CovenantInBlood said:
I'm using the term 'Theology' as shorthand for 'interpretation of Scripture' and so matters of historical fact fall under my use of the term, for this discussion at least. If there's a less confusing term to use I'm all for it. I just haven't thought too much about what it might be.
How about "interpretation of Scripture"? "Theology" is much to specific a word to be used in the way you suggest.
Well, I'm trying to find a single word that will work as shorthand for "interpretation of Scripture" so that I didn't have to type that out every time.  'Theology' seemed to be a good on to me, and for this discussion I don't really see what the problem is.
Again, category mistake. Do you mean to say that we must err on the side of our Theology (used as describe above) over Science?
Allow me to provide an exmaple: Scripture says that Jesus was resurrected in fact. "Science" says that resurrection is impossible. So we err on the side of Scripture.
Absolutely not.  You have a MASSIVE misunderstanding of what Science says.  Science can tell us that people don't naturally rise from the dead as a rule, which is what we as Christians claim anyway.  It says nothing about whether supernatural resurrection is possible or not.
Considering Genesis 1, there's lots of good reason. Have you read my papers yet?
I have. My objections follow:
1. Ex. 20:11; 30:17 cf. Gen. 2:3. The reason the Israelites are commanded to rest on the Sabbath is because that is the same day of the week which God sanctified because that is the same day of the week on which God rested. There is no indication whatever of there being a "metaphorical" day on which God rested and on which the Sabbath day is modelled. The seventh day of Genesis IS the Sabbath day.
The Genesis 1 narrative is used as the basis for the 6 days work and 1 day Sabbath.  Yes.
The evidence for the metaphorical interpretation is found in all the arguments in my paper.  Each of them is evidence for the FI (metaphorical) interpretation.
For you to conclude that because Ex. 31:17 applies an anthropopathism to God therefore the seventh day is not literal, is as ridiculous as concluding that because Ex. 31:18 applies an anthropomorphism to God therefore the stone tablets are not literal. BAD exegetical reasoning.
Why in the world do you think your comparison of Ex 31:18 // stone tablets is at all relevant to the anthropomorphism that applies to God's resting?  If we already know that we have to take God's Sabbath metaphorically there (unless you think God actually gets tired??) then I don't see the problem, or why you think your comparison works.
2. Regarding the literary structure itself, FI divides the days of creation into two tables, the first three being the realms, and the second three being the governors. Thus we have Day 1/4, the realms of light and darkness governed by the luminaries; Day 2/5, the realms of the seas and sky governed by fish and birds; Day 3/6, the realms of dry land and vegetation governed by land animals and man.
There are some overlap problems to be noted here: the luminaries are set in the expanse created on Day 2/5 (your response to this objection is unsatisfactory as the luminaries require this space, as also the fish, birds, and animals require their spheres to be demarcated on the second day); the birds are not confined to the sky but are told to "multiply on the earth" (1:22); men are to govern not only dry land and vegetation, but also animals, and not only land animals, but also fish and birds.
1. I don't see the overlap problem.  Perhaps you could make more explicit what you think the problem is.
2. I don't see the problem with birds not being 'confined' to the sky.  That's not what they are known for though.  Birds are known for the fact that they fly, because it is distinctive about them.
3. The position of mankind in the framework does not preclude his governing over the other realms.  Like the animals, man does not live in either the sea or the sky (or the expanse for that matter), but his special relationship with the vegetation (anticipating the Trees) is what is presented in the parallel between vegetation and man.
However, I think you have a bigger problem to overcome than these. A pillar of FI is that daylight does not exist without the luminaries to govern it.
Close.  One of the arguments is:
During the creation period, God did not rely extraordinary means to sustain his creation once it was created.
Carrying this through, God did not create the light until he had established the natural means of sustaining that light.  There was no 'supernatural' mechanism in place to supply the earth with a light/dark cycle during the first three days.  Nothing in the text itself would lead us to believe that God used a non-ordinary means of sustaining the light/darkness cycle.  Such a speculation is totally foreign to the text.  In addition, Genesis 2:5 rules this out as even a possible explanation.  God, in his omnipotent power, could have employed extraordinary means for sustaining his creation after the creative acts, but according to his self-revelation in the Scripture, he chose not to.  He chose to use ordinary processes to sustain his creation once it was made.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a pillar of the FI, but instead I'd call it one of the main arguments.
But the same relationship between realm and governor does not occur with seas/fish, sky/birds, land & plants/animals & men. In fact, the realms must exist prior to the governors in these cases.
I don't understand your objection.  The principle of non-extraordinary means still applies in these cases.
Even God is not "enthroned as Creator King" until the seventh day in FI!
Does the same not apply to light/luminaries? If FI is correct, then the realms of light and darkness ought to exist prior to the luminaries, otherwise the parallel structure FI presents is very precarious indeed.
I don't see why.  Only God is enthroned on the seventh day.  I don't see anywhere that I've claimed anything else is enthroned that day.
3. The entire grammatical structure of Genesis 1 suggests a sequential reading. You have one day; then you have second day; then you have a third day; etc. None of the citations in your first paper have this numerical structure at all. In your second paper, you extrapolate that because the structure is atypical (cardinal, ordinal, ordinal, etc., with only two definite articles for days 6 & 7) Moses must be avoiding a chronological account. But you must assume FI to make such an extrapolation! Every other instance of an ordinal with yom in the Pentateuch is sequential. Has anyone, even those who were non-literalist, ever held that the very grammar is to be read dischronologically?
1. I'm not assuming the FI to identify the non-chronological nature of the passage.  Seeing it as non-chronological is the result of a direct examination of the text.
Cardinal, cardinal, cardinal - used for time enumeration
Ordinal, ordinal, ordinal - used for time enumeration
Cardinal, ordinal, ordinal - used for NOT time enumeration, but countables
Guess which one the Genesis 1 text has?  That's right.  The one NOT used for enumerating periods of time.  Frankly, to say that I have to "assume FI" in order to see that Moses used a pattern not used for enumerating time periods just shows that you're not willing to see the evidence as God has left it for us.  You're just too bound by your traditions.
Furthermore, how do you explain the use of "evening and morning"? Each of the days, with the exception of the seventh, ends with evening and morning.
It fits perfectly with the FI, because the FI takes every day as a normal day, whereas the 24/6 does not.  Evenings and mornings always apply to normal days, not to abnormal 24-hour periods.

You make a lot of assertions about how there are problems (the Exodus 31 comparisons, some sort of overlap problem, the relationship between realm and governor), but then don't go on to show what those problems are. You'll need to explain where you think the problems really are without leaving a lot of gaps in the logic train. I think there might be a lot of unstated assumptions that need to be made clear.