>I'm not sure what you meant by patristic commentators reading "the
>original languages", but I thought I'd point out that as far I know
>only two of the Fathers (Origen and Jerome) knew enough Hebrew to
>actually 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. I can find that Origen could read Hebrew but I
can't find that only he and Jerome were able. I proposed my test because I am
not an expert in patristic texts preferring science to philosophy. But when I
had repeatedly been told on this and other lists that the language alone would
not allow me to do what I was suggesting, I figured an experiment was in
order.
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.
In even another post, you wrote:
>I've been reading this list for some time now, but I seldom see much
>need to contribute, in part because my point of view is a little
>farther to the left than the main range of opinion here, and I think
>interjecting it would be more distracting than helpful (and also
>because I'm lazy and dislike conflict). I am a fairly regular
>contributor to talk.origins, however.
I wish you would interject. I have been impressed with what I have seen
from you on T.O. You have much to offer.
glenn