OT: What's your religeon?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Fyron's already seen some of these answers on IRC, but other people havn't, so that's why I'm replying to all of them, in case you were wondering, Fyron.

What I'm saying here is that what we have in the bible KJV describes the end result of milenia of scribes occasionally making mistakes, with good accuracy. I'm not saying it all makes sense; I firmly beleive that the bible we have now is not the bible that was given.

Imperator Fyron said:
A few problems there Narf...

No. This does not say, heaven first, then the Earth, just heaven and Earth. There is no order. This is not the same as scientific fact. It is a bit of a stretch to relete "heaven" to "universe," but that is beside the point.

[/qoute]
Heaven is listed first, then earth. It is not unreasonable to think that they would be listed in order of creation. An athiest who beleived/Subscribed to the big band theory would likely say something like 'The big bang pretty much created the visible universe and the earth'. It is less likely they would say 'The big bang pretty much created the earth and the universe'. As for the second point, what do you call the universe when you don't have the word 'universe'?
[qoute]

That is an invalid assumption. There was atmosphere long before water. There are also no "waters under the firmanent," there is magma, and molten cores, and all that fun stuff, especially before the Earth started cooling enough for any water to be present in non-gaseous form.

[/qoute]
Please note that I said 'breathable'.
Actually, you inadvertantly explained it better than I did. What do you call lava when you know it's not fire, but don't have a word for 'lava'?
[qoute]

Dry land was there long before liquid water. The world was never covered entirely in water, then land started appearing. This is backwards. Water started appearing as the Earth cooled from its super hot beginnings (condensation). Unless you want to call lava water...

[/qoute]
Water could mean lava. Or, it could refer to the formation of the supercontinent geologists beleive existed, without altering the meaning of the previous verse.
[qoute]

This is rather ambiguous... doesn't say what sort of creatures the waters brought forth. Land creatures? Sea creatures? What was first, fish or land creatures? Definitely indeterminate.

[qoute]
'the waters' seems to be mentioned as an origin.
[/qoute]

Fowl means one thing, a certain kind of bird. Fowl directly implies (and requires) feathers.

[qoute]
Yes - But I doubt hebrew had a word for 'winged lizard'.
[/qoute]

The waters only "brought forth" marine life and amphibians. Everything else was not "brought forth" by the waters, but evolved from the first amphibians, on land.

[qoute]
See above.
[/qoute]

There was no such implication. If you want to read it literally, as you did before, it implies that great whales were first.

[qoute]
Their were two 'brought forth's' before great whales.
[/qoute]

Again, fowl is a certain class of birds. Most certainly feathers. Can't be anything else.

[qoute]
See above
[/qoute]

I see no such implication. Also, seems to be contradictory. All the living creatures that move were already created on day 5. How can creatures already created be recreated?

[qoute]
Each 'brough forth' mentions a new class, generally expanding on the old 'brought forth'.
All the previous land creatures were amphibions?
[/qoute]

No, not the same. There are a lot of categories of life that evolved after or parallel with humans.

[qoute]
Rephrase: 'Every other order listed.' My mistake.
[/qoute]

It is not that accurate...

I disagree.