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

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
beebert said:
Porter ODoran said:
Beebert, if fall and salvation are to be made only "internal," then we're without help and miserable, as most of us in fact live in an "external" world filled with "external" suffering. How curious that you get so angry with God, yet when faced with the Christian answer to suffering, the fall and salivation, you show very little interest and want to make them imaginary.
You never understand what I say so I do not care to answer you anymore. Either you choose to trust Christ as a living resurrected person, or you obsess with thinking that believing in a historic event in the past will bring salvation. Either you live, or you spend your life speculating about whether the fall physically took place as described in the Book of genesis. Either you try to live a concrete existence without building up thought systems and fake buildings and constructions, or you don't.
There are no such oppositions. God is both real and true. No "obsession" is required, merely conversion.
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
Porter ODoran said:
Wow how did I miss your attack on the resurrection? Yes, we "need to know it was physical to believe," and, no, the Fathers were not unbelievers.
You are pathetic if you Think I attacked the resurrection. I Said it can not proven. Only believed. But I am not surprised by your unintelligent replies anymore.
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
Porter ODoran said:
beebert said:
Porter ODoran said:
Beebert, if fall and salvation are to be made only "internal," then we're without help and miserable, as most of us in fact live in an "external" world filled with "external" suffering. How curious that you get so angry with God, yet when faced with the Christian answer to suffering, the fall and salivation, you show very little interest and want to make them imaginary.
You never understand what I say so I do not care to answer you anymore. Either you choose to trust Christ as a living resurrected person, or you obsess with thinking that believing in a historic event in the past will bring salvation. Either you live, or you spend your life speculating about whether the fall physically took place as described in the Book of genesis. Either you try to live a concrete existence without building up thought systems and fake buildings and constructions, or you don't.
There are no such oppositions. God is both real and true. No "obsession" is required, merely conversion.
And yet you object to what I said
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,210
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
beebert said:
Porter ODoran said:
Wow how did I miss your attack on the resurrection? Yes, we "need to know it was physical to believe," and, no, the Fathers were not unbelievers.
You are pathetic if you Think I attacked the resurrection. I Said it can not proven. Only believed. But I am not surprised by your unintelligent replies anymore.
How does anyone prove anything that happened two thousand years ago?  We don't have any fossils of Jesus, so what do you suggest? 
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
Mor Ephrem said:
beebert said:
byhisgrace said:
beebert said:
byhisgrace said:
If it's true that most (if not all) of the Fathers were literal six-day creationists, and if it's true that most of the Fathers believed that Scripture is inerrant in its historic account, then that leads me to a nagging doubt:
If literal six-day creationism is factually false, then why trust Scripture and the Fathers at all?
The scripture isnt a Book of history foremost. It is not the important part.
Maybe, but if I can't trust the Scriptures or the Fathers on historical matters, then on what basis can I trust them on spiritual matters, such as the Sacraments and salvation through faith in Christ? The Resurrection of Christ, for example, is a historical claim (though also a spiritual claim). And if Christ didn't Resurrect, then we all know what Paul said about that (1 Cor 15).
The fathers weren't historians. And God isn't trying to teach us knowledge about history. Isn't the important thing to understand how you die and resurrect with Christ in spirit, rather than to try to prove whether or not Adam really physically ate an apple 6000 years ago? It is spiritual realities that are important.

...

We are somewhat commanded to suspend our rational critical thinking and make a leap of faith.
What leaps these are.  "Whether or not Adam really physically ate an apple 6000 years ago" isn't important, so history is not important at all.  These are leaps of nonsense. 

The resurrection was a historical and spiritual event yes. But can you prove that it was physical? Do you need to know that it was physical in order to believe?
If it wasn't physical, then what was all that fish-eating and Thomas-touching and breakfast-broiling about? 

If the resurrection was a historical event, then it was a physical event.  The NT records the testimony of over five hundred people who bore witness to that, many of whom were alive and known to people at the time the books were written.  So yeah, I need to know that it was physical in order to believe, that's how God revealed it.  But the way I need to know that is not by attempting to recover a body so doctors can do an autopsy and--lo!--turns out he's alive, so I switch to plan B and have him examined by those doctors to figure out what's going on.  There are paths to knowledge other than surgery.
Where did I say anything about the resurrection not being historical and physical? What I am saying is that you cant prove it But most Believe it. And that the important thing is Faith in a living concrete person.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,210
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
beebert said:
Mor Ephrem said:
beebert said:
byhisgrace said:
beebert said:
byhisgrace said:
If it's true that most (if not all) of the Fathers were literal six-day creationists, and if it's true that most of the Fathers believed that Scripture is inerrant in its historic account, then that leads me to a nagging doubt:
If literal six-day creationism is factually false, then why trust Scripture and the Fathers at all?
The scripture isnt a Book of history foremost. It is not the important part.
Maybe, but if I can't trust the Scriptures or the Fathers on historical matters, then on what basis can I trust them on spiritual matters, such as the Sacraments and salvation through faith in Christ? The Resurrection of Christ, for example, is a historical claim (though also a spiritual claim). And if Christ didn't Resurrect, then we all know what Paul said about that (1 Cor 15).
The fathers weren't historians. And God isn't trying to teach us knowledge about history. Isn't the important thing to understand how you die and resurrect with Christ in spirit, rather than to try to prove whether or not Adam really physically ate an apple 6000 years ago? It is spiritual realities that are important.

...

We are somewhat commanded to suspend our rational critical thinking and make a leap of faith.
What leaps these are.  "Whether or not Adam really physically ate an apple 6000 years ago" isn't important, so history is not important at all.  These are leaps of nonsense. 

The resurrection was a historical and spiritual event yes. But can you prove that it was physical? Do you need to know that it was physical in order to believe?
If it wasn't physical, then what was all that fish-eating and Thomas-touching and breakfast-broiling about? 

If the resurrection was a historical event, then it was a physical event.  The NT records the testimony of over five hundred people who bore witness to that, many of whom were alive and known to people at the time the books were written.  So yeah, I need to know that it was physical in order to believe, that's how God revealed it.  But the way I need to know that is not by attempting to recover a body so doctors can do an autopsy and--lo!--turns out he's alive, so I switch to plan B and have him examined by those doctors to figure out what's going on.  There are paths to knowledge other than surgery.
Where did I say anything about the resurrection not being historical and physical? What I am saying is that you cant prove it But most Believe it. And that the important thing is Faith in a living concrete person.
Again, what would you accept as proof that X happened two thousand years ago? 
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
Mor Ephrem said:
beebert said:
Mor Ephrem said:
beebert said:
byhisgrace said:
beebert said:
byhisgrace said:
If it's true that most (if not all) of the Fathers were literal six-day creationists, and if it's true that most of the Fathers believed that Scripture is inerrant in its historic account, then that leads me to a nagging doubt:
If literal six-day creationism is factually false, then why trust Scripture and the Fathers at all?
The scripture isnt a Book of history foremost. It is not the important part.
Maybe, but if I can't trust the Scriptures or the Fathers on historical matters, then on what basis can I trust them on spiritual matters, such as the Sacraments and salvation through faith in Christ? The Resurrection of Christ, for example, is a historical claim (though also a spiritual claim). And if Christ didn't Resurrect, then we all know what Paul said about that (1 Cor 15).
The fathers weren't historians. And God isn't trying to teach us knowledge about history. Isn't the important thing to understand how you die and resurrect with Christ in spirit, rather than to try to prove whether or not Adam really physically ate an apple 6000 years ago? It is spiritual realities that are important.

...

We are somewhat commanded to suspend our rational critical thinking and make a leap of faith.
What leaps these are.  "Whether or not Adam really physically ate an apple 6000 years ago" isn't important, so history is not important at all.  These are leaps of nonsense. 

The resurrection was a historical and spiritual event yes. But can you prove that it was physical? Do you need to know that it was physical in order to believe?
If it wasn't physical, then what was all that fish-eating and Thomas-touching and breakfast-broiling about? 

If the resurrection was a historical event, then it was a physical event.  The NT records the testimony of over five hundred people who bore witness to that, many of whom were alive and known to people at the time the books were written.  So yeah, I need to know that it was physical in order to believe, that's how God revealed it.  But the way I need to know that is not by attempting to recover a body so doctors can do an autopsy and--lo!--turns out he's alive, so I switch to plan B and have him examined by those doctors to figure out what's going on.  There are paths to knowledge other than surgery.
Where did I say anything about the resurrection not being historical and physical? What I am saying is that you cant prove it But most Believe it. And that the important thing is Faith in a living concrete person.
Again, what would you accept as proof that X happened two thousand years ago?
Faith
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
Mor Ephrem said:
beebert said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Again, what would you accept as proof that X happened two thousand years ago?
Faith
Faith in what?
In exactly what made Peter say "Thou art Christ, the son of the living God". The proof comes with faith. Faith is the reward. I don't need a church father to tell me about whether God created the world in 6 days or not for that.
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
Let me put it simple. If you must believe in a literal 6 day creation in order for your faith in Christ not to collapse, then you had no real faith in Christ to start with.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,210
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
beebert said:
Mor Ephrem said:
beebert said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Again, what would you accept as proof that X happened two thousand years ago?
Faith
Faith in what?
In exactly what made Peter say "Thou art Christ, the son of the living God". The proof comes with faith. Faith is the reward. I don't need a church father to tell me about whether God created the world in 6 days or not for that.
beebert said:
Let me put it simple. If you must believe in a literal 6 day creation in order for your faith in Christ not to collapse, then you had no real faith in Christ to start with.
This is an interesting "faith", in which one can accept the resurrection without proof because "faith" but cannot at the same time believe in a "literal 6 day creation" because "science". 
 

Ainnir

Taxiarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
5,898
Reaction score
146
Points
63
Age
37
Truth.  Not that I'm an expert in consistent logic.  ;)

But beebert, I wonder if you are reacting against the Ken Ham and Kent Hovind crowd?  I do completely understand such an aversion, as I hit that wall during my time in evangelicalism.  But consider that perhaps crowd A and crowd B having X in common does not mean they have all other things in common, such as the evangelical demand that one accepts YEC before "allowing" that one to be saved (or indeed, even able to understand "the rest of the Bible").  I could be wrong, but I don't think such a demand is a major feature in Orthodoxy.
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
Mor Ephrem said:
beebert said:
Mor Ephrem said:
beebert said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Again, what would you accept as proof that X happened two thousand years ago?
Faith
Faith in what?
In exactly what made Peter say "Thou art Christ, the son of the living God". The proof comes with faith. Faith is the reward. I don't need a church father to tell me about whether God created the world in 6 days or not for that.
beebert said:
Let me put it simple. If you must believe in a literal 6 day creation in order for your faith in Christ not to collapse, then you had no real faith in Christ to start with.
This is an interesting "faith", in which one can accept the resurrection without proof because "faith" but cannot at the same time believe in a "literal 6 day creation" because "science".
You believe in the 6 day creation and a young earth? If so, you really must suspend all your rational faculties. If I did that I would go even more insane. Now. I hold what I said before. If you must believe in a young earth and a 6 day creation in order to have faith in Christ, you have no faith in him. Why trust anything we observe? Why trust that the earth moves around the sun? Now the bible seems to believe otherwise. Why believe that there are other planets? Why believe anything I see? If you believe in a 6 day creation, then you might as well dismiss all science. Do you believe fossils and skeletons of dinosaurs were put on the earth by Satan in other to deceive christians too?
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
Ainnir said:
Truth.  Not that I'm an expert in consistent logic.  ;)

But beebert, I wonder if you are reacting against the Ken Ham and Kent Hovind crowd?  I do completely understand such an aversion, as I hit that wall during my time in evangelicalism.  But consider that perhaps crowd A and crowd B having X in common does not mean they have all other things in common, such as the evangelical demand that one accepts YEC before "allowing" that one to be saved (or indeed, even able to understand "the rest of the Bible").  I could be wrong, but I don't think such a demand is a major feature in Orthodoxy.
That sort of dogmatic thinking is exactly what I despise yes. I consider it one of the greatest crimes possible.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,210
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
beebert said:
Mor Ephrem said:
beebert said:
Mor Ephrem said:
beebert said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Again, what would you accept as proof that X happened two thousand years ago?
Faith
Faith in what?
In exactly what made Peter say "Thou art Christ, the son of the living God". The proof comes with faith. Faith is the reward. I don't need a church father to tell me about whether God created the world in 6 days or not for that.
beebert said:
Let me put it simple. If you must believe in a literal 6 day creation in order for your faith in Christ not to collapse, then you had no real faith in Christ to start with.
This is an interesting "faith", in which one can accept the resurrection without proof because "faith" but cannot at the same time believe in a "literal 6 day creation" because "science".
You believe in the 6 day creation and a young earth? If so, you really must suspend all your rational faculties.
But...

beebert said:
Or perhaps you were not serious to begin with.

If I did that I would go even more insane. Now. I hold what I said before. If you must believe in a young earth and a 6 day creation in order to have faith in Christ, you have no faith in him.
Who said I "believe in a young earth and a 6 day creation in order to have faith in Christ"?  You are reading that into other people because you have a bizarre concept of "faith" and "science" and "knowledge" and "ignorance". 
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
What do you believe, then? How old do you believe the earth is? Was the earth created in 6 literal days?

Faith begins where the limits of reasons are found. It isn't "rational". It's a belief and trust in the strength of the absurd. I mean that which contradicts reason. Now. The literal 6 day creation isn't necessary for that. God never says "In order to have true faith and be saved, you must believe that I literally created the world in 6 days". No. I say that the letter kills but the spirit gives life.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,210
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
beebert said:
What do you believe, then?
https://oca.org/orthodoxy/prayers/symbol-of-faith

How old do you believe the earth is?
I don't know and I don't really care. 

Was the earth created in 6 literal days?
What's a literal day?

Faith begins where the limits of reasons are found. It isn't "rational". It's a belief and trust in the strength of the absurd. I mean that which contradicts reason.
Speaking of absurd, this is it.

Now. The literal 6 day creation isn't necessary for that. God never says "In order to have true faith and be saved, you must believe that I literally created the world in 6 days". No. I say that the letter kills but the spirit gives life.
If you don't want to believe in something, don't believe in it.  But if other people do believe in it, they are not totally ignorant because they don't think like you.  That's all. 
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
Mor Ephrem said:
beebert said:
What do you believe, then?
https://oca.org/orthodoxy/prayers/symbol-of-faith

How old do you believe the earth is?
I don't know and I don't really care. 

Was the earth created in 6 literal days?
What's a literal day?

Faith begins where the limits of reasons are found. It isn't "rational". It's a belief and trust in the strength of the absurd. I mean that which contradicts reason.
Speaking of absurd, this is it.

Now. The literal 6 day creation isn't necessary for that. God never says "In order to have true faith and be saved, you must believe that I literally created the world in 6 days". No. I say that the letter kills but the spirit gives life.
If you don't want to believe in something, don't believe in it.  But if other people do believe in it, they are not totally ignorant because they don't think like you.  That's all.
Now, you said you don't care how old the earth is. Bravo! THat is EXACTLY what I said before. I don't remember if it was in this thread. But a christian should never preach that the earth is 6000 years old if he doesn't know it. It simply doesn't matter for the faith. And that was my whole point. Now I don't like Tertullian, but wasn't he the one who said the he believed because it is absurd? It IS absurd to believe that God, the maker of this infinite universe, was incarnated by being born by a virgin, died on a cross and raised from the dead again. Now. That is absurd. That is absurd for what? For our reason. That is why one can not simply "believe". God's grace, a miracle, is required. To say otherwise is stupid. Is it regular that a man can raise other men from the dead, heal the sick and the blind etc? No. In order to have faith in the miracles and everything in the bible, you must in some way go against your natural reason. What is so strange about that? That it appears absurd doesn't mean it isn't true.
 

Ainnir

Taxiarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
5,898
Reaction score
146
Points
63
Age
37
This:
Ainnir said:
Truth.  Not that I'm an expert in consistent logic.  ;)
Was in response to this:
Mor Ephrem said:
This is an interesting "faith", in which one can accept the resurrection without proof because "faith" but cannot at the same time believe in a "literal 6 day creation" because "science".
Guess I should quote more.  :D

beebert said:
Ainnir said:
But beebert, I wonder if you are reacting against the Ken Ham and Kent Hovind crowd?  I do completely understand such an aversion, as I hit that wall during my time in evangelicalism.  But consider that perhaps crowd A and crowd B having X in common does not mean they have all other things in common, such as the evangelical demand that one accepts YEC before "allowing" that one to be saved (or indeed, even able to understand "the rest of the Bible").  I could be wrong, but I don't think such a demand is a major feature in Orthodoxy.
That sort of dogmatic thinking is exactly what I despise yes. I consider it one of the greatest crimes possible.
What you're doing, though, is exactly what the Evangelical YECers do--making it a binary decision instead of allowing space for difference where it's probably really ok (within limits).  You're demanding that people believe the earth isn't 6000 years old before you take them seriously.  Same method, opposite direction.  And I'm sure you're not alone, but if you're going to rant against a particular tactic (which I agree is maddening; I wanted to shake those guys silly for a while there)...don't employ it yourself.  And I'm sure I'll turn and catch myself needing my own advice, but there it is anyway.  :D
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
Ainnir said:
This:
Ainnir said:
Truth.  Not that I'm an expert in consistent logic.  ;)
Was in response to this:
Mor Ephrem said:
This is an interesting "faith", in which one can accept the resurrection without proof because "faith" but cannot at the same time believe in a "literal 6 day creation" because "science".
Guess I should quote more.  :D

beebert said:
Ainnir said:
But beebert, I wonder if you are reacting against the Ken Ham and Kent Hovind crowd?  I do completely understand such an aversion, as I hit that wall during my time in evangelicalism.  But consider that perhaps crowd A and crowd B having X in common does not mean they have all other things in common, such as the evangelical demand that one accepts YEC before "allowing" that one to be saved (or indeed, even able to understand "the rest of the Bible").  I could be wrong, but I don't think such a demand is a major feature in Orthodoxy.
That sort of dogmatic thinking is exactly what I despise yes. I consider it one of the greatest crimes possible.
What you're doing, though, is exactly what the Evangelical YECers do--making it a binary decision instead of allowing space for difference where it's probably really ok (within limits).  You're demanding that people believe the earth isn't 6000 years old before you take them seriously.  Same method, opposite direction.  And I'm sure you're not alone, but if you're going to rant against a particular tactic (which I agree is maddening; I wanted to shake those guys silly for a while there)...don't employ it yourself.  And I'm sure I'll turn and catch myself needing my own advice, but there it is anyway.  :D
I am not demanding that people stop believing the earth is 6000 years old. I demand that people stop preaching it and threat others who don't believe it with eternal hell. But I see what you are saying, and you make a good point.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Faith is taking God at his word, entering a trusting relationship with him.

It's other things as well. But it's certainly not some rhetorical game where we get away with calling his communications irrational and absurd. Whom do you think you're appealing to with such a proposal? The skeptically-minded young men you might hope find it clever aren't going to stick around long. Now I know you're just parroting men of ill repute to whom you've developed some kind of attraction. But as you make the cause your own here, I'm going to treat its implications as yours too. What are you expecting to accomplish?
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
Porter ODoran said:
Faith is taking God at his word, entering a trusting relationship with him.

It's other things as well. But it's certainly not some rhetorical game where we get away with calling his communications irrational and absurd. Whom do you think you're appealing to with such a proposal? The skeptically-minded young men you might hope find it clever aren't going to stick around long. Now I know you're just parroting men of ill repute to whom you've developed some kind of attraction. But as you make the cause your own here, I'm going to treat its implications as yours too. What are you expecting to accomplish?
yes faith is taking God at his word and entering a trusting relationship with him. I get it. You don't like me. So maybe you shouldn't answer me?
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Ainnir said:
Truth.  Not that I'm an expert in consistent logic.  ;)

But beebert, I wonder if you are reacting against the Ken Ham and Kent Hovind crowd?  I do completely understand such an aversion, as I hit that wall during my time in evangelicalism.  But consider that perhaps crowd A and crowd B having X in common does not mean they have all other things in common, such as the evangelical demand that one accepts YEC before "allowing" that one to be saved (or indeed, even able to understand "the rest of the Bible").  I could be wrong, but I don't think such a demand is a major feature in Orthodoxy.
It should be noted that Ken Ham doesn't believe that one must be a YEC in order to be saved. He does believe that rejecting a YEC perspective leads to a minimization of the importance of scripture, and a subsequent weakening of a vibrant Christian culture in general, but he also says that as long as one accepts Christ as Lord and Savior (regardless of what one believes about geology or cosmology) then one will/can be saved. Misunderstanding what Ken teaches can easily slide into a subtle anti-Hamitism, and I can't let that stand.
 

Ainnir

Taxiarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
5,898
Reaction score
146
Points
63
Age
37
Jetavan said:
Ainnir said:
Truth.  Not that I'm an expert in consistent logic.  ;)

But beebert, I wonder if you are reacting against the Ken Ham and Kent Hovind crowd?  I do completely understand such an aversion, as I hit that wall during my time in evangelicalism.  But consider that perhaps crowd A and crowd B having X in common does not mean they have all other things in common, such as the evangelical demand that one accepts YEC before "allowing" that one to be saved (or indeed, even able to understand "the rest of the Bible").  I could be wrong, but I don't think such a demand is a major feature in Orthodoxy.
It should be noted that Ken Ham doesn't believe that one must be a YEC in order to be saved. He does believe that rejecting a YEC perspective leads to a minimization of the importance of scripture, and a subsequent weakening of a vibrant Christian culture in general, but he also says that as long as one accepts Christ as Lord and Savior (regardless of what one believes about geology or cosmology) then one will/can be saved. Misunderstanding what Ken teaches can easily slide into a subtle anti-Hamitism, and I can't let that stand.
I like how you don't defend Mr. Hovind.  ;)  I'm not at all equating them, by the way.  Ken Ham is a classy guy.
But: https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
Section 1 is easily conflated with YEC doctrine and this is precisely what fans tend to do (rather rabidly).  The YEC doctrine, as well as a pretty hardcore version of Sola Scriptura, is outlined in the following sections.  And if their Creation Evangelism approach includes this doctrine in its presentation (which is a logical assumption), it's easy to see how the message that "you have to believe this to believe the gospel" comes across.

Now, I will allow that he is not responsible for people who rant from the pulpit or keyboard and then refer people to his site.  And this is what happens over and over ad nauseum.  I am anti-YEC as a doctrine the way it's presented here (and by overly eager AiG fans), but I don't hate Ken Ham.  However he really has become the figurehead of this movement (or whatever one wants to call it), so when one wants to encompass all that encountering that movement as a skeptic (or even a fence-sitter) entails, the shorthand is going to be his name, and maybe a handful of others--fair or not.  :)
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,210
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
beebert said:
Now, you said you don't care how old the earth is. Bravo! THat is EXACTLY what I said before.
No, you definitely care about the age of the earth and how it's older than six thousand years. 

I don't remember if it was in this thread. But a christian should never preach that the earth is 6000 years old if he doesn't know it.
And there's another example of "caring" about the age of the earth.  Presumably, a Christian could be allowed in Beebertianity to preach that the earth is seven billion years old. 

It simply doesn't matter for the faith. And that was my whole point.
Your whole point is that it does matter for the faith if it's not the answer you approve. 

Now I don't like Tertullian, but wasn't he the one who said the he believed because it is absurd? It IS absurd to believe that God, the maker of this infinite universe, was incarnated by being born by a virgin, died on a cross and raised from the dead again. Now. That is absurd. That is absurd for what? For our reason.
I don't trust your reading of Tertullian or anyone else, so you're going to have to prove your point about absurdity. 

That is why one can not simply "believe". God's grace, a miracle, is required. To say otherwise is stupid.
You're right.  But I never said that God's grace wasn't required.  My contention is that "faith" is reasonable. 

Is it regular that a man can raise other men from the dead, heal the sick and the blind etc? No. In order to have faith in the miracles and everything in the bible, you must in some way go against your natural reason. What is so strange about that? That it appears absurd doesn't mean it isn't true.
Why do I have to go against my natural reason?  My ancestors were baptised by the Apostle Thomas.  They believed his testimony about Christ to be sufficient for them to do something as counter-cultural and radical as converting.  They didn't think they were doing something "non-reasonable", something contradicting their natural reason.  They had to feel it was reasonable enough to justify taking the risk.  I believe their testimony because it has remained consistent for two thousand years.  That's reasonable.  It's not against natural reason.  It's not absurd.  It's just not CCTV footage of downtown Eden.   
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
Mor Ephrem said:
beebert said:
Now, you said you don't care how old the earth is. Bravo! THat is EXACTLY what I said before.
No, you definitely care about the age of the earth and how it's older than six thousand years. 

I don't remember if it was in this thread. But a christian should never preach that the earth is 6000 years old if he doesn't know it.
And there's another example of "caring" about the age of the earth.  Presumably, a Christian could be allowed in Beebertianity to preach that the earth is seven billion years old. 

It simply doesn't matter for the faith. And that was my whole point.
Your whole point is that it does matter for the faith if it's not the answer you approve. 

Now I don't like Tertullian, but wasn't he the one who said the he believed because it is absurd? It IS absurd to believe that God, the maker of this infinite universe, was incarnated by being born by a virgin, died on a cross and raised from the dead again. Now. That is absurd. That is absurd for what? For our reason.
I don't trust your reading of Tertullian or anyone else, so you're going to have to prove your point about absurdity. 

That is why one can not simply "believe". God's grace, a miracle, is required. To say otherwise is stupid.
You're right.  But I never said that God's grace wasn't required.  My contention is that "faith" is reasonable. 

Is it regular that a man can raise other men from the dead, heal the sick and the blind etc? No. In order to have faith in the miracles and everything in the bible, you must in some way go against your natural reason. What is so strange about that? That it appears absurd doesn't mean it isn't true.
Why do I have to go against my natural reason?  My ancestors were baptised by the Apostle Thomas.  They believed his testimony about Christ to be sufficient for them to do something as counter-cultural and radical as converting.  They didn't think they were doing something "non-reasonable", something contradicting their natural reason.  They had to feel it was reasonable enough to justify taking the risk.  I believe their testimony because it has remained consistent for two thousand years.  That's reasonable.  It's not against natural reason.  It's not absurd.  It's just not CCTV footage of downtown Eden. 
Regarding your comments on that I would have People preach the age of the earth : No. It is not important to me. I am not a Dawkins. Even though though sometimes understands Why he is irritated by people who are to spiritually and intellectually analphabetic to understand that the earth doesnt stand on a turtle. But: If we go on that road I would rather do it like Wittgenstein and say there is a great chance that there in fact is a dinosaur under my bed. I dont care what People Believe. I would never do as the catholic Church did and burn heretics. Nor would I do like many Southern Baptists and preach hatred towards homosexuals. What I despise is 1. Oppression.  2. Herd mentality. 3. Intellectual dishonesty. Those three are what I consider the roots of all evil. And most people belong to at least one of those three. I have a tendency towards intellectual dishonesty for example, which I despise. "The Earth is 6000 years" is not an answer to anything btw. I allow you to Believe it, But it is very very probable that it is a lie and a great one. And pure imagination. Otherwise, I too Believe that there are dinosaurs under my bed. Now... Don Quijote wasn't so unique in his delusions efter all. Perhaps he saw giants instead of windmills because he was right.

Credo quia absurdum is a Latin phrase that means "I believe because it is absurd." It is a paraphrase of a statement in Tertullian's work De Carne Christi, "prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est", which can be translated: "it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd".The context is a defence of the tenets of orthodox Christianity against docetism:

Crucifixus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;
et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.
— (De Carne Christi V, 4)
"The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible."

That is one of few good things Tertullian ever said that I know of.

Now to say how much I believe the common man and often also the prieats and preaches have distorted true christianity : 1. Priests and preachers have often been oppressors and preached an oppressive God. Jesus Said he came to free the oppressed and he condemned the oppressors. And suddenly many christians turned Christ himself into an oppressor! That is really blasphemy if anything. 2. The herd. Christ said he would gather his flock. His flock is supposed to be people who are couragous enough to follow his painful path. The herd made it Into something comfortable, and helped the preachers to oppress those outside the true Faith because they, in their group mentality, couldnt or wouldnt see things clear and instead joined the oppressors. 3. All of this is intellectualy dishonest.

 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
beebert said:
What I despise is 1. OppressionOther people.  2. Herd mentalityOther people. 3. Intellectual dishonestyOther people. Those three are what I consider the roots of all evil. And most people belong to at least one of those three.
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
Porter ODoran said:
beebert said:
What I despise is 1. OppressionOther people.  2. Herd mentalityOther people. 3. Intellectual dishonestyOther people. Those three are what I consider the roots of all evil. And most people belong to at least one of those three.
I know you despise other people, I dont though. Except for a few.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
beebert said:
Credo quia absurdum is a Latin phrase that means "I believe because it is absurd." It is a paraphrase of a statement in Tertullian's work De Carne Christi, "prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est", which can be translated: "it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd".The context is a defence of the tenets of orthodox Christianity against docetism:

Crucifixus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;
et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.
— (De Carne Christi V, 4)
"The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible."

That is one of few good things Tertullian ever said that I know of.
What you've extracted is the pivot in a very sophisticated interplay between Tertullian's and Marcion's rhetoric. Why don't we look at the context a little -- beginning right after your quote (altho what goes before it is just as material):

"But how will all this be true in Him, if He was not Himself true -- if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again? I mean this flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with veins, a flesh which knew how to be born, and how to die; human without doubt, as born of a human being. It will therefore be mortal in Christ, because Christ is man and the Son of man."

"All this," which your extraction is in reference to, can only "be true" because Jesus Christ had in fact a very commonsensical, a very physical reality.

"Else why is Christ man and the Son of man, if he has nothing of man and nothing from man? Unless it be either that man is anything else than flesh, or man's flesh comes from any other source than man, or Mary is anything else than a human being, or Marcion's man is as Marcion's god."

It's Marcion's "logic," which "proves" that a god cannot be a man, which is actually turning out to be absurd here.

"Otherwise Christ could not be described as being man, without flesh, nor the Son of man, without any human parent; just as He is not God, without the Spirit of God, nor the Son of God, without having God for His father. Thus the nature of the two substances displayed Him as man and God -- in one respect born, in the other unborn; in one respect fleshly, in the other spiritual; in one sense weak, in the other exceeding strong; in on sense dying, in the other living. This property of the two states -- the divine and the human -- is distinctly asserted with equal truth of both natures alike, with the same belief both in respect of the Spirit, and of the flesh."

Tertullian is not bashful about laying out in an orderly way the reasonable implications of Christ's nature.

"The powers of the Spirit proved Him to be God, His sufferings attested the flesh of man. If His powers were not without the Spirit, in like manner were not His sufferings without the flesh. If His flesh with its sufferings was fictitious, for the same reason was the Spirit false with all its powers. Wherefore halve Christ with a lie? He was wholly the truth."

More reasoning, without any embarrassment about it. Powerful assertions of logic and knowledge here.

"Believe me, He chose rather to be born than in any part to pretend -- and that indeed to His own detriment -- that He was bearing about a flesh hardened without bones, solid without muscles, bloody without blood, clothed without the tunic of skin, hungry without appetite, eating without teeth, speaking without a tongue, so that His word was a phantom to the ears through an imaginary voice. A phantom, too, it was of course after the resurrection, when, showing His hands and His feet for the disciples to examine, He said, 'Behold and see that it is I myself, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have': without doubt, hands, and feet, and bones are not what a spirit possesses, but only the flesh."

Now he is going so far as systematically to refute the logic of Marcion's claims, even, if you'll indulge me, proving them to be "absurd." But note how he is going about the refutation: with appeal to real, physical events; with a straightforward account as provided by real human witnesses. (Yet note that even here he indulges some rhetorical flights, viz., irony.)

"How do you interpret this statement, Marcion, you who tell us that Jesus comes only from the most excellent God, who is both simple and good?"

"Simple and good" -- or, as Christ puts it, God's truth is sensible to children and can be found retold by babes. To believe an account by creditable witnesses is not "absurd," that a man of flesh should die is not "absurd," that God should rise even is not "absurd," except as a man so sophisticated as Marcion makes it so. In truth, it is all a simple matter to believe.

"See how He rather cheats, and deceives, and juggles the eyes of all, and the senses of all, as well as their access to and contact with Him! You ought rather to have brought Christ down, not from heaven, but from some troop of mountebanks, not as God besides man, but simply as a man, a magician; not as the High Priest of our salvation, but as the conjurer in a show; not as the raiser of the dead, but as the misleader of the living -- except that, if He were a magician, He must have had a nativity!"

I include this last part simply to show how sophisticated a rhetorical treatment Tertullian's writing can comprise. Here he paints an ironic picture of the absurd effect of Marcion's claims -- that if God were not really come in the flesh, as the Evangelists describe it for us, then he would be a trickster of mankind, a much more elaborate proposition than the simple truth Marcion finds too illogical to believe.
 

Ainnir

Taxiarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
5,898
Reaction score
146
Points
63
Age
37
beebert said:
people who are to spiritually and intellectually analphabetic to understand that the earth doesnt stand on a turtle.
Of course it doesn't!  The elephants stand on the turtle.  ;)
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Ainnir said:
beebert said:
people who are to spiritually and intellectually analphabetic to understand that the earth doesnt stand on a turtle.
Of course it doesn't!  The elephants stand on the turtle.  ;)
Well, the irony in this snarky little legend (which seems to be credited to whichever evolution-apologist the teller fancies at the moment) is that in fact it's the materialist explanations of the universe that are forced to rely on "turtles all the way down." What makes the apple fall? Gravity. What's gravity? The attraction of masses. What makes them attractive? Gravity, the warping of space-time. What makes space-time warp? Gravity, perhaps a particle or wave. What makes the particle or wave behave as it does? Gravity. This goes on ad infinitum. Or: What began the universe? A big bang. What caused the big bang? A big compression. What caused the big compression? Reaction to a universal entropy. What instantiated entropy? A big bang. Or even: How did thus and thus happen when it would be contrary to known physical laws? There may be other universes than ours. But what would this tell us about its probability? The universes may be infinite. But how can providing infinite environments make the thing certain (e.g., a quarter won't fall into the sky no matter how often dropped, ceteris parabus)? There are also infinite realities in the infinite universes -- it is realities all the way down. While for the non-materialist all questions end rather quickly in the First Cause.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Speaking of Orthodoxy and evolution....

Genetic evidence from the South Caucasus region shows surprising long-term stability

The South Caucasus -- home to the countries of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan -- geographically links Europe and the Near East. The area has served for millennia as a major crossroads for human migration, with strong archaeological evidence for big cultural shifts over time. And yet, surprisingly, ancient mitochondrial DNA evidence reported in Current Biology on June 29 finds no evidence of any upheaval over the last 8,000 years.
....
"We analyzed many ancient and modern mitochondrial genomes in parts of the South Caucasus and found genetic continuity for at least 8,000 years," said Ashot Margaryan and Morten E. Allentoft from Centre for GeoGenetics at the Natural History Museum of Denmark. "In other words, we could not detect any changes to the female gene pool over this very long time frame. This is highly interesting because this region has experienced multiple cultural shifts over the same time period, but these changes do not appear to have had a genetic impact -- at least not on the female population."
....
Margaryan says the findings suggest either that cultural shifts occurred primarily through the exchange of ideas or that it was primarily men who moved into new territories, bringing new cultural ideas along with them.
 

byhisgrace

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 23, 2014
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
USA
beebert said:
The fathers weren't historians. And God isn't trying to teach us knowledge about history. Isn't the important thing to understand how you die and resurrect with Christ in spirit, rather than to try to prove whether or not Adam really physically ate an apple 6000 years ago? It is spiritual realities that are important. The resurrection was a historical and spiritual event yes. But can you prove that it was physical? Do you need to know that it was physical in order to believe? In this case... We are somewhat commanded to suspend our rational critical thinking and make a leap of faith.
Actually, upon giving this a second thought, I'm not sure if I agree. My reasons are:

The fathers weren't historians.
No, but they were theologians. The historicity of Genesis may be a historical claim, but the inerrancy of Scripture is a theological/doctrinal claim. Unfortunately, it is hard to defend the inerrancy of Scripture, without resorting to ad-hoc hypotheses on how two seemingly contradictory accounts can be harmonized. So, if the Fathers were unanimously wrong about this one doctrinal issue, then on what basis can I trust them on other doctrinal issues?

And God isn't trying to teach us knowledge about history.
Yes, the commandments of Christ and the salvation of mankind are the most important parts of the Scriptures, but it doesn't change the fact that some parts of the Scriptures were intended to be historical accounts. The book of Luke, for example, intended to teach that the Resurrection is physical.

We are somewhat commanded to suspend our rational critical thinking and make a leap of faith.
I can concede to this to an extent. Faith is an unavoidable part of Christianity for multiple reasons. However, there is only so much skepticism I can suspend before I have to ask myself: "Then how is Christianity any more tenable than Islam or Buddhism?"
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
byhisgrace said:
beebert said:
The fathers weren't historians. And God isn't trying to teach us knowledge about history. Isn't the important thing to understand how you die and resurrect with Christ in spirit, rather than to try to prove whether or not Adam really physically ate an apple 6000 years ago? It is spiritual realities that are important. The resurrection was a historical and spiritual event yes. But can you prove that it was physical? Do you need to know that it was physical in order to believe? In this case... We are somewhat commanded to suspend our rational critical thinking and make a leap of faith.
Actually, upon giving this a second thought, I'm not sure if I agree. My reasons are:

The fathers weren't historians.
No, but they were theologians. The historicity of Genesis may be a historical claim, but the inerrancy of Scripture is a theological/doctrinal claim. Unfortunately, it is hard to defend the inerrancy of Scripture, without resorting to ad-hoc hypotheses on how two seemingly contradictory accounts can be harmonized. So, if the Fathers were unanimously wrong about this one doctrinal issue, then on what basis can I trust them on other doctrinal issues?

And God isn't trying to teach us knowledge about history.
Yes, the commandments of Christ and the salvation of mankind are the most important parts of the Scriptures, but it doesn't change the fact that some parts of the Scriptures were intended to be historical accounts. The book of Luke, for example, intended to teach that the Resurrection is physical.

We are somewhat commanded to suspend our rational critical thinking and make a leap of faith.
I can concede to this to an extent. Faith is an unavoidable part of Christianity for multiple reasons. However, there is only so much skepticism I can suspend before I have to ask myself: "Then how is Christianity any more tenable than Islam or Buddhism?"
Christianity is tenable because of the faith in Christ and his literal incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection. In the old testament there are many symbols that point to this.
Half the people in the world think that the metaphors and myths of their religious traditions...are literal facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept myths and metaphors as literal facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies. I believe both are wrong. A myth is something that reveals a spiritual truth. All these problems between atheists and fundamentalist religious people lies in the fact that none of them understands myths and metaphors I believe. When a christian says that, in the dogmas of religion, reason is totally incompetent and blind, and its use to be reprehended, it is in reality attesting the fact that these dogmas are allegorical in their nature, and are not to be judged by the standard which reason, taking all things sensu proprio, can alone apply. it would be better to admit their allegorical nature at once. I believe the difficulty is to teach the multitude that something can be both true and untrue at the same time.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Did life begin on land rather than in the sea?
A paradigm-shifting hypothesis could reshape our idea about the origin of life


"What she (Djokic) showed was that the oldest fossil evidence for life was in fresh water," said Deamer, a lanky 78-year-old who explored the region with Djokic, Damer, and Van Kranendonk in 2015. "It's a logical continuation to life beginning in a freshwater environment."

The model for life beginning on land rather than in the sea could not only reshape our idea about the origin of life and where else it might be, but even change the way we view ourselves.
....
According to Deamer and his colleagues, this discovery and their hot-springs-origins model also have implications for the search for life on other planets. If life began on land, then Mars, which was found to have a 3.65-billion-year-old hot spring deposits similar to those found in the Pilbara region of Australia, might be a good place to look.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Jetavan said:
Did life begin on land rather than in the sea?
A paradigm-shifting hypothesis could reshape our idea about the origin of life


"What she (Djokic) showed was that the oldest fossil evidence for life was in fresh water," said Deamer, a lanky 78-year-old who explored the region with Djokic, Damer, and Van Kranendonk in 2015. "It's a logical continuation to life beginning in a freshwater environment."

The model for life beginning on land rather than in the sea could not only reshape our idea about the origin of life and where else it might be, but even change the way we view ourselves.
....
According to Deamer and his colleagues, this discovery and their hot-springs-origins model also have implications for the search for life on other planets. If life began on land, then Mars, which was found to have a 3.65-billion-year-old hot spring deposits similar to those found in the Pilbara region of Australia, might be a good place to look.
Every darn day. At some point, some of these theorists have to get tired of banging their heads against a brick wall and step back to see there's something wrong with the whole picture.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,827
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
byhisgrace said:
beebert said:
The fathers weren't historians. And God isn't trying to teach us knowledge about history. Isn't the important thing to understand how you die and resurrect with Christ in spirit, rather than to try to prove whether or not Adam really physically ate an apple 6000 years ago? It is spiritual realities that are important. The resurrection was a historical and spiritual event yes. But can you prove that it was physical? Do you need to know that it was physical in order to believe? In this case... We are somewhat commanded to suspend our rational critical thinking and make a leap of faith.
Actually, upon giving this a second thought, I'm not sure if I agree. My reasons are:

The fathers weren't historians.
No, but they were theologians. The historicity of Genesis may be a historical claim, but the inerrancy of Scripture is a theological/doctrinal claim. Unfortunately, it is hard to defend the inerrancy of Scripture, without resorting to ad-hoc hypotheses on how two seemingly contradictory accounts can be harmonized. So, if the Fathers were unanimously wrong about this one doctrinal issue, then on what basis can I trust them on other doctrinal issues?

And God isn't trying to teach us knowledge about history.
Yes, the commandments of Christ and the salvation of mankind are the most important parts of the Scriptures, but it doesn't change the fact that some parts of the Scriptures were intended to be historical accounts. The book of Luke, for example, intended to teach that the Resurrection is physical.

We are somewhat commanded to suspend our rational critical thinking and make a leap of faith.
I can concede to this to an extent. Faith is an unavoidable part of Christianity for multiple reasons. However, there is only so much skepticism I can suspend before I have to ask myself: "Then how is Christianity any more tenable than Islam or Buddhism?"
Where does the Church make the claim that Scripture is inerrant, and what does inerrant mean to you?
 

byhisgrace

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 23, 2014
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
USA
TheTrisagion said:
Where does the Church make the claim that Scripture is inerrant, and what does inerrant mean to you?
I define "inerrancy" as being historically accurate, so far as the intentions of the original authors are concerned. For example, if Genesis 1-3 was intended to be literal to the author(s) who wrote it, then its inerrancy is subject to historical scrutiny. If it is not intended to be literal, then evolution does not necessarily contradict the inerrancy of Genesis. 
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,827
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
byhisgrace said:
TheTrisagion said:
Where does the Church make the claim that Scripture is inerrant, and what does inerrant mean to you?
I define "inerrancy" as being historically accurate, so far as the intentions of the original authors are concerned. For example, if Genesis 1-3 was intended to be literal to the author(s) who wrote it, then its inerrancy is subject to historical scrutiny. If it is not intended to be literal, then evolution does not necessarily contradict the inerrancy of Genesis.
How are we to know the intentions of the authors? The purpose of Scripture is so that we might know God Would it not be easier to say that inerrancy means it will not lead someone into error in that regard? There are tons of places in Scripture that aren't 100% accurate historically. Matthew says Judas died by hanging himself and the priests bought a field with the money. Acts says he purchased the field and then died by falling and his middle burst open. Do discrepancies like this affect our ability to use Scripture for the purpose with which it is intended?
 
Top