Comment on SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines by krissmith777.
The fact that he was hellenized has no bearing on whether what he said was true or false. Besides, there is no “Hellenized” reason why his interpretation of six days should have been affected by the Hellenization he did go though.
Even if it did, it by no means dismiss the several other Early commentators. — Most of them were NOT hellenized.
–Robert I. Bradshaw had compiled a list comparing the beliefs of early commentators (Jewish and Christian) as to their opinions of Genesis. Most of the interpretations were that the meaning of the “Creation Days” were “unclear.” In fact, the “unclear” opinion actually outnumbers those that had the beliefs that they were literal or not.
Here is a link:
http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm
Interestingly enough, Robert I. Bradshaw began his project with the intention to support Young Earth Creationism… However, the more he researched, the more he came to the conclusion that the Young Earth position was wrong.
More accurately, Bradshaw’s position turned to the realization that Early Christianity’s position of the Creation days was quite diverse. The position that I was taught when I used to be a Creationist –that the early Christians ALL believed in a completely literal reading–is wrong.
It is true that they would be considered Young Earth Creationists by today’s standards, but if they were to see the evidence for an old earth, I am confident that some of them would adjust. After all, Augustine of Hippo was against not changing a position on Biblical interpretation if the evidence demanded the change…even if nature demanded it.
Table of Contents
krissmith777 Also Commented
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@David Read:
No one says that the builders can “create with the word.” — God cannot be compared to builders.
Did God need a “power generator” to see what he was doing while he was creating the earth and the creatures in it before the forth day?– I would venture to say “no.”
Implying that God would probably need a power generator WOULD still work to demean…since it would set limitations on his creative ability.
Does God have limitations to his creative ability? No. Do human builders? Yes.
As I was reading this reply, I remembered one mocking comment that a skeptic of Genesis said. He said:
And God saw the light was good, because now he could see what he was doing.
Now I can see this with human builders… But I stand by my statement that it demeans God.
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@Ken:
Let’s say we were in a room together and you were all teaching me the correct interpretation of Genesis. Let’s say each of your as teachers had a different, albeit slight, interpretation. Would it be wrong of me as a novice to ask if there was an empirical methodology to resolve the issue. Isn’t this what science does without the bias of faith or non faith?
It wouldn’t be wrong of you at all. In fact, I would encourage it.
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@BobRyan:
I didn’t say that that Revelation 21 said that the earth had no light; just that it cannot work with the first three Creation days having both “morning and evening” because Rev 21:25 clearly says that in God’s glory there is NO night, and therefore no evening.
