Is Christianity abandoning a literal Genesis interpretation?

You realize the author of that quote still interpreted 98% of Genesis literally? Everything except the days of creation, and he was idiosyncratic in that. For the vast majority of history Christians interpreted all of Genesis literally.

St. Augustine argued that everything was created in an instant, and not the literal 6 days. Philo of Alexandria in the 1st century wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days or in any determinate amount of time. There's two people that clearly recognized the allegorical nature of the beginning of Genesis. Who are all of these classical theologians that believed it to be literal?

answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/evangelical-commentaries-on-the-days-of-creation-in-genesis-one/

See: The Days in Church History

Also I like how you've went from "Genesis" to " the beginning of Genesis".

I'm not terribly interested in reading a young earth creationist website. Why don't you sum it up for me, or better yet, answer my question.

>Is Christianity abandoning a literal Genesis interpretation?
implying

That's the relevant part of Genesis. There are arguably historical and literal parts of it that have nothing to do with the story of creation.

Not sure why anyone would abandon God revealed truth for scientific nonsense myself. Hardly a salvation issue though.

Whoever wrote that was dead bang wrong on science.

Yom means day, not stage.

>The early Church Father Theophilus (AD 181) of Antioch wrote “All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’s day] amount to a total of 5,698 years . . .” Interestingly, Theophilus goes on to say of the chronology of the world set forth by the Greeks: “. . . yet not of thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written” (Theophilus 3:28, 29). The conflict over the age of the earth is not new but has always been a debate between pagans and Christians. Theophilus accepted that the chronology of the Bible was accurate and reliable.

>Other early Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus believed the days of creation represented the future history of the world (of 1,000 years for each creation day) yet still believed that the days of Genesis 1 themselves were literal days (Mook 2009, pp. 41–42). Lactantius (AD 250–325), believed that the days in Genesis were six consecutive solar days. Whilst, Basil, the Bishop of Caesarea (AD 370–379), also believed this saying that the words are to be understood by their plain meaning, and not to be allegorized (Mook 2009, pp. 26–32). The medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) also agreed with six-day creation, as shown in his classic Summa Theologica:

>Thus we find it said at first that “He called the light Day”: for the reason that later on a period of twenty-four hours is also called day, where it is said that “there was evening and morning, one day” (Aquinas 1947a).

> mfw Catholics make fun of protestants for believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis but they believe in a literal Adam and Eve

What is the point of a bible and a religion as a whole if you have never actually believed in it?

It just adds to the destructive nature of churches and organized religion.

>even we don't believe what we peddle
>give us monetary compensation
>gods majesty on earth must grow
>through monetary gain.

Guess who lives in pic related? Dollar is literally his name.

I think the sabbath millennium has merit.

Catholics want to get along with the world. Hence their Big Bang theory and their ease of accepting evolution as true.

Christians know that friendship with the world is enmity with God.

The rest of Genesis is full of untenable shit like the genealogies, firmament, flood, Noah's ark, tower of babel, etc which Augustine and the rest of Christendom universally took literally.

>untenable

>What is the point of a bible and a religion as a whole if you have never actually believed in it?
Did you read the quote on the left?

It's totally reasonable to interpret the scriptures as metaphors and ethical lessons and not as a literal textbook for how God created the world. It simply doesn't jive with the latest developments in scientific understanding. Every time you put gas in your car you're burning dead animal remains from hundreds of millions of years ago, you'd have to live in a serious state of denial to really think that the world is only 6,000 years old

>It just adds to the destructive nature of churches and organized religion.
At the end of the day, money is what people fight over, not religion. How many problems went away for the Soviets when they made atheism the state religion? All it did was stifle people and not actually contribute to the effectiveness of Russian science (in fact, it proved a hindrance)

>Guess who lives in pic related? Dollar is literally his name.
Even if I didn't know who Creflo Dollar is my answer would have been the same: some protestant grifter fleecing the gullible dupes in his church who will shamelessly lap up anything that has Jesus's name stamped on it.

Anyone calling Origen a Christian is pathetic beyond measure. There is no group that does not consider him a heretic.

It is not reasonable in the slightest to "interpret" the bible to mean something it absolutely does not mean, and absolutely does not say.

Evening and morning, Day One.
Evening and morning, Day Two.
Evening and morning, Day Three.

And so on.

Do you think God needs the sun and earth revolving about in order to tell time? I do not.

Do you think God needs the sun in order to have a light source available? I do not.

Do you think God could have created everything instantly, and not taken 6 24 hour days? I do.

There's a reason behind everything God does and says, and reasons deeper than those, and reasons deeper than those.

In the end, you're just a very complicated piece of an echo of something God said, in the beginning.

newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

>It is not reasonable in the slightest to "interpret" the bible to mean something it absolutely does not mean
But it is even more unreasonable to take the Bible at face value without analyzing the context, otherwise all we have is an exercise in legalism
>37 As Jesus was speaking, one of the Pharisees invited him home for a meal. So he went in and took his place at the table.[a] 38 His host was amazed to see that he sat down to eat without first performing the hand-washing ceremony required by Jewish custom. 39 Then the Lord said to him, “You Pharisees are so careful to clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are filthy—full of greed and wickedness! 40 Fools! Didn’t God make the inside as well as the outside? 41 So clean the inside by giving gifts to the poor, and you will be clean all over.
Luke 11:37

When we refuse to analyze spirit by which the word was written, we are like the Pharisees cleaning the outside of a bowl while ignoring the inside which we actually use.

Eusebius reported Origen castrated himself in literal obedience to Matthew 19:12.

How closely do you want to follow your heretical hero?

As much as I disagree with you, you've raised a good point on how ridiculous it is when people like say the hebrew doesn't literally mean 24 hour periods. let me quote the actual scripture:

>Genesis 1:5
>And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.

This same pattern ends every single one of these "stages". please enlighten me on how it could mean anything other than day.

The only reason that the Catholic Church takes a metaphorical interpretation is because they know, like most people, that the literal interpretation doesn't reflect reality. It has nothing to do with a proper reading of the passage. They differ from YEC's solely due to a doctrinal difference: YEC's see truth as coming primarily from the scripture and force their worldview to conform to that. Catholics, like most people, will take into consideration evidence to find out what is true, but they also won't say that the bible is wrong. If what is deemed true aligns with scripture, then great. If what is deemed true differs with the bible, yet the bible also can't not be true then they simply say that science has clarified the passage for being the metaphor that it always was.

The spirit of the creation story is to tell the creation story from God's pov and then from Adam's pov.

Literally.

>He believed, for instance, in the pre-existence of souls and that eventually everyone, including the Devil, would be saved. In addition, he described the Trinity as a hierarchy, not as an equality of Father, Son, and Spirit. Though Origen attacked Gnosticism, in many ways, like the Gnostics, he rejected the goodness of the material creation. His critics have always complained that in many ways this teacher was “blinded by Greek culture.”

That's not the reason.

They take the stance that mankind can deduce the truth better than the bible can state it.

It's a position I abhor.

The "wisdom" of men is foolishness to God, and by extension, to me.

Unlike many church fathers, he was never canonised as a saint because some of his teachings directly contradicted the teachings attributed to the apostles, notably the Apostles Paul and John. His teachings on the pre-existence of souls, the final reconciliation of all creatures, including perhaps even the devil (the apokatastasis),[4] and the subordination of God the Son to God the Father, were rejected by Christian orthodoxy.

So I've given you Christian, Catholic, and wiki cites to show that every single group considers Origen a heretic.

And in the meanwhile, you've mumbled gnostic inferences about the immateriality of scripture.

Actually this is unclear. Many physicists claim the universe loops round on itself like an ourobouros, meaning it has no clear "beginning" or "end".

>How closely do you want to follow your heretical hero?
And Martin Luther was obsessed with feces and literally believed that he received theological insights from God while sitting on the shitter

People did weird shit back in the day

>So I've given you Christian, Catholic, and wiki cites to show that every single group considers Origen a heretic.
Nigger what? You haven't posted a single source.

I gave you the Catholic encyclopedic entry on the man and while he wasn't without his faults, you're thoroughly devaluing his influence.

>And in the meanwhile, you've mumbled gnostic inferences about the immateriality of scripture.
Never once would I suggest that there is "secret knowledge", that's a load of bullshit.

But you know what else is bullshit? Thinking that God created the world 6,000 years ago.
livescience.com/3400-chemistry-life-oil.html
It's so far at odds with what creation reveals to us that the majority of people fleeing organized faith list the scientific implausibilities as the reason why they can't take it seriously any more, and has a lot to do with why church attendance is at historic lows and continuing to fall.

All you have are rhetorical flourishes to cover your cognitive dissonances

you aren't replying to a YEC. you can tell by how he says stuff like "the teachings attributed to the apostles". pointing out the earth in fact isn't 6000 years old isn't in any way a rebuttal. Have you ever considered the possibility that it isn't a binary choice of literally correct or metaphor and it might just simply be wrong? There is nothing in the text itself that suggests it shouldn't be read literally. Origin and the others that have been mentioned contradicting that it should be taken literally were in the minority until recent history. Philo of Alexandria and Origin both are terrible representatives of the community of Jews and Christians of their time as both drew heavily from Platonic philosophy. Philo actually claimed that Plato's works stole from the Torah and reinterpreted much it as metaphors for elements of Middle Platonic thought to prove this

>Have you ever considered the possibility that it isn't a binary choice of literally correct or metaphor and it might just simply be wrong?
Have you ever considered the possibility that much of Biblical "history" is in fact bullshit?

There was never a Hebrew exodus out of Egypt, not one single mention in the Egyptian archives of 1/5th of its labor force up and leaving (if Biblical numbers are to be believed). There's not a shred of archaeological evidence that this huge body of people roamed the desert for 40 years, and no archaeological evidence that the Hebrews conducted the conquest of Canaaan as described in the Bible. The Bible mentions the Hebrews attacking and destroying the city of Ur when the word Ur literally means "ruin" and had been long abandoned by the time that the Hebrews come onto the historical scene. Jerusalem was probably just another anonymous mountain town and these were tall tales and heroic myths of their foundation.

Or consider the tower of Babel. It's fairly stupid to assume that once upon a time every human spoke the same language and lived in the same city and built a huge tower which really pissed off God so he magically struck them down and reduced them to infighting. It does, however, read nicely as an allegorical tale for the Judean captivity under the Babylonians (who impressed its conquered peoples by building huge ziggurats) and their belief that the Babylonians would eventually collapse the same way that every other society in history does.

>There is nothing in the text itself that suggests it shouldn't be read literally.
In Luke 11:37-44 Jesus specifically admonishes the idea of strictly legalistic interpretations of the scripture, arguing that it puts emphasis on the external to the neglect of the internal. He compares it to being obsessed with cleaning the outside of a bowl while never cleaning the inside where you actually put your food.

>It was never taken literally!
>Just look at what this guy said 400 years after the death of Christ!

It's been interpreted metaphorically for centuries now.

>my ethics
They are irrelevant; elements of pride.
>Scientific knowledge
No such knowledge exists, it's just a perception.

>science
>anything but a dogmatic hoax

>Have you ever considered the possibility that much of Biblical "history" is in fact bullshit?
uh... I'm agreeing with you

>In Luke 11:37-44 Jesus specifically admonishes the idea of strictly legalistic interpretations of the scripture, arguing that it puts emphasis on the external to the neglect of the internal. He compares it to being obsessed with cleaning the outside of a bowl while never cleaning the inside where you actually put your food.
that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not to take a passage literally. he's speaking about Levitical type laws, hince "legalistic". taking genesis literally is in no way legalistic.

>At the end of the day, money is what people fight over, not religion
Really?
Your Nobel Prize awaits as soon as you explain this to the Sunni and the Shi'a and get them to accept it.

Peace be with you.

>There was never a Hebrew exodus out of Egypt, not one single mention in the Egyptian archives of 1/5th of its labor force up and leaving
The Expulsion of the Hyksos

Have a blessed day

> In fact, it proved a hindrance
Soviet science was far more effective than Russian Empire one even if there was some retarded shit in genetics because of Marxist ideology.

>mfw even people who believe the bible is literally true know that its bullshit but they just have "faith" that its true so they can go to heaven, which deep down they dont believe in either but convince themselves that its true with "faith" in a neverendling circle of delusion

I assure you, you are quite wrong, please read this wiki article.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom

Go back to lebbit please.

>Is Christianity abandoning a literal Genesis interpretation?

You're clearly not aware of the oldest axiom of Christianity

>if I have to do it or it's wrong, it was a metaphor all along

/thread

>you don't have to defend the truth
>posts the same meme in two threads

You christcucks truly never cease to amaze me with your ability to disprove your own point

...

>let it loose; it will defend itself
>which is why I obsessively shitpost christ memes, because that's what people who are confident of their point of view totally do

Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.

- 2 Timothy 4:2

I am impressed how Bible quotes can be so inspiring.

god bless you user.

i'll be praying for you.

goodbye until next time.

...

>Is Christianity abandoning a literal Genesis interpretation?
Pretty sure it is adopting one

...

That's an easy one

The first amendment of the Iraqi constitution enshrines Islam as the state religion.

Sunnis and shias began fighting over what "Islam" actually means, and who gets which political favors.

The Shias take over the Iraqi government thanks to the underhanded support of the Iranian government, itself a repressive theocracy thanks to blowback after the west propped up the Shah. The now politically marginalized sunnis throw their lot in with freedom fighters struggling against repression from the Syrian government, who's 'democracy' is a hypocritical farce and ruled by a strongman. Throw in huge numbers of baathist bureaucrats who abruptly lost their jobs thanks to Bush era mismanagement, and you've now got sunnis banding together to create their own state in express opposition to corrupt western/Russian backed dictatorships and meddling Iranian theocrats, and you've got the current quagmire in the middle east dominated by unscrupulous power-brokers who would use religion as a recruiting tool.

Back when Iraq was ruled by a secular dictator whose government did not grant special privileges to religious minorities, shias and sunnis lived side by side without any problems

Now go back to sucking your Russian prince's dick

>The Expulsion of the Hyksos
That's like saying that the archaeological discovery of the ruins of Troy proves that Latins were originally descended from Trojans.

None of the details match up. Ahmose’s defeat of the Hyksos occurred centuries before the traditional date of the Exodus. In addition, the basic premise of the Hyksos and Exodus histories differ: the Hyksos were expelled rulers of Egypt, not slaves, and they were forced out, not pursued.

At best, it was an ancestral memory severely warped by a centuries long game of telephone.

I shouldn't have to tell you he didn't say any of that.

Christianity is about Jesus Christ you utter idiot, not Jewish mythology. That's why it's called Christianity, not Judaism.

No thanks. I already know yom can have more than one meaning. In context, with the use of morning and evening, every time, it's clear yom means its plain meaning, day.

Adam was created on Day Six. Day Six was good. Day Seven God rested.

So Adam did not fall on Day Six, and Adam did not fall on Day Seven.

On Day Eight, Adam was 2 days old.

If your theory is right, and let's say a day is a million years, Adam would be 2 million years old.

Your theory, and I know it's not yours but some other fool's, is completely incorrect, useless, meaningless and diversionary.

Martin Luther is waiting to be thrown into a lake of fire, as he was a catholic friar and never converted to becoming a Christian.

Next strawman?

You know that was a quote, yes? You want to tell me I'm not what I am, because of something in a quote I posted?

Showing Origen to be a known heretic?

>If your theory is right, and let's say a day is a million years, Adam would be 2 million years old.

In context why is that somehow a ridiculous statement when according to the story death didn't exist for Adam until he ate from the tree of knowledge?

>b-but humans don't live for millions of years!
Yeah and there's no fruit that gives you knowledge of good and evil either.
Adam living for millions of years doesn't negate the metaphor interpretation anymore than the tree of knowledge or talking snake does.

Because the explosion of population growth of everything else on the planet would consume more space than is available.

Yom, morning and evening, first day, plain meaning, 24 hour day.

Not unspecified eons so that we can crowbar in incremental evolution, which of course requires death, as you point out.

...

>What is the point of a bible and a religion as a whole if you have never actually believed in it?

Cultural cohesion and intellectual advancement, obviously. Even a shallow skim of western history shows that Church Christianity was a huge international point of reference and provided : a common literary tradition, an environment friendly towards philosophical investigation and greek-inherited rationality, theories regarding the just conduct of war etc.

Whether or not one believes in Christianity is irrelevant to the Christian worldview existing as a presuppotional framework. Overturning it requires a much more radical criticism than simply rejecting theism and continuing on as before, this was illustrated by the Marxist tradition and postmodernists.

---> the point

*empty space*

---> you