Non-Literal Creation Account

I am interested to know from anyone out there who doesn't believe in the six day literal creation as to why? I am not trying to have a discussion on creation vs evolution but rather from a biblical view why should we not accept the literal 6 days view. I call it non-literal creation to account for all those views which range from old earth through theistic evolution through just evolution through anything else I can't think of that doesn't accept the literal account of Gen 1 and Gen 2.

Obviously personally I hold to the literal view of creation. I take this view because I believe that the early part of Genesis is to be read as history rather than as alegory and I have a problem with death before the fall. These things together with other biblical quotes suggest to me that the creation account is literal.

As I understand it, those who reject this view will desire to reconcile the scientific view with the scriptures and thus reject the creation account as literal, and indeed probabley the first 12 chapters. I presume that there is more reason than just this as why should it only be this part of the bible to which we apply the idea of scientific reconcillation?

What then about the miraculous events described in the scriptures? These are by definition not within the understood laws of nature and are generally unrepeatable events (at least by men). Should we not also then reject these events as they do not conform to the scientific norm, and if we do reject the miraculous then we must reject the whole of christianity and so why bother to reconcile science with the scriptures at all?

Like I said I presume that there are other reasons for holding a non-literal view, to which some might hopefully enlighten me.

I know that this subject area can be quite flammable but I am just trying to get a better understanding of the views of others, (and obviously hoping to persuade some people to have my view) Anyway can we try and keep it civil(ish)

Genesis is a perfect example of people's first ideas on why the world is as it is. I personally believe that Genesis was created to explain why things where as they were, such as a woman's menstrual cycle, a snake's lack of legs, why farming labor is so hard, and why land masses, water, and animals exist.

It was merely set together for people to explain something they didn't understand in a way that they could feel makes sense.

Thanks for the repsonse.

Following this line then, the miracles in the bible are also just explaining things which they (the writers) couldn't understand but the miracles themselves never really happened. They are more just fables for our teaching.

I guess then that you personally don't give too much credance to the rest of the bible either except perhaps being a book that contains some good ideas/advice on how to live a nice life?

I believe it is more of a....Historical fiction if I were to say.

I believe there were such things as Abraham, the countries of Sodom and Gomorrah, Prophets, the nation of Israel, the Canaanites, and Jesus. I just don't believe in such things as the Great Flood, the parting of the Red Sea, or Solomon's struggle with demons.

Plus Jesus's miracles and even ideals seem very similar to abilities of healers in eastern cultures. I'm just saying it's possible that he went on a pilgrimage far east and came back with his teachings, incorporating them into Judaism.

[edit on 29-7-2008 by Dr. Frank Spinelli]