TheSword

As far as at church, I would think it comes from the idea of giving our best to God. That's how I see it, anyways. Our culture still knows how to dress up for a funeral, or job interview, or to go to the symphony, or to see the Queen.  We know how to be respectful; shouldn't that same respect apply to the house of God? Suits and ties are still the definition of proper dress for formal attire and business wear.
Our men don't dress in suits/ties when witnessing for exactly the reason you mentioned above. 

Funerals, wedding, church, job interview for an exec type position -- I'll wear a suit (with a string tie). Visitation, hospital visits, most job interviews, business meeting with potential customer, jail ministry, street ministry -- I'll wear dress shirt and dress pants, no coat or tie (ESPECIALLY no tie in the jail or on the street at night in rough areas.) Work or play -- jeans or overalls with appropriate shirt. Mucking stalls or painting -- clothes that have already been used for nasty jobs.
One of our two funeral directors just died, I saw more suits being worn at his funeral than at any wedding or funeral in this county -- because he was highly respected.
 
I have to admit to enjoying playing with people's minds though. I had a referral come to me for a service call (electrical). When I got to the address -- it was a bar. I found the man who wanted the work done and told him, "Nah, I don't work beer joints". He wanted me to call another electrician out, I reply, "Nah, I ain't havin' no one else work a beer joint". He decided he wanted my boss' phone number, I asked, "Umm, the owner, superintendent, or job foreman?" He said, "You have the owner's number? I'll take it" (I didn't tell him that all 3 positions were held by the same man). When he called the number, my cell phone rang. I looked at the caller ID, smiled real big and asked, "Would you like me to talk to you on the phone -- or in person?" He wasn't amused but I LOVED it!

I'll say it one last time...
You can't conflate prophecy with historical narrative. "Day" in Gen 1 has always meant a regular day as we understand it not matter how much you try to read into it. Gen 1:5 gives a very clear description and delimiter for the definition of that day and how it was reckoned. That is how the original audience took it. That is how it has always been taken until people compromised with atheistic Darwinism. Those are facts you can't get around.
I'm out.

I'm kind of in a similar situation in looking for a new church. Doctrinally speaking, my priorities (loosely grouped) are:
Salvation and the way sin, heaven, and hell fit into it picture (soteriology, hamartiology, part of eschatology) How they view the Bible (i.e. inerrant/infallible/inspired, preferably KJV) Understanding of the Trinity and each person thereof (theology proper, Christology, pneumatology) Other major doctrines not directly related to salvation (rest of eschatology, anthropology, etc.) However, doctrine is only one aspect of what I'm looking for when visiting new churches:
Doctrine Ministry potential/opportunities Attitude about and participation in evangelism Attitude about and participation in missions Demographics (people our age to connect with and other children for our kids to grow up with) Music Location (within reasonable driving distance)

The answer is an unequivocal, yes, we define the understanding of the First Day in Genesis by the context of Moses and the culture he lived in. He was perfectly capable of understanding long expanses of time and had a language capable of expressing it. You can't assume that ancient man was ignorant and just couldn't grasp such a simple concept as time. He grew up in a relatively advanced culture that build pyramids and had a ridiculously complex pantheon of false gods. Of course he could understand if God wanted to convey anything other than a literal day. He used the language of a literal day because that's exactly the message He wanted to convey. One of the key principles of biblical interpretation is that a passage of Scripture cannot mean what it never meant to the original audience. Otherwise, it is false or incomplete revelation and that is not reflective of a God defined by truth, justice, and holiness.
It is absolutely, without a doubt, 100% historical narrative prose. There are no traces or hints of Hebrew poetry, prophecy, of apocalyptic literature and there are no indications of rhetorical devices such as allegory or symbolism. It is the same linguistic structure as the historical narrative prose that follows it (i.e. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther). You're making unwarranted assumptions about the literary nature of Genesis 1 that are in complete contradiction to what just about every Hebrew scholar of every era will tell you.
I apologize if I have been coming on a little strong on this one, but it is not an issue of tradition. A tradition is a dogmatic practice or doctrinal assertion that has no biblical foundation. The Catholic church has many of these, and I'm sure you know them well. However, this is an issue of sound biblical interpretation. 300 years ago your position would have made absolutely no sense to anyone capable of reading the Bible in any language. 100-200 years ago you would have been looked at cross-eyed and called out for supporting Darwin. 50 years ago you would have been accused of being on Darwin's side of the Scopes Trial. Today, there are so many Christians have capitulated to evolutionary theory being taught as fact for long that they've felt compelled to reinterpret Genesis to accommodate the evolutionary timeline at the expense of upholding biblical inerrancy. Your position, whether you believe so or not, is a concession an atheistic worldview that has been steadily beating the drum that the earth is older than the Bible says it is. Non-literal interpretations of Genesis only ever made sense after people began trumpeting deep time.

No, Daniel and Ezekiel are both prophecy. Hebrew prophecy contains a large amount of symbolism and is usually written in verse form with a lot of rhetorical language. It is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
I'm "overly worried about what the heathen are up to" because it has infected the modern church like a virus. It is turning the youth who grow up with one foot in church and one in the secular world being force-fed an atheistic worldview away from the church and away from Jesus Christ. The overwhelming majority of people who reject the faith they grew up say their journey toward atheism began with a rejection of Genesis in favor of Darwinism. For a church to concede any ground on this issue is to willfully cast a stumbling block before an unsaved youth, which was met with harsh criticism by Jesus Himself (Matt 18:6)

The source of the light is largely irrelevant, but Rev 21:23 indicates that it could have been God's glory if nothing else. The presence of the sun is not necessary for light to exist.
Let me ask you a question. Why do you feel that it is wrong to dogmatically assert a 24-hour day? Why look for any interpretation other than the obvious and plain meaning on this one?

Conjecturing that Adam may have observed a Sabbath or passed down the revelation is unnecessary since Moses received the revelation from God Himself. Truly, it's irrelevant to the point.
It's not about uneasiness, it's about staying faithful to what the Scripture says because that's what it says. Moving to the theological position that is closer to the world only serves the purpose of capitulating to an atheistic worldview. The only  reason the six 24-hour day creation view was ever reconsidered was to try to harmonize the Bible with the atheistic worldview of uniformitarianism/evolution. To accept anything other than what the Bible plainly says is to consciously deny God's eye-witness account of creation in favor of man's theory that presumes God doesn't exist. It is no different than denying that homosexuality, or adultery, or divorce, or blasphemy, or idolatry are sins. The Bible plainly declares them to be so. Such is the case with the Creation account.
I would say the third commandment rests on the fact that God created everything in existence over a 6-day timespan. It's right there in the verse:
Ex 20:11 - "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."
Both "For" and "wherefore" are statements of purpose that explain the reason for the commandment. You may have to accept the commandment by faith, but it's efficacy rests upon the fact of a 6-day creation.
I'm glad you don't believe in evolution, but you're straddling the fence between God's Word and man's denial of it.

I'm kind of in a similar situation in looking for a new church. Doctrinally speaking, my priorities (loosely grouped) are:
Salvation and the way sin, heaven, and hell fit into it picture (soteriology, hamartiology, part of eschatology) How they view the Bible (i.e. inerrant/infallible/inspired, preferably KJV) Understanding of the Trinity and each person thereof (theology proper, Christology, pneumatology) Other major doctrines not directly related to salvation (rest of eschatology, anthropology, etc.) However, doctrine is only one aspect of what I'm looking for when visiting new churches:
Doctrine Ministry potential/opportunities Attitude about and participation in evangelism Attitude about and participation in missions Demographics (people our age to connect with and other children for our kids to grow up with) Music Location (within reasonable driving distance)

I think far too many way overthink this, trying to see in it what just isn't there.
The Bible gives us the first day, which consisted of light and dark, and evening and a morning, the first day. That the word 'day', yom in the Hebrew, CAN refer to something other than a literal day, the fact that it is contextually tied to light and dark, and evening and morning, makes it very easily understandable as referring to a literal, 24 hour day, THE FIRST DAY. It could hardly be any plainer, except that man wants so badly to change what it plain. Like, oh, its just TOO plain. 
So yes, I believe it can be dogmatically held to a literal 6-day, 24 hour interpretation. The very establishment of time, in hours, days, weeks, months and years is founded upon the six-day interpretation, otherwise it is all just man-made and really has no meaning, save for what we choose to make of it. Why do we have a 7-day week, 12 month year? Why not just cut it up some other way? Because its how God created it. 
As for the vision of evening and morning, I suspect that refers literally to the times the vision was given, not reference to the content of the vision. 

If I may, I'd like to submit as a possibility that all of the steps in this process are, in essence, one singular sin that took began at the decision to disobey which took place before the touch. As you mentioned, it all probably happened in such a rapid succession as to be indistinguishable. There is no reason to think Adam took the fruit, held it for 30 minutes while he wrestled with his conscience about whether or not to eat it. It is possible that he willfully sinned before even touching the fruit and the eating of it was merely a completion of the action. Consider Matt 5:28 in which Jesus declares that the sin of adultery occurs in the heart before action is ever taken. Perhaps, then, it should be considered one all-encompassing act as opposed to a series of actions that led to a sin?

So then, our options are as follows:
1.  God reiterated the command to both Adam and Eve, yet Eve misrepresented God by adding the phrase concerning not touching.
Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.
2.  Adam reported God's command to Eve, yet Eve misrepresented Adam and God by adding the phrase concerning not touching.
Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.
3.  Adam misrepresented God's command to Eve by adding the phrase concerning not touching, and Eve reported Adam's misrepresentation.
Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.
4.  Adam reported God's command to Eve and added his own standard of not touching, and Eve misunderstood Adam's report by attributing the added standard to God.
Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.
5.  Adam reported God's command to Eve and added his own standard of not touching, and Eve misrepresented Adam's report by attributing the added standard to God.
Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.
Concerning all of these options, I wish to present the following warning of another --
6.  God reiterated the command to both Adam and Eve and added the phrase concerning not touching, and Eve reported God's command accurately.
Biblical evidence -- The biblical record of Genesis 3:3 wherein Eve reports this very quote from God, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."
I myself choose to accept Eve's word on this matter for the following reasons:
1.  It is the only option that actually possesses any Biblical evidence whatsoever.
2.  Eve made this claim while she was yet in the condition of a sinless character.
3.  There is no Biblically recorded rebuke anywhere against Eve for misrepresenting either God or Adam.
4.  There is no Biblically recorded indication anywhere that Eve misrepresented either God or Adam.
So then, with the Biblical evidence of Eve's claim and without any Biblical evidence to counter that claim, I will accept her claim as the very truth.
 
Yet there is one declaration of absolute conviction that stands against this position, as follows:
Throughout, the premise of this absolute conviction and absolute declaration is basically the following:
Adam's eyes were not opened to death until after the moment that he ate of the forbidden fruit, not at the moment when he touched the fruit; therefore, touching the fruit could not have been sin and thus could not have been forbidden directly by God.
Now, there are a few problems with this premise, as follows:
1.  In neither of the two reports of the command, not in the report of God's Word in Genesis 2:17 or in the report of Eve in Genesis 3:3, is there any statement whatsoever about when eyes would be opened unto anything.  Therefore, to make claims about when eyes should or should not, could or could not, would or would not be opened throughout the process is not Biblically founded, since God's Word does not reveal this information.  In fact, God's Word only gives us the report that their eyes were opened and at what point in the process this happened.  However, God's Word does not tell us exactly why this happened at the exact moment that it did.  So then, the above premise is based upon a bit of human speculation.
2.  The first sin was in fact a process, just as in the case of any sin.  First, there is the temptation, the drawing away and enticing of one's lust.  Second, there is the conception of the lust, wherein the heart and mind make the decision to engage in the sin.  Third, there is the birthing of the sinful activity itself.  Fourth, there is the bring forth of death.  In the case of Eve's and Adam's sin, this process was also present.  First, the serpent tempted Eve.  Second, Eve came to agreement in her heart with the serpent, seeing the fruit in her mind as something good for her.  Third, she took of the fruit.  Fourth, she ate of the fruit.  First, Eve tempted Adam by offering him of the fruit and inviting him to join with her in eating.  Second, Adam willfully decided to join with his wife in eating, although he was not at all deceived and thus knew full well that it was not at all good for him.  Third, Adam took of the fruit from Eve's hand.  Fourth, Adam ate of the fruit along with his wife.  In both cases the sin began with a decision, not with an action.  Yet in this case the decision was acted out within seconds, for the entire process of decision, taking, and eating could not have taken more than 4-5 seconds as a whole.  
3.  Upon what Biblical evidence may we conclude at what point the corruption of death began, whether at the point of decision, at the point of touching, or at the point of eating?  Is there any statement at all in the passage concerning precisely when this occurred?  If not, then why would we seek to make absolute declarations of interpretation upon the foundation of information that is not precisely revealed?
4.  Finally, simply as a thought question -- How long might it have taken for the conviction of conscience and the consciousness of corruption to open their eyes unto full understanding of their new sinful condition?  I would suppose that it did not take long.  However, even if it took a few seconds, the entire process of sin (decision, taking, and eating) would have been completed before the opening of the eyes unto understanding.
 
 

Maybe this timeline will help with some analysis?
Gen 2:15 - God puts Adam in the Garden to dress it (serve in/labor) and keep it (keep/guard/observe)
Gen 2:17 - God tells Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil
Gen 2:21-25 - God creates Eve
Gen 3:1 - The serpent asks if God told them not to eat of every tree
Gen 3:2-3 - Eve says they can eat of every tree except the one and adds the requirement not to touch
At this point, there are 3 possibilities (as mentioned by several people above):
God reiterated and expounded on the command after Eve was created Adam passed on the command and added that Eve shouldn't touch it. Eve relayed the command as she heard it. God reiterated or Adam passed on the original command without addition. Eve added the requirement when talking to the serpent. Gen 3:6 - Eve takes the fruit, eat is, and gives it to Adam who also eats it.
The verse suggests that Adam was there during the encounter and he did not correct her. It is also one long sentence that lists events but does not necessarily specify time order. the entire phrase "with her; and he did eat" is actually one Hebrew word. I suppose then, it is also possible that they ate simultaneously.
Anything we come up with is obviously speculation, but it stands to reason that Eve making up the new rule not to touch on the fly is unlikely given Adam's lack of intervention or correction. Therefore, either God added or Adam added it, which means Eve did not knowingly twist God's Word. That would put the responsibility back on Adam then wouldn't it?
 

Intriguing. I have to agree with your grammatical analysis. I also offer up that at this point Adam and Eve were married and were one flesh. Since the man is the head of the single body (1 Cor 11:3), it stands to reason Adam is the one ultimately responsible for the events that transpired.

I think what you have to ask yourself is, "What's the purpose of the standard? What's the purpose of the change?" Is it being relaxed to appeal to the world or because it makes practical sense? If the purpose is to make visitors feel more comfortable and like they haven't really stepped out of the secular world, then I'd say run away now because it is more than likely an indication of deeper issues and compromises (perhaps as indicated by the debate over Bible versions).
Here's the thing, I agree with everything Ukulelemike said above and all the issues about modesty and attitudes toward God; but I'm not sure how you apply that on a church-wide level with people that run the spectrum of spiritual maturity. Rather it should be a point of growth going from an new Christian that dresses for maximum comfort or to show how trendy and stylish they are to a mature Christian who's only concern for their attire is based on maximum respect and deference to a holy God and how he/she will reflect Him. I don't think you can levy a dress code for everyone who walks through the door, but you can exhort/encourage people to mature in their dressing habits just like any other aspect of Christian life.
 

Insulting Muslims isn't going to win them to Christ. Most, if not all of us here, had we been insulted by a Christian prior to hearing the Gospel would have took offense and paid no heed to any declaration we needed to come to Christ. Insulting someone builds walls, it doesn't open doors to present the Gospel.
Muslims, like all other lost folks, like as we all once were, need to hear the Gospel, not insulting terms or comments and not rejoicing over some of them dying from the heat.

I agree-we hold so dearly to the temporal symbols of this life and world, things that will really mean absolutely nothing in the world to come. When we stand and have judged what we built on the foundation of Jesus Christ, all the time wasted on temporal, worldly symbols will be burned away as wood, hay and stubble. Anything that can stand above our Christian faith and brotherhood should be done away with, at least in our hearts. I don't even like flags in our church, though being in a rented hall, we have no real choice.
Just today as the Army depot where I work, I preached the quarterly prayer breakfast; they don't asked often, because I preach, I don't come in and give a feel good homily like most preachers at these things do. Today I preached on 2Chron 7, on praying for the nation, and laid out God's way that we must pray, if we would ask God to bless America. And really, we want God to bless America, but most aren't willing to ask in a way that God will answer. Its just a phrase that, by declaring it, we think it happens.
I have respect for the American flag, for what it represents, and I treat it respectfully, because its not just cloth, its symbolic of what is good and right about America, or what was and should be. But in the end, America is just another nation that will fall and bow to the Lord Jesus Christ. My citizenship is Heaven first, and that flag is much better. 

I think what you have to ask yourself is, "What's the purpose of the standard? What's the purpose of the change?" Is it being relaxed to appeal to the world or because it makes practical sense? If the purpose is to make visitors feel more comfortable and like they haven't really stepped out of the secular world, then I'd say run away now because it is more than likely an indication of deeper issues and compromises (perhaps as indicated by the debate over Bible versions).
Here's the thing, I agree with everything Ukulelemike said above and all the issues about modesty and attitudes toward God; but I'm not sure how you apply that on a church-wide level with people that run the spectrum of spiritual maturity. Rather it should be a point of growth going from an new Christian that dresses for maximum comfort or to show how trendy and stylish they are to a mature Christian who's only concern for their attire is based on maximum respect and deference to a holy God and how he/she will reflect Him. I don't think you can levy a dress code for everyone who walks through the door, but you can exhort/encourage people to mature in their dressing habits just like any other aspect of Christian life.
 

I don't know of one. You have to frame that issue with biblical principles about giving God your best. The only passages I know of that speak of what to wear in church revolve around not doing it for show (1 Pet 3) or supplant your husband/authority (1 Cor 11). If you go the route of simply respecting God's house, you have to contend with the fact that your body is His temple (1 Cor 6:15-20) in which case you ought not wear anything outside of the church building that you wouldn't wear inside the church building and not many people want to make the argument that you shouldn't wear shorts at home.
That being said, I am of the opinion that one ought to wear their nice/best for the time dedicated to worshipping the Lord. What does it say when you spend more time and effort preparing yourself for a night out than you do to go for the express purpose of worshipping God? For example, I wear a coat and tie to work every day, and therefore I wear a coat and tie to church every Sunday because I'm not going to give God less than what I give my employer. However, if a man works in the oil field and wears coveralls  every day, I see no problem with him wearing jeans and a polo if nose are the best clothes he has. It's about respecting God and not a building and giving him the best of what you have. For those principles you can go all the way back to the Old Testament sacrificial system where God demands only the flawless animals for sacrifice or Acts 5 where Ananias and Sapphira tried to only give a portion of themselves to God and lied about it. 
I wouldn't really try to force this issue though because there is no express command about what to wear to a gathering of the church and forcing any requirement on it is approaching legalism. If you feel someone is not dressing appropriately at church, it's best to address their heart/attitude toward God rather than lay a chapter-verse requirement on them (unless it's about modesty, and that's a whole other question).

Intriguing. I have to agree with your grammatical analysis. I also offer up that at this point Adam and Eve were married and were one flesh. Since the man is the head of the single body (1 Cor 11:3), it stands to reason Adam is the one ultimately responsible for the events that transpired.

I don't know of one. You have to frame that issue with biblical principles about giving God your best. The only passages I know of that speak of what to wear in church revolve around not doing it for show (1 Pet 3) or supplant your husband/authority (1 Cor 11). If you go the route of simply respecting God's house, you have to contend with the fact that your body is His temple (1 Cor 6:15-20) in which case you ought not wear anything outside of the church building that you wouldn't wear inside the church building and not many people want to make the argument that you shouldn't wear shorts at home.
That being said, I am of the opinion that one ought to wear their nice/best for the time dedicated to worshipping the Lord. What does it say when you spend more time and effort preparing yourself for a night out than you do to go for the express purpose of worshipping God? For example, I wear a coat and tie to work every day, and therefore I wear a coat and tie to church every Sunday because I'm not going to give God less than what I give my employer. However, if a man works in the oil field and wears coveralls  every day, I see no problem with him wearing jeans and a polo if nose are the best clothes he has. It's about respecting God and not a building and giving him the best of what you have. For those principles you can go all the way back to the Old Testament sacrificial system where God demands only the flawless animals for sacrifice or Acts 5 where Ananias and Sapphira tried to only give a portion of themselves to God and lied about it. 
I wouldn't really try to force this issue though because there is no express command about what to wear to a gathering of the church and forcing any requirement on it is approaching legalism. If you feel someone is not dressing appropriately at church, it's best to address their heart/attitude toward God rather than lay a chapter-verse requirement on them (unless it's about modesty, and that's a whole other question).

Intriguing. I have to agree with your grammatical analysis. I also offer up that at this point Adam and Eve were married and were one flesh. Since the man is the head of the single body (1 Cor 11:3), it stands to reason Adam is the one ultimately responsible for the events that transpired.

Just my "two cents."
I myself have never believed that Eve misrepresented God's Word on the matter.  If she had, then this falsehood would have been the first sin of humanity; and it would have been a sin of willful falsehood, not of deceived transgression (as 1 Timothy 2:14 reports concerning Eve's part "in the transgression").  
Now, the timeline of the creations, commandment, and temptation has been given already, as follows:
1.  The Lord God created Adam.
2.  The Lord God commanded Adam not to eat of the forbidden tree.
3.  The Lord God created Adam's wife, Eve.
4.  The Serpent, the Devil, tempted and deceived Eve.
However, I wish to bring forward a grammatical element in relation to this timeline, as follows:
1.  In Genesis 2:17 the Lord God delivered His commandment unto Adam, saying, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."  Herein the Lord God employed the pronoun "thou" three times.  This pronoun is a singular pronoun; therefore, in delivering this command the Lord God was only speaking to a single individual.  Even so, this would be appropriate in the context since Adam's wife Eve had not yet been created, such that the Lord God was indeed only speaking to Adam himself.  
2.  In Genesis 3:3 Eve delivered her report of the Lord God's command, saying, "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."  Herein Eve employed the pronoun "ye" three times.  This pronoun is a plural pronoun, indicating a command that was delivered by the Lord God Himself (as per the phrase, "God hath said") unto more than one person.  Since there is no indication within this context or within the Lord God's rebuke against Eve that she had falsely misrepresented God, and since there is no indication in 1 Timothy 2:13-15 that Eve had transgressed by speaking falsely, I would contend in accord with the plural pronouns that Eve employed that the Lord God reiterated His command unto Adam and Eve as a group sometime after Eve was created.  Furthermore, I would contend that Eve reported the Lord God's command with perfect accuracy.
Some thoughts to consider -- Did "the voice of the LORD God" regularly meet and walk with Adam and Eve "in the cool of the day"?  If He did, then there is a significant amount of communication between them that is not recorded in the Scriptures.  As such, is it likely that Eve was directly quoting out of that unrecorded communication?

ooooh boy...