6 days=!148 hours, creationism?

[The Grim Squeaker]

A question for thee all:

Back in the day I truly believed that the earth was "made" in 6 "days" as written in Genesis.
However I always thought that the 6 days were not a literal 148 hours, but merely a metaphor for a period of time, since time might not even have been "finalized" until the last day(s).
In other words that 6 "days" could be any period of time, and were merely labeled as days as a metaphor for 6 "stages" that did not happen all at once, but over a period of time.
Meaning that the 6 "days" could be any period of time such as, for example 1.2 billion or 13.4 billion years.

My other opinion was that G-d did not "build" the earth himself being a non physical being, but rather built up the natural "system" and laws of physics (As well as time, space, speed of light, etc') that made the universe.
In other words, that G-d made the "laws" of physical reality (the value of plank for example) and made the matter that formed the big bang, then left the whole thing to run according to the "rules" that ensured the formation of the universe, planets, etc'.

Now, my question is if this is creationism.
While it claims the existence of g-d and 6 days it does not conflict with the time required for the formation of the earth, universe, etc'.
It does not claim intelligent design but a natural framework that worked on it's own without any interference, so it does not try to claim ID or instant evolution, but claims natural evolution (Homo erectus, one celled beings apes and all)

[Ace Pace]

The problem with such a thing is that the six stages are not remotely in order, even allowing for slippages that kinda hurts the idea.

However, as a framework for understanding that Genesis is a creation story and an attempt to explain one acording to ancient people, it might work.

Of course, it dosn't fly when you consider the real orgin of the story, but thats another deal.

[Robert Walper]

That's the problem with the bible. It cannot be interpreted literally without being obviously incorrect, so 'interpretation' comes into play. Meaning anything can mean anything to just about anybody.

[B4UTRUST]

Somewhere in the bible it makes reference to "10,000 years is as a day to Him." Or something like that. So, going with that idea, 6 days could have been like 60,000 years or something.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Now, my question is if this is creationism.

It is emphatically not creationism. It is a theological position regarding evolution et al called Theistic Evolution.

[Comrade Tortoise]

After due discussion it has been decided that this does indeed belong in P&T

Thank you Charon for correcting me.

Have a good day citizens.

Indeed. As this thread seems to be discussing the more theological and philosophical side of the creation story as well as openning the floor to other ideas on creation it was decided to stay here.[size=0]Plus P&T has been dead for awhile.[/size]

[Elheru Aran]

Now, my question is if this is creationism.

It is emphatically not creationism. It is a theological position regarding evolution et al called Theistic Evolution.

I've run into a creationist variety of this, stating essentially that God 'directed' evolution in order to create humanity, and that incest wasn't an issue with Adam and Eve's children as there were other humans around too-- they merely didn't have souls, but the children produced with DNA from Adam and Eve had souls. Bunch of pseudoscientific bullshit dressed up to look pretty.

[Comrade Tortoise]

That's...special... I dont know why people want to take that in any way literally. Honestly, why not just consider it allegory for the moral wrongness of being so arrogant as to attempt to put yourself on the same level as God, and how arrogance is the first of all sins and get it over with...