There are no answers in Genesis

[Belacqua]

Prior to Hutton, believers took Genesis literally; why not just abandon it and see all of it for what it is, bronze-age mythologies?

I don't know who Hutton is, but Augustine said very clearly that Genesis is not literal.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Prior to Hutton, believers took Genesis literally; why not just abandon it and see all of it for what it is, bronze-age mythologies?

I don't know who Hutton is, but Augustine said very clearly that Genesis is not literal.

James Hutton was a Scottish geologist and the essential founder of uniformitarianism (the idea that changes in the Earth’s crust occur over immensely long periods of time, which pretty well discredits YEC).

It doesn’t really matter (for purposes of this discussion) what Augustine of Hippo had to say about Genesis.

Boru

[Belacqua]

In Galatians 4, Paul interprets the Genesis account of Abraham's sons as allegory.

Irenaeus of Lyons, in the 2nd century, interpreted the Adam and Eve story as allegory.

In the 3rd century, Origen said that the meaning could only be discerned by reading allegorically.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't know who Hutton is, but Augustine said very clearly that Genesis is not literal.

James Hutton was a Scottish geologist and the essential founder of uniformitarianism (the idea that changes in the Earth’s crust occur over immensely long periods of time, which pretty well discredits YEC).

It doesn’t really matter (for purposes of this discussion) what Augustine of Hippo had to say about Genesis.

Boru

Yes, Augustone does matter because it directly refutes the point you were making. There are important early Christians that did not consider Genesis a literal account. Augustine is one. Origen is another.

Yes, there are many Ken Hamm types. And I cannot speak for @Belacqua, but when I do have a chance to engage respectfully with a fundamentalist, I point them in the same direction as I do those atheists who mistakenly assume that if the bible is not true in any respect (like cosmology), that it cannot be reliable guide in any other respect, like spiritual instruction.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Ah yes, the tired  It's Non-Literal when it is needed to explain away all the bullshit and it becomes very literal when it serves their interests and agendas. How very convenient....

[Jehanne]

In Galatians 4, Paul interprets the Genesis account of Abraham's sons as allegory.

Irenaeus of Lyons, in the 2nd century, interpreted the Adam and Eve story as allegory.

In the 3rd century, Origen said that the meaning could only be discerned by reading allegorically.

You're cherry-picking your sources; explain Bishop James Ussher's date of Creation, which was universally praised by both Catholic & Protestant churchmen and printed in English Bibles for over 2 centuries??

[arewethereyet]

The Bible, the supposed word of god, shouldn't need interpretation.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The Bible, the supposed word of god, shouldn't need interpretation.

Oh no, they are interpreting it under the influence of the "holy spirit" who apparently is a bit of an indecisive spirit as he can't seem to get Christians to agree on the text.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

James Hutton was a Scottish geologist and the essential founder of uniformitarianism (the idea that changes in the Earth’s crust occur over immensely long periods of time, which pretty well discredits YEC).

It doesn’t really matter (for purposes of this discussion) what Augustine of Hippo had to say about Genesis.

Boru

Yes, Augustone does matter because it directly refutes the point you were making. There are important early Christians that did not consider Genesis a literal account. Augustine is one. Origen is another.

Yes, there are many Ken Hamm types. And I cannot speak for @Belacqua, but when I do have a chance to engage respectfully with a fundamentalist, I point them in the same direction as I do those atheists who mistakenly assume that if the bible is not true in any respect (like cosmology), that it cannot be reliable guide in any other respect, like spiritual instruction.

I’m confused - what point was I making that you think Augustine refuted?

What the church fathers say about YEC doesn’t matter because rank and file Christians, by and large, have no idea what Origen, Augustine, et al, said. The issue before us is whether a literalist, absolutist interpretation of the Bible is valid when it comes to science. I think both of us agree that it isn’t.

In this case, my issue is with YEC, not with Christians in general.

Boru

[LinuxGal]

In Galatians 4, Paul interprets the Genesis account of Abraham's sons as allegory.

He was writing to Gentiles, of which ninety to ninety-five percent couldn't even read, and of which one hundred percent had never read Torah because you had to go to the local synagogue to get a copy of the LXX. It'd be like me saying, "This source code is written in Fortran 90 but this part right here is just commentary."  Everyone would just go, "Sure, LG."