Evolution and an Orthodox Patristic understanding of Genesis

[Pravoslavnik]

"But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female"

Dear C.v.;

Code: Select all

 Your simplistic, literal use of this scripture illustrates a number of problems with the Protestant Fundamentalist approach to the interpretation of [i]Genesis[/i] and other sacred scriptures.  For example, who is the object of this sentence?  Who is "them"?  Does this refer to animals in general, mammals, primates, hominids, specific persons?  Christ God, and the other authors of sacred scripture, spoke in a specific language--mostly Aramaic--to specific contemporaries.  If Christ God had said, "...In the beginning homo sapiens evolved from homo erectii in Africa through genetic variation in a number of genomes..." would anyone in the first century A.D. have understood what he was talking about?
     In [i]Genesis[/i], Chapter 2, it says that the "sons of God married the daughters of men" and begat the giants.  What is your literal, infallible interpretation of that scripture?  For that matter, as I asked you earlier, who were the daughers of men whom the sons of Adam and Eve, Cain and Seth, married?
       What do you make of the anthropological evidence that the hominid species [i]Homo Erectus [/i]lived and prospered on earth for almost one million years prior to the  rise and proliferation of our species, [i]Homo Sapiens[/i]?  Do you believe that [i]Homo Erectus [/i]once existed, as the data shows?  Do you believe that the [i]Neanderthals[/i] once existed?  What happened to them?  Did they all perish in a Neolithic era flood in Mesopotamia a few thousand years ago, along with the dinosaurs?

[jckstraw72]

how can you say that a literal understanding is simplistic and Protestant when the Church Fathers saw it literally as well? they saw a deeper meaning as well, but did not deny the literal.

[joasia]

Geez, more blasphemy.

[ChristosVoskrese]

how can you say that a literal understanding is simplistic and Protestant when the Church Fathers saw it literally as well? they saw a deeper meaning as well, but did not deny the literal.

Exactly. The Church Fathers believed that God created the world in six days. The only reason why a literal understanding of Genesis is seen as "Protestant fundamentalism" is because the fundamentalist Protestants have held on to that teaching while the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and many other Protestant churches have followed the secular world and accepted evolution so as not to lose face with the world and be labelled as "religious fanatics". No-one likes to be called a fanatic.

Jesus taught a literal understanding of Genesis. Do we believe Jesus or not?

[Pravoslavnik]

C.V.,

Code: Select all

  You have not answered, or even understood, my questions and rather detailed posts on this thread about paleobiology, anthropology, relativity and the "six days" of creation.  Frankly, it is a waste of time to further attempt to clarify and correct your Fundamentalist misinterpretaions of [i]Genesis[/i] and the [i]Hexaemeron[/i].  I will bid you adieu with a brief verse.

 [i]One can lead a horse to water, but not make it drink,
 Or lead a man to data, but not make him think.
 One can lead a man to faith, and away from the abyss,
 But it is vanity to reason with a "Fundamentalist"...[/i]

[jckstraw72]

C.V.,

You have not answered, or even understood, my questions and rather detailed posts on this thread about paleobiology, anthropology, relativity and the "six days" of creation. Frankly, it is a waste of time to further attempt to clarify and correct your Fundamentalist misinterpretaions of Genesis and the Hexaemeron. I will bid you adieu with a brief verse.

One can lead a horse to water, but not make it drink,
Or lead a man to data, but not make him think.
One can lead a man to faith, and away from the abyss,
But it is vanity to reason with a "Fundamentalist"...

would you tell the Fathers of the Church that they are just crazy Fundamentalists? and your questions about science dont really matter, bc this is an issue of interpretation of Scripture, not science. no one was there to scientifically observe so science can do not but make assumptions and guesses, whereas we have a record of creation straight from God, which the Church has understood to be literal.

[stumbler]

What is ridiculous to me is considering the words of scripture a "record" and not considering physical evidence as a "record."

Both are clearly a "record," and it is our duty to understand and evaluate them.

At least physical "records" have not been subjected to multiple translations and cultural biases.