Paula

Post 43: What I mean is that a theory that is overly complex is probably inaccurate. The YEC view is the simplest; it does not read into the text but takes it according to the tone and context, which is matter-of-fact without any hint of allegory. If God wanted to make a list of things happening in order, I don’t know how else He could have put it. Other interpretations require much speculation.

I don’t understand your comments on posts 64 and 68, but that’s ok.

Post 81 comment: Again, nobody here has accused the other side of being unfaithful; I’m not sure why you keep saying this. But at least it illustrates the fact that since you feel we have misinterpreted your posts, you can understand when we say you have misinterpreted ours as well.

Post 92 comment: I don’t see why you think I misunderstood your post 91. But per the flow of the conversation, I am of the opinion that just when it seemed we could all drop it and go on to something else, you’d post again, Just my opinion, that’s all.

I did not comment on your post 93 because I had just said I was going to bow out. But then you named me so I had to respond. FWIW, when I see “there was evening and morning, the nth day” I take it as the Hebrew concept of a day beginning at sunset, not as how people today view such an expression.

Anyway, all I ever tried to say in this thread was that an interpretation method that cannot explain why one incident in a passage is allegorical but not another in the same passage, is a method that makes no sense to me. I look at the context of each (Adam and Eve, creation week) and see no literary cues to justify treating them differently. That’s just the way I see it, and the reason I keep asking for someone who holds this view to explain the difference. Until then, there is no point in discussing it further, because we have no common principle to appeal to.