[Magnum44]

First, I already stated I would defer to Him to define what a day is, and what constitutes a morning and evening. For all I know Day 1 morning is the Big Bang and evening is the initial cooling period.

Secondly, and more important, those that try to parse and pick apart His Word for the purpose of trying to espouse either argument (for or against the literal 24 hour day creation) are missing the point of His gifts to us, and really need to focus on their own relationships rather than worry what others think.

JMO

[Mr. Silverback]

First, I already stated I would defer to Him to define what a day is, and what constitutes a morning and evening. For all I know Day 1 morning is the Big Bang and evening is the initial cooling period.

You are missing the point by a wide margin. My point was not that it's up to you or me to define what a day is, my point was that He has already defined what a day is.

Also, let's take the idea for a moment that God was describing the events of the Big Bang and the following evolution of the Earth and its critters in Genesis 1, and a day means cosmological and evolutionary ages. Well then, how did plants come before a sun, and how did birds come to be before land animals? Either the first two chapters of Genesis (and therefore the third chapter) are a fairy tale, or they are true. What they are most definitely NOT is a description of Earth's evolution.

Secondly, and more important, those that try to parse and pick apart His Word for the purpose of trying to espouse either argument (for or against the literal 24 hour day creation) are missing the point of His gifts to us, and really need to focus on their own relationships rather than worry what others think.

If there's no importance to making sure the Word is properly interpreted, what's with all the warnings about false teaching in the New Testament?

Didn't you violate your own standard by bringing up the "maybe a day isn't a 24 hour day" point in the first place?

If the Fall of Man is part of a fairy tale instead of a documented historical event, doesn't that have implications for the rest of the Gospel?

Why would I be wandering off the reservation by agreeing with Jesus, Paul, Isaiah, Hosea, Malachi, Jeremiah, David, and the writer of Job on the issue of the validity of the Creation account?

Would you apply this standard to other parts of the Bible, or only to the Creation account?

Sorry for the questions, but I find it odd that Christians think we can know and enjoy the love of God better by seeking to understand His word less.