|
Author
|
Topic: Contradictions between Genesis 1-2
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 1 of 308 (436865)
11-27-2007 8:56 PM
|
|
|
Greetings, I'd like to discuss the contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2. I have listed a few contradictions below (not in order): 1) Genesis 1:31 because everything God created was complete after 6 days but in Genesis 2:4 LORD God created the heavens and earth in a day. (refuted) post 160. 2) Genesis 1:27 because God created male and female at the same time but according to Genesis 2:5-20 LORD God created male and then created female later(2:20). (refuted) post 160. *The word God/Elohim is used in Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-3 but in Genesis 2:4-25 LORD God/YHWH Elohim is used. Not a contradiction just an interesting point. 3) The overall order of creation in Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-3 is different than in Genesis 2:4-25. *Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-3 the creation story seems to be more sophisticated than the creation story in Genesis 2:4-25. Not a contradiction just an interesting point. 4) Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-3 each thing created was considered good but in Genesis 2:5-20 it seems creation was a process of trial and error. 5) Genesis 1:26 because there seems to be more than God creating but in Genesis 2:4-25 there is only LORD God creating. 6) Genesis 1:29 because all plants are available for eating but in Genesis 2:16-17 some plants are off limits to eat. 7) Genesis 1:28 because humans subdue the earth but in Genesis 2:15 humans serve the earth. 8) Genesis 1:21-22 because the purpose for animals is not related to humans but in Genesis 2:18-19 the purpose for animals is related to humans. Here are some links to Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Genesis 1 (KJV) - In the beginning God createdGenesis 2 (KJV) - Thus the heavens and the Edited by tthzr3, : more indications Edited by tthzr3, : clarity Edited by tthzr3, : corrected indication 1 Edited by tthzr3, : clarity Edited by tthzr3, : err Edited by tthzr3, : admin Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given. Edited by tthzr3, : update! Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given. Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given. Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given. Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given. Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.
Thank you
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 3 of 308 (437365)
11-29-2007 7:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
11-29-2007 7:14 AM
|
|
Admin, Done. Edited by tthzr3, : err Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given. Edited by tthzr3, : change
Thank you
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2 by Admin, posted 11-29-2007 7:14 AM | | Admin has not replied |
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 20 of 308 (437730)
12-01-2007 5:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
11-30-2007 12:37 PM
|
|
OFF TOPIC
NJ,
NJ writes: There is no disparity. These objections are like Sunday school for atheism. And here you are thinking you've really got something of profundity. So, if I could find a sunday school teacher that supports the contradictions then we could resolve this debate?
NJ writes: One is a brief synopsis, where the other is going in to more detail. It is in no way two different events. So you acknowledge two stories?
NJ writes: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." -Genesis 2:1 This is the continuation from the first chapter, because in the previous chapter, it says: "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Right there is your indication that it stopped, after the sixth day. "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made... These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" You could make a better case that Days actually mean long epochs of time, not an actual lunar day.
The point was that there was actual differences in time from one creation story to the other. I could care less how long it actually took according to the stories.
NJ writes: What are you talking about? Are you joking? Seriously... "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." It says that God the man (singular), and then, just like in the first chapter, God made him a helper, the female, because it is not good for man to be alone. Where is the disparity?
Read the entire context of the damned scripture.
Gen 2:4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Gen 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. Gen 2:11 The name of the first [is] Pison: that [is] it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where [there is] gold; Gen 2:12 And the gold of that land [is] good: there [is] bdellium and the onyx stone. Gen 2:13 And the name of the second river [is] Gihon: the same [is] it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. Gen 2:14 And the name of the third river [is] Hiddekel: that [is] it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river [is] Euphrates. Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof. Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
If you read scripture and stop covering your eyes when you read it you may agree with me. You will notice that LORD God created man, then everything else, then realized he forgot something, so then LORD God created female. That is much different than the Genesis 1,2:1-3 story.
NJ writes: Yes, which most Christians argue is evidence of the Trinity. After all, when God says, "let us make man in our image," who is the "us" and the "our?" Secondly, Elohim and YHWH is the same thing, just as Adonai, El Shaddai, HaShem are different names for the same Being-- which we refer to in English as, God. That would be like saying Jehova and Yahweh are actually two different Gods, when in reality, they are different names for the same God. Or worse, like saying Yahweh and God are two different Beings rather than two different names for the same entity. The evidence I have is simple. Elohim means GOD. YHWH ELOHIM means LORD God or if you disrespect the Jews; Jehovah God.
NJ writes: No, like I said, one is a synopsis and the other is detailed. There are no actual changes to anything. The only thing different is the brevity. Please stop with the sunday school teachings. You need to bring varifiable information.
NJ writes: Yeah, which corresponds with what I just said above. Incorrect. Please stop with the sunday school teachings. You need to bring varifiable information.
NJ writes: Trial by error? Why do you say that? Where was the error? Where was the trial? If you read scripture and stop covering your eyes when you read it you may agree with me. You will notice that LORD God created man, then everything else, then realized he forgot something, so then LORD God created female. That is much different than the Genesis 1,2:1-3 story.
NJ writes: Adonai in Hebrew means Lord. Prefixing LORD next to God does NOT mean that two different gods exist. Ask any scholar, even the most liberal one. Its simply your misunderstanding. I don't even know any fundy atheists who have ever made this objection, which should certainly tell you something.
Here let me post the verse and it may help you.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
NJ writes: Just one! The very one God said NOT to eat from in the first place-- the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. Contrast difference below: Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
NJ writes: The earth was given by God for His creation. Mankind is to have dominion over the earth, which does not give man the go ahead to rape the earth. Please stop with the sunday school teachings. You need to bring varifiable information.
NJ writes: Again, one is a synopsis, the other slightly more detailed. There is nothing specifically contradictory in any of the alleged contradictions whatsoever. You have endeavored to make a mountain out of a molehill, and not very convincingly at that.
Please stop with the sunday school teachings. You need to bring varifiable information. Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given. Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given. Edited by tthzr3, : clarity Edited by tthzr3, : removed disrespectful comments Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given. Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.
Thank you
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2007 12:37 PM | | Hyroglyphx has replied |
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
Re: Sunday School Teachers
bluecat48,
YHWH (JHVH) & Elohim are the same entity but from different sources, written at different times.
The issue is you have not a shred of evidence for that. What evidence we do have though is that redaction is plausible. I hope you realized the quotes in my post were quotes that NJ posted in his original post.
Thank you
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by bluescat48, posted 12-01-2007 7:19 AM | | bluescat48 has replied |
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 24 of 308 (437815)
12-01-2007 3:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
12-01-2007 10:57 AM
|
|
off topic
Jar,
jar writes: Stuff like "Keep your sunday school shit out of this debate. " is not really needed nor is it correct. As someone who has taught both adult and children's Sunday School, the actual topic is exactly the type of material I would cover in class. and?
jar writes: One of the results of trying to shoehorn the two different stories into one is that when we do so, we loose sight of what the authors and redactors are trying to tell us. This is as true here when talking of creation as it was in the Manna thread and numerous others over the years at EvC. It is true that we accept the two stories as a product of redaction. However, not everyone does or will.
jar writes: The important point in these stories is not the details of creation, but rather the very conceptions of the God of creation itself. In both cases it is GOD that creates, yet neither story alone describes GOD, rather each describe a God, a snapshot of how the people of a give era and milieu thought of God. The older tale in Genesis 2 and later pictures a very Anthropomorphic God, one that looks human, walks, talks, makes things by hand, is forgetful and unsure, fearful, makes mistakes, but is also super human, magical, and that lives forever. The biggest differences between this God and man is that this God preceded man, has command of powerful beings and forces and lives forever. It is a very human God. The God of the tradition found in the younger tale found in Genesis 1 through the first half of Genesis 2:4 is quite different. It is not given any clear form. The closest we come to any physical description is the passage were this God creates man. But the differences continue, the younger God is apart from creation yet overseeing it, creates not by hand but by will, has no direct contact with what is created but looks on approvingly, satisfied. When we consider that they included both descriptions, we see a composite picture (even later than either tale itself) of a God that is both, transcendent yet intimate, apart yet inclusive, beyond comprehension yet companionable. The redactors, by including both stories, are saying that GOD is far more than just the Gods we imagine.
I can agree with this information and we have discussed it previously in the chat room. Edited by tthzr3, : clarity Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given. Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.
Thank you
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by jar, posted 12-01-2007 10:57 AM | | jar has not replied |
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
Re: Sunday School Teachers
bluecat48, Those are definitions but they are not actual pieces of evidence. I am sure those pieces of information do reference some evidence but what evidence? Edited by tthzr3, : clarity Edited by tthzr3, : edited meaning
Thank you
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by bluescat48, posted 12-01-2007 5:30 PM | | bluescat48 has not replied |
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
Re: Sunday School Teachers
NJ,
NJ writes:
I think you are misunderstanding me. My comment about "Sunday School" was referring to your alleged contradiction. The "Two Creation Account" theory is like a question a little kid asks his Sunday School teacher. In other words, I think your post is kind of asinine.
The problem here is that you don't follow evidence. Instead you follow what a sunday school teacher teaches. The issues discussed in message 1 are still issues regardless of what excuse you come up with. The information in Genesis 1,2:1-3 contradicts the information in Genesis 2:4-25.
NJ writes:
No. I acknowledge one story with varying descriptions -- one more descriptive, one less descriptive.
Really? And how exactly have you deduced that? I'm sure biblical scholars the world over would very much like to hear how this esoteric knowledge has come to you.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Contrast difference to: Gen 2:4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens The entirety of the story in Genesis 2:4-25 is in reference to this starting verse which indicates the day creation occured. The information in Genesis 1:31 contradicts the information in 2:4.
NJ writes:
I have... You should follow your own advice because its evident that you either only see what you want to see or your intellect is suspect. The first time I read Genesis 1 and 2 my understanding was the same as the one you accept. However, I started to analyze the information in Genesis and realized that there were actually two different creation stories there. The first indication was that in Genesis 2:4 the words "LORD God" started to be used. The other indications I mentioned in post 1 were realized with a contrast comparison overview. When I hear you trying to substantiate your perception of those two chapters, all I hear out of you is one excuse after another, and not a single one of them has verifiable evidence. To be honest with you I really do want to trust the information in the Bible as divine but however the case proclaims no divinity.
NJ writes:
Oh for heavens sake... Again, are you kidding me with this Mickey Mouse stuff?!?! God didn't forget to make a female, especially when right before He made male and female for every other creature on the planet. its Jewish poetry. The blindingly obvious illustration is that it is good for a man to be with a woman -- that God designed it as such that a man and a woman would desire each other's company. It looks like you are a biblical literalist... Literally! I, on the other hand, look for genre and figures of speech to illustrate a greater, overall point like most people do.
The issue here is not that I am being a kidder. The issue here is that you're accepting the content of the Bible before you accept the evidence that it is stories with some verifiable historical content. As for your comment about me being a literalist; it indicates that you're aware of the contradictions in the Bible.
NJ writes:
Elohim is the plurality of God, since "EL" means God. Its similar in Arabic. Ever hear the insurgents screaming Allahu Ahkbar? Allahu is the plurality of Allah -- Allah being the singular. YHWH is the highest emanation of God, which is supposed to be ineffable.
It depends on the context and in the context of Genesis 2 Elohim is being used as a singular noun. Elohim - Wikipedia
NJ writes:
Speaking of disrespecting Jews, and God for that matter, your trite argument is tantamount to calling Jews idiots -- as if they don't understand their own language. I doubt that no one else on earth has come to the wild assumption you've come up with based on a cursory glance.
I have read Genesis 1 and 2 many times.
NJ writes: I have brought to bear verifiable information. I'm waiting for you to present an argument worth defending. What? Everything you have posted is an excuse as to why the two stories in Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. If you could provide some information that substantiated your claims that would be nice.
NJ writes:
Okay...? What am I supposed to be seeing? God says, eat from the vegetation I provide for you, just don't eat fruit from this one.
That is what 2:16-17 says now try to read 1:29.
NJ writes: How many times are you going to say that? Why not answer my questions. Why not debate the information I provided? Your entire reply consisted of you re-posting Genesis, as if I don't have access to a Bible, and then repetitiously saying the same things over and over again. Try debating the issues. Its what we're all here to do.
I have refuted you time and time again. Edited by tthzr3, : clarity
Thank you
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2007 8:49 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
Creationist, I have realized that everything you posted in response to OP1 is an interpretation that is based on sources that contradict each other. So, I am not going to accept your information on this topic as plausible because it has no evidence. Edited by tthzr3, : clarity
Thank you
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
Re: Thank you and God bless both of you
Greetings, Please stay on topic...
Thank you
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
Re: Thank you and God bless both of you
Greetings, Please stay on topic... Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.
Thank you
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
imageinvisible,
imageinvisible writes: To whom is God speaking in verse 26? He didn't create man untill verse 27. The words used in the verse are obviously plural (Us/Our) but to whom is He refering when He say Us, He is the only being there? Is this a hint of at least a duality? The english word "God" in Genesis was translated from the Hebrew word "'elohiym" which also has a plural context. ref: Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible And the Gods said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
imageinvisible writes:
verses 4-6 lets look at them and see if we cant find out what they mean and why they are there. 1 "This is the history of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the heavens and the earth, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. 2 For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground." Does sentance 1 indicate that God didn't create the plants? and if so, what in the world is sentance 2 watering?
You will notice that this begining is different than in Genesis 1:1-2. Thanks for pointing out yet another contradiction.
imageinvisible writes: Sentance 1 indicates simply this: on Day 1 God created the heavens and the earth, before He created the plants. this is a true statement and is in accourdance with Genesis chapter 1. It seems quite logical that one should create the earth before the plants.
2:4 indicates that God created the heavens and the earth in A day.
imageinvisible writes: Sentace 2 indicates that there is some need for water, since God had not caused it to rain, and that there where no men on the earth from day 1 untill this point. ergo adam is the first, and only man, for none came before him. However, this information is much different than "Genesis 1,2:1-3 story" which indicates that mankind(male+female), without the need of water(water already available perhaps?), was magically created in the 6th day.
imageinvisible writes:
verse 7. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. enter man. The point behind it all. I don't know about you but if I just created a whole universe for this guy I'd want to show it off. Does this verse say that God created man? no It says that God formed man, and what He formed man out of, the dust of the ground. Does this verse indicate when God formed man? no. But the word formed seems to indicate past tense as do the words breathed and and became. If I say "I formed a hypothesis" does this give any indication of when I formed said hypothesis? No it only say that I formed a hypothesis. All you know is whats important, "that 'I' formed it.'
Please refer to the hebrew word yatsar, translated as formed, and can be translated as created. Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible I think I will stop here. Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given. Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given. Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given. Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.
Thank you
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
OFF TOPIC
Creationist,
creationist writes: It is true that Elohim is the plural of El. It actually means ”more than two’, or three or more. It is clear allusion to the Trinity. However, not necessarily is it a plural in context. As we shall see.
Your claim about the "Trinity" above is a bare assertion and can't be verified at all.
creationist writes: Here is a perfect example of interpretation coming into play. What do you mean by beginning? Do you mean another beginning of creation, or a new beginning in the story? I mean if you compare the information between G1-2 you will find indications, such as those contradictions in my OP, which lead one to believe G1-2 are actually different stories with different beginings.
creationist writes: Your interpretation here of Gods, instead of God is incorrect. Here is why. It is used here in the singular because it is used with a singular verb. It is used over 2000 times this way in the OT. Once again interpretation comes into play here based on one’s presuppositions, and again yours is found wanting.
The interpretation on the Hebrew word "Elohim" in my last post was a bare assertion. I was explaining to "imageinvisible" that there is possibly another way to interprete the information in Genesis 1,2:1-3. However, the information in my OP is fact. The contradictions between "G 1-2" are there and no interpretation can alter them. Your interpretation that "Genesis 2:4-25" is nothing more than day 6 of "Genesis 1,2:1-3" in a different set of words has no support and as such can't be verified. If the information in "Genesis 2:4-25" was in fact day 6 of "Genesis 1,2:1-3" then it could be verified and also it would congrue 100% with day 6, especially, if it were a divine account of origin. Since the contradictions are there, in G1-2, they limit the Genesis stories of creation to nothing more than devised by man. Oh and please provide evidence for your claims above because you did not provide any. The support for my claims above are in my OP.
creationist writes: No it doesn’t, although Genesis 1:1-5 does. Again, ”day’ can mean a 24 hour day, a specific place in time, or an unspecified amount of time in the Hebrew language. The same can be said about ”day’ in the English language. So how do you determine how to interpret it? From the context. Genesis 2:4 is referring to a place in time, in this instance back when God first created the heavens and earth. Any unbiased person can see this.
The issue is that your claims have no support. P.S. Your not unbiased on this topic. I think I am going to stop here. Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.
Thank you
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
OFF TOPIC
Creationist, Please stay on topic(DO NOT RESPOND)... P.S. Reference the Hebrew definitions for the correct definitions of words in the OT: Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given. Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.
Thank you
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 149 of 308 (439193)
12-07-2007 5:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 147 by jar
12-07-2007 4:47 PM
|
|
OFF TOPIC
jar, your an admin and you're going off topic(STOP)... Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given. Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.
Thank you
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 147 by jar, posted 12-07-2007 4:47 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
Force
Inactive Member
|
Re: On text
Creationist,
Creaetionist writes: It has everything to do with it, since even facts have to be interpreted. Incorrect. Facts are facts.
Creationist writes:
I'll go along with the description of God, which doesn't prove anything. However, your assumption that both chapters are a creation story, is what I object to. One deals with the chronology of creation and other deals with Adam, Eve and their relationship to their surroundings, which I have explained in a previous post.
off topic Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.
Thank you
|
™ Version 4.2