re: #281 LotharBot

IIRC there would have been a lot of plant-like things, lots of mosses and such, but probably not “trees”.

The text *sort of* works as a timeline. But not really. It’s got too many things like that — too many things that are just a little bit out of order, or just don’t quite fit.

Whereas, if the text isn’t meant to be taken as an explicit timeline, but more like a listing of “stuff God created”, it makes perfect sense as a counterpoint to the Egyptian creation story.

Sure, like you said - it’s a counterpoint first, not a textbook. I just think it’s neat that the general progression of things is accurate. I don’t know of any other creation story that can say the same.