Got doubts about Genesis?

[Brian2]

You are answering your own question here, I said it should not lead a reasonable person astray (which it has done many a time)..

Well that wasn't me who has answered my own question because I did not ask a question. It was you who made the criteria for authorship out of reach of the Biblical God and you did it by saying that since people have interpreted Genesis in different ways then it cannot be accurate.

Well of course if you are going to dismiss science and reason you have no yardstick by which to measure the accuracy of Genesis, and then seeing it as accurate just becomes a matter of personal preference rather than reason, so there becomes no means of getting other people who do not share your personal preference to agree to the way you see it.

In my opinion.

Is the changing views of science a good yardstick to measure something by. If the science is not known to be accurate then how can it tell us if anything else is accurate?
However we do hold science up in reverence and consider it reasonably accurate and so it can at least tell us if the Bible got it sort of right compared to what science claims to be sort of right.
Then from there you would want to put your faith in the science and I in the Bible, and we would both do in with a religious faith and with neither of us having proof that we were right in the placement of our faith.

 

[danieldemol]

Well that wasn't me who has answered my own question because I did not ask a question. It was you who made the criteria for authorship out of reach of the Biblical God

Check

and you did it by saying that since people have interpreted Genesis in different ways then it cannot be accurate.

No that's not what I'm saying.
What im saying is that the author of it most probably intended it literally, and that if read literally it is wrong by the standards of today's knowledge.

Is the changing views of science a good yardstick to measure something by.

It is not an infallible tool, but it is certainly a better tool than subjective personal preference. And more importantly it is a *reasonable* tool which is why a merciful God would not be expected to reject people on the basis of it's usage.

If the science is not known to be accurate then how can it tell us if anything else is accurate?

Science can tell us varying things with varying degrees of confidence. For example we can see that daylight is caused by the earths position in its revolutions relative to the sun just by looking at actual pictures from space such as this one;

Source: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/226335main_earthsun_200803XX_HI.jpg

Note the side of the earth facing the sun is lit up whilst the opposite side is dark. I mean I'm only asking you to believe your own eyes over some ancient story.

However we do hold science up in reverence and consider it reasonably accurate and so it can at least tell us if the Bible got it sort of right compared to what science claims to be sort of right.
Then from there you would want to put your faith in the science and I in the Bible, and we would both do in with a religious faith and with neither of us having proof that we were right in the placement of our faith.

To the contrary, the picture i showed you above constitutes "proof" that the sun and earth had to be around for a day to occur let alone 4 days or 4,000 days. There is nothing religious about it unless you consider believing the evidence of one's eyes over a tale of the ancients to be "religious faith" which of course would be laughable.

In my opinion.

 

[Brian2]

Check

I did

No that's not what I'm saying.
What im saying is that the author of it most probably intended it literally, and that if read literally it is wrong by the standards of today's knowledge.

But nobody says it is a science text book. It is vaguely correct and could be 100% correct if understood correctly and if we see science for what it is, with it's presumptions and educated guesses etc.

It is not an infallible tool, but it is certainly a better tool than subjective personal preference. And more importantly it is a *reasonable* tool which is why a merciful God would not be expected to reject people on the basis of it's usage.

I don't think that God rejects people on the basis of the use of science. But using science as a tool to show that God is not real is going beyond the bounds that science can go.

To the contrary, the picture i showed you above constitutes "proof" that the sun and earth had to be around for a day to occur let alone 4 days or 4,000 days. There is nothing religious about it unless you consider believing the evidence of one's eyes over a tale of the ancients to be "religious faith" which of course would be laughable.

In my opinion.

There are many ways of understanding/interpreting what Genesis 1 and 2 are actually saying. How do you understand what Genesis 1:1-5, day one, is saying?

 

[danieldemol]

I did

I meant check as in checking off the list of your statements as correct vs incorrect. It would have been clearer to just say agreed I suppose.

But nobody says it is a science text book.

That is irrelevant to the fact that it makes testable claims about the material world, such as the sun being created on the fourth day amongst others.

It is vaguely correct and could be 100% correct if understood correctly and if we see science for what it is, with it's presumptions and educated guesses etc.

Sorry but day being the product of the earth's revolutions on its axis is directly observable, it is not a presumption or educated guess.

Here it is for you to observe with your own eyes again;

Also since we are discussing presumptions and guesses how about seeing tales of the ancients for what they are (ie presumptions and guesses).

I don't think that God rejects people on the basis of the use of science.

Good, so no reason not to reject Genesis as pre-science guesswork on how we got here etc, as God will not reject us for doing so.

But using science as a tool to show that God is not real is going beyond the bounds that science can go.

I am not saying that science disproves that there is a God altogether, what i am saying is that science and reason lead a reasonable person to reject a specific type of God which created the sun on the 4th day (or even after 4,000 years worth of days).

There are many ways of understanding/interpreting what Genesis 1 and 2 are actually saying. How do you understand what Genesis 1:1-5, day one, is saying?

I will quote Genesis 1:1-8 for context.

'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2
Now the earth was [1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
4
God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
6
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."
7
So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.
8
God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day'


So it says that in the beginning God made heavens and earth, then goes to explain the order and process in which God made the heavens and earth.

1.First comes a formless earth.
2. Next comes light
3. Next comes the separation of night and day (note the sun hasn't been made yet)
4. On day2 the sky is made.

In my opinion.

 

[John D. Brey]

Its been a little while since we re-visited the low hanging fruits of genesis, so at the request of @setarcos I intitiated this thread.

So what are your doubts about Genesis?

Personally mine would be the amount of non-scientific information in it. They would include but not be limited to the sun being created on the fourth day Genesis 1:14-19 (inclusive), or a talking Serpent Genesis 3:1 and others.

In my opinion

Why not, ala Sir Karl Popper, use science to solve the mystery concerning the "unscientific" stories found in mythology?

Karl Popper is one of the most knowledgeable historians of science, and the scientific-method, of the last century. And yet he would consider the question above positively unscientific and uneducated so far as science is concerned. He showed, conclusively, in, Conjectures and Refutations, that the ancients knowingly, and purposefully, used metaphors like a talking snake, the sun being created the forth day, or the sun being a deity, in order to piece together scientific nuances without which our modern scientific endeavor would have been stillborn.


John

 

[danieldemol]

Why not, ala Sir Karl Popper, use science to solve the mystery concerning the "unscientific" stories found in mythology?

Karl Popper is one of the most knowledgeable historians of science, and the scientific-method, of the last century. And yet he would consider the question above positively unscientific and uneducated so far as science is concerned. He showed, conclusively, in, Conjectures and Refutations, that the ancients knowingly, and purposefully, used metaphors like a talking snake, the sun being created the forth day, or the sun being a deity, in order to piece together scientific nuances without which our modern scientific endeavor would have been stillborn.


John

That's a big claim, would you care to share how he allegedly did that?

In my opinion.

 

[Brian2]

I meant check as in checking off the list of your statements as correct vs incorrect. It would have been clearer to just say agreed I suppose.

Oh

That is irrelevant to the fact that it makes testable claims about the material world, such as the sun being created on the fourth day amongst others.

It does not really claim that the sun was created on day 4. The wording used does not have to mean "create" and understanding Genesis 1 correctly imo helps us see that the creation of the sun on day 4 is not meant.

Sorry but day being the product of the earth's revolutions on its axis is directly observable, it is not a presumption or educated guess.

Here it is for you to observe with your own eyes again;


View attachment 67720

Also since we are discussing presumptions and guesses how about seeing tales of the ancients for what they are (ie presumptions and guesses).

Yes day and night is a product of the earth's revolution on it's axis. I don't think that has anything to do with what we were talking about or the accuracy or not of Genesis 1.

Good, so no reason not to reject Genesis as pre-science guesswork on how we got here etc, as God will not reject us for doing so.

Many Christians and probably Jews also do see the Biblical creation story as pre science creation myths.
Imo it is more than that however.
The thing about it is that it is no reason to reject the Bible, even if you see Genesis as pre science creation myth.

I am not saying that science disproves that there is a God altogether, what i am saying is that science and reason lead a reasonable person to reject a specific type of God which created the sun on the 4th day (or even after 4,000 years worth of days).

But Genesis does not really say that the sun was created on day 4. Genesis 1:1 tells us that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. The sun and moon and stars and earth were already there, but the earth was dark because it was surrounded by thick clouds. (Job 38:9 says as much and science agrees with it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as it agrees with what Genesis tells us about the original earth having a large ocean).
That means that Genesis 1:2 is speaking from the perspective of the earth surface.
It was dark there under all that thick cloud cover and then God said "Let there be light" and imo the cloud cover dispersed enough for light to get through.
Maybe it was then that God started the rotation of the earth on it's axis to create the day and night effect.
Possibly even the initial light that got through was so dispersed by the clouds that the whole earth received the light no matter if it was facing the sun or not.

I will quote Genesis 1:1-8 for context.

'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2
Now the earth was [1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
4
God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
6
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."
7
So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.
8
God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day'


So it says that in the beginning God made heavens and earth, then goes to explain the order and process in which God made the heavens and earth.

1.First comes a formless earth.
2. Next comes light
3. Next comes the separation of night and day (note the sun hasn't been made yet)
4. On day2 the sky is made.

In my opinion.

No, Gen 1:1 is what God did initially. The rest is an order, but the heavens and earth were already there.
I have spoken of Gen 1:1-5
Gen 1:6 sounds like forming some sort of atmosphere that separated the ocean on the earth from the clouds in the sky. This was not the same composition that we have these days but it was an atmosphere none the less.
That gets us to the end of day 2 and I think it is fairly accurate scientifically. (not that science has to be 100% accurate however, but there is agreement anyway)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that people are trying to reinterpret Genesis in the light of reality.

How do you reinterpret the Noah's Ark myth?

 

[Brian2]

I see that people are trying to reinterpret Genesis in the light of reality.

How do you reinterpret the Noah's Ark myth?

I read it in the Bible as a large local flood (which is possible in the language)
I also think that it probably happened at a time when other floods were happening on the earth and God achieved His purposed that way, without one huge flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read it in the Bible as a large local flood (which is possible in the language)
I also think that it probably happened at a time when other floods were happening on the earth and God achieved His purposed that way, without one huge flood.

It pretty much fails then because large floods were not happening simultaneously in the past. The Flood of Noah would not have accomplished what it was supposed to if it was local. And the Bible is quite clear that it is a local flood.

You can't cover the high mountains, or even high hills, without a global flood. The account is just wrong if taken at all literally.

 

[danieldemol]

It does not really claim that the sun was created on day 4. The wording used does not have to mean "create" and understanding Genesis 1 correctly imo helps us see that the creation of the sun on day 4 is not meant.

Well if you are going to decontextualise words to post hoc rationalise them then Genesis 1:1 doesn't have to be about creating the heavens and the earth either as the word used;
created
בָּרָ֣א (bā·rā)
can mean
Strong's 1254: To create, to cut down, select, feed
source: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

So lets change it to In the beginning God selected the heavens and earth.

Yes day and night is a product of the earth's revolution on it's axis. I don't think that has anything to do with what we were talking about or the accuracy or not of Genesis 1.

Only because you are making a failed attempt at post hoc rationalising the story albeit doing so in a manner that trades conformity with reality off against internal consistency of the story as I shall demonstrate below.

Many Christians and probably Jews also do see the Biblical creation story as pre science creation myths.
Imo it is more than that however.
The thing about it is that it is no reason to reject the Bible, even if you see Genesis as pre science creation myth.

If you see Genesis as pre-science creation myth you have already rejected it as being historical obviously.

But Genesis does not really say that the sun was created on day 4.

Yes it does, in the NIV it says, 'God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.'
So you see if you re-interpret Genesis1:1 as God having made the Earth and Heaven in the beginning as anything other than a summary of the story you introduce internal contradiction into the story.
You'll also note that the story is wrong because it says that God set the Sun, moon and stars in the sky which is also wrong as they are in space. The sky is the atmosphere and does not extend to any of those three.

Genesis 1:1 tells us that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. The sun and moon and stars and earth were already there, but the earth was dark because it was surrounded by thick clouds. (Job 38:9 says as much and science agrees with it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as it agrees with what Genesis tells us about the original earth having a large ocean).
That means that Genesis 1:2 is speaking from the perspective of the earth surface.

Man is not created until day 6, which means that days 1-4 can only be speaking from the perspective of the All-knowing God regardless of whether you place God on Earth or anywhere else in the story the fact remains that that God is still all-Knowing and thus knows that there is light whether it can be seen from earth or not. So another contradiction you are introducing into the story by trying to post-hoc rationalise it.

It was dark there under all that thick cloud cover and then God said "Let there be light" and imo the cloud cover dispersed enough for light to get through.

It does not say, "Let there be light *on earth*" it says "Let there be light", you are literally creating your own Genesis in order to post-hoc rationalise it.

Maybe it was then that God started the rotation of the earth on it's axis to create the day and night effect.
Possibly even the initial light that got through was so dispersed by the clouds that the whole earth received the light no matter if it was facing the sun or not.

So you think a giant mass like the earth just existed stationary and then suddenly started spinning and you consider that to be remotely scientific? I think for all your education you are only a little better than Genesis 1:16-17 which has God making the sun and moon on the fourth day then placing them in the sky.

In my opinion.

 

[Brian2]

It pretty much fails then because large floods were not happening simultaneously in the past. The Flood of Noah would not have accomplished what it was supposed to if it was local. And the Bible is quite clear that it is a local flood.

You can't cover the high mountains, or even high hills, without a global flood. The account is just wrong if taken at all literally.

It is possible that God decided not to destroy all of humanity and the animals. He did not destroy Noah and family after all and all the animals of the land where the flood was. It may have been just the one local large flood in that area that was meant.
I really don't know. But I don't think you can say it is wrong if taken at all literally (literally in this case meaning a large local flood in that land that covered the high hills.)
It has been shown to be a possibility.

https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/noahs-not-so-big-flood/
Could the Formation of the Black Sea be Responsible for Near-Eastern Flood Myths: What Does the Geology Say? | The Post Hole

There is dating discrepancies between the above sites and I suppose I get my "end of ice age" idea from the
dating discrepancies I find about end of ice age.

Last Glacial Period - Wikipedia

So it is possible that a lot of floods happened at the same time, that is not out of possibility.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So it is possible that a lot of floods happened at the same time, that is not out of possibility.

And there is absolutely no requirement to attribute this to God. Like so many others, you struggle to massage and reinterpret the text in a sad effort to sustain a theological narrative.

 

[Brian2]

Well if you are going to decontextualise words to post hoc rationalise them then Genesis 1:1 doesn't have to be about creating the heavens and the earth either as the word used;
created
בָּרָ֣א (bā·rā)
can mean
Strong's 1254: To create, to cut down, select, feed
source: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

So lets change it to In the beginning God selected the heavens and earth.

I have a feeling that you did not understand what I was saying.
The word in Genesis 1:16 does not mean to create, a better meaning is to make (in the broadest possible sense)
This site will give you an idea of the difference in the meaning of the words if you are interested, and why the making of the sun and moon on day 4 does not mean that the sun and moon were created then.

The Differences Between 'Create' and 'Make' in Genesis 1 - franknelte.net

This site also gives other information about the meaning of other things in Genesis if you are interested.

Only because you are making a failed attempt at post hoc rationalising the story albeit doing so in a manner that trades conformity with reality off against internal consistency of the story as I shall demonstrate below.

Not really, I'm just trying to look at what the words mean and what the passages mean. And I am doing that in the light of what science things also.
Also I don't consider the writers of Genesis to be as stupid as you seem to think they were. I don't think they thought that the light suddenly streamed in over everything without the sun or moon or stars as the source of the light. It was plain to even them that the light came from those heavenly bodies.

If you see Genesis as pre-science creation myth you have already rejected it as being historical obviously.

There is more than one meaning for "myth" and it does not necessarily have to mean untrue.
However what I said was The thing about it is that it is no reason to reject the Bible, even if you see Genesis as pre science creation myth.
Many people do actually see Genesis as not a historical narrative and so as myth in that respect, BUT they still believe the Bible and the Gospel even though they do not see Genesis as historically accurate.
Who knows, they may be correct and I might be wrong but it seems like a historical narrative to me and it also seems accurate, but some don't see it that way.
So anyway being a creation myth is no reason to reject the Bible, it's a BS reason, an excuse, when the whole thing could be understood as poetic creation myth. If you however think that Genesis can only be understood as the YECs understand it, then you have every right to say that if it is not true then the Bible is not true. BUT that is not the only way it can be understood and as it happens, that is not a sensible way to understand it.

Yes it does, in the NIV it says, 'God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.'
So you see if you re-interpret Genesis1:1 as God having made the Earth and Heaven in the beginning as anything other than a summary of the story you introduce internal contradiction into the story.
You'll also note that the story is wrong because it says that God set the Sun, moon and stars in the sky which is also wrong as they are in space. The sky is the atmosphere and does not extend to any of those three.

This I already answered above with that site I posted.
When you speak about "space" and the "sky" you are expecting Genesis to say more than anyone would understand and to have to give a scientific explanation of things. It is a simplistic answer and the sky is just the sky, what you see when you look up. Today's definitions should not be read into it.
There was a dividing of the waters above the sky from the waters below the sky (layer of cloud from ocean) but the clouds were above the sky when you look up and then when the sun and moon shone through they appeared in the sky.

Man is not created until day 6, which means that days 1-4 can only be speaking from the perspective of the All-knowing God regardless of whether you place God on Earth or anywhere else in the story the fact remains that that God is still all-Knowing and thus knows that there is light whether it can be seen from earth or not. So another contradiction you are introducing into the story by trying to post-hoc rationalise it.

Well I suppose God could have gone into a whole spiel about the light and stars and moon and sun being above the cloud cover because they were created in Gen 1:1 etc but really there was no reason to do that when He had already told us that already. That is no contradiction however, that is just someone who believe Genesis means something else and that it is full of contradictory, stupid, unscientific nonsense not wanting to say that it could mean something else than he thinks it must mean.

It does not say, "Let there be light *on earth*" it says "Let there be light", you are literally creating your own Genesis in order to post-hoc rationalise it.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

This is the NIV translation. It gives a better translation than some other translations at times,(imo) easier to understand.
Darkness was on the surface of the deep,,,,,,,,,,,, so let there be light would mean that light came to the surface of the deep. That would be through the cloud cover (Job 38:9) that made the had burst forth and cover the earth, the deep, the waters.
It can take time to see what I am getting at when you have been taught it means something else and are used to understanding it that way.
No post hoc rationalising, just saying what is there.
Bloods US spell check always wants me to spell words with a "z" instead of an "s" (rationalise etc)

So you think a giant mass like the earth just existed stationary and then suddenly started spinning and you consider that to be remotely scientific? I think for all your education you are only a little better than Genesis 1:16-17 which has God making the sun and moon on the fourth day then placing them in the sky.

In my opinion.

That's right, I'm not educated, I just believed God did it and can spin the earth with His breath if He wants.
I really don't know what happened to divide the light from the dark. The 2nd suggestion I made may be right or it may have been something else. The 2nd suggestion was:
Possibly even the initial light that got through was so dispersed by the clouds that the whole earth received the light no matter if it was facing the sun or not.
Then of course it would have been divided when the clouds thinned out a bit more and the light was not so dispersed around the whole earth by the clouds.

 

[Brian2]

And there is absolutely no requirement to attribute this to God. Like so many others, you struggle to massage and reinterpret the text in a sad effort to sustain a theological narrative.

Yes wow I'm not only massaging the text but massaging the possibilities in what science has found.
Best just to see it as myth that might have a message but is not true and was copied from Gilgamesh, a story that had no basis in fact because,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, some historian who uses the naturalistic methodology tells Jews and Christians that the Bible is not true and that the evidence for the truth of it is not evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes wow I'm not only massaging the text but massaging the possibilities in what science has found.
Best just to see it as myth that might have a message but is not true and was copied from Gilgamesh, a story that had no basis in fact because,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, some historian who uses the naturalistic methodology tells Jews and Christians that the Bible is not true and that the evidence for the truth of it is not evidence.

Well, all the believers are so wrong and they will regret it when their time comes. That is the truth and I hold it.

See, your method is so easy, that it also works when I do it. And that is the truth, right?
I am so special and you are not.

 

[John D. Brey]

That's a big claim, would you care to share how he allegedly did that?
.

Popper realized something earthshatteringly important about scientific-thought by deconstructing how it developed and evolved. Over the course of his brilliant examination in Conjecture's and Refutations, he shows that there are two primary elements to scientific discovery. First is a deductive claim, and second is an empirical examination to test the deductive claim.

That sounds pretty unremarkable and obvious until one appreciates Popper's definition of what a "deductive" claim is. In the typical thinking of even world-class scientists the deductive claims that lead to empirical examination are themselves based on empirical observations. But to his credit Popper comes to realize that's not the case:

My thesis is that what we call “science” is differentiated from the older myths not by being something distinct from myth, but by being accompanied by a second-order tradition---that of critically discussing the myth. . . In critical discussions which now arose there also arose, for the first time, something like systematic observation. . . Thus it is the myth or the theory which leads to, and guides, our systematic observations----observations undertaken with the intention of probing into the truth of the theory or myth. From this point of view the growth of the theories of science should not be considered as the result of the collection, or accumulation, of observations; on the contrary, the observations and their accumulation should be considered as the result of the growth of the scientific theories.

Conjectures and Refutations, p. 127. (emphasis mine).​

In his statement above, Popper claims scientific theories arise as systematic, critical, assessments or examinations of myth. Throughout his examinations he's clear that science only examines myths, and deductive hypotheses; it never creates the seminal,deductive claim, that's the material that science shapes into a new reality.

So where does the seminal, deductive, inference, or claim, that science requires, come from if not the scientific endeavor? According to Popper, myth. So what precisely is "myth" such that it's the seminal element of scientific endeavor?



John

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes wow I'm not only massaging the text but massaging the possibilities in what science has found.
Best just to see it as myth that might have a message but is not true and was copied from Gilgamesh, a story that had no basis in fact because,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, some historian who uses the naturalistic methodology tells Jews and Christians that the Bible is not true and that the evidence for the truth of it is not evidence.

Three quick points:

1. It's called etiological myth. They are powerful and pervasive.
2. All myths are pregnant with message. It's what sustains them.
3. Not all "possibilities" are created equal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is possible that God decided not to destroy all of humanity and the animals. He did not destroy Noah and family after all and all the animals of the land where the flood was. It may have been just the one local large flood in that area that was meant.
I really don't know. But I don't think you can say it is wrong if taken at all literally (literally in this case meaning a large local flood in that land that covered the high hills.)
It has been shown to be a possibility.

Noah’s Not-so-big Flood
Could the Formation of the Black Sea be Responsible for Near-Eastern Flood Myths: What Does the Geology Say? | The Post Hole

There is dating discrepancies between the above sites and I suppose I get my "end of ice age" idea from the
dating discrepancies I find about end of ice age.

Last Glacial Period - Wikipedia

So it is possible that a lot of floods happened at the same time, that is not out of possibility.

You are already not taking it literally. It is nowhere near being true. And what was the point of it if your version is correct? The bad guys could have just walked uphill.

 

[danieldemol]

I have a feeling that you did not understand what I was saying.
The word in Genesis 1:16 does not mean to create, a better meaning is to make (in the broadest possible sense)
This site will give you an idea of the difference in the meaning of the words if you are interested, and why the making of the sun and moon on day 4 does not mean that the sun and moon were created then.

The Differences Between 'Create' and 'Make' in Genesis 1 - franknelte.net

This apologist link is not peer reviewed in at least three ways.
1. It has not been reviewed for inconsistency with the story, for example it says, 'This is not a reference to the creation of light, since God has always been surrounded by light'
But Genesis 1:2 says, 'Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.' So if the spirit of God was hovering over the waters and there was darkness over the surface this cannot be if God is always surrounded by light. It is a simple logical contradiction.
2. It has not been reviewed for consistency with science
3. It has not even been reviewed by other apologists, for example here is a Christian apologist website thoroughly refuting that create (Bara) and make (Asah) are words that are not used interchangeably;
Do the Hebrew words for create (Bara, Asah) support a gap?

Not really, I'm just trying to look at what the words mean and what the passages mean. And I am doing that in the light of what science things also.

Correction, you are doing it in light of what *modern* science thinks, that is the very definition of post-hoc rationalisation.

Also I don't consider the writers of Genesis to be as stupid as you seem to think they were.

I *do not* think they were stupid, they just didn't have the collective observations and scientific experience that modern man has. Which is not a fault in a pre-modern man, but is a fault in an All-Knowing God.

I don't think they thought that the light suddenly streamed in over everything without the sun or moon or stars as the source of the light. It was plain to even them that the light came from those heavenly bodies.

You say this in spite of them openly telling you that they thought that light came at the operation of God's comand.

There is more than one meaning for "myth" and it does not necessarily have to mean untrue.
However what I said was The thing about it is that it is no reason to reject the Bible, even if you see Genesis as pre science creation myth.
Many people do actually see Genesis as not a historical narrative and so as myth in that respect, BUT they still believe the Bible and the Gospel even though they do not see Genesis as historically accurate.
Who knows, they may be correct and I might be wrong but it seems like a historical narrative to me and it also seems accurate, but some don't see it that way.
So anyway being a creation myth is no reason to reject the Bible, it's a BS reason, an excuse, when the whole thing could be understood as poetic creation myth.

Those who see it as a creation myth in the abscence of any explanation from them as to it's meaning are assumed by me to see it as meaning that God is the creator, and humans are sinners.
But I do not believe there is any evidence of God creating where we would expect to find it, so I have already rejected that element of it even as a myth. I can believe that humans can do wrongdoing to each other, but not to an omnipotent God who can't be harmed in the slightest.

If you however think that Genesis can only be understood as the YECs understand it, then you have every right to say that if it is not true then the Bible is not true. BUT that is not the only way it can be understood and as it happens, that is not a sensible way to understand it.

I believe it can be understood in multiple ways, but i don't believe it was *intended* to be understood in multiple ways, I believe it was intended to be interpreted similarly to the way a YEC would interpret it because the authors seem to have been YECs.

This I already answered above with that site I posted.
When you speak about "space" and the "sky" you are expecting Genesis to say more than anyone would understand and to have to give a scientific explanation of things. It is a simplistic answer and the sky is just the sky, what you see when you look up. Today's definitions should not be read into it.

But when you speak about day and night coming from the sun you are also reading modern knowledge into it. And why would an omnipotent God be incapable of explaining to man the difference between sky and space? If flimsy modern men could explain it to little children (as they do in school) then surely an omnipotent God could?

It can take time to see what I am getting at when you have been taught it means something else and are used to understanding it that way.

And likewise it can take time to see what the author of Genesis was getting at when you have been taught it means something else and are used to understanding it that way.

That's right, I'm not educated, I just believed God did it and can spin the earth with His breath if He wants.

Sure God could make a bird with lead wings and a body of solid gold to fly if God wanted, have you ever seen a bird with wings made of lead and a body of solid gold flying?

In my opinion.