#26 Genesis Post #6

I know your last post vanished mysteriously. I didn't delete it. Promise! I did read it though and will reply as best as I can.

First...you mentioned that I hadn't yet replied to your question about the apparent chronological discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2. I will. One thing at a time!

Second...you insisted that we use a common man use of "literal" and in no way acknowledged the distinction I was making or the argument made based on that distinction. I don't understand this and am a bit surprised. Anyway, it leaves me feeling a bit hamstrung, because it seems like I am being asked to make bricks without straw. The questions you are asking are academic. To be expected to answer them yet not allowed to use words in an academically precise way is very difficult. To be asked to give a critical evaluation of text without access to the tools of critical evaluation seems unnecessary and arbitrary.

You asked if I think Genesis 1 is literally true or not and then claimed to not be black and white about it. But yet when I gave my best effort at a nuanced response, you dismissed it out of hand without actually responding to it.

To summarize my previous post. The text of Genesis 1 does not appear to give us any information about the length of time involved in Creation. "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day" cannot be viewed as literal language simply because at this point there was no sun for the earth to revolve around. Evening and morning as observable events could not have been happening. The text demands a non-literal understanding. BUT, what is the referent of this non-literal language? THIS is the key question. Is the referent abstract or concrete? Is this language pointing us toward an actual span of time (that we don't know the length of)  or toward a mere abstract theological idea? I believe this non-literal language is telling us about a concrete event of God's creation. I have no idea how long it took. The text does not literally tell us that. I've seen some scientific data that leads me to think it was more than six 24 hour periods. This raises some theological questions for me, but I have lots of those so this is nothing new.

I believe your questions are requiring this degree of precision in my answer. In order to respond, I have to be able to attempt to define my terms so you can better understand my meaning. I think this is your objective, right?