The 6 days of creation

[sky]

Did early Christians interpret the Bible literally.


The earliest Latin interpretations of the gospel are on display this week after being brought to light by a British theologian.

Hailed as 'fascinating', the 'substantial commentary' on the gospels by the fourth-century African-born bishop, Fortunatianus of Aquileia, offers a rare insight into how the earliest Christians read the Bible.

Dr Hugh Houghton, a New Testament scholar at the University of Birmingham, told Christian Today the 100-page manuscript proves ancient Christians were more focused on the spiritual view than literal interpretations of the Bible.

'People have always read the Bible in multiple ways,' he said.

'The literal sense was taken for granted and what Christians taught in churches was more allegorical.'

The commentary examines the four gospels, focusing particular of Matthew's account of Jesus' life. It has been hidden for 1,500 years among other manuscripts at Cologne Cathedral Library before it was digitized by the University of Salzburg in 2012 and finally translated by Dr Houghton.

https://www.christiantoday.com/artic...y /112362.htm

[sky]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

As for Jesus talking about and quoting from the Old Testament: he certainly did that.

Did he believe the creation account and the flood account as being literal: He certainly did.

We don't know if Jesus believed the Creation/Flood Accounts literally or not so to say he certainly did is just speculative....

[Altair]

It’s not extraordinary that people back then believed in a 6 day creation in the most literal sense. We just try to incorporate the faith through modern goggles which imo says something about the desire to believe.

6 days being 6 billion years makes no sense, as Earth is younger and Universe is older than that.

[Starman]

Originally Posted by sky123

Did early Christians interpret the Bible literally.


The earliest Latin interpretations of the gospel are on display this week after being brought to light by a British theologian.

Hailed as 'fascinating', the 'substantial commentary' on the gospels by the fourth-century African-born bishop, Fortunatianus of Aquileia, offers a rare insight into how the earliest Christians read the Bible.

Dr Hugh Houghton, a New Testament scholar at the University of Birmingham, told Christian Today the 100-page manuscript proves ancient Christians were more focused on the spiritual view than literal interpretations of the Bible.

'People have always read the Bible in multiple ways,' he said.

'The literal sense was taken for granted and what Christians taught in churches was more allegorical.'

The commentary examines the four gospels, focusing particular of Matthew's account of Jesus' life. It has been hidden for 1,500 years among other manuscripts at Cologne Cathedral Library before it was digitized by the University of Salzburg in 2012 and finally translated by Dr Houghton.

https://www.christiantoday.com/artic...y /112362.htm

This is one of the reasons why there are so many Christian denominations today. Christian fundamentalists interpret
the Bible differently than non-fundamentalist. Catholics see it differently than Protestants, and every Protestant
denomination does not interpret the Bible the same way. Then there are Christian Gnostic's, and other branches of
Christianity, that have their own point of view of the Bible. People choose the interpretation that speaks to them
and touches them, and it was probably the same way with early Christianity; they had various denominations,
or sects, as well that differed in theology and tradition. Add to this that there are different versions of the Bible.
In North America today most Christians prefer the version commissioned by King James I of England.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by sky123

We don't know if Jesus believed the Creation/Flood Accounts literally or not so to say he certainly did is just speculative....

Speculative?

Some claim it is speculative to say Jesus did not believe in the Creation/Flood Accounts based on the fact they never read the Bible.

Originally Posted by Starman

This is one of the reasons why there are so many Christian denominations today. Christian fundamentalists interpret
the Bible differently than non-fundamentalist. Catholics see it differently than Protestants, and every Protestant
denomination does not interpret the Bible the same way. Then there are Christian Gnostic's, and other branches of
Christianity, that have their own point of view of the Bible. People choose the interpretation that speaks to them
and touches them, and it was probably the same way with early Christianity; they had various denominations,
or sects, as well that differed in theology and tradition. Add to this that there are different versions of the Bible.
In North America today most Christians prefer the version commissioned by King James I of England.

It is a sad state of affairs is it not? So many heretics to burn, so little time, and so much political correctness standing in the way. Back in the good old days (ancient actually) Constantine and his successors new how to deal with this problem.

I once had a conversation with a fundamentalist who informed me that the bible was not open for interpretation and must be taken literally as written. I responded by asking him about certain rather harsh passages in the old testament. He immediately puffed up and proclaimed, "Well, you have know how to interpret what they mean." It was a short conversation a long time ago, but I still find it to be one of the most useful and enlightening conversations I have had regarding religion.

Originally Posted by davidmartin

but on the other hand he didn't teach that taking things literally was the path to salvation but to look to the heart of things

Well, we all tend to imagine God in our own image so I tend to think that there is nothing Jesus took literally, religious or otherwise. The heart is not to be understood in words and thoughts, nor seen in forms, they are just props in the stories that move the heart, let us feel and experience it and know it is there and central to who we are.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Altair

It’s not extraordinary that people back then believed in a 6 day creation in the most literal sense. We just try to incorporate the faith through modern goggles which imo says something about the desire to believe.

6 days being 6 billion years makes no sense, as Earth is younger and Universe is older than that.

The second creation account does not mention the first 6 creative days.

The first creation account does not mention Eden nor the Garden of Eden.

The first creation account cites Elohim 35 times.

The second account introduces Yahweh and cites Yahweh 11 times.

The two creation accounts appear to be seperate accounts written by 2 different person(s). These accounts resonate more with opinions which resonate as a style preceding the writing style of the Talmuds.

[Honza]

The physical plane is apparently only in our minds. It is a mutable reality. We have no idea how old the 'earth' really is because it may not even be real at all. Scientific evidence may just be our mind tricking itself.

Originally Posted by Honza

The physical plane is apparently only in our minds. It is a mutable reality. We have no idea how old the 'earth' really is because it may not even be real at all. Scientific evidence may just be our mind tricking itself.

You are greatly misunderstanding that concept.
The world is real I promise you . However your opinion and perspective of the world is the elution