I know you were being facetious. But I took your post to make a point.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
To: Moorad Alexanian <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: George Murphy <email@example.com>; George Andrews <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
Date: Thursday, August 19, 1999 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: St. Basil's 400AD view of the Days of proclamation
>At 09:00 AM 08/19/1999 -0400, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>>There is no doubt that Marxists can have an interpretation of part or the
>>whole of Scripture. In fact, their atheism is a consequence of their
>>interpretation that the whole of the Christian faith is false. What is
>>I view the Bible as the "data" just as we collect scientific data from
>>experiments and observations. Everyone is entitled to their own
>>interpretation and thus arrive at a conclusion. Of course, one ought to
>>the help of others who are wiser or have had more time to study the
>>consistency of Scripture. As for me, I believe the whole of Scripture that
>>there is a Creator and the Creator is the Lord Jesus, the Son of the God
>>Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
>I fear you missed my point in the post where I said 'I like the marxist'
>interpretation. I was being facetious to illustrate the point that
>theological interpretations are non-unique. So to say that the theology of
>Genesis is correct while the history is not, forces one to ask, which
>Foundation, Fall and Flood
>Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>Lots of information on creation/evolution