Early Saints on Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kamalayka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JackQ said:
Actually, if you took Scripture literally you would believe that the earth was flat and supported by foundations like pillars. The sky would be a solid dome with windows through which the waters above the heavens came during the flood.

If you’re going to take the Scriptures literally, be serious about it. Don’t just pick and choose.
Click to expand...
Genesis does not call the sky a solid dome.

That error occurred because of the Septuagint.
Read here:

www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2168 -
 
JackQ said:
It would be fun to read it if somebody gave me the book. But I won’t pay for it. I work hard for my money.
Click to expand...
JackQ, I can summarize the book for you and save you the cost of buying it:

“The sun and moon and all the stars and the entire universe revolve around the earth every twenty-four hours. Copernicus, Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boskovich, Laplace, and Einstein were idiots. The end.”
 
StAnastasia said:
JackQ, I can summarize the book for you and save you the cost of buying it:

“The sun and moon and all the stars and the entire universe revolve around the earth every twenty-four hours. Copernicus, Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boskovich, Laplace, and Einstein were idiots. The end.”
Click to expand...
Wowee! The distant galaxies must really be whipping around!
 
Kamalayka said:
Genesis does not call the sky a solid dome.

That error occurred because of the Septuagint.
Read here:

www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2168 -
Click to expand...
Dr Denis Lamoureux a noted Christian academic teaching at a Catholic College at the University of Alberta, disagrees with this reading of the work Reqia. I recommend his two books Evolutionary Creation

And I love Jesus & I Accept Evolution

He also has a website which is a little out of date, but has good information.

Cheers,
JRB
 
Kamalayka said:
Genesis does not call the sky a solid dome.

That error occurred because of the Septuagint.
Read here:

www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2168 -
Click to expand...
No, actually, that would be wrong.

Your link says that the Hebrew word refers to an expanse, but not an expanse of anything solid. The question comes to mind: expanse of what then? And how could there have been those windows in heaven that Scripture refers to if they weren’t set in anything solid? Also, the Scriptures refer to the circle of the earth, not the sphere of the earth. Circles are flat. And what about those foundations of the earth?

I hope nobody from this outfit is taking any money from you.
 
StAnastasia said:
JackQ, I can summarize the book for you and save you the cost of buying it:

"The sun and moon and all the stars and the entire universe revolve around the earth every twenty-four hours. Copernicus, Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boskovich, Laplace, and Einstein were idiots. The end."
Click to expand...
Luckily, we now know that collectively, these fine minds are superior to Holy Writ.
StAnastasia said:
Originally Posted by JackQ
Wowee! The distant galaxies must really be whipping around!

They are going really, really, fast
Click to expand...
‘Whipping around’ is little better than moving away from us via ‘Big Bang’ since the speed of light is being ‘abused’ several times over out there!

:cool:
 
Hmm…

You are all bashing a book you have not even read.

Obviously, all the things you guys have mentioned he is well aware of.

I am sure he knows more about astronomy than anybody on this forum!
 
Deconi said:
Luckily, we now know that collectively, these fine minds are superior to Holy Writ.

‘Whipping around’ is little better than moving away from us via ‘Big Bang’ since the speed of light is being ‘abused’ several times over out there!

:cool:
Click to expand...
You guys are pulling our legs, aren’t you?
 
JackQ said:
You guys are pulling our legs, aren’t you?
Click to expand...
JackQ, I think they’re serious. But I had the same reaction you do when I encountered my first geocentrist on this forum: “Geocentrism in 2009? You’ve got to be joking!”
 
JackQ said:
You guys are pulling our legs, aren’t you?
Click to expand...
Not really. It depends on whether you understand that the size of the universe, as we now know, means the outer-limits are moving away from us at speeds greater than lightspeed if we are to accept The Big Bang Theory.

The Church may be able to physically trace Herself back to The Apostles and Christ, but some elements of the Hope within us still requires…FAITH! Hence the comment differentiating the 'fine minds, from Holy Writ.

:cool:
 
Deconi said:
Luckily, we now know that collectively, these fine minds are superior to Holy Writ.
Click to expand...
Yes, in the field of astronomy they are superior to the speculations of Hebrew scribes living two or three thousand years before them, and without telescopes.
 
Kamalayka said:
Evolution was a popular idea among the “secular” Greek scientists and philosophers of the day. It seems that many on this forum seem to believe in evolution.

Well, here is what St. Basil (320-379) taught. He was very much against the idea of man, or anything for that matter, having evolved from something else.
St. Basil didn’t compromise by giving into “symbolic” interpretations of Genesis.

Here is what he said a Christian should believe, in accordance to Genesis:

“The nature of existing objects, set in motion by one command, passes through creation without change, by generation and destruction, preserving the succession of the species through resemblance until it reaches the very end. It begets a horse as the successor of a horse, a lion of a lion, and an eagle of an eagle; and it continues to preserve each of the animals by uninterrupted successions until the consummation of the universe. No length of time causes the specific characteristics of the animals to be corrupted or extinct, but, as if established just recently, nature, ever fresh, moves along with time.”* (Hexaemeron, IX, 2.)​

St. Gregory of Nyssa:
The first man, and the man born from him, received their being in a different way; the latter by copulation, the former from the molding of Christ Himself; and yet, though they are thus believed to be two, they are inseparable in the definition of their being, and are not considered as two beings… The idea of humanity in Adam and Abel does not vary with the difference of their origin, neither the order nor the manner of their coming into existence making any difference in their nature. (Against Eunomius, I, 34)

And again:
Code: 
That which reasons, and is mortal, and is capable of thought and knowledge, is called man equally in the case of Adam and of Abel, and this name of the nature is not altered either by the fact that Abel passed into existence by generation, or by the fact that Adam did so without generation. (Answer to Eunomius)
**
St. Cyril of Jerusalem**
calls Adam “God’s first-formed man,” but Cain “the first-born man.” (Catechetical Lectures, II, 7) Again he teaches clearly, discussing the creation of Adam, that Adam was not conceived of another body: “That of bodies, bodies should be conceived, even if wonderful, is nevertheless possible; but that the dust of the earth should become a man, this is more wonderful.” (Catechetical Lectures, XII, 30)

St. Gregory
What of Adam? Was he not alone the direct creature of God? Yes, you will say. Was he then the only human being? By no means. And why, but because humanity does not consist in direct creation? For that which is begotten is also human. (Third Theological Oration, On the Son, ch. XI)

St. John Damascene
The earliest formation (of man) is called creation and not generation. For creation is the original formation at God’s hands, while generation is the succession from each other made necessary by the sentence of death imposed on us on account of the transgression. (On the Orthodox Faith, II, 30)​

Here is St. Basil’s response to those calling Genesis “allegorical”:

Those who do not admit the common meaning of the Scriptures say that water is not water, but some other nature, and they explain a plant and a fish according to their opinion. They describe also the production of reptiles and wild animals, changing it according to their own notions, just like the dream interpreters, who interpret for their own ends the appearances seen in their dreams. When I hear grass, I think of grass, and in the same manner I understand everything as it is said, a plant, a fish, a wild animal, and an ox. Indeed, I am not ashamed of the Gospel… Since Moses left unsaid, as useless for us, things in no way pertaining to us, shall we for this reason believe that the words of the Spirit are of less value than the foolish wisdom (of those who have written about the world)? Or shall I rather give glory to Him Who has not kept our mind occupied with vanities but has ordained that all things be written for the edification and guidance of our souls? This is a thing of which they seem to me to have been unaware, who have attempted by false arguments and allegorical interpretations to bestow on the Scripture a dignity of their own imagining. But theirs is the attitude of one who considers himself wiser than the revelations of the Spirit and introduces his own ideas in pretense of an explanation. Therefore, let It be understood as it has been written. (Hexaemeron, IX, 1)​

and according to St. Ephraim the Syrian:

No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory; it is likewise impermissible to say that what seems, according to the account, to have been created in the course of six days, was created in a single instant, and likewise that certain names presented in this account either signify nothing, or signify something else. On the contrary, one must know that just as the heaven and the earth which were created in the beginning are actually the heaven and the earth and not something else understood under the names of heaven and earth, so also everything else that is spoken of as being created and brought into order after the creation of heaven and earth is not empty names, but the very essence of the created natures corresponds to the force of these names. (Commentary on Genesis, ch. I)

St.John Chrysostom
God took a single rib, it is said: but how from this single rib did He form a whole creature? Tell me, how did the taking of the rib occur? How did Adam not feel this taking? You can say nothing about this; this is known only by Him Who created… God did not produce a new creation, but taking from an already existing creation a certain small part, from this part He made a whole creature. What power the Highest Artist God has, to produce from this small part (a rib) the composition of so many members, make so many organs of sense, and form a whole, perfect, and complete being. (Homilies on Genesis, XV, 2- 3)​

Perhaps one who loves to speak from his own “wisdom” here also will not allow that the rivers are actually rivers, nor that the waters are precisely waters, but will instill in those who allow themselves to listen to them, that they (under the names of rivers and waters) represented something else. But I entreat you, let us not pay heed to these people, let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas. (Homilies on Genesis, XIII, 4)​

Click to expand...
Great post! Satan uses modern orgin Science to his own evil end to deny God but we knw in the end Satan loses
 
historyb said:
Great post! Satan uses modern orgin Science to his own evil end to deny God but we knw in the end Satan loses
Click to expand...
I forgot – that’s another YEC ploy – fob evolution off on Satan. I guess Satan is the father of plate tectonics, atomic theory, cell theory, Einsteinian relativity, Boyle’s laws, etc. Satan as father of all knowledge, perhaps, since knowledge is the result of Adam’s and Eve’s snack?
 
Kamalayka said:
Evolution was a popular idea among the “secular” Greek scientists and philosophers of the day. It seems that many on this forum seem to believe in evolution.
Click to expand...

Bad logic. Greeks cultivated philosophy - so why not burn the works of the Fathers & the Schoolmen, who polluted Christian faith with the works of those “infernal men” Plato & Aristotle ? The Greek Fathers use Plato a good deal - even though he was an unbaptised heathen.​

If evolution is unfit for Christians, you need to show this by different arguments.
Well, here is what St. Basil (320-379) taught. He was very much against the idea of man, or anything for that matter, having evolved from something else.
St. Basil didn’t compromise by giving into “symbolic” interpretations of Genesis.

Here is what he said a Christian should believe, in accordance to Genesis:

… (Hexaemeron, IX, 2.)​

St. Gregory of Nyssa:
The first man, and the man born from him… (Against Eunomius, I, 34)

And again:

That which reasons, and is mortal… (Answer to Eunomius)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem
calls Adam “God’s first-formed man”… (Catechetical Lectures, XII, 30)

St. Gregory
What of Adam?.. (Third Theological Oration, On the Son, ch. XI)

St. John Damascene
The earliest formation (of man) … (On the Orthodox Faith, II, 30)​

Here is St. Basil’s response to those calling Genesis “allegorical”:

Those who do not admit the common meaning of the Scriptures say that water is not water, … (Hexaemeron, IX, 1)​

and according to St. Ephraim the Syrian:

No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory; … (Commentary on Genesis, ch. I)

St.John Chrysostom
God took a single rib, it is said: but how from this single rib did He form a whole creature? Tell me, how did the taking of the rib occur? How did Adam not feel this taking? You can say nothing about this; this is known only by Him Who created… God did not produce a new creation, but taking from an already existing creation a certain small part, from this part He made a whole creature. What power the Highest Artist God has, to produce from this small part (a rib) the composition of so many members, make so many organs of sense, and form a whole, perfect, and complete being. (Homilies on Genesis, XV, 2- 3)​

Perhaps one who loves to speak from his own “wisdom” here also will not allow that the rivers are actually rivers, nor that the waters are precisely waters, but will instill in those who allow themselves to listen to them, that they (under the names of rivers and waters) represented something else. But I entreat you, let us not pay heed to these people, let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas. (Homilies on Genesis, XIII, 4)​

St. John of Damascus explicitly describes the allegorical interpretation of paradise to be part of a** heresy**, that of the Origenians:

They explain paradise, the heaven, and everything else in an allegorical sense. (On Heresies, 64)
Click to expand...

How does that quotation convict any Origenist of heresy ? So far as it goes, it does nothing of the kind.​

As for the fourth-century Eastern Fathers & evolution: they were not in a position to comment on evolution, any more than they were in a position to keep the feast of St.Thomas Aquinas, or to comment on the merits of Thomism as against Scotism. For reasons I won’t insult you by explaining.

The scientific methods of the fourth century are a tad less sophisticated than those of the 19th, 20th, & 21st. Which is why there are no fourth-century theses on foetal embryology.

The Fathers were not in a position to reject the conclusions as to the meaning of Genesis 1-3 reached by modern scholars, because they lacked most of the tools now available to scholars; so the Fathers cannot be said to have rejected conclusions which they were not equipped to discuss, accept, or dismiss; for they were not anti-critical (as RC Fundamentalists are) but pre-critical. So it is futile & intellectually unsound for RC Fundamentalists to treat the Fathers as though the Fathers were answering the same questions as the modern scholars; so each set of people is dealing with what are different issues.

As for the impermissibility of allegory - the Latin Middle Ages was the great age of allegorisation of the Bible, and of the Liturgy. Even though very little of the Bible is allegorical. Allegorising the Bible in order to deny that the thing allegorised is real is one thing; allegorising in the conviction that what one allegorises is a reality, is a different thing entirely; for allegorising can have more than one function. Even though the practice is very apt to run wild.

The waters of the four rivers of Eden are waters all right - in a fiction. There is a lot of mythological thinking in the Bible, as is to be expected. That two of the rivers - Euphrates, Tigris - are found on maps of Mesopotamia, a real area in the Primary World (= so-called “real world”), is no reason to think they cannot be used in myth as well. The ultimate source of the rivers in Genesis 2 is probably Ugaritic mythology about the god El, who dwells at the sources of the rivers.

As for symbolism: what is the allotting of each living creature in Rev. 4 to each Evangelist, if not symbolism ? The phobia some RCs today seem to have of symbolism is entirely alien to the Catholic tradition. It betrays a materialistic, anti-sacramental outlook. Unsurprisingly, since Fundamentalism is a materialistic philosophy

To make the Fathers the last word in Biblical scholarship is an enormous blunder, from every point of view. It can be excused only by ignorance of the history of the interpretation of the Bible; which is certainly not ended yet. To idolise the Fathers in this way does them no honour; & they would be the first to reject it.
 
StAnastasia said:
I forgot – that’s another YEC ploy – fob evolution off on Satan. I guess Satan is the father of plate tectonics, atomic theory, cell theory, Einsteinian relativity, Boyle’s laws, etc. Satan as father of all knowledge, perhaps, since knowledge is the result of Adam’s and Eve’s snack?
Click to expand...

Then satan must be a more than worthy candidate for a Nobel Prize or three.​

 
Do I think Satan is capable of deceiving us through science? Yes.

This does not imply, however, that all scientific achievements are therefore of the Devil. I simply cannot believe that God is all-loving, but at the same time, cruel enough to try and trick us for leaving scientific evidence that contradicts His machinations.

Though this isn’t a problem since the Church allows its faithful to believe in theistic evolution, so why traditionalists make a big deal of this is completely beyond me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top