Did the Church Fathers and other early scholars consider Genesis and the Pentateuch literal?

[exchemist]

OK as I said it depends on how St. Augustine meant by science.





As cited this does not included the literal meaning of the text of Genesis and the Pentateuch



Incomplete and contradicts St. Augustine as cited,






Not cherry picking. The different sources are accurate as cited and agree. IF you believe so present your alternative citations that support your assertions, which you have traditionally failed to do.

The citations from different sources document Saint Augustine's view of a literal Genesis

I have given you several but you have not read them, preferring instead the garbage churned out by those charlatans at Answers in Genesis. Why?

This begins to look like a facile Dawkins-esque agenda of choosing the most ludicrous form of Christianity to attack, as an Aunt Sally, and then trying to force-fit the whole of Christian history into that model.

None of the references you have so far produced supports your contention: rather the reverse, in fact.

In the link I gave you, there is a description of Aquinas's idea of the creation story being a matter of creating potential, rather than the final actual results we see on Earth today. And also, by the way, confirmation that John Wesley too, a Protestant who founded Methodism, took the view that Genesis was written in terms comprehensible to the people of the time and should be interpreted in that spirit.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have given you several but you have not read them, preferring instead the garbage churned out by those charlatans at Answers in Genesis.

The answers in Genesis was only cited for the citations of Saint Augustine, and not for the benifit of Answers in Genesis. They are accurate citations of the view of Saint Augustine.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not sure what your point is, here. These men were firm believers and Christian scholars. So of course their default is to give priority to scripture

What is notable however, is that both men state in effect that (i) alternative interpretations of scripture are possible, AND that (ii) if evidence and reason show that a particular interpretation cannot be sustained, then it should be abandoned.

Augustine's remarks about how disgraceful it is for a Christian to talk arrant nonsense about the world and thus incur the ridicule of non-Christians seem very prescient, anticipating the arrival of the Seventh Day Adventists by over a millennium!

And Aquinas's remarks seem to anticipate the arrival of science, and the need for the church to accommodate its teaching to it, by about 400 years.

So both are examples of flexibility in interpretation: the opposite, actually, of some supposed doctrinal rigidity in the face of the facts.

This not true of St, Augustine' view of science and scripture. It is a matter of fact that based on citations St. Augustine gives the literal interpretation of scripture priority over science as cited in St. Augustines view from different sources...

Yes, St Augustine refers to honoring science and the change of knowledge over time in science, but not when it conflicts with scripture. Science in the days of Saint Augustine was very different from how we view science today

 

[Koldo]

What is notable however, is that both men state in effect that (i) alternative interpretations of scripture are possible, AND that (ii) if evidence and reason show that a particular interpretation cannot be sustained, then it should be abandoned.

On a side note, I completely disagree with this reasoning depending on where you are headed with that.
If you are talking about the evidence on what was the intended meaning, sure, we agree.
If however you are talking about evidences about the material world, for example, that directly contradict what is written in a scripture (such as evidence about the creation of the world contradicting Genesis' account) and that therefore we must interpret the scripture in the light of this new found evidence, then hell no, that is absolutely disgusting and a sign of intellectual dishonesty because the underlying premise here would be that the scripture could never be wrong in the first place. We must never assume any scripture must be true. If any given interpretation leads to the scripture saying stupid things, and at the same time this interpretation seems perfectly in line with what the authors intended, then the scripture says stupid things and that's it.

 

[PruePhillip]

As the previous thread this thread deals with specifically 'Did Church Fathers' and early scholars consider Genesis and the Pentateuch historically literal?

In this thread I will emphasize the Orthodox view of the Church Fathers and scholars that represent the overwhelming view of the Christian Churches up until the 20th century.

Origen was previously cited as believing in a dominantly allegorical view of Genesis. This likely true, but he is considered a heretic, and not orthodox by most of Christianity and not a Church Father.

Philo was mentioned as an early Jewish scholar that he believed in an allegorical view of Genesis. This is to a certain extent true, but he was not a Church Father, and even though he lived at the time of Jesus Christ and traveled throughout Rome including Palestine he did not record anything about Jesus. In fact his writngs of historical events in Rome during the life of Jesus is considered very accurate. He is not considered remotely a Church Father. He also believed in a historical literal Exodus, which represents a problem of the historicity and conflicts concerning Exodus as recorded in the Pentateuch. Philo became more popular in the less Orthodox liberal churches in recent history.

I acknowledge unorthodox and allegorical views of Genesis in history, but the dominant view in history is that Genesis is literal history. Yes, I acknowledge that many Church Fathers and scholars believed in both, but did believe in Genesis and the Pentateuch as literal history.

Been reading about this 'Big Bang' and wonder if people really take it literal that it came out of nowhere and for no reason.
Surely they jest - it sounds like people believe in magic or something.

 

[metis]

Been reading about this 'Big Bang' and wonder if people really take it literal that it came out of nowhere and for no reason.

The BB Theory does not say that as it cannot and does not posit the origin. However, there are various scientific hypotheses on what might have.

 

[shunyadragon]

Been reading about this 'Big Bang' and wonder if people really take it literal that it came out of nowhere and for no reason.
Surely they jest - it sounds like people believe in magic or something.

OFF TOPIC sarcasm. Well over 95%+ (probably closer to 100%) of all scientists involved with Physics and Cosmology support the concept of what layman describe as the 'Big Bang' either as the beginning of one of billions or more universe in a multiverse, or one of billions of cyclic universes.

Please stay on topic.

 

[shunyadragon]

The BB Theory does not say that as it cannot and does not posit the origin. However, there are various scientific hypotheses on what might have.

OFF TOPIC! Please do not lead this down the rabbit hole in Alice's Wonderland.

 

[BilliardsBall]

As the previous thread this thread deals with specifically 'Did Church Fathers' and early scholars consider Genesis and the Pentateuch historically literal?

In this thread I will emphasize the Orthodox view of the Church Fathers and scholars that represent the overwhelming view of the Christian Churches up until the 20th century.

Origen was previously cited as believing in a dominantly allegorical view of Genesis. This likely true, but he is considered a heretic, and not orthodox by most of Christianity and not a Church Father.

Philo was mentioned as an early Jewish scholar that he believed in an allegorical view of Genesis. This is to a certain extent true, but he was not a Church Father, and even though he lived at the time of Jesus Christ and traveled throughout Rome including Palestine he did not record anything about Jesus. In fact his writngs of historical events in Rome during the life of Jesus is considered very accurate. He is not considered remotely a Church Father. He also believed in a historical literal Exodus, which represents a problem of the historicity and conflicts concerning Exodus as recorded in the Pentateuch. Philo became more popular in the less Orthodox liberal churches in recent history.

I acknowledge unorthodox and allegorical views of Genesis in history, but the dominant view in history is that Genesis is literal history. Yes, I acknowledge that many Church Fathers and scholars believed in both, but did believe in Genesis and the Pentateuch as literal history.

Parse "early fathers" with the earlier "apostles". Peter and others take Genesis literally and emblematic/representative of the coming Armageddon and judgment.

 

[BilliardsBall]

As the previous thread this thread deals with specifically 'Did Church Fathers' and early scholars consider Genesis and the Pentateuch historically literal?

In this thread I will emphasize the Orthodox view of the Church Fathers and scholars that represent the overwhelming view of the Christian Churches up until the 20th century.

Origen was previously cited as believing in a dominantly allegorical view of Genesis. This likely true, but he is considered a heretic, and not orthodox by most of Christianity and not a Church Father.

Philo was mentioned as an early Jewish scholar that he believed in an allegorical view of Genesis. This is to a certain extent true, but he was not a Church Father, and even though he lived at the time of Jesus Christ and traveled throughout Rome including Palestine he did not record anything about Jesus. In fact his writngs of historical events in Rome during the life of Jesus is considered very accurate. He is not considered remotely a Church Father. He also believed in a historical literal Exodus, which represents a problem of the historicity and conflicts concerning Exodus as recorded in the Pentateuch. Philo became more popular in the less Orthodox liberal churches in recent history.

I acknowledge unorthodox and allegorical views of Genesis in history, but the dominant view in history is that Genesis is literal history. Yes, I acknowledge that many Church Fathers and scholars believed in both, but did believe in Genesis and the Pentateuch as literal history.

Put differently, I prefer in textual studies to review the actual text and the authors' stated opinions--not "early reviewers and commentators" on the texts. Do you agree?

 

[shunyadragon]

It is worthy of note that the dominant literal extended through both the Roman and Protestant Churches as reflected i the words f Martin Luther.

Luther on Evolution

"When Luther looked at the text of Genesis concerning creation, he marvelled at Moses’ use of simple words and was troubled by the way many commentators and writers had confused the clear scriptural account of creation. He warned those of his day that, ‘Among the Hebrews, the Latins or the Greeks, there is no guide whom we can follow with any safety in this area’.1 I Luther was referring to such men as Lucretius (1st century B.C.) who in his writings on, ‘the Nature of the Universe’2 attacked concepts central to the biblical story of creation as ‘sheer nonsense’. Lucretius stated, ‘Nothing can ever be created by divine power out of nothing’ ... ‘the theory that they (the gods) deliberately created the world in all its natural splendour for the sake of man .... This theory ... with all its attendant fictions is sheer nonsense!’

. . .

Luther often cited the creation account as an example of the clarity of Scripture. He accepted the Mosaic authorship of Genesis and that Genesis is the very word of God without qualification. It was his conclusion that the world had not been in existence for more than ‘6,000 years’4, but he stated the philosophers (the evolutionary writers) would never accept that since they work on the basis of human reason which ‘is blind, deaf, senseless, godless and sacrilegious in its dealing with all God’s words and works . . ’5

Two Creation Accounts?
Although many think that the historicity of Genesis and whether it contains two conflicting creation accounts are modern questions, Luther knew the questions and dealt directly with them. He stated in his earthy way that when Moses said something, he meant it. Moses called a spade a spade, as Luther put it. Luther asked, if we cannot understand the meaning of the word ‘day’ how can we possibly use days in the way God intended us to use them?6 Rejecting attempts to explain the six days of creation as accommodations to our limited means of referencing time, he wrote ‘One may not use sophistries with reference to this text.’7 In one particular argument, Luther made reference to the historicity of Moses’ account five times.8 He emphasized, ‘This, I say, is historical.’"

 

[shunyadragon]

Put differently, I prefer in textual studies to review the actual text and the authors' stated opinions--not "early reviewers and commentators" on the texts. Do you agree?

No, internal textual studies are too circular in that they only justify the text by the text. I require and most historians also require outside corroboration of independent sources to support claims in the text of scriptures in ALL religions,

The Bible is not a historical record in and of itself, but an edited redacted and compiled literary compilation set in history written and compiled after the fact without historical records outside the text that does not objectively confirm the religious claims in the text. Thou yes, the Bible does contain facts and persons in history, but this does not justify the accuracy of the text itself. This true of most ancient texts.

 

[shunyadragon]

Parse "early fathers" with the earlier "apostles". Peter and others take Genesis literally and emblematic/representative of the coming Armageddon and judgment.

First the prophesies of Armageddon, judgement and others involving thr return of Jesus Christ are widely variable and contradictory among Christians in history. The literal interpretation of Genesis and the Pentateuch are consistent in history in the foundation of the beliefs of Orthodox Christianity. It is in relative recent history that liberal Churches and the moderation of the Roman Churches adopted amore allegorical interpretation, but kept for the most part the Orthodoxy established under the literal interpretation of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch.

 

[PruePhillip]

OFF TOPIC sarcasm. Well over 95%+ (probably closer to 100%) of all scientists involved with Physics and Cosmology support the concept of what layman describe as the 'Big Bang' either as the beginning of one of billions or more universe in a multiverse, or one of billions of cyclic universes.

Please stay on topic.

The BB Theory does not say that as it cannot and does not posit the origin. However, there are various scientific hypotheses on what might have.

Sure there was probably a Big Bang.
But it's like Genesis - did it LITERALLY COME FROM NOTHING?
Did the Big Bang created itself?
Surely.

And in Genesis did God LITERALLY create the heavens and the earth?
Either He did, or the heavens and the earth created themselves. Now
which one is more 'literal.' Which one can we laugh at, or are BOTH
true?

 

[PruePhillip]

First the prophesies of Armageddon, judgement and others involving thr return of Jesus Christ are widely variable and contradictory among Christians in history. The literal interpretation of Genesis and the Pentateuch are consistent in history in the foundation of the beliefs of Orthodox Christianity. It is in relative recent history that liberal Churches and the moderation of the Roman Churches adopted amore allegorical interpretation, but kept for the most part the Orthodoxy established under the literal interpretation of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch.

Having a Messiah return to finish the prophecies he didn't complete is laughable to many Jews.
But Zechariah 9 and 12 speak of this - that the Jewish Messiah king would rule over the nations,
but the Jews will mourn because it's THE SAME LOWLY FIGURE THEY PIERCED.

 

[shunyadragon]

Having a Messiah return to finish the prophecies he didn't complete is laughable to many Jews.
But Zechariah 9 and 12 speak of this - that the Jewish Messiah king would rule over the nations,
but the Jews will mourn because it's THE SAME LOWLY FIGURE THEY PIERCED.

This thread is not about prophecy

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure there was probably a Big Bang.
But it's like Genesis - did it LITERALLY COME FROM NOTHING?
Did the Big Bang created itself?
Surely.

OFF TOPIC!!! The subject of the thread is not th eBIG BANG Please stay on topic

v And in Genesis did God LITERALLY create the heavens and the earth?
Either He did, or the heavens and the earth created themselves. Now
which one is more 'literal.' Which one can we laugh at, or are BOTH
true?

Not on topic either.

 

[PruePhillip]

Not on topic either.

Topic - Did the Church Fathers and other early scholars consider Genesis and the Pentateuch literal?

Me - And in Genesis did God LITERALLY create the heavens and the earth?
Either He did, or the heavens and the earth created themselves. Now
which one is more 'literal.' Which one can we laugh at, or are BOTH
true?

You would be amazed at how FEW posts are actually on-topic.
You would be amazed how quickly people will cry 'off topic' when a post gets too complicated to handle.

Did the church fathers think Genesis was literal?
Sure did, just like the rest of the bible.
And from Abraham onwards literalists have some confidence because:
We now know the earliest Hebrews had written language (published March 2022)
and there really were domestic camels in Abraham's day
and the destruction of Sodom and the 'well watered plains of Jordan' has been found (2021)
and drought forced Canaanites into Egypt
and the Canaanites took control of Egypt same time as Sodom

prior to that the FIRST ACCOUNT in Genesis 1 has the correct sequence of events concerning the
processes on earth, albeit in symbolic 'days' form. Discoverd over previous 20 years.

BUT DO PEOPLE TODAY THINK A BIG BANG JUST POPPED OUT OF *** NOTHING **** AND
CREATED OUR WORLD, FOR NO REASON?
Apparantly so.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As the previous thread this thread deals with specifically 'Did Church Fathers' and early scholars consider Genesis and the Pentateuch historically literal?

In this thread I will emphasize the Orthodox view of the Church Fathers and scholars that represent the overwhelming view of the Christian Churches up until the 20th century.

Origen was previously cited as believing in a dominantly allegorical view of Genesis. This likely true, but he is considered a heretic, and not orthodox by most of Christianity and not a Church Father.

Philo was mentioned as an early Jewish scholar that he believed in an allegorical view of Genesis. This is to a certain extent true, but he was not a Church Father, and even though he lived at the time of Jesus Christ and traveled throughout Rome including Palestine he did not record anything about Jesus. In fact his writngs of historical events in Rome during the life of Jesus is considered very accurate. He is not considered remotely a Church Father. He also believed in a historical literal Exodus, which represents a problem of the historicity and conflicts concerning Exodus as recorded in the Pentateuch. Philo became more popular in the less Orthodox liberal churches in recent history.

I acknowledge unorthodox and allegorical views of Genesis in history, but the dominant view in history is that Genesis is literal history. Yes, I acknowledge that many Church Fathers and scholars believed in both, but did believe in Genesis and the Pentateuch as literal history.

1. it's not just one or the other. Parts of the Torah, such as a six day creation and the genealogy, or certainly not literal. But "Thou shalt not steal" is definitely literal.

2. In every age, there were those who took everything ultra literally, and those who understood that some things were not literal. The age of the early church was not different.

 

[shunyadragon]

1. it's not just one or the other. Parts of the Torah, such as a six day creation and the genealogy, or certainly not literal. But "Thou shalt not steal" is definitely literal.

That is of course obvious in today's world, but does not present the issue in my post and the thread.

Thou shalt not steal and other commandments ARE NOT THE ISSUE HERE.

2. In every age, there were those who took everything ultra literally, and those who understood that some things were not literal. The age of the early church was not different.

The early church are very very different, and again you are avoiding the elephant in the room. In the early church and the later Roman Church Genesis was considered to a greater extent literal in Christianity, but also allowing figuritive and other non literal understanding of scripture.

How contemporary Judaism considers scripture through wisdom interpretations such as Midrash, is very diffrent from the early church and Roman Church. A fundamental non literal Genesis and the Pentateuch is a fairly recent movement in history, but not without problems, because almost half Americans reject evolution for belief in a degree of a literal Genesis.