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 nothing hysterical about telling someone who is openly denying the accuracy of the Bible as saying they are calling God a liar.<<
OK, RB, you obviously have not read a thing I have written if you say that I am denying the accuracy of the bible.
Let me put it to you simply:
There is (at least) one portion of the gospel which is myth. Read Matthew's geneaology. Matthew says Joram begat Uzziah, who begat Jotham. The problem is Chronicles teaches us that Joram did not beget Uzziah, he begat Ahaziah, who begat Joash, who begat Amaziah, who begat Azariah (who probably is Uzziah), who begat Joash.
Further, Matthew tells us that Shealtiel (Salathiel) begat Zorobabel (Zerubabbel). But he did not. Pedaiah, Shealtiel's brother begat Zorobabel.
In fact, Luke tells us that Joseph was descended from David's son, Nathan, while Matthew tells us he was descended from David's son, Solomon. From that point, Matthew and Luke's geneaologies differ completely, right up to Matthew.
Matthew has traced a patrilineage of eldest sons, directly contradicting Luke. Unlike Luke's gospel, Matthew's shows a direct lineage of royal heirs, straight back to David, even though the Old Testament shows the lineage broken at Zerubabel. Matthew says Mary's father-in-law was Jacob, Luke says he was Heli.
Is God lying?
From the simplistic way of reading the bible, I would have to conclude that either Luke and Chronicles or Matthew is a liar or is wrong. Since that is not so, I must conclude that I am misunderstanding one of them.
(By the way, Yes I am aware of the hypothesis that Luke actually recounts MARY'S lineage, supposing that since Mary was an only child, according to Catholic tradition, Joseph was LEGAL heir to Heli, although biological son of Jacob. But this does not account for Matthew's numerous errors tracing the line of kings.
The historical fact is that the royal lineage of David was broken, and a curse placed on it by God. One theory is that Matthew uses myth to create a lineage which shows the transfer of inherited blessing according to a lineage of "spiritually annointed" successors.)