The historicity of Adam

[jckstraw72]

BTW I advise you reread Bouteneff if you think that is his conclusion. In the paragraphs before the one I pasted here he talks specifically about the changing methods of exegesis of Genesis by the fathers.

that's what he tells us. that's not what he demonstrates.

 

[AndrewEOC]

you've already told us that you haven't really read the book. i've read it, took notes on it, and used it in my Master's thesis. i'm familiar with the book. regardless of his conclusions, he shows us that every Father interpreted Genesis literally. He does not demonstrate even a single Father denying the literal interpretation of Genesis. He shows that symbolic and literal are complementary, just as did Fr. Seraphim. the difference is that Fr. Seraphim accepts that as his conclusion, whereas Bouteneff does not.

Only his conclusion I've read thoroughly- but flip open to a random page and he most likely is discussing the differences (many small, some more significant) between the fathers' exegesis, with due references. His conclusion is that there is meaningful consensus among the fathers, along with "different conclusions about the details and historicity" of Genesis to which Bouteneff assigns a secondary importance. If all of the fathers were speaking dogmatically, how are these differences possible, even the smallest of details?

But in reality this is not what the Church preaches as dogma. If it were, there would be some pretty big problems considering all the Orthodox clergy and laypeople who accept the legitimacy of evolutionary theory while taking Communion regularly. From what I've experienced outside of Internet forums, they seem to be a majority.

BTW- I have chosen to be honest about how much of the book I have read, instead of pretending I've read the whole thing cover to cover, which would be all too easy. But there's no need for you to flaunt this or your degree and expertise as though that will help prove his conclusions are false or inconsistent (or rather, those with which you disagree). I had several brilliant professors say some pretty silly things about certain sources, especially when those sources disagreed with what they wanted to argue.

 

[jckstraw72]

i didn't mean to flaunt anything - i just think its strange that you keep telling us to read it and talking about what he demonstrates, when you yourself haven't read it. and you told me to read it seemingly based on the fact that i have a different view from him -- perhaps i read it and found it lacking.

 

[jckstraw72]

But in reality this is not what the Church preaches as dogma.

this raises the question of how the Church voices it's dogma. is it only the Councils? do we profess sola synodia?

 

[AndrewEOC]

i didn't mean to flaunt anything - i just think its strange that you keep telling us to read it and talking about what he demonstrates, when you yourself haven't read it. and you told me to read it seemingly based on the fact that i have a different view from him -- perhaps i read it and found it lacking.

No, I keep quoting and referencing what of it I have read. I can't see how you find this strange when it's standard practice for referencing sources in academia and elsewhere.

 

[jckstraw72]

because you are quoting to us only the conclusion. i am responding that the book itself does not support his conclusion. he can conclude anything he wants, but it would be more effective if he could support it. you're using Bouteneff to show that there is legitimate disagreement, but his book does not legitimize his conclusion. and i said that i have read and it and used it in a paper just to say that i'm not just talking out of my butt - i'm not just disagreeing because he's not a Creationist. i've read the book and found his comments and conclusions to be quite lacking.

 

[AndrewEOC]

because you are quoting to us only the conclusion. i am responding that the book itself does not support his conclusion. he can conclude anything he wants, but it would be more effective if he could support it. you're using Bouteneff to show that there is legitimate disagreement, but his book does not legitimize his conclusion.

OK, how about I get back to you once I have read more of it? Then we can have an in-depth discussion of exactly how the examples he uses does not support his conclusion.

 

[jckstraw72]

sounds good ... i think if you take just the Patristic evidence he provides, he shows remarkable unity with the teaching of Fr. Seraphim.

 

[rusmeister]

Nice!

I have a close friend who lives in Istanbul, and I would love to go visit him, but from Canada the air-fare is substantial.

Are you on the coast?

Yes. If the flight weren't part of the package tour, we wouldn't be able to afford it, either.
The south coast is MUCH more popular among Russians looking for a resort.

 

[jckstraw72]

sorry Andrew, i didn't mean to come off as combative. i'm just used to being treated as a moron for being an Orthodox Creationist, but I've done quite a bit of work on this subject, including my thesis specifically on Fr. Seraphim and his book on creation. anyways, please forgive my pride.

 

[AndrewEOC]

Jckstraw-

I will tackle the whole book when I have time in the coming days. But just to be clear, the scientific evidence available along with the position of numerous Orthodox theologians for whom I have a great respect (for reasons far beyond just this one) is more than enough to convince me of the validity of evolutionary theory and its compatibility with Orthodoxy.

Having said that there's no reason for you to apologize. Even though we disagree I think this disagreement is healthy especially when it's well-substantiated, as yours clearly is. I am very glad we can disagree like this and still take Communion in the same church, FWIW (even if you don't think the same thing), and I appreciate creationists keeping evolutionary scientists on their toes.

 

[inconsequential]

Forgive me if its already been mentioned but does anyone have any thoughts on the wording in Genesis "let the earth bring forth" and what it might be taken to mean?

 

[jckstraw72]

NPNF2-08. Basil: Letters and Select Works - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What this chap said....

I think there is an assumption here that those who reject human evolution as improbable or impossible (acknowledging that SOME living organisms DO exhibit adaptive change over time) are "clinging" (a verb connoting fear) to certain understandings as literal, though I don't think, in general, that educated Orthodox Christians would insist that everything described in the Bible must be understood literally.

In fact, I would point out the danger of putting the natural sciences in an unwarranted psition of authority, or more accurately, of accepting widely held modern materialist interpretations of scientists (who can only come to conclusions through their science about the material world, anyway) as inerrant truth. The real danger is the idea that, because the natural sciences seem to be gaining knowledge over time, that the ability of scientists to think about said accumulation is correspondingly improving; indeed, that such improvement is inevitable. I think such an assumption to be seriously in error, approaching what I would call "science-worship". The problem that I see is that while the sciences may have made gains in technical knowledge, the philosophy governing thinking about such things has not only failed to improve, but has drastically degraded. In ither words, we are becoming idiot-savants, having more and more knowledge, and less and less of both wisdom and reason.

On genetic engineering, the very first book I would refer you to is GK Chesterton's "On Eugenics and Other Evils". One must recognize the enormous capacity for evil that is not only possible, but likely to be realized. The great evils approaching in this ability to do incredible things combined with an utter lack of wisdom guiding what ought to be, or not to be done, are horrifying, to those who can see this.

We agree that the natural sciences should be respected in their proper place, and that mindless fundamentalism is not Christian wisdom. But modern scientists do not have the essential keys to help us understand even this world, let alone the realities behind it. They see a silhouette of a man raising a knife over a sleeping victim, when, if the curtain be drawn aside, we would see a doctor at an operating table.

 

[truthseeker32]

An important question to be asked pertaining to this issue is why the Early Church Fathers believed as they did. Were they inclined to take a more literal approach to Genesis because it was revealed to be absolutely true to them, or because the ancient world in which they lived didn't offer compelling alternatives?

I hope that what I say is not contentious, but I am inclined to believe that the ECFs held many beliefs that are now understood to be false because in the world in which they lived those falsities seemed true at the time. In the absence of modern evolutionary theory, geology, astronomy, etc. it would be easy to interpret Genesis in a more literal fashion.

 

[jckstraw72]

An important question to be asked pertaining to this issue is why the Early Church Fathers believed as they did. Were they inclined to take a more literal approach to Genesis because it was revealed to be absolutely true to them, or because the ancient world in which they lived didn't offer compelling alternatives?

their surrounding society certainly did not give them the notion of a young earth which was a literal Paradise. the Fathers often fought explicitly against the notion of a young earth, for instance. they often state that they are not giving the teachings of the world but rather that of the Church. the Fathers were quite conscience of what they were teaching and why. they understood Moses to be a prophet of the past - that he actually saw the creation happen in a vision - and St. Isaac the Syrian and St. Gregory of Sinai and others speak of this as one of the levels of vision of the Saint. As ArmyMatt said earlier, near to our own times Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi had such a vision and saw creation happen precisely as Moses wrote it.

 

[truthseeker32]

As ArmyMatt said earlier, near to our own times Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi had such a vision and saw creation happen precisely as Moses wrote it.

Okay, but this still doesn't tell us whether creation happened in 7, 24 hour days. It tells us only that what Moses saw in a vision corresponds in some way with what Genesis says. Genesis isn't super specific. God could have shown these saints a sped up or simplified view of creation. This is all just my own speculation, mind you. I have just read many ECFs and other commentaries on Genesis and I see no reason that these would restrict an Orthodox Christian to a YEC view.

The more precise and defined an explanation is, the more clearly we can understand the concepts it is trying to convey. For example, saying "on the third day God created" is a lot more open to interpretation than "on the third day, meaning the amount of time it takes for the earth to complete one rotation in relation to the sun, God created, meaning he brought something that did not exist before in any sense..."

 

[jckstraw72]

several Fathers spoke explicitly of the days as 24 hours, and the Church adopted the Byzantine Creation Era calendar which placed the creation of the world at 5509 BC - which comes from a literal reading of the OT. you can read about that here: Byzantine Creation Era - OrthodoxWiki

 

[buzuxi02]

Okay, but this still doesn't tell us whether creation happened in 7, 24 hour days. It tells us only that what Moses saw in a vision corresponds in some way with what Genesis says. Genesis isn't super specific. God could have shown these saints a sped up or simplified view of creation. This is all just my own speculation, mind you. I have just read many ECFs and other commentaries on Genesis and I see no reason that these would restrict an Orthodox Christian to a YEC view.

The more precise and defined an explanation is, the more clearly we can understand the concepts it is trying to convey. For example, saying "on the third day God created" is a lot more open to interpretation than "on the third day, meaning the amount of time it takes for the earth to complete one rotation in relation to the sun, God created, meaning he brought something that did not exist before in any sense..."

This I could definitely see. In the post about the Russian deacon who says we cannot reject evolution on textual grounds is quite a tall order. if the person said, 'we need not reject evolution on textual grounds', that would be plausible. He would have to make his case of course.

I do not doubt that there were Fathers that gave allegoric interpretations and more figurative interpretations to Genesis, but it would be a tall order to prove that the overwhelming consensus was anything but.

Also the incarnation wouldn't make much sense as Christ came to overturn the first sin which brought death. Christ is the new Adam and the Theotokos the New Eve. Christ is human just like us in every way except for sin. If the whole event is a make believe myth with no divine inspiration -so is all of Christianity.

But even when evolution hit the scene many decades ago, that evolution theory is basically debunked. The original theory is that some mutation made us evolve from chimps or should we say some mutation occurred to a specific chimp tribe and they slowly evolved from lucy to Neanderthal to homoerectus to homosapien. Today from what I see, evolution simply states hominids evolved from a common ancestor.

But the truth is todays discoveries in anthropological evolution is actually good for protestant fundamentalists. Today its clear to scientists that Neanderthals and homoerectus were separate species from homosapiens who at one point lived side by side. The scientists now believe that most likely man overtook and conquered the lesser hominids, but also some evidence seems to suggest homosapien males kept some of the Neanderthal females around for sex. For fundamentalists this is proof what the bible says about the sons of God taking the daughters of men and procreating some race of hybrid human like creature, hence the men of old the men of reknown the men of fame.

Now I can see an interpretation for a kind of evolution from Genesis, (for example an upright creature called the anthropos was made from the dust, and then later on God brought forth the male and female from this single anthropos, see genesis 5.2).

But extracting a modern form of evolution from the fathers is nearly impossible. Not only would you have to do that, you would then have to tie it in with the entire purpose of the incarnation without treading on a Christological heresy to boot!

 

[truefiction1]

It's literature. It's not science, and not even a literal history. It's written so that children can learn the beliefs and values of their parent culture, so it is put into stories which can be understood even by the simple minds of children. But are we children in our understandings of our real origin and history? Do we need to remain as such in order to be Orthodox Christians. No. We do not.