As confirmation that Genesis 1 is intended to be literal, I have found scientific discoveries in the secular world that map quite nicely to the creation narrative… even more accurately than Progressive Creaitonists can claim.

My point is that I do not believe God ever intended us to choose between a literal scripture OR acceptance of scientific discoveries, but to discover that they agree.

I have a good friend who is old earth creationist who would agree completely with that statement. He and I interpret Genesis 1-11 in many similar ways. He would certainly see more history in some of the later narratives than I do, but we both see about the same spiritual intention.

I think the question should be rephrased from “literal vs. figurative” to looking for the literary genre and interpreting accordingly. It’s more complex, but I think more accurate.

“Taking it literally” is too often heard as “taking it seriously” and “taking it figuratively” as “blowing it off.” Gleason Archer (old earth) once pointed out that it is just as wrong to take something that was intended figuratively as literal as it is to take something intended literally as figurative. (I can’t recall the reference, though I have a xerox in my files somewhere.)

Figurative speech also has meaning, sometimes very precise meaning, even though that meaning may not be concrete or expressed in the same way as historical narrative, for example.

For example, the word for “let” has another acceptable definition, which is to remove a hindrance to something. “Let their be light” would actually mean “Remove the hindrance to light”, and so on.

The word “yom” is accepted by OECs as meaning 24 hours, when in fact its usage by Moses means only the duration between sundowns. With our God hovering over the oceans, His freedom to experience sundowns allows creation “yoms” to be any duration He chooses.

Then there are examples where YECs do not actually take Genesis 1 literally at all. For example, the sun was not really set in the firmament (which was created on Day 2), but in space.

My point is that I do not believe God ever intended us to choose between a literal scripture OR acceptance of scientific discoveries, but to discover that they agree.

Here’s an article, on a related subject, the creation of dangerous animals.

How does one read Genesis as liturgy? Perhaps my understanding of the term ‘liturgy’ is too narrow, but I am confused by that suggestion.

Perhaps I could be clearer by saying, “written for use in liturgy” or told in a form suitable for liturgical use.

But also, I’m not talking about all of Genesis–just Genesis 1:1-2:4a. Genesis 2:4bff fulfills many more of the literary characteristics of myth, and should be read differently. Their combination in a single text obscures this change in genre unless the reader is attentive.

I have a question that is not generated by your main argument.

How does one read Genesis as liturgy? Perhaps my understanding of the term ‘liturgy’ is too narrow, but I am confused by that suggestion.