Evolution and an Orthodox Patristic understanding of Genesis

[TomS]

And when Tom is bored he likes to use me as his target of amusement.

No, sister. I am simply trying to correct you. You need to understand that Christianity is really simple; it is about faith in, and following the tenents of Christ - not about trying to prove everyone else is ignorant. Christ came to remove the yoke of the Pharisees from our shoulders. He did not come to remove that yoke in order to create a new one.

We are saved by our faith, how we live our lives, and ultimitely, the compassion of Christ.

Do you REALLY think that if we live our lives as Christ commanded us, and yet did not believe in the literal creation of the earth in six 24 hour periods, that Christ would reject us?

The literal interpretation of Genesis IS NOT IMPORTANT TO OUR SALVATION!

[Pravoslavnik]

"Watch Kent Hovind's second video "The Garden of Eden". He provides evidence that giants did indeed walk the earth and that there were once 9, 10, 11 and even 12 foot people living on earth. Bones that size have been found, but many instituions (especially the Smithsonian) hide away this evidence because their theory of evolution looks silly with giant humans in the past, when people are supposedly getting bigger and better."

Code: Select all

 I get it.  It is all a conspiracy by scientists to hide the bones of these abominable 12 foot tall snow dudes so that people will be dumb enough to believe the scientific data about evolution!  C.V., thanks for enlightening me on this issue.  By the way, who were the "sons of God" described in [i]Genesis[/i] Chapter 2 who sired these massive dudes?  Please explain this one for those of us who do not interpret [i]Genesis[/i] in the Protestant Fundamentalist fashion.  Were these aliens or just some big, red, horny Devils?

[jckstraw72]

The literal interpretation of Genesis IS NOT IMPORTANT TO OUR SALVATION!

St. John Chrysostom:

The blessed Moses, instructed by the Spirit of God, teaches us with such detail ... so that we might clearly know both the order and the way of the creation of each thing. If God had not been concerned for our salvation and had not guided the tongue of the Prophet, it would have been sufficient to say that God created the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and living creatures, without indicating either the order of the days or what was created earlier and what later.... But he distinguishes so clearly both the order of creation and the number of days, and instructs us about everything with great condescension, in order that we, coming to know the whole truth, would no longer heed the false teachings of those who speak of everything according to their own reasonings, but might comprehend the unutterable power of our Creator.
--Commentary on Genesis 7:3

[Pravoslavnik]

Dear Jackstraw,

Code: Select all

      The issue is not whether the sacred texts of [i]Genesis[/i] should be interpreted "literally," but how.  The problems with the modern Protestant Fundamentalist approaches are many.  These include multiple misunderstandings of the mystical significance of the Hebrew text, and applying the wrong models of cosmological time to their interpretations--especially those of Henry Morris and the Young Earth Creationists, who try to interpret [i]Genesis [/i]using earth-time as the cosmological standard.  In the process, the Fundamentalists have also misinterpreted "how" God--the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--created the life forms of the biosphere during the past three billion years, by assuming that these processes had to have occurred in a very brief amount of time, rather than through gradual evolutionary processes, as the scientific data indicates.  I agree with Tom S. that these scientific issues are not essential for our salvation, but, if you are interested in understanding these matters more clearly, you should read some [i]quality [/i]scientific writings on this subject, especially [i]Finding Darwin's God[/i], by Brown University Professor Kenneth Miller, and MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder's book [i]The Science of God.[/i]  I read both of these books after carefully studying Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, by Father Damascene Christian, and realizing that some of my Orthodox brethren were making a big mistake by embracing Henry Morris's pseudo-scientific paleology.

[jckstraw72]

I read both of these books after carefully studying Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, by Father Damascene Christian, and realizing that some of my Orthodox brethren were making a big mistake by embracing Henry Morris's pseudo-scientific paleology.

the vast majority of Fr. Seraphim's argument was straight from Patristics though, he only touched on scientific evidence a bit.

i look at it this way -- the Patristic understanding of Genesis is not compatible with evolution, and mulitple modern day saints have directly written against evolution, including St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Justin Popovich, Fr. Seraphim, and Elder Paisios. those who intimately know God do not buy it -- but modern scholars and scientists and some laypeople seem to agree with evolution. when you weigh scholars vs. those who know God intimately, its really not a hard choice to make.

[ChristosVoskrese]

you should read some quality scientific writings on this subject, especially Finding Darwin's God, by Brown University Professor Kenneth Miller, and MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder's book The Science of God. I read both of these books after carefully studying Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, by Father Damascene Christian, and realizing that some of my Orthodox brethren were making a big mistake by embracing Henry Morris's pseudo-scientific paleology.

You accuse us who interpret Genesis literally (as did all the Holy Fathers) as having a Protestant "misinterpretation" yet you back up your own interpretation using works written by a Roman Catholic and a Jew. Find an Orthodox defence of theistic evolution, why don't you? (And I mean True Orthodox, not modernist Orthodox, many of whom accept evolution.)

[Cyprian]

Thirty-six pages of profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called, and yet a few simple questions would have served to shame the Evolutionists long ago.

I would like the Evolutionists to tell us (according to their reasoning), what nature Adam's parents were (if he is the first to be properly called man), and am I right in the presumption that they assert that Adam proceeded forth from out of his mother's womb and from between her legs in the infantile state, progressing to adulthood through successive stages of growth?

Cyprian