There could be multiple creations I suppose.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Bible literal young earth Christian fundamentalism turning people away from God?
- Thread starter ERLOS
- Start date
"I think I heard . . ." will get you a cup of coffee at Mc Donald's.
The Church Father's dominantly, possibly all, in one way or another, considered Genesis literal.
From: http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/43
“There is, unfortunately, a common misconception that Christians all used to take it [Creation] fairly literally, and that in a post-Copernican and Darwinian age some of us are now trying to cobble together some kind of non-literal understanding. This is simply not true. At no stage in the history of Christian interpretation of Genesis 1 – 3 has there been a ‘purely literal’ understanding.”1
According to these two scholars the traditional and orthodox understanding throughout church history has been that the days of Creation are symbolic. But is this really true? This article is an attempt to put the record straight by referring to the earliest writings of Christian leaders. These leaders were known as the Church Fathers and they wrote to encourage believers, mainly during the period of AD 96 – 430 (Clement to Augustine). Of the 24 Church Fathers that I examined, 14 clearly accepted the literal days of Creation; 9 did not mention their thoughts on this subject, and only one held to a clearly figurative belief, which he imbued from the Jewish liberal philosopher, Philo, who had, in turn, been greatly influenced by the pagan Greeks.
The first Church Father who mentions the days of Creation is Barnabas (not Paul’s companion) who wrote a letter in AD 130. He says:
“Now what is said at the very beginning of Creation about the Sabbath, is this: In six days God created the works of his hands, and finished them on the seventh day; and he rested on that day, and sanctified it. Notice particularly, my children, the significance of ‘he finished them in six days.’ What that means is, that He is going to bring the world to an end in six thousand years, since with Him one day means a thousand years; witness His own saying, ‘Behold, a day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, my children, in six days – six thousand years, that is – there is going to be an end of everything.” (The Epistle of Barnabas 15)2
Barnabas is referring here to the traditional view of both the Jewish Rabbis and the early church leaders, that the days of Creation were literal six days, but that Psalm 90:4 (and for the Christians, 2 Peter 3:8) prophetically pointed to the coming of the Messiah after 6,000 years (and for the Christians, the return of Christ).3 This is not to be confused with the modern idea in the church, which wrenches verses out of context and makes the days of Creation to be evolutionary billions of years. Such a view has nothing to do with traditional Christianity; it is an attempt to make the Bible palatable to the masses who have been indoctrinated by the pagan religion of evolutionism."
More to follow next post.
For a modern view of our world around the time read Lucretius 99 to 55 BC His six book poem De Rerum Natura gave a natural view of our physical existence.
Last edited:
Next part from reference: http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/43
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 120 – 202), was discipled by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had himself been taught by the Apostle John. He tells us clearly that a literal Adam and Eve were created and fell into sin on the literal first day of Creation (an idea influenced by the Rabbis). He writes:
“For it is said, 'There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day.' Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die.”4
When he refers to Adam sinning and bringing death to the human race on the sixth day, he also points out that Christ also died on the sixth day in order to redeem us from the curse of sin. It is impossible to manipulate the text to make Irenaeus look as if he believed in the long-age days of the modernist theologians.
Agreeing with Barnabas, he explains that the literal six-day Creation points to six thousand years of history before Christ’s return:
“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.”5
Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, near Rome (AD 170 – 236), was trained in the faith by Irenaeus, and like his mentor, he held to literal Creation days. He writes:
“And six thousand years must needs be accomplished… for 'a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.' Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled.”6
Lactantius, a Bible scholar (AD 260 – 330) who tutored Emperor Constantine’s son, Crispus, taught the official Christian doctrine of the traditional church. He wrote:
“To me, as I meditate and consider in my mind concerning the creation of this world in which we are kept enclosed, even such is the rapidity of that creation; as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days…. In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night….”7
As with the other church leaders at the time, he accepted the prophetic days of 2 Peter 3:8, and tells us:
“Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.”8
More to follow . . .
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 120 – 202), was discipled by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had himself been taught by the Apostle John. He tells us clearly that a literal Adam and Eve were created and fell into sin on the literal first day of Creation (an idea influenced by the Rabbis). He writes:
“For it is said, 'There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day.' Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die.”4
When he refers to Adam sinning and bringing death to the human race on the sixth day, he also points out that Christ also died on the sixth day in order to redeem us from the curse of sin. It is impossible to manipulate the text to make Irenaeus look as if he believed in the long-age days of the modernist theologians.
Agreeing with Barnabas, he explains that the literal six-day Creation points to six thousand years of history before Christ’s return:
“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.”5
Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, near Rome (AD 170 – 236), was trained in the faith by Irenaeus, and like his mentor, he held to literal Creation days. He writes:
“And six thousand years must needs be accomplished… for 'a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.' Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled.”6
Lactantius, a Bible scholar (AD 260 – 330) who tutored Emperor Constantine’s son, Crispus, taught the official Christian doctrine of the traditional church. He wrote:
“To me, as I meditate and consider in my mind concerning the creation of this world in which we are kept enclosed, even such is the rapidity of that creation; as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days…. In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night….”7
As with the other church leaders at the time, he accepted the prophetic days of 2 Peter 3:8, and tells us:
“Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.”8
More to follow . . .
Legitimate archaeological science and evidence is very much in agreement with science. No problem, and it does NOT justify a literal interpretation of Genesis, unless you take a dishonest selective approach to the evidence.
Last edited:
Earthling
David Henson
Examples?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I would like to hear your interpretation of Genesis. I don't think that @RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha would agree with it if you are going to make that claim.
I hope you will understand if I have never heard of this resource before. It is a creationist argument for a 6000 year old earth which proposes that liberal christians are desperate to get church fathers on our side. That is news to me. These guys do not agree with one another, and thats evidence for liberality in interpretation. I hope you will recall that Christianity at first is a universal fellowship and becomes less so over time as the war against the spirit of antichrist rages.
Irenaeus the braggart focuses on who is discipled by whom! He is a shill to support the dominance and hierarchy of bishops. He thinks it matters who is discipled by whom, but what does his precious lineage result in? Polycarp is whom? Why does this lineage suddenly matter and how is it relevant? You see contrary to the claim on the site you mention, the church 'Fathers' are not authoritative. They don't agree, are famously self important, are used as weapons by bishops against each other and their lineage is corrupt.
Lineage does not matter, and there is no purity of lineage or hierarchy of authority. Why would liberal scholars be desperate for anything by the church fathers as the suggestion (on that page) is laughable. Also the terms from Genesis such as 'Serpent', 'The Devil' and 'Satan' are used interchangeably in the canon, which is a dead give away that nobody should interpret it literally.
Audie
Veteran Member
Science supports genesis?
No it does not support Genesis as literal history..
Simply an example :
- Damascus, Syria. Damascus is widely believed to be the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world, with evidence of habitation dating back at least 11,000 years. ...
Based on good science and archaeological evidence Genesis is an evolve, edited, redacted and compiled text originally based on Canaanite, Ugarit, Banylonian mythology found first in Sumarian cuneiform tablets. It was not compiled in its present form until after 700 BCE when the first evidence of the Hebrew written language appeared as a primitive Canaanite/Ugarit/Hebrew text. The oldest text is the silver scroll dated ~600 BCE. In this period of Hebrew history the Hebrews were a Canaanite pastoral tribe dominantly in the Hills of Judah.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I have no problem with that interpretation. But since @RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha takes the work as a literal history I do not think he will agree with that.
ERLOS
God Feeds the Ravens
Ok, I'll play.
You believe human consciousness is the product of the brain? I believe the brain is a computer. So yes, there is (may be) more in Heaven and earth, Horatio. I believe there is a higher spiritual dimension that contains and surrounds and permeates this 'lower' dimension of Nature (which includes all perceivable phenomena from a flea to a neutron star.)
'The greater wheel of Spirit turns the lesser wheel of Nature but is not turned by it.'
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Of course, but you'd just said it does.
ERLOS
God Feeds the Ravens
Excuse me, but is this your website? Am impressed ...
Last edited:
Earthling
David Henson
Yes, it is. Thank you.
So lame is OK
YEC is lost in la la land in the intro of genisis that isn't the story that's the simple intro framework. The new testament is not even about that so it's not fesible to say they were YEC. factually the new testament says what it's about is about 14 billion years old. Time in the new testament is not determined by text or or clock or measurement, but by events or moments. Not unlike modern physics interestingly in that regard. They actually have two terms for time we only have a single term for time. From that single notion of time we end up with YEC nonsense.
Is the notion of time in a society with a single term for time destructive to and obscuring its historical text? Yes. YEC only understands one notion of time Its best called Newtonianism and its a myth we create. It's a myth that became science fact. And that science fact turned the Bible into myth. Einstein came along and blew it up but the implications of the Newtonian myth still prevails in religion psychologically consciously in YEC and other aspects in religion.. Its like a science myth hangover that hangs on.
Sorry, I corrected the post.
ERLOS
God Feeds the Ravens
Einstein brilliantly extended Newton's brilliant physics to encompass the requirements of new understandings of reality, imo.
EDIT: But perhaps that's what you're saying.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That makes a lot more sense now I gave you a "winner" since the one that you already have might disappear as a result of your edit.