I'll tell you why I'm so interested in this topic. We started attending a Bible-believing church. During one of the first sermons, the pastor made a passing comment about not believing in literal "days" in Genesis one. It really had nothing to do with his sermon, so at the time, I wished he'd just not said it, because it disturbed me. My husband suggested that we continue our church search, because he thought I'd hold that one comment against the man for eternity and be on "critic" mode from that moment on. (Just for the record:I am much more reasonable than my husbands give me credit for!) I'd wanted to talk directly to the pastor about his views, but his mother was ill at the time and soon passed away; I didn't think it was the right time to ask him about it. So, I had to decide whether or not a non-literal view of Genesis was a deal-breaking big issue or a minor, non-issue. At first thought, it seemed to me that a God who spoke the world into existence in six literal days was a lot bigger/more powerful than a God who just stirred a primordial pot and watched the evolutionary show for billions of years. My second thought was that a non-literal view of Genesis would potentially alter ones view of all that followed. So, thank you for your answers. My initial instincts were wrong; it an interesting discussion, but it's not a theological issue worth fretting over. I'll quit now.