Pilgrim,<br><br>I would agree with your overall assessment: Most people probably reject a 24/6 interpretation of Genesis due to the main view of the world. However, as I have observed, more and more of the discussions I have with Covenant folks reveals a leaning away from a literal historical understanding of Genesis because it is too akin to dispensational thought. In fact, Young Earth Creationism had its beginnings with dispensationalists. <br><br>Though what the "scientific" world teaches in regards to origins was problematic for them to reconcile with the Bible, now that there are hermeneutical alternatives that help to bridge the supposed teachings of the scientific community with the truth of God's word, a literalistic approach is now accused as being the problem for a lack of seeing eye to eye, and I would add, a hinderance to the gospel. They will even go as far as to claim the literal understanding of Genesis is recent and has never been a part of the Christian faith until the 1800's. <br><br>Michael Spence of the Internet Monk fame is another prime example of this line of thought. His reason for being an anti-literal creationists is rather telling.<br><br>http://www.internetmonk.com/creation.html<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