Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2

So you're arguing that the two stories aren't supposed to be taken as factual accounts (I definitely agree they are not) and because of that, their apparent contradictions do not render the bible as non-inerrant. I'm with you so far, I think, but I don't agree that what you're suggesting doesn't matter.Ordinarily I would have to say it wouldn't matter that there are two fictional stories in an otherwise non-fictional book, but the ultimate author of this book is supposed to be beyond reproach. He is supposed to have inspired directly these sets of books and imbued them with his own perfection....which is all well and good, but then you talk about Now you're saying that normal, fallible human beings have not only touched but directly and wilfully changed the text that was supposed to be in the bible for their own ends.I don't know whether you are a believer or not, but if your position is common, then I think it proves the bible inerrant from almost page 1.The two genesis accounts, visibly and obviously altered by if not their own authors but the person who "stitched them together" and all the armies of translators have indelibly left their mark on these books.If you wish to call them "the (factual) word of god" then you have a problem because mankind has done more than touch them, he has altered them.If you wish to say these words aren't factual but tell some sort of story, then you are admitting that the book is no longer factual, and as such, inerrancy is meaningless.That's what I take away from this - the discrepency between genesis 1 and 2 doesn't make sense if you demand that the book be factual - and so it cannot be inerrant.The discrepancy can be explained away by calling it a fairy story, but then calling it "inerrant" is meaningless because it has no basis in fact.

quote:

---

So you're arguing that the two stories aren't supposed to be taken as factual accounts (I definitely agree they are not) and because of that, their apparent contradictions do not render the bible as non-inerrant.

---

Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that the Bible is considered accurate and totally free of error.Yes, my position is that they are foundational myths and aren't to be looked to for factual accounts.

quote:

---

Ordinarily I would have to say it wouldn't matter that there are two fictional stories in an otherwise non-fictional book, but the ultimate author of this book is supposed to be beyond reproach. He is supposed to have inspired directly these sets of books and imbued them with his own perfection.

---

The Bible is a religious book that contains various works and various styles.

quote:

---

Ordinarily I would have to say it wouldn't matter that there are two fictional stories in an otherwise non-fictional book, but the ultimate author of this book is supposed to be beyond reproach. He is supposed to have inspired directly these sets of books and imbued them with his own perfection.

---

Inspiration is not dictation. All writers are inspired by something.

quote:

---

Now you're saying that normal, fallible human beings have not only touched but directly and wilfully changed the text that was supposed to be in the bible for their own ends.

​

I don't know whether you are a believer or not, but if your position is common, then I think it proves the bible inerrant from almost page 1.

---

There have been unintentional errors in the various Bibles over the centuries such as "typos", placement of sentences, accidental addition of notes, etc. That's why most who support the inerrancy doctrine are talking about the absolute original documents that don't exist anymore.

Genesis 1 is a story written for a young child to understand. Science's version is for the adult to understand. Both versions come from the limitations of our brain and its sensory abilities that is unique to us. However, this does not make us the best experts or the best qualified to tell the story accurately or truthfully. Since there is no other life form to dispute our conclusions of how life really formed, we have only ourselves to conflict it's theories.

That sounds like trying to have your cake and eat it. If the copies we have aren't inerrant then they aren't.

quote:

---

That sounds like trying to have your cake and eat it. If the copies we have aren't inerrant then they aren't.

---

I don't hold the position that the Bible is inerrant. My position with this thread is that the differences in the OP are not proof against the inerrancy doctrine. There are plenty of real errors for that. Textual critics have found thousands of textual differences between the manuscripts.

quote:

---

Genesis 1 is a story written for a young child to understand. Science's version is for the adult to understand. Both versions come from the limitations of our brain and its sensory abilities that is unique to us. However, this does not make us the best experts or the best qualified to tell the story accurately or truthfully. Since there is no other life form to dispute our conclusions of how life really formed, we have only ourselves to conflict it's theories.

---

I would say that Genesis 2 is geared more towards children and Genesis 1 was written to support the Sabbath Rule.I would say the doctrine of inerrancy is in error. It has only been around a few centuries.

There are many in this thread employing a new scientific evidence technique (unknown to me before now) called The throw away line IE:Genesis 1 Animals, Plants, and Man. Genesis 2 Man, Plants, Animals, Woman.
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two "separate" ACCOUNTS.
Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory
Genesis 1 and 2 took place billions of years apart
Genesis 1 and 2 are two separate EVENTS
Genesis 1 is for Jewish Adults ( IE grown ups) in support of the Sabbath and Genesis 2 was written for children. Awe sweet.
Genesis 1 is for Moses Genesis two is for the musical group Peter Paul and MaryEtc, etc.Ad infinitumBased on what?Umm because I said so, and or well it’s just my interpretation whilst under the influence of a Navaho Indian peace pipe session held in a wigwam on the reservation.Or, whilst at a the Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal Church I ingested the illegal hallucinogenic drug dimethyltrytamine under religious grounds and read Genesis1 and Genesis 2 and the TRUTH became clear to me.We have one chap here claiming to be a Bible Literalist/fundamentalist who states that the first man, where God blew the first breath of air into his lungs, was not Adam? He goes on to claim that billions of years later God created Adam and Eve. Mind you the same chap claims that one must be under the influence of the Holy Spirit in order to see it the way he sees it.I would like to say that you are all a very entertaining bunch of chaps and God bless you.That said is there anyone who is willing to provide proof, primary evidence, supporting documents or what ever else you "scientists" demand from the Bible believers as admissible evidence for your outlandish claims? I will accept a picture of a crack pipe or even a picture of an empty bag of cannabis ( with cannabis resin still present) as admissible evidence in this instance your honor.My "evidence" is the two texts themselves. (Notably the same text as the OP has alluded/eluded to) I have clearly posted the two texts in posts 170 and 171 showing and proving that a read through of the text (granted you must be at least 11 before you can read it with some basic understanding of English) isIs not contradictory
Is not billions of years apart
Is not two separate events,
Is not two different manifestations of gods or God
Is not one for children one for grown ups,
Is not one for Moses and the other for the musical group Peter Paul and MaryAnd is in actual fact simply chapter 1 and chapter 2 of quite a thrilling "biblical record" of the creation events. Further more a basic read through with a basic understanding is proof enough that chapter 1 and chapter of Genesis do not prove that the bible is inerrant.Does it proof that God created the world? No, but that is not the point of the OP. In conclusion, who ever you believe God to be or not to be. The Op does not prove that He did not create the world either.What this thread does prove however is that the bible detractors have one set of rules and guidelines for themselves and another for the bible believers. It would appear both are equally open to the interpreter’s interpretation depending on what side he/she rolled out of bed that morning.Does this make for any meaningful debate going forward? Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

At face value, the accounts in Genesis 1 and genesis 2 are different, so the "outlandish" viewpoint is the one that claims they're not different.Is the Big Bad Wolf in the story of the Three Little Pigs the same as the Big Bad Wolf in Little Red Riding Hood? Are the man and woman in Genesis 2 the same as the men and women in Genesis 1?Every point of difference needs to be addressed as if it was a contradiction. The onus is on you to show that the differences are not contradictory.But more important, the question is: Do the differences mean that the Bible is errant? You seem to have missed the point that some of us are arguing no.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Ringo, your not getting way with telling lies (to me at least). On face value they are not different so please provide some evidence that proves and or supports your claim that they are different on face value. I have proved that they are not different.Stop clowning around please and thank you and prove that they are different. No one has done that in this thread nor has the OP which merely takes portions of scripture in each chapter out of context to make it appear that they contradict which is deceptive dishonest and dispicable at best.AND NO I HAVEN'T MISSED THE POINT WHICH IS ANOTHER LIE FROM YOU. CAN YOU PLEASE STOP TELLING LIES AND MAKING FALSE OBSERVATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

The order of events is different, obviously. I said "different", not "contradictory". Different is a given. You've done no such thing. You've rehashed points that have been rebutted earlier in the thread. You've contributed nothing new.The orders of events are different. That doesn't necessarily make the stories incompatible. Even if they are incompatible, that doesn't necessarily make the Bible errant.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Could please tell us what lies you are talking about? Also, please show us why they are lies.
Or are we supposed to just take your say-so that Ringo is posting lies?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The god in Genesis 1 is competent, aloof, sure, unerring, overarching, creating by an act or will alone, but also separate from the created, impersonal.The god in Genesis 2& 3 is unsure, unaware, sometimes afraid, a tinkerer learning by doing, creating by hand from mud and magic, but also human, personal having direct interaction with the created.Two entirely different descriptions of god.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I shall be making some comments to moderators about the line of "arguement" in this thread. All the best guys.Kind regardsNOMA Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

You could leave through the door where you entered, you obnoxious Kiwi.If you'll spend 45 seconds looking around the forums, you'll find places to talk to moderators. N.B. : You aren't one, as I am not.

What an obnoxious 62.7 year old yank. Just because I live in NZ doesn't make me a Kiwi. Another wrong assumption.In your photo when your looking out into God's beautiful creation., what is it you looking for?? Proof of evolution? Let us know when you find any LOL. Because, I might add, if you ever did find any none of you would be circle jerking about in pathetic excuses for debates in threads like this would you? Of course you wouldn't. You'd be fending off attacks from within the Walled City by imbeciles with a death wish like we have to do day in day out.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.