Yeah, because that’s what the audience knew as plant life.
Greenhouse gasses like CO2 trap heat, causing a constant vapor haze to obscure visibility.
Good to know.
This was almost a best hits of concords I’ve read but what you gotta do is mix and match words together so it sounds good. That bit in particular was inspired by Andrew Parker who wrote a book called the Genesis enigma-
I am not sure what you mean by this, but it doesn’t address the point I made. You claimed that Hebrew words for a solid firmament were not used. They were used.
1 Like
If they were referring to the sky, this is the word they used. It’s not like there was another word for sky, but not the solid dome version.
If you say “moon”, and some think the moon is made of cheese, is that what you meant?
Then the Bible should have said plant life emerged after sea creatures, since what you say they knew of as plant life did, and not the other way around.
You are confused.
1 Like
Please do yourself a favor by reading the paper to which I linked. There was a word they could have used for sky, which was not the “solid” version. In fact it’s the word used most commonly for the sky. The solid version is rare, and appears only in exilic or post-exilic books. That’s precisely why it’s significant that it’s used in Genesis 1, because there was no lexical necessity to use it.
2 Likes
Plant life came first. What’s plant life? That tree is a plant. Oh, okay.
What does “raqia” mean, then?
An early molecular clock study that hasn’t held up subsequently. Besides, Genesis specifically refers to angiosperms and only angiosperms.
Missed this from Jeremy first time around:
No, that’s not true either. Land first formed as a number of small cratons that later aggregated at various times into larger pieces (and sometimes split into smaller ones).
…because the audience had never seen or heard of ferns, moss, kelp, or pond scum? That seems unlikely.
3 Likes
Again, it doesn’t say that plant life came first, it says that trees came first.
But it’s clear now that you’ll seize any excuse to rescue your claimed correspondence between the biblical order and the order of appearance, even excuses that render any correspondence illusory. There’s no point trying to reason with you, because you aren’t amenable to reason; you’re only good for entertainment.
1 Like
That’s an example of plant life. That type of life came first.
Firmament, which is what they called the sky.
Right, supercontinent didn’t just form all at once. It built up over time. You’re right there.
Got it.
Trees are an example of plant life, which appeared first.
The great creatures of the sea are an example of something else, which appeared second.
Birds are an example of something else again, which appeared third (or equal second).
Livestock, creeping things and wild animals are examples of something else, which appeared fourth.
So, what are birds an example of, that appeared before what creeping things an example of?
2 Likes
Life that came from the sea.
Once more you are confused. There have been several supercontinents in earth history. Big continents form and break up all the time. Africa is currently both breaking up (the Great Rift) and starting to form a supercontinent with Eurasia, for example.
Your claims are becoming increasingly incoherent as you try to defend them in mutually contradictory ways. Let me remind you that you first said “When land first formed it formed as a single super-continent”, to which I replied that it didn’t, and in fact formed as many separate cratons, to which you replied as if that was the same thing as what you said before. Senseless.
3 Likes
And what are wild animals, livestock and creeping things examples of? Are they not also life that came from the sea, in the same way that birds are?
Added: Also, I note that you’re saying that plant life preceded life that came from the sea, and therefore is not life that came from the sea.
1 Like
So the Genesis passage does not describe scientific models, but instead uses terminology that reflects the ancient Hebrew understanding of the world.
Having acknowledged this fact, do you see how it challenges your argument?
2 Likes
It doesn’t.
Mammals
Oh dear, you forgot to answer the other question. Here it is again:
Well?