Magus55

But the sun didn't exist yet. I've also read that "day" and "night" in this context are translated as order and chaos.

Magus55

Yes, while I don't know exactly where I fit, i'd say i'm more of a combo between OEC/TE now.

Mageth

Then drop the "literal interpretation" claim.

Dean Anderson

Cool.

David B

Well, I'm not claiming that the genesis accounts hold together literally.

I'm beginning to realise that not only is it, scientifically speaking, bullshit, but internally incoherent as well.

Another good reason for thinking that those who view it as allegorical are indeed more sensible than the inerrantists.

David B (does not mean to imply that 'more sensible' means 'very sensible'.)

RBH

Split and moved from here.

RBH, E/C Mod

Kosh

Here's some information, straight form the Horses Mouth

David B

Surely you mean 'Horses Arse'

David B

acronos

I believed they were reconcilable when I was a Christian. Many of the stories I found I was only able to understand by reading the story from an Israel centric point of view. The earth was an allegory for Israel. For example, I viewed Noah’s flood as not fully covering the real earth but rather just a very deep flood in Israel. Noah didn’t bother with kangaroos. I understood Genesis 1 similarly.

First, Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 made it clear to me that god's view of time was not the same as ours. Each day was millions of years and even could overlap because I interpreted the word day or "yom" in Hebrew to mean essentially eon in English. This is not as far fetched as it might seem as the word clearly means things other than day at several other places in genesis. The word “yom” in Hebrew is used in far more senses than the word “day” is in English. I viewed the phrase “and there was evening, and there was morning—the first day,” allegorically. Second, I interpreted the story as a person standing in Israel would view it.

Day 0) it was dark (There was extremely heavy cloud cover and fog. The planet, sun, and stars already exist before the genesis story begins.)
Day 1) let there be light (The fog cleared a little and you could see a little light but not make out the sun or moon)
Day 2) Separate the waters( the fog cleared so there was water in the ocean and clouds in the sky but in between you could see without fog, still no sun or moon though)
Day 3) Separate land and sea (The ocean pulled back and reveals Israel. Israel was underwater I thought) Let there be plants (I view this as god recognizing his audience knew nothing of single celled organisms. My view was that single celled organisms were best described as plants to a 400BC society. Life seems to have begun mostly as single celled organisms that absorbed sunlight and co2 to generate oxygen. In my view at the time the stages could also overlap somewhat so trees didn't bother me either. I thought God was just grouping all plants and all animals into different eons that overlapped. The basic premise that plants came before animals is true)
Day 4) Sun and moon (The clouds cleared. Note that the stars sun and moon already existed in day 0. His "creation" of them in day 4 was a description of an act he had already preformed in day 0 but had only just been revealed)
Day 5) Animals and creatures are created (animals came after plants and sun and water. Again I view overlap between this eon and the third and fourth eons or “days”)
Day 6) man (man evolved relatively recently)
Day 7) God rested.

I am no longer a Christian and much of this looks like a stretch to me now, but it is what I believed then.

acronos

I fail to understand why so many here are so scornful. Isn't it better for the guy to be a christian and believe in evolution than for him to be a christian and be a YEC. The creation story is at least as reconcileable with evolution as the bible is with itself. You and I both know there is an almost zero chance of converting a christian. However, a person who asks might be converted to evolution. Why make it harder for them?