Hello again Edward,
Thanks for your response.
The 6-day creation isn’t based on ancient science, but on Genesis 1. The writer in both of the Exodus passages quotes Moses, who himself quotes God in 20:11.
I find the evidence for biological evolution undeniable, having first come across it at a graduate-level course, at the time a Christian who didn’t believe in it. Everything I’ve studied since then has reinforced it, especially the genetics. I’m wondering if you’ve ever formally studied evolution.
Darwin went back and forth it seems from, “almost-theist” to, “almost-atheist”. The belief in God was a sincere struggle for him and he wasn’t out to promote atheism with evolution. That said, it shouldn’t make a difference even if he was - the science is still the same.
Yes, and I’m wondering why you don’t.
Yes, God could have been taught the history of origins and theology if He had wanted to, but apparently He didn’t think the science was all that important, since he used the science of the day, the 3-tiered universe, to couch the theology, to make it easier for them to understand.
For me, the only views that can be true are a literal account or it’s all theology, because concordism, your view, simply doesn’t work. That’s because concordism says that God is teaching science, so that must be true for every generation that reads Genesis. But that’s not the case, since nobody even knew that creation didn’t take place in 6 literal days until the year ~1,500. If we date the chapter to ~2,000 BC, then what you’re saying is that God allowed people to believe scientific lies for 3,500 years, even though, as you claim, the text teaches scientific truths. That simply cannot be the case.
I wrote near 40-page paper challenging concordism, and promoting the Framework interpretation of Genesis 1 that you can read here if you like. I’d be interested to see what you would think of it.