The Gap Theory

[justified]

Two hands is not plural, but dual? In other words its a plurality of two, not many. So? It still does not make "heavens" singular as you claim.

Actually, if you recall, I claimed:

We both know that the ancient cosmology was of multiple heavens: by the time of the New Testament, you have seven heavens (read II Enoch, esp.)

What I expect is for you to defend your point giving credance to the LXX, and to the reality: where are the heavens? Where are the waters? What are these things? So far, you keep picking on Hebrew grammar points that you don't understand because you are confusing grammatical form (dual) with semantics (plural). Technically, a dual-word is plural in our minds, because two is plural; however, I have been trying to correct your mis-representation of the Hebrew form. The form is NOT plural, it is a dual. And that very often matters.

Yet, you say "Hashamayim," only speaks of one heaven over the surface of the earth. And, you just explained how the Hebrew means "dual?"

Actually, this is a question posed to you. I have a way to understand the bible that makes perfect sense to me (see the "Deception of Genesis" Thread). But I have consistently revealed holes in yours. Let me lay down my cosmology really quickly:

Genesis: a firmament (called the heavens) which is established between the formless waters of chaos out of which God made everything. There are waters above, which account for rain and snow and such; there are waters below: the sea. This dual-heavens was eventually considered to have multiple levels, even seven by the time of the NT. I have a pretty good idea why the LXX translates "heaven" instead of "heavens" but that's just me. So far, you've given me nothing except incorrect Hebrew explanations and translations.

 

[shernren]

'Sokay, nephilimyr.

 

[GenemZ]

[/font]
Actually, this is a question posed to you. I have a way to understand the bible that makes perfect sense to me (see the "Deception of Genesis" Thread). But I have consistently revealed holes in yours. Let me lay down my cosmology really quickly:

Genesis: a firmament (called the heavens) which is established between the formless waters of chaos out of which God made everything. There are waters above, which account for rain and snow and such; there are waters below: the sea. This dual-heavens was eventually considered to have multiple levels, even seven by the time of the NT. I have a pretty good idea why the LXX translates "heaven" instead of "heavens" but that's just me. So far, you've given me nothing except incorrect Hebrew explanations and translations.

The LXX was not always correct, as you well know. It is great help to those who exegete Scripture. But, not always correct.

The two heavens (duality) speaks of the earthly heaven, and the heaven that is the type above the heaven of the earth. One is an earthly heaven... the other is the heaven not of this earth. The departments of the second heaven are broken up in multiples. That is where you find the third heaven, etc. But, there are only two types. Earthly heaven. Heavenly heaven. = Heavens.

Nehemiah 9:6 (Young's Literal Translation)
"Thou [art] He, O Jehovah, Thyself -- Thou hast made the heavens, the heavens of the heavens, and all their host, the earth and all that [are] on it, the seas and all that [are] in them, and Thou art keeping all of them alive, and the host of the heavens to Thee are bowing themselves. "

Now, what ever the LXX authors were thinking, you can not say. Unless they footnoted and gave reason (maybe they were right, maybe they were wrong) you can not say with certainty that they were correct. For I know of other skilled exegetical teachers who would disagree with you completely. You are not the final say here.

The waters can easily refer to lakes, rivers, streams, oceans, seas, etc. All different types of body of water. Salt water, and fresh water, etc = waters. It can also refer to ground water vs atmospheric water.

Genesis 1:14 (Young's Literal Translation)
"And God saith, `Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years."

Now? Are you saying that the light bearing sun, stars, etc, that are in the heavens of this earth? Speak of the earthly atmosphere? That you claim it to be, in Genesis 1:1?

Psalm 8:3 (Young's Literal Translation)
"For I see Thy heavens, a work of Thy fingers, Moon and stars that Thou didst establish."

As you can see... when God said he created the heavens and earth in the beginning. He speaks of the universe, as well. The moon and stars are not in our atmosphere which you say are limited to being what he created in Genesis 1:1.

I have exegetes that say you're dead wrong. You have exegetes that say my exegetes are wrong. Both speak Hebrew. So?

We each must choose who we are to believe. If there were no room to reject either side? It would destroy God's plan of each one of us making our own choices that will stand or fall before him.

God never slapped Adam's hand as he took the fruit and ate.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[justified]

The two heavens (duality) speaks of the earthly heaven, and the heaven that is the type above the heaven of the earth. One is an earthly heaven... the other is the heaven not of this earth. The departments of the second heaven are broken up in multiples. That is where you find the third heaven, etc. But, there are only two types. Earthly heaven. Heavenly heaven. = Heavens.

If you're basing this on the Neh. quote you gave, you're off your rocker. What evidence do you have to say that one was earthly, one heavenly; that the second was broken up? Nehemiah certainly doesn't read anything like that. BTW, the YLT is an extremely annoying translation most of the time. It's not that literal, and when it is lteral, it's literal on things that realy don't need to BE literal. For example, Hebrew does a thing like saying "holy of holies" and it's quite obvious from contexts and parallels that it means "most holy" or "holiest." So here, "heaven of heavens" means "highest heaven."

Now, what ever the LXX authors were thinking, you can not say. Unless they footnoted and gave reason (maybe they were right, maybe they were wrong) you can not say with certainty that they were correct. For I know of other skilled exegetical teachers who would disagree with you completely. You are not the final say here.

We have a pretty good idea what is up with the LXX; they did leave some notes. More than that, you read enough of the literature from that period, and you start figure it out.

Actually, I know that the LXX was a poor translation. I have not once said that I thought it was a good translation. But what I do demand is that you account for it.

Now? Are you saying that the light bearing sun, stars, etc, that are in the heavens of this earth? Speak of the earthly atmosphere? That you claim it to be, in Genesis 1:1?

Actually, the bible doesn't say "heavens of this earth." That's you. The bible says "in the dual-heavens." And the bible also says that there are waters "above the dual-heavens." You must account for this exegetically -- just saying that there's an "earthly heaven" means nothing if you cannot prove it.

As you can see... when God said he created the heavens and earth in the beginning. He speaks of the universe, as well. The moon and stars are not in our atmosphere which you say are limited to being what he created in Genesis 1:1.

God says he put them in the heavens. Above them are the waters. ACCOUNT FOR IT. You cannot go around ignoring the Word because it doesn't fit with your physics. You must have an integrated approach if you wish to argue this. One heaven? Multiple heavens? earthly Heaven/heavenly heaven? Explain it philologically, semantically, contextually: just explain it! But you refuse.

I have exegetes that say you're dead wrong. You have exegetes that say my exegetes are wrong. Both speak Hebrew. So?

I don't have exegetes, though I do draw on the knowledge of the giants upon whose shoulders I stand. The difference here is that I am the exegete, and you are telling me what others wrote. You need to critically evaluate your sources.

 

[GenemZ]

[/font]
If you're basing this on the Neh. quote you gave, you're off your rocker. What evidence do you have to say that one was earthly, one heavenly; that the second was broken up? Nehemiah certainly doesn't read anything like that. BTW, the YLT is an extremely annoying translation most of the time. It's not that literal, and when it is lteral, it's literal on things that realy don't need to BE literal. For example, Hebrew does a thing like saying "holy of holies" and it's quite obvious from contexts and parallels that it means "most holy" or "holiest." So here, "heaven of heavens" means "highest heaven."

Does not matter. It reveals more than one heaven type. Heavens. That is all I wished to accomplish. Since you ragged on the NIV so much.

We have a pretty good idea what is up with the LXX; they did leave some notes. More than that, you read enough of the literature from that period, and you start figure it out.

Of what they thought in that day... while living in Egypt, no less.

Actually, I know that the LXX was a poor translation. I have not once said that I thought it was a good translation. But what I do demand is that you account for it.

I have no idea who you are. If you want to make such demands, you better supply and extensive and exhaustive record of who you are, and what your qualifications are. At least make it so that your interpretation is the only possible conclusion by reason of showing how my interperation is impossible. You fail to do so.


In the mean time, mind putting your official seal to the left, please?

Actually, the bible doesn't say "heavens of this earth." That's you.

Darn straight, its me. That's how I see it according to what I read.

The bible says "in the dual-heavens." And the bible also says that there are waters "above the dual-heavens." You must account for this exegetically -- just saying that there's an "earthly heaven" means nothing if you cannot prove it.

That is one form of dual heavens. It also speaks of the stars being in the heavens. Last time I checked, they were not water powered.

God says he put them in the heavens. Above them are the waters. ACCOUNT FOR IT. You cannot go around ignoring the Word because it doesn't fit with your physics. You must have an integrated approach if you wish to argue this. One heaven? Multiple heavens? earthly Heaven/heavenly heaven? Explain it philologically, semantically, contextually: just explain it! But you refuse.

No I do not, sir. You appear to be blinded by your own way of wanting to see things. Just like I appear to you, perhaps? And, demand that I enter into your frame of reference.... or I make no sense. Fine. To you, I make no sense. But, I know that I do. To those who get it what I am saying.

I don't have exegetes, though I do draw on the knowledge of the giants upon whose shoulders I stand. The difference here is that I am the exegete, and you are telling me what others wrote.

What others wrote who are exegetes?

What good are your skills, then?

If what others might quote from you is not acceptable unless they be a qualified exegete, too? The ones I learn from are qualified exegetes. You? I have no idea who you are.

Here is my pastor's background.

http://www.rbthieme.org/r_b_.htm

And, there are many more references I have studied from, as well.

You need to critically evaluate your sources.

And you don't? I have two great sources. One was a Professor of Ancient Languages of Harvard, Professor Stan Ashby. He recommended to me the one who became my pastor, R.B. Thieme who had many years of an excellent education and exegeted Hebrew, Greek (several dialects)and Aramaic.

But you? You are a Johnny come lately to me with a counter theory on the creation. One that satisfies your desire for how you think it should be. OK. Fine. But I am accountable to the Lord for what I believe. Not you. The Holy Spirit is to lead me into all truth , and if I am being led of the Spirit? As for you? You do not witness to me as having truth in this specific area. But, rather, are running with a concept that someone saw as a possibility... Yet, make it appear as being cut in stone. Enjoy...

Have a nice Day, GeneZ

 

[justified]

You need to become more precise. Since it appears that the dialogue is breaking down, I encourage you to take that much away.

I have no idea who you are. If you want to make such demands, you better supply and extensive and exhaustive record of who you are, and what your qualifications are.

Because I want you to account for counter-evidence? I'm not going to throw around my awards and education level and professors to prove to you that you should listen to me. That's no right. Someone should be listened to based upon their argument. That's why name-dropping Stan Ashby doesn't realy make a difference here if you can't put together a cogent defence of his arguments.

Darn straight, its me. That's how I see it according to what I read.

But that's not enough. Reading it how you read it -- of what worth is that? Argue it! Test it against the rest of scripture. It's okay to admit you don't know something -- as I so often have to do in Egyptology, for example -- but it is terribly bad form to make an "argument" and ignore the rest of the evidence by hiding in a hole of arrogance saying "it's my interpretation" like a fundamentalist might. There is only one answer to this question, and if that answer does not take into account all of the evidence, it is wrong.

I'm going to put down here a very very short reading list. Please check a couple of the works, and you may start to see what I mean:

+Clifford, Richard J. Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible Catholic Biblical Quarterly monograph series
+Oden, Robert A, Jr. "Cosmogony, Cosmology" in Anchor Bible Dictionary vol I:1162-71 (London: Doubleday, 1992)
+Pritchard, James Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament
+Sarna, Nahum M. Understanding Genesis (NY: Schocken Books, 1970)
+Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis JPS Commentary (NY: JPS)
+Wenhan, Gordon. Genesis 1-15 Word Biblical Commentary

 

[GenemZ]

You need to become more precise. Since it appears that the dialogue is breaking down, I encourage you to take that much away.


Because I want you to account for counter-evidence?

Its you that are presenting counter evidence, sir. Not me. It has been long established to many scholars that in the Beginning God created the heavens and earth to mean the entire universe. It is you who are using semantics in order to try to nullify that belief.


This type of confrontation is nothing new. When it somes down to it being a matter of semantics, and you have no clear evidence that your alternative view has to be correct? At that point, I will look to who I trust and have shown themselves already to be reliable and trust worthy. That is what this kind of argument comes down to.


You want to stick with your angle of semantics? With an area of idiom that holds true in some cases? Fine. I will stick with what I have been taught by experts and the Scriptures so far witness to me. I am keeping an open mind. But, it is you who have shown nothing but a few factors concerning how certain words were sometimes used, but not always.

Your choice semantics prove nothing to me, other than there are possible alternative takes on the wording we find. Its you who need to supply more than you have. I have no need to prove anything to you. Once you get that, you may just move on and try and convince someone else if that's all you have to offer. As far as I am concerned, you're just another semantics tangler that I have no need to prove anything to. Not in this case.

I'm not going to throw around my awards and education level and professors to prove to you that you should listen to me. That's no right.

So? Why should you listen to those who you accept? Is it based upon their credentials? Or, what? Its their reasoning that appeals to you. Its that simple.

What if someone was self taught and came up with the same conclusion? Would you reject him on the basis of that factor?

You are saying that God created the heavens of earth AFTER the heavens of the stars already were created. Yet, it states that in the beginning God created the heavens. Not at some time after the beginning. Also, the Masoretic text contains an indicator to reveal to the reader, that after verse one there is to be a pause in reading. That one thought ends, and a new one begins.

If you would like to look into this, you can try the following link:

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html

In the mean time..... Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[justified]

I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no clue what I am saying. Every time you tell me what I have written, you say something that I do not believe. Either I'm a terrible writer (my institution would disagree) or you're not getting it. I just encourage you to check out the reading list.

And don't call me "sir." I work for a living.

 

[GenemZ]

I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no clue what I am saying. Every time you tell me what I have written, you say something that I do not believe. Either I'm a terrible writer (my institution would disagree) or you're not getting it. I just encourage you to check out the reading list.

The writers for the Watchtower Publications have good writers. Those in their institution do get what is written. So? That goes for any group who has good writers. Being a good writer does not mean automatically what is written is truth. Every cult and apostate church in the world has those who always "do get" what is written, too.

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

I do understand what you are writing. Taken on the surface it appears to be well thought out. But, in the light of what the rest of the Scriptures tell us, I must disagree with you.

When isolating Genesis 1:1 from the reality of the whole Bible, you can appear
to be giving an interesting perspective. But, if it were truth? Then the heavens of the stars were created sometime before, or after the sky above the earth, and the earth would have been created at an isolated time from all the other planets in the universe.

The Bible does not teach that. At least you fail to show how that is. If you could? Then your interperation of our sky being of duality (which it does possess) would be what Genesis 1:1 speaks of specifically in creation.

And don't call me "sir." I work for a living

You're way too uptight, three striper.

Besides.... my pastor was a Lieutenant Colonel at age 28 during WWll. He out ranks you. http://www.rbthieme.org/r_b_.htm

Smoke em if you got em..... GeneZ

 

[justified]

The Bible does not teach that. At least you fail to show how that is. If you could? Then your interperation of our sky being of duality (which it does possess) would be what Genesis 1:1 speaks of specifically in creation.

See?! This is what I am talking about. You have missed entirely the nuances of my arguments. I don't think the heavens are dual. I know that the form of the word is dual.

 

[GenemZ]

[/font]

See?! This is what I am talking about. You have missed entirely the nuances of my arguments. I don't think the heavens are dual. I know that the form of the word is dual.

But, that's a moot point. What ever your conclusion was, it would make no difference to what I am getting at. That's the point you entirely miss. For in the beginning God created the universe (heavens).

This earth had been here a lot longer than what appears in Genesis 1:2. It was created in the "beginning." Where we enter unto the scene in 1:2, it was messed up, detroyed, and had an eerie sense of emptiness about it.

You keep concentrating on your pet gnat... (duality of our so called singular sky (heaven/heavens), while I keep looking at the camel trying to cross the road. You cry because I do not want to pay much attention to your point as much as you desire at this point. That is because you are claiming they the heavens that contain the stars were not created "in the beginning." That what was created in the beginning was only our sky...... Then there was no beginning for the star's heavens. Was there?

It does not say..... "In A beginning." It says..... "In THE beginning."

Until that camel is out of danger of ongoing traffic (your misinterpreration as to what heavens were created in the beginning) I can care less about your precious gnat being classified in a correct manner as you wish. Singular plurality, it does not matter as to what I am getting at.

The Chinese have a way of saying singular to mean plural. "Many car." I am sure glad God did not have Moses be Chinese! Then we would have many trouble.

The heaven does not have walls and doors .... it continues outwardly from the earth to one heaven to the next. In that sense it is one heaven above the earth. Yet, it is heavens, for this one heaven is more than one type. In the beginning God created the heavens. In Genesis 1:6ff, God makes our sky to become what it is.

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


7God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. "

That did not take place after the beginning! In the beginning the earth and heavens were created. Our atmosphere that we now call sky, came afterwards! It was not created. It was "made."

But,...... That will not satisfy you. For your point must prevail if you are to be a success. That is how you come across to me. Hope I am wrong about you.

AND? Why so secretive about yourself in your profile? Something to hide about what church or "group" you belong to? Why is that?

Grace and more grace, GeneZ

 

[justified]

What ever your conclusion was, it would make no difference to what I am getting at.

Go back a page to before we started arguing about the heavens and argue about one of those other points. I imagine nothing I say will change your mind because you seem to be unable to understand what I say. But I have a duty to try.

And no, I have nothing to hide. Just, I'm not here to chat.

 

[GenemZ]

[/font]
Go back a page to before we started arguing about the heavens and argue about one of those other points. I imagine nothing I say will change your mind because you seem to be unable to understand what I say. But I have a duty to try.

And no, I have nothing to hide. Just, I'm not here to chat.

You are unable to understand that you have been understood.

Duality does not mean a plurality, yet is a plurality in expression. That is what you have been telling us. No?

Its speaking of one thing. That is what you explained "duality" as being.

Like I have two hands.

Yet! Each hand is different! If both hands were singular, as you say it means, I would have a thumb on the outside of one hand, and on the inside of the other. Duality does not have to mean a singularity in form. It can mean a duality of a "type" of same thing, but not necessarily the same exact thing!

Just like salt water and fresh water when combined, are waters. What we found on the earth in Genesis 1:2, were all waters combined into one body of water.

Exodus 7:19 nasb
"Then the LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over their streams, and over their pools, and over all their reservoirs of water, that they may become blood; and there will be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.'"

Your concept of duality is not as rigid as you make it to seem! At least, not as you explained it. That was my point. That was just revealed in the passage you just read. Waters speaks of one thing, but in various forms. It speaks of the substance, and at the same time the plurality of form. And, in this case, not just two forms. It means, two aspects of one thing. One aspect can be singular. The other, more than just two.

"Then the LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over their streams, and over their pools, and over all their reservoirs of water, that they may become blood; and there will be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.'"


In Genesis 1, God had to separate the waters to become as they were in the original creation. (rivers, lakes, oceans, seas, etc.) Like the creation as it was in the beginning. Order. Not what we find in Genesis 1:2. Disorder.

Chat? CHAT??? By asking a simple question? I do not want to chat with you.

All I asked is for some of your background like most of us here are not afraid to do when we put such things in our Public Profiles. And, yes. Now it definitely appears that you do not want us to know about you. That means one thing where I come from. Something to hide. Not that you should. But, you give a real reason to see it that way.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[justified]

Duality does not mean a plurality, yet is a plurality in expression. That is what you have been telling us. No?

Its speaking of one thing. That is what you explained "duality" as being.

No, not at all. My goodness.

All I asked is for some of your background like most of us here are not afraid to do when we put such things in our Public Profiles. And, yes. Now it definitely appears that you do not want us to know about you. That means one thing where I come from. Something to hide. Not that you should. But, you give a real reason to see it that way.

That's nice. Where I come from, people who want to know more about other people on the internet are usually taken out and beaten, then thrown in jail.

 

[GenemZ]

[/font]
No, not at all. My goodness.

Well, I have learned from many teachers in my life. Some that I do not agree with. But, even those who I did not agree with knew how to make themselves clear.

That's nice. Where I come from, people who want to know more about other people on the internet are usually taken out and beaten, then thrown in jail.

All for telling us what denomination you follow? For what you believe? I am not even asking your real name and address!





In Christ, GeneZ

 

[dunkel]

Th Bible teaches that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In Exedus it teaches that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 day and rested on the seventh Exedus 20:11.

The Bible also talks about domesticated camels before camels were known to have been domesticated and coins before coins were known to have been used.

 

[justified]

The Bible also talks about domesticated camels before camels were known to have been domesticated and coins before coins were known to have been used.

And iron before it was used in chariots, and Greek instruments before they were in Babylon. We can keep going, actually. But it's not the point.

What is the point?

 

[dunkel]

And iron before it was used in chariots, and Greek instruments before they were in Babylon. We can keep going, actually. But it's not the point.

What is the point?

When you quote such and such verse that says such and such thing, then base your belief system on whatever small detail is contained in that verse, you are overlooking the bigger picture and meaning. These stories were obviously written down a long time after the events they are portraying and there were no video cameras back then, so the actual authors of the stories were bound to get details wrong, not have all the information, or just have to make some stuff up to move the story along. Just like including the camels, chariots, or coins...they are not important. Just like you should look beyond those obvious inaccuracies, look beyond the 6 days, and just get the idea that God created everything...THAT is what's important, not whether it took six days or he made the plants before he made man or he made man before he made the plants.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Hi dunkel

look beyond the 6 days, and just get the idea that God created everything...THAT is what's important, not whether it took six days or he made the plants before he made man or he made man before he made the plants.

I'm not sure what you were talking about before this but what you said here is exactly what I believe.

I understand most of my beliefs on possibilities and probabilities, on what's possible and what's probable. What I'm saying is that I see alot of possibilities and also a few probabilities in almost everything. The gap theory to me is a probability. I also rarely ever state something as being abolute truth even if I believe I am moving in the right direction of it. The version of the gap theory I believe in is what I consider a probability but is not absolute truth.

Creationism is a possibility to me. Theistic Evolution is another possibility to me. With these possibilities and what I think is a probability all centers on the one underlining truth that I do claim to know absolutely and that is that God created everything and you are absolutely correct, that is what is important!

 

[GenemZ]

When you quote such and such verse that says such and such thing, then base your belief system on whatever small detail is contained in that verse, you are overlooking the bigger picture and meaning. These stories were obviously written down a long time after the events they are portraying and there were no video cameras back then, so the actual authors of the stories were bound to get details wrong, not have all the information, or just have to make some stuff up to move the story along. Just like including the camels, chariots, or coins...they are not important. Just like you should look beyond those obvious inaccuracies, look beyond the 6 days, and just get the idea that God created everything...THAT is what's important, not whether it took six days or he made the plants before he made man or he made man before he made the plants.

I would love to see the context and passages you claim about.....

And, it was not iron chariots. It was steel. Which was a prophecy of the future military automobile.

Nahum 2:3-5 (New American Standard Bible)
"The shields of his mighty men are colored red,
The warriors are dressed in scarlet,
The chariots are enveloped in flashing steel
When he is prepared to march,
And the cypress spears are brandished.
The chariots race madly in the streets,
They rush wildly in the squares,
Their appearance is like torches,
They dash to and fro like lightning flashes.
He remembers his nobles;
They stumble in their march,
They hurry to her wall,
And the mantelet is set up. "

Gee, that one would have had to been written around 1930! How did they sneak it into Bible retrocatively? Who counterfeited Luther's notes to include it in his translation? That was a lot of work to fool us!

Like I said.... I would love to see the context of what you both claim.

What I do find refreshing is how you both came out and now reveal how you are out to prove the Bible inaccurate. That much has come to the surface! Hurrah! We who are here now know what it is we are dealing with. Duality of purpose..... "Purposeyim." Here to exegete, and to disprove what you exegete.

"Sure the Bible is the Word of God.... But, not all the Bible is the Word of God."

If I only had a dime for each time I have witnessed to that kind of mind.....

Proverbs 30:5
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."

So? We Christians suffer from believing the sword we were handed is magic. That, its because we believe its magic, that we are brave in battle? That if we only knew it was not really magic?..... (then what?)

And, your account of the plants coming first, and then man coming first, is easily clarified. That is, if you have not thrown your hands up and prepared to surrender like you have. But, space here requires another post.

Have a nice Day, GeneZ