No, Genesis 1—11 was NOT taken as Non-Literal History in Patristic Times

Reviewing the WORST CREATIONIST CONFERENCE: "The Politics of Six Day Creation"
Gutsick Gibbon | 11.XI.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSYx7L2Rc_A

3:00 "non-literal history" is simply NOT an earlier interpretation.

If you have that from Joel Duff, sorry, he's a liar.

He mentioned St. Augustine and I sent him exact quotes from City of God, and he has neither to my best knowledge recanted from the lie, nor answered in my mail in order to even moderately try to defend it.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

What was said and what's the evidence that it's a lie?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime You could have clicked the time stamp, but I will copy the transscript for you:

in part to a return to earlier interpretations of Genesis 1-11 2:57 as being non-literal history

There is an interpretation of Genesis 1 (just that chapter), in which the creation days are not literal days, but that involves creation being done in one moment.
There is also an interpretation of Genesis 1 (also just that chapter) in which the creation days correspond to 6 millennia of world history (Jews may believe this too, like that the Resurrection and Judgement may happen in THEIRS Anno Mundi 6000).

There are also interpretations of other events (chapters 1 to 11) in which they correspond to other things in the New Testament.

There is no interpretation whatsoever that they are not overall literal history, back then.

She, like Joel Duff, are scientists involved in Evolutionary stuff. They are not very savvy on the history of ideas. And I am.

I can look up what Church Fathers actually say online, and I know what kind of books by them to look up and where I can find De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII, which is not available for free online.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl You're going to have to make it more clear. You're admitting that there are several different interpretations, including non-literal. But then you claim it's a lie to say that every interpretation is calling a literal translation of history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime Well, exactly NO interpretation is calling it non-literal translation of history.

The fact is, the Fathers believed in more than one interpretation applying to the same text and a maximising version of this is the Quadriga Cassiani.

It basically says, any given story should be true in FOUR senses, only one of them, the first, being literal, but the story is true in that litteral sense too, because it's true in all four senses. And this doesn't just apply for Genesis 1 to 11, it applies to at least all historic books of the Bible.

When Isaac carries fire-wood for his own immolation, this corresponds to Jesus carrying the Cross to Calvary (same location). However, this does not mean that Isaac didn't do that.

The Jews (or the more conservative ones of them) are perfectly right that Isaac did. They are just wrong in rejecting the further intepretation of correspondence with the Via Dolorosa (or if the actual road was maybe shorter).

So, presence of an interpretation other than literal history does NOT equal absence of literality in the historic immediate context. Is this a bit clearer?

Specifically, literality of genealogies in Genesis 5 and second part of ch. 11, I sent Joel Duff these resumés with links to two books of St. Augustine's City of God, available online for free:

Book 15 Having treated in the four preceding books of the origin of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, Augustine explains their growth and progress in the four books which follow; and, in order to do so, he explains the chief passages of the sacred history which bear upon this subject. In this fifteenth book he opens this part of his work by explaining the events recorded in Genesis from the time of Cain and Abel to the deluge.

Book 16 In the former part of this book, from the first to the twelfth chapter, the progress of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, from Noah to Abraham, is exhibited from Holy Scripture: In the latter part, the progress of the heavenly alone, from Abraham to the kings of Israel, is the subject.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl "Well, exactly NO interpretation is calling it non-literal translation of history" Is there a reason why you keep using a double negative? Is it to be LESS clear? There are zero interpretations that are non-literal?

"So, presence of an interpretation other than literal history does NOT equal absence of literality in the historic immediate context. Is this a bit clearer?" Actually that's even worse and I can't help but think you're doing this on purpose.

"presence of an interpretation other than literal history" Yes, there are interpretations that state it was not meant to be literal. That's the entire point being made.
"does NOT equal absence of literality in the historic immediate context" Sorry but this is gibberish.

It feels as if you're ignoring the context of what's being discussed in an attempt to strawman what is meant. The part around 3:00 is discussing the difference between literal and non-literal translations. These obviously exist and that's the point. If Ken Ham demands that a day must equal 24 hours and that "created" absolutely means created from nothing, then that is obviously literal. Meanwhile the Cosmic Temple analogy, by definition of analogy, is non-literal. A day doesn't necessarily mean a 24 hour day and "created" doesn't necessarily mean created out of thin air.

Non-literal translations of the history exist.

EvilGinger Miniatures

@evilgingerminiatures5820

I would re read the city of god in the original language if I where you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@evilgingerminiatures5820 Translators are competent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "There are zero interpretations that are non-literal?"

No. I mean there are zero interpretations that say the history itself is non-literal, overall, apart from one little word in Genesis 1.

"The part around 3:00 is discussing the difference between literal and non-literal translations."

Interpretation and translation are not the same thing.

Translation is, like when "king" is translated to "król" in Polish, interpretation is, like when "king" is interpreted as "male life-time ruler".

She was not at all discussing translations, but she pretended the OLDER interpretation is "non-literal history". It simply isn't. Non-literal interpretations are NOT about the history in Genesis 1 to 11 itself, it's about what it points to.

It's not "non-literal history" because it's not history but prophecy.

The interpretation that's about the history itself is also not "non-literal history" because it is literal history.

"Yes, there are interpretations that state it was not meant to be literal."

No. There are not. Not for the Patristic era. Not OLDER ones. She is repeating a lie.

"Sorry but this is gibberish."

Your lack of reading comprehension doesn't equal any lack of correct expression on my part.

Saying Genesis 22 POINTS to the Crucifixion doesn't equate to saying Genesis 22 didn't literally happen.

"Meanwhile the Cosmic Temple analogy, by definition of analogy, is non-literal. A day doesn't necessarily mean a 24 hour day"

The Cosmic Temple analogy is non-literal only about Genesis 1, not about Genesis 1 to 11. It is ALSO not an attested ANCIENT interpretation.

Day, I already admitted, that particular word does have non-literal interpretations, but "one aspect of a single moment creation" is the one that exists in St. Augustine, books IV to VI of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII. "Longer period" is again a much more modern one. ONLY after Lyell.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

"Interpretation and translation are not the same thing" Really? Fine. The section at 3:00 is about the literal vs non-literal interpretations that are used by people like Ham and others.

"She was not at all discussing translations" Just to shove this right back at you, she's not even discussing translations. She used the term interpretation.

"but she pretended the OLDER interpretation is ""non-literal history". It simply isn't" No, she is repeating what scholars have said now and in the past. There were non-literal interpretations in the past as their are now.

"Non-literal interpretations are NOT about the history in Genesis 1 to 11 itself, it's about what it points to" You've already admitted that different interpretations DO exist. Is it literally a 24 hour day? Not to many. Does "created" mean literally created from nothing? Not to many. That makes it a non-literal translation of history.

"The Cosmic Temple analogy is non-literal only about Genesis 1, not about Genesis 1 to 11" Genesis 1 is part of the history of the universe, and a key part of what Ham is talking about, and what SHE was talking about. It's like you're not even paying attention. Does it say the universe was actually created by God, or that it was adopted with rules by God? The literal interpretation by Ham is a different history than the non-literal suggested by a Cosmic Temple.

"It is ALSO not an attested ANCIENT interpretation" What does that even mean? It's not what people used to think so it's not rubber stamped? Even the interpretation from Ham doesn't match the older ones. You're trying to claim none exists and then saying none exist per the definition you decide. It's like saying you don't recognize an interpretation so it doesn't count and thus doesn't exist.

"Your lack of reading comprehension doesn't equal any lack of correct expression on my part" Actually it does. Word salad isn't my job to fix. It's bad enough you can't figure out how to avoid a double negative but you're also just creating strawman arguments and random "rules" about what "counts" in your mind.

The section is about Genesis 1-11, which is about history, and how the Ham interpretation is literal based while most others are not. If you want to really have a good faith argument you should start by actually sticking to what was said.

• Genesis 1-11 does cover history.
• Non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1-11 do in fact exist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "There were non-literal interpretations in the past as their are now."

Goalposts. Motte and Bailey. She didn't just claim there were non-literal interpretations, her exact words are

"part to a return to earlier interpretations of Genesis 1-11 as being non-literal history "

What I have said is, earlier interpretations fall into TWO groups, and neither is "non-literal history".

The two groups, which are usually not exclusive of each other, are:

• literal history (Genesis 22 means Isaac carried firewood)
• non-literal prophecy (Isaac carrying firewood means Jesus carrying the Cross).

Genesis 1 to 11 is in this respect no different from the rest of Genesis or the rest of historical books of the OT.

The category "non-literal history" would be a THIRD group, which does not exist.

"most Christians today as well as nearly all biblical Scholars of ancient Hebrew interpret Genesis 1-[11] as being allegorical"

There clearly are Biblical scholars of Ancient Hebrew who personally as Christians or Jews interpret it like that, but they would normally not attribute that interpretation to the hagiographers, whether they identify them as Moses or push them closer to our times.

"Is it literally a 24 hour day? Not to many."

To MOST of the ANCIENT commentators.

"Does "created" mean literally created from nothing? Not to many."

To ALL of the ancient Christian commentators. Because we take these two as canon:

For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart
[Wisdom 2:2]

I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also
[2 Machabees 7:28]

This means, ALL of the ancient Christian commentators take created as created from nothing.

"Does it say the universe was actually created by God, or that it was adopted with rules by God? The literal interpretation by Ham is a different history than the non-literal suggested by a Cosmic Temple"

Which is not an ancient one, at least not among Christians. Remember the one thing I contradicted her on is the interpretations of "non-literal history" being ancient ones, in a Christian context.

"It's not what people used to think so it's not rubber stamped?"

Partly. Matthew 28:16—20 means an interpretation that the Catholic Church has had since 33 AD cannot be wrong.

But remember, what I contradict her on is that kind of interpretation being ANCIENT ones. She's taunting Ken Ham with being ignorant about the original interpretation among Christians, while she is the one who is so.

"Even the interpretation from Ham doesn't match the older ones."

They do.

"You're trying to claim none exists and then saying none exist per the definition you decide."

IF you claim "Cosmic Temple" from pre-existing material existed as an old Christian interpretation, it's YOUR claim, so YOU have to show what Church Father and in what book, chapter, paragraph.

I happen to regularly read up in them, and I haven't found one.

"It's like saying you don't recognize an interpretation so it doesn't count and thus doesn't exist."

Not really. I don't recognise the "Cosmic Temple from pre-existing material" interpretation, but I very much DO say it exists NOW as a MODERN interpretation. Gutsick Gibbon is a contemporary person, so, at least one person, probably many more are NOW interpreting it like that.

However, I do not admit it exists like an ANCIENT interpretation. Now, Gutsick Gibbon is not older than Ken Ham, and she's definitely not older than Fr. George Leo Haydock. She's definitely not as old as the Church Fathers. This being so, the fact that SHE says "older interpretation" doesn't make it older, if you want to pretend it is still so, you have to trace it to an ANCIENT source. St. Augustine definitely does NOT hold to "Cosmic Temple from pre-existing materials" ...

"Word salad isn't my job to fix"

Nor your competence to diagnose. It's not MY word salad, it's YOUR incompetent reading skill.

"you can't figure out how to avoid a double negative"

Double negative is not there in a faulty way, because one of the negatives is part of a term, a citation from her word choice.

To correct your summing up.

• Genesis 1-11 does PRIMARILY cover history.
• Non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1-11 about OTHER THINGS THAN HISTORY do exist BACK THEN.

And that doesn't fix her point.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl "But remember, what I contradict her on is that kind of interpretation being ANCIENT ones. She's taunting Ken Ham with being ignorant about the original interpretation among Christians, while she is the one who is so" So you have something from the transcript that defines ancient exactly? Because just going by Wiki it is painfully easy to find the concept most definitely pre-dates Ham and his nonsense by a large margin.

Other Jews and Christians have long regarded the creation account of Genesis as an allegory – even prior to the development of modern science and the scientific accounts (based on the scientific method) of cosmological, biological and human origins. Notable proponents of allegorical interpretation include the Christian theologian Origen, who wrote in the 2nd century that it was inconceivable to consider Genesis literal history, Augustine of Hippo, who in the 4th century, on theological grounds, argued that God created everything in the universe in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain reading of Genesis would require;[2][3] and the even earlier 1st-century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days or in any determinate amount of time.[4]

Is first century not "ancient" enough for her to have a point against Ham? Especially since that also predates the development of modern science, which is also the entire reason why she brings this up?

But wait, something sounds different. What did she actually say again?

*as being non-literal history most Christians today as well as nearly all biblical Scholars of ancient Hebrew interpret Genesis 1-1 as being allegorical or potentially a cosmic Temple analogy in the allegorical interpretation these chapters are seen as true but they are seen as symbolic or*

She's not saying the ancient interpretations at all. She's saying the *biblical scholars of ancient Hebrew*. That's not talking about the old interpretations. It's talking about the interpretations of people who study ancient Hebrew.

"To correct your summing up. * Genesis 1-11 does PIRMARILY cover history" Finally got you to admit that at least.

"Non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1-11 about OTHER THINGS THAN HISTORY do exist BACK THEN" And yet you're still refusing to admit you're wrong.

"And that doesn't fix her point" Probably because you're not even close to what she actually said. She didn't say "an ancient interpretation", she said "scholars of ancient Hebrew". But depending on what you call "ancient", there are allegorical interpretations dating back a long time so it's even a moot point trying to suggest they don't exist. But more importantly is this bizarre hill you decided to die on that a non-literal interpretation about Genesis 1-11 isn't actually a non-literal interpretation of history.

Ham
Genesis tells us that God magically created the world from nothing and the number of days it took in our 24 hour version of days. This is the literal history of the universe.

Others (since the 1st century)
Genesis is an allegory for how God affected the natural world. It is not meant to be the literal history of the universe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "So you have something from the transcript that defines ancient exactly? Because just going by Wiki it is painfully easy to find the concept most definitely pre-dates Ham and his nonsense by a large margin."

Well, I'll give you a broader context.

ham believes the world was created more or less in its present state by a specific version of 2:10 the Christian God roughly 6,000 years ago and that there was a global flood Noah's flood roughly 4,400 years ago 2:18 which only eight people survived by boarding a wooden boat smaller than the Titanic with two of every kind of animal 2:24 and that this flood is responsible for the geologic column from the Cambrian to the Cretaceous as well as every geologic 2:31 signal found therein kenam pushes these ideas through his website and these 2:36 attractions but the real bread and butter appears to be his dominance in the homeschooling industry here in the 2:43 United States the reason for the dominance of evolution accepting Christians is due in part to advances in 2:50 science and the availability of information and in part to a return to earlier interpretations of Genesis 1-11 2:57 as being non-literal history

Let's underline this bit:

the reason for the dominance of evolution accepting Christians is due in part to advances in 2:50 science and the availability of information and in part to a return to earlier interpretations

So, we are NOT dealing with older than Ken Ham, that is already "domination of Evolution accepting Christians", but we are dealing with what they supposedly RETURN to.

That would mean "ancient".

Now, let's unpack her quote.

"Other Jews and Christians have long regarded the creation account of Genesis as an allegory"

What she is going to unpack is not allegory.

"Notable proponents of allegorical interpretation include the Christian theologian Origen, who wrote in the 2nd century that it was inconceivable to consider Genesis literal history,"

He was the odd man out. St. Augustine argues against him.

"Augustine of Hippo, who in the 4th century, on theological grounds, argued that God created everything in the universe in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain reading of Genesis would require;"

In St. Augustine taking issue with six literal days is the odd item out. However, that issue he does have from Origen.

"and the even earlier 1st-century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days or in any determinate amount of time."

That only concerns Genesis 1, precisely as St. Augustine's non-literality of days.

These people are NOT an argument against Young Earth. Ken Ham doesn't share the idea of one-moment creation, but if he did, it would take away a talking point or two, and leave the rest intact.

"But wait, something sounds different. What did she actually say again?"

You are quoting a follow up, as after what I originally responded to, in response to you mentioning those.

"Probably because you're not even close to what she actually said. She didn't say "an ancient interpretation", she said "scholars of ancient Hebrew"."

You are confusing what I originally responded to, namely items prior to time stamp 3:00 with an added item, namely what I looked up as after that time stamp.

"Genesis is an allegory for how God affected the natural world. It is not meant to be the literal history of the universe."

No, that is NOT what the ancients (including Origin and St. Augustine and including Philo) said.

That's a very incorrect summing up of their position.

NONE of them use "allegory" as about "for how God affected the natural world". ALL who USE "allegory" make it for Jesus Christ ... as in Genesis 2, Eve created from the side of Adam sleeping is allegory for the Church born from the side of Jesus pierced on Calvary. That's how allegory works.

Origen who actually does say "allegory, not history" (at least tentatively) is in fact saying Noah is an allegory for Jesus Christ.

NONE of them is saying the history of the universe given is an allegory for some OTHER history of the universe.

I actually DID look these guys up.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl "So, we are NOT dealing with older than Ken Ham, that is already "domination of Evolution accepting Christians", but we are dealing with what they supposedly RETURN to" No. Her point is the non-literal interpretation isn't new to Ham. It existed long before.

"He was the odd man out. St. Augustine argues against him." But he existed and his idea existed. Your claim the idea didn't exist by just saying "nuh-uhh" to one of the examples.

"That only concerns Genesis 1, precisely as St. Augustine's non-literality of days" And yet it matches to what she's saying about non-literal interpretations from a time long ago. You're just still trying to ignore it because it shows you're not correct.

"These people are NOT an argument against Young Earth. Ken Ham doesn't share the idea of one-moment creation, but if he did, it would take away a talking point or two, and leave the rest intact" Why are you imagining things that weren't said? The argument is literal interpretations and did non-literal interpretations exist. You've decided to ignore two examples in history that show non-literal interpretations existed.

"You are quoting a follow up, as after what I originally responded to, in response to you mentioning those" A strawman doesn't become any less invalid with age. Her quote remains about people who work with "ancient Hebrew" not the "ancient interpretations".

"You are confusing what I originally responded to, namely items prior to time stamp 3:00 with an added item, namely what I looked up as after that time stamp" Again, timing doesn't change a strawman.

"No, that is NOT what the ancients (including Origin and St. Augustine and including Philo) said." Then you've decided to ignore evidence, along with ignore her exact words.

"NONE of them use "allegory" as about "for how God affected the natural world". ALL who USE "allegory" make it for Jesus Christ ... as in Genesis 2, Eve created from the side of Adam sleeping is allegory for the Church born from the side of Jesus pierced on Calvary. That's how allegory works" I'm starting to think you don't know what allegory means. At the very least, claiming the universe was created in an instant and not 6 days is most definitely not literal. This alone supports what she said about Ham. If you want to update the Wiki section on allegory then go right ahead.

In The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Augustine argued that God had created everything in the universe simultaneously and not over a period of six days. He argued the six-day structure of creation presented in the Book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way – it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal.

"NONE of them is saying the history of the universe given is an allegory for some OTHER history of the universe" They are promoting the idea of a non literal interpretation of the history in Genesis. Which matches what she said.

Is the literal interpretation from Genesis 6 days? Yes.

Did people long ago argue against the literal interpretation from Genesis of 6 days? Yes.

Did she say that non literal interpretations of Genesis exist long before Ham? Yes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "Her point is the non-literal interpretation"

She doesn't say simply "non-literal interpretation" but "interpretation as non-literal history" ....

"But he existed and his idea existed."

And his idea is NOT what modern Evolution accepting Christians are "returning" to.

"Your claim the idea didn't exist by just saying "nuh-uhh" to one of the examples."

His idea was not an idea of "non-literal history", his idea was one of non-literal prophecy.

"And yet it matches to what she's saying about non-literal interpretations from a time long ago."

It actually doesn't. There is a huge difference between non-literal acceptance of one term and non-literality of a whole passage.

"You're just still trying to ignore it because it shows you're not correct."

I'm not ignoring it. I spent hours to study it in great detail, in St. Augustine's own words. As he stated it, it doesn't argue against either me or Ken Ham.

YOU are relying on an oversimplified summary of oversimplified summaries and saying I'm wrong because I'm actually aware of the real story.

"The argument is literal interpretations and did non-literal interpretations exist."

I have NOT said "non-literal interpretations did not exist". I DID and I still DO say interpretations as "non-literal history" did not exist.

"You've decided to ignore two examples in history that show non-literal interpretations existed."

They do NOT show that interpretations of "non-literal history" existed.

You are then giving strawman on strawman between what I originally answered and a later item in the time stamps.

AND ignoring what I said of the contemporaries, namely that professors of ancient Hebrew certainly would tend often enough to believe personally (if believers at all) that Genesis 1 should be taken as "non-literal history", but they would not attribute that position to the original text as taken by the original audience.

Those who perhaps by now do take it as such would be doing so by reconstruction, they would know they are not relying on a continuum of interpretation that has simply reached down to them.

"Then you've decided to ignore evidence, along with ignore her exact words."

You pretend I'm ignoring evidence, well, LOOK THE GUYS UP. Give me exact quotes from Philo, Origen, St. Augustine, where you consider them as holding Genesis 1 through 11 were somehow "non-literal history" ... her words and a summary from wikipedia is simply not detailed enough.

"I'm starting to think you don't know what allegory means."

If anything YOU don't know what allegory means, and most specifically not what it means in terms of Biblical interpretation. I'll give you the summary from St. Thomas Aquinas:

I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. For as the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "the New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.

This is from Summa Theologiae, Part I, Q 1, A 10. It's the corpus of the article, namely what St. Thomas gives as solution.

And since you seemed to imply that taking one term in a narrative in a non-literal way ("day" in Genesis 1 for instance) makes that narrative an allegory, I'll give you objection 3 and its answer:

Objection 3. Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical, which is not one of these four. Reply to Objection 3. The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God's arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.

In other words, non-literality of a term does NOT spell out "allegorical narrative" ...

"In The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Augustine argued that God had created everything in the universe simultaneously and not over a period of six days. He argued the six-day structure of creation presented in the Book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way – it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal."

Yes, in books IV, V, beginning of VI, where he says taking the six days literally is not very subtle, but good enough for beginners.

More precisely, he argued that all "God said" in Genesis 1 simply spell out a single act of will, and that than the angels were made aware of this single act in six successive apprehensions of it, and that each of them involved "evening knowledge" (seeing things as they were in themselves) for all angels and "morning knowledge" (seeing things in God and giving Him glory for them) for the good angels.

This is NOT what "sensus allegoricus" means, and this is NOT the same as taking Genesis 1 through 11 in a non-literal way. I don't think the word "spiritual" was used in those books of De Genesi ad litteram libri XII (it's some years since, the library where I read them is open tomorrow, not today), and unlike what you summarise this as, St. Augustine definitely DID take this as how the physical world was produced.

"They are promoting the idea of a non literal interpretation of the history in Genesis."

Taking sensus allegoricus as existing beside or even (for Origen) instead of the literal history does not involve non-literal history. It involves non-literal prophecy. Like when Isaac in Genesis 22 is taken as a type of Christ. Another word for "allegorical interpretation" is hence "typological interpretation". This is not limited to Genesis 22. We can see it when Esther is a type of Mary, but Haman of Antichrist. We can see it when Joseph in Egypt is a type of Jesus.

"Is the literal interpretation from Genesis 6 days? Yes."

From Genesis chapter 1. And that is not the only possible "literal interpretation of the passage" but the most obvious literal interpretation of the term.

"Did people long ago argue against the literal interpretation from Genesis of 6 days? Yes."

They did not argue against taking Genesis 1 as literal event, and they most certainly did not argue against taking events further on as "non-literal history" ....

"Did she say that non literal interpretations of Genesis exist long before Ham? Yes."

She said that interpretations of Genesis as "non-literal history" existed long before him. It didn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime To be complete.

Is the literal interpretation from Genesis 2000—3000+ years from Adam to Abraham? Yes.

Did people long ago argue against the literal interpretation from Genesis of 2000—3000+ years from Adam to Abraham? No.

Including Origen. And it was when checking St. Augustine that I discovered it.

Did she say that an interpretation as "non-literal history" (including presumably non-literality of that time span) was older, not just than Ham, but than Ham's view of Genesis 5 and 11? Yes, unfortunately.