YE creationism is much more than imagining a world only a few thousand years old.
Ok, I'm still waiting to hear what YE creationism is about.
Augustine's rejection of an eternal Earth as the Pagans supposed it to be?
"They are deceived, too, by those highly
mendacious documents, which profess to give the
history of many thousand years, though, reckoning
by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years
have yet passed."
Augustine's reasoning was sound as far as an eternal Earth was concerned. He knew that was impossible. Since he had no evidence as far as the age of the Earth was concerned, he supposed that Genesis, although figurative, did not rule out a 5,000 year-old Earth. However, he did leave us this:
In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture. – Genesi Ad Litteram
Seems like good advice. But if he was countering those that said the earth had forever been, I don't see how he can get that from a fully allegorized Genesis. In other words, allegorizing Genesis allows for any kind of earth, eternal or not. That's not what Augustine was doing. Augustine believed Genesis' genealogies, and used them to show that "the beginning" was a real thing. I don't agree with him when he allegorizes the 6 days--I don't find it necessary to do so. But he hardly supported a creation story millions of years longer by doing so, rather that creation might have been six days shorter.
Seems as though he's an entirely orthodox Christian, when you understand what he was getting at.
Why do you love Augustine so much when he obviously disagrees with your position? Are you now saying that you are NOT orthodox, since you believe in a much older than 6000 year earth?
I've actually read him. He's remarkably sensible and even modest. But it help if you know what the quotes are about.
Here's another:
Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.
Yes, that was my point to you. If you tell people not to believe Genesis as written, how will they believe you when you tell them to believe Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as written?
Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
ibid
Does this not as equally (or more so) apply to you as to me? You claim I don't understand what the scriptures is saying, and I claim the same about you. You base your understanding on supposed knowledge revealed from external sources. I base my understanding on the meaning of words. I will admit that if the meaning of words is not consistent, then my basis is shaky. But your basis is shaky by the nature of your human sources, which admit there is much to be both learned and corrected in science.
That's a great question. It's about a search for certainty. For simple instructions that can't be misunderstood or cause any confusion or searching. And that's not totally wrong. Jesus said you must, as a child say "Abba" (daddy). Literalism is a consequence of that search. In that new religious movement, there's the claim that it's all simple and direct in all things.
Rather that search is a consequence of literalism. I don't think creationists are searching for simple instructions. I think they are reading simple statements as simple statements, unless there is reason to believe they aren't so simple. "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth" is a fairly simple statement--it tells us things like "Adam existed", "Adam lived at least 130 years", and "Seth descended from Adam". Because Adam is not introduced in this verse, we presume that the earlier verses about Adam tell more about what happened to Adam prior to him begetting Seth, back to the time when Adam is introduced in the scriptures. The same thing happens with the following verses, where it tells us more information about Seth and Adam--that Adam had more sons and daughters, and that Seth also begat a son, plus other sons and daughters.
These things could easily be allegorized, but to what purpose? Isn't the main reason to allegorize these statements to allow a different interpretation of them? Why? The only thing I can think of is that you feel like you have a more trustworthy source of truth--that the history of the earth from a "scientific" perspective is more trustworthy to you than the words you read in Genesis, so you imagine that the words should mean something else--something more in keeping with what you have read from other (non-biblical) sources.
Matthew 13:10 And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables?
[11] Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given. [12] For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath. [13] Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. [14] And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. [15] For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
So there are things that God reveals to some, but not to all. And yet, salvation is simple.
Jesus, on one hand says "Here, it's really not hard; there are two great commandments, and everything else hangs on them. Do that. Follow the example of a Samaritan, if he has charity, and shun the learned Levite, if he has not. For what you do for the least of these among you, is done for me, and that will decide where you spend eternity."
On the other hand, he's speaking in parables, deliberately obscuring things from most people, and requiring his disciples to puzzle through them and learn. And much of scripture is like that.
Did Jesus have a reason to speak in parables? Yes, He did. Not every Christian agrees on what that reason meant, but He gave a reason. Did Moses have a reason to write the creation story in allegory? I don't know, he didn't give a reason. And I can't think of a good reason. Maybe you can. Since all else of the the books of Moses are written straight-forwardly (non-allegorically), why start it out differently?
Coming to terms with the "matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision" as St. Augustine described them, is a difficult thing. The key, I think, is that theology won't save you. But loving God and your neighbor will.
Again, this is non-sequitur. I appreciate that you are encouraging me to love God and my neighbor--I'm sure I need that kind of encouragement. But if we are looking to understand God, to seek Him to understand His creation better, don't we want to understand His revelation to us, on whatever topic His revelation speaks?
But we can mislead ourselves. That was Augustine's point about "reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture" who do much harm, thereby. When someone makes careless claims about scripture, it is often heard by unbelievers who know better, and they may wrongly assume that the reckless expounder is expressing essential Christian faith.
Was Augustine misleading himself and others when he said the scriptures say the earth is no more than 6000 years old?
Yes. And that is the real damage that YE creationism does. It won't send you to hell; God does not care what you think of the way He created things. He cares that you love Him and other people, and act on it. But YE lays stumbling blocks in the way of others who might otherwise come to Him. And that is a serious matter, even if you're innocent in your intentions.
Does evolution send people to hell? Does science (so-called) send people to hell?
We disagree on some of what scripture says,
No. He said:
Genesis 2:16 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.
"In what day soever though shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death." Adam eats and lives on physically for many years thereafter. So we know it's not a physical death God was speaking of. Indeed, Adam was not immortal. After the Fall, God even expresses concern that Adam might become so.
So here you have to redefine death to fit with scriptures' "day", but in Gen 1 you want to redefine scriptures' day to fit with your (allegorical) story. Why do you need scriptures to be so woodenly literal here that you have to change the meaning of the word "die" to keep the meaning of the word "day"? You're not consistent, my dear Barbarian. Now one will have to have a playbook, written by you and you only, to understand the scriptures...when they can be read literally and when they can't be.
Can you really not see that you've painted yourself into a(n allegorical) corner, where no interpretation is sure?
Yes, it is. And the serpent undermines this with Eve, by saying "you won't die; your eyes will be open and you'll know good and evil." And when she eats and has Adam eat, the serpent was right - partially. Their eyes are open, and they don't die physically. But they die a different death, which is spiritual, not physical. Satan is most effective at deception by speaking part of the truth.
And you're saying that scripture can be just as effective by speaking part truth.
But they DID die physically, just as everyone has died physically since then (with a couple possible exceptions, as is God's prerogative). And they died "in that day" that they ate of the fruit. You have already gone on record saying that "day" can mean a number of things:
Actually "yom", which as you know, can mean various things.
Maybe you were talking allegorically in that post. Hard to know, isn't it??
I'm just accepting it His way to the very best of my ability. So, I suppose, are you. It's not a subject that will send you to hell, if you don't get this right.
He is a loving and caring God after all. And that's what he wants from you. Go and do likewise.
I am concerned about what happens to people (including myself, potentially) who want to change what God says, either adding to or taking away from His words to us. He gives us fair warning:
[Rev 22:19 KJV] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
This passage is more specific to the content of the book it's in, but it seems to be a pretty serious thing--some might even say impinging on our eternal destination, to add to or take away from God's words.
