Contradictions between Genesis 1-2

Actually Creationist has a point.If you read each as a separate story as intended the focal point of Genesis 1 is the creation of the planet and the inhabitants. In Genesis 2 the focal point of the story is the creation of Adam and Eve and why humans are no longer in the Garden of Eden. Everything else is just background. It doesn't read as a story trying to lay out the order in which the world was put together.The phrase "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" reads as an equivalent to "once upon a time".If we're going to look at style to say the stories were written by two different authors, we also have to read the whole story and understand the author's point in telling the story.

purpledawn,I do realize the atmospheric details are different per creation story in "Genesis" but however that is not the point "Creationist" was trying to make. Creationist argues that the information in Genesis 2:4-25 is nothing but details of the sixth day in the creation story in Genesis 1,2:1-3. I argue that there is two creation stories in Genesis and the indications of such are included in my OP. Anyways you clearly have not been following the details of this thread. Please do try to pay attention before posting.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

---

Thank you

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

NJ,Please stay on topic...P.S. If you want to discuss this contradiction in another thread then do so.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

---

Thank you

Well, because it's the topic. Nobody's arguing "against Genesis". The point is to read the creation stories in Genesis and see them for what they are: two different stories by different authors with different purposes.So far, nobody has presented an argument against that position - and nobody has explained why they're in such a snit about it.The rest of your post is off-topic. Please suspend yourself.

---

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.

I'm quite aware of what Creationist is arguing.

quote:

---

I argue that there is two creation stories in Genesis and the indications of such are included in my OP.

---

What you provided in the OP were what you considered to be contradictions between two creation stories. IMO, to be valid contradictions they would have to be stories addressing the same issue for the same purpose. You didn't show evidence of that.In Message 32, Creationist gave some reasonable answers concerning the creation lineup and your only response in Message 39 was: While I don't agree with the position that the Adam and Eve story was "written" to expound on the sixth day of creation mentioned in Genesis 1, I could accept that a redactor would include the Adam and Eve story to cover the details of man's creation. My reason is because the Adam and Eve story is considered to have been "written" first and Genesis 1 was a later creation per the documentary hypothesis.My point in Message 151 is that it is a valid point that the Adam and Eve story was not "written" to address the precise creation of the world.If you feel that the main point of the Adam and Eve story was to provide the exact info concerning the creation of the world, then provide the evidence.In Message 126 you stated for the second time: Creationist gave a reasonable answer in Message 135: Again you fluff it off. His first response to you addressed this issue. I don't see that you've addressed his rebuttals with additional evidence. You just disregarded them.From Message 150

quote:

---

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.

​

Incorrect. Adam and Eve's actual relationship to their surroundings does not start untill Genesis chapter 3. However, once again, you have no evidence for your claims.

---

The Adam and Eve story is just that an entire story. Do you have evidence that the first part of the story is written by a different author than chapter 3? If not, it all goes together. The first portion would not be considered a separate story.Quite frankly, you need to come up with some additional evidence to support your position. I may not agree with everything Creationist has said concerning this topic, but he has made some valid points that should be addressed.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I blame Admin (*ducks*) for insisting on the word "contradiction". If you look at the edit history of Message 1, tthzr3 was using the word "indications" - i.e. "clues". As I understand it, the intent of the topic was to suggest that the stories don't have the same author and therefore probably not the same purpose.Unfortunately, the literalists have gotten all panty-bunched over the word "contradiction" and aren't looking at the clues objectively.Ironically, the literalists agree that the two stories don't have the same purpose.

---

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.

purpledawn, Everything you have posted even in post 156 shows that you have not been paying attention to this thread. The issue is actually being discussed by many and has not arrised by me. I do believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are apart of the Torah and claimed to have been written by Moses. The point of this thread was to discuss the contradictions that are contained in that claimed status. Please pay attention. Sounds like another interpretation to me which is not the point of this thread. Please do pay attention. If you can't refute the contradictions as stated in my OP then do not post which is the point of this thread. Creationist's post can't be validated but the OP can. What you have to do is compare the two sentences in Genesis, one from Genesis 1:31, one from Genesis 2:4, and you will find that they contradict each other. The idea that there is no spcific "time frame" does not impose any threat to the fact that there is a contradiction related to "days" mentioned in Genesis 1-2. Irrelevant! Incorrect.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

---

Thank you

quote:

---

As I understand it, the intent of the topic was to suggest that the stories don't have the same author and therefore probably not the same purpose.

---

The OP doesn't really give a good direction for the discussion and given his response to me, I don't think that is the purpose of this thread.

No you have not validated that 2:4 states that everything was created in one day, nor have you validated that Genesis 1:27 says that God created male and female at the same time. You could say he created them in the same day, but can't really assume that they were made at the same time. You would need to show that what took place in the Adam and Eve story between the creation of man and woman took more than one day. Does the story really validate that idea?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Would you please clarify? Are you agreeing with that claim or disagreeing? Are your OP points intended to indicate different authors? Different purposes?I tend to agree with PD that some/most/all of those points are not conclusive. I have been approaching this topic with the idea that the weight of evidence supports separate authors/purposes even if individual clues could be taken either way.How about a little direction in your own 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.

Its not a plural - that would clearly contradict other mandated factors in the OT. The hebrew contains many grammatical provisions not seen elsewhere, such as 'perfect' tense, covering all spacetimes [past/present/future inclusive], as a constant - this can apply to gravity laws as constant, though the OT factors this more technically - namely at one time gravity did not exist, and is not an infinite factor. Elokim = plentiful, all incorporating and transcendent, as relating to term 'fullness' in 'THE FULLNESS OF ALL THE WORLDS IS HIS GLORY' - a verse said to be overheard by Moses, declared by the Angels at Sinai.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Everything was created in Genesis' opening first verse ['In the beginning Gd created the heavens and earth']; this is the header preamble of the subsequent descriptions, which become a chronological display how it unfolded. Everything in the future has also been created in v1 - else they cannot 'evolve'; that 'there is nothing new' /King Solomon, applies.A song someone writes, existed in its unformed mode before it was written by a sngwriter - else it could not be done. The universe is finite, along with all of its components. At one time, everything in this universe dd not exist - namely prior to v1 in Genesis - else that verse becomes superfluous.

quote:

---

purpledawn writes:
The Adam and Eve story is just that an entire story. Do you have evidence that the first part of the story is written by a different author than chapter 3? If not, it all goes together. The first portion would not be considered a separate story.

​

Irrelevant!

---

IMHO, it is relevent to substantiate the claim these chapters were NOT written by the same author. There is no proof, and its premise is based on desperation and nonsense. Ch two begins with 'AND', which is responsive to ch 1., using the same terms and references, offering no other alternative interpretation.IMHO, it is always notorious when anti-OT charges are based on what is clearly not provable and not verifiable, when afforded a freedom of any conclusion which suits. It is also cowardly. Let's not act as if the claims made of different authors has any verifiable substance whatsoever. It is akin to those anti-creationist 'scolars' who boldly, impudently and for a long time declared David and Solomon as mythical figures!

purpledawn, I will agree with you that these verses are vague in description of any specific information and probably are not contradictions.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

---

Thank you