Was Genesis Re-interpreted After Scientific Discoveries?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 жов 2022
- Astrophysicist (not historian) Neil deGrasse Tyson gives a little history lesson about how science forced Christians to give up the biblical worldview. Is this real history, or did he make it up? We asked Jimmy Akin to give us a take.
I think "Nihilism" is in need of a little "Realism!"
Who is up for an "Akin vs deGrasse Tyson debate?" (Live on Pay-Per-View)
As always, I am grateful to Jimmy for his thorough and thoughtful response. Thanks guys.
I would even suggest that even the authors of sacred scripture in the Old Testament might not understand fully everything they wrote when it comes to prophecies in highly symbolic languages, because they were driven by the Spirit to write what would be disclosed fully by Christ. And even Christ revealed the fullness of God that we need for salvation and who God truly is, Love; but not literally everything that God wants to do or is doing; that's why Saint Paul writes:
*'Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification.* None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written,
“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man conceived,
what God has prepared for those who love him,”
God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. *And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.*
*The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.* The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.'
(1 Corinthians 2: 6-16)
Augustine and Origen were both Young Earth Creationists:
St. Augustine
“Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been … . They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents, which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. (The City of God, XII:10).”
Origen
"After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated (Contra Celsum, I.19)."
And their views were perfectly consistent with the information available at the time.
If you actually read their responses, you would see they were more concerned with people who thought that the earth and the universe had always existed.
In fact, skeptics today still get that wrong with respect to the universe.
@@grantgooch5834 True. But the point is that they exegeted the Scriptures to reveal a young Earth. Thus their utilisation of allegory has no bearing on the young Earth debate. Besides, they had all the relevant information (relevant to what the Bible itself says) - they had the Scriptures!
The video is about the literalness of the six days creation, not about how old is the Earth.
@@leonardobarbieri1292 It kinda is based on the comment Jimmy made about "when it happened"
Mr Akine is just plain wrong.