When I have time I'll consider posting a collection of quotes from Gen. 1 later in the OT and in the NT. All applications of those are used to teach literal doctrines. If not taken literally, then those inspired writers would have been making figurative lesson out of figurative scriptures, leaving their doctrines subject to interpretation based on.....what?
Jesus used Genesis 1:27 (KJV) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. to teach this: Mark 10:4-9 (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP] And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
[SUP]5 [/SUP] And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
[SUP]6 [/SUP] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
[SUP]8 [/SUP] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Jesus took that fact literally, fact based upon fact.Genesis 1 is an "abstract" introduction to the creation week, quite general in nature with little detail. Then, in chapter 2 we get a topical focus giving more details about man's part. There we get more detail of Eve being made out of already created flesh from Adam. That's where Jesus based his statement of the two being "one flesh".
There are many fine examples throughout the Bible that once read, the reader will realize the creation account was in fact taken very literally, and ought to be taken that way now. Gen. 1-3 is the foundation of the need for Jesus Christ to come down to men to save us. If all that was figurative, then salvation itself would be figurative of something else.
I've already tasted of that, so none can persuade me any of it is metaphysical, or a figurative end to itself.
When something in the Bible, or really any form of literature, contains figurative statements, there is a clear indication of that in play, unless the whole piece is figurative and obviously so, and if a sensible writing, will supply the intended meaning of something figurative. Otherwise the matter remains a pointless mystery for the reader to figure out without a real clue, like writing a murder mystery novel without revealing who did it.
By the way, in the beginning the earth days were a bit shorter, the earth having been slowing it's axial revolution. We're about 140 million years away from that making 25 hour days. The measure of days and nights has been effectively unchanged except for a really expensive atomic clock. Consider what purpose would God have had in using that measure for creation to stand for eons per day, and eons per night, yet change to days and night expressed in terms of 24 hour days. If he made days and night lasting millions of years each, then when after creation did he start the earth spinning so much faster?
Since God created time as we know it, based on actions of heavenly bodies, then he must be outside of time, independent of time. So it is he can easily regard one of our thousand year history slots as a mere day in his existence. Since God is not author of confusion, he would not then deceive us, indicating that one of our days might have been a million years long during creation week.