Contradictions between Genesis 1-2

purpledawn, You're taking the word "support" entirely out of the context. The context of the word "support" above was reletive to the contradictions in Genesis 1-2. The intention of this thread, originally, was to determine the "plausibility of two creation stories in the Torah" through indications found in Genesis 1 and 2. However, the admin decided he didn't like my original "PNT" and asked me to change the words used which caused this thread to flow in a different direction. I can understand your confusion but it is not the topic to discuss why there is contradictions in Genesis 1-2 but only to learn about the contradictions in Genesis 1-2. However, I decided that I will oblige your request, above, below. I do find it important to expect the stories in the Bible, especially the Torah, to read with a sense of accountability due to the fact that the "inspiration to write them" came directly from God. I mean, inspiration, to mean that, the men who wrote the stories of the Bible, were not mere men but ofcourse prophets and desciples of the most high God. We must also consider that these knowledgeable prophets and desciples of God new the law? If you consider how well versed these prophets/desciples of God were in the way of God, ofcourse, they were aware of the 9th commandment.Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. per Exodus 20:16So, since the Prophets/Deciples of God are the authors of Biblical scripture and are considered the "witnesses of God" they must not bear false witness against God? I don't think so, and as such, we must consider that due to the fact that Genesis 1-2 contradict each other in several verses, to mean, that they don't support each other.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

I don't recall ever saying, and if I'm not mistaken none of the other 'fundies' have been saying, that Gen. 1 and 2 are one seemless whole. I recall saying that gen. 1 and the first part of gen. 2 was a chronological overview of what was created on what day. And that the rest of Gen. 2 is a more detailed acount [a general synapsus] of the interactions between God [YHWH] and Adam on day 6. And that both Gen. 1 and 2 is written from the perspective of one who is looking back on, or recounting, events that took place in the past, they are not written from the perspective of one who watched and then wrote down that which they saw as it occured, i.e. in the present tence. The order of events was written down in chapter one, there is no reason for the author to recount all those events just to get back up to the point where God [YHWH] and Adam started to interact with each other. There is one creation story and that is chapter 1 and the first part of chapter 2. The rest of chapter 2 is not a creation story. It is a narative of the interactions between Adam and God [YHWH]. Edited by imageinvisible, : added questions in qs boxEdited by imageinvisible, : more questions in qs boxs

I think you messed up the quotes. I didn't say that. Creationist did, in Message 73:

quote:

---

If the Bible is the Word of God, and God is infallible, than any contradiction or error would make it worthless.

---

I disagree. Contradictions and/or errors don't diminish the value of the Bible at all. Obviously, it is a creation story, though. God created man:

quote:

---

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.

---

God created animals:

quote:

---

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.

---

God created woman:

quote:

---

Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

---

And before you expound on the difference between "created' and "formed", please read this thread, specifically the posts by arachnophilia. (I think there's another thread on that topic but I can't find it at the moment.)

---

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 think you're missing the point. It has not been established that gen. 2 is a creation story and not an Historical narative. Frankly I don't see how this can be established. In oder to prove that these stories contradict each other, one must first prove that they are, or must be, in fact two different creation stories and not a creation story and an historical narative. For startes you cannot prove that God created man in verse 2:7 and not in verse 1:27. Obviously there is some debate over whether or not the author is speaking in the present or past tense or there would not be threads discussing this. Until you can establish that the author 'IS' speaking in the present tense then you can't establish that there are two creation stories and that they contradict. You are arguing that He said read when he said read. I am agrueing that he said read when he said read. The only contradiction is in our interpritations, not what is written.

If all the talk about creating/forming doesn't establish it as a creation story, what would? As I've said, man was created in both verses, in both stories. That's how we know they're both creation stories. I have no idea where you're getting that. The tense is uttlerly irrelevant. Not at all. I'm arguing that he said "created" when he said "formed".

---

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.

By that reasoning you could say that He said 'formed' when He said 'created.' It sounds to me like you are just picking a side. You read 'formed' and then say well He must have ment 'created'. Now who's reading stuff into it? Tense is not irrelevant. When you read a sentance tense has EVERYTHING to do with what the sentance says. As I said in my previous post the only contradictions are between your interpritation of the word formed (which you read as created) and my interpritation of formed (which I read as formed).

Exactly. Did you read the thread I pointed you to? As I understand it, "created" and "formed" are synonymous in Hebrew as they are in English. Tense is irrelevant to this discussion because nobody is talking about tense in this discussion. All the words we are discussing are past tense. The difference is that your interpretation (i.e. that Genesis 2 is not a "creation story") depends on "created" and "formed" being significantly different. You need to show that they are different in Hebrew.My "interpretation" only depends on a straight reading of the text.

---

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.

http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/index2.htmSynonyms or not the text is using two diferent words. VYTShUr and VYBUr'a . You are essentialy saying that created = formed when they are not equall. And then inserting created for formed. And I'm the one who's not reading it literaly?2:7 VYYTShUr YHVH 'aLHYM 'aTh-H'aDM 'yPhUr MN-H'aDMH VYPhCh B'aPhYV NShMTh ChYYM VYHY H'aDM LNPhSh ChYH.1:27 VYBUr'a 'aLHYM 'aTh-H'aDM BTShLMV BTShLM 'aLHYM BUr'a 'aThV ZKUr VNQBH BUr'a 'aThM.2:7 formavit igitur Dominus Deus hominem de limo terrae et inspiravit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae et factus est homo in animam viventem1:27 et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam ad imaginem Dei creavit illum masculum et feminam creavit eos2:7 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.1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.2:19 VYTShUr YHVH 'aLHYM MN-H'aDMH KL-ChYTh HShDH V'aTh KL-'yVPh HShMYM VYB'a 'aL-H'aDM LUr'aVTh MH-YQUr'a-LV VKL 'aShUr YQUr'a-LV H'aDM NPhSh ChYH HV'a ShMV.1:21 VYBUr'a 'aLHYM 'aTh-HThNYNM HGDLYM V'aTh KL-NPhSh HChYH HUrMShTh 'aShUr ShUrTShV HMYM LMYNHM V'aTh KL-'yVPh KNPh LMYNHV VYUr'a 'aLHYM KY-TVB.1:24 VY'aMUr 'aLHYM ThVTSh'a H'aUrTSh NPhSh ChYH LMYNH BHMH VUrMSh VChYThV-'aUrTSh LMYNH VYHY-KN.2:19 formatis igitur Dominus Deus de humo cunctis animantibus terrae et universis volatilibus caeli adduxit ea ad Adam ut videret quid vocaret ea omne enim quod vocavit Adam animae viventis ipsum est nomen eius1:21 creavitque Deus cete grandia et omnem animam viventem atque motabilem quam produxerant aquae in species suas et omne volatile secundum genus suum et vidit Deus quod esset bonum1:24 dixit quoque Deus producat terra animam viventem in genere suo iumenta et reptilia et bestias terrae secundum species suas factumque est ita2:19 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.1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.Edited by imageinvisible, : used wrong verseEdited by imageinvisible, : clarity

purpledawn,Please read post 211 I have updated it for you.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

---

Thank you

Well, that's what synonyms are - different words with equivalent meanings. That's exactly what I'm saying. It's all been covered before in this thread. Go argue it over there. You're claiming that two synonyms are significantly different. That isn't literal.

---

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.

feel free to coment on post 218

VYTShUr and VYBUr'a your claiming that these two words are equall when they are only similar, how is that literal?

imageinvisible,I am sorry image but Ringo is correct.

---

Thank you

It's been done. Read the thread and argue it over there.

---

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.

..bumpEdited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

---

Thank you