Why God's Word The Bible IS Infallible!

reply to post by bogomil


How can you go about using objective procedure on a book where the origins of which can't be proven?

Your only options are faith/belief... in the author

Or

Understanding of the words within the book while trying to be as logical as possible...

Any other ideas?

Originally posted by edmc^2
[=For those who keep saying circular resoning - using the Bible to confirm that it's the Word of God - will you accept then it if ALL Christians in the world say that it is?

For clarity, this is the point I believe Bogomil was addressing, and I agree.

edmc^2, would you accept that God does not exist because ALL Atheists in the world say it? Your argument is invalild. This is what we men and women of logic call bias

Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives.

Source

reply to post by Glass


First off – thank you Glass for a very thorough and intelligent analysis and honest critique of my post – this is what I was looking for.

Second my apologies if my “EngRish” is not on par with yours or for that matter with bogo – because it’s not my native language, it’s my third. If I use my first, second or fourth you won’t be able to converse with me.



Back to what you said. Picking up on the just the “1st Creative Day” to keep things simple.

You said:

You're correct in noting that God did not define "Day" as a 24 hour period, but as being a period of light. So we see that the "1st Day" began when God created light, as follows:

Gen 1:3 --
3 And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be”* Then there came to be light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. 5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day. -- Gen 1: 3-5

So God created light, and the division of light and darkness, and called light Day and darkness Night. But what is the initial light source? God hasn't created the sun or the stars yet, so where is this light coming from? This is the first gap in Genesis; light without a source.


""At this stage of the 1st Creative Day when God’s power (spirit) was “moving to and fro over the surface of the waters”, it did something to the dark “watery deep” since “light” from heavenly bodies mentioned in Gen 1:1 (sun, moon, stars) became visible on the earth – “there came to light”"".

What heavenly bodies? There were no heavenly bodies mentioned in Genesis 1:1. It states "God created the heavens and the Earth". God didn't make light sources until 1:14, and created light before its source. Thats like saying the Earth existed before God.

And even though there was no light source, Genesis 1:5 concludes with "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." So what happened? God said "let there be light", there was a flash, God said 'Yes this is good I like this' and light went away, and he called that the 1st day. So by our reckoning, the 1st day must have been less than a second long.

Here’s how we know why the sequence of the “Creative Days” is correct: key words.

The key words are:

1)“create (or created)”
2) “made” and “Let there be”
3) “light” and “lights”.

In Hebrew the word “create (created)” is “bara’” – this word was used in Genesis 1:1
--> This word literally means to create as in create the physical heavens and the earth.

The Hebrew word for “Let there be” – is hayah – this word was used in Genesis 1:3
--> This word simply means to make it appear as in there was darkness then light appeared. Literally means causes to be (related to God’s name).

While the Hebrew word for “made” is “’asah” – this word was used in Gen 1:16
-->This word is similar hayah as in made it appear as in made the “luminaries” visible to the naked eye.

For “light” the Hebrew word is “ohr or owr” – this word was used in Gen 1:3
-->This word simply means presence of light coming from a source.

And “lights (luminaries)” the Hebrew word is “ma’ohr” – this word was used in Gen 1:14
--> This word is obvious – means the sun, moon, stars, etc, that is the source of light.

Here’s what Strong’s Concordance say about the words “bara’” (created) and “’hayah” (Let – to be), owr and ma’ohr (check the link for the complete list)

--> bara’

Strong's H1254 - bara'
בָּרָא
Transliteration: bara'
Pronunciation: bä•rä' (Key)


Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to create, shape, form
...

--> hayah

Transliteration: hayah

Pronunciation: hä•yä (Key)
1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
a) (Qal)
1) -----
a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
b) to come about, come to pass
2) to come into being, become
a) to arise, appear, come
…

www.blueletterbible.org.../3

--> asah

Strong's H6213 - `asah
עָשָׂה
Transliteration
`asah Pronunciation
ä•sä' (Key)

Part of Speech
verb Root Word (Etymology)
A primitive root
TWOT Reference
1708,1709

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make
a) (Qal)
1) to do, work, make, produce
…

www.blueletterbible.org...

--> ohr or ‘owr

Strong's H216 - 'owr
אוֹר
Transliteration
'owr Pronunciation
ōre (Key)

Part of Speech
feminine noun Root Word (Etymology)
From אוֹר (H215)

TWOT Reference
52a

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) light
a) light of day
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars)
....

www.blueletterbible.org...

--> And ma’ohr

Strong's H3974 - ma'owr
מָאוֹר
Transliteration
ma'owr Pronunciation
mä•ōre' (Key)

Part of Speech
masculine noun Root Word (Etymology)
From אוֹר (H215)

TWOT Reference
52f

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) light, luminary

www.blueletterbible.org...

So from the detailed explanations and references above you can now see that the original Hebrew words used by the writer of Genesis gives us the CORRECT meaning and understanding of the verses.

In short Genesis 1:1-3 tells us.

V1: In the beginning God literally created (formed) the heavens and the earth – thousands or even billions of years ago.

How do we know that the heavens include the heavenly bodies (like the sun, moon, stars, galaxies, etc)?


The writer of Revelation made a reference to this and expanded further:

“and by the One who lives forever and ever, who created the heaven and the things in it and the earth and the things in it and the sea and the things in it, he swore: “There will be no delay any longer;” (Revelation 10:6)

And like I said - the next verses V2-28 focuses on how God prepared the “formless” earth to be finally inhabited.

Gen 1:3 –

3 And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be”* Then there came to be light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. 5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day. -- Gen 1: 3-5

At this stage of the 1st Creative Day when God’s power (spirit) was “moving to and fro over the surface of the waters”, it did something to the dark “watery deep” since “light” from heavenly bodies mentioned in Gen 1:1 (sun, moon, stars) became visible on the earth – “there came to light”.

So if a person was standing on earth he can see light* through the “watery deep”. This “light” as explained by the writer created/provided a division between the darkness from the light – God “calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night”.

*Other translations puts v3 this way: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis)

With this understanding we can clearly see how the creation “day” unfolded.

I’ll get back to the rest of your post later as I would like to know first your input on this post.

ps - those who are experts in the Hebrew language - please let me know if Strong's Concordance and my understanding of the Hebrew words are incorrect or not.

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["How can you go about using objective procedure on a book where the origins of which can't be proven?"]


Because gen. 1 and 2 actually give the background for a reality-check. Cosmos hasn't changed so much since the origines of OT, so a cosmological comparison is possible between gen. 1 and contemporary science, and a logical comparison is possible between gen. 1 and gen. 2.

Nothing to it, which is why theists usually try avoid it at all costs. A collapse of gen. 1 and 2 means a 'god' who doesn't know what a cosmos (he allegedly created) really is. Not good for the PR. So better dodge, even it that also has a price. They can always try to talk their way out of the 'dodging' as happens here.

Ofcourse there's always the creationist emergency-exit. Creating their own alternative 'science', which are endless pages of non-sense mixed with semantics, but it's too convoluted for the non-sceintist and too ignorant for the scientifically minded, so it usually ends in nothing.

Originally posted by Glass

Originally posted by edmc^2
[=For those who keep saying circular resoning - using the Bible to confirm that it's the Word of God - will you accept then it if ALL Christians in the world say that it is?

For clarity, this is the point I believe Bogomil was addressing, and I agree.

edmc^2, would you accept that God does not exist because ALL Atheists in the world say it? Your argument is invalild. This is what we men and women of logic call bias

Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives.

Source

Of course if it's just based on mere words that can't be proven. But in the case of the Bible - we have overwhelming proof - that it is the Word of God. We're only discussing .000001% of it.

We have scientific proof that it is.
We have historical proof that it is.
We have prophetic events that were written 1000s of years ago - and were fulfilled with amazing accuracy.
We have the words of Jesus that are powerful - attesting to the fact that what he said were given to him by a higher being.
We have things that are written in there 3000 years ago that we're just confirming to be true.
There's no other BOOK written (by men) inspired by God that can compare to it.
It survive the test of time - even the time when it was about to be destroyed in the face of the earth.
It's the number one most publish book in the world - and it's on the increased. Name one that can surpass it.
It's way ahead of modern medicine when it comes to health.
In human relations - none can match it.

the list goes on and on.

Bottom line - it does not depend on what I say or what others say but it depends on the Bible itself.

Prophecy is the next proof that I would like to present and will show you that it IS indeed the Word of God and all things written in there will come true.

Show me a book that can match the Bible. IMHO there's NONE!

reply to post by edmc^2


This...

Show me a book that can match the Bible. IMHO there's NONE!

Is the most accurate thing you've said thus far...

And just so you know, if you added "IMHO"... to the title of this thread, you wouldn't have the hassle you're dealing with at the moment.

Prophecy is the next proof that I would like to present and will show you that it IS indeed the Word of God and all things written in there will come true.

perhaps you might deal with the issues at hand before jumping into another "proof"...

reply to post by bogomil


Well since our OP won't address this issue...

Lets get down to this comparison you're talking about. Im doing a little comparison right now, and i think i see what you're talking about.

reply to post by edmc^2


You wrote on the bible's validity:

["We have scientific proof that it is."]

Sofar you have only made CLAIMS of that. I am beginning to doubt, that you will ever get around to answering me straight on it. When you and Glass are finished, I'll still want my shot at it.

Quote: ["We have historical proof that it is."]

Historical proofs of 'gods' words being infallible? Or what do you mean?

Quote: ["We have prophetic events that were written 1000s of years ago - and were fulfilled with amazing accuracy."]

We'll get around that, when you're finished with the initial reality-checks. First things first.

Quote: ["We have the words of Jesus that are powerful - attesting to the fact that what he said were given to him by a higher being."]

Circle-argument.

Quote: ["There's no other BOOK written (by men) inspired by God that can compare to it."]

As considered from what value-system? You're preaching now.

Quote: ["It survive the test of time - even the time when it was about to be destroyed in the face of the earth"]

As have other texts.

Quote: ["It's the number one most publish book in the world - and it's on the increased. Name one that can surpass it."]

There's no truth in 'numbers'.

Quote: ["It's way ahead of modern medicine when it comes to health."]

In a few months, we'll maybe get to that. For the duration I'll make the guess, that you're just talking and talking to avoid the real issue.

Quote: ["In human relations - none can match it."]

It's one of my favourite hobbies to stone homosexuals as part of creative human interaction. Unfortunately there aren't so many left around here, so it can be a bit boring on sundays. We're also short of stones, because it's blasphemic to use the same stones again. Don't ask me why.

Quote: [" the list goes on and on."]

I also write "etc." sometimes, when I want things to look more impressive.

Quote: ["Bottom line - it does not depend on what I say or what others say but it depends on the Bible itself."]

Aha, bottomline is: "Because". You took me by surprise there, I didn't see that one coming.

Quote: ["Prophecy is the next proof that I would like to present and will show you that it IS indeed the Word of God and all things written in there will come true."]

ANYTHING to avoid gen 1 and 2 with me.



Glass, I apologize for interrupting in a post adressed to you, but it's part of the game trying to get around me and later claim, that 'answers' already have been given to somebody else.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by bogomil

 

Well since our OP won't address this issue...

Lets get down to this comparison you're talking about. Im doing a little comparison right now, and i think i see what you're talking about.

Sorry, I have a ten-year strategy for this thread, so I won't rush things here. But I can send them to you privately, if you are curious on the scientific-approach.

reply to post by bogomil

It's one of my favourite hobbies to stone homosexuals as part of creative human interaction. Unfortunately there aren't so many left around here, so it can be a bit boring on sundays. We're also short of stones, because it's blasphemic to use the same stones again. Don't ask me why.

MEMBER SELECTION: FUNNIEST QUOTE OF THE MONTH AWARD

reply to post by edmc^2


Thanks for your timely response and your candor. I look forward to our continued discussion.

I'm glad to see that you're now referring to the original Hebrew text, wherein the meanings of the words are preserved.

Here’s how we know why the sequence of the “Creative Days” is correct: key words.

The key words are:

1)“create (or created)”
2) “made” and “Let there be”
3) “light” and “lights”.

I understand these key words already though I am glad you made this clear. However when God said "let there be (Hayah) light", it was still essentially the act of creating light, but since light is not something you can really "touch" in the same sense as matter it can't really be formed in the sense that "bara" implies. This is mere semantics.

How do we know that the heavens include the heavenly bodies (like the sun, moon, stars, galaxies, etc)?

The writer of Revelation made a reference to this and expanded further:

“and by the One who lives forever and ever, who created the heaven and the things in it and the earth and the things in it and the sea and the things in it, he swore: “There will be no delay any longer;” (Revelation 10:6)

What hebrew word was translated into "Heavens"? From what I've read in Genesis, on the 2nd Day...

"God went on to say: “Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. 8 And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day."

...I take it the Heavens are the expanse between the waters above and the waters below. Now, what are the waters above? It sounds like a primitive explanation of the sky, like a great blue ocean above us. By this definition, the sun and all the "luminaries" are not in Heaven, but beyond Heaven, unless the inherent meaning of the Hebrew word for Heaven shows otherwise.

Another thing: if God created the Heavens on or before the 1st Day, why did he need to 'divide the oceans' to 'let heaven be' on the 2nd Day?

At this stage of the 1st Creative Day when God’s power (spirit) was “moving to and fro over the surface of the waters”, it did something to the dark “watery deep” since “light” from heavenly bodies mentioned in Gen 1:1 (sun, moon, stars) became visible on the earth – “there came to light”.

Light became visible to whom? Last I heard, life didn't exist until the 6th Day. What is the relevance of making light visible if there are none to see it?

So if a person was standing on earth he can see light* through the “watery deep”. This “light” as explained by the writer created/provided a division between the darkness from the light – God “calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night”.

The fact that there were no living beings to witness this light notwithstanding, was it necessary for God to say there is light for this light to become visible? Wouldn't the act of creating luminaries cause light to become visible?

*Other translations puts v3 this way: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis)

This is closer to the truth. However if the "big bang" theory is true, then light came to be long before there was ever really an Earth. Light gradually came into existence since it was theorized that stars only began to form about a billion years after creation. The stars were responsible for atomic fusion which created the heavier elements that planets are made of, therefore light preceded the Earth.

With this understanding we are closer to the truth than what was written thousands of years ago.

reply to post by Glass


Hi Glass,

I will abide by your decission on this, but here is a suggestion from me. How would you consider it, if I parallel to you joined your present direction? I don't want to interfere (my recent post was just related to the 'tactics' used by the thread author), but I do have some additional comments, which it would be better to have done with now, instead of going through everything again later.

No hard feelings whatever your answer.

We are talking about the King James Authorized version of the Holy Bible being Infallible....right? (I tried to stay out of this thread, but I see all my favorite people(s) here so I had to join in

Originally posted by KJV1611
We are talking about the King James Authorized version of the Holy Bible being Infallible....right? (I tried to stay out of this thread, but I see all my favorite people(s) here so I had to join in

I thought the Scriptures were infallible only in the original Greek and Hebrew. The work of Ivan Panin, and also of the Meru Project indicates so, not to mention historical, orthodox Christianity. Ivan Panin in particular stated that the mathematical structure of the Scriptures makes it possible to restore the ORIGINAL text perfectly. It is just possible to make the KJV, or any other version for that matter, into an idol, but of course, I'm not suggesting that you have.

Originally posted by KJV1611
We are talking about the King James Authorized version of the Holy Bible being Infallible....right? (I tried to stay out of this thread, but I see all my favorite people(s) here so I had to join in

The OP's fav is the NWT...

But of course none of these comments from "experts" will matter if the New World Translation Bible is not able to stand under such intense scrutiny.

In fact many well recognized translations will not be able to stand if subjected to such intense sruitiny as the NWT was subjected to and is still being subjected to (year in year out).

As they say "proof is in the pudding".

(Note: the translator committees are not inspired by God or infallible - as such there's NO such thing as "Perfect Translation" or else there will be no need for revisions. As we increase our knowledge and understanding of the original Biblical words - thus revision is a norm - as long as the original intent of the words are preserved and a clearer meaning is achieved.)

For example - replacing God's Holy Name YHWH/YHVH/JHVH (Yahweh/Jehovah) with LORD changes the meaning of the name and muddies the intent of word. Or replacing the Hebrew word Sheol / Hades / Gehenna with "hell" changes the meaning of the word and introduces unscriptural traditions of men.

Here's just one example of the superiority of the NWT:


KJV - Psa 110:1 -
[[A Psalm of David.]] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.


Which LORD said unto which Lord?

NWT

“Of David. A melody. 110 The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”” (Psalm110:1)



So are you prepared to subject the KJV Bible to same criticism as the NWT was subjected to?

reply to post by bogomil


I am by no means the supreme antitheist, so you can go right ahead. Anything you can add is appreciated.

After the recent (imo opinion un-neccessary) re-cycling of translations, I draw the conclusion, that this kind of christianity is made up of two groups.

1/ Those who master classical languages and have self-evident self-evidence.

2/ The sheeple, who need to have it all explained to them by group-1 christians.

Originally posted by Glass
reply to post by bogomil

 

I am by no means the supreme antitheist, so you can go right ahead. Anything you can add is appreciated.

Thanks Glass.

If I haven't missed something, I have some considerations on

A/ "In the beginning".

Which 'beginning' are we precisely referring to?

The beginning of cosmos; ....the beginning of earth; ......or a collective beginning of cosmos AND earth. The last option covering a period of some 10+ billion years (according to contemporary science), and which imo will take a considerable amount of semantic gymnastics to call a "beginning".

B/ My next point is the emergence of socalled 'light' (ofcourse with a feed-back to what 'beginning' we are using as a basis). Is this 'light' the high-frequency radiation of the Big Bang theory, or is it the 'light' manifested from our type of star, with its six visible parts and one invisible part of photon-emissions from the seven electron-shells in the hydrogen atom.

C/ And for the duration: 1:4 where light and darkness are 'separated'. What does that mean? You don't 'separate' light and darkness, as they only are semantic descriptions of the presence or absense of photons.

Did 'god' 'turn off' the cosmic electro-magnetic background radiation periodically? Or did he put photon emissions in some special places, and not in other places?



You have already pointed out some of the resulting inconsistencies in gen 1:1 and onwards as a result of semantic and chronological confusion, and as I later continue, this will be accentuated when we get to 1:11. But not for now. We have to take a closer look at the firmament-thingy and 'water' first.



PS Neither am I the ultimate theist slayer. I just have a no-non-sense attitude to self-proclaimed elitism with monopoly ambitions, using rhetoric in its crusading.

reply to post by Glass


I’m back:

I understand these key words already though I am glad you made this clear. However when God said "let there be (Hayah) light", it was still essentially the act of creating light, but since light is not something you can really "touch" in the same sense as matter it can't really be formed in the sense that "bara" implies. This is mere semantics.

Actually it's not "act of creating" but an act of making - that is, cuases the light to gradually appear.

Here's another translation:

“And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future].” -- Benjamin Wills Newton

Like you said – “since light is not something you can really "touch" in the same sense as matter it can't really be formed in the sense that "bara" implies”.Therefore it becomes clear why the writer used the word “hayah” instead of “bara’” - because he was explaining to us the act of causing – as in “Let there be light.”

And in order for "light (ohr)” to gradually appear on the surface of the "dark watery deep" the source of the "light" need to exist beforehand, before the creation of the earth.That is exactly what the Bible is telling us - in the beginning (of creation) God created (bara') the (1) heavens and the (2) earth - Gen 1:1.

This agrees with the current scientific evidence that the Universe is about 14 byo while the earth is about 4 byo. Some estimate that the sun is around 4.6 byo and some stars are much much older than the sun even older than our solar system.

Also since the closest light sources from the earth are the two big luminaries (ma'ohr) – the sun and the moon - so naturally the "light" must have come from them (of course light can be from other sources also).

This occurred when the "watery deep" started to thin out (by whatever process) as the "light (ohr)" began to gradually penetrate or illuminate the water engulfed earth. Once this “light (ohr)” gradually appeared the division between light and darkness is now possible.

Interestingly science states that due to the intense core temp of the earth – enormous amount of water vapor (some suggest thru out-gassing) began to form on the earth (during its early formation). In addition they say that the distance of the earth from the sun is also the reason why the earth has so much water in comparison with other planets (Goldilocks zone).

So scientifically speaking the Creation account is on solid ground.

But you say:

How do we know that the heavens include the heavenly bodies (like the sun, moon, stars, galaxies, etc)?

The writer of Revelation made a reference to this creation event and expanded further:

“and by the One who lives forever and ever, who created the heaven and the things in it and the earth and the things in it and the sea and the things in it, he swore: “There will be no delay any longer;” (Revelation 10:6)


What hebrew word was translated into "Heavens"? From what I've read in Genesis, on the 2nd Day...

"God went on to say: “Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. 8 And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day."

...I take it the Heavens are the expanse between the waters above and the waters below. Now, what are the waters above? It sounds like a primitive explanation of the sky, like a great blue ocean above us. By this definition, the sun and all the "luminaries" are not in Heaven, but beyondHeaven, unless the inherent meaning of the Hebrew word for Heaven shows otherwise.

In addition to what I already said, we know that heavenly bodies are included in the "heavens" mentioned in Gen 1:1 because the Hebrew word for “heavens” “shamayim” is in plural form.


The plurality of this word signify that there are more than one "heaven" and can have several application - it can mean the Universe and all that’s in it, the space where heavenly bodies are located, God’s residence, the heavenly bodies themselves or“sky”.

Further since the "expanse (raqiya)" called "heaven" began to appear on the 2nd creative day, thus the "heavens" (shamayim) mentioned in Gen 1:1 refers to none other than the universe (space) and all the things in it. Other parts of the Bible confirms this to be so.

Here’s one:

“and that you may not raise your eyes to the heavens (shamayim) and indeed see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the army of the heavens, and actually get seduced and bow down to them and serve them, which Jehovah your God has apportioned to all the peoples under the whole heavens.” (Deuteronomy 4:19)

This agrees with what you said, that is "the sun and all the "luminaries" are not in Heaven, but beyond Heaven".


So the "expanse (raqiya)" called "heaven (singular)" mentioned in the 2nd creative event (v6-8) is none other than - to use the common vernacular - the "sky" or scientifically speaking the atmosphere where birds fly into.

v8:"And God began to call the expanse Heaven."

You also said:

Now, what are the waters above? It sounds like a primitive explanation of the sky, like a great blue ocean above us.

You're correct, in fact the Hebrew word "raqiya" (expanse/firmament) signify something solid like a dome.

Interestingly ancient cosmology had this belief of a "celestial orbs, nested concentrically inside one another, with the earth at the centre."

en.wikipedia.org...

Also some archeologists commented that at one time the earth's temperature was milder eartwide. This was confirmed when they uncovered animal and plant life that normally exist on warm regions of the earth buried under tons of ice sheets.

And as mentioned already - scientific studies state that huge amount of water vapor (some say due to out-gassing) exist on earth during it's early formation.


This also account for the less radiation bombardment of the earth due to the presence of this "water canopy" which might explain why people live longer in ancient times.

So the evidence of this "great blue ocean above us" is sound.

Another thing: if God created the Heavens on or before the 1st Day, why did he need to 'divide the oceans' to 'let heaven be' on the 2nd Day?

The Heaven (expanse) or sky that was formed on the second day serves many purpose, one of which to sustain and protect life on earth.

Next you said:

...
Light became visible to whom? Last I heard, life didn't exist until the 6th Day. What is the relevance of making light visible if there are none to see it? ...

The fact that there were no living beings to witness this light notwithstanding, was it necessary for God to say there is light for this light to become visible? Wouldn't the act of creating luminaries cause light to become visible?

Actually there were intelligent beings already living before the earth or even our solar system was created.

Look at the following verses:

“4 Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? Tell [me], if you do know understanding. ...
7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?” (Job 38:4-7)

Sons of God - angelic sons of God, that is, were present and "joyfully" watching the creation events.

And of course for the benefit of mankind.

Remember also, Moses the writer of Genesis wrote the accounts from his POV - as if he was observing them.

Lastly -

This is closer to the truth. However if the "big bang" theory is true, then light came to be long before there was ever really an Earth. Light gradually came into existence since it was theorized that stars only began to form about a billion years after creation. The stars were responsible for atomic fusion which created the heavier elements that planets are made of, therefore light preceded the Earth.

With this understanding we are closer to the truth than what was written thousands of years ago.
“This is closer to the truth. However if the "big bang" theory is true, then light came to be long before there was ever really an Earth”

Actually - it's the other way around, we're now just confirming what was written in the Bible thousands of years ago. We're just starting to catch up.

Here’s a thread that I created a while back that discusses the scientific implications of Genesis 1:1 in relation to the “Big Bang”. Check it out if you’re interested since it’s tied to this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So to summarize the sequence of the Creative “DAY” / Events -

They are:

1) Planets, sun moon stars already existed (created) billions and billions of years.
2) Watery earth was formless.
3) Preparation for earth to be inhabited.
Day 1: Light (of some sort) came to be on a formless watery earth.
Day 2: Separation between waters above and waters below, expanse (sky) appeared.
Day 3: Dry land, vegetation, organism appeared and water basins formed (seas).
Day 4: Lights from the luminaries became discernible from earth. Days and seasons.
Day 5: Animals of every sort appeared; fish, flying creatures, sea monsters– dinosaurs.
Day 6: More animals -wild and domestic and finally man was created.
Day 7: Physical Creation stopped.


Comparing with Scientific studies -
They are:

(1) A beginning.
(2) A primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water.
(3) Light.
(4) An expanse or atmosphere.
(5) Large areas of dry land.
(6) Land plants.
(7) Sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning.
(8) Sea monsters and flying creatures.
(9) Wild and tame beasts, mammals.
(10) Man.




Supplemental info:

Strong's H8064 - shamayim


Transliteration
shamayim Pronunciation
shä·mah'·yim (Key)

Part of Speech
masculine noun Root Word (Etymology)
From an unused root meaning to be lofty
TWOT Reference
2407a

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) heaven, heavens, sky
a) visible heavens, sky
1) as abode of the stars
2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
b) Heaven (as the abode of God)

www.blueletterbible.org...

Strong's H7549 - raqiya`
???????

Transliteration
raqiya` Pronunciation
rä·k?'·ah (Key)
Part of Speech
masculine noun Root Word (Etymology)
From ????? (H7554)
TWOT Reference
2217a
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
a) expanse (flat as base, support)
b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

www.blueletterbible.org...

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by bogomil

 

Well since our OP won't address this issue...

Lets get down to this comparison you're talking about. Im doing a little comparison right now, and i think i see what you're talking about.

LOL - RETREEEAT!