The Genesis account of creation is not mythical

Before i start, Genesis is a book of poetry, thus scientific terminology will not be immediately identified. 1) The universe was essentially not created in a literal week according to the ancient Hebrews as time was measured by the completion of events, not measuring time length (1). The Semitic phrase "evening and morning" is also referring to an indefinite period of time (2). In Hebrew, there are two types of numbers: Ordinal (Day 1, day 2, etc.) and Cardinal (1 of something, 2 of something, etc.). In the Hebrew of Genesis, it uses ordinal numbers of days, not length periods of time (3). Genesis is theoretically an account of what God said he did in the creation and would eventually then be revealed to Moses (4). It is then very unlikely for contradictions to be found in Genesis as it is so ancient. It's then plausible for it to be consistent with science. Because of the time lengths of creation, it is therefore not spontaneous creation, but consistent with evolution. As for the creation of man and woman, there is reason to believe that it was not referring to the very 1st humans. 2) There is reason to believe that Genesis is not a book describing the entire history of the human race (while it's implied God made everything), but rather that he wanted to focus on a specific type of people. Adam in Gen. 1:26 is a Hebrew word for "humanity." The vegetation and environment described in Gen. 2 describes an agricultural setting (see link below). The genealogies of Genesis have been observed to have gaps. Genealogies in the Bible consist of: legal (claims of hereditary office), familial (birthrights), and religious (The priesthood) (5). The Bible makes highlights of the most important people in a line. Matthew's introductory legal genealogy of Jesus' heir to the Israelite throne. Evidence has been given in "Creation Revealed in Six Days" that ancient colophons followed the same format as Genesis (ex. "these are the generations of..." We can thus infer that the creation account also has highlights and leaves out some information not needed. After a long period of evolution, humans began to evolve just enough to be able to adopt agriculture (6) thus being molded into "the image of God." Scientifically, we descend from a most recent common ancestor known as the genetic Adam and Eve (7). It is then probable that God simply wanted to communicate that we as rational and civilized humans (not "underdeveloped" animals) are all related. The following rebuttals will simply focus on placing biblical events in their proper perspectives in consistency with the scientific order of events as well. 3) The creation of the sun and moon - Gen. 1:2, the word for light is "owr." The light could physically be caused by the transparency of the universe in it's earliest stages after the big bang (see 2nd link). Gen. 1:14 uses the word "ma'owr." There are several interpretations to resolve this: a. The sun did not appear until the 4th day. According to the Scofield reference Bible: "Neither here nor in verses 14-18 is an original creative act implied. A different word is used. The sense is, made to appear; made visible. The sun and the moon were created in the beginning. The light of course came from the sun, but the vapour diffused the light. Later the sun appeared in an unclouded sky." (8) b. Light emitted from black holes: "The radiation being described here is not coming out of any kind of matter-the usual source of light energy. The region around the black hole is quite empty of matter Instead, this radiation is coming out of empty space itself! " (9). "If modern scientific theory insists on the possibility of light coming out of empty space (in other words, without light bearing objects), it is inconsistent to criticize the biblical idea that light existed on the first day of creation without sun, moon, or stars . . . The fact that Genesis talks about light existing before the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars seem rather to be evidence of divine authorship of the Bible. It was inconceivable to pagan thinking that life could exist without the sun and its light. Hence pagan religions worshiped the sun as the source of light and heat . . . The Bible is unique in stating that the sun is of secondary importance" (10) c. The entire universe was created in the beginning then placed into being (11). (This also could apply to stars, the moon, etc.) d. The 2nd is a more spiritual interpretation - the light on the first day was the Messiah himself. Jesus is described as a light (John 1) since light comes from God and according to Jewish sages, the light is the divine Messiah himself (12). 4) Like i stated earlier, Genesis is simply more focused on a specific point in history and most likely does not record everything. 5) Con argues that the Moon would destroy the life of earth according to the Bible, however scientifically, the "giant impact hypothesis" happened at the early stages of molten Earth where life had yet to evolve (13). 6) Stars were still in the earliest stages of Young Earth's history, thus this doesn't contradict the Biblical account (see 2nd link). 7) "God is unnecessary" We weren't discussing that, but Con never provided sufficient reasoning or evidence to support his position. There's no evidence that the Hebrews copied from the Babylonians: "The common view that the Hebrew account is simply a purged and simplified version of the Babylonian legend (applied also to the flood stories) is fallacious on methodological grounds. In the Ancient Near East the rule is that simple accounts or traditions may give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends, but not vice versa." (14) Con is wrong in saying that Genesis is mythical. 1) A firmament was a model of how the universe was shaped, not mythical 2) Both animals and humans are not only biologically related, most elements are also found on the Earth's ground, confirming the claims of the Bible that both were made from the ground. Sources: http://www.bibal.net... http://science.howstuffworks.com... 1. Doukhan, p. 200. Cf. Von Rad, Vol. 2, p. 100-101. 2. Krista Bontrager, The Bigger Picture on Creation, pgs. 42-45 (2008)] 3. Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, 1982:p. 61 4. Wiseman, P. J (1958). Creation Revealed in Six Days: The evidence of Scripture confirmed by Archaeology. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott. 40 5. A more detailed discussion can be found in the NIV Study Bible,Zondervan Bible Publishers, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, "Introduction to 1 Chronicles: Genealogies. 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://www.livescience.com... 8. The Scofield Reference Bible, edited by C.I. Scofield, New York, Oxford University Press, 1909, p. 3, note 4 9. P. C. Davies, Uncensoring the Universe, The Sciences, March/April 1977, p. 7 10. Donald Chittick, The Controversy, Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1984, p. 151 11. Expositors Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, Frank E. Gaebelein General Editor, Grand Rapids Mi: Zondervan, 1990, p. 34 12. Pesikhta Rabbati 62,1 13. http://science.howstuffworks.com... 14. Kitchen, Kenneth Anderson. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1966. 89.