Christians Who Believe This Are AGAINST the Ancient Church
Answers in Genesis Canada | 25 Aug. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeBZdQQuQAE
18:14 sth First, he was perfectly right that Sirach is a canonic book.
You have none but the Christ-rejecting Jews from the time to oppose this. Or, marginally, as a personal sidenote, St. Jerome, but in a context showing he knew he was outnumbered by the bishops of the Church.
But second, the real flaw between St. Augustine and St. Jerome is this one.
St. Jerome had a very classical Latinity, and enjoyed giving a good rhetoric performance. St. Augustine forbade him to use it. He was obligatorily to use current vernacular Latin.
And Sirach in the Greek says: Ο ΖΩΝ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἔκτισε τὰ πάντα κοινῇ. Now, κοινῇ could mean "in general" or could mean "together" .... St. Jerome took it to mean "together".
Here is the problem. Translate it to perfect classical flawless Ciceronian Latin, there is one word for "together" ... "iunctim" ... however, "iunctim" would have sounded like Shakespear to most. St. Augustine had severly told him to use totally commonplace words. He had even prayed for an angel to attack St. Jerome in the night in case he had disregarded this (and he had), so the angel beat him up and scolded him "Ciceronianis es, non Christianus!" ... St. Jerome complied. This is problematic with "together" ...
In some parts of the Latin world, "iunctim" was replaced with "insimul" (French ensemble, Italian insieme). In others with appropriate declinsion forms of "iunctus" (todas las cosas juntas in Spanish) ... "omnia creavit insimul" or "omnia creavit iuncta"? The fact is, St. Augustine was from the "iunctus" area, North African Latin is part influence on Spanish Latin, whereas St. Jerome was on the "insimul" area. Now "insimul" was very vulgar, so, one mollified it as "simul" ... which to St. Augustine simply meant "at one and the same time" ...
27:37 You know what certain "Catholics" actually like to quote from St. Augustine?
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7].”
― Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Vol 2
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/737513-usually-even-a-non-christian-knows-something-about-the-earth-the
So, if in our days, "even a non-Christian" is supposed to know sth, even as false and absurd as long ages or Heliocentrism, somehow this must be what the exegete goes for. They think they agree with St. Augustine in principle, if not on the specific issue.
Webster is somewhat later than St. Augustine and Church Fathers, see here:
We Found the Historical Adam!
Answers in Genesis Canada | 23 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxrprgFr9XU
No comments:
Post a Comment