Not exactly. I am actually telling you that Genesis really says, by a Spontaneous Generation, God created "the first sparks of life," as the Hebrew word "deshe" says, from which all other life developed.
The KJV Bible translators called this first life, "grass," because to them, smaller organisms, things like bacteria or microbes were unknown yet.
So technically, Genesis is dead on with such a claim, that "the first sprouts of life," whatever one will apply that to, is correct.
And you have been told, seeing that you've tried to pass this crap off numerous times, that "deshe" does not mean "first sparks of life."
It means, as you are already well aware, "the first sprouts of the earth."
Sprouts... plantlings with root systems growing from dirt.
You also have tried to claim before that this is an error of "KJV translators" only to have it pointed out that the Jews also translate "deshe" as "sprouts" or "grass."
So, technically, Genesis never makes a claim about the "first sprouts of life" so it cannot be dead on in that respect. It makes a claim about simple plants ie: herbage coming before animals in which it turns out to be dead wrong.
I can go further by pointing out that "deshe" in the 14 other instances that it occurs in the OT is talking about fields or cattle grazing.
Ever heard this verse before?
Psa 23:2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
Do you really mean to try to say that David is saying God makes him lay down in bacteria?
Do you really think that is what the chapter is about?
Come on, man. You have a brain. Time to start using it and give up making claims that you know are not true.
What part of: "ONE OR OTHER OF THE KINGDON-LEVEL CLASSIFICATIONS IS STILL WIDELY EMPLOYED AS A USEFUL WAY OF GROUPING ORGANISMS"... don't you hard heads understand???
What part of "the Linneus model is not employed whatsoever becuase it has been found to be in error and thus, useless to tell us anything about the natural relationships of living things to each other" don't YOU understand?
Besides that, when the 2 Kingdom system was in use, bacteria were classified as an animal.
Their discoverer, Leeuwenhoek, wrote a letter to the Royal Society in 1676 which began In the year of 1675 I difcover’d living creatures in Rain water which had stood but a few day in a new tub, that was painted blue within.1 This observation provoked me to investigate this water more narrowly; and especially because these little animals were, to my eye, more than ten thousand times smaller than the animalcule which Swam-meidam' has portrayed, and called by the name of Water-flea. or Water-louse, which yon can see alive and moving in water with the bare eye.
He referred to bacteria as "creatures" that he called "animalcules" and compared to tiny insects.
Linneaus, himself, designated "animalcules" (bacteria) as a type of insect, namely a coccus in Systema Naturae and John Hill of Petersborough included the bacteria microlife in his book "A History of Animals": a treatise written in 1752.
The study of bacteria in the time of the 2 Kingdom System was a study of entomology.
If we are going to apply your 2 Kingdom theory to the bible, we will apply it consistently. In the 2 kingdom system, bacteria fall in the "Animalia" category. So, the first living things, according to the system that you insist upon using, were animals.
So the bible is still wrong, even using the 2 kingdom system.