Do you ask for proof on every bit of text you read in the Bible or just the parts that you'd prefer to be simbolic?Originally Posted by wenlock
Did Jesus really turn water into wine? What about the resurrection? Did that actually happen?
Have you read my first post on this thread? I have explained in detail why I believe that the six days of creation were six days.
Honestly though. Genesis starts with the words "In the beginning God..." Am I totally insane for thinking the text that follows would be a description of what God did in the beginning?
The creation account ends with, "Thus, the heavens and the earth were finished..." Am I mad for reading the preceding bits thinking that "thus" is how God....er...made the heavens and the earth?
As I said, the intent of Genesis is to offer and account for how God made everything. I believe it, and I believe most of orthodox judaism as well as Christian history interpreted in it's simple plain straightforward literal form.
The very fact that you're attempting to suggest we interpreted Genesis non-literally is an admission that Genesis literally contradicts you. You require Genesis to be simbolic and that's the bottomline.
And the thing that boggles my mind is why, since we as Christians don't need to accomodate evolution and it's philosophies of uniformitarianism and materialism. It isn't based on good observable science, so the whole exercise of desperately searching for time in Genesis, by contriving day-ages, and gap-theories are unecessary.
You have the finest keenest double-edged sword sheathed on your hip, eager to slay the foolish philosophies of this world. Why do you choose compromise instead? Are you intimidated by Darwin, Dawkins, Gould and Eugenie Scott?
Bookmarks