I hope I'm posting this in the correct forum!
There seems to be a lot of argument amongst Christians as to whether Genesis, especially the first two chapters, should be taken as literal history or whether it should just be regarded allegorically.
Personally, I cannot see from a straight reading of the English translations, that there is any doubt that Genesis is referring to six literal days for creation; that creation being just a few thousand years ago if you add up the genealogies from other parts of the Bible.
Now, ignoring any claims to the contrary from secular scientists, could someone explain to me what evidence there is to support the idea that Genesis was not meant to be taken literally? I do have other questions for those who do not accept a literal Genesis, but I'll start another thread about that later on. For the moment, I'd just like to concentrate on the above question.
There seems to be a lot of argument amongst Christians as to whether Genesis, especially the first two chapters, should be taken as literal history or whether it should just be regarded allegorically.
Personally, I cannot see from a straight reading of the English translations, that there is any doubt that Genesis is referring to six literal days for creation; that creation being just a few thousand years ago if you add up the genealogies from other parts of the Bible.
Now, ignoring any claims to the contrary from secular scientists, could someone explain to me what evidence there is to support the idea that Genesis was not meant to be taken literally? I do have other questions for those who do not accept a literal Genesis, but I'll start another thread about that later on. For the moment, I'd just like to concentrate on the above question.