Presented here is a transcript of a lecture by Father Daniil Sysoev on dogmatic theology concerning the six-day creation of the world by God. Due to the fact that the sound quality in the recording is poor, in some places it is not Father Daniil's verbatim speech that is conveyed, but its general meaning. Also, notes have been added by the transcript's editor to more broadly reveal the meaning of Father Daniil's speech. They are placed in separate brackets and marked as (editor's note:…. ).
Father Daniil:
Well, there seems to be some kind of complete depletion today. New Year, apparently. Huh? Knocked everyone out.
So. Meanwhile, our topic is one of the most, perhaps, fundamental and controversial that exist. But at the same time, it is one of the key topics in general in our preaching. Our topic today will be about God the Creator of the universe. So, as for how the world appeared, where the material universe came from, the question is actually key. Regarding the creation of the world, actually, many say that it doesn't matter how you count it, you can count it however you want. But in reality, in ordinary life, in ordinary conversation with people, you will almost immediately run into the fact that the question of the creation of the world will become a point of contention: "Where did man come from? Who is God?" They often agree that God exists. But they often disagree that God is the Creator - that's how it happens in ordinary life. When you ask where the world came from, they'll tell you: "Well, evolution, of course." When you ask: "And what is the evidence for evolution?" they'll tell you: "Well, dinosaurs, mammoths. Fossil fuels, however, oil, and so on." That is, there is a whole entrenched system of stereotypes associated with creation. But it is associated not only with the doctrine of evolution, although, perhaps, this may be the key such delusion of modernity, starting from antiquity and especially from the 19th century. But there are also other forms of heresy against creation, also very common. For example, the heresy is very well known when people claim that the world is an emanation of the deity, that is, a certain part of God. That is, the world was not created, it is a generation of God. When people regularly confuse "to beget" and "to create," that is, they say that it is the same thing. The most striking formula, the most well-known, is that "we are all children of God." You know, have you heard such talk? That people consider themselves by nature children of God - this is, of course, a sign that people, in fact, partly believe that they have God in their soul, as a part of them. That is, they believe that the soul is a part of God. Well, you've probably heard it, you've certainly encountered this worldview. This is connected, again, with a false idea about the creation of the universe. And let's say right away, there is a Biblical idea that the world was created by God from non-existence in six days, and specifically the first day was Sunday, the second - Monday, the third - Tuesday, the fourth - Wednesday, the fifth - Thursday, the sixth - Friday, and the seventh - Saturday. And since then this rotation of days has continued, but God's action now differs from God's action during creation. That is, we cannot deduce the works of creation from God's current action. That is, the work of creation in the Bible is perceived as a certain great miracle of God, the greatest sign of God. Now, every time at the Polyeleos, when we sing the words at the Polyeleos service, you remember, perhaps, right? There we sing: "Praise the Lord... To Him who made the heavens with understanding, for His mercy endures forever. To Him who established the earth on the waters, for His mercy endures forever." That is, creation is perceived in the Bible and in our Divine service as a certain greatest work of God, deliberately irreducible to the ordinary.
And then the pinnacle of material creation - man fell, and through him death and corruption entered the universe. Therefore Scripture says that death [entered] through man. Therefore, through the Son of man there will be the resurrection of the dead, the renewal of the entire universe. Again, also through a man, you understand, right?
Now the question arises: "How is this connected with the rest of the teaching?" Directly, you understand yourself, right? That is, if there is no creation, then we simply have no God. The God who is revealed in the Bible is God the Creator. In the Bible, the assertion that God is the Creator of heaven and earth occurs more than two and a half thousand times. That is, this is one of the most frequently used Biblical truths. And not only in the Bible, but in fact any sermon - the "verigma" (Do you know what "verigma" is? It is public preaching.) began with an exposition of faith in God the Creator. And we, too, when we begin to explain who God is, usually begin with the fact that God is the Creator. Because without introducing the concept of God the Creator, you will not introduce "omnipresent," nor "omnipotent," nor anything else. Remember, right? This is logically not deducible from one another. Remember, right? If God is not the Creator, we can logically say nothing about His nature - "there is something strong, such and such, unknown." It is no coincidence, by the way, in pagan religions that rejected the creation of the world, there was almost always a lack of understanding of who God is. Who is usually the true God in paganism? A great something, right? And this is logical, because if God is not the Creator, if I do not believe that He is the Creator, I cannot, from observing the world, come to the contemplation of His essence, even in a negative sense. You understand, right? I cannot say whether He is omnipresent or not omnipresent, whether He is limited or not limited, you understand, right? That's clear, right? I.e., there is a certain spirit, but what is its relation to the world, who knows what it is, you understand? Maybe it is limited, maybe not limited, right? Maybe it is strong, maybe it is weak, you understand, right? That is, we have no information about him at all. This is not apophaticism, it's simply a lack of understanding, that is, precisely something and that's all. Moreover, even in the spiritual life of a person, actually in the ordinary life of a person, the rejection of God's creativity leads to the person saying, I am my own master. This is logical, isn't it? If God did not create me, or did not create some part of me, then, accordingly, I can dispose of that part or all of myself as I want. You understand why euthanasia cannot be condemned in any way without introducing God the Creator? A person will immediately say: "But I have the right to myself" - right? You understand, right? That is, I have a right, an inalienable right of the individual. True, it's unclear where it came from, but there are such rights: "Here I want, I live; I want, there, I throw away my life when I want, right? And what business does God have with me if He didn't create me?" - Well, that's also purely logical, right? - "What, is He meddling with me?" And moreover, the rejection of Jesus Christ in general is quite logical provided that God is not the Creator. Because the words of the Gospel: "He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him." (Gospel of John: 1; 11) - here it is completely unclear what this refers to. If He did not create man, then He came to strangers... Also against the Gnostics, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons said this: "If God is not the Creator of the world, if Christ was not sent by God the Creator, then a stranger came, which means He is a thief." And what's surprising that they drove Him away? A thief needs to be driven away. That's also logical, isn't it? And moreover, we also have no hope for the future.
And, you understand, the resurrection of the flesh, when creation is rejected, also doesn't work. And why can we be sure that God has enough strength to gather what He did not make? Right? That is, nothing remains of Christianity at all, you understand? That is, absolutely nothing remains at all. There was such a man, his name was Thomas Huxley, one of the leading evolutionists. And he said this: "Destroy Adam and Eve and original sin, and then in the dust you will find the imaginary Son of God." Logical, right? For if death is not through man, if corruption is not through man, then Jesus cannot be the redeemer. You understand, right? It's all very logical. I'm just deliberately emphasizing this, because among many Orthodox I have heard such talk: "It doesn't matter how you believe in creation, the main thing is that you believe in Christ." But the fact is that we believe in Christ the Creator. In the Creed, remember? "by whom all things were made..." What does that mean?
I am now emphasizing the significance of the dogma of creation precisely because it is now being downplayed by the Orthodox, but outsiders know it perfectly well. You understand the point? We end up with such a missionary fork, you understand, right? The enemies of the Church know perfectly well the danger of the dogma of creation. And those in the Church think it's indifferent. You understand, such a discrepancy. If you go, for example, to one of the atheists' websites. You will see that two-thirds of the article is devoted to criticism of creationism. You understand? Not of hierarchy, mind you, not even of the resurrection of Christ, but of the doctrine of creation. Because they understand perfectly well: prove that God is not the Creator, and everything else will collapse immediately. Pull out the foundation - the roof will fall in.
Now, regarding another theory. There is a theory about the uncreatedness of the world. These theories have two types: 1) The world is not created, but born. This is the theory of emanation: the world is a flow of God, that is, the world is God. 2) And there is a second theory, that the world is not created and is self-existent.
Let's talk about the theory of emanation, very briefly. The fact is that this theory actually has huge internal contradictions. What is emanation? It is a flow. That is, it turns out that God involuntarily begets from Himself nothing that has the same nature. Well, it's clear, when something flows out of me, it's a part of me, isn't it? The affirmation that the world is part of God, firstly, presupposes that God is imperfect, because He cannot control Himself, right? Or He can control Himself, but He is not perfect, because He begot an imperfect world. That is, two options. In both cases, this is absolutely impossible. Right? Is the logic clear? Secondly, it follows from the theory of emanation that God is not good. Because there is evil in the world. Thirdly: God is not a person. You understand? That is, it turns out, again we come to what? We come to pure pantheism with all the objections against pantheism that we, as you remember, discussed.
That is, this difference between me and God, which is obvious from experience, destroys the whole situation. I.e., as Father Andrey Kuraev correctly said in his early work, pantheism is contradictory because either only God will remain, i.e., "pan" will not remain, right? If only God remains, then that's it, everything is God. Right? Or we will come to materialism. Materialism is actually also a form of pantheism, when divine quality is attributed to matter. That is, if we recall what materialism is, according to Lenin, for example. Then what are the qualities of matter? It is eternal, uncreated, self-creating. That is, in fact, these are qualities attributed to God. As Losev correctly said, materialism is faith in a huge black dead Leviathan, generating itself. Why dead is clear, because it's dead matter. But Leviathan is a monster that generates itself, because it's unclear where it came from.
Now, regarding the second theory of the uncreatedness of the universe itself, we have now automatically already come to it, because pantheism either crumbles into the illusory nature of my existence, which contradicts my self-consciousness, or it comes to materialism, to faith in the eternity of the world. This theory, in fact, is the most ancient. This theory arose even before the appearance of man, you know, right? For the first time, the theory that the world was uncreated was invented by a very intelligent, very powerful being named Lucifer, in order to justify his own rebellion. Imagine, logically. Imagine an angel raised a rebellion, how can he justify that he can defeat God? That God exists, he cannot argue with that, right? Because he saw Him. But he says that in fact I originated myself in this chaos, right? So. And God is just one of the spirits, who originated earlier than me. Understand, right? This is the only logical option for rebellion, do you understand? And that's precisely why, by the way, practically all world mythologies, what do they boil down to? To faith in the fact that there is a certain world chaos, usually watery, dark chaos, in which certain spiritual beings, gods, are born, right? And there begins a new generation of gods, and there, as a result, they gradually shape the world. But why does everything start with watery chaos? And remember the beginning of the book of Genesis?
So, imagine what the angels first saw in the material world when they were created? They saw a watery, dark chaos. And that angel who raised the rebellion convinced himself, and then others, of his lawless intent. They didn't see how they were created. The process of creation is not observed by anyone. You understand, right? And in exactly the same way, we didn't see how we were conceived. And even how we were born, we didn't see that either.
(editor's note: probably this not seeing the creation of the angels served as a formal pretext for those who specifically wanted to rebel, and this cannot be explained otherwise than by their evil will, since they saw all the other works of God's creation and saw how God sustains life, contrary to the corruption that man introduced into this world through his sin. And to say that God is not the Creator - this cannot be explained otherwise than by evil will.
Just as the wicked slander the righteous, knowing it is not so, likewise the devil and his minions slander God, that He is not the Creator, in order to deceive others, yet they know that it is not so and tremble before Him. We learn about this from the Gospel of Matthew: "And behold, they cried out, 'What have You to do with us, O Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?'" (Gospel of Matthew: 8; 29) From this passage we learn that the demons, from the Scriptures of the prophets, know about the coming terrible Judgment of the righteous Judge and about the eternal fiery gehenna that awaits them)
You understand, that is, the very first theory that arises in Lucifer's mind is the theory of evolution. Self-improvement, right? That's precisely why, by the way, the first main proposal to Adam and Eve was, remember, what was proposed? Self-improvement - godless deification, remember, right? "You will be like gods, knowing good and evil, without God." That is, by your own efforts. Understand? That's exactly how this theory arises.
As for this very theory, it has different forms. It has the form of "eternity of the world" or "pulsating universe." Currently, the most popular theory is the "pulsation of the universe." You know, as they say: it explodes - collapses, explodes - collapses, and so on ad infinitum.
The theory of simply infinite linear activity of the universe is no longer professed by anyone now. Why? You know, right?
Now, regarding the forms of so-called "scientific" ones, right? The question arises, remember we talked with you: "can science know the past?" No, it has no instrument. Therefore, loud words that "science has proven that there was a Big Bang" are worthless. It must be said: "Science cannot prove whether there was a Big Bang or not. Even if a black hole explodes in the hadron collider, this cannot be proof that there was a Big Bang. This would only prove that a big black hole was made in the large hadron collider. That's it. Period. This will not prove anything else at all." You understand, right? Because the past is a non-reproducible experiment. It would be possible to include the past in the sphere of science only if a time machine were created. That's it, never again. Therefore, neither the past nor the future simply relate to science. Now, all theories that are associated with science, what is that? It's my-tho-lo-gy. In the pure sense of the word. Covered with certain scientific data.
Remember, we talked about this with you, right? That we can learn about the past from witnesses, we can verify them with material evidence, right? There are ruins, there, right? There are some remnants of culture, and so on. In the pre-human past, we have nothing at all. Absolutely nothing. This fundamental phenomenon just needs to be understood.
And here we move on to the question of scientific mythology. Where did it come from? The fact is that when we come to the emergence of evolution, we find ourselves in modern times. Attempts to promote atheism after Christianity were made all the time, starting perhaps with the Renaissance, from the 15th century. But they always ended with a very small question. The atheist says: "I'll prove that God doesn't exist." And the question is this: "Where did the world come from? Who created the world then?" You understand, this question stumped any atheist. And then the first synthesis between atheism and faith in the Creator appeared, and it's called deism. You know, right, what that is? It's the assertion that God created the world like a clock and left.
The fact is, look. This theory assumes that the laws of nature have always been the same. One. And at the same time, all processes proceeded at the same speed.
But here you need to understand that, firstly, who said that the laws are always the same? That's faith. Faith is based only on the fact that God cannot change His words. God doesn't cancel words, but He can introduce new words quite well. You understand, right?
Now let's turn to a very simple thing. Let us remember that all our knowledge about the past is an analysis of testimonial evidence. Here is the testimonial evidence about the universe from God's point of view given to us: it is the Bible. The testimonial evidence of people reaches the most ancient traditions of humanity, which date back to the time of 3-4 millennia before the Birth of Christ. Nothing earlier exists. The oldest written document in existence is a tablet with a list of cattle, dating approximately to 3100 BC, from among those deciphered. Such an accounting tablet. There is that famous Sumerian pictogram. We simply have no older surviving documents. From human traditions we know quite a lot from histories, but again...
And now, as for the fact that when we turn to texts, whether written or oral testimonies of human history, we see that human history does not speak of an even, constant state of all processes. The history of mankind is full of stories about catastrophe. The most famous story is the story of the global flood. Currently, 257 independent accounts of a global flood have been recorded, which, according to all accounts, covered the entire planet. So. These accounts say that as a result of the flood, only one family or eight people survived. They survived because they got into a big box, or a canoe, or a hollowed-out log, or a large square raft. So. But, again, the principle is that they and some animals survived. Well, clear, there are various options. But the essence is this. Moreover, very often their names are even given. Nuakh or Nu, there and so on.
(editor's note: "A study of the genetic diversity of African countries, completed in 2009, showed that Bushmen belong to five population groups with the highest measured levels of genetic diversity among 121 separate samples of African populations. (Tishkoff, S. A.; Reed, F. A.; Friedlaender, F. R.; Ehret, C.; Ranciaro, A.; Froment, A.; Hirbo, J. B.; Awomoyi, A. A.; Bodo, J. –M.; Doumbo, O.; Ibrahim, M.; Juma, A. T.; Kotze, M. J.; Lema, G.; Moore, J. H.; Mortensen, H.; Nyambo, T. B.; Omar, S. A.; Powell, K.; Pretorius, G. S.; Smith, M. W.; Thera, M. A.; Wambeke, C.; Weber, J. L.; Williams, S. M. The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans (англ.) // Science : journal. — 2009. — Vol. 324, no. 5930. — P. 1035—1044.)
Bushmen children from Namibia.)
Therefore, many scientists, not without reason, consider the Bushmen people to be the most ancient people on earth, from whom all other peoples of the world descended.
In the traditions of the Bushmen, independent of the influence of Christianity (since they cannot read and are in linguistic isolation), the concept of God the Creator is also present, although distorted due to their lack of writing. In their tradition, the creation of the sun, moon, and animals is attributed to a certain grasshopper. It is clear that a grasshopper cannot be the Creator, since a grasshopper is one of the living creatures created by the Creator, but this testimonial evidence indicates that the most ancient people, starting from Adam, knew about God the Creator.)
In fact, these traits that exist in our humanity, they are shuffled at once, like a deck of cards. And they became fixed due to the isolation of peoples, prolonged isolation. Prolonged isolation of peoples was achieved through the Tower of Babel. Clear, right? Due to fixation. That is, practically isolated groups were formed, which fixed these traits. Notice that now these clear boundaries between races are blurring, they are very clearly blurring now. Look now, at faces even in Moscow itself, right? You can easily meet a mix of Mongoloids and Europoids, or there Mongoloids with...
But let's return to the topic further. And this uniformitarianism, it contradicts the data that we have from human testimonies, which describe absolutely terrible events. Many nations describe huge catastrophes that befell the earth. I'm not even talking about the Flood, which changed the face of the earth. There were known descriptions of great monstrous global fires. There is a description of a terrible cosmic night. There is a description of boiling seas, when some cosmic body approached the Earth.
Moreover, if we look, even without turning to the tradition of mankind, which, in fact, unanimously speak of huge global catastrophes, we can simply see many interesting things even in fossil remains. Well, for example, the most famous thing, those who have, maybe someone collects fossils? Never collected?
Or, for example, if you ever go to Crimea, there is such a big Crimean canyon. You will see there petrified remains of jellyfish, petrified remains of earthworm movements.
Or for example, near Vyatka in 1997, a dinosaur 5 meters high was found, standing on its hind legs, and stretching its head upward. Can you imagine how long this five-meter giant would have stood in a vertical position while sediments were naturally deposited there?
Further. Here is the most recent information. In principle, there is a very good website of the "Crimean Institute for Creation Research." There such facts are regularly cited, moreover from secular sources.
For example, one of the most striking recent facts, found in 2002, is the discovery of erythrocytes in dinosaur bones - red blood cells. If dinosaurs died out somewhere 62 million years ago, as they say, imagine that red blood cells, pieces of fat, remained there. Could that be? Can you imagine blood that hasn't decomposed for 62 million years? Is it real? And traces of DNA have even been found. That is, in fact, there are found even not petrified, but semi-petrified, or completely non-petrified dinosaur bones. Even dinosaurs, right? That is, before us are traces, in fact, of a huge such catastrophe. Or take the classic example - mammoths. The same, right? The well-known mammoths, which are so well preserved that our prisoners ate them.
There they also found mammoths, for example, with undigested remains of greenery in their stomachs, with a piece of buttercup in their teeth. Imagine, right? Can you imagine the speed of death?
But I, actually, am talking about something else. About the fact that, in principle, uniformitarianism, the theory of uniform and slow rates, contradicts what we have - both testimonies and fossils. Moreover, if we look at the most ordinary geological layers, we will see that they were formed as a result of catastrophes. For example, there is such a concept as turbidity currents, which create a layered structure immediately. That is, imagine that in a fraction of a second, a huge layer of all kinds of sediments is formed. And this happens because a powerful flow from the coast carries a mixture of various rocks, sand, and clay into the sea. And this powerful stream goes along the bottom, because it is heavier than water. And it carries all this, then gradually it slows down and everything begins to settle out of it. What falls out first?
Now imagine, can a stone fold? Can a stone fold into a fold?
(editor's note: stones of a different rock, thrown onto the top of a mountain:
(editor's note: overgrown moraines in Kolomenskoye:
In the supposed glacial period, these boulders were brought. That is, there are such lines along which moraines lie. That is, rounded granite boulders. Moreover, many of them are brought from a distance of almost thousands of kilometers. For example, in the Moscow region there are boulders whose composition is close to that of Karelia.
But moraine lines are left by tsunamis. Exactly such moraine lines. By the way, they left them on Sumatra. That is, in the area of the tsunami epicenter, exactly such things happen. The tsunami throws huge stones deep into the mainland.
I.e., before us are traces not of a glacier, about which, by the way, there is no evidence in humanity, but there are traces of precisely huge waves, moreover repeatedly coming from the far north. Absolutely huge waves.
What does this indicate? That the assertion that all processes occurred at the same speed does not stand up to any criticism. Moreover, even those processes that are considered eternal in the full sense are not such, for example, the processes of radioactive decay. The question has now become very acute in this sense. The fact is that the fact has been discovered that cobalt decays at a non-constant rate. It became known about isotopes that are known to decay at a non-constant rate. Those isotopes that have a longer half-life period, (You know what a half-life period is, right? The period in which the amount of radioactive material decreases by half, right? Remember, yes, what that is? That's the school curriculum. I'm now explaining within the framework of the school curriculum. Why am I saying this? In fact, the half-life is very simply explained on the fingers. There is a piece of pure uranium, after 4.5 billion years exactly half of it will remain. The rest will be lead. Another 4.5 billion years - another half, and so on.)
Regarding the half-life, firstly, it was believed that it is constant and independent of anything. Indeed, it does not depend on pressure, on ordinary temperature changes. But it does depend on such a thing as irradiation with fast neutrons. Fast neutrons can accelerate the decay of isotopes. This is because under their influence, isotopes split into fragments or transform into other isotopes, which shortens the half-life. For example, for minor actinides (radioactive isotopes of americium, curium, neptunium), the half-life decreases from over a million years to about 300 years under the influence of fast neutrons. That is, when a new star explodes near Earth, irradiation from that star can easily change the rate. But, in addition, we have the simplest thing. When they say that the age of such and such a rock is so many millions of years, because it contains such and such an amount of lead and such and such an amount of uranium, or rubidium, or strontium, it doesn't matter. But to say the age of the rock, we need to know exactly, firstly, how much uranium was initially, how much lead was initially, at what rate the half-life process proceeded, how much lead was leached out and how much was introduced, how much uranium was leached out and how much was introduced. Understand? And about what rock can we know this? About none at all. That is precisely why, in any radionuclide analysis, that is, by the rate of radioactive decay, the supposed age of the rock is always written in the column. This is needed precisely to then present the result, adjusting the necessary values. Well, for example, in my book I give an example of a friend of mine, a geologist, he is now Father Silvester. He himself worked at Moscow State University, he told an example of how his teacher decided to make fun of the laboratory. Usually, how is a sample from rocks taken? Imagine a huge cliff before your eyes. And in the cliff, outcrops of rocks, sedimentary ones. For example, there is granite, limestone - layers lying like that, right? And usually how is the sampling done? From top to bottom, right? A pebble from the top, then lower, lower, lower, lower... And then this sample is submitted. And he took it from bottom to top. And gave it, without comments. And the most interesting thing is that the results turned out great. The oldest rocks were on top, the youngest at the bottom. He says: "but you know, the data didn't diverge chaotically, they changed smoothly from younger to older. You know?" he says - "But I took the sample in reverse order." They answered him: "Why did you mock us, we'll recalculate now." They recalculated, everything turned out the opposite. You understand? (laughs...)
Because, again, the main situation is such that the amount of isotope gives such cells - nuclei of possible age. You understand? In what way the age of these nuclei is determined, we do not know. Well, what can we compare it to? Imagine you have some date for Easter, right? Such and such an event happened on such and such a date at Easter, there, April 23rd. You have a series of options, right? That is, Easter won't fall on April 23rd every year, right? Easter will fall on April 23rd once in some decade, for example. And so you have these nuclei, by which you can determine yourself. But in which century, for this you still need to know the situation, historical, and so on. The same with radionuclide analysis and any other analysis. Clear, right?
Therefore, when we are told: "The rate of decay proves that the Earth is billions of years old" - we need to say that the situation is the opposite. Billions of years were attributed to the Earth in order to fit the data to the theory of evolution. We really have no evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Moreover, there is such a simple thing...
Moreover, the speed of the current redshift won't work for you. Do you know why? Now, actually, the volume of the universe... You know, now there is a problem with dark matter, with dark energy, right? A huge problem. Now they are looking for dark matter and dark energy, which should make up 95% of the mass of the universe. Why dark matter and dark energy? This is energy and matter that no one has ever observed and, in principle, cannot observe. And why, where did they get that it exists? The thing is, it is needed for the universe to collapse again. If we assume that the universe exists eternally, we need to assume that there is 20 times more matter than now. Otherwise, it will expand indefinitely, which means it has a finite time of existence, and before that it could never have existed in any way. You understand, right? And therefore, to justify the eternity of the universe, they begin to invent non-existent, unobservable, invisible matter, unobservable, invisible energy. Clear, right? Great. I.e., go there, I don't know where, find that, I don't know what.
I'm not even talking about such elementary things as, for example, the structure of the vestibular apparatus. That is, the supposed transitional link between ape and man would have had to faint, because the vestibular apparatus in humans and apes is tuned either for upright walking, or for walking on three limbs, like chimpanzees, for example. You understand, right?
By the way, the famous Lucy - Australopithecus, which they showed us in school as supposedly a transitional link, it turned out that she is definitely an ape, and not an ancestor of man at all. This has now become generally recognized after her vestibular apparatus was examined. The cochlea (canals of the vestibular apparatus) in great apes and in humans are fundamentally different. They have different ways of orienting themselves in three-dimensional space. So, in the australopithecine Lucy, the most famous australopithecine, her ear was structured in such a way that she could not walk upright. She, in principle, could not walk upright. In no way. She would not have been able to maintain her balance. She could only walk straight for a few steps and fall. Well, fall onto her third limb. Well, as, actually, they do now - gorillas, orangutans, for example, and so on, they cannot walk upright for long due to the different structure of the inner ear. That is, just as they cannot walk upright due to the different structure of the spine.
You understand, that is, what is our task? We Christians must simply understand, elementarily, that our task is simply to follow the Word of God. And simply check all sorts of theories first to see if they agree with common sense. Clear, right? About a theory that obviously does not agree with common sense, we must say that it is stupidity, period. Without even discussing how it relates to the Bible. Understand? Is the logic clear, yes?
The same with the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is such a "good" thing, but because everything fit poorly into mathematics, they had to invent inflation. Maybe someone has heard, there is such a concept as inflationary theory. That is, it turns out that the "Big Bang" assumes that at the beginning there were such super-forces, forces of gravitational repulsion, that were so powerful that they caused the universe to expand at a speed several hundred thousand times faster than the speed of light. Which contradicts all other known theories... (editor's note: In particular, this contradicts Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, which states that no physical body can move in space faster than the speed of light.) But then it was a different situation and so on. And this situation, however, no one saw, but otherwise the mathematics doesn't work... You understand? The obfuscation begins, and so on. These things are obviously unverifiable, the Big Bang cannot be verified. By the way, the cosmic microwave background radiation, which supposedly confirms it, should be, according to the theory, 40 degrees hotter, you should know. Not 2.7 Kelvin, as it is now. It should be 43 Kelvin. You understand? And they took the shortfall, just swept it under the rug, that's all. That is, when they measured the redshift, what did they find out?
I'm not even mentioning one simple elementary thing, that the Earth... That is, a volcanic eruption now ejects one cubic mile of water into the atmosphere and ocean. This is water that previously did not participate in the water cycle in nature, it comes from magma. Magmatic water in the region of one cubic mile is ejected every year into the atmosphere and ocean. From this it is easy to calculate that at current eruption rates, the water in the oceans should have been completely filled in 500 million years. You understand, in 500 million years the Earth should have been covered only with volcanic water, assuming there was no water on the surface. (editor's note: which contradicts the attributed age of the Earth of 4.5 billion years) And it was. That is, assuming that volcanoes erupted at the same rate, and they erupted in greater volume. You understand, that is, even under these conditions. The age of table salt is calculated there - 340 million years, for other salts, there it's generally 10 thousand years usually, and this means that the maximum age of the ocean is 10 thousand years, it turns out. I.e., even taking the uniformitarian view, it turns out that all these things don't fit anywhere. I specifically pointed out now that even if we take the point of view of uniformitarianism, the concept itself begins to burst at the seams and fall apart. You understand? Falling apart before our eyes. There is not a single accurately traced lineage. We can even go with you, if you're interested, to the Darwin Museum, take a tour. Do you want to?
There, for example, there is a very famous lineage of horses. Maybe you know, Afanasyev always drew it in all textbooks. Only there is a small problem in that they drew it. In fact, it turned out that they simply put together fossils from completely different places, different times, different animals. They said: look, here it is, a small horse. And they attached small, different-sized bones to it. They didn't check whether they fit together or not. They didn't have a whole skeleton. And this is called a "reconstruction."
He was a seminarian who studied poorly, and by the way, a binge alcoholic, he was sent for treatment.
Before he was a wolf, he was also a wolf cub, among other things. "Wolf cub" is such a technical term, he was the son of a very prominent 33rd-degree Freemason. And the grandson of a very prominent Freemason. Moreover, his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was officially excommunicated from the church, and his book was included in the list of forbidden books.
I have now shown you, regarding the origin of the universe, the age is by no means enough for what is attributed, you understand, in any case. Therefore, when they say that science has proven that the world has existed for millions of years, we need to say: "What science? Where specifically and in what way did it prove this?" Clear, right? That is, how can it be verified? There is no inscription on any fossil.
(editor's note: On the morning of Tuesday, June 9, 1891, the wife of a local newspaper publisher in Morrisonville, Illinois, Mrs. S.W. Culp, was filling a bucket with coal. As one of the pieces of coal was too large, she proceeded to break it. It split in two, almost in the middle. Inside, Mrs. Culp discovered a thin gold chain, about ten inches long, "very ancient and of some unusual workmanship."
For the first second, Mrs. Culp thought that the chain must have been accidentally dropped into the coal by someone – perhaps one of the miners.
But it immediately turned out that she was mistaken. When she tried to pull out the chain, she found that, although the middle of the chain was freed, its two ends, lying nearby, were still firmly held in the coal. She also noticed that where the chain emerged from the coal, there was a semicircular indentation left in the piece.
She took the chain to a jeweler. It turned out to be eight-carat gold and weighed about twelve grams.
The age of the coal in this area was estimated from 260 to 320 million years.
This information correlates with other similar reports.
In 1844, Sir David Brewster announced a block of sandstone extracted from the Kingoodie quarries, Milnfield, Scotland. The block extracted from the quarry was 9 inches (23 cm) thick. A nail was discovered in the process of cleaning the stone of irregularities, for subsequent finishing. Experts unanimously declared that there was no technical way to drive a nail into the stone for the purpose of falsification. I.e., the age of the nail equals the age of the rock that encased it.
According to the conclusion of Dr. A.W. Medd of the British Geological Survey Institute, made in 1985, the stone belongs to the era of the lower Devonian period, i.e., it is 360-408 million years old.
And there are quite a few such reports, published in newspapers at various times.)
Or, for example, in the Permian layer they find a petrified hammer. An iron hammer on a spruce handle in a piece of Permian rock. Then we can say that the age of this Permian layer is no older than the time humanity has existed. Because hammers in human history were only made by people. There you have the real age of the Permian layer.
(editor's note: In 1936, spouses Max and Emma Hahn, while developing a mine, found an iron miner's hammer inside the rock. The hammer, with a steel head and a wooden handle, was completely covered with stone, and at first glance did not look anything special. Not long ago, they decided to analyze the stone around the hammer and realized that it is over 400 million years old. The hammer was found in the city of London in Texas.
Analysis of the hammerhead showed it contained 96.6% iron, 2.6% chlorine, and 0.74% sulfur. The hammer handle was made of non-mineralized wood with a few small black charred spots along the edges.
By the way, even the presence of oil indicates that oil deposits appeared very recently. Because at the current rate of oil dissipation, it would all be forced to the surface, and all the pressure there would drop within 10 thousand years - at the latest. Clear, right? Well, it's still a liquid, you understand? Pressure is exerted on oil by overlying rocks, and it won't stay in layers forever.
And there are many such things. More details are written about them in the book. All of them are given there, and newer ones can be found on the website of the Crimean Society for Creation Science, because news is posted there all the time.
Now regarding attempts at reconciliation. From the time Darwinism appeared, attempts to reconcile Darwinism with Christianity appeared, of various kinds. The first attempt was made by Thomson (I think that was his name), he said this: "The day of creation, in fact, lasted millions of years." Why? Because it is said there, right? A thousand years are like one day. To this one can answer very simply. Remember the Fourth Commandment? Come on, from memory, Andrey.
Does this commandment have any meaning if God did not create in ordinary days?
Here, the Earth rotates on its axis. There is no sun. There is some diffused light on one side. On the other side there is none. God separates light from darkness. There you have a day. That's all.
I remember once, a while ago, we were sitting, talking with my friend Sergei Golovin from Crimea. And he says this: "When they ask how many hours there were originally in a day? I answer, 24 hours. Why? Because what is an hour? It's one twenty-fourth of a day." That's it. That's it. That's it, you understand? That's usually, logical.
How many minutes were in that hour? 60. Because a minute is 1/60 of an hour. You understand? How many seconds were in that minute? 60. Because a second is 1/60 of a minute.
"No one should think that the six-day creation is an allegory. It is also impermissible to say that what is described as created in the course of six days was created in an instant, and also that the description presents only names: either meaning nothing, or meaning something else."
Clear, right? Further Ephraim describes: "Having spoken of the creation of heaven, earth, darkness, the deep, and the waters at the beginning of the first night, Moses turns to the narrative of the creation of light on the morning of the first day. So, after twelve hours of night had passed, light was created among the clouds and waters, and it dispelled the shadow of the clouds that hovered over the waters and produced darkness. Then began the first month Nisan, in which days and nights have an equal number of hours."
What is Nisan?
Clear, right? Basil the Great:
"And there was evening, and there was morning, one day. Why is it called not first, but one?.. By this he defines the measure of day and night, and combines them into one daily time, because 24 hours fill the duration of one day, if by day we also mean night." - i.e., a 24-hour day is meant - "Therefore, although with the revolutions of the sun it happens that day and night exceed each other, yet they are always limited by one definite time. And Moses spoke as if thus: the measure of 24 hours is the duration of one day, or the return of heaven from one sign to the same sign again is accomplished in one day."
(editor's note: 2nd century. Holy Martyr Justin Philosopher: "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. Now we all hold this common gathering on Sunday, since it is the first day, on which God, transforming darkness and matter, created the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.")
We even sing in the Divine Service, for example, "and God blessed the seventh day. For this is the blessed Sabbath, this is the day of rest, on which the Only-begotten Son of God rested from all His works, by His dispensation of death, resting in the flesh on the Sabbath, and returning to that which He was."
By the way, for us, for the Church, the day of creation and the day of Redemption are directly linked. Why was the Lord crucified on Friday? Because on Friday man was created. Why did the Lord rest in the tomb on Saturday? Because God rested His body. Why did God, Christ, rise on Sunday? He recreated the world on the same day He created it. And in the Synaxarion on the day of Pascha we read: "On this very night God created the universe from non-existence into being."
Well, I'll just list now who confirms the literalness of the Hexaemeron. 1st century: Holy Martyr Dionysius the Areopagite. 2nd century: Holy Martyr Justin Philosopher, St. Theophilus of Antioch, St. Irenaeus of Lyons. 3rd century: St. Hippolytus of Rome, Martyr, St. Methodius of Olympus, Holy Martyr Victorinus of Pettau (†303/4). 4th century: St. Athanasius the Great, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. John Chrysostom. In the 5th century: Blessed Augustine of Hippo, St. Leo the Great - Pope of Rome, St. Theodoret of Cyrus, St. Cyril of Alexandria. In the 6th century: St. Emperor Justinian. Further, an epistle specially approved by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. In the 7th century: Maximus the Confessor, Isaac the Syrian, Anastasius of Sinai, Isidore of Seville. In the 8th century: John of Damascus. In the 9th century St. Photius of Constantinople. In the 10th century Venerable Symeon the New Theologian. In the 11th century Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria. In the 13th century Venerable Euthymius Zigabenus. In the 14th century Matthew Blastares, St. Gregory Palamas. In the 15th century Venerable Epiphanius the Wise, Venerable Joseph of Volotsk. In the 16th century Venerable Maximus the Greek. In the 17th century the work "The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church" by St. Peter (Mogila), Metropolitan of Kiev. In the 18th century St. Dimitry of Rostov. In the 19th century St. Philaret of Moscow, St. Ignatius of the Caucasus (Brianchaninov), St. Theophan the Recluse, St. Righteous John of Kronstadt. In the 20th century Holy Martyr Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev, Venerable Justin (Popovich). (editor's note: These quotes are given in Appendix 1 at the end of the transcript.)
The next question - "why do we understand Scripture literally about creation?" The fact is that, let's now recall the day-age theory - that the day of creation lasted millions of years. Another theory, that God created through evolution. There was a theory that God arises through evolution. That's what Pierre Teilhard de Chardin thought. He says that God arises from evolution, a certain insane spirit appears and begins to gradually become self-aware, evolving. In the process of evolution, this spirit, which was at the very beginning, begins to develop, self-improve, and it will achieve perfection when all human personalities unite into one cosmic mind. Then God will arise. You understand that I cannot call de Chardin a Christian under any approximation. Agree, right? One who says that God does not exist now is not a Christian, because under no approximation.
Then there is a theory that the world was created from evolution, and man was created by a separate act of God's creation. Others claim that man also arose as a result of evolution, resulting in an ape into which God breathed a soul. That is, there are different theories in this regard as well.
All these theories have one little thing in common - a minus. If we open with you the book called "The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans," in chapter 8 from verses 19 to 23 it says the following:
What does the text say? That creation was created incorruptible. It was subjected to futility not willingly, but by the will of Him who subjected it, so that it might be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
And the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans says so, chapter 5 from verse 12:
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." (Epistle to the Romans: 5; 12)
That is, through sin, death entered the world. This, in fact, is one of the most key texts, the most important texts for our faith.
The next place - First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 15, verses 20 to 26:
What do all these texts speak about? That death is an abnormal state for man. Corruption, in a broader sense, is also an abnormal state for man. Because I now know a theory that death only concerns humans, and animals do not die, although any veterinarian would disagree with that. But the fact is that Scripture does not leave such a loophole. Scripture says that there is no corruption. You understand? Corruption was not created by God, it is not original. Corruption entered through man's sin. Here such a moment arises. The fact is that if we say that the world was created incorruptible, then, excuse me, we have absolutely no need to invent millions of years. Why? You understand, right? The fact is that if even the world were created, for example, in 6 million years or 6 billion years, but it were incorruptible, not a single petrified remains would remain from it. Clear, right? In an incorruptible world, death does not exist. Therefore, an immortal world leaves no petrified remains of corpses behind. Corruption is the result of sin. God subjected (editor's note: here Father Daniil was cut off mid-sentence.)
Further. So, in any case, the question of death, the question is actually very simple. Everything hinges on the question of death. That is, when they say that God created through evolution, it means that God created through death. I translate into normal Russian. Clear, yes, why? Because what is evolution? Struggle for existence, survival of the fittest. I'm not even saying that this is a tautology, but okay. This is the result of a huge cemetery, a huge number of all living beings that survived, there were terrible pains, and at the same time gradually, as evolution claims, although this contradicts all the laws of mathematics, something could, for example, self-improve. It could not self-improve, you know yourself that evolution directly contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, simply. Evolution could not have happened simply because it could never have happened, due to the ordinary laws of physics. If we adhere to uniformitarianism, that is, the law operated at the same speed as now, then nothing can self-improve. It is not for nothing that not a single new class of beings that have arisen before our eyes has been found. Subspecies arise, small varieties arise within the same genetic type, which in the Bible is called a kind. But we see that species disappear, but new ones do not arise. New genera, understand? That is, all sorts of varieties of Darwin's finches, or varieties of dogs, cats, varieties of perch, adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics – this is just variability within an existing species.
They had certain habitats. There are places where they talk a lot about dragons. There are places where there are few of them. For example, where were they here? Here, they were in the steppes, apparently. Where did people encounter them? Our heroes encountered them in the steppes. Apparently, they simply did not live in the forests. That's all.
So, now, regarding the theory of the origin of man. By the way, there is another important argument that, by the way, can be presented to the Orthodox who say that the world can be explained using the theory of evolution. The fact is that, look, we know what the Creed says? It begins: "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. ..." That is, the Creed says that God created everything - visible and invisible. From the point of view of evolution, God created nothing but the laws of nature, which themselves created everything.
And God entrusted creation to no one. The fact is that we must remember that creation is the great miracles of God, the great works of God. You understand? You have to understand that creation is the first of the greatest works of God, which continues. There is the miracle of creation. Even now remember the Gospel. How did the Lord raise Lazarus? What did He say? "Come on, evolution, go back!?" No, He said: "Lazarus, come forth." (Gospel of John: 11; 43) - and he came to life, instantly. Remember when the Lord healed a leper? What did He say: "wait a bit for millions of years, you will be cleansed" - right? No, He said: "I am willing; be cleansed." (Gospel of Matthew: 8; 3) The fact is that we must understand that the miracles of Christ are the same miracle of creation as the miracle of the creation of being. He is the same God who created in the beginning. And that is precisely why it is emphasized that He is the Master of the world's elements. Therefore He walked on water, because He created it. Therefore He multiplied the loaves, because He created plants in the beginning. Therefore He turned water into wine, because He is the Creator of plants. Remember? That is, all these miracles showed that He is that same Lord. By the way, the question arises, what is this dust from which man was taken? From what dust was he taken?
But there is another option. When, for example, Father Andrey Kuraev says that the dust from which Adam was taken is, for example, an ape, we must remember that in the third chapter it is said: "Until you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return." (Genesis: 3; 19).
You understand, Father Andrey Kuraev's logic, what is it? That is, in principle, the only option according to Father Andrey Kuraev's logic, not only his, by the way, this concerns many evolutionists, their logic can only work if reincarnation exists. And in the case of reincarnation, if a person reincarnates into an ape, this all works out.
either we recognize the Biblical view of death, consequently redemption through Jesus Christ - since death came through man, then through man also the resurrection from the dead. If Adam introduced death, then Christ introduced immortality. If creation became corrupt through Adam, then through Christ it becomes incorruptible. This is interconnected. That is, remove Adam, and you fall into Christ. In such a situation, billions of years are simply not needed, nothing would remain of them. No material remains from those billions of years can remain in any case. Otherwise, they are simply not needed for us, you understand? Not needed at all, like a fifth leg for a dog.
Or we do not recognize the Biblical view and say: death did not come through man. There is a theory, very often they say this, that the devil introduced death into the world before man. Alexander Men said so. Alexander Men's position asserts that the world was created by God, and then at the very beginning of the world, during the Big Bang, the devil intervened and began to spoil the world. And so the entropy that has been there from the very beginning of creation spoiled it. And God specially fought with the devil, unable to overcome him. He set life against him, and life began to decay. And God gradually developed life, and it all turned into freaks. Then God specially set a new warrior against the devil - man, but he too did not succeed. And God there strained and strained and could not defeat the devil in any way. He strained for billions of years, God could not defeat the devil in any way. A logical theory, I'll say right away, logical, but having nothing in common with Christianity at all. In fact, the devil is recognized as equal to God. That's all. Before us is ditheism. Pure, classical, such, well, by the way, an academic form of Manichaean teaching. Typical Zoroastrianism of Manichaeism in a pure classical form. Clear, right? In a completely pure form. Yes, it's logical here - yes, God didn't cope. God wanted to, but it didn't work out. Therefore billions of years, therefore corruption before the fall, therefore death before the fall, therefore so many unsuccessful attempts, God makes, and the devil breaks, you understand, right? All this is logical. Moreover, the explanation of free will does not work here. The fact is that the principle of synergy, how does it sound? God created us without us, but He cannot save us without us. But He created us without us. Everything we received in being is a gift from God. Independent of us ourselves. If our nature is corrupted on the principle that God created it that way, not we spoiled it, but God created it that way, then God is to blame for everything. Right? And in general, actually, from Alexander Men's point of view, it is very logical that Alexander Men rejects the existence of the Last Judgment. He said that this is a fairy tale to frighten people. And he said that in fact everyone will be saved, there will be an Omega Point, when everyone will achieve deification. This is also logical. So clear, right? This is also logical. Why? Because if God is actually to blame for the world falling apart due to His own weakness and lack of will and stupidity, actually, why give us claims? Agree, right? Why judge us, if God is to blame for everything? He could not make an immortal world. He was hindered by some force equal to Him, which immediately got out of control, and there everything decomposes. Why, if it was supposedly created? Of course, what kind of judgment? What justice can we talk about? I judge a freak because I couldn't make him properly. You understand, right? I made a freak, you are a freak, I will judge you for it. There's nothing to judge for. Absolutely nothing. Therefore, Alexander Men's point of view, it is quite logical. And quite radically anti-Christian. And its purpose is very simple. It is an apology for satan. Point - satan is equal to God. Death is normal. Corruption is normal. Nothing can be done about them.
Another very important question, actually, about the method of creation. Very often people say that Adam must be understood spiritually, that it is some kind of spiritual personality, or it is Adam some mythical personality, or it is a man who lived many millions of years ago, there was an ape, into which God breathed a soul. But we must remember that we have such a thing called the genealogy of Jesus Christ, which goes back to Adam. You understand, right? That is, absolutely specifically 77 ancestors from Adam to Christ. You understand? Everything is completely clear. Adam of God. You understand, right?
What are the features of Neanderthals? If we take not the pictures they draw for us, of an anecdotal type, (about this, by the way, I highly recommend Golovin's book, called "How Man Became an Ape." An excellent book, absolutely magnificent. The story is told in a very fascinating, funny form. I strongly urge you to read it. I guarantee you a fun evening. And it's better to read it in a reclining position, so as not to fall over laughing. It's all written wonderfully.) Neanderthals are ordinary people, taller than us, stronger, with larger head volume. But their features are: a large chin and a more developed jaw, with more developed cheekbones. This is probably connected, most likely, with the fact that they mainly ate meat food. Because, by the way, in Neanderthal remains, remains of animal bones are found. And Cro-Magnons...
Moreover, the average brain volume of Neanderthals is 2 thousand cubic centimeters. The average brain volume now is 1.5 thousand cubic centimeters.
I wanted to say one more thing about the origin of Adam. The fact is that when they say that Adam was an ape into which God breathed the breath of life, it turns out that we have not one origin from God, we have dual origin. From an ape and from God, right? Not God is the author of both soul and body, right? But our body is ape-like, and our soul is God's. Consequently, whatever you do with your body, it won't get any worse. Because no matter how you behave like an animal, it's natural. And what is natural is not ugly. Your body is made from an ape, after all. And what's the problem? There, apes, excuse me, in their pack, if he is a male, then he should impregnate more females. Whether you want to or not. For an ape, this is natural and normal. And in accordance with the theory of human origin from apes, this is quite consistent with humans. And why not? You understand, right? This is directly said in the 48th Psalm: "But man in his pomp will not endure; He is like the beasts that perish." (Ps.: 48; 12). Man likened himself to cattle. When a man likens himself to apes - this is the result of the sinful fall of man. And here, by the way, the question arises. Are we related to animals? If we are related to animals, why don't we give communion to animals? You understand, right?
Now we need to talk about the genealogy of Adam. How do we know how much time passed from Adam to Christ? From Adam to Christ. In what way do we know this?
The situation is such that in chapters 5 and 11 of the book of Genesis, a clear chronology is given from Adam to Noah first. The exact date of the flood can be calculated. From the dates of the birth of the firstborn, you can calculate. You add them up, you get the exact date. Then from Noah to Abraham. It is known at what age Abraham begot Isaac. It is known at what age Isaac begot Jacob. It is known at what age Jacob begot Joseph. We also know how much time passed from Abraham's migration to Canaan to the exodus from Egypt - it is written 430 years. Then we go further. We know the chronology from the exodus to the beginning of the construction of Solomon's temple. Then from the dates of the kings we can go up to the Babylonian captivity. And up to the end of the Babylonian captivity we can go. That is, the time up to the Babylonian captivity is traced completely correctly. And the time from the Babylonian captivity and the kings of Israel – that's already history. This is historical time, which is fully documented from other sources as well. You understand, right? That is, the chronology is traced absolutely correctly. It is not for nothing that St. Philaret of Moscow said: "Do not let people deceive you, who speak of prehistoric history." That is, they do not know the existence of prehistoric time and the existence of man. The entire history of mankind is fully described in the God-inspired books of Moses. Clear, right? We know the entire history of mankind from the beginning to our time. There are dead-end branches that departed. Their history disappeared from the mainstream for a time, but the very history of all mankind is known to us. Clear, right?
Well, that's about the origin of everything. There are things that can be very well used as such an argument, accessible to a person. There is, for example, such a concept as the fingerprints of God. If you've ever been to Mayakovsky Square, you saw that it (the pedestal of the monument) is made entirely of granite. You know, granite consists of mica and a piece of basalt. There are such mixtures in there. In mica there are radiation halos. These radiation halos indicate that a certain isotope was decaying there. So, if the theory is correct that the laws of nature operate the same as now, what does the radioisotope tell us? It tells us the following - the fact is that in mica there are a number of halos of polonium, uranium... That is, the line of radioactive decay is known to us now. So, there is a huge number of halos in mica that belong to isotopes 218 and polonium 214, with half-lives of 3.1 minutes and 164.3 microseconds, respectively. (editor's note: These marks can only form in solid matter. In a liquid (molten) medium, radio halos dissipate and cannot exist. It is important to note that these halos originated from independent polonium isotopes, i.e., they are not intermediate products of uranium decay. Therefore, evolutionists cannot explain how polonium could penetrate inside solid granite and leave a visible trace of its decay – a halo. The only acceptable explanation is that the granite became solid before the radio halos formed, and this, considering the lifetime of, say, polonium 214 (164.3 μs), is practically instantaneous. This means our planet did not form over millions of years, and the biblical picture of the creation of the world is valid.) So, there is a huge, unimaginably huge number of these radiation halos from the decay of polonium 214. That is, what does this indicate? That the granite base on which all sedimentary rocks on our planet lie - it formed in a cold state in a time, if we believe our laws, less than one thirty-thousandth of a second, at a temperature certainly below 300 degrees. Certainly below, because otherwise all these halos would have blurred due to diffusion. You understand, right? Is the logic clear? This discovery was made in 1983. The author became a believer and said that he had found the fingerprints of God. That is, by the time the laws of decay were turned on, all the basement rocks on which all our sedimentary rocks rest were cold. And they already contained all the radioactive elements. Understand? That is, if we believe in the theory of radionuclide dating, we can even say that everything on which the sedimentary rocks rest arose instantly and cold. Clear, right? No slow cooling, nothing works. That's it, our planet arose immediately and cold.
Here, by the way, when we are asked: "How should we relate to the theory of evolution?" How can we relate to an indifferent theory that does not concern us? The best way, how to relate? Just as the Holy Fathers related. And here I wanted to read a couple of quotes about how the Holy Fathers related to evolution. Saint John of Kronstadt: "The half-educated and the over-educated do not believe in a personal, righteous, omnipotent, and beginningless God, but believe in an impersonal beginning and in some kind of evolution of the world and all beings... and therefore they live and act as if they will not give an answer to anyone for their words and deeds, deifying themselves, their reason, and their passions. ... In their blindness they go so far as to deny the very existence of God, and affirm that everything happens through blind evolution (the teaching that everything born happens by itself, without the participation of Creative power). But whoever has reason will not believe such insane ravings." [John of Kronstadt, St. Righteous. Complete Works. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1893 // Reprint: L.S. Yakovleva Publishing House, 1994] John of Kronstadt lived precisely during the triumph of evolution and this is how he characterized it.
St. Theophan the Recluse, he "loved" evolution very much, "loved" it very much. He says how to treat it. He says this: "…Exactly such is the theory of the formation of the world from nebulous spots with its supports – the theory of spontaneous generation, the Darwinian origin of genera and species, and with his latest fantasy about the origin of man. All like the ravings of a sleeping person..." [Theophan the Recluse, St. Thoughts for each day of the year according to church readings from the Word of God. Mn.: "Rays of Sophia", 2000] That's how we must treat these ravings, which are normal only for drunk and insane people.
So, actually, that's how we should talk with evolutionists: "What nonsense are you talking?" The suggestion of Theophan the Recluse.
So. Venerable Barsanuphius of Optina said this: "The English philosopher Darwin created a whole system according to which life is a struggle for existence, a struggle of the strong with the weak, where the defeated are doomed to perish, and the victors triumph. This is already the beginning of a bestial philosophy, and those who believed in it do not hesitate to kill a person, insult a woman, rob their closest friend — and all this quite calmly, with a full awareness of their right to all these crimes." [Barsanuphius of Optina, Venerable, Conversations with spiritual children. St. Petersburg, 1991] Well, by the way, we know that just a few years after Barsanuphius of Optina wrote these words, everything was fully confirmed - the evolutionists who came to power in Russia and Germany, what did they do? They flooded the entire planet with blood. On the hands of evolution, evolutionists, are the crimes of Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and the ovens of Auschwitz - all these are completely the crimes of evolutionists, who treated themselves as animals. And isn't it so? What did Hitler want to do? He wanted to improve the species. Because he was an evolutionist, you understand? In exactly the same way, Stalin and all that communist scum, Pol Pot's and so on, and Mao Tse-tung's were evolutionists.
And Nectarius of Aegina (Pentapolis) says that the wrath of God falls on those who prove that man descended from apes.
And the Holy Martyr Vladimir of Kiev says this about evolution: "Only in our time has such a daring philosophy found a place, which overthrows human dignity and tries to give its false teaching wide dissemination... Not from God's hands, it says, did man come forth; in an infinite and gradual transition from imperfect to perfect, he developed from the animal kingdom and, as little as an animal has a soul, so little does man. How immeasurably deep all this humiliates and insults man! From the highest step in the order of creatures, he is lowered to the same level as animals. There is no need to refute such a teaching on scientific grounds, although this is not difficult to do, since unbelief has by no means proven its positions. But if such a teaching finds more and more followers nowadays, this is not because... that the teaching of unbelief has become indisputably true, but because it does not prevent the corrupt heart, prone to sin, from indulging its passions. For if man is not immortal, if he is nothing more than an animal that has reached the highest development, then he has no concern for God... Brethren, do not listen to the pernicious venomous teachings of unbelief, which lowers you to the level of animals and, depriving you of human dignity, promises you nothing but despair and a comfortless life!" [Vladimir of Kiev, Holy Martyr, Where is true happiness: in faith or unbelief? M., 1998] By the way, one of the accusations against Saint Vladimir was that he lied about man not descending from apes. He was among the new martyrs who were executed specifically for preaching the origin of the world from the hands of God. And the killers claimed that they were fighting against evolution. And one of the new martyrs was executed on the denunciation of his churchwarden, who stated that the priest publicly declared that the world was created in literally 6 days, in contrast to science, which had "proven" that it was billions of years. Therefore, on the denunciation of the churchwarden, he was arrested and executed. Because the atheistic evolutionists, they were, and they were already acting then. On their hands is the blood of the new martyrs of Russia, among others. Moreover, they tortured him specifically to make him renounce faith in the creation of the world by God in six days. We have new martyrs who literally died for the Hexaemeron in the camps and were shot here in Butovo.
Or, for example, we also have Theophan the Recluse saying: "Others (fleeing from the Kingdom of Heaven) are carried away by the broad path of passions: 'we do not want,' they say, 'to know positive commandments... we need tangible naturalness.' And they followed it. What came of it? They became like senseless cattle. Did not the theory of man's origin from animals arise from this moral fall? That's where they end up! And all the while they are fleeing from the Lord, all the while fleeing..." [Bp. Theophan. Thoughts for each day of the year according to church readings from the Word of God. M., 1991. P. 181.]
And in another place he says: "We now have many nihilists, naturalists, Darwinists multiplying... – well, do you think the Church would have remained silent, would not have raised her voice, would not have condemned and anathematized them, if there were anything new in their teaching? On the contrary, a council would have been convened immediately, and all of them, with their teachings, would have been anathematized; only one point would have been added to the present Rite of Orthodoxy: 'To Büchner, Feuerbach, Darwin, Renan, Kardec, and all their followers – anathema!' But there is no need for a special council, nor for any addition. All their false teachings have long been anathematized" [St. Theophan the Recluse. Contemplation and Reflection. M., 1998. P. 146.]. Here, by the way, is what Theophan the Recluse says about anathematization. I just remember, at one time there was a terrible scandal, a journalist made a squeal that I had anathematized his teachers. But in fact, I was just quoting Theophan the Recluse.
Also Nicholas Velimirovic (Popovic), by the way, wrote a very terrible speech: "If the history of the 18th-20th centuries could be summed up in one or two words, then probably the most fitting title would be: 'The Minutes of the Trial between Europe and Christ,' for over the last 300 years nothing has happened in Europe that is not connected with Christ.
At this trial, Christ tells Europe that she was baptized in His name and therefore must remain faithful to Him and His Gospel. To this the accused replies:
— All faiths are the same. The French Encyclopedists told us this. And no one can force you to believe in this or that. Europe tolerates all faiths and all national superstitions because of its imperialistic interests, but does not adhere to any itself. When we achieve our political goals, then we will quickly deal with these superstitions.
And so it happened: "Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them" (Rom. 1:24)." [VENERABLE JUSTIN (POPOVICH). "THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND ECUMENISM"]
And Macarius of Altai, the great missionary who converted Altai to Christianity, said this:
"Long ago, thousands of years ago, a fool said, and only in his heart: there is no God. But in our times, they no longer shout in their hearts, but in the streets and preach in print that there is no God, that everything happened by itself, by chance, that everything is governed by fate, that the forces of nature supposedly produce everything, that man supposedly came from mud, etc.
How many miracles are assumed here by those who do not want to believe in the miracles of God! Everything happened by chance, everything is governed by fate: is this not a miracle? Man came out of mud, and now is born from his own kind – is this not a miracle? Moreover, a miracle without a miracle-worker! What could be more improbable than such a miracle? Is it not much easier to explain everything if we admit a personal loving God, from whom all things come and who is over all? The deniers of God want to explain everything by self-origin, spontaneous generation, causes of all causes. Understanding such an explanation and world-origin is much more difficult than understanding the most important truths of the Christian faith for the simplest mind. Here are these truths understandable to everyone. The loving God from His essence begets the Son, as Light from Light; from the Father proceeds the Holy Spirit. God, by His love, by His wisdom and omnipotence, created the world and man by His free will; and man had free will, but abused it; he fell away from communion with God and lost blessedness. Then the Son of God comes to earth, becomes man, and accomplishes his redemption and salvation. The work of salvation, like the creation of the world, is also a work of God's love. All this is so simple and understandable for a simple mind, and for a sage."
Everything is clear, right? And evolutionism turns out to be – complete insanity, a bestial philosophy and blasphemy, which should be anathematized, as all the Church Fathers said. What do you think, is it possible to synthesize Christianity with blasphemy that needs to be anathematized? How is it possible? In no way, you understand, right? I'm saying this specifically because atheistic evolution is very popular. And this idea is present not only in the theory of Andrey Kuraev, Alexander Men, or Georgy Kochetkov, who has reached a "remarkable" level, he declared that Adam was created by God (from an ape, of course), then he found a female humanoid ape and had sexual contact with her, as a result of which she became human. That is, as a result of bestiality (calling things by their proper names), a woman appeared. (laughs) You understand, some kind of special perversion.
If it's non-intelligent life, nothing prevents it from being there. That is, there are no problems with plants or animals.
If they really exist there, then the Lord will send missionaries to them.
Well, that's it, that's probably clear, right?
"The Chronicle of the Beginning". You can read "The Chronicle of the Beginning". It's available on the Internet, you can download it. This same book is also posted online.
But it's still more convenient to use the printed book, because I have very many references here. There are 265 references, so it's more convenient to use it this way, in paper form.
Appendix 1.
Quoted from Priest Daniil Sysoev. The Chronicle of the Beginning. Part II. Testimony of the Defense:
1st century. Holy Martyr Dionysius the Areopagite.
"And light is the measure, and the number of hours, days, and all our time. For it is by this light, although then still formless, according to the words of the divine Moses, that the first triad of our days was demarcated."
2nd century. Holy Martyr Justin Philosopher.
"On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. ... Now we all hold this common gathering on Sunday, since it is the first day, on which God, transforming darkness and matter, created the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead."
St. Theophilus of Antioch.
"No one of men can adequately explain the creation of this seven-day period, nor set forth all its dispensation, even if he had a thousand mouths and a thousand tongues; even if he lived a thousand years in this world, he would not be able to speak worthily of it, because of the surpassing greatness and the riches of the wisdom of God inherent in this six-day creation: 'And God called the light day, and the darkness night'; for truly man could not have called light day, or darkness night, nor given names to the other kinds, if they had not received names from God the Creator: On the fourth day the luminaries were created. God in His foreknowledge knew the ravings of vain philosophers who, in denial of God, would say that the productions on earth are born from the luminaries; therefore, that the truth might be evident, plants and seeds were created before the luminaries; for what is later cannot produce that which precedes it."
St. Irenaeus of Lyons.
"Restoring this day in Himself, the Lord came to suffer on the day before the Sabbath – that is, on the sixth day of creation, on which man was also created, through His suffering granting him a new creation, i.e., (freedom) from death."
3rd century. St. Hippolytus of Rome, Martyr.
"On the first day, whatever God created, He created from nothing; but on the other days He no longer created from nothing, but formed from what He had created on the first day."
St. Methodius of Olympus.
"Origen, after many fables about the eternity of the universe, adds the following: and so, not from the time of Adam, as some say, did man, who did not exist before, first come into being and enter the world; likewise, the world did not begin to be created six days before the creation of Adam. If anyone is unwilling to agree with this, let him first consider whether it is not better, according to the book of Moses, taking it in this form, to count one day from the creation of the world as one age: This is what Origen tries to say, and see how he talks nonsense."
St. Victorinus of Pettau (3rd century):
"Reflecting on the structure of the world in which we live, I pause at the speed of its structure shown by Moses in his book of Genesis. God arranged this entire vast structure in six days, adorning it with signs of His greatness, and sanctified the seventh day with blessing and rest..."
4th century. St. Athanasius the Great.
"All visible creation was created in six days; and on the first, light was created, which we call the first day... on the second, the firmament was made... on the third, gathering the waters, He made manifest the dry land and brought forth various kinds of fruits and seeds... on the fourth, He made the sun and moon and all the host of stars... on the fifth, He created the great sea monsters and all moving living creatures in the waters, and every winged bird according to its kind... on the sixth, He made the beasts of the earth, and cattle, and creeping things; and after all these, He created man."
St. Ephraim the Syrian.
"No one should think that the six-day creation is an allegory; and it is also impermissible to say that what is described as created in the course of six days was created in an instant, and also that the description presents only names, either meaning nothing or meaning something else."
Moreover, St. Ephraim indicates the month in which the world was created: "Having spoken of the creation of heaven, earth, darkness, the deep, and the waters at the beginning of the first night, Moses turns to the narrative of the creation of light on the morning of the first day. So, after twelve hours of night had passed, light was created among the clouds and waters, and it dispelled the shadow of the clouds that hovered over the waters and produced darkness. Then began the first month Nisan, in which days and nights have an equal number of hours."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
"Is not the earth now full of flowers, and are not the vines being pruned? You see, he also mentioned that winter has already passed, because with the onset of this month of Xanthicus, spring begins. And this time is the first month among the Jews, in which the feast of Passover, the former typological, and the present true one. This is the time of the creation of the world. For God said then: let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed after its kind and likeness (Gen. 1:11). And now, as you see, every herb is seeding. And as then God, having created the sun and moon, gave them equinoctial courses; so a few days before this was the time of the equinox. Then God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Gen. 1:26). And this 'in the image' man retained, but the 'after the likeness' he darkened in himself through disobedience. Therefore, at the same time. At the time when the newly created man, having disobeyed, was expelled from paradise, then the believing man, becoming obedient, was brought into paradise. Therefore, at the time when paradise was given, at that time it was opened to the thief."
St. Basil the Great.
"And there was evening, and there was morning, one day. Why is it called not first, but one?.. By this he defines the measure of day and night, and combines them into one daily time, because 24 hours fill the duration of one day, if by day we also mean night. Therefore, although with the revolutions of the sun it happens that day and night exceed each other, yet they are always limited by one definite time. And Moses spoke as if thus: the measure of 24 hours is the duration of one day, or the return of heaven from one sign to the same sign again is accomplished in one day."
St. Gregory of Nyssa.
"Moses, following with his thought the movement of the fire, says that the created light did not remain in the same parts of the world, but, coursing around the grosser substance of existent things, alternately by its vigorous motion brings light to the unilluminated parts, and darkness to the illuminated. And perhaps, by the temporal extension of such a succession, occurring in the lower region (I mean the succession of light and darkness), Moses attributes to God the naming of day and night, teaching us not to imagine that everything happening sequentially received its beginning spontaneously, or from anyone else. Therefore he says: and God called the light day, and the darkness He called night (Gen.1:5). Since the light-bearing power naturally could not remain at rest, when the light traversed the upper part of the circle, and its impulse was downwards, then during the descent of the fire, what lay above was covered with shadow, because the ray was probably obscured by the grosser nature. Therefore, Moses called the departure of light evening, and when the fire again rose from the lower part of the circle, and again extended its rays to the upper parts, what occurred then he called morning, naming it the beginning of the day."
St. Gregory the Theologian.
"And, as I reason, in the beginning God created not this organic and solar light, but that light which is not in the sun, that simple and immaterial light, which, as the Psalmist calls it, is the garment of God (Ps. 103, 2), which the Apostle calls the dwelling place of God (1 Tim. 6, 16), which Christ is the true light (John 1, 9), and which no one can approach. That light, I say, God first kindled; then He divided it, and of it formed the luminaries, for the illumination of the whole world, especially of our eyes."
St. Ambrose of Milan.
"Look first at the firmament of heaven, which was created before the sun; then at the earth, which was established before the light of the sun was seen. For the sun was created on the fourth day. Why, then, do you seek for the sun in the foundation of the world? ... Therefore, before there was the sun, there was light. Before there was the sun, there were days, marked by the revolution of light and darkness, which we now call a day. For day is not the presence of the sun, but the illumination of the air; and night is not the absence of the sun, but the shadow of the earth. So, there was evening and morning, not the sun's course, but the Creator's work."
St. John Chrysostom.
"And there was evening, and there was morning, one day. The end of the day and the end of the night he clearly called one (day), in order to establish a certain order and sequence in the visible, and that there might be no confusion."
"And he called, (Moses) says, God the firmament heaven. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. You see, the evening and morning are the boundary not only of the first day, but also of the second, and the third, and the fourth, and the fifth, and the sixth. For thus Moses everywhere observes the order, setting these boundaries of the day."
"Therefore He created it on the fourth day, so that you might not think that it (the sun) produces the day. What we said about seeds, we will also say about the day, namely, that three days passed before the creation of the sun."
"Here already, at the very beginning of the world's existence, God figuratively offers us a teaching that we should dedicate and set apart one day in the circle of the week for spiritual matters."
5th century. Blessed Augustine of Hippo.
"And there was evening, and there was morning, one day. – In the present case, the day is called not in the usual sense, but that day is called one, which God made, and after the completion of its work, He rested on the seventh day. This one day, however, is known to us by the name of the first day; but it is called one, because it is not the work of the luminaries, but the work of the one God. And it is not without reason that it is called one day, but because God, in that day, as in one day, created all things. ... For what other reason is it called one day, if not because God in His Wisdom, which is the Beginning, created the heavens and the earth in the beginning of days? And as for the fact that these works are distributed over six days, this, in my opinion, is done for the sake of those who cannot grasp the meaning of one day, unless the matter is presented to them with such slowness and gradualness."
St. Leo the Great, Pope of Rome.
"For what are the sun and what is the moon, if not parts of the visible creation and principles of material light, of which one is brighter, the other dimmer? For according to how the time of day and the time of night differ, the Creator placed a different quality in these luminaries, although even before they were arranged, days proceeded in their order, without any participation of the sun, and nights, without any mediation of the moon. But they were created for the needs of man, who was yet to be made, so that this rational being might not err either in distinguishing months, or in determining the change of years, or in reckoning time. For through the unequal segments of hours differing in length (among the Romans, the length of hours depended on the season - D.D.) and through the evident signs of different risings, the sun completed the years, and the moon renewed the months."
Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus.
"On the first day God created light, and on the fourth – the luminaries. Therefore, the prophet separately mentioned the light, not as existing independently, but as distributed in the luminaries."
6th century.
St. Emperor Justinian, in his epistle to Patriarch Menas, approved by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, writes: "All that was created by Him on earth He subjected to man, created on the sixth day, so that he himself, being under the authority of the Creator, might rule over all earthly creatures, already created and prepared for him: (Origen writes): 'Who, having a sound mind, would assert that the first, second, and third day, also evening and morning, existed without sun and stars.' Since all this is so and since Origen's blasphemies are obvious to all, it is fitting to pronounce anathemas upon him:"
7th century. Venerable Maximus the Confessor.
"The creative power of nature is understood as the number six not only because in six days God created heaven and earth, but also because this number alone among all numbers is the most perfect and composed of its own parts."
Venerable Isaac the Syrian.
"God in six days brought into order the entire composition of this world, arranged the elements, gave order to their ever-moving motion for service, and they will not stop until their dissolution: For five thousand five hundred years and more God left Adam to labor on the earth, because until then the way of the saints had not been revealed, as the divine Apostle says (Eph.3,5; Heb.9,8)."
Venerable Anastasius of Sinai.
"He also completed all creation in seven days, so that the uncreated Trinity might be manifested; for (the number) seven of creation and the three Uncreated together make up the fullness of the number ten."
8th century. St. John of Damascus.
"From the beginning of one day to the beginning of another day is one day and night, for the Scripture says: 'and there was evening, and there was morning, one day.' ... And He set them (the luminaries) for seasons, and for signs, and for days, and for years. For through the sun, four changes (of seasons) occur: and the first is spring, for during it God created all things without exception; and this is indicated by the fact that even to this day the growth of flowers occurs during it, which is an equinoctial change, for it makes both day and night twelve hours long."
9th century. St. Photius of Constantinople.
"The Creator, having completed and brought into being the natures of all things in seven days, no longer manifests the creation of any essence... And the primordial light, which, spreading, created day before the creation of the sun, leads us to think that the Heavenly Kingdom is a higher and more divine, and truly heavenly region than paradise, for this light will serve the needs of those who are deemed worthy to dwell there."
10th century. Venerable Symeon the New Theologian.
"God in the beginning, before He planted paradise and gave it to the first-created, in five days arranged the earth and what is on it, and the heavens and what is in them, and on the sixth He created Adam and placed him as master and king of all visible creation... But why did God not arrange paradise on the seventh day, but planted it in the East after He had finished all other creation? Because He, as the Foreseer of all things, arranged all creation in order and orderly sequence; and He appointed seven days to be in the image of the ages that were to pass afterwards, in time, and He planted paradise after those seven days, to be in the image of the future age. Why then did the Holy Spirit not count the eighth day together with the seven? Because it was unfitting to count it together with the seven, which, revolving, produce so many weeks, years, and ages; but it was necessary to place the eighth day outside the seven, as it has no revolution."
11th century. Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria.
"Further, since man was created on the sixth day, and partook of the tree at the sixth hour (for this is the hour of eating); therefore the Lord, re-creating man and healing his fall, is nailed to the tree on the sixth day and the sixth hour."
13th century. Venerable Euthymius Zigabenus.
"You, he says, O Lord, ordained that there should be darkness, which comes after the setting of the solar light, and darkness became night; therefore Moses said: and God called the light day, and the darkness night (Gen. 1:5)."
"By these he means those luminaries which were created on the fourth day, and by light that which was created on the first day."
14th century.
The prominent Orthodox canonist Matthew Blastares testified that even in the fourteenth century the Church preserved the same message: "When God was bringing the world from non-existence into being, then from the first day even to the seventh there was exact equinox – neither day nor night exceeded one another by an instant: for although on the fourth day the newly created luminaries illuminated the world, yet they were not commanded to begin motion forward, as is now happening in the universe... God did not wish to show us in the beginning anything imperfect in all that He created... On the sixth day, man is created by the hand of God, at such a time when the equinox still remained in full force, and the Moon, standing directly opposite the Sun, almost equaled it in the abundance of its brilliance. And it would not have been fitting, either for the first man to be created before the equinox, when all was still covered with darkness, man who, because of his great affinity with light, is not without reason called light... nor for the luminaries to diminish their proper beauty at the time when they were to accompany him who was to be king of creation; besides this, time itself, which from then on was to receive its beginning, ought to have begun the newly created days and nights with equality, because equality is by nature prior to inequality, as position is prior to negation, being – to privation; and God thereby taught us to place the law of equality, on which all virtues are founded, above all excess and inequality. When, after the seventh day, the luminaries, as if released from confinement, began their course, then, due to the unequal speed of motion, deviations immediately occurred."
St. Gregory Palamas, initiated into the mysteries of sacred silence and drawing ineffable revelations from there, says:
"God in six days, not only creating all this sensible world and adorning it, but also creating and animating the one living man, composed of sensible and spiritual elements, and granting him power over living beings and plants on the earth, on the seventh day rested from all His works, as Moses, the subsequent contemplator of the creation of the world which happened long before him, taught us, or rather – the Holy Spirit, Who philanthropically through his mouth announced to our mouths and souls."
15th century.
Venerable Epiphanius the Wise in the life of St. Stephen writes:
"And indeed, the month of March is the beginning of all months and is called first among the months, as Moses the Lawgiver testifies, saying: 'This month shall be for you the first, the month of March' (Ex. 12:2). For according to what we are taught and what we study, it is clear that this is the beginning of being. In the month of March, indeed, is the beginning of being, when all creation was created by God, brought from non-being into being. In March was the beginning of creation, and in the month of March on the 21st day, the first-created man, the forefather Adam, was created by the hand of God."
Venerable Joseph of Volotsk, fighter against the heresy of the Judaizers, proclaims: "This age is called septenary because He (God) in six days created this world, creating, forming, and variously adorning it, and on the seventh day, that is, on the Sabbath, rested from His works. Sabbath in Hebrew means 'rest.' After the Sabbath, again begins the first day, that is, Sunday, and goes on again to the seventh day, that is, to the Sabbath, and thus the week revolves – from Sunday it begins and continues until the Sabbath. And thus God commanded the whole world in the present age to be ordered according to these seven days."
16th century. Venerable Maximus the Greek.
"The third (Sunday) is called, being numbered from the day of the saving passion and crucifixion, the eighth is considered from the creation of the world; for the beginning of the visible world was on that day, and the true light – Christ – rose on the same day."
17th century.
The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church, adopted at the Council of Jassy in 1640 and confirmed by the Council of Constantinople in 1645, with the participation of four Eastern Patriarchs, states: "Since He (God) created the whole world in six days out of nothing, and rested on the seventh day from His works, therefore He sanctified it, so that people also, leaving aside on this day all their works, might bless and glorify God, remembering those benefits which He granted us through the creation of the world." This document is a Symbolic book of the Orthodox Church.
18th century. St. Dimitry of Rostov.
"When light shone in the darkness of the abyss, God divided the light and the darkness and called the light day, and the darkness night; and this was the first day, which we call week (Sunday), and the first month, later called March, and the first day of this month... And on the second day, called by us now Monday, He produced by His all-powerful word the heavens from the waters of the abyss: On the third day, called by us Tuesday, having gathered the waters into one place, He revealed the dry land and called it earth; and made it capable of producing seeds and every herb and growing trees. On the fourth day, which we call Wednesday, He created in heaven two great luminaries – the sun and the moon, and also the stars. On the fifth day, called by us Thursday, He created fish and water creatures and produced birds. On the sixth, corresponding to our Friday, He created beasts, cattle, and creeping things of the earth after their kind; after all creatures, He created Adam and Eve and brought them into paradise. On the seventh day God rested from all His works, and this day was called the Sabbath, that is, rest, for on this day the Creator rested from all His works and sanctified it, as it is written in the book of Exodus in chapter 2."
19th century. St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.
"The six days of creation do not signify precisely... such a duration of time during which things, according only to the laws of nature, would form and unfold from the initially created heaven and earth, because in that case the days of creation would not differ from the days of Providence, and one could not say that God finished His work by the seventh day and rested (Gen.2,2). Therefore, the days of creation show the true order of the immediate actions of the creative power, accomplished in a definite time: ... In the description of the first day, evening is placed first, and then morning. To understand the possibility of this order of time, let the observer of the world's creation mentally place himself on that line which, after the formation of the earth, was to constitute its outline, and in that place where paradise was to be planted; then let him imagine that the newly created light, penetrating through the unformed matter to that line, appears from this point of view in the East. The time elapsed from the beginning of creation to the appearance of light is Moses' first evening, twilight or night; the appearance of the newly created light – morning; the time during which it was to leave the horizon of Eden – the end of the first day. Moses called the first day one: a) either simply, giving the name of quantity instead of order; b) or with a special intention, to denote that, despite its unparalleled night, it was no more than one ordinary day; c) or finally because of this primordial night it was unique."
The Catechism composed by this saint and approved by the Most Holy Synod reads: "Question: How is it said in the Creed that God is the Maker of heaven and earth, visible to all and invisible, when heaven and earth were not created at once? Answer: In the beginning of the visible world, God first created, out of nothing, the substance of heaven and earth, that is, the primary, invisible, unformed matter; then from it He gradually produced various kinds of things in six days, called the days of creation."
St. Ignatius of the Caucasus (Brianchaninov).
"The creation of the world was accomplished in six days; it was completed with the creation of man."
St. Theophan the Recluse.
"I confess that this Tri-hypostatic God, most perfect, by His free will, out of His infinite goodness, created all things, visible and invisible, good exceedingly, and in six days He completed the creation, as it is written in the book of Genesis."
20th century. St. Righteous John of Kronstadt.
"Why did the Almighty create the world not suddenly, but in six days? In order that we, looking at this order, gradualness, and unhurriedness in the creation of the world, would also do everything in order and gradually, without haste. For haste, impatience are from the enemy, but unhurried performance of work is from God... In all your deeds, therefore, imitate God. For this reason, the Holy Church, in her hymns at the service of the Cross, compares the cross raised up by Moses in the wilderness for the healing of people from serpent bites with the cross stretched out for six cubits. Why is this? To show that the Lord created the world in six days and finished it with man, and that the work of our redemption was also accomplished in six days, from Monday to Saturday, and ended on the Cross. And you, man, do every work unhurriedly. Whether you read a book, sacred or secular, read not hastily, with reflection and a true view of things; whether you learn a lesson, do not hasten to finish it quickly, but delve into it well, consider it; whether you do some other work, do it unhurriedly, with reasoning, calmly. For the world was not created instantly, but in six days. The Lord shows us an example in everything, that we may follow in His steps."
Holy Martyr Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev.
"Sunday is truly the ever-memorable day of the All-Holy Trinity; for on the first day of the week, therefore Sunday, God the Father began the creation of the world, God the Son accomplished redemption, and God the Holy Spirit – sanctification".
Venerable Justin (Popovich).
"In the creation of the world by God, an exceptional order and plan are observed. Holy Revelation distinguishes two moments in creation: the first moment is the creation of the spiritual world and formless cosmic matter (Gen. 1, 1-2); the second is the creation of beings and things from the already created formless matter, and moreover gradually, by kinds, over the course of six days: on the first day – light, on the second – the visible sky, on the third – dry land, sea, and plants, on the fourth – the sun, moon, and stars, on the fifth – fish and birds, on the sixth – all kinds of animals and man."
Appendix 2.
The taming of the Loch Ness Monster was written about by the author of the life of St. Columba, St. Adomnan. And this event took place in 565 AD. He describes it as follows:
Once, when the blessed man (St. Columba) was in the country of the Picts for a few days, he had to cross the River Ness. When he reached the bank, he saw a poor man being buried by the inhabitants of that place: and they said that shortly before, while swimming, he had been bitten by a water beast. Many people rushed to save him in a wooden boat, but arrived too late; they only managed to hook his poor body with hooks.
When the blessed man heard all this, he ordered that one of them should ferry him across to the other side of the river. Hearing the command of this venerable and holy man, Lugne moccu Min immediately obeyed and took off all his clothes except his tunic, and plunged into the water. But the monster, whose appetite had not been satisfied by the previous prey, was lurking in the depths of the river. But it sensed Lugne; the monster emerged from the water and with a great open mouth roared in the middle of the stream. And all who were there, both the barbarians and the companions of the holy man, fell to the ground in the greatest terror. Then the venerable man, who had seen everything, raised his holy hand and traced the sign of the cross in the air, and then, invoking the name of God, he commanded the fierce beast, saying: "You will go no further; you will not touch that man; turn back speedily." And hearing this command of the holy man, the beast turned in terror and plunged into the depths of the river in desperate retreat, although it had been so close to Lugne.
Seeing how the beast had retreated and how their companion and soldier Lugne had returned to them safe and sound in the boat, the brethren with great astonishment glorified God in the blessed man. And even the pagan barbarians who were there on this occasion, shaken by the greatness of the miracle they had witnessed, themselves glorified God and became Christians.
No comments:
Post a Comment