> 4. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is
> past, and as a watch in the night.
The context of that verse indicates that day=24hours. The verse is
meaningless if "day" means long periods of time (a long period of time is a
long period of time to God). It simply means that God doesn't suffer from
the passage of time.
> 6. In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is
> cut down, and withereth.
Day=24hours is the literal meaning of day. Verse 6 uses "day" in
non-literal fashion to further illustrate v4. Our lifetime is as a day, a
millisecond, or an instant to God. If the verse said "a millisecond is as a
thousand yours to God and in the first fraction of the millisecond we
flourish and in the last fraction of the millisecond, we withereth." It
would not be at all indicating that a "millisecond" can be used
interchangeably with a long period of time or a thousand years.
> The conclusion, then, is that the interpretation of the verse
> must be taken
> allegorically. This scripture is a prayer of Moses. Because it was Moses
> who had the revelation of which Genesis is an account of, and Moses who is
> the author of this prayer, I feel it safe to conclude that Moses is using
> the terms "morning" and "evening" allegorically in both cases.
Not only is "morning" and "evening" referred to in the Creation account, but
they are demonstrated as being literal by the reference to light and
darkness, and again demonstrated to be literal by the reference of the
greater and lessor lights. And, again demonstrated to be literal by the
numbering of the days.
You're trying to waterdown (make worthless) the text of the Bible to the
point that it no longer conflicts with secular myth. Okay, day=age. Now
what are you going to do? The order of creation is hopelessly different
from the secular myth. Consider the Bible's order of trees-sun-fish-man vs.
the secular myth of sun-fish-trees-man. Keep watering it down. Okay, the
sun only became visible on the 4th day, but it was always there, etc. Okay,
now the order is meaningless. Next, what about Noah's Flood? Waterdown, it
was local. Now, tell me, at what point does the Bible switch from false
myth to accurate history. Was Abraham real? What about the New testament
reference to the land being formed out of water vs. secular myth that the
water formed out of the land? Why aren't you concerned with the clear
scientific evidence that the dead stay dead? Do you not believe in the
Resurrection?
The sad thing about all this is that you're ripping pages out of your Bible
for no good reason. Science refutes the secular myths. As I've already
pointed out, nature doesn't create complexity. Science refutes myths about
the evolution of life and the evolution of the universe.
I'm not making some strange unsupported claim. Not a single Evolutionist in
the world has ever been able to demonstrate that nature can create
complexity yet they believe that all complexity in the universe is a result
of nature.
The holes in the secular creation myth are huge and numerous.
The universe was created like the car you drive, in a fully functional and
complete manner.
The difference is that God didn't need to learn how to make a universe by
making earlier models.
-Andrew