How do we know how to determine the figurativeness / literalness of
Genesis?


Obviously, this is one of the most important books to interpret
correctly since it is the basis of our teaching on sin, its origin, curses
and hints of salvation from it. As we have found in Japan, if you take
away the literal interpretation of Genesis, you cut the very foundations
of the gospel away from your message. There is no message.


Without Genesis we have no gospel.


In Japan (and increasingly in America) we cannot even share the gospel
until we first talk about Genesis. How IMPORTANT it is then to know how
to correctly interpret Genesis! Also, if we take a figurative view of
Genesis (the flood for example - Progressivists like Hugh Ross often
claim that the flood was only local) how in the world can we expect an
unbelieving world to take the message of the Bible seriously? I don't
think we can expect that from them. My view is this: Let us take the
Bible for what it is- the Word of God.


I end with a short testimony from a book by Ken Ham:
"Several years ago, your ministry played an important role in bringing me
to the God and Savior of the Bible. If I was going to believe in God, I
first
had to acknowledge His existence. And if I was going to believe in the God
of the Bible, it had to be proven to me that the Scriptures were not in
error.
Your material addressed the evolution vs. creation (issue) and provided me
with the literal truth of the Word."
V.B. New York

p.s. I would love to hear your thoughts on the "local flood" that Hugh Ross
proposes. I don't see how anyone can arrive at this position!