Evolution and an Orthodox Patristic understanding of Genesis

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.


Post Reply

What do you believe vis a vis Creationism vs. Darwinism?

I believe in creationism like the Holy Fathers and Bible teach

20
83%

I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution and think the Church Fathers were wrong

2
8%

I am not sure yet, I need to read more Patristics and scientific theories

2
8%
 
Total votes: 24

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5126
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: United States of America
Contact:

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

Pensees wrote:

As already demonstrated, the fathers disagreed as to the length of the creation days. The antiquity of the earth was discovered...

It was theorized, not discovered. And the theory changes regularly by billions of years even!

But if one saw Adam right after he was created, one would assume he had been alive for quite some time too, if he could compare Adam to what a newly birthed human being looked like.

The Church year is currently 7515, because this is what the Church teaches, that the world is this old. If we read Genesis, we see the scientific theory is incorrect, as the sun and moon were created after the Earth!

Trust in God and His Church, not in princes, the sons of men.

Myrrh
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon 18 October 2004 8:00 pm

Post by Myrrh »

GOCPriestMark wrote:
Myrrh wrote:

Adam means "mankind", humanity, just as God became "man" means mankind, not "a male".

Are you saying there was no first man which God made from the dust and called Adam, that same Adam who named all the animals?
Are you also saying in this same sentence that Jesus Christ was not a male and therefore not circumcised on the 8th day?

Nope, not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that Adam before Adam and Eve is a word meaning 'human', from its meaning "red earth", all it is saying in that is that mankind was made from the earth (This goes back to a Sumerian creation story of the God's fashioning humans from the earth like throwing clay pots) in one being.

Because the link with Hebrew was lost in some Christian thinking all sorts of stuff came to be thought about it, like Adam and Eve were only some kind of spiritual beings, immortal and in original sin lost it, and that Adam was a male only and Eve created out of him, for example. There was much more flexibility of thinking about this in Christ's day but with knowing the meaning of the Hebrew and to limit such a story to a particular doctrine is not how it was understood then nor as it should be understood now.

It's a fascinating story, layers and layers of meaning and analogies which are lost if pedantically sticking to the Augustinian view which anyway comes from a misreading of the text etc. and which is one view not known in Jewish tradition - obviously not, since Augustine made it up himself.

So, two aspects: in the spiritual the 'man' Adam was thought of generally as an androgynous being, in the image of God male and female, and it's this being after naming all the animals and trawling through them to find a mate was split in half (the word for rib means 'side'; and physically Adam meaning mankind referring back to Genesis I in which Adam, the word translated as 'man', is male and female.

So, Christ was very much a male, born from the human woman God came to us in human form, but this main understanding of God as becoming human rather than 'a male' gets lost a bit in the English where "man" is now thought of first of all as meaning "male" whereas previously "man" was the English word for "human" - wifman and wereman were the terms for female and male.

Sorry, just re-read that, hope you're not too confused by it.

Myrrh

Myrrh
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon 18 October 2004 8:00 pm

Post by Myrrh »

p.s. you'll find lots of explanations of the Hebrew if you do a search, here's one: http://www.imninalu.net/Women.htm

"Elohim said, «Let us make Adam in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth». Elohim created Adam in His own image. In Elohim's image He created him; male and female He created them.
In the day that Elohim created Adam, He made him in Elohim's likeness. He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
(Genesis 1:26,27; 5:1,2)

This is a literal rendition from the original Hebrew text. Unfortunately, English language has not a proper translation for the Hebrew word “adam”, and in most versions it is rendered as “man”, the same word that in English indicates a person of male gender. Indeed, the equivalent of adam is “human being”, “person”, rather than man. The Hebrew word for man – a male person – is “ish” (Genesis 2:23).
Then, let us notice the apparent grammatical incongruence: first the text refers to Adam in plural (let them have dominion), then in singular (He created him), and then again in plural (He created them) – Also Elohim is plural, and is One, and indeed the pronoun for Elohim is He, that is singular.
Yet, replacing the pronouns by the nouns, it is explicit that “Elohim created Adam; male and female Elohim created Adam”. Then, the pronoun for Adam is plural: “Elohim created them male and female, and blessed them and called their name Adam”. It is clear enough: Elohim called the name of both, male and female, Adam. It was the man who later renamed his wife Havah, but her name, which was given her by the Creator in the day when she was created, was Adam. Now we have recognized that biblically the first woman was called Adam, and then she was renamed Havah.
So, the first human creature, who was made according to the image and likeness of the Creator, was not the man alone, but male and female in one single body. Yes, the original Adam was androgynous. This is clearly understood from the Scriptures, and is also the Jewish explanation according to the Hebrew text, which leaves no room to doubts or alternative interpretation.

There is a second account of the formation (not creation) of the woman, from which the male-centered misconceptions arise, mainly owing to a mistranslation by which the lower status of the woman has been promoted as a biblical truth.
Let us consider the parallel account of the specific formation of the woman, according to the Hebrew Scriptures:

“So HaShem Elohim caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his sides and closed up the flesh in its place. He made the side, which HaShem Elohim had taken from Adam, into a woman, and brought her to the man”.
(Genesis 2:21-22)

Let us notice that Elohim did not create the woman, she was already created. Elohim has simply separated the original Adam into two beings, one of each gender. However, the most common translations speak of a “rib”, term that is not used in the original Hebrew text. The term at issue is “tzela”, which does not convey the meaning of rib in biblical language. The correct translation is side, or side-wall, the whole side of Adam, not just a single bone. The term tzela implies an equality with the whole, a bearing wall. To one tzela corresponds another equal tzela, in the same way as in a building to each bearing wall corresponds another equally important bearing wall, on the opposite side. Certainly a man can live without one or two ribs, but not without half of his body… The Creator did not intend that the man would be however independent from his “rib”, but that he would be incomplete without her, and she without him, as one is the missing half of the other.
This second account is a detailed explanation of how the Creator separated the androgynous Adam into male and female entities. It was in His design. Nevertheless, the first human being was one and unique for a short period of time:

And HaShem Elohim said: «It is not good that Adam should be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him».
(Genesis 2:18)

The terms that here have been rendered as “helper” and “suitable” are in the Hebrew text the words “ezer k’negdo”, which convey a meaning of equality and not subordination. The term “ezer”, that is usually translated as “helper”, is applied to Elohim more than once, for example:
“Hear, Adonay, and have mercy on me. Adonay, be my helper”. (Psalm 30:10)
“Behold, Elohim is my helper. Adonay is the one Who sustains my soul”. (Psalm 54:4)
“HaShem is for me as my helper”. (Psalm 118:7)
There are several other verses in which this term is applied to the Creator, therefore, it cannot imply any subordinate status as a “helper” of someone who is the protagonist.
The second term, “k’negdo”, is also deeply meaningful: it is composed by the abbreviated adverb “k’”, that means “as”, “like”, and the term “negdo”, that means “corresponding”, “equal”, “suitable”, but conveying the meaning of “opposite”.
Therefore, an “ezer k’negdo” is literally a helper like him, equal to him, and opposite to him, and we can make the rendition of the verse in a more explicit way without altering the original meaning as follows:

And HaShem Elohim said: «It is not good that Adam should be alone; I will make him a helper like him, equal to him, suitable for him, and opposite to him».

What does it mean? That the male Adam had in front of him a perfect complement, somebody who was what he was not, who was different in everything, not only in gender but also in mind, feelings and behavior. In this way, they can love each other, give each other, desire each other. The Creator has done this on purpose, so that both partners are interdependent from each other, one has what the other needs, and both are incomplete by themselves and may be complete only when they become one again.

Back to Genesis 2.22, about the formation of the woman, it says:
“He made the side, which HaShem Elohim had taken from Adam, into a woman, and brought her to the man”.
The original Hebrew text begins with the word “v’yiven”, literally meaning “built”, and the whole verse would be correctly rendered as follows:
“HaShem Elohim built the side, which He had taken from Adam, into a woman, and brought her to the man”.
This verb is not used anywhere else in the account of the Creation. Why is this used properly for the formation of the woman? Because it is related by the root with the term “binah”, that means “inner understanding”, “insight”, that specifically refers to the female wisdom, what we may commonly define as the female sixth sense – although it is much more than that. Binah is the ruler of the left column of the Tree of Life.

And the Adam said: «This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man».
(Genesis 2:23)

When the male Adam saw her, he recognized that she was part of his own body, composed with his bones and flesh. That is what the expression means in Hebrew. Then he called her “ishah”, because she was taken out of himself, who since that moment was the “ish”. They were the same person, now distinguished in male and female."

Myrrh
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon 18 October 2004 8:00 pm

Post by Myrrh »

Hmm, don't know how the smiley got in there, I think it's something to do with tranferring from one system to another.

Myrrh
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon 18 October 2004 8:00 pm

Post by Myrrh »

Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh
The Whole Human Person: Body, Spirit and Soul

"We read in the Old Testament that in the beginning man (meaning human being) was created. Certain Fathers of the Church say that Adam, who was taken from the soil, made of the earth, the basic, the essential substance of the created world, contained within himself all the potential of a human being. He was neither male nor female, he was 'total man' and it is gradually, as he was developing to maturity, from innocence towards saintliness, from being a child into becoming an adult human being, that gradually there was within him a polarisation that required the separation of the two elements. And the moment came when God divided that unique human being into two beings, but two who were still totally one. In the Old Testament we find this moment when God divided in the primeval human, man from woman.

Neither the English nor the Church Slavonic translation is very satisfactory. We read of God taking a rib. A rabbi was once asked by one of his people, "Why did God take a rib and not a head, which would have been so useful, or the arms could have been so useful as well?" And the rabbi answered, "Because the rib is that part of man which is nearest to his heart". So, according to this terminology, woman was created from the part nearest to the heart of man — I do not think this is a very brilliant and unique explanation! Very often in ancient languages, certainly in Church Slavonic, 'rib' or 'ribcage' was used to denote the side, and God was perceived as dividing into two the original total being by dividing one side from another. Those who know French will appreciate that one can speak of cфte and cфtй, cфte meaning a rib, cфtй meaning a side. And when Adam saw Eve face to face, he exclaimed, "She is bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh". And the English text says, "I am man, she shall be called woman", which is not very clear, but the Hebrew text uses a word which shows that the one is the masculine and the other the feminine of the same being - 'ish' and 'ishshah'. "I am ish, she is ishshah. She is the feminine of me, I am the masculine of her".

At that moment it is one undivided being in two persons, because the Fall has not yet divided mankind from God and one human being from another. And it is only after the Fall that Adam and Eve look at one another and see themselves divided and different one from another. There is a passage in the works of Saint Methodius of Patara which, in the Latin translation, sounds like this: Adam looks at Eve and says, "She is my alter ego, the other myself", indicating thereby total, radical otherness and yet the fact that she is himself at the same time. Speaking of the Fall and the dividedness of Adam and Eve, Methodius says that when they fell away from God they lost the binding power between the two: Adam looked at Eve and Eve looked at Adam and said, "I am ego, I; he is alter, he is the other." They have become a broken couple, and the notion of the individual is apparent. It will grow and become deeper. It will become more destructive with time, but at that moment it has already happened. They are no longer two persons being one unit that is a human being. They are two persons into which individuality has entered. It is the moment of tragedy, because the two will somehow have to be kept together, because if they are not kept together then they will be separated for ever. Dividedness always grows, dividedness does not alter spontaneously.

So God establishes between them a mutual attraction. They are attracted to one another both psychologically and physically. They long for one another, because deep down in themselves they know that they are one and belong together, although experientially they know that something has happened to separate them. One of the spiritual writers says that the world could not have subsisted without a sacrament, a sacrament being a binding power that links beings with God and beings with one another. So, from the very beginning of the world God established marriage: not marriage as we know it now as an ecclesiastical, liturgical celebration, but as an event which brings two beings, otherwise separated, into oneness, into a degree of oneness accessible to both of them. It may be total, it may be partial, it may be full of crisis, it may be a glorious growth into oneness. But marriage is the only sacrament which subsisted in the world of the Bible and in the pagan world, preventing individuals from breaking away from one another and the human race from being finally destroyed."

http://www.metropolit-anthony.orc.ru/eng/eng_09.htm

Myrrh
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon 18 October 2004 8:00 pm

Post by Myrrh »

Aren't we in the eternal 8th day?

Myrrh

User avatar
Pensees
Member
Posts: 214
Joined: Fri 24 March 2006 12:28 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Post by Pensees »

Deacon Nikolai wrote:

It was theorized, not discovered. And the theory changes regularly by billions of years even!

Before Darwin published the Origin, young earth creationism was not the dominant belief within the religious and scientific communities, but day-age theory. The antiquity of the earth isn't some half-baked idea to justify evolution, but something discovered before Darwin was even born.

Deacon Nikolai wrote:

But if one saw Adam right after he was created, one would assume he had been alive for quite some time too, if he could compare Adam to what a newly birthed human being looked like.

Did God plant dinosaur bones in the fossil record to fool the irreligious?

Deacon Nikolai wrote:

The Church year is currently 7515, because this is what the Church teaches, that the world is this old.

What is there within the Bible itself which demonstrates it as an accurate measure of the age of the universe?

Deacon Nikolai wrote:

If we read Genesis, we see the scientific theory is incorrect, as the sun and moon were created after the Earth!

Origen
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

Clement of Alexandria
"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

Peace.

Post Reply