Do you believe in a literal 7 day creation?

[Vance]

Yes but the question is who decided that it was mythology and not history, and what was their authority for doing so. Mythology is somthing the Greeks did with their false gods. A myth is a symbolic fable that is not true.

First of all, who decided that it was literal history, and what was their authority for doing so? This question of whether Genesis should be read literally or not went back to the earliest Christian fathers, and even before that with Jewish scholars. Second, you are mistaking a non-literal reading with Genesis not being true. Most TE's believe that Genesis is true in the sense that it conveys exactly what God wanted conveyed. If He wanted to convey with truth by way of non-literal stories, or stories using allegory or symbology, then it being written that way is not false in the least.

I'm sorry but that does not accord with my understanding of the Word of God being the living word of God that proclaims;

So either Timothy and God are right or they are wrong. Either 'all scripture' means 'ALL SCRIPTURE' including Genesis 1-5 or it doesn't. I don't find any purpose for mythology in the equipping of a worker for every good work.

Really? Does Jesus' parables, the story of Job (which even most Fundamentalists agree may be non-historical), or the Psalms not equip a worker for every good work? Does not the Song of Solomon provide some insights into our Christian life to some benefit? It seems a bit constrictive to tell God that the only way you will receive His teaching is via historically accurate accounts.

What if some group of theological scholars should declare the gospel books of mythology. Do we then all change our theology because of that classification. I think not.

Of course not. We are instructed to rightly divide the Word of truth. We do not just accept what anyone says, including anyone who is teaching you that it must be literal. We must review each Scripture prayerfully and with the Spirit's guidance (as well as some solid reference material!).

So while a literary technique of medieval times may have been for fictional stories to begin with "In the beginning" that does not justify the impostion of a mythology classification upon Genesis, since it literally is the book of beginnings, historically and doctrinally.

Says who? Seriously, it is indeed the book of beginnings both theologically and historically in the sense that it conveys to us that God did indeed create everything "in the beginning". But what He chooses to tell us about that Creation may be literal history or non-literal allegory and symbology designed to convey the theological messages He intends for us.

When you read Genesis, it very much is a historical record of the earliest of the people who would become the Jewish race. That is not mythology, that is history. So now who is to decide at what point in Genesis it switches to being historical.

We have a geneology that is obviously historical, and then the flood account. Do we then switch back to mythology from history and then back to history when we get to the table of nations.

"obviously"? Back in ancient times, they almost always tied their genealogies back to non-historical personages. As I have pointed out many times, people back then simply didn't view the past, or write about the past, as we do with our modern mindset. They did not draw fine distinctions between actual history and a legendary past. It was very much the same to them in many ways. We have a hard time getting our head around this today, I know.

There is far too much mental gymnastics in that whole clasification for me to cope with. And for what purpose? To deny God's ability to do things that we don't understand, or to appease the worldly scientists who seek to disprove God's existence entirely.

There is actually MUCH more mental gymnastics involved when you insist upon a literally historical account. reconciling the two creation accounts and the questions of Cain, etc, involve abandoning the "plain, simple" reading and diving into some convoluted exegesis.

And, no, the non-literal interpretation has nothing at all to do with deny God ANY ability. We believe, just as you do, that God could have created any way He liked. No problem whatsoever. The question is how God DID create. I personally came to the conclusion of a non-literal reading before I even knew anything about evolution and the evidence for an old earth, based solely on the text itself.

And so, no, your last conclusion is also false, it has nothing at all to do with appeasing any non-Christian. It is simply what we think is the best interpretation after careful and prayerful studying to show ourselves approved.

Let me ask you, do you think the Church was just trying to appease scientists when they finally accepted that their interpretation of Scripture regarding geocentrism was incorrect and agreed that the solar system was heliocentric?

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

I do too. I would much rather have faith in interpretations of the Bible that take into considerations the literary, historical and cultural context of the original authors that God inspired, than I would have faith the work of YEC scientists.

Actually I could agree with just about all of that. I am not sure about the literary context, because often that just means some acadaemic sending you down a tangent of man's wisdom and not faith. However, I agree that the Bible makes a whole lot more sense, and is actually more profound when read within the historical and cultural sense of the original authors.

A good example of this is the Video Series "That the World May Know" looking at the Bible stories in the light of archeological, historical, cultural knowledge and filmed entirely on location in Israel. That series changed quite a few of my concepts about parts of the Bible.

I too would rather have move faith in the original words, and the Holy Spirit interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2 than I would the words of the YEC scientists. No argument there.


God bless.
Kerry.

 

[Vance]

Actually no, because the logic is flawed. While the first statement maybe true that the belief in one part of the Bible is not pre-conditional to belief in another part of the bible, the second statement is complete rubbish.

How would a Young Earth prevent your belief in the resurrection. That would just show your belief in science was wrong. So your belief in resurrection has no bearing upon the logical or actual age of the earth.

Huh? I think you missed something in my example. I did not say that a belief in a young earth would prevent my belief in a resurrection. What I referred to was the "YEC position", meaning the YEC position that a belief in a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is essential for a belief in the resurrection (which has been a standard YEC claim on these boards).

As to the first statement while one is not pre-conditional when you start to determine that parts of the Bible are not factual and therefore not reliable upon for belief and doctrine then at what point do you stop, and who determines that? What you have only achieved is a weakening of the authority of the Bible.

Who said anyone determined that it was not reliable for belief or doctrine? Oh, I see, you are thinking that something must be presented as accurate history in order to be reliable statements of God's messages to us. I simply disagree with this, and I especially disagree that accepting that God can speak to use equally through literal and non-literal means somehow weakens the authority of the Bible.

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

I think that you misunderstand me. I am not saying that ALL scripture must be interepreted literally. Literal is a good place to start, but the context must also determine the interpretation. For things like Song of Solomon, the parables and some of the psalms and proverbs, these are obviously either allegorical or symbolic. Many passage convey a dual meaning, both of which are true. That is both an actual historical reality and a further spritual symbolism. A good example being the OT Jewish feast days. These were an historical fact, but also a symbolic event pointing into the future to Jesus.

So even with Genesis, I am not saying that there cannot be found symbolic elements within it. There are actually some quite profound ones, like for example the sealing of the Abrahamic covenant which is incredibly symbolic of God paying the price for man's sin.

I am just saying that, when Gen 1-2 speaks of 7 days, and further clarifies that as the morning and evening of the # day, that it then takes quite a bit of supporting scripture to interpret it otherwise. The problem is that there is not any such scripture. The closest you get, is;

2Pe 3:5-8 ESV For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, (6) and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. (7) But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. (8) But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Using this equation you might get 7,000 years of creation which is certainly a big increase but no where near the millions, that evolutionist would have us believe. The placement of some elements of creation just before the key verse, could even alude to some time compression, but it is a huge leap to try and make that equate to millions.

So without supporting scripture, I can't see how we have any basis to interpret in any way other than literal.

As for geo-centric/helio-centric, it is a storm in a tea cup. I didn't live in those days, and can't say that I read church history from those times. I know that some parts of the Church were very flat-earth and geo-centric, however I can't see how that could be supported from scripture as an absolute fact. There is an idication of stars falling to earth. That they have there paths, but nothing that you could really hang a hook on either way.

God Bless.
Kerry

 

[Vance]

But why would "literal history" be the default interpreting an account like Genesis 1 and 2, given the cultural and literary aspects of ancient writings? If you agree that God can convey His truths through non-literal texts, what makes Genesis 1 and 2 something that MUST be read literally at all?

And, you toss the word "obviously" around a bit loosely. I don't think proper Scriptural interpretation is always obvious at all. As I said, the question of whether Genesis 1 and 2 is meant to be read literally or non-literally goes back to the very early Church, with luminaries like St. Augustine and Origen arguing on the side of non-literal. Today we have thousands of denominations of Chrisitanity specifically because of divisions over proper interpretation. To say that, even with the Spirit's guidance, we can arrive at an "obvious" interpretation in every instance is a bit naive.

And, as for obvious, when I read Genesis 1 and 2, it seems very clear to me that it is not meant to be read as literal history. It doesn't sound like history or read like history to me at all, and back then they didn't even write history as we know it! Maybe it is my degree in ancient history and previous studies in the ancient texts from the near east, but I don't see it as you seem to see it at all.

 

[Didaskomenos]

But that's just it: the 7 days are literal seven days - within the narrative! Just as the prodigal son's father killed a literal fatted calf, not a historical fatted calf. I'm not saying that the Genesis account is a parable (which is an allegorical device). There is no Scripture that says to interpret Song of Solomon as non-historical: you use other methods of interpretation to determine that it is not a historical account. You know what poetry is. A culture without poetry (although there is probably no such thing) wouldn't understand this right off the bat. A sizeable segment of non-academic American Christianity does not understand or value other literary genres such as mythology and saga, and thus refuse to allow the possibility that their beloved Bible contains these genres.

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

Hey that's interesting. The only time I used obviously in the last post was in the part where I agreed with you that some parts of the Bible are allegoricial likes psalms and proverbs etc.

My point is that when you read Genesis, to the average reader is comes across very much as a historical account of the ancient Hebrew people. To say that these ancient people mixed myth with history needs fuller support. While the Greek and Roman culture with their worship of false gods may well have done this, I am not aware of that being a Hebrew practice.

Actually when you look at the fanatical scribal accuracy that the Hebrews practiced, I would tend to get the impression of the very opposite. Now Augustine may have been quite influenced by Greco-Roman thought and literature, but that does not mean that the ancient Hebrews were. This could well be part of the reason for idea of interpreting parts of Genesis allegorically.

I have never read Augustine, nor feel inclined to, and to a casual reading of Genesis it strikes me as a historical record that would in the most part suggest a literal translation in most verses.

Why historical. Let's see, real people with a traceable geneology all the way to Jesus. Real places, real events (eg. the Babylonian captivity). A literal reading of the vast majority of Genesis therefore would seem indicated. While the Adam & Eve story could be allegorical, the fact that they are part of the geneology, at least to me suggests that they are real and that therefore the reported events are real.

If its allegorical, then that means there was no real original sin, and therefore no need of a promised saviour. I hope you can see how a quick jump into allegory can get you into theological hotwater very quickly. By staying with literal that doesn't happen. To me it just makes more sense.

God Bless.
Kerry.

 

[Glisten]

Unlke Augustine, I would say it the other way around, and dare be so bold only because you proposed such polarization first: "No Christian will dare say the narrative is to be taken in any way other than the literal.

Wrong. I am a Christian and will say just that. It is figurative.

I didn't say this, please put your posts in the proper place. Thanks.

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

A sizeable segment of non-academic American Christianity does not understand or value other literary genres such as mythology and saga, and thus refuse to allow the possibility that their beloved Bible contains these genres.

I can see how saga, (if that is like epic) could be applied to the Moses desert wanderings, the Joshua invasion and the Davidic history, however I likewise to the n-aAC can see no place for literary mythology in the Bible. To use such device would to my mind lesson the divine authority of the Bible.

God Bless.
Kerry.

 

[Didaskomenos]

I can see how saga, (if that is like epic) could be applied to the Moses desert wanderings, the Joshua invasion and the Davidic history, however I likewise to the n-aAC can see no place for literary mythology in the Bible. To use such device would to my mind lesson the divine authority of the Bible.

Well, that's an honest concession, but how is divine authority lessened? Besides, as my signature says, just because you see no place does not mean that God saw no place for it.

 

[gluadys]

My point is that when you read Genesis, to the average reader is comes across very much as a historical account of the ancient Hebrew people.

And that is because the average reader today expects accounts-- in newspapers, magazines, on TV, etc---to be historical or to have a notation that it is "opinion" or "fiction" on it if it is not. Even our most popular fictional reading (short stories and novels) is written to imitate historical accounts.

This was not so in ancient times. The most popular literature of ancient times was epic poetry--usually memorize and recounted orally. In fact one reason it was poetic was to make memorization easier. And the epics and sagas regularly mixed myth, legend and history in a seamless whole.

To say that these ancient people mixed myth with history needs fuller support. While the Greek and Roman culture with their worship of false gods may well have done this, I am not aware of that being a Hebrew practice.

It is a fact. It was much more than just the Greco-Roman culture. You find it in Egyptian , Babylonian, Indus valley, Chinese, Mayan, Norse, and all sorts of aboriginal cultures. And remember, to the Greeks and Romans, their gods were not false at all. They were real. Real enough to be parents of actual human beings. Same in Japan. Until 1945, the Japanese emperor traced his family back to the gods.

Even more to the point, in Old Testament times, the Israelites also believed the gods of the nations were real. They believed YHWH was the God who had made a covenant with them, and that they were supposed to worship only YHWH. But they also believed that Chemosh, the god of the Moabites was real, and that the Moabites were supposed to worship their own god, not YHWH. And so on for Marduk and Tammuz and Ishtar and Osirus and all the other gods of the nations.

How do we know this? Because the Israelites did not keep their covenant. Time and again the prophets reprimand them for worshipping the Baals and the gods of the nations. People don't worship what they think is a false or unreal god.

So when the Romans or Egyptians or Babylonians or Hebrews told the stories about their gods/God which are now called "myths" they were not creating fiction about false beings in their own minds. As far as they were concerned, they were telling true stories about gods/God who really existed.

Archeology shows that the Hebrews were not that different from other people of their time in their beliefs and practices. It doesn't show up in the bible, because the bible is a selection of writings chosen by teachers who had come to know that the gods of the nations were not real. Their aim was not to preserve popular culture, but to preserve the writings which conveyed true teaching.

If its allegorical, then that means there was no real original sin, and therefore no need of a promised saviour. I hope you can see how a quick jump into allegory can get you into theological hotwater very quickly. By staying with literal that doesn't happen. To me it just makes more sense.

God Bless.
Kerry.

One fallacy I see again and again in these forums is that "original sin" = "Adam's sin". Even a person who interprets scripture with a strict literal hermeneutic should not make that theological error. And I can only attribute it to poor theological teaching in some church circles.

Strictly speaking original sin is not actual sin at all, since it does not involve committing a sin. It is rather the state of human nature since the fall of being born outside of a relationship with God, and therefore having no power to resist sin. Our baptism is a sign and sacrament of the restoration of the relationship with God that should have been our birthright. By faith and repentance we are brought into a state of grace or right relationship with God, and empowered by the gift of the Holy Spirit to resist temptation. Original sin is a fact about us, not a fact about Adam. And that goes right back to early Christianity when this doctrine was still being figured out.

Simple observation shows we all fail to resist sin and become sinners. Our sinfulness does not require a literal sin by a literal human ancestor. It is a fact whether or not Adam's sin was literal.

 

[TheBear]

No.

 

[Vance]

The only thing I would clarify about what Gluadys said (based on my understanding, even though my B.A. degree in ancient history is about 20 years old) is that even though they viewed their stories about the past as very real, and not just fiction, they also had a unique view of that "realness" which is distinct from our own today. They did grasp that a past story might be a mix of what we would call "historically accurate" information, saga tales and myths, but viewed all of them as equally valuable information about their past. If something was an allegory, it was an allegory of SOMETHING, and something very important. If a saga was presented, it was a crucial and very "true" telling of who they were and where they came from, even if not entirely historically accurate.

As for the Hebrews polytheism, this is a much debated point. I agree that it seems clear from the early OT times that the writers of the text believed that other gods existed, there was a point at which they shifted to believe that there was only one God, and the others were false. Where that point was is a hotly debated topic even among Fundamentalist scholars (as my education in fundamentalist schools revealed). And, it may be that some of God's chosen leaders knew and understood this, but the people themselves were not always convinced.

 

[mikesw]

Glaudys wrote:
<< Archeology shows that the Hebrews were not that different from other people of their time in their beliefs and practices. It doesn't show up in the bible, because the bible is a selection of writings chosen by teachers who had come to know that the gods of the nations were not real. Their aim was not to preserve popular culture, but to preserve the writings which conveyed true teaching.
>>

The aspect of "conveyed true teaching" would logically apply to Genesis too. The account of Genesis could have been passed by a minimal of 5 people in order to get from Adam to Moses. And Moses spoke with God. There's not much problem for Moses to record the record accurately.

People suggest allegorical meaning and legend to creation. Such downgrade suggested for scripture doesn't seem consistent with many aspects of scripture:
1) The relation of doctrine as reflected in Genesis: meaning of marriage, relation of Christ(related as 2nd Adam), animal sacrifice, sabbaths
2) The reliance on Genesis in the teachings of Christ and the Apostles
3) Even Peter speaks of creation out of nothing.

I comprehend no allegorical meaning out of the Genesis account. Do we presuppose allegorical meaning when no such allegory meaning is conveyed?
(Agnostics have never explained any non-historical meaning of Genesis in discussions I have with them.) What is the meaning implied in an allegorical view of Genesis?


P.S.
I think some of Glaudys' information relating to "Original Sin" has merit.

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

One fallacy I see again and again in these forums is that "original sin" = "Adam's sin". Even a person who interprets scripture with a strict literal hermeneutic should not make that theological error. And I can only attribute it to poor theological teaching in some church circles.

Strictly speaking original sin is not actual sin at all, since it does not involve committing a sin. It is rather the state of human nature since the fall of being born outside of a relationship with God, and therefore having no power to resist sin. Our baptism is a sign and sacrament of the restoration of the relationship with God that should have been our birthright. By faith and repentance we are brought into a state of grace or right relationship with God, and empowered by the gift of the Holy Spirit to resist temptation. Original sin is a fact about us, not a fact about Adam. And that goes right back to early Christianity when this doctrine was still being figured out.

Simple observation shows we all fail to resist sin and become sinners. Our sinfulness does not require a literal sin by a literal human ancestor. It is a fact whether or not Adam's sin was literal.

On the first part of your post I could find some agreement, but on this section here quoted I would have to disagree the very strongest terms permissible in these forums. I probably therefore can't post what I am thinking.

Luke quotes a geneology of Jesus right back to Adam. Paul writes in Romans of Adam's sin, in 1 Corinthinans he writes of the First Adam and last Adam. Timothy also writes of the sin of Adam and Eve, and finally Jude confirms Enoch as the 7th from Adam. That is strong evidence of a real Adam.

I really have no idea what you are trying say about original sin = Adam's sin being a theological error that is the result of poor teaching. Hello are we reading the same Bible.

The Bible I read calls Adam the first man. It details exactly how God created him. In Genesis Chapter 3 we have the detailed story of the fall of man and Adam's eviction from the Garden of Eden. Now to my simple mind this is the first sin described in the Bible. It is the one brought about the Adamic curse that has become the lot of man ever since. So please explain to me how this first sin the one of Adam, is not the 'original sin'.

If a simple reading of Genesis 3 is a theological error then you had better explain in words of one sylabll for my feeble brain to understand how Original Sin = Adam's Sin is wrong. Mind you while I request simple words they had better be backed up by solid scripture references. I'm not interested in the writings of Early church fathers or this theologian or that theolgion. What Bible verse can you quote that confirms that attributing the original sin to Adam is errant theology.

Until you can, I will simply call the paragraphs quote above a complete heresy.

Kerry.

 

[Vance]

Why would a non-literal presentation of truth by God be a "downgrade" from a literal presentation of history? All of the truths you mention above are just as valid a presentation of God's plan for us whether they were based on actual historical events or were not. If Job was not literal history (as Biblical scholars agree, even those who are predominantly literalist), does this mean the messages for us contained in that story are somehow less important for us? Can we simply disregard the requirement for patience, for trust and faith, etc, because these truths were presented in the form of a non-literal story?

As for Peter referring to creation out of nothing, he is right, and a non-literal reading does not contradict this. God started everything at the beginning, it is just HOW and WHEN that He may not be bothering to tell us in direct language, choosing rather the present it in powerful symbolism and allegorical truths. And, btw, nothing in the theory of evolution contradicts the idea that God created it all out of nothing.

 

[mikesw]

Earlier Vance wrote:
<<Back in ancient times, they almost always tied their genealogies back to non-historical personages. As I have pointed out many times, people back then simply didn't view the past, or write about the past, as we do with our modern mindset. They did not draw fine distinctions between actual history and a legendary past.>>

I have read some information (on the internet) along the point of the non-historical geneaology. I think this was from ldolphins website.
Essentially what I read was that the Chinese had something like a 6th dynasty back in 3000 BC that was the latest with archaeological verification. (This period being the earliest that any civilations could be found.)
The idea presented was that the earlier dynasties would have been corrupted or mythological reflections of the generations that existed before the Noahic flood. I see no problem with the idea that the Chinese, for example, could have legend while the Hebrews could have accurate detail. The situation relates more to God's influence in the Hebrew writings rather than of cultural issues. And God spoke directly with Moses which provides an excellent opportunity to make a correct record.
There's no problem in suggesting that some of the detail of creation might be missing. But the information presented could easily fit as highlights and sequence of that which could be seen as a 6 day literal creation.

And along with what GodAtWorkToday said, I would see Genesis and subsequent doctrine becoming unimaginably unintelligible if Genesis were allegorical. In that case a man would work for 6000 years and then rest for 1000 years ( i.e. if each day of creation was a 1000 years -- since 1 day is as a thousand to God).

SOME CONCURRENCE:
1) Its okay to associate certain past cultural trends with the Hebrews
2) The past cultural trends seem to document general cultures well
3) The Hebrew people most likely were predominantly polytheistic, but this was what God was operating against in order to show His true nature. (But I can't think of any scriptures that suggest that other gods would really exist -- some though may record a dialog where other gods are mentioned -- yet without stating that those gods are non-existent)

Maybe someone could confirm this, but usually it seems that writers equating scripture with other writings have the purpose of dismissing the validity and accuracy of scripture. Is someone well versed in such treatises on ancient cultures to concur or contradict this concept?

 

[mikesw]

The obvious downgrade would be that we would lack the historic record of God's operation in the Earth. This would be stories with no basis to trust God. Futhermore we would have reason to be suspicious of God for adding stories to create an impression rather than having facts leading to a conclusion.

Faith means that we trust God. We have heard what God says and we know (through our trust in Him) who He is and what He has done.

When scriptures are discussed allegorically, the spiritual emphemeral since of reality is emphasized. Christianity (and I think the Old Testament too) deals with man with nearly an absence of any "spiritual realm" aspects applying to man and aspects of his life (morality, service, justice)

And I still wonder what allegorical meaning could be taken from the 6 days of creation...

 

[Vance]

The obvious downgrade would be that we would lack the historic record of God's operation in the Earth. This would be stories with no basis to trust God. Futhermore we would have reason to be suspicious of God for adding stories to create an impression rather than having facts leading to a conclusion.

Faith means that we trust God. We have heard what God says and we know (through our trust in Him) who He is and what He has done.

When scriptures are discussed allegorically, the spiritual emphemeral since of reality is emphasized. Christianity (and I think the Old Testament too) deals with man with nearly an absence of any "spiritual realm" aspects applying to man and aspects of his life (morality, service, justice)

And I still wonder what allegorical meaning could be taken from the 6 days of creation...

Even under a literal reading we DO lack almost all of the historic record of what God actually did. He could not possibly provide a complete historical record. And, a non-literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is not completely devoid of historicity, just that we are willing to see as much of it as symbolic or allegorical as good interpretation merits. For example, it would still be historical fact that God made everything, and that He made Man in His image, and that Man, as a result of his own selfishness, is in a state which needs redemption, etc. The only question is to what degree the actual characters and events were historical or allegorical for other, real historical events. When God wanted to describe the joys of physical love and sexual attraction, did He do so in graphic, or even scientific detail? No, He did so by beautiful analogies and allegorical language in Song of Solomon.

You say we would have reason to be suspicious of God for adding in stories, but I don't get that at all. This begs the question that it would be read and understood by all AS history, rather than as a story conveying God's Truth. This is obviously not true since people have been debating whether it is literal or not since the beginning of Christianity and before. it also assumes that somehow a historic, factual account somehow has greater ability to convey a theological truth than a non-literal story.

But basically, I think that we moderns have a cultural bias in favor of the historically accurate method of conveying truths or the more non-literal allegory and symbolism, which was much more often used in ancient times. I think it is simply wrong for us to think that a historically literal account of Creation is somehow a "better" vehicle for God to tell us the important truths about His Creation. Let's face it, whether we read it literally or non-literally we still end up at the same theological truths, so obviously the literalness is not required for acceptance and belief in those truths, as you would suggest.

 

[mikesw]

I see the difference as fundamental:
It is whether we trust an impression (a concept)
or whether we trust a Person and what He has done.

Again we have the issue whether God is giving the impression that we should follow His concept on 6 days of work and 1 day of rest or whether we follow His example. (I'm speaking as to those who are under the Law.)

The whole understanding of scripture gets subverted. An emphasis shifts from trust in God into a belief in allegories. Scripture that is allegorical is treated as placing only spiritual goals upon man rather than a goal of actual service to one another. Allegorical ideas involve more subjectivity than historical records.
My whole understanding of God indicates to me that He is providing a historical view of reality (wherein the scripture suggests history -- not where poetry predominates) so that we may know reality from mythology.
The idea of an impressionist goal of Genesis 1 (or of the whole of Genesis) would suggest that no reality exists, And that God is not genuine with us.

I guess that's why I am such a defender of this view.