Re: St. Basil's 400AD view of the Days of proclamation

Preston Garrison (
Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:11:54 -0500

Glenn Morton wrote:
>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.

You say I should read more carefully. I ask you to do likewise and read my question carefully. If I mischaracterized your position on the Bible, I'm sorry, but the reason for my question was not to bait you on that or anything else. I am just puzzled by your earlier statements that seemed to imply that objective theological interpretation is not possible.

G.M. "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."

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm just asking for information. Assuming that you have developed a concordist scheme that covers all the problems, I'm not clear on how you would then get to the theological truth. We go to the Bible mainly for theological truth ("who else has the Words of life?"). We probably would not be having this discussion if we thought that Genesis was just another religious text of some primitive culture. I don't understand how it helps you to show that Genesis is factually reliable (or however you would characterize what you think is necessary) if you think that objective theological interpretation is impossible. I'm not saying that I think it is or isn't possible myself. I'm just curious what your thinking is.

With some trepidation,

Preston G.