I get a charge out of you Genesis critics. On one hand, you condemn the "literalists." On the other, you are incapable of recognizing figurative language when it bites you. You can't have it both ways unless you reject the law of noncontradiction and the logic that goes with it. So which would you rather be, wrong or illogical?
Actually, it's my observation that "day" in Genesis is figurative, not literal. I take great foundational truths from Genesis, I just don't see the point in laboring under an unnecessary fealty to one interpretation of "the" literal interpretation, that is, that "day" means a literal 24 hour time period in Genesis.
You can't have it both ways unless you reject the law of noncontradiction and the logic that goes with it.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It seems to me that those who insist a literal day in Genesis 1 but concede a figurative day in Genesis 2 are the ones who want it both ways.
So which would you rather be, wrong or illogical?
Nonfallacious.
Since you acknowledge that Genesis is "figurative language", then how come it's not figurative enough to encompass Evolution?
First you have this rigid idea that Genesis can't possibly allow that God created Evolution, but then you say it uses "figurative language".
Go figure.