[Regarding my statement that only Origen and Jerome could read Genesis
in the original language.]
> Thank you for the information. What is your source for this. I don't doubt
> it, I am just curious.
Unfortunately, I have no idea what my source is -- it's just something
I've picked up over the years. It should therefore be viewed with a
certain amount of skepticism.
> In another post you wrote:
> > Since Origen has been mentioned, I'll
> >point out that he, at least, explicitly rejected the literal truth of
> >the creation story: "To what person of intelligence, I ask, will
> >the account seem logically consistent that says there was a 'first day'
> >and a 'second' and 'third', in whch also 'evening' and 'morning'
> >are named, without a sun, without a moon, and without stars, and
> >even in the case of the first day without a heaven?
> Thanks for your notation that Origen did not take a narrative/historical
> approach to Genesis 1. But I notice that his rejection seems to depend much
> more on the science (the need for a sun in the case of the day) but not on the
> language itself.
Or perhaps, more generally, on a mixture of logic and prior expectations
(like his belief that God wouldn't go walking around a garden). But
certainly factors external to the text, however you classify them.