*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!
There is nothing hysterical about telling someone who is openly denying the accuracy of the Bible as saying they are calling God a liar.
Either it means what it says or it doesn't.
And the Bible clearly says those were literal days.
And It is obvious, all you have to do is just believe what it says.
In order to believe what you are trying to say, that those days were indeterminate time periods but surely not a 24 hour day, I have to ignore the text entirely, ignore the modifiers which accompany the text, and ignore the parallel passages which refer back to the text confirming that the text says literal days.
In other words, I would have to call God a liar.
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 preposterous, your literalism is fatal.
That is the most outstanding, cogent, concise, accurate assessment of the problem from all sides. Wow. I cannot think of enough adjectives to crib the perfection of that observation.
Just wow.