Genesis 1 is Consistent with Modern Scientific Discoveries

I think that would make it more fair, so that we both have an equal amount of rounds to express our thoughts. Its not a big deal, though. 1) Okay, I may have made this unclear. The phrase "hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz" (the heavens and the earth) does not refer to the earth or the sky or heavens. Rather it refers to the universe itself. It is a Hebrew figure of speech for the universe, much like how the words rain and bow take a totally different meaning from their usually meanings when put together (rainbow). This verse refers to the creation moment, the Big Bang itself. Verse two then shifts to the surface of the earth. Verse 1 to verse 2 = from the Big Bang to the formation of the earth, which is about 9 billion years like you said. Verse two starts when the earth has mostly formed but is still evolving. I hope I have cleared up any misunderstanding. 2) I agree that the ancient Hebrews probably did not know about the water cycle. I was simply stating that this is when a stable water cycle would have been formed, after the moon impact event. 3) How is accepting the word "yom" to mean a long period of time inconsistent? I can use that definitions of yom, and everything falls into place chronologically. I see no problem with it. Here is some biblical eivdence to back up the long period interpretation of yom. (Its a short article. Read it if you'd like. ) . http://www.reasons.org... You seem to be mistaken about the light on the first day. When God said let there be light, the giant impact event took place, eventually forming the moon. It blasted away much of earth's atmosphere so that sunlight was visible on the surface (this is the light God is speaking of). Night and day were now distinguishable, but the sun was not clearly visible (much like how you can see on an overcast day, but the sun is not visible at all. ) Photosynthetic life would fair in these kinds of conditions. 4) Verse two still implies that the earth was already formed. "2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. " From this verse, we clearly know that the earth was already formed (mostly). The mention of "hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz" puts the creation of the universe before the first creation day. Also, the verb used in the phrase "Let there be light" is the verb "haya. " This word can mean "to come to pass, to exist," or "to happen" among others. The verb usually used with God's creative powers is bara (this is used in verse one, and with the creation of creation of man. It's also used in some other places in Genesis, but I can't remember. ) The word choice here is significant. If God had created the light at that moment, Genesis would use bara. But, it uses haya instead, denoting that the light was not being created by God at that moment. Its completely logical, for reasons above, to conclude that the sun was formed before Day 4. . http://biblehub.com... . http://biblehub.com... 5) "You have to prove the Bible is consistent with our modern understanding. " False, I said that it is consistent with modern discoveries, not with modern understanding. I know there's not really a big difference between the two, but we need to be wary of straw men here. The book of Genesis was written for all generations. Since most people who read Genesis would have had no knowledge what so ever of dinosaurs, they simply didn't make it into the cut. Genesis largely deals with what is important to the history of humanity. It does not deal with the entire history of the universe, or even the entire history of the earth. The fact that Genesis makes no mention of dinosaurs does not take away from the remarkable coherence of Genesis with what we have discovered today. "Even you admit that the ancient Hebrews did not have all the information about the creation of the Universe. But by having this very argument, you are trying to prove they did. " Again, I am not trying to prove that Hebrews had modern understanding. I and trying to show how Genesis is consistent with modern discoveries. 6) That part Genesis does not does not say that domesticated livestock were created haha, it says b'hema were created. B'hema refers to the animals that are known as livestock. This is where knowledge of the Hebrew language would come in handy to both of us I suppose. Meaning is lost in words when they are translated. 7)I'm not sure why extinction has anything to do with our debate, but I'll entertain the thought. My understanding is that God filled the earth with life (i. e. dinosuars, animals, a hell of a lot of plants, bugs, ocean life) in ancient times to create conditions that would be optimal for humanity later. For example, because God allowed for much plant life and bacteria life in the past, we now have huge oil and coal reserves. Oil is an important part of our lives as you probably can see. When these organisms had fulfilled God's plans, he let them go extinct. . http://www.adventuresinenergy.org...