Replies

If the word "day" in the Genesis 1 is a normal 24-hour day, rather than an allegorical phrasing for a much longer period of time (as seen elsewhere in the Bible, Ps. 90:4 and 2 Peter 3: 8 being good examples), and the word "day" in Genesis 2:4 is also a 24 hour day, we appear to have a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. The only way Genesis 2:4 can be reconciled is if "day" refers to a period of longer than 24 hours.

And? Talk about belaboring the obvious. In Genesis 1, 'yom' is being used in the context of a seven day week during each day of which something occurs. The meaning of 'yom' is a day, sundown to sundown. In Genesis, 'yom' is being used as a description of the event of G-d's creation, ie., "On the occasion of G-d's creating the heavens and the earth." There's no contradiction when the context sets the meaning. The "contradiction" only comes in when someone, such as yourself, chooses to define the words in such a way as to create (evolve?) one. Also, you may as well say that, since "day" is also used to refer to a period shorter than a day, ie., "The Day of the Lord" (2 Peter 3:10), each of the "days" of creation could be less than a literal 24 hour day. For that matter, you mistake the import of 2 Peter 3:8. An equally valid interpretation is that in a single day the Lord can accomplish what would appear to take a thousand years. This isn't the main point of the passage, though, which is to tell the reader that G-d has his own time table and that the point of it all is due to his beneficence toward man ("He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9). At any rate, there is no contradiction in these passages but the one you have contrived.

You've lost me.

I don't have a conflict, the literalists do. I'm perfectly fine with anallegorical reading of Genesis 1 and 2.

My question goes to how they reconcile their conflict. They inisist on literalism when they insist on literalism, and a figurative interpretation when literalism doesn't work out for them.

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your post, but I can't figure out if you're a literalist or if you've mistaken me for one.