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

mortongr@flash.net
Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:32:38 +0000

At 10:26 PM 08/18/1999 -0400, George Murphy wrote:
>mortongr@flash.net wrote:
>
>> 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
>> subjective.
>
> The ultimate result of this claim would be that there is no such thing as
good
>or bad theology. The Marxist interpretation you mention is not a
"theological"
>interpretation at all, though it might be incorporated into one. Of
course as long as
>one has no theological criteria for interpretation, you're right - it's up
for grabs.
>That's why I insisted in my earlier post that Scripture has to be
interpreted
>with christology in view. One may disagree with that as central
hermeneutical
>principle, but without some such "rule of faith" (which must itself be
consistent
>with Scripture - it's a kind of feedback process) any attempt at theological
>interpretation is arbitrary.

I agree with you that everything is up for grabs as long as there are no
standards. But things are still up for grabs as long as everyone can
define their own standards or in the case where there is little agreement
about the standards. Each person who generates a standard can define his
view as theological and the others as non-theological. You just did it for
your view. But it still remains subjective and up for grabs when someone
else defines things differently but still within the Christian tradition.
This is the biggest reason I chose to stay close to observational data.
Observational data is as objective as it can be and is binding on more
people. It is far more objective than are the thousands of standards which
can be generated by thousands of individual theologians. This is also why
I belive that concordism is really the only hope in handling the Bible. It
removes the "I-will-define-my-own-standards" type of subjectivity which I
have seen in the 23 or so interpretations of Genesis 1-3 which I have
seen. Each author believes he has the true theology but they can't all be
correct.
glenn

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

Lots of information on creation/evolution