POLL: Which of these elements of the creation story do you believe?

[OzSpen]

Revelations 8:4:
And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.

Psalm 91:
They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Rev. 10:
So I took the small scroll from the angel's hand and ate it;

Ezekiel 1:8
Under their wings on their four sides were human hands.

Citing individual verses like this, without exegesis and exposition of the meaning is a meaningless exercise.

Oz

 

[rakovsky]

Dr H C Leupold, provides a more exegetical and expositional explanation of the Hebrew text:

So, 'circle of the earth' means 'dome of the heavens' and not a flat earth as you are proposing.

this "circle of the earth" means the dome of the heavens. Or to use another approach, as a man might with infinite ease spread out a light veil, so it in days of old cost the Lord no more effort when he for the first time created and "spread out the heavens." Or still a third approach, as a man pitches a tent, with ease and in quick order, this being a common occupation among men, with the same ease the Lord spread out the heavens like a tent to dwell in (Leupold 1971:2.35)​

The object underneath a dome, a light veil, or a tent can be a flat object, like the ground.

Here is a graph of a "dome of the heavens":

 

[rakovsky]

Basically, back in message 58, N. F. Gier is saying that there was a common mythology about creating the world and diving the primordial waters with the dividing of Tiamat a goddess, but that the Hebrews took a step in demythologizing that story in Genesis 1 because it does not explicitly mention any personal gods besides the Creator there:

"Dillow believes, without good justification, that Moses corrects much of the cosmology he inherited from others, but "one of the things he does not correct is the notion of a literal liquid ocean placed above the atmosphere."(29) When Dillow claims, and rightly so, that Moses wrote of a sovereign Yahweh completely in charge of a depersonalized nature, he is conceding that the Hebrew writers, as with our example of the Sumerian chronologies, were historicizing myth."
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm
​

Marduk and Tiamat. Tiamat is the serpeant.

Same

God dividing the waters and the earth

 

[Hoghead1]

Hello, Tree!

The idea was that the firmament was hard like metal. The waters above don't refer to clouds, because the stars are "in the firmament", whereas the waters are "above the firmament" in Genesis 1.


OK, so are you saying that the days in Genesis 1 are the same time length for humans, eg. a single human wake-sleep cycle, as they are in 2016 AD?



There are a lot more passages reflecting the ancient idea of the earth's flatness, as when it talks about the earth being "spread out", something that doesn't happen to balls:
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml#earthflat

When it says in Genesis 1 that the heavens are "spread out", as you put it, does this express the idea that the heavens are a flat plane? It seems that a flat earth idea would go well with a flat heavens idea.


This is what some mainstream theologians propose about Genesis 1, that it is only allegorical.



http://www.firstpreschurch.com/index.php/cfd-director-s-blog/62-october-2013

I view Genesis as providing two contradictory chronologies. Regarding Gen. 1, I think the author, the P source, has in mind literal 24-hour days. I posit the purpose of the text was liturgical in nature. It was to fight polytheism, which had different days for different gods. Gen. 1 was intended to remind everyone that we should all worship the same God every day. Hence, it goes through one week, seven days.

 

[Hoghead1]

Rakovsky-

What a cool idea for a poll. As I think you already know, Bible scholars have known for a long time that a literal reading of the Bibles supports items 1-5, yet so many Christians today pick and choose what they'll take literally, then turn around and deny evolution so as to be "literal".

Here's what I posted on the other, related, thread:

Yes, the Bibles are clear - a literal reading depicts a flat earth, in dozens of verses.
(Ibid)
Flat Earth-

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), is set on a foundation, like a table (2Sm 22:16, Ps 18:15, 102:25, Pr 8:27-29, Is 48:13), has a length as only a flat plane would (Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) heaven (Job 28:24) or mountain (Matt 4:8) or which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Geocentrism-

The Bible describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars in water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5 (note “returns”, not perspective), Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

We live in a Planetarium-
The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12 estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Many Christians today have recognized this. Deciding to actually take their Bible literally, they are honest, and hence ascribe to a flat earth. Here is but one example of many:

That's what a literal reading says. The only consistent positions an honest person could take are to either reject heliocentrism, a spherical earth, evolution, the atmosphere, etc - or to accept them all.

In Christ - Papias

Yes, very true. The biblical cosmology, as was typical in most ancient cosmologies, viewed the earth as immobile and flat.

 

[rakovsky]

I view Genesis as providing two contradictory chronologies. Regarding Gen. 1, I think the author, the P source, has in mind literal 24-hour days. I posit the purpose of the text was liturgical in nature. It was to fight polytheism, which had different days for different gods. Gen. 1 was intended to remind everyone that we should all worship the same God every day. Hence, it goes through one week, seven days.

I see what you are saying - just as a current liturgical week has 24 hour periods, so if we take a liturgical view of the days of Genesis 1, we can conclude that it was also talking about 24 hour periods.

However, I propose that even if the 7 days of creation are used as a basis for 7 liturgical days, the days of Genesis do not need to be in 24 hour periods. It may be only the concept of 7 days that is important to justify a liturgical use and function. This is what I meant about prefigurement. In Biblical thinking, an event in the old Testament can "prefigure" and hence justify some fulfillment that occurs in a later event or prophecy and thus does not have to be the exact same kind of event.

A good example of this is the raising up of the snake in the desert. This can justify later on Christ pointing to it as an explanation for the cross. But the prefigurement does not have to be the same thing as the prefigurement or its later liturgical use (eg. the use of crosses in Christian liturgy).

Your proposed liturgical purpose of what you call a "seven day", "one week" cycle can be well served whether or not the original days had the same length in human lifetimes as days do today. Just as God rested on the Sabbath, the seventh day, so liturgically, the seventh day of night day cycles today are a day of rest. This does not show whether the first night day period was exactly the same time it was in the time before humans even existed.

On another note, I think it's a common misperception that there are two different chronologies for Creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. What people who are confused do is missed that what they consider a "second" creation story is only the story of God creating the Garden of Eden. They mistakenly imagine that the Creation of the Garden of Eden, with the animals etc. is an entire new Creation of the whole world or something like that.
First God made the animals in Genesis 1 and then in Genesis 2 God made the animals in Genesis 2 in the Garden.

Back in 1500-1000 BC the Bible writers could explain it to modern scholars, and so they didn't care to bang it all out in total scientific depth. I think a lot of times confusion about the Bible occurred that way. Back in 30 AD there were all kinds of details that the writers didn't explain, because they didn't care as much about what the audience in 2000 AD thought, they were just writing for their own era and audience and expected the necessary traditions to be passed down to explain things. They didn't expect that people would show up many centuries later and say things like "we should only go by what the Bible says in its own words, not the early Christian traditions passed down explaining what the Bible meant."

 

[Hoghead1]

I see what you are saying - just as a current liturgical week has 24 hour periods, so if we take a liturgical view of the days of Genesis 1, we can conclude that it was also talking about 24 hour periods.

However, I propose that even if the 7 days of creation are used as a basis for 7 liturgical days, the days of Genesis do not need to be in 24 hour periods. It may be only the concept of 7 days that is important to justify a liturgical use and function. This is what I meant about prefigurement. In Biblical thinking, an event in the old Testament can "prefigure" and hence justify some fulfillment that occurs in a later event or prophecy and thus does not have to be the exact same kind of event.

A good example of this is the raising up of the snake in the desert. This can justify later on Christ pointing to it as an explanation for the cross. But the prefigurement does not have to be the same thing as the prefigurement or its later liturgical use (eg. the use of crosses in Christian liturgy).

Your proposed liturgical purpose of what you call a "seven day", "one week" cycle can be well served whether or not the original days had the same length in human lifetimes as days do today. Just as God rested on the Sabbath, the seventh day, so liturgically, the seventh day of night day cycles today are a day of rest. This does not show whether the first night day period was exactly the same time it was in the time before humans even existed.

On another note, I think it's a common misperception that there are two different chronologies for Creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. What people who are confused do is missed that what they consider a "second" creation story is only the story of God creating the Garden of Eden. They mistakenly imagine that the Creation of the Garden of Eden, with the animals etc. is an entire new Creation of the whole world or something like that.
First God made the animals in Genesis 1 and then in Genesis 2 God made the animals in Genesis 2 in the Garden.

Back in 1500-1000 BC the Bible writers could explain it to modern scholars, and so they didn't care to bang it all out in total scientific depth. I think a lot of times confusion about the Bible occurred that way. Back in 30 AD there were all kinds of details that the writers didn't explain, because they didn't care as much about what the audience in 2000 AD thought, they were just writing for their own era and audience and expected the necessary traditions to be passed down to explain things. They didn't expect that people would show up many centuries later and say things like "we should only go by what the Bible says in its own words, not the early Christian traditions passed down explaining what the Bible meant."

I don't hold wit this prefigurement idea. I argue it violates the historicity of teh Bible and also too blatantly contradicts the plain meaning of the text. Also, I argue there are two contradictory creation accounts in Genesis. I have posted my reasons quite a number of times already. However, just in case, here they are again, below.

1. 
   
   
   When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
   
   
   
   Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.
   
   
   
   Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled
   
   “The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from two different time periods.
   
   
   
   Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.
   
   
   
   There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
   
   
   
   There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.
   
   
   
   There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.
   
   
   
   Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.
   
   
   
   Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

 

[Giacinta]

Rakovsky, many statements in the Bible cannot be taken literally, any private subjective interpretation could be wrong.

 

[rakovsky]

I don't hold wit this prefigurement idea. I argue it violates the historicity of teh Bible and also too blatantly contradicts the plain meaning of the text.

I don't know how the idea that the 7 days of creation corresponding to 7 days in liturgies or religious observational cycles somehow contradicts the plain meaning of the text, since that is what i think you are proposing anyway. This kind of correspondence is what I likened to "prefigurement". Maybe you have no idea what I am talking about.

But anyway the Bible never says how long in human time the "days" are before it specifies that the sun was created to measure time.

 

[mark kennedy]

OK, well maybe you should write out in much more detail and length because that is what I thought you were saying:

That is, I thought you meant it was written in days in 24 hours as a reminder. It would be helpful if you would write about this in much more detail why you selected #2, as the text never specifies how long the days are and we know that no man was yet created and 1000 years for man are a day for God it says in the Bible.

Day in ancient times is 24 hours just like they are today, that hasn't changed. While I recognize there might be a considerable length of time between original creation and creation week day means day in Genesis 1. I really never understood the audacity of modernism to redefine things just because they don't like the obvious meaning. Frankly, I think it's dishonest.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

I really never understood the audacity of modernism to redefine things just because they don't like the obvious meaning. Frankly, I think it's dishonest.

I agree, yet I only voted for #5 because we must also be prepared to accept that there may be some misunderstandings about Genesis despite the record of their stubborn persistence.

I lost interest in arguing the "proper" interpretation of Genesis a long time ago. What interests me is understanding why the formation of the universe appears to have taken so long and why it appears life formed through common descent. I'm not saying it did. But I do wonder why it appears that way ... and not the flippant or trite answers many give. But, assuming the sincerest of intentions on the part of those who believe it, why does it appear that way?

 

[rakovsky]

Day in ancient times is 24 hours just like they are today, that hasn't changed. While I recognize there might be a considerable length of time between original creation and creation week day means day in Genesis 1. I really never understood the audacity of modernism to redefine things just because they don't like the obvious meaning. Frankly, I think it's dishonest.

2 Peter 3:8 King James Version (KJV)
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Man did not exist on days 1 to 5, so who told man about the days before 6? Who was around then? And how long are his days?

The Bible says also that the sun was made to measure time on day 4. So if the measuring piece was only made on day 4, how do we measure the preceding time?

It surprises me how many people chose #2 in the poll without choosing 1,3,4, when #2 is the only concept I listed that is not stated in the Bible. The Bible never actually says how long the days in Genesis are, and numerous times the Bible uses the word day as if it can mean different physical lengths of time. See also Psalm 90:4 or the apocalyptic phrase In that day.

Those who consider #1 unbiblical and who think the waters "above" the heavens that contain the stars means ordinary earthly clouds are redefining things because they don't like their meaning, are they not?

 

[doctorwho29]

I believe what Genesis and the rest of the Bible says about Creation. I do think that 3 and 4 are probably examples of poetic language. Sometimes prophetic books and passages can present the truth in a poetic way. For example, saying "the four corners of the Earth" just means that the entire earth (it's every nook and cranny) is being talked about. This phrase is still sometimes used today but nobody rational actually believes in a flat earth. Genesis, on the other hand, is presented more like a historical book so I take it literally.

 

[Papias]

Nice try about 'the circle of the earth' in Isa 40:22 (NIV) being flat, but Hebrew scholar, Dr H C Leupold, provides a more exegetical and expositional explanation of the Hebrew text:

No, he doesn't. He makes some claims, and doesn't back them up. In fact, he's listed by the evidence-denier ICR as "approved", along with sheisters like Austin. http://www.icr.org/article/young-earth-creationist-bibliography/

It's clear that it does mean "flat circle", because of other Biblical use.

The Hebrew word that is used in Isaiah 44:22 (חוּג, chug) does not at all imply a spherical earth. The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun חוּג (chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun מְחוּגׇה(mechugah; Isa 44:13). This term refers to a "circle instrument," a device used to make a circle, what we call a compass.​

From http://www.crivoice.org/circle.html

In fact, there is a Hebrew word for "sphere" or ball, which is "dur". Why wasn't that word used? Because "sphere" wasn't meant.

Which is a good thing. After all - the other dozens of verses show a flat earth. If this one did say "ball", it would be in contradiction to the rest.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[StanJ]

Yes, 1, 2, and 5, is exactly what I read in Genesis 1. The Hebrew word for day, which is yom, connotes 8 three hour periods as represented by the knuckles in our 8 fingers.

 

[rakovsky]

Yes, 1, 2, and 5, is exactly what I read in Genesis 1. The Hebrew word for day, which is yom, connotes 8 three hour periods as represented by the knuckles in our 8 fingers.

Are those hours in Days 1-4 the same length in human lives as they are in normal days today?

I think that things are not specified in the Genesis 1 account. It says "days" but days can mean different physical lengths of time as Psalm 90:4 says. Elsewhere, for example Jesus asks in the gospels: "Are there not 12 hours in a day"?
John 11:9

So it looks like things are not always set in the same way.

 

[StanJ]

Are those hours in Days 1-4 the same length in human lives as they are in normal days today?
I think that things are not specified in the Genesis 1 account. It says "days" but days can mean different physical lengths of time as Psalm 90:4 says. Elsewhere, for example Jesus asks in the gospels: "Are there not 12 hours in a day"?
John 11:9
So it looks like things are not always set in the same way.

The setting in Genesis 1 is more in relationship to an agrarian society when Moses wrote it. As such day's were based on the lunar cycle which is why they talk about the evening and morning period as compromising one day, basically it is not much different today as our days are based on lunar cycles. As I pointed out the Hebrew word 'Yom' connotes and actual day just as we have them today, and is supported in by the wording in Exodus 20.
Psalm 90:4 does not say a thousand years IS a day, it says a thousand years in your sight is AS a day. Not the same thing. God it's not bound by time, God created time. He basically exists outside of time which is why the Bible says he has no beginning or end. He is not subject to time.
Indeed what Jesus says in John 11 is not the same as what Psalm 90:4 states, as they are in two different languages and use different words. You can't compare apples to oranges and have a PROPER comparison.

 

[rakovsky]

The setting in Genesis 1 is more in relationship to an agrarian society when Moses wrote it. As such day's were based on the lunar cycle which is why they talk about the evening and morning period as compromising one day, basically it is not much different today as our days are based on lunar cycles.

Except back in genesis 1 on days 1-3 the moon and hence lunar cycle was not made yet. So it is hard to measure the cycles at that point as being exactly the same length in today's time when the moon was not even made yet. Nowhere does it say how long the cycles are in days 1-4 in today's human time.

As I pointed out the Hebrew word 'Yom' connotes and actual day just as we have them today, and is supported in by the wording in Exodus 20.

This connotation is not absolute and in all places, as 2 Peter 3:8 shows. In Genesis 1 we are talking about a much different context than the normal days of today. we are talking about a time when the luna and sola were not even made then to count how long a solar day was.

The Bible simply does not say or specify how long a day was in Genesis 1. It is not clear it was a normal sun day or people day if the sun wasn't even made yet and nor were people.

Psalm 90:4 does not say a thousand years IS a day, it says a thousand years in your sight is AS a day. Not the same thing.

And then there is 2 Peter 3:8, a day with the Lord is a thousand years with man.
It does not say how long the days were in Genesis 1-4. Are we talking about the Lord's days or Man's days or what? Man was not even around then. So the Bible does not specify how long the days were.

God it's not bound by time, God created time. He basically exists outside of time which is why the Bible says he has no beginning or end. He is not subject to time.

Sure. So he could make a day in Genesis 1 however long he wants. It does not specify.

Indeed what Jesus says in John 11 is not the same as what Psalm 90:4 states, as they are in two different languages and use different words. You can't compare apples to oranges and have a PROPER comparison.

Jesus knew Hebrew directly and spoke Aramaic as his own language. Whatever he said was probably even in Aramaic, a language with very similar roots like Hebrew. It's like god and Dios in two indo european languages when the words are the same. Proper comparison is possible.
In fact, Hebrew Yom is a late Hebrew/Aramaic word:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3117.htm

So in Jesus' common speech he probably said Yom anyway in the gospels.

Bottom line: Day can mean different lengths of time.

And we haven't even gotten into apocalyptic prophetic "days" yet , as in "that day" when the Messiah comes and "that day" when the apocalypse occurs.

 

[rakovsky]

I don't know if you guys have heard of the Scopes Monkey Trial, but about 100 years ago when mainstream secular society was still debating this issue pretty hard, there was a court case where prosecutor named William Jennings Bryan said that Evolution was wrong.

The defense brought William Jennings Bryan to the witness stand , and he testified that even though he rejected evolution, he did not think that the earth was physically only several thousand years old. The Bible simply does not specify the exact physical age of each of the days in Creation.

Here is his testimony:

Clarence Darrow [D]: ‘Mr Bryan, could you tell me how old the Earth is?’

William Jennings Bryan : ‘No, sir, I couldn’t.’

[D]: ‘Could you come anywhere near it?’

: ‘I wouldn’t attempt to. I could possibly come as near as the scientists do, but I had rather be more accurate before I give a guess.’

[D]: ‘Does the statement, “The morning and the evening were the first day,” and “The morning and the evening were the second day,” mean anything to you?’

: ‘I do not think it necessarily means a twenty-four-hour day.’

[D]: ‘You do not?’

: ‘No.’

[D]: ‘Then, when the Bible said, for instance, “and God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day,” that does not necessarily mean twenty-four-hours?’

: ‘I do not think it necessarily does.’ ‘I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the Earth in six days as in six years or in six million years or in 600 million years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.’

[D]: ‘And they had the evening and the morning before that time for three days or three periods. All right, that settles it. Now, if you call those periods, they may have been a very long time.’

: ‘They might have been.’

[D]: ‘The creation might have been going on for a very long time?’

: ‘It might have continued for millions of years.’

 

[rakovsky]

I agree, yet I only voted for #5 because we must also be prepared to accept that there may be some misunderstandings about Genesis despite the record of their stubborn persistence.

I lost interest in arguing the "proper" interpretation of Genesis a long time ago. What interests me is understanding why the formation of the universe appears to have taken so long and why it appears life formed through common descent. I'm not saying it did. But I do wonder why it appears that way ... and not the flippant or trite answers many give. But, assuming the sincerest of intentions on the part of those who believe it, why does it appear that way?