In Genesis the plants were created before the sun moon and stars

[Brian2]

No, once again it mentioned "the surface of the deep". That pretty much sounds like the ocean. The ocean was formed long after there was light. Your order is out of order.

There are theories about when and how the oceans formed and I don't think it is known when or how even though there is mention of it in the Bible. However before the oceans were formed there was light reaching the earth as it was the clouds that followed the water cover which caused the darkness imo.
Try again.

 

[Brian2]

Genesis 1 says the sun appeared on day 4 after the fruit trees which is after 200 million years.

Genesis 1 is saying that things each only appeared on a specific day - no overlap. The only exception I think is the Garden of Eden which had plants appearing a bit later. It is generally science that suggests overlaps, not the Bible.

If one believes the truth of the creation story and is trying to reconcile it with what science thinks happened, it is good to see the Genesis account as a short and concise story that has everything in it that needs to be there for all people from all times in history to be able to understand it as needed.
In this era of history a day of creation needs to be seen as a period of time, as the Bible uses the word at times.
In this era of history it is necessary to see the creation of fruit trees as happening when plants were created and that all sorts of plants were created at that time along with fruit trees. By this I mean that the potential for all sorts of plants would have been in the first plants. The fruit trees were not created separately about 200million years ago.
So no, Genesis 1 does not say that things each only appeared on a specific day-no overlap.
It's a matter of probably reading it as if it is all true for a start and then thinking how it could all be true with what science says it has discovered.

And no, I don't think the Genesis 2 has plants appearing a bit later. It's all a matter of how it is read, and I'll tell you how I read Genesis 2 if you would like.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are theories about when and how the oceans formed and I don't think it is known when or how even though there is mention of it in the Bible. However before the oceans were formed there was light reaching the earth as it was the clouds that followed the water cover which caused the darkness imo.
Try again.

LOL! All of the theories on when liquid water was first found have it long after the Sun ignited. You misused "try again".

 

[excreationist]

And no, I don't think the Genesis 2 has plants appearing a bit later. It's all a matter of how it is read, and I'll tell you how I read Genesis 2 if you would like.

When Genesis 2 is talking about planting the Garden of Eden it also says "In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". If the plants in the garden didn't appear after day 3 then it seems like those special trees were also planted on day 3.

 

[Brian2]

LOL! All of the theories on when liquid water was first found have it long after the Sun ignited. You misused "try again".

I did not say anything different.
First the heavens and earth were created. I imagine the sun shining on the early earth and then came the water and clouds that surrounded the earth and made it dark on the surface so that the light from the ignited sun could not get through.
Gen 1 tells us of God creating the heavens and earth and then shifts to the time when there was water and darkness. IOW not every little detail is spoken about in such a short summary.

 

[Brian2]

When Genesis 2 is talking about planting the Garden of Eden it also says "In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". If the plants in the garden didn't appear after day 3 then it seems like those special trees were also planted on day 3.

I think I have lost track of what you are saying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not say anything different.
First the heavens and earth were created. I imagine the sun shining on the early earth and then came the water and clouds that surrounded the earth and made it dark on the surface so that the light from the ignited sun could not get through.
Gen 1 tells us of God creating the heavens and earth and then shifts to the time when there was water and darkness. IOW not every little detail is spoken about in such a short summary.

You do not get to assume clouds

 

[excreationist]

I think I have lost track of what you are saying.

You seem to be saying that all of the plants were created on day 3 including those in the Garden of Eden. If so then are you saying that the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were also created on day 3?

 

[YoursTrue]

If you are a Christian is Genesis 1 still literal - since it doesn't fit mainstream science.

Not sure what you mean by literal. From what I see a dictionary says about the word literal: taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.

 

[excreationist]

Not sure what you mean by literal. From what I see a dictionary says about the word literal: taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.

Yes basically like young earth creationists.... that things were created in 6 literal days (not 6 billion years, etc) and the plants were created before the sun, moon, and stars - that the flood literally covered the whole earth, etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes basically like young earth creationists.... that things were created in 6 literal days (not 6 billion years, etc) and the plants were created before the sun, moon, and stars - that the flood literally covered the whole earth, etc.

But I hope you do understand that not all of us take every word literally. For instance, the word 'day' in Genesis can be used for more than a 24-hour period. It can mean a period of time, with a beginning and an end. This is shown to be so in several other scriptures, were the word day is used in a general (or figurative) sense.

 

[excreationist]

But I hope you do understand that not all of us take every word literally. For instance, the word 'day' in Genesis can be used for more than a 24-hour period. It can mean a period of time, with a beginning and an end. This is shown to be so in several other scriptures, were the word day is used in a general (or figurative) sense.

This is from post #146

it is roughly something like this:

Stars (day 4)
Sun and moon (day 4) and more stars
Underwater creatures (day 5)
Dry land (day 3)
Land creatures (day 6)
Fruit trees (day 3)
More land creatures (day 6)
Birds (day 5)
Humans (day 6)

It seems the order in Genesis 1 isn't compatible with the long day-age theory based on science... another non-literal interpretation is that it is poetic (with two "triads" - see the opening post) and that the order doesn't have anything to do with historical reality.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is from post #146

It seems the order in Genesis 1 isn't compatible with the long day-age theory based on science... another non-literal interpretation is that it is poetic (with two "triads" - see the opening post) and that the order doesn't have anything to do with historical reality.

I guess in order for me to understand, you'd have to be more explicit. But I realize you are working on finding faults with the Bible and so I'll be honest with you, I'm not up to parsing every sentence and event recorded. I do research sometimes to understand more and am happy with what I have learned and know. I simply cannot explain everything however if you would go over in particular detail about your objections to the Genesis account, and I can answer you with a cogent answer, I will certainly try. However you need to know that is not my inclination to find fault with what the Bible says. If there's a question, I usually do research and lean on others. PLUS what I consider the wonderful things I have learned from the Bible, but more importantly, what I consider to be my relationship with God the Almighty and his Son. Thanks.

 

[excreationist]

I guess in order for me to understand, you'd have to be more explicit. But I realize you are working on finding faults with the Bible

Actually I'm saying that it fits very well with the poetic "framework interpretation"

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not aware of any issues with that. Though I think the young earth creationist belief fits pretty well too.

 

[Brian2]

You do not get to assume clouds

As far as I know science tells us of clouds and that agrees with Job 38:9 which tells us also of clouds.

 

[Brian2]

You seem to be saying that all of the plants were created on day 3 including those in the Garden of Eden. If so then are you saying that the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were also created on day 3?

Genesis 2 tells us that the Garden of Eden was planted, not that the plants in it were created then. The way I read Genesis 2 that could have been on day 3.

 

[Pogo]

Genesis 2 tells us that the Garden of Eden was planted, not that the plants in it were created then. The way I read Genesis 2 that could have been on day 3.

Or maybe it is all fiction as in a story told to express a point and the discovered reality demonstrates the difference.
Doesn't make the stories objective false.


Fan fiction is interesting, but not reality.

 

[excreationist]

Genesis 2 tells us that the Garden of Eden was planted, not that the plants in it were created then. The way I read Genesis 2 that could have been on day 3.

If the tree of life (which can grant people immortality) was created on day 3 I think they should have mentioned it in Genesis 1... though I guess I don't have a strong argument for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as I know science tells us of clouds and that agrees with Job 38:9 which tells us also of clouds.

Citation needed.

 

[Ajax]

During the fourth creative day (related exclusively to the adaptation of planet Earth) the sun and the moon somehow entered into a relationship favorable to life here. That is why Gen. 1:16 does not use the same word for "to create" but a different one that literally means "to make" and is also used to express new relationships between already existing things, not new creations.

Gen. 1:14 Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. 15 They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Not a good try I'm afraid, because by the same token when God said, “Let us make man in our image..." you have to accept that man already existed and was not a new creation...
Unbelievable apologetics to justify a fairy tale by primitive people..