Comment by krapp

>We know that the 7 days weren't referring to our current concept of a day.

We don't know that. Some Christians believe that because they believe the Bible is univocal, which it isn't, and because they want to use other unrelated scripture like "a day for God is like a thousand years" to support a framework for Genesis which they believe is validated by current science.

But I see no reason to believe that when the ancient Hebrews wrote about creation taking seven days, that they didn't mean seven actual days.

>It was written like that, because it would be easier for people to understand.

A supposition not backed up by evidence, and one that assumes the author of Genesis had a modern understanding of astrophysics, which they did not.

> Science wasn't a thing back then. If it were written in 2025, it would obviously be very different and probably much more detailed.

OK. So as I suspected you believe that the Genesis creation story (or at least one, as there are two conflicting creation narratives) represents literal truth, but that the account itself couches this literal truth in metaphor.

I suppose that's better than the Biblical literalists who insist that Old Testament genealogies prove the world is only 10,000 years old and that therefore things like carbon dating are fake, but I do wish Christians would just accept that Genesis (along with the rest of the Bible) is entirely mythology and that they don't have to "make it fit" with modern science. It just didn't happen.

>Science researches _how_ something works. Religion answers _who_ created it. Religion also makes just as many claims about how as who and why.

Religion doesn't answer anything of the sort, it claims to answer it, a priori, without evidence.

And of course there are countless religions with countless such "answers." You believe only one answer is valid, again, without evidence.

This is not an opportunity for you to proselytize to me.