I’ll start with the obvious one - the Old Testament says that the earth was created in 6 days; however, the New Testament says that “With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day”.
That only gives us 6,000 years.
Got anything better?
Oh… and evolution has nothing to do with how the earth was created. It’s about how species change over time.
Depending on how much symbolism and secondary meanings you want to read into it, certainly it could be said that evolution and the Bible are consistent.
The Shinto and Navajo explanations for the creation of the universe, once you interpret the meanings, can probably also be found to be consistent with evolution.
The point is that previous to discovering the process of evolution, no one ever read these texts as possibly having such a meaning. So if this was a natural interpretation of the text to make, it wouldn’t have taken 1800+ years to make it.
So the creation took seven thousand years instead of seven days? I don’t think that that gets us much closer to an agreement between scripture and science.
The more typical approach for theistic evolutionists, (those who accept the scientific information regarding evolution along with the corresponding information regarding geology, cosmology, and similar pursuits of science), is to note that the two creation stories fouind at the beginning of Genesis were never intended as descriptions of creation, but were mythological descriptions of the principal role that God played in human history. In the first poem, creation is laid out as an orderly process following particular guidelines from God, thus demonstrating that God brings order to the world which would be chaos without him. The second tale notes that God has given man dominion over the Earth and that man has brought evil down on his own head through disobedience to God’s will.
You can attempt to reconcile the two tales of creation with science, but you will rarely persuade anyone based on that approach. (For example, ther order of creration on the six days of the first tale/poem is drectly contradicted by the evidence of the order in which we know that life evolved upon the earth.)
throw “like” and days and years and days and a week or so all together and its perfectly possible to end with a time frame of hundreds of millions or billions of years…
Note, like does not mean exactly equal to
So? You still have the problem that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 get the order of creation wrong.
The idea behind the OP is a nice try, but it simply fails to do the job.
It’s like when the service engine light goes on in your car… kinda.
Either the engine is busted, or the light is busted.
Now, we know perfectly well that the engine (our comprehension of the world) is not busted.
How do we know this? Well, the evolutionary model and the “Big Bang” model pretty accurately describe what we’re seeing and predict what is happening according to consistent guidelines that are externally verifiable.
So, the light (the Bible) must be busted.
What makes us think this?
Well, the Biblical model doesn’t explain… anything, really. And it doesn’t give any hints as to what it’s ACTUALLY talking about. And it was written at wildly different times and is actually a compilation made years after the fact. And the only way to verify it is against itself. So the light must be busted.
OR… (and here’s where my metaphor kinda falls apart)
Maybe we’re looking at the light wrong.
Look, I am a Christian.
But there’s no way under the sun that two different guys in two different parts of the Middle East who took it upon themselves to write down an allegory about the supremacy of God used during the Babylonian captivity to maintain cultural integrity have as good a handle on the vastness of the Universe as that guy named after the space telescope, or any of those other guys.
Here’s another metaphor that maybe helps it along.
Sometimes when I was a very little pup, my momma would send me to my daddy’s work to give him a message. Sometimes she’d write it, sometimes it’d be “tell your daddy…”
Now, let’s say the buoy in our hot water heater ruptured, and took on a little water, thus causing the buoy to sink, causing the heater to think it was empty, causing the reservoir to overfill, putting too much pressure on the overflow valve, causing all sorts of pressure problems, maybe even to the point of potentially causing a rupture.
This all takes too long to write down, and even longer to explain to me what is going wrong so I can properly tell my daddy so that my daddy might bring home the proper tools for the job. So instead, I get, “run and tell your daddy the heater’s broke and come right away with his toolbox.”
Both messages to my daddy are equally true. The problem is, the only available messenger is the child, so daddy gets a true, but woefully limited message.
When daddy gets home and, after investigation and learning on his own, discovers further information and is able to more properly view and solve the problem, he’s not mad at me- I gave him the best message I could. And he’s not mad at momma- she did the best she could with the messenger she had to work with.
Genesis teaches me that God caused the world to be and that, as His creation, the world is good.
But my next question is “How?”
And that’s when I turn to space telescope guy, not multiply-filtered folk tale guy.
The people who told the Genesis story couldn’t WRITE, for pete’s sake. And you’re gonna trust them to do PHYSICS?
They got the basic truth right. That was the best they could do as messengers. We who have the benefit of the passage of time and better understanding and equipment can better determine the HOW. That doesn’t mean the WHY is wrong.
So I guess what I’m saying is that God made the world. But to assume that we knew how He did it when we had no real understanding of the physical world would be ludicrous.
Except that day, as used in Genesis, means day, as in, one day:
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
God named the light [day], and the darkness he named [night]. There was evening, then morning-the first day.
King James Bible
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
American King James Version
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
American Standard Version
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Bible in Basic English
Naming the light, Day, and the dark, Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.
Darby Bible Translation
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening, and there was morning the first day.
English Revised Version
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Webster’s Bible Translation
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night: and the evening and the morning were the first day.
World English Bible
God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” There was evening and there was morning, one day.
Young’s Literal Translation
and God calleth to the light ‘Day,’ and to the darkness He hath called ‘Night;’ and there is an evening, and there is a morning – day one.
Isn’t it a big more accurate to say that the bible does not specifically contradict evolution? The bible really isn’t consistent with evolution because there’s nothing in it that actually agrees with evolution. It’s not walking alongside, it’s just getting out of the way.
I’ve had this discussion. If we place Genesis as a conversation between God and the early Jews in context, it is not much different than the conversation I had with my 18 month old son when I explained why playing in the street was a bad idea. It was fairly straightforward. I didn’t attempt to explain the physics of a two ton metal object meeting a twenty-five pound human; I was relatively certain that he wouldn’t appreciate it in all its fine complexities. So I cut to the chase: “Stay out of the road.” When he disobeyed, there was noise on the diaper. He’s eighteen now and a darn good driver.
Too many people forget that God was speaking to a relatively unsophisticated audience and He likely didn’t think they’d appreciate the grandeur of the plan. So He told us a story we could live with for a while. And gave us superior minds capable of figuring it out later. I think we’re making progress.
So the Biblical math is something of a red herring. It was a metaphor, just like the rest of the story.
The idea that you lie to unsophisticated people makes no sense.
Simplify? Sure.
"The earth was created a long time ago. First came simple things like small plants. Thousands and thousands of years later, animals. Humans have been around for about two hundred thousand years…not nearly as long as everything else.
There used to be very big animals, but these died when a big star crashed into the earth.
Also, there was never a flood from rain that covered the earth and killed everything except one family and a few animals stuffed into a boat for a year."
But a “metaphor”? That’s just a polite way of saying the author was clueless as to what really happened.
The idea that you lie to unsophisticated people makes no sense.
Simplify? Sure. ('Course it would make even more sense make the sophisticated by telling 'em the truth, assuming you know it.)
“The earth was created a long time ago. First came simple things like small plants. Thousands and thousands of years later, animals. Humans have been around for about two hundred thousand years…not nearly as long as everything else.
There used to be very big animals, but these died when a big star crashed into the earth.
Also, there was never a flood from rain that covered the earth and killed everything except one family and a few animals stuffed into a boat for a year.”
But a “metaphor”? That’s just a polite way of saying the author was clueless as to what really happened.
Whatcha gonna do with the flood and subsequent distribution of animals?
If all the animals started from a point source a few thousand years ago, why is their distribution so locale-oriented? Why aren’t flowers and animals exactly the same across the directions they would have moved out from that point source? Did the original platypus pair make their way all the way to Australia and only then start procreating?
That depends on how literally you read it, and how much you consider allegory.
The Bible is not a science text. It’s meant to be a history and a prescription for how to live one’s life.
Occam’s razor: The Bible is wrong about many things.
So what should be read literally, and what should be considered allegory?
And if the history says things happened that science says didn’t happen?
Not to mention that there’s this irritating problem of where Cain’s son Enoch came from (Gen 4:17) or where Seth’s son Enosh (Gen 4:26) came from. If Cain, Abel and Seth were the only offspring of the first people on earth, where did Cain’s and Seth’s wives come from?
Judeo-Christian theology that is derived from Jewish and Christian Scripture addresses our spiritual and emotional relationship with God and God’s creation. Science answers specific questions about the physical relationship between various parts of Creation. These are two fundamentally different ways of understanding Creation that are inappropriately applied when one is used to explain, justify or discount the other (e.g. Creationism, the Historical Jesus movement). They examine and answer very different questions that ultimately have nothing to do with each other.
If we read the second story of creation in Genesis as the authors intended it to be understood (i.e. without imposing the Christian interpretation as the only correct one), we see them both as telling the story of the beginning of the nation of Israel. These two versions (look up the “J” and “P” texts that are interleaved throughout Genesis) are subsequently developed and the history of the nation of Israel, as God’s chosen people, is told in Genesis. Looking at the stories of creation in this way, there is no need to go the through the intellectual contortions needed to harmonize a literal interpretation of either story of Creation.
As a devout Christian and a scientist, I can tell you that my faith is not threatened or diminished by my scientific education (which includes evolution and origins of life). My work in medical research is ethically informed by Scriptural teachings of justice, mercy and humility. Likewise, my study of the inner workings of the cells in our bodies is met with the same awe and mystery I encounter when I receive consecrated elements during the Eucharist. By understanding the distinct nature of my spiritual and intellectual life, I do not put myself at risk of being intellectually or spiritually dishonest by attempting to harmonize Scripture with scientific understanding. Their relationship within me is not to validate the other but to give me a more complete perspective on what I do in the lab, in the pew or at home.
Vlad/Igor
Ah, but 6000 years is 2,191,500 days. And if each of those days is as a thousand years, then we get 2,191,500,000 years. 
Vlad/Igor’s excellent post ought to end any possibility of argument or discussion, but of course it won’t.
It’s beyond my comprehension why or how anyone alive on Earth at this time, able to read and write and comprehend reality well enough to be able to post on an internet message board would even CARE about trying to “reconcile” the bible with any scientific theory whatsoever.
If you believe it’s “true” beyond the truth of the books existing, then why would you waste your time here, trying to convince, or explain to, people who think biblical literalism is similar to the belief in a flat Earth?