As I stated earlier, since Genesis 1 starts of with In the Begining and talks about "day" and Genesis 2 starts with In the Day, these are two different time periods. If you read it all in context with noun/verb/topic/adjective/whatever agreements then it is grammatcially correct.
You need to specify the noun/verb/topic/adjective that backs up your case rather than just claiming it supports your interpretation. Not sure how 'day' and 'in the day' mean we are talking about two different time periods either. But you haven't tackled the real problem that 'in the day' isn't a literal use of the word day because the word 'these', Gen 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, refers either to the six day creation account in chapter 1 or the creation account in chapter 2, which starts before the creation of plants and covers the creation of birds, animals man and woman, which span days three to six in chapter 1. So even if it refers to chapter two 'in the day' isn't a literal single day.
I have but it may be on the other three threads this discussioin is happening with.
I don't recall anybody here else addressing the misunderstanding of yours that I was talking about, or made the same point I made, so I don't know how you could have addressed my point in other threads. I think it is very significant that Creationists have to keep switching arguments, thinking "I can't answer that but here is another argument for creationism instead." I have yet to come across an argument that does hold up.
Plus, I don't need to "defend". God will do that Himself.
I don't think God has ever promised to defend your interpretation of scripture.
I don't need to prove "my side". All i can do is witness and allow the Spirit to move the other person, if they are willing to let the Spirit move.
If it is the Holy Spirit teaching you to interpret Genesis literally. But claiming the Holy Spirit mnoved you isn't an argument either because we are told to test every spirit and every prophesy.
1Cor 14:29
Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.
1Thess 5:20
Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
1John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
I am with the Bereans on this on this one, examining the Scriptures to see if these things were so (Acts 17:11), and your arguments don't hold up.
But ask me something specific what you want to know. I can't remember where I have said anything. I can give you all my postings on my blog. I write a lot about the subject.
Just follow the links in the posts back, you can see what you skipped.
I have never denied metaphors, similies, analogies, allegories, parables or anything of the like being used in the Bible. But some people say Genesis 1 is poetic. But then they say Genesis 47 (or somewhere close) is not. Even then is Exodus poetic? When does the Bible stop being "poetic".
Let me get this straight you recognise that there are metaphors, similes, analogies, allegories, parables are used in the bible, but because you think it is difficult to decide where poetry and metaphor end, we should just take it all literally?
Judaism has claimed these are historic books. I agree.
In the first century, Jews from Josephus, a priest in Jerusalem, to Hellenistic Jews like Philo of Alexandria thought the creation accounts were allegorical (Josephus thought the allegory began in chapter two).
Now are there metaphors in there? Yes. But why pick on Genesis 1? Just because sceintists have said it doesn't fit their theories?
It is the reason we stopped taking the geocentric passages literally when Copernicus showed it was the earth that went round the sun. In fact, when the church eventually got round to reinterpreting the the texts Copernicus showed we got wrong, they were following a much older principle of interpretation going back to Augustine and Aquinas, that if science contradicts and interpretation of scripture, then that interpretation was never the true meaning of the text.
30 years ago we had the incredile edicble egg then 20 years ago eggs were bad to eat for you due to high cholestral, now they say they aren't as bad as what they thought.
That is simply an exercise in balancing risk versus benefits, eggs were always nutritious but high blood cholesterol was a serious risk factor for heart disease. At the time the best way to reduce cholesterol was to cut down intake in the diet. We now have better ways to reduce cholesterol levels through cutting back on trans fats, saturated fats and through medication. Before we had those approaches, people with heart disease or high cholesterol needed to cut down drastically on the cholesterol in their diet and it was a judgment call whether this was important for the general population too, whether or not the nutritional benefits of eggs outweighed the increased risk across the whole population of the slight increase in cholesterol it brought.
Pluto was considered a planet in my school days, now it is a dwarf planet.
You are not seriously bringing up a change in how the label planet is classified?
Science has laws and I will argue with those, but scientists use flawed data. It is also not completely contradictory to science, just scientist data.
We have vastly more evidence confirming evolution and the age of the earth than we had for heliocentrism when the church changed its mistaken geocentric interpretations. Augustine warned us long ago that when Christians contradict science because of their interpretation of the bible, it brings the bible and the the gospel into disrepute. What would have happened if the church back then followed your approach and was still teaching geocentrism when Apollo astronauts stood on the moon watching the earth rotating?
They didn't run night to morning? There was evening and there was morning, the nth day. I could be wrong, where does it say morning to morning as a day (24 hour)?
Gen 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.'
Presumably you would say verses 1 to 4 are part of day one. What about verse 6, creating a firmament part of day one, or was it second day?
What was the last part of the day mentioned in day one?
They were consecutive time periods. The seven weeks weren't any seven weeks, and so forth.
The Genesis days don't need to be consecutive to be a metaphorical illustration of the various Sabbaths days weeks, years, weeks of years in the OT Law. The value of a metaphor is what it illustrates, not what the metaphor doesn't cover. I wasn't arguing they weren't consecutive there, I was arguing that the duration wasn't important. You don't seem to be able to address my actual arguments.
You just need the imagery to get the point across, the God of all eternity didn't have to fit his work of creation to the work schedule of a human labourer. It is not as if God was literally refreshed after a day's rest (Exodus 31:17) it is an anthropomorphic metaphor where God is identifying with the weary labourer in the field.
Never doubted it.
So when Moses used the six day creation and God resting on the seventh to teach Sabbath observance, it was a metaphor?
