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.
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?
Creationists can't read very well.
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.
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.
That would require that he didn't desperately want NOT to understand what you're saying.
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?
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.
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.
So is this Wikipedia page also incorrect? If so I guess you could fix it....
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."List of best-selling books - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
So is this Wikipedia page also incorrect? If so I guess you could fix it....
That page mentions "the Bible" 154 times.Bible - Wikipedia
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....
How does the Bible suggest that? Also the moon and sun came many billions of years after the big bang.
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?
Yes some are based on what the Bible says and others try to fit it into other things....
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.
It's a valid enough thought, although the line in Genesis: "Let there be light', is a 'turning on' description.
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.
