Creation

Non sequitur.

Moses didn't write Genesis.

I did - the word "firmament". According to Wikipedia:

quote:

---

The word "firmament" is used to translate rāqaʿ (רָקִ֫יעַ‬), a word used in Biblical Hebrew. It is derived from the root raqqəʿ (רָקַע), meaning "to beat or spread out thinly", e.g., the process of making a dish by hammering thin a lump of metal.

---

Wikipedia again:

quote:

---

The word is anglicised from Latin firmamentum, used in the Vulgate (4th century).[5] This in turn is derived from the Latin root firmus, a cognate with "firm".[5] The word is a Latinization of the Greek stereōma, which appears in the Septuagint (c. 200 BC).

---

Plants growing on the third day (Geneis 1:11-13) before the sun was created (Genesis 1:14-19).

That isn't what it says.

And neither are you. It says that it came from the Septuagint, which is the closest thing to the "original" Hebrew text that we have. You're thinking backwards. You're projecting the modern concept of "space" backwards onto the word "heaven". Yes, the stars were seen as lamps attached to the firmament (ceiling). There's no reason to think there was any appreciable thickness to the firmament.

The idea that Genesis was written by Moses is just a tradition.

Any goober can get a degree. What you post on EvC suggests that you don't know what you're talking about. You don't even seem to understand the difference in English between all of the water being in one place and all of the land being in one place. Which indicates that the Bible is wrong about the sky being "firm". You can jump through hoops to convince yourself that the Bible authors "must have known" but you'll have trouble dragging other people through the hoops with you.

Context. Genesis 1:2 says:

quote:

---

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

---

If the creation was not complete in verse 2, how could it be "completed" in verse 1?

Your reference from Isaiah doesn't support your claim that the creation was complete in Genesis 1:1. It's just a general reference to the whole creation. Again, Jeremiah was not distinguishing between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. He wasn't talking about a time in earth's history - i.e. he wasn't talking about Genesis at all. Look at Jeremiah 4;27-29:

quote:

---

For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black; because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it. The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.

---

He was talking about a future time when Israel would be destroyed if it didn't obey God.

Verse one says it was created and verse 2 says it was without form. Thus, it was not complete in verse 1 because the form was yet to be determined. As I said, Jeremiah 4:28-29 says that it in the future the city would be attacked by horsemen and bowmen. Jeremiah was a prophet, after all, not a historian. There is no stop sign.

A parashah is similar to a paragraph break. It can be used to indicate the end of one story and the start of another but sometimes it's just a dramatic pause.

You're missing the point. The point is that you've given no reason to conclude that the space indicates a change in point of view. It can but it doesn't have to. Jeremiah is clearly telling one story about one event, in the future.

You have it backwards. The messenger (you) has no credibility because his messages have been discredited so often in the past. You're like the boy who cried, "Wolf!"It's unfortunate, because if there ever is a wolf - i.e if you ever do say anything that's true - we're unlikely to believe it.

How does one conclude that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God?