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

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@uncwil.edu)
Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:00:08 -0400

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 new!!
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 seek
the help of others who are wiser or have had more time to study the logical
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 of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: mortongr@flash.net <mortongr@flash.net>
To: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: George Andrews <gandrews@as.wm.edu>; asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: St. Basil's 400AD view of the Days of proclamation

>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