Bible Error: Creation Contradiction

by JosephAlward 22 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JosephAlward

  Genesis contradicts itself in its description of the order of creation and man and plants.

  The author who called the deity God said “The land produced...plants...[on] the third day... [and] God created man..[on] the sixth day (Gen 1:12-13; 27).

  However, the author who called the deity LORD God said “NO plant of the field had yet sprung up, for..there was no man to work the ground” (Gen 2:5)

  Thus, either the first author is wrong about the plants coming three days before man was created, or the second author is wrong about there NOT being plants because man had not yet been created. Whichever is the case, the Bible is wrong in one place, or the other.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  Larsguy

  My response to this, is that you are ignoring the style and context of these scriptures. Obviously there are different kinds of plants and the Bible was referring to specific types of plants in either verse, with the context defining for us what is meant. Thus this is a LANGUAGE issue wherein there would be no contradiction.

  For instance, if there was a stipend given to every man who had five daughters by the state, a man with ten daughters would be eligible and when asked did he have five daughers he would answer "yes". But out of that context if asked how many daughters did he have if he said five, someone might say he was contradicting himself.

  So in this case, what we learn from the scriptures is that the Bible may use some words in a very general sense, allowing the specific context to define them. In other words, had the scriptures said there were no "cultivated plants" as yes since there was no man to cultivate them, then there would not have been a contradiction to you since "plant" would have been modified. But that's just how we are used to it in English. As far as the context of Hebrew goes, as long as the plants were described as being cultivated in the context of that sentence, it would have been understood the reference was to a specific type of plant, that is, cultivated plants. So because of this language 'STYLE', there can be no contradiction claimed simply because of the way it was translated or because of how it would be read and understood in English.

  It's interesting you found this to be a contradiction though which is more of a reflection of you than the text itself, I'm afraid.

  LG
• 

  pomegranate

  Again, Joseph so neatly lifts texts out of context. At least you're consistent.

  Chapter one has the creation in chronological order. The exact way things came to be.

  The beginning of Chapter two is informing the alert reader to two things. First, it explains how something happened during verse two of chapter one, and then it explains the HOW God accomplished Genesis 1:27. (HOW did God create "man?")

  First item is WATER. Did God create the earth as water first? Or did He create the land? Well, it would SEEM water first since that is what God is hovering over. Notice in chapter one that water is already present WITHOUT God ever saying He created it Where/How did the water come to be?

  If one reads Genesis chapter 2 contextually, one will see that the verse Joseph is trying to make support a different order of events, is in fact informing the reader of HOW water came to be on the earth and HOW God created man:

  Gen 2:4-6
  When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-- 5 and NO shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and NO plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had NOT SENT rain on the earth and there was NO man to work the ground, 6 BUT streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground--7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

  Ya see that BIG BUT Joseph? That big "BUT" divides the sentence context into it's two seperate ideas, the water and man question BEFORE the "BUT" and the water and man answer to those two questions AFTER the "BUT."

  The Bible confirms there was NOTHING in existence BEFORE water:

  No shrub
  No plant
  No rain (that's why He had this written dude, NO RAIN AND YET WATER?)
  No Man

  Basically, NO NOTHING. So how DID the water come to be, as no where in Gensis chapters 1&2 does it say God created water or that it rained??? How did the water come to be? Simple:

  BUT streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground--

  According to the Bible here in chapter TWO, in Genesis 1:1,2 when there was NO PLANT, SHRUB, RAIN, OR MAN, God created the land FIRST, then covered it with water which came from inside the land and covered the whole surface of the ground. Simple eh Joseph?

  Then, anyone with half a brain would have questioned Genesis 1:27, which states that God created mankind. Well HOW? HOW did we come to be. HOW did he do that? Chapter 2 Verse 7 tells us HOW:

  Gen 2:7
  7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

  That's HOW man was made and that is what these verses truly teach. The contradiction is YOU.

  AND as God so lovingly informs us, God did not create male and female at the same time, as chapter two continues to inform.

  Chapter TWO is in NO WAY showing a different order of events as Joseph WRONGLY understands, rather it is informing the discerning reader questions he would have come away with after finishing chapter one.

  Are you an atheist Joseph? You never answered or replied.

  Ps 14:1
  The fool says in his heart,
  "There is no God."

  Ps 53:1
  The fool says in his heart,
  "There is no God."
• 

  JosephAlward

  In order to harmonize the apparent contradiction between the two accounts of creation, apologists commonly overlook the obvious reason that there are differences. They assume that there is one writer at work--Moses--telling one continuous story; they imagine that the first story in Genesis is the main story, while the story beginning at Genesis 2:4 is a summary. In reality, the creation story is a compilation of traditions from at least two different cultures and times; the editors of the Old Testament work never intended the stories to be taken literally. Just as a respectful child might tell two stories of a happy event from childhood--one as remembered by the grandmother, and the other--and somewhat different event as remembered by the grandfather, so as not to offend either grandparent, so did the respectful editor put two differing stories of creation in the Genesis book.

  As evidence that there were two different authors at work, the readers may check their Bibles for the following data:

  The author of the first creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:3) refers to the deity thirty-five times, ALWAYS as “God,” while the author of the second creation story refers to the deity nine times, ALWAYS as “LORD God.” It is almost certainly not coincidental that a second account of creation begins at the EXACT place in Genesis where the name used for the deity abruptly changes after a long stretch of thirty-five “God,” to nine of “LORD God.”

  Thus we have clear and convincing evidence that the author of the first story came from a culture whose people called the deity "God," and believed that plants came before man, while the author of the second story came from a culture whose people called the deity "LORD God," and believed that plants did NOT come before man.

  Objective, non-fundamentalist observers may find it amusing to see how far the die-rather-than-admit-Bible-error apologist will go in explaining why "Moses" never ONCE used "LORD God" in his string of 35 references to the deity, but then abruptly started using this name at the beginning of his "summary," and never used the "God" name again in the "summary."

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  pomegranate

  >>In reality, the creation story is a compilation of traditions from at least two different cultures and times; the editors of the Old Testament work never intended the stories to be taken literally.<<

  Prove it.
  You can't.

  >>The author of the first creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:3) refers to the deity thirty-five times, ALWAYS as “God,” while the author of the second creation story refers to the deity nine times, ALWAYS as “LORD God.” It is almost certainly not coincidental that a second account of creation begins at the EXACT place in Genesis where the name used for the deity abruptly changes after a long stretch of thirty-five “God,” to nine of “LORD God.”<<

  You call the above evidence? That's called interpretation Joseph.

  Be advised that verse 2:4 is THE ENDING CONCLUDING STATEMENT of the account for Genesis chapter one through Genesis 2:3.

  How do we know? The seventh day extends into chapter 2.

  Gen 2:4
  4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

  The above is a conclusion for the "day" of rest.

  THIS is concluding the "days" of creation, including "rest" NOT introducing a second creation as Mr. Joe. INTERPRETS the Bible through the eyes of Mr. Friedman.

  Sorry Joe. You guts no evidence, just interpretation.
• 

  Simon

  it doesn't take too much to prove that there were different authors... doesn't it descibe how the author dies and was buried?

  Who wrote that? Du-huh !
• 

  pomegranate

  >>Objective, non-fundamentalist observers may find it amusing to see how far the die-rather-than-admit-Bible-error apologist will go in explaining why "Moses" never ONCE used "LORD God" in his string of 35 references to the deity, but then abruptly started using this name at the beginning of his "summary," and never used the "God" name again in the "summary."<<

  Genesis 1 - 2:4a, through the eyes of Bad
  Genesis 2:4b - 2:25, through the eyes of Good

  It's called changing writer perspective by changing person (1st, 2nd or 3rd) viewing the event.
• 

  pomegranate

  >>it doesn't take too much to prove that there were different authors... doesn't it descibe how the author dies and was buried?
  Who wrote that? Du-huh !<<

  Moses death is also interesting:

  Deut 34:5-7
  5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said. 6 He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone.

  That's taken.

  God buried Moses body, why couldn't he have written the "obituary?" After all, he wrote the ten commandments, right?:

  Deut 9:10
  10 The LORD gave me two stone tablets inscribed by the finger of God.

  If ya come write down to it, he wrote the whole thing.

  Do you feel God stopped writing after the ten?

  I don't.
• 

  JosephAlward

  “The land produced...plants...[on] the third day... [and] God created man..[on] the sixth day (Gen 1:12-13; 27).

  “NO plant of the field had yet sprung up, for..there was no man to work the ground” (Gen 2:5)

  The posts on this topic have failed to directly address the apparent contradiction in these passages. In the first one, there were plants before man came, but in the second, there were no plants before man.

  Inerrantists struggle mightily to hold to the illusion that these passages are literally true, but virtually every single objective university religious scholar knows--and teaches--that there were at least two different authors writing Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, authors from two different parts of Israel, and from times hundreds of years apart, and that there are two different stories of creation which contradict each other. I know that most inerrantists will refuse to read the evidence used by these scholars to support this view, but for those who are willing to be convinced, there are any number of books on this subject.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  pomegranate

  >>The posts on this topic have failed to directly address the apparent contradiction in these passages. In the first one, there were plants before man came, but in the second, there were no plants before man.<<

  AGAIN, you take the sentence out of context...God is telling you where the water came from in Genesis 1:2, because MOST truth seeking people would have realized that the most important thing in the world to ALL living things is on the scene before any actual creative "days" had begun.

  Gen 2:4-7
  hen the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 BUT streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground--

  The emboldened part of the text above is what all the "no this" and "no that" is all about. Before there was ANY created, water welled up from inside the earth and covered the surface of the ground.

  The BUT is answering the where did the water come from question.

  Then God says how the male was made, as that is NOT a detail given in chapter 1:

  Gen 2:7
  7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

  That's where water came from, and that's HOW the male was made.

  Simple.