And while he does posit a non-literal reading of certain passages of scripture, he doesn’t go along with “liberal theology that eviscerates the real truths of faith.”

That seems to be the main problem I encounter when discussing a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. When I say that I don’t take the Genesis creation account literally, it’s as if I have rejected the veracity of the whole Bible. People think that if I take one part of the Bible non-literally, then I’ll just take the whole Bible allegorically. But that’s not true, I take the Bible seriously. I do not question the truth of the Genesis creation account, I only question its literalness. True and literal are not synonyms.

The chapter about Creationism seems interesting. I wasn’t brought up that way–I was brought up assuming an old universe and an old earth. My guess is that most people will never be exposed to the scientific evidence for an old earth, so it doesn’t make a difference what they believe about creation.

I admit I cannot understand why someone, even a Young Earth Creationist, would believe someone is going to hell if they believe in an old earth. What possible justification can be found in Scripture to support that assertion? Beyond the tenuous idea that “You don’t take Genesis literally, therefore you don’t believe the Bible, thus your proclaimed faith in Jesus is a sham” I can’t think of a good justification.

I actually have a personal experience with the whole “Young Earth Creationism Dogma” thing. I was in my undergraduate education and attending a local church’s Wednesday evening service. I had been attending for nearly two years, but was considering leaving (due to other personal issues I had with the people and how things are run. Not important, just a side note.) but was still attending at the time. They had a guest lecturer who was a Ph.D. biologist and Young Earth Creationist. He had several theories on mitochondrial genomes and other such cell biology topics, and had managed to “trace” the mitochondrial DNA back to just TWO supposed people, or at least a small group of “original DNA” (which most scientists will say is probable). Here came the kicker: he had concluded (in a very non-scientific way) that this would probably only take 7,000 years. He proceeded to say this was DEFINITIVE proof of young earth, proving the literalness of the Genesis account. From which, he stemmed off to speaking of faith, salvation, and other topics. His conclusion? If you believe the earth is older than 7,000 years (per his “research”), you needed to question the validity of your faith and salvation. He went so far as to say if we had any indication that the earth was “older”, we needed to get down on our knees and pray that God change our hearts towards his word and asked us to “pray that God clear the doubt from our souls”, in order to avoid eternal damnation. WOW.

Now me, at the time, being a person studying Earth Science, I have plenty of evidence on my side supporting an earth that is MUCH older. I’ve never had a problem with this, nor have I figured that this in any way contradicted scripture nor proved/disproved any amount of secular theory. It just was. We don’t know the extent of time in the garden of eden, or how long the creation days were, or even the extent of the literalness vs. allegorical content in Genesis. So I, of course, was confused. Here was a man who had placed himself as the final judgment of my eternal damnation based on his theory of earth-age and research. Pretty bold, if you ask me.

Of course, following this said “lecture” I never returned to the group. Not going to spend much time with a church that both allows and teaches such nonsense.

Jew said, “I do not question the truth of the Genesis creation account, I only question its literalness. True and literal are not synonyms.”
This is an important point, but its subtleness is lost on some people. (Side thought: when I was about 10 years old, the school librarian was explaining the Dewey Decimal system. I asked her why the books on Greek mythology weren’t in the fiction section.)

How much more clearly can God tell us (who live on a rotating earth),
that one day consists of a light source and an evening and a morning?

God described a day in the very first chapter of the Bible:

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ….
3 And God said,
“Let there be light,” and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good,
and He separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”
And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
… 8… And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
… 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
… 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
… 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. …
31 … And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11;&version=31;

For further reading see:
1.) The Necessity for Believing in Six Literal Days
by Ken Ham
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/sixdays.asp
(partial quote)
“Every time the word yom is used with a number, or with the phrase ‘evening and morning’, anywhere in the Old Testament, it always means an ordinary day. In Genesis chapter 1, for each of the six days of creation, the Hebrew word yom is used with a number and the phrase, ‘evening and morning’. There is no doubt that the writer is being emphatic that these are ordinary days. ”

2.) The days of creation: A semantic approach
by James Stambaugh
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v5/i1/semantic.asp
(partial quote)
Conclusion
The syntagmatic relationships of yôm in Genesis 1 have been considered and it has been demonstrated that, when used with a number, the pattern is always a normal time period. If ‘night’ is combined with yôm, it always denotes a 24-hour day. If yôm is used with either ‘morning’ or ‘evening’, they too refer to a literal day. …”

3.) The Biblical Hebrew Creation Account:
New Numbers Tell The Story (#377)
by Steven W. Boyd, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=24
(partial quote)
“Conclusion The distribution of preterites to finite verbs in Hebrew narrative differs distinctly from that in Hebrew poetry. … Genesis 1:1-2:3, … is a narrative, not poetry. … there is only one tenable view of its plain sense:
God created everything in six literal days.”

4.) “All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
From:
What does the Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm

That’s something I’m curious about. Normally a day is defined as the sun and an evening and a morning. If we extend the definition of day to consist of any light source, aren’t we straying from a strictly literal interpretation?

I’m not saying it isn’t possible or true, I just don’t think it’s THAT important. How clear was Jesus when he said to cut off our hand or poke out our eye if they cause us to sin? Regardless, much of the body of physical evidence points to an OLD earth. Why would God seek to confuse us? My whole point is that my not ALWAYS considering it as literal has nothing to do with my salvation.

I don’t think so, because Genesis 1:16 tells us that God made “the greater light to govern the the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars” - on the fourth day. If we assume that “the greater light” is the sun and the “lesser light” is the moon (which seems reasonable, given that the sun is a star and the stars were made on this day too), then the first three days HAVE to be defined by some other light source, because the sun wasn’t created yet.

We don’t know how long it took the earth to rotate relative to this unknown light source, but I don’t feel any need to assume it was 24 hours.

God defines day in the first chapter of Genesis by saying that He created a light source, “there was evening, and there was morning” -the first day, then the second day, then the third day. Then God tells us that He created the sun on the fourth day followed by more days, each with an evening and a morning.

Therefore, this is the “strictly literal interpretation” with no straying.

For further reading,
see:
How long were the days of Genesis 1?
What did God intend us to understand from the words He used?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/days.asp

(partial quote)
… If the ‘days’ really weren’t ordinary days, then God could be open to the charge of having seriously misled His people for thousands of years. Commentators universally understood Genesis in a straightforward way, until attempts were made to harmonize the account with longs ages and then evolution.
Conclusion …
The only meaning which is possible from the Hebrew words used is that the ‘days’ of creation were 24–hour days. God could not have communicated this meaning more clearly than He did in Genesis 1. The divine confirmation of this, if any is needed, is Exodus 20:9-11, where the same word ‘days’ is used throughout:

‘Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, not thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.’
(end of partial quote)

See also:
Exodus 20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 20&version=31 (The Ten Commandments)

A short answer is:
“The real issue is one of authority—is God’s Word the authority, or is man’s word the authority”

Quoted from: The big picture
Being wrong about the six days of creation does not automatically mean someone is not a Christian. But if you think that makes it unimportant, stand back and look at the big picture….by Ken Ham
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/bigpicture.asp#f4
(partial quote)

“The battle is not one of young Earth vs old Earth, or billions of years vs six days, or creation vs evolution—the real battle is the authority of the Word of God vs man’s fallible theories. . . .

Why do Christians believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Because of the words of Scripture (‘according to the Scriptures’).

And why should Christians believe in the six literal days of Creation? Because of the words of Scripture (‘In six days the Lord made …’).

The real issue is one of authority—is God’s Word the authority, or is man’s word the authority? How the church answers this question will determine the future of the nations of the world.
(end of partial quote)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/bigpicture.asp#f4

I’m not arguing God’s authority compared to man’s authority. While you’ve posted interesting links, they are no more convincing than a Chuck Missler tape or that guy that shows me a body of biblical evidence that says ANY alcoholic consumption is a damnable sin. It’s interpretation. The fact still remains that while certain words were indeed used to describe “day” and “light” and all that, literal allegory does indeed exist. Many things are proclaimed in scripture as literal, yet we don’t do them due to interpretation. For example, the fact that “God rested”, is pretty absurd from a literal point of view. God doesn’t need to rest. He did that as an example and precedent and set the stage for MANY things in the old and new testament. How hard is it then, if one considers the “God resting” part to be an example and allegory, how is impossible to then bring that across to saying it was all an example, including the usage of the word “day” to literally mean 24 hours instead of just “darkness and light” which is what it said.

Regardless, let’s say that what you say the bible says about that is indeed the truth. I’m not against it or for it, I just don’t know. The point is, that while God indeed may have used 6 literal days, we don’t know how long Adam and Ever were in the garden. Could it have been 10 hours? 10 years? 10 million years? We don’t know. How long after the garden? After all, Cain when banished was able to find another land and another wife! How long had people been populating? We just don’t know.

That brings me back to the final point: My questioning of the literalness of Genesis does NOT in any way bring into view my questioning of God’s authority. Questioning the literalness of one part doesn’t mean it’s universal for me. All scripture is subject to interpretation. If I can find Jesus speaking in literal tones about allegorical things, how then can I ignore that very thing in the OT? Doesn’t make sense. Sorry, still not buying it.

As for his theological arguments Collin’s God is not my God and his arguments in that department are irrelevant as they do not relate to my God. For instance I don’t believe in random chance as it is just my God or His adversary micromanaging what is going on. I therefor do not consider such micromanaging a sign of incompetence.

Intelligent Design has actually been around a fairly long time but like any discipline it took time to develop. Creation Science is still around even if it is not in the public view.

God defines day in the first chapter of Genesis by saying that He created a light source, “there was evening, and there was morning” -the first day, then the second day, then the third day. Then God tells us that He created the sun on the fourth day followed by more days, each with an evening and a morning.

Therefore, this is the “strictly literal interpretation” with no straying.

I can agree that what you describe is a plain reading of the text. I disagree about whether it qualifies as strictly literal. If the Bible redefines the word day to mean something other than what it usually means (i.e., we leave the sun out of the definition), we’re already beyond a literal usage of language. The word day is being used, at least in some sense, figuratively.

This is not actually true. Augustine, for one, seemed to be open to the idea of the ‘days’ not being 24 hours long.

“How clear was Jesus when he said to cut off our hand or poke out our eye if they cause us to sin?”
and
“If I can find Jesus speaking in literal tones about allegorical things, how then can I ignore that very thing in the OT? Doesn’t make sense. Sorry, still not buying it.”

Jesus was very clear
and he was “speaking in literal tones about” literal things.

Jesus said:
Matthew 5:29-30 (New International Version)
“If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.
It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
And
if your right hand causes you to sin,
cut it off and throw it away.
It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew5:29-30;&version=31;

Matthew 18:6
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,
it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck
and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 18:6;&version=31;

John 3:12
I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe;
how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=3&verse=11&end_verse=13&version=31&context=context

As Jesus said:
“It is better for you to lose one part of your body
than for your whole body to be thrown into hell”
.