"Does it really matter whether I believe the days of Genesis 1 were literal days or metaphorical ages? As long as people believe in creation, what difference does it make?" What this reasoning essentially teaches is that the actuality of creation is essential to believe, while the revealed details of it are not. As long as brethren agree in the actuality, we should not fuss about the specifics! Is this understanding correct? Consider these examples and notice the decay of Bible authority:

• Does it really matter if God used special creation or evolution to bring about life? As long as people believe in God being the source, why does it matter about the means or "process" by which he brought all things into existence?

• Does it really matter if Jesus was resurrected on the third day according to the scriptures as long as one believes that Jesus is God? Perhaps we shall charge Paul with preaching the "unessential gospel" when he wrote "Moreover, brethren, I declared to you the gospel which I preached to you. . .For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according the Scriptures and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Is Paul wasting the inspired pen when he stresses the "third day"? Should we suggest that, "It doesn't really matter if we believe this third day to be literal or symbolic as long as we believe Jesus arose" What about the fellow who comes up and says, "Does it really matter whether Jesus bodily raised from the grave or symbolically raised in a cause or purpose? All we must agree on is that He died for our sins"? What about another person who suggests that it doesn't really matter whether He was really dead or merely asleep (as some advocate today), but that we must only agree that God so loved us that He sent His only Son." Where do we draw the line?

• Let's apply this "Does it really matter" mentality to the subject of baptism. How about if one says, "The details of baptism are not important. Does it really matter if baptism is supposed to be in water (Acts 8:36; 10:47)? Does it really matter if baptism is to be a burial (Rom. 6:3-4)? As long as one believes baptism is for salvation, what difference does it make if one is baptized in water, in the Spirit, or metaphorically baptized in the word?"

One can see that the present controversy over the "days of Genesis" is deeper and wider than "days" per se. It deals with our fundamental approach to scripture. Someone may rebut that it doesn't matter how we view the Old Testament; all that matters is how we understand the New Covenant. Brethren, if we can be so bold to mythologize, distort and twist the Old Testament, what will keep us from doing the same to the New? If we can twist the Old Testament to make it more palatable for modern scientific skepticism, why not do the same with the New Testament? Look to New Testament examples. When the apostles quoted Old Testament scriptures, they did not do so to pervert them, or make them more acceptable to their community, but to establish a truth. Notice Deity's position regarding this subject:

• We are to use the Old Testament for our learning to make us wise (Rom. 15:4; 2 Tim. 3:15, 16).

• We should carefully understand Old Testament teaching, or we will not properly understand God's historical working. Because some "willfully forgot," they became scoffers (see 2 Peter 3:1ff.).

• Our approach to the Old Testament will affect our understanding of the New Testament. Notice where Jesus stood "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (Jn. 5:46-47). Yes, it matters!