Grasshopper, No, it is NOT hogwash when I say that questions that raise doubts about the accounts in Scripture, are direct attacks on the authority of the Bible.
So in your view asking questions about scriptures is a direct attack on the Bible. I bet your Sunday School class is a riot.
You can see how you yourself are using your limited knowledge (since you were not there at the Creation),
Nor were you. So I guess you are also limited in knowledge.
Are you saying that it is impossible for God to have created each of the days as twenty-four hour periods?
No, He may well have. Are you saying it is impossible that He did not?
However, we are here dealing with the six days in Creation, where the Bible clearly calls them "evening and morning", which can only refer to 2 twelve hour days.
Once again if morning is literal, then it means the sun coming up over the eastern horizen. Oops, there is no sun till day 4. Therefore your view is even forced to use "morning" as non literal, at least for the first 4 days. You believe there was a literal morning and literal evening without a literal sun. Don't you see how someone who actually uses brain cells might see a problem?
have you ever known this term "evening and morning" refer to more than 24 hours?
Ronald Reagen used the term "morning in America" as a campaign slogan. I don't think he meant it in your Genesis way. But of course you don't seem to allow the Bible to use figures of speach or metaphores.
The seventh day is the Sabbath, when Gof finished Hid work, and rested.
Did God really rest? Was He all tuckered out? Or perhaps He is giving us a symbolic picture. Thus the 7 days whether 24 hours or a billion years still give us that picture.
Can you show me for Scripture, where the seventh day of rest was not a 24 hour period?
Perhaps you can tell me why the seventh day has no evening. Was it an oversight on God's part? If it has no evening then it still continues. So I can use the very account in Genesis and make a case for the 7th day being more than 24 hours.
It is only in the last 150 years, when the liberals began their attacks on the Infallibility of the accounts of the Holy Bible, when they were determined to destroy that it is Inerrant in ALL that it teaches, that they begain to question the account in Genesis chapter one. Before this time, I am not aware of anyone questioning the days in Creation. Do you?
Augustine, himself, as is well known, states in connection with the days of Genesis 1, "What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive."
Anselm may be read to follow this lead in his supposition that "the 'days' of Moses' account ... are not to be equated with the days in which we live."
A striking illustration of the way in which biblical scholars wrestled with this issue is found in the work of John Colet, who, at the end of the 15th century, held to a position approximating to a day-age or even framework interpretation of the days of Genesis. Interestingly, he held that Genesis 1 was written in "the manner of a popular poet" [more poetae alicuius popularis]. In the Augustinian tradition, Colet views the precise meaning of the days of Genesis 1 as so difficult to untangle that he writes (tongue in cheek): "nothing could be more like night than these Mosaic days." In addition, he argued that the function of Genesis 1 is precisely not scientific but intended to portray the mystery of creation to the children of Israel in the days of Moses.
The 19th century Princetonians, who regarded themselves as upholders of Reformed orthodoxy and of the Westminster Standards, expressed broad views of Genesis 1 which have frequently been discussed. In particular, neither Charles Hodge, nor his son, A. A. Hodge, nor B. B. Warfield regarded the six 24 hour day view of creation as exegetically required by a careful reading of Genesis 1. The Princeton tradition refrained from dogmatic insistence on a single necessary meaning for "day" (yôm) in Genesis 1.
Another thing, why the need to prove that they are not 24 hour days?
Perhaps because the rest of creation screams for longer days. Is God not the God of Astronomy? Of Geology? Of Biology? The more we learn of those disciplines the more we learn of God. Sticking our head in the sand in order to hold to a wooden, literal, western, interpretation is not the answer.
You dare challenge the account of Holy Scripture, when you sak these foolish questions.
No, I challenge your account. And so far you have answered no questions. Let me guess, IFB'r?
So, just who do you think that you are, when you say that "morning and evenings" are "impossible before the fourth day"?
Again you assume your definition of morning and evening is the only one. Tell me how do you have a literal morning without a literal Sun? It should be an easy one for you to answer since the text is so clear.
This is NOT my interpretation that you argue with, but with the Inerrant Word of Almighty God!
Good, then you would agree with my preterist views. See below.
Why don't you open your eyes and read what is written on this post, and you will very clearly see that Genesis chapters 1-6 are being questioned. Read Craig's post on page 3, and you will see this:
What then do you think he means when he questions whether these chapters can be taken literally? As the fall of man is recorded in chapter 3, this is included in chapters 1-11. Get your facts right before you post here.
He said nothing about denying the fall of man. I'll let Craig speak for himself instead of trusting you to give me what you think he means.
BTW, do you yourself believe in the original Scriptures as being Infallable, Inerrant, and 100% Trustworthy on ALL that it says, with 0% os any error on any subject that it speaks on? Lets have a clear answer.
Yes, do you my fellow preterist?
Did Adam die the DAY he ate of the tree? Remember the same Hebrew word for day is used here as it is Gen. 1.
Gen. 2:17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
He did not die physically within your 24 hour time frame, therefore it must mean spiritual death. Now read I Cor 15 with this in mind.
You never answered the question regarding this verse you quoted from:
Matt 5: 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Please, give me the meaning using you Gen 1 hermeneutic. Are we still under the Law or has heaven and earth passed away?
Now tell me how I should interpret these clear passage:
James 5:8Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for
the coming of the Lord draweth nigh .
Matt 16: 27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death,
till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Rev 1:1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which
must shortly come to pass ; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein:
for the time is at hand.
Aren't words like, "near", "at hand" and "shortly" just as clear as "day" in Genesis?
If you do not take a preterist approach to eschatology and Revelation then this applies to you: "
You dare challenge the account of Holy Scripture",
Shouldn't you interpret the last book of the Bible in the same literal manner you do the first book? If not why not?
Now the question can be asked of you:
BTW, do you yourself believe in the original Scriptures as being Infallable, Inerrant, and 100% Trustworthy on ALL that it says, with 0% os any error on any subject that it speaks on? Lets have a clear answer. 
