II. Творение мира видимого

§ 18 Mosaic legend about the creation of the material world In Revelation, the teaching about the origin of the material world is contained in the sacred history of the universe, with which Scripture begins, that is, in the account of Moses about the origin of the visible world (Gen. 1). This description of everyday life is the basis of the entire revealed teaching about the origin of the visible world. None of the sacred writers, not only of the Old Testament, but also of the New Testament, speaks more fully and in more detail than in this description of everyday life; The completion of this legend by later sacred writers consists only in a clearer indication than in Moses of the participation in the work of creation of all the Persons of the Holy Spirit. Trinity. And at the same time, no matter which of the sacred writers speaks about the same subject, each speaks completely in accordance with this description of life. This same description of everyday life underlies all church presentations of the dogma about God as the Creator of the material world. Hence, when revealing the doctrine of God the Creator of the visible world, clarification of the nature and meaning of this narrative is required. 117 § 19. Its historical character According to the legend of Moses, the universe with everything living on it came into existence not by a single wave of the will of the almighty Creator, but through the repeated creative actions of God. In addition to the extraordinary beginning, peacemaking, before its final completion, had six extraordinary creative days. The question arises: does Moses’ narrative about such a gradual process of peacemaking represent the actual history of peacemaking, or is it an allegory in which the Holy One is freely depicted? Is the writer possible, or more or less probable, order of the universe for a more visual expression of the idea that God is the Creator of the world? The question is obviously of significant importance, and not only in relation to the dogma of peacemaking, but also in relation to other dogmas of the Orthodox faith. 118 Even in ancient times, a view was expressed on the narrative of Moses as an allegory 119. But with particular persistence they began to reject the historical nature of this narrative in modern times, since the emergence of Protestant rationalism (in the 18th century) and under the influence of the discoveries in the field of natural science that began in the 16th and 17th centuries. So, but in the opinion of some rationalists, the legend of Moses is only a speculative theory of the origin of the universe (philosophem) - the fruit of his theological and philosophical thoughts and information about nature; according to others, it is a poetic fiction (epic) of a sacred writer who freely used the imperfect information of his time about nature to personify the thought of God the Creator of the world, while others attribute this story to the realm of myths, similar to or even borrowed from false, pagan tales about the origin of the world (cosmogonies). These menaia also reject the revealed origin of the Mosaic narrative. But under the influence of the data of modern natural science, which is supposedly irreconcilable with the Bible, many, even those who recognize the revealed origin of this legend, are inclined to bring together the story of the six-day creation set forth in it with a number of the same number of prophetic visions of the Writer of Life, and in general they assimilate not a literal, but an allegorical (allegorical) meaning. But all such opinions must be considered unfounded. The legend of Moses contains an image of the history of the creation of the world that actually took place, and which happened precisely with the gradualness and consistency indicated by the sacred writer of everyday life. One cannot look at the Mosaic narrative as any theory (philosophy) invented by Moses himself to explain the origin of the world. Sacred writers, guided by the Spirit of God when writing their works, do not tend to propose in their writings their own theological and philosophical speculations or any scientific theories of their time instead of the truth of God. To place such a theory at the very beginning of revelation would be especially contrary to the spirit of the Bible. There is nothing in it that resembles theological and philosophical speculation. Given the depth and height of the speculative truths communicated, the story of the writer of everyday life is simple, like a chronicle, and is alien to any abstract speculation; it quite simply, artlessly proclaims the creative actions of God, without any admixture of the narrator’s personal views and conclusions. The opinion that Moses’ story about the creation of peace is only a poetic invention of the priest is also unfounded. writer (epic). There is no basis in the story itself for such an understanding. Despite the poetic sublimity in the description of God’s creative actions and the figurative language (for example, God’s assimilation of the word, the depiction of Him giving commands, etc.), the biblical story is at the same time completely free from any inventions of the imagination. There is nothing artificial or fantastic in it, as we see in ancient poems like the Magabaratha or in the songs of Homer. In the latter, the narrator turns to the imagination, trying to captivate it with bright colors, calculations, images, descriptions, and finally, skillfully invented plots that are resolved by unforeseen events. Meanwhile, in the book. The story of the origin of the world and life in it is presented completely simply, clearly, in a calm tone, without any decoration, as is typical for a historian who tells (in prose, not in poetry) what he knows, with full confidence in the truth of the reported events, as real or historical events. There is even less reason to bring the biblical story of peacemaking closer to the mythical cosmogonies of pagan religions. Neither in its main thought, nor in its expression, it has nothing in common with them. While pagan cosmogonies always speak either about the development of the world from the Divine, or about its formation by God from self-existent matter and, therefore, are pantheistic or dualistic, the biblical legend teaches about the origin of the world through creation. The biblical narrative differs from pagan mythologies in its forms. There is nothing in it that would resemble such fabulous legends as Brahma’s stay in a golden egg or the processing of the members of Osiris’s body by the creator Knef on a potter’s bench; Everything about him is sublime, spiritual. True, in pagan legends there are also features, although in a very fabulous coloring, but having some similarities with the biblical narrative, for example. biblical thought about the initial state of the primary substance in an ugly or formless form, about a bird incubating the egg of the universe (a perversion of the thought of the biblical expression: the Spirit of God hovered over the waters), about six days or six separate creations, and in some cosmogonies, even in the same sequence as in the Bible, about man as the last creation of God, in others - about the origin of the husband from the earth, and the wife from husband, about the seven-day week, etc.... 120 But the reason for this similarity is not that the biblical legend borrowed from these cosmogonies, but that various legends about the beginning of the world come from one true tradition contained in the sacred. books. The revelation of the creation of the world was given, without a doubt, not only to the prophet of God Moses, but also to the first people and was preserved in the human race through tradition until the writings. Some fragments of this latter could have been preserved among other peoples - this is the reason for some similar features found in the cosmogonies of these latter. This similarity, therefore, does not serve as an objection to the historical nature of the Mosaic narrative, but, on the contrary, as a confirmation of it. Finally, there is no reason to accept the story of Moses as a prophetic vision. In his story there are no expressions common to prophets when they expressed their visions: “here is a vision”..., or “I opened my eyes and saw.” And he conveys the very story of creation not from the person of the Lord (without using expressions: this is either what the Lord says or said), but from his own person and in the tone of a God-enlightened historian, and not a prophet. The inconsistency of the expressed views on the narrative of Moses in a negative way leads to the conviction that this legend is the true and actual history of creative divine actions. The correctness of this understanding is confirmed by the view of Moses himself on his story, by the acceptance of it as history by subsequent sacred writers, as well as by the ancient interpreters of it. Moses looked at his story as history. He placed it at the very beginning of his historical book 121. If his entire book is historical, then, of course, one must also look at the narrative of peacemaking. Moses gives no reason to look at it differently, and if he were conveying not history, but his personal assumptions and views on the world or current legends that did not have the right to complete reliability, then, of course, he would have mentioned this or given something to notice. Most importantly, the laws about the Sabbath rest (Ex. 20:8–11; 31:12–17) and about jubilee celebrations are based on this narrative, which laws could not have binding force if they were not based on historical truth. The later sacred writers of the Old Testament, as well as those of the New Testament, looked at the story of Moses as the true history of the creation of the world. This can be seen from their numerous testimonies confirming the authenticity of the Mosaic legend about the creation of peace (see, for example, Ps. 33:6, 9 cf. Gen. 1:2; – 148:4; cf. Gen. 1:7; – 103:19; cf. Gen. 1:15; – 2 Cor. 4:6; cf. Gen. 1:3; – Heb. 4:3–4; cf. Gen. 2:2, etc.). The Savior himself, in the narrative of the creation of man (Gen. 1:27 and 2:24), affirmed the indissolubility of marriage as a divine institution and condemned divorce (Matt. 19:4–6), and the ap. Paul also derives from here the rules that determine the behavior and mutual relationship in the marriage of husband and wife (1 Cor. 11:3-12; Eph. 5:25-33, etc.). Jewish interpreters (with the exception of Philo) accepted the story of Moses as history, without expressing doubt about its divine origin. The same understanding was dominant in the ancient fatherly teaching about peacemaking. Only a few of them looked at it as an allegory, in which the only certainty is that God is the Creator of all things (Clement Alex., Origen and St. Augustine). The majority and, moreover, the most authoritative and famous fathers and teachers of the church (Basily V., Ambrose of Mediol., Gregory Niz., John Chrysostom - also St. Epiphanius, Blessed Theodoret, Ephraim the Syrian, I. Damascene and many others) understood the legend of Moses in the literal sense and interpreted it accordingly 122 . “No one should think, says, for example, St. Ephraim the Syrian, that the six-day creation is an allegory” 123. The newest defenders of the opinion about the allegorical nature of the Mosaic narrative about the creation of peace against accepting it as the true history of peacemaking point primarily to the impossibility of reconciling this legend with the conclusions of natural sciences. Antiquity, they say, did not have such broad and accurate information about nature, which is why it was then possible to look at the biblical story as pure truth. But the discoveries of modern science destroy this view, which is why in the legends of Moses only the idea that God is the Creator of the world should be recognized as revealed by God, and everything else in it is the fruit of human considerations. Such reasoning cannot be considered valid. “If the Bible and nature,” says one scientist, are two organs of revelation, if through one and the other God speaks to man, if both of them are, as it were, books written by the hand of God so that man can read the truth in them, then there can be no contradiction between what the Bible says and what nature teaches 124.” The history of natural science itself shows that the more it develops, the more its conclusions coincide with revelation, confirming that the story of Moses is real and genuine history. In the same case, when, apparently, there is no agreement between them, either the explanation of the Bible or the conclusions of natural science must be recognized as incorrect. It is necessary, however, to remember that the story of Moses is not an ordinary historical narrative. Since no one could be a witness to the creation, its subject could only be revealed by God Himself. It is a revelation of God. It was given, without a doubt, not only to the prophet Moses, but also to the first people. Through contemplation of nature and his own conclusions, even primitive man could not reach the knowledge that the world was created in six days, that the seventh day was blessed and sanctified. Therefore, the story of the six-day creation outlined by Moses was based on both Divine revelation and tradition. § 20. History of the creation of the material world Outlining the history of the creation of the world, Moses distinguishes between two main types of creation: the general creation, the original, which consisted in the creation of the very substance of the world (the so-called creatio prima) and the private or educational creation (creatio secunda), which followed the general and consisted of the creation from the primordial substance by the power and wisdom of the Creator of various types of creations during six extraordinary times, called “days” in the history. Everything in general was created by the One who lives forever (Sir. 18:1), says the wise son of Sirach, referring to this first type of creation, and about the six-day formation of the entire sensory world through the creative and organizing activity of God from this primal substance, another sage of the Old Testament says: Your almighty hand created the world from unimaginable substance (ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης – Wis.11:18 ). All the ancient teachers of the church made such a distinction between both types of creation in their explanations of the sacred history of the universe. The sacred history of the universe, set forth by Moses (Gen. 1:1-25), begins with an indication of the initial action of God in the creation of the universe - God’s creation of the world substance from which it arose, and an image of its initial state. The writer of everyday life says: in the beginning God (Elohim) created (bara) the heavens (schamaim - plural heavens) and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters (verses 1–2). The first creative act of God in the creation of the universe was the creation of heaven and earth. But what should be meant by heaven and earth in everyday life? The words heaven and earth, taken together, usually denote in the Old Testament Scripture the concept of the world, the universe, i.e., the earth and air spaces with all visible and invisible celestial bodies (for example, Gen. 2:1; Deut. 4:19, 30; Neh. 9: 6; Ps. 101: 26–27, etc.), for which there is no special word in the Hebrew language. But since the visible sky and all its decoration, as well as the earth with all the creatures inhabiting it, according to the indications of everyday life, occurred later, then, therefore, under the sky and earth - the initial works of the Creator, one cannot understand either the above-ground - the starry world, or the globe, our planet. A further description of the initial state of the earth shows that by “earth” the writer of everyday life did not mean earth in the proper sense, but a substance that was initially in a state of confusion and disorder, from which further world formation followed. But what is meant by heaven? The words “heaven, heavens,” in addition to the cosmic meaning (i.e., their use in Scripture to designate the atmospheric and astronomical sky), also have a symbolic, figurative meaning in the Old Testament. Heaven is often understood in Scripture as the world above, above the senses (2 Cor. 12:2), the place where God dwells (Ps. 67:34; 113:24: 1 Kings 8:27, 30; Matt. 6:9; John 6:38; Acts 1:11; Heb. 8:1; Rev. 4:2, etc.), angels (Ps. 149:1-2; Matt.18:10; 24:36; Eph.1:20, etc.), called the heavenly army (1 Kings 22:19–21; Ps.149:2; Job 25:3; 15:15; Luke 2:13; Rev. 19:14, etc.) and the saints of God (2 Kings 2:11; Matt.6:20; 19:21, Heb.10:31; Phil.3:20; 1Pet.1:4, etc.). There is an opinion that the word “sky” is used in a figurative sense in the beginning of the book. Genesis, namely, by heaven, here we mean the heaven of heavens (1 Kings 8:27, 30, 39), or the invisible, angelic world, created before the visible world. It is assumed that from the formless and unsettled earth, as a result of the creative action of God, not only our planet, with all its creatures, but also all other world bodies arose. But the understanding of the angelic world under the primordial sky has no decisive foundations 125. St. I. Chrysostom, having this in mind, said: “Moses does not speak about invisible forces, does not say: in the beginning God created angels or archangels... First God spreads out the sky, and then he lays the earth, first he makes the roof, and then the foundation” 126. In the same way, other famous ancient interpreters of Shestodnev understood by the primordial heaven and earth the entire visible universe, heaven and earth in the literal sense, and did not understand the word heaven in an improper, spiritual sense 127. This understanding is more consistent with the entire subsequent history of the universe, which speaks more specifically about the formation and structure of both the globe and the heavenly bodies, and the final words about the universe, where again the whole, but already arranged creation is called heaven and earth (2:1). Equally, with this understanding, the biblical teaching about the creation of everything that exists, not excluding matter itself, is affirmed with greater clarity by the sole power and action of the omnipotence of God. Finally, the use of a figurative expression in such an important place as the beginning of the book. Genesis, a historical book, with direct references by the writer of everyday life to angels in other places in his writings, seems incomprehensible. In view of all this, in accordance with the original state of the earth and under the primordial sky, it is more correct to understand the same state of confusion and disorder of the primal substance of the world, from which all heavenly bodies were formed later by the creative and organizing activity of God 128 . God created the heavens and the earth, that is, the general composition of the entire visible world (bara), from nothing, and, consequently, there was nothing either formal or material that entered into the composition of the world that, even before this divine work, would have existed independently of God. God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. The word at the beginning not only denies the beginninglessness of the world or its eternity, but also indicates that its creation is the beginning of all finite being and time. Having expressed the general position that the fundamental principle, the cause of the world in general lies in God, the narrator describes in detail only the primitive form and creative formation of the earth; He reports as much about the formation of the sky as is necessary to understand its connection with the earth. This is because he writes for the inhabitants of the earth and for a religious purpose - not to satisfy curiosity, but to strengthen faith in God the Creator of the world. – The primitive state of the earth, as depicted by the writer of everyday life, was precisely this: the earth was formless and empty (Hebrew: Tohu vabohu), and darkness was over the abyss, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters (2 v.). Such an image of the primitive state of the earth also relates to the sky, for from the same primal substance from which the earth arose, the sky was gradually formed. “Scripture,” says Vasily V., rightly called the earth unsettled. But we can say the same about the sky. And it did not yet have a complete formation, did not receive its characteristic decoration, because it was not illuminated by the moon and the sun, and was not crowned with a host of stars. All this has not yet happened; and therefore we will not sin against the truth if we call heaven unsettled” 129. The original earth that emerged (actually the universal substance) was formless and empty (Heb. tohu vabohu), 130 i.e. it was an ugly, empty, lifeless mass; the word: formless or unformed indicates its formlessness, the word empty indicates emptiness, the absence of any specific objects in the primordial substance. The original substance was thus barely elevated above insignificance, alien to any definite structure, and did not have any of those signs and qualities with which it appeared later, after the completion of creation. This first state of things is further called the abyss (Hebrew tehom - a space of water, amazing in its depth or vastness) or, as it were, a boundless sea, as well as waters, which shows that the substance of the whole world, immediately after creation, was a disordered, - scattered in an immense, like an ocean, space, a loose or liquid mixture of those elements from which certain objects were subsequently formed (by definition Metropolitan Philaret in Zap. Genesis “of the known types of bodies, the world’s primary substance came closest to the property of liquid bodies”). This whole unsettled, empty mass, this abyss or amazing emptiness was in complete darkness, since light did not yet exist. However, this state of the primal substance - tohu vabohu - does not mean the same thing as the original chaos of pagan mythologies and cosmogonies, from which life itself arises, or that the primal substance was in a chaotic disorder, a disorder in which a disorderly struggle of the elements took place 131. The first state of things is only in comparison with the improvement ahead of him, and moreover for human contemplation, is tohu vabohu, but it was sealed from the Spirit of God, therefore, harmonious: and the Spirit of God (Ruach Elohim) is the Divine creative Spirit, the beginning of all life (Ps. 103:30; 32:6), the third person of St. Trinity, 132 hovered over the water, that is, over the ugly, lifeless mass. The word was worn (merachephet) in translations from the original text, according to the explanation of St. Basil the Great, used instead of the word “warmed, revived” in the likeness of a bird incubating eggs and imparting life-giving force to the heated one 133. Thus, the Spirit of God hovered over the ugly and lifeless mass (hovered over the waters) in order to breathe vital forces into it, to prepare those forms of life that were to be called into existence by the subsequent creative word. The influence of the Spirit of God on the primitive universal substance could also consist in the fact that He influenced it in a dividing way, preparing it for the diversity that would arise from it, separating the heterogeneous in it and uniting the homogeneous, and in general contributed to the activity of those natural forces and laws according to which the very formation and development of the creation created by God was to take place. From that time on, creation is not only dead matter: it is endowed with life from the life-giving Spirit, to the extent pleasing to the Creator, and has become nature, being, life (natura). 134 That is why Scripture indicates that the further creativity of the Word of God speaks and brings out life, as if already hidden in heaven and earth themselves: let the earth produce..., let water produce, etc., although it makes it clear that the first-created germ of the universe could not by itself go through all the stages destined for it without creative let there be. Private or educational creation consisted in the creation by God from the primordial world substance through the action of His omnipotent word, according to the predetermined creative plan and goals of various private types of creation, and in general in the arrangement of the visible world in the gradualness of six creative days. First day. (3–5 art.) – The beginning of the creative week or the first day of the world was laid by the creation of light. And God said: Let there be light. And there was light (Heb. or), or, as the apostle says, light shone out of the darkness of the abyss (2 Cor. 4:6). By light, the first product of the Divine word, we mean luminous substance or matter, different from the carriers of light, luminous bodies created later. Light was the first to be called forth from the primordial substance and separated from it, as the first manifestation of the vital forces invested in it by the Divine Spirit. And this is because light and the heat associated with it (Hebrew or combines exactly two meanings - light and heat) are the first, most important condition for organic life in the world: without light and the heat associated with it, neither plant nor animal life can develop, and for inorganic compounds the influence of light is in most cases necessary. – Natural science also sees the kinship and connection between the phenomena of light and heat. Natural science recognizes that heat and light are caused by the movement of parts of matter and represent, so to speak, a type of movement. In general, science has established that without movement there can be neither heat nor light. Of course, heat and light can also be excited by chemical and other processes, but even here the matter comes down to special forms of motion. This may somewhat clarify for us the essence of God’s creativity on the first day of the world. The words of the Creator: let there be light can be understood precisely in this way: the Lord, with His wise and omnipotent word, first brought into a state of motion the primal substance, which by itself, without an outside push, was not capable of moving, and then and through that, aroused light in it, along with heat and other phenomena. Thus, God is first the Creator of inert matter (which in itself is not capable of leaving a state of rest), and then its Prime Mover. – What science says and what many philosophers have assumed turns out to be true from a biblical point of view. With the creation of light and its separation from darkness, the Creator established a firm law for the constant change of light and darkness, for the distinction between day and night, and together determined forever their meaning and purpose among other creatures of the world. Second day. (6–8 st.). - On the second day, according to the creative command of God, the firmament appeared - Heb. rakia - in the middle of the water. 135 EUR the word rakia (from the verb raka - to stretch, spread) means extension, stretching of the air space, which, like the atmosphere, surrounds, like a tent (Ps. 103:2) or a transparent blanket (Is. 40:22), the globe and separates it from other bodies of the universe - the same thing that is now denoted by the vague expression heaven, the vault of heaven. 136 The creation of the firmament established a division between the waters that are under the firmament and between the waters that are above the firmament. “One might think that the Genesis writer here called waters what he had previously called by the same name, and also an abyss, that is, the primordial unstructured substance, with the difference that this unstructured substance, after the creation of light, became partly transparent” (Metropolitan Philaret). In this case, the work of creation on the second day can be represented as follows: in the immeasurably enormous mass of primordial matter, which had no definite outline, division into parts took place, i.e. on the bodies of heaven and earth with the position or affirmation of limits or spatial boundaries between the parts of the divided whole universe or the universal primal matter - limits, but they will not pass (Ps. 103:9 fn. 148:5-6), therefore, the position of the limits and the very division of the world's primal substance into the bodies of heaven and earth, is equal to the affirmation of their paths, according to the word: You showed the stars their path; the space formed between the parts of the divided whole became their firmament, firmament in the sense that in this space and, as if due to the inherent property of the firmament itself - to give hardness and strength to the formations of heavenly and earthly bodies, the world bodies that began to form actually received, through the creative action of God, hardness and strength for the entire time of their existence, such an improvement in the course of their lives that they could neither collide nor interfere with each other in their movements (in this sense the sky or air space for each part of the waters is really στερέωμα or firmamentum). – With the recognition that, according to the creative command, let there be a firmament in the middle of the water, the formation of world bodies began to take place, we must think that on the second day our planet earth received a separate existence in a certain outline and volume, with the atmosphere surrounding it; but it is still water under the heavens or under the firmament, like other bodies - water above the firmament (2 Pet. 3:5: Compare vv. 10 and 16). Third day (9–13 st.). On the third day, according to the all-wise and omnipotent word of the Creator, the division or dismemberment of the hitherto undetermined whole earthly body into water and land took place (explained in more detail in Ps. 104:6-10) and the first life on land - plant life - arose. And God said: Let the water that is under the sky be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear. And so it became. How the collection of earthly waters into known reservoirs and the emergence of land took place, everyday life does not tell us, since it does not describe the processes of what happened at all. One can imagine the creative action of the third day presumably like this. Above the earth's body there was an atmosphere already cleared of vapors, but the earth itself was still water. According to creative command, the thickened and gradually cooled substance rose in some places and sank in others; elevated places were exposed to water and became dry land, and the depressions and hollows were filled with water flowing into them and formed seas (Ps. 23:2). Land and sea are two components of the globe, and with their separation its formation was completely completed. Pointing to the formation of the earth on the third day, Moses is silent about whether the formation of other world bodies took place together and simultaneously with the formation of our planet. But in view of the fact that in the description of the second and fourth days the action of the Creator in the entire universe is represented and that the earth constitutes the smallest part of this whole, “one can assume that the creative action on the third day was not limited to the earth alone, but that other similar bodies of heavenly space learned on this day a more definite formation characteristic of them” (Metropolitan Philaret). With the advent of land, plant life became possible. Other conditions for the existence of the plant kingdom already existed (light and warmth, air, humidity). The second creative action of the third day was the creation of the plant kingdom. God commands the earth to produce plants: let the earth produce greenery (in the Holy Bible - the former), grass that sows seed, a fruitful tree, bearing fruit according to its kind, in which is its seed on the earth. And so it became. However, one should not assume here the phenomenon of the so-called. spontaneous generation. By itself, without any seeds and by its own natural forces, the soil cannot produce any plants, even the most simple ones. Accurate experiments have destroyed the assumptions hastily made by some natural scientists on the basis of misunderstood facts, that the original origin of plant life took place from the earth by the so-called. spontaneous generation. Between dead nature (minerals, stones) and between organic, living and reproducing nature there is such an abyss that it is impossible to cross without creativity. The plant could appear and actually grew only at the creative command of God. The Creator commands the earth to produce plants, and does not simply command them to be because the beginnings of their origin were invested by Himself in its maternal depths (one might think, by the action of the Spirit of God hovering over the primordial abyss), and also because the earth was intended for them to be a place of growth and a source of nutrition. The earth, according to the creative command of God, brought forth: greenery, grass that yields seed according to its kind, and trees that bear fruit, in which is their seed according to its kind. 137 These three classes embrace all species of the plant kingdom. What is remarkable is the enumeration of the newly created species of the plant kingdom - first the simplest species, and then more complex and perfect ones. One might think that the sequence in the description also indicates the sequence of the creation of species of the plant kingdom itself, i.e., that the appearance of the simplest species of the plant kingdom preceded the appearance of more complex and perfect ones. But those who disagree with the Bible would imagine the matter in such a way that more complex and advanced types of the plant kingdom did not appear immediately, but through gradual development or transition (over millions of years) of the simplest forms into more complex ones. Plants were created according to their kind, that is, in various specific forms. Fourth day (14–19 st.). After the earth was clothed with plants and became ready for living creatures to live on it, on the fourth day the sun, moon and stars were created - celestial bodies that were supposed to receive the primordial light and so regulate its influence on the earth so that, by virtue of its action, living creatures in water, air and on land could exist and develop correctly. The creative command about the existence of these bodies is depicted in the words: let there be luminaries (Heb. maor) in the firmament of heaven. This expression does not point to the initial creation, i.e. from nothing, but, like the expressions: let there be light..., let the water be gathered..., to the creative formation of objects. The basic matter not only for the earth, but also for the sky and celestial bodies was created in the beginning (the heavens and the waters above the firmament); the formation of the celestial bodies, one might think, took place simultaneously with the formation of the earth and in the same sequential order. On the fourth day, the creative formation of these bodies is only completed, just as on the third day the creative formation of our planet is completed. Together with their complete education, from the fourth day, by a special creative command, they became luminaries for the earth - carriers of the primordial light, its instigators or instruments (this is precisely the meaning of the Hebrew maor in contrast to or the primordial light), which before that time they were not - they alone became the so-called. self-luminous bodies (the sun and fixed stars), others - shining with borrowed light (for example, the moon and other planets or so-called dark bodies). “The action by which the luminaries are produced, in all likelihood, is the concentration in certain places and the most perfect formation of the primordial light, with the establishment for these bodies of its constant laws and circle of activity” (Metropolitan Philaret) 138. Having appeared as the originators of light, the heavenly bodies received the following purpose in relation to the earth. They must: 1) serve to separate day from night (v. 14) or light from darkness (v. 18), i.e., determine for the future the difference between day and night, which arose during the creation of light; 2) serve as signs for the earth, partly as heralds of extraordinary events (for example, Matt. 2:2; Luke 21:25) and the judgments of God (John 3:15–16; Jer. 10:2; Matt. 24:29), partly as signs for recognizing the countries of the sky and predicting the weather; 3) determine the permanent seasons - natural, civil and sacred; 4) promote the counting of days and years; 5) to be lamps for the earth, that is, to shed light on it day and night to the required extent, so necessary for the development of the life of earthly creatures. Pointing to only one purpose of the luminaries - namely to serve the earth and its inhabitants, the everyday life does not deny that the celestial bodies, in their mutual relations in the universe, like each in itself, have other purposes in God's creation. Without a doubt, this is kept silent because astronomical and physical knowledge in itself does not help a person in the matter of pleasing God. This is, without a doubt, the reason that the writer of everyday life speaks in greater detail and separately about the sun and the moon, the luminaries that are closely related to the earth and its inhabitants, and designated all the countless numbers of immeasurably great and distant other world bodies with the common name stars. As for the name of the sun and moon as great luminaries, in comparison with which the stars are small luminaries, they are so named not according to their comparative size with the stars, but according to their size visible from the earth and according to the degree of their influence on earthly things. Fifth day (20–23 art.). On the fifth day, the creation of the animal kingdom began: first the inhabitants of the waters were created, and then on the same day the inhabitants of the air. When creating the inhabitants of the waters, God said: let the water produce reptiles and living souls. The expression: let the water produce (Heb. Ieschrezu - actually means: let it swarm) does not have such a meaning that animals living in water are the product of this element, although, of course, they are formed from the elements of the earth (and not from water alone). It only means: let the water be filled with living creatures capable of living in it, but not through the action of the forces imparted to the substance, but through the action of the creative command of God 139. With the formation of animals, a new, higher principle of life is introduced into nature; animate, voluntarily moving and sentient beings appear. But the living principle, the soul of animals (Heb. nephesch), could not be produced by matter itself. And the writer of everyday life directly indicates that the origin of the inhabitants of the waters (as well as the inhabitants of the air) was the work of God’s creation: and God created (bara, a verb used only where creation in its own sense is indicated) (a direct denial of the idea of ​​​​the ability of matter to produce life) large fish (Heb. taninim - large, sea monsters, which applies both to larger fish and to monstrous lizards, saurs, etc.) and every soul of reptile animals (Heb. scherez - reptiles or many-bearing, from scharaz - crawl, swarm, swarm, embraces all aquatic animals, from the greatest to the smallest), which water has produced, according to their kind. 140 The fifth day includes creation and the inhabitants of the air. God's proclamation about their existence is expressed in the words: let the birds fly over the earth across the firmament of heaven. “By the closest application of the words of Moses, God’s proclamation is explained by Rev. Metropolitan Philaret says this: let everything that flies (hence, not only birds, but also insects) fly on the earth in the firmament of heaven.” 141 God created (bara) the inhabitants of the air according to their kind. One pair of each type of animal or several were created, everyday life does not say; but the words that the water should be overflowing with living beings make it clear that not only various genera and species of animals were created, but also a great variety of animals of every kind. God blessed the newly created animals of the fifth day, saying; be fruitful and multiply. With His blessing, God, as it were, turned into their property the power through which they received their existence, that is, He gave them the ability to continue the race and increase in number. Sixth day (24 – 25 art.). On the sixth day, the animals of the earth and man, the crown of the creatures of the earth, came into being. Just as on the previous day the creative word (constructively) addressed the many-bearing waters, so now it turns to the earth, commanding to produce living animals according to their kind: let the earth produce living creatures according to their kinds, cattle and creeping things, and wild beasts of the earth according to their kinds. The expression: let the earth produce does not imply that the earth should produce living beings with the help of its inherent forces. “When God said: let the earth produce,” notes St. Vasily V., - this does not mean that the earth will wear out what was already in it, but the one who gave the command gave the earth the power of lime.” The Creator of animals is God, who formed them from the earth (2:19), as well as people (2:7). Everyday life description divides earthly animals created from the earth (i.e., from the elements of the earth) into three classes: firstly, cattle (Heb. behema) - four-legged animals that are most capable of taming, which, being tamed, are called domesticated; secondly, creeping things (Heb. remes) of the earth - actually crawling - all small animals that move without legs or with the help of barely noticeable legs (for example, worms, wingless insects); thirdly, the beasts of the earth (Heb. haija haarez - wandering beasts), i.e. wild animals living in the wild. These classes embrace all types of earthly animals. They were created (Heb. asah) according to their kind and also received the blessing to multiply, although the writer of everyday life was silent about this. This is the biblical story of the creation of the visible world. From this story the following general dogmatic propositions naturally emerge. I. Heaven and earth and all their hosts, otherwise, the entire material world with everything living on it owes to the Creator not only its existence, but also its particular formation and perfection. God is the Creator of the basic elements of the material world - the primal substance of the world. He is the Creator and Organizer of the majestic and beautifully decorated world (cosmos) from primordial matter; the transition of primitive matter from the state of formless and empty to the level of a well-ordered and well-decorated world could not take place on its own, through the so-called. natural development from an embryo, only at the beginning of a creative development. The world appeared in all its parts as a majestic organ of the glory of God as a result of the wise action of the creative power of God. The very forces and laws that purposefully operate in the world were given to the world by the creative will of the All-Wise Creator. Through the action of God's creativity, all creatures living in water, air and land, each according to its kind, received existence and the perfections of nature. II. The world was not created instantly, not by a single creative action of God, but, in addition to the creation of heaven and earth at the beginning, its complete formation took place within six days. What kind of days these are, whether ordinary or some special times, the duration of which is known only to God, but is hidden from us, both are equally conceivable with the concept of the universe as the creative action of God. But “the days of creation show the true order of the direct actions of the creative force that took place at a certain time.” 142 Consequently, the world is not eternal, but received its existence and structure in time. With the beginning of peacemaking, time itself received a beginning, as something measurable. III. The order of world-building consisted of a gradual ascent from the general to the more and more particular, from the simplest to the more and more complex, from the lower degrees of life to the highest, in general - from the less perfect to the more and more perfect, and each link in the chain of God’s creations is a preparation for the highest and in the highest has its immediate goal. In the entire history of the universe, one cannot help but see preparations for the creation of such a being on earth who could understand the wonders of God’s creation and wisely use what was created, that is, man, appointed king of nature, with whose creation God’s creativity was completed. The participation of natural forces of nature in the history of world formation, as instruments of the will of God. The biblical story of the six-day creation clearly affirms the truth about the diverse creative action of God in the history of the origin of the world. But the Bible allows or completely excludes the so-called. natural development or the participation of natural forces of nature in the formation of the world from an embryo, at the beginning of a creative one? It is more correct to answer this question in the affirmative, i.e., that in the history of world formation, the natural forces of nature, created by the Creator Himself, took part in the history of world formation, although in a secondary, very limited and conditional manner. This can be deduced from the very gradualness of peacemaking. God, as an omnipotent being, could create the world in an instant; however, He was pleased to create the world within a certain time. For the word of God speaks first about the creation of heaven and earth (the length of time from the creation of universal matter to the first day of the world is not defined in the Bible), and then about the six days of creation. How can we explain such gradualness in the time of creation? For human thought, the question is most clearly resolved by the fact that, during the action of the creative power of God, in the formation of the world those forces that God put into matter during its creation also acted, of course, controlled by Him in their action. The basis for such an assumption is given in the Genesis itself. In the beginning God created heaven and earth - this strongly indicates that the first beginning of the world was laid creatively; but, on the other hand, it is given to understand that once the beginning has been established, it is already the beginning of the world, the beginning of nature, a being that lives and carries within itself the seeds of life. The Bible clearly says that after the creative beginning of the world and its revitalization by the Spirit of God, the omnipotent word of God brings forth various creatures no longer from nothingness, but from heaven and earth themselves. Such expressions of Scripture as: let there be light - (which, according to the apostle’s explanation, means that the light was commanded to shine out of darkness, i.e. from the darkness of the abyss, or from the darkness of the waters), may there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, may dry land appear, and especially may the earth produce greenery, grass..., may the water bring forth reptiles..., may the earth produce a living soul..., clearly suggest the thought of the natural development or revelation of the hidden life of what is spoken by the creative verb. As for the relationship between the creative and natural (or cosmogonic) figures in the history of the universe, then, based on revelation, the matter should be presented this way. Not only the creation of the primal substance, but also each of the six stages of world creation was an extraordinary work of Divine creativity. Matter itself could not produce anything from itself; Each new stage of development was preceded by a new creative activity. With its onset, a process of natural development (laws) was established for each area of ​​life in the world according to its type; nature, with its forces and established laws, was an instrument in the fulfillment of God’s creative decrees. The image of the expressions of the Mosaic legend also corresponds to this understanding, for example: let the earth produce..., and the earth produced greenery, grass..., or: let the earth produce a living soul..., and it became so, etc. But in the so-called natural course, the developed, not controlled by a higher power, cannot be assumed to have given over to the development of one and the same order of life, but it is necessary to assume the possibility of blind development to infinity, the endless appearance of new forms of being, from which subsequent ones would destroy the previous ones. It is necessary, therefore, to recognize that during creation, each stage of creation ended creatively; otherwise, God creatively set limits to development. 143 The work of creation for each stage of existence ended, according to the Bible, precisely with the final establishment of the further natural self-action of a certain area of ​​life, which is expressed in the creative determination for the continuation of life through birth. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters, the air, the earth - this is the completion of creation, the completeness of natural development. With the establishment of the limit of natural development, or the laws of further life for one stage of existence, the creation of a higher stage began. Thus, the creative will of God began and ended each day of creation, and in the middle of formation the forces and laws of nature took part, governed however by the providential will of God. There is no detailed description of their action in the Bible. Obviously, the Bible invites people themselves to study the book of nature and find out and determine their actions in the history of world formation, of course, on biblical grounds. So, according to the word and spirit of the biblical story, it can be argued that the history of creation is composed of the actions of God’s creativity and the actions of the natural forces of nature that fulfilled the creative word of God, otherwise, the creation of the world is at the same time the development of the world, cosmogony. The misconception of the ancient and new pagan worldviews lies not in the fact that both, one in the imagination of fantasy, the other on the basis of natural scientific research, speak of world development (cosmogony), but in the fact that they know only development, without knowing creation. Days of creation. – The complete formation of the world from the primordial sky and earth took place within six days. What should be meant by the days of creation, are they days equal to our ordinary day (24 hours), or can these days mean any special, longer times? Neither in the symbol of our faith, nor in the conciliar definitions of faith accepted by the entire church, the question of the length of the days of creation is resolved in a dogmatic sense. The Church reveres the great mystery of the six-day creation; it allows freedom of private theological opinions on this subject. Therefore, even in the ancient church, different opinions were expressed about the days of creation. The prevailing understanding among the fathers and teachers of the ancient church was the understanding of these days in a literal sense, but some (representatives of the Alexandrian school - Clement, Origen, Athanasius V., also Augustine, Procopius of Gaza) took the word “day” in the legend of Moses as an allegorical, metaphorical expression (however, not in the sense of indicating geological eras, for geology did not exist at all then). It is very remarkable that after the 4th century there were many councils, but the latter opinion was not condemned by the church. The days of creation are understood differently in modern times. Some mean by them ordinary, astronomical days, others - special and unique days, universal days, the Lord's or prophetic days, in general - more or less long times (centuries). The possibility of understanding the days of creation in the sense of centuries is based on some biblical data; however, this understanding is in some connection with the statements of astronomy and geology that the formation of the world took a long time. But, of course, the idea of ​​the duration of creative days is revealed in theology in accordance with the testimony of revelation about the constant manifestations of the omnipotence of God in the history of the formation of the world and, therefore, appears in a completely different form than in geological and astronomical theories about the self-formation of the world. In this form, this opinion obviously does not contradict the sound faith in God, which requires the confession of God as the Creator of all things, and the dogma of creation does not turn into a doctrine of the self-education of the world. Meanwhile, from the point of view of the defenders of this opinion, by taking the days of creation over a long period of time, it is easier for the mind to understand one of the secrets of faith, and one of the reasons for attacking faith is taken away from freethinking, and thus an agreement is achieved between faith and reason, science and revelation. To condemn or recognize this opinion as an obvious heresy, when it has not been condemned by the church, would, of course, be unfair, but it should be treated with caution. Creation, as the work of almighty God, is a deep mystery, which we know only by faith (Heb. 11:3), especially in the conditions of real life, when we walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7). The details involved here can hardly even be explained. Therefore, it is hardly possible to give a direct and decisive answer as to what exactly should be understood by the days of creation - ordinary days, or some special, longer times. 144 If anything is possible in this regard, it is only guesswork and guesswork. The assertion that the days of creation are unusually long times, the same as the multimillion-year eras imagined by naturalists who assume the self-development of the world, of course, must be rejected. With the miraculous manifestations of God's omnipotence in the history of world formation, such events in nature could easily take place in a short time, which now require a very long time. However, there are no decisive and indisputably firm grounds to assert that the days of creation fully corresponded to our day and embraced exactly 24 hours of time, no more and no less. Therefore, it is enough to agree, without going into any considerations, with the remark of the Russian theologian (Metropolitan. Philaret), that “the days of creation show the true order of the immediate actions of the Creative force (therefore, they are not just ideas of creation), which took place at a certain time,” and the day of creation should be taken “for some known time,” “for the Jews accept the day in the most extensive sign for some known time (Is. 2:12, 17, 20),” 145 the duration of which only God knows and His was determined by will, but was completely hidden from us, but for a more or less short time, and not for enormous periods of time. § 21. The relationship of the sacred history of the universe to evidence about the origin of the world of natural sciences The sciences that study the structure of the earth and celestial bodies and what is in them and on them (astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, etc.) are very closely related to the sacred history of the universe. From the side of these sciences, many different objections have been and are being made on one page of the Mosaic legend; they see in it both contradictions to the conclusions of experimental science and internal inconsistencies. On the one hand, the importance of the doctrine of the creation of the world, with which both the doctrine of God and the doctrine of the entire economy of salvation are closely connected, and on the other hand, the significance that these sciences have acquired through their research and discoveries in the area accessible to them, make it necessary to consider the question of the relationship of the sacred history of the universe to evidence about the origin of the world of natural sciences. 146 The impossibility of a real contradiction between the Bible and science. There is agreement between them on the main and essential issues regarding the origin of the world. – The idea of ​​the possibility of a contradiction between the Bible and natural science is a false idea at its very core. God, being equally the Author of both revelation and nature, could not contradict Himself and write on the pages of the Bible contrary to what He wrote in the great book of the universe. Using the light of reason, science cannot reach precise conclusions that would be contrary to the teaching of revelation, and therefore there can be no real contradiction between the Bible and natural science. In the same case, when they apparently contradict each other, then this contradiction or disagreement between them always turns out to be imaginary, arising from the fact that either the Bible, or the book of nature, or both of these books are incorrectly read. When reading and understanding the Bible, which asserts the existence of irreconcilable differences between revelation and natural science, the following is largely overlooked. 1) Although the word of God cannot in any way speak contrary to the truth, it does not have the task of explaining to us natural scientific questions, teaching us, for example. astronomy, theology, physics, and natural science in general. Any such knowledge is a matter of the mind and labor of the people themselves. God sends His light for people only where, without Him, human eyes and labor cannot reach, but should. Therefore, revelation communicates only what is necessary for salvation; everything else concerns as much as it is related to the main subject of his teaching. All this applies to the Mosaic tale of peacemaking. Therefore, when comparing it with natural science theories about the origin of the world, it is necessary to keep in mind that this legend represents nothing more than a general and condensed outline, and not a complete cosmogony or geogony; much could be omitted or unsaid in it; only the main or initial processes in the history of world formation could be indicated and at the same time it could be silent regarding the processes of subordinate and lower ones, or only preparatory ones. Hence, if anything can be demanded from it when comparing with the conclusions of the natural sciences, then only that it coincides with them in the main and essential and does not contradict the particular conclusions of the same sciences, which are distinguished by the nature of complete reliability. 2) Further, they often forget that biblical everyday life, like sacred writers in general, when they speak about subjects only related to the main subject of revelation - the doctrine of the salvation of man, speaks in such cases in the language of their time and is adaptive to the concepts and views of the people of their time (if there is no actual error in them, but only limitations), but not in the language of accurate scientific research known at the present time. 3) Finally, when comparing biblical teachings with scientific ones, interpretations of the Bible - one’s own or someone else’s - are often presented as positive teachings of revelation, losing sight of the fact that it can only have the character of probability, but not evidence, excluding any doubt. On the other hand, in relation to natural science, they forget that 1) judgments about the agreement or disagreement of natural science with revelation should be based on a comparison with the teachings of the Bible only of reliable and indisputable positions of science, and not of fortune-telling, probable assumptions (hypotheses), 2) that the area studied by science is insignificant compared to the area of the unexplored and even completely inaccessible for research, why science is still far away from saying his last word, and that, therefore, decisive conclusions about the relationship of the Bible to natural science must be made with special caution, and on many issues they would be premature - and finally, 3) that the area of his research is the present reality of the world and only in this area are accurate conclusions possible, and the primary causes of phenomena - the beginning of being, creation - lie outside and above human observation. 147 A natural scientist may have his own views and convictions regarding them, but he has them not as a natural scientist, but as a philosopher or a follower of one or another religion. If all these very natural requirements of scientific impartiality were taken into account when comparing the biblical teaching about the origin of the world with the evidence of experimental sciences, then, without a doubt, they would see more agreement than disagreement between the Bible and science, and even these disagreements would not seem so decisive and irreconcilable neither now nor in the future. In fact, this is precisely the relationship between the evidence of the Bible and natural science about the origin of the world. That indeed, in the main and essential things, the sacred history of the universe not only does not contradict the teachings of natural science, but, on the contrary, is confirmed and explained by it, this can be considered quite firmly established. Thus, natural science recognizes that the world was not from the beginning the same as we see it now, that its formation took place gradually and has its own history, from which it follows that it does not exist from eternity, but appeared in time. 148 The Bible says the same thing. Further, according to scientific assumptions, now generally accepted, all the elements of matter that make up the world's bodies were initially scattered in the space of the universe and did not have a specific shape, they were in a gaseous state; The chemical composition of celestial bodies (as this is especially proven through the so-called spectral analysis) and terrestrial ones, formed from an ugly mass of matter, is essentially the same, but is only found in different combinations and states. This assumption, obviously, is also in full agreement with the biblical teaching about the creation at the beginning of the universal substance, the ugly state (tohu vabohu) and the formation from it of the heavenly bodies and the earth. – The world, according to the teachings of modern astronomy, is a collection of systems (countless numbers of them), partly similar to our solar system, partly consisting of double or crowded stars and nebulae (millions of stars or suns and their systems) - systems with mathematical regularity located in space and moving, apparently, around one common center. 149 And this teaching of natural science also does not stand in any contradiction with biblical teaching. The Bible does not teach astronomy, but astronomical discoveries through improved testing instruments of an incalculably great variety of celestial bodies are only an explanation of the biblical thought about the innumerability of the stars of heaven (Gen. 15:5; 22:17). 150 There is no such firmly established account in astronomy about the method of formation of the celestial worlds that would not have very significant objections against it from a natural science point of view. This is understandable, because in relation to this issue only fortune-telling is possible, changing depending on the success of natural science itself. Until recently, the most plausible explanation for the formation of celestial systems seemed to be the so-called. Canto-Laplace hypothesis. At present, in view of new data from natural science, this hypothesis is recognized as requiring additions and amendments. However, there is still no essentially new theory of the formation of world bodies, and the new experiments that have appeared in the construction of natural cosmogony (Fay, Ligondet, etc.) are based on the Canto-Laplacian hypothesis. 151 Given this position in natural science of the question of the method of formation of celestial systems, it is self-evident that on this issue science does not provide sufficient grounds for conclusions about any contradiction between revealed and natural teaching. The Kanto-Laplace hypothesis, on the contrary, is even remarkably consistent with biblical teaching. The main position of this hypothesis, that the entire solar system in its original state was a huge gaseous ball from which, according to the laws of motion, through the separation of one ring after another, all the planets of the solar system were formed, and that the earth is older than the sun, is as if only a repetition of the biblical legend. What this hypothesis lacks is only the direct reference contained in the Bible to the First Mover of the universal substance and the Setter of the limits to the fragmentation of the abyss of water, but sound scientific thinking cannot reject this (Kant and Laplace did not reject it). New experiments in constructing the history of the formation of celestial bodies, which are based on the same hypothesis, do not essentially contradict the Bible. The differences generally encountered on this issue between the Bible and natural science concern not so much the substance as certain details that do not have religious significance and belong to the field of scientific curiosity. So, for example natural histories of the universe go into detailed descriptions of the supposed action of various natural forces of nature during the formation of various world bodies (actions of centrifugal and centripetal forces, cohesive forces of attraction, repulsion, action and development of heat, etc.), engage in fortune-telling about the various stages of developed matter, its transitions from a gaseous and fire-liquid state to a solid, etc. The Bible does not contain such details, but the Bible does not unconditionally deny the action of natural forces in the history of world formation, like sound natural science, it is forced to admit that through the action of the mechanical forces of nature alone, not controlled by the all-wise, all-powerful Force, a purposefully structured world could not be formed. The same can be said about the relationship of biblical teaching to natural science on the issue of the formation of our planet. The Bible's teaching on this is brief. It reports only about the internal division of the entire composition of the earth or its entire embryo into water and land and the creative bringing of it into such a state that life could appear on it. But, of course, this does not at all deny the fortune-telling of learned natural scientists that the earth, in the history of its gradual formation, in a corresponding manner could go through the stages they assumed, common to all parts of the world, starting from the initial fiery-liquid indifferent state of its planetary mass to the gradual formation of a solid crust and its various layers (geological formations) on it, until it finally came to its last state. 152 The Bible directly denies only that all this could be accomplished only by the action of natural, mechanical forces of nature, without the participation of the omnipotence and wisdom of the Creator. Finally, in the main and essential respects, the teaching of natural science and the time and sequence of the origin of plant and animal life on earth is in agreement with the biblical teaching. Natural science, in agreement with the Bible, dates the appearance of plant and animal life on earth to the time of the perfect formation of our planet, while affirming the biblical sequence of the creation of these kingdoms of nature. It teaches that first of all, and in particular abundance, plant life appeared on our planet, and then the animal kingdom, and that just as in the plant kingdom the appearance of more complex and perfect species was preceded by the appearance of simpler and less perfect species, so in the animal kingdom, lower organisms first appeared - aquatic animals and reptiles, then more developed and complex ones - birds and quadrupeds, and, finally, man - the crown and completion of earthly creation. The same order is generally depicted in the biblical history of peacemaking. While agreeing on the main points, the biblical narrative often presents a striking agreement with the conclusions of natural science and in many details. And the more success natural science makes, the closer and closer its rapprochement with the Bible becomes. With the progress of the natural sciences, much that previously seemed contradictory to natural science in biblical cosmogony now turns out, on the contrary, to be very consistent with more accurate and extensive research. Several examples can be cited to confirm this. Thus, in the old days, when the hypothesis of the outflow of light from self-luminous bodies dominated in physics, in the Mosaic legend of creation many found the inconsistency that it speaks of the creation of light on the first day, and the sun on the fourth day, and about the existence of days and nights before the appearance of the sun. In modern times, another opinion about light has emerged (Huygens' theory of excitement), almost generally accepted now, according to which light is a kind of subtle liquid diffused in space, called ether, and not at all an outflow from the sun and other celestial bodies. The wavy movements of this ether, which can be caused by various reasons, and not just the sun, and produce in us a feeling of light. Through this, not only was the previously seemingly irremovable contradiction between the Bible and science resolved, but the subtle distinction made by Moses between the “light” (or) of the first day and the “luminaries” (moor) of the fourth day was also clarified. At the same time, the confusion about the existence of three days before the creation of the sun was also clarified. In order for it to be day, that is, light, before the appearance of the sun, it was only necessary that the ethereal luminiferous liquid, then already existing, be set into oscillatory motion. It is not known, of course, what exactly set it into motion - whether by the direct force of the Creator, or by any intermediary reasons, but there is no reason to assert that it could not have been set in motion by anything before the appearance of the sun, and therefore it cannot be denied that before the appearance of the sun light could have spread on the earth - there could have been day. As for the change from day to night, this change is determined, as is known, by the rotation of the earth around its axis, which should have begun from the very beginning of the creation of the earth. 153 – Try another one. Once upon a time, the Bible’s statement about the appearance of plants on earth before the sun seemed inconsistent with the evidence of science and experience, for plants usually develop only when the sun’s rays act on them. But the latest research has shown that in this too, the biblical story warned the discoveries of natural science. It has been established that plant life is possible without the action of sunlight, but only if there is general light and heat (as they were before the appearance of the sun), that electric light has all the qualities necessary for the development of living parts of a plant, there have even been experiments (Famintsyn with algias) of growing plants only under the strong light of a gas lamp. The remains of plants found in the Carboniferous formation (coal was formed from the burial of primeval forests under sedimentary layers) confirm that primitive vegetation developed in the absence of a variety of climatic influences, as well as the direct influence of the sun's rays (under the influence of only scattered light), for this vegetation is uniform in all longitudes and latitudes, does not differ in the number of species and the brilliance of flowers, but has annual rings on the trees in the oldest coal layers, although it reached enormous sizes with rapid growth due, as is believed, to the humidity of the atmosphere, the widespread tropical climate and the abundance of carbonic acid, which is so necessary for plants. – Or another example. There was a time not long ago when it was considered doubtful whether man had come into existence at the same period as the extinct antediluvian animals, and the more determined followers of Cuvier's school outright rejected the existence of man before the flood. Nowadays it is considered established that man appeared in the same creative period with the higher animals, and the existence of antediluvian man is considered indisputable. From these examples one can judge how premature it is to assert that there are irreconcilable contradictions between the Bible and natural science on one issue or another. So, natural scientific ideas about the origin of the world are not at all as contrary to revealed teaching as others think. True, natural science theories deny or keep silent about the supernatural participation of the Creator in the history of the formation of the world, but this is not based on scientific data, but stems from preconceived atheistic views; according to common sense, no cosmogony is possible without the action of the Creator. This is how many of the representatives of natural science itself view the relationship between the Bible and natural science, and, moreover, outstanding representatives who have gained fame and authority with their scientific works. Among them we meet physicists, chemists, astronomers, geologists, mineralogists, zoologists, botanists, etc. 154 Many of them openly declare the agreement of the biblical narrative of creation with the more accurate conclusions of modern natural science; attacks on this narrative are recognized as the fruit of ignorance, or, as, for example, the late Russian academician Baer, “ridiculous anachronisms that have long been dealt with the latest natural science”, about the Mosaic narrative it is expressed that “whenever anyone makes an attempt to depict the history of the universe, this attempt cannot imagine anything higher and more worthy than the biblical narrative of creation” (confession of the American scientist J. Dawson) 155, and they say about Moses himself (as, for example, physicist Bio) such a judgment: “either Moses had the same deep scientific knowledge that we have at the present time, or he was inspired from above.” 156 A review of the most important differences between the Bible and natural science in the doctrine of the origin of the world. – If there cannot be a real contradiction between the Bible and natural science, as different types of revelation of the one Creator of the world, and the agreement between them in the main and essential things has already been sufficiently established, then it is clear from here how one should look at those differences or contradictions between them, which are indicated by one-sided adherents of experimental science. Some of them are completely arbitrary, because they are not based on accurate scientific data, others can easily be eliminated - if not now, then in the future. Let us briefly consider the most important of them. I. One of the first and most visible differences is the following: according to biblical teaching, the formation of the world took place in six days, while according to astronomical and geological calculations this could have happened in an extremely long time. The following considerations may serve as a response to this objection. Neither astronomy nor geology can give, nor do they give, indisputable and accurate conclusions, the first regarding how much time was required for the formation of various celestial bodies, the latter regarding the formation of various layers of the earth with a special kind of plants and animals corresponding to its state. In astronomy, as stated above, there are only hypotheses about the method of formation of the solar system, which is why calculations of the antiquity of the world based on the assumption of their plausibility cannot have the value of evidence. Geological data, on the basis of which conclusions are made about multimillion-year epochs in the history of world formation, are in fact so fragmentary that they turn out to be insufficient to determine certain particular geological finds, as well as individual layers of the earth. 157 Moreover, they are insufficient to accurately determine the antiquity of the entire world. Geologists do not have a firmly established theory of land formation. That is why we see striking disagreements in the calculations of the ancient world among geologists, as well as among astronomers. These disagreements consist in the indication of an unequal number of not only years, but whole and many thousands of years and even millions of years. The main thing is that conclusions about centuries-old epochs in the history of world formation are made on the basis of observations of the existing order of things and the action of some natural forces of nature, now known, and it is assumed that these forces acted during the initial formation of the world in the same way as they do now, and that therefore for known formations, for example. this or that geological formation required then the same long time as is needed now. But such assumptions cannot be considered valid. During the initial formation of the world, not only forces that are now known, but also others, not yet discovered by physics and chemistry, could act, and the most currently known forces could act with greater energy and in a short time produce what, under current conditions, requires a very long time. For in the days of creation the state of nature was completely different from what it is now. Now everything happens in the world, although under the supervision of God, but according to the laws outlined by God, and under the action of the laws of nature established by Him. At that time, the creative will of God acted predominantly, producing and establishing the very forces and laws of nature. With the miraculous manifestations of God’s creativity, in a short time, such events in nature could easily occur that now require a long time, just as man, for example, through the power of his knowledge and art. a chemist, in a very short time, produces processes of this kind that, without his participation, could not have happened very soon. 158 But even if indisputably convincing evidence was discovered for a longer duration of world formation than just six days, then even then the biblical and natural science teachings would appear irreconcilably contradictory. For it is permissible to understand the days of creation not in the sense of astronomical days determined by the position of the sun, but of special and unique days, the duration of which is known only to God. The task of explaining the biblical text is far from finished. II. As a significant difference between the Bible and natural science, they further point out the one contained in the doctrine of the so-called. arbitrary generation of organisms (generatio aequivoca, spontanea or originalia). By arbitrary generation in natural science we mean the origin of organic plant and animal life not from seeds or embryos, generally from similar ones, but in a different way (hence the name of this doctrine heterogenism), namely from inorganic substances through the activity of inorganic (physical and chemical) forces. 159 The defenders of this doctrine claim that arbitrary generation existed both in primitive times and continues to this day. They also explain the origin of the first organisms from which all the plants and animals that exist on earth developed by the method of arbitrary generation. If such a teaching were true, then the contradiction between the Bible, which explains the origin of life on earth through the action of God's creativity, and natural science would be irreconcilable. But in reality this teaching is nothing more than an arbitrary statement. In support of this doctrine, they point only to cases of sudden appearance of ciliates in inorganic substances, to the appearance of the so-called. entozoans-parisites in the entrails of animals and the ability to artificially produce some chemical-organic compounds (for example, formic acid, synergistic alcohol). But precise experiments on ciliates, carried out for the purpose of verifying the said doctrine (by the French chemist Pasteur and the English physicist Tyndall), showed that the generation of ciliates is not arbitrary, but has a reason for itself in the atmospheric air filled with organisms, and when the embryos are removed from the air in various ways, no spontaneous generation is possible. It has been established that the origin of entozoans is subject to the general law of the origin of all animal beings by birth (omne vivum ex ovo, or particular - omnis cellula e cellula). The possibility of the artificial production of very few organic substances, but not performing any vital functions, cannot prove the possibility of arbitrary generation; between these substances and a living organism there is an impenetrable abyss. Phenomena in the kingdom of organic nature are so sharply different from phenomena in inorganic nature that they can only be explained by recognizing the existence of a special cause or force, which is completely different and indeducible from the mechanical forces of nature (by the properties of the phenomena produced by this force they call it the vital force - vis vitalis). All impartial chemists and physiologists agree that it is impossible to produce life from the currently active and known forces of inorganic nature, either from any one force or from their combinations. “No one has actually seen spontaneous generation take place,” said the famous Professor Virchow at the Munich Congress of Natural Scientists (1877). – And whoever assumes that this happened contradicts not only theology, but also the science of natural history. To be frank, we must admit that naturalists have little sympathy with spontaneous generation. If this could be proven, then, of course, what could be better! But we must admit that it has not been proven.” 160 Despite such unprovenness of this doctrine, heterogenists nevertheless argue that if now organisms do not arise by themselves, they could have arisen directly from inorganic matter during the initial formation of our planet, when the forces of nature acted with greater energy, when the virgin earth had extraordinary productivity, which it no longer has. But, obviously, it is completely arbitrary to assume that in primitive times inorganic matter could have properties that it does not have now, for example. the ability to produce organic life from oneself: matter has not changed; substances from which organisms are composed (oxygen, hydrogen, various salts, minerals, etc.) and are currently found in abundance in nature; their properties and qualities also have not changed. It is equally unfounded to assume that in the original state of the earth there could have been especially favorable conditions for the emergence of organisms directly from matter: conditions favorable for the appearance of organic life on earth could be no other than the same ones that now exist for its preservation and continuation. If these conditions changed (for example, an increase or decrease in oxygen in the air, heat in the sun, density in the globe, etc.), organic life would cease. At the same time, if with some extraordinary combination of natural forces in primitive times it was possible for the emergence of life directly from matter, then why is science, with the existence of all the inorganic materials that make up organisms, and with all the possibilities for it to increase and strengthen the action of the necessary physical agents artificially, is not able to produce a single, even the simplest organism? In general, it should be said that confidence in the spontaneous generation of organisms rests not on any exact data, but on a living connection with the whole materialistic worldview. Followers of this worldview cannot help but allow spontaneous generation: if the whole world gradually arose and developed by itself, without the will of the Creator, from the mechanical activity of its own forces inherent in matter, then it follows that living organisms also arose spontaneously, arbitrarily. And vice versa, if it is not true that organisms can and do arise arbitrarily, then it is even more false that the whole world conceived and developed by itself, then it is necessary to recognize the existence of the Creator of the world. 161 So, the difference between the Bible and natural science, indicated by the theory of the spontaneous generation of organisms, cannot be recognized as a real difference. Without God's creativity, the origin of life is inexplicable. Even Charles Darwin had to admit this. III. A further difference, contrasted with the biblical legend, is that contained in the newest teaching about the development of organic life on earth, known under the name of the theory of transformation, or evolution, as well as Darwinism. 162 The main idea of ​​this theory is that all plant and animal species (existing and extinct), not excluding humans, arose through a natural, gradual transformation of lower and simpler organic forms into higher and more perfect ones from a few primitive simple forms (according to Darwin - from four or five or even from one primitive form). The entire diversity of existing and extinct species in the plant and animal kingdoms originated from so few simple forms through the so-called. (in Darwin) the natural selection or preservation of improved breeds in the struggle for existence and with extreme gradualness and slowness - over a very long time (millions of years). But this hypothesis in itself does not provide grounds for denying the Creator of the world. Even if we assume, according to her teaching, that all organic life that appeared on earth developed according to natural laws from one primary form, then this hypothesis still does not eliminate the question: where did the primary organic form come from? To recognize its origin in a natural way, through spontaneous generation from inorganic matter, would be a clear contradiction to the exact data of experimental science. It is necessary, therefore, to assume the creative action of God to explain the origin of primary organic forms. 163 Tertium non datur (there is no third possibility). This is not enough. To admit that God created only one or a few simple organisms and not to allow the creation of many more perfect ones means to admit a logical inconsistency. If few organic forms could be created, why could not many organic beings be created? But such a change in theory, a change caused by the very essence of the matter, obviously destroys this theory in its most basic features. Further, this theory depicts the supposed process of the ever-increasing predominance of spirit over matter in nature - a process of strictly calculated, continuous and invariably purposeful activity of world forces. But does not this constant growth of organic nature and its constant adaptation to new conditions for the production of higher forms of life, from plants to humans inclusive, serve as the strongest evidence of the creative plan presupposed for the expedient development of organisms? Thus, the hypothesis of the regeneration of species leads to the recognition of the actions of the All-Wise Creator of the world, who embraces the whole world with His mind and power, creates endless combinations of the forces of nature to produce various creatures and finally achieves the fact that from irrational animal life comes a rational being - man... Thus, this hypothesis, even if we recognize it as correct from a natural scientific point of view, is not as reliable and faithful an ally of materialism as many people think. There is a misunderstanding in the fascination with it on the part of opponents of the Bible. But the doctrine of the degeneration of species cannot serve as a strong objection to the Bible and from a natural science point of view. The basic concept of this theory about the gradual appearance on earth of organic forms, first simple, then more complex, does not stand in any contradiction with the sequence of creation of the plant and animal kingdoms indicated in the Bible. The difference and significant contradiction of its Bible is as follows: the Bible teaches that God, in a certain sequence, created plants and animals according to their kind, that is, he created not just one species, but many permanent species of the plant and animal kingdom, and together determined forever the constancy of the species. According to Darwinists, the sequence of appearance of different genera and species of plants and animals seems to indicate the very method of their origin, namely, that the entire diversity of the plant and animal kingdom occurred through the transformation of some forms into others, less complex and imperfect into more complex and perfect from a few primary simple forms, and that the emergence of new genera of creatures continuously continues and will continue. But such reasoning of Darwinism is untenable even in a simple logical sense: the sequence in the appearance of organisms is not the same as the self-formation of organisms or the transformation of one into another. The conclusion of the followers of the theory of evolution in this case is similar to if, on the basis that in the history of culture the appearance of palaces was preceded by the appearance of just a house, a hut, or a hut, they concluded that the hut itself turned into a house, and this latter into a palace. The basic tenets of Darwinism in natural science itself do not constitute immutable truths. At the basis of all Darwinists’ arguments about the origin of various forms of plant and animal life and the conditions of this origin (the struggle for existence, natural sexual selection, heredity, atavism, etc.) lies the proposition, which they accept as an indisputable truth, that species of plants and animals change, that is, some can transform into others. But in reality, despite the general and persistent assertion of the variability of the species, this variability was nowhere to be found; Not a single new species has yet appeared in all the time over which scientific observations can extend. Changes in varieties within a given breed have been and are being observed, but no transformation or formation of breeds has been observed; hitherto neither a favorable confluence of natural conditions nor human art could do anything like this. The constancy of species, affirmed by the Bible, is an indisputable truth of exact science - a truth that would forever remain mysterious to the human mind, were it not for the revelation of everyday life about the establishment by God for the entire existence of the world of the law that every creature that came from the hands of the Creator contains within itself a seed, an embryo, the reason for its reproduction on earth, and that each perpetuates itself according to its kind. 164 The assumption of Darwinism that in the beginning there were only the simplest, most uncomplicated and few organisms, from which all the richness and diversity of plant and animal life originated, is not justified by the exact data of experimental science. Contrary to this assumption, paleontology, already in the most ancient geological strata, where organic life is first encountered, finds the simultaneous and parallel existence of not only the main divisions of the animal and plant kingdoms, but also different species in each of them. Most paleontologists agree that “the genera and surnames found in the most ancient layers, although different from ours, represent the same perfection of forms in whole and in parts, as do the living breeds” (M. Seres). 165 Finally, if the formation of the plant and animal kingdom really occurred through the transformation (transformation) of rocks, then in the history of the organic world there would be traces of such a transformation in numerous intermediate genera and species of plants and animals, there would be forms that constitute a gradual transition, for example. from plants to animals, from a worm to a fish, from a fish to a bird, from a ciliate to an insect, etc., there would equally be transitional stages from paleontological animals to modern ones. But science does not find such intermediate breeds, and at the same time does not give hope of finding a genetic connection between organic forms. As decisive proof that the transformation of breeds recognized by Darwinists does not actually exist, one can also point to the sterility and fragility of the so-called. "bastards" or crosses between two different breeds, with easy, continuous fertility of mixing between varieties within the same breed. Numerous observations have fully confirmed this in relation to both the plant and animal kingdoms. This shows that in the very nature of creatures the Creator placed an insurmountable obstacle to the transformation of one breed into another, and that even with the help of artificial means it is possible to form only varieties of one kind of animal or plant, but not new breeds. This is a universal law of nature. In view of such contradictions in the most basic features of the data of experience and observation, and in general due to its lack of evidence, the theory of evolution has many opponents from among authoritative scientists in the field of natural science itself. All the most prominent natural scientists not only refuse to accept, but also directly reject the hypothesis of the English thinker, as a hypothesis, although ingenious, but unproven, as a fiction of the imagination, as inconsistent with the obvious laws of nature (such as Cuvier, Agassitz, Virchow, Baer, Quatrefage, R. Wagner, Mivart, Elam, Florence, Cla. Bernard and many others. etc.). And the amount of data showing the inconsistency of this theory is increasing more and more with the successes of natural science, so that, according to Prof. Virchow (back in 1882) and in the future has no reason to expect recognition from science. And according to the testimony of another famous naturalist, Agassiz (paleontologist), “for the entire period from the first appearance of life on earth to the present day, not a single fact can be specified and not a single data can be found to confirm the variability of animal types and the possibility of the origin of one species from another... Facts and scientific observations remove us from Darwin’s hypothesis and turn our thoughts to the Supreme Mind, which is equally manifested both in the immeasurable diversity of individual individuals and in the unchanging stability of types of animal existence." 166 It is clear from this that if until now Darwin’s theory has staunch defenders among naturalists of a certain trend, it is not because of its agreement with the exact data of science, but because it represents the theory of natural world formation, such an formation in which all influence of the supreme intelligent Force is eliminated and everything is reduced to the simple operation of the necessary, natural laws of nature. So, the difference indicated by Darwin's hypothesis cannot serve as an objection to the reliability of the biblical story about the creation of the world. IV. More significant differences between the Bible and natural science than the previous ones are the differences indicated by geology and paleontology. The objections raised by these sciences to the biblical history of creation seem to have solid foundations in observations of the earth's layers and fossil remains of plants and animals. In addition to the assumption of thousand-year periods, during which layers inside the earth (geological formations) could supposedly form, in geology it is recognized as firmly established that animal life did not appear after plant life, but, at least in some of its representatives, simultaneously with it, and that terrestrial animals, although few, appeared almost simultaneously with sea ones. The evidence of these sciences suggests that organisms appeared in whole groups at certain geological epochs and continued to live in the form of unchanged rocks while that epoch lasted. With the change in the physical conditions of life on earth, with the advent of a new era, some previous breeds, for which these changes were disastrous, died out, and in their place new groups appeared, adapted to the new conditions of life on our planet. It follows that animals did not originate in just one specific period or day, as stated in the Bible, but appeared in many successive periods. The same applies to the plant kingdom. No matter how significant all such data may be, firstly, in view of the impossibility of a real contradiction between the Bible and science and the established agreement between them on the main things, they cannot be called completely contradictory to the Bible. Here, especially before making decisive conclusions, it should be borne in mind that Moses did not have a direct goal of expounding cosmogony or geology, and his legend represents nothing more than the most general and condensed outline of the history of the origin of the world. And secondly, there is hope for an agreement between these differences and the biblical legend. Both geologists and theologians have been working on this agreement for a long time, and they have presented several experiences of such an agreement. There are four such experiments or, as they are commonly called, hypotheses: the flood, restoration or restoration (restitutive), idealistic and the hypothesis of the agreement itself (concordistic or harmonistic) or otherwise - the hypothesis of days - eras. According to supporters of the flood hypothesis (St. Kutorga, Abb. Sorinje, Keil, Boziziu), the existing differences between geological data and the biblical history of the peacemaking are explained by the floods that occurred after the peacemaking and especially the global flood during the time of Noah. Defenders of the restoration hypothesis (Buckland, Kurtz, A. Wagner, Gengstenberg, etc.) reconcile the same differences by the fact that the formation of earthly formations with their plant and animal organisms is attributed not to the six-day creation, but to the time preceding the six-day creation: the history of the six-day creation is understood by them as the history of the restoration of a world that had fallen into disorder, which had originally created well-ordered. This experience of agreement is based primarily on a peculiar interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2. The hypothesis of ideal harmony (developed especially by Michelis and Schultz), for the same purposes of reconciling the Bible and science, recognizes only general provisions or ideas as essential in the biblical six-day period; six days are six creative actions of God or truths about creation revealed to Moses in prophetic visions. Finally, supporters of the hypothesis of agreement or the hypothesis of days - eras (Reim, Lange, Ebrard and others - from theologians, from naturalists - Cuvier, Marcel de Ceres, Pfaff, Hug Miller, etc.) take the days of creation to be periods of indefinite duration and try to draw a complete parallel between the days of creation and geological periods and in this way reconcile the data of geology with the history of the six-day creation. 167 None of these hypotheses provides sufficient explanations in all respects for the differences that exist between geological data and biblical teaching. But the many years of work of the conciliators were not completely in vain. No, the very existence of agreement experiments shows that such an agreement is achievable. Much has already been achieved to clarify these differences. It is, of course, very desirable to establish such an agreement now, but the time has hardly come for that. Both geology and paleontology still belong to relatively new sciences, and the explanation of the biblical text is far from finished. It is therefore better to wait than to resort to such agreements, from which either biblical or natural scientific teaching always suffers. There are enough reasons to hope for such an agreement. The history of discoveries in the field of natural science shows that the more science is enriched by them, the closer its rapprochement with the Bible becomes; There are quite a few examples of this kind. There will be a time when those insignificant differences that are found today will be eliminated, and the Bible and nature will appear as pages of the same revelation of God. § 22. The purpose of the visible world The visible world, as the work of a supremely wise Being, was created, of course, for some reasonable purpose. According to the clear teaching of revelation, the highest and final purpose of the visible world, as well as all created existence, is to serve the glory of God or to reveal the perfections of God. The heavens will tell the glory of God (Ps. 18:2). The whole earth is full of the glory of the Lord of hosts (Isa.6:3). But, proclaiming the glory of God in its beauties and perfections, visible nature itself is not aware of this. Of all earthly creatures, only one person, as a conscious, rational being, can understand her laudatory broadcasts and through his consciousness and freedom the unconscious praise of earthly creatures can be brought to the Creator. Thus, the material world can reach its highest and final destination through the medium of man. It follows from this that in addition to the general purpose of nature - to be an organ of the glory of God, it also has a special or private purpose - serving man, and above all serving the god-like human spirit. Its purpose in this regard is to, through proclaiming to man the glory of God, to elevate his God-like spirit to reverent contemplation of the Prototype and Creator of all its visible beauties and perfections, His eternal power and Divinity (Rom. 1:20), and in general to contribute through its influences to the disclosure and formation of his cognitive and moral powers and strengthening in goodness, and through this, to the achievement of his highest purpose. Along with such service to man (especially the human spirit), visible nature - the earth itself and earthly creatures - are intended to serve him in another respect. The earth was created, abundantly filled, splendidly adorned as a habitation for man (Isaiah 45:18). She and all the creatures living on her are given to the full power and disposal of man, appointed to satisfy all his needs and requirements, to give him various pleasures and pleasures (Ps. 103:15; Sir. 31:31-32). The history indicates that God, blessing the primordial couple, said: be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish the sea and the birds of the air and every living thing that moves on the earth (Gen. 1:28). God confirmed this same right of dominion on earth for man with the blessing of Noah and his sons (Gen. 9:1–3). The same idea about the service purpose of nature in relation to man is expressed in many other places in Scripture. Thus, St. David confesses: Heaven is heaven to the Lord, but He gave the earth to the sons of men (Ps. 113:24). God placed His hand over his work, putting everything under his feet (Ps. 8:7 et seq.). Other sacred writers also confessed the same thing (Wis.9:1-3; Sir.17:1-4). When a person has suffered death, the same earth is designated as the resting place for his mortal body: dust you are, and to dust you will return (Gen. 3:19). This is the purpose of the visible world, and especially the earth and earthly creatures, indicated in revelation. When appointed to proclaim the glory of God, they were created for man, to serve him. This is one of the reasons why man was created after all visible creatures. “All other creatures of the earth were created to serve him - man,” says the famous interpreter of the book. Being, and therefore he is introduced into the world, like a ruler into a house, like a priest into a church, completely arranged and decorated.” 168 He himself is placed in such a sovereign relationship with nature, called to serve him, because he alone of all earthly creatures is adorned with the image and likeness of God, and the image of God in man in relation to him in relation to the world, as the ancient fathers of the church explained, is man’s authority to rule over visible creation. 169 According to the images of Scripture, in connection with this purpose of the visible world and the relationship of the earth and earthly creatures to man, all changes in the universe, both past and future, are found. Thus, the fall of the first parents occurred - disorder followed throughout the entire visible world (Gen. 3:17); the restoration of man and the general resurrection of the dead will follow, and the restoration or renewal of creation will follow (Rom. 8:19-22). Revelation also indicates other cases of changing the entire face of the earth or parts of it for the sake of man, for example, when all people were punished by the global flood, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah - by the destruction of their cities (the formation of the Dead Sea Valley), Egypt - by executions during the time of Moses, etc. In all such indications of Scripture one can see new evidence that the visible world and especially the earth and earthly creatures were created and appointed by God for man and to serve him. Of the ancient church fathers, they left explanations of the biblical narrative about the six-day Creation: in conversations on the Six Days - Vasily V. (1 part of creation in Russian translation). Gregory of Nyssa (1 part of the work in Russian translation), Ambrose Mediol. (6 books on Shestodnev, - mostly translated by Vasily V. Shestodnev with additions from Orgien and Hippolytus) and in interpretations on the book. Genesis - I. Zshtoust (IV volume 1 book of the works of I. Chrysostom in the Russian translation. St. Petersburg 1898. In the VI volume 2 books of the same edition there are 6 conversations about the creation of the world attributed to Severian, Bishop of Gaval), Ephraim the Syrian (VI part of the works in the Russian translation), Bl. Theodorite (1 part of creative work in Russian translation) and bl. Augustine (about the book of Genesis, literally 12 books, - in hours 7 and 8 of his work in Russian translation). – A brief overview of the ancient fathers’ explanations of the six-day creation can be found in the book. Protopopova N. Bibl. dilapidated facts on the interpretation of St. fathers and teachers of the church. Kaz. 1897 and in Art. Pavlovich A. Biblical cosmogony according to the teachings of the fathers and teachers of the church (Strannik, 1898, Nos. 4–9). In Russian literature one can point to the following explanations of the history of the six-day creation: Metropolitan Philaret. notes on the book Genesis (ed. 1816, 1819 and 1867) - Theodora Archimandrite. About peacemaking. Explained Chapter 1 book Genesis. St. Petersburg 1862 – Sergievsky N. prot. Creation of the world and man. Moscow. 1883 – Vlastova G. Sacred Chronicle, 1 part. St. Petersburg. 1879 Vl. The Bible and science 1 and 2 parts. St. Petersburg. 1870 – N. E. Creation of the world. Op. interpretation Life Chapter 1 (read the love spirit. pr. 1872 No. 2). - Meñana. The world and primitive man, Trans. from French St. Petersburg 1872 – Viguru F. Rukov. to reading and studying the Bible I vol. from French priest V. Vorontsova. Moscow. 1897 – Bogorodsky Ya. prof. The origin of the world (Rules. Sob. 1901, 4, 10 and 11 books) - Bankalsky. History heaven and earth according to the revelation of St. Pis. and research science. 1889 – Arkhangelsky A. Biblical cosmogony (Proceedings of 1889, No. 7: article by A. Gusev. in Prospect Ob. 1889, July-Aug.). – Lovyagina E. The importance of the biblical legend about the creation of the visible world (Strannik, June 1763). This question is subject to special discussion in Art. Kapralova E. Objections to the literal meaning of the Mosaic legend about the creation of the world and their analysis. (Stavro. Bishop Ved., 1893, Nos. 12 and 13) and Pesotsky A. On the issue of historical. the nature of the Mosaic legend about the creation of the world (Tr. Kiev. Ak. 1898, 3 books). Of the Jewish interpreters, only Philo explained the legend of Moses in this way (De opificio mundi). Of the Christian writers, Clement Alex held the same view. (Stromata, VI, 16), Origen (on principles, III, 5, IV 16). Later, the blessed one explained this legend in an allegorical sense. Augustine (On the book of Genesis, lit. IV book. 22 and 23 chapters; V, 3, etc.). See about this in Menyan’s The World and Primitive Man, pp. 6–11, - in Philaret, arch. in Dogma. God. § 84, – from prof. Lopukhin in the Bible. ist. I volume, 1889, pp. 89–92, - in Vigouroux’s decree. above book pp. 329–330, in op. Ep. Chrysanthes Rel. other world, in Ebrard, Apologetics, II vol. and others... On the historical nature of the book. Genesis testifies to: 1) purely historical methods of presentation, such as: precise indications of places, persons, times of events, designation of the boundaries of paradise, etc.; 2) the historical task of the book is to outline the history of the economy of salvation of all mankind through the chosen Jewish people for a time, beginning with the promise of the Seed of the woman and, finally, 3) the latest archaeological discoveries in the field of Eastern antiquity. Epiphany, Prot. er. 65 ep., - Theodoret, on the book. Life 22 questions, – Damascene, Exact. izl. 6, II, 7, – See note. above on page 155. Ephraim Sir. On Genesis VI, part 250 pp. in Russian. lane Reusch, Bibel und Natur 17 pp. In ancient times, this opinion was expressed by Origen (on the book of Genesis. Bes. 1) and Bl. Augustine; although bl. Augustine understood angels under the primordial light (On the City of God. XI, 9), but he was not against understanding the primordial ugly substance under heaven and earth (Prot. Manich. I book 5, 7). Origen also understood the good angels under the waters above the firmament, and under the lower waters - the princes of darkness (see Vasil. V., on Hex. Demon. 3). In Russian literature, this opinion is supported in notes on the book. Life Metropolitan Philareta. It is mainly based on the fact that the heavens are not attributed here with the disorder in which the newly created earth is presented. But this is not conclusive proof. It is acceptable to think that Moses attributes disorder to the earth alone, not because there has never been such disorder in heaven, but because, as an inhabitant of the earth, writing for the inhabitants of the earth, he is primarily concerned with the earth. See prof. for an analysis of this opinion. Glorgaitov in the decree. Art. (Chronicle Thu. 1861, vol. 1) Chrysostom. On the book Life Demon. II, 2. This is how they understood the expression of a writer of everyday life about heaven and earth, for example. Vasily V. - On the Sixth Day. Demon. 1 and 2 (1 part 14 and 24 pages in Russian translation according to the 1891 edition), Gregory of Nyssa - About Shestodnev. (1 part 11–12, 20–21 pages in Russian translation), blessed. Theodoret - on Gen. 5 questions, Ephraim the Syrian - on Genesis 1 ch. (6 parts 296 pages in Russian, translation), Damascus – 1 full-length. izl. Faith, II, 5-6. There is also an opinion that the initial words of the description of life contain only a general reference to the entire narrative about the creation of the world (like, for example, 18, 1). But such an understanding is an obvious violation of the text. The connecting “zhe” (Heb. vav) connects the beginning of the 2nd verse with the first, like two parts of one thought. In addition, such an assumption provides, as it were, some basis for recognizing matter not as a product of creative will, but as the beginning of those existing independently of it and co-eternal with the Creator Himself. Vasily V. On the sixth day. Demon. 2 (1 part 22 pages in Russian translation). Heb. the words: tohu vabohu, by their production and use (Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23) mean amazing emptiness or uncertainty. In the translation of the LXX interpreters they are conveyed by the words ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος - invisible and unsettled, in Aquila κενωμα καὶ οὐδὲν - emptiness and nothingness, in Theodotion – κενόν και ουδέν – something empty and insignificant; in Simachus - ἀργόν καί άδιάκριτον something idle and indifferent: in Zap. on the book Being - uneducated and empty, in publication. Holy Synod of the Bible in Russian. lane - formless and empty. The name “chaos”, given by the Greeks to the primary substance of the visible world, in the literal meaning of this word is close to the biblical tohu vabohu: chaos - χάω, χάινω - I gape, I open my mouth in amazement, that is, something that amazes with amazement, like never seen and unlike anything existing. Vasily V. (On the pole. Demon. 2) in this case followed the explanation of St. Ephraim Sir. On Genesis 1. (VI part 301 page). A similar thing is explained by St. I. Chrysostom on Gen. Demon. III, 1. Translations of the words Ruach Elohim instead of the Spirit of God - the wind of God, or the storm of God (i.e., a fierce storm), must be recognized as one-sided. The verb rachaph (merachephet) associated with this name means to soar, sit on eggs, hatch, therefore, cannot be used about the storm itself. According to the book act of the ap. (2:2-4) both translations are reconciled so that the generally accepted meaning according to the LXX is undoubtedly true. – Among the ancient church fathers, the prevailing understanding was that the Spirit of God was the life-giving power of God or the Holy Spirit, although some also understood the wind of God, which set the water in motion (for example, Blessed Theodoret, on Genesis 9, question). It is worthy of note that in the meaning of the word nature, and especially the Latin natura, there is a subtle connotation of the future, of further existence. Natura. that is, not only born, but also having to be born. The Slavic word firmament constitutes a literal translation of the word στερέωμα - firmness, foundation, which the LXX transmitted to Heb. the word rakia in the Vulgate is firmamentum. In the h. There are places in the Scriptures in which the firmament appears to be a transparent sapphire vault (Ex. 24:10), or a cast mirror surface (Job 37:18), speaks of the opening abysses of the sky (Gen. 7:11–12; 1 Sam. 7:2, 19), about the gates and windows of heaven (Ps. 77:23; Is. 24:18), etc. etc. Based on such expressions of Scripture, opponents of the faith, objecting to the Mosaic legend about the creation of peace, imagine that the second day was devoted to the construction of a solid vault, under which God placed an ocean of waters. But all these expressions of Scripture are nothing more than purely poetic comparisons. Firmament in the Old Testament is synonymous with heaven (Gen. 1:8; Ps. 18:1), and the Jews never understood heaven in the sense of a solid vault; crystal or metal, but was represented as a light, transparent and shiny substance, like the air space where birds fly (Gen. 1:20; Prov. 30:19). Bygone (Heb. deschech) - actually young, tender greenery that grows after rain (2 Samuel 23:4; Job 38:27) and covers fields and meadows (Joel 2:22; Isaiah 22:2). The writer of everyday life uses this word as a generic concept for herbs and other “cryptogamy” plants - generally lower species (such as small algae, lichens, mosses, ferns, etc.). – Seed-sowing herbs (Hebrew eseb) is a generic term for shrubs, cereals and other plants in which seed cups develop. – Fruit trees (Heb. ijetz) – this word here denotes not only fruit trees, the trees themselves, but also all genera of trees and tree-like shrubs that bear fruit, in which there is a seed according to its kind, that is, fruits containing seed grains, – the beauty and crown of the plant kingdom, the most complex and perfect works of this kingdom. With this understanding of the biblical history of the universe, the objection to it is automatically eliminated, as if it contains the inconsistency that one day was used to create the sun and the entire stellar world, while five days were used to create and form the earth. From the fourth day, the sun, moon and stars became only luminaries or visible from the earth, and regardless of such structure, type and purpose, or simply as celestial bodies, they were formed before, together with the formation of the earth. This also resolves the objection stemming from the idea that the earth cannot appear before its central body, the sun. The legend of Moses, on the contrary, remarkably prevented the assertion of the newest scientific hypotheses about the origin of the world (for example, Fay), that the earth is older than the sun, that the sun is an image of what the earth was before geological times. Creative word to the waters in the West. on the book Genesis is translated: let the waters give birth. “This command does not impart life-giving power to the waters,” but “a certain beginning is indicated, or, as it were, a seed, from which, according to the creative word, this kind of creatures should have arisen, placed in the part of the universal nature predetermined for them by the action of the Spirit of God, hovering over the waters” (pp. 17–18 according to the 1867 edition). With the word bara, indicating the creative actions of God in the proper sense, Moses designates only the creation of the primal substance of the visible world (Art. 1), the creation of the first living creatures (Art. 21) and the creation of man (Art. 27). All other actions of God seem to be creative, constructive, and are denoted by the verb asah - made, formed. The meaning of these verbs is retained in the Latin Bible - creavit and fecit, and in the Russian - “created” and “created”. In the Greek text, both verbs are translated into one word - ἐπoίησε, and therefore in Slavic it is “create” everywhere. Since the Greeks did not have the idea of ​​creation, one might think that their language did not have a word to express this idea and the difference between the concepts denoted by the Hebrew bara and asah. In the LXX translation and in the Slavic, the commandment about the existence of birds is in connection with God’s appeal to the waters about the creation of animals, from which it follows that it is as if birds were formed or created from water. But such a translation does not agree with the original, according to which the Creator commands the birds to fly: let them fly, like waters overflowing with reptiles. Metropolitan Philareta Zap. on the book Genesis 4 pp. according to ed. 1867 If we reject, for example, the final creative moment in the formation of planetary bodies, then it will be impossible to understand why the fragmentation of the primordial world substance a, which, as is supposed, separated from itself ring after ring, planet after planet, finally stopped. – The same applies to other stages of world formation. Various biblical evidence is presented in favor of both opinions. Defenders of the opinion about the days of creation as long periods of time mainly give the following arguments. 1) The first three days of creation cannot be ordinary days, for the astronomical relationship of the earth to the sun was established on the fourth day of creation. Next, you can also think about the last three days of creation. 2). Heb. the word "jom" means both "day" and "epoch" or "period"; in the Bible it is often used to mean an indefinite period of time (for example, Gen. 2:4; Deut. 9:24; 31:17; 32:7; Ps. 2:7; Is. 34:8; 65:22; Jer. 46:10; Joel. 2:31; Am. 3:14; Zech. 14:9, etc.; cf. Matt. 10:15; 12:36; John 8:56; Rom.2:5; 2 Cor.6:2 etc.). There is not even another word other than “jom” to denote the idea of ​​an era or period in the Hebrew language. 3) “Day” is also called the seventh day - the day of God’s rest, which should mean a period of indefinite duration. 4). The days of creation are the days of the works of God, not of men, and in the sight of God a thousand years are like yesterday (Ps. 89:5 - attributed to Moses; cf. 2 Pet. 3:8). 5). God did not need a whole day or 24 hours, for example. for the creation of light, plants, the sun and stars, etc. Therefore, in the legend about the days of creation, it is necessary to understand the days in a metaphorical, figurative meaning. 6). The essential thing in Moses' story about the days of creation is the six moments of creation, as the basis of the law of the Sabbath rest, and not their duration. 7). Newly created nature took an active part in the history of world formation, fulfilling the creative word of God. By the very nature of created things, a time longer than that allowed by the literal understanding of the days of creation was necessary for this. Finally, 8) the cosmogonic legends of other peoples (for example, Indians, Persians, Etruscans, Chaldeans, etc.) about the days of world formation as long times, which are an echo of the true tradition, although in a distorted form, lead to an understanding of the days of creation in the sense of long times. Defenders of a literal understanding of the days of creation, not finding these arguments sufficiently convincing, contrast them with the following. 1) Taking the days of creation as ordinary days, defined as morning and evening, is more consistent with the direct meaning of the biblical text. 2) If the last three days of creation can be easily accepted as ordinary days, that is, astronomical days, then the first three days, also defined as morning and evening, are the same. 3) The historical nature of the book. Genesis requires a literal understanding of the days of creation. 4) The law on Sabbath rest, based on the history of the six-day creation, requires the same. 5) The idea of ​​creation as an excessively long process does not reconcile with the images in Scripture of the omnipotence of the Creator: He spoke and commanded, and he was created (Ps. 32: 9). 6.) The predominant understanding of the days of creation in the literal sense among the ancient fathers and teachers of the church should incline towards the same understanding of these days. For a discussion of the arguments given for both understandings of the days of creation, see Ave. Rozhdestvensky N. Apologetics. II vol. 209–216 pp. – Lopukhina A. prof. Bible ist. dilapidated head 1896 429–431 pp. – Svetlova P. priest. Op. apol. exposition right-Christian creeds. I part 223–230 pp. cf. Sergievsky N. prot. Creation of the world and man. 86–89. 126–127 pp. Bogorodsky Ya. prof. Origin of the world - Right. Sob. 1901 Oct. 502–507 pp. Sergius, Archbishop. Conversations about the fundamental truths of rights. faith. Vladimir. 1893 pp. 269–305 Metropolitan Philareta Zap. on the book Genesis, 4 and 35 pp. according to the ed. 1867 A discussion of this issue, as well as an analysis of objections and teachings of natural science contrary to the Bible about the origin of the world can be found partly in the above-mentioned (note to § 18) works of Archpriest. Sergievsky, Menyan, Vlastov, Viguru, Bankalsky, as well as in the Apologetics courses of Prof. Rozhdestvensky, Gettinger, Ebrard, prot. Petropavlovsky I. (In defense of the Christian faith). In addition to these, we can also point out the following: Popova V. Modern natural science about the origin of the universe. St. Petersburg 1872 – Uspensky E. Christ. speculation and people mind, ch. III. Platonova I. prof. The experience of agreement between the Mosaic legend about the creation of the world and the latest scientific data (Vera and Raz. 1886, Vol. I, Part I). - Bible uch. about the creation of the world and the natural scientific theory of world evolution according to Dutoa-Haller (ibid., 1897, 6 and 7). – Glagoleva S.A. prof. Fortune telling by scientists about the origin of the world (ibid., 1897, 19 and 23 books). – Religion and science in their relationship to the coming 20th century – in God. V. for 1899–1900 and in the department. ed. Golubinsky D.F. prof. Regarding questions about the creation of the world (ibid., 1895, III volume). Notes on the study. Haeckel on the origin of the world (Pr. Ob. 1879, III volume) - Popel E. Modern science and the dogma of creation (Reader lyub. spiritual. proev. 1880, vol. 2) – Matveeva F. Experience in applying scientific knowledge to the biblical tale of peacemaking. Moscow. 1888 – Mozolevsky Georg. priest Discussion of modern scientific hypotheses about the origin of the world based on the biblical account of its creation (Vera and Raz. 1901, 15 and 16 books). Gloriantova N. prof. A look at the teaching of modern theology about the origin of the world and its future destiny, in the light of the deities. revelations (Chronicles Thu. 1861, I and II volumes; 1892, II volumes). – The Sixth Day and the Flood (ibid., 1883, II volume). Lovyagina E. Analysis of the judgments of the latest naturalists about the globe in comparison with the teaching of the word of God about the visible world (ibid., 1859, II volume). – Lebedeva A. prof. The conclusions of materialism on the question of the origin of the world are before the court of strictly scientific natural science (Appendix to the works of the Holy Fathers, 1872, XXV volume). – Timaeva N. Creation of the world and primitive times of mankind. 1892 For an indication of more specialized literature on various particular aspects of the same issue, see below. That the field of natural science is indeed comparatively very limited is recognized and openly expressed by impartial authorities of natural science. See, for example. We are talking about the limits of natural science. E. Du Bois Raymond (Reg. Ob. 1878 Jan.). Wed. Tserteleva. Borders of religion, philosophy and natural science (ibid., Aug. 1879). For a similar explanation of the idea that the data of natural science requires recognition of the temporal beginning of the world, see the work of Archimandrite. Boris. About the beginning of the world. 1891 Only materialists think differently, affirming the eternity of matter, and some (for example, Ktsolbe) and the eternity of the world, but materialism is not the same as science. Consistent materialism even leads to the denial of science. Materialism has no basis for itself in natural science, although it usually presents itself as a scientific worldview. See about seven in v. Guseva A. Fictitious union of materialism with natural science (Prospect Ob. 1877, Nos. 6 and 8). A presentation in a publicly accessible form of the conclusions of astronomy about the structure of the sky can be read in the excellent work of A. Bener. Cosmos, the bible of nature. St. Petersburg 1870 1 book. See also the essays and systems of astronomy by J. Herschel, Fr., translated into Russian. Arago, A. Guillemena, Fr. Schedler, Schultz, Newcombe and Engelman, Russian prof. Khandrikova and others. It is sometimes pointed out as a contradiction between the Bible and astronomy that in the 17th century. The Copernican system, according to which visible changes in the positions of the sun and other luminaries in the vault of heaven were explained by the movement of the globe around the axis and around the sun, was persecuted in the West: Galileo was accused of heresy for this teaching, and the teaching itself was declared contrary to Scripture. But in the Orthodox Church the Copernican system was not persecuted. And in the West, the persecution of this system as heretical came from an incorrect understanding of Scripture, which supposedly contained the teaching about the immobility of the earth (Josh. 10:12–14; Eccl. 1:4), and partly from other reasons that had nothing in common with the Bible. Kant proposed his hypothesis about the origin of the celestial worlds in his essay “General Natural History.” history and theory of celestial bodies,” published in 1755. The main provisions of this hypothesis, after the astronomical discoveries of Herschel, were most thoroughly developed by the French astronomer and mathematician Laplace (in the work “System of the World,” published in 1796; also available in Russian translation. St. Petersburg, 1861), although independently of Kant (for the hypotheses of Kant and Laplace, see “Astronomy” by Newcombe and Engelman, Vol. IV, 1896, in Ulrici, vol. 1867, pp. 256–271, in Boris, pp. 105–124. As it is very consistent with the biblical teaching about world formation, this hypothesis was met in theology very sympathetically and influenced the very explanations of the biblical six days. In recent times, at the request of new astronomical data, it has undergone some modifications, additions and amendments. In 1884, this was done by the French astronomer Faue, who proposed his own hypothesis of the formation of world bodies (the 2nd edition of his book “The Origin of the World” is also available in Russian translation, St. Petersburg. 1894, with an appendix analyzing his hypothesis. See about this hypothesis in Art. Glagoleva S. New theory of the origin of the world in Rights. About. 1889. I vol.). The last more significant experience in constructing the history of the formation of worlds (appeared in 1897) belongs to the French scientist Ligonde, who in his fortune-telling on this issue was guided by Laplace and Faye (see about his hypothesis in the decree of Art. Glagolev, Fortune-telling of scientists about the origin of the world.) In all hypotheses, the question of the formation of the solar system proper is resolved, but everyone assumes that other worlds were formed in a similar way. A presentation of scientific conclusions about the stages of development of the earth can be read by Ulrici. God and nature. I vol. 271–282 pp. See also Bener. Space. III book. Inostrantseva A. prof. Fundamentals of Geology. – How exactly land formation took place is not a firmly established doctrine in geology. Some defend the volcanic theory, otherwise the theory of revolutions (catastrophes), which attributes predominant importance in the formation of the earth to fire, others defend the neptunian theory, otherwise the theory of the slow development of the earth, which assigns the main importance in land formation to water. The possibility of pre-solar light can also be confirmed by such phenomena as the northern lights, from which the earth becomes illuminated outside the sunlight, as well as the so-called. electromagnetic storm. The periodic appearances of the northern sowing can also serve as some semblance of the appearance of days and nights in the first three days of the world. In general, the latest observations regarding heat, electricity and galvanism have fully confirmed the possibility of light phenomena independent of the sun. Of the naturalists of earlier times who openly held religious beliefs, one can point out, for example. on the philosopher Leibniz, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, Bacon, Pascal and the like. Their religious beliefs are well known. Among the outstanding naturalists of modern times who have expressed conviction in the truth of the Mosaic tale of creation, one can point out Evler, Chevrel, Biot, Liebig, Herschel, Mädler, Quatrefage, Geoffroy, Saint-Hillaire, Agassiz, Claude Bernard, Marcel de Ceres, Schubert, Bookland, Schrank, Wiesemann, Dawson, the late Russian academician K.E. Baer and many others. And under made in England in 1864. An appeal to learned natural scientists, under which all those who were convinced that there could be no contradiction between the Bible and natural science were invited to sign, was signed by more than two hundred scientists, and among them there were quite a few authorities of science (in the Russian translation, this appeal was published in the Law. Ob. 1865, No. 1.) See also Art. Ostroumova St. prot. Judgments of the most remarkable natural scientists of the 19th century. in defense of Christ. faith (Vera and Raz. 1901, 8–9 books). See prof. Rozhdestvennogo. Apologetics. Part II 208–209 pp. See Art. Bible uch. about the creation of the world according to Duthoit-Haller. Vera and Raz, 1897. II volume. I part. 249 pp. More well-known methods for geological determination of the antiquity of various formations are based on: a) measuring the growth of earthen layers from sediments of sand, silt, etc. in a known specific place and in a known specific period of time; b) on measuring the rise and fall of continents; c) on the deepening of rivers and lakes; d) on the education of the so-called. stalactites, limestone deposits and various fossils. About the unreliability of these tools for geological calculations, see prof. Rozhdestvensky. Apologetics. II part. Ch. about the degree of antiquity of the world. To many, astronomical calculations based on the laws of the propagation of light seem especially inconsistent with the literal understanding of the days of creation and, in general, with biblical chronology. These calculations seem to firmly convince us that in order for light from some distant stars, now visible, to reach the earth, an enormous number of years were required, exceeding the biblical calculation of time from the creation of the world (5509 1902). But, firstly, the speed of light propagation in distant stellar spaces is unknown, but it is more likely that it is greater than in planetary spaces. Secondly, the currently observed speed of light was established after the creation of the luminaries, but the light of the newly created luminaries, it is more correct to think, by creative command, spread in all directions immediately - on the very day of the creation of the luminaries. Finally, thirdly, the very statement that some luminaries are so distant that their light reaches the earth over tens of thousands of years is not at all a conclusion from the exact data of science, for so far the distances of only those stars from which light can reach the earth within years or a few decades have been measured (see about this in Prof. D. Golubinsky in the article Concerning questions about the creation of the world). Traces of such a teaching are found in ancient times, in ancient religious cosmogonies, among Greek philosophers, even among Aristotle, among medieval scientists, among various alchemists who tried to produce a living being-homunculus from various chemical compounds, but the doctrine of arbitrary generation received the significance of a scientific hypothesis in the current century. A presentation and analysis of this hypothesis can be found in the following works: J. Tyndall. Arbitrary generation. Lecture in London. king total with critical comments by I. Miloslavsky. On the issue of production. origin. Moscow, 1879 (The same in the Law. Ob. for 1879). Nikanora arch. Posit. Phil. and super senses. Genesis III vol. 477–498 pp. Glagoleva S. A. prof. The origin of life (Chronicle Thu. 1898, I–II volumes). P. Janet. Arbitrary origin and transformation of species. Transl. from French St. Petersburg 1898 Denisova L. (translated from Greek). Faith and knowledge. VI. Life (Chronicle Thu. 1888, 2 hours). Ulrici. God and nature. I part 282–294 pp.; n. 146 pp. et seq. Kudryavtseva V.D. Independence of the beginning of organic life (III volume 1 issue. Op.), On the original origin of the human race on earth (III volume 2 issue 199 pp. et seq.) and in “Elementary Foundations of Philosophy,” 298 pp. et seq. - Popova. On the spontaneous generation of organisms (Prav. Sob, 1877 p. II part). Ebrard Apologetics. I vol. 406–412 pp. – Are the conclusions of natural science about the origin of life and man strong (Chronicles Reading 1880, I, 3). See about seven in indicated, art. Chr. Thurs. 1880 I volume 13 pages (explains a very instructive debate between the naturalists Haeckel and Virchow about the scientific inconsistency of Darwin’s theory of development). An even more decisive statement on the issue of the arbitrary origin of life was made by the Frenchman. scientist Fleurance on behalf of the commission appointed by the French Academy of Sciences to determine the degree of scientific validity of the theory of heterogenism. “Until now (i.e., before Pasteur’s experiments), some hesitations were still possible regarding the theory of autogenesis,” he said, but now all doubts have been eliminated... There is no spontaneous emergence of life in nature and no further doubts are possible on this subject. Anyone who still doubts, only proves by this that he does not clearly understand even the essence of the question” (op. cit. in Chr. Ch. 1888, II vol. 626 p.). Some of the newest natural scientists (Thomson, Helmholtz, Ed. Keene and others) thought to solve the mystery of the original origin of life on earth by the assumption that the first life embryos could fall to the earth along with meteors that separated from other celestial bodies. But, according to the now accepted hypothesis, all celestial bodies were at first in the same molten state as the earth, which is why organic life on them at that time was just as impossible as on earth. The main thing is that this assumption does not at all eliminate the bewilderment: how did living beings appear on other bodies? The first traces of this theory are found already in antiquity (among the Greek philosophers Anaximander and Empedocles), but it received a scientific form in the past century, in the teachings of the French naturalists Lamarck and E. J. Saint-Hilaire, later in Wallace, mainly in the English naturalist Charles Darwin (in the work “On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection,” published in 1859), named which is often called “Darwinism”. In particular, Darwin's theory underwent considerable changes among a large number of his followers (Haeckel stands out among them), but its main position remains in force and is applied to all branches of natural science, so that the doctrine of evolution has acquired the character of a comprehensive and all-explanatory theory. The literature on the subject of Darwinism is extensive. Analysis from different sides of this teaching and the theory of evolution in general can be found in the following works: Danilevsky N. Ya. Darwinism. Critical study. St. Petersburg 1885 Kudryavtseva V.D. Theory of transformation (III volume. I issue. Op. Wed. Basic principles, philosophy. 303–321 pp.). - Froshammera. Study analysis Darwin on the origin of species in the animal and plant kingdoms (Appendix to the works of the Holy Fathers, 1864. XXIII). – The idea of ​​creation and the theory of evolution according to Elam (Chronicles, Reading, 1881, Part I). - Ulrici. God and nature. I vol. 294–329 pp. – Nikanora, Archbishop. Posit. Philosopher and super senses. being. III volume – Rumyantseva N. Darwinism (Faith and Raz. 1895–1896). – Chemeny M. prot. Darwinism. Critical research Odessa. 1892 - Ebrard. Apologetics I vol. §§ 159–168. – Istomina K. E. Evolutionism and evolution (V. and Raz. 1887 II). Philosophical basis of evolution (Ibid., 1898, Vol. II, Part I). Darwin himself did not deny this. Regarding the hypothesis of “arbitrary spontaneous generation,” he said this: “What the future will show is still unknown; At its present point, science does not favor the opinion that living beings at present occur spontaneously.” In view of this, he admitted that “all organic beings that have ever lived on earth probably originated from one primary form into which the Creator first breathed life” (On the origin of species. Translation by Rachinsky, 382 pp.). In later editions of his work, however, Darwin released the last words To confirm the constancy of species, we can point to the following well-known examples. Five or six thousand years have passed since animal or plant species were depicted in Egypt, but they have remained the same in our time, as shown by careful research by Cuvier, Humboldt and others. In America, fossil remains of elephants, rhinoceroses, tigers and other animals of our geological era are found, now no longer living there; These remains are incomparably older than Egyptian mummies, but they do not represent any differences from existing breeds of the same animals. The same immutability is found in those animal breeds that have survived to the present time from previous geological eras. See prof. Kudryavtseva. Theory of transformation (III volume. I issue. op. 137 pp.). For a statement of Agassiz's opinion on Darwin's hypothesis, see Art. “Faith and Knowledge” (Chronicle Thu. 1888, II part 14–15 pp.). Sn. Art. to the Church West. 1900 No. 35 – The view of the German apologist (Zeckler) on the position of Darwinism at the end of the expiring 19th century. For more information about these hypotheses, see Rev. Sergievsky. Creation of the world and man. Here a new experience of reconciliation between the Bible and science is revealed, called by the author “theo-cosmogonic”, approaching the hypothesis of days-epochs. – See about the same thing at Ave. Sylvester. Dogma. God. III volume § 17. Rev. the author is inclined to accept the restoration hypothesis, but with some limitations. – For a fairly detailed parallel between geological epochs and the days of creation, see Vigouroux. Rukov. by Thurs. and studied Bible. I vol. 331–355 pp. in Russian. trans., also in Maignan. The world and primitive man. A review of the same hypotheses is made in Art. Novorussky A. Analysis of opinions about the six-day creation (Pr. Ob. 1886, III vol.). Metropolitan Philareta. Zap. on the book Life 32 pp. Particularly expressively, in accordance with the understanding of the ancient church fathers (Chrysostom, Blessed Theodoret), this feature of the image of God in man is explained in Zap. on the book Genesis: “God is the Lord of all: and man is made the ruler of the visible world. Man is adorned with the image of God so that visible creatures are created for him, and he for God; for nothing can be so kind to the Supreme Being as the image of His highest perfection; and there can be no greater power to possess creatures than the image of the Creator” (pp. 36–37). In the creation of only man in the image of God there is an explanation of that bewilderment that confuses the faith of many: how can one assume that everything was created for man, when he is so insignificant in comparison with the infinity of the universe and weak in some respects even in comparison with animals. Compared to the infinite greatness of God, the entire immeasurable universe is nothing. True greatness is not external, but moral, spiritual. Man, in comparison with unconscious, material nature, is precisely great in his god-like spirit. To save fallen man, the Son of God Himself, the Creator of the universe, became incarnate, which proves how great a value man, the image of His perfections, has in the eyes of the Creator of the world. You might be interested in: