Except that they weren't just assigned roles to play: they were created first. Saying that they'd actually been around since the first day is simply incorrect according to the text.
"Fecitque Deus duo magna luminaria" - "And God made two great lights..." Not appointed, requisitioned or re-purposed, but literally made. I can't see how you can argue with that.
Which verse was that? Verse 14 says that the reason they were there was for signs, season, days and years. Even though the sun is the brightest light, the sun cannot be seen at night at all. It is physically impossible, just like the moon is technically not a light but reflects the sun's light. Neither the sun nor moon are named in the text. We now know that it is the off axis rotation of the earth, and the fact that the earth orbits the sun, that provides those effects, except for signs. But without the sun and moon rotation and orbit would be pointless.
Except that on Day Three, green plants are created and bear fruit, clearly indicating that the Sun already exists in Earth's sky. It is foolish in the extreme to read mythology literally and then insist that the literal reading is incorrect because it's opposed to what would 'actually' happen.
(Look, if I am making a creationist argument, then something is clearly potty!)
No you aren't. It never says the grass, plants and trees produced anything. It says the earth produced grass, plants, and trees. God thought the seeds into the earth, and the earth went to work producing the grass, seeds, and trees. It is a fact that plants cannot produce without the light, but they can grow without the light. Even with or without the light, it takes days and weeks, and even years for them all to produce what they are supposed to produce. Having plants does not prove the sun was already there. It was not there until the next morning. God could have planted the seeds at any time before 6 PM. Twelve hours later it would receive the light from the first rays of the sun. There was no sunlight until then. It had been dark since the first light, that only lasted for a split second, The first day started out in darkness, and 24 hours later it was still darkness. On the first Day it was dark and the evening at 6PM was total darkness, the sun did not send light because the sun was still forming. It's completion was on the morning of the 4th day.
For one thing, the earth could not even rotate in any recognizable form. The waters had not been separated from the waters, and the land from the waters. How was this supposed to create any form of night and day? We agree that the alleged night and day are from rotation. Having the sun without rotation would be just as pointless as having rotation and no sun. On day 4, the first rays of the sun was the act of rotation, and the rotation was the act of setting the sun and moon in the sky. God thought it in verse 14. The rotation started in verse 16, which set the sun and moon into view in verse 17.
I'm sorry this is in the broken reply style. I sort of wish I would instead write a cohesive counter-text, but I have neither the skill or resolve
I don't, mate. But if they don't know about the origin of the world, what they write about it is (most likely (and in this case definately)) wrong.
How do we determine what they knew and how they got that information?
You can prove non-existance. Two ways come to mind:
1) Know the totality of everything, and thus know everything that isn't
of course, this is impossible for humans
2) Show beyond a shadow of a doubt that that something the thing requires is impossible or doesn't exist
This applies for every single religion
The whole knowledge of god thing is irrelevant.
The fact that we know things that some may not, and they know things that we do not points to the fact that what we may not know, does indeed exist to be known. Therefore another person cannot know something that does not exist. What we know may be true or it may be a lie. What we believe is not what makes something true or not. Everything that a human knows is relevant. At least to them. There is also knowledge that exist that has yet to be made known. There has also been knowledge that was once known, but will never been known again in the human experience. That is the mundane.
Can we know a lie? A lie is an impossible truth. If what we know is a lie, even if we do not know the difference we still do not know the truth. As you pointed out, we cannot know everything, and thus technically it would be hard to know if what we know is the truth or not. If we know two sides of a story or even three sides or more, we still know the truth, but which story is the truth? The only way we would know the truth and rule out everything else, is to have experienced it. So we can know the truth, unless all we know is the lie. But in all aspects it does us no good, unless we believe or accept one story or the other, and then we may still be wrong. If we only accept the truth we experience we are rejecting all the other truths out there. We accept or reject, believe or not believe, what we hear or read, without experiencing it. That does not change the point if something is true or not. Truth cannot be changed. If it can, then it was a lie, and never the truth.
Surely that is untrue. The physical presence of god would be Jesus.
Every one knows that fact who was told that fact, but not every one accepts that. That is why during the first few hundred years after Jesus they voted on that fact and many others to determine what did and what did not become church dogma.
The old testament describes god in many ways that contradict the teachings of christianity, no? Why would "genesis", which even contradicts itself, be any different?.
Not really but people keep insisting that.
You seem here to do some weird gymnastics to make some point (that I don't understand), on the premise of free will. But this is flawed, because the world is deterministic, and what I believe is the common notion of free will doesn't exist.
What do you know that makes the world deterministic? Before you answer that, do you have to give an answer, or choose to answer?
For the sake of argument you state that a person has no ability on their own to believe what they do. Belief is forced upon people, and no one can come up with their own belief system. If any of that is wrong, then people have free will.
Why are there multiple belief systems?
You can prove people wrong, there's some weird mental gymnastics you're doing here.
Ok. lets try this. You are wrong. The universe is not deterministic much less the world. You have no choice but you just magically now believe the same way I do. You cannot choose not to believe the same way, because I just changed your belief system, whether you wanted to or not.
As for the thing that what everyone says is either true or false, I more or less agree. There's a bit of a grayzone, in that something said can truly be what a person believes, but the belief itself is false. Not that it makes much difference.
If you read the part just above this, you believe exactly the same thing I do now.
you what
that makes no sense.
I agree that is what I have been trying to tell you.
I guess, but only by accepting what is true.
I am glad that you think what I know and believe is true, cause now we have nothing to argue about.
Accepting comes from hearing.
Reading works as well.
After all the wishy wash you've said, this can be believed to be true if you don't pay enough attention. But this conclusion is only halfheartedly built upon premises that don't fit togehter
No more being deterministic. We can make what we will in life, and even disagree with each other.
Any link I provided would be based on Sitchin's theory
Seeing as how he threw together two or three different myths, he contradicts what each one says separately.
I do not have the ability to iron out all the details, unless each myth is addressed on it's own merit.
I think he would have been better off explaining how they were similar instead of throwing them all into a pot to make his theory work.
