Slevesque posted something relevant in
Message 29. He quotes "Oxford Hebrew scholar James Barr" as follows:
probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1—11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that
1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.
Barr commits the fallacy of appeal to authority when he expresses doubt that anyone at a world-class university believes otherwise concerning the 24 hour days, and I'm willing to grant for the sake of discussion that other interpretations of the days in Genesis deserve sincere consideration. My point is that the 24 hour interpretation as the intended meaning of the original authors has very wide acceptance that is much greater than your own interpretation. In fact, your interpretation seems confined to those attempting a reconciliation of the Bible with the scientific evidence of an ancient earth. Traditional YEC creationists attempt no such reconciliation, believing that science is simply wrong and that when the Bible says days it means real honest-to-God 24 hour days.
Of course, the evidence for a line of descent of great antiquity leading to modern man is equally unequivocal, as is evidence for modern man going back a hundred thousand years.
But this thread is in the religious forums where scientific views usually take a back seat. The relevant point I'm trying to introduce is that your view that 24 hour days were not the original intent of the authors is definitely a minority view within the broad range of Biblical scholarship. Certainly there are scholars on the other side of the issue, but they're in the minority. Being in the minority in a debate doesn't mean you're wrong, but you seem not to comprehend the minority status of your view. You propose it as if it's the most obvious thing, as if no one reasonable would ever think otherwise.
--Percy