>> Bert wrote: Why are you suggesting that some of the past interpretations
are
sacred? Where this interpreters given a special revelation? There are
no sacred interpretations given by men and the inclusion of
"reinterpretation" is unwarranted as is the objection to this
interpretation based on the interpreters motives (ie "concordistic").
We can accept or reject interpretations on their own merits and in the
final analysis this is all that really matters. >>
Since there was only one interpretation of the fourth day until 1500 AD or
later, it is historically justified to speak of the "clouded atmosphere
clearing up" interpretation as a "reinterpretation". Further those who hold
to this interpretation usually imply or even state that they are trying to
harmonize Genesis with modern science; so calling this interpretation
"concordistic" is also justified. I am not suggesting that the historical
interpretation of the fourth day is sacred; but, I do suggest that the
historical interpretation fits the historical and grammatical context of Gen
1, while the concordistic interpretation is imposed upon the text. If, like
Ray Zimmer, someone likes the latter interpretation for subjective reasons
and says they realize it has little or no objective foundation, I have no
problem with it.
Paul