Kurieuo wrote:
I am happy to provide references from the writings of Augustine and Irenaeus that "day" (
yom) in Genesis did not necessitate the 24-hour period of time or morning to sunset, and that is can be understand as an unspecified length.
Irenaeus said:
- Thus, then, in the day they eat, in the same did they die... For it is said, "There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning one day." Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die. ... On one and the same day on which they ate they also died (for it is one day of creation)... He (Adam) did no overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit... for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them."
Well, OK. Someone out there believed that stuff. I should adjust to that. The question is now, was this sort of thing widespread, and widely accepted?
Augustine wrote in the 'The City of God': "
As for these 'days,' [Genesis creation days] it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think—let alone explain in words—what they mean." In 'The Literal Meaning of Genesis' he writes: "
But at least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar." Elsewhere in the same book he writes:
- Seven days by our reckoning after the model of the day of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its settings; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them.
Furthermore, Origen wrote of the first six days as representing the time of work for men, and the seventh (Sabbath) day, lasting the full duration of the world:
- He [Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world's creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep festival with God who have done all their works in their six days, and who, because they have omitted none of their duties will ascend to the contemplation (of Celestial things) and to the assembly of righteous and blessed beings.
Thus, the belief the the days of Genesis 1 were longer than a standard 24-hour day existing long before modern science emerged.
You know, I used to have a quiver of respect when I heard the name Augustine. Don't know why, I guess he is well known, or something. The more I hear from the guy, the less respect I have for anything he has to say. I can't recall a single quote from the guy I liked. Not that I read much about him, but from when people quote him.
Anyhow, the question remains, was the old ages thing widely accepted, even in the catholic church?
I disagree that one can be Christian and not believe what is taught in the Bible. The teachings of the Bible and being a Christian are intimately tied together since Scripture contains the truth of Christ one needs to be a Christian.
Well, fine. We disagree. My take is that anyone that asks Jesus in his or her heart is saved, and a Christian. Not all those really know the bible, or much care, as we think they maybe should.
Perhaps as a Catholic you were listening to the RCC without referring to Scripture yourself.
Right. I had no idea what the bible actually said.
This mind you may not have necessarily been a bad thing since the many teachings would have no doubt still come from from Scripture and traditions of respected theologians throughout history who interpreted it. Ultimately Catholics are Christian because they hold to orthodox teachings found in Scripture. You may not have considered yourself a Bible believer as a Catholic, but then the soteriological beliefs of the RCC are that one is saved by being a part of the Church who have the authoritative position of interpreting Scripture and guiding Christ's flock. Thus, while it may not have been your place as a Catholic to necessarily read and interpret God's Word, the RCC was still responsible for guiding you according to God's Word, and thus you very much would have followed teachings that are Biblical.
Well that all sounds good. But I lived in a place where the service was in another language, so it was all greek to me anyhow. About all I think was of value was the catechism classes. I was happy to find out we didn't need to go to church. Never looked back.
Am I questioning the Christianity of AiG? Not in anything I have here said. I question their interpretation of Scripture on creation being an authoritative and divinely inspired interpretation to the extent that any other interpretation compromises or goes against God's Word (when in fact any other position is simply going against a YEC interpretation of God's Word).
I agree with the Yec. I no longer think they have a good grip on how it all happened, trying to explain it by flood geology, and such.
If on the other hand I said that AiG are compromising God's Word, then I am making a statement that brings into question AiG's Christianity. I do tend to believe that the YEC position in fact became solidified out of a fideist reaction to the extreme skepticism, rationalism and scientism found in the Enlightenment which attempted to usurp God particularly Christianity, and I certainly believe the YEC position is wrong. However, I don't question the Christianity or desire of YECs to adhere to God's Word simply because they just have a different take on the words in Scripture.
We are looking at that here. So far you have shown that a few sort of had strange ideas about what a day could be, but not that it was a major part of what bible believers really thought at all. Unless it is evidenced to have been a well accepted mainstream part of Christian beliefs, the issue of why it did become a big part still remains. And when. The underlying principle seems to be a desire to comply with science, to a point of reinterpreting the bible. And the concept as I understood it, really only became a player as science came to the fore.
I think the OECs have a desire to believe the bible, but that the desire to please man has led to butchering the text.
Hopefully I provide enough evidence of early writings to allow you to make such an adjustment.
So far, it could just be a couple of quacks, as famous as they might be. What is not demonstrated is that the OEC was a mainstream major belief, before science started to get going. I'm afraid you need to make the adjustment to that reality.
And you believe Day-Age proponents do not have such inspiration, whereas YECs have it??
Not at all. I am a fan of Mother Teresa, and read some supposed prophesies she made. I think they are great. I think all sorts of nominal bible believers have been inspired. But not about their old age creation belief. Not at all. Have you ever met any that even CLAIMED thet WERE!!!!!??? I rest my case!
If you do not believe this, then why say Day-Age proponents compromise Scripture rather simply say that they are wrong in their interpretation of Scripture? Do you not see the difference?
I said I think that the old agers hold to compromise theories. The compromise being with science, so called. They try to have it both ways.
And Day-Age believers accept the flood swept all the ungodly who lived at that time also. We would simply stress it was "the world of that time" (2 Peter 3:6) which was deluged and destroyed, and not the more extreme position that it was the whole entire surface of planet earth which was deluged and destroyed.
Thanks for admitting that. I find it ridiculous. How else could only Noah, and co be spared, if it was not a global flood?? How could the mountains be covered? Why would he take animals on the ark, if there was a whole rest of the planet, full of them?? That is a classic example of the stark differences of what I consider to be real bible believers, and those that try to fabalize, and explain it all away. (however saved, and well intentioned they might be, -in case there are sensitive ones out there, not sure of their salvation)
To a large degree we need to take a positive stance as Christians regarding certain teachings, namely those surrounding who Christ is, his purpose and how this affects us. I would only claim that another is compromising Scripture if thought their interpretation was so distorted as to make them less than true Christians.
Well, I consider them merely weaker brethren. Weaker brethren that were led down the garden path, without the garden!
To say Day-Age proponents compromise Scripture causes an unnecessary divide between YEC and OEC Christians who both equally value Scripture and who are both equally saved through Christ.
First of all I call the old age beliefs compromise theories, because they seek to compromise with science, and try to make the bible fit that. Not because some seek to compromise the bible itself. They are trying to salvage it. But it doesn't need their help, thank you very much. I think most OECs and YECs would agree on the new testament, to a great extent. That is all we need to be Christian. The rub comes, in the creation debate, where we need to bring in the old testament. We have to ask, what is the REAL reason that the old age beliefs became popular in the last few centuries? I think most of us know deep down, what the answer there is.
