[_ Old Earth _] Christianity and the rise of western science

[Pizzaguy]

Before you click the link, I wanted to say that James Burke (the agnostic/atheist who worked for decades as a BBC science correspondent) in his landmark TV series "The Day the Universe Changed", said virtually the same things as this article. YOu can find the entire TV series on YouTube.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/08/3498202.htm

If you dn't want to take time for the entire article, just scroll down to "God and the Laws of Nature".

 

[Classik]

Thanks for sharing. I will read it over and over again. It's nealry a long link

 

[Pizzaguy]

I have it bookmarked, but I read it from start to finish. A lot of what James Burke said is backed up in this piece. The great minds of the 1500 and 1600's were usually believers of one sort or another, from Kepler to Newton.

 

[Barbarian]

Pretty much so, although Newton privately denied that Christ was God. The real key was that Arabic science (which had preserved the learning of the ancient Greeks and passed it on to Europe after the Dark Ages) was adopted, enlarged, and developed into modern science by Europeans.

Hence Galileo's assertion that the Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

 

[zeke]

Hence Galileo's assertion that the Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

Galileo also wrote regarding Copernicus that he "did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood."

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Hence Galileo's assertion that the Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

Galileo also wrote regarding Copernicus that he "did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood."

St. Augustine recognized that, much earlier. And yet foolish people like Martin Luther and Calvin took their personal preferences and tried to make them God's word.

Pretty much like YE creationists do today.

 

[zeke]

Pretty much like YE creationists do today.

But Augustine was YE creationist. Where does that leave you?

 

[Barbarian]

But Augustine was YE creationist.

Augustine asserted that the six days of creation were not literal days. If you think that's YE creationism, you know as little about YE creationism as you do about Christianity.

Where does that leave you?

Chuckling at your misconceptions. Here's Augustine's advice for you:

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn... If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe our books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren, ... to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call on Holy Scripture, .. although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

Try to consider the consequences of your continued misrepresentation of Christian belief.

 

[zeke]

Augustine asserted that the six days of creation were not literal days. If you think that's YE creationism, you know as little about YE creationism as you do about Christianity.

Your trainers have misinformed you. Augustine believe that Creation took place around 5600 BC.

Augustine wrote in De Civitate Dei that his view of the chronology of the world and the Bible led him to believe that Creation took place around 5600 BC...

In this later work of his [On the necessity of taking Genesis literally], Augustine says farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible. ~ Benno Zuiddam

Benno Zuiddam D.Th. (Church History) Ph.D. (Greek) studied at four universities in Europe and South Africa. He is research professor (extraordinary associate) for New Testament Studies with the Department of Biblical Studies and Ancient Languages at the Faculty of Theology of North West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. He also serves with Greenwich School of Theology (UK) as tutor for Ph.D. projects and as a minister with the Presbyterian Church of Australia. Prof. Zuiddam has published in about 10 different peer-reviewed classical and theological journals, and also authored an in-depth study on the authority of the Scriptures in the Early Church.​

 

[Pizzaguy]

And to think, I posted this here (and not in an open forum) so that we as Christians could wonder at the spectacle of the rise of western science and it's link to past believers... without all the arguing that would arise from non-Christians in the thread.

I wanted to use this article as a unifying force, a point we could rally around and be more like brothers and sisters.

Some days, I really get tired of this place. :bigfrown

 

[Classik]

Some days, I really get tired of this place. :bigfrown

Sorry :D

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Augustine asserted that the six days of creation were not literal days. If you think that's YE creationism, you know as little about YE creationism as you do about Christianity.

Your trainers have misinformed you.

Well, let's take a look...

In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

Looks like you were fooled about that, too.

In this later work of his [On the necessity of taking Genesis literally], Augustine says farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible. ~ Benno Zuiddam

It is in that work that St. Augustine points out that the days of creation can't be literal ones. Apparently, Benno never actually read it. If you want to check it out for yourself, there are still good translations in print.
http://www.amazon.com/41-St-Augustine-Vol-Christian/dp/0809103265

It would be good for you to see for yourself, instead of being led by others.

 

[zeke]

Barbarian chuckles:
Augustine asserted that the six days of creation were not literal days. If you think that's YE creationism, you know as little about YE creationism as you do about Christianity.

What do you misunderstand - "Augustine wrote in De Civitate Dei that his view of the chronology of the world and the Bible led him to believe that Creation took place around 5600 BC..." Do you disagree with Augustine?

 

[Barbarian]

What do you misunderstand - "Augustine wrote in De Civitate Dei that his view of the chronology of the world and the Bible led him to believe that Creation took place around 5600 BC..."

Augustine, like other scientifically literate men of his time, took the evidence available at the time to conclude the world to be quite young. It was understandable; they didn't know many things we discovered later.

His understanding of scripture showed him that there could not be six literal days of creation. Your source is flat out wrong, as I just showed you. He said that there were no six literal days of creation.

But Augustine was YE creationist.

Sorry, they lied to you about that. Take a look again:

Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal.

Do you disagree with Augustine?

I agree; Genesis plainly does not include six literal days of creation. Do you agree with him?

 

[zeke]

Augustine, like other scientifically literate men of his time, took the evidence available at the time to conclude the world to be quite young.

Augustine used the same Bible you have that led him to believe that Creation took place around 5600 BC. Do you disagree with Augustine? Do the teachings of Augustine support the 'great ages' required for your theistic evolutionism? Your trainers may have mislead you. Augustine is not on your side my friend - you simply dig deeper.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Augustine, like other scientifically literate men of his time, took the evidence available at the time to conclude the world to be quite young.

But Augustine was YE creationist.

Sorry, they lied to you about that. Take a look again:

Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal.

Augustine used the same Bible you have that led him to believe that Creation did not happen in six literal days. Do you disagree with Augustine? Are you telling us that young Earth creationists believe that creation didn't actually take six literal days? C'mon. Do you think people don't notice?

As you see, Augustine's theology was correct; he understood that the six days of creation were not literal ones. His geology was at fault, but he didn't have the data we have today.

 

[zeke]

As you see, Augustine's theology was correct; he understood that the six days of creation were not literal ones. His geology was at fault, but he didn't have the data we have today.

Was his theology correct - be careful. Do the teachings of Augustine support the 'great ages' required for your theistic evolutionism? Still waiting for your answer. Augustine is not on your side my friend - stop digging.

"Augustine wrote in De Civitate Dei that his view of the chronology of the world and the Bible led him to believe that Creation took place around 5600 BC..."​

 

[jasoncran]

the question is did augustine speak and read and write hebrew? probably not.

i have the genesis account from nachimedes and he records that its taken to be literally six day account and bases the entire fact that isreal existence is need on that premise and bases it on the command to do the shabat. that book on genesis is thicker then my bible and yours.

 

[Barbarian]

Was his theology correct - be careful. Do the teachings of Augustine support the 'great ages' required for your theistic evolutionism?

To Augustine, thousands of years were great ages. His geology was wrong. But as you see, he pointed out the impossibility of the days of Genesis being literal ones.

But Augustine was YE creationist.

YE creationism is a doctrine invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the last century. Christians in the fifth century had never heard of it. I understand why you aren't willing to take this as an answer. But that's how things go sometimes.

 

[Barbarian]

i have the genesis account from nachimedes and he records that its taken to be literally six day account and bases the entire fact that isreal existence is need on that premise and bases it on the command to do the shabat. that book on genesis is thicker then my bible and yours.

Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides held that it was not required to read Genesis literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis