Evidence for God from Science

I've been doing some reading in the Patristics lately. I thought it might be interesting to put up what some of the writers from the 2nd and 3rd century had to say about creation.

I'm not trying to screen for only those that might indicate OEC. I'll just put up what I find as I have time and if anyone is interested.

In six days, God made the works of his hands. On the seventh day, he made an end, rested on it, and sanctified it. Barnabus (c. 70 - 130, E) 1.146

The references at the end are volume and page numbers to a standard encyclopedic set of Patristic writing. I'll try and include who the Church Father was and if there's anything about them or the quote that might put it into context.

Not that you asked for input from anybody else, but I happen to have some I thought I'd post. Anyway, I'd be interested to see any reference to OEC in the fathers. The closest you get is Augustine/Origen, who weld not to long ages, but to instantaneous creation. Augustine actually expressly rejects the idea of long ages:

• Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at the plodding place at which they now pass" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1; John Hammond taylor, trans. Newman Press, 1962), 141; 4:33).

Likewise, Origen believed the universe was "very much under" 10K years. As far as relevant quotes from others, here are a few interesting ones:

• For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year. (Irenaeus: Agaist Heresies V, 557)
  
  On the fourth day the luminaries were made; because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies, so as to exclude God. In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior cannot produce that which is prior. (Theophilus to Autoclyus II, 100)
  
  For the creation of the world was concluded in six days. For the motion of the sun from solstice to solstice is completed in six months--in the course of which, at one time the leaves fall, and at another plants bud and seeds come to maturity. And they say that the embryo is perfected exactly in the sixth month, that is, in one hundred and eighty days in addition to the two and a half, as Polybus the physician relates in his book On the Eighth Month, and Aristotle the philosopher in his book On Nature. Hence the Pythagoreans, as I think, reckon six the perfect number, from the creation of the world, according to the prophet, and call it Meseuthys and Marriage, from its being the middle of the even numbers, that is, of ten and two. For it is manifestly at an equal distance from both. (Clement of Alexandria, The Strommata: 512-513)
  
  After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated. For, maintaining that there have been, from all eternity, many conflagrations and many deluges, and that the flood which lately took place in the time of Deucalion is comparatively modern, he clearly demonstrates to those who are able to understand him, that, in his opinion, the world was uncreated. But let this assailant of the Christian faith tell us by what arguments he was compelled to accept the statement that there have been many conflagrations and many cataclysms, and that the flood which occurred in the time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in that of Phaethon, were more recent than any others. Origen, Against Celcus: 404)
  
  He did not say "night and day," but "one day," with reference to the name of the light. He did not say the "first day;" for if he had said the "first" day, he would also have had to say that the "second" day was made. But it was right to speak not of the "first day," but of "one day," in order that by saying "one," he might show that it returns on its orbit and, while it remains one, makes up the week. (The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus: 163)
  
  For the Jews, deriving their origin from them as descendants of Abraham, having been taught a modest mind, and one such as becomes men, together with the truth by the spirit of Moses, have handed down to us, by their extant Hebrew histories, the number of 5500 years as the period up to the advent of the Word of salvation, that was announced to the world in the time of the sway of the Caesars. (Julius Africanus: 130-131)
  
  I imagine that He named under the sixty queens, those who had pleased God from the first-made man in succession to Noah, for this reason, since these had no need of precepts and laws for their salvation, the creation of the world in six days being still recent. (Methodius Discouse VII -- Procilla: 333)
  
  God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in the space of six days, as is contained in the secrets of Holy Scripture, and consecrated the seventh day, on which He had rested from His works. But this is the Sabbath-day, which in the language of the Hebrews received its name from the number, whence the seventh is the legitimate and complete number. For there are seven days, by the revolutions of which in order the circles of years are made up; and there are seven stars which do not set, and seven luminaries which are called planets, whose differing and unequal movements are believed to cause the varieties of circumstances and times. Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says "In Thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day." And as God laboured during those six days in creating such great works, so His religion and truth must labour during these six thousand years, while wickedness prevails and bears rule. And again, since God, having finished His works, rested the seventh day and blessed it, at the end of the six thousandth year all wickedness must be abolished from the earth, and righteousness reign for a thousand years; and there must be tranquillity and rest from the labours which the world now has long endured. (Lactantius, VII p. 211)
  
  To me, as I meditate and consider in my mind concerning the creation of this world in which we are kept enclosed, even such is the rapidity of that creation; as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days; on the seventh to which He consecrated it . (Victorius, On the Creation of the World: 341)

Quotes come from The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Of interest, I have seen people quote Irenaeus as if he believed in long ages:

• And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin. (Against Herasies, 5:23)

But we note that he doesn't himself affirm the position--only attributes it to others. This does tell us, though, that some (though unrecorded) apparently held to that view, yet the previous quote of Irenaeus shows that he himself did not adhere to it. It is possible was referring to Justin, who said:

• For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject." (Dialog with Typho the Jew chapter 81)

Yet this hardly proves that Justin took the six days of creation to be a long age; only that the word "day" in the phrase "in the day you eat of it" was (for him) a thousand years. If this is the case, the we have less grounds for taking Irenaeus' statement to mean that creation happened over a six thousand year period, rather than a six day period.

In fact, you can find several fathers who linked the seven thousand years of the world's history with the seven days of creation. There are some who hold to that view today! Yet that doesn't mean that they thought the creation itself took six thousand years (and even if they did, I fail to see how that provides much historical support for OEC).

Just a few I came across in a class I took a year ago. Like I said, I would be very interested in any OEC oriented quotes, because I was not able to find any. Only a couple of instant creation quotes and a possible (though improbable) idea that creation actually took 6000 years.

Thanks Jac, some of those reflect the ones I have but I was going to have to type them in so I appreciate you putting those up. I'll put up a few others. I don't have a full set of the Patristics and I'm using a resource from Bercot that is helpful but admittedly not exhaustive and the quotes are not presented in their larger context.

I wouldn't expect there to be a clear delineation between OEC and YEC beliefs, as the issue wouldn't have been categorized in that manner in a pre-scientific community and some of the quotes are pulled from Genesis to make a point in terms of an analogy. In general terms, I would expect the quotes to be neutral or to appear to lean toward something that would support YEC.

I knew that the view of a thousand years being as a day is relatively common. I think in that instance the simple fact that yom was seen as more than 24 hour literal day would be supportive of the OEC hermeneutic despite a huge difference in scale. I think OEC supporters need to be reminded from time to time (and I'm lumping myself into it) that science in this area, even if presumed reliable is irrelevent to the primary OEC case which is scriptural, or needs to be.

The point I come back to for myself is that the whole delineation as to how Genesis supports YEC, OEC or anything else for that matter, has to be looked at closely in terms of the mindset of the people of that day. We're asking questions of the text at a level of detail that they would not. That's not a question of spiritualizing the passage or making it an extended metaphor, which I reject, but it is a question of scope and context that is important to keep in mind. Genesis needs to be read in the context of its intended purpose.

I think I have a few other quotes outside of the list you put up. I'll try to do that later today.

More Patristic quotes on Creation and the Days of Creation.

“Any person who sees a ship on the sea rigged and in sail, and heading for the harbor, will no doubt infer that there is a pilot in her who is steering her. Likewise, we must perceive that God is the Pilot of the whole universe, although He is not visible to the eyes of the flesh. For He is incomprehensible” Theophilus, (c. 180 AD, E),2.90

"How could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things that exist." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.210

"This is also part of the church's teaching: that the world was made and took its beginning at a certain time and that it is to be destroyed on account of its wickedness. But there is no clear statement in the teaching of the church regarding what existed before this world or what will exist after it ... insofar as the credibility of Scripture is concerned, the declarations on this matter are easy to prove. Even the heretics (although having widely differing opinions on many other things) appear to be of one mind on this, yielding to the authority of Scripture. Concerning the creation of the world, what portion of Scripture can give us more information regarding it than the account that Moses has transmitted about its origin? It contains matters of profounder significance than the mere historical narrative appears to indicate. Furthermore, it contains very many things that are to be spiritually understood. When discussing profound and mystical subjects, it uses literal language as a type of veil. Nevertheless the language of the narrator reveals that all things were created as a certain time." Origen (c. 225 AD, E), 4.340 -341

I'll put some more up later as I have time.

Canuckster wrote:I think in that instance the simple fact that yom was seen as more than 24 hour literal day would be supportive of the OEC hermeneutic despite a huge difference in scale.

Honest question:

What is your take on the fact that the hermeneutic the only non-YEC (to use the term anachronistically) fathers used to justify, or come to, their beliefs, was decidedly non-literal? Is it not the position of modern OEC that the Day-Age view is literal? If so, you have no support from Augustine or Origen, do you?

If that is the case, then do you not find it oddly coincidental that the first people who found the day-age view as literal came only after modern science starting saying the earth was old? The Westminster Divines make for a very interesting case study on that . . . Are we not right in looking at the possibility that our modernistic worldviews are causing us to read the text as we would have it, rather than as it was written? In other words, is the claim of eisogesis, given the history of interpretation on this, not one that seriously needs to be considered rather than dismissed out of hand?

Jac3510 wrote:

Canuckster wrote:I think in that instance the simple fact that yom was seen as more than 24 hour literal day would be supportive of the OEC hermeneutic despite a huge difference in scale.

Honest question:

What is your take on the fact that the hermeneutic the only non-YEC (to use the term anachronistically) fathers used to justify, or come to, their beliefs, was decidedly non-literal? Is it not the position of modern OEC that the Day-Age view is literal? If so, you have no support from Augustine or Origen, do you?

If that is the case, then do you not find it oddly coincidental that the first people who found the day-age view as literal came only after modern science starting saying the earth was old? The Westminster Divines make for a very interesting case study on that . . . Are we not right in looking at the possibility that our modernistic worldviews are causing us to read the text as we would have it, rather than as it was written? In other words, is the claim of eisogesis, given the history of interpretation on this, not one that seriously needs to be considered rather than dismissed out of hand?

I see it as similar to the flat-earth view that was common at the time as well. As you're probably familiar, both views of the earth as flat and as a globe were present within the Early Church Fathers.

I don't see your restriction of a possible OEC connotations to Origin and Augustine. There are shades of contextual understandings and approaches in others as well, one example from Clement of Alexandria which was in the post that you made your claim under.

A literal understanding of Genesis doesn't mean, in my estimation, that the intent of that passage was to give anything more than a high-level view and description of creation, in that day and age, pre-scientific as it was, for us to take and attempt to turn into a rigid, scientifically understood description. I think that is an error that both YEC and OEC proponents fall into. We're so focused on the elements of this passage and that particular element that we force the text into something it wasn't intended to do. The primary context and intent of this passage wasn't to inform and satisfy the curiosity of the intended audience as to the minute details of science. The context and intent of the passage was to present a thread from the beginning of time of God's plan to call the national of Israel as his chosen people and I believe included in that was the goal to bring forth Christ to be the blessing to all nations.

It's just as easy and just as valid I think to argue that many elements of YEC as it is put forward and argued today were not in the minds of both Israel or the early church. YEC as it is argued by many today, arose as a response against Larmarkian and Darwinian science and the conclusions that that gave rise to outside of science as well.

Just as a later church age in the aftermath of Galileo had to adjust their hermeneutic to account for the perspective of the human author, I think it's safe to say that the scientific evidence of today is overwhelmingly indicative of an Old Earth. It could be argued that that is evidence enough to examine our hermeneutic with an appeal to the sufficiency of Natural Revelation in this context to be consistent with Revealed Scripture. However, I don't think it's necessary even to do that. I think the passage itself is sufficient to provide the basis for drawing that conclusion.

That said, I think it's worth saying again that the literal understanding of a passage is not necessarily the simplest understanding that the passage can be read in. The intent of the author, the understanding of the original audience, the culture, the limitations of the language at that time etc. all come into play to say that the literal meaning is what the intended meaning was in the midst of all those elements. Genesis is accurate and reliable to the extent that it was addressing what we now see as scientific issues. Those issues however were not the primary intent of the passage.

I see it as similar to the flat-earth view that was common at the time as well. As you're probably familiar, both views of the earth as flat and as a globe were present within the Early Church Fathers.

Bart, don't perpetuate the myth. You know that the most Christians, especially the CFs did NOT believe in the flat earth. That was a fantasy concocted by evolutionists in the late nineteenth century to discredit the Bible. Most CFs held to the spherical earth view, consistent with the Greek philosophy they almost fully embraced (which insisted on a spherical earth). Even so, there were only two CFs, and at MOST five, who proclaimed a flat earth. Even Wikipedia recognizes all this:

• The false belief that medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth.[1] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[2] The myth that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat entered the popular imagination in the 19th century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.[1]
  
  From Late Antiquity, and from the beginnings of Christian theology, knowledge of the sphericity of the Earth had become widespread.[22]

So I see no connection between my question and this. NO ONE came up with the idea of long ages in the days of Gen 1 (that is, that yom literally referred to an unspecified period of time) until AFTER science insisted on it. If the idea that the word "day" in Gen 1 is literally an age, and that was INTENDED by Moses (according to Ross' model), then why did NO ONE see it until the nineteenth century? Why did every church father hold to a literal day view or and instantaneous creation view?

A literal understanding of Genesis doesn't mean, in my estimation, that the intent of that passage was to give anything more than a high-level view and description of creation, in that day and age, pre-scientific as it was, for us to take and attempt to turn into a rigid, scientifically understood description. I think that is an error that both YEC and OEC proponents fall into. We're so focused on the elements of this passage and that particular element that we force the text into something it wasn't intended to do. The primary context and intent of this passage wasn't to inform and satisfy the curiosity of the intended audience as to the minute details of science. The context and intent of the passage was to present a thread from the beginning of time of God's plan to call the national of Israel as his chosen people and I believe included in that was the goal to bring forth Christ to be the blessing to all nations.

I agree that we try to read too much science into the account, but at the same time, the individual elements still have meaning, unless you take this as a parable, which I know you don't. The text says the world was made in six days. Now, if you take that literally, then the word "day" either has to mean 24-hour-day or "age." My problem with the latter is that NO ONE, Ross' claims to the contrary, came up with the second view until science told us the earth was old.

Again, we certainly have to focus on the INTENT of the passage, but that intent does not and cannot wipe away details. If it did, then you can ignore all the archaeological support for the Bible on precisely the same grounds.

It's just as easy and just as valid I think to argue that many elements of YEC as it is put forward and argued today were not in the minds of both Israel or the early church. YEC as it is argued by many today, arose as a response against Larmarkian and Darwinian science and the conclusions that that gave rise to outside of science as well.

Hence my description of the term as anachronistic. However, the central belief that the earth was created in six, twenty-four hour days is well attested to in CF literature, as the quotes I provided above demonstrate. The "day-age" view, on the other hand, is completely and totally absent. I am asking you what you think that means for OEC hermeneutics.

Just as a later church age in the aftermath of Galileo had to adjust their hermeneutic to account for the perspective of the human author, I think it's safe to say that the scientific evidence of today is overwhelmingly indicative of an Old Earth. It could be argued that that is evidence enough to examine our hermeneutic with an appeal to the sufficiency of Natural Revelation in this context to be consistent with Revealed Scripture. However, I don't think it's necessary even to do that. I think the passage itself is sufficient to provide the basis for drawing that conclusion.

[You know, if an atheist were to try to use Galileo as an argument that we have changed our reading of the Bible to fit science in, you'd blast them, rightfully so, for being too simplistic in their views. You know that contextually, the Bible does not teach geocentricism. You know that those who held to that view in the middle ages did so because Greek Philosophy taught it. They were eisogeting the text with their world view.]

edit: I bracketed the text above as I did not want to delete it, but I have to change a statement. You and I have actually had this part of the conversation before, and I am wrong that you would argue that "those who held to that view in the middle ages did so because Greek Philosophy taught it." I went back and looked at all your posts on the matter, and you have consistently argued in favor of a "new hermeneutic" (to use your phrase) that had to be applied to Scripture in the light of science. I just cannot disagree with that strongly enough. Do you really think a new hermeneutic had to be applied, or did they simply need to go back to the old hermeneutic of taking the text in its normal sense of the words without importing their worldview into the text? Anyway, edit over.

Ironically enough, I find Ross doing exactly the same thing. He has a worldview he got from science, just like the church had a worldview it got from philosophy, and he reads that INTO the text, just like they read their worldview INTO the text.

Do a thought experiment: let's just pretend, for the sake of argument, that the universe really is "young." Suppose, for the sake of argument, the scientific tides shift and in 100 years, all scientists know that the universe is, say, 10K years old. Suppose that's as obvious to everyone as gravity. What do you think people would say about the OEC interpretation, hermeneutically? Would they not conclude that people had read what they thought science says into the text just as much as we recognize that is precisely what they did in Galileo's day? For better or for worse, we sure as heck cannot accuse YECs of reading their science into the text. On the contrary, everyone assumes that they read their theology into SCIENCE!

That said, I think it's worth saying again that the literal understanding of a passage is not necessarily the simplest understanding that the passage can be read in. The intent of the author, the understanding of the original audience, the culture, the limitations of the language at that time etc. all come into play to say that the literal meaning is what the intended meaning was in the midst of all those elements. Genesis is accurate and reliable to the extent that it was addressing what we now see as scientific issues. Those issues however were not the primary intent of the passage.

I agree on all counts. I also assert that when the Bible says the earth was made in six days, it meant the earth was made in six days. The question is what did Moses mean by the word "day." The fact that the meaning of the word day wasn't his PRIMARY interest doesn't mean that the word has no meaning; still less does it mean that he could have been wrong about a six "day" creation if we are to assert the Bible is infallible.

So, I go back to my same question: what do you think it says about OEC (specifically, day-age) hermeneutics that NO ONE came up with the idea until science says so? Are we not justified in looking at the possibility that such a few is nothing more than eisogesis of modern science into the text?

edit: To make this less personal, given that I am talking about a position that is openly advocated on this board, let me phrase the question this way:

Given the fact that NONE of the CFs thought that Gen. 1 taught that God created human life via evolution, what do you think about the hermeneutics of theistic evolution? Is it merely coincidence that theistic evolution became an interpretational option only after the scientific community adopted evolutionism? And if not, is the charge of eisogesis not fairly leveled at theistic evolutionists if they try to claim they are taking the text literally?

1. I think you're too quick to dismiss the flat earth element of Galileo's situation and I should have mentioned and failed to draw in as well with my statement the heliocentric vs geocentric model, as that too even more strongly aligns with the point I was making. Trying to use Wikipedia as a source when even in your comment you seem to recognize that it is tenuous. Here's some of what Galileo had to say about the issues he faced in his letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, which I suspect you've read, but if not, it's a fascinating and revealing read both into the situation and Galieo's own thinking and approach to the Bible.

http://people.bu.edu/dklepper/RN242/duchess.html

Note these elements especially,

Showing a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth they sought to deny and disprove the new things which, if they had cared to look for themselves, their own senses would have demonstrated to them. To this end they hurled various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly, and which were ill-suited to their purposes.

The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands still in many places in the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still. Since the Bible cannot err; it follows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes a erroneous and heretical position who maintains that the sun is inherently motionless and the earth movable.

With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might; fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands and eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of` things past and ignorance of those to come. These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities of the common people, who are rude and unlearned. For the sake of those who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise expositors should produce the true senses of such passages, together with the special reasons for which they were set down in these words. This doctrine is so widespread and so definite with all theologians that it would be superfluous to adduce evidence for it.

As you're no doubt familiar as well, Pope John Paul II on behalf of the Catholic Church formally and publically apologized for the Galileo affair in 1992. These are the words he included in his statement when the Catholic church apologized and lifted its last strictures against Galileo and cleared the way for him to be buried and considered in good standing with the church.

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....

I'm well aware that there are many views floating around about this from many sources, including those who want to diminish and downplay the issues in order to pass off on the impact, presumably in part, because it calls into question similar approaches today on other issues, including, from my perspective many elements of YEC.

I prefer to draw my conclusions directly from the sources and what they have to say about it. Like it or not, the Catholic Church finally admitted Galileo was mistreated in his case by the church and the foundation of that mistreatment was "The error of the theologians of the time .... (which) in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture ...

Before you respond, I admit I overstated the flat earth statement. I was thinking in terms more of the heliocentric, geocentric but I was careless and incomplete in my previous post on that point. Thanks for pointing out and please take what I have to say above as clarification and an attempt to more clearly state what I was alluding to.

2. You've repeated your claim and escalated it now to claiming "every church father" despite earlier recognizing that Origen, did not and despite other quotes even in the context of this thread. The reality is if you're going to appeal to the early Church Father's collectively the majority of them looked at the Genesis account as an allegorical passage which was to be viewed as a veil over some deeper spiritual meanings. I don't see you making the same appeal to that that I see you making as far as literal days. That to my mind calls into question your assessment of the connections you're drawing as well as the summarizing of the sources in absolute terms. I think there are deeper meanings, and the fact that Early Church Fathers saw anything in a particular manner is not necessarily authoritative. I simply see the evidence that there was not a universal view even at that time as telling and contrary to some of the exagerated claims I see made as to the supposed unity of history in this regard.

3. You build further upon your platform, which again I believe to be overstated, to claim there is no evidence of a day-age and question why it would arise later, implying it was concocted to force agreement with science. Augustine, again by your own earlier admission, pointed out that the days in Genesis could not be 24 hour days, not just as an appeal to allegory or spiritualizing the text, but also because he recognized that the disconnect between the 4th day being cited as the day the son was made, removed the basis for a 24 hour day measurement. We're both familiar with the arguments that revolve around the issue.

In addition to Augustine, Anselm also wrote that ""the 'days' of Moses' account ... are not to be equated with the days in which we live" which effectively qualifies as a day-age interpretation in all but scale.

Take this as well, which I reference from the Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation Statement found here. http://www.wts.edu/about/beliefs/statem ... .html#N_2_ . Note their reference to John Colet,

A striking illustration of the way in which biblical scholars wrestled with this issue is found in the work of John Colet, who, at the end of the 15th century, held to a position approximating to a day-age or even framework interpretation of the days of Genesis. Interestingly, he held that Genesis 1 was written in "the manner of a popular poet" [more poetae alicuius popularis]. In the Augustinian tradition, Colet views the precise meaning of the days of Genesis 1 as so difficult to untangle that he writes (tongue in cheek): "nothing could be more like night than these Mosaic days[/code] 4. See F. Seebohm, The Oxford Reformers (London, 1887), pp. 46-60 for a detailed account, including citations.

So there again, the issue was raised in a contect before the scientific issues drove both YEC and OEC to form their positions.

Your assertion is thus nullified as it was made as an absolute and I have provided for you exceptions to what you've asserted.

Now Jac, let me ask you some honest questions as well. Why is there so much evidence in your response of high emotion as reflected by your use of capitalization and the absolutes that you give above being demonstrably overstated? Are you being completely disapassionate and examining the evidence both scripturally and naturally with a view to learning or synthesizing or have you selected a view which ties to the hermeneutic that you've settled upon. Earlier you've said you're somewhat dispassionate about this but have landed in YEC while acceding that there are valid points and concerns in OEC. If I've mis-stated you in that please correct me, but I'm just trying to make a general statement of what I've heard from you without doing you the same courtesy as you have me of going back to reread all your posts (I'm surprised you managed to stay awake! ) Before you respond, I admit freely that I can be guilty of the same thing, but this post in particular just seems to go a little overboard in your willingness to make declaration of such absolutes in which you declare the absence of something. I think we both know the danger of that in terms of a logical fallacy.

Anyway, we can discuss more if you like. I just intended with this thread to give some example of early Church Fathers and their statement of some of these issues by way of illustration, not necessarily attempting to draw into an attempt to prove any of the YEC or OEC, which are terms and concepts that would be foriegn to their understanding and intent in any event. I don't see it as valid to write off any of them who lean toward allegorizing or spiritualizing the text as therefore excluded from consideration to the extent that we recognize the approach to Scripture in the age immediately following the Apostles and founded to a great extent on their teaching. If the scrictest form of the grammatical-historical hermeneutic wasn't universally present there, then at the very least I think it urges us toward approaching the question with a little bit of humility and openess to the possiblity that we're more likely to be adding our eisogesis to the text than were they, given the time of sepatation and direct connection to the Apostles themselves.

I don't really want to argue more about it although I will work through anything you have to say in response and again affirm that I respect you Jac and I'm not interested in winning an argument here. I'm interested in knowing the truth and will consider your response in that vein. I'd just ask that you tone down the rhetoric and the appeal to negative absolutes in trying to make your case. Respectfully, they don't help your case at all, in my opinion.

blessings,

bart

1. Regarding Galileo, I think one or both of us may have our wires crossed. I saw no disconnect between him and your flat earth comment. I had asked you about your take on what the history of interpretation says about OEC hermeneutics, to which you replied with the flat earth discussion--the implication being just like science corrected us on that fallacy, science may well correct us on this. My reply to THAT was to point out that there is no comparison, for the simple reason that the church never believed in a flat earth. That's just something evolutionists say to try to discredit Christianity. It's a debate tactic and nothing more.

The Galileo comment was not related in my mind, though I can see how you were using both to make the same point. In any case, I think the historical facts are evident enough:

1. The church never adhered to a flat earth, but always to a spherical earth, with the exception to a few CFs who rejected Greek philosophy;
2. Galileo certainly was mistreated, and the Church did need to apologize, but it is wrong to say that the church needed a "new hermeneutic." On the contrary, they needed to stop reading their geocentricism, which DID come from their worldview, into the text. Thus, while an OEC could conceivably be accused of committing the "Galilean error", YECs can hardly be accused of the same. That is not, of course, to say that YEC is correct. It is only to say that you cannot accuse YEC of reading science into the text like you can (theoretically) OEC.

My question, then, has only been about the hermeneutics. I don't see why it is such a difficult issue.

2. You said:

You've repeated your claim and escalated it now to claiming "every church father" despite earlier recognizing that Origen, did not and despite other quotes even in the context of this thread.

With all due respect, I ask you to reread my post. The phrase "every church father" was used with direct reference to theistic evolutionists, NOT OEC. I'm sure you recognize that there are no CFs who held to TE . . .

The reality is if you're going to appeal to the early Church Father's collectively the majority of them looked at the Genesis account as an allegorical passage which was to be viewed as a veil over some deeper spiritual meanings.

And this is simply not true. Origin and Augustine took the text non-literally. But the majority of the CFs, as demonstrated in the many quotes offered above, held to a literal view. Now, certainly, an allegorical view became more popular, but we also know that an allegorical hermeneutic quickly became the standard in the early church, thanks in no small part to Philo and then the Alexandrian school (had only the Antiochian school of thought won out, who knows what church history would have been like!).

In any case, you've confused my point, for I am not trying to make an argument. As such, I can be be said to "appeal to the early Church Fathers" for anything. Nor can I be trying to win an argument. I am trying to get you to answer a question in light of documented history. I'll repeat it here for clarity:

In light of the fact that no CF interpreted yom as an age (much less that they held to Ross' argument that the word literally means 'age'), is it not fair to ask whether or not that view comes out of a modern scientific worldview rather than an actual exegesis of the text?

3. With regard to Augustine, I have already noted that he did not believe in a literal 24 hour day creation-day, but I have also proven that he did not believe in long days. Neither did Origen. Both held to instantaneous creation, and in the case of Origen, one that was less than 10K years ago. Augustine actually repudiates the idea of long ages, as quoted before.

In light of that, I fail to see how Augustine or Origen offer any support for the OEC hermeneutic. The reason, and please correct me where I have misunderstood your position, is that the Day-Age view, as espoused by Ross and Deem, holds that it follows a literal hermeneutic. That's supposedly one of the major selling points--that not only YEC can claim to be literal. Augustine and Origen, though, did not hold to a literal hermeneutic. As such, the only thing the Day-Age view and Augustine/Origen's view have in common is that they reject that the word yom refers to a 24 hour day. Yet the former claims to be literal, and the latter non-literal. Thus, my question:

How can you claim CF support for your literal hermeneutic when they rejected literal hermeneutics as a whole?

Also, regarding Colet, you are, unfortunately, mistaken. He most certainly did not hold "to a position approximating to a day-age or even framework interpretation of the days of Genesis," though given the lack of any kind of historical precedent for the OEC hermeneutic, I'm hardly surprised to see him (or William Ames) appealed to. In reality, he said the entire universe was created "in a single and undivided instant of time" and emphasized that "God created all things at once"; he said that "the universe was created in eternity . . . that admits no subdivision"; that "there arose at once a clear formaton of all things, and of the whole universe" . . . that everything happened "in one undivided instant, namely, n eternity." This odd idea led him to conclude that "the time and measure of the whole creation is eternity; in which every time is one undivided time: every day is one day."!

We should also note that Colet believed "the Mosaic records can be understood by no one," accused the Exodus generation of being an "uninstructed people," "a foolish multitude," and "a country-people . . . who observe nothing beyond the heavens above them." He even claims that Moses made "a grave blunder" in Gen. 1-2! (All quotations come from pages 4-25 of Joannis Coleti Opuscula Quaedam Theologica, Letters to Radulphus on the Mosaic Account of the Creation, trans. by J. H. Lupton (London: George Bell and sons, 1876))

Forgive me, then, if I hardly find my assertion "nullified."

To summarize, before answering your honest question:

We know that none of the CFs who held to a literal interpretation took yom as referring to days, and I have extensive documentation showing that neither did any theologian up until the 18th century. This includes ALL the Westminster Divines. We know that many theologians have taken a non-literal view of Gen 1-2 throughout history, and they, obviously, do not take yom to refer to actual days, but that consistent with their own hermeneutic. But, in fact, by this feat, I can appropriate even those non-literalists in support of the YEC hermeneutic: an allegorical hermeneutic recognizes that literal words have deeper meanings; yet, the literal words themselves mean the literal thing. Thus, the "days" of Gen. 1 refer to actual days in the story, and yet are to be interpreted as telling a truth not about literal days, but about something more spiritual. Thus, it seems that even the Augustinian theologians saw Moses as having in mind literal days. In short, no one took the yomim in Gen 1 to refer to ages until the 18th century. What explanation do you have for that? It seems to me very convenient that science had just come about teaching that the earth was, in fact, very old . . .

Very well, on to your question:

Now Jac, let me ask you some honest questions as well. Why is there so much evidence in your response of high emotion as reflected by your use of capitalization and the absolutes that you give above being demonstrably overstated? Are you being completely disapassionate and examining the evidence both scripturally and naturally with a view to learning or synthesizing or have you selected a view which ties to the hermeneutic that you've settled upon. Earlier you've said you're somewhat dispassionate about this but have landed in YEC while acceding that there are valid points and concerns in OEC. If I've mis-stated you in that please correct me, but I'm just trying to make a general statement of what I've heard from you without doing you the same courtesy as you have me of going back to reread all your posts (I'm surprised you managed to stay awake! ) Before you respond, I admit freely that I can be guilty of the same thing, but this post in particular just seems to go a little overboard in your willingness to make declaration of such absolutes in which you declare the absence of something. I think we both know the danger of that in terms of a logical fallacy.

The capital letters are not meant to convey emotion. They are meant to convey emphasis. As far as my absolutes being "demonstrably" overstated, may I suggest that I've demonstrated that you have overstated my overstatement? If you can show me a single CF who held to a literal hermeneutic (as the DA view claims to do) that held to anything other than a 24 hour day, I will agree my statement is in excess. I will also accept ANY CF who held to the view that the yomim were ages, rather than instantaneous creation. I've found evidence for absolutely neither of these. A single quote from any CF reflecting either of these two positions is sufficient to refute my point here. Can you provide one? If not, are you willing to retract your "demonstration" of my overstatement?

As far as me being dispassionate goes, the answer is yes and no. Yes, in that I have no real concern about the issue one way or the other. In that regard,a much better word is apathetic. The simple reason is that I just don't do creation apologetics. I really, honestly, could not care less if you hold to Ross' or Ham's view, because when it comes to evangelism, I neither bring up or am willing to discuss the issue. I keep the discussion completely on the moral argument and the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection.

No, in that while I don't care about the conclusion (though I have reached my own view, obviously), I do care about hermeneutics. In fact, that's the only thing I really care about at all at the end of the day (with respect to biblical studies). If you note, my very first question was a hermeneutical one, and I have repeatedly asked it, having not received an answer. That I am NOT dispassionate about. I care very much about that.

I hold, now, to YEC for hermeneutical reasons. If you wish to reject the literal hermeneutic, then I have no problem with your DA interpretation. I do, however, have a problem with your DA interpretation when it claims to be literal and claims for historical support those who rejected that same literal hermeneutic. I see that as talking out of both sides of the mouth. I have a further problem in that I am deeply suspicious of the DA view given that it only came about, conveniently I think, after science started teaching that the earth was old. Now, perhaps it is old, but if that is the case, I expect one of the following to be true, in order of likelihood;

1. There should be a debate in history about the DA vs. the YEC view;
2. We shouldn't take Gen literally;
2. The Bible is wrong.

(1) is demonstrably false. the debate in history is about whether the text should be taken literally or not, not whether the days are actually ages. (3) creates problems so serious we may as well give up our faith. (2) is the only option left. So, for me, since I insist on a literal hermeneutic, it comes down to this:

Either science is right and Gen 1 is a myth, or Gen 1 is correct and we have misunderstood science.

Bart, I'm not interested in having an argument with you on the validity of OEC or trying to prove YEC. I can't tell you enough how much I REALLY don't care about that. What I DO care about is the hermeneutic and about intellectual honesty. Believe me when I say that I am not trying to make an argument. I am trying to find out if you have any historical basis on which to claim support for the DA view. Rich Deem and Hugh Ross seem to think they do in the CFs.

SO - do you have such support or not? If so, can you provide a quote? If not, what do you make of OEC hermeneutics in light of the fact that no one, prior to the 18th century, ever came to that view? Does that not smack to you of eisogesis?

1. Regarding Galileo, I think one or both of us may have our wires crossed. I saw no disconnect between him and your flat earth comment. I had asked you about your take on what the history of interpretation says about OEC hermeneutics, to which you replied with the flat earth discussion--the implication being just like science corrected us on that fallacy, science may well correct us on this. My reply to THAT was to point out that there is no comparison, for the simple reason that the church never believed in a flat earth. That's just something evolutionists say to try to discredit Christianity. It's a debate tactic and nothing more.

The Galileo comment was not related in my mind, though I can see how you were using both to make the same point. In any case, I think the historical facts are evident enough:

1. The church never adhered to a flat earth, but always to a spherical earth, with the exception to a few CFs who rejected Greek philosophy;
2. Galileo certainly was mistreated, and the Church did need to apologize, but it is wrong to say that the church needed a "new hermeneutic." On the contrary, they needed to stop reading their geocentricism, which DID come from their worldview, into the text. Thus, while an OEC could conceivably be accused of committing the "Galilean error", YECs can hardly be accused of the same. That is not, of course, to say that YEC is correct. It is only to say that you cannot accuse YEC of reading science into the text like you can (theoretically) OEC.

My question, then, has only been about the hermeneutics. I don't see why it is such a difficult issue.

The hermeneutic that was added as a result of this was perspectival in which the passages aforementioned were then understood to be from the perspective of a person on the earth and it was the outside evidence and confirmation of science that led to the inclusion of this principle. Prior to this event, to my knowlege and observation this approach was not seen and was added to reconcile the scripture with the prior understandings.

In light of the fact that no CF interpreted yom as an age (much less that they held to Ross' argument that the word literally means 'age'), is it not fair to ask whether or not that view comes out of a modern scientific worldview rather than an actual exegesis of the text?

It's fair to ask, but it confuses several things in my opinion,

It's not fair to assume a question being asked framed in a manner that is outside the culture, the language limitations, and the context of the passage which we've agreed is corallary and not the main purpose and thrust of that passage. You wish to believe that the assumption was a literal 24 hour day and it may well have been in many instances. The application of an allegorical or metaphorical approach however, would be just as fair to assume the corallary assumption would be an age. The fact that such a concept was not stated in the framework that you suggest, is no more indicative of an absence of the components that would lead to an OEC understanding anymore than say, for instance, the fact that you can't find an early Church Father suggesting a water canopy as an explanation for the flood etc. You're framing of the question imports assumptions and demands upon the material that is not allowing them to speak for themselves. As to your assertion that your quotes prove your point, I disagree. You show some evidence but it is not an exhaustive examination of the material and it doesn't represent all the material present and again I believe you to be grossly overstating your point. Contradictory material abounds within the Patristics, not only between each other, but sometimes even comparing their own writings depending upon how they chose to use the material for their particular purpose in the context of the topic they were approaching.

How can you claim CF support for your literal hermeneutic when they rejected literal hermeneutics as a whole?

Because it is no more evident that those early church fathers were applying the literal hermeneutic to the same degree and in the same framework of understanding in which you're arguing for a narrow YEC understanding. Most of the approach and framework that even gives rise to the questions claiming to be answered in our point of view was foreign in the original audience and also foreign to the early church fathers. Much of those question were introduced later in Church History through the introduction of greek philosophers a la Aquinas and even to some extent Augustine.

That goes beyond what we're discussing here.

As for your assertion that I'm mistaken on Colet, which you again state from an apparent position of asseredness, it is not just me then that is mistaken; it is the entire faculty of Westminister Seminary from which I drew that quote and assertion.

A literal hermeneutic as we've previously agreed, is not necessarily the easiest surface meaning but in fact requires a reconciliation of many different factors to come to the conclusion of what the message intended was and the message received. Most of the Early Church Fathers, weren't necessarily highly educated and it could even be argued, although I'll admit that I'm speculating here, that many of them did not speak or read Hebrew, given that the early Church became primarily Gentile in pretty short order. That too argues against the expectation that the argument you demand from them would be framed in the manner you request. Do you know of an Early Church Father who in their statements makes reference to the word "yom" in any context. Or is it possible, that their use of the word "day" rests upon their understanding of the word "day" in Greek or Latin. Lexiconical deconstruction of words isn't a typical feature within any of the Early Church Fathers. Does that absence argue as strongly against your assumptions than any that I've brought?

If you wish to reject the literal hermeneutic, then I have no problem with your DA interpretation

This is the heart of your argument and it demonstrates to me that you've accepted the position only the YEC holds to a literal hermeneutic. This is despite the fact that many, with stronger and deeper roots than you or I (at least me, I don't profess to be anything more than a somewhat self-educated person on many of these elements for which I've received no formal training) in looking at these elements have concluded that the OEC approach is a literal hermeneutic with evidence reaching back further than you're willing to accede. I accept that you've come to that conclusion. I don't believe your assertions as to what you expect or demand in terms of evidence is consistent with allowing scripture and people from that age to speak for themselves and accept that the hermeneutic you're applying would itself be somewhat foreign to them. I'm not saying that in an absolute sense, but more in terms of degree.

YEC is not "the" literal hermeneutic. YEC is "a" literal hermeneutic and much of it finds its roots in response to the scientific era, even more I would argue than the OEC, but I accept you'll see that differently.

There was not a debate in heliocentric versus geocentric models prior to it's coming up with the advance of knowlege of the natural world. However, the heliocentric model prevailed despite the appeal to the Bible and the historically predominant hermeneutic, and the argument that to accept otherwise was to diminish Scripture.

I argue that Scripture was not diminished. The heremeneutic was and it was diminished because it proved faulty. Appeals to Scripture are susceptible to that when the position equates their theology with the Bible itself. What is really at stake is a willingness to adopt some humility and to be willing to accept, even if not presently convinced that an alternative understanding is preferable, that it is at least possible. Given that historically the creation account and understanding of it has not been elevated to many creedal elements

In terms of your syllogism I reject your Major Premise and what therefore follows.

I would not expect a YEC/OEC debate throughout Church history or Judaism. I think elements of what those categories claim today can be seen throughout that history with different times and places showing what we would consider as hindsite to be applicable. Most of the people involved at least up until the 4th century AD when there was something of a sea change and incorporation or Greek and Roman philosophies previously not as present, would not have as an expression of their world view and understanding of Scripture have even thought to ask the question in the form we now debate it.

The understanding of a 24 hours day was not necessary to the original audience in terms of the primary message of the passage, nor does the understanding of them as an age diminish the message.

What is diminished potentially is the hermeneutic employed in YEC which while important, is not the equivilent of Scripture itself.

Also ignored is the possibility that neither a 24 hour literal day or an extended age may have been intended and it's possible (I don't agree with it) that a more metaphorical approach with day being used in the sense of organizing and categorizing God's creative activity which then tied to the more specific history of Genesis in Chapter 12 - 50, is possible as an option in which case, YEC and OEC would not be really an issue of the Biblical text and presumably freedom could exist to believe either way with no real impact upon the approach.

In any event, it's clear that you've landed on your hermeneutic and are reasoning back from a position that you are convinced is true and I respect that, even while I disagree with the degree to which you've taken it and the unwillingness some of your statements indicate to allow that principled disagreement can exist and differing conclusions reached without asserting that the other understanding is not literal or that your position equates to the Scripture itself. I've been there before and I no longer find that type of approach tenable.

I think we're to a point where we'll probably continue to repeat ourselves so may I ask that we limit moving forward on this to issues other than what we've stated and stick to either new elements or clarifying and not continue on those elements upon which we disagree.

Jac3510 wrote:In light of the fact that no CF interpreted yom as an age (much less that they held to Ross' argument that the word literally means 'age'), is it not fair to ask whether or not that view comes out of a modern scientific worldview rather than an actual exegesis of the text?

Allow me to stick my nose in for a quick comment. It is not necessary to demonstrate that no CF interpreted yom as an age, no more than it is necessary for us today to interpret yom as an infinite time (as in multi-verse) were it to be demonstrated true a few millennia from now. It is sufficient to demonstrate at least one CF interpreted yom as anything but a literal 24-hour day to necessitate an alternative read on yom, whatever that may be. And I think evidence to that effect is abundant.

Byblos wrote:t is not necessary to demonstrate that no CF interpreted yom as an age, no more than it is necessary for us today to interpret yom as an infinite time (as in multi-verse) were it to be demonstrated true a few millennia from now. It is sufficient to demonstrate at least one CF interpreted yom as anything but a literal 24-hour day to necessitate an alternative read on yom, whatever that may be. And I think evidence to that effect is abundant.

From Augustine's The City of God, XI, Chap. 6,*

[...] in these days [of Creation] 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.

In Chapters 7, 8 and 9, Augustine goes on to opine that these «days» may have been nothing more than 7 different aspects of a single moment of creation, a poof! in which everything came into being through the Word. This is the exact way that Aquinas interprets Augustine:

I answer that, On this question Augustine differs from other expositors. His opinion is that all the days that are called seven, are one day represented in a sevenfold aspect, while others consider there were seven distinct days. (Summa Theologica**, First Part, Article 2, objection 4.)

FL

*City of God, translated by Marcus Dods, T & T Clark, Edinburgh.
**Summa Theologica, translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, revised by Daniel J. Sullivan, U. of Chicago.

Anyone is welcome to stick their nose in. This thread is developing very differently than I intended, but that is fine.

The early Church Fathers had some understandings which appear to be pretty universally held at the time which have subsequently been departed from and would differ very significantly from what is understood and practiced today in evangelical circles. Apparently there is not a very strong thought that the teachings and practices of the church most closely connected to the direct oral tradition of Christ and the Apostles are any more pristine or to be favored over latter developments. I suspect if similar arguments were presented to Jac or other YEC proponents which would suggest that because the Church Fathers did not exegete or demonstrate the same methods and understanding of what are now accepted as core doctrines, the same syllogisms would not necessarily come into play.

I simply wanted to provide some source materials to give some illustration of what comments and observations were made by those earliest of Christians with regard to creation, and creation days and I did not have an agenda to attempt to draw them into a positional juxtaposition attempting to superimpose upon them who were YEC and who were OEC, which in all likelihood would have been a foreign categorization to most if not all of them.

It's just been interesting to me to let them speak for themselves.

So, while I'll continue to respond in the apparent direction that this thread is now taking (which again is fine) I'll continue to put up some more quotes and again, I will not attempt to filter them to try and push YEC or OEC.