I am interested to know from anyone out there who doesn't believe in the six day literal creation as to why? I am not trying to have a discussion on
creation vs evolution but rather from a biblical view why should we not accept the literal 6 days view. I call it non-literal creation to account for
all those views which range from old earth through theistic evolution through just evolution through anything else I can't think of that doesn't
accept the literal account of Gen 1 and Gen 2.
Obviously personally I hold to the literal view of creation. I take this view because I believe that the early part of Genesis is to be read as
history rather than as alegory and I have a problem with death before the fall. These things together with other biblical quotes suggest to me that
the creation account is literal.
As I understand it, those who reject this view will desire to reconcile the scientific view with the scriptures and thus reject the creation account
as literal, and indeed probabley the first 12 chapters. I presume that there is more reason than just this as why should it only be this part of the
bible to which we apply the idea of scientific reconcillation?
What then about the miraculous events described in the scriptures? These are by definition not within the understood laws of nature and are generally
unrepeatable events (at least by men). Should we not also then reject these events as they do not conform to the scientific norm, and if we do reject
the miraculous then we must reject the whole of christianity and so why bother to reconcile science with the scriptures at all?
Like I said I presume that there are other reasons for holding a non-literal view, to which some might hopefully enlighten me.
I know that this subject area can be quite flammable but I am just trying to get a better understanding of the views of others, (and obviously hoping
to persuade some people to have my view
) Anyway can we try and keep it civil(ish)
