My observation has been that Covenant folks in general tend to be divided over this because a 24 hour, six day creation week reading of Genesis is something that is attributed to dispensational hermeneutics. Because dispensationalists have a "literalistic" approach to understanding scripture, some Covenant folks reject a literalist reading of the creation narrative. To read it as true, literal historical narrative would be giving credit to dispensationalism. The popular trend now a days is to read Genesis with a Klinian framework interpretation, in which Genesis one is not making any reference to time whatsoever, but only describing a two registered cosmology that envisons the heavens, or the upper register, and the earth, the lower register, where the lower register relates to the upper level as replica to archetype (if that makes sense). With such a reading, it allows for the accomodation of the evolutionary long years of time and such points of view that comes from Hugh Ross's "Reasons to Believe" camp.<br><br>On the other hand, there are other Reformed folks, say for instance the faculty at Southern Presbyterian where Joseph Pipa is president, that recognizes that Genesis is historical narrative, and to read it as not being literal history of man's, and the world's origins, is to adulterate the Hebrew language and the intention of the author. Thus, they have no problem with the literalism, as long as it is applied to the right genre of scripture. To read some biblical texts as literal does not equate to endorsing all the flawed hermeneutics that makes up dispensationalism as a system.<br><br>Fred

"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns