Contradictions between Genesis 1-2

quote:

---

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 can only support each other if the "order of creation" in both chapters were the same.

---

Says who? What evidence do you have that that is true?You keep saying how things must be. What is your evidence that they must be that way?How one chooses to tell a story is up to the individual, even God.If God chose to give the exact order in Genesis 1 and then decided to tell the creation of man a little more creatively, he has that choice, just as we do.You're saying that if one author wrote the whole thing, then lists and concepts must be exactly the same. Why? You think a God who can create all this beauty isn't creative? He can't tell a story to entertain or teach? He must say things the exact same way each time?You really haven't given any evidence to show why these stories must be exactly the same if they were written by one author or inspired by God.

purpledawn,You're missing the point. The point I was making is that g1 and g2 contradict each other.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You're missing the point. The point I was making is that g1 and g2 contradict each other and in order for them to support each other, not contradict each other, the order needs to be the same. Hence: no contradiction.

---

I'm not missing the point, you're avoiding the necessary point.How one writes a technical manual is going to be different than how one writes a piece to generally explain the same information to a group of children or general populace. If one chooses to entertain with the written piece so that the most important points are remembered, that will also be very different from a technical manual. Precision is not the key in a creative story.What I have asked of you and what you have not done, is show evidence of why these two stories must be exactly the same, when they are dealing with different subjects. Why must the order be exactly the same to support each other?You are the one saying that the lists must be exactly the same. Why?For what purpose are you comparing them? Contradiction

Huh...that gives me some questions I'd like to ask. I suppose that would have to be a new thread.

But there's always error associated with the observations. Here the word "just" is where the error lies. The sentence, as written, does not ensure that I will interpret "just" in the same manner you do. With this amount of information, I don't have any way of determining how much time "just" represents. Actually, I think "before" can be interpreted as well. The act of putting quotes around the word rock shows that you understand that the word requires interpretation. I contend, however, that even if you remove the quotes the word rock requires interpretation. Your definition of rock and mine might be different, and indeed, I would take the odds that they are. Not only that, but this sentence, as written, allows for interpretations in space and time. Where are you taking about the a rock existing? That might be debatable. When are you talking about a rock existing? That might also be open to scrutiny. So, yes, it is a "fact" that a rock exists, but there is absolutely error involved in this fact. I need to interpret various aspects of this sentence and there's no ensuring that I'm going to hit your precise meaning.

purpledawn,the interpretation of the contradictions of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 is not part of this thread.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

---

Thank you

JB1740, If I observed a air plan crash my observation would be a fact but however the report on the air plan crashing would have to be interpreted. The error is in the interpretation not the observation. You're interpreting the fact but however the fact is a fact. To be honest with you we are going off topic so I will stop here. I have made my point and that is: facts are facts and facts are not interpretations but however they are observations.

---

Thank you

This has nothing to do with interpretation. Straight reading.You are the one saying that the lists must be exactly the same to support each other. Why must they be exactly the same?At some point you need to show support for why these verses are considered to be in contradiction of each other.Continuing to tell the opposition that they have no support when you yourself have not actually given any support for why the verses are considered to be contradictions other than you say so is not moving the discussion forward.The individual verses themselves are not support. To deem them contractions there has to be a purpose in comparing the chapters.If I understand what you have said, you don't feel that the A&E story is an expansion of day six, because the lists are not exactly the same.So show evidence that supports the reasoning that the list must be exactly the same for Chapter two to be an account of day six.

---

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

purpledawn,The verses themself contradict eachother therefor that is substantial enough information to claim they contradict eachother. If you want to observe the evidence feel free to read Genesis 1 and 2. What is the issue? the interpretation that Genesis 2:4-25 is the sixth day of creation in Genesis 1 is exactly that, an interpretation but however the contradictions do not need to be interpreted(they are there). Thus my OP has not been refuted. The issue of Genesis 2 being the sixth day of creation could be true, I suppose, but however it does not change the fact that they contradict each other. The reasons of why or why not Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other is off topic. The only topic here is that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other; which brings this thread to an early close. Bye.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.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 think two different lists do "contradict" each other by straight reading. In order to support each other, they need to be interpreted in a certain way.For Genesis 2's man-animal-woman to be a "more detailed account", you have to assume that Genesis 1's animal-man/woman is less detailed. Since both lists have the same details, that assumption seems unreasonable.

---

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.

Exodus 20; KJV - And God spake all these words, saying, - Bible Gateway;
Pay particular attention to verse 1 and verse 11 and the name used for God in verse 11.History; this is God talking and this is God writting these words down on two stone tablets with His own finger.Thank you.Edited by imageinvisible, : clarity

Hello imageinvisible,
The problem with this line of reasoning is that not everyone accepts that God wrote the commandments.
You say God wrote them.
I say that whichever mortal wrote Exodus wrote them (or possibly adapted them from another source).
Unless one accepts divine authorship your point is irrelevant and it fails to address many of the specific contradictions anyway.

---

Mutate and Survive

tthzr3 didn't really want to discuss anything. It appears he just wanted a list of contradictions, which he could have gotten on the internet.Both stories say that God created man, woman, plants, and animals. The final information received is the same.In straight reading, one doesn't pull out verses to compare. One reads the whole story. The "contradictions" in the creation story are not what gave birth to the documentary hypothesis. It was the doublets and the name of God used.The purpose in looking at those differences led them to discover that these were separate works that someone had cut up and combined into one.So my question to tthzr3 was that he provide evidence or support for why the lists must be exactly the same. What evidence is there that the stories are there to support each other? What is the purpose for pulling the verses out of each story and comparing them?IOW, he needs to do a little more work than just flop out some verses and say they contradict each other. There should be a purpose in comparing them.Technical writing is boring to read (for most people). Creative writing is fun to read and easy to remember. The second story probably came about orally first and I'm sure it changed many times in the presentation. At one point the order could have been the same, who knows.If the purpose of the story is different, why do the lists have to be exactly the same?

---

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

First you say: Then you tell him how he should be discussing it: Ya lost me. If all he wanted was a list of contradictions, how is a list of contradictions not enough? I don't think anybody is saying they do.My whole point has been that if the literalists claim that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are one seamless whole, written by one author, then some of the contradictions are a problem.Your hypothesis works if the two stories have different purposes, which is what I've been saying all along. I'm only arguing against the literalists who seem to be claiming that different purposes would mean we have to bin the whole Bible.

---

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.

Message 197He needs to support why the order needs to be the same. What evidence does he have that the stories are supposed to support each other and why the order need to be the same in order to do that. Message 195This is a science thread and he's supposed provide support for his position, if he even has one.Can you tell me what his support is for his statements?Unfortunately this thread really has no direction. The originator doesn't even know where he's going.

---

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