Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie  Quote: |
Should one’s view of the length of the creation days be a test of orthodoxy? I think not. The exegetical questions are difficult, and I don’t believe that any other doctrinal questions hinge on them.
| This is nonsense; if a plain historical account cannot be taken seriously in Genesis 1, then why should we take anything else in Biblical history seriously. |
Because there are significant points in Genesis 1-3 that cast the "plain historical" reading into doubt, such as:
[1] The snake was cursed and told he would crawl on the "dust of the earth" all his days. But we don't believe Satan is a literal snake who is literally crawling in the dust on his belly the rest of his days.
[2] It is a story with a snake who has a personality (3:1) and talks. Nowhere else in the Bible does that occur (note that Balaam's ass did not have a personality). [We're not told in the story who the snake is, we must get that from other parts of Scripture].
[3] God walks around in the cool of the day, but the Bible tells us that God doesn't have a body--he is "spirit" and uncreated without material substance.
[4] Morning and evenings can only occur with a sun and an earth but the sun was created on the 4th day.
etc. etc.
I don't believe the issues surrounding Gen. 1-3 are as simple and black and white as you make them to be brother Daniel.
God bless you.