Even if you "fully allegorize" Genesis, it wouldn't support an eternal Earth. In fact, it would deny an eternal Earth. It's not clear what you mean by "fully allegorized", since allegories are meant to be factual, in figurative language.
Nope. Since it says it had a beginning, that's not a possible interpretation.
Depends on how you allegorize it. You seem to underestimate the imaginations of men.
The creation story has no genealogies.
That's why it says, "[Gen 2:4 KJV] These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," Just like it says at the beginning of all the genealogies:
[Gen 2:4 KJV] These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
[Gen 6:9 KJV] These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.
[Gen 10:1 KJV] Now these [are] the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
[Gen 11:10 KJV] These [are] the generations of Shem: Shem [was] an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
[Gen 11:27 KJV] Now these [are] the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
[Gen 25:12 KJV] Now these [are] the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham:
[Gen 25:19 KJV] And these [are] the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham begat Isaac:
[Gen 36:1 KJV] Now these [are] the generations of Esau, who [is] Edom.
[Gen 36:9 KJV] And these [are] the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in mount Seir:
[Gen 37:2 KJV] These [are] the generations of Jacob. Joseph, [being] seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad [was] with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives: and Joseph brought unto his father their evil report.
But even without that, the part of creation that most applies to man is the part that introduces Adam, in chapter 1. His genealogy? He was from God. Eve was from Adam. The story continues by revealing that Adam and Eve had two sons, only one of which survived to procreate. Then it says they had other sons and daughters. Some of those are named, and have some of their descendants named. The time between birth of one generation and the succeeding generation is given. How much more genealogy could there be?
Are you instead saying the creation story can't be taken literally, nor any times derived from it, because it doesn't tell from whom Adam descended???????? Such a position was foreign to Augustine. You do him a great disservice by claiming to agree with him.
Forcing a literal interpretation of Genesis produces logical absurdities like mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them.
Why so? Do you not know it is morning even before the sun rises? Do you not know it is evening even though you can't see the sun? The light may be coming from the sun, but you couldn't tell that was the case if you didn't already know about the sun.
You seem to want to hang onto this particular idea--that light comes only from the sun--despite myself and others, including all scientific theories, telling you that such is NOT the case. Surely you can admit of a fault in your logic here producing perceived absurdities?
The evidence available to him did not rule out an Earth no greater than 10,000 years old. However, as you know, he acknowledged that where scripture is not explicit, we should be willing to change our interpretations if new evidence so indicates.
See above. He studied Genesis for a long time and realized that it was not a literal history. The "days" of Genesis are figurative. His finding, that creation was done in an instant, from which all things developed in time, is remarkably consistent with the evidence we see in the world.
You must be reading a different Augustine. The one I read said that the six days, including the creation of the sun, moon, stars, plants, fish, birds, animals, and man, were done in an instant. That is DEFINITELY NOT consistent with the evidence we see in the world, and DEFINITELY NOT consistent with current scientific theories about how the world came into being.
Think about it. How long after the creation of the universe do you think the first plant or animal appeared?
But you have finally answered a question I've asked in several ways--the reason you want to change the meaning of the words in Genesis is because you don't think they fit with current scientific theories about the age of the earth. And you acknowledged here that in Augustine's day, they didn't have any other evidence. And NOT having evidence to the contrary, Augustine didn't have any problem with saying that the earth is less than 6000 years old. I wonder whether he would feel the same today. But there were theories in his day that the earth was more than 6000 years old. Some said it was eternal. He wasn't swayed by that, BECAUSE he read the words of the bible and considered that they were true--that they said the earth was no more than 6000 years old.
Augustine was a young earth creationist.
The age of the Earth has nothing to do with Christian orthodoxy. If you deny the fact of an Earth many millions of years old, it doesn't mean you aren't an orthodox Christian. God doesn't care if you approve or not; it won't affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of YE, and demand that all Christians must believe it.
Is that what I'm doing? Is that what other YE creationists are doing?
As you have seen, I am asking you to believe it as written, without the alterations of YE doctrine.
Can you point out where they've altered the bible?
As you have seen, St. Augustine simply let the text interpret itself, and realized it was figurative, not literal history.
"Less than 6000 years old" is not a figurative reading of the text. Augustine allowed for different interpretations in sections where the text was hard to understand, and he used other scripture, as best he could, to help interpret it. He wasn't using scientific theories from his day to interpret the age of the earth.
When I note that literal mornings and evenings without a sun are logically absurd, 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 made-YE sources.
I think you're saying here that because you don't agree with the group I tend to align myself with, my basis is shaky. I'm I reading that correctly?
So people could understand them. If the details of the way He made the universe and life, and all other things was critical to His message to us, He might have been more explicit about those things. But it's not what Genesis is about. It's about God and man, and our relationship.
Then God must have missed His goal, as people understand them in different ways. I would venture that such is possible with any part of scripture--that people can come to different understandings--including the gospel message. But if there are wrong understandings of the gospel, that no doubt God wanted people to understand correctly, then it seems to be more of a function of the readers willingness to accept what is provided as truth, rather than whether truth was provided. This is eternally fatal to some people, if I understand the gospel correctly.
While the creation story might not carry the same eternal consequences, it was inspired by the same Deity. And it seems strange to me that He would give people something that required a lot of outside knowledge (not provided in the text) to understand. Maybe to appreciate fully, but not to understand.
Since the allegorical nature of Genesis was noted over a thousand years ago, a literal interpretation is the "different" one; a modern version, only as old as 20th century. YE creationists were unhappy with Genesis as it is, and came up with a re-interpretation that seemed better to them.
If precedence is set by when the interpretation was first noted, "over a thousand years ago" is hardly worth mentioning, even if the world is only 6000 years old, but especially so if it is much older. And if people more than 2000 years ago and those only a hundred years ago are coming to similar conclusions, why is it that the intervening conclusions, even if you happened to portray them correctly, are more valid? It MUST be that you feel science has invalidated the modern and the ancient YE's story, right?
Why? The only thing I can think of is that they felt that their own desires were a more trustworthy source of truth--that the history of the earth from a YE perspective is more trustworthy to them than the words God gave them in Genesis, so they imagine that the words should mean something else--something more in keeping with what they personally preferred.
From all I can see, and I've studied this quite a bit, they really feel like they are adhering, rather than departing, from the words God gave them in Genesis.
Moses didn't do it. God did it, and Moses took it down. God did it that way so that Moses would understand. Remember, God wasn't trying to get Moses a degree in cosmology or biology; He was explaining what He did and what it means to man.
Is it possible that God's wisdom, as revealed by His words, are more valuable than a degree in cosmology or biology?
We all do. The point is, that is the message He's giving us. Not the details of the way He created things. He only wants us to know that He did create all things, while the precise way He did it, is not important to salvation in the least.
Then the YE version is just as valid as the Augustine version. You have no reason to argue for one over the other. Your argument, if I understand it, is that the modern old earth position (which is probably less nailed down than the YE position, and certainly doesn't follow Augustine's position) is more conducive to attracting unbelievers to the gospel. My position is that it destroys the gospel by making the words of God malleable enough to say anything you want them to say.
The critical thing is to get from it, what He intended us to get. But yes, knowing more about the way He made things, is indeed a very good thing. Francis Collins has a very good book out about the way that his investigations into genetics enriched and deepened his faith in God. It's worth finding out.
But unless He tells us what He intends us to get from it, you've just shifted the focus of the argument.
He had no evidence for the age of the Earth, but pointed out that it could not be eternal. Having no evidence to the contrary, he considered it to be a few thousand years old. But as you know, he acknowledged that such conclusions were subject to future knowledge.
Then how did he come up with the estimation of less than 6000 years? He HAD evidence. He USED that evidence. He calculated that the earth was not yet 6000 years old. Why do you keep ignoring that and say that he somehow agreed with the old earth position?
When scripture mentions "science (so-called)", it's not what you seem to think it is. Might be worth investigating.
I can see why you might think that, since you like to pour different meanings into peoples' words. God's, Augustine's, and now mine.
As you see, scripture uses "day" in more than one way. I'm merely pointing out that if it was a physical death God was speaking of, Adam would not have lived on for many years thereafter. Again, assuming it meant a physical death leads to logical absurdities.
Rather, I'm objecting to the YE redefinition, to fit their preferences.
If it's a redefinition, it's only a redefinition back to how the words were originally defined.
It doesn't seem "wooden" to point out that if God meant a physical death, Adam wouldn't have lived on for many years thereafter.
...
But not the day he did it, as God promised. If God is trustworthy, then it was not a physical death.
The "wooden" part is that you somehow decided here that "day" meant 24 hours--and can mean nothing else--whereas elsewhere you can't stomach the idea of "day" meaning 24 hours, despite plenty of evidence that it could mean so. (Evidence, I might point out, that they are willing to explain in detail to those willing to listen. Evidence from studying the text to try to figure out what the words mean and how they are used.)
And then you claim to be logically consistent??:
As you see, I'm logically consistent. If you abandon that, then any interpretation, even YE creationism, is equally likely.
So you've shown me. Even your interpretation, yes? As you can see, I disagree that you are logically consistent. thus, you pointing out that I see that you are logically consistent is an illogical response to my pointing out that you are logically inconsistent.
Thus, you seem to have abandoned logic even in this conversation, much more so in your search to justify a re-interpretation of the 6 days of Genesis.
However, that book is not the book of Genesis, so YE creationists have that going for them. Fact is, He doesn't care what you think of the way He created things.
That's funny. I could have sworn that He derives glory from how we view His creativity, as well as how well we accept His testimony:
[Psa 19:1 KJV] The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
[Psa 19:2 KJV] Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
[Psa 19:7 KJV] The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple.
[Psa 19:8 KJV] The statutes of the LORD [are] right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD [is] pure, enlightening the eyes.
[Psa 19:14 KJV] Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
