You're welcome, but please believe me when I tell you that I've forgotten what it is I corrected, and that if I did so, it certainly wasn't done with the motive of making you appear ignorant or anything. Lord knows I make too many mistakes of my own to fault someone for some hasty typing. No, my argument is "if you assume the words in Genesis 1 and 2 mean what they say they do, then there is a contradiction."Of course it's possible to interpret G1 and G2 in such a way as to remove the appearance of contradiction; the question is, do the most reasonable ways to read G1 and G2 individually contradict? And of course, they do. Yes. And the most reasonable explanation for that is because G2, like G1, is in order of time, not importance. It would be better if you used language like that found in the passages in question. With that in mind, a better example would be:Statement 1: I went to the doctor, then I went to the store.Statement 2: I went to the store, then I went to the doctor.Those statements are indeed contradictory, because each one of them describes a sequence of events. They contradict - like G1 and G2 - because they're two different sequences. None, the evidence is textual. The two chapters are textually different - two different writing styles implies two different authors. Or, more likely, that's the end of the first creation account. It sounds a lot like an ending, not a beginning, to me. Remember that the chapter and verse breaks in the Bible are not original, they were added later. That's not an assumption, that's a conclusion based on the language used. God says "Hrm, man is alone, I'd better do something about that."Why would God conclude that he would need to make a helper for Man if he'd already done so? Why would he say "it is not good for Man to be alone" if he wasn't alone? Why would he say "I'd better do something" when he'd already done it? Your interpretation simply doesn't make sense. G1 is about God creating and evaluating his creation, including Man. G2 is about the relationship between Man, Woman, and animals.But none of that matters. What matters is that they detail the exact same sequence in a different order. As a literal history, they contradict.But taken as spiritual mythology, they compliment. It's only when you try to take them as literal truth do they trip you up. Taken as what they are - poems designed to place the nature of God and Man in the proper context - they're perfectly complimentary.You couldn't ask for better evidence that you're not supposed to take them literally. When we do it your way, we get stuck. When we do it my way, we achieve enlightenment.Clearly your interpretation is wrong.

Sir. Crashfrog, Thou hast insulted thy Honor.Taking off the glove from my right had, I slap you across the face.I challenge thee, Sir Crashfrog, to a duel at thirty pages.O.K. All joking aside, it seams that you have formed a hypothesis about Ch1 v Ch 2. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seams to be what your saying.You hypotheses that Geneses Chapters One, and Two are:A) Both chronological accounts of creation {I.E. They both describe the order in which Universe and earth were constructed.}
B) Both myths {I.E. there is no factual evidence to show that ether are true, or both directly contradict the established history of the origins of the universe and the history of life on this Earth.}
C) Originally authored by different writers.
D) In direct contradiction to each other.Instead of challenging you to a duel, I’d like to invite you, and anyone who would like to join us, to a little textual experiment. We have a Hypotheses, so, lets test it.Now, as I understand it, the scientific method goes something like this.1) Correctly identify the frame of Reference.
2) Determine the initial conditions.
3) Perform an experiment, or observe the phenomenon noting what takes place, and when and where.
4) Note the final conditions.
5) Form an hypothesis.
6) Test the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations.I also see the need to put forth a few definitions; this so that we’re all on the same page.According to my Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997 the following are defined as such: Contradiction: 2a statement in opposition to another; denial. {Direct opposition between two statements or between any two things compared.}
Paradox: 1[Archaic] a statement contrary to common belief 2a statement that seems contradictory, unbelievable, or absurd but that may be true in fact {a seeming contradiction that can be resolved.}To start off, I guess the first thing we should do is start at the beginning. We must first establish the correct frame of Reference.Now, as Crashfrog has correctly stated, the chapter and verse breaks in the Bible are not original, they were added later. So if you take out the Chapter and verse breaks you get a single continues story; as it originally was read.Lets stop where Chapter two stops, simply because this is the scope of our discussion. If we take into account the whole of the text, {I.E. Looking at it as one continuous account} a few questions arise.1) Taking the text as a whole, why would the writer give two apposing accounts of creation in the same text, even if the original accounts were by different authors?
2) The second portion of the text seams to be repeatedly referring back to the first half of the text. Could this mean that the second half is not an account of the creation event, rather an account of Gods dealing with mankind?So, what do you think the proper frame of reference is in this case?

Doesn't biblical scholarship point out that GEnesis 1 was written much later than 2 by a different author with a different perspective?

Yes it does. And it is very interesting when you look atthe content and the order.In Gen 2, and individual Man is created, and then, sometime later, a woman is cloned from the man.Since Gen 1 is more recent than Gen 2, the authors of Gen 1 had the content of Gen 2 to us as a source. Yet they made significant changes.First, Gen 1 uses plurality when speaking of the creation. It is not clear that it is only one man and one woman, but rather a general mankind consisting of men and women.Second, Genesis 1 recognizes that all living creatures originated as unliving matter and that living things evolved from non-living. It does not deal with the HOW issues. Genesis 1 is fully compatible with the TOE.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'd prefer Irish duelling rules - we hit up a pub, get wicked pissed, and whack each other with wooden clubs. A hypothesis? No, I've formed a conclusion based on reading the text. Because perhaps the original intent of the Bible editor (who placed these two transcriptions in the order they are now) was not to present a unified literary work, but simply to record Hebrew oral history, in which there were already two contradictory accounts, probably regional variants? It's much more likely, based on the text, that it's simply a concatenation of two different regional oral histories; two variants of the same story that slowly "evolved" differences. (The irony is truly astounding.)Again, this is the most reasonable conclusion based on reading the text. Of course, I don't read Hebrew, and the original manuscripts are not avaliable to any of us. But in regards to the Bible as it is presented in English, Gen 1 and Gen 2 are obviously both chronological accounts that don't agree. Trying to say that you "know" that one of them is not a chronological account, and then offering as evidence their disagreement doesn't fly. They could disagree for more likely reasons, including error.

I can't believe this discussion has gone on for so longover Gen 1 and 2. Has anyone here ever diagramed a sentence? A not so close look at the text clearly shows the animals HAD been created before Man. Take a look at the tense. I give the English translation of the Torah here, but I have checked several other versions and found the same to be true. LOOK at the TENSE.1:24 God said, 'The earth shall bring forth particular species of living creatures, particular species of livestock, land animals, and beasts of the earth.' It happened.
1:25 God [thus] made particular species of beasts of the earth, particular species of livestock, and particular species of animals that walk the land. God saw that it was good.
1:26 God said, 'Let us make man with our image and likeness. Let him dominate the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock animals, and all the earth - and every land animal that walks the earth.'
1:27 God [thus] created man with His image. In the image of God, He created him, male and female He created them.
2:19 God had formed every wild beast and every bird of heaven out of the ground. He [now] brought [them] to the man to see what he would name each one. Whatever the man called each living thing [would] remain its name.If you have a version that contradicts my point, let me know.

Yes, there are plenty of translations which do not use the past tense:NASB Amplified Bibe KJV English Standard Version

'zat so?Gen 2: So it is clear that GOD made man first, then the animals, then party time and then the broads. He had Adam try the different animals as companion and Adam thought they were nifty (he particularly like the sheep) but not exactly what he had in mind. So then GOD made woman out of Adams Rib.

Except ...

Gen 1 says the order was Men and Women at the same time and after the critters.Now which one lieth?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thank you for providing the examples. It is true the past tense is not directly stated in these passages, however, it doesn't imply that the animals were formed after Adam either. In fact, the conjunction "and" ties the ideas together rather than assert that one event led to another event.

Taking note of the "and" without identifying what it links to is not a good way to identify ehat it means in context.Even the NIV version has this for 2:18 So the "and" links creation of the animals to God's decision to [B]make

To the Forum;An Atheist put me on the right track.
He spotted these contradictions between Chaps. 1 & 2.A) "Let the earth bring forth grass, HERB ... the third day" - Gen 1.11, 13.
B) "the Lord God made the earth and the heavens before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any HERB of the field had grown ..." - Gen 2.4-5.THE CRITICAL FACTOR = HERB.In Chap. 1 the HERB was on the third day.
In Chap. 2 the HERB was after God made the earth and the heavens.So then, the Atheist had spotted the difference for me.
I burned with shame that an Atheist could read the Bible better than me.
Alexander Campbell explained this reading the Bible with a creed in your mind as, "they are reading with tinted glasses."And, that is what had happened to me; "The simple believes every word, but the prudent looks well to his going" (Prov 14.15).But then the Atheist undid all his good work with these words,
"This proves that the Bible is full of contradictions, and so, there is no God."
"The fool has said in his heart, 'No God'" - Ps 53.1.Immediately, I said to myself, "I can do better than that."So then, I ended up with a book manuscript entitled, "The Parable of the 7 Days of Creation."Day #2 = Gen 37.9-10; Jacob = Sun, Leah = Moon, Sons of Jacob = Stars; combined they = Government; or, Heavens.Days 6 & 7 = "I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is Day [Morning of the 6th Day], Night [Evening of the 7th Day] is coming when no one can work" - Jn 9.4.Night 7 = "For the Night [Evening of the 7th Day] is far spent, the Day [Morning of the 7th Day] is at hand" - Rom 13.12."For the Evening (first) and the Morning were the first day" - Gen 1.5.Day 7 = "Moreover the light of the [New] Moon [High Priest] as the light of the [New] Sun [King], and the light of the Sun will be sevenfold, as the light of seven days [of the old Sun] ..." - Isa 30.26.
A) Jesus = New High Priest, Heb 8.1.
B) Jesus = New King (Key of David - Rev 3.7).
C) Light of Israel = 1600 Furlongs (200 Miles) - Rev 14.20.
D) Light of New Jerusalem (in AD 77) = 12,000 Furlongs (1500 Miles).
E) 1600 F. X 7.5 = 12,000 F.
200 M. X 7.5 = 1500 M.STREET OF GOLD."In that Day [AD 77], there will be a Highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will serve with the Assyrians. In that Day
[AD 77] Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria -- a blessing in the midst of the land, whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, 'Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance'" - Isa 19.23-25.And, prophecy employing symbolism, these three nations referred to the scattered tribes of Israel, in AD 77 (that is another subject).And, this is the reconciliation of The Parable of Creation (Gen 1), and the Literal Creation (Gen 2)."There shall be no night there" - Rev 21.25.The reason that New Jerusalem has no Night is that she replaced the 7th Night."And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done" - Gen 2.2.THREE AGES OF MAN.Pre-flood, Old Heavens, New Heavens (New Jerusalem) - 2Pet 3.6,
3.7-10, 3.13.THE MARK OF THE BEAST; 3 = 2. See: Rev 13.6; Dan 7.25.hoaryhead

Whatever that is you're smoking, hh - don't pass it over here. It makes you utterly incoherent.

I think some of the principles in quantum mechanics do hold keys to better understanding "how God did-it" but many folks around here don't even accept the empirical data and science, much less drawing parallels with theology.However, I am not so sure there are any contradictions to be "solved" between Genesis 1 and 2. I've always seen Genesis 2 as just filling in more details. It's also interesting that Genesis speaks of things like flying creatures being created before man during the time before land mammals were created, and being created from the sea, and then Genesis 2 speaks of birds being created from the ground, and so we see here a distinction between the animals created to if a help was found suitable for Adam, which is a pretty primitive thought, and the animals created on the 5th day.What's interesing to me is how science has resolved this so-called contradiction but evos don't see it. When people say what about the dinosaurs, I say it's right there in the Bible. How did Moses know about prehistoric dino-birds, flying reptiles?So we do see the Bible speaking of a creation of creatures around the time of Adam, in the same day or era, that were more similar to Adam (mammals including birds), and see that before man was created there existed prehistoric flying creatures and other animals.But I think it gets deeper. Personally, I don't see the past, present, and future as a single historical time-line, and so the creation days in Genesis as more patterns, real events, but that the past is not static.So I ponder if when death entered into the world, if it didn't create death in the past as well, in the whole time-line.

That's the way I've read it. I don't see the contradictions the OP are talking about.

I think you mean I Kings. A lot of such things are resolved on closer inspection, but let's say the contradiction is real, and let's go further and say, even though the basic story of the wars seems the same, that the contradiction is not just a scribal error.You assume they both cannot be true.But is that correct? How do you know they both cannot be true? Maybe they are both true, and put in there to show us that reality is a little different than what we surmise based on everyday assumptions.