• A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 75 17.0%
  • No

    Votes: 164 37.3%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 201 45.7%

  • Total voters
    440

Dionysii

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
642
Reaction score
0
Points
0
DavidH said:
Blessed Augustine warned in his Literal Interpretation of Genesis:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit 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 the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain 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. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. 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 those 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 and 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 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. [1 Timothy 1.7]"
This quote is indeed good stuff to bear in mind. 
If you're talking about the shape of the earth, then that is irrelevant to salvation as Saint Basil himself has said.
As far as biological evolution, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not based upon anti-evolutionism. 
However, I believe (as does my Church) that one cannot believe in biological evolution and be Christian. 

It is evident that we have different faiths.
 

DavidH

High Elder
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
541
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
56
Location
Dallas, Tx.
Website
www.LandscapeDallas.com
Dionysii said:
DavidH said:
Accepting the scientific consensus that evolution is a Theory, which is the highest level of certitude in science (e.g. the Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory, etc.), and a term only granted to hypotheses after extremely rigorous standards have been met- is not scientism. It is scientific literacy.
I beg to differ.  
Leaving aside the legitimacy of Darwin's evolution or Pasteur's germ theories (of which I am convinced are both false), the process you  summarized is the method of Francis Bacon which opened the door to scientism and falsehood.  To the extent that the Baconian method achieved a consensus in Europe and America by the early twentieth century, it is a reign of error.  

Pasteur's False Germ Theory
http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/terrain/lost_history_of_medicine.htm
http://www.greekmedicine.net/history/Medicine_in_the_Modern_Era.html
http://www.whale.to/w/appleton1.html

You effectively acknowledged that Bacon's method is divorced from truth in that it can never achieve certitude.  I would add that it deadens the minds of researchers into truth.  It accomplishes the opposite of what it proclaims.  Bacon's new scientific method is cited as the basis for enlightenment, but it in fact creates pliant zombies.  On that note, Arthur Koestler wrote an irreverent and iconoclastic history of the sacred cow of modern science entitled 'The Sleepwalkers'.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44301572/ArthurKoestler-TheSleepwalkers  

History bears out that Bacon's method and the science of this elite "consensus" are false and degenerate.  
The old method of Euclid is tried and true from ancient times although neglected by the modern west.  Euclid's stricter methods establish sound laws - not theories.

The European renaissance was by and large the death of ancient truth.
That's a lot of science to want to overturn, Dionysii. You certainly have your work cut out for you.

 

Dionysii

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
642
Reaction score
0
Points
0
DavidH said:
That's a lot of science to want to overturn, Dionysii. You certainly have your work cut out for you.
True, but several factors run in my favor:

1) I enjoy it.  My interest is the driving force in the first place.
2) A good bit of it is already done. I didn't begin this yesterday.
3) Convincing others is not mandatory.  Satisfying my own thirst is gargantuan enough. 
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
Dionysii always providing interesting stuff. There's been a few Christians that have posted in this thread that have gained my respect as far as anti-evolution. They aren't willing to tolerate nor back down on certain assertions they believe to be true.

As for me, I'm not really a scientific person. I actually abhor the natural sciences to a certain degree because I think there are implications that cannot be formed without using some form of philosophy. You know whenever Richard Dawkins gets to talking about evolution, there is still a level of philosophy he is operating on in terms of being and the natural world.

But being as I am unscientific, for me evolution still makes a lot of sense. That we have common ancestors/descendants/whatever, ok that's fine. With man it changed. There is a level of disparity between us and the animal kingdom that the natural sciences cannot bridge over such a chasm. But how do we explain this discrepancy and I think Genesis works that out very nicely.

Dionysii, I once asked our ialmisry is he was a compatibilist (one who accepts evolution and the Bible), and he said he was. He might be able to explain much better that evolution is not so much at odds with the Church. You can read a little more here: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Evolution#Compatibilist
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
Kerdy said:
theistgal said:
Kerdy said:
BTW, what evidence would they need when God spoke to them audibly?  It was one on one discussion.  Like me talking with my wife.  That didn’t change for a very, very long time.  If I know a truth and tell you a story which is not true, that makes me a liar.  God simply would not do this.
What evidence do you have that God spoke to anyone audibly? (Wouldn't that be "hearsay"?)
It was a serious question which I'm trying to find an answer for right now. Thanks for ridiculing my attempt to bolster my shaky faith. :-(
 

DavidH

High Elder
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
541
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
56
Location
Dallas, Tx.
Website
www.LandscapeDallas.com
Kerdy said:
theistgal said:
Kerdy said:
BTW, what evidence would they need when God spoke to them audibly?  It was one on one discussion.  Like me talking with my wife.  That didn’t change for a very, very long time.  If I know a truth and tell you a story which is not true, that makes me a liar.  God simply would not do this.
What evidence do you have that God spoke to anyone audibly? (Wouldn't that be "hearsay"?)
Such an intelligent and respectful rejoinder to a reasonable question.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
theistgal said:
Kerdy said:
theistgal said:
Kerdy said:
BTW, what evidence would they need when God spoke to them audibly?  It was one on one discussion.  Like me talking with my wife.  That didn’t change for a very, very long time.  If I know a truth and tell you a story which is not true, that makes me a liar.  God simply would not do this.
What evidence do you have that God spoke to anyone audibly? (Wouldn't that be "hearsay"?)
It was a serious question which I'm trying to find an answer for right now. Thanks for ridiculing my attempt to bolster my shaky faith. :-(
The same evidence we use to show the existence of Abraham, Lot, the destruction of Sodom and so on.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
DavidH said:
Kerdy said:
theistgal said:
Kerdy said:
BTW, what evidence would they need when God spoke to them audibly?  It was one on one discussion.  Like me talking with my wife.  That didn’t change for a very, very long time.  If I know a truth and tell you a story which is not true, that makes me a liar.  God simply would not do this.
What evidence do you have that God spoke to anyone audibly? (Wouldn't that be "hearsay"?)
Such an intelligent and respectful rejoinder to a reasonable question.
As reasonable as asking how we know what Jesus really taught.
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
Kerdy said:
As reasonable as asking how we know what Jesus really taught.
Why isn't a reasonable question? How is someone who's outside the Church (or inside but not well-catechized, or inside but going through a period of doubt) supposed to learn the answer, if people like you tell them their questions are "unreasonable" and make fun of them for even daring to ask?  ::)

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you." 1 Peter 3:15  (Nothing about using a "facepalm")
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
theistgal said:
Kerdy said:
As reasonable as asking how we know what Jesus really taught.
Why isn't a reasonable question? How is someone who's outside the Church (or inside but not well-catechized, or inside but going through a period of doubt) supposed to learn the answer, if people like you tell them their questions are "unreasonable" and make fun of them for even daring to ask?  ::)

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you." 1 Peter 3:15  (Nothing about using a "facepalm")
PM forthcoming
 

Dionysii

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
642
Reaction score
0
Points
0
theistgal said:
Kerdy said:
what evidence would they need when God spoke to them audibly?  It was one on one discussion.
What evidence do you have that God spoke to anyone audibly? (Wouldn't that be "hearsay"?)
If this reference to audible speech is about how the authors of the bible understood what to say or write, then I would refer to the first epistle of Peter which says these men "spake as they were moved by the holy spirit."

One might rightly ask what does that mean or exactly how is that done which would be a good question. 

Basically, authentic Christian life (as well as any legitimate pre-Christian spiritual life) involves three spiritual levels:
purification, illumination, and theosis. While purification will be an on going process, it is intended to dominate the period of catechism prior to initiation (i.e. baptism) during which illumination begins to occur.  Theosis is divinization, becoming godlike through Christ.  (I should say that theosis involves unification which an uncreated energy of God rather than the essence of God which is unknowable both in this life and the next. 

Anyway, my point is theosis constitutes the nature of a redeemed man.  It is the objective of Christian life. It begins with the energies of the soul interacting with the energies of God Himself.  Finally, the body is transformed.  This explains the biological phenomenon of holy relics. 

Those in theosis are the saints of the Church.  One must be in a state of theosis to receive revelation from God. 

I think the best I can do is refer to others from whom I have learned and who can explain this more clearly and better than I can.
Two Greek writers named Fr. John Romanides and Metropolitan Ierotheos Vlachos have explained this in accordance with Christian tradition. 
Fr. John Romanides is an oecumenist, but he understood and wrote very well on this subject.  His book 'Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine' is where I first read about this theology.  It is also the best historical analysis of western civilization and the most astute refutation of the papacy that I have ever read.
http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm

Fr. John Romanides passed away in 2002. 
Metr. Hierotheos Vlachos was one of his students who wrote an outstanding basic book of about 100 pages entitled 'Orthodox Spirituality'.
OODEGR is a Greek operated website with a lot of Metr. Vlachos's material and plenty other good things on it.
http://www.oodegr.com/english 

The three stages of spiritual life are also explained in depth in the Philokalia by Niketas Stithatos:
http://archive.org/details/Philokalia-TheCompleteText
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Adam, Moses, Aaron, in human flesh all those who met Jesus and a believe a few others in between.
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
4,016
Reaction score
13
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
Dionysii said:
theistgal said:
Kerdy said:
what evidence would they need when God spoke to them audibly?  It was one on one discussion.
What evidence do you have that God spoke to anyone audibly? (Wouldn't that be "hearsay"?)
If this reference to audible speech is about how the authors of the bible understood what to say or write, then I would refer to the first epistle of Peter which says these men "spake as they were moved by the holy spirit."

One might rightly ask what does that mean or exactly how is that done which would be a good question. 

Basically, authentic Christian life (as well as any legitimate pre-Christian spiritual life) involves three spiritual levels:
purification, illumination, and theosis. While purification will be an on going process, it is intended to dominate the period of catechism prior to initiation (i.e. baptism) during which illumination begins to occur.  Theosis is divinization, becoming godlike through Christ.  (I should say that theosis involves unification which an uncreated energy of God rather than the essence of God which is unknowable both in this life and the next. 

Anyway, my point is theosis constitutes the nature of a redeemed man.  It is the objective of Christian life. It begins with the energies of the soul interacting with the energies of God Himself.  Finally, the body is transformed.  This explains the biological phenomenon of holy relics. 

Those in theosis are the saints of the Church.  One must be in a state of theosis to receive revelation from God. 

I think the best I can do is refer to others from whom I have learned and who can explain this more clearly and better than I can.
Two Greek writers named Fr. John Romanides and Metropolitan Ierotheos Vlachos have explained this in accordance with Christian tradition. 
Fr. John Romanides is an oecumenist, but he understood and wrote very well on this subject.  His book 'Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine' is where I first read about this theology.  It is also the best historical analysis of western civilization and the most astute refutation of the papacy that I have ever read.
http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm

Fr. John Romanides passed away in 2002. 
Metr. Hierotheos Vlachos was one of his students who wrote an outstanding basic book of about 100 pages entitled 'Orthodox Spirituality'.
OODEGR is a Greek operated website with a lot of Metr. Vlachos's material and plenty other good things on it.
http://www.oodegr.com/english   

The three stages of spiritual life are also explained in depth in the Philokalia by Niketas Stithatos:
http://archive.org/details/Philokalia-TheCompleteText
Dionysii, you have an uncommon grasp of knowledge. I have task for you in that regard which will wait.

My question is:
If I give you a precise definition (meaning the description of the mechanism) of how evolution works can you translate it into the Hebrew known to Moses? Did the  Hebrews know of the great apes (chimpanzees, gorilla, baboons). I do not know, maybe you do. It would help me in the description if they did, it they did not it would make the task more difficult, it might just come out as Genesis appears to us.
 

Dionysii

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
642
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Opus118 said:
Did the Hebrews know of the great apes (chimpanzees, gorilla, baboons).
Your research is as good as mine, but I shortly thought of two factors relevant to your question.

1) We can simply apply apes to the relevant category of animals described in the dietary laws of Leviticus 11.
I know this does not specifically answer your question.  Forgive me for stating the obvious, but I would begin by looking up terms like ape, gorilla, and baboon in a bible concordance, and then proceed to the Church Fathers.  I am interested as well, but I cannot promise that I will
have the time to search jewish history high and low for this, but I will let you know if I come across anything.

You question actually signifies an intriguing possibility:
If it can be reasonably shown that no known evidence exists that the ancient Jews were aware of the existence of apes,
then who in the ancient world, if anyone, was aware of the existence of apes?

Precisely when and by whom exactly in world history are apes first mentioned in any way?
This leads to my second thought.

2) I have never looked into this and therefore make no claim (yet) as to its veracity, but
several years ago a website of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem (before Irinaeus was under house arrest) contained an article which discussed the possibility that apes were not in fact part of God's original creation.  The article asserted that apes were likely the result of human procreation with animals and what Saint Paul referred to in his Epistle to the Romans about the transformation of the image of God into creeping things of the earth, etc.
 

DavidH

High Elder
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
541
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
56
Location
Dallas, Tx.
Website
www.LandscapeDallas.com
Dionysii said:
Opus118 said:
The article asserted that apes were likely the result of human procreation with animals and what Saint Paul referred to in his Epistle to the Romans about the transformation of the image of God into creeping things of the earth, etc.
Which animal can a human procreate with to produce apes? Can you provide any evidence of humans and animals procreating together?
 

Dionysii

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
642
Reaction score
0
Points
0
DavidH said:
Which animal could a human procreate with to produce apes?
I have never looked into that, and I wouldn't know how or even if that came about, but it is sufficiently intriguing to trigger an interest in the early history of apes.
 

Luke

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
7,199
Reaction score
63
Points
48
Dionysii said:
Opus118 said:
Did the Hebrews know of the great apes (chimpanzees, gorilla, baboons).
Your research is as good as mine, but I shortly thought of two factors relevant to your question.

1) We can simply apply apes to the relevant category of animals described in the dietary laws of Leviticus 11.
I know this does not specifically answer your question.  Forgive me for stating the obvious, but I would begin by looking up terms like ape, gorilla, and baboon in a bible concordance, and then proceed to the Church Fathers.  I am interested as well, but I cannot promise that I will
have the time to search jewish history high and low for this, but I will let you know if I come across anything.

You question actually signifies an intriguing possibility:
If it can be reasonably shown that no known evidence exists that the ancient Jews were aware of the existence of apes,
then who in the ancient world, if anyone, was aware of the existence of apes?

Precisely when and by whom exactly in world history are apes first mentioned in any way?
This leads to my second thought.

2) I have never looked into this and therefore make no claim (yet) as to its veracity, but
several years ago a website of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem (before Irinaeus was under house arrest) contained an article which discussed the possibility that apes were not in fact part of God's original creation.  The article asserted that apes were likely the result of human procreation with animals and what Saint Paul referred to in his Epistle to the Romans about the transformation of the image of God into creeping things of the earth, etc.
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
Dionysii said:
The article asserted that apes were likely the result of human procreation with animals and what Saint Paul referred to in his Epistle to the Romans about the transformation of the image of God into creeping things of the earth, etc.
Apes don't "creep", they walk on all fours or even upright, on two legs. Or they swing through the trees. So how could anyone describe them as "creeping things"?  ::)

Also, there is a mention of "apes" in 1 Kings 10:22:

For the king had at sea the ships of Tarshish with the ships of Hiram; once every three years the ships of Tarshish came bringing gold and silver, ivory and apes and peacocks.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,834
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
41
Location
PA, USA
The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago. That is the closest animal genetically speaking that humans relate to.  There is no way that any sexual contact has resulted in birth between human and animal species for at least 2-3 million years.
 

Dionysii

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
642
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Opus118 said:
Did the  Hebrews know of the great apes (chimpanzees, gorilla, baboons).
theistgal said:
there is a mention of "apes" in 1 Kings 10:22:
For the king had at sea the ships of Tarshish with the ships of Hiram; once every three years the ships of Tarshish came bringing gold and silver, ivory and apes and peacocks.


She quoted a very relevant verse.  If that verse is historically accurate, then it would answer your question affirmatively that the ancient Hebrews did indeed know about apes at least as far back as Solomon's reign.  However, I consider that verse a forgery by Rabbinical scribes because it is only in their text and not in the Septuagint.  You may differ, but I do not consider Masoretic books as Holy Bible.  

I Kings 10:22 in the Septuagint reads very differently:
"For Solomon had a ship of Tharshish in the sea with the ships of Huram: one ship came to the king every three years out of Tharshish, laden with gold and silver, and wrought stones, and hewn stones. This was the arrangement of the provision which king Solomon fetched to build the house of the Lord, and the house of the king, and the wall of Jerusalem, and the citadel; to fortify the city of David, and Asshur, and Magdal, and Gezer, and Bethhoron the upper, and Jethermath, and all the cities of the chariots, and all the cities of the horsemen, and the fortification of Solomon which he purposed to build in Jerusalem and in all the land, so that none of the people should rule over him that was left of the Hittite and the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Canaanite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, and the Girgashite, who were not of the children of Israel, their descendants who had been left with him in the land, whom the children of Israel could not utterly destroy; and Solomon made them tributaries until this day. But of the children of Israel Solomon made nothing; for they were the warriors, and his servants and rulers, and captains of the third order, and the captains of his chariots, and his horsemen."
http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/1-kings/10.html#22

The Septuagint version of this verse never mentions anything about apes or any other animals.
Aside from a superior textual history, the Septuagint version also makes more sense.  
This verse is about Solomon arranging for ships to bring supplies from abroad to build the Temple of God.
What do animals like apes or peacocks have anything to do with building the Temple? They don't.

If the ancient Hebrews knew about apes and gorillas, then this verse is not evidence for it.  
It is evidence that a medieval Rabbinical historical revisionist wanted people to believe they did.
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
You know what? There's no mention of kangaroos in the Bible either!  :police:

So I'm now going to assert that kangaroos were the product of human procreation with those little moth larvae that live inside Mexican jumping beans.  8)
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,501
Reaction score
265
Points
83
Age
41
Ain't no way my great great great great great great great grand pappy came from a homo, especially one called erectus. That's just vulgar. And those people don't even have babies. Scientists are dumb.
 

Dionysii

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
642
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dionysii said:
If it can be reasonably shown that no known evidence exists that the ancient Jews were aware of the existence of apes,
then who in the ancient world, if anyone, was aware of the existence of apes?

Precisely when and by whom exactly in world history are apes first mentioned in any way?
To the best of my knowledge, the answer to this question appears to be the Carthaginian navigator Hanno who discovered gorillas on the west coast of Africa circa 500 years before Christ when he famously circumnavigated the continent of Africa at the behest of the Egyptian Pharaoh.  Therefore, the ancient Jews as well as Egyptians and others likely learned of the existence of apes at this time if not before.  A 'Peryplus of Hanno' (i.e. logbook of the voyage) exists in ancient Greek and English translation.  Herodotus also recorded the history of this when he wrote his histories about 50 years later circa 450 B.C.  

Herodotus's histories include this passage about Hanno's of navigation of western Africa:
"On the third day after our departure thence, having sailed by those streams of fire, we arrived at a bay called the Southern Horn[11]; at the bottom of which lay an island like the former, having a lake, and in this lake another island, full of savage people, the greater part of whom were women, whose bodies were hairy, and whom our interpreters called Gorillae. Though we pursued the men we could not seize any of them; but all fled from us, escaping over the precipices, and defending themselves with stones. Three women were however taken; but they attacked their conductors with their teeth and hands, and could not be prevailed upon to accompany us. Having killed them, we flayed them, and brought their skins with us to Carthage."
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Hanno.html

This passage suggests that gorillas rather than a tribe of humans are being described since no language is mentioned in addition to the body hair and behavior in all aspects.  Furthermore, the geographical location where Hanno's ships encountered these gorillas is exactly the same where gorillas exist today - west and central Africa.

"In the past, gorilla scientific classification had one species (gorilla) that was divided into three subspecies. Each of these subspecies was distinguished from one another by their geographic location in Africa:
• Western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) is the smallest of all three subspecies - weighing around 180 kg (396 lb) for an adult male - and lives in the tropical forests of West Africa. Lowland gorillas in general are similar in appearance. The western lowland gorilla is the most common type of gorilla found in zoological facilities and is the species cared for at Busch Gardens Tampa Bay.
• Eastern lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla graueri) is slightly larger in size weighing up to 220 kg (484 lb) and darker in coloration than the western lowland gorilla. They live in the rainforests of central Africa.
• Mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla beringei) is the largest and rarest of all three subspecies. Adult males may weigh over 227 kg (500 lb.) They are found at high elevations of the Virunga Volcano range that separates Zaire from Rwanda and Uganda. Their hair is longer and darker than their lowland counterparts due to the colder climate of the high elevation. Mountain gorillas are taller, have a more pointed head, have a wider gap in the middle of the nose, and lack a reddish patch of hair on their heads, common to lowland gorillas
."
http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/gorilla/scientific-classification.htm

The story of Hanno's encounter in both his Peryplus and Herodtus's account is perhaps the earliest historical account of gorillas.
I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
theistgal said:
You know what? There's no mention of kangaroos in the Bible either!  :police:

So I'm now going to assert that kangaroos were the product of human procreation with those little moth larvae that live inside Mexican jumping beans.  8)
There is no mention of a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle either. 
 

stavros_388

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Canada
Asteriktos said:
Ain't no way my great great great great great great great grand pappy came from a homo, especially one called erectus. That's just vulgar. And those people don't even have babies. Scientists are dumb.
LOL!
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
Kerdy said:
theistgal said:
You know what? There's no mention of kangaroos in the Bible either!  :police:

So I'm now going to assert that kangaroos were the product of human procreation with those little moth larvae that live inside Mexican jumping beans.  8)
There is no mention of a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle either. 
No offense, but I don't even want to *think* about humans procreating with guns.  :eek:
 

Dionysii

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
642
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dionysii said:
I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.
I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
Dionysii said:
Dionysii said:
I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.
I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.
Do you have any actual proof of this, other than that it fits with your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures? I mean, proof that someone who doesn't share your interpretation would find compelling?
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,834
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
41
Location
PA, USA
Dionysii said:
Dionysii said:
I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.
I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.
angels mate with humans and have giant ape children?  That certainly is an...interesting theory.
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
TheTrisagion said:
Dionysii said:
Dionysii said:
I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.
I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.
angels mate with humans and have giant ape children?  That certainly is an...interesting theory.
Yes, every man who's ever described the woman he's in love with as "an angel" should be slapped, or jailed, or both. We don't need any more ape-angels, thanks. 8)
 

Dionysii

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
642
Reaction score
0
Points
0
theistgal said:
Dionysii said:
Dionysii said:
I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.
I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.
Do you have any actual proof of this, other than that it fits with your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures? I mean, proof that someone who doesn't share your interpretation would find compelling?
This fossil record matches Genesis chapter 6.

This belief is not my private interpretation.  It is the consensus of the Church as explicitly expressed by Saints Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus.  It is also the belief of Church writers including Augustine and Lactantius among others.

 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,834
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
41
Location
PA, USA
Dionysii said:
theistgal said:
Dionysii said:
Dionysii said:
I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.
I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.
Do you have any actual proof of this, other than that it fits with your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures? I mean, proof that someone who doesn't share your interpretation would find compelling?
This fossil record matches Genesis chapter 6.
Well....that is up for debate. Just because it talks of giants doesn't mean the fossil record matches it.  Heck, there are giants around today, are they also angel-human hybrids? It is never a good idea to try and fit science into our pre-conceived notions of how something works in our own mind.

 

Dionysii

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
642
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheTrisagion said:
It is never a good idea to try and fit science into our pre-conceived notions of how something works in our own mind.
TheTrisagion said:
The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago. That is the closest animal genetically speaking that humans relate to.  There is no way that any sexual contact has resulted in birth between human and animal species for at least 2-3 million years.
 

Dionysii

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
642
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheTrisagion said:
Dionysii said:
I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants...
Well....that is up for debate.
As far as I am concerned, the classification of Gigantopithecus as biblical giants is not up for debate unless evidence is presented.
If I came across evidence that suggested otherwise, then I would gladly consider it.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,834
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
41
Location
PA, USA
Dionysii said:
TheTrisagion said:
It is never a good idea to try and fit science into our pre-conceived notions of how something works in our own mind.
TheTrisagion said:
The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago. That is the closest animal genetically speaking that humans relate to.  There is no way that any sexual contact has resulted in birth between human and animal species for at least 2-3 million years.
lol, that is not my pre-conceived notion.  I'm not smart enough to calculate gene mutations and analyze the fossil record to come up with that data.
 

Dionysii

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
642
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheTrisagion said:
Dionysii said:
TheTrisagion said:
It is never a good idea to try and fit science into our pre-conceived notions of how something works in our own mind.
TheTrisagion said:
The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago. That is the closest animal genetically speaking that humans relate to.  There is no way that any sexual contact has resulted in birth between human and animal species for at least 2-3 million years.
lol, that is not my pre-conceived notion.  I'm not smart enough to calculate gene mutations and analyze the fossil record to come up with that data.
You believe in such data about biological evolution through faith in modern scientists. 
Yes or no?
 

DavidH

High Elder
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
541
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
56
Location
Dallas, Tx.
Website
www.LandscapeDallas.com
Dionysii said:
theistgal said:
Dionysii said:
Dionysii said:
I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.
I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.
Do you have any actual proof of this, other than that it fits with your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures? I mean, proof that someone who doesn't share your interpretation would find compelling?
This fossil record matches Genesis chapter 6.

This belief is not my private interpretation.  It is the consensus of the Church as explicitly expressed by Saints Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus.  It is also the belief of Church writers including Augustine and Lactantius among others.
I was unaware the Church had a consensus on ape-human babies.... really, Dionysii, you can't just pull ideas out of your rear end and say it overturns theories that have withstood decades and centuries of rigorous examination by those trained to know what they are talking about.

Plus, you do not seem to understand that the Holy Fathers are our guides in the Faith, not in science. As far as science is concerned they were simply men of their times with no special insights. Do you still hold to their Biblically reinforced geocentrism as well?

 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,834
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
41
Location
PA, USA
Dionysii said:
TheTrisagion said:
Dionysii said:
TheTrisagion said:
It is never a good idea to try and fit science into our pre-conceived notions of how something works in our own mind.
TheTrisagion said:
The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago. That is the closest animal genetically speaking that humans relate to.  There is no way that any sexual contact has resulted in birth between human and animal species for at least 2-3 million years.
lol, that is not my pre-conceived notion.  I'm not smart enough to calculate gene mutations and analyze the fossil record to come up with that data.
You believe in such data about biological evolution through faith in modern scientists. 
Yes or no?
When it comes to science, I study it, I accept some of what is taught by scientists and I reject others.  I don't put blind faith in scientists.  I do my best to look at the physical evidence and see what theories make the most sense.  Angel-human giant ape babies don't come anywhere close to making the most sense.
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
Dionysii said:
This fossil record matches Genesis chapter 6.

This belief is not my private interpretation.  It is the consensus of the Church as explicitly expressed by Saints Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus.  It is also the belief of Church writers including Augustine and Lactantius among others.
So is a convert required to assent to this "consensus" before being allowed to become Orthodox? I ask only for information.
 

DavidH

High Elder
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
541
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
56
Location
Dallas, Tx.
Website
www.LandscapeDallas.com
theistgal said:
Dionysii said:
This fossil record matches Genesis chapter 6.

This belief is not my private interpretation.  It is the consensus of the Church as explicitly expressed by Saints Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus.  It is also the belief of Church writers including Augustine and Lactantius among others.
So is a convert required to assent to this "consensus" before being allowed to become Orthodox? I ask only for information.
My answer would be that assenting to the patristic consensus in regards to the historic worship, doctrines and moral traditions of the Church is kind of the point in identifying with Orthodoxy (the name means "right glory" "right teaching" and "right worship").

However, assenting to the Holy Fathers' ancient and medieval scientific views is not even if these sometimes appear in their Scriptural commentaries.
 
Top