well bill, you are correct that interpretations of genesis go far beyond the data. the reading of genesis is fairly straightforward, esp ch 1. but in an effort to fall in with supposed science, the gap theory, framework hypothesis and theistic evolution have arisen. only the first, can be at all supported theologically, but far from airtight, imo. the others read ideas into the text that were never read before in the narrative.
"....translations..." ? .is that relevant ?. my information is that Hebrew scholars whether conservative or liberal, are agreed that the author[s] intended the narrative to be read as 6 normal length days of creation.
shimrod,- it is true that I said that evolutionism is the reigning paradigm, and that there are a lot of well paid jobs depending on that dogma being accepted. I did not say there was an organized conspiracy involving all of science.
you took something that was true [ ie what I said] and exaggerated my words.
in the same way, evolutionists extrapolate beyond the data, from observing natural selection, and mutations ,that pondscum can turn into people . of course the changes are so miniscule over countless aeons that it cant be seen , and so the lacking of evidence becomes the evidence, it would seem !.
of course there is something called an evolutionist, just like there is such a thing as a creationist. you are of the first, and I of the second. opposing positions on origins. whats your problem ?.