Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9021 total)
56 online now:
jar, nwr, Pollux, Tangle, xongsmith (5 members, 51 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 882,646 Year: 292/14,102 Month: 292/294 Week: 48/136 Day: 16/32 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 and 2 - Contradictory?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 212 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 1 of 40 (35519)
03-27-2003 9:32 PM


As I peruse the bible I discover that Genesis, chap. 1 and 2 appear contradictory, specifically with regards to the order of human and animal creation.

Genesis 1 posits that animals were created first by god, and then humans were made ("male and female, He created them") to have dominion over them.

But then, in Genesis 2, god makes male man and then creates animals (male and female) to be his companions. Only then is the female created.

Doesn't this pose an irreconcilable contradiction to anyone who would seek to use the Genesis story (rather, the two Genesis stories) as a literal account of the creation of life? It's pretty clear to me (trained in literary criticism) that the second account cannot be simply an elaboration of the first. It's simply too contradictiory.

------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2003 9:55 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 8 by Philip, posted 04-03-2003 12:31 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 40 (35521)
03-27-2003 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
03-27-2003 9:32 PM


Genesis one is chronological. Genesis two is the nuts n bolts, so to speak, as to things that happened in Genesis one (not chronological). Eve was evidently formed from Adams bone and flesh. How that was accomplished and exactly when, only God knows.

[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-27-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2003 9:32 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 03-28-2003 12:54 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 03-28-2003 8:15 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 212 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 40 (35529)
03-28-2003 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Buzsaw
03-27-2003 9:55 PM


Genesis two is the nuts n bolts, so to speak, as to things that happened in Genesis one (not chronological).

I disagree that a non-chronological interpretation is supported by the text. For instance, my version (KJV) at least uses words like "Then the Lord..." and "So the Lord..." etc. These phrases clearly represent a chronological narrative.

Perhaps I'm using the wrong bible. Do biblical creationists have a favored translation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2003 9:55 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 03-28-2003 7:07 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 915 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 4 of 40 (35557)
03-28-2003 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
03-28-2003 12:54 AM


As far as I know, the most popular version of the Bible among Christian literalists is the KJV.

That's what is quoted here most often, anyway.

------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 03-28-2003 12:54 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19885
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000


Message 5 of 40 (35573)
03-28-2003 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Buzsaw
03-27-2003 9:55 PM


buzsaw writes:

Genesis one is chronological. Genesis two is the nuts n bolts, so to speak, as to things that happened in Genesis one (not chronological). Eve was evidently formed from Adams bone and flesh. How that was accomplished and exactly when, only God knows.

Could you elaborate? What is it about Genesis 2 that tells you it isn't chronological? Do you have objective evidence supporting your position, or is it at this point just a proposed resolution to the "conflicting order" problem?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2003 9:55 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by John, posted 03-28-2003 9:45 AM Percy has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 40 (35586)
03-28-2003 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
03-28-2003 8:15 AM


quote:
What is it about Genesis 2 that tells you it isn't chronological?

Thank you.

This comes up over and over and no seems to be able to back up the assertion.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 03-28-2003 8:15 AM Percy has not yet responded

ME2
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 40 (36107)
04-02-2003 2:16 PM


didn't we just have this discussion with conspritor concerning sequencial order

Philip
Member (Idle past 3467 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 8 of 40 (36151)
04-03-2003 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
03-27-2003 9:32 PM


Genesis 1 and 2 are a battle-ground for biblical creationists vs. other biblical creationists. It's confused me many times.

I feel like after Gen 2.1 or 2.2 another author picks up the strain. But being a fundamentalist-type this caused me problems not unlike reading Matthew vs. John in the Gospels.

Obviously the creation strain has taken up a new perspective in Gen 2.2. The question is: Is Gen 1 and 2 contradictory any more than Matthew and John are contradictory? Matthew for example writes about a Messiah-King, John about a personal Saviour.

Greater divisions of thought (denominations) have sprung up because of supposed contradictions.

I had to read Gen 1 and 2 about 2 hundred times (with much prayer) before reconciling the 2 chapters unto my own conscience.

Could I re-write a better mechanism of creation? No way! Chapter 1 (like the book of John) leaves ample wiggle room for metaphysical events, including 3 creation ("Bara" in the Hebrew) events. Chapter 2 takes on other metaphysical events: Like the formation of Eve.

Later in the book of Psalms (139 I believe), man is curiously seen wrought in the lower parts of the earth when as yet his members were not yet written.

At present, I detect no valid contradictions between Gen 1, Gen 2, and the book of Psalms, unless one interprets them materialistically.

(Note. I repeatedly make the same mistake of interpreting materialistic events for metaphysical events, too.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2003 9:32 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-03-2003 1:50 AM Philip has not yet responded

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 6322 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 9 of 40 (36152)
04-03-2003 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Philip
04-03-2003 12:31 AM


quote:
At present, I detect no valid contradictions between Gen 1, Gen 2, and the book of Psalms, unless one interprets them materialistically.
You're absolutely right. They are only contradictory if you hold that they refer to the material creation of man. Reading Genesis as a metaphysical account makes a lot of sense - but reading it as literal truth as creationists do falls into difficulties you have outlined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Philip, posted 04-03-2003 12:31 AM Philip has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ME2, posted 04-03-2003 10:09 AM Mister Pamboli has responded

ME2
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 40 (36202)
04-03-2003 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mister Pamboli
04-03-2003 1:50 AM


mister pamboli

why is it that christians jump back and forth between interpreting the bible literaly,symbolic,and metaphysical to dispell the accusation of it being contradictory?

so when the bible says that cain killed able...you take it no other way but literal...because it contains no ambigituity...

just like the bible says that adam was created first...it is the same streight forward english...

but because and contradiction can be shown...you want to change horses in mid stream..just for the fact of the bible not being wrong..

well mister pamboli...YOU ARE BEING INTELLECTUALY DISHONEST.........

answer me this...

are we to take jesus being nailed to a cross (cruxified) in the literal sense or symbolic?

(i'm asking you a question)

[This message has been edited by ME2, 04-03-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-03-2003 1:50 AM Mister Pamboli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-03-2003 10:49 AM ME2 has responded

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 6322 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 11 of 40 (36204)
04-03-2003 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by ME2
04-03-2003 10:09 AM


quote:
why is it that christians jump back and forth between interpreting the bible literaly,symbolic,and metaphysical to dispell the accusation of it being contradictory?
I have no idea. It would be better to ask this of one who performs these intellectual calisthenics. I am perfectly comfortable that the Bible contains contradictions: it is, after all, a profoundly human work.
quote:
so when the bible says that cain killed able...you take it no other way but literal...because it contains no ambigituity...
I would think it contains a lot of ambiguity. I'm not quite able (geddit?) to work out who in the world might kill Cain, that he needed a mark to protect him. And for the life of me I cna't understand why the Lord should prefer Abel's fatty lumps of mutton to Cain's offering - even as a child on the croft, I hated mutton fat.
quote:
just like the bible says that adam was created first...it is the same streight forward english...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it written in Hebrew? Just want to get that streight.
quote:
but because and contradiction can be shown...you want to change horses in mid stream..just for the fact of the bible not being wrong..
Not sure what you're getting at. I'm quite relaxed on my horse, thank you very much.
quote:
answer me this...are we to take jesus being nailed to a cross (cruxified) in the literal sense or symbolic? (i'm asking you a question)
Both. I'm quite sure that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. I am also certain that it was primarily a symbolic act - as most criminal executions are. If the Roman and Hebrew leadership had merely wanted him dead or out of the way that could have been arranged with much less public display. (I have answered you.)

BTW, you seem ready to lambast Christians for jumping back and forth between interpretations. Yet you limber up for this by leaping to conclusions yourself. I would hesitate to call this intellectual dishonesty, but it hardly inspires confidence.

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-03-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ME2, posted 04-03-2003 10:09 AM ME2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ME2, posted 04-03-2003 1:28 PM Mister Pamboli has responded

ME2
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 40 (36209)
04-03-2003 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Mister Pamboli
04-03-2003 10:49 AM


BTW, you seem ready to lambast Christians for jumping back and forth between interpretations. Yet you limber up for this by leaping to conclusions yourself. I would hesitate to call this intellectual dishonesty, but it hardly inspires confidence.

no...i'm not...

when the bible says that cain killed able...i take it as such..

so what else am i to conclude..it is simple english...not hebrew..

and the reason i asked you about jumping back and forth or ...how did you say it "performing these intellectual calisthenics" is because you did it..

and the bible (since you want to play) is not written in hebrew..it is in english...that is how i and many other english speaking people that don't read hebrew are able to read it.. (just wanted to get that streight)

but thanks for answering my question about jesus being cruxified...
i only wanted you to tell me that you took the act in the literal sense so i could pin you down...

and now that i have

acts chapter 5 verse 30...it says that he was hanged from a tree.

(no contexual,symbolic,or metaphysical meanings to hide behind...only the literal)

it is two different accounts of how jesus died..

and yes...i have reached an conclusion that this is a contrdiction...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-03-2003 10:49 AM Mister Pamboli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-03-2003 2:18 PM ME2 has responded

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 6322 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 13 of 40 (36214)
04-03-2003 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ME2
04-03-2003 1:28 PM


quote:
and the reason i asked you about jumping back and forth or ...how did you say it "performing these intellectual calisthenics" is because you did it..
When did I do this? Let's recall your original question: "why is it that christians jump back and forth between interpreting the bible literaly,symbolic,and metaphysical to dispell the accusation of it being contradictory?"

Now, interestingly, you have removed the latter clause and replaced it with an ellipsis. Perhaps I should complain about intellectual dishonesty?

Interesting, too, that you should think I am seeking to dispell the accusation of [the Bible] being contradictory when I specifically say I am perfectly comfortable that the Bible contains contradictions.

Are you perhaps a tad confused?

quote:
but thanks for answering my question about jesus being cruxified...
i only wanted you to tell me that you took the act in the literal sense so i could pin you down...
An unfortunate turn of phrase under the circumstances, don't you think?
quote:
acts chapter 5 verse 30...it says that he was hanged from a tree. (no contexual,symbolic,or metaphysical meanings to hide behind...only the literal) it is two different accounts of how jesus died..and yes...i have reached an conclusion that this is a contrdiction...
With what is this a contradiction? I answered your question about Jesus being nailed to a cross. Are you saying that Acts 5:30 contradicts the wording of your own question? My, isn't that the break through in Biblical scholarship!

As an aside, you may be interested to know that "hanging from a tree" was a common description of crucifixion in the Roman world. The cross taking over the role of the "arbor infelix" was itself referred to, by Seneca for example, as "infelix lignum." And, indeed, the cross itself could be a tree, as described in Tertullian's Apologia. The "cross" being formed from an independent cross-beam (patibulum) carried by the convict to the scene, as Plutarch and Seutonius both describe.

Whatever, I'm sure there are far more glaring contradicitions in the Bible. Why not compare Acts 1:24 (Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men) with say Deuteronomy 13:3 (for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul)?

My own favourite is that God changes his mind about having created mankind, and destroys most of the species in a flood - that hardly demonstrates the piercing foresight one expects from an eternal, omniscient being, does it?

Come on, I'm sure you can do better than just a couple of synonyms.

btw, What is your point in all this?

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-03-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ME2, posted 04-03-2003 1:28 PM ME2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ME2, posted 04-03-2003 2:58 PM Mister Pamboli has responded

ME2
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 40 (36217)
04-03-2003 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mister Pamboli
04-03-2003 2:18 PM


I APOLOGIZE...i missread your post...

I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE COMFORTABLE THAT THE BIBLE DIDN'T CONTAIN ANY CONTRADICTIONS...

ONCE AGAIN..I APOLOGIZE...

I LIKE IT WHEN A PERSON IS HONEST ABOUT THE BIBLE..AND I SEE YOU ARE..

(overlook the caps..i was to far to start over)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-03-2003 2:18 PM Mister Pamboli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-03-2003 3:02 PM ME2 has responded

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 6322 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 15 of 40 (36218)
04-03-2003 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ME2
04-03-2003 2:58 PM


No problem - I kinda suspected that, but was just having fun with you. We are here to have fun, after all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ME2, posted 04-03-2003 2:58 PM ME2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ME2, posted 04-03-2003 3:45 PM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021