Contradictions between Genesis 1-2

There is no disparity. These objections are like Sunday school for atheism. And here you are thinking you've really got something of profundity.One is a brief synopsis, where the other is going in to more detail. It is in no way two different events. "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." -Genesis 2:1This 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. 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? 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. 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. Yeah, which corresponds with what I just said above. Trial by error? Why do you say that? Where was the error? Where was the trial? 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. Just one! The very one God said NOT to eat from in the first place-- the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 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. 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.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Show me.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Outline your argument. Give me some specifics, unless you want me to conform to your private interpretations for face value alone. Okay, now explain to me how you know that several tales were mixed together, rather than the incredibly simpler explanation and which corresponds nicely with Occam's Razor, which is that one is an abstract synopsis, while the second chapter goes in to greater detail. That's allegory Jar, since God only hands if you believe in an anthropomorphic God, all of which is countlessly illustrated in Hebrew poetry. You are asking a question of literalism versus non-literalism. IOW, should we believe that the Bible is entirely literal, partially literal and partially allegorical, or entirely allegorical.That isn't the premise of the OP. The OP is seeking to find irreconcilable differences of internal consistency, which is not found convincingly. He's making a mountain out of a molehill. Let me ask you a theological question: When God says to Adam, "Where are you?, after he tries to hide from God, is God asking because He honestly doesn't know where Adam is? Or is He asking as a way for to give Adam the option of introspection?Similarly, when God asks Jacob what his name is, does God not actually know Jacob's name? Or is God calling him out for the lie he told years earlier, to see if he will admit his lie? No, they really don't. First of all, there is no contradiction accept the one that you hope for. Secondly, Moses wrote the rest of the Pentateuch consistently. Do you really think he would be so stupid to bumble the two opening chapters?You are assigning rules to God and Moses. A legitimate contradiction would be something like this: In the first chapter it says, Adam named the animals, but in the second chapter, Eve named the animals. The OP is trying to find something ambiguous and calling it a contradiction when it isn't.Of all the alleged contradictions of the Bible, he chooses one that is so asinine, I don't even know how to respond with sincerity. These are seriously like the kind of theological questions a kid asks their Sunday School teacher. They are of no consequence at all. And if he can't get passed this, then by what authority does he have to challenge the accuracy and veracity of the Bible?If he wants a good biblical contradiction (an actual contradiction, really) he should look in the book of Acts, where there is an unmistakable contradiction. Its small, but it brings in to question the alleged inerrancy of the Bible. I won't tell him where. He's gonna have to do some homework tonight.If the the point of the thread is to discuss biblical contradictions, then lets find an actual contradiction and not this small time stuff.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

You can clearly see that they aren't two different stories, since nothing contradicts the other, it simply omits certain information. That's not a contradiction, that's an omission.That would mean that if you wrote a book, and reiterated one part of the story later on, if you did not keep every minute detail, you would be contradicting yourself. Think about it: Is that really the case?One is a synopsis, and the other is a more detailed explanation. There is no contradiction.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

I did. Unlike most posters who simply copy one tiny blurb that is the least threatening to them, I try to answer all of the questions asked of me. Why so sure, based on the rest of his writings? Again, what is more plausible -- that he just bumbled the first two chapters, but wrote with eloquence in the remaining 900 chapters, or that its a synopsis? Then neither did Plato. Do you want video footage of people writing something in realtime? How exactly, in your estimation, does an historical figure get to become real? What is the measurement? An excellent point, though I don't see how that helps your claim. Maybe you should ask yourself that question, since you seem to think the stories are mutually exclusive (even though they clearly are not). What then is the really important moral-of-the-story we are supposed to glean from the creation account? Seems like its about the creation of the universe and all material things contained therein. Exactly, which later is brought in to greater detail. You seem to understand, but then take a far departure from where you started. Evidence? If Moses doesn't get to be real, then different tales don't get to be penned by the non-existent Moses. Where in there did you come up with the notion that God is weak, fearful, or fumbling? So, there is no way that any of what non-existent Moses said is actually true? You were there when non-existent Moses penned it, crawled in to his non-existent mind, and uncovered his non-existent motives?What are you basing that off of? Faith? The point of the thread seems to be the blatherings of a kid convinced of his own supposed brilliance. It seems like a slandering ceremony of God rather than an honest inquiry. The OP does not ask any questions, which is the surest sign that he isn't interested in merely having an open-session dialogue. He is making bold accusations about things that Sunday School teachers deal with on a routine basis, and then in self-congratulatory fashion, pats himself on the back for a job well done. They didn't, whoever the elusive "they" might be. I'm still waiting for you to present your case using the one source that would either corroborate your claim, or bring it in to disrepute -- the book of Genesis.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.Regardless, they are one in the same. Your objection is like if your name was Daniel. You have a few derivatives. You have Daniel, Danny, and Dan. But in your world, there are actually three different people rather than one person with variations of his name. 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 brought to bear verifiable information. I'm waiting for you to present an argument worth defending.

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

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. 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.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

I'm curious as to why the same supposed contradiction is still going on given the weakness of the argument presented against Genesis.Of all the alleged contradictions that people can choose from in the Bible, (and there are many objections), why this one when its so banal?I will give you a real contradiction that will test the meaning of Biblical inerrancy.First, lets define our terms:What does biblical inerrancy even mean? I ask because there are varying opinions on what it means.I understand biblical inerrancy to mean that the bible has an unbroken, common thread running through the entire text, lending itself to divine inspiration.However, some people mean biblical inerrancy to mean that there are no textual errors within the Bible, or if there appear to be some, that its only an error on the part of the reader, or that a particular word or phrase has been lost in translation.Personally, I don't ascribe to the notion that Bible is impervious to textual inaccuracies, especially given the infallibility of man. Therefore, I prefer the first explanation in favor of the latter.As an illustration of an actual contradiction, I give you the book of Acts juxtaposed by the book of 1^st Corinthians. If anyone has any objections to it, please feel free to correct me, as it is entirely possible that I am neglecting a few variables.I should caution though, that I've never heard a plausible explanation for the latter definition of "biblical inerrancy." I would be very curious to hear other people's interpretations.Anyhow, without further delay, lets pick up on Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus:"As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

​

"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.

​

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

​

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything." -Acts 9:3-9"About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, 'Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?'

​

" 'Who are you, Lord?' I asked.

​

'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied. My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me." -Acts 22:6-9Now, we have what appears to be a straighforward contradiction here. In chapter 9, Luke (the author of Acts) says that Paul's entourage heard the voice of Jesus, but did not see the emanating light. But in chapter 22, where Luke is recording Paul in his own words, says the exact opposite.Which is it? Did they see the light, but not hear the voice, or did they hear the voice, but see the light?If you are a diehard biblical literalist and ascribe to the latter definition of Biblical Inerrancy, I would say this presents an immense problem.And as you can see, this is what a contradiction looks like. The silly example given in Genesis is just that -- silly.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake