Re: St. Basil's 400AD view of the Days of proclamation
Wed, 18 Aug 1999 20:58:42 +0000

At 09:00 AM 08/18/1999 -0400, George Andrews wrote:
>>> In light of the Enuma Elish, and Paul's (not of Tarsus ? :-) )
reminder of the erroneous Babylonian cosmology that is contained in the
text of Genesis as historical yet wonderfully inaccurate by modern
standards, isn't all concordanist's attempts at interpretation, including
evolutionary ones, shown to be in vain? <<<<

It seems to me that one must take each concordistic attempt on its own. I
don't think you can prove a theorem that says all concordistic attempts are

>>>Taking Genesis to be accurate theologically yet inaccurate
scientifically - how be it understandable to Moses - goes a long way (all
the way in my mind!) at dismissing all attempts at concordism; be they
young Earth, old Earth or evolutionary. This more rational "edited Enuma
Elish" (rational in that the Enuma Elish exists and predates Genesis!) view
also preserves the historical tone of the account you are arguing for but -
most importantly to the dialogue between science and religion - allows for
"poetic" - I prefer "allegorical" or "literary" - truth. (uh oh, don't do
it George..... , I can't' resist: the "EEE" theory!!!!) <<<<

Frankly, I find the 'accurate theologically yet inaccurate scientifically'
to be so nebulous as to be meaningless. I have collected some 23 different
interpretations (if I recall correctly) of Genesis 1-3. Most of these are
logically contradictory with the others, yet their authors proclaim in full
measure that their view is theologically accurate. There is no way to
discern between one theologically accurate view and another theologically
accurate view when they both can't be true at the same time.

>>>Many who are aghast at this edited Enuma Elish view can be comforted in
that Genesis purports two major theological ideas notably absent in Enuma
Elish: 1) monotheism and 2) God's omnipotentcy. It is God's omnipotentcy
that is displayed by His overcoming chaos with a simple Word (the kingly
authority Paul S. refers to in another post); i.e. his fiats affected the
creation without the (apparently losing) struggle the gods were having in
enuma elish. However, while the former theological truth of Genesis is not
under contention by your view, the latter is. For, if as you state Genesis
1 is a preface to creation in "formulating the plan" and not affecting the
creation by the spoken Word of God, then this detracts from Genesis 1 50%
of its inspiration value. <<<<

I personally like the Marxist theologically accurate interpretation in
which ownership of the garden led to the eviction of the laborer. That is
the real theologically accurate view. Now prove that wrong! I don't think
it is possible to prove theologically accurate views erroneous. They are


Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

Lots of information on creation/evolution