Derf, the word "heaven/s" in the Hebrew is the word "shamayim" which is like the word for "God" which is "elohim". A Hebrew word ending in "-im" normally means plural, but may be singular like "sheep" in English.
Thus Genesis 1:1 could equally validly read "In the beginning God/s created the heaven/s and the earth". Take your pick.
I understand what you are saying, but that means we need to look at the text for the definitions, as best as possible. And fortunately for us, Gen 1 defines "heavens". It defines it as "expanse" or "firmament", depending on your translation, but it goes further to say that He put the sun, moon, and stars in it.
Going to Ex 20:11, from the context of Exo 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Look at what is mentioned with "shamayim" or heaven/s and it is earth, sea, heaven - all three limited to earth's lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere - or the three places where life exists on earth. And all of Genesis 1 is about God creating life in these three zones in the six days. Thus the context of Ex 20:11 shows that it is limited to earth what happened on the six days of creation week, including Day 4.
On Day 4 God is setting the sun, moon and stars as markers to delineate Holy Days, from the vantage of earth. God is not creating them, because a day would not exist without the sun to define it from Day 1.
You mentioned before that a day would not exist without the sun, but that is demonstrably false. God defines what a "day" means, and He does it without reference to the sun--in Gen 1:5. It is the evening and the morning, dark and light progression. The sun is later put in charge of the light/morning, but it wasn't necessary to define a day, and it isn't sufficient to define a day, since the sun is only associated with the light, not the dark, which came first in the progression. This is a fact, even if you assume the sun is still there though not apparent. If we take the text to mean just what is apparent (I'm not opposed to the idea, but I think it makes us lose a lot of the actual knowledge of creation God is trying to give us in the text), then the "sun" is not apparent, so the "sun" is not necessary for the definition of "day".
Yes there are three heaven, the first being our atmosphere, the second been the starry cosmos, the third being where God lives in the supernatural realm. Genesis 1 does not mention the second and third heavens at all, not even in Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:1 is a summary of what is to happen in the rest of Genesis 1. God tells us what He is going to do, then He tells us while He is doing it, then God rejoices and tells us what He has done in saying it is "very good".
I think it's funny you say this again. When God talks about the sun, moon, and stars, He mentions things that are in the second heaven, so in this respect, He mentions the second heaven. Plus, by His definition of "firmament", being the thing the sun, moon, and stars are placed in, as "heaven", He refers back to Gen 1:1 to explain what He is including in "heaven/s"--where the sun, moon, and stars are. And in one more way, as YOU pointed out, He explains by including all of the three biomes--land, sea, and "expanse/firmament". He didn't put a limit on which part of the "expanse/firmament" He was talking about, so there's not reason for us to do so--unless we feel constrained by our presuppositions to do so. But that means we are only willing to accept God's Word when it doesn't conflict with our own. I think that's a precarious position to take.
I do believe all the organisms you mentioned existed and survived from before Genesis 1. These are ancient creatures. God did create new angiosperms, particularly the domestic crops like wheat and corn and maize and new domestic animals specifically for mankind to utilise, while all the bigger mammals (megafauna) died out before Genesis 1 or they would have posed problems by preying on man. I think the darkness covering earth wiped out most land animals, so God had to recreate all the life we see today. But sea creatures like those you mentioned can and have survived many mass extinctions because they live in water.
This is an important admission on your part, and I'm glad you have stated it so clearly. if there are creatures that God DIDN'T make in the six days of Ex 20:11, then God is not telling us truth in Ex 20:11. Here's the verse again, with emphasis added:
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
So while you might be able to separate one part of the heavens from another (I think you do so erroneously), you have now also said Ex 20:11 doesn't apply to the biomes you agree it is talking about. That's a contradiction in your basic assumptions. And you should note that you have done the same thing with all three biomes--earth, sea, and heaven--saying the verse doesn't apply fully to any of them.
Maybe I'll reiterate so you understand what I'm saying. If some sea or land creatures were made BEFORE the six days, then when Ex 20:11 says "In six days God made
everything that is in the sea or on the land", it is NOT telling the truth. You've made the bible to lie to support your position.
I will tell you why Gen 1:1 is NOT referring to the Big Bang 13.7 Billion years ago. The heaven and the earth were not created at the same time. Earth only came into being 5 billion years ago or 9 billion years after the Big Bang.
Again, you are using your presupposition to prove your presupposition--which is circular and invalid logically.
Thus, though I sometimes punt the "Gap Theory" that there is a gap between Gen 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, this is not strictly my belief. I believe Genesis limits itself strictly to the recreation, or regeneration of earth 6000 years ago, and says NOTHING about prior happenings on earth which we see in the geologic column.
I want to say I appreciate a discussion without either party calling the other a "heretic" or a fool, as happens all too often on TOL.
I think some people run out of words too quickly, and are left merely with labeling to try to make their point. But the only point they are making in that case is that they don'e have any other argument left. That doesn't mean they are wrong, by the way--they might be correct in calling you a heretic or a fool, but they haven't been able to prove their case. I try not to go down that path, as I don't see it as helpful to the discussion.
You might notice, though, that I have expressed to you that I think you are saying the bible is not true, and given you reasons why I say that. It is the same charge as calling you a heretic, I just give you reasons for it. Just thought you ought to know. I don't mean offense by it, but it's what I believe is the import of what you are teaching.
Your teaching is especially harmful in this way: Ex 20:11 is part of the God's ten commandments, and He uses the universality of His creation to make a point about one of the commandments. If He lies to us in reference to one commandment, then can we really trust Him that any of the commandments should apply to us (or to the Hebrews that were receiving the commandments)? Remember these are words He wrote on stone by His own finger.
