A serious question for Christians... 2 questions actually.?

In ancient Middle Eastern cosmology the Earth was seen as covered by a solid dome made of tin. This is actually what the "firmament" in the Bible is talking about. Notice that it separates waters below it from waters above it. It was believed that there was a vast quantity of water above the visible firmament. This creation account is written to be comprehended by the ancient people who read it.

The reason why there are two accounts that don't harmonize well is because the first account is poetry, or perhaps a song, and both accounts are allegorical.

The Biblical writers understood the allegorical nature of the Genesis accounts. This is evidenced by the fact that Paul adopted a Greek cosmology in which there were three heavens (the sky, the realm of the planets and stars and the supernatural realm). This cosmology does not harmonize at all with the Genesis account, but that's okay but it's not meant to be taken literally. It communicates spiritual truths.

You really should lay off getting questions off websites and taking the claims they make at face value.

To explain...

1) in Genesis chapter 1 line 14 it says "And God said, let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years". In this verse the "firmament" which is also cited as heaven, is the air which wraps around our planet which we now know as the atmosphere and the lights which we know are the stars prompt the first question.

Why did he placed all the stars in the universe inside our atmosphere?

Nothing in the Genesis account says that he placed the Stars in our Atmosphere. The Heavens (Or heaven in some versions in English) means only "THe Sky", and not "Heaven" as in what the term woudl later eman, as int he abode of God. In Ancient Hebrew there is also no way to express an infinite or open space. The word ****** is used and Translates roughly to "Boundary" or "Area" or "Firmament". The verse is merley sayign God oput the Sun and Stars and Moon in the Sky, but does not say "Its in our Atmosphere".

I realise you won't listen to me or assume I'm just makign excuses, thats ypical, but I really do tire of Biblical Critics inventign reasons to disparage a text that really rests on readign intot he text somethign it nevedr actually says.

2) My second question is a little easier.

Why are there 2 different accounts of the creation myth in the bible?

I personally don't think there are. As popular as the JEDR Theory is, I personallythink Chapter 2 Verse 5 flows after verse 4. I see the events in Chapter 2, or "The second Creation Myth' as you put it, as basiclaly continuing on from the same story above.

I thus also think Adam and Eve were created as a different type of Humanity than was created before, which also explains where Caisn wife came from.

But if you do go by the Documentary Hypothesis, then the answer is even more simple, but has one major flaw. The two stories repressnt two differign Traditions, now refered to as the Elohimist and Yahwist Traditions. (J is for Jehivah and E for Elohim. Jehovah was a German reconstruction o the name of God but now known to be off.he current reconstruction si Yahweh.)

When Genesis was compiled by a Redactor (R) he took both versions of the creation account and palced them into the text as both were considered Holy. They were simply two different accoutns form two different but related sources.

My problem with this is that if we assume a Redactor existed who sought ot harmonise and compile the Genesis Account, why did he not pick one story or the other? Or merge the two by writtign his own? As all versiosn of the Theory assume the Redactor made modifications to the text, and even added a few lines ot link text peices, thebn woudln't he have noticed such "Obvious contradictions"?

I never thought hte Documentary Hypothesis made sense. if it was a few obscure conttadictiosn then sure, but the glarrign oens htey propose woudl have been corrected by the Redactor.

I also don't see the Contradictiosn as contradictive, as I stated above.

1. I'm not an expert in Hebrew. My Hebrew dictionary says the word for firmament is:

רקיע

râqı̂ya‛

raw-kee'-ah

From H7554; properly an expanse, that is, the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky: - firmament.

There are three types of heaven in the Bible. 1. Where the Birds fly. 2. Where the stars are. 3. Where God's throne is. It's my understanding by the context of Genesis 1:14, that it is talking about the expanse where the stars are.

2. It's a literary style. First, it tells the story in order. Then it goes back and fills in important details, not necessarily in order. You can see it in God's instructions to Moses building the ark as well. I don't have the source, but I've heard that other books of that time did that as well. I imagine that it helps people remember the story since they were originally passed down orally.

I rather like to think the creation stories are just to get the teaching going. It has to start somewhere, and why not at creations. No the stars are inside the heaven above as well. The stars can be seen by humans on earth and angels in heavens.

at the beginning, i've got faith you're working under numerous fake assumptions, which in turn have coloured your concept of this subject. You wrote "i understand i'm certainly no longer likely to get married for diverse reasons, between the extra important being the present divorce fee..." enable me ask you this: why do you suspect which you will fail at marriage basically because of the fact OTHERS have failed? while you're taking a while choosing a companion and marry understanding that that's a life-time dedication, and as quickly as married you in many situations deal including your companion with love and admire -- then why might you be confident that your marriage might fail? Do you recognize that folk getting divorces those days are doing so because of the fact they do NONE of those issues? they did no longer make an effort to establish they have been marrying the suitable individual, nor did they marry with the thought it replaced into for existence, nor did they make certain that their marriages have been saved reliable with the aid of consistent paintings (and have faith me, it is fairly paintings). perchance your misconceptions concerning the failure of your destiny marriage may well be alleviated in case you study useful ones. inspite of each thing, we are able to all study, can not we? Why might getting to understand the thank you to have a chuffed marriage be any distinctive than getting to understand the thank you to ski properly? And as for suicide: as a Protestant, i do no longer have faith there is something contained in the Bible that specifies that's a sin, much less a "mortal" one. besides the incontrovertible fact that it *is* in essence asserting to God, "i do no longer prefer this present you have given me," that's unloving in the direction of Him.

1) I'd guess that gravity would play a roll in this.

2) What 2 accounts? Do you mean the first account where it says what days creation happened and then how He did it?

Go here for all your Genesis questions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Because the bible is the worlds biggest continuity error.

1) bronze age men were not very good at astro physics

2) two delusions are better than one