My Question to Bishop Sanborn on the Age of the Earth and the Days of Genesis
St AnthonyPadua RadTrad | 9 July 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwnJTJI9i6k
0:58 Depending on version of LXX text (Lamech engendered at 187 or 167, Genesis 11 has or hasn't a second Cainan) and on choices of interpretation (all Christians traditionally believe in the short soujourn, but differ on the years between Exodus and Temple (both Roman Martyrology and Syncellus tend to there being more than just 480, but unequally so), and between the Temple and Christ (Syncellus puts the Temple in 1032 BC, which is when Roman Martyrology for Christmas day puts the anointing of King David), the LXX will NOT be compatible with Christ born 10 000 Anno Mundi, but with Christ born more than 5000 and less than 6000 Anno Mundi (Roman Martyrology has 5199, Syncellus has 5500 and 5509 as low and high counts).
Sorry, but Bishop Sanborn should have checked the facts better.
1:29 No, St. Augustine didn't prolong creation over a long period of time. Not if it's meant as anything like "day age" ....
The time when all creatures were present was sth like same moment when all was created.
The time when all creatures involved bodily mature examples (and mentally, for man) may have been the exact same, may have been normal gestation periods and matruing periods, may have been miraculous speeding up of them.
On St. Augustine's view we can at most add 33 years between Adam's creation and the creation of Eve. Not "long periods of time" ... unless 33 years counts as that. St. Thomas by the time of the Summa Theologica said that Adam could have been created in the very first moment, but taken up to day VI to get a miraculously speeded up maturation.
- Early Christian Beliefs
- @EarlyChristianBeliefs
- Thank you very much for pointing out the very important about St. Augustine not supporting an Old Earth interpretation.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @EarlyChristianBeliefs You are welcome!
The misconception is probably between St. Augustine himself and Father Fulcran Vigouroux, the latter saying "if St. Augustine thought it fine to deviate from six litteral days one way, doing so the opposite way couldn't hurt either" ... with no direct support from St. Augustine's actual words for the latter part!
1:53 St. Augustine actually answers that one in book I of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII.
God miraculously upheld a light without a light sources, shining on half of earth each moment, and the delimitation rotates, and the creation days count as per Time Zone of Jerusalem, where Adam was created.
2:05 I'm looking at the question:
"0:08 what is your position on the age of the 0:10 Earth or the age of man"
In fact two questions.
Some held to Day Age theory 100 years ago, i e that Creation Days of Genesis 1 were long periods of time.
But they also held to Biblical chronology from Creation of Adam onward. This was the position of Father Fulcran Vigouroux. He was open to gaps in the Genesis 11 genealogy, but didn't want to use it before further "datings" were pushing a prolongation of the age of man beyond what Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies suggest (he held to a Septuagint reading of them). That could possibly mean sth like up to 10 000 years.
Most Old Earthers (Old Earth Creationists or Theistic Evolutionists) today would extend the age of man very much beyond this. I'm very glad that this apparently is not Bishop Sanborn's own position.
No comments:
Post a Comment