I would have to agree with some of those earlier guys, there isn't room for interpretation of Genesis, it is a literal account.
A literal interpretation is still interpretation. And there's plenty of room for a non-literal reading of Genesis 1, and Christians have been able to read it non-literally for almost two thousand years, from Origen to St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas.
This isn't some reactive position based upon a ideological compromise with modernity, but about being able to take the text as seriously as possible without denying the reality of God's created world.
If not, how would we have any way of knowing when it stops being literal?
Through study, by examining the text in light of authorial intent, grammar, literary style, etc. That's how we take Scripture seriously.
Really, if you believe in God and his Word, you should have thoughts that revolve around that as the truth, not science which as someone said earlier depends on interpretations which can have biases.
There's no such thing as non-biased interpretation.
There is competely no basis for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis unless you are really trying to work in outside beliefs.
The text of Genesis 1 has a systematic framework, it's poetic and clearly has parallels with other near eastern creation narratives but does such in a theologically polemical way in order to proclaim the superiority and orderliness of Israel's God over and against the chaos of the gods of the nations; while simultaneously providing a cosmically relevant basis for the seven day week and the sanctity of the Sabbath.
There is the additional problem that a
literal reading of Genesis 1 posits pre-existing matter prior to the days of creation; God does not create water and land, they're already
there, what God does is separate the waters and separate water from dry land. Such that a
literal reading of Genesis means that the material universe already existed in some primordial form prior to God saying, "Let there by light!"
All the other references in the Bible make that clear that it is a literal 6 days that creation takes place, not that there is room for millions or billions of years.
It simply means that it's referenced, not that we have to take it literally as such. I fail to see how such wooden, literal readings without consideration to the nuances and complexities of human communication and writing does the Bible, which is the inspired written word of God, the justice it deserves.
Those of you who speak of these long spans of Earth life also should realize the flaws in dating methods which are said to date things back that old, because there are many flaws.
That's a fairly cliche' Young Earth Creationist stock-response. Yes.
-CryptoLutheran