My point about the early church fathers stands - old earth views aren’t liberal by definition, since theological liberalism is usually (and explicitly here) a technical attribution which refers to the late 19th C. German modernism. These views are pre-liberal in origin. Calling them “liberal” is anachronistic. That doesn’t validate them (as I said) - it just corrects the claim of origin made in this post. Liberalism has nothing to do with exegetical method. Some of the most acute exegetes in recent memory are liberals. Likewise exegetical method can’t properly be criticized as “syncretism” since the Bible doesn’t actually communicate an authoritative exegetical method (as opposed to, say, a person’s view of angels and demons or their practice of prayer).

As for the church fathers, I leave it up to you whether those who built the foundation upon which the church’s confessional vocabulary stands were “infants” or not. I suppose I’d put Scofield’s Notes and Moody Press somewhere below the Chalcedonian or Nicene Creed - but we may just have to differ there.

The position you mentioned, i.e. Genesis as parody, isn’t a Roman Catholic one. In any case, its somewhat immaterial - the point is that an attempt to understand the author’s intent doesn’t necessarily yield a young earth view (though it might). The whole point was that many different varieties of old earth views hold the transparent meaning of the text to be something else - and they demonstrate their case with a kind of reverence for the text and evangelical concern for doctrine that is very unlike German liberals. Their proceeding with the text’s own meaning makes you’re liver shiver.

Argumentum ad Popul(e/u)m. Origen posited pre-existence of the soul without Scripture to support it, I believe.
Liberals are as Liberals do — eis-egesis [syncretism] instead of exegesis.

Putative “Church Fathers” may have been theological infants before the advent of Scofield’s Notes and Moody Press.

S.Y. says, “Others have taken the first two chapters of Genesis to be a parody of ancient near eastern creation stories….” The Roman Catholic Church denegrates Genesis, declaring it a modification of a tale about a Council of the Gods who collude concerning how to create the world. The RCC also adheres to Evolution (-R.A. Morey, Dr. of Comparitive Religion, confer www.FaithDefenders.com).

S.Y. refers to “EVIDENCE” = Argumentum ad > Fifi + Arg. ad Baculum [baculine approach] + Arg. ad Popul’m. One man’s liver-quiver [good vibrations] is another man’s liver-shiver. The text dictates its own meaning. Procede from there, duuuuuude.

Since some people have seen Genesis as an introduction to the Law which intentionally foreshadows the Mosaic code and story of Israel (i.e. creation of Adam = election of Israel, Eden = promised land, the eating of the fruit = violation of the food laws, exile from garden = exile from land, promise of deliverer = messianic prophecy, etc.), the author may have intended the symbolism and imagery of the first several chapters (i.e. the prologue to the OT) to highlight these things. Others have taken the first two chapters of Genesis to be a parody of ancient near eastern creation stories, taking its cues from and intentionally modifying these other versions to show that God (and not Baal) was really the Creator. These kinds of suggestions are attempts to show how the text would have “plainly” been understood at the time.

What prevents a person from identifying other texts as symbolic or metaphorical is basically EVIDENCE. It could be a combination of factors like how it was historically received by ancient audiences, how later texts make use of earlier ones and more importantly whether a person can show features from the text itself that highlight the intention of the author (talking snakes and familiar Ancient Near Eastern symbolism in Gen. 1-2 vs. the historical detail and forms of ancient biography in the synoptic accounts of Jesus).

Again, all that to say that there are reasons why some orthodox, non-liberal, theologically conservative people don’t take these accounts literally, including some of the most influential and respectable people in church history. Whether we agree or disagree with them, I personally don’t think they can be dismissed as “obviously wrong” or as prioritizing “modern scientific theories” over the Bible.

DO YOU CONFIRM JESUS’ Authority and Clear Affirmation of Scripture (Which would include the Torah (LAW - Books including Genesis), as Divine TRUTH?

OR

Do you wish to EXLUDE Christ’s Testimony and Assurances, to YOUR Own detriment?

———–
I believe that by the grace of our LORD through His Spirit, we will affirm what He Himself in the person of Christ Jesus AFFIRMED as His OWN ACCEPTANCE and APPROVAL of the Hebrew Scriptures at the VERY Least as INSPIRED Truth as the VERY WORDS of YAHWEH (Albeit He confirms the New Testament perfectly by His OWN Words also. I AM NOT advocating that ANY Scripture in the Bible is lesser in authority, rather that ALL Scripture is confirmed by Messiah, whther OLD or NEW, as it all conforms to His Very Words and AFFIRMATIONS).