What did the church fathers believe concerning Genesis?

[shunyadragon]

Of course not. If that's all you were citing I wouldn't have commented about being uncritical about your sources, but that's not all you were citing, was it? You were citing an interpretation of these writings simply because they agreed with your own beliefs on the subject without seeing whether or not the source was even qualified to offer his interpretation.

I saw that. Looks like something you didn't consider until you cited your next copy/paste. It just shows how sloppy you are in uncritically citing sources.

Still waiting . . . for source by church fathers that provide an alternate view.

[Adrift]

Sources please with citations from church fathers.

My source is Professor Ronald Numbers' The Creationists, particularly the chapter titled Creationism in the Fundamentalist Controversy.

[shunyadragon]

My source is Professor Ronald Numbers' The Creationists, particularly the chapter titled Creationism in the Fundamentalist Controversy.

Still waiting . . .

[Adrift]

Still waiting . . .for source by church fathers that provide an alternate view.

Do you know how goofy you look when you write "still waiting" barely half an hour, and one post after your initial request?

And an alternative view to what? I already offered a citation from a reputable scholar who holds an alternative interpretation to the early church writing in your OP. He concludes, contrary to your anonymous source that the Epistle of Barnabas takes a non-literal view of the six days creation account. There's no need to repost the writing as you've already posted it.

[Adrift]

Still waiting . . .

Stop being goofy.

[shunyadragon]

Stop being goofy.

This does not work. It is worse than arguing by web link.

[whag]

Not quite...

How do you mean? The earliest fossils from billions of years ago are dead. Death is natural, but Christianity implies it was introduced.

[shunyadragon]

How do you mean? The earliest fossils from billions of years ago are dead. Death is natural, but Christianity implies it was introduced.

This illustrates the problem of those that expect the authors of these ancient texts to have a comprehension of the actual history of the universe, earth and life. They were writing from an ancient perspective.

[whag]

This illustrates the problem of those that expect the authors of these ancient texts to have a comprehension of the actual history of the universe, earth and life. They were writing from an ancient perspective.

Today, many are locked in that ancient perspective. It seems that Roy and seanD can't maintain belief without thinking death a relatively new thing that human beings are responsible for.

[robrecht]

Today, many are locked in that ancient perspective. It seems that Roy and seanD can't maintain belief without thinking death a relatively new thing that human beings are responsible for.

I think Roy merely meant that something had to be alive shortly before it died.

[whag]

I think Roy merely meant that something had to be alive shortly before it died.

I didn't see that he was atheist. Thanks for pointing out he was merely splitting hairs. =)

Sorry, Roy.

[shunyadragon]

Today, many are locked in that ancient perspective. It seems that Roy and seanD can't maintain belief without thinking death a relatively new thing that human beings are responsible for.

I understand the problem with seanD, but I think you misunderstood Roy's response.

[whag]

I understand the problem with seanD, but I think you misunderstood Roy's response.

Apparently! No skeptic would think to make that claim (that life and death weren't basically conccurent), but many Christians seem beholden to believing it.

[GakuseiDon]

This illustrates the problem of those that expect the authors of these ancient texts to have a comprehension of the actual history of the universe, earth and life. They were writing from an ancient perspective.

That's right, and that's why I would argue it is wrong to associate them with "YECs". That's a modern term, to describe the beliefs of a fundamentalist tradition that is not 200 years old. If people in Philo's and Origen's times had been given proof for an old earth, what would they have done with the information? As they had no problems with seeing the Bible through allegorical eyes, I doubt they would have had any theological concerns.

So despite the early Christians thinking the earth may have been only 6000 years old, it wasn't a doctrinal issue with them as far as I can see (I'd love to see evidence for this, btw). It was simply how they saw the world. Associating the modern concept of YEC with them is anachronistic.

[whag]

That's right, and that's why I would argue it is wrong to associate them with "YECs". That's a modern term, to describe the beliefs of a fundamentalist tradition that is not 200 years old. If people in Philo's and Origen's times had been given proof for an old earth, what would they have done with the information? As they had no problems with seeing the Bible through allegorical eyes, I doubt they would have had any theological concerns.

So despite the early Christians thinking the earth may have been only 6000 years old, it wasn't a doctrinal issue with them as far as I can see (I'd love to see evidence for this, btw). It was simply how they saw the world. Associating the modern concept of YEC with them is anachronistic.

seanD already pointed out that Paul regarded Adam as a literal figure. All this harping on YEC as anachronism misses the point of Jesus being a second Adam, which really makes no sense in a figurative context where no single Adam existed. We came from much richer, more complicated story than the one Jesus and Paul were enculturated to believe.