I've heard some Christians say that the world is only 6000 years old, and others accept a far longer timescale in accord with scientific research... that may suggest that the earth being created in 6 days is more... symbolic.
What do you think?
Also I read somewhere Peter saying that for God one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like one day.... or something like that?
Could that mean that timescale in regards to the Bible stories is actually quite fluid?
Is God-time different, or can be different, from human time?
Edit:
2 Peter 3:8
NIV
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
There have, historically, going back to just about as far as we find Christians talking about the subject effectively two broad views in how to approach and read the creation narrative(s) in Genesis. Literally and non-literally.
So, for example, we have Origen in the 3rd century arguing against a literal interpretation of the creation stories,
"
For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally." - Origen of Alexandria, De Principiis (On the First Principles), Book IV, 16
Likewise, St. Augustine in his work on Genesis understands the days of creation as allegory, and even laments the fact that Christians attempt to wax about the Scriptures in regard to natural philosophy only to demonstrate an ignorance about the natural order of the world,
"
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." - St. Augustine of Hippo, De Genesis ad Litteram (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis)
While on the other hand, we have St. Basil of Caesarea in the 4th century writing,
"
I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense." - St. Basil the Great, Homily 9.1
So this split opinion is really old, there simply isn't a "the Christian position" on the subject, there's really just differences of opinion which have always existed in Christianity on the subject of how to approach the creation stories.
I personally take a non-literal position. I wouldn't say I take an allegorical approach either. Rather I take what is known as the
Framework Hypothesis.
Science answers the material questions concerning natural history and the record of age of the universe etc.
Scripture answers the theological questions concerning the significance and meaning of the relationships between God, man, and the rest of creation.
Fundamentally different questions, and so different answers are needed.
-CryptoLutheran