3 ms·

The notion of therebeing Creationists around in the twenty-sixth century terrifies me!

Natsu 11y ago
What's another few thousand years? People haven't been taking Genesis literally since at least Origen's day (~200 AD). --- For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Origen via Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 4, p. 365 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/Page_365.html http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/Page_365.html
- pjvandehaar 10y ago
  I agree with you that nothing will convince creationists. But Origen's Genesis 1 was far from representative of his time. Sure, he's an early example of not taking Genesis 1 literally, but that's only because he was pushing a gnostic "the physical world is evil" agenda. People weren't that interested in his views of creation, and IMO they're only known because his other ideas were popular. In the places where gnosticism did catch on, it mostly dealt with what happened before the 7 days of creation (eg John 1), ignoring Genesis 1. In the next 200 years, the church declared gnosticism to be heretical, making Origen's non-literal Genesis 1 heretical implicitly without any fucks being given.

Natsu 11y ago

What's another few thousand years? People haven't been taking Genesis literally since at least Origen's day (~200 AD). --- For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Origen via Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 4, p. 365 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/Page_365.html http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/Page_365.html

pjvandehaar 10y ago
I agree with you that nothing will convince creationists. But Origen's Genesis 1 was far from representative of his time. Sure, he's an early example of not taking Genesis 1 literally, but that's only because he was pushing a gnostic "the physical world is evil" agenda. People weren't that interested in his views of creation, and IMO they're only known because his other ideas were popular. In the places where gnosticism did catch on, it mostly dealt with what happened before the 7 days of creation (eg John 1), ignoring Genesis 1. In the next 200 years, the church declared gnosticism to be heretical, making Origen's non-literal Genesis 1 heretical implicitly without any fucks being given.