If the days were not LITERAL DAYS, then there was no reason for GOD HIMSELF to use the word DAY here, was there? You are calling God a liar when you do that...
Not to jump in here, but Jesus taught using parables... which are stories.
I wouldn't say the literal sense of the Word is wrong - or a lie - but I would say in different contexts it means different things. Both externally and internally. And every word is important in meaning i.e. why would evening and morning describe a day other than it being a state change.
I think of it this way: it is important that our children know and understand the creation story. Genesis 1 describes like a parable how we are born again... something every Christian must know and face.
What's interesting is that the 7th day is what starts off Genesis 2. After which the creation is repeated but out of sequence. Wouldn't think that it would be that hard to remember what was on the previous page.
*sigh.*
I don't say you are calling God a liar, can you at least do the same courtesy for me? Can't we have a rational discussion without such ionflammatory, hysterical language?
The Exodus parallel is pointing out the precedent that even God rested after one of his days. It does not establish that one of God's days equals twenty-four hours, as you claim it does. In fact, the bible makes quite plain that one of God's days is as a thousand of man's, and in quite a way that the use of "thousand" is figurative: It was used to mean what children now call "a zillion." Plus, you literal reading of "evening" and "morning" is impossible, since the Earth has not been formed yet! The sun always shines, so what causes darkness?
If your concept were true, God would have to limit himself to a locale on the Earth, in order that he might experience Evening.
Now you are correct in pointing out that the sequence of events in Genesis 1 do not follow the sequence of events in evolution. Please note that in this very thread I explained that what is presented in Genesis 1-11 is NOT historical, but mythical.
No, I'm not saying it's "mere" myth, like the Greek and Roman myths. Those myths aren't "mere" myths, they are false myths. There is true myth. Greco-Roman myths teach falsities or limited truths about the world. The creation myth is true myth: it's truth is complete, with no falseness.
Why does this matter? Because fundamentalism is driving a wedge between science and religion which is destructive to both. Science has gotten defensive from attack by religion, turning nihilistic in a way which would have been totally alien to Einstein, Keppler, or Mendel. And religion is becoming Luddite, segregated to the powerless corridors of society, because those with recourse to reason are forced to reject it.
There is a tempting argument that religion should be powerless in this way, but that notion would be calamitous to our society, which is built on religion having influence through democratic action to create the prevening grace of justice. For the sake of democracy, we cannot allow religion to become irrational, but the evidence against the 7000-year-old Earth is so preponderous, your literalism is fatal.
I've seen science flamed as the source of every problem in society. I reject that; it is the divorce of science from religion-informed values that is the problem. You are handing science, technology, and all their power over to the exclusive domain of evil!
"If the days were not LITERAL DAYS, then there was no reason for GOD HIMSELF to use the word DAY here, was there? You are calling God a liar when you do that..."
No, we are saying the fundamentalist take on Scripture is incorrect. Now, you may say that fundamentalists ARE God, but I don't think so. ;-)