*round of applause*
Sandwich, I admire your ability and enthusiasm (for lack of a better word) to discuss the bible and science with some rather intelligent people. I am however, biased, and much of that admiration comes from seeing a number of similarities between your viewpoint and mine (I find your points similar to my views, you might not feel the same).
Just something I'd like to say about myself: One thing I try to avoid is arguing above my knowledge level: I could say that "Because quantum mechanics change when observed, then humans are fundamentally different from the rest of the universe". I would, however, be wrong (according to my understanding). I don't know why I'm wrong though, so such an argument only serves to bewilder a less knowledgable person I'm having a discussion with, or indeed myself. Hence, I'm not really going to go into Schroeder's articles and my points might not be as relevant as I hope.
Karajoma makes a good point on: "Making the scriptures fit the facts". This is something I always have to contend with, and a problem I have yet to resolve. In the case of the 6 creation days fitting the 14 or so billion year age of the universe, I'm going to have to agree. But the idea is extremely important (for me) to attempt to "resolve" these issues. I might cop some flak for this, but I am not capable of "disproving" (whatever that means) all evolutionary, aetheistic or other-than-my-religion arguments and so I am stuck resolving them (or in more exciting cases, incorporating them).
For example: Some time ago someone brought up the point that the volume of water required for the flood all falling at the same time would create a huge amount of air resistance which would do something bad to the Earth. I don't know how to possibly attack that statement, so all I'm stuck with is "The water was cold" or "It didn't fall far" or similar. Such a resolution does not satisfy a debate, but it leaves the possibility that either could be correct, and I can continue believing what I do with some manner of security.
So here's me resolving some of the points in this thread:
My translation may be different, but the main ideas should be maintained across translations (of course it is always better to go back to the original language, but a. I don't know ancient Hebrew or Greek, 2. I can't be bothered unless translation actually becomes an issue, and c. I don't think is important yet):
1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Full stop. Period. This is the basis of my interpretation of the Genesis account: that the first verse is separate and precedes the rest of the chapter, rather than the following verses being a clarification on that. This means that the Bible doesn't necessarily conflict with the current understanding of the universe being 14 billion years old (or so). It doesn't say how old the universe is, and I don't believe you can work that out from the bible.
2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.
This is where I have to disagree from my understanding of Schroeder's point. Why should we use an abstract, theological reference point? What would make the most sense to an audience of farmers and labourers? I would say a reference point on the surface of the Earth. Other one's are possible, but this one makes the most sense to me. This view is supported by the focus on the surface of the Earth in the quoted verse, rather than an external, relativistic or omniscient frame of reference which might describe the Earth with volcanic splotches or with violent storms.
3 And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be.” Then there came to be light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. 5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.
This could be interpreted as god creating the sun, moon and stars. Or even the physical quality of light, such as photons. This of course doesn't mesh with current scientific theories. My interpretation is the same as Sandwich, though using a persistant reference frame, that the sky would have been darkened by volcanic ash or some other translucent atmospheric matter until this point. The "coming to be light" and coming to be day and night, was the visibility of night and day from the Earth's surface and not that light being created then. (if you were on the surface of the Earth, you wouldn't see the difference). There is a caveat however.
14 And God went on to say: “Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. 15 And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it came to be so. 16 And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth, 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that [it was] good. 19 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fourth day.
Now the translation becomes important. The Genesis 1:3, 4 account uses the word 'ohr, meaning light in a general sense. While Genesis 1:14-19 uses the word ma·ʼohr′, which refers to a source of light. Evidently the first creative day allowed filtered light to be apparent from the surface of the Earth, while the sun, moon and stars were made visible on the fourth creative day. Note that the word translated as "made" (a·sah) as in "God proceeded to make the two great luminaries" is different from the word translated as create (ba·raʼ) throughout the chapter.
20 And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters in the sea basins, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fifth day.
I haven't actually done the research on this account I really should. The apparent discrepancy between our understanding of the order of animals appearing could be resolved in a number of ways: A) Flying creatures refers to insects, which were around before land animals (I don't know if paleontology backs this up, it is possible that these fossils simply haven't been discovered if not). B) The account simply lists animals and is not chronological.
Another thing to note: This account refers to animals being created according to their KINDS. What is a kind? That is completely open to interpretation, it importantly doesn't necessarily refer to species, opening up limited degrees of evolution. I personally don't believe it refers to species (Noah would have a heck of a lot of work if it did), but it is utterly open to interpretation. However, it does limit something. I'd put the limit at one taxanomical class being unable to evolve into another according to this scripture, but someone else may be more open minded than me.
31 After that God saw everything he had made and, look! [it was] very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.
2 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. 2 And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made. 3 And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making.
4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.
My translation uses the name of god everywhere, yours' (you referring to an abstract reader, not anyone in particular) may not. I've left this a little later than maybe I should have but it suits the verses. Every other creative day has a beginning and an end. The seventh day starts, but does not end! This indicates that it is possible that the seventh day is still ongoing. The idea that god did cause all these creational events to occur in a single day is preposterous. My interpretation is that these are metaphorical days, which relate to an ambiguously long "time period" and not a literal day, or a thousand years or such. Prophetic "days", on the other hand, are another matter entirely.
With the exception of flying creature ordering, and evolution I see no contradiction. Current scientific theories either agree with my interpretation of the bible, or can be otherwise resolved as possible. The only thing which requires further discussion is evolution, but this post is wall enough as it is.
