I might as well say it again, no one here is arguing for the theory of evolution. I've already said twice that it's bologna.
I did miss this earlier, so I apologize. With that said, I struggle to understand what point you're trying to make and this only makes it harder. If I've missed it, please tell me again your position on how the universe came to be, it's age, and how that relates to current scientific theories.
In the Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 account? They differ on when birds were created.
They do? I've always thought the Genesis 1/2 thing is a phantom - something unbelievers pontificate about even though it has no substance. So you'll need to show me the alternate timeline laid out in Gen 2. I honestly don't see it. Consider the following 2 sentences:
John built a house in May and hired a painter in June. And the painter John hired was named Steve, and John brought Steve to the house he had made to paint it.
Maybe my grammar isn't perfect in this case, but is there a contradiction in those sentences?
Ancient history worked differently, they didn't necessarily keep one account and cut the other, they would let both stand.
I'm quite familiar with different styles for presenting history. I had to study them for my history degree. It is a common feature of the Bible to use a repetitive style. It shows up in the poetry of the Psalms (as I mentioned earlier), and it shows up in the history books: Genesis 1/2 as well as Kings vs. Chronicles.
But here is the point I have tried to repeat several times.
Style does not mean one account is true and the other is false; it does not mean a simple version of creation can be false simply because the hearer will understand better that way; it does not mean God would speak something false to Moses. The most basic, fundamental rule of logic is that if two statements contradict, they cannot both be true. This is not a matter of culture where Greeks adopted this rule of logic and Hebrews didn't. To think that is a misunderstanding of the "zen" idea contained in some eastern cultures. Further, as far as I know, the Hebrews never had an idea like that anyway.
If (and I emphasize the "if") something like evolution or multi-billion year universe were true, God could simply say: I called the fish up out of the water and after a long time they became birds.
Wouldn't that be true to this "if" scenario? Are you saying Moses wouldn't have understood that?
This is why I pointed out the examples of ancient historiography, even in the Bible (1 Samuel 16:18-20 David is introduced as a warrior, a man of valor, prudent in speech previously in 16:12 he was a man with beautiful eyes and handsome. David is introduced a third time in 17 as this lowly young shepherd, definitely not warrior or handsome).
Again, I don't get it. A "lowly" (i.e. lacking in social status) person can't be handsome or brave? And Samuel had no prophetic ability to declare what David would be? Your example doesn't work for me.
This reminds me of the controversy when the movie
Country came out and people criticized the choice of Jessica Lange as the lead because farm wives aren't supposed to be pretty. Seriously? I don't understand why everyone keeps selling the Israelites short.
You are correct that I can't prove Moses was familiar with an idea similar to evolution. But neither can you prove he didn't know it.
So, "if" (highlighting that again) a evolutionary or geological theory is actually true, God would have found a way to say it that Moses could understand and that wouldn't be contradictory.
If you disagree with the bolded statements, please explain why. If you agree, and yet think current biology or geology is correct, please explain to me why Genesis is not contradicting this. And, FYI, I am rejecting the idea that it is merely a stylistic difference or a matter of simplification.