Is the bible really meant to be interpreted allegorically?
I mean, it was written around a time when everyone believed in anthropomorphic gods and had fanciful creation myths.
Genesis seems to be similar to the Hebrew's closely related neighbor's creation myths, yet there's no signs it was an allegory to them.
And God sure does act like a typical anthropomorphic deity, leading the Israelites against their enemies, demanding animal sacrifices, appearing before Moses, etc
>>406267
depends
Catholics aren't literalists when it comes to the old testament (a catholic who is against evolution and is a young earth creationist is a catholic who doesnt understand their own faith) while most protestants say that yeah all this stuff totally happened
>>406267
The interpretations changed through out the years. For instance Catholics and Orthodox insist that the world flood is an allegory about the world being baptized despite the fact that the concept of baptism didn't exist when the story was formed.
Most likely the flood was at one point considered literally true since it's written like a documentrary (it devotes more time to explaining the exact scale and size of the ship than any other part). Most Jews do not see it as literal today. I think only Protestants think it actually happened.
>>406282
>most protestants are literalists
Lutherans sure are not, mr. Ameriblob. Stop judging all protestants by your hillbilly churches.
I want to know how the Orthodox and Catholics view Exodus. I have heard some lots of different perspectives
>>406357
>sweden is upset
>>406267
I think the door you're knocking on is actually poetry as wisdom in general. It's not about modern connotations of single uses like "must all be allegory, must all be literal." It's about how it was written to be read differently by different people. Packing as much meaning in as possible doesn't have a goal like allegory or literalism, but at times may attempt to or unintentionally do one or the other, or both.
>>406372
*Germany
>>406384
>>406384
you wish, but soon Germany will be just as bad
>>406282
>a catholic who is against evolution and is a young earth creationist is a catholic who doesnt understand their own faith
Top kek.
>Calculations based on the Septuagint have traditionally dated creation to around 5500 BC, while the Samaritan Torah produces a date around 4300 BC, and the Masoretic a date around 4000 BC.[24] Many of the earliest Christians who followed the Septuagint calculated creation around 5500 BC, and Christians up to the Middle Ages continued to use this rough estimate: Clement of Alexandria (5592 BC), Julius Africanus (5501 BC), Eusebius (5228 BC), Jerome (5199 BC) Hippolytus of Rome (5500 BC), Theophilus of Antioch (5529 BC), Sulpicius Severus (5469 BC), Isidore of Seville (5336 BC), Panodorus of Alexandria (5493 BC), Maximus the Confessor (5493 BC), George Syncellus (5492 BC) and Gregory of Tours (5500 BC).[25][26] The Byzantine calendar has traditionally dated the creation of the world to 1 September, 5509 BC, María de Ágreda and her followers to 5199 BC, while the early Ethiopian Church (as revealed in the Book of Aksum) to 5493 BC.[27][28] Bede was one of the first to break away from the standard Septuagint date for the creation and in his work De Temporibus ("On Time") (completed in 703 AD) dated the creation to 18 March 3952 BC but was accused of heresy at the table of Bishop Wilfrid, because his chronology was contrary to accepted calculations of around 5500 BC.
Basically the Catholics/Orthodox were the first creationists but as soon as Darwin came along they went all "b-but it's just a m-metaphor".
>>406400
>you can't change with advances in science
mad at catholics for growing up while protestants still believe the world is 6,000 years old?
>>406392
Do you ever get tired of posting this shit
>>406415
>Catholics screaming MUH EARLY CHRISTIANS when justifying their retarded traditions
>but when it comes to evolution, early Christians were wrong
Just your typical Catholic hypocrisy
>>406438
i'll take that as a yes, you are upset, then
>>406444
>u mad
Great argument papist.
>>406446
you've done nothing but prove my point that yes Catholics were rather behind, and then caught up with the times
what else am I to do but point out your anger as the argument has been decisively won?
>>406456
Well if you admit the early Christians were wrong about evolution, maybe they were wrong about iconolatry as well.
a non-literalist is basically an atheist-in-waiting
>>406467
What sort of logic is that?
Do you follow all of Jewish (OT) law? Or do you admit that the law or your understanding of the Law is open to revision?
>>406481
>iconolatry is non-scriptural
>doesn't matter heretic, EARLY CHRISTIANS had icons
>papal succession is non-scriptural
>doesn't matter heretic, EARLY CHRISTIANS believed in it
>believing Mary is a queen of heaven is unscriptural
>doesn't matter, EARLY CHRISTIANS believed she is
>early Christians thought Earth is rather young
>uh...t-they were wrong
>>406467
>early Christians
>wrong about evolution
Are you talking about Genesis, still? Jesus hadn't been born when it was written.
>>406267
Were Aesop's works meant to be interpreted allegorically?
>be catholic
>think God making the universe in 6 days is ridiculous
>think God existing at all is ridiculous
>still claim to believe the creator of the entire universe literally became flesh in the person of Jesus
how can you freak out over the likelihood of creationism, yet believe the central tenets of the faith you claim to have?
>>406267
>Is the bible really meant to be interpreted allegorically?
It clearly states in Revelation 17 that it is.
Rev 17:7
> Why dost thou wonder? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast which carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
Rev 17:7
> And the woman which thou sawest, is the great city, which hath kingdom over the kings of the earth.
Genesis is allegory, it clearly uses Algebra to discuss the history of nations bound to individuals.
Cain and Abel is one of the most insightful stories. Cain represents the settled people in the valleys and Abel the pastorals in the hills and mountains.
Cain kills Abel, and this paradigm has existed throughout history all the way from Sumeria to the invention of gunpowder.
Pastorist/Nomads conquer and settle. Original Nomads cease being Abel and their strength is gone in the soft life of the plains.
>>406561
>Cain represents the settled people
Weird, since he is made to wander, though I guess that is what would make it a course. Dunno.
The city builder aspect?
>>406599
>Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.
Direct quote.
>>406612
I guess the other thing threw me off.
btw Apocalyptic writing was actually popular back when, right?
>>406438
Origen
>>406561
Revelations is not part of the Bible, you fucking heretic.
>>406517
Are you comparing the Bible to a bunch of fairy tales?
>>406481
Jesus abolished the law.
>>406267
I don't know man, things like Babylon and the Flood are pure pottery and seems very much to be intended as such
>>408935
Matthew 5:17
>Is the bible really meant to be interpreted allegorically?
No. The allegorical interpretation stuff was invented later on to avoid contradictions. There is absolutely no indication that the people who wrote this didn't think this really happened or could happen. It's just that we later on discovered that miraculous events can be and often are explained as natural phenomenon that were unknown at the time, and to avoid the admission that the people who wrote the Bible were just plain wrong (which isn't very strange, considering that these are canonized folk tales written by people who knew fuck all about the world), later on believers came up with the allegory to avoid it.
Basically, at this point, the allegory is nothing more than a really lazy excuse to avoid having to say 'people back then just didn't know much about anything'
>>406267
Yeah
>>409030
Proofs?
>>408982
Actually no, they always looked at it allegorically, see Augustine.
>>408982
>Basically, at this point, the allegory is nothing more than a really lazy excuse to avoid having to say 'people back then just didn't know much about anything'
The teaching in the bible is littered with parables and allegories, you are a retard.
>>409718
>Augustine
Lived centuries after the Bible had been written
>>408982
Because it's not like God can't use the natural world for Supernatural ends. Maybe the River to Blood was a Red Tide Algae bloom that God made happen at that exact Time so he could prove a point with Pharaoh: "Let my people go."
>>406456
Cathocvcks are so beyond pathetic.
>man ressurected from death and ascending to heaven, sea parting, heavenly nuking of bronze age cities, turning staffs into snakes, apocalypse, prehistoric worldwide flood etc
>all fine
>evolution isn't real
>HAHA OH MY GOD, HOW CAN YOU BE SO UNSCIENTIFIC AND DUMB? GROW UP I MEAN IT'S 2015!
Protestants might be retarded but at least they're consistent with their retardity and not spineless like you fucks.
>>410281
>my version of what I think these people believe is crazy
>all Catholics are flat earth bible literalists and if they're not they're not real Catholics
>the Catholic Church isn't responsible for most of the scientific progress in the Middle Ages
That's a fedora if you can't see it.
>>410309
Try to point out where I was wrong.
Moreover, the worship of science and progress just for the sake of it could be classified idolatrous. I see lots of cultural catholics infected with secular thought and using utilitarian arguments that catholic structure/tradition is good because it's good for society. That's literally putting "society" above God. Not Christian whatsoever, you're essentially LARPers who begrudgingly accept the idea of God existing as long as it fits your idea of how civilization should be organized.
>>406496
First off,
a)The Early Christians don't even have the scientific knowledge and data to even know that the Earth isn't very old or there's a big bang.
b)Eventhough there they don't know the Earth isn't young there are prominent Church Fathers who noted that the Creation Account in Genesis is allegorical such as,
-Origen
-Augustine
-Gregory of Nyssa
-Clement of Alexandria
-Athanasius
-Hilary
If any, the Early Church were divided over a literalist approach and an allegorical approach regarding the Creation account. Regardless at the time, beliefs in the literalist view of such account would be forgivable given their lack of awareness and access to scientific data as we have now.
In fact all the way in the 1st Century we have such allegorical approaches from Philo for example.
>>410373
There were better estimates of the date of the earth before Christians came and fucked it up. The egyptions and babelyions dated creation to 28,000 BCE which is at least a good estimate for at least when humans first made civilization. The Chinese and Mayans had similar dates. The Greeks put us at 2,200 years.
But man. The Hindus. These guys might have actually had their books inspired by God.
For them the earth was 4.3 billion years;
The correct answer is 4.5 billion.
The absolute WORST dating is the Christian one. Clearly this book was not inspired by a God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_creation#Zoroastrianism
>>410408
Maybe so but not every Christian theologian bothered trying to date the age of the Earth or the time of Creation. This is not to say there weren't any attempts at it.
Either way, the main point here is that the Catholic, Orthodox or any non batshit crazy Protestant non literalist approach to the Creation Narrative isn't a deviation from Early Church takes on the issue. I'm not intending to show that Christians didn't mess the dating of the age of the Earth up or that they had the best estimates for it.
>>410408
I don't want to particularly dispute the meat and main contention of your post, which I agree with.
However I'm pretty sure there wasn't much you could consider a civilisation in 28,000 BC.
>>410419
>Either way, the main point here is that the Catholic, Orthodox or any non batshit crazy Protestant non literalist approach to the Creation Narrative isn't a deviation from Early Church takes on the issue.
Well yes it is.
You are trying to conflate a non-literal approach to Genesis and some sort of equivalence to modern scientific understanding.
The Genesis non-literalists thought the Earth / Universe including trees, people, animals etc were made in one instant of creation rather than in six days.
>>406496
>slippery slope
>physicists were wrong about the speed of light once
>all of physics is ruined forever
>>410469
wait so you mean the bible isn't timeless
it isn't the ultimate truth inspired by God?
>>410469
>comparing catholicism to physics
apex kek
>not understanding that the point is catholics who justify every single one of their teachings with tradition are willing to throw said tradition out of the window the moment it suits them
>>410469
It's largely irrelevant to your point but I do have to point out that isn't what a slippery slope fallacy is. Maybe you meant a compostion / division fallacy?
Anyhoo, physicists only claim to be trying to build the best models of the world possible to understand the results of observation and experimentation. I once heard Lawrence Krauss say that he's a physicist, therefore 90% of what he does is wrong. There is no such humility in claims of truth through divine relevation or such concepts as papal infallibility.
>>410482
>>410483
The Bible is a compilation made by the Roman Church. It's centrality to Christianity is literally conventional. Regardless the source of inspiration, Man sees what may be the truth through flawed mortal lenses.
If theology was a closed book what of the likes of Augustine and Aquinas?
This dialectical approach to the pursuit of deeper truth and to tradition is actually in agreement to the rabbinical tradition and the way ancient Hebrews would have taught their ways: through discussion. Before, only the doctors of the Church would've had the intellectual baggage to do so but now here we are.
>>410483
It's an epistemological issue. The point is that because the pursuit of knowledge is beset with misdirection, that does not mean it is not worthy; I do not think this is exclusive to science or that it should be.
>>406345
There is archaeological evidence about civilizations being wiped out by the universal flood after the last ice age. There's human settlement ruins under the North Sea, for instance.
Pic related, coastlines in Europe before and after the great flood.
>>410455
>You are trying to conflate a non-literal approach to Genesis and some sort of equivalence to modern scientific understanding.
Ok...where did I say this.
My only point is that taking the Genesis Creation account allegorically isn't a new thing.
Whether or not it matches with current scientific understanding is a whole different issue all together.
>The Genesis non-literalists thought the Earth / Universe including trees, people, animals etc were made in one instant of creation rather than in six days.
Correct. However it is also under the assumption that it is atemporal. This leaves plenty of wiggle room for it to be compatible with modern scientific understanding of the universe.
>>410570
>before and after
Whoops, I was gonna post another pic but you get the gist.
>>410538
Aquinas was inductively reasoning.
Do you think there was ever a chance he was going to come out of his study and say "shit guys, I've crunched the theology and it turns out Jesus isn't god and god doesn't exist at all". This is not the pursuit of knowledge.
>>410538
Technically speaking, the Catholic Church only formalized and closed the canon during the Council of Trent.
In Early Christianity, there's plenty of lists of what is and is not canonical Scripture. In fact to make things more complicated, the non canonical Scripture can even be treated as canonical Scripture and cited as such, which is done by many of the fathers who do not place the Deuterocanon as Canonical.
This is why Protestant attempts to use Church Fathers like Jerome(who personally didn't think the deuterocanon is Scripture but followed the Church anyways), Athanasius or Pope Gregory to show that the Catholic Church added books to Scripture in Trent is frankly ridiculous.
>>406267
>Is the bible really meant to be interpreted allegorically?
I'm pretty sure "Stone people for working on the Sabbath" is hard to interpret allegorically.
So no. There might be parts of it that can be, but it's clearly a book that have a high incidence of Bronze Age jurisprudence and morality.
>>410572
>Ok...where did I say this.
>My only point is that taking the Genesis Creation account allegorically isn't a new thing.
Vague conflation.
>Correct. However it is also under the assumption that it is atemporal.
Is it? In what way?
It is written by many people. Some was literal and other are more allegorical.
>>410670
How do you tell the difference?
>>406345
There was a huge flood that affected a large amount of people, so thats why there is a flood myth in most of the ancient religions. Obviously details are fantasy but its clear that these religions took the same catastrophic events and made their own distinct myths.
>>410717
Or possibly there have been many different floods in many different parts of the world, something that still occurs all the time and many different cultures have come up with flood myths based on different events and there isn't even the scintilla of hope that any of them have a kernel of truth based on an exaggerated account of one specific event.
>>410717
Or maybe floods are a relatively common occurence...
>>410734
>>410748
The world is small at this point. Its safe to say the majority of people were in Mesopotamia, the earliest great civilization, and all of these eastern abrahamic religions as well as indian and other asian myths stem from the same area, there are a variety of similarities between stories and this can be attributed to the idea of a great and relatively large civilization being wiped out or scattered, with smaller distinct groups forming in its wake developing their own heroic myths about rising from those ashes. There is evidence to suggest that the same group of about 10,000 people are the ancestors of every modern human, its not crazy to assume oral tradition would create these vast catastrophic flood stories in isolated areas of the world that refence the same ideas. Separate floods or not the end of the ice age was a global event and these stories most likely reference that
>>406360
>Catholic here
Didn't happen as described, that the entire Jewish nation was in Egypt. Most likely it happened the same way as the Babylonian captivity: Palestine became a vassal state of Egypt, the Jewish, or soon to be Jewish elites were taken as hostages. Some Jews were also taken to Egypt as migrant workers, or merchants, etc. Then those people made a trek to their ancestral homeland at one point.
>>410658
>Vague conflation.
In what way? You never explained how I'm conflating.
>Is it? In what way?
Yes given that the whole act of Creation isn't seen as taking place at a specific moment in time. This is why the whole days of Creation in Genesis is seen to be spontaneous since it is carried out beyond time itself.
>>406400
wait, people actually believe in the earth being millions of years old? wow, just wow. I thought you guys were intelligent.
>>410781
The Ice Age ended 100,000 - 20,000 ish years ago.
I have yet to see any evidence that oral transmission alone is suitable for passing on historical information over, say, one thousand years.
Cloaking your point in "it's not crazy to assume" is an attempt to hide your wild and unwarranted assumption as something that is valid unless someone is calling you literally mad.
>>410797
>Yes given that the whole act of Creation isn't seen as taking place at a specific moment in time.
But that is precisely what Augistine etc thought did happen. They thought Genesis might not be literal because the creation of the Universe happened at once in one moment of time.
>You never explained how I'm conflating.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conflate
You're trying to conflate thinking the Universe, including people, were magicked into being in one instant as the same thing as thinking it happened over billions of years in a process just because it is not "Genesis literalism".
Their thinking is even more at odds with modern knowledge than a literal interpretation of Genesis.
>>410688
When you go to the library, do you often confuse the poetry section with the history section or the philosophy section?
The Bible is a collection of books. I thought this was common knowledge.
>>410874
So what is your criteria for which bits of the bible should be moved into the fiction, poetry and philosophy sections and which bits should be placed in the history section?
Clouding the issue with a metaphor does not help.
>>410890
It's literally not a metaphor, a library is a collection of books, the Bible is a collection of books.
Ever read the Song of Songs? It's clearly poetry. Ever read Proverbs? It's basically a list of tips and tricks about life. How about Deuteronomy, which is a detailed census of the Hebrews? Book of Revelations or Daniel? Prophetic texts.
It's not difficult.
>>410862
>But that is precisely what Augistine etc thought did happen.
Augustine at least thought that God had been creating the universe since eternity.
Other Church Fathers who do not take the literalist approach would just state that Creation happen spontaneously because it is atemporal and not subject to normal conceptions of time itself. It doesn't mean that everything was made in an instant within a temporal context which is what you are doing.
>You're trying to conflate thinking the Universe, including people, were magicked into being in one instant as the same thing as thinking it happened over billions of years in a process just because it is not "Genesis literalism".
Except of course I did not. I had said that the allegorical approach would have more wiggle room and that this is a different issue all together.
Secondly, the whole spontaneous Creation thing is expressed as such because it happened atemporally, beyond time itself. This means that saying that the whole of Creation being one instant would not be apropos given that it is beyond any typical passage of time.
>Their thinking is even more at odds with modern knowledge than a literal interpretation of Genesis.
That's more because of your misrepresentation of their thinking. You assume that the allegorical approach means that God within some temporal sequence created everything within one point of such sequence when this is not presupposed and even cautioned against under this view.
Over the literalist view, the allegorical view have more wiggle room to work with when taking modern knowledge into consideration.
>>410916
The Book of Revelation is clearly prophetic. The Book of Daniel is mythology, or alleged history, mixed with prophecy.
The idea Deuteronomy is a decent primary source that could be used as a detailed census of the Hebrews is a bad joke and it contains considerably more than an alleged census.
What about Matthew that includes a zombie invasion undocumented by other sources? Should we shuffle this off to the fiction section or the poetry section of your metaphorical library?
>>410936
Well clearly beyond the Big Bang any modern conception of how the world and humans, or trees, came about isn't atemporal, you are making my point with every sentence.
Anything has this phrase you keep inserting "wiggle room" if you are desperate enough to look for it BTW.
>>410999
>a bad joke
according to who's opinion?
Don't forget that Herodotus is unironically used as source material.
>undocumented by other sources
I'm sure that every event ever has at least three period documents attesting to the fact that it happened.
you're really grasping at straws here. Just cause you're autistic and need rigid classification systems just to tell the difference between metaphorical and literal statements doesn't mean that everyone else does.
>>406282
> While most protestants say that yeah all this stuff totally happened
This is just bullshit. It's solely an American thing to be a Young Earth Creationist. It's an American thing, not a Protestant.
>>411073
>according to who's opinion?
You are aware that the events surrounding the Hebrews in the OT never happened, right?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html
>I'm sure that every event ever has at least three period documents attesting to the fact that it happened.
Most events that historians study aren't alleged zombie invasions.
>>411072
>you are making my point with every sentence.
No because at this point we are talking about deduction from human perception of God's creation which would yield a sense of antiquity. Yet, God's act of creating all things would be done atemporally for such act is dictated beyond time itself. This is also why Augustine posits that God experiences the past, present and future simultaneously.
>Anything has this phrase you keep inserting "wiggle room" if you are desperate enough to look for it BTW.
The "wiggle room" means that it would be easier to defend in the light of modern understandings of the age and formation of the universe as we know it.
>>411208
>No because at this point we are talking about deduction from human perception of God's creation which would yield a sense of antiquity. Yet, God's act of creating all things would be done atemporally for such act is dictated beyond time itself.
This doesn't change the fact that it didn't happen atemporally.
>This is also why Augustine posits that God experiences the past, present and future simultaneously.
This is an obvious point about omniscience, it doesn't change Augustine's claims.
>The "wiggle room" means that it would be easier to defend in the light of modern understandings of the age and formation of the universe as we know it.
Or just you wiggling about in non-existent loopholes.
we are made from carbon and metal...similar to the earth...they got something right 405905909 years ago.
>>411303
>This doesn't change the fact that it didn't happen atemporally.
Not when it is something who simultaneously perceives the past, present and future simultaneously.
>This is an obvious point about omniscience, it doesn't change Augustine's claims.
Yes but this would also imply that God is beyond time itself and thus, his act of Creating the world being simultaneous would not be far fetched if such a being exist that is.
>Or just you wiggling about in non-existent loopholes.
Here you are just missing the point. It just means what I had stated prior that the position would be easier to defend in contrast to the YEC view.
The only reason why it looks illogical is because of your misrepresentation of simultaneous creation and placing wrong presuppositions upon it. If I were to follow your line of thought I would certainly agree with you but the problem is that that isn't what Augustine or any of the allegorical fathers had in mind when it comes to Creation.
>>411357
Only if you are trying to wiggle out of what he actually said.
>Perhaps we ought not to think of these creatures at the moment they were produced as subject to the processes of nature which we now observe in them, but rather as under the wonderful and unutterable power of the Wisdom of God, which reaches from end to end mightily and governs all graciously. For this power of Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps. It was just as easy, then, for God to create everything as it is for Wisdom to exercise this mighty power. For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation.
St Augustine.
>>410999
>The Book of Revelation is clearly prophetic.
So-and-so. Apocalyptic literature was a popular genre at the time and some things are meant figuratively rather than literally.
>>411620
I'm quite inclined to agree that apocalyptic preaching was popular at the time Jesus lived and apocalytic literature was popular at the time Revelation was written.
I'm not so clear why it should be taken as literal divine revelation 2000 years later even if it is apparently literal divine metaphorical revelation.
>>411517
Augustine's statement here wouldn't disprove my point or somehow make your misrepresentation of his view and of the other fathers' regarding Creation true.
Augustine notes that God scattered the "seeds" which are "laws" at the moment of Creation to which time would develop and grow. The reception of these seeds would be atemporal hence his last statement noting that "there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation".
Taking into account that God experiences the past, present and future simultaneously according to Augustine himself, it would mean that the 'moment' he planted the seeds, the result comes instantly from his POV but from ours, there is a passage of time that brings about the development of these "seeds".
If any, this isn't your view that God made everything at some temporal moment in time.
>>411672
You misinterpret him.
He is saying developemtn of humans did not happen slowly and they existed at beginning of the world and the only change that happens is their numbers.
>>411685
Nope. Here's from the Cambridge Companion to Augustine to prove my point,
>Augustine was very fond of associating the conception of simultaneous creation with the doctrine of seminal reasons (rationes seminales or rationes causales) which was found in slightly different forms in Stoic and Platonic philosophy. He was not the first to regard this as a theologically significant conception, but he systematized it more than his predecessors.12 According to Augustine, the members of the natural kinds which unfolded later on their own were created in seminal form at the beginning, but the seminal reasons also involved the seeds of all miraculous deviations from the common course of nature. In this way God remained the ultimate creator of every new being (De Gen. ad litt. 6.10.17–11.19, 6.14.25–15.26; De Trin. 3.8.13–9.16).-Cambridge Companion to Augustine, Chapter 8-Time and Creation in Augustine, pg 104
>>406267
I read it as a history book for the most part but there are some parables/storys that are allegorical like the Prodigal Son
>>406400
>>411750
That doesn't in anyway refute what I have said. Unless you are serious suggesting that by "new beings" Augustine meant new species, thereby being the person that discovered natual selection over a millemia before Darwin did, which not even the most extreme theologian would claim ever, he merely meant new beings as in humans being born.
I see by "wiggle room" you mean deliberately misinterpreting the words of classical writers to fit the modern narrative you would like them to have.
Disgusting behaviour.
>>411816
>Augustine believed humans were created in an instant and existed at the start of time
>this was different from Genesis
>therefore Augustine supported modern knowlegde that it took four billion years from the start of time before humans existed!!!!!!!!!
>le ebic Catholic Church!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When will this meme end?
>>411837
It does. Plus the main thing here we are arguing is that Augustine held that Creation was a seed which developed. This is precisely what "seminal" as used by the author implies.
>Unless you are serious suggesting that by "new beings" Augustine meant new species
No one's even saying that. All I'm saying is that Augustine's doctrine of Creation involves God atemporally placing "seeds" which then develop through time. How natural selection fits into this is not for me to explain and certainly not something Augustine would be aware off to begin with. Your statements of "new beings being born" is just outright false and misses the point about "development" one which the author of Chapter 8 of the Cambridge Companion to Augustine notes as well hence the use of "seminal" which such seeds even includes "all miraculous deviations from the common course of nature" as well which counters your claim about Augustine's view of Created things developing from their seminal form.
>I see by "wiggle room" you mean deliberately misinterpreting the words of classical writers to fit the modern narrative you would like them to have.
I hadn't done this. If any you are the one who deliberately did this. Mind you, you had assumed the "allegorical" readings of the Genesis Creation Narrative to be God making all things at one temporal point. And who would forget, your unwarranted claim that I "conflate" as well.
If any the one exhibiting "disgusting behavior" is you, not me you dumbfuck.
>>411903
>>therefore Augustine supported modern knowlegde that it took four billion years from the start of time before humans existed!!!!!!!!!
No one said that.
>>411938
By seeds he meant literal humans though.
Implying anything else is misquoting him to fit a modern narrative and it is disgusting behaviour.
>>411955
>No one said that.
Then why quote him at all?
The difference between Augustine and literal Geneis accounts is that Augustine believed humans were created in the first split second, literally created as humans, not a process put in place that would create humans, four billion years later.
The only dispute he had with Genesis is he didn't think it took six whole days!!
And centuries later you quote him as some sort of evidence that Christians were right.
This meme has to end, it is pathetic.
>>412010
Here you are misrepresenting Augustine once more. While "seeds" also includes humans, it does not solely refer to this ALONE. The Cambridge Companion to Augustine and even his own words would make this evident.
>Implying anything else is misquoting him to fit a modern narrative and it is disgusting behaviour.
Yeah, like how you misrepresent the "allegorical" readings of Genesis you idiotic dumbfuck. So much for "muh logic".
If anyone's misquoting or twisting anyone's words and arguments here, it's you.
>>412044
>Here you are misrepresenting Augustine once more. While "seeds" also includes humans, it does not solely refer to this ALONE.
You are right. He meant that trees and shrubs and daffodils were created in the first instant and also existed for all of time. He didn't think God waited three days to do this!
He thought that sharks and dolphins and frogs were created in the first instant, he disputed it took five days!!
Do you want me to give him credit for believing light from distant stars was created most of the way to Earth?
The problem that you don't seem to grasp is that Augustine was even more wrong than the authors of Genesis and anyone that has believed in literal Genesis acounts since. And you want to use that as some sort of absurd evidence that early Christians were right after all.
It is just silly.
>>412079
Thank you for proving my point over and over again.
Your reply is just so plain retarded and nonsensical that I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
a)Your 'arguments' here ignores the fact that Augustine doesn't take the seven days of Creation literally or as a temporal sequence! It's just a logical framework for human beings to better understand according to him which makes your first three 'points' redundant and mere crap.
b)Ignoring Augustine's belief that the past, present and future are simultaneously perceived by God himself which means that even if God 'made' some shit X years ago, it would be instantaneous according to him by this very viewpoint of Augustine!
c)No one's talking about Augustine making stars or celestial bodies in space.
d)No one's saying that he's smarter than Darwin or anyone that comes after him.
>The problem that you don't seem to grasp is that Augustine was even more wrong than the authors of Genesis and anyone that has believed in literal Genesis acounts since.
Pathetic...really pathetic. The original point I made was that those who take the Genesis creation account allegorically isn't doing anything new.
>And you want to use that as some sort of absurd evidence that early Christians were right after all.
This is just silly. I never even said that the Early Christians were right. I even explicitly acknowledged that there were those of them who were mistaken in taking Genesis literally.
Insofar my point is,
a)The allegorical interpretation of Genesis according to the Church Fathers are more better than the literalists for it gives more room for compatibility with modern understandings
b)Creation to the allegorical interpretations of the Church Fathers is simultaneous but is such by virtue of being atemporal .
This does not entail that the Early Christians were right. It just means they aren't as idiotic as you make them to be.
>>412146
*mistake on my part here.
>c)No one's talking about Augustine's beliefs about stars or celestial bodies in space.
>>412146
>Your 'arguments' here ignores the fact that Augustine doesn't take the seven days of Creation literally
It clearly doesn't. I very clearly stated multiple times over that Augustine was even worse than Genesis literalism that was my entire point.
>Ignoring Augustine's belief that the past, present and future are simultaneously perceived by God
We covered this here >>411303
>c)No one's talking about Augustine making stars or celestial bodies in space.
Yes they are, me, and for a very good reason. Augustine's idea that everything just appeared in an instant would mean we couldn't even see the stars yet, unless the light from them appeared part way to Earth.
>a)The allegorical interpretation of Genesis according to the Church Fathers are more better than the literalists for it gives more room for compatibility with modern understandings
And I have demonstrated there is even less room for modern understanding, not that Augustine is necessarily typical of the other Church Fathers anyway.
>b)Creation to the allegorical interpretations of the Church Fathers is simultaneous but is such by virtue of being atemporal .
I answered this here >>411072
>>412182
>It clearly doesn't. I very clearly stated multiple times over that Augustine was even worse than Genesis literalism that was my entire point.
At this point it's more like asserted multiple times. I had already noted the failure of this assertion here>>410936
>We covered this here >>411303
Which I already countered here>>411357
>Augustine's idea that everything just appeared in an instant would mean we couldn't even see the stars yet
Once more a misrepresentation of Augustine's doctrine of simultaneous creation.
>And I have demonstrated there is even less room for modern understanding, not that Augustine is necessarily typical of the other Church Fathers anyway.
Don't forget the part about misrepresenting Simultaneous Creation or what Augustine meant by "seeds" in your citation of him!
>I answered this here >>411072
Which I already responded to here>>411208
If any insofar no actual arguments or points had been provided here, just a rehash of the same shit I had already dealt with before.
>>412232
>At this point it's more like asserted multiple times. I had already noted the failure of this assertion here
So instead you decided to, what, introduce a strawman that I thought Augustine was a Genesis literalist? You aren't making sense.
>Once more a misrepresentation of Augustine's doctrine of simultaneous creation.
No it isn't.
>Which I already responded to here
How does that response for one second make the point that modern science suggests anything since the Big Bang is atemporal?
It was meant to be interpreted literally.
"its a metaphor" is a defence mechanism against scientific progress.
>>412250
>what, introduce a strawman that I thought Augustine was a Genesis literalist?
What comes after this perfectly describe you right now, "You aren't making sense".
Now show me where did I imply or said this.
>No it isn't.
It is which I had already covered so I won't babyfeed you again.
>How does that response for one second make the point that modern science suggests anything since the Big Bang is atemporal?
a)The response doesn't even suggest this. Get your fucking brain straight for once!
b)The overall argument notes that,
1)That's just the perspective and impression we get from deduction given that we are viewing this temporally
2)God's act would be atemporal given that his act of Creating is beyond time itself
3)Reference to God's perception of temporal sequences of events via Augustine.
Now where is the statement that anything since the Big Bang is atemporal? It just notes that God's act within Creation would be an atemporal act and given his perception of time, simultaneous.
>>412295
>Now where is the statement that anything since the Big Bang is atemporal?
I said it was temporal because it is.
Augustine said humans were created at the point of creation, literally created right then and there as humans, fully fledged humans, right from the start of the Universe.
You waffling about how god views the world in an atemporal manner does not change that and it does not magically mean that Augustine's views are compatible with modern science.
>Now show me where did I imply or said this.
Literally the point I just replied to. After, what two hours of discussion and us both agreeing that Augustine isn't a genesis literalist you said >>412146
>a)Your 'arguments' here ignores the fact that Augustine doesn't take the seven days of Creation literally
Are you just completely forgetting what you have just said from second to second? Because quite honestly that is annoying.
>>412337
>I said it was temporal because it is.
No shit dumbo
>Augustine said humans were created at the point of creation, literally created right then and there as humans, fully fledged humans, right from the start of the Universe.
Except of course how this came about involves the "seeds" of Creation developing which renders your point here irrelevant.
>waffling about how god views the world in an atemporal manner does not change that and it does not magically mean that Augustine's views are compatible with modern science.
Basically you pissed off that Augustine ain't as idiotic as you want him to be which is just telling of your disgusting dishonesty here.
No one's saying whether or not Augustine's views are compatible with modern science. But the point I had made from the beginning is that it's more compatible with it compared to the literalist account.
>After, what two hours of discussion and us both agreeing that Augustine isn't a genesis literalist you said >>412146
Hey moron, look at your own words first
>You are right. He meant that trees and shrubs and daffodils were created in the first instant and also existed for all of time. He didn't think God waited three days to do this!
>He thought that sharks and dolphins and frogs were created in the first instant, he disputed it took five days!!
>>412079
This is probably the only shit you got right but your poor and irrational choice of words certainly bring to mind an impression that Augustine's a literalist. If any, my little fuckup here simply hides your idiocy.
>>412277
This
>>412417
>not accepting scientific hyptotheses and theories as soon as they are created
>somehow a bad thing
Apparently changing your mind about something after reviewing more data and evidence is now bad. A complete misrepresentation and oversimplification of how religion works. Nice try, heathen, try again later.
>>410200
Yeah I'm sure tons of people believed Genesis was an allegory. Especially with a collection of tales of the origins of the natural world and humanity's traits compiled into a book called "Genesis", sharing the same etymological root as origin, generate, etc.
It totally gives off the vibe of "hey, these are parables and allegories; don't actually believe that these aren't the origin of things lol." Excellent move on the behalf of the Church.
>>412398
>No shit dumbo
You've been harping on and on about Augustine saying it was atemporal for hours.
>Except of course how this came about involves the "seeds" of Creation developing which renders your point here irrelevant.
But by seeds he meant fully fledged people, we went over this hours ago.
>No one's saying whether or not Augustine's views are compatible with modern science.
I'm saying Augustine's views are incompatible with modern science.
>Hey moron, look at your own words first
>This is probably the only shit you got right but your poor and irrational choice of words certainly bring to mind an impression that Augustine's a literalist
Oh I see. The primary problem is that you can't read.
>>413946
The problem is that you are an idiot who can't form basic arguments and deliberately misrepresents your opponent's positions and stubbornly refuse to admit your mistake on this. You are basically sprouting the same shit at this point like a fucking imbecile. Your level of intelligence is very telling at this point....like a moron who can't even read. Case and point >>412079
The ironic thing is that you are so stupid, you can't even read your own posts!
>>412417
>liberal fedora underdog fantasies
kek. when was the last time the church actually gave a shit about what researcher had to say.
>>414939
Evolution, you CC faggots actually believe in evolution, fucking heretics
>>412277
"it's meant to be interpreted literally" allows atheists the convenient position to sweep what they can't argue against under the rug and continue beating a dead horse.
>>414958
Really,I went to a school that taught creationism world wide flood etc in Australia... not dumb fuck areas of America, If you've never come cross literal interpretations I envy you
Hallowed are the Ori.
Origin says it's true and I saw the miracles with my own eyes.
