[_ Old Earth _] GenesisTime

[Sparkey]

No trouble understanding at all - what did you mean to say?

I meant to say what I said to Barbarian, and he had no problem understanding me. Basically I was pointing to the fact that his prior post wasn't like him and that if he meant what I heard him say, I would take exception. But then, you knew that, didn't you?

 

[zeke]

I meant to say what I said to Barbarian, and he had no problem understanding me. Basically I was pointing to the fact that his prior post wasn't like him and that if he meant what I heard him say, I would take exception. But then, you knew that, didn't you?

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[zeke]

"Darwinian mythology" is your invention.

You are mistaken - dinos evolving into birds is not my mythology.

Since the opinions you've attributed to scientists have repeatedly been shown to be untrue, I'd have to get a checkable source to believe any "quote" you provided.

The quotes I provided from scientists are their word in context - what part of their words do you perceive to be untrue?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding St. Augustine:
He very effectively refuted YE creationism, pointing out that Genesis could not be a literal history.

You are mistaken

Well, let's take a look...

In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective held by Christians prior to modern science. St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-171), and others supported the idea of Accommodation. In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand...St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended. The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution...St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.2 In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.
http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis

St. Augustine actually wrote that creation was done in an instant, and that all things developed from that initial creation. Pretty good understanding, it turns out.

The relationship of these two notions about creation is developed in the writings of St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430). Augustine asserted that creation is an instantaneous act: all of its materials, processes, capacities, and pathways appear at the very instant God speaks the universe into being (in this sense of instantaneous creation one could perhaps say that God "finished" his creation). However, the creation obediently responds to the divine "Let there be…" over time.
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay02.asp

and as noted Augustine of Hippo was not on your side.

Oh, I think he was...

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 sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.
St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim


You may want to educate yourself on what he really wrote.

 

[zeke]

You may want to educate yourself on what he really wrote.

Lol -how's your math? If Creation took place around 5600 BC according to Augustine does that equate to 4.5 bn years in your fuzzy math? Augustine was not on your side - moved forward.

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...​

 

[Barbarian]

True, Augustine had no idea how old the Earth was. But he did understand that Genesis was not a literal history. And that rules out YE creationism.

It's O.K. Scientists didn't know how old the Earth was until Rutherford demonstrated a way to find out.

 

[zeke]

True, Augustine had no idea how old the Earth was. But he did understand that Genesis was not a literal history. And that rules out YE creationism.

Lol -you still don't get it do you?

As Augustine became older, he gave greater emphasis to the underlying historicity and necessity of a literal interpretation of Scripture. His most important work is De Genesi ad litteram. The title says it: On the necessity of taking Genesis literally. In this later work of his, Augustine says farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible. He even rejected allegory when he deals with the historicity and geographic locality of Paradise on earth. ~ Benno Zuiddam​

What part of "literal history" and " taking Genesis literally" do you not understand? Augustine was not on your side - move forward.

 

[Barbarian]

St. Augustine points out the absurdity of mornings and evenings with no Sun:
But before the appearance of the sun, in what sort of cycle could three days and nights have passed in succession? Even if there existed the light which was first created, and even if we assume that it was a corporeal light, it is difficult to discover any solution to propose for this problem. Perhaps one might say that God gave the name “darkness†to the mass of earth and water which were still not separated one from the other (a thing which is said to have happened on the third day), in view of the dense bodily mass of the earth and water, which light could not have penetrated, or in view of the dark shade of the huge bulk. Now there must be such a shade on one side of a body if there is light on the other. Where part of a body cannot be reached by light, because the mass of the body obstructs it, in that part there is shade; for a place deprived of light which would illuminate it if it were not for a body that obstructs the light, fulfills exactly the definition of shade. If this shade, because of the size of the massive body, is large enough to cover a space of the earth equal to that covered by daylight on the other side, it is then called “night.†Not all darkness is night. There is darkness also in large caves in which light cannot penetrate the inner recesses because of the solid mass that obstructs it. In such places there is no light, and all the area is unlighted, but we do not call this darkness “night.†This word we reserve for the darkness that comes to that part of the earth from which day has departed. Similarly, not all light is called “dayâ€; there is the light of the moon, of the stars, of lamps, of lightning, and of all such objects that shine. But that light is called “day†which precedes the night and withdraws when night comes on...Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.â€

St. Augustine The Literal Meaning of Genesis

Augustine, even though his work was entitled The Literal Meaning of Genesis, does not read Genesis 1 in the same “literal†way that modern young-Earth creationists do. Augustine believed that the creation was an instantaneous event rather than being spread out over six literal days, and that the six days of Genesis 1 were a literary structure rather than a statement of the order or timing of events. This is a remarkable insight from a deep thinker, who was in no way influenced by modern understandings of the age of the universe. This also should remind us that modern interpretations that understand Genesis as not requiring a 6000-year old Earth are not just forcing a modern interpretation on the text. Instead, the idea that Genesis doesn’t tell us how old the Earth is could be something that flows out of the text.
http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/augustine-the-literal-meaning-of-genesis/

I'm sure we'll all be pleased to see Augustine's later work in which he retracted his statement in "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" in which he pointed out that the creation week could not be literal days.

When do you think you can do that?

 

[Pizzaguy]

St. Augustine actually wrote that creation was done in an instant, and that all things developed from that initial creation. Pretty good understanding, it turns out.

I have long maintained that Genesis' description of creation sounds a LOT like the big bang theory.

I also chucked when I realized that it SEEMED that, once the scientific community realized the similarity - the BB theory suddenly was attacked by scientists themselves.

Ok, now to go back and READ the ENTIRE thread.

 

[zeke]

When do you think you can do that?

I think we can all go with the words of a real church historian - how's that?

As Augustine became older, he gave greater emphasis to the underlying historicity and necessity of a literal interpretation of Scripture. His most important work is De Genesi ad litteram. The title says it: On the necessity of taking Genesis literally. In this later work of his, Augustine says farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible. He even rejected allegory when he deals with the historicity and geographic locality of Paradise on earth. (Zuiddam)​

What part of "taking Genesis literally" do you still not understand? You made a big mistake, mate. Augustine was not on your side any way you want to spin it - move forward. :yes

 

[lordkalvan]

I think we can all go with the words of a real church historian - how's that?

As Augustine became older, he gave greater emphasis to the underlying historicity and necessity of a literal interpretation of Scripture. His most important work is De Genesi ad litteram. The title says it: On the necessity of taking Genesis literally. In this later work of his, Augustine says farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible. He even rejected allegory when he deals with the historicity and geographic locality of Paradise on earth. (Zuiddam)​

What part of "taking Genesis literally" do you still not understand? You made a big mistake, mate. Augustine was not on your side any way you want to spin it - move forward. :yes

Can you help and tell us who Zuiddam is, please?

 

[zeke]

Can you help and tell us who Zuiddam is, please?

Sure my friend...

Prof. Dr. Benno Alexander Zuiddam
Biography
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. His research focuses on divine revelation in Early Christian and biblical literature and the Greco-Roman World, but he also takes a professional interest in theological liberalism, particularly that of the 19th century. His most recent book Hope and Disillusionment, a basic introduction to the history of the Western Church, has been described as an ‘Alpha course for Church history’ (Reformed Daily).​

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian requesting evidence that St. Augustine recanted his words "The Literal Meaning of Genesis")
When do you think you can do that?

I think we can all go with the words of a real church historian - how's that?

Since your presented "quotes" have been repeatedly found to be false, you'll need to provide checkable statements by St. Augustine. Lacking that, we will have to conclude you have no evidence. Benno may be a very nice guy, but without the statement from Augustine...

 

[zeke]

As an orthodox Christian.

Are you really "Orthodox" or do you deny "both Orthodoxy and science" and create you "own illegitimate amalgamation"? Think about it...

So in order to try to "harmonize" Orthodoxy and evolution, one either disregards the Patristic Tradition and sides completely with science or one denies both Orthodoxy and science and creates his own illegitimate amalgamation. Thus, theistic evolutionists are the ones truly placing a divide between religion and science. (Jesse Dominick)​

You may be confused.

 

[zeke]

Since your presented "quotes" have been repeatedly found to be false, you'll need to provide checkable statements by St. Augustine. Lacking that, we will have to conclude you have no evidence. Benno may be a very nice guy, but without the statement from Augustine...

I think Benno Zuiddam's credentials speak for themselves. You were caught with your pants down once again. Augustine of Hippo was not on your side. You are not keeping up. ;)

 

[Barbarian]

Are you really "Orthodox"

Yep.

or do you deny "both Orthodoxy and science"

Nope. In fact, I've shown you what science says, and noted your deviation from orthodoxy in your new religion.

So in order to try to "harmonize" Orthodoxy and evolution,

That's not necessary. God and His creation cannot be inconsistent.

one either disregards the Patristic Tradition

Notice that St. Augustine denies literal days in Genesis. You've confused creationism with Christianity. Some creationists are also Christians, much as some leftists are also Christians. They are only at fault if they argue that creationism or leftist politics are part of the Christian tradition.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Since your presented "quotes" have been repeatedly found to be false, you'll need to provide checkable statements by St. Augustine. Lacking that, we will have to conclude you have no evidence. Benno may be a very nice guy, but without the statement from Augustine...

I think Benno Zuiddam's credentials speak for themselves.

Given your history here, your story will need St. Augustine to speak for himself.

You were caught with your pants down once again. Augustine of Hippo was not on your side.

See above. He's speaking to you...

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.â€

You are not keeping up.

Let us know when you find that writing by St. Augustine that contradicts what he wrote in his classic works.

I don't suppose we should hold our breath.

 

[zeke]

B
Let us know when you find that writing by St. Augustine that contradicts what he wrote in his classic works.

We have the research of a real historian - research that you cannot refute and he says you don't know what you are talking about. Again we must ask - what part of "literal history" and " taking Genesis literally" do you not understand? You do understand this clear statement, "Augustine says farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible" - right?

Augustine was not on your side you just assumed he was my friend and you know what they say about assuming? You really need to move forward - you are just digging your hole deeper.

As Augustine became older, he gave greater emphasis to the underlying historicity and necessity of a literal interpretation of Scripture. His most important work is De Genesi ad litteram. The title says it: On the necessity of taking Genesis literally. In this later work of his, Augustine says farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible. He even rejected allegory when he deals with the historicity and geographic locality of Paradise on earth. ~ Benno Zuiddam

Prof. Dr. Benno Alexander Zuiddam
Biography
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. His research focuses on divine revelation in Early Christian and biblical literature and the Greco-Roman World, but he also takes a professional interest in theological liberalism, particularly that of the 19th century. His most recent book Hope and Disillusionment, a basic introduction to the history of the Western Church, has been described as an ‘Alpha course for Church history’ (Reformed Daily).​

 

[zeke]

Nope. In fact, I've shown you what science says, and noted your deviation from orthodoxy in your new religion.

Well, you are mistaken once again. The "Orthodox Christians" say you are not orthodox for the obvious reasons and "Orthodox Darwinism", which does not allow god-talk says you are not one of them so we must come to the logical conclusion that you are "heterodox". You deny "both Orthodoxy and science" and create you "own illegitimate amalgamation" - an illegitimate amalgamation that you can't even defend via the scientific method. Why?

So in order to try to "harmonize" Orthodoxy and evolution, one either disregards the Patristic Tradition and sides completely with science or one denies both Orthodoxy and science and creates his own illegitimate amalgamation. Thus, theistic evolutionists are the ones truly placing a divide between religion and science. (Jesse Dominick)​

Why do the "Orthodox Christians" and "Orthodox Darwinians" say you are not orthodox? If you can answer that question correctly you may be able to see your dilemma.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Let us know when you find that writing by St. Augustine that contradicts what he wrote in his classic works.

We have the research of a real historian

Given your history with "quotes", I'll want a checkable source for Augustine's writing. If you don't have that, don't bother. And if you don't have that, what makes you think your "real historian" is right? I read professional historians, and I've never yet read one that discussed a person's opinions with no examples of the man's actual words.

So far, we have an unsupported assertion. Fill it in with a checkable source as to St. Augustine's own words on the subject. Shouldn't be hard, if you actually know this to be true.