Well that proves my point, doesn't it? You appeal to the 'Church Fathers' over the Scriptures. From the Biblical perspective, a natural day is defined by 'evening and morning' which only requires a source of light (conveniently created on Day 1). You argue yourself right out of believing the Scriptures through human logic. Not good.
"And of course I've read Exodus 20:11. But because Scripture has one sense doesn't mean it doesn't have another as well. Are you going to tell me that 70 "weeks" in Daniel's prophecy only meant literally 7-day periods? We're dealing with multiple levels of meaning here."
OK, so you admit multiple-levels of meaning but deny the one level that disagrees with what man says. You again put man's word above God's Word.
"What is human pride is for modern-day exegetes to come to Genesis 1...which every Rabbi and Church Father admitted was an extraordinarily difficult text...and pretend that they have it all figured out in terms of what God did and how."
What is human pride is for modern-day exegetes to come to Genesis 1 and pretend that it must be molded to agree with what man says about the creation rather than what God said.
"ALL of the interpretations out there, GourmetDan, and that includes yours and mine and everyone else's, *are subject to error*. Believing otherwise is not only prideful but flagrantly heretical."
Mine isn't an interpretation. It's a straightforward reading and adding up the timelines listed. You insist it must be an interpretation because it doesn't agree with what man says on the subject and you prefer to agree with man's word over God's Word.
"Ah this doctrine of perspecuity....what evil it hath wrought in the Church."
Ah this doctrine of opacity....what evil it hath wrought in the Church. (Spell check is your friend, btw.)
LOL...no my friend, I believe the Scriptures. I believe ALL of them...so that means when I get two passages that don't seem to jive I try to figure out what the heck is going on instead of sweeping one of them under the rug to fit a pet theory.
Again, I think your dismissal of the exegetical problems here is cavalier. If we are talking about a source of light other than the sun, then what was this source of light? And were its evening and morning periods longer or shorter than the 24 hours we are used to with the sun?
Mine isn't an interpretation. It's a straightforward reading
And that's the problem. You seem to have equated, in your mind, your own personal reading with the "straightforward", plain, and obvious reading. I don't think you have any authority to make such a determination.