IMHO the text uses "...and there was evening and morning, Day X..." to invalidate that very claim. Not that it has ever stopped anyone who arrogantly wanted to re-define God's Word from doing so. Not from the beginning when the father of lies told the first lie, "Did God really say...?".
Of course, my post 479 said, "Nothing is unreasonable or impossible except a literal interpretation of Genesis..."
We are seeing the proof of that statement in your posts.
"You posted your 493/494 while I was composing my # 495 -- otherwise, I would have included you in its ping list."
Oh well, that makes ALL the difference. LOL!
"Please watch this movie linked therein."
Oh, I see. The universe is really, really, really big so we know the Bible is wrong. The only thing that is really apparent from your movie is the degree of credulity that is necessary to accept it as 'truth'.
"Then, please explain to all of us..."
Oh pardon me. I did not realize that you spoke for everyone. The drama simply reeks.
"...what authority, hubris, piety, or sinfulness qualifies you to insist that the "yoms" of the God who created what you see in that movie -- must be timed by the rotation rate of this third-rate ball of mud, circling a second-rate sun, out on the fringes of our ordinary galaxy (among untold billions of galaxies). [A ball of mud that He created, BTW...]"
Simply the authority of Scripture in which the God I serve is able to accurately describe His works of creation. Evidently your god is so small the he is unable to communicate effectively but needs the word of men to speak for him. And you apparently feel well-qualified to speak to me about 'authority, hubris, piety, and sinfulness'. I suppose that you must have more experience with that than I do.
My God who, btw, does not reckon the Earth to be a 'third-rate ball of mud, circling a second-rate sun, out on the fringes of an ordinary galaxy among untold billions of galaxies'. The God I serve reckons the inhabitants of the Earth to be the primary focus of creation and redemption who are worth the life of His Only Begotten Son.
And the sheer number of assumptions that underly your 'movie' is staggering. Any one which that is incorrect simply obliterates the whole story. But such is the 'authority' of the words of men.
"IOW, who told you that you have the right to "set the clock of" our eternal, immortal, timeless, omnipresent, omnipotent Creator?"
Of course, you simply beg the question when you assume that I am the one who has done what you claim and not you yourself. Should I be impressed with your use of logical fallacy? Is that what passes for sound argument in your experience?
"IMHO, if you believe you have that right, then your concept of our God is immeasurably too small."
And IMHO, John 8:43-45 applies here.
As I said, 'hubris'. Did His Only Begotten Son say that He came because Earth is (and, by extension, you and I are) special, and "the primary focus of creation and redemption"?
No.
Read His own words in Luke 19:10...
(He came, NOT because we -- of all his creation -- are "special" -- but because we are sinners and in need of redemption.)