Christian Discussion Thread V

[Gim]

So, he took the Bible literally?

Yes.

That is what I've been telling the guy: Not to take the Bible literally. However, he kept "upping the ante".

[Uxupox]

Your number #1 point is no where mentioned in the Bible. In fact the idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old came from a theologian ( I don't remember who was it exactly, I know it was either a Catholic or Protestant theologian) in which he took a literal interpretation of the Bible and started counting the dates between the long lapses in each segment.

It was the Irish Archbishop named James Ussher in the 1600's.

Yea that was the guy.

[Diopolis]

He just looked at all the "so-and-so begat so-and-so" and added all the dates.

So, he took the Bible literally?

Considering my entire point was "the bible puts a minimum age of the earth at six thousand years", yes.

[Gim]

So, he took the Bible literally?

Considering my entire point was "the bible puts a minimum age of the earth at six thousand years", yes.

Well, that's not exactly six thousand years. Earth is over a million years old.

[Diopolis]

Considering my entire point was "the bible puts a minimum age of the earth at six thousand years", yes.

Well, that's not exactly six thousand years. Earth is over a million years old.

A million is more than six thousand, is it not?

[Uxupox]

So, he took the Bible literally?

Considering my entire point was "the bible puts a minimum age of the earth at six thousand years", yes.

The Bible never directly states that the Earth is 6000 years old.

[Grand Calvert]

Yes.

That is what I've been telling the guy: Not to take the Bible literally. However, he kept "upping the ante".

I take the creation account literally; after all, if there was no literal Adam and Eve, then how did sin enter the world?

[Diopolis]

Considering my entire point was "the bible puts a minimum age of the earth at six thousand years", yes.

The Bible never directly states that the Earth is 6000 years old.

We've been over this. The chronology of the book of genesis puts six thousand years as a lower limit on the age of the earth. This does not in any way endorse the creationist nonsense that the earth is only six thousand years old, only that a reasonably plain reading of the bible would suggest that it cannot be less than six thousand years old.

[Gim]

That is what I've been telling the guy: Not to take the Bible literally. However, he kept "upping the ante".

I take the creation account literally; after all, if there was no literal Adam and Eve, then how did sin enter the world?

I believe that, but believing the world was created in six days or even six thousand years? No.

[Tmutarakhan]

I also considered linking to the relevant TvTropes page.

IT'S A TRAP!

[Uxupox]

The Bible never directly states that the Earth is 6000 years old.

We've been over this. The chronology of the book of genesis puts six thousand years as a lower limit on the age of the earth. This does not in any way endorse the creationist nonsense that the earth is only six thousand years old, only that a reasonably plain reading of the bible would suggest that it cannot be less than six thousand years old.

Do you take it literally when God created the Earth in 7 days as well?

[Diopolis]

That is what I've been telling the guy: Not to take the Bible literally. However, he kept "upping the ante".

I take the creation account literally; after all, if there was no literal Adam and Eve, then how did sin enter the world?

Adam and Eve being literally true doesn't necessarily require the rest of the creation story to be literally true. Many people believe in some variant of theistic evolution to lead to the creation of the human race, but that Adam and Eve just refer to the first human beings to be given rational rather than merely material souls by the Creator. After that, they multiplied and interbred with the non-rational souled humans until every human being is a descendant of Adam and Eve, and thus has a rational soul. This also explains what the other tribe that Cain's wife came from was.

[Gim]

We've been over this. The chronology of the book of genesis puts six thousand years as a lower limit on the age of the earth. This does not in any way endorse the creationist nonsense that the earth is only six thousand years old, only that a reasonably plain reading of the bible would suggest that it cannot be less than six thousand years old.

Do you take it literally when God created the Earth in 7 days as well?

[Grand Calvert]

I take the creation account literally; after all, if there was no literal Adam and Eve, then how did sin enter the world?

Adam and Eve being literally true doesn't necessarily require the rest of the creation story to be literally true. Many people believe in some variant of theistic evolution to lead to the creation of the human race, but that Adam and Eve just refer to the first human beings to be given rational rather than merely material souls by the Creator. After that, they multiplied and interbred with the non-rational souled humans until every human being is a descendant of Adam and Eve, and thus has a rational soul. This also explains what the other tribe that Cain's wife came from was.

To be honest, I don't think the Bible gives us enough to come to that conclusion. There's never a distinction between rational and non-rational souls...and I think that if you're going to take the Adam and Eve story literally, then you have to take the seven day creation account literally, as, again, no clear distinction is made as to what is meant to be taken literally.

[Diopolis]

Adam and Eve being literally true doesn't necessarily require the rest of the creation story to be literally true. Many people believe in some variant of theistic evolution to lead to the creation of the human race, but that Adam and Eve just refer to the first human beings to be given rational rather than merely material souls by the Creator. After that, they multiplied and interbred with the non-rational souled humans until every human being is a descendant of Adam and Eve, and thus has a rational soul. This also explains what the other tribe that Cain's wife came from was.

To be honest, I don't think the Bible gives us enough to come to that conclusion. There's never a distinction between rational and non-rational souls...and I think that if you're going to take the Adam and Eve story literally, then you have to take the seven day creation account literally, as, again, no clear distinction is made as to what is meant to be taken literally.

Given that I reject sola scriptura, that's not a particularly damning criticism. My answer to "how do you know to take this part literally but not the other part" is "the church tells us".

[Grand Calvert]

To be honest, I don't think the Bible gives us enough to come to that conclusion. There's never a distinction between rational and non-rational souls...and I think that if you're going to take the Adam and Eve story literally, then you have to take the seven day creation account literally, as, again, no clear distinction is made as to what is meant to be taken literally.

Given that I reject sola scriptura, that's not a particularly damning criticism. My answer to "how do you know to take this part literally but not the other part" is "the church tells us".

I suppose you could say that, but surely the Church must have a reason to take some parts literally and some not, even when there's no clear distinction. But there really isn't any reason when we look at the text. So, my question is; How did the Church draw this conclusion?

[Diopolis]

Given that I reject sola scriptura, that's not a particularly damning criticism. My answer to "how do you know to take this part literally but not the other part" is "the church tells us".

I suppose you could say that, but surely the Church must have a reason to take some parts literally and some not, even when there's no clear distinction. But there really isn't any reason when we look at the text. So, my question is; How did the Church draw this conclusion?

Christian tradition. Since Augustine(who was in all likelihood the first to write the distinction down rather than the originator of it), the church has taught that the seven day creation story is not to be taken literally but the Adam and Eve story is.

[Grand Calvert]

I suppose you could say that, but surely the Church must have a reason to take some parts literally and some not, even when there's no clear distinction. But there really isn't any reason when we look at the text. So, my question is; How did the Church draw this conclusion?

Christian tradition. Since Augustine(who was in all likelihood the first to write the distinction down rather than the originator of it), the church has taught that the seven day creation story is not to be taken literally but the Adam and Eve story is.

Interesting...do we know any other earlier sources who rejected 7-day creation, or why Augustine rejected 7-day creation?

[Diopolis]

Christian tradition. Since Augustine(who was in all likelihood the first to write the distinction down rather than the originator of it), the church has taught that the seven day creation story is not to be taken literally but the Adam and Eve story is.

Interesting...do we know any other earlier sources who rejected 7-day creation, or why Augustine rejected 7-day creation?

Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish philosopher who seems to be the first to have rejected the literal interpretation of the seven days model(he took the rest of Genesis literally).
Other church fathers who rejected a literal seven day creation include Origen and St. Basil the great. Thomas Aquinas largely reiterated Augustine's teaching on creation. The first theologian to have believed in a literal seven day creation seems to have been Luther.

[Grand Calvert]

Interesting...do we know any other earlier sources who rejected 7-day creation, or why Augustine rejected 7-day creation?

Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish philosopher who seems to be the first to have rejected the literal interpretation of the seven days model(he took the rest of Genesis literally).
Other church fathers who rejected a literal seven day creation include Origen and St. Basil the great. Thomas Aquinas largely reiterated Augustine's teaching on creation. The first theologian to have believed in a literal seven day creation seems to have been Luther.

Hmm...but so did they argue for why the 7-day creation theory was wrong? I mean, someone must have taught it in order for them to have rejected it. I apologize if you find this frustrating, but I just don't see (in the text) any reason to say that one part is literal and another is not.

[Salus Maior]

It was the Irish Archbishop named James Ussher in the 1600's.

To be fair, such an assumption would have seemed reasonable at that time.

[Diopolis]

Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish philosopher who seems to be the first to have rejected the literal interpretation of the seven days model(he took the rest of Genesis literally).
Other church fathers who rejected a literal seven day creation include Origen and St. Basil the great. Thomas Aquinas largely reiterated Augustine's teaching on creation. The first theologian to have believed in a literal seven day creation seems to have been Luther.

Hmm...but so did they argue for why the 7-day creation theory was wrong? I mean, someone must have taught it in order for them to have rejected it. I apologize if you find this frustrating, but I just don't see (in the text) any reason to say that one part is literal and another is not.

Augustine based his off of both church tradition(firmly against a seven day creation at that time) and some esoteric arguments about the nature of God which I don't quite understand well enough to explain.

[Grand Calvert]

Hmm...but so did they argue for why the 7-day creation theory was wrong? I mean, someone must have taught it in order for them to have rejected it. I apologize if you find this frustrating, but I just don't see (in the text) any reason to say that one part is literal and another is not.

Augustine based his off of both church tradition(firmly against a seven day creation at that time) and some esoteric arguments about the nature of God which I don't quite understand well enough to explain.

But who was the person who first started that church tradition? Do we know?

[Diopolis]

Augustine based his off of both church tradition(firmly against a seven day creation at that time) and some esoteric arguments about the nature of God which I don't quite understand well enough to explain.

But who was the person who first started that church tradition? Do we know?

It can probably be ultimately traced back to Philo of Alexandria, but was likely established as part of the tradition handed on by the apostles. That's just speculation, however.

[Tmutarakhan]

Humans say so. Those humans may or may not know anything more about God than anyone else.

Humans don't know much about God, but God does keep telling them what is righteous and what is not.

All we have is HUMANS telling us that God is saying this is righteous and that isn't.

Well, there is actually biblical evidence for this: 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

We've been over this before. The verse says "All kinds of writings are inspired and useful for instruction..." It is an admonition to look widely at a variety of literature, not an assertion that some limited list of books (no "canon" even of the Old Testament existed yet) is separate from all others. Furthermore, it is only an assertion by some human, who wrote 2nd Timothy: that person is pretending to be Paul, although he isn't, and his inability to be honest even about who he is rather limits the amount of deference I want to give him.