I stopped the following video on 1:05:27
The True Origins of Young Earth Creation? Responding to Inspiring Philosophy - Ben Kissling
Standing For Truth | 13 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlsWxjXs1m0
10:42 Ambrose wasn't Medieval, he was the mentor so to speak of Augustine.
The latter very clearly believed a Young Earth, i e creation's beginning not far behind Adam's creation and Biblical chronology holds since Adam's creation.
What he didn't believe was six literal days, he preferred to take that as one single moment, and the days mean sth else (like how angels saw the creation, not being able to take in all of it in one single view). That view is obviously not an Old Earth view.
now you'll notice a discrepancy here why 19:45 do all these earlier ancient Christians say about 6,000 or around 5500 when 19:53 Kepler you know 12400 years later is saying 6,000 okay that's because of the 20:00 difference between the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts of Genesis. The Septuagint was 20:05 a Greek text and the numbers we believe now were inflated um by about 1,400 years
I actually believe a version of the LXX.
On Christmas Day, the Catholic Church confesses Christ came 5199 after Creation.
The interpretation choices are probably better than for Syncellus from the Exodus on and for Genesis 5 and 11 we have basically a LXX without the Second Cainan. As Jonathan Sarfati has demonstrated such a text variant exists (and for Luke 3 too), I see this as uncontroversial.
we know Augustine um argued that the Masoretic 20:33 chronology was correct and the Septuagint was wrong
Where so? In City of God he's sitting on the edge.
29:43 It might be true that most educated Protestants between 1800 and 1950 were not Young Earth.
The "Catholic Scofield Bible" so to speak, by Father George Leo Haydock (c. 100 years before the actual Scofield Bible) was pretty influential among English speaking Catholics up to Vatican II. He got some competition by Father Knox' new translation with his comments.
By 1900 and basically up to 1920, Catholics were divided between YEC, which was retreating but hadn't disappeared, Day-Age and Gap. For the time after Adam's creation, the positions among conservative Catholics ranged from literal at least LXX chronology to 10 000 years ago.
36:28 There are two ways to make room for St. Irenaeus' view.
1) Jewish Chronology.
2) A modified version. It was the FIRST coming that occurred before 6000 AM or before the year 6*930 AM.
Calvary, the repose in the tomb, Resurrection count as days of the NEW Creation.
The first of them has its millennium or 930-years period continue past Christ, the second is another 930 or 1000 year in the Middle Ages, and as on Resurrection Day the disciples had a happy surprise that He lived, so, before the end of the 8th millennium or 930-year period, Christ will come to rescue His Church.
37:26 Given that some Orthodox Jews believe the Messiah will come AM 6000 (which they believe is c. 215 years in the future), I find it probable that Sts Irenaeus and Hippolytus simply took over this Jewish belief.
What they could have done was to take it over and reinterpret it in the light of redemption being a new creation.
[References for Clement and St. Justin are Stromata VI chapter 16 and Dialogue with Trypho chapter 81, Philo is not on New Advent Church Fathers. Lots of St. Augustine is, but De Genesi ad Litteram libri XII isn't.]
51:52 [St. Augustine] may have said in the discussion in books IV to VI [of De Genesi ad Litteram libri XII] that time would have been created on day IV, but in book I, he gave a perfect Geocentric model for how light and darknesss would have worked before the creation of the Sun.
One which I hold to.
52:13 St. Augustine explained that in book I. First everything was light when God created light. Then a halfglobe of the Heavens and a halfglobe of Earth were lit, the other halfglobe of each dark, and these started to rotate around Earth. When the Sun is created, that takes over. He even brings up the problem of what we would call International Date Line or Time Zones, and solves it like, the time zone of Jerusalem, because that's where Adam was created.
His reasoning for that may go sth like this.
1) Adam was buried under Calvary. It was fitting that Christ should die just above His ancestor's burial.
2) but he was probably buried where he was created, because ...
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return
[Genesis 3:19]
so, arguably he was buried at the same spot where he had been created.
3) This being Calvary, Time Zone of Jerusalem.
52:35 Don't try to make this a case for Heliocentrism.
In Geocentrism, Heaven rotates. Sun only moves with Heaven, according to St. Thomas. This means that the light could have rotated with Heaven before that. Or if the rotating part is the firmament, that was created on day II, the light could have rotated independently of any such rotation up to day II.
56:50 [Still St. Augustine] The potentialities working themselves out would have been sth like fetal development and normal post-birth growth. It cannot be taken as it taking any generations before Adam.
While I was doing the html, this kind of thing happened more than once:
It so happens, the text is not very emotional, certainly not ironic. Emotica have as little place in here as in any paper by any university professor which is not about emotica.
No comments:
Post a Comment