Contradictions between Genesis 1-2

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.

Yes. Yes.

This I do not deny. There does indeed appear to be errors. That is why explanation is needed. Really? So where does that put the fly? The Bible, (KJV) does not call a bat a bird. Rather it calls the bat a fowl. The 1611 English word for fowl mean any winged or flying animal. A bat would fit into that catagory wouldn't you say? See how interpretations come into effect here? Edited by Creationist, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

With all the other six-legged insects. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

That is so sad.One error and the Bible is worthless? How weak is your faith?How would one error in the Old Testament make the teachings of Christ worthless?That's practically blaphemy. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

First no you do not have to interpret for what we are discussing. All that is needed is to look at what is written. Make a list. Check it twice.The order of creation, the methods of creation, the lists of things created, the commandments on what could be eaten, the descriptions of God are all mutually exclusive between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.That requires no interpretation. You just read the texts. Well, not exactly. I agree that there is lots of tradition, but that says nothing about truth or validity. Many of the parts are attributed to folk but lots are only that, attributions. That is true of both the Old and New Testament. We have no idea who wrote several of the epistles attributed to Paul, or who wrote 2 Peter or who the different Johns were or who added the material in the Gospel of Mark beginning at Mark 16:9 or even who Mark was.When it comes to the topic of this thread though, my position is more reliable than yours because mine can actually be tested. It requires no presuppositions, only honesty. It doesn't matter what you think beforehand, whether you think the Bible is perfect or think it is flawed, you simply look to see what it says.So I am not basing what I say on conjecture or speculation, but rather on the facts, what is actually written. The likely time of the major redaction was determined by the stylistic inserts by the redactor between the different versions of stories.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think where people get confused is when people insist that the Bible is the word of an inerrant God and then allow for the text which is supposed to be his word to be interpreted.Earlier you wrote: But in this last comment you allow for explanation. If people are the ones doing the explaining, then how can you be certain they're perfect in their explanations and that the word is thus being perfectly transmitted to you? Flies creep on all fours? Huh? Right...fowl. Sorry. Okay, I see that point, but that brings us back up to my point above I think.And so then when Leviticus in the KJV talks about fowls that creep on all fours, it is talking about bats?Is the hare chewing its cud also a translation error? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Genesis 1:9-13 day 3 God creates the Earth, not to be confused with earth (water), which is what God created the Earth out of. and the flowers, grasses, trees and plants in general. these verses also seem to indicate from what God made the plants.Genesis 1:20-23 day 5 God creates the fish and the birds. Does it say anywhere in these verses How God created the fish and the birds? Or what He created them from? And if no one was present (except for God) how would we know? And who would tell Adam, if not God?Genesis 1:24-31 day 6 God creates the beasts of the field (all land animals) verse 24 seems to indicate what God created the beasts from (out of the Earth) curious, He tells us from what He created the plants and the animals, but He has omitted from what He created the birds and the fish, I'm really curious to know from what He created them.To whom is God speaking in verse 26? He didn't create man untill verse 27. The words used in the verse are obviously plural (Us/Our) but to whom is He refering when He say Us, He is the only being there? Is this a hint of at least a duality?Then God creates Man in his own image. male and female He created them. Please note that day six does not end until verse 31.Mental exercise: refering back to verses 14-18, how long exactly did it take God to create our sun, moon, the rest of the planets in our solar system and the entire universe? If He could do all that in 24 hours, how long does it take to create a man? Is it unreasonable to think that He could have created all the land animals and a man in a matter of an hour or so, and still have plenty of day left?Genesis 2:1-3 is day 7verses 4-6 lets look at them and see if we cant find out what they mean and why they are there.
1 "This is the history of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the heavens and the earth, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown.
2 For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground."Does sentance 1 indicate that God didn't create the plants? and if so, what in the world is sentance 2 watering?Sentance 1 indicates simply this: on Day 1 God created the heavens and the earth, before He created the plants. this is a true statement and is in accourdance with Genesis chapter 1. It seems quite logical that one should create the earth before the plants.Does sentance 2 indicate that there are no plants? and if so, what in the world is it watering?Sentace 2 indicates that there is some need for water, since God had not caused it to rain, and that there where no men on the earth from day 1 untill this point. ergo adam is the first, and only man, for none came before him.verse 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 being.enter man. The point behind it all. I don't know about you but if I just created a whole universe for this guy I'd want to show it off. Does this verse say that God created man? no It says that God formed man, and what He formed man out of, the dust of the ground. Does this verse indicate when God formed man? no. But the word formed seems to indicate past tense as do the words breathed and and became.If I say "I formed a hypothesis" does this give any indication of when I formed said hypothesis? No it only say that I formed a hypothesis. All you know is whats important, "that 'I' formed it.'verse 8 the LORD God planted a guarden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.does this sentance say God created plants? no. It says that He planted a garden. Does it say when he planted that garden? no. But the word planted seems to indicate past tence, as do the words put and formed.If I say to you "I planted a garden." Does that mean that I just got up went out side created plants and then planted a garden. No, it just means that I planted a garden. You have no idea when I planted it, all you know is whats important, 'that 'I' planted it.'verse 9 and out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of Life was also in the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.Does this sentance say that God created the plants? no. does it say that He made them grow. yes. does it say when He made them grow? no. but the words was and made in this context seem to indicate past tenseIf I say to you "I made this" does that give you any indication of when I made it? No, it just means that I made it. All you know is whats important, "that 'I' made it.'verse 15 wait a minute, didn't God put man in the garden of eden back in verse 8. did he put man there twice? if not when did man leave? Does it say man left? does it say he didn't leave? Or is it more likely that, since God was describing the garden of eden and thus got of topic a bit, He just wanted to pick up where He left off, so no one would get left behind. With man in the garden of eden.
The literary term for this is a reiteration.verse 18 seems to indicate that God wishes to make man a helper 'comparable' to him.verse 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to adam to see what he would call them.Does this verse say when God created the beasts and the birds? no. Does it say that he formed them out of the earth? yes. does it say when He formed them? no. But the word formed seems to be in the past tense as are the words brought and would. And now we know from what God made the birds."I formed a hypothesis" see also "I made this" and "I planted a garden" Whats important? 'That 'I' formed them.'verse 20 So adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.This verse seems to indicate that adam (man) is unique amoung the animals. God; "See there is none among them that is 'like you.'" God knew this, adam knew this, some peaple have trouble with this, therefore; look at all the animals, see that there is none amoung them that is 'like you' i.e. 'comparable'verses 21-25 adam was a male. any 'clone' of him would no doubt also be male.the word caused, slept, took, and closed all seem to indicate past tense. Does God say when He did it? no, Only 'that 'He' did it,' which is what is important.verses 23-25 cover 'why' eve was taken out of adam. Does this mean that God did not create eve or that eve was not created on day six? No. It just means that eve was created last, and that her creation was just as special an occurance as adams. It also tells us whatis important, 'that 'God' made woman,' and that 'He' made her from man.None of these verses in any way contradict the account illustrated in Genesis chapter 1. They confirm these accounts and give details as to what is important, 'that 'God' did it.'HOW TO MAKE AN APPLE PIE FROM SCRATCH :step 1. create the universe.edited for spelling errorsEdited by imageinvisible, : No reason given.

Which legs does it use to creep around on? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Isn't it though? Obviously stronger than yours, since I don't believe there are any errors. If one part is in error how do you know the teachings of Jesus is not in error? No, that's faith. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I'm pretty sure all six. A quick search didn't turn up flies walking on four...and I definitely don't remember them mentioning it in college or grad school bio classes.Do you have citations for flies walking on four legs? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Yes, it is... for you.You would drop your entire "world view" because of one minor error. That's pretty pathetic, IMHO.Your faith is a house of cards. And yet even one error will cause you to reject all that you believe. That is weak faith by definition. Well, for one, I don't know that they are not in error. But, I can relate Jesus' teachings to what I do know is not in error, and see if there are any contractions. Then, if not, I can determine whether or not I accept them as true.In fact, this is the same thing we can do with the Old Testament. When we find that the OT contradicts what we know to be true, then we should not change what we know to correspond to our interpretation of it, we should change our interpretation of it to correspond to what we know.Let me repeat that because it's important.You should not change reality to fit your interpretation of the Bible, you should change your interpretation of the Bible to fit reality. Not in the slightest. Faith is believing in Jesus despite the contradictions in the Bible. It's not closing your eyes to truth because you won't believe in Jesus anymore if you find out the truth. That is not faith. That is willful ignorance.

---

ABE:A fly creeps around on all six of its legs. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

This is one of the most popular objections in the skeptical book, and it's basically this: Rabbits are not ruminants; they practice refection. Refection is a process in which rabbits eat their own dung mixed with undigested material. The Hebrew does not use the word for "dung". Therefore this passage is wrong. (The objection is also registered against the verses mentioning the coney, or hyrax; however, the identification of this animal is uncertain -- we will assume it to be an animal that refects as well.)There are a few factors we need to keep in mind here. First, this word is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law.Second, refection is a process whereby rabbits pass pellets of partially digested food, which they chew on (along with the waste material) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. It is not just "dung" that the rabbits are eating, which is probably why the Hebrew word for "dung" was not used here.Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, rumination, which is what we moderns call "chewing the cud." They regurgiate partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more, later on, while mixing it with saliva.So then: partially digested food is a common element here. We therefore suggest that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food -- the process is not the issue, just the object.Note also that pigs eat their own dung and yet the text concerning the pig does not mention the word dung either.So in the case of the rabbit which both chews what it had already partially digested, and it eats it own fecies is 'very' unclean. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Where does the Bible say this? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Well, all you've done is make up some barely plausible reasons to hand-wave away the contradictions. You really need to show that they aren't there, not just that they "might not" be there.Just a few disjointed comments: Adam's imagination. Or more precisely, the imagination of whoever wrote the story. To whom is Hamlet speaking when he says, "To be or not to be...?" It's a soliloquy. The plot doesn't allow anybody else to be present, but the audience has to hear the speaker's thoughts. I don't see any particular significance in that. I often say to myself, "Let's try this...." It's a common enough figure of speech, I think. No need to draw great theological truths from it. Sure, the book written by the guy would make him seem important, wouldn't it? The duck Bible doesn't mention man at all ("And God created ducks in His own image"). We have a whole topic on that very topic. Synopsis: "created" and "formed" mean the same thing in Hebrew. Please take it over there. Again, not very significant. God might very well have said the same thing to the giraffe. You could also assert that The Lord of the Rings is a "reiteration" of War and Remembrance and you could use the same lame apologetics. (Did Wouk actually say that Briney wasn't a hobbit?)

---

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.