How was the sun created on the fourth day?

[Pandas United]

Is it wrong to believe our hermeneutics can get better as time goes on?

No, that just means people are realizing how false the "Word of God" is as time goes on.

Is it wrong to take a verse and try to read it in the genre we believe it was supposed to be? This isn't concordism. Why on earth would anyone take a poetic/metaphorical verse, and try to read it as a science book?

But who is it up to to say that certain parts are metaphorical and some are not? You? Why isn't the story of Jesus metaphorical? It doesn't make any actual sense, but he's a good role model. Maybe it's a fictional prose work to teach people to be kinder to one another. He didn't even exist.

I mean, do you really believe if the author of Genesis' intent was to write about the mechanics of creation, he would have made the mistake of saying God created light on the first day before He created the sun or the stars on the fourth day?

I believe he was uneducated in terms of astrology (like everyone in the time period in which he lived), and started a fictional story that would go on to control the minds of people for thousands of years. Because nobody knew, yet, that Genesis 1 was impossible bullshit.

Meanwhile, an allegorical interpretation fits perfectly in the hermeneutics and logical consistency of Genesis 1.

No, it doesn't. What cato said.

I'd appreciate it if you responded to my whole post, CSJ. Knit-picking certain parts seems like extremely dishonest dialogue.

You said it's not allowed for our hermeneutics to get better. But I think this is just you trying to do anything to not allow any room for leeway in interpretation. Like I said, this is concordism. Our interpretation of what scripture is really saying should naturally get better as time goes on.

Who is it up to to determine if a verse is metaphorical or not? The writing determines it. One can tell whether a verse is being poetic and trying to portray an allegorical underlining meaning, or if the writer is trying to write something that is literal historical narrative. Trying to have this fundamentalistic approach to scripture is horribly flawed. Why isn't the story of Jesus metaphorical? Because it obviously a historical account for Jesus' life. Anyone that reads it can tell.

And no, your objection to the writers "ignorance" is not a legitimate objection. They knew where light came from. They weren't blind.