A model based on a nonliteral interpretation of the Genesis creation story would also rely on scripture to form its conclusions and chronology. Metaphor does not mean "none of this is real" only that there are hidden meanings represented by the descriptions.
It is a scripturally valid model to observe some lengths of time as figurative. Particularly in cases where 1000 years is mentioned or 1 day, or "the day of" something.
From a figurative interpretation, because the longest living human lived less than 1000 years, 1000 years can be seen an arbitrary, nonspecific, length of time longer than any mortal human can experience.
The reason we know at least one of the passages is figurative is because 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalms 90:4 cannot both be literally true at the same time. It is therefore the case that at least some descriptions in scripture are necessarily figurative.
No one claimed that the Big Bang was "from scripture" but the Big Bang is not necessarily incompatible with scripture.
It is could be the case that it was 7 literal 24 hour days. It could also be the case that "day" is figurative in Gen 1. A literal interpretation is indeed incompatible with a typical Big Bang model, but it is not necessarily the case that the Genesis account is literal.
Is Jesus literally bread? (John 6:35) Is the earth literally flat? Is heaven literally a physical place in the sky underneath water? (Genesis 1:6-8). It would be an unusual position to interpret everything in scripture literally.
Clearly there needs to be process behind what we reasonably consider to be literal and that which we consider to be figurative language. It's easy to turn off your brain and go on autopilot interpreting everything at face value, but scripture calls us to think about things and test all things. Interpreting everything as necessarily literal is not good exegesis.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" - 1 Thes 5:21 KJV
It is a scripturally valid model to observe some lengths of time as figurative. Particularly in cases where 1000 years is mentioned or 1 day, or "the day of" something.
From a figurative interpretation, because the longest living human lived less than 1000 years, 1000 years can be seen an arbitrary, nonspecific, length of time longer than any mortal human can experience.
The reason we know at least one of the passages is figurative is because 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalms 90:4 cannot both be literally true at the same time. It is therefore the case that at least some descriptions in scripture are necessarily figurative.
No one claimed that the Big Bang was "from scripture" but the Big Bang is not necessarily incompatible with scripture.
It is could be the case that it was 7 literal 24 hour days. It could also be the case that "day" is figurative in Gen 1. A literal interpretation is indeed incompatible with a typical Big Bang model, but it is not necessarily the case that the Genesis account is literal.
Is Jesus literally bread? (John 6:35) Is the earth literally flat? Is heaven literally a physical place in the sky underneath water? (Genesis 1:6-8). It would be an unusual position to interpret everything in scripture literally.
Clearly there needs to be process behind what we reasonably consider to be literal and that which we consider to be figurative language. It's easy to turn off your brain and go on autopilot interpreting everything at face value, but scripture calls us to think about things and test all things. Interpreting everything as necessarily literal is not good exegesis.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" - 1 Thes 5:21 KJV
In the creation week it’s crystal clear, it says over and over and “the first day and night” - even before sun and moon were created! You just pretend that is something else because you’re brainwashed by the evolutionary world view from Satan. There could be a “could” in the case above about the bread, but there’s no “could” in those seven days. One day in creation week is a literal 24-hour day, period.