What does Genesis One literally say?

[Paul of Eugene]

I don't think anybody thinks God is a liar and perhaps we should all avoide accusing the other party of saying that. Some of us take the words of Genesis as being best understood for the spiritual teachings about God but not literally accurate. Hence we believed the earth rotates around the sun and the earth is 4.5 billion years old, as we learn from scientific investigations. Others insist on a literal interpretation of the days but insist we don't have to accept the literal picture of the relationships between earth, sun, moon, stars, firmament, and water. A strange comprimise between true literal interpretation and conceding some of what science has discovered. A very few flat earthers still exist out there, I don't know of any on this forum. None of us call God a liar. I for one happen to think that if God had revealed the full truth of the nature of the universe to the early people whom he called to follow him they would have either themselves been unable to fathom the revelation or the people they talked to about that premature revelation would have completely misunderstood and failed to follow them.

 

[Bartholomew]

Some interesting points, Paul, but scripture doesn't say the firmament is a dome. The root, if I am correct, is from "hammering out" of metal - certainly "firm", but must it be a dome? There is a theory that the ultra-dense "Planck particles" predicted by quantum mechanics do not pop in and out of existance, but exist, right now, throughout space (I don't really understand the all of it). This would make the firmament "firm". However, you are correct: the sun, moon, etc. are in the firmament, and move around the earth; and there certianly are waters above it. But without wanting to "hijack" your thread, I'll say that there's a baptist here who belives those things to be true! The reason Genesis 1 assumes a non-Copernican universe is because Copernicus was wrong.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
Some interesting points, Paul, but scripture doesn't say the firmament is a dome. The root, if I am correct, is from "hammering out" of metal - certainly "firm", but must it be a dome? There is a theory that the ultra-dense "Planck particles" predicted by quantum mechanics do not pop in and out of existance, but exist, right now, throughout space (I don't really understand the all of it). This would make the firmament "firm". However, you are correct: the sun, moon, etc. are in the firmament, and move around the earth; and there certianly are waters above it. But without wanting to "hijack" your thread, I'll say that there's a baptist here who belives those things to be true! The reason Genesis 1 assumes a non-Copernican universe is because Copernicus was wrong.

Please, don't fret about hijacking the the thread! I don't own anything around here! Now as for your points: In view of the plain documented historical truth that the scripture was always considered to refer to a dome up to and past the time that science proved it couldn't be a dome, we must regard your current understanding as a re-intepretation of what Genesis actually says. This is understandable.

What I don't understand is why you and others insist we stop reinterpreting now that science has come along even further and come up with an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. What is the reason for allowing the re-interpretation to go thus far and no further?

As for the firmness of space, there is no justification for that. Space is actually an abstract concept. Einstein proved it varies in its dimensions according to the motion of the observer. This is not being "firm". The universe is really more like the result of a great working out of a great idea.

Hmmm. . . Who has a mind great enough to hold that idea in His mind?

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Meatros:
I use my head and I don't ignore the world around me in order to justify my paradigm.

I look at the world through a Biblical worldview. “You can throw all of secular man’s evidence at me, but it will not change my mind. Evidence has its place, but evidence doesn’t necessarily equal proof. If evidence did equal proof, then we wouldn’t have needed two OJ trails or a month long senate debate as to whether or not Bill Clinton lied, when everybody knows he lied. They weren’t debating the evidence, but the interpretation of the evidence.” Bill Jack-

My faith is strong in the Bible. The Holy Sprits word is all the evidence I need!

 

[Meatros]

Then why do you bother trying to convince other people? You are content with ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary of your opinion about how old the world is, that's one thing. To attempt to convince others of this is quite another.

It doesn't matter to you whether or not science has an accurate picture of how old this world is, but it does matter to people who actually *DO* want to learn about the universe and all the things in it.

If you aren't willing to consider the evidence, then what right do you have to criticize it?

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Meatros:
Then why do you bother trying to convince other people?

For the same reason you’re here to try and convince people that the answers we find in the Bible are now null and voided, b/c the theories of science, which change almost on a yearly basis, says that it’s impossible.

Science says it’s impossible for Adam to have lived 930 yrs old. You believe ‘em.

Science says that God couldn’t have created in 6 literal days, b/c some rock proves it. You believe ‘em.

Science says that Jesus couldn’t have been raised from the dead three days later. It’s medically impossible. You say...Whoaaaa…stop the presses….I don’t believe that, the Bible says it happened… I say...How convenient.

 

[john6:63]

NP

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by john6:63:
I look at the world through a Biblical worldview. “You can throw all of secular man’s evidence at me, but it will not change my mind. Evidence has its place, but evidence doesn’t necessarily equal proof. If evidence did equal proof, then we wouldn’t have needed two OJ trails or a month long senate debate as to whether or not Bill Clinton lied, when everybody knows he lied. They weren’t debating the evidence, but the interpretation of the evidence.” Bill Jack-

My faith is strong in the Bible. The Holy Sprits word is all the evidence I need! [/QB]

Let's test you out. The Bible says that insects that fly have four legs.

Lev 11:22-23
22 "These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds.

23 "But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.
NASU


Do you believe that or do you believe they really have six legs? If you are true to your principles, you will reject the modern scientific principle that they have six legs. Do you so reject the modern, anti-scriptural view of how many legs flying insects have?

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

Do you believe that or do you believe they really have six legs? If you are true to your principles, you will reject the modern scientific principle that they have six legs. Do you so reject the modern, anti-scriptural view of how many legs flying insects have?

I’ve already answered this question Paul of Eugene. Look for it. I do stutter occasionally, but not while typing.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by john6:63:
For the same reason you’re here to try and convince people that the answers we find in the Bible are now null and voided, b/c the theories of science, which change almost on a yearly basis, says that it’s impossible.

Still touting that mistaken assumption about as though it's relevant? You are lieing about my position and you know it. Why must you break a commandment in order to answer my question?

Originally posted by john6:63:
Science says it’s impossible for Adam to have lived 930 yrs old. You believe ‘em.

Originally posted by john6:63:
Science says that God couldn’t have created in 6 literal days, b/c some rock proves it. You believe ‘em.

You are misrepresenting my position. I'm not saying God couldn't have created the world in 6 days, I'm saying God did not. I'm saying the point of Genesis becomes lost if you interpret it to be a how to manual of how to build a universe.

Originally posted by john6:63:
Science says that Jesus couldn’t have been raised from the dead three days later. It’s medically impossible. You say...Whoaaaa…stop the presses….I don’t believe that, the Bible says it happened… I say...How convenient.

I'm more inclined to believe the new testament then the old. There is evidence of Jesus's existence. You wish to simplify my stance on the matter in order to try to nullify it. While it seems to appear to you that Genesis is a literal how-to manual (bizarrely IMO), it does not to me. Instead of just a simply disagreement about scripture, you seem to feel you are entitled to strip my Christianity away from me. You are not.

 

[Helen]

I'm more inclined to believe the new testament then the old.

When Paul told Timothy that all Scripture is God breathed, what Scripture do you think he was talking about?

When Jesus answered Satan and, later, the Pharisees and teachers of the law with "It is written...." -- what do you think was written that He was referring to?

Over and over again the New Testament refers to the Old as Scripture -- God-breathed and reliable. So if you believe the New, you are sort of stuck with the Old as well, for the New bears witness to it, start to finish.

 

[Meatros]

I suppose I was a bit unclear, my mistake, I meant as far as literally.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Meatros:
There is evidence of Jesus's existence.

So you believe there’s “evidence” in the Bible. I’m not naming any names, but someone here doesn’t believe that.

BTW, nice tap dance w/the above post.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by john6:63:

So you believe there’s “evidence” in the Bible. I’m not naming any names, but someone here doesn’t believe that.

BTW, nice tap dance w/the above post.

I'm really getting tired of you putting your ignorant opinion of my opinion in my mouth. Did I say that the evidence of Jesus was in the bible? No. There is outside evidence genius.

Nice try though.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by john6:63:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

Do you believe that or do you believe they really have six legs? If you are true to your principles, you will reject the modern scientific principle that they have six legs. Do you so reject the modern, anti-scriptural view of how many legs flying insects have?

I’ve already answered this question Paul of Eugene. Look for it. I do stutter occasionally, but not while typing.

</font>

OK J I looked around and didn't find it in the time I allotted myself so I'll respond in a general fashion instead of to your particular excuse for getting out of what the Bible really says.

Many have gone back after the fact and decided they'll reinterpret this obvious error. Helen, for example, once had pointed out to her where the writers of the Talmud did just that and declared this was really a general catagory instead of a specific number. But the writers of the Talmud obviously make stuff up frequently so that is not a reliable source. Others have stated it is merely an idiomatic phrase. But this interpretation has a problem; you could take anything and say it is an idiomatic phrase and get away with it! For example: When the Bible says the evening and the morning were the second day, what's to stop me from saying it is an idiomatic phrase that is really intended to stand for an unspecified beginning and ending of an indefinate period of time? NOTHING - by the rules you use when you say this is an idiomatic phrase HERE.

Some have said that since the bugs use front legs to wipe themselves this means they aren't legs.

This is an obvious reach. Gimmee a break. If a dog scratches himself with his leg, do you call his leg a hand? IF he picks up a stick and carries it with his mouth, do you call his mouth a hand? With bugs, legs are legs.

Remember that we are talking about every bug in the world that has wings here. Ladybugs, flies, cockroaches, whatever. They are all unclean to eat and they are all declared to have four legs here.

The context of the verse is particularly important. It is in a legal section where the scripture is detailing exactly what is to be considered clean and unclean. This is not a place for being careless or unclear. The transcriber is constrained to be especially accurate by the nature of what he is writing. Yet he makes this careless error.

It is not that the Hebrews were stupid and couldn't count. It is rather that the particular transcriber in this instance didn't think much about how many legs the things really have and didn't think it necessary to check at the time he wrote. He was not raised with an educational background such as we possess that includes a scientific classification scheme that points out six legs as a way of classifying the relations between crawling creatures.

C'mon, literal believers, step up to the plate and assert that science is wrong. Don't be shy, you've done that before. Your own principles are at stake here.

[ June 06, 2003, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Paul of Eugene ]

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
In view of the plain documented historical truth that the scripture was always considered to refer to a dome up to and past the time that science proved it couldn't be a dome, we must regard your current understanding as a re-intepretation of what Genesis actually says.

Paul, I don't agree. I really don't put much value on what people "considered" the Bible to mean. The Catholics considered "thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" to mean the popes were infallible. Fine, they can think that if they want; but it's not what the scriputre says, and so I don't have to believe them. I try to believe the scriptures; not what other men "considered" them to mean. This thread asks what Genesis 1 LITERALLY says. Well, does it (or any other scripture) tell us the firmament is a dome? If not, how can you claim that it is the "literal interpretation"?

P.S. By "dome" I assume you're referring to a solid, thin thing on to which the stars, sun and moon are attached. However, if by "dome" you just mean a body of spherical symmetry in which the sun moon and stars move, I see no problem in science or scripture with that.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Thank you, Bartholomew, for addressing the issue of this thread!

Have you considered the phraseology here:

Gen 1:6-7
6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
NASU

Note how the waters were once all one, then the expanse was inserted in there somewhere, and following that, the waters above were seperated from the waters below. The literal interpretation past the time of Christ was that a dome was inserted in there, making an empty space.

I'm not familiar with any literal interpretations other than the dome one that adequately account for the language about what happened to the water. Perhaps you can share your ideas with us? Thanks.

 

[aefting]

Do you believe that or do you believe they really have six legs? If you are true to your principles, you will reject the modern scientific principle that they have six legs. Do you so reject the modern, anti-scriptural view of how many legs flying insects have

C'mon, literal believers, step up to the plate and assert that science is wrong. Don't be shy, you've done that before. Your own principles are at stake here.

OK, I think this is worth addressing. I’ve never taken the time to research this before today, so forgive me if I’m not thorough enough or, if in my haste, I happen to make some minor errors.

First, it should be noted that the word translated “insects” in Leviticus 11:20 (‘All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you.’ ESV) does not always refer to what we know as insects. The Hebrew word is sherets (TWOT 2467a). The Biblical usage of the word shows that it can refer to swarming sea creatures (Gen. 1:20, Lev. 11:10), swarming creatures on dry land (Gen. 7:21), winged insects (Lev. 11:20-23), moles, mice, and reptiles (Lev. 11:29), things that go on its belly, things that go on all fours, and things that have many feet (Lev. 11:42). Consequently, not all “sherets” have 6 legs, even by modern scientific classification.

To determine which “sherets” were clean and which were unclean, one had to determine how it “goes” on the earth. For example, those that go on their bellies are unclean (Lev. 11:42). In addition to that restriction, if a “sheret” goes on all fours, it is also unclean (Lev. 11:42 again). Well, what does “goes on all fours” mean when some “sherets” have 4 legs (reptiles), some have 6 legs (insects), and some have lots of legs (Lev. 11:42)? I think that Lev. 11:20-23 helps us here because in verse 21 the Bible refers to “sherets” that have 2 special legs (in addition to their other four) that allow them to hop or go more upright on the ground. Locust (in 11:22) are an example of a winged “sheret” that doesn’t “go on all fours.” To quote Gordon Wenham, "Going on all fours is the opposite of waling uprightly: the number of legs is irrelevant."

How do we know that “goes on all fours” is an idiom? In this case, at least, the Biblical usage treats it as an idiom.


Andy

 

[BobRyan]

Gen 1:1-2:3
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

Paul
There was nothing, and then God created the formless and void earth; we are also introduced to the waters.

"In the beginning God created the Heavens AND the Earth" could easily apply to the entire Universe. Day "one" has not started. It is a summary statement.

Paul

Note the first reference is to the heavens and the earth, and then the next reference is to the waters only. Where is the earth? Not specified. The waters, however, are to be identified at this stage with the heavens. There isn't anything else.

Wrong the text does not "say Heavens - and there was not anything else". Your are "reading into the text" - but you can't make a teaching out of what "it does not say".

Paul -

There is nothing really to distinguish location; there is only the water. Water, of course, is shapeless and adapts itself to whatever shape it's container has. Before there is anything to give it shape, all is undefined.

2 Peter 3:5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, NAS

Paul
In Peter's interpretation of this day, it would appear that the very water itself is what became dry land in this process.

Peter flatly contradicts your Bible-lessening model by saying "NO prophecy of scripture is a matter of one person's interpretation. Holy men of old Moved by the Holy Spirit - Spoke from God".

Why toss out BOTH the OT AND the NT?

Instead of fighting against the truth of God's Word - believe it - trust it.

Peter tells us the same thing that Moses is telling us in Genesis 1 (the thing that God is telling us in BOTH places). It was formed OUT OF WATER.

Notice the Orion Nebula - the young stars forming within and the free floating planets are emmersed in a vast cloud of "Hydrogen and Oxygen".

At every step - science is forced to admit - it "has only small snippets" of data upon which to base its guesswork so far. The great majority of data is yet to be found.


3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Paul -

Here nothing is done to the earth or the water; instead, we simply have the creation of light. It is light alone, no source is created; the source is God Himself.

One may "presume from the void of what the text does not say" that the "source is God". Certainly the "creator of the source" is God as the text states. Beyond that - guesswork is prevailing.

What we do know from the text is that the source is "single sided" in terms of its relative position with respect to the earth. We also know that the Earth is rotating on its axis since we have "Evening and Morning" for "ONE day".

Paul
We also have the first day taking place; the Hebrews always counted the beginning of the darkness as the beginning of a day and this they trace back to this very beginning narration of the creation itself.

hmm. Factual and accurate! I am almost shocked!


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.

Paul
Here we have a seperation of the waters. The waters are seperated between that are below the firmament and those that are above the expanse. The expanse is a solid dome that creates a space where there isn't any water. It is our sky. The light comes again, just as before, divinely created by God for the occasion as before. The fact that it is solid is shown first from the derivation of the word and second by how it functions to hold back the water above it. It is pictured as capable of having "windows" in it in later references. The waters above the dome continue to be identified with the heavens that are the abode of God.

And then there is sticking to the text.

The waters are divided. There is water above the atmosphere - but like the first water - we are not informed of its form. Every thing else is "guesswork". Good to divide the guesswork from the word of God - usually.

Notice again - we have rotation of the earth - an Evening and Morning "sequence" - and an ordinal for the day - "Day TWO".



9 Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Paul
On the third day, we have form finally given to the earth. The location of the earth turns out to be under the dome of the sky.

I know of now serious Bible student that reads confusion into the first 2 days such that "we don't know the connection between the water, the sky and the earth".

In fact - it is safe to "observe" that Moses knew his audience would "understand" where the "sky is" in relation to earth.

Also facinating that Moses does not equate "earth" with dry land here (is if there is NO earth where there is NO dry land) - JUST as he does not do it in chapter 7.

Paul
God causes dry land to finally appear under the expanse, and sets boundaries for where the seas and land shall be. All the plants are caused to grow out of the ground. There is no real problem about light without the sun, because God is still simply causing the light to come on schedule by His direct action.

No real problem with plant having no sun - for ONE DAY. But if you posit "billions of years with no sun" - (or millions of years, or 1000's of years) etc. - a problem for most of our evolutionist friends.

Paul
At this time, now, we have the waters under the earth

No mention of "Waters under the earth".

But in Genesis 7 we have "Fountains of the great deep".


14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens 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 for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth ";and it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day

Paul

Now we have the lights put into the expanse of the sky. The two great lights, which are the sun and moon of course; and also the stars. These lights now take over the formation of night and day. Seasons are also announced, although of course we'll have to wait for a whole year to unfold to see the seasons come and go in their turns.

There is an obvious parallel between day one and day four. Day one saw the creation of light; day four sees the creation of the objects that now give us light.

It is unfortunate to see some who claim to be literal interpreters of the Bible spoil the beautiful symmetries here by insisting that some stars were created back on day one.

The number of lights is given "TWO" not "a zillion and two". The text tells us that the TWO lights created on Day 4 were "The Sun and the Moon". The added note "He created the stars also" is simply an added comment - and does not specify what number of lights or when those lights were created. It only states that God created THEM JUST as He created the TWO lights for us.

Your guesswork that the atmosphere "OR the water above the expanse" had to hold stars - is not founded in the text.

But as with the other days. We have another "SEQUENCE" of "EVENING and Morning" - one cycle - one rotation of the planet. "Day Four"


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

20 Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." 21 And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.


Notice we have the introduction of "kinds" as our Christian Taxonimist observes. The distinction of the kinds - and the limit or boundary "after its kind" is set.

Paul

And on day five, the pattern continues. Where day two saw the separation of the waters below from the waters above, day four sees the waters populated. The space created by the raising up of the expanse is also filled with flying creatures.

Birds and fish - as stated in the text.

On Day "5". Again pointing to exactly ONE - rotation of the planet with "Evening followed byh Morning" - ONE cycle. Day 5. Impossible for these animals to live for 400million years in darkness followed by 400million years in light.



24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Paul
The final day of creation sees the land - that same land that on day three was made solid

Day 3 says nothing about "making it solid". And the writer shows in Genesis 7 that he does not consider that "dry land is the only solid land".

Neither can we "assume" that Moses' readers would have thought such a thing.

You simply make it up.

The text reminds us again of the concept of "kinds" and the boundaries set within them. AS if to toss a bolt at the mythologies of evolutionism from the very start.


26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food ";and it was so. 31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.



Exactly 6 rotations. Six sequences of "Evening and Morning". God establishes man as ruler of the planet. And everything is "good".

Instead of bone-crushing exterminating blood thirsty savage "genocide" - we have a peaceful - beautiful environment with man placed in the center in harmony with nature and with God. Sinless - perfect - and having complete absolute dominion.

From the start -- Made in God's image - not the image of an ape.

Paul
Man is created, the last of the animals, the only one made in God's own image. God pronounces it all very good. Nothing eats meat yet. That doesn't happen until after the flood of Noah.

Carnage? Tooth and claw? Evolution by exterminiation?

Good point - this presents the OPPOSITE view entirely.


2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.


The Seventh sequence is made into a sanctuary in time. The "week" is created. God "Creates a holy day". IN Exodus 20 He says that "6 days the Lord MADE.. and Rested the 7th DAY" and then tells those at sinai that they TWO must follow the same patter in literal sinai-days.

Paul

On the seventh day God rests from His labors. The day is blessed because it gave God rest.

Wrong again. The text says it is blessed because God rested. The act is one of God blessing IT and making IT holy. It is not one of IT blessing God or IT doing something for God. The same is true in the Exodus 20 summary statement of God about this day. "Because IN IT God rested therefore HE blessed and HE made it a Holy Day".

Paul

Now this is the literal story of creation from Genesis.

Correct(ed).

And now for Paul's confession - He has inserted many things INTO the text that were not there (as noted above ) and all that he has inserted on his own "he has a hard time believing"

THen we also find that some of what was IN the text he ALSO chooses not to believe.

Paul
As for the literal statements concerning the nature of space, nobody believes that part is literally true today. We find ourselves unable to believe there is a solid dome over our heads that holds back the waters above. We find ourselves unable to believe that the bottom of the dome, which would have to be a disk shape,

So far - you are only outlining the "additions" that you made to the text. As if your own "speculation" added to the text "becomes a part of the text for everyone else".

Amazing!

And so your "own speculation" (what You said) is the basis for tossing out what God said???

Paul
The biblical writers believed all that to be literally true:

#1. The Bible writers can't be shown to literally believe any of what you yourself "added".

#2. To the extent that we CAN find exactly what the Bible writers believed (and we have to conclude the BELIEVED the text was literally true) we have solid objective "exegesis" as a starting data point.

It is often the case that those who wish to trash God's word in one place need to go to many other places to find "questions" to raise. The result is they show themselves to be in all out opposition to the text itself - NOT just to one single chapter.

I could hardly have asked for a better example of this.

Bob