has decla…red this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books. For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth? For what historian of the past should we credit more than him who has also predicted things to come which we now see fulfilled?


Origen, Against Celsus 1.19
After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated.

 

[jckstraw72]

St. Ephraim of Syria, Commentary on Genesis 1, pg. 282 No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory; it is likewise impermissible to say that what seems, according to the account, to have been created in six days, was created in a single instant, and likewise that certain names presented in this account either signify nothing, or signify something else. On the contrary, we must know that just as the heaven and the earth which were created in the beginning are actually the heaven and the earth and not something else understood under the names of heaven and earth, so also everything else that is spoken of as being created and brought into order after the creation of heaven and earth is not empty names, but the very essence of the created natures corresponds to the force of these names.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

We are not sinking back into pre-modern ignorance of the physical world any time soon

I agree.

Even as it concerns the dynamic of science and evolution being discussed in it, I've not seen why it's horrible to note that living things evolve, and have been doing so on this planet for at least several billion years. There was another discussion elsewhere that sought to go in-depth on the issue, here:

.. what about all the archaeological finds we have discovered like the famous Lucy skelton, an ancient Australapithecine hominid that is estimated to be over 3 million years old? Donald Johansen's find was enormous. We have found australopithecines, homo erecus, homo habilis, neanderthals, etc. What are we to make of these hominids? Just flukes? Anthrolopologists and archaeologists analyzed their teeth, bone structures, what was found in their immediate vicinity within a few feet, and they've drawn some logical conclusions. I guess I'm wondering if we all have given the research, findings, conclusions, and actual reading its due diligence, or just cast it off as absurd because it might not jive with the Bible, approaching the OT as a history and science text? What are we to make of these skeletal finds? What do we make of mammoth discoveries like Oduvai Gorge, the Leakey finds, Johansen's discoveries, etc?

As said best elsewhere:

... God bestowed special spiritual gifts on those who had developed the necessary characteristics. This historical event would endow the recipients with the image of God. We can say that Homo divinus was therefore created from Homo sapiens. With these spiritual gifts came the ability to know and experience evil—an opportunity that was grasped with tragic consequences.


This view can fit whether the humans in question constituted a group or a specific male-female pair. In the case of a group, we can imagine that God interacted with all members of the group and essentially initiated the relationship that exists today. If the initiative was with a single human couple, then that relationship could spread to and through their offspring as that subset of the existing population came to dominate.... It is argued that bearing God’s image is not a matter of our physical appearance but a matter of our capacity to love both God and others, to have dominion over the earth, and to have moral consciousness. We are to image God (see our question on the "Image of God"). In this way we might distinguish between Homo sapiens and the image-bearing creatures that we might call Homo divinus..
​

For a better description, one can go here to the following:

• Denis Alexander, “How Does a BioLogos Model Need to Address the Theological Issues Associated with an Adam Who Was Not the Sole Genetic Progenitor of Humankind?” (Dec 2011)

Some are of the mindset that man evolved, to the point where the Lord bestowed upon him the image of God---thus making it possible for him to share links with others in the Primate family and yet be distinct when his intelligence underwent RADICAL changes. And on the issue of man being related to apes, there'd be nothing wrong with this (In my opinion). Secifically, Under the Scientific classification of Anthropoids:

Sub-Order: Anthropoidea,
Infra-Order: Catarrhine,
Super-family: Homonoidea,
Subfamily: Homininae,
Tribe: Hominini,
Species: Human.
​

The other "tribe" under Homininae is: Panini, Species: Chimpanzees. Humans are different for other primates in that we don't have an insulating layer of hair - allowing us to control body temperature through sweating. AND Our females go through a menopause sometime quite early in life, while other primates don't.And this wouldn't be an issue for "Creationists" in any way. Dr. Porsche built the original "Bebe" Renault, and the Economy models of the early Mercedes rear engine vehicles - AND the Volkswagens (in 1939). When one looks at the "guts" of the three (and of others he did) one can see a distinctive commonality of design, and similar features among all three - making it clear that the same "thought process" produced all three vehicles. BUT Nobody would try to prove that a Volkswagen was a "Bebe Renault" - but could easily demonstrate that the same "creator" was involved in both of 'em.

Some Christians think belief in evolution undermines the uniqueness of humankind and the reality of evil and the fall....but I disagree. For the Genesis account portrays Adam and Eve as Neolithic farmers. It is perfectly feasible that God bestowed His image on representative Homo sapiens already living in the Near East to generate what John Stott has called Homo divinus, those who first enjoyed personal fellowship with God but who then fell most terribly from their close walk with God (Genesis 3.8). All those who disobey God and trust in their own wisdom in place of God’s law reiterate the historical fall in their own being (Ezekiel 28.11-19). I don't see anything wrong with advocating that God may've made two species that have similarities and may've indeed come from the same stock while choosing to impart one aspect of Himself into one of the groups to make them far superior/advanced than all others in creation.

Not too long ago, there was an article from BIO Logos I came across..and I thought it was intriguing when it came to discussing what's seen in Genesis and renconcilling that with Anthroplogy. For more:

• Adam and Eve: Literal or Literary? | The BioLogos Forum
• What Does “Image of God” Mean? Part 2 | The BioLogos" ​

• Models for Relating Adam and Eve with Contemporary Anthropology | The Bio"" ()​

What they offered seemed insightful and, IMHO, it does bring up an entirely different realm of conversation when considering Genesis and how God described the role of Man (as well as the Devil) and the story of creation all the way up to Genesis 6/the Flood.​

Although I think the story of Adam/Eve is literal, I think the interpretation of it often gets missed. Where scripture says "God made man from the Dust of the Ground", I've always been curious as to why many say its somehow impossible for the Lord to have made other species similar to man (i.e. apes, primates, etc) and then with man, breath his spirit into man....with the Gift of God's Spirit imparted being what set man apart.​

The text doesn't say that only having 4 fingers/thumbs is what makes man in the "Image of God"...as other creatures share similar genetic make-up on some parts & have the same body parts. Yet that doesn't mean that we're the same fully. If apes /other species and humans were 100% the same in all things, it'd definately place an entirely different spin on the film "Rise of the Planet of the Apes."​

​

​

Seeing the Film puts an enitrely DIFFERENT spin on what it means to be in a Zoo---and makes one wonder what would happen if indeed was the case that something was naturally able to develop that'd be against man. For animals have learned to use tools, as well as to communicate on high levels of intelligence/network...even using tools to do things. Though never on the level as man, there's no saying that it could not happen where intelligence/development grew enough where a threat to man's survival occurred. Of course, if that happened like in "Planet of the Apes, they I'd say Apes would be seen as another creation of the "Beasts of the Field" (Genesis 1:24-25)...and having to fight against other species evolving would be an extension of the mandate from God to "Have Dominion" (Genesis 1:26-31). ..with both connected and what's seen in anthropology with "common links"/similar actions kept in place...

Concerning the theory of men being related to "beasts", there's actually another theory that says one of the beasts of the field would be the Nephilim from Genesis 6:3-5/ Numbers 13:32-33 ......and that the Nephilim were a species of primate not made in the "Image of God." Many believe they were on a differing evolutionary route than the group of primate that Hashem placed his Spirit in to create man...with man being the one that the Lord chose to work with and the Nephlim being the leftovers who evolved over time. Many ponder over the possibility of the Nephilim being a species of proto-human..basically an unknown or primitive species of human....and others feel that perhaps the Nephilim from Genesis 6 were the result of men breeding with other primates/blending to create a race of giants. Either way, they were far less evolved than man..​

For more, one can go here to the following:​

• Why Mylipin; / Myliypin; (Nephilim) - Michael S. Heiser
• Neanderthals | Reasons To Believe
• Neanderthal Project
• Neanderthal Nephilim?
• GIANTS OF THE BIBLE
• Who Were the Nephilim?
• Cavemen Are People Too!
• Neanderthal = Nephilim?
• Nephilim - Michael S. Heiser
• Hugh Ross, ICR, and Facts of Science
• Reasons To Believe - Were Hominids Human?
• Neanderthal and Nephilim - Are They the Same?
• Neanderthal/human interbreeding - The Panda's Thumb
• 2] Nephilim Skeletons Found, by Fred Harding, Tekline Publishing ...