Re: St. Basil's 400AD view of the Days of proclamation
Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:57:57 +0000

At 02:59 AM 08/25/1999 -0500, Preston Garrison wrote:
>George Murphy wrote:
>> 1) Even granting the validity of a concordist approach to early Genesis,
>>its real significance is theological - i.e., in what it says about God
and the
>>relationship between God and the world. Thus discerning its theological
content is
>>an essential activity, whether it's done sooner or later. The problems
Glenn points
>>out certainly have to be dealt with, but they aren't avoided simply by
saying that
>>early Genesis is scientifically &/or historically accurate. A Christian
>>& a Jehovah's Witness will agree in large part on an historical &
scientific reading of
>>Genesis but their understandings of what it means theologically will be
worlds apart.
>I would like to reiterate George's point here. I gather that Glenn's
insistence on a concordist
>scheme is motivated by a conviction that if the Bible is not inerrant at
every point that appears to
>make a factual claim, then it cannot be regarded as reliable on theology

No, and if you had really read what I was saying you would know better. I
am tired of always having to argue this chestnut which is nothing but a
stereotyping of my position. I don't care if Noah had 15 pairs of animals
on the ark, there must be a historical basis for the account. What I do
insist on (in the face of much criticism) is that God have some
communicative abilities. If God can't figure out how to tell a simplified
but historically true account of creation, then he is incompetent as a
communicator and didn't really tell us what happened. And if He didn't tell
us what happened, then his communicative abilities are no better than mine.
I too can tell a false story of creation but that doesn't mean one has to
take my story as theologically true but historically false. Indeed, there
is no reason to take it as theologically true. Or conversely, maybe I
should INSIST that you take my a false story I tell you about creation as
theological truth. I know you wouldn't take my false account as theological
truth, so why do you take a false account by God and treat it as
theological truth? Why should we apply a double standard to God?

>But if you believe there is no way to determine a correct theological
interpretation, what have you
>gained when you have a factually inerrant Genesis? The problem of
theological interpretation remains
>and I don't see how it is mitigated by a successful concordist scheme.

I would beg you to read a bit more carefully. Cursorial readings don't do
much except show that the person hasn't really read or understood what he
has read.

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

Lots of information on creation/evolution