Contradictions between Genesis 1-2

Exactly, and if you have a problem understanding what they say, then it is your lack of understanding that is at fault, which does not constitute a contradiction. All I have to do is give you a reasonable explanation, you, on the other hand, must prove your allegation. Not exactly. The written word has to be interpreted. So interpretation does matter. Exactly, and it goes both ways. The truth is the truth whether you believe it or not. To not accept the explanation is to remain willfully ignorant.

But I can prove my "allegation", I can point to the Bible. That's called the theology of "If I squint real hard and hold my tongue just right maybe I can make up some story to let me ignore the truth." It's sad because by doing so you trivialize GOD miss out on what the Bible has to say.The facts are that in the two stories the order is different, the methods of creation are different, even the descriptions of the gods are different.Those are what is in the book. That's what the Book says.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You can indeed point to the Bible but that far from proves your allegation. And this is called a straw man argument. Do you deny the written word has to be interpreted? For instance, what you just wrote has to be interpreted. How do I trivialize God by believing what He says? You, on the other hand, are calling Him a liar, or at the very least a deciever. The facts are that the two chapters are NOT two different creation accounts. One is a more detailed account of day six, while the other is a detailed account of the whole creation.http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.htmlAgain, the names used for God depends on what role God is in at the time. Genesis one uses Elohim. This is the plural of El. El corrosponds to God in English, Theos in Greek, and Deus in Latin. El means the "strong one", and stresses the omnipotence and power of God the Creator and Ruler over all nature and the universe.Elohim is the plural of El and means "more than two". However, (and this is where interpretation of the written word comes in handy)it does not mean "In the beginning gods created..." because it is used here, and over 2000 times in the rest of the OT, in the singular, that is, with a singular verb (or adjective). By using the term Elohim we are being told that there is something plural about God Himself.In Genesis two, Moses adds the Hebrew term Yahweh. Yahweh is transliterated in English as Jehovah, and is usually spelled LORD in large and small capitals. Yahweh is the personal name of the living God. It means "I am that I am" which means He is the Self-Existent One. The reason why Moses uses it in Chapter 2 is because it (Chapter 2) describes God's personal relationship with the first human pair, Adam and Eve. When dealing with someone personally, you have to use a personal name. Yahweh is used here because it is required. It is always used as Yahweh Elohim, or the LORD God. So it tells us that the Supreme Creator (Elohim) has a personal name (Yahweh)or the One who is intimately concerned to maintain a personal relationship with those who will walk and talk with Him. Indeed that is what is in the book, however, that certainly isn't what it is saying.

Allow me to roll out Billy Graham.Suppose Billy says, "I'm happy to be here in France," and the interpreter says, "Je suis heureux d'tre ici en France," that's a good interpretation (according to Google Translator). If the interpreter says, "J'aime le fromage," that's a bad interpretation.The claim that Genesis 1 and 2 are the same story is a bad interpretation, because it doesn't convey the actual message. Anybody who interprets it that way is pushing his own agenda (trying to sell cheese, perhaps) instead of interpreting honestly.Edited by Ringo, : Added link.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

In the first account, fowl are created on the fifth day. Beasts of the field are created on the sixth day, but before humans. The supposed "more detailed account of day six," has god creating the 'fowl of the air' and 'beasts of the land' after humans and before woman. You continue to fail to address that glaring inconsistency. side by side chronology posted earlier by myself.You obviously are also using terms you fail to understand, such as 'straw man argument'. It's transparent how much you don't know what this means.-x

Well, there is no indications that either God or Moshe ever wrote anything other than perhaps "Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin" and a set of tablets that God figured Moshe was to incompetent to handle, but if you are claiming God wrote Genesis 1 & 2 then yes, you are claiming God is a liar or at best, senile. The facts are, what is written in the story found from Genesis 1 through the first half of Genesis 2:4 flat contradicts what is found beginning at the second half of Genesis 2:4. Well, not too sure how you get that since I know that neither God or Moshe (if Moshe even existed) wrote either story, so how am I calling God a liar?The rest of your post is simply denial of the facts. Don't worry though, there are people who actually do read the Bible and they can check to see if what I posted is true or not.The fact is that what follows Genesis 2:4 is NOT simply an expansion on what happened on day six, it includes pretty much the same things being created as in the younger tale ('cept fishies) found in Genesis 1, but the order, the methods and even the description of the god are quite different.See Message 9, Message 13, Message 18, Message 22, Message 28, Message 31 and Message 35.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I agree

Some people try to explain this away by saying that Gen. 2:19 should read "the Lord God brought to Adam what He "had" formed. But I don't buy that. There is nothing in Scripture that suggests that God could not have created fowls and animals of what He had already created just to bring to Adam to name. At any rate, it does not imply an order of creation which you seem to think. Since the whole thread here is based on someone alleging the Bible to be saying what it is not saying, then yes, it is a straw man.

Hmm.... We have a quandary, since you agree with me but I disagree with you.In Message 48, you plainly said:

quote:

---

The facts are that the two chapters are NOT two different creation accounts.

---

I'm saying, "The facts are that the two chapters ARE two different creation accounts," and that your interpretation ("One is a more detailed account of day six, while the other is a detailed account of the whole creation.") is a bad interpretation.Have you changed your mind?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

Why? What is so convincing that God wrote that? At any rate you left out the 10 Commandments. Not sure what tablets you are referring to, but I do believe that God could have wrote Genesis 1 & 2. Who else was around to see it? God could have told Adam, however, and he could have written them on tablets, which Moses later obtained possesson of and put into the Pentateuch. There is nothing in them that implies God was senile and certainly neither is it anything that implies He was lying. No, as stated earlier, that is not a fact. Your interpretation does not define facts. How do you know that? Were you around when these stories were written? Once again, I'm not denying any facts. Only your interpretation of what the facts are. Yes, and I'm one of them. It would be nice if people like you wouldn't leave your basic comprehension skills at the door when it comes to the Bible. It does not give anything in any chronological order as Genesis one, but merely gives an overview of those events. Anyone who is not biased against the Bible can see this. It goes on to give a more detailed account of Day six of creation, which anyone without blinders can see. It is you who seems to be denying the facts.

Yes we do have one, since you seem to be saying two different things. Is interpretation coming into play here any at all?You said that "to say Genesis 1 and 2 are the same story is a bad interpetation." I said that Genesis 1 and 2 are NOT two different creation accounts. So bad interpretation has brought you to the assumption that I meant they are the same story. Yet, what I mean is that Genesis 2 is a not a creation story at all. It is merely a more detailed account of day six while giving an overall view of what was just related in Genesis 1. Not at all, have you?

If one is a creation story and one isn't, how can they be the same story?The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich covers many of the same events as The Winds of War but they're completely different stories written by different authors for different reasons. The first two chapters of Genesis are similar - two different stories by different authors with different purposes, which happen to cover some of the same events.What puzzles me is why anybody would even try to conflate them. What's the point? Yes. You seemed to be under the impression that different interpretations of the same message are permissible. I was pointing out that some interpretations are simply wrong.Your interpretation is simply wrong.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

You are welcome to whatever fantasies you wish to hold. May I suggest that you present your best case in support of your position. My position has been pretty completely outlined in the thread for all to see.For reference see Message 9, Message 13, Message 18, Message 22, Message 28, Message 31 and Message 35.I have pointed to the contradictions, and also offered possible explanations for the reasoning the redactors might have used for treating the materials as they did.Now it is time for you to present the case for your side.And if you do not know which tablets I was referring to, I suggest you read Exodus.I am not interpreting what is written, just documenting it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I agree. OK. Why anyone would try to say they are the same story is beyond me. Well not really? It is just an attempt by skeptics to throw doubt on the Bible. No amount of explanation will change their minds. How can I be doing that, since I am saying they are not the same message? Which is what I have been saying all along. Or yours, whatever it is.

As, I suppose, are you. I have already explained my position and given good explanations to show that there are no contradictions. You, on the other hand, continue to espouse that there are contradiction without any real proof of any. Yelling louder does not make you more right. I have not looked at all of your threads, only the ones that have been in response to mine, but I'm pretty sure I already know what they contain. I responed as to why each point was not really a contradiction. I gave reasonable explanations to show that each contradiction need not be considered one. You reject them out of hand, which tells me no amount of explanation would be enough for you. What are the names of these so called redactors? In order to discern if there is a contradiction requires a certain amount of interpretation. Documenting what you think is a contradiction requires interpretation.