If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ?

the sun, moon, and stars are created on day four, not day one ("let there be light" etc).

---

אָרַח

but it doesn't say "round things". it says,

quote:

---

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם

---

which says nothing about shape, only that they provide light. notice that מְאֹרֹת has the same root as אוֹר in verse 3, "light". further, how does something created on day four become something on day three?

---

אָרַח

i quoted the hebrew. so.... yes it does. because what we have is hebrew, and otherwise, you're just making shit up. obviously.

---

אָרַח

as jar hinted at, genesis 1 is almost certainly not an oral tradition. genesis 2/3, perhaps. but genesis 1, no. it's an extremely late story, one of the last added to the torah, and shows extremely strong babylonian influence. the story in that form does not antedate the hebrew language. though, of course, the stories it is based on might -- you just would not recognize them as the story of genesis 1.

---

אָרַח

no, as pointed out to you repeatedly, you wouldn't recognize the story as genesis. this isn't a baseless claim we are assuming -- we actually have the stories genesis 1 was based upon. they can be found in babylonian mythology.you guys seems to want to instill a little a bit of doubt -- like it was the same story, in a different language, and some details got bungled up. this is wishful thinking, and special pleading for your particular ideology. the truth is that, yes, it was a different language. and a completely different story, too. it's not one word changed here or there. it's pretty much everything.

---

אָרַח

they almost certainly did. the point is that the disconnect between genesis and its babylonian influences is so great that genesis 1 constitutes a new work, and not simply an adaptation or translation. genesis 1 was written late into the biblical period, in hebrew. the story did not exist in any culture before that point.

---

אָרַח

...yes. we can. i like how fundamentalists enjoy asserting how "we can't know anything!" and quickly follow it up with "therefore, we know this!" pick one. nope. see, there are these things called "literary analysis" and "history" and "language studies" and "archaeology". in this case, the babylonian stories happen to be older than the hebrew people. you can't just assume that your creation myth goes back a long time (with some creative changes you've pulled out of thin air) simply because it's convenient for your particular ideology. that claim has to be based on something. and in this case, all evidence points to genesis 1 being a very, very new composition showing strong babylonian influence. no, that's exactly what you are doing. that the bible is "wrong" is not my conclusion, nor is it what i have been discussing. rather, it is what you have assumed (by saying it really meant something else originally). what i have done is looked at the text, and its relationship to texts from neighbouring societies.i'm sorry that the facts do not support your conclusion. that is not my problem, or evidence of me being biased. rather, it is evidence of your bias.

---

אָרַח