Contradictions between Genesis 1-2

quote:

---

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.

---

The word day, of course, can be used to mean different time periods. Just like todays use of our English word day. There is no contradiction here. If a grandfather was to tell his grandson, "In my day, we used to walk to school up hill barefoot in the snow." He would be referring to a specific time period. Verse four in Chapter 2 of Genesis is doing the same thing. So the question now becomes how do we know which day is being used in Genesis 1. Well, it can get a little complicated but to make a long story short, it is because of the use of the words "morning and evening" and a number. Such as first, second, third, etc. Whenever yom is used in this way it almost always denotes a regular 24 hour day.

quote:

---

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).

---

Genesis 1:27 does not say he created male and female at the same time, only that He created both male and female people.

quote:

---

3) 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.

---

Elohim is used in Genesis one because it denotes an all powerful God above His creation and all things created. YHWH is used in Genesis two because it denotes God's personal relationship with man.

quote:

---

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

---

Geneis 2 is not the creation account. Genesis one is. Genesis two is a more detailed account of Day six in Genesis one. So it is not meant to be in any particular order.

quote:

---

5) Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-3 the creation story seems to be more sophisticated than the creation story in Genesis 2:4-25.

---

Only if you consider Genesis two a creation story, which, of course, it isn't. But even if it were, would that constitute a contradiction? I don't think so.

quote:

---

6) 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.

---

Don't understand what you mean by this. What trial and error?

quote:

---

7) Genesis 1:26 because there seems to be more than God creating but in Genesis 2:4-25 there is only LORD God creating.

---

Genesis 1:26 is a reference to the Trinity. God, Son, and Holy Spirit. Check out John 1:1-3 where John is clearly referring to Jesus, yet says Jesus created all things.

quote:

---

8) Genesis 1:29 because all plants are available for eating but in Genesis 2:16-17 some plants are off limits to eat.

---

In the beginning all things were vegetarian. Man, and animals. There was only one tree that was off limits to man, and that was the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil." All other trees were fair game, including the tree of "Life".

quote:

---

9) Genesis 1:28 because humans subdue the earth but in Genesis 2:15 humans serve the earth.

---

This is one of the things that is most often misunderstood. By subdue, God was placing men as stewards over His creation. The word subdue here does not mean that man was to misuse the world, but be in dominion over it and to be good stewards over it.

quote:

---

10) Genesis 1:21-22 because the purpose for animals is not related to humans but in Genesis 2:18-19 the purpoose for animals is related to humans.

---

The purpose of Genesis 2:18-19 was to show Adam, and you and me, that animals and man are different. We didn't evolve from an animal, because we were different from the beginning.Hope this helps you.Edited by Creationist, : No reason given.Edited by Creationist, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Why do Chimpanzees and other primates share a significant percentage of DNA?

---

By share, I assume you mean similar DNA? Well, to begin with, this could just as easily point to a common designer as common ancestor. Cars all share similar parts, yet a Mac Truck did not evolve from a Volkswagon. They are finding out all the time that human and chimp DNA are not all that similar after all, I believe the latest count is that they are only 95% identical. Of course, a 2% difference is very huge when considering DNA.

quote:

---

Why do we have similar non-transcribed DNA (such as endogenous retrovirus remnants) as other primates in a manner that _strongly_ suggests a common heritage and an hierarchical order.

---

I'm not real familiar with this, but could you list what retovirus remnants we share with chimps?

quote:

---

Why is our chromosomes structure so similar?

---

Again, this is not any more proof of comman ancestry than it is of common designer.

quote:

---

Why would god make us so close to other primates if he wanted to demonstrate that we are somehow different. Did god also have a fondness for monkeys?

---

Why use something different when what is being use works so well?

Obviously not, since all organisms are entirely novel designs. Even though the DNA of monkeys and humans may be similar, there is enough difference, obviously, for them to be two different organisms. Just like the Mac Truck and the Volkswagon.

Ge:18:14: Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.Jer:32:17: Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:Jer:32:27: Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?It is not that He could not do it, or wasn't smart enough to do it, it is that He CHOSE to do it this way.

And I realize that all of your so called contradictions are based on faulty interpretations due to lack of understanding. So, I will not accept any of them as evidence for contradictions.

Exactly, and if you have a problem understanding what they say, then it is your lack of understanding that is at fault, which does not constitute a contradiction. All I have to do is give you a reasonable explanation, you, on the other hand, must prove your allegation. Not exactly. The written word has to be interpreted. So interpretation does matter. Exactly, and it goes both ways. The truth is the truth whether you believe it or not. To not accept the explanation is to remain willfully ignorant.

You can indeed point to the Bible but that far from proves your allegation. And this is called a straw man argument. Do you deny the written word has to be interpreted? For instance, what you just wrote has to be interpreted. How do I trivialize God by believing what He says? You, on the other hand, are calling Him a liar, or at the very least a deciever. The facts are that the two chapters are NOT two different creation accounts. One is a more detailed account of day six, while the other is a detailed account of the whole creation.http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.htmlAgain, the names used for God depends on what role God is in at the time. Genesis one uses Elohim. This is the plural of El. El corrosponds to God in English, Theos in Greek, and Deus in Latin. El means the "strong one", and stresses the omnipotence and power of God the Creator and Ruler over all nature and the universe.Elohim is the plural of El and means "more than two". However, (and this is where interpretation of the written word comes in handy)it does not mean "In the beginning gods created..." because it is used here, and over 2000 times in the rest of the OT, in the singular, that is, with a singular verb (or adjective). By using the term Elohim we are being told that there is something plural about God Himself.In Genesis two, Moses adds the Hebrew term Yahweh. Yahweh is transliterated in English as Jehovah, and is usually spelled LORD in large and small capitals. Yahweh is the personal name of the living God. It means "I am that I am" which means He is the Self-Existent One. The reason why Moses uses it in Chapter 2 is because it (Chapter 2) describes God's personal relationship with the first human pair, Adam and Eve. When dealing with someone personally, you have to use a personal name. Yahweh is used here because it is required. It is always used as Yahweh Elohim, or the LORD God. So it tells us that the Supreme Creator (Elohim) has a personal name (Yahweh)or the One who is intimately concerned to maintain a personal relationship with those who will walk and talk with Him. Indeed that is what is in the book, however, that certainly isn't what it is saying.

I agree

Some people try to explain this away by saying that Gen. 2:19 should read "the Lord God brought to Adam what He "had" formed. But I don't buy that. There is nothing in Scripture that suggests that God could not have created fowls and animals of what He had already created just to bring to Adam to name. At any rate, it does not imply an order of creation which you seem to think. Since the whole thread here is based on someone alleging the Bible to be saying what it is not saying, then yes, it is a straw man.

Why? What is so convincing that God wrote that? At any rate you left out the 10 Commandments. Not sure what tablets you are referring to, but I do believe that God could have wrote Genesis 1 & 2. Who else was around to see it? God could have told Adam, however, and he could have written them on tablets, which Moses later obtained possesson of and put into the Pentateuch. There is nothing in them that implies God was senile and certainly neither is it anything that implies He was lying. No, as stated earlier, that is not a fact. Your interpretation does not define facts. How do you know that? Were you around when these stories were written? Once again, I'm not denying any facts. Only your interpretation of what the facts are. Yes, and I'm one of them. It would be nice if people like you wouldn't leave your basic comprehension skills at the door when it comes to the Bible. It does not give anything in any chronological order as Genesis one, but merely gives an overview of those events. Anyone who is not biased against the Bible can see this. It goes on to give a more detailed account of Day six of creation, which anyone without blinders can see. It is you who seems to be denying the facts.

Yes we do have one, since you seem to be saying two different things. Is interpretation coming into play here any at all?You said that "to say Genesis 1 and 2 are the same story is a bad interpetation." I said that Genesis 1 and 2 are NOT two different creation accounts. So bad interpretation has brought you to the assumption that I meant they are the same story. Yet, what I mean is that Genesis 2 is a not a creation story at all. It is merely a more detailed account of day six while giving an overall view of what was just related in Genesis 1. Not at all, have you?

I agree. OK. Why anyone would try to say they are the same story is beyond me. Well not really? It is just an attempt by skeptics to throw doubt on the Bible. No amount of explanation will change their minds. How can I be doing that, since I am saying they are not the same message? Which is what I have been saying all along. Or yours, whatever it is.

As, I suppose, are you. I have already explained my position and given good explanations to show that there are no contradictions. You, on the other hand, continue to espouse that there are contradiction without any real proof of any. Yelling louder does not make you more right. I have not looked at all of your threads, only the ones that have been in response to mine, but I'm pretty sure I already know what they contain. I responed as to why each point was not really a contradiction. I gave reasonable explanations to show that each contradiction need not be considered one. You reject them out of hand, which tells me no amount of explanation would be enough for you. What are the names of these so called redactors? In order to discern if there is a contradiction requires a certain amount of interpretation. Documenting what you think is a contradiction requires interpretation.

Am I? We'll see. Maybe most are, but some are not. Anyway, I challenge that line of thinking. If the Bible is the Word of God, and God is infallible, than any contradiction or error would make it worthless. What is the point in worshipping someone who makes mistakes. Might as well take care of yourself. And I believe that is what some on here want. If they can prove the Bible has errors or contradictions then they might as well live their lives like they want. And not be held accountable for it. How can you devalue the Bible by standing up for it? As stated earlier, either the Bible is the Word of God or it is not. By explaning away so called contradictions, I am not covering them up. You are the one who has to prove a contradition not me. As for taking it for what it is, I do. It is the Word of an infallible God. Since it comes from an infallible God, then it is perfect. I cherish it, but I don't idolize it. Everybody starts with assumptions. Assumptions based on what their world view is. As stated, I believe the Bible is the Word of an infallible God, therefore I assume it has no errors. You, on the other hand, do not believe that it is, therefore you assume it must have errors in it. Both of us start out with assumptions.

Not entirely true. The Bible tells us who the authors are in the Books, except for a few. We have names and in many instances the life story of the author. The ones that don't clearly tell us, are usually known by tradition handed down through the centuries. You, on the other hand, have nothing but conjecture and speculation. Yet, somehow, your information is supposed to be more reliable than mine. Likely? What evidence? More speculation? Conjecture? So I don't need to interpret this sentence? Ok, I will make an effor to go and read your links. I will see the so called evidence you have.