Anabaptist perspective of the Creation narrative?

[Soloist]

I guess your mind is closed. There is no point in continuing this, I am completely flabbergasted by the position you are taking.
Blessings in your journey.

My mind is not closed. I want authenticity, not blind speculation in support of dogma. What you posted is entirely inadequate proof that the ancient Hebrews believed in a spherical earth with an atmosphere and no dome over it. Their own writings contradict what you posted. Is you mind closed?

To belief in something that contradicts the word of God? absolutely. Yours is closed to any evidence of a global flood. That is obvious from your postings.

Did these ancient writers you use to support your position also believe Eve was the second wife? Please contribute with some sources, I'm sure my friend who teaches Hebrew would be interested in looking at it.

[temporal1]

This has been one of the most interesting topics to read.

[Falco Underhill]

Wayne, have you been able to check these references independently?

"Christians speculated as to whether it was made of earth, air, fire, or water (the basic elements of Greek science). Origen called the firmament "without doubt firm and solid" (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71).

FC 71 = Fathers of the Church Series, vol. 71. Without direct access to this book I cannot verify it.

If Origin referred to the firmament as "without doubt firm and solid" that would be incongruous with what he said elsewhere. From what I can verify he thought the waters above to be a reference to spiritual waters that would flow from within believers as distinct from the material waters below. The "firmament" for him was a symbol of the heavenly realm to which we have access in contemplation and prayer. I saw no reference to anything about a solid barrier or dome by Origen.

Ambrose, commenting on Gen 1:6, said, 'the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant' (Hexameron, FC 42.60).

Nothing I can find anywhere verifies this.

Augustine said the word firmament was used 'to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below' “

Can't verify this anywhere either. The Villanova University article I linked to suggests nothing of the sort.

See also: THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE

You say "see also" this article but when I link to it, it appears the quotes you provided above are taken directly from this same article. Not exactly an independent corroboration.

Unless/until I can corroborate this somehow, I consider it suspect.

Have you been able to verify any of this yourself or is this your only source?

[Soloist]

I'm not seeing that quote either, I see Basil wrote on it disputing your claim but a link to Origen actual quote in context would be nice

[Falco Underhill]

Okay, nevermind. Here's an article that explains that the Bible refers to the firmament as a solid dome sometimes and an expanse at other times. According to this article, however, the Hebrew word translated as "firmament" does mean "expanse."

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06079b.htm

My reading so far is that the Church Father's were themselves ambivalent about it, too.

St. Thomas for example says if it (the firmament) means a then b, but if it means x then then y.

They seemed less dogmatic about it than some of us are today!

[Falco Underhill]

Eureka! I have found the Origen reference on the internet!

Wayne's article asserts that —

Origen called the firmament "without doubt firm and solid" (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71).

That isn't exactly what Origen said. Here is the quote:

Although God had already previously made heaven, now he makes the firmament. For he made heaven first, about which he says, "heaven is my throne." But after that he makes the firmament, that is, the corporeal heaven. For every corporeal object is, without doubt, firm and solid; and it is this which "divides the water which is above heaven from the water which is below heaven."

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=X_mSB ... 0&gboemv=1 (Scroll to pg. 48 for the quote. It begins at the bottom.)

1. Origen does not exactly say that "the firmament is, without doubt, firm and solid," he says "every corporeal object is without doubt firm and solid." That is a significant difference. He is distinguishing between what is spiritual and what is corporeal and - speaking loosely - seems only to say that what is corporeal must have some kind of physical substance. I think he would have included the air (or atmosphere) under the genus "corporeal."

If you read on you'll see that by the waters above the heavens, he understands the spiritual waters of the heavenly Jerusalem.

At any rate, I see no direct reference here to a solid dome whatsoever.

It appears to me that Wayne's article misinterpreted the source it referenced.

[joshuabgood]

Origen says the Firmament is "corporeal." Then he says that all corporeal things are solid. If is premises are true, then clear deductive logic results in the firmament being without a doubt solid. I don't see any other way of reading what you quoted. Origen certainly seemed to believe his premises were true.

[RZehr]

Does he mean solid, as in they meaning of solid today, or solid as opposed to spiritual? Could solid in his words mean physical?

I don’t know. And I don’t particularly put much stock in what he thought either way, I’m just curious if it would be a fair interpretation to take him to mean physical.

[Soloist]

Unfortunately, Origen’s Commentary on Genesis, written in thirteen books, do not survive, but he treats the creation narratives extensively in On First Principles.

https://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/04/ori ... g-genesis/

The book of Origen's commentary is not available for free but it sounds like it was written based on the hermeneutic that he used so it might not actually be his words or thoughts anyway. The First principles is fairly decent writing.

Interesting commentary on air and water in context of someone saying the soul was corporeal.

Now whether the soul is such a substance, is an extremely nice and subtle question. You, indeed, with a promptitude for which I very greatly congratulate you, affirm that God is not a body. But then, again, you give me some anxiety when you say, “If the soul lacks body, so as to be (as some persons are pleased to suppose) of hollow emptiness, of airy and futile substance.” Now, from these words you seem to believe, that everything which lacks body is of an empty substance. Well, if this is the case, how do you dare to say that God lacks body, without fearing the consequence that He is of an empty substance? If, however, God has not p. 362 a body, as you have just allowed; and if it be profane to say that He is of an empty substance; then not everything which lacks body is an empty substance. And therefore a person who contends that the soul is incorporeal does not necessarily mean, that it is of an empty and futile substance; for he allows that God, who is not an empty being, is at the same time incorporeal. But observe what great difference there is between my actual assertion, and what you suppose me to say. I do not say that the soul is an airy substance; if I did, I should admit that it is a body. For air is a body; as all who understand what they say declare, whenever they speak concerning bodily substances. But you, because I called the soul incorporeal, supposed me not only to predicate mere emptiness of it, but, as the result of such predication, to say that it is “an airy substance;” whereas I must have said both that it has not corporeity, which air has, and that what is filled with air could not be empty. And your own bag similes failed to remind you of this. For when the bags are inflated, what is it but air that is pressed into them? And they are so far from being empty, that by reason of their distension they become even ponderous. But perhaps the breath seems to you to be a different thing from air; although your very breath is nothing else than air in motion; and what this is, can be seen from the shaking of a fan. With respect to any hollow vessels, which you may suppose to be empty, you may ascertain with certainty that they are really full, by lowering them straight into the water, with the mouth downwards. You see no water can get in, by reason of the air with which they are filled. If, however, they are lowered either in the opposite way, with mouth upward, or aslant, they then fill, as the water enters at the same opening where the air passes out and escapes. This could be, of course, more easily proved by performing the experiment, than by a description in writing. This, however, is not the time or place for longer delay on the subject; for whatever may be your perception of the nature of the air, as to whether it has corporeity or not, you certainly ought not to suppose me to have said that the soul is an aerial thing, but absolutely incorporeal. And this even you acknowledge God to be, whom you do not dare to describe as an empty substance, while you cannot but admit that He has an essence which is unchangeable and almighty. Now, why should we fear that the soul is an empty void, if it be incorporeal, when we confess that God is incorporeal, and at the same time deny Him to be an empty void? Thus it was within the competency of an Incorporeal Being to create an incorporeal soul, even as the living God made living man; although, as the unchangeable and the almighty, He communicated not these attributes to the changeable and far inferior creature.

It seems to me that the early church had no real opinion shared on the universe other then that God created it in 6 days. That being said, these are the opinions of men and these men were no different then us. If my writings were recorded 1700 years ago would they be used to discredit the creation story?
My thoughts are but my personal opinion and these men were just as open to fault as we. They allow us to see heresy enter the church with time as people spend more and more time just studying the Bible and doing nothing with it. The earliest writers spend more time working then writing, the later spent more time writing then working.

[Pelerin]

Does he mean solid, as in they meaning of solid today, or solid as opposed to spiritual? Could solid in his words mean physical?

I don’t know. And I don’t particularly put much stock in what he thought either way, I’m just curious if it would be a fair interpretation to take him to mean physical.

That’s a good question. It looks like he (or the translator) chose the word corporeal to mean physical (as opposed to spiritual), but doesn’t mean that “solid” means solid (and not liquid, gas, or plasma). That page isn’t available to me in Google Books, so I can’t read the context and I’m not a Greek expert anyway.

I just remember in philosophy that describing what physical objects actually are is a lot more complicated that you might think, and the language used can be hard to follow. The Greeks in particular had a lot of thoughts on the matter. Take the arcane thoughts expressed in the technical language built in that tradition, add a layer or two of translation, and the word you’re looking at might not mean what you think it does. I’m not saying Origen thought one thing or another, just that it pays to be cautious in instances like this.