So what you are saying now is that the author of Genesis knew that what they were writing was wrong and that they intended it as mythology.
I was not thinking that. Saying that the moon is a bright light in the sky, is not mythology, because we can still see the moon as a bright light in the sky. It was not until we figured out that the moons phases meant that it was just reflecting the sun's light, that we as humans no longer thought of it as a literal light. And that is just assuming that we even know what they thought. The way that it has been portrayed in this thread is that it had to be mythology because humans were trying to explain what happened without being there. You call a light bulb a light, but it is clearly not a light when it is in a box and not in use. A light bulb cannot even produce light on it's own, just like the moon cannot produce light on it's own. I see nothing misleading when it is called a light at night, because that is when it is a light, just like a light bulb is a light when it is hooked up to electricity. There is nothing metaphorical about a non producing light being called a light when it does give off life.
For example, if God was the author, he would have known that the moon wasn't a light and the sky wasn't a dome, but he was just calling it that so that the ancient humans could grasp it? Is that what you are saying? Yes a light bulb is a light. No, I never said, or implied that only stars can be lights. Fire is light. A torch is a light. One of the key elements of light is energy or heat. That is one reason the sun is a light and the moon is not. As Lexicus so eloquently states, the light bulb is a light and the wall that is illuminated by the light from the bulb is not a light. The sun is the light and the moon that is illuminated by the suns light is not a light.
Neither a light bulb, or the moon produce light on their own. They both have to get their light from another source. The moon is the same as a light bulb in the box, and is rather useless as a light source until it can reflect the suns light on the appropriate side of the earth.
Its very straightforward, no matter how many twists and turns and hypotheticals you try to raise to cloud the issue. The moon is not a light. The sky is not a dome. The Earth did not exist before the sun or the stars and there certainly were not plants and animals on the earth before the sun. If you want to fall back on "God knew that, and he just wrote it that way cause humans wouldn't understand it otherwise" then you are admitting that Genesis is just a story, or myth, as it were, and whether God wrote it or not is irrelevant. It's inaccurate, a fantasy.
When you say cloud the issue, do you mean point out that one should call the moon a literal light, to prove that the Bible is wrong? We know that it is not a literal light, just like a light bulb cannot literally produce light on it's own. The Bible is only inaccurate if you state that the moon is a literal light. Calling the sun and moon a "ruler" of the day and night, is using figurative writing. It can hardly be deceptive when the same effect can be seen today.
The sky is more a dome, than a flat plane above the earth. The sky is roughly a sphere and a dome is half a sphere. God even told them the sky was a sphere, and humans still thought the earth was flat for thousands of years.
Where does it say that the earth came before the sun and stars? That is what Berzerker is trying to claim. My interpretation is that all matter was created at the same time, and placed through out the universe. It was matter without form and void. There was nothing to the matter that would define it as being anything other than matter. Void could be the emptiness of space. The argument is that earth cannot mean the material it is made of. My response is why not? If it was without form, how can it even be defined as the planet we call earth? it had no form, implying that it could not be recognized as the planet, but was still called the earth. The writing is from the perspective of one who exist on the earth, and it's relationship with the rest of the universe.
I am not even saying that verse one claims that every star, planet, or any other object in the universe was created fully formed and in the same condition as we observe the universe as being. It cannot even be proven that the universe began in an explosions from a single dot in the void of space. Humans can only "observe" from after the point of the initial origin. Which is the effect of light or extreme energy going through out the whole universe in a very short period of "time". The form or even size at the beginning can only be assumed. We assume that the light has been traveling for billions of years, because that is the size limit of what we can observe. Some believe that we cannot even see all of the universe, or that it goes on into infinity. The point is that the energy was instant in all of the universe at the same time. We see the universe as 14 billion years old, because the universe was that big at the point of the induction of light in the universe, and it was immediate and produced an immediate limit to what could be seen from any point in the universe. God says that within a few days, humans could see some if not all of the stars in the night sky. We are still seeing new ones with telescopes even being formed today, as in an ongoing process. The word made, does not have to be used the same as create. It does not say God created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day. The word "made" in the example you gave could mean that God forced them to be visible on the fourth day. It could mean that he formed them in such a way that their light was visible on the fourth day. If one forces a literal meaning that could be wrong, then yes the account would be wrong. The account is literal the usage of words is not bound to so narrow a definition that one today is forced to only use one meaning, when the words clearly themselves have more than one meaning, even at the time the Hebrews were using their own language, and they understood clearly what was being communicated. It is modern humans who are forcing definitions that create an incorrect impression. Or is that making an enforced impression so as to make it look stupid and ignorant? Even humans can make something out of nothing. Trying to make an issue where there is clearly none.
I do not think that any one can make the claim that the Hebrews were "scientist" in their infancy like other groups (Greeks), yet they had an account that can be reasoned out today, with current observations. Not with standing current humans trying to read into it something that does not make sense, and basically just to make it look wrong or out of line with current knowledge. Nor does it make sense that even in the last 500 years BCE. would be able to invent an account that reads in such a manner.
Plants and vegetation even today are stated to germinate best in the dark. So God planted all vegetation in the darkness before the light from the Sun appeared.
You do know that The Ten Commandments was just a movie, right? It wasn't a documentary.
If your god had to dumb things down so the people back then could understand them, why didn't he just create smarter people in the first place?
The Moon is sometimes visible during the day. Its reflected light is not helpful, though, since the Sun is so much brighter.
God did create smart people. Leaving them to their own imaginations made them dumb. I am not even saying that humans did not have great thinkers in ancient times, even if they lacked the technology. Why do we even consider that there are Ancient Wonders, or are those made up by modern humans and never existed? Writing a concise yet definitive account is not dumbing it down. It means that he did not list everything that happened. How much detail would it take to satisfy every human?
Just like English, Hebrew had different words, with similar meanings. And even a single word had several meanings. I read a book recently that some guy claims that the original language may have been English. Humans are evolving back into using the same language and meaning that was originally used. So their understanding could have been easily the same as we read it today. It is the theory that humans are evolving from a lower to a higher state that gives the impression they were dumber. We could just be evolving back into what we originally were before the Flood that the originals had in their historical accounts, which humans today refuse to accept happened in the past. It seems presumptuous on our part to claim we know the understanding level of those in the past.
I have only watched small portions of the "Ten Commandments". I have read the Bible, and heard it read dozens of times. If one thinks that a printed book can brain wash a person, then my parents were right that I should not read Edger Rice Burroughs, Isaac Asimov, Anne Mccaffrey, Frank Herbert, and all the other hundreds of books I have read. My brain has been thoroughly flooded. I did watch the "Gods of Egypt" recently and the flat earth concept sure looked cool, but I am not about to claim that the events actually happened. I also have the latest "Exodus Gods and Kings", but have not watched it yet. I understand that even in a fiction form one can appreciate the concept that some people have whether it is true or false, based on reality or not. When a person comments on an experience or puts it into words, we can try to prove them right or wrong for our own comfort level. I have to agree that the truth can only be experienced, and even then some experiences only happen in the mind.
reaction toward Heston. 
