Contradictions between Genesis 1-2

Shaving with Occam's Razor would suggest that two different stories are two different stories. You're adding the unnecessary "entity" of a consistent Bible.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

Nonsense, of course. Take point 4 in the OP Message 1:

quote:

---

The overall order of creation in Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-3 is different than in Genesis 2:4-25.

---

The orders are different - animals, then humans in chapter 1 - man, then animals, then woman in chapter 2. You can't just assert that they're the same.Here's a list of colours: red, orange, yellow, green.Here's another list: green, blue, indigo, violet.While there is some overlap between the two lists, you can't say they're the same list. There are "omissions" in both. Neither is "more detailed" than the other. The two lists (stories) just disagree.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

Allow me to roll out Billy Graham.Suppose Billy says, "I'm happy to be here in France," and the interpreter says, "Je suis heureux d'tre ici en France," that's a good interpretation (according to Google Translator). If the interpreter says, "J'aime le fromage," that's a bad interpretation.The claim that Genesis 1 and 2 are the same story is a bad interpretation, because it doesn't convey the actual message. Anybody who interprets it that way is pushing his own agenda (trying to sell cheese, perhaps) instead of interpreting honestly.Edited by Ringo, : Added link.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

Hmm.... We have a quandary, since you agree with me but I disagree with you.In Message 48, you plainly said:

quote:

---

The facts are that the two chapters are NOT two different creation accounts.

---

I'm saying, "The facts are that the two chapters ARE two different creation accounts," and that your interpretation ("One is a more detailed account of day six, while the other is a detailed account of the whole creation.") is a bad interpretation.Have you changed your mind?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

If one is a creation story and one isn't, how can they be the same story?The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich covers many of the same events as The Winds of War but they're completely different stories written by different authors for different reasons. The first two chapters of Genesis are similar - two different stories by different authors with different purposes, which happen to cover some of the same events.What puzzles me is why anybody would even try to conflate them. What's the point? Yes. You seemed to be under the impression that different interpretations of the same message are permissible. I was pointing out that some interpretations are simply wrong.Your interpretation is simply wrong.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

You're jumping to conclusions.Most people in this thread are trying to point out that there are contradictions between the two accounts and that that's okay. Nobody is saying that the Bible is worthless because it contains contradictions.In fact, it's the literalists trying to cover up the contradictions who devalue the Bible. If you truly value the Bible, take it as it is. Don't idolize it as something perfect that it isn't.Don't start with the assumption that there must not be any contradictions.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

It doesn't matter what you believe. Never mind what other people's motives are. Just discuss the topic honestly. Who made that rule? The OP lays out some contradictions and anybody who wants to try to refute them is allowed to do so. There is no onus on anybody to "prove" them to your satisfaction. That's not the topic. We're only looking at the words. It doesn't much matter who wrote them. So you admit that your conclusion is based on assumption and not on fact. I don't have a "world view". You don't know what I believe. Don't make foolish assumptions about me.I most certainly do not assume that there are errors in the Bible. But I'm willing to take an honest look at the possibility. Are you?If you're just going to rant on and on about how there can't possibly be any errors in the Bible, you have nothing to contribute to this thread.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

Well, all you've done is make up some barely plausible reasons to hand-wave away the contradictions. You really need to show that they aren't there, not just that they "might not" be there.Just a few disjointed comments: Adam's imagination. Or more precisely, the imagination of whoever wrote the story. To whom is Hamlet speaking when he says, "To be or not to be...?" It's a soliloquy. The plot doesn't allow anybody else to be present, but the audience has to hear the speaker's thoughts. I don't see any particular significance in that. I often say to myself, "Let's try this...." It's a common enough figure of speech, I think. No need to draw great theological truths from it. Sure, the book written by the guy would make him seem important, wouldn't it? The duck Bible doesn't mention man at all ("And God created ducks in His own image"). We have a whole topic on that very topic. Synopsis: "created" and "formed" mean the same thing in Hebrew. Please take it over there. Again, not very significant. God might very well have said the same thing to the giraffe. You could also assert that The Lord of the Rings is a "reiteration" of War and Remembrance and you could use the same lame apologetics. (Did Wouk actually say that Briney wasn't a hobbit?)

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

So that's your entire argument: the unsupported assertion that "the process is not the issue"? ("They must have meant X (even though they said Y) because X is what I want to believe.")Keeping in mind that the specifics of digestion are off-topic, do you have anything else to offer?

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

The mistake is in deciding beforehand which conclusion you want.You decided that the Bible is always right - no information, scientific or otherwise, can ever point out a mistake in the Bible. Therefore, the information itself must be the mistake. Black must be white because the Bible sez so.It's funny, and pathetic, to watch people jump through hoops trying to explain four-legged insects and bat-birds. But the topic here is the first two chapters of Genesis and those contradictions only. Please respond to the posts about the topic.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

Nobody here is doing that. We do find contradictions, but nobody is saying that "the author didn't write it" or "it's not a real copy".What people are trying to tell you is that when we do find contradictions, we are finding contradictions. What people are trying to tell you is that if Moby Dick contradicts Macbeth, then that's an indication that they weren't written by the same author.You are certainly not approaching the text objectively. What you are doing is the equivalent of assuming that Macbeth and Moby Dick must have been written by the same author, so there can't be any contradictions between them. Then you're bending over backwards and twisting the text trying to "explain" the contradictions.Your "explanations" are just embarassing.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

You didn't insinuste that. I did. You probably don't realize it, but that's exactly what you're doing. You're taking two different stories, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, and assuming without good reason that they're written by the same author and contain no contradictions. What I'm saying is that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 should be approached the same way you would approach Macbeth and Moby Dick.The question is: Are the authors the same? Do they use the same names for the same characters? Do they depict events in the same order?The OP lays out several "indications" (and I do think that's a more appropriate word than "contradictions") that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have different authors. Instead of trying to come up with any wild-ass fiction to smooth over the "contradictions", how about looking at the text honestly? Forget that it's supposedly "infallible" and look at what it says and how it says it - exactly the way you'd compare Macbeth with Moby Dick. Nobody cares about your opinions. The topic is about approaching the first two chapters of Genesis as literature.Edited by Ringo, : Spellingf.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

Billy Graham doesn't need an interpreter when his audience speaks English.The only time interpretation is required within English (or any other language) is when figurative language is used. If Genesis 1 and 2 are metaphoric, then interpretation is appropriate. If they're literal, it isn't.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

Yes, that's more or less what people have been trying to tell you. Nobody here is "attacking" the Bible or searching for incongruity. Thank you. That's what I - and I think most others in this thread - have been trying to do. The people who twist the Bible trying to defend four-legged insects are the ones who are doing it a disservice. Attributing such motives to people seems more spiteful than loving. I suggest that you approach both the Bible and your fellow human beings with a little more honesty.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

Of course you are. There can't be an interpretation wihout an interpreter. I'm using the example to illustrate that everything we read/hear is not interpreted. A misinterpretation can be one cause of misunderstanding, but that doesn't imply that we interpret everything we hear. We interpret only the non-literal parts. For example, if I say, "Dog," there's no room for interpretation, is there? The fact that you take it at face value suggests that no interpretation is necessary. But once you decide it is literal, there's no room for interpretation.Anybody can "interpret" the first two chapters of Genesis - i.e. pull "explanations" out of their ass, but they can't then claim that Genesis is literally true.If it's literally true, your interpretations are worthless and the contradictions stand. If it isn't literally true, your interpretations might be acceptable, but it doesn't matter because it isn't "true".

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.