Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Higher Critical method in Orthodoxy

Expand Messages
  • Christopher Orr
    Fr. Seraphim Rose argues for creationism in his *Genesis, Creation and Early Man*. Others argue that evolution is acceptable given the patristic
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 30, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Fr. Seraphim Rose argues for creationism in his *Genesis, Creation and Early
      Man*. Others argue that evolution is acceptable given the patristic
      interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation. Peter Bouteneff's
      *Beginnings:
      Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives* tracks these
      interpretations well.

      Both sides agree that the Fathers often read Genesis primarily as a document
      concerned with facts other and beyond the literal. The question is whether
      the literal applies in this case, or not. The same question arose in the
      West regarding whether the Bible meant the sun itself literally rose and set
      rather than the earth revolving and making it look as if the sun was
      moving. Same with language about God's arm, as well as his anger (see St.
      John Cassian's *Institutes*, Book VIII, "Of the Spirit of Anger".)

      The primary difference between liberal protestantism's view of Genesis is
      that the Orthodox Church grounds its understanding - either way - on a quite
      stable, very old, tried and true reading of Genesis in a 'spiritual',
      typological or allegorical way over and sometimes against a literal or
      historicist reading of the same text. Liberals represent a far from stable
      or ancient way of reading Scripture.

      The slippery slope argument isn't as important given the time tested
      stability of the patristic view, and its diversity. Also, the Bible isn't
      supposed to be easily understood by the average reader and it isn't the sole
      or primary data set upon which all authority is based. For Protestants,
      once one piece of the Bible is called into question (or, more to the point,
      it's perspicacity or that denomination's relatively recent interpretation of
      the text in question), then everything's up for grabs.

      I also discussed a bit of this in my *Solum Corpus Christi: The Authority of
      Scripture in the Orthodox Church, for
      Lutherans*<http://orrologion.blogspot.com/2007/09/sola-corpore-christi.html>
      .

      I have found Fr. John Behr's arguments that the beginning and end of all
      Scripture, New and Old Testaments, begins historically with the Cross and
      Resurrection to be quite helpful in this regard. Everything in the OT then
      comes, in some sense, after the Cross and Resurrection - after the lamb was
      slain before the beginning of the world. It takes one outside of a
      historicist view of Scripture, which saves one also from a materialist
      belief in Christ whereby only those things that are measureable are 'real'
      or 'really happened'. Icons show us the unseen reality of each event and of
      each person, e.g., their halo. Another example is the Transfiguration of
      Christ. More to the point, it was the opening of the eyes of the three
      Disciples - Christ didn't change, the unseen reality of his Divinity was
      revealed to the Disciples "as far as they could bear it". But, a
      materialist belief (and a materialist disbelief) would only accept as 'real'
      what most people 'saw' Jesus as in his daily life - but we know this isn't
      true.

      We don't believe in a data set, but in the Body of Christ Himself.

      Christopher


      On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > I'm currently reading Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church." One of the
      footnotes in the book, p.218, says:
      >
      > "The opening chapters of Genesis are of course concerned with certain
      religious truths, and are not to be taken as literal history. Fifteen
      centuries before modern Biblical criticism, Greek Fathers were already
      interpreting the Creation and Paradise stories symbolically rather than
      literally."
      >
      > This smacks of liberal protestantism, the kind I rebelled against in
      Seminary. Next thing you know, Jesus didn't rise from the tomb, because He
      was actually a transexual Nazi Eskimo who didn't exist.
      >
      > Does Timothy Ware speak for all of Orthodoxy in this footnote?
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • frfenton@holyincarnation.org
      I remember reading that passage when I first read Timothy Ware s book at a Lutheran seminary student 25 years ago, and coming across it again in later years. I
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 30, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        I remember reading that passage when I first read Timothy Ware's book
        at a Lutheran seminary student 25 years ago, and coming across it
        again in later years. I also have addressed that passage with my
        children and with some of my parishioners, and have brought it up to a
        few priests. Permit me, then, to offer these observations.

        1. I understand how the words of Metropolitan Kallistos can sound like
        liberal Protestantism, but they are not. Nevertheless, such a few can
        be found amongst some Orthodox theologians, as also can be found
        fundamentalist views. Neither are the majority. (See #3 below)

        2. The key in Metropolitan Kallistos' words is his reference to the
        early church fathers. Among others, I'm sure His Eminence has in mind
        works by St Basil and St John Chrysostom. These works do not dismiss
        the historicity of the creation accounts, but neither do they insist
        on (for example) a 24 hour 6 day creation. Rather, they look for
        theological connections.

        3. Bottom line: Above all else, the Orthodox understand Scripture to
        be a liturgical and theological book. In other words, its church
        purpose is the right praise of God and the right doctrine of God.
        Therefore, if there are variances in historical or geographical or
        other facts, the Orthodox hermeneutic is to ask why the Holy Spirit
        provides this variance. Perhaps the variance is to teach us a deeper
        or more sublime truth. Again, this does not dismiss the history,
        historicity or historical truths (e.g., creation, resurrection, etc)
        in the Scriptures. Rather, we understand that history serves the right
        praise and right doctrine of God. This is a completely different
        approach from liberal protestantism which says (in effect) that the
        historical data do not matter and therefore can be questioned, because
        God does not work incarnationally (through matter) as much as he works
        fideistically (through the mind or belief).

        I pray this explanation is helpful, and that all on this list are
        reaping the spiritual benefits of this Holy Week.

        Asking your prayers, the unworthy priest,


        Fr John W Fenton
        Holy Incarnation Orthodox Church
        holyincarnation.org
        frfenton@...



        Quoting Oruaseht <oruaseht@...>:

        > I'm currently reading Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church." One of
        > the footnotes in the book, p.218, says:
        >
        > "The opening chapters of Genesis are of course concerned with
        > certain religious truths, and are not to be taken as literal
        > history. Fifteen centuries before modern Biblical criticism, Greek
        > Fathers were already interpreting the Creation and Paradise stories
        > symbolically rather than literally."
        >
        > This smacks of liberal protestantism, the kind I rebelled against in
        > Seminary. Next thing you know, Jesus didn't rise from the tomb,
        > because He was actually a transexual Nazi Eskimo who didn't exist.
        >
        > Does Timothy Ware speak for all of Orthodoxy in this footnote?
        >
        >
      • Christopher Orr
        I wanted to call to the list s attention a poorly translated defense of evolution by a famous Russian Deacon who argues that the account of the introduction of
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 30, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          I wanted to call to the list's attention a poorly translated defense of
          evolution by a famous Russian Deacon who argues that the account of the
          introduction of death refers specifically to humanity, not to the world in
          general. That is, that survival of the fittest was taking place prior to
          Adam and Eve. I don't remember the specifics of his argumentation, but you
          can read "Orthodoxy and Creationism" by Deacon Andrew Kuraev here:

          http://orrologion.blogspot.com/2008/11/orthodoxy-and-creationism.html

          This is far from a well researched article, but it presents an interesting
          perspective. It should also be noted that evolution was a major club of the
          Soviets against religion, so people have lined up for and against it often
          less for theological than cultural or political reasons, both in and outside
          of the Church.

          I would also highly recommend the two *Genesis *volumes in the *Ancient
          Christian Commentaries on Scripture* series published by InterVarsity Press
          for a cross-section of patristic commentary on this book of the Bible.
          Volume 1 was edited by Fr. Andrew Louth.

          Personally, I just think we don't know enough about the science and I expect
          major, paradigm exploding facts to change our view of evolution. I also
          tend to view the Genesis accounts as being primarily prophecies. So, their
          imagery and language is to be given more 'latitude' in exegesis and they
          should be seen as primarily speaking about Christ rather than man or
          creation. I am coming more and more to see the Old Testament in this way,
          which has the benefit both of bypassing the historicist conundrum that has
          so dogged Modernists and Fundamentalists alike and of being far more in line
          with the patristic use of Genesis in typological and allegorical ways far
          more than literally.

          As an aside, I have been wondering whether a Christian should eat seedless
          fruit (oranges, watermelons) given the command to eat all fruit bearing
          their seed in themselves... :)

          Christopher

          On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:30 PM, <frfenton@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          > I remember reading that passage when I first read Timothy Ware's book
          > at a Lutheran seminary student 25 years ago, and coming across it
          > again in later years. I also have addressed that passage with my
          > children and with some of my parishioners, and have brought it up to a
          > few priests. Permit me, then, to offer these observations.
          >
          > 1. I understand how the words of Metropolitan Kallistos can sound like
          > liberal Protestantism, but they are not. Nevertheless, such a few can
          > be found amongst some Orthodox theologians, as also can be found
          > fundamentalist views. Neither are the majority. (See #3 below)
          >
          > 2. The key in Metropolitan Kallistos' words is his reference to the
          > early church fathers. Among others, I'm sure His Eminence has in mind
          > works by St Basil and St John Chrysostom. These works do not dismiss
          > the historicity of the creation accounts, but neither do they insist
          > on (for example) a 24 hour 6 day creation. Rather, they look for
          > theological connections.
          >
          > 3. Bottom line: Above all else, the Orthodox understand Scripture to
          > be a liturgical and theological book. In other words, its church
          > purpose is the right praise of God and the right doctrine of God.
          > Therefore, if there are variances in historical or geographical or
          > other facts, the Orthodox hermeneutic is to ask why the Holy Spirit
          > provides this variance. Perhaps the variance is to teach us a deeper
          > or more sublime truth. Again, this does not dismiss the history,
          > historicity or historical truths (e.g., creation, resurrection, etc)
          > in the Scriptures. Rather, we understand that history serves the right
          > praise and right doctrine of God. This is a completely different
          > approach from liberal protestantism which says (in effect) that the
          > historical data do not matter and therefore can be questioned, because
          > God does not work incarnationally (through matter) as much as he works
          > fideistically (through the mind or belief).
          >
          > I pray this explanation is helpful, and that all on this list are
          > reaping the spiritual benefits of this Holy Week.
          >
          > Asking your prayers, the unworthy priest,
          >
          > Fr John W Fenton
          > Holy Incarnation Orthodox Church
          > holyincarnation.org
          > frfenton@... <frfenton%40holyincarnation.org>
          >
          >
          > Quoting Oruaseht <oruaseht@... <oruaseht%40yahoo.com>>:
          >
          > > I'm currently reading Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church." One of
          > > the footnotes in the book, p.218, says:
          > >
          > > "The opening chapters of Genesis are of course concerned with
          > > certain religious truths, and are not to be taken as literal
          > > history. Fifteen centuries before modern Biblical criticism, Greek
          > > Fathers were already interpreting the Creation and Paradise stories
          > > symbolically rather than literally."
          > >
          > > This smacks of liberal protestantism, the kind I rebelled against in
          > > Seminary. Next thing you know, Jesus didn't rise from the tomb,
          > > because He was actually a transexual Nazi Eskimo who didn't exist.
          > >
          > > Does Timothy Ware speak for all of Orthodoxy in this footnote?
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • randall hay
          I ll give a different perspective: no saint or father of the church has ever believed in evolution. In Orthodoxy DEATH HAPPENED BECAUSE OF SIN. THERE WAS NO
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 30, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            I'll give a different perspective: no saint or father of the church has ever believed in evolution. In Orthodoxy DEATH HAPPENED BECAUSE OF SIN. THERE WAS NO NEED FOR DEATH BEFORE SIN. WE FOULED UP CREATION BY SIN; GOD DID NOT CREATE THE WORLD A SLAUGHTERHOUSE.

            The Serbian calendar--as published by St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood---lists 2010 as the years 7000-something in world history. I forget exactly which year...but certainly not the year 3-billion-something.

            All the fathers agree completely on the historicity of Genesis, and of all the OT. Gnostics like Marcion were the ones who doubted it; while the fathers often employ allegorical hermeneutics, they position themselves quite opposite the Gnostics.

            Most fathers take the days of Genesis as literal 24-hour days. No father I've ever read (and I've been reading them for twelve years) ever suggested the earth was ancient at the time of Adam and Eve.

            The greatest scientist of my lifetime, Francis Crick, didn't believe in evolution. When he discovered the incredible complexity of DNA he realized it could never have evolved....hence he came up with the theory of "directed panspermia," that aliens from outer space seeded genetic material in the universe. If you google it you'll find plenty of info. Even Richard Dawkins, the GOD DELUSION guy, suggested it might have been possible.









            ________________________________
            From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@...>
            To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tue, March 30, 2010 12:19:50 PM
            Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Higher Critical method in Orthodoxy


            I'm currently reading Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church." One of the footnotes in the book, p.218, says:

            "The opening chapters of Genesis are of course concerned with certain religious truths, and are not to be taken as literal history. Fifteen centuries before modern Biblical criticism, Greek Fathers were already interpreting the Creation and Paradise stories symbolically rather than literally."

            This smacks of liberal protestantism, the kind I rebelled against in Seminary. Next thing you know, Jesus didn't rise from the tomb, because He was actually a transexual Nazi Eskimo who didn't exist.

            Does Timothy Ware speak for all of Orthodoxy in this footnote?




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jeremy Finck
            While I believe within the broader perspective of the Orthodox Church, humanly speaking, the topic is open for discussion, I tend to agree with Randall Hay.
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 31, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              While I believe within the broader perspective of the Orthodox Church,
              humanly speaking, the topic is open for discussion, I tend to agree with
              Randall Hay. Given our current theology of sin and death, I find it very
              difficult to agree with evolutionary theory as it is popularly presented.
              However, I am neither a scientist nor a theologian.

              I am, however, aware that there are a number of biologists, geologists,
              chemists, astrologists, physicists, and etc (i.e. scientists of nearly every
              kind), who, based on their tested scientific research and data, disagree
              with the view of evolution in commonly held the scientific community.
              However, these scientists are not often given opportunity to speak in the
              scientific community at large. They are often given similar type of respect
              as those who, at the recent international summit on global warming, were
              offering different but very scientifically solid data which solidly
              disproved current scientific belief in global warming. In other words, they
              are totally shut out, smeared, and often threatened when they bring
              attention to solid scientific data that could potentially dismantle current
              evolutionary theory, and posit and alternative theory backed by well
              researched data.

              All of this to say that in both the scientific community and even more so in
              Orthodoxy, the discussion on evolution is still open-ended. And I find the
              discussion about it within Orthodoxy to be much more civil, because we have
              no dogmatized view in regards to evolution. We have, however, dogmatized
              that there is one God and Father Who is Creator of the heavens and the
              earth. Regardless of whether or not an Orthodox Christian believes in
              evolutionary theory, every Orthodox Christian is a "creationist" in that
              sense.

              May you all have a blessed Holy Week and Pascha!

              Jeremy




              On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:23 PM, randall hay <stortford@...>wrote:
              >
              >>
              >>
              >> I'll give a different perspective: no saint or father of the church has
              >> ever believed in evolution. In Orthodoxy DEATH HAPPENED BECAUSE OF SIN.
              >> THERE WAS NO NEED FOR DEATH BEFORE SIN. WE FOULED UP CREATION BY SIN; GOD
              >> DID NOT CREATE THE WORLD A SLAUGHTERHOUSE.
              >>
              >> The Serbian calendar--as published by St Herman of Alaska
              >> Brotherhood---lists 2010 as the years 7000-something in world history. I
              >> forget exactly which year...but certainly not the year 3-billion-something.
              >>
              >> All the fathers agree completely on the historicity of Genesis, and of all
              >> the OT. Gnostics like Marcion were the ones who doubted it; while the
              >> fathers often employ allegorical hermeneutics, they position themselves
              >> quite opposite the Gnostics.
              >>
              >> Most fathers take the days of Genesis as literal 24-hour days. No father
              >> I've ever read (and I've been reading them for twelve years) ever suggested
              >> the earth was ancient at the time of Adam and Eve.
              >>
              >> The greatest scientist of my lifetime, Francis Crick, didn't believe in
              >> evolution. When he discovered the incredible complexity of DNA he realized
              >> it could never have evolved....hence he came up with the theory of "directed
              >> panspermia," that aliens from outer space seeded genetic material in the
              >> universe. If you google it you'll find plenty of info. Even Richard Dawkins,
              >> the GOD DELUSION guy, suggested it might have been possible.
              >>
              >> ________________________________
              >> From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@... <oruaseht%40yahoo.com>>
              >> To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
              >> Sent: Tue, March 30, 2010 12:19:50 PM
              >> Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Higher Critical method in Orthodoxy
              >>
              >>
              >> I'm currently reading Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church." One of the
              >> footnotes in the book, p.218, says:
              >>
              >> "The opening chapters of Genesis are of course concerned with certain
              >> religious truths, and are not to be taken as literal history. Fifteen
              >> centuries before modern Biblical criticism, Greek Fathers were already
              >> interpreting the Creation and Paradise stories symbolically rather than
              >> literally."
              >>
              >> This smacks of liberal protestantism, the kind I rebelled against in
              >> Seminary. Next thing you know, Jesus didn't rise from the tomb, because He
              >> was actually a transexual Nazi Eskimo who didn't exist.
              >>
              >> Does Timothy Ware speak for all of Orthodoxy in this footnote?
              >>
              >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jeremy Finck
              In other words, to more directly address the concern: This smacks of liberal protestantism, the kind I rebelled against in Seminary. Next thing you know,
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 31, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                In other words, to more directly address the concern:

                "This smacks of liberal protestantism, the kind I rebelled against in
                Seminary. Next thing you know, Jesus didn't rise from the tomb, because He
                was actually a transexual Nazi Eskimo who didn't exist. "

                In Orthodoxy, there are certain non-negotiables. The Orthodox Church does
                not negotiate on her belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Jesus
                Christ, or her doctrines on Salvation that are directly related to these
                dogmas. The foundations that were laid in the first seven Ecumenical
                Councils are not up for debate. The Orthodox Church does not and will not
                waiver on these dogmas. Everyone who becomes Orthodox understands that
                however much you may want to disagree with the dogmas of the Church, She
                will not change. We are here to conform ourselves to Christ. The Church is
                not here to conform Herself to the world, rather, She is the instrument, the
                Body of Christ, through Whom the world will be transformed and sanctified.
                Or to put it another way, we have been using the same liturgy every Sunday
                for over 1500 years. We are not about to waiver on the essentials of the
                Orthodox Christian Faith.

                Jeremy





                On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Jeremy Finck <jeremyfinck@...> wrote:

                > While I believe within the broader perspective of the Orthodox Church,
                > humanly speaking, the topic is open for discussion, I tend to agree with
                > Randall Hay. Given our current theology of sin and death, I find it very
                > difficult to agree with evolutionary theory as it is popularly presented.
                > However, I am neither a scientist nor a theologian.
                >
                > I am, however, aware that there are a number of biologists, geologists,
                > chemists, astrologists, physicists, and etc (i.e. scientists of nearly every
                > kind), who, based on their tested scientific research and data, disagree
                > with the view of evolution in commonly held the scientific community.
                > However, these scientists are not often given opportunity to speak in the
                > scientific community at large. They are often given similar type of respect
                > as those who, at the recent international summit on global warming, were
                > offering different but very scientifically solid data which solidly
                > disproved current scientific belief in global warming. In other words, they
                > are totally shut out, smeared, and often threatened when they bring
                > attention to solid scientific data that could potentially dismantle current
                > evolutionary theory, and posit and alternative theory backed by well
                > researched data.
                >
                > All of this to say that in both the scientific community and even more so
                > in Orthodoxy, the discussion on evolution is still open-ended. And I find
                > the discussion about it within Orthodoxy to be much more civil, because we
                > have no dogmatized view in regards to evolution. We have, however,
                > dogmatized that there is one God and Father Who is Creator of the heavens
                > and the earth. Regardless of whether or not an Orthodox Christian believes
                > in evolutionary theory, every Orthodox Christian is a "creationist" in that
                > sense.
                >
                > May you all have a blessed Holy Week and Pascha!
                >
                > Jeremy
                >
                >
                >
                > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:23 PM, randall hay <stortford@...>wrote:
                >
                >>
                >>
                >> I'll give a different perspective: no saint or father of the church has
                >> ever believed in evolution. In Orthodoxy DEATH HAPPENED BECAUSE OF SIN.
                >> THERE WAS NO NEED FOR DEATH BEFORE SIN. WE FOULED UP CREATION BY SIN; GOD
                >> DID NOT CREATE THE WORLD A SLAUGHTERHOUSE.
                >>
                >> The Serbian calendar--as published by St Herman of Alaska
                >> Brotherhood---lists 2010 as the years 7000-something in world history. I
                >> forget exactly which year...but certainly not the year 3-billion-something.
                >>
                >> All the fathers agree completely on the historicity of Genesis, and of all
                >> the OT. Gnostics like Marcion were the ones who doubted it; while the
                >> fathers often employ allegorical hermeneutics, they position themselves
                >> quite opposite the Gnostics.
                >>
                >> Most fathers take the days of Genesis as literal 24-hour days. No father
                >> I've ever read (and I've been reading them for twelve years) ever suggested
                >> the earth was ancient at the time of Adam and Eve.
                >>
                >> The greatest scientist of my lifetime, Francis Crick, didn't believe in
                >> evolution. When he discovered the incredible complexity of DNA he realized
                >> it could never have evolved....hence he came up with the theory of "directed
                >> panspermia," that aliens from outer space seeded genetic material in the
                >> universe. If you google it you'll find plenty of info. Even Richard Dawkins,
                >> the GOD DELUSION guy, suggested it might have been possible.
                >>
                >> ________________________________
                >> From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@... <oruaseht%40yahoo.com>>
                >> To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                >> Sent: Tue, March 30, 2010 12:19:50 PM
                >> Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Higher Critical method in Orthodoxy
                >>
                >>
                >> I'm currently reading Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church." One of the
                >> footnotes in the book, p.218, says:
                >>
                >> "The opening chapters of Genesis are of course concerned with certain
                >> religious truths, and are not to be taken as literal history. Fifteen
                >> centuries before modern Biblical criticism, Greek Fathers were already
                >> interpreting the Creation and Paradise stories symbolically rather than
                >> literally."
                >>
                >> This smacks of liberal protestantism, the kind I rebelled against in
                >> Seminary. Next thing you know, Jesus didn't rise from the tomb, because He
                >> was actually a transexual Nazi Eskimo who didn't exist.
                >>
                >> Does Timothy Ware speak for all of Orthodoxy in this footnote?
                >>
                >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Oruaseht
                Thanks for these reassuring words!
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 31, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks for these reassuring words!

                  --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, randall hay <stortford@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I'll give a different perspective: no saint or father of the church has ever believed in evolution. In Orthodoxy DEATH HAPPENED BECAUSE OF SIN. THERE WAS NO NEED FOR DEATH BEFORE SIN. WE FOULED UP CREATION BY SIN; GOD DID NOT CREATE THE WORLD A SLAUGHTERHOUSE.
                  >
                  > The Serbian calendar--as published by St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood---lists 2010 as the years 7000-something in world history. I forget exactly which year...but certainly not the year 3-billion-something.
                  >
                  > All the fathers agree completely on the historicity of Genesis, and of all the OT. Gnostics like Marcion were the ones who doubted it; while the fathers often employ allegorical hermeneutics, they position themselves quite opposite the Gnostics.
                  >
                  > Most fathers take the days of Genesis as literal 24-hour days. No father I've ever read (and I've been reading them for twelve years) ever suggested the earth was ancient at the time of Adam and Eve.
                  >
                  > The greatest scientist of my lifetime, Francis Crick, didn't believe in evolution. When he discovered the incredible complexity of DNA he realized it could never have evolved....hence he came up with the theory of "directed panspermia," that aliens from outer space seeded genetic material in the universe. If you google it you'll find plenty of info. Even Richard Dawkins, the GOD DELUSION guy, suggested it might have been possible.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@...>
                  > To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Tue, March 30, 2010 12:19:50 PM
                  > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Higher Critical method in Orthodoxy
                  >
                  >
                  > I'm currently reading Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church." One of the footnotes in the book, p.218, says:
                  >
                  > "The opening chapters of Genesis are of course concerned with certain religious truths, and are not to be taken as literal history. Fifteen centuries before modern Biblical criticism, Greek Fathers were already interpreting the Creation and Paradise stories symbolically rather than literally."
                  >
                  > This smacks of liberal protestantism, the kind I rebelled against in Seminary. Next thing you know, Jesus didn't rise from the tomb, because He was actually a transexual Nazi Eskimo who didn't exist.
                  >
                  > Does Timothy Ware speak for all of Orthodoxy in this footnote?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.