Contradictions between Genesis 1-2

Well, I've said all along that the two chapters are two different stories with two different purposes, so I don't know what you think you're arguing about. Let's turn the tables. Leaving out chapter 2, what would you miss that's so important? The God. There's only one. No mystery. "The man" in the story. His back-story is irrelevant. It's a tree that gives the knowledge of good and evil. It's not rocket science. What difference does it make? If He told them five minutes sooner, does it change the message? The place they lived. What else matters? Who cares? That question isn't answered in chapter 2 either. That question isn't answered in chapter 2 either.Chapter 2 is just another creation story with a different viewpoint. It just portrays God as more personal. It contains no vital information.

---

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.

His back story is quit relavant (especially after reading the rest of the Bible) seeing as how I inherited his sin nature 'if' I am related to him and not someone who came before him. (and if I'm not related to him I have no hope of salvation according to the rest of the Bible) Without chapter two I have no idea 'if' or how many men came before him. I don't even know how he got his name, since thats not covered in chapters 1 or 3 either. but as to this... You are quit wrong.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.Both trees are mentioned in chapter 2. It makes alot of diference, especially if He didn't tell them (since I have no idea if He really did or not cause chapter 1 sure doesn't cover it) If He didn't tell them this then He's just being cruel and obnoxious, and He's got no business cursing them for eating it. So yes it changes the message quit a bit. You're very wrong, chapter 2 introduces all the main charaters. Chapter 2 contains alot of information that would not exist if it where not present. It tells me WHERE the garden of eden was for startes. It tells me that there where no men on earth before adam. It tells me that God took special interest in man to the point of prepareing a place for him on earth. A special place complete with food, even a tree of life. It tells me what the third commandment (the first being 'be fruitful and multiply,' the secound 'to subdue the earth,' both of which are listed in chapter 1) God gave was. (don't eat the fruit of this tree) It even tells me what will happen if adam eats that fruit. It tells me quit specifically that woman was take out of man. It tells me that man and woman where naked in the garden and that they had no shame at thier nakedness. It tells me that Adam was a smart man, smart enough to name all the beasts of the field as well as the birds of the air. So he knew exactly what God ment when He said "you will surely die." Most importantly chapter 2 tells me that the God in chapter 3 is the same God who created everything in chapter 1 and that He is the reason why men are alive, because He breathed the breath of life into adams lungs. Chapter 2 is the link between the creater God in chapter 1 and the Creater God in chapter 2 and the creater God in chapter 3 and the creater God in chapter 4 and the creater God in chapter 5 and the creater God in chapter 6 and the creater God in chapter 7 and the creater God in chapter 8 and the creater God in chapter 9 and on and on and on. Chapter 2 lays down the entire foundation for the rest of the Bible as well as tieing chapter 1 to the rest of the Bible.

And it doesn't matter. And it doesn't matter. I didn't say they weren't mentioned. I said that chapter 2 doesn't say "what the tree of life is". Again, I didn't say He didn't tell them. I said it doesn't matter when He told them, which was what you asked. It only matters that he told them - and chapter 3 tells us that.Don't waste my time misreading and/or misrepresenting what I say. So what? If chapter 2 wasn't there, they'd be introduced in chapter 3. This is getting boring. Is there anything important in chapter 2 that would change the message of the Bible if it was missing?

---

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.

quote:

---

Thank you for responding, although I had wished for a bit more engagement.

---

Sorry, finishing up some Christmas projects. Amazing how much time one can lose in front of the computer.

quote:

---

Seems to me the latter version presents an aloof, non judgmental deity whereas the prior paints him in clearly human terms, giving rise to the darker side of Christian dogma: original sin, blood sacrifice, eternal damnation .

​

Do you not see these stories conflicting in terms of their theology?

---

Here is one other difference, that if it was translated correctly may reflect the changing views of the cosmos.The A&E Story starts with "God made the earth and the heavens:, whereas, the Priestly story starts with "God created the heavens and the earth".The JE stories are tribal and personal as you mentioned and the P stories are more cosmic or aloof as you said. The P stories were probably written after the fall of the northern kingdom in 722BC.The P stories seem to be written as an alternative to the tribal JE stories. The P stories can be pulled out of the JE stories and stand on their own. With the influx of refugees from the northern kingdom and varying religious stories, the priests had to do something to bring the two groups together.Since the Creation story and the A&E story didn't really mention the tribes, we can't really see the political aspect of what P wrote, but it is very interesting how the author wrote to make God more national or cosmic than tribal and still keep the power with his own priestly group.I don't see that Gen 1 really carries any theological point, other than God created everything. I personally don't see a theological difference. One story is concerned with the creation of the world and the other deals with how mankind came to be the way he is. I don't see that Gen 1 really carries any theological point, other than God created everything.The only Mitzvot pulled from Genesis 1 is to be fruitful and multiply. None were pulled from Genesis 2.They are foundational myths and knowing that they were not written by Moses or that they were written centuries apart would not and has not changed the course of Judaism. Abraham is considered the beginning of Judaism. Besides, the Jews have many legends concerning A&E and creation. They have legends covering most of the stories in the Bible, so really we are only seeing one static part of what they draw on for teaching.Since Christianity only has what is written and have built dogma around the A&E story, I understand the knee jerk reaction, but in reality it shouldn't matter. The Christian religion should start with Jesus as Judaism started with Abraham.

quote:

---

Are you not aware of the hostility inspired in believers by the mere mention of two different stories here?

---

Try telling them that the stories were written centuries apart. I know, we are going to hell; but fortunately for us, it has ice water now.

---

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

quote:

---

The only point of this thread, originally, was to discuss the indications that Genesis 1-3 has two creation stories.

---

And yet when someone argues that the stories are not both creation of the world stories, you simply told them they had no evidence and referred them back to the OP. You did not respond to their argument with further evidence or reasoned argumentation for your position.

quote:

---

The word "support" in my previous responses was taken out of context by you when you seemed to think that I was claiming that the creation stories can't be "a whole" and contradict each other when that is a not true.

---

And still you don't clarify what you mean by support. You really aren't very clear on your position other than read your OP. Did I mention you keep sending people back to the OP?Actually I assumed you were claiming exactly what you said in Message 197.

quote:

---

However, since the creation stories do not support each other then it must be plausible that there is actually two creation stories in Genesis 1-3.

---

Or a creation of the world story and a story of why mankind is the way he is. The other option is that there are two different stories that may or may not have the same purpose.

---

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

I hadn't noticed that before, but it would be consistent with a Sumerian legend in which the sky, in response to strong puffing by the air-god Lil, is raised up from off the earth. As I recall, it is the earliest myth uncovered to date. Looks good on paper but you can't really understand Jesus without Abraham.On the other hand: The Christian religion should follow the religion of Christ. As one Unitarian Universalist author wrote regarding UU theology/philosophy: Exactly. It is "the fall" of man which requires the redemption value of "the blood of Christ." Or, as one of my Sabbath School teachers put it: (Preferrably non-Christian )

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Why not? You're obviously wasting my by misreading and/or misrepresenting what God said, not just what I said. Your flimsy arguement that created = formed and therefore chapter 2 must be another creation story has at worst inlistrated that when one takes a literal view of what the Bible says they either see a assumed contradiction or they get exactly what the author intended for the reader to get. And at best has ilistrated that the words written down are subject to some amount of interpritation (even the wrong interpritation).If chapter 2 where not there the main characters would not be introduced in chapter 3 or in any other chapter, but then with all the assumptions you make I'm certain you could read their indroductions in at any point which suits you. But since you are having trouble getting the points (specificaly those I made concerning when, why, and MOST IMPORTLY IF something was said) I made concerning chapter 2 in my my previous post, it is doubtful that you would get the point of anything written in the Bible. But I'll leave it up to some other Pharasy who wants to argue the letter of the Law aganst you Saducies who want to rectify the Law with the newly appointed Roman government. As for me I going to follow Jesus, since that is what He has called me to do. My faith in God and His Word is by no means shacken by your flimsy agruements. Or without Adam since the Bible claims that Jesus is 1 a direct decendant of adam. 2 that Jesus is the second adam. 3 that Jesus must be related to adam in order to be a 'kinsman redeemer'. 4 that before abraham was, Jesus is 'I Am'. 5 YSHWH=YHWH Just for starters.

Is that why God chose a nice Jewish boy and not some Goy?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Sure they would. If you had never seen a James Bond movie and they left off the little intro at the beginning, you'd still be introduced to him the first time you saw him. That's the way literature works. You're introduced to a character the first time he's mentioned, whether anything happened to him before that or not.I still don't know what point you're trying to make. All the silly ad hominem doesn't really clarify your position.If you have a created/formed argument, please present it in the appropriate thread. Leaving that aside, what exactly are you trying to pick a fight with me about?

---

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.

Where did you get the idea that ALL christians are not Jewish? I know a great many christians who are Jewish, they are called Mesionic Jews.

Please show where I said all Christians are not Jewish and frankly, the Messianic Jews seem to be nothing but a Baptist Con.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

PD, The contradictions are there in G1-G2. We are discussing the contradictions in G1 and G2 and that is it.NOTE: Your claim that the stories have the same overall outcome is not true. Read last paragraph I will agree that the stories have different meanings but it does not change that there is contradictory information in G1-G2. There is two different creation stories that do not have the same purpose, that much is clear, so this is a mute point. In anycase it does not change that there is contradictory information in G1-G2.OFF TOPIC:
The bottom line here is that there are stories in G1-G3 that describe God making beings(creation events), that have different purposes, and different overall outcomes because they have different purposes. Thus two different creation stories. However, I will say it again, the point of this thread was to discuss the contradictions in G1-G2 and not my personal conclusion on G1-G3.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

---

Thank you

The point I'm making and have been making is that dispite your assertion that tense is irrelevant you continue to read the word formed (as created) in the present tense. i.e. to form (or in your case to creat) rather than in the past tense. i.e. had formed (or in your case had created). As to picking a fight with you, if I where to do so, it would be because I could, can, and am not afraid to. It is appearent; however, that you aren't very good at reading the literal meaning of what I said, so I shall reiterate. There is no point in the two of us argueing, neither of use will EVER give up their possition concerning the arguement, mostly because we define our words diferently. (specificaly the words, literal, created, and formed) This whole arguement is based on the ASSUMPTION that formed=created and that in turn means that there are two creation stories and not one with an aside where the author goes back and exponds in general the happenings on one of the days (day 6) in the previous chapter. If you continue to have trouble understanding the literal translation of my words I can only sugest that you grab a dictionary and see if you can't figure it out on your own. But if that still doesn't give you the literal meaning I'll spell it out for you. There is no point talking to a brick wall, it will never asnwer you much less agree with you. As to removing the intro to a James bond movies (rolls eyes) removing the second chapter of Genesis is tantamont to removing the first 15 chapters of Moby-Dick, since chapter 2 is fully half of the A&E story. But like I said tring to argue this point to you will obviously amount to nothing and will ultimatly just be a wast of my time.

Greetings,I have realized that a majority of responders in this thread have discussed the interpretations of G1-G2. The topic of this thread is to discuss the contradictions in G1-G2. If you would like to discuss a specific verse and try to interprete it that is fine but however the interpretation of G1-G3, as an entirety, is off topic.P.S. if I have gone "off topic" it was by accident so I apologize for it.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

---

Thank you

quote:

---

We are discussing the contradictions in G1 and G2 and that is it.

---

So you keep saying, but I don't see discussion on your part. I know read your OP.

quote:

---

However, I will say it again, the point of this thread was to discuss the contradictions in G1-G2 and not my personal conclusion on G1-G3.

---

The OP gave verses and conclusions. You presented those conclusions, whether they are your personal conclusions or not. In a discussion or debate, one is to responses that will move the conversation forward, not just tell anyone who responds they have no evidence and reread the OP.What do you think it means to discuss something. When you're willing to look at the pros and cons of both sides, you have a discussion.When you tell people they have not refuted your OP and don't have evidence, you're having an argument or as they call it here, a debate.You keep saying you just want to discuss the contradictions, but you keep crowing that no one has refuted the OP. You are a contradiction. The differences in Genesis are very interesting. Maybe you'd like to provide a summary of how this discussion is going so far. Please don't just repeat your OP.

---

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