Open invitation - Is there ANY truth whatsoever in Genesis?

Naraoia · #31 5th October 2007, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Earlier Water on Earth? Oldest Rock Suggests Hospitable Young Planet

Thanks, I'll check that out. This might be the same thing I've skimmed through on some news site, though... are there diamonds in this article by any chance?

By the way, to the "spirit of God [hovering] over the face of the waters" thing, liquid plasma is still not water... if God had really told those guys how the universe began, they should've known God's spirit was hovering over something else. (BTW, according to physicists, didn't that plasma fill the early universe rather than accumulate in some sort of bottom like a lake? Nothing much to hover over...)

And. As I've said, supported by a quote from the Bible, Genesis suggests the earth was created with the rest of the universe. Which is very far from current physicists' view.

Even if early earth was really cool and the early universe was really dark and it really contained a liquid, things are still seriously amiss in your reasoning here.

It doesn't mean something is less true just because others believe it true.

No it doesn't indeed, but if others believe it in a different way, and the only common point with Christianity is the existence of a beginning, then on that basis any one of them could be just as true as Christian cosmology. I think I should leave this particular point, though, unless there comes someone who knows details of other cosmologies with a finite universe and can give us a Christian-other finite-scientific cosmology comparison. Would be interesting to see that.

[aside]

So? There is no evidence to support this concept that I am aware of.

I haven't said there was

But mathematically these things are just as plausible as the concept of a single universe. I tend to have faith in mathematics, seeing how some of its weirdest concepts
suddenly beckoned to us from the physical world (like complex numbers in quantum mechanics)

Of course I'm not saying mathematically possible = physically plausible, but whether Hindus were right is not actually the main point here. Since I know there's no observational evidence for a cyclic universe, the main point was in fact the "just out of curiosity" question, which concerns your treatment of evidence. You've told us that regardless of whether Hindus are proven right or not you'll keep on believing the same thing, which puts a bit of doubt on why you'd believe the evidence for your own views. I mean, if you wouldn't reject Christian cosmology based on contradicting evidence, why would you pay any attention to evidence supporting it? If someone accepts scientific observation as a valid form of evidence, they ought to be able to accept it regardless of whether it agrees with their personal beliefs. If they are unable to do it, then it's faith and not evidence that supports their beliefs.

Again, that doesn't mean there aren't scientific discoveries that agree with some points in Genesis. So...

[...End of aside]

No. I have studied other religions. It was God Himself who revealed who He was..The Christian God. I don't expect you to believe me, but that is why I would not "convert" to Hinduism or any other religion.

Aham. I'm glad you don't expect me to believe you, otherwise I might ask for the evidence

The OP asked for one truth in the Genesis account, I have given several.

Most of which either isn't really true or doesn't give all that much evidence that it's more than coincidence. Strictly speaking, though, you've done your job. I'll grant that.

Vague does not mean untrue.

Which wasn't my complaint. It's actually easier to make a vague statement true, because if you don't really say anything, there's less of a chance that you say something untrue

My problem with vagueness was that it's pretty difficult to match a statement that general to a specific real-world phenomenon.

Besides, the non-vague chronology given in Genesis outright contradicts the fossil record. Oops.

"It may have been that life evolved and was completely extinguished several times" in catastrophic, meteorite-triggered extinction events well before that, Valley says.

Aham, and where does the Bible mention multiple creations of life, or catastrophic, meteorite triggered extinction events? There's only one creation, and catastrophic event in the Bible I know of, and that catastrophic event supposedly lead to no extinction because Noah packed all animals safely into his ark...

Which is one possibility.

Another is that they are far earlier than thought which happens over and over again.

Specifically it had happened to the formation of the earth... A certain Archbishop Ussher seems to have put that in 4004 BC. This is one great case of things happening far earlier than everyone had thought

Ok, there are definitely true statements in Genesis, which answers the original questions. But those seem to me vague enough not to be strong evidence for the truth of Genesis as a description of reality, and when there are more concrete statements they tend to be not true...

NailsII · #32 5th October 2007, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

When taking any statement in itself, it could be a coincidence perhaps; but then that is like saying that I have provided what you have asked for yet you will only accept it as a coincidence. Is that not true of any truth presented then?

Coincidence is putting it mildly; the bible had a 50:50 chance of being right on the earth being created.
The point i am trying to make is that, as the word of god, the bible should fill gaps in our knowledge and not gloss over everything.
Had god signed the earth, or even the far side of the moon etc( that way it would be a long time in the future before this fact could be verified), and had this fact written in scripture, I would be impressed enough to stop working on a sunday and take my pew.
Don't think I'd kill non-believers or take a slave, but i would become a faithful follower of god non the less.

LeeC · #33 6th October 2007, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

1. That the universe had a beginning.
Up until around 1920 most people thought that the universe had always been. Scientific findings presented the support to the universe having a beginning. The writings of Genesis didn't have the evidence to point to this understanding.
2. The earth had a beginning. Which goes along with the universe as well.
3. and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

Science has shown that the early universe was dark (see below)
Up until recently, there was a conflict with Science due to the fact that it was considered impossible for a liquid form to be present during the formation of the universe. This also comes in below.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

2 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ht_010808.html

Astronomers announced Tuesday they have seen through the fog of the early universe to spy some of the first light emitted during a "cosmic renaissance" that occurred when the first galaxies were born.
The announcement came just days after a different research group said they had spotted the first evidence of the cosmic dark ages, the period long thought to have preceded this newly spotted cosmic brightening.
Together, the studies provide glimpses into the earliest mechanisms of the universe, after the Big Bang. Astronomers familiar with the studies called them important for helping create a timeline of the universe's evolution.
Evidence for the two epochs have long been sought by astronomers and cosmologists, who believe the universe began in a Big Bang some 12 to 15 billion years ago, after which the universe expanded rapidly but remained dark for millions and millions of years. Lumps and bumps were thought to form in an otherwise smooth distribution of matter during these dark ages, and the first galaxies were born after gravity caused these clumps of matter to grow larger.
The galaxies marked the end of the dark ages and the beginning of the cosmic renaissance.

6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7546975/

Liquid, not a gas
The quark-gluon plasma was made in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider — a powerful atom smasher at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y. Unexpectedly, the quark-gluon plasma behaved like a perfect liquid of quarks, instead of a gas, the physicists said.

9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.
This again was thought conflicting with Scientific findings, it was thought that the early earth was too hot for a liquid state but that has been shown not to be the case. Early earth did have water on its surface.

4. That there were stages of life forms beginning in the sea.
Fossil evidence supports this as well. The people of ancient times did not have any evidence to suggest that life forms came about in stages.

See above.

----

Yep.

Oh Goodie... Astrophysics!!!

Time to get a beer - I maybe sometime.

A few quick questions first.

If the bible and the Genesis story is so great and accurate as you claim - Why no mention of ANY other planet in the solar system, or did I just miss that?

Why did God take 6 days to create the Earth - yet creates the WHOLE rest of the universe in 24 hours on day 4(?) and summarised the importance of the creation of the universe by going into GREAT detail with merely the words "He also made the stars" Gen 1:16

Why do we need TWO creation stories? Gen 1 and Gen 2? The first one no good enough?

OK – now I will read your post in detail.

Cheers

Lee

LeeC · #34 6th October 2007, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

1. That the universe had a beginning.

Doesn’t every religion have a start to the universe? So no big deal – they copied the idea.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Up until around 1920 most people thought that the universe had always been. Scientific findings presented the support to the universe having a beginning.

I am interested in history – could you please give me some references on who these “most people” actually were (obviously not follows of Genesis and the Christian faith?)

As an aside – some people today still think that this might be the case – that the universe had no beginning – it is outside the scope of science, but we might have many Big Bangs – I will not go into the detail, it is not important here.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

The writings of Genesis didn't have the evidence to point to this understanding.

The writers of the bible didn’t need evidence for any of their writings or understanding of the world so why would Genesis be any different?

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

2. The earth had a beginning. Which goes along with the universe as well.

And?

As I said, it is hard to find a religion that does NOT think this.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

3. and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

Science has shown that the early universe was dark (see below)

Great, so you agree to the Big Bang theory? Well done you.

However this statement shows the bible writers knew NOTHING about the Big Bang theory, or how the universe was formed.

One reason is I guess really depends on how you define “darkness” – the first few hundred thousand years the Universe was opaque to light because neutral atoms had not formed. (It was too hot until around 300-400 thousand years after the big bang and the free electrons caused scattering)

Now would you called a hot plasma ball “dark”? It does not make sense.

I certainly do not see any “deep” in the science theory, or the “spirit of God over the face of the waters”.

Now I do not only have a problem with the God part of this statement (no evidence BTW) – I certainly KNOW there was not water.

So in summary, this statement is a load of dingo’s kidneys.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Up until recently, there was a conflict with Science due to the fact that it was considered impossible for a liquid form to be present during the formation of the universe.

This sounds interesting… where will it take us?

What liquid might this be? Water? NO WAY!!!

It took nearly 400,000 years for the universe to cool to form neutral atoms… nothing else. Certainly NO liquid water (for a start, NO Oxygen – this requires stars - so no H2O my friend)

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

This also comes in below.

I cannot wait… but why not tell me now?

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

How man EVER thought of such a thing I do not know… the bible writers must have been up ALL night thinking of that one. Through the night and into the morning! (hint, hint)

Of course, the bible writers forgot about the sun (until day 4). They did not know that the sun was rather important on the light front.

Also, remember the universe (that is everything else other than the Earth) was not created until day 4 either… the bible writers must have had the wrong telephone number when they thought they were talking to God.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

2 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5

I’ve read this before… it is in the bible, what are you trying to prove to me?

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Astronomers announced Tuesday… <edit>
The galaxies marked the end of the dark ages and the beginning of the cosmic renaissance.

Ah… so this is your dark ages? It doesn’t really help with the Genesis 1 story though.

God did NOT create any of these objects until day 4 remember!!! You are only on day 1 – I think.

Genesis does NOT match science or reality.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}

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.
(New International Version)

Wow… so what have I proved? I too can cut and paste quotes from the bible… Good stuff. They say I wasted my time doing a degree?

The bible story still does not match what science believes happened, so what is your point again?

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Liquid, not a gas
The quark-gluon plasma was made in … the quark-gluon plasma behaved like a perfect liquid of quarks, instead of a gas, the physicists said.

And? They didn’t say it tasted and looked like water now did that!!! Did anyone say “I know – we could bottle that and sell it!!!”

This is nothing new – gases at high pressure (and therefore temperature) can behave more like liquids… big deal on your proof of the genesis myth.

What this plasma is NOT are molecules of H2O. Can you see the difference?

Maybe not, you might what to claim that “water” was the best way the bible writers could describe a plasma at extreme temperature and pressures.

“Water” does not come close.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.
This again was thought conflicting with Scientific findings, it was thought that the early earth was too hot for a liquid state but that has been shown not to be the case. Early earth did have water on its surface.

Define “Early”.

Science does NOT believe (as best I can remember) that water was present on the Earth at the time of formation. We are too close to the sun (which the bible writers still think has NOT formed yet.)

If I did not know better, I would say you are cherry picking your information.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

4. That there were stages of life forms beginning in the sea.
Fossil evidence supports this as well. The people of ancient times did not have any evidence to suggest that life forms came about in stages.

Erm… sorry – I missed this bit in the bible. Where did it say this?

In conclusion:
Genesis 1 is a joke… I could highlight more errors and issues if you like – but I have only attacked what you have written.

My beer has gone… time for another.

Cheers

Lee

LeeC · #35 6th October 2007, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Science has shown that the early universe was dark (see below)

Define "dark" please.

The cosmic background radiation is light and has been present since around 380,000 years after the big bang.

Also, since you are claiming Genesis 1 to be true - explain how the big bang theory states the many stars have come and gone before the sun then the Earth formed.

Your myth has the Earth first (complete) then the sun and moon - THEN the rest of the universe. This seems a little wrong to me. Also, Gen 1 claims that the moon is a source of light – NO, it is a reflector of light – Oops, silly bible writers.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Up until recently, there was a conflict with Science due to the fact that it was considered impossible for a liquid form to be present during the formation of the universe.

Please define liquid - you are claiming a hot plasma under high pressure is a liquid. Now in physics it may behave like a liquid, but it certainly does not taste and look like water.

So tell me why the bible clearly states and describes liquid WATER!!!

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Geological evidence suggests that Earth may have had surface water --and thus conditions to support life -- millions of years earlier than previously thought.

And?

How would this help you and your myth?

The "water issue" during the formation of the Earth is an interesting one. I remember one theory that stated water was not possible during the formation of the Earth (I need to look this up, because the memory might be wrong - but I doubt it)

It is a "hot topic" other theories have water on the Earth - however the Genesis myth is so wrong on many other counts - big deal if a lucky guess turns out true (it would be the obvious guess to the ancient bible writers anyway)

One lucky guess does NOT make a good theory, especial when more is wrong than right with it.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

The OP asked for one truth in the Genesis account, I have given several.

And what were these then?

Cherry picking at best. Ignoring the mistakes, errors and emissions in Genesis 1

So no, you haven't given "several "- you have ignored your own genesis myth.

Shall I list them again? (No I will wait for a reply first.)

Lee

LeeC · #36 6th October 2007, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by NailsII

Interesting premise; I kind of like the idea of a one-man 'crusade' but I don't believe I have the time or intelligence for such a battle - so please feel free to join in.

I have now...

You should have told me it had turned into an Astrophysics debate - I would have been here sooner.

Lee

NailsII · #37 6th October 2007, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

4. That there were stages of life forms beginning in the sea.
Fossil evidence supports this as well. The people of ancient times did not have any evidence to suggest that life forms came about in stages.

Hence, the myth of creation before evidence for evolution was uncovered. This point seems at odds with your claim on bible accuracy.
But thanks for the effort, I do appreciate it.

Originally Posted by LeeC

Hi Nails,

I agree with you - but is this just you against the world type debate or can anyone join in?
Lee

Originally Posted by NailsII

Interesting premise; I kind of like the idea of a one-man 'crusade' but I don't believe I have the time or intelligence for such a battle - so please feel free to join in.

Originally Posted by LeeC

I have now...

You should have told me it had turned into an Astrophysics debate - I would have been here sooner.

Lee

But you are here now, and that is all that matters.
I thought I was geting out of my depth, but luckily I did not need to call for reinforcements, the cavalry arrrived anyway!!

LeeC · #38 6th October 2007, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by NailsII

But you are here now, and that is all that matters.
I thought I was geting out of my depth, but luckily I did not need to call for reinforcements, the cavalry arrrived anyway!!

Blow the trumpet charge!!! Now watch them scatter!!!

I've heard this "Genesis is confirmed by science" rubbish before; it is funny.

Either take the Genesis story as 100% truth (Now that is real faith

) or take it as a total myth written by people who did not know the Earth orbited the sun and that other planets existed (let along other galaxies)

.

Although I've not heard the liquid water claim before comparing a hot dense plasma to that of liquid water is, well, interesting.

Pushing the “faith” in the myth is a new level.

It got me thinking though about the formation of the Earth - I'm sure I had a lecture saying that it would be impossible for the inner planets to have been formed with water (other than possibly trace amounts) and that the water had to come from asteroid or comets collisions later during the “great bombardment”.

It may seem surprising, but I didn't do much about the formation of the planets at Uni (one general course I think) – but lets face it, at the time – the number of planets confirmed around other stars was ZERO! So planet formation was not a hot topic then.

No water makes sense though (if you are sad like me) since the MOST abundant gas by FAR is Hydrogen then Helium – yet Earth has only trace amounts of Helium. Look at Jupiter – this is what you get when it is cold enough for hydrogen and Helium – a massive gas giant)

Anyway, certainly the current best theory for the formation of the moon means we did not have any surface water on Earth until later in the formation. (A mars size planet smashing into you pushing enough rock into space to form the moon is NOT the best place for find liquid water – it is a little warm!)

OK, now lets see what the reply is – I look forward to it.

Lee
PS
Remember you can help me out with any biology and evolution questions on this or other threads. I only know what I read in the Blind Watchmaker about 10 years ago – basic stuff at best. But hey – I am only a talking monkey?

Oncedeceived · #39 7th October 2007, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by LeeC

Oh Goodie... Astrophysics!!!

Time to get a beer - I maybe sometime.

Going to share?

A few quick questions first.

If the bible and the Genesis story is so great and accurate as you claim - Why no mention of ANY other planet in the solar system, or did I just miss that?

Genesis is the narrative of creation that is in relation to mankind. Heavens would probably include the entire solar system/galaxies.

Why did God take 6 days to create the Earth - yet creates the WHOLE rest of the universe in 24 hours on day 4(?) and summarised the importance of the creation of the universe by going into GREAT detail with merely the words "He also made the stars" Gen 1:16

Genesis Chapter 1

א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ. 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ב וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. 2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. ג וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי-אוֹר. 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. ד וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאוֹר, כִּי-טוֹב; וַיַּבְדֵּל אֱלֹהִים, בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. ה וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם, וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם אֶחָד. {פ} 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. {P} ו וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי רָקִיעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּיִם, וִיהִי מַבְדִּיל, בֵּין מַיִם לָמָיִם. 6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' ז וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָרָקִיעַ, וַיַּבְדֵּל בֵּין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת לָרָקִיעַ, וּבֵין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מֵעַל לָרָקִיעַ; וַיְהִי-כֵן. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. ח וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָרָקִיעַ, שָׁמָיִם; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם שֵׁנִי. {פ} 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}This is the creation of the Heavens.

Why do we need TWO creation stories? Gen 1 and Gen 2? The first one no good enough?

One is of the physical creation and the other is of the Spiritual.

OK – now I will read your post in detail.

Ok

Cheers

Here's to you.

LeeC · #40 8th October 2007, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Going to share?

Oh course - I'll get another one from the fridge

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Genesis is the narrative of creation that is in relation to mankind. Heavens would probably include the entire solar system/galaxies.

Now come on... it talks about the creation of the sun, moon and stars, so why not the planets?

I've never understood this "heaven part" - does it mean heaven and the pearly gates, or the stars?

It must be the pearly gates, otherwise why mention the creation of the stars on day 4!

So please pick a different cherry - this one of yours is rotten.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Genesis Chapter 1

א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ. 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ב וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. 2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. ג וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי-אוֹר. 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. ד וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאוֹר, כִּי-טוֹב; וַיַּבְדֵּל אֱלֹהִים, בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. ה וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם, וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם אֶחָד. {פ} 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. {P} ו וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי רָקִיעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּיִם, וִיהִי מַבְדִּיל, בֵּין מַיִם לָמָיִם. 6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' ז וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָרָקִיעַ, וַיַּבְדֵּל בֵּין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת לָרָקִיעַ, וּבֵין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מֵעַל לָרָקִיעַ; וַיְהִי-כֵן. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. ח וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָרָקִיעַ, שָׁמָיִם; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם שֵׁנִי. {פ} 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}This is the creation of the Heavens.

What are all those funny symbols - I can only read English?

You have proved NOTHING since you stopped BEFORE verse 16 - the verse I am questioning?

In case you missed it... here it is again. Not sure which translation you want, so I have given a few to choose.

New American Standard Bible

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.
GOD'S WORD

God made the two bright lights: the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night. He also made the stars.

King James Bible

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

American Standard Version

And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Bible in Basic English

And God made the two great lights: the greater light to be the ruler of the day, and the smaller light to be the ruler of the night: and he made the stars.

Douay-Rheims Bible

And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.

Darby Bible Translation

And God made the two great lights, the great light to rule the day, and the small light to rule the night, and the stars.

English Revised Version

And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Jewish Publication Society Tanakh

And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.

Webster's Bible Translation

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

World English Bible

God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars.

Young's Literal Translation

And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night;

So, the bible is pretty clear, on day 4 - God also made the stars (NOT heaven). In 24 hours, on day 4, God creates the WHOLE universe. (And does not mention any planets)

So try again please.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

One is of the physical creation and the other is of the Spiritual.

And what does that mean? A "Spiritual" creation story?

Which is which BTW?

Is Gen 1 physical or spiritual?

Neither match science - which is your claim.

Also, it is STILL a second creation story however you want to call it.

And how does this fit with "Genesis is the narrative of creation that is in relation to mankind"?

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Here's to you.

Cheers

Lee