Last day of 2012 with Stephen Covey

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.  We are spiritual beings having a human experience."
                          Teilhard de Chardin

(from Daily Reflections for Highly Effective People)

Great, or How I Rate Movies

Great

       This morning, I looked at the word great, as written later in this essay, and contemplated the spelling.  English is such a strange language.  I had never thought of it before, but if not for exceptional rules, the word might be pronounced gree-at.  Grate is obviously pronounced with a long a, but the pronunciation of great requires knowledge of a rule, an exception.

       The reason that I was thinking about the word great in the first place, is that it is the highest rating  in a system I have used for years to rate movies I see.   I have not chronicled the movie ratings.  Actually, I am only interested in identifying the Great ones.  The reason I was thinking about movie ratings is that my wife and I, and our best friends—and movie going partners—saw a movie last night, which we (typically) disagreed on what we thought of it, our tastes varying significantly.

       The film, Anna Karinina, was labeled Great, by me, on the spot, which is unusual because it is usually the next day before I can bring myself to award this highest acclamation.  The others, of course, disagreed.

       So, below, excerpted from an article I wrote for my church on “What Is a Great Ministry”, is a description of my personal movie rating system:

      A system for rating movies that I have used for years is:

                1.     Great

                2.     Excellent

                3.     Good

                4.     Fair

                5.     Awful

                6.     Not worth seeing for $1.00 or for Free.

       A Great movie is so good that a rating of Excellent does not describe how positive and excited you feel about it. 

       An Excellent movie is one you come out of saying, “That was Great,” but the quality or admirable characteristics don’t seem (feel) like it deserves the highest accolade, which is Great.  You know what Great feels like, and this is not it; close, but not it.

       What constitutes a Great movie is different for most individuals.  For me, it would contain some deep psychological principle, usually not disclosed until the end.  A classic example is when Scout sees Boo Radley behind the door in Jim’s room, and identifies him as the man who stabbed Bob Ewell, thus saving her and Jim’s lives (To Kill A Mockingbird, 1962).  Although Scout has never seen him and reports of his appearance are grossly distorted, she simply says, “Hey, Boo.”  As soon as the rest of us catch up with what’s going on, we begin crying “tears of joy”.  “Tears of joy,” is another characteristic that might identify, or differentiate, Great from Excellent.

       So what is a Great movie?  When we see it, when we experience it, if we are interested and agonize over the answer, we know whether it is Excellent or Great because, . . . well,

. . . because we know.

Bible Scholasticism

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

         This morning, for a change, my creative juices are flowing in a positive direction, although some might interpret these thoughts as negative.  The subject, once again, is the Bible and the contention that those who view it as inerrant, infallible or literal, do so at the expense of distorting the message, the true meaning of the most precious “Word of God”.

         The contention, mine of course, is shared by a multitude of real scholars—real scholar being defined as one who approaches the study of the literary and historic aspects of this all time best selling book, without the prejudices or bias of believers seeking proof that their interpretation is true.  Those believers who claim to be unbiased in their scholastic study of the Bible, who claim that their scholars do not have a predisposing prejudice, are unaware of the definition of the word “bias” when applied to areas of research and statistics.

         The debate over truth, authenticity and history of the Bible with inerrant, infallible believers is futile.  Every question, every challenge can be met, legitimately, to them, by reverting to their principle that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and therefore cannot be interpreted any other way despite irrationality, mythical resemblance, contradictions, scientifically obtained information demonstrating knowledge of true authorship, and changes made during decades and centuries of oral tradition, and proof of changes made by a multiplicity of interpretations or whims of scribes.  Scribes were people who could read and write who penned the original and copied the “Word of God in biblical and pre-modern times.

         When an inerrant believer cherry picks a Bible passage to challenge a true, modern student, a common practice is to ask of the student (for whom the passage does not contain immutable information for either side), “What are you going to do, tear that page out of the Bible?”  The student’s response is that the believer has transformed this beautiful Word into an image of worship, an engraved image, in direct violation of the second commandment, and in so doing has exalted the sacred text into impotent meaninglessness. (Talk about inflaming them, that statement will take them over the top).

         What’s left for the believer is their belief in magic, acceptance of obvious mythological analogies as literally true, and rejection of any theory or proof of the results of true scholasticism which question any fundamentalist view of any book, any verse, any author which are available to be rightfully studied by a legitimate, contemporary scholar of the Bible.

         The charismatic literalist does not understand that it is his approach, his dogmatic insistence of being right about things not believable to logical people, is what’s driving people away from the church today. Fundamentalism builds a blockade that keeps modern man from finding and knowing the real, living Jesus.

         Are these thoughts negative?  Depends on which side you are on—truth, or being right.

In defense of "alright"

I use “alright” only as the first word of a sentence followed by a comma.  As such it is an interjection for which all the definitions of “all right” do not apply.  It is used in dialogue implying a southern colloquial dialect.

My characters will, on occasion, begin a sentence with the word "alright", "now", "okay" or "well".  The word serves no grammatical propriety; it’s just the way they talk.

Definition of ALL RIGHT**

1: satisfactory, agreeable<whatever you decide is all right with me>
2: safe, well<he was ill but he's all right now>
3: good, pleasing--often used as a generalized term of approval<an all right guy>

Definition of ALRIGHT**

: all right

Usage Discussion of ALRIGHT**           The one-word spelling alright appeared some 75 years after all right itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted alright is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than all right but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing

** Mirriam-Webster  m-w.com

Quote: British philosopher Herbert Spencer

“There is a principle 

  which is a bar against all information, 

   which is proof against all arguments, and 

    which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- 

     that principle is:

     contempt prior to investigation”

The Subway Violinist

THE SITUATION

  

In Washington, DC, at a Metro Station, on a cold January morning in 2007, a man with a violin played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, approximately 2,000 people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.  After about 3 minutes, a middle-aged man noticed that there was a musician playing.  He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds, and then he hurried on to meet his schedule. 

About 4 minutes later:  The violinist received his first dollar.  A woman threw money in the hat and, without stopping, continued to walk. 

   

At 6 minutes:  A young man leaned against the wall to listen to him, then looked at his watch and started to walk again. 

  

At 10 minutes: A 3-year old boy stopped, but his mother tugged him along hurriedly.  The kid stopped to look at the violinist again, but the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk, turning his head the whole time.  This action was repeated by several other children, but every parent - without exception - forced their children to move on quickly.

At 45 minutes: The musician played continuously.  Only 6 people stopped and listened for a short while.  About 20 gave money but continued to walk at their normal pace. The man collected a total of $32.

After 1 hour:  He finished playing and silence took over.  No one noticed and no one applauded.  There was no recognition at all. 

No one knew this, but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the greatest musicians in the world.  He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth $3.5 million dollars.  Two days before, Joshua Bell sold-out a theater in Boston where the seats averaged $100 each to sit and listen to him play the same music.

This is a true story.  Joshua Bell, playing incognito in the D.C. Metro Station, was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and people’s priorities. 

This experiment raised several questions: 

 *In a common-place environment, at an inappropriate hour, do we perceive beauty? 

 *If so, do we stop to appreciate it? 

 *Do we recognize talent in an unexpected context?

One possible conclusion reached from this experiment could be this: 

If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world, playing some of the finest music ever written, with one of the most beautiful instruments ever made . . .. 

  

How many other things are we missing as we rush through life? 

Enjoy life NOW .. it has an expiration date

Passive-aggressive (Poem)

            Passive-Aggressive Kind of Guy

Well, you know, somebody’s got to say something,

You just can’t turn and look away,

Well, if nobody’s got the guts to say anything,

Hell, I ain’t bashful, just get outta my way!

Well, you know somebody’s gotta say somethin’,

Someone’s gotta step right up to the plate,

I’ll show ’em I’m not just a country bumpkin,

Hell, it don’t bother me and this can’t wait!

Well, you know somebody’s gotta say somethin’,

We gotta let everybody know that “We don’t play”,

When they need to know we don’t put up with nothing”

Why, I like to jump right into the fray!

Well, . . . I guess that you could say I’m a little shy,

OK, . . . maybe I don’t always speak my mind,

I may be a passive-aggressive kind of guy.

Alright, I admit.  I’m the total introvert kind.

The Music Box (Poem)

       The Music Box

Got to make the music fit

   into the music box,

notes that must go round and round,

  engineered just like clocks.

Our Success depends on whether

 notes will fit within the measure.

Notes you play will then in kind,

 have to coincide in time,

 tension that’s defined by key,

 then resolution sets us free.

Around the music box I see

 that resonance was made for me.

Mathematicians put it thus:

Pythagoras will stagger us.

Into the music box we’ve got

To make the music fit,

Without mathematics balancing,

I’m just a music hypocrite.

Black

     In 1968 DeKalb College was a hub for the peace movement, civil rights movement and the free love generation.  I was a few years removed from these activities, having returned home from the military a few years older than most students. A wife and baby made a difference, also.

       Imagine my surprise to find these words written on the bathroom walls: Niggers, Honkies and Jews- which became a working title for my freshman public speaking class. My white seriousness about prejudice and discrimination issues astounded my classmates. The last line of that speech was, “Don’t give me any ax handle waving Lester Maddox, nor any Bible totin’ Hosea Williams.  I choose not to discriminate!” 

       How passionate,  . . . and how naive.  

       It has been 39 years since Maynard Jackson was elected Atlanta’s first black Vice Mayor.  Sounds funny, doesn’t it? It sounds like there was a government position in Atlanta called the Black Vice Mayor.

Maynard Jackson was not only the first, but also the last, person to be elected to the position of Black Vice Mayor. The position was subsequently called Vice Mayor. The Atlanta City Government later created a position for Maynard Jackson designated the ‘Black Mayor’.

       You may dismiss these descriptions as mere semantic antics, and also reject the concept which they put forth.  But you should be warned. It is not as simple as black and white.  It is as complicated as black and white.

      When Maynard Jackson was elected Vice Mayor, I wrote a paper because I was distressed that the Atlanta Newspaper had created so sharp a division on their front page in reporting the election.  Like the ink and the paper it was written on, the AJC’s coverage of Maynard Jackson’s first election succinctly divided the city’s population into black and white.

       As a native and lifelong resident of the Atlanta area, I was an experiential witness to inhumane discrimination and segregation of negros, colored people and blacks as I grew up in the ‘40s, ‘50s, and ‘60s.  Now a white convert to non-violence via Selma on TV, and a disciple of Dr. King, I have tried to find a way, in our society, to not discriminate.  I choose to not discriminate.  But it is very hard to do in a world where we are so intent on having a reportable dividing line between black and white.

       Then there was Roots.  What a phenomenon!  How could I deprive blacks of their rich heritage and history just because my moral conscience wanted to ignore the fact that they were black.  In my original essay on Maynard Jackson, I brought out the characteristics of his skin and facial features, including eye color, all clearly Caucasian.  I removed those paragraphs later because I found them distasteful.  But then the arrival of Barack Obama begged the same questions.

       The Saturday, Oct. 25, 2008, AJC reports the staggering number of voters taking advantage of the ability to vote early in the 2008 historical presidential election.  These record breaking numbers were not sufficient for the story, not without a report of the ‘demographics’ of the voters.  ‘Demographics’ means how can we divide ourselves? How can we preserve the separateness of black and white?  How can we quantify and thereby perpetuate black and white? 

President Obama chooses to be black, but how can he?  Are not his genes bi-racial?  How can he be black and not white?  How is it fair to either race for him to choose one or the other?  How can he be black?  How can he be white?  So, if he cannot choose one race, at the exclusion of the other, what race is he?

       Oh, the absurdity of it. When can we let it go? When will we be able to accept that there is no race- but one race to which all men and women belong.  We are the human race.  But can we ever dispose of differentiation and be able to not discriminate.

        God truly inspired the dedication of Dick Gregory’s autobiography to his mother.   The profundity of his concept for titling the book was a gift from God. The book’s title was not ‘N-word’. We should not euphemize the ugliness of the word nor de-emphasize the need to totally eradicate it from our language. If we stopped granting an exemption for the connotation of affection when blacks use the word ‘nigger’ to refer to each other, it would help excise this cancer and purge its malignancy from the human vernacular, and the day might come that it is never heard from any human tongue.

       What prophetic new concept could have a chance to affect those who profane themselves by the affectionate use of the most catastrophic word in our vocabulary? Who could advance a call for purging the metastasis of this horrid word from our society and our cultures?

       In the year 2010, forty two years after my self defining speech and paper, what do I hear?  What do I read?  What do I see?

Black, black, black, black, black.

On the TV news, in the paper, in schools, on the radio, everywhere!  The world is uncontrollably divided into black and white, malignant and metastasized classifications. We cannot escape it.  We cannot escape our senses being bombarded constantly by:     

            black-white-black-white-black-white!

       When will it end, my brother?  Will we be subjected to this plague even unto our deaths.  Have we no choice other than to interbreed out the differences.  That would certainly solve the problem, leaving no differences to discriminate.

       What will it take?  Another charismatic, enigmatic leader like Dr. King?  Where will we find him?

Will he be black, . . . or white? 

       Is there no escape?  Who will come forth?  Who will climb this mountain and tell us what is on the other side?

One, the Number

ONE

       One may be the loneliest number, but it is also the most interesting number between zero and infinity.  The number “one” represents unity.  Zero means null or void. We are told in early math or algebra, that (1) we can multiply any number by 1, and the result will be that number.  Likewise, (2) if you multiply any number by zero, the result will be zero.

       These two statements seem so obvious that we do not perceive their having any significance or usefulness.  But, ahhh… we are mistaken.

       The science of calculus is based upon three numbers: zero, one and infinity.  Actually, only one of these is a number, the one in the middle.  But all three can be treated as numbers.  We are familiar with these terms, but may not know of their uniqueness. 

         If you divide a line in half, then divide one of the remaining halves in half, and continue this process over and over— although the length may become too small to measure, or even to conceive— it can never be equal to zero. This concrete idea becomes abstract when the length becomes un-measurable. It becomes more abstract when you think of the number of times the line can divided in half as infinite. (Keep in mind that we are dealing with concepts.)

        It is by treating these infinitely small and infinitely large quantities as numbers, that formulas can be defined which can solve problems not solvable using ordinary mathematics or geometry.  The formulas will include the phrases such as as x approaches zero, as x approaches 1, or “as x approaches infinity.”

       Before a mathematics student is exposed to the concepts of calculus, he will have learned that the geometric terms “point” and “moment”, do not have dimension. Points and moments are pure concepts, ideas, but do not have quantity or magnitude. A point divides a line into its length up to the point and the length of the line that follows the point. The point separates these two portions of line, but has no (zero) length, itself.  A point in space occupies zero volume. It is a point where three lines intersect in three dimensions (height, length and width).  A moment is a dividing line between the past and the future.  A moment is what we call “the present”, but it has no duration of time.          

       There is, of course, an ambiguous use of the word “moment “ in language, which describes a short, undefined period of time.  But for mathematics, science and some spiritual philosophies and religions, a moment, or “the present”, is a period of time equal to zero.

       These concepts, unity, null and infinity, while simple concepts on the surface, are the basis of mathematical systems which make today’s technology possible: x times one equals x; x times zero equals zero; zero divided by x equals infinity.

So You Used to be a Baptist: Get Over It!

         I have had five articles published in the TFUMC Newsletter in the last six months. The Editor graciously offered me a monthly column called "Hinesight".  The one month in six that I missed had been scheduled to include an article I wrote about a former Baptist (raised a Baptist) needing to overcome some denominational baggage when he (me, of course) became a Methodist by marrying one.
         The article had the potential to offend some people if they took it seriously, namely Baptists and Catholics, even though it is the sharing of one man's (mine) journey, and was written somewhat tongue-in-cheek for entertainment value.
         After several watering down re-writes and vascillating decisions about whether or not to publish in the church Newsletter, the Editor finally made a firm decision that it would not be appropriate, and suggested that I put the article in a blog.  So here it is, for your enlightenment and entertainment.  I hope that you enjoy the read and that you are not offended.  But if you are, well, like theysay in Russia, "tough shitsky".

                                                

                                                   So You Used to Be a Baptist

by Bill Hines

         In conversations around the church, everyone, at one time or another, has heard someone utter the phrase, “I was raised a Baptist . . .”.  Most prominent are husbands who married Methodist women.  It is rare to find a couple in that situation who choose to settle in the Baptist Church.  There are also cases of women marrying into Methodism, although somewhat rare.  There are also other reasons for Baptists becoming Methodists, e.g., being drawn to our choirs or other programs or being urged by neighbors to visit our church. We even have three staff members who were Baptist before signing on.

       I fall into the ‘married a Methodist’ category.  But, regardless of what made the Baptist a Methodist, there are some central doctrinal differences that can be difficult for the Baptist to overcome.  My story exemplifies these hurdles, here enumerated:

1.     Pastors/ministers wear robes in worship;

2.     Candles burn on the altar during worship services;

3.     Baptism without immersion;

4.     Infant baptism;

5.     Prayers of Confession;

6.     Creeds;

7.     Laity assist with the Lord’s Supper;

8.     Use of the word “communion”.

9.     Bishops

There is also a difference in the way converts are received into the church, but that’s beyond the scope of this discussion.

         The nine items listed above have direct correlations to the Catholic faith.  To Baptists, when I was a youth, anything Catholic was bad.  Keywords that invoke a deeply embedded psychological rejection are equally present in Methodism and Catholicism: robes, candles, sprinkling, infant baptism, confession, creed, communion.  Brain-washing is too strong a term, but indoctrination against anything resembling Catholicism, was thorough and effective. 

       So when we Baptists suddenly become Methodists, we are laden with denominational baggage.  I can only speak for myself, but I will share parts of my journey to overcome my Baptist upbringing:

1.     So the preacher wears a robe.  So what?  Big deal!

2.     Two candles are innocuous, and symbolize Christ bringing light into the world and the church taking it out to the world. What’s wrong with that?

3.     The Baptism Service template found in the United Methodist Hymnal, states that baptism is an initiation into the body of Christ, the church. It is not magical, and no supernatural act occurs.  There is no expectation that the process somehow causes a paranormal transformation.  Makes sense to me.  I buy that.

4.     Infant baptism simply puts the responsibility for the Christian upbringing of the child squarely on the parents, guardians, or responsible adults. The child is still responsible for his own conversion declaration (with the assistance of some intense presentation of information to the ‘confirmation class’).

5.     How can you argue with the prayers of confession found in the Methodist Hymnal –prayed either collectively or individually?  We have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  We confess and we repent.  This one was easy for me.

6.     Creeds—as a child growing up, I had no idea what a creed was, only that my church said that creeds were evil and should be shunned.  I must admit, I can’t say that I agree with every point made in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds.  But they are ritual, liturgical statements, and as such, are good summaries of the facets of Christian beliefs.  I don’t have to memorize nor do I need to boycott them.  If recitation by the corporate body bothers my lingering religious upbringing, I just say to myself, “It doesn’t matter; it doesn’t matter,” etc.

7.     In the Baptist Church, only ordained ministers can administer elements of the Lord’s Supper (Heaven forbid that we should ever call it “communion”).  I had a hard time with this one.  Methodist pastors asked me to assist and I had to say, “no, not yet”.  Then, finally, one day, I—you might have guessed: I got over it!

8.     The term communion still bugs me, subconsciously.  It is so-o-o-o Catholic.   But there’s only one thing for me to do, though, unless I want to walk back across 4^th Street—that’s to “get over it”!  I’m sure that I will.

9.     Bishops are components of an episcopacy—oh Lord, there’s another one.

       I think this list encompasses all my borne Baptist hang-ups. Fellow former Baptists, have I omitted any?  Maybe we should form a support group for former Baptists—maybe a Sunday School class.  We could call it the “Get Over It Class”.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning quote

"Earth's crammed with Heaven,
And every common bush afire with God,
But only he who sees takes off his shoes . . ."
Elizabeth Barrett Browning

The Real Creation Story

The Real Creation Story

I = Interviewer        G= God

I:  God, thank you.  You don’t do face-to-face interviews like you used to.

G:  Well, you know, you can’t always believe everything you read.

I:  Do you mean you didn’t have all the direct, in-person communication with man described in the Old Testament?

G: I admit . . ., it’s a small flaw in my design plan—man cannot resist the temptation to embellish.

I: Pardon me, but it seems that in answering my questions, you are not answering my questions.

G:  Good observation.  Unfortunately, that’s another one I passed on to mankind.

I:  Okay, . . . so I seem to be spinning my wheels here.  Let’s get on to the nuts and bolts of this interview: Did you really create everything in seven days?

G:  No, it was six days.  On the seventh day I rested.              

I:  Okay, then, maybe you could explain to me what a ‘day’ was back then, since a day here on earth is the time it takes for one revolution on earth’s axis.  There was no earth on the first ‘day’.

G:  A very astute observation, although we know you’re not the first to make it.

I:  Yeah, but I’m the first one who’s got to ask you about it.

G:  Okay, I will explain it, but it’s not as simple as you think.  I can’t throw out a simple answer to the question.  Oh, I could, but you wouldn’t understand.  I will have to answer you using the process called interpolation—a mathematical concept meaning that it is from the total that you derive the components, or parts.  So, I will have to describe the whole of creation and then break it into time segments, which you insist on calling ‘days’.

I:  You don’t call them days?  I thought you wrote the Bible. 

G:  Another one of them ‘you say’s.  There’s gonna be lots of ‘em. Okay—I’m tryin’ to quit sayin’ ‘okay’ so much, but it’s such an engrained habit.  I hate it that man picked that up from me, too.

Okay, here we go:

-On the first day I created light, and thereby, energy.

-On the second day I created the hydrogen atom, and thus matter.

-On the third day I created a way that the hydrogen atom could  

   be modified to produce what you call the ‘elements’ (found in

     your periodic chart).

-On the fourth day the plan I created, gravity, was a method to

     bring my creations together in a way that would form stars,

     planets, solar systems, galaxies, and thus the earth.

-On the fifth day I devised the system whereby the elements

     could combine to form molecules, and thus proteins and

     amino acids. 

-On the sixth day I created—and I consider this my masterpiece—a

     way for proteins, amino acids and energy to combine to form the magnificent concept of ‘life’ (my image, by the way).  This

     method was eventually discovered by man and labeled

     deoxyribonucleic acid.

I:  You’re saying on the sixth day you invented DNA?

G:  Yes, and with that, creation was completed.

I:  What about the seventh day, the day you rested?  Does it count in the days of creation?

G:  Oh yes, but my part on the seventh day was easy.  I just pulled the trigger—BANG.

I:  Let me make sure I understand this.  Your seven days of creation just involved design, and then you set it in motion to create itself?

G:  I’m not sure I appreciate your calling it ‘just’ design.  There’s been nothing else like it.

I:  So, on the seventh day, everything was put in motion.  Do you count the days after that as part of the creation story?

G:  Well, I would, but everything else that happened, happened by the end of the seventh day, while I rested.

I:  Oh, . . . I see. . . .  No, I don’t see.  Would you care to elaborate?

G:  Why, yes, it is part of the creation story—the real story.

Okay, here goes: On the first day . . . “

I:  Wait, Wait. You just said everything else happened by the end of the seventh day. Now, you’re starting over with another first day?  That doesn’t jive.

G:  ‘Jive.’  I love that word.  It so effectively communicates ambiguity.  ‘Kosher’ is another one.  Oh, what mankind did to my gift of language.  But that’s another story—back to the current story, creation—the real story.

I: Have at it.  I can’t wait.

G:  Okay, you have undoubtedly heard that there are two creation stories in the Book of Genesis.

I:  Yes?

G:  Well, the real creation story is that there were two seven-day periods.  It’s just that the second seven days are contained in the first seventh day, while I rested.

I:  That’s complicated.

G:  Yes it is, and it cannot be comprehended by the mind of man. Man might describe it in terms of advanced mathematics or physics, but it will never be comprehended by his mind.  It’s like the ‘Theories of Relativity’.  Einstein, himself, said the human mind could not comprehend the theories, only prove them through mathematics, but never comprehend.

I:  So, will I be able to keep up with you from this point?

G:  Yes, you’ll do just fine if you keep up with the conversation.  I told you that I could not throw out a simple answer that you would understand.  So, I said I would explain using the mathematical process of interpolation.  You may not be familiar with that process, but if you pay attention, you will understand what I am saying. 

I: A simple answer to what?  I’m lost.

G:  You don’t remember the question you asked me, . . . that I am in the process of answering?

I:  Well, uh, not exactly.

G:  Okay.  You asked me how long a day was back then.

I:  Oh yeah.  Yes I did.   Okay, I’m back with you now, proceed.

G: 

-On the first day, when I pulled the trigger, the hydrogen atoms were propelled in all directions from a single point (a spherical 360 degrees.  The number of ‘all directions’ is infinite—but we won’t go into that right now.

-On the second day, the hydrogen atoms, exposed to the effects of gravity, began to clump together, forming helium, lithium, beryllium, . . . and so on down the line through all the elements.

-On the third day, elements coalesced into galaxies which continued to expand in all directions, undetectably slowing down. For now, I will restrict my comments to earth, since that’s where your interests lie.

I:  You mean there are more earth-like creations elsewhere?

G:  Like I said, I will restrict my comments to earth.  Believe me, that’s all you can handle right now.

I:  Okay. 

G: 

-On the fourth day, the earth and other planets of your solar system were formed by the effect of gravity on the space-stuff floating around, and their orbits were established.  The original molten mass of elemental particles began to cool down and solidify.

-On the fifth day, water and oxygen became abundant in their present quantities.

-On the sixth day randomly occurring organic compounds combined, according to my plan and evolved into all living thing on the planet.

-On the seventh day, while I was resting, man developed language,  became conscious of himself, and evolved into the twenty-first century phenomenon who is now approaching the day when he will understand what it means to be made in my image.

I: (long hesitant pause) So, let me make sure I got this right.  It took the universe 13.4 billion years to develop to the point of having humans on earth.  Then, another one hundred thousand years to reach modern times and all our technological accomplishments?

G:  Yes, but also psychological, philosophical, spiritual and paranormal accomplishments.

I:  Paranormal?  What’s that?

G:  You call it paranormal.  Actually, it’s quite real, just not discovered.  A primary example is the concept of ‘parallel universes’.

I:  Okay, that’s over my head, so let’s talk about the duration of these second seven days.  They don’t seem to be the same length, in years.

G:  You are quite correct.  That’s where the interpolation comes in—we have to take the total time, 13.4 billion years, and divide it by seven.  But, and here’s where it gets complicated—remember, these seven days occurred within the first seventh day—so, hang on here, this is where it gets complicated,

. . . so, we have to take the 13.4 billion years divided by seven, and add six times that result to 13.4 billion, and, divide by thirteen (my first six days, plus the seven contained in the seventh.

I:  Huh?  I don’t understand.

G:  I didn’t expect you to, but we have reached an answer to your question.  In the Bible creation story, a day equaled:

     13.4 billion divided by 7 = 1.91428571 billion

     1.91428571 billion X 6 = 11.4857143 billion

     11.4857143 billion + 13.4 billion = 24.8857143 billion

     24.8857143 billion divided by 13 = 1.91428571 billion

I:  The length of a day in the Bible creation story is

    1.91428571 billion years?

G.  Yes.  That’s your answer.

I:  . . . But, do you have any idea how long a billion years is?

G:  You’re asking me???

I:  Well, just think, if light travels 186,000 miles per second, in 1.91428571 billion years it would travel:

1,914,285,710 miles/day X 60 seconds/minute X 60 minutes/hour X 24 hours/day = 165,394,285,344,000 miles in a day

G:  Miles are relative, my son.

I:  Then times 13 days = 2,150,125,709,472,000 miles!  What comes after trillion?  And after that?

G:  I don’t think you’re listening to me.

I:  Wow, that’s mind boggling!

G:  I should have known better.  It seems simple to me.  Maybe you should contemplate the limitations of your own ‘mind’.