Brothers and Sisters, I'm in an online debate with a liberal Methodist who does not believe that the Bible is to be taken literally. For example, he does not believe that Adam and Eve were real people, but rather symbols of the human race. (He is a theistic evolutionist, so he can't believe they are real.) I've challenged him on that stance, pointing out that if they are symbols everything directly associated with them are also symbols. (Like the fall, for example, or their children and what took place from that.) Holding to that position opens up a big doctrinal can of worms. Here is where the argument has gotten to. I'm being challenged to reconcile the literal readings of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The question is, what came first the animals or man? I have held my ground that the animals came first on day 5, and man on day 6, according to Genesis 1. I've also said that Genesis 2's account is simply a retelling, a summary, or maybe an appendix to chapter 1. It wasn't meant to be a detailed account, or a second creation. It's just a summary. He (and others with him) doesn't buy that. So he's listed the account in Genesis 2 to try and demonstrate that a literal reading forces me to conclude that the animals came after man, and therefore, a clear contradictions exists between Genesis 1 and 2. (Thus concluding that you can't accept the account as literal.) Follow? Anyway, below are his statements. I'd like some insight into this if anyone can help. To be honest, I'm getting weary with it all and I'm hoping that someone can show me something I hadn't considered. I still say Genesis 2 is a summary, but he's pushing for an answer related to a literal reading. What say you?