A Day is a Day, Literally

In the course of an ongoing semi-theological discussion on the question of six-day creation, one of our more active participants made the statement, "Genesis 1 and 2 were not meant to be taken literally." It is a statement which someone will inevitably make whenever this particular subject is discussed. But it really contributes little to the conversation. The Bible is, after all, a (divinely inspired) work of literature. How else is a work of literature to be "taken" (that is, "read") if not "literally," that is, as a work of literature?

To say that one does not "take the Bible literally" is to say that one does not "take" the Bible as literature. But if the Bible is not "taken" as literature, how is it to be "taken" at all? Precisely what does it mean to "take the Bible seriously, but not literally" as some claim to do? How "seriously" can a work of literature be "taken" if it is not "taken" as a work of literature?

So, when discussing the Genesis account of creation, it is pointless to ask, "Did God create the world in six literal days?" In the Genesis account, a day is a day, literally. In this particular biblical context, a "literal" day may or may not be 24 hours in length, but that is beside the point. The question of the chronological length of the "days" probably never occurred to Moses or any of the original readers of the creation story. There is a deeper truth being conveyed through this divinely inspired literary work, but to appreciate that truth, one must first appreciate it precisely as a divinely inspired literary work. In other words, we must first "take" the Bible "literally."