If Theistic Evolution, how long did day 7 last?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You merely substituted your reinterpretation of His word.

When an allegory is cited later in scripture, that does not convert it to a literal history.

I think you know well enough that interpretation or reinterpretation is forbidden.
When you call something plainly stated an allegory, that's your assumption, or worse in your own words, your own interpretation/re-interpretation..

 

[thomas_t]

God is a spirit, and is eternal. He has no body to speak with, nor has He any need of words, unless He chooses to communicate with us.

Did you just disprove Genesis 1:3 ? God used his words at that occasion.

Second, it's logically absurd to suppose literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

it is just as absurd as having some light in Genesis 1:3 when no sun was available either. If this was absurd for you, than the literal morning is absurd for you, too.
Doesn't disprove anything, though.
I didn't state that God used his word to create the morning. The morning was there. That's what I was going to say - but you can't rule out that it was a literal morning. I said he was able to create it in a literal way... Bible says there was a morning, so you can't rule out it was a literal morning. That's my point.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

God used his words at that occasion.

COOL!
God's Word, Living Word, we must depend upon and rely on constantly, continually, always, to be His.

He never had a "body to speak with" as posted earlier -
He is Spirit. Not created, not made of parts , not consisting of pieces.

 

[The Barbarian]

it is just as absurd as having some light in Genesis 1:3 when no sun was available either.

Science shows that there was light in the universe long before the sun existed. But it's still an absurdity to suppose mornings and evenings minus a sun to have them.

 

[thomas_t]

Science shows that there was light in the universe long before the sun existed. But it's still an absurdity to suppose mornings and evenings minus a sun to have them.

I was talking about light comparable to the one in Revelation 21:23 making the sun redundant.
This kind of light is just as absurd as a morning. That one was created as the next item after the light in Geneis 1:3 and both are created without a sun available.
As you may have the last word - I stick to my interpretation about the purported absurdity of them both.
Thomas

 

[Paul James]

Hi everyone,
(since I can't answer posts in the section where non-believers are allowed to post)...
a little challenge to everyone believing in the so-called theistic evolution, which I believe is untrue.
Ok?
So if day 1 to day 6 is said to have lasted many millions of years each, how long is day 7 - which is God's rest - following this line of thought?

On one occasion, I've heard a reply in the sense that it simply lasted shorter than the other days... is this how you think?
So why would God's word the Bible choose "day" for a long time span at the beginning of chapter and just a few verses later, "day" describes a rather short period of time? And who is supposed to understand God jumping from one meaning to another in the same chapter?

Someone else said he believed that God still is resting as of today. However, he's worked hard in the mean time initiating the flood, for instance.

I'm curious to learn what you think on this one.

Regards,
Thomas

There is a bit of a spanner in the works of million year days - how long were the nights?

And if God rested for a million years after creating Adam on the 6th day, 6000 years ago, He must still be resting. But the verse say he "rested" not "resting" (implying continued resting over a longer period of time).

 

[The Barbarian]

I was talking about light comparable to the one in Revelation 21:23 making the sun redundant.
This kind of light is just as absurd as a morning. That one was created as the next item after the light in Geneis 1:3 and both are created without a sun available.

Morning doesn't mean "big light appears in the sky." Nor does evening mean "big light disappears in the sky." It has a very specific meaning.

It is true, that if you redefine words, then any interpretation is possible, depending on which words you redefine. If that works in your theology, then go for it.

 

[Gbob]

So why would God's word the Bible choose "day" for a long time span at the beginning of chapter and just a few verses later, "day" describes a rather short period of time? And who is supposed to understand God jumping from one meaning to another in the same chapter?

Someone else said he believed that God still is resting as of today. However, he's worked hard in the mean time initiating the flood, for instance.

I'm curious to learn what you think on this one.

Regards,
Thomas

I think all the days in Genesis 1 are pre-temporal and are the planning of the universe, not the actual creation of the universe. To illustrate why, every day takes the form of a proclamation by God, followed by an explanation or something simple like "And it was so" The question revolves around who said 'and it was so'? It seems to me that God didn't say "Let their be light and it was so" It seems to me and others who believe in the Days of Proclamation view that the 'and it was so was said by writer, but he doesn't say WHEN it was so. If the days are pretemporal planning, then one gets out of all the mismatch problems atheists throw at us about the sun being created after the plants etc. Planning can take place in any order at all. Below is the outline in image form of the Days of Proclamation view.

Thus, God said, "Let their be light!" and the human writer billions of years later said, "And it was so." telling his readers that it was obviously so.

 

[thomas_t]

then one gets out of all the mismatch problems atheists throw at us about the sun being created after the plants etc.

and you can't think of any other way to get out of this mismatch?
Bible says when God is there, the sun isn't needed, see Revelation 21:23.
This resolves the mismatch. God was there in Genesis.
But in my opinion, you can't reconcile Old Earth Creationism and Genesis though. It is as @Paul James briliiantly put it... if there are millions of years between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, how long were the 7 nights?
There is no way to reconcile it, as I see it.
Thomas

 

[Gbob]

and you can't think of any other way to get out of this mismatch?
Bible says when God is there, the sun isn't needed, see Revelation 21:23.
This resolves the mismatch. God was there in Genesis.
But in my opinion, you can't reconcile Old Earth Creationism and Genesis though. It is as @Paul James briliiantly put it... if there are millions of years between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, how long were the 7 nights?
There is no way to reconcile it, as I see it.
Thomas

I know how you feel. I was a publishing young-earth creationist for about 7 years in the early 80s before I realized that the geologic problems were so bad, young-earth couldn't explain them. I know most Conservative Christians don't like an old earth or evolution, but the evidence was just so overwhelming.

In my view, since Gen 1 is pre-temporal--that is, before time, the question of how long the nights are is meaningless--there was no time. My view goes back to St. Basal's observation in the 4th century that the first day is not called the first day but 'one day' and is connected to eternity past. This connection to eternity past contains the germ of the Days of Proclamation view.

So, while I might have been able to take your God is the source of light approach, the real problem then became the fossil record, the record of life doing their normal activities throughout the fossil record. The global flood failed to make a match with the data. Consider the Haymond formation of the Marathon mountains of West Texas.

"Two thirds of the Haymond is composed of a repititious alternation of fine- and very fine-grained olive brown sandstone and black shale in beds from a millimeter to 5 cm thick. The formation is estimated to have more than 15,000 sandstone beds greater than 5 mm thick." p. 87.
"Tool-mark casts (chiefly groove casts), flute casts and flute-lineation casts are common current-formed sole marks. Trace fossils in the form of sand-filled burrows are present on every sandstone sole, but nearly absent within sandstone beds." Earle F. McBride,"Stratigraphy and Sedimentology of the Haymond Formation," in Earle F. McBride, Stratigraphy, Sedimentary Structures and Origin of Flysch and Pre-Flysch Rocks, Marathon Basin, Texas (Dallas: Dallas Geological Society, 1969), p. 87-88

Several items can be deduced from thes observations.

1. It is obvious that the burrowers prefer to burrow into the shale rather the sand.

2. The burrows in the shale were present when the sand was deposited. Why? because the sand filled the hole (burrow).

3. There were few burrows in the sand as there are no fingers of shale poking down into the sand as there are sand fingers poking down into the shale.

Lets try to explain this in a one year flood. Give each shale layer 1 day for recolonization of burrowers the deposit would require 41 years to be deposited. But that is a real problem. The Haymond bed is 1300 m thick and only represents a small part of the entire geologic column. All the fossiliferous sediments in this area are 5000 m in thickness. To do the entire column in one year requires 1300/5000*365=95 days for the time over which the Haymond must be deposited. This means that 157 sand/shale couplets per day must be deposited. That means that the burrowers must repopulate the shale 157 times per day, dig holes, be buried, then survive the burial to dig again another 156 times that day. Shoot, Sissyphus only had to roll the boulder uphill once a day. What on earth did these burrowers do to deserve this young-earth fate?

We know that the burrowers who were buried did not survive. If they had, they would have had to dig up through the sand to escape their entombment. There are no burrows going up through the sand. And if there had been these burrows, there should be little circular piles of sand with a central crater pocking the entire upper surface of the sand. We don't see these. If they escaped, it should look like:

As it is, we see this, which indicates no escape of the burrowers. there is no mound at the lip of a burrow at the shale/sand interface:
shale

This is an indication of lots of time between the deposition of the sand and the digging of the burrows. It simply isn't credible to have these burrowers dig burrows at a rate required by the global flood viewpoint.

As we go east from the Marathon Mountains, these beds go deeper and deeper and are buried by Tertiary sediments which eventually reach 75,000 feet thickness in the region of the mouth of the Mississippi. If the 75,000 feet of sediment seen in the Gulf of Mexico in a one year global flood, then we have even less time for the Haymond burrowers to burrow each layer. Because the Haymond is buried by the Tertiary, we know that the Tertiary sediments of the Gulf are younger than the Haymond. Thus if the Tertiary sediment and the Haymond are flood deposits, then the Haymond may only have had less than a month for all that burrowing.

I await the young-earth explanation for this data.

 

[thomas_t]

I await the young-earth explanation for this data.

compare it to Adam, when he was 1 day old.
What was the data... and then imagine a hypothetic scientist present.
Adam could talk. Give names. Eat. Make clothing out of leaves. Blame others. Do apologetics to cover up his sin. And so on.
How many 1-day-olds can do this? None.
Yet he could.
God made a youth Adam, not a baby Adam I conclude,
similarly, God made an adult earth perhaps?

 

[Gbob]

Hi thomas_t. I would rather you answer my Haymond formation problem above rather than ignore it. We christians shouldn't be afraid of confronting data that is tough for us to explain. But you are now asking about the appearance of age argument. I have found several flaws with that argument. First, I can see appearance of age when it is a requirement, like for Adam to speak. This is appearance of age via necessity. But I couldn't see a need for that Adam to have very long, unclipped toe and figure nails. For God to create apparently years old fingernail lengths would be for God to make up data that wasn't true or necessary

Now years ago I ran into this problem. After 10 half-lives, for all intents and purposes none of the isotope exists anymore. Scientists say that the earth is about 5 billion years old. If this is correct then there should be almost no radioisotopes with half lives less than 500,000 years or so, so long as they are not made by present day, on-going radioactive processes. As our detection methods have improved, we have found traces of two isotopes below that line. All the others lack even trace amounts.

I see no reason at all for God to make the radioactive isotope distribution look old, by intentionally making some radioisotopes whose existence is required to make the earth look old, and then not making other radioisotopes whose lack of existence is required to make the earth old. This is like putting very long toe nails on Adam which is necessary to make Adam look 20 years old. Here is the isotope list and I hope I can format it correctly


Isotope Half‑life (yrs) Decay type % natural occurrence notes

Si‑32.......650............Beta.......................0
Cf‑251......800............Alpha.......................0
Tb‑158....1,200............Beta,Elect.Captr............0
Bk‑247....1,400............Alpha.......................0
Cm‑246....5,500............Alpha, Fission..............0
Pu‑240....6,500............Alpha, Fission..............0
Th‑229....7,300............Alpha.......................0
Am‑243....7,300............Alpha.......................0
Cm‑245....9,300............Alpha.......................0
Cm‑250...17,000............Fission.....................0
Nb‑94....20,000............Beta........................0
Pu‑239...24,000............Alpha, Fission..............0
Se‑79....65,000............Beta........................0
Sn‑126..100,000............Beta........................0
U‑233...160,000............Alpha.......................0
Tc‑99...210,000............Beta........................0
Fe‑60...300,000............Beta........................0
Cl‑36...310,000............Beta Electr.Captr...........0
Pu‑242..380,000............Alpha.......................0
Cm‑248..470,000............Alpha, Fission..............0
Al‑26...740,000............Positron EC................ 0
Dy‑154..1,000,000..........Alpha ......................0
Zr‑93...1,500,000...........Beta...................... 0
Tc‑98...1,500,000...........Beta.......................0
Gd‑150...2,100,000..........Alpha......................0
Np‑237...2,100,000..........Alpha.......................0
Be‑10....2,500,000..........Beta.......................0
Pd‑107...7,000,000..........Beta.......................0
Hf‑182...9,000,000..........Beta.......................0
Cm‑147...16,000,000.........Alpha......................0
I‑129...17,000,000..........Beta.......................0
U‑236...24,000,000.........Alpha Fission................0
Pb‑205v30,000,000..........Electron Capture ...........0
Sm‑146...70,000,000.........Alpha....................trace
Pu‑244...80,000,000.........Alpha Fission.........Trace
U‑235...710,000,000.........Alpha.....................72
K‑40...1,300,000,000........Beta,Pos.,EC..............118
U‑238...4,500,000,000.......Alpha......................99
Th‑232...14,000,000,000......Alpha....................100
Lu‑176...30,000,000,000......Beta......................2.6
Re‑187...70,000,000,000......Beta.....................62.5
Sm‑147...100,000,000,000......Alpha....................15
La‑138...100,000,000,000......Electron Capture........089
Rb‑87...500,000,000,000......Beta......................28


Table 7 Partial list of radioactive isotopes with half lives greater than 450 years. 1. percentage of occurrence taken from The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 47th edition, The Chemical Rubber co., 1966. 2. Percentage of occurrence taken from H. Semat, Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics, (New York: Rinehart and Co., 1954), p.528

Thomas, you are a smart guy, can you explain why God did two different things in order to make the earth look old? I would prefer you address this issue rather than ignore it and ask a different question again.

 

[thomas_t]

I would rather you answer my Haymond formation problem above rather than ignore it.

I won't go through it.
If it's right... then Jesus chose to clean up the site after the flood rather than letting the traces of the flood appear.
When I was a student, friends and I sometimes gave a party but the next morning, we also cleaned up to have the site tidy. As if the party never happened. Jesus could have done the same concerning the flood (that one was not a party though).

I am convinced: you don't need to be scientist to undertsand Bible.
So I conclude, you don't have to study a formation problem just to find out if the flood was real. If it would be necessary to study nature to undertand Bible in full... then uneducated people and children would have a disadvantage.
Yet, God is not a respecter of persons, Romans 2:11.
He won't give an advantage to scientists when it comes to interpreting scripture right.

The flood was real, I believe, just as Bible states. Even when there are hundreds of formations in Geology that point to another fact.
I don't say you're right in your analysis concerning that formation. But I don't say you're wrong either. I didn't study it.
If you can't find the traces, Jesus chose to not leave them in place, I think.

the radioactive isotope distribution look old, by intentionally making some radioisotopes whose existence is required to make the earth look old, and then not making other radioisotopes whose lack of existence is required to make the earth old.

Concerning the radioisotopes: but you run into this very phenomenon everywhere in the Bible, I suppose. Granted, radioisotopes are not getting discussed in scripture.
However, you have the wine in John 2:10. It really appeared to be old = of good quality. By the way, in order for wine to be wine... it has to be six months old at least. All else is juice if I'm informed right.
That brand new wine had the appearance of age.
No believer should stumble in their faith because of that, please.

This is like putting very long toe nails on Adam which is necessary to make Adam look 20 years old.

He could speak... that made him look 2 years old, at least.
He could hide... (3 years).
And so on.

I'm not smart, so I can't answer your last question.

 

[Gbob]

I won't go through it.

That is what I figured. When I left YEC somewhere around 1987, I told God I would never ignore data again. It is your right to ignore it and not go through it. But doing that means your view is contrary to observational data.

If it's right... then Jesus chose to clean up the site after the flood rather than letting the traces of the flood appear.
When I was a student, friends and I sometimes gave a party but the next morning, we also cleaned up to have the site tidy. As if the party never happened. Jesus could have done the same concerning the flood (that one was not a party though).

Again your perogative. You can have God do everything miraculously and no one can deny that might have been the case. Unfortunately most people with your viewpoint don't want to use miracle except when backed into a corner.

[QUOTEI am convinced: you don't need to be scientist to undertsand Bible.
So I conclude, you don't have to study a formation problem just to find out if the flood was real. If it would be necessary to study nature to undertand Bible in full... then uneducated people and children would have a disadvantage.
Yet, God is not a respecter of persons, Romans 2:11.
He won't give an advantage to scientists when it comes to interpreting scripture right.[/QUOTE]

No one doesn't. But one doesnt need to be a scientist to drive a car either, but when driving a car, one best pay attention to observational data and how it interacts with what you do with the steering wheel, brakes and gas pedal. If science has nothing to do with the Bible, then why do folk like ICR constantly try to use science to support their interpretation? They should do what you do, just say God did it.

The flood was real, I believe, just as Bible states. Even when there are hundreds of formations in Geology that point to another fact.

I believe the flood was real, and I can point to where it happened.

I'm not smart, so I can't answer your last question.

You are smart, but smart is mostly hard work, not native intelligence. You have the same size brain as every scientist on earth. While you may not have the knowledge to answer the question, you can go out and find out if I am right or wrong. God bless you, my brother.

 

[thomas_t]

But doing that means your view is contrary to observational data.

yeah, but the wine in John was wine made the same day. Contrary to the data, too. This is a common occurance in the Bible: data suggesting there was no miracle when there was one.
When there is a miricle you shouldn't expect God to make it look like a miracle, I think.

I believe the flood was real, and I can point to where it happened.

me too. When the Bible says global... and the evidence as you suggest says local... it's global.

I would not rule out God having made an earth with the appearance of age some thousand years age.
You should not erect the rule "God must reveal that he made the earth 6000 years ago if he has done so!" That would not serve the humans, I think.
If this rule applies no human on earth would be able to see another galaxy than their own. Every galaxy is farther away than light can travel within the time span of some thousand years.

Why shouldn't God have wanted to make galaxies perceivable for man? Just having created six thousand years ago shouldn't present an obstacle for God to do so.

No one doesn't. But one doesnt need to be a scientist to drive a car either, but when driving a car, one best pay attention to observational data and how it interacts with what you do with the steering wheel, brakes and gas pedal.

driving cars rarely involves miracles.
But why should creation have NOT been a miracle? This analogy does not work, I think.

If science has nothing to do with the Bible, then why do folk like ICR constantly try to use science to support their interpretation? They should do what you do, just say God did it.

thank you Bob.
BTW I'm not saying science doesn't have anything to do with the Bible.
For instance, if the data suggest there was no global flood... then the bleieveing Christian can infer that God wanted to have the site cleaned up after the fact.
This points to a God of order.
If there was water in the house where I live... someone would have to do the tidying up afterwards, too.
If science says it's an old earth whereas the Christians know it was young by studying the Bible - then this should be the reason for further analysis.

 

[Gbob]

yeah, but the wine in John was wine made the same day. Contrary to the data, too. This is a common occurance in the Bible: data suggesting there was no miracle when there was one.
When there is a miricle you shouldn't expect God to make it look like a miracle, I think.



thank you Bob.
BTW I'm not saying science doesn't have anything to do with the Bible.
For instance, if the data suggest there was no global flood... then the bleieveing Christian can infer that God wanted to have the site cleaned up after the fact.
This points to a God of order.

Thomas, I think we found the crux of our issue. If you say God 'cleaned up' everything to make it look another way, then that is a miraculous cleaning. Yes, God could have done that just as Jesus made the wine instantly. In that case, if everything is miraculous, the I think it means that science doesn't have anything to do with the Bible because God made it look like the Bible was wrong. If God did these miraculous things, then there is nothing to debate. God can do what he wants and you don't have to concern yourself with science issues at all because God cleand all the issues up and hid the flood from science. Thus, I will grant if God did this, there is nothing observationally I can say against the idea, other than I think it is a bad philosophical position. You may have the last word. I won't debate what God did in these areas because while God may have done it that way, it seems awfully convenient that God cleans up any problem your position has. I have not found God that amenable to fixing my issues. Take care my brother.

 

[Job 33:6]

I know how you feel. I was a publishing young-earth creationist for about 7 years in the early 80s before I realized that the geologic problems were so bad, young-earth couldn't explain them. I know most Conservative Christians don't like an old earth or evolution, but the evidence was just so overwhelming.

In my view, since Gen 1 is pre-temporal--that is, before time, the question of how long the nights are is meaningless--there was no time. My view goes back to St. Basal's observation in the 4th century that the first day is not called the first day but 'one day' and is connected to eternity past. This connection to eternity past contains the germ of the Days of Proclamation view.

So, while I might have been able to take your God is the source of light approach, the real problem then became the fossil record, the record of life doing their normal activities throughout the fossil record. The global flood failed to make a match with the data. Consider the Haymond formation of the Marathon mountains of West Texas.

"Two thirds of the Haymond is composed of a repititious alternation of fine- and very fine-grained olive brown sandstone and black shale in beds from a millimeter to 5 cm thick. The formation is estimated to have more than 15,000 sandstone beds greater than 5 mm thick." p. 87.
"Tool-mark casts (chiefly groove casts), flute casts and flute-lineation casts are common current-formed sole marks. Trace fossils in the form of sand-filled burrows are present on every sandstone sole, but nearly absent within sandstone beds." Earle F. McBride,"Stratigraphy and Sedimentology of the Haymond Formation," in Earle F. McBride, Stratigraphy, Sedimentary Structures and Origin of Flysch and Pre-Flysch Rocks, Marathon Basin, Texas (Dallas: Dallas Geological Society, 1969), p. 87-88

Several items can be deduced from thes observations.

1. It is obvious that the burrowers prefer to burrow into the shale rather the sand.

2. The burrows in the shale were present when the sand was deposited. Why? because the sand filled the hole (burrow).

3. There were few burrows in the sand as there are no fingers of shale poking down into the sand as there are sand fingers poking down into the shale.

Lets try to explain this in a one year flood. Give each shale layer 1 day for recolonization of burrowers the deposit would require 41 years to be deposited. But that is a real problem. The Haymond bed is 1300 m thick and only represents a small part of the entire geologic column. All the fossiliferous sediments in this area are 5000 m in thickness. To do the entire column in one year requires 1300/5000*365=95 days for the time over which the Haymond must be deposited. This means that 157 sand/shale couplets per day must be deposited. That means that the burrowers must repopulate the shale 157 times per day, dig holes, be buried, then survive the burial to dig again another 156 times that day. Shoot, Sissyphus only had to roll the boulder uphill once a day. What on earth did these burrowers do to deserve this young-earth fate?

We know that the burrowers who were buried did not survive. If they had, they would have had to dig up through the sand to escape their entombment. There are no burrows going up through the sand. And if there had been these burrows, there should be little circular piles of sand with a central crater pocking the entire upper surface of the sand. We don't see these. If they escaped, it should look like:
View attachment 277040
As it is, we see this, which indicates no escape of the burrowers. there is no mound at the lip of a burrow at the shale/sand interface:
shale

This is an indication of lots of time between the deposition of the sand and the digging of the burrows. It simply isn't credible to have these burrowers dig burrows at a rate required by the global flood viewpoint.

As we go east from the Marathon Mountains, these beds go deeper and deeper and are buried by Tertiary sediments which eventually reach 75,000 feet thickness in the region of the mouth of the Mississippi. If the 75,000 feet of sediment seen in the Gulf of Mexico in a one year global flood, then we have even less time for the Haymond burrowers to burrow each layer. Because the Haymond is buried by the Tertiary, we know that the Tertiary sediments of the Gulf are younger than the Haymond. Thus if the Tertiary sediment and the Haymond are flood deposits, then the Haymond may only have had less than a month for all that burrowing.

I await the young-earth explanation for this data.

Your words are like a breath of fresh air. And I'm sure as you probably already know, your example is only the "tip of the iceberg of time" that is encompassed in totality on our earth. But thank you for your example.

I suspect that you're also probably aware that you won't actually get an answer for your questions from young earthers.

But regardless, thank you. I am glad that, regardless of the struggles you may have experienced, that you found your breakthrough, as have others of our faith, including myself.

 

[thomas_t]

it seems awfully convenient that God cleans up any problem your position has.

then please name even one miracle in which science would have a chance to prove it afterwards. Name one miracle that looked like a miracle after the fact. One miracle for which the scientific data would have pointed out that the miraculous change did indeed occur a moment ago or so. Show how science can trace a miracle.
If you can do that using your superior education... I'll show you three miracles in which scientist wouldn't have had a clue of what had happened.

For any miracle you can claim afterwards that claiming a miracle was wrong because the data shows that it was otherwise.
It's an easy way to rule out any miracles that seem odd.
Bible tells of miracles. I believe it.

 

[solid_core]

Hi everyone,
(since I can't answer posts in the section where non-believers are allowed to post)...
a little challenge to everyone believing in the so-called theistic evolution, which I believe is untrue.
Ok?
So if day 1 to day 6 is said to have lasted many millions of years each, how long is day 7 - which is God's rest - following this line of thought?

On one occasion, I've heard a reply in the sense that it simply lasted shorter than the other days... is this how you think?
So why would God's word the Bible choose "day" for a long time span at the beginning of chapter and just a few verses later, "day" describes a rather short period of time? And who is supposed to understand God jumping from one meaning to another in the same chapter?

Someone else said he believed that God still is resting as of today. However, he's worked hard in the mean time initiating the flood, for instance.

I'm curious to learn what you think on this one.

Regards,
Thomas

If theistic evolution, you do not do mapping of biblical story to real life, so you do not think in the manner "how long this day lasted". You take the story of creation as a theological, dramatical and symbolical story of ancient Hebrews.

 

[johneb]

how long is day 7

When did time as we know it come to exist? I think by day seven God completed his work so it was a day.
God created things that had the appearance of age, Adam was created as a man not a infant, I think this could be true for many things.