"Now, you're just blathering nonsense", to quote fellow Freeper. The Bible is saying that the passage of time has no bearing on God, as He alone is immortal. Read all of Psalm 90, and keep it in context. The writer is referring to the brevity of our lives, and that God sees our lives from beginning to end, generation to generation. Peter is referring to the judgement to come, where the earth will be destroyed by fire, just as it once was by a global catastrophic flood, which I imagine you explain away as well. Incidentally, some take the 'day is a thousand years', and use the 6 days of creation to refer to the 6000 years of the time for Satan and men to rule the earth, until The Day is upon us.
You are isogetically reading into Genesis 1 the day-age nonsense, for it plainly states "evening and morning were the first day", and repeats that formula 5 more times. Just because your limited scientific (so called) understanding requires billions of years for evolution and light travel, does not mean that God did. He could create everything instantaneously, but he took 6 of our earth days to accomplish it.
So, if you dismiss the days as literal, then you must also dismiss the sequence, lest you have plants surviving thousands or millions of years with no sun or insects.
Believe what you want, but be careful about twisting scripture to meet your predetermined notions.
Matthew 18:6 If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
"Isogetically"? No, that would be you, FRiend.
I merely noted that both the Old Testament and the New clearly state: time is not the same to God as it is to us.
Indeed, the Old Testament Psalms 90:4 is especially informative, because it provides us with no simple formula, such as one of our days = a thousand years to God, but then adds, "like a watch in the night", meaning it could be anything.
So, you can spin and contextualize all you wish, but I see no stumbling block here.
God's day is not the same as ours, and that's all we need to know here, imho.
jimmyray: "...if you dismiss the days as literal, then you must also dismiss the sequence, lest you have plants surviving thousands or millions of years with no sun or insects."
But I don't "dismiss" them at all, I fully accept them as really good ancient approximations of what modern science tells us most likely happened.
Obviously, the light in verse 3 is not the same light as in verse 16, but I see no reasons to be overly concerned about it.
I think it's amazing they came so close, especially when you consider how wacky other ancient creation stories sound today.
jimmyray: "Believe what you want, but be careful about twisting scripture to meet your predetermined notions."
But I wouldn't twist anything because scripture is what it is, and should be taught that way.
If & when children reach the point of asking science-based questions, they should be told that science and the Bible generally agree, except that science does not recognize, because it refuses to see, the Hand of God in nature, but we know, because the Bible tells us, that God's Hand is active in everything we see of nature.