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

[bilby]

Other problems include...

To be fair, these aren't really other problems, so much as they are part and parcel of the single, overarching, problem with the Genesis chronology: It's obviously utter bollocks.

 

[pood]

You can find online all over the place various discussions pro and con of whether Genesis is compatible with modern science. Not so much, I don’t think — though I admit I haven’t done a systematic search — of whether the Mayan creations myths are compatible with modern science, or the the Australian aboriginal myths, or that of the Upanishads, the Zoroastrians, the Aleuts, the Patagonians, the North American natives, etc. etc. I wonder why that is?

 

[bilby]

The Great Green Arkleseizure is the creator of the universe, as claimed by adherents of the faith on planet Viltvodle VI. The Jatravartids of this faith believe that the Universe was sneezed out of the Great Green Arkleseizure's nose.

In the 2005 film, Humma Kavula is a missionary of the Great Green Arkleseizure religion on Viltvodle VI. He ends his sermons with a simple "Bless you".

 

[excreationist]

Day 3 is third. Not first.
You said "first".

I did say "in the Bible the plants were created first" but I meant they were created before the sun, moon and stars.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Day 3 is third. Not first.
You said "first".

I did say "in the Bible the plants were created first" but I meant they were created before the sun, moon and stars.

There is no "the bible." There are lots of different bibles based on what the translators want their translation to say. The mere existence of the KJV is proof that there were too many different bibles running around in England at the time and James wanted one that he could use to exert control. Sound familiar?

 

[excreationist]

Day 3 is third. Not first.
You said "first".

I did say "in the Bible the plants were created first" but I meant they were created before the sun, moon and stars.

There is no "the bible." There are lots of different bibles based on what the translators want their translation to say. The mere existence of the KJV is proof that there were too many different bibles running around in England at the time and James wanted one that he could use to exert control. Sound familiar?

So what bibles say that the plants weren't created before the sun, moon, and stars? Maybe there is a consensus amongst the bibles in this particular case?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Day 3 is third. Not first.
You said "first".


Your chart says...

First - Day and night.
Second - Waters and sky
Third - Land and vegetation.

The only mention of "first" is "first triad" - and there is the "second triad".

There is no mention of "third". There are only 2 triads.

Perhaps you didn't notice it but it lists 6 days.... some are towards the centre of the screen.

The first triad has days 1, 2, and 3. The second triad is days 4, 5, and 6.

Creationists can't read very well.

 

[Lion IRC]

There is no mention of "third"

3.
3rd
...comes after 2.

 

[excreationist]

There is no mention of "third"

3.
3rd
...comes after 2.

Day 3 is third. Not first.
You said "first".

Yes day 3 is the third day. I didn't say the plants were on the first day - I said out of plants and the sun, moon, and stars, the plants were created first.
So out of day 3 (plants) and day 4 (sun moon & stars), the plants were created first. Hopefully you can understand what I'm saying.

 

[bilby]

There is no mention of "third"

3.
3rd
...comes after 2.

Day 3 is third. Not first.
You said "first".

Yes day 3 is the third day. I didn't say the plants were on the first day - I said out of plants and the sun, moon, and stars, the plants were created first.
So out of day 3 (plants) and day 4 (sun moon & stars), the plants were created first. Hopefully you can understand what I'm saying.

That would require that he didn't desperately want NOT to understand what you're saying.

As Stan Laurel said: You can take a horse to water, but a pencil must be led.

 

[Bomb#20]

The Old Man and the Sea is a great novella despite that it is fictional.

Blasphemer!

What would you think of a book review that focused on evidence that the deeds of Santiago never really happened?

Burn it! Duh!

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes day 3 is the third day. I didn't say the plants were on the first day - I said out of plants and the sun, moon, and stars, the plants were created first.

I understand the text as saying first light was created, which I take to be unnamed stars/galaxies, then later, specific localised names and descriptions were assigned. (Eg. Day and Night.)

So out of day 3 (plants) and day 4 (sun moon & stars), the plants were created first. Hopefully you can understand what I'm saying

Yes, I understand the claim.
There were already mornings and evenings on the first day (Genesis 1:5) and restated at Genesis 1:8 (day 2) and again at Genesis 1:12 (day 3)

 

[excreationist]

Yes day 3 is the third day. I didn't say the plants were on the first day - I said out of plants and the sun, moon, and stars, the plants were created first.

I understand the text as saying first light was created, which I take to be unnamed stars/galaxies, then later, specific localised names and descriptions were assigned. (Eg. Day and Night.)

Stars aren't much of a source of light - I mean it can take 20 minutes for our eyes to adjust and see them well. Genesis 1 says the sun, moon, and stars were created on day 4. If they were actually created on day 1 why doesn't the Bible clearly say so? Do you believe that the sun moon and stars were created on day 1 because the Bible clearly says so or because you're trying to make it fit in with science?

So out of day 3 (plants) and day 4 (sun moon & stars), the plants were created first. Hopefully you can understand what I'm saying

Yes, I understand the claim.
There were already mornings and evenings on the first day (Genesis 1:5) and restated at Genesis 1:8 (day 2) and again at Genesis 1:12 (day 3)

I think Genesis 1 is saying that God is the source of light and not the sun. Revelation 21:23 and 22:5 also says this - that there would be no sun or moon - though in Revelation the light isn't turned on and off.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So what bibles say that the plants weren't created before the sun, moon, and stars? Maybe there is a consensus amongst the bibles in this particular case?

Have you ever translated Latin into English? Words and phrases have multiple meanings giving really weird translations but translations that fit what the person wants to hear. That's the point. It hardly matters that different translations have similar meanings. Typically the oldest translations gets the most mileage simply because they came first. But that's meaningless. And then there are idioms. I recall an exchange with a preacher who was listening to us talk about translations and had never heard of idioms. So he reads one translation or hears one interpretation of what a translated phrase is saying and thinks that's it.

I was watching the old movie "Moby Dick" and the characters were speaking Spanish. When Ahab said 'That she blows!" the English subtitle said "Whale in view!" That's why all translations are essentially lies.

 

[excreationist]

There is no "the bible."

List of best-selling books - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to Guinness World Records as of 1995, the Bible is the best selling book of all time

So is this Wikipedia page also incorrect? If so I guess you could fix it....

Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That page mentions "the Bible" 154 times.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There is no "the bible."

List of best-selling books - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to Guinness World Records as of 1995, the Bible is the best selling book of all time

So is this Wikipedia page also incorrect? If so I guess you could fix it....

Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That page mentions "the Bible" 154 times.

It should certainly be fixed but that's not my department. "The bible" should always include which translation or version is being cited. Wiki also says there are over "3,030 versions" if one cares to look. The V in KJV is for "Version." There are bibles but no "the bible."

George Washington swore on the KJV, which makes abundant sense if you consider the times.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes day 3 is the third day. I didn't say the plants were on the first day - I said out of plants and the sun, moon, and stars, the plants were created first.

I understand the text as saying first light was created, which I take to be unnamed stars/galaxies, then later, specific localised names and descriptions were assigned. (Eg. Day and Night.)

Stars aren't much of a source of light - I mean it can take 20 minutes for our eyes to adjust and see them well.

I think stars are are an excellent source of light and arguably the only source of light.

Genesis 1 says the sun, moon, and stars were created on day 4. If they were actually created on day 1 why doesn't the Bible clearly say so?

I think "The Sun" and "The Moon" are the names/descriptions assigned to things that were instigated at Day 1 (Big Bang) and the description of their creation becomes more 'granular' as the biblical narration continues.

Do you believe that the sun moon and stars were created on day 1 because the Bible clearly says so or because you're trying to make it fit in with science?

No, I think it's the other way around.
I think science (coincidentally) confirms my exegesis.

So out of day 3 (plants) and day 4 (sun moon & stars), the plants were created first. Hopefully you can understand what I'm saying

Yes, I understand the claim.
There were already mornings and evenings on the first day (Genesis 1:5) and restated at Genesis 1:8 (day 2) and again at Genesis 1:12 (day 3)

I think Genesis 1 is saying that God is the source of light and not the sun. Revelation 21:23 and 22:5 also says this - that there would be no sun or moon - though in Revelation the light isn't turned on and off.

Clearly the text is open to many interpretations.

 

[excreationist]

Yes day 3 is the third day. I didn't say the plants were on the first day - I said out of plants and the sun, moon, and stars, the plants were created first.

I understand the text as saying first light was created, which I take to be unnamed stars/galaxies, then later, specific localised names and descriptions were assigned. (Eg. Day and Night.)

Stars aren't much of a source of light - I mean it can take 20 minutes for our eyes to adjust and see them well.

I think stars are are an excellent source of light and arguably the only source of light.

What about the stars that aren't our sun? It would be difficult to see stars in the sky with typical phone cameras - and a good source of light means it lights up other things....

Genesis 1 says the sun, moon, and stars were created on day 4. If they were actually created on day 1 why doesn't the Bible clearly say so?

I think "The Sun" and "The Moon" are the names/descriptions assigned to things that were instigated at Day 1 (Big Bang) and the description of their creation becomes more 'granular' as the biblical narration continues.

How does the Bible suggest that? Also the moon and sun came many billions of years after the big bang.

Do you believe that the sun moon and stars were created on day 1 because the Bible clearly says so or because you're trying to make it fit in with science?

No, I think it's the other way around.
I think science (coincidentally) confirms my exegesis.

So you thought the Bible talks about the sun moon and stars being created on day 1 then only after that you decided to see what science says?

So out of day 3 (plants) and day 4 (sun moon & stars), the plants were created first. Hopefully you can understand what I'm saying

Yes, I understand the claim.
There were already mornings and evenings on the first day (Genesis 1:5) and restated at Genesis 1:8 (day 2) and again at Genesis 1:12 (day 3)

I think Genesis 1 is saying that God is the source of light and not the sun. Revelation 21:23 and 22:5 also says this - that there would be no sun or moon - though in Revelation the light isn't turned on and off.

Clearly the text is open to many interpretations.

Yes some are based on what the Bible says and others try to fit it into other things....

 

[Learner]

Yes day 3 is the third day. I didn't say the plants were on the first day - I said out of plants and the sun, moon, and stars, the plants were created first.

I understand the text as saying first light was created, which I take to be unnamed stars/galaxies, then later, specific localised names and descriptions were assigned. (Eg. Day and Night.)

Stars aren't much of a source of light - I mean it can take 20 minutes for our eyes to adjust and see them well.

The light of stars can be seen instantly depending on where you're located in the world. Like for example I see stars instantly clear when I'm in the country-side, but not so much when I'm in the City, due to the artificial light illuminations at night.

So out of day 3 (plants) and day 4 (sun moon & stars), the plants were created first. Hopefully you can understand what I'm saying

Yes, I understand the claim.
There were already mornings and evenings on the first day (Genesis 1:5) and restated at Genesis 1:8 (day 2) and again at Genesis 1:12 (day 3)

I think Genesis 1 is saying that God is the source of light and not the sun. Revelation 21:23 and 22:5 also says this - that there would be no sun or moon - though in Revelation the light isn't turned on and off.

It's a valid enough thought, although the line in Genesis: "Let there be light', is a 'turning on' description.

 

[bilby]

I think stars are are an excellent source of light and arguably the only source of light.

Then you are even more ignorant than the authors of Genesis, who (despite their understandably deep ignorance of almost everything), at least knew about fire.