Using Ecclesiastes 12.5 To Interpret Genesis 1.9-13

I consider myself a Fundamentalist Christian.
There are 2 kinds: intelligent fundamentalist versus idiot fundie.
I am the former as opposed to the latter, i'd like to think.
One of the doctrines of Fundamentalism is that the Bible is to be taken literally
- when it is OBVIOUSLY meant to be so taken.
In other words, when some Bible passage ISN'T obviously literal,
 there is no need for us to "force" it into that category.
 It is actually against fundamentalism to take something as literal when it was never intended to be taken that way.
Take Genesis One thru Three.
Snakes don't talk, so the story of the Fall of Man involving a talking serpent
AUTOMATICALLY deserves to be taken NONLITERALLY.
As an allegory.
Anyone who takes it literally is obviously VIOLATING one of the main principles of what? FUNDAMENTALISM !!
They aren't true fundamentalists!!
 Rather they are idiot fundies - FALSE fundamentalists "in sheep's clothing."
 
The serpent speaking is presented as though it were normal for snakes to talk.
 This shows its obviously allegorical.
Just like the verbalizing of the trees in Judges 9.7-15 exposes it clearly to be an allegory.
The talking donkey (Numbers 22 ) is definitely different.
It is clearly presented as a miracle - not the norm.

If Genesis 2-3 is designed to be taken as allegorical,
why do Christians persist in taking it literally??!!
Because they are slavishly loyal to tradition.
Countless generations have taken it literally.
So the present generation feels this sense of obligation.
We need to realize that was right for earlier generations isn't necessarily right for us today.

Over the last two thousand years of the Church we have been steadily fulfilling the Great
 Commission.
As a result, God has been rewarding the Church with greater insight - wisdom. Maturation has been taking place.
Like apostle Paul explains, we have gone from the Church as an infant to the Church as an adult(2 Corinthians 13.11:
"when i was a child i thought as a child..but when i became a man, i PUT AWAY childish things.")
The way a child sees things is fundamentally different from how adults see the same things.
Ditto with the Bible.
It was only fitting for God, thru Moses and the Torah Law, to give PRIMITIVE society
a crude childish account of the Fall of Man, rather than the true account.
For men of Moses's day were like swine or dogs.
And didn't Christ say  "don't cast your pearls before swine, nor give the holy things unto dogs.."(Matthew 7.6).
The TRUE account of Creation is a priceless pearl of near-infinite value.
So it is only natural for God to WITHHOLD the true account, ie the Big Bang and the universe developing over billions of years before planet Earth's arrival.
 Ditto for Genesis 2-3 with its account of the Fall.
Apostle Paul updates the Fall in Romans 1.19 onward.
Yes, when Christ said don't give the full truth to the unready animalistic,
He was revealing something about GOD.
God's rules for us are also rules that GOD Himself follows.
 He didn't give the full truth in Genesis One, for He reserved it
 for Mankind after we had reached a higher level of maturity.
 As evidenced by scientists (men of God) decoding the data contained in starlight (known as "the declaration of the skies")(Psalms 19.1-4). The Big Bang is
"The Glory of God," yes !!)

PS: Paul in Hebrews 11.3 interprets the socalled "days" of Creation Week as "eons"(aionos in the Greek).
Since there are "6 days" in Genesis One, each divided into two periods of "evening/morning," that adds up to 12 periods.
Well, wouldn't you know it:  the age of the universe is 12 billion years,
according to the latest update of the Big Bang theory !!


Reconciling Bible and Science: Why Is It Important??

Science boils down to the study of Nature. And Paul the apostle tells us that Nature (the study of it) reveals the things of God 
(Romans 1.19-20). It is God's revelation of God. So it is on a par with the Bible, ie, "Special Revelation." Paul goes so far as to call the study of Nature "the Word of God" (Romans 10.15-17). Yes, "General Revelation" and Special Revelation are supposed to be partners. So science and the Bible need to be reconciled. Therefor the Big Bang Theory and Genesis One need to be reconciled !! (For the BBT = legitimate science). So Genesis One isn't to be read by itself. Rather its to be seen thru the lens of BBT: the Big Bang Theory.

But HOW are we to apply the BBT to Genesis One??!!
Thats easy - we are to view Genesis One as though parts of it is written in CODE, just as is Ecclesiastes. In short we are to use Ecclesiastes 12 to interpret Genesis One. We read (Eccl. 12.5) that "the almond tree will blossom." This means that it turns white with flowers. Now since that passage is actually about a man becoming old, elderly, we can take the ball of leaves and branches above the trunk of the almond tree to represent a man's head. The hair of his head turns grey/white as part of his growing old. That is what Eccl. 12.5 is depicting. Using Eccl. 12.5 as a precedent to go by, we turn to Genesis 1.9-13 about Day 3. Instead of taking literally the receding of the waters and the dry ground emerging, we take this implicit appearing of islands as code for something else. Namely, the formation of GALAXIES !! For galaxies are "islands in the seas of space," according to Wlliam
Herschel, the astronomer of the 18th century.






I