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

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
CBGardner said:
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years?
Because a 40 day worldwide flood would not produce said major geological effects. Erosion doesn't speed up by millions of years in proportion to the amount of water covering the territory around an object.
 

Keble

Protokentarchos
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
60
Location
Maryland
CBGardner said:
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years? We know the world was at first watered by underwater wells, not rain, and those busted open. It seems there is a lot in Genesis that can account for physical, geological change that is just glossed over. You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.) You have to try and synthesize the two.
Short answer: no.

If I'm reading the topo map correctly, the area around the Grand Canyon is on the order of half a mile above sea level. OK, well, imagine that flooded; major erosive effects become most intense as the water starts to expose the land. What that amounts to is that there simply isn't enough flow after that to account for the erosion. We know how fast the processes are, and while a canyon being emptied of water is going to erode faster than one with the comparative trickle we have now, the process is not millions of times faster. One must consider that even at the current low flow rate, probably thousands of times more water as flowed through the canyon than could ever flow through it in a few months even if it were always full.
 

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Keble said:
CBGardner said:
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years? We know the world was at first watered by underwater wells, not rain, and those busted open. It seems there is a lot in Genesis that can account for physical, geological change that is just glossed over. You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.) You have to try and synthesize the two.
Short answer: no.

If I'm reading the topo map correctly, the area around the Grand Canyon is on the order of half a mile above sea level. OK, well, imagine that flooded; major erosive effects become most intense as the water starts to expose the land. What that amounts to is that there simply isn't enough flow after that to account for the erosion. We know how fast the processes are, and while a canyon being emptied of water is going to erode faster than one with the comparative trickle we have now, the process is not millions of times faster. One must consider that even at the current low flow rate, probably thousands of times more water as flowed through the canyon than could ever flow through it in a few months even if it were always full.
One could argue that the Flood, being a miraculous event, may well have had more destructive and erosive effects than a similar natural event. Special pleading, of course, but then all accounts of miracles are special pleading, aren't they?
 

celticfan1888

Archon
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
3,026
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Louisiana
jckstraw72 said:
the evidence of evolutionary scientists of course doesn't match up with a literal Genesis, but when trying to understand Genesis its the teaching of the Church that matters. Scripture, of course, does not belong to scientists, but rather to the Church. Thus, the evidence for a literal reading of Genesis is overwhelmingly strong.
The evidence for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is just as strong.

Saint Augustine, suggested Genesis should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and reason.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
celticfan1888 said:
jckstraw72 said:
the evidence of evolutionary scientists of course doesn't match up with a literal Genesis, but when trying to understand Genesis its the teaching of the Church that matters. Scripture, of course, does not belong to scientists, but rather to the Church. Thus, the evidence for a literal reading of Genesis is overwhelmingly strong.
The evidence for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is just as strong.

Saint Augustine, suggested Genesis should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and reason.
I suspect that jckstraw likes to posit a patristic consensus where there is none. It's actually very easy to do--just post the contrary evidence.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
celticfan1888 said:
jckstraw72 said:
the evidence of evolutionary scientists of course doesn't match up with a literal Genesis, but when trying to understand Genesis its the teaching of the Church that matters. Scripture, of course, does not belong to scientists, but rather to the Church. Thus, the evidence for a literal reading of Genesis is overwhelmingly strong.
The evidence for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is just as strong.

Saint Augustine, suggested Genesis should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and reason.
but the question is: would St. Augustine be persuaded by evolution? I see no reason to think he would be. He speaks very strongly against the idea of an old earth. He says that anyone who accepts a timeline other than that given in Scripture deserves to be mocked and not even seriously debated. He also maintains that there was no death before man sinned. he even says that we cannot adequately judge the works of God by what we see:

City of God, Book XII.XXIV
For we are not to conceive of this work in a carnal fashion, as if God wrought as we commonly see artisans, who use their hands, and material furnished to them, that by their artistic skill they may fashion some material object. God's hand is God's power; and He, working invisibly, effects visible results. But this seems fabulous rather than true to men, who measure by customary and everyday works the power and wisdom of God, whereby He understands and produces without seeds even seeds themselves; and because they cannot understand the things which at the beginning were created, they are sceptical regarding them—as if the very things which they do know about human propagation, conceptions and births, would seem less incredible if told to those who had no experience of them; though these very things, too, are attributed by many rather to physical and natural causes than to the work of the divine mind.
furthermore, I see no reason to believe that St. Augustine would accept the presupposition of uniformitarianism, given what he says about Genesis, and therefore he would not accept the "evidence" that is dependent upon that presupposition.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
celticfan1888 said:
jckstraw72 said:
the evidence of evolutionary scientists of course doesn't match up with a literal Genesis, but when trying to understand Genesis its the teaching of the Church that matters. Scripture, of course, does not belong to scientists, but rather to the Church. Thus, the evidence for a literal reading of Genesis is overwhelmingly strong.
The evidence for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is just as strong.

Saint Augustine, suggested Genesis should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and reason.
I suspect that jckstraw likes to posit a patristic consensus where there is none. It's actually very easy to do--just post the contrary evidence.
i've been saying all along that people are welcome to post the Patristic evidence to the contrary, but still waiting on that one ...
 

CBGardner

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
614
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Denver, CO
Don't kill my flood theories! I was raised on Kent Hovind!

But seriously my parents had all the tapes and we would have the neighborhood kids over to watch them with us and my parents taught some class at church on em hahaha.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
315
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jonathan Gress said:
Keble said:
CBGardner said:
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years? We know the world was at first watered by underwater wells, not rain, and those busted open. It seems there is a lot in Genesis that can account for physical, geological change that is just glossed over. You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.) You have to try and synthesize the two.
Short answer: no.

If I'm reading the topo map correctly, the area around the Grand Canyon is on the order of half a mile above sea level. OK, well, imagine that flooded; major erosive effects become most intense as the water starts to expose the land. What that amounts to is that there simply isn't enough flow after that to account for the erosion. We know how fast the processes are, and while a canyon being emptied of water is going to erode faster than one with the comparative trickle we have now, the process is not millions of times faster. One must consider that even at the current low flow rate, probably thousands of times more water as flowed through the canyon than could ever flow through it in a few months even if it were always full.
One could argue that the Flood, being a miraculous event, may well have had more destructive and erosive effects than a similar natural event. Special pleading, of course, but then all accounts of miracles are special pleading, aren't they?
Well I wouldn't say that all miracles would be a case of special pleading. For instance, when it comes to the Resurrection, St. Paul refers to about 500 witnesses that people could talk to to verify that the resurrection occurred. Likewise, most miracles performed are generally done before witnesses where we can rely on the testimony of people we're hearing. When it comes to the flood we have no witnesses to say, "This was a miracle that caused entropy to occur at an accelerated rate."

While it is possible that the flood would cause erosion, which would give the appearance of age, I just don't see it as plausible. Mostly because, as I noted earlier, most miracles that come with the appearance of age generally mimik a natural cause that is already established and known. With evolution or the age of the earth, there would be no other nature cause to mimik, meaning there would be no need to make the earth look old.
 

celticfan1888

Archon
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
3,026
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Louisiana
jckstraw72 said:
i've been saying all along that people are welcome to post the Patristic evidence to the contrary, but still waiting on that one ...

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." - "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" by St. Augustine (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 2:9)


"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." - "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" by St. Augustine. (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19)
 

celticfan1888

Archon
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
3,026
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Louisiana
jckstraw72 said:
i've been saying all along that people are welcome to post the Patristic evidence to the contrary, but still waiting on that one ...
Oh and,

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally." - Origen of Alexandria

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm

"But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" - City of God, Book 11: Chapt. 6 by St. Augustine
 

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
theo philosopher said:
Jonathan Gress said:
Keble said:
CBGardner said:
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years? We know the world was at first watered by underwater wells, not rain, and those busted open. It seems there is a lot in Genesis that can account for physical, geological change that is just glossed over. You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.) You have to try and synthesize the two.
Short answer: no.

If I'm reading the topo map correctly, the area around the Grand Canyon is on the order of half a mile above sea level. OK, well, imagine that flooded; major erosive effects become most intense as the water starts to expose the land. What that amounts to is that there simply isn't enough flow after that to account for the erosion. We know how fast the processes are, and while a canyon being emptied of water is going to erode faster than one with the comparative trickle we have now, the process is not millions of times faster. One must consider that even at the current low flow rate, probably thousands of times more water as flowed through the canyon than could ever flow through it in a few months even if it were always full.
One could argue that the Flood, being a miraculous event, may well have had more destructive and erosive effects than a similar natural event. Special pleading, of course, but then all accounts of miracles are special pleading, aren't they?
Well I wouldn't say that all miracles would be a case of special pleading. For instance, when it comes to the Resurrection, St. Paul refers to about 500 witnesses that people could talk to to verify that the resurrection occurred. Likewise, most miracles performed are generally done before witnesses where we can rely on the testimony of people we're hearing. When it comes to the flood we have no witnesses to say, "This was a miracle that caused entropy to occur at an accelerated rate."

While it is possible that the flood would cause erosion, which would give the appearance of age, I just don't see it as plausible. Mostly because, as I noted earlier, most miracles that come with the appearance of age generally mimik a natural cause that is already established and known. With evolution or the age of the earth, there would be no other nature cause to mimik, meaning there would be no need to make the earth look old.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying there are or were no witnesses to the Flood. Weren't Noah and his family witnesses? Or do you mean to say that we don't have any written testimonies by Noah or his family members attesting to the Flood? Wouldn't that be the same as the fact that we have no written testimonies of those 500 witnesses of the Resurrection? We only have St Paul's word (not an eyewitness) that these witnesses existed, just as we only have the word of Genesis that the Flood occurred.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
315
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jonathan Gress said:
theo philosopher said:
Jonathan Gress said:
Keble said:
CBGardner said:
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years? We know the world was at first watered by underwater wells, not rain, and those busted open. It seems there is a lot in Genesis that can account for physical, geological change that is just glossed over. You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.) You have to try and synthesize the two.

Noah and his family didn't see the entire world flooded. They didn't get a broad view of the world, so their perspective would have been off.

And while we don't have the 500 witnesses, Paul did and so did those he was writing to. The point is, is that at the time there were witnesses one could appeal to, indicating evidence. With Noah, there were no other witnesses one could turn to in order to say, "Yes, it covered the entire earth" rather than a localized area.
Short answer: no.

If I'm reading the topo map correctly, the area around the Grand Canyon is on the order of half a mile above sea level. OK, well, imagine that flooded; major erosive effects become most intense as the water starts to expose the land. What that amounts to is that there simply isn't enough flow after that to account for the erosion. We know how fast the processes are, and while a canyon being emptied of water is going to erode faster than one with the comparative trickle we have now, the process is not millions of times faster. One must consider that even at the current low flow rate, probably thousands of times more water as flowed through the canyon than could ever flow through it in a few months even if it were always full.
One could argue that the Flood, being a miraculous event, may well have had more destructive and erosive effects than a similar natural event. Special pleading, of course, but then all accounts of miracles are special pleading, aren't they?
Well I wouldn't say that all miracles would be a case of special pleading. For instance, when it comes to the Resurrection, St. Paul refers to about 500 witnesses that people could talk to to verify that the resurrection occurred. Likewise, most miracles performed are generally done before witnesses where we can rely on the testimony of people we're hearing. When it comes to the flood we have no witnesses to say, "This was a miracle that caused entropy to occur at an accelerated rate."

While it is possible that the flood would cause erosion, which would give the appearance of age, I just don't see it as plausible. Mostly because, as I noted earlier, most miracles that come with the appearance of age generally mimik a natural cause that is already established and known. With evolution or the age of the earth, there would be no other nature cause to mimik, meaning there would be no need to make the earth look old.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying there are or were no witnesses to the Flood. Weren't Noah and his family witnesses? Or do you mean to say that we don't have any written testimonies by Noah or his family members attesting to the Flood? Wouldn't that be the same as the fact that we have no written testimonies of those 500 witnesses of the Resurrection? We only have St Paul's word (not an eyewitness) that these witnesses existed, just as we only have the word of Genesis that the Flood occurred.
With the 500 witnesses there were people who could verify the Resurrection. They don't exist today, but at one point they did and Paul was confident enough to rely on them. With the Flood we have no witnesses (not even Noah) to say every square inch of the earth was covered. Certainly the earth from Noah's perspective was covered, but to say he circumnavigated the globe in a few months is quite a stretch.
 

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
theo philosopher said:
Jonathan Gress said:
theo philosopher said:
Jonathan Gress said:
Keble said:
CBGardner said:
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years? We know the world was at first watered by underwater wells, not rain, and those busted open. It seems there is a lot in Genesis that can account for physical, geological change that is just glossed over. You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.) You have to try and synthesize the two.

Noah and his family didn't see the entire world flooded. They didn't get a broad view of the world, so their perspective would have been off.

And while we don't have the 500 witnesses, Paul did and so did those he was writing to. The point is, is that at the time there were witnesses one could appeal to, indicating evidence. With Noah, there were no other witnesses one could turn to in order to say, "Yes, it covered the entire earth" rather than a localized area.
Short answer: no.

If I'm reading the topo map correctly, the area around the Grand Canyon is on the order of half a mile above sea level. OK, well, imagine that flooded; major erosive effects become most intense as the water starts to expose the land. What that amounts to is that there simply isn't enough flow after that to account for the erosion. We know how fast the processes are, and while a canyon being emptied of water is going to erode faster than one with the comparative trickle we have now, the process is not millions of times faster. One must consider that even at the current low flow rate, probably thousands of times more water as flowed through the canyon than could ever flow through it in a few months even if it were always full.
One could argue that the Flood, being a miraculous event, may well have had more destructive and erosive effects than a similar natural event. Special pleading, of course, but then all accounts of miracles are special pleading, aren't they?
Well I wouldn't say that all miracles would be a case of special pleading. For instance, when it comes to the Resurrection, St. Paul refers to about 500 witnesses that people could talk to to verify that the resurrection occurred. Likewise, most miracles performed are generally done before witnesses where we can rely on the testimony of people we're hearing. When it comes to the flood we have no witnesses to say, "This was a miracle that caused entropy to occur at an accelerated rate."

While it is possible that the flood would cause erosion, which would give the appearance of age, I just don't see it as plausible. Mostly because, as I noted earlier, most miracles that come with the appearance of age generally mimik a natural cause that is already established and known. With evolution or the age of the earth, there would be no other nature cause to mimik, meaning there would be no need to make the earth look old.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying there are or were no witnesses to the Flood. Weren't Noah and his family witnesses? Or do you mean to say that we don't have any written testimonies by Noah or his family members attesting to the Flood? Wouldn't that be the same as the fact that we have no written testimonies of those 500 witnesses of the Resurrection? We only have St Paul's word (not an eyewitness) that these witnesses existed, just as we only have the word of Genesis that the Flood occurred.
With the 500 witnesses there were people who could verify the Resurrection. They don't exist today, but at one point they did and Paul was confident enough to rely on them. With the Flood we have no witnesses (not even Noah) to say every square inch of the earth was covered. Certainly the earth from Noah's perspective was covered, but to say he circumnavigated the globe in a few months is quite a stretch.
If you're going to discount the Flood stories on the grounds that they are a "stretch", I wonder why you don't extend the same skepticism to the other miracle accounts we believe in.

And I thought St Paul relied firstly on his vision on the road to Damascus, rather than the 500 witnesses. These witnesses presumably also existed during the time that he was persecuting the Church, didn't they?
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
315
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jonathan Gress said:
theo philosopher said:
Jonathan Gress said:
theo philosopher said:
Jonathan Gress said:
Keble said:
CBGardner said:
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years? We know the world was at first watered by underwater wells, not rain, and those busted open. It seems there is a lot in Genesis that can account for physical, geological change that is just glossed over. You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.) You have to try and synthesize the two.

Noah and his family didn't see the entire world flooded. They didn't get a broad view of the world, so their perspective would have been off.

And while we don't have the 500 witnesses, Paul did and so did those he was writing to. The point is, is that at the time there were witnesses one could appeal to, indicating evidence. With Noah, there were no other witnesses one could turn to in order to say, "Yes, it covered the entire earth" rather than a localized area.
Short answer: no.

If I'm reading the topo map correctly, the area around the Grand Canyon is on the order of half a mile above sea level. OK, well, imagine that flooded; major erosive effects become most intense as the water starts to expose the land. What that amounts to is that there simply isn't enough flow after that to account for the erosion. We know how fast the processes are, and while a canyon being emptied of water is going to erode faster than one with the comparative trickle we have now, the process is not millions of times faster. One must consider that even at the current low flow rate, probably thousands of times more water as flowed through the canyon than could ever flow through it in a few months even if it were always full.
One could argue that the Flood, being a miraculous event, may well have had more destructive and erosive effects than a similar natural event. Special pleading, of course, but then all accounts of miracles are special pleading, aren't they?
Well I wouldn't say that all miracles would be a case of special pleading. For instance, when it comes to the Resurrection, St. Paul refers to about 500 witnesses that people could talk to to verify that the resurrection occurred. Likewise, most miracles performed are generally done before witnesses where we can rely on the testimony of people we're hearing. When it comes to the flood we have no witnesses to say, "This was a miracle that caused entropy to occur at an accelerated rate."

While it is possible that the flood would cause erosion, which would give the appearance of age, I just don't see it as plausible. Mostly because, as I noted earlier, most miracles that come with the appearance of age generally mimik a natural cause that is already established and known. With evolution or the age of the earth, there would be no other nature cause to mimik, meaning there would be no need to make the earth look old.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying there are or were no witnesses to the Flood. Weren't Noah and his family witnesses? Or do you mean to say that we don't have any written testimonies by Noah or his family members attesting to the Flood? Wouldn't that be the same as the fact that we have no written testimonies of those 500 witnesses of the Resurrection? We only have St Paul's word (not an eyewitness) that these witnesses existed, just as we only have the word of Genesis that the Flood occurred.
With the 500 witnesses there were people who could verify the Resurrection. They don't exist today, but at one point they did and Paul was confident enough to rely on them. With the Flood we have no witnesses (not even Noah) to say every square inch of the earth was covered. Certainly the earth from Noah's perspective was covered, but to say he circumnavigated the globe in a few months is quite a stretch.
If you're going to discount the Flood stories on the grounds that they are a "stretch", I wonder why you don't extend the same skepticism to the other miracle accounts we believe in.

And I thought St Paul relied firstly on his vision on the road to Damascus, rather than the 500 witnesses. These witnesses presumably also existed during the time that he was persecuting the Church, didn't they?
I think you're twisting my words and taking everything out of context, because what you're presenting is a straw-man.

I've never said that in order for a miracle to be taken literally it has to have witnesses. I simply used it as an example. For Paul on Damascus, he has a personal experience, one we have no reason to doubt. The flood story, however, we have good reason to doubt. That there is no evidence for it in our geological record, that it was delivered over oral tradition, that Genesis was essentially written to counter some of the pagan myths the early Hebrews encountered, that the first part of Genesis isn't written in as a traditional historical narrative, and so on would seemingly give us enough reason to have legitimate grounds to doubt the literal nature of the work.
 

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm sorry if you thought it was a straw man. I think we may be talking at cross-purposes.

I agree that a miracle, though intrinsically implausible, becomes more believable when there are trustworthy witnesses to it. Was that the point you were trying to make? So assuming we can trust St Paul, we can trust that he is right about the 500 witnesses, and that these witnesses were trustworthy. But some people may not be so predisposed to trust St Paul. They might argue that, whatever his personal revelation may have been, he was predisposed by that experience to believe others who were claiming to have seen the Resurrection, or even to exaggerate the number of witnesses. After all, they were no doubt making the same claims earlier, when as Saul he was persecuting them. While before he was predisposed against them, after he became predisposed in their favor.

There is no reason, in other words, to believe that the testimony of these witnesses itself brought about his conversion, and so we have to fall back on St Paul's word that these witnesses did exist and that they were trustworthy. It all hangs on what we believe about St Paul. You say we have no reason to doubt him. I would say that it would be inconsistent with our faith to do so, but anyone who does not share our faith could probably find several reasons to doubt him. He may have interpreted some neurological problem as a supernatural sign, and then read all sorts of things into that. After all, he already showed evidence of a religiously zealous and extreme mindset, and we all know examples of people who were enthusiastic Baptists becoming enthusiastic Orthodox, or whatever you like.

Going to Genesis and the Flood, I agree that even knowing who the author was is problematic. Tradition says it's Moses, modern scholarship says it was a nebulous oral tradition. Of course, to an Orthodox believer, nebulous oral tradition can carry the weight of authority; exclusive reliance on written testimony is a Protestant thing. But whether or not it was by Moses' hand, we do believe it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. This doesn't mean we have to interpret it literally, but it does mean that whether or not we interpret it literally is a question of hermeneutics and our understanding of the patristic consensus. It is not consistent with our faith to doubt that Genesis has any truth value, but only to consider at what level this truth obtains.

I still submit that every miracle requires special pleading, because in every case, we have to believe supernatural intervention overrides ordinary natural laws. This goes for either the Resurrection or the Flood. It is true that, as a global event, there are a lot more potential areas where evidence for or against the Flood may be expected, hence the whole problem of reconciling the Flood narrative with the geological evidence. With the Resurrection, pretty much the only place where we would expect evidence for or against it is the tomb itself. As we know, even there we have a plausible alternative explanation: the disciples stole the body. Whether we accept this explanation or accept the Resurrection again depends on our predisposition.

Some of what you say about Genesis obviously takes modern biblical scholarship and archeology at face value: that it was written to counter pagan myths, that it was not written as a historical narrative, that it relied on oral tradition. All this may be true, but if we're going to accept the secular scholarship so uncritically on that count, why should we not do so where it raises questions about the reliability of the Christian tradition?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
theo philosopher said:
Jonathan Gress said:
theo philosopher said:
Jonathan Gress said:
theo philosopher said:
Jonathan Gress said:
Keble said:
CBGardner said:
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years? We know the world was at first watered by underwater wells, not rain, and those busted open. It seems there is a lot in Genesis that can account for physical, geological change that is just glossed over. You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.) You have to try and synthesize the two.

Noah and his family didn't see the entire world flooded. They didn't get a broad view of the world, so their perspective would have been off.

And while we don't have the 500 witnesses, Paul did and so did those he was writing to. The point is, is that at the time there were witnesses one could appeal to, indicating evidence. With Noah, there were no other witnesses one could turn to in order to say, "Yes, it covered the entire earth" rather than a localized area.
Short answer: no.

If I'm reading the topo map correctly, the area around the Grand Canyon is on the order of half a mile above sea level. OK, well, imagine that flooded; major erosive effects become most intense as the water starts to expose the land. What that amounts to is that there simply isn't enough flow after that to account for the erosion. We know how fast the processes are, and while a canyon being emptied of water is going to erode faster than one with the comparative trickle we have now, the process is not millions of times faster. One must consider that even at the current low flow rate, probably thousands of times more water as flowed through the canyon than could ever flow through it in a few months even if it were always full.
One could argue that the Flood, being a miraculous event, may well have had more destructive and erosive effects than a similar natural event. Special pleading, of course, but then all accounts of miracles are special pleading, aren't they?
Well I wouldn't say that all miracles would be a case of special pleading. For instance, when it comes to the Resurrection, St. Paul refers to about 500 witnesses that people could talk to to verify that the resurrection occurred. Likewise, most miracles performed are generally done before witnesses where we can rely on the testimony of people we're hearing. When it comes to the flood we have no witnesses to say, "This was a miracle that caused entropy to occur at an accelerated rate."

While it is possible that the flood would cause erosion, which would give the appearance of age, I just don't see it as plausible. Mostly because, as I noted earlier, most miracles that come with the appearance of age generally mimik a natural cause that is already established and known. With evolution or the age of the earth, there would be no other nature cause to mimik, meaning there would be no need to make the earth look old.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying there are or were no witnesses to the Flood. Weren't Noah and his family witnesses? Or do you mean to say that we don't have any written testimonies by Noah or his family members attesting to the Flood? Wouldn't that be the same as the fact that we have no written testimonies of those 500 witnesses of the Resurrection? We only have St Paul's word (not an eyewitness) that these witnesses existed, just as we only have the word of Genesis that the Flood occurred.
With the 500 witnesses there were people who could verify the Resurrection. They don't exist today, but at one point they did and Paul was confident enough to rely on them. With the Flood we have no witnesses (not even Noah) to say every square inch of the earth was covered. Certainly the earth from Noah's perspective was covered, but to say he circumnavigated the globe in a few months is quite a stretch.
If you're going to discount the Flood stories on the grounds that they are a "stretch", I wonder why you don't extend the same skepticism to the other miracle accounts we believe in.

And I thought St Paul relied firstly on his vision on the road to Damascus, rather than the 500 witnesses. These witnesses presumably also existed during the time that he was persecuting the Church, didn't they?
I think you're twisting my words and taking everything out of context, because what you're presenting is a straw-man.

I've never said that in order for a miracle to be taken literally it has to have witnesses. I simply used it as an example. For Paul on Damascus, he has a personal experience, one we have no reason to doubt. The flood story, however, we have good reason to doubt. That there is no evidence for it in our geological record, that it was delivered over oral tradition, that Genesis was essentially written to counter some of the pagan myths the early Hebrews encountered, that the first part of Genesis isn't written in as a traditional historical narrative, and so on would seemingly give us enough reason to have legitimate grounds to doubt the literal nature of the work.
Do you think that the flood in the Genesis narrative may have been a localized flood and not a global flood?
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
315
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
theo philosopher said:
Jonathan Gress said:
theo philosopher said:
Jonathan Gress said:
theo philosopher said:
Jonathan Gress said:
Keble said:
CBGardner said:
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years? We know the world was at first watered by underwater wells, not rain, and those busted open. It seems there is a lot in Genesis that can account for physical, geological change that is just glossed over. You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.) You have to try and synthesize the two.

Noah and his family didn't see the entire world flooded. They didn't get a broad view of the world, so their perspective would have been off.

And while we don't have the 500 witnesses, Paul did and so did those he was writing to. The point is, is that at the time there were witnesses one could appeal to, indicating evidence. With Noah, there were no other witnesses one could turn to in order to say, "Yes, it covered the entire earth" rather than a localized area.
Short answer: no.

If I'm reading the topo map correctly, the area around the Grand Canyon is on the order of half a mile above sea level. OK, well, imagine that flooded; major erosive effects become most intense as the water starts to expose the land. What that amounts to is that there simply isn't enough flow after that to account for the erosion. We know how fast the processes are, and while a canyon being emptied of water is going to erode faster than one with the comparative trickle we have now, the process is not millions of times faster. One must consider that even at the current low flow rate, probably thousands of times more water as flowed through the canyon than could ever flow through it in a few months even if it were always full.
One could argue that the Flood, being a miraculous event, may well have had more destructive and erosive effects than a similar natural event. Special pleading, of course, but then all accounts of miracles are special pleading, aren't they?
Well I wouldn't say that all miracles would be a case of special pleading. For instance, when it comes to the Resurrection, St. Paul refers to about 500 witnesses that people could talk to to verify that the resurrection occurred. Likewise, most miracles performed are generally done before witnesses where we can rely on the testimony of people we're hearing. When it comes to the flood we have no witnesses to say, "This was a miracle that caused entropy to occur at an accelerated rate."

While it is possible that the flood would cause erosion, which would give the appearance of age, I just don't see it as plausible. Mostly because, as I noted earlier, most miracles that come with the appearance of age generally mimik a natural cause that is already established and known. With evolution or the age of the earth, there would be no other nature cause to mimik, meaning there would be no need to make the earth look old.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying there are or were no witnesses to the Flood. Weren't Noah and his family witnesses? Or do you mean to say that we don't have any written testimonies by Noah or his family members attesting to the Flood? Wouldn't that be the same as the fact that we have no written testimonies of those 500 witnesses of the Resurrection? We only have St Paul's word (not an eyewitness) that these witnesses existed, just as we only have the word of Genesis that the Flood occurred.
With the 500 witnesses there were people who could verify the Resurrection. They don't exist today, but at one point they did and Paul was confident enough to rely on them. With the Flood we have no witnesses (not even Noah) to say every square inch of the earth was covered. Certainly the earth from Noah's perspective was covered, but to say he circumnavigated the globe in a few months is quite a stretch.
If you're going to discount the Flood stories on the grounds that they are a "stretch", I wonder why you don't extend the same skepticism to the other miracle accounts we believe in.

And I thought St Paul relied firstly on his vision on the road to Damascus, rather than the 500 witnesses. These witnesses presumably also existed during the time that he was persecuting the Church, didn't they?
I think you're twisting my words and taking everything out of context, because what you're presenting is a straw-man.

I've never said that in order for a miracle to be taken literally it has to have witnesses. I simply used it as an example. For Paul on Damascus, he has a personal experience, one we have no reason to doubt. The flood story, however, we have good reason to doubt. That there is no evidence for it in our geological record, that it was delivered over oral tradition, that Genesis was essentially written to counter some of the pagan myths the early Hebrews encountered, that the first part of Genesis isn't written in as a traditional historical narrative, and so on would seemingly give us enough reason to have legitimate grounds to doubt the literal nature of the work.
Do you think that the flood in the Genesis narrative may have been a localized flood and not a global flood?
Yes, re-reading what I said it does seem like I may be denying the flood all-together. But that's not the case. I believe the flood was localized rather than global (though it certainly would have had a global impact).
 

celticfan1888

Archon
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
3,026
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Louisiana
PeterTheAleut said:
Do you think that the flood in the Genesis narrative may have been a localized flood and not a global flood?
That's what I would think've happened. It probably inspired other flood stories, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh story of the flood.
 

celticfan1888

Archon
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
3,026
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Louisiana
While it is still frsh on my mind...  :p

What is the relationship between the concepts of natural selection and Christian theology? Fr. Tom begins a series of reflections on Charles Darwin and what he has learned in his research may surprise you!

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/darwin_and_christianity_-_part_1
 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jckstraw72 said:
i completely agree with Gebre. the major issue is the question of death. if God is the author of death, then death is good. then we must ask why Scripture refers to death as the last enemy to be overthrown, and why Christ defeated death.
I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?

 

celticfan1888

Archon
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
3,026
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Louisiana
Sauron said:
I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?
Absolutely! +9001
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
"Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve
....
John Schneider, who taught theology at Calvin College in Michigan until recently....says it's time to face facts: There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence.

"Evolution makes it pretty clear that in nature, and in the moral experience of human beings, there never was any such paradise to be lost," Schneider says. "So Christians, I think, have a challenge, have a job on their hands to reformulate some of their tradition about human beginnings."

To many evangelicals, this is heresy.
....
Giberson — who taught physics at Eastern Nazarene College until his views became too uncomfortable in Christian academia — says Protestants who question Adam and Eve are akin to Galileo in the 1600s, who defied Catholic Church doctrine by stating that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa. Galileo was condemned by the church, and it took more than three centuries for the Vatican to express regret at its error.

"When you ignore science, you end up with egg on your face," Giberson says. "The Catholic Church has had an awful lot of egg on its face for centuries because of Galileo. And Protestants would do very well to look at that and to learn from it.""
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Jetavan said:
"Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve
....
John Schneider, who taught theology at Calvin College in Michigan until recently....says it's time to face facts: There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence.

"Evolution makes it pretty clear that in nature, and in the moral experience of human beings, there never was any such paradise to be lost," Schneider says. "So Christians, I think, have a challenge, have a job on their hands to reformulate some of their tradition about human beginnings."

To many evangelicals, this is heresy.
....
Giberson — who taught physics at Eastern Nazarene College until his views became too uncomfortable in Christian academia — says Protestants who question Adam and Eve are akin to Galileo in the 1600s, who defied Catholic Church doctrine by stating that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa. Galileo was condemned by the church, and it took more than three centuries for the Vatican to express regret at its error.

"When you ignore science, you end up with egg on your face," Giberson says. "The Catholic Church has had an awful lot of egg on its face for centuries because of Galileo. And Protestants would do very well to look at that and to learn from it.""
I personally don't see the need for an evolutionist to debate whether Adam and Eve existed or whether the Fall happened.  In my opinion, one doesn't need to abandon these ideas to be in agreement with evolution.  What one might be in disagreement with is the exact version of the story.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
minasoliman said:
Jetavan said:
"Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve
....
John Schneider, who taught theology at Calvin College in Michigan until recently....says it's time to face facts: There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence.

"Evolution makes it pretty clear that in nature, and in the moral experience of human beings, there never was any such paradise to be lost," Schneider says. "So Christians, I think, have a challenge, have a job on their hands to reformulate some of their tradition about human beginnings."

To many evangelicals, this is heresy.
....
Giberson — who taught physics at Eastern Nazarene College until his views became too uncomfortable in Christian academia — says Protestants who question Adam and Eve are akin to Galileo in the 1600s, who defied Catholic Church doctrine by stating that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa. Galileo was condemned by the church, and it took more than three centuries for the Vatican to express regret at its error.

"When you ignore science, you end up with egg on your face," Giberson says. "The Catholic Church has had an awful lot of egg on its face for centuries because of Galileo. And Protestants would do very well to look at that and to learn from it.""
I personally don't see the need for an evolutionist to debate whether Adam and Eve existed or whether the Fall happened.  In my opinion, one doesn't need to abandon these ideas to be in agreement with evolution.  What one might be in disagreement with is the exact version of the story.
Very true.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
Sauron said:
jckstraw72 said:
i completely agree with Gebre. the major issue is the question of death. if God is the author of death, then death is good. then we must ask why Scripture refers to death as the last enemy to be overthrown, and why Christ defeated death.
I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?

With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.


Selam
 

celticfan1888

Archon
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
3,026
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Louisiana
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.


Selam
St. Augustine disagrees with you.

So you say that plant death doesn't matter? What about the death of single celled organisms when you eat the fruit? Hm, hm?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Sauron said:
jckstraw72 said:
i completely agree with Gebre. the major issue is the question of death. if God is the author of death, then death is good. then we must ask why Scripture refers to death as the last enemy to be overthrown, and why Christ defeated death.
I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?

With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.
What support do you really have for that viewpoint? Can you give specific quotes of what the Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers have to say about death that backs up your assertion?
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
celticfan1888 said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.


Selam
St. Augustine disagrees with you.

So you say that plant death doesn't matter? What about the death of single celled organisms when you eat the fruit? Hm, hm?

I stand by my statement above, and I'm pretty certain that Blessed Augustine would agree.


Selam
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
PeterTheAleut said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Sauron said:
jckstraw72 said:
i completely agree with Gebre. the major issue is the question of death. if God is the author of death, then death is good. then we must ask why Scripture refers to death as the last enemy to be overthrown, and why Christ defeated death.
I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?

With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.
What support do you really have for that viewpoint? Can you give specific quotes of what the Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers have to say about death that backs up your assertion?


Scripture is clear: "Life is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11]



Selam

 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Sauron said:
jckstraw72 said:
i completely agree with Gebre. the major issue is the question of death. if God is the author of death, then death is good. then we must ask why Scripture refers to death as the last enemy to be overthrown, and why Christ defeated death.
I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?

With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.
What support do you really have for that viewpoint? Can you give specific quotes of what the Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers have to say about death that backs up your assertion?


Scripture is clear: "Life is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11]
Gebre, I know you're much too intelligent and educated to give such a shoddy proof text as that.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
celticfan1888 said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.


Selam
St. Augustine disagrees with you.

So you say that plant death doesn't matter? What about the death of single celled organisms when you eat the fruit? Hm, hm?

I stand by my statement above, and I'm pretty certain that Blessed Augustine would agree.
Then prove it.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
PeterTheAleut said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
celticfan1888 said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.


Selam
St. Augustine disagrees with you.

So you say that plant death doesn't matter? What about the death of single celled organisms when you eat the fruit? Hm, hm?

I stand by my statement above, and I'm pretty certain that Blessed Augustine would agree.
Then prove it.

The burden of proof is on those who are promoting a novel interpretation of the meaning of death in order to make evolutionary theory compatible with Orthodoxy.


Selam
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIII.XII
When, therefore, it is asked what death it was with which God threatened our first parents if they should transgress the commandment they had received from Him, and should fail to preserve their obedience,—whether it was the death of soul, or of body, or of the whole man, or that which is called second death,—we must answer, it is all. For the first consists of two; the second is the complete death, which consists of all. For, as the whole earth consists of many lands, and the Church universal of many churches, so death universal consists of all deaths.

City of God Book XIII.XV
For the body would not return to the earth from which it was made, save only by the death proper to itself, which occurs when it is forsaken of the soul, its life. And therefore it is agreed among all Christians who truthfully hold the catholic faith, that we are subject to the death of the body, not by the law of nature, by which God ordained no death for man, but by His righteous infliction on account of sin; for God, taking vengeance on sin, said to the man, in whom we all then were, "Dust you are, and unto dust shall you return."

 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Canon 109 of African Code, (120 of Council of Carthage), ratified at Trullo and Nicea II.

That Adam was not created by God subject to death.

That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.

Ancient Epitome of Canon CIX.
Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and through natural necessity, let him be anathema.


so 2 Ecumenical Councils declare that physical death is a result of sin.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Council of Orange 529 AD
CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).
 

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The first two of your last three posts, jckstraw, are good evidence that both St Augustine and the Church speaking through the Council of Carthage believed bodily as well as spiritual death are the consequence of sin, against the idea that the human body was subject to death even before the Fall. The last post, however, is not quite germane to your argument, since it concerns the status of body and soul after the Fall, and is arguing against those who believe only the body became subject to death as a result of sin.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wisdom of Solomon 1:12: Seek not death in the error of your life: and pull not upon yourselves destruction with the works of your hands.
13: For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living.
14: For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth:
15: (For righteousness is immortal:)
16: But ungodly men with their works and words called it to them: for when they thought to have it their friend, they consumed to nought, and made a covenant with it, because they are worthy to take part with it.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jonathan Gress said:
The first two of your last three posts, jckstraw, are good evidence that both St Augustine and the Church speaking through the Council of Carthage believed bodily as well as spiritual death are the consequence of sin, against the idea that the human body was subject to death even before the Fall. The last post, however, is not quite germane to your argument, since it concerns the status of body and soul after the Fall, and is arguing against those who believe only the body became subject to death as a result of sin.
well, but it says that it is both body and soul that changed at the Fall -- that was the question - does the Church teach that the body dies from sin also.
 

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jckstraw72 said:
Jonathan Gress said:
The first two of your last three posts, jckstraw, are good evidence that both St Augustine and the Church speaking through the Council of Carthage believed bodily as well as spiritual death are the consequence of sin, against the idea that the human body was subject to death even before the Fall. The last post, however, is not quite germane to your argument, since it concerns the status of body and soul after the Fall, and is arguing against those who believe only the body became subject to death as a result of sin.
well, but it says that it is both body and soul that changed at the Fall -- that was the question - does the Church teach that the body dies from sin also.
True, it is yet more evidence for that. I didn't think carefully enough about that point.
 
Top