Why the Creation account should not be read literally

[Vance]

Here is a very interesting analysis of the Creation account in Genesis, concluding that it can not properly be read literally. I would be glad to hear what others here think of his arguments (as opposed to just rejecting his conclusion). I am still digesting it and doing some external research on some of his points.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF3-96Kline.html

Here is his conclusion to whet your appetite:

In short, if the narrative sequence were intended to represent the chronological sequence, Genesis 1 would bristle with contradictions of what is revealed in Gen. 2:5. Our conclusion is then that the more traditional interpretations of the creation account are guilty not only of creating a conflict between the Bible and science but, in effect, of pitting Scripture against Scripture. The true harmony of Genesis 1 and Gen. 2:5 appears, however, and the false conflict between the Bible and science disappears, when we recognize that the creation "week is a lower register metaphor for God's upper register creation-time and that the sequence of the "days is ordered not chronologically but thematically.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I have read that textual criticism put the writing of Genesis 1 during the Babylonian captivity, and it is a refutation of the Bablyonian creation account. The Babylonian account had gods that were disinterested in their creation and Genesis 1 puts God in the Garden of Eden as caring very much for His creation. Did you ever hear this?

 

[Vance]

Yes, I have heard that, and others here follow that lead. Personally, I attribute the writing to Divine inspiration, and not just a cultural, and purely human, response to outside forces. Now, I do not discount the possibility that God inspired the message of the text and let the writer put it down using the literary devises that would be most effective to the people of the time (while still allowing to be timeless), but I ascribe more direct involvement in the actual language that His message was written than do some other non-literalists.

 

[herev]

Yes, I have heard that, and others here follow that lead. Personally, I attribute the writing to Divine inspiration, and not just a cultural, and purely human, response to outside forces. Now, I do not discount the possibility that God inspired the message of the text and let the writer put it down using the literary devises that would be most effective to the people of the time (while still allowing to be timeless), but I ascribe more direct involvement in the actual language that His message was written than do some other non-literalists.

agreed, although I think God inteneded his words to be a direct refutation of the surrounding people's gods

 

[Vance]

Yes, I would agree with that as well.