Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 74 16.9%
  • No

    Votes: 164 37.4%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 200 45.7%

  • Total voters
    438

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
chrevbel said:
Kerdy said:
stavros_388 said:
I feel that I can sum things up just a little more accurately here, if you don’t mind.
I didn't bother reading past the "can't replicate" part because if you don't understand how basic science is supposed to work (hint-that's part of it), the rest is a waste of my time.
We've never reproduced black holes in a laboratory.  Do you believe black holes exist or not?
We've never reproduced gravity -- we've only observed its effects.  Do you believe gravity exists?
Why is it I know the differences between scientific hypothesis, theory and law, while you ask me these questions?
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
chrevbel said:
Kerdy said:
The stories change far too often from one extreme to the other for a thinking person to blindly accept what is conjured up every so often, especially when watching these "facts" change on a constant basis.
This sounds like hyperbole to me.  How has the thinking in evolution changed from one extreme to the other in the last century or so? 
I've already addressed a few of these alterations.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
chrevbel said:
Kerdy said:
I can't remember the star, but recently astronomers published they made a mistake in the distance from earth to the star by half the previous distance.
That was indeed quite an error.  I'd be interested in knowing more about this star and its scientific history.  Do you remember anything more about the story?
I'll try to find it, but it's been some time since I read the article.  About a year I think.

If you are looking for it, also check systems.  I may be remembering star when it's a system.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
New questions.

According to science, how old is earth and how long ago did life spring forth?
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kerdy said:
New questions.

According to science, how old is earth and how long ago did life spring forth?
a) Approximately four billion years.
b) During the first billion years; probably in the first half-billion.
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
ativan said:
Same is true for 6. Your link is OK for discussion but there's one major problem. Take the name "evolution" from it since we have not observed evolution in such experiments yet. It's a misnomer purposely concocted to suggest people as if there's been evolution observed in this experiments. As an experimental model, yes, it will be fine model. Let the DNA mutate randomly and select it the way you want it. Just show us that you have gotten a new piece of DNA coding for a new protein for a novel function. If you have done this then we can talk.
If you are asking if I have done this personally, the answer is no. What I have done is SELEX to select for a DNA sequence that binds to a particular protein.  In my case, I started with a random 20 nt sequence where each position could be dA, dC, dT, or dG. The random sequence was flanked by known DNA sequence such that sequences that bound to my protein could be amplified by PCR for subsequent rounds of selection and DNA isolation at more stringent conditions. This represents approximately 10^12 different DNA sequences as starting material. This is an easy technique to do.

Evolving proteins that bind other proteins or small molecules such as toxins is also fairly straightforward and usually involves error-prone PCR (DNA replication) or mutagenesis to create mutations in the DNA sequence of a protein. It is straightforward because binding assays are usually straightforward. Phage display was developed in the early 1990s for just this purpose and has been in constant use since then (e.g., Rapid evolution of peptide and protein binding properties in vitro. 1992 review. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1368436)

Evolving enzymes is a lot more complex and therefore interesting. I am particularly interested in the entirely in vitro approach (in vitro replication, transcription, translation, compartmentalization, and assays) and I am primarily interested in the technology rather than the biology.

I did come across two papers so far that might be of interest:

In this paper, Highly active and selective endopeptidases with programmed substrate specificities (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2654239), the authors used error-prone replication and saturation mutagenesis to generate (evolve, in common terminology) a protease that cleaves between the sequential amino acid residues Glu-Arg. An enzyme with this activity is unknown in nature.

In the other paper, High-throughput screening of enzyme libraries: in vitro evolution of a beta-galactosidase by fluorescence-activated sorting of double emulsions (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16356846), the authors started with a protein of unknown function and evolved it to cleave lactose into galactose + glucose. This was an in vitro approach, the authors previously did this using bacteria as an intermediary.

 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
chrevbel said:
Kerdy said:
New questions.

According to science, how old is earth and how long ago did life spring forth?
a) Approximately four billion years.
b) During the first billion years; probably in the first half-billion.
Thanks!  I ask because, probably a surprise to most, I actually read and watch a lot regarding this stuff.  Though I do not accept much of it past ideas, I always find it interesting to see what direction people are going and what those new ideas arising are.  I have been seeing a lot of things lately where dates/time periods seem to have shifted and wasn't sure what was still being used as a standard.

BTW-did you see the the where the brains of prehistoric arthropods are far more advanced than thought, comparable to moderns ones?  That was interesting I thought.
 

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Cephalopods are pretty smart. This always makes me wonder about how shellfish are permissible on fast days (or on relaxed fast days, according to some), on the grounds that since they don't have backbones they aren't really animals. In some ways squid are smarter than cows.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jonathan Gress said:
Cephalopods are pretty smart. This always makes me wonder about how shellfish are permissible on fast days (or on relaxed fast days, according to some), on the grounds that since they don't have backbones they aren't really animals. In some ways squid are smarter than cows.
I never found them tasty or enjoyable eating.  I am not much of a sea food person.
 

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kerdy said:
Jonathan Gress said:
Cephalopods are pretty smart. This always makes me wonder about how shellfish are permissible on fast days (or on relaxed fast days, according to some), on the grounds that since they don't have backbones they aren't really animals. In some ways squid are smarter than cows.
I never found them tasty or enjoyable eating.  I am not much of a sea food person.
That's lucky for you. I love all kinds of seafood.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I have my computer back and all seems to be working well; however, I am not entirely certain it is a good idea to continue posting on this thread at this time.  So, I will prepare a few things in the event this thread is later resurrected with interest rather than mocking of people who have a different opinion.  I also have a strange feeling my work load is about to get a serious increase so I may not have time anyway.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
To help resolve this controversy, scientists have for the first time comprehensively analyzed two complete shoulder blades from the fossil "Selam," an exceptionally well-preserved skeleton of a 3-year-old A. afarensis girl dating back 3.3 million years from Dikika, Ethiopia. The arms and shoulders can yield insights on how well they performed at climbing.
....
"The question as to whether Australopithecus afarensis was strictly bipedal or if they also climbed trees has been intensely debated for more than 30 years," researcher David Green at Midwestern University in Downers Grove, Ill., said in a statement. "These remarkable fossils provide strong evidence that these individuals were still climbing at this stage in human evolution."

At the same time, most researchers agree that many traits of the A. afarensis hip bone, lower limb, and foot are unequivocally humanlike and adapted for upright walking.

"This new find confirms the pivotal place that Lucy and Selam's species occupies in human evolution," Alemseged said. "While bipedal like humans, A. afarensis was still a capable climber. Though not fully human, A. afarensis was clearly on its way."
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kerdy said:
chrevbel said:
Kerdy said:
New questions.

According to science, how old is earth and how long ago did life spring forth?
a) Approximately four billion years.
b) During the first billion years; probably in the first half-billion.
Thanks!  I ask because, probably a surprise to most, I actually read and watch a lot regarding this stuff.  Though I do not accept much of it past ideas, I always find it interesting to see what direction people are going and what those new ideas arising are.  I have been seeing a lot of things lately where dates/time periods seem to have shifted and wasn't sure what was still being used as a standard.
The earth's age estimate is relatively well accepted, with a probable error of around only 1%.  Where did you read "a lot of things lately where dates/time periods seem to have shifted"?
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
On today’s 700 Club, televangelist Pat Robertson appeared to break with many of his fellow fundamentalists who subscribe to Young Earth creationism regarding the age of the earth, disputing their notion that the planet is only around 6,000 years old. Robertson said that James Ussher, the seventeenth century bishop who to this day is heralded by Young Earth creationists for using the Bible to argue that the earth was created in 4004 BC, “wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said it all took 6,000 years, it just didn’t.” While many creationists believe that dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark, Robertson insisted that dinosaurs “were on the earth before the time of the Bible, so don’t try to cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years, that’s not the Bible.”
 

psalm110

Elder
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Are there any good documentarys on Debating Evolution from an Orthodox prespective or close enough to it ?.

 

psalm110

Elder
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Did God literally create us humans from the dust of this earth ?.

 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
An ambitious task, but you can't go wrong with sources like St. Basil the Great and Father Seraphim Rose. Regardless of your conclusions, you will not please everyone. When delving into an exhaustive interpretation of Genesis, controversial topics such as evolution and the Nephilim of Genesis 6 will inevitably come up. There are even various interpretations of St. Basil's interpretation - even amongst Orthodox Christians. My humble advice would be to rely primarily on the works of the Saints and early fathers. Too many modern theologians sacrifice sound theology on the alter of modernity. Father Seraphim Rose is an exception however. In spite of what some my say, "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man" is an excellent book that provides in depth insights on the interpretation of the Saints and fathers.

All the best to you in this endeavor.


Selam
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Fr Seraphim Rose doesnt always represent all of Orthodoxy, despite what some may like to think.

On top of the sources mentioned, I'd also recommend you view official church websites.id also recommend a listen to Dr. Jeannie Constantinou's introduction to the bible series, specifically the ones on interpretation and on Genesis specifically.

Long story short, you'll find that the Orthodox Church isn't goin to tell you what to believe about Genesis. It doesn't require a literal interpretation nor another kind. You could be a so-called "creationist" or believe in "theistic evolution", it doesn't matter to the church, it's a matter of theological opinion and not doctrine.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
88Devin12 said:
Fr Seraphim Rose doesnt always represent all of Orthodoxy, despite what some may like to think.

On top of the sources mentioned, I'd also recommend you view official church websites.id also recommend a listen to Dr. Jeannie Constantinou's introduction to the bible series, specifically the ones on interpretation and on Genesis specifically.

Long story short, you'll find that the Orthodox Church isn't goin to tell you what to believe about Genesis. It doesn't require a literal interpretation nor another kind. You could be a so-called "creationist" or believe in "theistic evolution", it doesn't matter to the church, it's a matter of theological opinion and not doctrine.

Well, not so fast. While it is true that one is not required to deny evolution in order to be an Orthodox Christian, it is also true that Orthodox Christians are to maintain Orthodox doctrine. Theistic evolution would mean that God authored death, and such a view is heresy. Death came about through sin, but theistic evolution logically requires one to attribute death to God rather than sin.

These are issues that he will certainly have to wrestle with. No easy task.


Selam
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
88Devin12 said:
Fr Seraphim Rose doesnt always represent all of Orthodoxy, despite what some may like to think.

On top of the sources mentioned, I'd also recommend you view official church websites.id also recommend a listen to Dr. Jeannie Constantinou's introduction to the bible series, specifically the ones on interpretation and on Genesis specifically.

Long story short, you'll find that the Orthodox Church isn't goin to tell you what to believe about Genesis. It doesn't require a literal interpretation nor another kind. You could be a so-called "creationist" or believe in "theistic evolution", it doesn't matter to the church, it's a matter of theological opinion and not doctrine.

Well, not so fast. While it is true that one is not required to deny evolution in order to be an Orthodox Christian, it is also true that Orthodox Christians are to maintain Orthodox doctrine. Theistic evolution would mean that God authored death, and such a view is heresy. Death came about through sin, but theistic evolution logically requires one to attribute death to God rather than sin.

These are issues that he will certainly have to wrestle with. No easy task.


Selam
It depends on how you define death. God isn't the author of spiritual and eternal death, which He saved us from. Physical death is a different story, it isn't a universal idea within Orthodoxy that physical death came with sin, some Fathers suggested that physical death existed before the fall.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
88Devin12 said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
88Devin12 said:
Fr Seraphim Rose doesnt always represent all of Orthodoxy, despite what some may like to think.

On top of the sources mentioned, I'd also recommend you view official church websites.id also recommend a listen to Dr. Jeannie Constantinou's introduction to the bible series, specifically the ones on interpretation and on Genesis specifically.

Long story short, you'll find that the Orthodox Church isn't goin to tell you what to believe about Genesis. It doesn't require a literal interpretation nor another kind. You could be a so-called "creationist" or believe in "theistic evolution", it doesn't matter to the church, it's a matter of theological opinion and not doctrine.

Well, not so fast. While it is true that one is not required to deny evolution in order to be an Orthodox Christian, it is also true that Orthodox Christians are to maintain Orthodox doctrine. Theistic evolution would mean that God authored death, and such a view is heresy. Death came about through sin, but theistic evolution logically requires one to attribute death to God rather than sin.

These are issues that he will certainly have to wrestle with. No easy task.


Selam
It depends on how you define death. God isn't the author of spiritual and eternal death, which He saved us from. Physical death is a different story, it isn't a universal idea within Orthodoxy that physical death came with sin, some Fathers suggested that physical death existed before the fall.

Was this thread merged? Anyway, somebody was writing a thesis or something about the Orthodox interpretation of Genesis. These difficult issues are things he will inevitably have to wrestle with.


Selam
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
88Devin12 said:
Long story short, you'll find that the Orthodox Church isn't goin to tell you what to believe about Genesis. It doesn't require a literal interpretation nor another kind. You could be a so-called "creationist" or believe in "theistic evolution", it doesn't matter to the church, it's a matter of theological opinion and not doctrine.
But be careful!  Regardless of your what you say, if you stand firm with a literal interpretation, modernists will assuredly ridicule you and say you are uneducated.  Best to, if you do hold firm to tradition, keep it to yourself or else you'll be asked a million times why and immediately told how wrong you are.
 

psalm110

Elder
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Was death part of Gods creation plan or did death appear after the fall of mankind when Adam sinned?
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,311
Reaction score
136
Points
63
Age
41
psalm110 said:
Was death part of Gods creation plan or did death appear after the fall of mankind when Adam sinned?
I don't claim to know for sure, but one possible complicating factor is that death for humans might be different than death for, say, plants, or even animals. Could plants have died in the garden of eden if Adam stepped on them or ate them or something? Would that have been pre-fall? What if Adam would have killed an animal, perhaps accidentally? All speculation...
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
Asteriktos said:
psalm110 said:
Was death part of Gods creation plan or did death appear after the fall of mankind when Adam sinned?
I don't claim to know for sure, but one possible complicating factor is that death for humans might be different than death for, say, plants, or even animals. Could plants have died in the garden of eden if Adam stepped on them or ate them or something? Would that have been pre-fall? What if Adam would have killed an animal, perhaps accidentally? All speculation...
But accidental death is the result of imperfection resulting from the fall. There were no accidents in Eden before the willfull sin. Also, the scriptures say that "the life of a creature is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11] So, I think we need to be careful about calling the consumption of plants prior to the fall to "death." Perhaps nothing died when it was eaten, as the conditions prior to the fall were radically different from the conditions subsequent to the fall. All I'm saying is that it is fine to speculate, but when our speculations lead to us to unbiblical or unorthdox ideas, then we need to submit our speculations to biblical and Orthodox truth.


Selam
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Asteriktos said:
psalm110 said:
Was death part of Gods creation plan or did death appear after the fall of mankind when Adam sinned?
I don't claim to know for sure, but one possible complicating factor is that death for humans might be different than death for, say, plants, or even animals. Could plants have died in the garden of eden if Adam stepped on them or ate them or something? Would that have been pre-fall? What if Adam would have killed an animal, perhaps accidentally? All speculation...
But accidental death is the result of imperfection resulting from the fall. There were no accidents in Eden before the willfull sin. Also, the scriptures say that "the life of a creature is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11] So, I think we need to be careful about calling the consumption of plants prior to the fall to "death." Perhaps nothing died when it was eaten, as the conditions prior to the fall were radically different from the conditions subsequent to the fall. All I'm saying is that it is fine to speculate, but when our speculations lead to us to unbiblical or unorthdox ideas, then we need to submit our speculations to biblical and Orthodox truth.


Selam
But if you ask the question, what does blood do, it carries nutrients and oxygen, maintains body temperature and pH, and transports away bodily wastes.  So, in animals it may be blood, in insects it may be lymph, in plants it may be sap, all doing the same or similar things.

But if there is spiritual understanding behind this verse, then we need to consider it, and not define everything in such literalistic terms.

The point is, if we take evolution off the table, just this verse can be shown to be true in a simple-minded manner, but also equally true is the idea of life in plants and many insects, despite the fact that they don't have blood.  Biological life as defined (in simple terms) is a function of reproducibility and growth through biochemical processes.  This is not theologically necessary to believe "in", but it is true and believable.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
psalm110 said:
Was death part of Gods creation plan or did death appear after the fall of mankind when Adam sinned?
I cannot say for certain, but my opinion is death is the result of the fall.  My understanding is death, at least as we know it (humanity) did not occur until Adam and Eve ate of the fruit.  Up until that point, who can say how long they had actually lived.  One year, five years, 7000 years, we just don’t know, but we do know they lived until they disobeyed God.  

Personally, I wouldn’t focus on plants and animals.  Everything we have tells us they were created separately and differently than mankind and are not held to the same standard or have the same “spirit” has we do.  So if a tree or bird died in Eden, it held no connection (IMO) to humanity.  This is one of the many problems I see with modern thinkers.  They redefine what we already have an understanding and definition for, resulting in constant confusion and flexible standards.  Where in Scripture or Tradition are we instructed to be concerned for the safety, health, reproductive ability, soul, etc., of plants and animals?  We are not.  What we do see is how everything in nature, except man, instantly bends to the will of God without resistance.  We, mankind, are the ONLY things provided an eternal existence, free will, and all the things humanity has which nothing else does.  Again, if you allow your focus to be altered even slightly, you will find yourself in a very confusing place, filled with bewilderment, asking why you can’t get a straight answer.  

Hold fast and don't allow people to create loopholes where none exist.  For instance, someone right now is trying to find a way to talk around what I said about being concerned for nature and looking for something to say we should be good stewards of the earth.  Not to provide a clear answer to your question, rather than to try and punch a hole in mine.  Circle argument.  Avoid it.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Kerdy said:
Where in Scripture or Tradition are we instructed to be concerned for the safety, health, reproductive ability, soul, etc., of plants and animals?
Not to destroy fruit trees (wantonly or in warfare) (Deut. 20:19-20)
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Asteriktos said:
psalm110 said:
Was death part of Gods creation plan or did death appear after the fall of mankind when Adam sinned?
I don't claim to know for sure, but one possible complicating factor is that death for humans might be different than death for, say, plants, or even animals. Could plants have died in the garden of eden if Adam stepped on them or ate them or something? Would that have been pre-fall? What if Adam would have killed an animal, perhaps accidentally? All speculation...
But accidental death is the result of imperfection resulting from the fall. There were no accidents in Eden before the willfull sin. Also, the scriptures say that "the life of a creature is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11] So, I think we need to be careful about calling the consumption of plants prior to the fall to "death." Perhaps nothing died when it was eaten, as the conditions prior to the fall were radically different from the conditions subsequent to the fall. All I'm saying is that it is fine to speculate, but when our speculations lead to us to unbiblical or unorthdox ideas, then we need to submit our speculations to biblical and Orthodox truth.


Selam
Indeed.  I would not call the death of an animal or plant actual death as neither have an eternal soul.  Plants are for consumption to survive as are animals.  Humans are not.  This is why we are commanded not to murder one another, but there is no mention of plants or animals.  Their “life”, or existence, is not the same, or even comparable, to ours.  A person cannot approach life in a cold, heartless, scientific manner and expect to find a warm, loving, mystical, and eternal relationship with our creator.  It is a very different mindset and understanding.  They are two different schools of thought.  
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
Kerdy said:
Where in Scripture or Tradition are we instructed to be concerned for the safety, health, reproductive ability, soul, etc., of plants and animals?
Not to destroy fruit trees (wantonly or in warfare) (Deut. 20:19-20)
See what I mean psalm110?  That didn’t even take as long as I thought it would.  A tragic attempt to punch a hole with nothing else, no other thought provided, no attempt to explain, no other points addressed, nothing.  A simple, out of context jab, which unfortunately for the poster, didn’t prove much of anything outside they can use Google (or hopefully, that the poster is playing around to prove my point).  In addition, this text quoted, in no way, addressed the topic of discussion we are on. 

Again, be careful of what you accept from some people.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Kerdy said:
Jetavan said:
Kerdy said:
Where in Scripture or Tradition are we instructed to be concerned for the safety, health, reproductive ability, soul, etc., of plants and animals?
Not to destroy fruit trees (wantonly or in warfare) (Deut. 20:19-20)
See what I mean psalm110?  That didn’t even take as long as I thought it would.  A tragic attempt to punch a hole with nothing else, no other thought provided, no attempt to explain, no other points addressed, nothing.  A simple, out of context jab, which unfortunately for the poster, didn’t prove much of anything outside they can use Google (or hopefully, that the poster is playing around to prove my point).  In addition, this text quoted, in no way, addressed the topic of discussion we are on. 

Again, be careful of what you accept from some people.
I thought you wanted an answer to your question. ???
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
Kerdy said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Asteriktos said:
psalm110 said:
Was death part of Gods creation plan or did death appear after the fall of mankind when Adam sinned?
I don't claim to know for sure, but one possible complicating factor is that death for humans might be different than death for, say, plants, or even animals. Could plants have died in the garden of eden if Adam stepped on them or ate them or something? Would that have been pre-fall? What if Adam would have killed an animal, perhaps accidentally? All speculation...
But accidental death is the result of imperfection resulting from the fall. There were no accidents in Eden before the willfull sin. Also, the scriptures say that "the life of a creature is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11] So, I think we need to be careful about calling the consumption of plants prior to the fall to "death." Perhaps nothing died when it was eaten, as the conditions prior to the fall were radically different from the conditions subsequent to the fall. All I'm saying is that it is fine to speculate, but when our speculations lead to us to unbiblical or unorthdox ideas, then we need to submit our speculations to biblical and Orthodox truth.


Selam
Indeed.  I would not call the death of an animal or plant actual death as neither have an eternal soul.  Plants are for consumption to survive as are animals.  Humans are not.  This is why we are commanded not to murder one another, but there is no mention of plants or animals.  Their “life”, or existence, is not the same, or even comparable, to ours.  A person cannot approach life in a cold, heartless, scientific manner and expect to find a warm, loving, mystical, and eternal relationship with our creator.  It is a very different mindset and understanding.  They are two different schools of thought.  
but Gebre is saying that even the death of animals did not occur according to dogma, whereas you are saying it doesn't matter, since they don't have the same "life" as we do, which I agree with, and which why I don't find evolution objectionable.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
I'm very tired at the moment (having an 11-day old baby will do that to you!) so please take it easy on me if I'm just plain missing something here. :)

But, in terms of pure chronology, isn't it obvious that dinosaurs lived and died well before the emergence of anything resembling a human being? I accept the current scientific consensus of evolution over a literal creation account. I think it's fairly well substantiated. The only problem I can see in terms of harmonizing this with "Church teaching" is this issue of death; when it happened, what it really means, etc.

It seems clear that when God says "ye shall surely die," that Adam & Even don't die physically, so isn't God referring to the unique death that only Adam & Even could die? i.e., a spiritual death?

How's this for a narrative? God, in His wisdom, desiring to create a universe that is separate from Him, wherein free creatures can freely emerge and become what they will within a fruitful system that God designed for this very intent, sets creation going with the Big Bang. Eventually, homo sapiens emerges from the vast web of common life, and God chooses two of them, male and female, to breathe the breath of life into, vivifying them spiritually. Genesis picks up here.

What would be the problem with seeing things this way? Also, we know that Lucifer and his minions have been granted a certain freedom and power over the created world. Could this also not explain pre-Edenic death? Does the Church have any teaching on the chronology of when the angels fell and the creation of man?

Again, apologies for any incoherence here. Lord, have mercy :)
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
psalm110 said:
Did God literally create us humans from the dust of this earth ?.
That is what He said He did, and I trust Him, so yes.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
Kerdy said:
psalm110 said:
Did God literally create us humans from the dust of this earth ?.
That is what He said He did, and I trust Him, so yes.
That's what Moses was inspired to say what He did.  It is believed sometimes something is written in accordance with cultural understanding with divine inspiration for a deeper meaning.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Kerdy said:
psalm110 said:
Did God literally create us humans from the dust of this earth ?.
That is what He said He did, and I trust Him, so yes.
That's what Moses was inspired to say what He did.  It is believed sometimes something is written in accordance with cultural understanding with divine inspiration for a deeper meaning.
Interesting, but I am not debating you.
 

psalm110

Elder
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
How did Adam and Eve communicate with God ?. Did they literally see him as we see each other ? Was he able to be touched ? Did they see the whole Holy Trinity when God walked with them in the Garden or was it it the Pre-incarnate Christ the Word of God walking and communicate with them as per we do??.

any idea?

Thanks
 
Top