What Ken Ham Misses About Creation
Truth Unites | 7 Sept. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL9t3O-1E7w
5:27 It was actually St. Augustine who brought me to YEC, or back to it.
On converting, I was still YEC, but with less intensity, and I took time off for c. 10 years.
My chronology had room for extra-biblical time periods like the worlds of Tolkien's Third Age or Conan's Hyperborean Age. I never fell for Millions or Billions of years though, just for there being lots of holes in the Genesis 11 genealogy.
I was serving time and in transfer to forensic psychiatry, being deemed too unstable for prison with its extra strains on mental status and its extra dangers for not having a perfect one, and so had a time for lots of reading.
I finished all of the Laura Ingalls Wilder series, and also a Swedish translation of City of God.
It is very clear, St. Augustine had absolutely no room for extending the Biblical timeline beyond LXX readings of Genesis 5 and 11 and beyond including second Cainan in Genesis 11.
So, going against Young Earth Creationism, unless you artificially include "literal six days" against
all alternatives in its definition, is definitely not a position of St. Augustine. He did indeed favour a non-literal or not-obviously-literal approach to the six days, as laid out in books V and VI of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII.
But, you are now involving his view on Apologetics. I am starting to brace myself for hearing a certain passage quote-mined for an absolutely un-Augustinian purpose.
5:44 Understanding one's culture to do apologetics well does
not automatically mean doing apologetics the Augustine way.
Here is a reason why not. If we look at the Roman Empire around 400, when St. Augustine would have been writing some of his apologetics, it was a society which was lots saner than the one of 150 years before. Honorius was not Decius.
If we look at our sociaty, it's one which is lots less sane than 150 years ago. To take US as an example, Ulysses S. Grant was not what J. R. Biden Jr. is. Ulysses S. Grant was not trying to help women get abortions, as opposed to marriages and he had no compulsory school system (I think), very definitely not one where teaching Evolution was part of the core curriculum.
In other words, in response to a Roman society getting better by the day, St. Augustine could view it more leniently. In response to our society getting worse by the day (except, thank God, Dobbs, Alabama etc recently !) we might for a very similar reason view it as needing more opposition.
6:41 Is Ken Ham saying "only reason you'd read Genesis 1
differently" or "only reason you'd read Genesis 1
longer"?
St. Augustine very famously read Genesis 1
shorter.
Less than one nano-second of creation itself, and then angels taking six nano-seconds to appreciate how God had created the rest of creation, the "evening" and "morning" equating to seeing creatures in themselves and seeing them in God as their creator and in His intentions, to His glory. Obviously, less than 7 nano-seconds is pretty obviously about 144 hours shorter than the usual literal reading would have it ...
6:56 Well, yes, if it means "different
from YEC" (in the normal sense), it is THE Orthodox view.
One-moment creation is not OEC, it is a subset of YEC.
But you spoke of difference
in Genesis 1.
- The_Bored_Theist
- @hglundahl one-moment creation runs in opposition to modern YEC in that the text is not perceived through a lense of scientific concordism. Which is to say that, when Augustine viewed the concept of "yom", he didn't think of it as a description of astronomy with Earth's rotation.
Which is a significant issue in YECism today. When Ken Ham views "yom" he thinks of it as if it's something scientific. Or something that must be verified through science. Rather than observing that the theological meaning may have nothing to do with science, as Augustine did. And that's the difference there.
CONCORDISME, subst. masc.
https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/concordisme
RELIG. Système d'exégèse visant à établir une concordance entre les textes bibliques et les données scientifiques.
Rem. 1. Attesté ds Lar. 20e, Lar. encyclop., Rob., Quillet 1965. 2. Concordisme est employé dans le même sens mais à propos du Coran dans Philos., Relig., 1957, p. 5204, 5207 (cf. anticipation ex. 1).
Étymol. et Hist. Av. 1907 (Ed. Le Roy ds Lar. mens.). Dér. du rad. de concorde* (évangélique); suff. -isme*. Fréq. abs. littér. : 1. Bbg. Dub. Dér. 1962, p. 35.
| It so happens, the term seems to be lacking in English usage, the wikipedia page only has two languages, French and Malagasy |
|
|
|
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @The_Bored_Theist "runs in opposition to modern YEC"
Not in opposition to YEC as such, though.
Which makes the discrepancies between "modern" YEC and St. Augustine less important.
"Which is to say that, when Augustine viewed the concept of "yom", he didn't think of it as a description of astronomy with Earth's rotation."
I think St. Augustine was a Latinist and used dies.
In book I he provided a globe earth and geocentric frame for how days worked both before and after creation of the Sun on day four.
He didn't view normal days after creation, like the ones in which Our Lord was in the grave, as about Earth's rotation.
"When Ken Ham views "yom" he thinks of it as if it's something scientific. Or something that must be verified through science."
Most like, something which cannot contradict correct science.
"Rather than observing that the theological meaning may have nothing to do with science, as Augustine did."
He did not do so consistently. In book I, he gives a normal "six literal days" approach. In book VI, after discussing the one moment view, he considered the "six literal days" view as at least not heretical and good enough for beginners.
- The_Bored_Theist
- @hglundahl yea. So that's the key here. It's about hermeneutics. Not necessarily about science.
Ken Ham, he doesn't acknowledge ancient near east cosmology or context, full stop. He wants nothing to do with it. Ken Ham is full blown scientific concordism.
Whereas St Augustine, we have some flexibility and variation. Which is a huge deal. Because if we then take a non-concordist approach in modern day times, and combine that with ancient near east context, it yields a drastically different understanding of scripture.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @The_Bored_Theist "Not necessarily about science."
So?
To Ken Ham it's arguyably not about science per se, only in as far as things touch on science by common subject matter.
"he doesn't acknowledge ancient near east cosmology or context, full stop."
Neither does St. Augustine!
"Because if we then take a non-concordist approach in modern day times, and combine that with ancient near east context, it yields a drastically different understanding of scripture."
St. Augustine didn't care two cents about being non-concordist.
He would not have accepted ANE as "context" either.
- The_Bored_Theist
- @hglundahl St Augustine acknowledged geocentrism, which was a component of ancient near east cosmology. St. Augustine also believed in waters above, that might cool the temperatures of planets. St Augustine also rejected belief in antipodes or was at least suspicious of such an idea. These are all remnants of ancient near eastern perspectives.
@hglundahl that's an important caveat, "as things touch on science by common subject matter".
I would say that this isn't the case for Augustines position on days of Genesis. He did not view the days of Genesis as something touched on by science. But Ken Ham, of course, does.
It's a significant hermeneutical difference.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "He did not view the days of Genesis as something touched on by science."
Sorry, wrong. He uses the Geocentric science in book I.
"acknowledged geocentrism, which was a component of ancient near east cosmology."
Flat earth geostasis is different from geocentrism in a round earth sense.
"St. Augustine also believed in waters above, that might cool the temperatures of planets."
So do I. Lots of molecules both H2O and H2 in space.
"St Augustine also rejected belief in antipodes or was at least suspicious of such an idea."
He rejected the belief in people he would have called antipodes, as living on areas we would call antipodes. He did that for the specific reason of being a land crab who counted on people being moderately honest. I e, he saw no solution how people could have crossed the Atlantic and not been able and also wanted to return on occasion.
The main issue here was monogenism.
"These are all remnants of ancient near eastern perspectives."
Not to St. Augustine.
- The_Bored_Theist
- @hglundahl Augustine viewed the days as instantaneous. I'm pretty sure that was not the scientific position in his day, or any day. Did Aristotle propose that there were 24-hour solar days before the sun existed?
No of course not.
@hglundahl "not to St Augustine".
St Augustine didn't live in the ancient near east, so of course he wouldn't see this. But that's what it is.
Geocentrism is a remnant of ancient cosmology.
It certainly doesn't stem from modern cosmology, now does it?
@hglundahl and I did not equate flat earth geostasis with geocentrism, only the geocentric component that Augustine held, with the geocentric component of the ancient near east.
Just face it. Augustine held to remnants of ancient cosmology.
And, the days of Genesis were not viewed to accord with science of his day.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @The_Bored_Theist A few points:
1) Thank you for admitting that St. Augustine was not consciously (nor in the text, except by very intricate eisegesis) refusing the cosmology of contemporary Greece and Rome in favour of doing, just for exegesis, a deep dive into Ancient Near East for "correct historic context";
2) Please note, such a venture of consciously discounting one's own cultural context to see an ancient text in its own historic one was totally alien to his time - it was basically invented by Lorenzo Valla who came to notice that contemporary pounds or marks, shillings, pence, did not quite match up with the Ciceronian parts of the As Aeris;
3) The Creation days are neither from the cultural context of his day nor for accounting for a very different one in Moses' day (pun on meaning of yom noted), they are simply from the Bible, and going beyond what science in and of itself could give - as they are also for Ken Ham or me; to Aristotle, there had never been a moment of creation, he believed the world created or provoked into formed existence by God ab aeterno;
4) That they are reduced to one moment and angelic views of that one moment is very much in vague with contemporary Platonism, and St. Augustine had held to it as a Neo-Platonic before converting to Catholicism, indeed, found it impossible to convert unless Catholicism could accomodate to this one - St. Thomas in Comments on the Sentences gives kind of a regula de tri reason for one moment - if it takes three men five months to build a house, and five men three months to build a house, how long does it take God to do so, given He's omnipotent? One instant, zero time lapse.
5) Geocentrism in the globe earth model was very much contemporary science in his day - Aristotle had refuted argument after argument for earlier Heliocentrics. It neither was, nor was lived as a culturally contrasting remnant of a two thousand years earlier different cosmology. The Pythagorean school was the only philosophical school which had involved Heliocentrics, and it was dead since the days of Plotinus. Even Epicureans (as Stoics equally dead or at least close to dead) were Geocentric.
- The_Bored_Theist
- @hglundahl platonism and st Augustines view of an instantaneous creation, has nothing to do with any form of science. I don't see how your response is relevant.
And I agree that geocentrism was contemporary science of his day. And it was essentially a remnant of ancient cosmological perspectives. As noted above, geocentrism certainly didn't stem from any modern cosmological perspective.
And to be fair, Augustine's perspective of Genesis, being influenced by philosophers of his day, is a depiction of the exact issue that Ken Ham himself is guilty of with respect to science. Dragging the text out of its original cultural context, to fit in with philosophy (Augustine) or science (Ken Ham) of that particular age and time.
@hglundahl "to Ken Ham, it's arguably not about science per se".
I think you misunderstand everything that answers in Genesis stands for. The global flood carving out geology of the Grand canyon. The vapor canopy being a substitution for the ancient near east waters above. Leviathan and behemoth being interpreted as dinosaurs of a paleontology textbook.
The ark museum depicts nephelim battling in a Roman coliseum against a theropod dinosaur.
The waters below, breaking through the land in Genesis 7:11 And Genesis 8:2, rendered as the rifting of pangea.
AiG focuses on modern 21st century science at every possible turn that they can.
For them, science of modern times has hijacked their hermeneutic. And it has pulled the text out of its ancient near east context.
St Augustine, did not take scientific observation of the earths rotation (what could be viewed as a scientific observation based on physical observations), or of the sun rotating around the earth (a pre scientific geocentric perspective), as the basis for his interpretation of the days of Genesis. Augustine was not a scientific concordist.
@hglundahl your response here doesn't address the issue of scientific concordism of Ken Ham. Something Augustine is not guilty of.
And that's really at the base of the issue.
Saying that Platonism is "like" science is quite a stretch I'd say. Instantaneous creation of the universe is nothing like scientific concordism.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @The_Bored_Theist Platonism was as close to being "science" as Aristotelianism was, in the then sociology.
"And I agree that geocentrism was contemporary science of his day."
I e what he would have referred to as modern.
"And it was essentially a remnant of ancient cosmological perspectives."
On the contrary, Heliocentrism had already had a chance and failed.
"didn't stem from any modern cosmological perspective."
Certainly from what he would have considered modern. Aristotle refuting Heliocentrism was about as modern to him as Copernicus advocating it is to us. Pythagoreans having several centuries earlier advocated it was as outdated to him, as Urban VIII condemning it is to us.
"Dragging the text out of its original cultural context, to fit in with philosophy (Augustine) or science (Ken Ham) of that particular age and time."
Oh, so much for your lip service to St. Augustine, as long as you could pit him against Ham ... Lorenzo Valla's your go to, obviously ...
@The_Bored_Theist "The global flood carving out geology of the Grand canyon."
Now, Grand Canyon is not science, it's an object ... however, it's an object touched on both by biblical history and by some scientists.
Ken Ham is not a Kantian, neither am I, and I think Kantians go to Hell, so he's going to presume "religious" events like the Flood leave traces in objects in the "phenomenological" world, as opposed to Kant's water tight division between "phenomenon" and "noumenon" ... if the event is big enough, the traces will be many enough for some to be preserved, and if its a disturbance, which the Six Days aren't, but the Flood was, it will leave traces identifiable as traces of disturbances.
"The vapor canopy being a substitution for the ancient near east waters above."
Vapour canopy has not been the position of AiG for decades. It may still be that of Kent Hovind, but that's perhaps, if so, because he missed a few shifts while in prison.
"Leviathan and behemoth being interpreted as dinosaurs of a paleontology textbook."
You seem to complain about a mixing of genres ... Leviathan and Behemoth if creatures of God certainly had bones, and their bones could certainly be left somewhere, even if the kinds themselves are extinct.
"The ark museum depicts nephelim battling in a Roman coliseum against a theropod dinosaur."
A miss in their talent for historical reconstruction. Theropods were more probably used in Berlin wall like no man's lands - like Honneger used automatic rifles to kill those trying to pass. Roman times weren't half as bad as modern or pre-Flood ones.
"The waters below, breaking through the land in Genesis 7:11 And Genesis 8:2, rendered as the rifting of pangea."
I'd actually reconstruct the pre-Flood continent differently. Frat would begin in reverse of today's Euphrates, continue NW past today's post-Flood Zagros mountains and Black Sea, continue into the Danube (also reverse), across post-Flood Alps, into the Rhine, possibly Rhone and Garonne too, into Thames and Liffey and across the post-Flood Atlantic into (reverse of) St. Lawrence River while finally reaching the sea near Alaska.
"AiG focuses on modern 21st century science at every possible turn that they can."
Yeah, so?
"For them, science of modern times has hijacked their hermeneutic. And it has pulled the text out of its ancient near east context."
Oh dear ... no, the text is first and foremost in the context of the actual events, and these being real leave real traces whether these be properly understood and accounted for by ANE cultures or not. YOU are hijacking hermeneutics into la la land, into the text as a purely cultural artifact with no bearing on real events.
"St Augustine, did not take scientific observation ... of the sun rotating around the earth (a pre scientific geocentric perspective), as the basis for his interpretation of the days of Genesis"
Except, in book I of the twelve books, he did exactly that.
"Augustine was not a scientific concordist."
Much more than a Kantian heretic and nincompoop on St. Augustine and on Greco-Romans like you would want to believe.
"Saying that Platonism is "like" science is quite a stretch I'd say. Instantaneous creation of the universe is nothing like scientific concordism."
Except it kind of is. There is nothing exactly like modern science in St. Augustine's day. The closest you get is Aristotelic-Platonic syncretism, which is somewhere between what we would call science and what we might call New Age or Theosophy. St. Augustine is concordist with it as often as possible, and simply rejecting it as badly argued even in philosophy, when the breach with the Bible is too stark (like in Aristotle's eternal world).
- The_Bored_Theist
- @hglundahl this might also help illuminate the difference here. Ken Ham follows a sort of post-enlightenment scientifically influence grammatical historical interpretation of Genesis. That is to say, when Genesis says "evening and morning", Ken Ham views this as needing to align with modern 21st century astronomy.
Augustine did no such thing. Neoplatonism is vastly different than any 21st century post-enlightenment scientific approach to the text. And neoplatonism also was not aligned with any science (as we know it, involving physical observations) in the day of Augustine, just the same.
Ken Ham argues that the text must align with a post enlightenment grammatical historical hermeneutic. And that all must read the Bible this way, lest they be influenced by atheism.
By Ken Hams own rules, Augustine would have been, for practical purposes, an enemy of scripture, influenced by Satan.
And that's a problem.
Yes, St Augustine didn't live in the ancient near east, and he lacked resources on caananite and Babylonian ancient near east cosmology of Genesis. So he didn't quite get it right. That's not throwing Augustine under the bus, that's just acknowledging the reality of the situation.
But more importantly, Augustine fits the bill for Gavin, that he interpreted the text in a different light than what Ken Ham allows for.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- I'm sorry, but you are not just bored, you are getting boring @The_Bored_Theist .
I know St. Augustine probably better than you, at least in some respects, I know Ken Ham definitely better than you, and I know Greco-Roman world view better than you.
Just one little taste for now what's wrong with your attitude:
"That is to say, when Genesis says "evening and morning", Ken Ham views this as needing to align with modern 21st century astronomy."
1) No, Ken Ham views days 1 to 3 in ways not aligning with modern astronomy
2) no, both Ken Ham and St. Augustine do acknowledge a basic literal meaning and how it aligns with either period's philosophy of the celestial
3) most emphatically, it is not the fact one believes facts align with circumstances studied by sciences that differs - it is never science which determines whether a word is used as a metaphor anyway.
4) St. Augustine in book I makes the ordinary understanding of days a fact aligning with astronomy, and in books 4 to 6 makes the non-typical understanding of days align with the fact of God's omnipotence as it is studied by Platonic science, so on both accounts St. Augustine is far closer to what you Frenchies (meaning a segment of the learned people, no offense to the Parigot in general, except for putting up with you) with a stupid dichotomy call "concordism" than he is to what you on that same stupid dichotomy call "non-concordism" ...
One more @The_Bored_Theist .
"St Augustine didn't live in the ancient near east, and he lacked resources on caananite and Babylonian ancient near east cosmology of Genesis. So he didn't quite get it right."
If you say "he didn't get it right" you cannot invoke him as Patristic support for what you call getting it right.
Also, what you call getting it right depends on factors so rare over Church history that most Christians would have got it wrong, making Biblical inerrancy a matter of name only and Church infallibility a joke.
- The_Bored_Theist
- @hglundahl the argument Gavin is making is not based on whether or not Augustine is right or wrong. It's based on whether or not Christians in history have had a different hermeneutical approach than Ken Ham.
Regarding your second comment "getting it right" is not necessary for salvation. I'm not saying that Augustine wasn't a saint. But to be fair, there are things that he didn't know, and thus misunderstood, about the ancient near east context of scripture. As do we all. And there's nothing (significantly) wrong with that. It's just an observation.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @The_Bored_Theist "It's based on whether or not Christians in history have had a different hermeneutical approach than Ken Ham."
Ken Ham did not claim all Christians of the past had his hermeneutical approach. He claimed all Christians of the past had the young earth position, which as per City of God is true of St. Augustine too.
So, you totally missed Ken Ham's point, even if it was actually cited.
"Regarding your second comment "getting it right" is not necessary for salvation."
You missed mine too, read again ... or don't. Key words "inerrancy" and "infallibility" ... not salvation.
- The_Bored_Theist
- @hglundahl it wasn't Gavins counter point to say that there were old earth theologians in historical times. That's not what Gavin's video is about.
Ken Ham avoids the real issue of the subject. Scientific concordism. Of course Ken Ham made an irrelevant comment to the discussion. That's what Ken Ham does for a living, makes irrelevant comments.
But here, Gavin is making a relevant response. Which is what is significant in the topic.
@hglundahl also, Biblical inerrancy isn't a question of whether or not Christians understand the Bible perfectly. I don't see what your point is in this subject. Inerrancy also does not depend on whether or not Ken Ham or Augustine are aware of ancient near east context in Genesis.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @The_Bored_Theist It wasn't Gavin's counter point, but it was the one point that could have countered it.
Pretending the main issue is a 20th C. quarrel among French speaking mainly "Catholics" about two hermeneutic approaches and qualifying St. Augustine for your own because you pretend to disqualify him for Ken Ham's is about as disingenious as Gavin's shift from "young earth" to "literal six days" which everyone, including Ken Ham, who wisely chose his wording, knows is not the same thing.
Gavin made an irrelevant response and you made an irrelevant defense of it.
@The_Bored_Theist "Biblical inerrancy isn't a question of whether or not Christians understand the Bible perfectly."
As defined by Trent Session IV it very much is a question of whether Christians over the centuries can avoid at least a major category mistake.
You are pretending the real category for Genesis 1 - 11 is myth, and more specifically an ANE mythology with polytheistic takes edited out. This was most emphatically not the category it has had over the centuries, neither for St. Augustine nor for Dom Augustin Calmet and not even for canon Crampon.
You are making Biblical inerrancy a bad joke.
Here, I blocked him.
He has avoided every kind of debate on whether St. Augustine was right or whether Ken Ham is right on matters of fact in their interpretation of Genesis.
He has focussed everything on a toxic meta-debate on what is the right hermeneutical approach, and obfuscated a very huge agreement of St. Augustine with Ken Ham and both against Gavin and himself, in the actual positions, over a difference in meta-positions or methodology.
That's not debating, it's brow-beating. |
|
7:52 Would you mind enumerating the five commentaries?
I only knew of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII and De Genesi ad Litteram Liber Imperfectus, not even sure in which order these come.
8:29 Wait - it said 4.1.1 in the image. Did St. Augustine start the discussion I mentioned already in book IV of Libri XII?
8:52 And this partly comes from his insistance that St. Jerome had to translate in popular Latin.
In Classical Latin, "together" was "iunctim" but that was a dead word. If St. Augustine's prayer sent that angel who whipped St. Jerome while saying "Ciceronianus es, non Christianus" - then St. Augustine contributed to St. Jerome NOT using "iunctim" ... the problem is, the replacement was by then different according to regions. Like "no one" in Sweden says "ämbar" for bucket, but it's a difference whether you say "spann" or "hink" ... "spann" being Scania, "hink" being the Stockholm region.
Similarily, what you said for "iunctim" depended on region. St. Augustine would have used the plural of the adjective, "iuncti" - just as Spanish uses "juntos" ... and St. Jerome was probably from a region where we get words like "insieme, ensemble" and so on ... but he didn't write straight off "in simul" either, that being a barbarism, he wrote "simul" ...
Qui vivet in aeternum creavit omnia simul. Deus solus justificabitur, et manet invictus rex in aeternum.
Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 18:1
Ο ΖΩΝ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἔκτισε τὰ πάντα κοινῇ
(Vulgate and LXX have different verse divisions)
"in common", "by agreement" - according to wiktionary, at the utmost "together" ... but not, unlike "simul", "simultaneously" ...
9:47 Now, making
this the main argument of St. Augustine makes him seem slightly ... Alzheimer?
The fact is, in book I, he had already given the solution to light on days 1 to 3.
Could also be a disconnect, so he was in book 4 giving kind of resumés of arguments used by Origen, even if he didn't agree with all details.
9:57 If that comment was in book IV, I missed it, I skipped it to run to the exposition of his view ...
I think it would have been very standard even back then to take "the Genesis 2 account" as a close view on day VI insofar as it concerns man's creation.
10:56 I think the big four or only four authors who embraced one moment creationism were:
- Philo
- St Clement
- Origen
- St Augustine
When St. Thomas Aquinas arrives in Paris and writes his comments on Sentences of the Lombard, he is all four St. Augustine.
BUT when he is writing Summa Thologiae, he states this view was held by Origen and Augustine, not by other fathers.
I think he had spent quite a lot of his time in Paris actually reading lots of other Church Fathers.
11:10 I did not know of St. Athanasius (not totally unexpected, an Alexandrian again), or Didymus the Blind ... yet another Alexandrian.
But I can kind of guess, these were also one moment creationists, not old earth creationists ...
- Brian Diehl
- We have people like Gregory of Nissa who "taught that Creation was potential. God imparted to matter its fundamental properties and laws. The objects and completed forms of the Universe developed gradually out of chaotic material
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- OK, @briandiehl9257 ... two questions:
1) do you have a reference for it?
2) what time frame for the gradual development did he give? normal growth from tadpole to frog time frame? quicker? embryo to grown man time frame? even slower, like millions of years? I highly doubt the latter.
11:42 Were Sts Gregory, Isidore and Bede in agreement with the later view of St. Thomas?
If, however, these two explanations are looked at as referring to the mode of production, they will be found not greatly to differ, if the diversity of opinion existing on two points, as already shown (I:67:1; I:69:1), between Augustine and other writers is taken into account.
First, because Augustine takes the earth and the water as first created, to signify matter totally without form; but the making of the firmament, the gathering of the waters, and the appearing of dry land, to denote the impression of forms upon corporeal matter. But other holy writers take the earth and the water, as first created, to signify the elements of the universe themselves existing under the proper forms, and the works that follow to mean some sort of distinction in bodies previously existing, as also has been shown (I:67:4; I:69:1).
Secondly, some writers hold that plants and animals were produced actually in the work of the six days; Augustine, that they were produced potentially. Now the opinion of Augustine, that the works of the six days were simultaneous, is consistent with either view of the mode of production. For the other writers agree with him that in the first production of things matter existed under the substantial form of the elements, and agree with him also that in the first instituting of the world animals and plants did not exist actually. There remains, however, a difference as to four points; since, according to the latter, there was a time, after the production of creatures, in which light did not exist, the firmament had not been formed, and the earth was still covered by the waters, nor had the heavenly bodies been formed, which is the fourth difference; which are not consistent with Augustine's explanation. In order, therefore, to be impartial, we must meet the arguments of either side.
Second half of corpus to I, Q 74, A2 ...
12:34 Six literal 24 hour days are certainly
part of Ken Ham's approach, but when he spoke of "young earth creationism" as sole orthodoxy, he specifically did not include literality of six days.
Ken Ham's beef with "Day Age" and "Gap Theory" is, they involve death before sin. Philo, Clement, Origen, Augustine, young St. Thomas Aquinas and them preferring one moment over six normal days, simply doesn't have this problem.
12:57 I am aware that St. Augustine, and in his wake Sts Bede and Thomas Aquinas believed carnivores were carnivores before the fall.
They also believed they were carnivores of fairly happy victims. A wolf would have gulped down a rabbit when Adam allowed it, and the rabbit would have agreed, because he loved Adam for being God's image ... no wolf would have left a rabbit half eaten, and neither wolf nor rabbit would have had cancer.
The modern view does not just involve animal death before sin, it involves this being wasteful death after sometimes very prolonged misery, like cancers ...
13:11 Let's take the chapter in full.
Chapter 4.— Of the Nature of Irrational and Lifeless Creatures, Which in Their Own Kind and Order Do Not Mar the Beauty of the Universe.
But it is ridiculous to condemn the faults of beasts and trees, and other such mortal and mutable things as are void of intelligence, sensation, or life, even though these faults should destroy their corruptible nature; for these creatures received, at their Creator's will, an existence fitting them, by passing away and giving place to others, to secure that lowest form of beauty, the beauty of seasons, which in its own place is a requisite part of this world. For things earthly were neither to be made equal to things heavenly, nor were they, though inferior, to be quite omitted from the universe. Since, then, in those situations where such things are appropriate, some perish to make way for others that are born in their room, and the less succumb to the greater, and the things that are overcome are transformed into the quality of those that have the mastery, this is the appointed order of things transitory. Of this order the beauty does not strike us, because by our mortal frailty we are so involved in a part of it, that we cannot perceive the whole, in which these fragments that offend us are harmonized with the most accurate fitness and beauty. And therefore, where we are not so well able to perceive the wisdom of the Creator, we are very properly enjoined to believe it, lest in the vanity of human rashness we presume to find any fault with the work of so great an Artificer. At the same time, if we attentively consider even these faults of earthly things, which are neither voluntary nor penal, they seem to illustrate the excellence of the natures themselves, which are all originated and created by God; for it is that which pleases us in this nature which we are displeased to see removed by the fault — unless even the natures themselves displease men, as often happens when they become hurtful to them, and then men estimate them not by their nature, but by their utility; as in the case of those animals whose swarms scourged the pride of the Egyptians. But in this way of estimating, they may find fault with the sun itself; for certain criminals or debtors are sentenced by the judges to be set in the sun. Therefore it is not with respect to our convenience or discomfort, but with respect to their own nature, that the creatures are glorifying to their Artificer. Thus even the nature of the eternal fire, penal though it be to the condemned sinners, is most assuredly worthy of praise. For what is more beautiful than fire flaming, blazing, and shining? What more useful than fire for warming, restoring, cooking, though nothing is more destructive than fire burning and consuming? The same thing, then, when applied in one way, is destructive, but when applied suitably, is most beneficial. For who can find words to tell its uses throughout the whole world? We must not listen, then, to those who praise the light of fire but find fault with its heat, judging it not by its nature, but by their convenience or discomfort. For they wish to see, but not to be burnt. But they forget that this very light which is so pleasant to them, disagrees with and hurts weak eyes; and in that heat which is disagreeable to them, some animals find the most suitable conditions of a healthy life.
However, this is not in a discussion of whether there was death before sin, though he will arguably have derived there was from this principle, it is in a discussion of theodicy.
This does not mean that Adam had no emotional connexion to the animals he named, and therefore also not that God would have been kind to Adam before his sin, if He had allowed animals to already suffer.
Benno Zuiddam has however argued that early Church Fathers definitely differed from St. Augustine and believed in original vegetarianism and not even animal death before sin.
13:59 It may be noted in this context, St. Augustine had been Manichaean.
Now, Manichaeans were not just saying that animal death did not belong in the original creation before Adam sinned. They were saying animals that die do not at all belong in God's creation.
Here is a passage not very far from the one you mentioned, which proves to me, St. Augustine was in fact arguing against the Manichean position:
Chapter 2.— That There is No Entity Contrary to the Divine, Because Nonentity Seems to Be that Which is Wholly Opposite to Him Who Supremely and Always is.
This may be enough to prevent any one from supposing, when we speak of the apostate angels, that they could have another nature, derived, as it were, from some different origin, and not from God. From the great impiety of this error we shall disentangle ourselves the more readily and easily, the more distinctly we understand that which God spoke by the angel when He sent Moses to the children of Israel: I am that I am. Exodus 3:14 For since God is the supreme existence, that is to say, supremely is, and is therefore unchangeable, the things that He made He empowered to be, but not to be supremely like Himself. To some He communicated a more ample, to others a more limited existence, and thus arranged the natures of beings in ranks. For as from sapere comes sapientia, so from esse comes essentia — a new word indeed, which the old Latin writers did not use, but which is naturalized in our day, that our language may not want an equivalent for the Greek οὐσία . For this is expressed word for word by essentia. Consequently, to that nature which supremely is, and which created all else that exists, no nature is contrary save that which does not exist. For nonentity is the contrary of that which is. And thus there is no being contrary to God, the Supreme Being, and Author of all beings whatsoever.
Earlier Church Fathers, with less involvement in Manichaeans, will have had less need to push this especially into saying animal death before sin was just OK ...
14:32 I have seen both opinions on St. Basil.
Jonathan Sarfati has made a case that this is not what Basil meant ... I do not have the case right before me.
14:47 Hexaemeron 9.5 ... I think this may actually vindicate Jonathan Sarfati's view of Basil.
"Else let them consider it a crime in the schoolmaster when he disciplines the restlessness of youth by the use of the rod and whip to maintain order"
Sounds like a good case for saying Basil thought it was good of God to provide dangers to us after Adam sinned.
Note also, he is not considering animal death before sin, he's considering human death = definitely after sin.
He's not saying (unlike St. Augustine) "it was good for the rabbit to be eaten by the wolf when Adam wanted it" but rather "it is good for us to fear a wolf taking our baby
now, because we are in fact sinners."
Note very especially
"destroyers and enemies of our life" ....
I think you are possibly misreading Basil. And according to Benno Zuiddam ignoring the earlier church fathers and their different view.
15:03 Ah, thank you for this marvellous occasion to refresh my sources. Here is St. Thomas exposing the position of St. Augustine very accurately:
"Reply to Objection 2. In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals. They would not, however, on this account have been excepted from the mastership of man: as neither at present are they for that reason excepted from the mastership of God, Whose Providence has ordained all this. Of this Providence man would have been the executor, as appears even now in regard to domestic animals, since fowls are given by men as food to the trained falcon."
So, for St. Thomas, this goes back to Bede, for Bede to Augustine, but not necessarily to Basil ...
It's from I, Q 96, A 1, as you quoted.
15:17 You have
not shown an example from Ambrose sharing the Augustine - Bede view, and your example for Basil was actually arguably a counterexample.
Note, St. Thomas was noting that "In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals" - in the opinion of Benno Zuiddam, these "some" actually were the ante-Nicene fathers.
15:48 I have a more Augustine-compatible and para-Ham charge against Old Earth ...
If Adam had non-human ancestry and was the first man ...
- he would have grown up a feral child, not acquiring a language as a toddler, and being given one at adult age would have filled him with shame for all the previous years when he was just acting like a beast
- or he would even as a toddler have been separated by strangeness and otherness from those beings which were around him
- or he would have been separated from "his own" (as to ancestry) very early on
so, in any of these cases, if Adam was the first man and had non-human ancestry, this would have been a cruelty of God to Adam before he sinned.
Other possibility, without this cruelty: Adam was not the first man. But then God is cruel to us, punishing us for his sin. And to Christ who died on the Cross for this sin, as for ours.
Other possibility, without this cruelty: as with YEC, Adam is first man and had no ancestry, and all human skeleta are from him. But he lived lots earlier than being created 6000 - 7500 years ago. Kebara 2 Neanderthal sample, with a human hyoid used in a human way, really descended from Adam, as with YEC. But Kebara 2 also, as with any OEC, lived 59 000 years ago, or even further back.
This means Adam lived, not 7500 years ago, but 60 000 years ago.
From Adam to Abraham, it extends from 2000 to 3000 years to 56 000 years.
This means, Genesis 3 is not history.
It could be revelation in the very specific sense that not Luke, but definitely Apocalypse or Genesis 1 is revelation - but no one has traditionally claimed this status for Genesis 3. It could be primeval history with lots of distortions. Can we be sure of how God saw the serpent in that case? It could be a guess, culturally accepted.
The ideas of primeval history with
lots of distortions or culturally accepted guess are however incompatible with Christianity.
16:18 It can be mentioned that since 1830's Catholics have been divided up into the 1890's even 1896, into:
It can however deserve mention: Father Fulcran Vigouroux, the probably ultra-famous proponent of Day Age, who in 1909 actually was allowed to judge in favour of Day Age being possible, had already proposed three old earth compatible solutions in the 1880's.
These were:
- Day Age
- non-global Flood
- gaps in the Genesis 11 genealogy.
However, in his time:
- human skeleta were not dated by any methods, needing acceptance or an explanation which is likelier with Young Earth
- insufficient finds of Neanderthals had left in doubt whether these were really human.
So,
he thought that
all one needed was to add a few 100 000 or 1 000 000 of years to accomodate dinosaurs or trilobites or whatever, but that so far no geological necessity actually forced him to add more than full LXX chronology.
On his view, none of the problems I see with Old Earth would have existed - but his view is precisely not tenable with modern evidence.
- you cannot say Kebara 2 is non-human;
- you can hardly say with Old Earth that Kebara 2 is less than 7500 years old;
- you can only say with Young Earth that Kebara 2 is less than 7500 years old.
16:51 Scofield was towting a horrible idiocy about Church history in his commentary on the seven Churches. It's where they are mentioned together in chapter 1.
Not a reference acceptable to a Catholic. I would not advice
anyone to call Sts Gregory the Great or Thomas Aquinas or Francis from Assisi or Dominic "Thyatira" ...
17:09 Ah, in the
prosecution of the Scopes trial you find affirmation of day age theory along with denial of Adam evolving from lower creatures.
That is Old Earth, like it was in the beginning of the XXth C. The hyoid of Kebara 2 had not been found to be human and the "conventional dating" of Kebara 2 had not been found to be incompatible with Genesis 5 and 11.
17:44
"Kebara 2 (or Kebara Mousterian Hominid 2, KMH2) is a 60,000 year-old Levantine Neanderthal mid-body male skeleton. It was discovered in 1983 by Ofer Bar-Yosef, Baruch Arensburg, and Bernard Vandermeersch in a Mousterian layer of Kebara Cave, Israel."
"John Gresham Machen (/ˈɡrɛsəm ˈmeɪtʃən/;[b] 1881–1937) was an American Presbyterian New Testament scholar and educator in the early 20th century."
83 - 37 = 46 years, that he had been dead before Kebara 2 was discovered.
"It is known for the discovery of Neanderthal remains at the site, most notably Shanidar 1, who survived several injuries during his life, possibly due to care from others in his group, and Shanidar 4, the famed 'flower burial'."
"Anthropologist Ralph Solecki, part of the University of Michigan Expedition to justify the Near East, first explored the site with a sounding in 1951. He returned in 1953, under the auspices of the Directorate General of Antiquities of Iraq and the Smithsonian Institution, for another sounding. The first human body, Mousterian age, possibly Neanderthal, infant, was found."
"The first nine (Shanidar 1–9) were unearthed between 1957 and 1961 by Ralph Solecki and a team from Columbia University."
57 - 37 = 20 years that Machen had been dead. Probably more before they got their date.
17:48 B. B. Warfield would be an extreme modernist from the Catholic perspective, for advocating cessationism.
But again, 1921, that is 36 years before Shanidar and 62 years before Kebara.
Again, there were some implications of Old Earth which they could not be aware of or responsible for, but which we need to be aware of and either be or better avoid being responsible for ...
I note that on Study Light at least, Scofield is giving no opinion on the number of generations in Genesis 5 and 11, identic or not to that in the Bible.
St. Augustine very much is.
18:03 Herman Bavinck (13 December 1854 – 29 July 1921) was a Dutch Calvinist theologian and churchman. He was a significant scholar in the Calvinist tradition, alongside Abraham Kuyper, B. B. Warfield, and Geerhardus Vos.
Already a non-Christian for being a Calvinist, but at least, as he died 1921, he was not aware with recent problems for Old Earth combined with Christianity.
