I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[nPeace]

The transformation of (lifeless and inorganic) dust (Genesis) or clay (Quran) into a living adult human male, is a myth, not science.

The Earth being created with water and no lands, is a myth, not science.

A couple of spoken words (eg “Let there be light”), to create light (with no sun), which divide divide day as cycle of evening and morning...that’s also a myth, and certainly not science.

There is a stark contrast between what you think, and what Bible writers knew... as stated by them.
Job spoke about the work of God's hands (Job 14:15)

David wrote about creation being the work of God's hands.
(Psalm 19:1) The heavens are declaring the glory of God; The skies above proclaim the work of his hands.

Both the first and last books of the Bible... and in between, speaks of God creating. Genesis 1:1, Revelation 4:11
The writers all show that this involves working. John 5:17

Hence, Adam being formed from the dust is not describing a transformation, as if the dust turned into a man, but rather, God used the dust of the earth, or clay in creating the man.
It is no surprise that we find element of the earth's surface in the human body.

The earth being created with water and no lands, is a myth... which people made up.
On the other hand, the Bible speaks of the earth as a wasteland with water.
After some time, dry land appeared out of and above the waters.

This account is very accurate... and science agrees with that account.
(Genesis 1:9, 10) 9 Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, but the collecting of the waters, he called Seas. . . .

And vegetation being created before the creation of sun and stars, is a myth, not science.

A serpent/snake or donkey that can speak in human language, is a fable (myth), not science.

So...Yes, the Abrahamic religious scriptures contained myths of magic, miracles and the supernatural.

And the problems aren’t just with Genesis creation.

There are also the problems with Noah’s great Flood, the overnight invention of multiple languages in Babel episode, flying and fiery horses and chariot in Elijah’s story, and the ridiculous reply with god creating everything in Job 38 to 41, are examples of myths, not science.

Vegetation being created before the sun, is a myth created by an eronious view, since Genesis 1:14 is not presenting the earth, moon and stars as now being created, but being visible - "placed" in the expanse.
We know this because ...

1. The heavens with the heavenly bodies were created, before attention was given to the earth. - Genesis 1:1

2. Before dry land appeared above the waters, God divided the light from the darkness. called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. - Genesis 1:4, 5

3. The Greek word asah (עָשָׂה), which means accomplish (do, make See Spoiler) is used in Genesis 1:16, instead of bara': (בָּרָא) which is used in Genesis 1:1 for "create" :-

Strong's Hebrew: 1254. בָּרָא (bara') -- choose
Brown-Driver-Briggs
I. בָּרָא53 verb shape, create (compare Arabic

probably loan-word, form, fashion by cutting, shape out, pare a reed for writing, a stick for an arrow, but also

, create; Phoenician הברא CISi. 347 incisor, a trade involving cutting; Assyrian barû, make, create, COTGloss & Hpt KAT2Gloss 1 but dubious; Sabean ברא found, build, DHMZMG 1883, 413, synonym בנה; BaZA. 1888, 58, compare Assyrian banû, create, beget, with change of liquid; Aramaic בְּרָא,

, create) —
Qal Perfect Genesis 1:1 19t.; Imperfect יִבְרָא Genesis 1:21,27; Numbers 16:30; Infinitive בְּראֹ Genesis 5:1; Imperative בְּרָא Psalm 51:12; Participle בּוֺרֵא Isaiah 42:5 10t.; suffix בֹּרַאֲךָ Isaiah 43:1; בּוֺרְאֶיךָ Ecclesiastes 12:1; — shape, fashion, create, always of divine activity, with accusative of thing, seldom except in P and Isa2.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
choose, create creator, cut down, dispatch, do, make fat
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes) -- choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).​

The sun, moon and stars were already created, before day one of God's work on earth.
At the right time, God made the heavenly bodies visible in the expanse.
Science does not disagree with these facts.
Earth’s atmosphere stretches out to the Moon – and beyond

Spoiler: A primitive root; to do or make

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow,
A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application (as follows) -- accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress(-ed), (put in) execute(-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, (fight-)ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfill, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ((a feast)), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, pracise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be (warr-)ior, work(-man), yield, use.

Using a symbolic representation, does not make something a myth.
Also while a person missing details may claim something a myth, that claim is not established as a fact, simply because the person believes it.
This goes for all the claims you made above.

 

[nPeace]

No it doesn't mean reject science, it means take it AS WRITTEN... Compare it with similar studies, examine the peer reviews. I see you have a problem with that. Interestingly, you use various aspects of science to post.

Take what as written? The scientists' interpretation? How do you take an interpretation as what's written.
What's written cannot be the scientists' interpretation.
The fact they are interpreted, is what's written. Similar to ancient documents that people may have different interpretations on.
So all you are doing is comparing various interpretations. What's the difference?

It i take up an ancient document and read it i will compare it to other documents of the same period. If they confirm each other then i can put a little mire trust in them.

Okay. That's one way.

But if you make stuff up to massage your ego, that is not for me!

Okay. I have not done that... and this is not about me.

 

[ChristineM]

Take what as written? The scientists' interpretation? How do you take an interpretation as what's written.
What's written cannot be the scientists' interpretation.
The fact they are interpreted, is what's written. Similar to ancient documents that people may have different interpretations on.
So all you are doing is comparing various interpretations. What's the difference?

What?

Okay. That's one way

The other way is to assume without any sort of evidence or confirmation.

Okay. I have not done that... and this is not about me.

Hmmm.
Isn't it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bullet proof evidence? Lol
That's a hypothesis.

No. Common ancestry can be factually genetically established.

Courts do it all the time to figure out who is the biological family of whom for child support, inheritance things, etc.

DNA allows us to do this.

You aren't aware of that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

DNA does not speak. That's the interpretation of men speaking that disagrees.

False.

DNA is inherited by off spring. This allows us to trace bloodlines and establish bloodties between individuals.
This is how we can tell your sibling from your cousin from a random person.




DNA can very much "speak". And more importantly: it doesn't lie.

 

[gnostic]

Vegetation being created before the sun, is a myth created by an eronious view, since Genesis 1:14 is not presenting the earth, moon and stars as now being created, but being visible - "placed" in the expanse.
We know this because ...
1. The heavens with the heavenly bodies were created, before attention was given to the earth. - Genesis 1:1

Nothing in Genesis 1:1 say that the sun, moon and stars being created...not until 1:14-18.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness.

It would have and should have mention the sun being created in verses 1:1-5, except that it never did, and this passage never say the sun and stars being invisible then, then them being “visible” on the 4th day.

Beside, what make you think verse 1:1-2 not being part of the “first day”?

There are nothing to indicate that verses 1-2 being separate unspecified time period from verses 3-5.

Do you think 1st millennium ancient Hebrew use paragraphs to separate verses 1-2 from 3-5?

The oldest extant Hebrew texts on Genesis 1 (& chapter 2), are Qumran scrolls (Dead Sea Scrolls), and there are as many 20 scrolls in 5 caves (16 were discovered in Cave 4).

In none of these scrolls that actually contained the 1st chapter of Genesis separating verses 1 & 2 from day 1 of creation (verses 3 to 5), but there are no such division between these 2 passages.

The points being that most Christians don’t think of Genesis as Hebrew texts that have original contexts in Hebrew, you are trying to base the scriptures on both Christian contexts and modern contexts.

Your reply is a set of examples of you trying to put modern science context into the scriptures, which would change the original Hebrew contexts. In another word, you are reinterpreting the scriptures with modern scientific context, thereby taking the passages out-of-context.

If you were correct in your interpretations that the sun and stars were created in Genesis 1:1, then why don't it mention these astronomical bodies?

Why didn't passage 1:3-5 mention the Sun being responsible for the light on the "first day"?

It don't mention the sun and stars in these verses, because the ancient authors thought the light that divide day and night, morning and evening, were independent of the Sun.

All your reinterpretations of the scriptures and taking it out of context, is a desperate attempt to elevate the Bible into the modern light. All I see in your reinterpretations are apologetic excuses.

And BTW.

Have you ever try asking Jews about the context of Genesis 1 as what these verses mean?

After all were once written for Hebrew readers, not for modern readers. Plus you are relying on Strong's Concordance, which include 19th century Christian scholar...plus most of the interpretations were based on the early 17th century English translation - the King James' Version...which is again, Christian translation.

So basically you are trying to mix modern science with Genesis 1, and mix English translation with Christian interpretations of Genesis 1.

Have you ever thought of asking Jewish perspective on their scriptures? Have you ever thought to view Genesis 1, without you filling imaginary holes with a bit of modern sciences?

 

[night912]

Vegetation being created before the sun, is a myth created by an eronious view, since Genesis 1:14 is not presenting the earth, moon and stars as now being created, but being visible - "placed" in the expanse.
We know this because ...

Regardless of the sun being created before the vegetation, science still shows that Genesis was wrong. Plants need light in order for it to grow, but according to the Bible, plants were grown before there was visible sunlight in the sky.

 

[nPeace]

No. Common ancestry can be factually genetically established.

Courts do it all the time to figure out who is the biological family of whom for child support, inheritance things, etc.

DNA allows us to do this.

You aren't aware of that?

False.

DNA is inherited by off spring. This allows us to trace bloodlines and establish bloodties between individuals.
This is how we can tell your sibling from your cousin from a random person.




DNA can very much "speak". And more importantly: it doesn't lie.

We are back here again, and I see you are still posting that...

I hope you stick around this time and don't jet without saying 'yeah' or 'nay'.
At least say something like, 'I agree' or 'I disagree', before leaving. Okay?

We know that humans 'interbreed', so tracing 'bloodlines' in humans is a no-brainer. Unless of course, there are certain factors involved which makes DNA evidence unreliable.... making your claim a myth.
DNA Is NOT Infallible.

Besides that...
“DNA testing only reveals a general ethnic breakdown that changes over time, as the science becomes further refined," says Joshua Taylor, president of the New York Genealogical & Biographical Society. It "might identify that two individuals share a common ancestor within a certain number of generations, but research is still needed to identify who that common ancestor might be."

And ancestral math is messy. The number of ancestors we have increases exponentially, not linearly — more like a meshed web than a branched family tree, says the geneticist Adam Rutherford. If we went back a thousand years, each of us would have over a trillion direct ancestors, which is more than all the humans who have ever lived. This paradox exists because, as Rutherford writes: "Pedigrees begin to fold in on themselves a few generations back.“ Meaning "you can be, and in fact are, descended from the same individual many times over".
Source

However, let's pretend that those factors and limitations don't exist. Let's agree that being able to use DNA to identify individuals, bloodlines, infer familial ties, etc. can be done with 99.87% 'accuracy'.
Yes, we have human ancestors, but we already knew that, didn't we? Besides that, beyond these 'bloodlines' what are the facts about common ancestry?

Phylogenetic tree
Limitations
Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. Most importantly, they do not necessarily accurately represent the evolutionary history of the included taxa. In fact, they are literally scientific hypotheses, subject to falsification by further study (e.g., gathering of additional data, analyzing the existing data with improved methods). The data on which they are based is noisy; the analysis can be confounded by genetic recombination, horizontal gene transfer, hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences.

Also, there are problems in basing the analysis on a single type of character, such as a single gene or protein or only on morphological analysis, because such trees constructed from another unrelated data source often differ from the first, and therefore great care is needed in inferring phylogenetic relationships among species. This is most true of genetic material that is subject to lateral gene transfer and recombination, where different haplotype blocks can have different histories.

Employing Phylogenomics to Resolve Relationships
Phylogeny is the cornerstone of comparative biology, and interpretations of phenotypic evolution hinge on accurate hypotheses of organismal relationships (Felsenstein 1985). Transcriptomic and genomic sequences offer a nearly overwhelming source of information for inferring relationships, with some studies employing hundreds of genes. Despite great potential, phylogenomics has thus far failed to confidently resolve relationships of many animal groups (Dunn et al. 2014). Inferring relationships among major metazoan lineages (i.e., Bilateria, Ctenophora, Cnidaria, Placozoa, and Porifera) has been particularly difficult, with numerous recent studies recovering conflicting phylogenetic topologies

In recent years, systematists have faced many theoretical and methodological challenges associated with analyzing high-throughput sequencing data for phylogenetic inference, and a major bottleneck for modern phylogenetic studies is the analysis of data, rather than the generation of sequences. Modern phylogenomics requires a new set of expertise and methodologies compared with phylogenetic studies with only one or a few genes.

Universal common ancestry is the hypothesis that all extant terrestrial life shares a common genetic heritage. The classic arguments for common ancestry include many independent, converging lines of evidence from various fields, including biogeography, palaeontology, comparative morphology, developmental biology, and molecular biology. The great majority of this evidence, however, is qualitative in nature and only directly addresses the relationships of limited sets of higher taxa, such as the common ancestry of metazoans or the common ancestry of plants.


Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences to infer common descent is a hypothesis. So is comparitive anatomy. There are multiple ways in which DNA can have similarities.
DNA does NOT speak.

Let's pretend again though.
I'll pretend that DNA is speaking. Here is what it says...
"Humans have human ancestors, ...

...but that's all I am pretty sure of."

 

[nPeace]

What?

Scientists interpret evidence.
What problem do you have with interpreting ancient texts, again?

The other way is to assume without any sort of evidence or confirmation.

That's an opposite, and negative action.
Another way is to consider what the document says, and see if there is any evidence outside of those documents, which verify the truthfulness and reliability of the texts.

Hmmm.
Isn't it?

Not according to forum rules.
Do you want to make it about me?

 

[nPeace]

Nothing in Genesis 1:1 say that the sun, moon and stars being created...not until 1:14-18.

So you basically ignore and dismiss what the Hebrews wrote, in order to believe what you want. I see.
I'll be back later to look at what else you wrote.

 

[gnostic]

So you basically ignore and dismiss what the Hebrews wrote, in order to believe what you want. I see.
I'll be back later to look at what else you wrote.

No, what I see is that, you are MAKING UP THINGS that are not written in Genesis 1, in another word you are reinterpreting those passages to suit your “paradigm”, thereby taking the passages out-of-context.

The authors who wrote 1:1-5, say nothing about the sun and stars.

You are the one trying to add things (eg sun and stars) 1:1-5 that are not there, until the 4th day of creation (1:14-18).

And you do more twisting the verses when you claim that god didn’t “made” or “created” the sun, moon and stars on the 4th day (1:14-18). You instead claiming that the sun, moon and stars have become “visible”.

Lastly, in verse 1:1, just because it says that God created “the heavens and the earth”, the word “heavens” are ill-defined, and it opened to number of meanings, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the modern concepts of astronomy, space and universe.

Because heavens are used again, in the second day, to describe the heavens (or “sky”), depending on the translations, as the “firmament” (eg KJV), “dome” (eg NRSV), “vault” (eg NIV), “expanse” (eg NASB, NJPS), etc.

Then in day 4 & 5, these words are used together, depending on the translations, examples:

• “firmament of the heaven” in KJV
• “dome of the sky” in NRSV
• “expanse of the heavens” in NASB
• “expanse of the sky” in NJPS

But the twists here, are that God place these sun, moon and stars in this firmament/dome/expanse in day 4, but birds created on 5th day can fly across this same firmament/dome/expanse.

How can birds and sun be in the same firmament or dome or expanse?

And get worse when in Genesis 11, when god think it is possible for men to build the Tower of Babel to reach the “heavens”.

These verses only demonstrate the vagueness of what “heavens” is, to the ancient authors, it clearly have no real understanding of space and astronomy.

You are attempting to change Genesis 1 to suit your baseless scenario, by twisting it to meet your personal view.

You are the one who is not being honest in your clumsy attempts at “scholarship”.

This is why I find creationists to be unreliable not only with sciences, they are also unreliable with their scriptures that they supposedly believe to be sacred.

Tell me, nPeace. If Genesis 1 is true, then why are you changing it to suit your scenario? Why are adding things that are not there in the first place?

 

[ChristineM]

Scientists interpret evidence.

That's an opposite, and negative action.
Another way is to consider what the document says, and see if there is any evidence outside of those documents, which verify the truthfulness and reliability of the texts.

yes been there done that see my previous post. What ya got outside the bible

Not according to forum rules.
Do you want to make it about me?

Oh sorry, i thought you already had

 

[night912]

So you basically ignore and dismiss what the Hebrews wrote, in order to believe what you want. I see.
I'll be back later to look at what else you wrote.

So you basically ignored and dismissed what the Hebrew wrote as well. See post #107

 

[nPeace]

What about responding to my first question?

yes been there done that see my previous post. What ya got outside the bible

Been there. Done that... numerous times. Say what?

Oh sorry, i thought you already had

Apology accepted... Though it does not seem to be sincere, as there is sarcasm writen in black and white.
However, thanks for admitting a common mistake of Atheist - thinking that they are always right in what they think.

 

[ChristineM]

New What about responding to my first question?

.
I did, and to repeat for the hard of understanding.

"Scientists interpret evidence."

Been there. Done that... numerous times. Say what?

If you feel good, that's fine.

Apology accepted... Though it does not seem to be sincere, as there is sarcasm writen in black and white.
However, thanks for admitting a common mistake of Atheist - thinking that they are always right in what they think.

Suit your self, i really dont give a shor whether you feel its sincere ot not.

My goodness, the reflection is strong in you tonight

 

[nPeace]

Nothing in Genesis 1:1 say that the sun, moon and stars being created...not until 1:14-18.

In Genesis 1:1, it says God created the heavens and the earth.
What is the heavens in this passage?
It certainly does not say, it is the atmosphere.

It doesn't specify that it is the heavens as stated at Genesis 15:5 ; Genesis 19:24... using expressions such as "stars of the heavens", and "army of the heavens". Deuteronomy 4:19
(Deuteronomy 4:32) “Ask, now, about the former days before your time, from the day when God created man on the earth; search from one end of the heavens to the other end of the heavens. . . . (See Deuteronomy 4:36)

Spoiler: More...

(Deuteronomy 10:14) Look, to Jehovah your God belong the heavens, even the heavens of the heavens, and the earth with all that is in it.
(Deuteronomy 11:21) . . .for as long as the heavens are over the earth. . .
(Deuteronomy 26:15) Now look down from your holy dwelling, the heavens, and bless your people Israel and the land that you have given us, just as you swore to our forefathers, the land flowing with milk and honey.’
(Joshua 2:11) Jehovah your God is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath.
(1 Kings 8:27) “But will God really dwell on the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, cannot contain you; how much less, then, this house that I have built!
(1 Chronicles 29:11) Yours, O Jehovah, are the greatness and the mightiness and the beauty and the splendor and the majesty, for everything in the heavens and on the earth is yours. . . .

etc.

However, that is the indication, and the Hebrew word does not rule that out.
Lift your eyes to שָׁמַיִם heavens... see the sun, moon, stars, and all the host of שָׁמַיִם heavens....
We don't have to accept the closed-minded view, that earth was the only body in the heavens... or under the heavens... from the perspective of the creator.

However, it specifies the heavens and the earth. So the heavens are distinct from the earth.

What are the heavens, to you?

It would have and should have mention the sun being created in verses 1:1-5, except that it never did, and this passage never say the sun and stars being invisible then, then them being “visible” on the 4th day.

Would have, and should have?
No sorry. You did not write Genesis. If you did, you would be in a position to say what it should have been, but you are in no such position.
It's a brief overview, as we all can see.

Beside, what make you think verse 1:1-2 not being part of the “first day”?

Sorry. Did I say that?
No. I said, The sun, moon and stars were already created, before day one of God's work on earth.
Day one is the creation of heavens and earth, and the earth receiving light, from the source - the sun.
See this post, which saves copy pasting what I have explained before.

There are nothing to indicate that verses 1-2 being separate unspecified time period from verses 3-5.

Agreed.

Do you think 1st millennium ancient Hebrew use paragraphs to separate verses 1-2 from 3-5?

No.

The oldest extant Hebrew texts on Genesis 1 (& chapter 2), are Qumran scrolls (Dead Sea Scrolls), and there are as many 20 scrolls in 5 caves (16 were discovered in Cave 4).

In none of these scrolls that actually contained the 1st chapter of Genesis separating verses 1 & 2 from day 1 of creation (verses 3 to 5), but there are no such division between these 2 passages.

The points being that most Christians don’t think of Genesis as Hebrew texts that have original contexts in Hebrew, you are trying to base the scriptures on both Christian contexts and modern contexts.

I think this is your misunderstanding, or should I say, your misinterpreting my words.

Your reply is a set of examples of you trying to put modern science context into the scriptures, which would change the original Hebrew contexts. In another word, you are reinterpreting the scriptures with modern scientific context, thereby taking the passages out-of-context.

Your response is an example of Atheists efforts to deny the truthfulness of the Genesis account, and its accuracy ahead of scientific discovery.
I have change neither the text, nor the words usage.
The Hebrews use specific words to convey clear understanding.

If you were correct in your interpretations that the sun and stars were created in Genesis 1:1, then why don't it mention these astronomical bodies?

2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is inspired by God..."
Genesis 1 is a summary - an overview of creation.
Other scriptures fill in details.

Additionally, God did not have the Bible written, to answer skeptics.
Therefore, when it was writen, it was writen in a very simple way, by simple people without any agenda, or thought of fooling people, or answering those who would later question their sincerity.
God knew that the careful reader with a humble heart, would understand... with his help, of course. Matthew 13:10-16; 1 Corinthians 2:6-10

Why didn't passage 1:3-5 mention the Sun being responsible for the light on the "first day"?

Why should it?
It's writen in Hebrew. Not English.
Also, as I said before, it's not writen to answer skeptics.
The narrative was never in question until the 19th century.
What the source is, is irrelevant to understand the message of the Bible.
We today are the ones answering skeptic, and I answered you. I told you... but you do not want to believe.
You don't have to. Nor do we have to answer misunderstandings such as, 'The sun was created after vegetation.'
...but we do.

It don't mention the sun and stars in these verses, because the ancient authors thought the light that divide day and night, morning and evening, were independent of the Sun.

Really? Lol.
I guess you spoke to the writer.
The scholars would be delighted to learn who wrote it. Who did?

All your reinterpretations of the scriptures and taking it out of context, is a desperate attempt to elevate the Bible into the modern light. All I see in your reinterpretations are apologetic excuses.

You are free to call my observation from these texts, whatever you wish to.
I see a desperate effort on your part, to deny all the evidence, or any evidence for that matter, that puts the Bible in the light of truth, and reality.

And BTW.

Have you ever try asking Jews about the context of Genesis 1 as what these verses mean?

Wouldn't you get different views from different Jews?
Why do their views matter anyway? Aren't they the same people their own Tanakh describes this way 'YOU are a stiff-necked people'? Exodus 33:4

I find the people who identify as Jehovah's people, and demonstrate that they belong to him, get it right 99.99% of the time.
There is harmony with the other scriptures... including the ones Jews reject.

Besides, the writer of Genesis says the account is history, not allegory.
While symbolism is used in the account, details on these are 'fleshed out' in other scriptures.
For example, the serpent's identity is revealed in many other passages.

After all were once written for Hebrew readers, not for modern readers. Plus you are relying on Strong's Concordance, which include 19th century Christian scholar...plus most of the interpretations were based on the early 17th century English translation - the King James' Version...which is again, Christian translation.

I use Strong's becase it is easily accessible to most people, and about 85% - 90% it does give an accurate definition.
I have other sources I can compare, if the need arises.

So basically you are trying to mix modern science with Genesis 1, and mix English translation with Christian interpretations of Genesis 1.

That's your opinion, which I do not agree with.

Have you ever thought of asking Jewish perspective on their scriptures?

Would you like to talk to some Jews I know, who agree with what I have presented here?
Would you accept what they say, or would that not fit your preference?

Have you ever thought to view Genesis 1, without you filling imaginary holes with a bit of modern sciences?

Imaginary holes?
Oh. You must mean details that are not given? Name one please. Which one did I fill that's not there?

 

[nPeace]

.
I did, and to repeat for the hard of understanding.

"Scientists interpret evidence."

Thanks. I said that. Don't know why you think repeating it answers my question.

 

[nPeace]

No, what I see is that, you are MAKING UP THINGS that are not written in Genesis 1, in another word you are reinterpreting those passages to suit your “paradigm”, thereby taking the passages out-of-context.

The authors who wrote 1:1-5, say nothing about the sun and stars.

Authors?
I don't see any reason to think that authors wrote Genesis 1.
Evidently, people make that up.

You are the one trying to add things (eg sun and stars) 1:1-5 that are not there, until the 4th day of creation (1:14-18).

Heavens. What are the heavens?

And you do more twisting the verses when you claim that god didn’t “made” or “created” the sun, moon and stars on the 4th day (1:14-18). You instead claiming that the sun, moon and stars have become “visible”.

Twisting, would be to say that the heavens were not created... or that the heavens is just a void of darkness, which is just empty space.

Lastly, in verse 1:1, just because it says that God created “the heavens and the earth”, the word “heavens” are ill-defined, and it opened to number of meanings, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the modern concepts of astronomy, space and universe.

Thank you. It doesn't necessarily mean, but it doesn't necessarily not mean.

Because heavens are used again, in the second day, to describe the heavens (or “sky”), depending on the translations, as the “firmament” (eg KJV), “dome” (eg NRSV), “vault” (eg NIV), “expanse” (eg NASB, NJPS), etc.

Great!
Let's look.
Verse 1 -God created the heavens
Verse 8 - God called the expanse Heaven
Verse 14 - Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens

That should settle it, but let's see.
The expanse is not the heavens that God created, but the atmosphere - earth's atmosphere... also called heaven, but not the heavens.
I hope I don't have to spell that out any simpler.

Then in day 4 & 5, these words are used together, depending on the translations, examples:

• “firmament of the heaven” in KJV
• “dome of the sky” in NRSV
• “expanse of the heavens” in NASB
• “expanse of the sky” in NJPS

But the twists here, are that God place these sun, moon and stars in this firmament/dome/expanse in day 4, but birds created on 5th day can fly across this same firmament/dome/expanse.

How can birds and sun be in the same firmament or dome or expanse?

And get worse when in Genesis 11, when god think it is possible for men to build the Tower of Babel to reach the “heavens”.

These verses only demonstrate the vagueness of what “heavens” is, to the ancient authors, it clearly have no real understanding of space and astronomy.

You are attempting to change Genesis 1 to suit your baseless scenario, by twisting it to meet your personal view.

You are the one who is not being honest in your clumsy attempts at “scholarship”.

This is why I find creationists to be unreliable not only with sciences, they are also unreliable with their scriptures that they supposedly believe to be sacred.

Tell me, nPeace. If Genesis 1 is true, then why are you changing it to suit your scenario? Why are adding things that are not there in the first place?

I do hope you did get it after it is made clear that the atmosphere is not the heavens.
So birds fly there, a tower can reach there, and the sun, moon, and stars are visible there.

How does the sun rise, when the earth is rotating around the sun? We speak from a perspective on earth.
Think of the account that way, from day 2.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A literal interpretation of Genesis means plants, that require heat and light in order to exist, were created before the sun that supplies heat and light. Based on this and other evidence from the story, I have never seen any reason to interpret the biblical creation story as a literal description.

Otherwise, you would have to believe that the story shows the sun being created twice. That does not make any sense either and would go equally to a rejection of the story as a literal description of an actual series of events.

 

[gnostic]

Great!
Let's look.
Verse 1 -God created the heavens
Verse 8 - God called the expanse Heaven
Verse 14 - Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens

That should settle it, but let's see.
The expanse is not the heavens that God created, but the atmosphere - earth's atmosphere... also called heaven, but not the heavens.
I hope I don't have to spell that out any simpler.

Ah, “the old singular vs plural trick”... mimicking Maxwell Smart from Get Smart.

You are not being exhaustive enough with your “biblical” scholarship.

I, like you, we both don’t read Hebrew, so we rely on English translation, and like most English-only-speaking, we rely on others who translated the Bible, and most people focused on just one translation, excluding all other translations.

That’s really ok, for any ordinary believers, to use only one translation.

But not okay with those biblical scholars. Real scholars actually go to the languages of sources...meaning, they would not only use English translations, but also look at sources from Hebrew (eg the Masoretic Text, Dead Sea Scrolls), Latin (eg Vulgate Bible), Greek (the various manuscripts of the Septuagint, eg codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus; note that the original Hellenistic 3rd to 1st centuries BCE Septuagint, otherwise known as LXX Septuagint have not survived, unless the fragments of Papyrus Rylands 456 is it, but these fragments could be recension, not the original), Aramaic Targum, etc.

Most modern English translations (20th and 21st centuries publications) of the Old Testament, rely on the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and Greek Codex Vaticanus, as respective primary and secondary sources.

I am not biblical scholar, but I don’t think you are too. We are both amateurs.

But the points being scholars rely on more than 1 source, or even more than 1 translation.

But seeing that I don’t read any other language than English, the best I can do, is use multiple translations of original sources.

I don’t know which translation you are using, but it seemed to be NASB, judging by your use of the word “expanse”, “heaven” and “heavens”.

Are you using NASB or another translation?

I am not relying on NASB alone, or NRSV. I am looking at multiple translations in regarding to Genesis 1. They include:

• NASB
• NRSV
• NIV
• KJV
• NJPS, my personal favourite, because this 1985 translations of the Tanakh, which relied solely on the Hebrew Masoretic Text, meaning no Greek Septuagint was used to complement the translation. This translation of the Tanakh, was translated by 20th century Jewish philologists and scholars .
• The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, translated by Martin Abegg jr, Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich, which is available in Kindle.

What is the point in all this about scholarship and multiple translations, you may ask.

As I said in my last reply, regarding to the vagueness of the word heaven or heavens.

You may be using NASB translations, but in KJV, they have used only the singular heaven in 1:1, 1:8, 1:14, and in 11:4 (Tower of Babel episode.

NASB also used the singular “heaven” in Babel incident, but in NRSV, the plural “heavens”, as do NIV. While NJPS used “sky”.

I cannot tell you what the Dead Sea Scrolls (translation) say, as this chapter on Babel is completely missing.

Like I said, it depends on the translation, whether “heaven” or “heavens” being used.

So your use of “heaven” being referring only to Earth’s atmosphere, because other translations might used heavens in some passage.

Sorry, nPeace. Your “expertise” isn’t half as good as you think you are.

And beside that. God placing the sun, moon and stars in the Earth’s atmosphere, is ridiculous claim, as the atmosphere boundary is only about 100 miles above sea level.

Whil I would agree that the moon is orbiting around the Earth, it is not situated within the Earth atmosphere. So using atmosphere on Genesis 1:14-18, is still faulty claims in biblical scholarship and in sciences.

Your attempt at using modern knowledge of Earth, Earth’s atmosphere, and astronomy, on Genesis, is still a failure.