I cited two Greek (St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa) and one Latin Father of the Church (Blessed Augustine), all of whom lived in a culture and intellectual environment far closer to the Holy Apostles than we do, all of whom were dubious about taking the narrative of Genesis literally -- though St. Basil after the remark I quoted early in his Hexameron comments throughout the rest of the book as if 'day' were literally a 'day' -- with no pressure for the modern secular world or Darwinism to doubt a literal reading. The tradition of the Kingdom of God as the "eighth and eternal day" and with it the idea that all of history lies within the seventh day, on which God rested from His work of creation, is very old, very well established in the Church's consciousness, was so for centuries before Charles Darwin's great-grandfather was born, and quite frankly opposed to a literal reading of "day" as a twenty-four hour period in the early chapters of Genesis.
The real problem with literal readings is that they don't exist: all words, all turns of phrase, are always subject to interpretation, and interpretations are colored by the cultural milieu of the reader. This is one reason we Orthodox make a point of reading Scripture in light of what the Church has thought and taught about its meaning down the centuries, with particular emphasis on the early Fathers who were closer in time and in external cultural milieu to Our Lord during His earthly ministry and His Holy Apostles. (The other is that the Church was the instrument of the Holy Spirit in completing the editorial process of selecting the canon of Scripture, and thus the Scriptures are the Church's books -- they were selected because the Church knew them to be true, when read as the Church read and reads them.)
Reading Genesis through the eyes of post-'Enlightenment' (note the scorn quotes, that name for the historical period is a demonic deception) rationalism, rather than the eyes of the Church, leads to misreading. (See my earlier comment about "literally true" meaning "communicating truth when read as if written by and for post-'Enlightenment' rationalists".) And it seems to be such a reading you are clinging to. Even Orthodox Christians like Fr. Seraphim Rose, who favor a more literal reading, the Church's use of the seventh and eighth days as non-literal days notwithstanding, read the text very differently than protestant six-day-literalists.
[[all of whom lived in a culture and intellectual environment far closer to the Holy Apostles than we do, all of whom were dubious about taking the narrative of Genesis literally]]
I don’t care what their credentials were- the Greeks were scholars as well, as were the muslims back when- and many of them got the their scripture itnerpetatiosn all screwed up too-
[[is very old, very well established in the Church’s consciousness,]]
Now we are appealing to age as a reason to trust? Mithra is an ancient religion as well- a pagan religion- a pagan religion which influenced many peopel even up to the point of the desciples and the townspeople of that tiem who tried to infuse their ‘ancient pagan traditions’ in with Christianity- Paul had to chastise the Christians for trying to reconcile the two-
[[is very old, very well established in the Church’s consciousness,]]
You’ve still given no good reason to doubt that it meaqnt anythign other than a literal day whereas I’ve pointed to literature and writings that show why it needs to be read in the context in which it is written-
[[he real problem with literal readings is that they don’t exist: all words, all turns of phrase, are always subject to interpretation,]]
I see, so God’s word is not really the same ‘today, yesterday, and in the future- it’s open to itnerpretations? Well, with so many different itnerpretations, what is a person supposed to do? You keep appealing to ‘popularitry, and to ‘age’ as criteria for trusting soemone elses itnerpretations- yet I can cite hundreds of ancient itnerpretations and scholars whjo were also off their mark-
[[and interpretations are colored by the cultural milieu of the reader.]]
that is true- which is why Andrew Steinmann did his exhaustive study of the Hebrew i nregards to the creation record and came to the conclusion he did-
[[This is one reason we Orthodox make a point of reading Scripture in light of what the Church has thought and taught about its meaning down the centuries]]
That’sw swell- thjere still has been no explanation for why the first word for day shoudl be anythign other than a literal day- All you’ve basically implied thus far was that because soem folks in ancient church thought it meant long periods of time, it must have meant that’ without givign any evidence to back their belief up- (Perhaps Christ whispered that to them or to their fathers, or grandfathers and simpyl kept it secret from the public?)
[[And it seems to be such a reading you are clinging to.]]
Pssst- You’ve still provided no evidence for your claim- WhY woudl I possibly doubt that Gods meant anythign other than a literal 6 days especially when we learn that the Hebrews often wrote the cardinal and then the ordinal lsits when describign lists, and wrote them 1000’s of years before the church (see, I can appeal to age too)? Now the church and you come along and many 1000’s of yeasrs later and claim that using hte cardinal first to establish the importance of the precedence followed by the description of the precedence means somethign compeltelty different and claim that becauser it’s the church is ancient and because gthere wwere3 scholars who BELIEVED but who havent’ shown, that the cardinal must always pertain to long ages?
I’ll ask again- what is your evidence that the cardinal must mean long ages? Where is your evidence that there was death and sin before the fall of man? Insultign someoen because they ‘cling to’ somethign, which in your apparent opinion, is ‘old fashioned, unenlightened ignorant beleifs’ doeswn’t constitute evidence supporting your claim- appealing to age and credentials also isn’t evidence- ui’;ve provided links ot evidence showign why there is no reason to doubt that the cardinal use meant anythign other than 1 literal day, and all you provide is that soem i nthe early church BELIEVED that it must have meant long ages DESPITE evivdnece that refutes such a beleif-
Again- Did God, or Did God not staste that all of creation was cursed when man sinned and that death was to follow the curse? Did God not state that from Adam’s Rib He formed Eve? Where is the evidence that the cardinal MUST mean long ages when in reference to day i nthe creation record?
If you wish to thuink of me as an ignornat clinger with blinders on, then it shoudl be simpel enopugh for you to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt- so far all we’ve seen are appeals to age and credentials- I too can cite many impressive beleif systems based o nage and credentials- And I can cite cases of church Schisms where doctrines tore churches apart fro no good reason- If the churche’s and scholarse appealing to have evidence supportign their case, let’s present it here- but really, this conversation can go no further until we establish whether or not God was just kiddign when He said that Man woudl surely die and when He said all of creation was placed under the curse AFTER the fall- IF no death occured before the fall, then we will have to establish that species KINDs evovled for billiosn of years WITHOUT (not yelling- my cps are simpyl meant to stress key words) dying, as death was as we know from God’s word (unless there’s soem secret biblical knowledge I’m not aware of) that death was a result of sin and that man’s sin affected ALL of creation at that point
If we can’t establish that- then there’s no reason to say that the creation week was anythign other than a literal week- The only reason one coudl have to deconstruct God’s word, and to throw out passages of His word, and to twist other passages woudl be to support an beleif in theistic evoltuion- The only other reason apart from theistic evoltuion woudl be simpyl because oen beleives that thigns on earth that ‘look old’ are actually old- If you bleeive in special creation, but htink the earth is still old, then that is a whiole nother discussion- one i n which htere is plenty of scientific evidence and theory and hypotrhesis to refute beyond a reasonable doubt-
However, I’f you’re goign to try to convicne everyoen that God took ‘a long time’ to create the world (before creatign man and animals etc)- that a long time passed between day one and the daty man and animals and light etc were all created- or if you are goign to try to convince everyone that God began macroevoltuion ‘A long time before’ man arrived o nthe scene thanks to macroevolution- then you are goign to have to answer soem very basic points regardign God’s word
you’ve not psecifically stated what you bleeive, so it’s kind of hard tryign to guess where you might stand on the issue in iorder to answer appropriately- Sop let’s get this otu of hte way first:
Do you bleeive man evolved and that God ‘began the process of macroevolution’ and stepped back fro mthe process while life evolved? Do you simply bleeive the ‘earth is old’ (and that God later created all thje KINDS we see today) and therefore the first day mentioend in the creation account must mean a ‘long period of time’?
If either of these two scenrios applies, then pelase provide soem evidence other than ‘appeals to’ so that we can discuss the evidnece isntead of some likely error that was beleived ‘long ago’ and taught long ago- As I pointed out- I too can appeal to many scholars, many folks who all pushed an ideology that did not jive with scriptuires- I can also point ot many schisms within ‘the church’ which all BELIEVED (or at least felt strongly and who pushed their feelings on) but who’s beleifs or feelings and doctrines were not consistant with God’s word- Appealing to such folks and beleifs and relgiioons does not constitutte evidence thaqt contradicts a literal reading of God’s word i nregards to the creation record
[[I cited two Greek (St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa) and one Latin Father of the Church (Blessed Augustine), all of whom lived in a culture and intellectual environment far closer to the Holy Apostles than we do, all of whom were dubious about taking the narrative of Genesis literally]]
And I’m sure you are aware that key parts of their ideologies/doctrines have been refuted over the years? Martin Luther, also a scholar, and also livign closer to the apostles than today’s teachers, vehemently dissagreed with the Doctrines of the day- and he showed scriptural reasons why he oppsoed thsoe doctrines, and really, to date, there hasn’t been any scriptural responses to hisd objections to thsoe doctrines- onloy ideological objectiosn to his scripture based objectiosn of the doctrines-
Again- I appreciate that you beleive the early pioneers of the Catholic faith- However, if you are goign to support their ideologies, then you ar goign to need to provide more than ‘They said so’ as that kind of response is not specific enough to address bliblically The type ‘discussion’ we’re having now jjust really only amouinjts to one religion havign an ax to grind against another relgion without anythign to back up the claims being made-
You said “all of whom were dubious about taking the narrative of Genesis literally”
That’s swell- nowp lease explain why- I’ve explaiend with evidence why a literal reading shoudl be done- and why there is no good reason why anythign but a literal reading should be done- Because it contradicts God’s word- and I’ve shown why it contradicts it-
yopu are attemtpting to deconstruct Genesis 1:5-24- and to do so, You’ll need to decosntruct/explain away, other passges throughout His word which support a definition ofa 24 hour period of time i nregards to the creation week days— Again, impltying that we are nothign but ignorant neanderthal, superstition beleiving, bible clingers who stick their greasy grimy unkempt fingers in our ears whenever we hear that ‘scholars who l lived closer to’ The apostles formed an ideology (albeit an inconsistant with scriptures ideology) that “God must have meant a ‘long period of time’ when talking abotu hte creation week record”, isn’t a valid refutation of the evidneces agaisnt your claims