Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 16.8%
  • No

    Votes: 163 37.6%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.6%

  • Total voters
    434

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Fathers themselve don`t need interpreting , they are the ones who interpret and explain . They have homilies , sermons , etc. This are explanations to the Scriptural books.You should read from patristic literature to see Riddikulus. Stop hanging on a death branch - EVOLUTION - . The fundament of evolution is wrong.From foundation it is wrong.
 

Alveus Lacuna

Taxiarches
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,416
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Missouri, USA
Riddikulus said:
...“Re-experiencing the meaning of Tradition in a manner that is exploratory, courageous and full of imaginative curiosity’ (Ware, The Orthodox Church)
Re-experiencing sounds like starting over to me.  He might as well have said "re-imagining" as far as I am concerned.  Are we supposed to imagine how the fathers would have reacted to modern scientific knowledge with exploratory curiosity?

Blah.  Orthodoxy needs to be closed-minded for its own good.  Just hole up and wait for the end to come like Fr. Seraphim did! :D
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Alveus Lacuna said:
Riddikulus said:
...“Re-experiencing the meaning of Tradition in a manner that is exploratory, courageous and full of imaginative curiosity’ (Ware, The Orthodox Church)
Re-experiencing sounds like starting over to me.  He might as well have said "re-imagining" as far as I am concerned.  Are we supposed to imagine how the fathers would have reacted to modern scientific knowledge with exploratory curiosity?
How does it sound like starting over? Even in reading a normal piece of literature for a second time, one can drawn new ideas and concepts from it. Put something aside for several years and go back to it; knowledge and life experiences change one's perspectives of what one reads. And as we don't know what the reaction of the Fathers would be to modern scientific knowledge we cannot rule out their acceptance of it.

Blah.  Orthodoxy needs to be closed-minded for its own good.  Just hole up and wait for the end to come like Fr. Seraphim did! :D
Of course, if that is a person's decision, all power to them. However, that doesn't mean that everyone wishes to be close-minded and close-mindedness doesn't appear to be advocated in Orthodoxy, nor it is necessarily a virtue. Having had contact with close-minded Christians, I have discovered immense freedom in coming to Orthodoxy, something I intend to continue having.   ;)
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Number of posts on this thread: 1,000
Number of people whose minds have been changed: 0
Spending time arguing about this on the Internet: priceless.
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Number of posts on this thread: 1,000
Number of people whose minds have been changed: 0
Spending time arguing about this on the Internet: priceless.
=)) this is not the only thread like that , where people argue and speak in contradictory without trying to reach to a consensum , well i think your affirmation says a lot of things

peace
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Well, the thread did start nearly two years ago and was revived and one never knows who is "lurking" and reading and perhaps has learned something or at least to consider other points of view.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Number of posts on this thread: 1,000
Number of people whose minds have been changed: 0
Spending time arguing about this on the Internet: priceless.
ytterbiumanalyst

Personally, I'm not out to change anyone's mind. I simply object to anyone assuming some kind of weird magisterium and insisting that everyone should hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis, always with the implications that if one doesn't one hasn't read the fathers, or hasn't read them correctly.

And there hasn't been much on the tv, either. ;)
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Ebor said:
Well, the thread did start nearly two years ago and was revived and one never knows who is "lurking" and reading and perhaps has learned something or at least to consider other points of view.
This is very true. If nothing else, people have had he opportunity to read constrasting points of view.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Please note that the Theokritoffs are not suggesting that we must follow Fr Seraphim's example of reading Genesis exactly as the Fathers did, merely that he comes to honest and logical conclusions regarding the committment to young earth creationism. How is this all an Orthodox needs to know? Are you elevating Fr Seraphim's opinion to the status of infallibility; and one that all Orthodox believers should follow? Where does the Church teach that the Orthodox believer must  read Genesis in such a way?
no im not elevating Fr. Seraphim to infallibility -- but rather the concensus of the Church Fathers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems now you are agreeing that if we simply accept the Fathers at their word we will believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? This is what I have been trying to get at.

And the Church at least teaches us to believe in a literal Adam and Eve who were immortal physically before sin -- this is taught by the Council of Laodicea and ratified by the 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils. Also icons show us that Adam and Eve and their descendants are literal people. Even St. Paul tell us that creation is in the state it is in because of sin, and not by design of God.

The question is: where does the Church teach any other way of looking at Genesis? Are Fr. Florovsky and Met. KALLISTOS significant enough to overhaul 19 centuries of Church Fathers, Saints, councils, icons, hymns, etc?

If this were an issue like the toll-houses where there really is no concensus on whether they exist, or even if they do, how to understand them -- there have been people on both sides throughout history -- i could understand going either way and asking where does the Church definitively teach the tollhouses. but on this issue there really is a consistent line of teaching -- where do we see another way of interpreting the whole of the Adam and Eve story (not just the length of the days)?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
Please note that the Theokritoffs are not suggesting that we must follow Fr Seraphim's example of reading Genesis exactly as the Fathers did, merely that he comes to honest and logical conclusions regarding the committment to young earth creationism. How is this all an Orthodox needs to know? Are you elevating Fr Seraphim's opinion to the status of infallibility; and one that all Orthodox believers should follow? Where does the Church teach that the Orthodox believer must  read Genesis in such a way?
no im not elevating Fr. Seraphim to infallibility -- but rather the concensus of the Church Fathers.
Why do we need to elevate ANY authority found within the Church and make it an authority external to ourselves and to which we must assent without question?  Catholics have the infallible Pope, and Protestants have the infallible Scriptures.  And the Orthodox have the infallible patristic consensus? ???  Last I understood, only the Church is infallible; the consensus of the Fathers may indeed be a very good witness to the mind of the Church, but I would not distill the infallibility of the Church down to this.  To do so is to embrace the model of an external, overarching infallible authority that I abandoned when I left the Protestant/Catholic world to become Orthodox.

jckstraw72 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems now you are agreeing that if we simply accept the Fathers at their word we will believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? This is what I have been trying to get at.

And the Church at least teaches us to believe in a literal Adam and Eve who were immortal physically before sin -- this is taught by the Council of Laodicea and ratified by the 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils. Also icons show us that Adam and Eve and their descendants are literal people.
Have you ever seen an iconographic depiction of an historical Adam and Eve?

jckstraw72 said:
Even St. Paul tell us that creation is in the state it is in because of sin, and not by design of God.

The question is: where does the Church teach any other way of looking at Genesis? Are Fr. Florovsky and Met. KALLISTOS significant enough to overhaul 19 centuries of Church Fathers, Saints, councils, icons, hymns, etc?
But you've not yet proven the patristic unanimity, or even near-unanimity, on this issue that is the definition of consensus.  Again, a smattering of proof texts from the writings of various Fathers is not enough to prove that all the Fathers spoke unanimously on this issue.  And even if they did, why make it an infallible authority?

jckstraw72 said:
If this were an issue like the toll-houses where there really is no concensus on whether they exist, or even if they do, how to understand them -- there have been people on both sides throughout history -- i could understand going either way and asking where does the Church definitively teach the tollhouses. but on this issue there really is a consistent line of teaching -- where do we see another way of interpreting the whole of the Adam and Eve story (not just the length of the days)?
Again, why do we need to see an infallible consensus?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
Please note that the Theokritoffs are not suggesting that we must follow Fr Seraphim's example of reading Genesis exactly as the Fathers did, merely that he comes to honest and logical conclusions regarding the committment to young earth creationism. How is this all an Orthodox needs to know? Are you elevating Fr Seraphim's opinion to the status of infallibility; and one that all Orthodox believers should follow? Where does the Church teach that the Orthodox believer must  read Genesis in such a way?
no im not elevating Fr. Seraphim to infallibility -- but rather the concensus of the Church Fathers.
Why do we need to elevate ANY authority found within the Church and make it an authority external to ourselves and to which we must assent without question?  Catholics have the infallible Pope, and Protestants have the infallible Scriptures.  And the Orthodox have the infallible patristic consensus? ???  Last I understood, only the Church is infallible; the consensus of the Fathers may indeed be a very good witness to the mind of the Church, but I would not distill the infallibility of the Church down to this.  To do so is to embrace the model of an external, overarching infallible authority that I abandoned when I left the Protestant/Catholic world to become Orthodox.
correct, only the Church is infallible. What I meant is that when the Fathers speak with one mind we see it as the mind of the Church. Am i incorrect in this understanding? -- because that is essentially what converted me to Orthodoxy

jckstraw72 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems now you are agreeing that if we simply accept the Fathers at their word we will believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? This is what I have been trying to get at.

And the Church at least teaches us to believe in a literal Adam and Eve who were immortal physically before sin -- this is taught by the Council of Laodicea and ratified by the 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils. Also icons show us that Adam and Eve and their descendants are literal people.
Have you ever seen an iconographic depiction of an historical Adam and Eve?
absolutely. There are several in Fr. Seraphim's book, and I have seen many in person. Have you seen a Pascha icon with Christ pulling Adam and Eve out of Hades with halos on them? I know my parish has one. I have also seen icons of just Adam, the first-created man. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=37996998&l=f009ef9f4b&id=9316336 there you can see one from the Orthodox orphanage in Guatemala city, and here: http://www.comeandseeicons.com/a/inp28.htm is another. St. Irenaeus tells us that it is heresy to say Adam was NOT saved. This of course requires him to be real.

jckstraw72 said:
Even St. Paul tell us that creation is in the state it is in because of sin, and not by design of God.

The question is: where does the Church teach any other way of looking at Genesis? Are Fr. Florovsky and Met. KALLISTOS significant enough to overhaul 19 centuries of Church Fathers, Saints, councils, icons, hymns, etc?
But you've not yet proven the patristic unanimity, or even near-unanimity, on this issue that is the definition of consensus.  Again, a smattering of proof texts from the writings of various Fathers is not enough to prove that all the Fathers spoke unanimously on this issue.  And even if they did, why make it an infallible authority?
do you honestly expect me to post like every commentary on Genesis ever or something? I really don't know what more you could possibly want. Even Theokritoff, who is critiquing Fr. Seraphim overall agrees that the Fathers interpreted Genesis literally. Have you considered that not a single Fathers has been presented who rejected a literal understanding of Genesis, including those Saints who have lived since Darwin? and why make it infallible? because that gift is given to the Church -- the Church is people, thus the infallibility is expressed by people through their writings, artwork, etc. when all aspects of the Church speak to the same thing i think its pretty safe to say its the mind of the Church.

jckstraw72 said:
If this were an issue like the toll-houses where there really is no concensus on whether they exist, or even if they do, how to understand them -- there have been people on both sides throughout history -- i could understand going either way and asking where does the Church definitively teach the tollhouses. but on this issue there really is a consistent line of teaching -- where do we see another way of interpreting the whole of the Adam and Eve story (not just the length of the days)?
Again, why do we need to see an infallible consensus?
how else do we know the truth? if you take away infallibility you consent to denominations.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
has anyone read the Lament of Eve? It is a lament based on the commentaries of the Fathers on Genesis 1-5. I have not yet read it.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
this page talks about other icons of Adam and Eve and mentions that Adam and Eve are the starting point for Orthodox anthropology http://orthodoxwiki.org/Adam_and_Eve. If we allegorize the story how would that change our anthropology? can we really just assume it will remain the same, even though the people it is based on have been allegorized away into literary figures? if they aren't literal then what do we really know about pre-lapsarian man? what parts can we continue to accept and what parts must we allegorize?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
and here is an entry about the Church calendar i have mentioned several times, and about the datings given by several Fathers
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Byzantine_Creation_Era

and I am working on finding the article again, but I read in an article that the Typikon is based upon the world beginning on Sept. 1, 5509 BC -- ill hopefully get back to you on that.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
jckstraw72 said:
Please note that the Theokritoffs are not suggesting that we must follow Fr Seraphim's example of reading Genesis exactly as the Fathers did, merely that he comes to honest and logical conclusions regarding the committment to young earth creationism. How is this all an Orthodox needs to know? Are you elevating Fr Seraphim's opinion to the status of infallibility; and one that all Orthodox believers should follow? Where does the Church teach that the Orthodox believer must  read Genesis in such a way?
no im not elevating Fr. Seraphim to infallibility -- but rather the concensus of the Church Fathers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems now you are agreeing that if we simply accept the Fathers at their word we will believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? This is what I have been trying to get at.
Where does the Church decree that the Church Fathers' opinion of science is infallible? No, I am in no way suggesting that we accept the Fathers at their word concerning matters of science. What I am suggesting is that if (as you claim) we must take the Fathers at their word, we must take their literal interpretation of a geocentric cosmology as a literal interpretation, too. As you haven't answered my question as to your opinion on such a position, and as you insist upon agreement with the Fathers, I assume that you must follow the Fathers and hold to a geocentric cosmology.

The question is: where does the Church teach any other way of looking at Genesis? Are Fr. Florovsky and Met. KALLISTOS significant enough to overhaul 19 centuries of Church Fathers, Saints, councils, icons, hymns, etc?
I don't think that you have realised that you are using Scripture, Church Fathers, Saints, councils, icons, hymns etc as a scientific text; to prove the science of the time of the Fathers. If you do that, you should expect it to be overthrown by modern science. In such a case, anyone is significant enough to overhaul those 19 centuries. I believe it's also important to understand that if one continues to insist that people interpret science as the Fathers did, one is in danger of turning them away from the source of a much greater truth.

If this were an issue like the toll-houses where there really is no concensus on whether they exist, or even if they do, how to understand them -- there have been people on both sides throughout history -- i could understand going either way and asking where does the Church definitively teach the tollhouses.
Again you confuse something we can't actually know with something we can actually have physical knowledge of.

but on this issue there really is a consistent line of teaching -- where do we see another way of interpreting the whole of the Adam and Eve story (not just the length of the days)?
There is no express need for it to be interpreted literally, other than your insistance that one do so to prevent one accepting scientific knowledge beyond of the time of the Fathers. It can and should be interpreted theologically, rather than scientifically; because as a scientific text it fails miserably.

You said earlier:
so knowing that science would develop, why didnt the Spirit inspire the Fathers to interpret accordingly? Why do the Fathers speak so forcefully about something that they supposedly weren't even hearing from the Spirit?
The same logic applies to Geocentricism and yet the Fathers didn't interpret it accordingly and they did speak forcefully about something they clearly weren't even hearing from the Spirit.

edited for clarity

 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
jckstraw72 said:
Please note that the Theokritoffs are not suggesting that we must follow Fr Seraphim's example of reading Genesis exactly as the Fathers did, merely that he comes to honest and logical conclusions regarding the committment to young earth creationism. How is this all an Orthodox needs to know? Are you elevating Fr Seraphim's opinion to the status of infallibility; and one that all Orthodox believers should follow? Where does the Church teach that the Orthodox believer must  read Genesis in such a way?
no im not elevating Fr. Seraphim to infallibility -- but rather the concensus of the Church Fathers.
Of men (not gods) who had no clue about science, so...?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
Please note that the Theokritoffs are not suggesting that we must follow Fr Seraphim's example of reading Genesis exactly as the Fathers did, merely that he comes to honest and logical conclusions regarding the committment to young earth creationism. How is this all an Orthodox needs to know? Are you elevating Fr Seraphim's opinion to the status of infallibility; and one that all Orthodox believers should follow? Where does the Church teach that the Orthodox believer must  read Genesis in such a way?
no im not elevating Fr. Seraphim to infallibility -- but rather the concensus of the Church Fathers.
Why do we need to elevate ANY authority found within the Church and make it an authority external to ourselves and to which we must assent without question?  Catholics have the infallible Pope, and Protestants have the infallible Scriptures.  And the Orthodox have the infallible patristic consensus? ???  Last I understood, only the Church is infallible; the consensus of the Fathers may indeed be a very good witness to the mind of the Church, but I would not distill the infallibility of the Church down to this.  To do so is to embrace the model of an external, overarching infallible authority that I abandoned when I left the Protestant/Catholic world to become Orthodox.
correct, only the Church is infallible. What I meant is that when the Fathers speak with one mind we see it as the mind of the Church. Am i incorrect in this understanding? -- because that is essentially what converted me to Orthodoxy
But even this understanding of patristic wisdom I would criticize as essentially an attempt to distill the infallible authority of the Church down to just one or two of its components--in this case, patristic consensus.  We should not regard the Fathers as a magisterium whose authority, when they speak of one mind, is incapable of error and therefore irreformable (the definition of infallible).  We do not receive the unanimous witness of the Fathers without question and without criticism merely because those whom we call "the Fathers" spoke in one accord.  Rather, when we receive the teachings of the Fathers as true, we do so because their wisdom resonates with what we the faithful experience to be true.  This requires that we be active participants in all the other aspects of Holy Tradition--i.e., the Divine Liturgy and other services of prayer, the daily reading of Scripture and the Fathers, the writing and veneration of icons, works of mercy to our brothers and sisters and the less fortunate among us, etc.  We can't just study the texts of the Fathers and look for a consensus that we can proclaim as "the united mind of the Fathers" to which all must adhere to be able to consider ourselves Orthodox.


jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems now you are agreeing that if we simply accept the Fathers at their word we will believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? This is what I have been trying to get at.

And the Church at least teaches us to believe in a literal Adam and Eve who were immortal physically before sin -- this is taught by the Council of Laodicea and ratified by the 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils. Also icons show us that Adam and Eve and their descendants are literal people.
Have you ever seen an iconographic depiction of an historical Adam and Eve?
absolutely. There are several in Fr. Seraphim's book, and I have seen many in person. Have you seen a Pascha icon with Christ pulling Adam and Eve out of Hades with halos on them? I know my parish has one. I have also seen icons of just Adam, the first-created man. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=37996998&l=f009ef9f4b&id=9316336 there you can see one from the Orthodox orphanage in Guatemala city, and here: http://www.comeandseeicons.com/a/inp28.htm is another. St. Irenaeus tells us that it is heresy to say Adam was NOT saved. This of course requires him to be real.
Yes, Adam is real, but not necessarily in the strictly historic sense that he was a flesh and blood individual just like you and me.  We can recognize Adam as being the whole of mankind and still recognize Adam to be real.

BTW, I also happened to notice that both the icons to which you posted links are signed by their writers, which is NOT a canonical practice--icons are NOT to be signed by their writers, who are to remain completely anonymous.  One of the icons I even recognize to be published by Monastery Icons, a known producer of signed and canonically dubious icons--I have one of them, having purchased it when I was yet an ignorant inquirer.  Thus, I really have to question whether these two icons truly represent the Orthodox iconographic tradition and should even be seen as presenting what we believe as Orthodox.  I'm inclined now to think not.  Maybe LBK can step in and verify what I've just seen and concluded.


jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
If this were an issue like the toll-houses where there really is no concensus on whether they exist, or even if they do, how to understand them -- there have been people on both sides throughout history -- i could understand going either way and asking where does the Church definitively teach the tollhouses. but on this issue there really is a consistent line of teaching -- where do we see another way of interpreting the whole of the Adam and Eve story (not just the length of the days)?
Again, why do we need to see an infallible consensus?
how else do we know the truth? if you take away infallibility you consent to denominations.
I'm not taking away infallibility, since I do recognize infallibility as the possession of the whole Church.  Do you remember me saying this?  I just oppose any attempt to condense infallibility to just one aspect of the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church so as to make this aspect an external authority to whom we bow down and offer blind assent and obedience.  The whole Church includes the Fathers, but it also includes bishops, priests, deacons, and all the faithful worshiping the Holy Trinity and celebrating the risen Christ's presence in the Eucharist throughout all ages.  Thus, the Spirit-guided charism of knowing and teaching the truth is not the sole property of the papacy, the Scriptures, nor the "consensus" of the Fathers.  We are all to know (i.e., experience) the Truth and bear witness to Him.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Riddikulus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Please note that the Theokritoffs are not suggesting that we must follow Fr Seraphim's example of reading Genesis exactly as the Fathers did, merely that he comes to honest and logical conclusions regarding the committment to young earth creationism. How is this all an Orthodox needs to know? Are you elevating Fr Seraphim's opinion to the status of infallibility; and one that all Orthodox believers should follow? Where does the Church teach that the Orthodox believer must  read Genesis in such a way?
no im not elevating Fr. Seraphim to infallibility -- but rather the concensus of the Church Fathers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems now you are agreeing that if we simply accept the Fathers at their word we will believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? This is what I have been trying to get at.
Where does the Church decree that the Church Fathers' opinion of science is infallible? No, I am in no way suggesting that we accept the Fathers at their word concerning matters of science. What I am suggesting is that if (as you claim) we must take the Fathers at their word, we must take their literal interpretation of a geocentric cosmology as a literal interpretation, too. As you haven't answered my question as to your opinion on such a position, and as you insist upon agreement with the Fathers, I assume that you must follow the Fathers and hold to a geocentric cosmology.
opinions of science is not the issue at hand, but rather how to properly interpret Genesis. this may have some scientific implications, but science is not the issue. and concerning geocentrism, again i ask, 1. what Scripture were they interpreting to teach geocentrism (if they even unanimously did -- i hear this claimed all the time but never see it ...) and 2. what doctrine would this effect in any way even if they did teach it as Scriptural interpretation?

The question is: where does the Church teach any other way of looking at Genesis? Are Fr. Florovsky and Met. KALLISTOS significant enough to overhaul 19 centuries of Church Fathers, Saints, councils, icons, hymns, etc?
I don't think that you have realised that you are using Scripture, Church Fathers, Saints, councils, icons, hymns etc as a scientific text; to prove the science of the time of the Fathers. If you do that, you should expect it to be overthrown by modern science. In such a case, anyone is significant enough to overhaul those 19 centuries. I believe it's also important to understand that if one continues to insist that people interpret science as the Fathers did, one is in danger of turning them away from the source of a much greater truth.
no, im using all those sources to interpret Genesis. no matter how many times you try to redirect the conversation to science, im going to bring it back to Scriptural interpretation, which belongs to the Church, and the Church alone. You don't seem to realize that you are using scientists to tell you how to understand the early chapters of Genesis.

If this were an issue like the toll-houses where there really is no concensus on whether they exist, or even if they do, how to understand them -- there have been people on both sides throughout history -- i could understand going either way and asking where does the Church definitively teach the tollhouses.
Again you confuse something we can't actually know with something we can actually have physical knowledge of. [/quote]

i dont see how this comment follows what i said, but either way, can we really have physical knowledge of the ancient past? we can see it in the rock layers, but how do we know scientists are interpreting it correctly? science is supposed to be observable, and descent from a common ancestor was not observed since there was no one around to observe it. however, God was around, and He gave us an account of the beginning ....

but on this issue there really is a consistent line of teaching -- where do we see another way of interpreting the whole of the Adam and Eve story (not just the length of the days)?
There is no express need for it to be interpreted literally, other than your insistance that one do so to prevent one accepting scientific knowledge beyond of the time of the Fathers. It can and should be interpreted theologically, rather than scientifically; because as a scientific text it fails miserably.
yes. you pegged me. im anti-science. thats why im using a computer. i have already mentioned doctrinal issues that would be affected by inserting a new interpretation of Genesis. are you intentionally overlooking them?

You said earlier:
so knowing that science would develop, why didnt the Spirit inspire the Fathers to interpret accordingly? Why do the Fathers speak so forcefully about something that they supposedly weren't even hearing from the Spirit?
The same logic applies to Geocentricism and yet the Fathers didn't interpret it accordingly and they did speak forcefully about something they clearly weren't even hearing from the Spirit.
please provide evidence that the Fathers were unanimously geocentrists, that they were so because of Scripture, and that they were forceful about it.



also, even if you believe that the Church has not unanimously interpeted Genesis literally, do you honestly believe that opens the door for you to interpret it any way you want at all? Ok, so a few Fathers spoke of the days allegorically -- but they either said the days are actually one instance, or the days are 1000 yrs long -- how does that tell you its ok to make the days into billions of years? can you give me any other example where you would accept such methods -- interpreting the Scripture any way you want because you don't think theres a set teaching already?

[/quote]
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
has anyone read the Lament of Eve? It is a lament based on the commentaries of the Fathers on Genesis 1-5. I have not yet read it.
How about... as far as understanding evolution goes... DON'T?  :-[
this thread is about understaning Genesis though ... are you saying don't read Patristic commentaries to understand Genesis?
 
Top