Genesis 2:2 He rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.

[JimL]

If that is how you what to make it out to be.

But as I perceive the account. The beginning of the heaven(s) was about 13.8 billion years ago and the solar system before its Sun gave its light some 4.5 billion years ago. The first earth day the Sun lit up the sky. The 4th earth day the debris was blown past the earth to allow the Sun, Moon and stars to be visible as lights in the sky. The 6th day God made man and woman in the garden (Genesis 2:5-25).

Thats not just the way I perceive it, thats the way it actually is. The first human being didn't exist until some 2.5 million years ago, thats basically 14 billion years after the beginning of the creation (if you want to call it that) process. In other words, we humans just got here! In order to fit that to the biblical account of creation, then each 1 of the biblical 6 days of creation had to have equaled approximately 666,666,667 earth days, you know, wherein evening comes and morning follows for each day.
What could "evening" and "morning" even mean under those circumstances?

[Tassman]

There are Christians that hold what is called the gap theory. The original creation (Genesis 1.1). That the "was" should be translated "became without form . . ." (v.2). What was destroyed accounts for the geological ages . And Genesis 1:3-. . . on was a recreation.

I do not hold that view. I did hold the day age view as a new Christian with the understanding that whole week was also called a day Genesis 2:4.

I now hold the view that Genesis 1:1-2 represents the origin of the universe and state of the earth before the 6 earth day creation.

There is no credible evidence to suggest that the Genesis narrative is anything more than a 'creation myth', one of thousands.

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths.html

Note that a “a supreme being appears in almost every myth. He or she is what triggers the train of events that create the world”. Genesis is no different, why would you think it was?

[One Bad Pig]

There is no credible evidence to suggest that the Genesis narrative is anything more than a 'creation myth', one of thousands.

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths.html

Note that a “a supreme being appears in almost every myth. He or she is what triggers the train of events that create the world”. Genesis is no different, why would you think it was?

That pretty much every culture has one should perhaps clue you in to the idea that there's a grain of truth in all of them. It's been argued since the 4th century or so that the others are all distortions of the Biblical account.

[Tassman]

That pretty much every culture has one should perhaps clue you in to the idea that there's a grain of truth in all of them. It's been argued since the 4th century or so that the others are all distortions of the Biblical account.

The only “grain of truth” is the desire of people to understand where the sun goes at night, not the myriad of fanciful solutions that ignorant people came up with in the pre-scientific era. The Genesis creation myth is no more likely to be true than any of the others. In fact we know it’s not.

[Doug Shaver]

It's been argued since the 4th century or so that the others are all distortions of the Biblical account.

Argued by whom, and on the basis of what evidence?

[JimL]

That pretty much every culture has one should perhaps clue you in to the idea that there's a grain of truth in all of them. It's been argued since the 4th century or so that the others are all distortions of the Biblical account.

Actually the NT biblical account is more of a distortion of the myths which long preceded it. Well, not really a distortion, but a weaving of the ideas therein into a history.

[One Bad Pig]

Argued by whom, and on the basis of what evidence?

The one that most comes to mind is Eusebius of Caesarea's Preparatio Evangelica, on the basis of similarity between some Greek philosophical thought (which he traces back to the Phoenecians) and the Hebrew scriptures, which are older. The work is mostly made of of selected quotes which Eusebius uses to prove his point.

[One Bad Pig]

Actually the NT biblical account is more of a distortion of the myths which long preceded it. Well, not really a distortion, but a weaving of the ideas therein into a history.

We're not talking about the NT - and your acceptance of the decidedly non-scholarly Christ-myth shows me how seriously I should take your assertions.

[JimL]

We're not talking about the NT -

Ah right, Genesis. But of course it is a myth, just like the myths, it is wrong in every way. Its a story based on ignorance. For instance, there was no light separating the day from the night on the first day, because there was no sun until the 4th day. There is also no skydome that separates the waters above from the waters below. And vegitation could't have sprung up on the 3rd day since there was no sun until the 4th day. And you must take into consideration that 1 day in genesis had to have equaled approximately 666,666,667 regular earthly days. So vegitation can't exist for 1 biblical day, 666,666,667 earth days, without any sun. Thats what you call a myth, its basically a guess, an uneducated guess, concerning the origins of the universe, and the fact they they have a modicum of truth in them means nothing. The only truths in the myths are already known, it's from out of those truths, i.e. from out of the observed facts about the universe, that the myths are fashioned.
The NT though, is also myth, though its a myth woven into a history, or perhaps it is more apropo to say that it is a history woven into a myth.

and your acceptance of the decidedly non-scholarly Christ-myth shows me how seriously I should take your assertions.

Actually the Christ-myth is scholarly, where do you think it came from.

[Rational Gaze]

Actually the Christ-myth is scholarly, where do you think it came from.

Yeah... in the 1800s you moron. Are suffering from massive head trauma or something?

[One Bad Pig]

Ah right, Genesis. But of course it is a myth, just like the myths, it is wrong in every way. Its a story based on ignorance. For instance, there was no light separating the day from the night on the first day, because there was no sun until the 4th day. There is also no skydome that separates the waters above from the waters below. And vegitation could't have sprung up on the 3rd day since there was no sun until the 4th day. And you must take into consideration that 1 day in genesis had to have equaled approximately 666,666,667 regular earthly days. So vegitation can't exist for 1 biblical day, 666,666,667 earth days, without any sun. Thats what you call a myth, its basically a guess, an uneducated guess, concerning the origins of the universe, and the fact they they have a modicum of truth in them means nothing. The only truths in the myths are already known, it's from out of those truths, i.e. from out of the observed facts about the universe, that the myths are fashioned.
The NT though, is also myth, though its a myth woven into a history, or perhaps it is more apropo to say that it is a history woven into a myth.

You're falling into the same mistake literalist YECs do here. The creation account is poetry, not a science lesson.

Actually the Christ-myth is scholarly, where do you think it came from.

18th-century pseudo-scholars.

[One Bad Pig]

Yeah... in the 1800s you moron. Are suffering from massive head trauma or something?

No, he's being his usual JimL self.

[rogue06]

No, he's being his usual JimL self.

So, moron with massive head trauma then.

[Tassman]

You're falling into the same mistake literalist YECs do here. The creation account is poetry, not a science lesson.

So is the New Adam, who redeemed mankind from the consequences of the Old Adam’s disobedience, also just "poetry"?

18th-century pseudo-scholars.

Actually, the fourth-century commentary by African-born Italian bishop Fortunatianus of Aquileia interprets the Gospels as a series of allegories with Jesus as a mythical figure...instead of being a literal history. So it’s not a new phenomenon and it’s a perfectly valid position to take given the evidence...or lack thereof.

[JimL]

You're falling into the same mistake literalist YECs do here. The creation account is poetry, not a science lesson.

I see. So where would you say that the poetry in genesis ends and the history begins? Besides that, being poetic doesn't make it not a myth.

18th-century pseudo-scholars.

So say you. Anyway, regardless of whether it is poetry or prose, the fact remains that the beginning of the universe was 14 billion years ago, and it took all those 14 billion years to pass before humans began to exist. Even the dinasaurs ruled the earth for millions of years prior to the existence of humans. You don't find any of that odd considering God supposedly created it all for humans. 14 billion years!