In the animal Creation passages, (Genesis 1:25-26), God already had made the animals, but later (Genesis 2:18-19) he said that making the animals was something he planned to do.
If these are contradictory, does that mean the Bible is not without error?
Creation Contradiction Proves Errancy
Moderator: Moderators
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3085
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3348 times
- Been thanked: 2049 times
Re: Creation Contradiction Proves Errancy
Post #21It's the same kind of limitation as keeping a train on its tracks. Magical thinking is the result of a derailed mind.William wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 8:19 pmI think the main problem many/most atheists have re this is that they tend carry around the baggage of belief that the only process of science which matters, is the process of physical science.
Such belief is an obvious limitation difficult for them to free their minds from.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5257
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 166 times
Re: Creation Contradiction Proves Errancy
Post #22[Replying to JoeMama in post #1]
I guess that depends on how one is defining an ‘error’. Do we think the author of Genesis didn’t realize there were these different orders? Genesis is a finely crafted piece of literature and charity alone should be enough to give the author the benefit of the doubt here. So, why not harmonize them? It makes sense that the author viewed his writing here as something different than how modern rationalists read Genesis as a hyper-literal modern scientific-historical account. The author, then, isn’t making a claim about what the actual order of creation was. If that is where the ‘error’ is seen, then since the author isn’t really addressing that issue, the author can’t be making an error in that way.
I guess that depends on how one is defining an ‘error’. Do we think the author of Genesis didn’t realize there were these different orders? Genesis is a finely crafted piece of literature and charity alone should be enough to give the author the benefit of the doubt here. So, why not harmonize them? It makes sense that the author viewed his writing here as something different than how modern rationalists read Genesis as a hyper-literal modern scientific-historical account. The author, then, isn’t making a claim about what the actual order of creation was. If that is where the ‘error’ is seen, then since the author isn’t really addressing that issue, the author can’t be making an error in that way.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3085
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3348 times
- Been thanked: 2049 times
Re: Creation Contradiction Proves Errancy
Post #23Why is harmonizing the texts giving the author the benefit of the doubt? It seems to me that giving the author the benefit of the doubt is to assume that the author crafted the text the way he or she wanted to. Trying to shoehorn inerrancy into a contradictory text is the problem.The Tanager wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:30 amI guess that depends on how one is defining an ‘error’. Do we think the author of Genesis didn’t realize there were these different orders? Genesis is a finely crafted piece of literature and charity alone should be enough to give the author the benefit of the doubt here. So, why not harmonize them?
I don't think it's rationalists that are reading it that way.The Tanager wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:30 amIt makes sense that the author viewed his writing here as something different than how modern rationalists read Genesis as a hyper-literal modern scientific-historical account.
That's the question, isn't it? You're claiming that it's obvious that the author wasn't making a claim about the order of creation, but it should be just as obvious that there is a combination of authors and redactor with different, and sometimes conflicting, theological perspectives. It should also be obvious that an author relating traditions from centuries earlier might not be relating history. If Samson is a retelling of a Mesopotamian sun deity, are we still trying to claim that the concept of inerrancy is even meaningful? In either case, it's not the rationalists that are struggling with how to read the text.The Tanager wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:30 amThe author, then, isn’t making a claim about what the actual order of creation was. If that is where the ‘error’ is seen, then since the author isn’t really addressing that issue, the author can’t be making an error in that way.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8463
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 986 times
- Been thanked: 3656 times
Re: Creation Contradiction Proves Errancy
Post #24Rubbish. A fairy tale, no matter how poetic is still a fairy tale. Benefit of doubt still requires that credible doubt be there. 'Clean hands' does apply. Genesis is known to be wrong, unless one denied science. So contradictions do not deserve 'harmonisation' aka fiddling different stories together to prop up Genesis literalism.The Tanager wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:30 am [Replying to JoeMama in post #1]
I guess that depends on how one is defining an ‘error’. Do we think the author of Genesis didn’t realize there were these different orders? Genesis is a finely crafted piece of literature and charity alone should be enough to give the author the benefit of the doubt here. So, why not harmonize them? It makes sense that the author viewed his writing here as something different than how modern rationalists read Genesis as a hyper-literal modern scientific-historical account. The author, then, isn’t making a claim about what the actual order of creation was. If that is where the ‘error’ is seen, then since the author isn’t really addressing that issue, the author can’t be making an error in that way.
Look, it says, morning and evening first day, second day. Reasonable guess at order of creation. Just so happens, science shows it to be wrong. Sorry, but this attempt to make Genesis work when it does not is without merit.
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3685
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1650 times
- Been thanked: 1113 times
Re: Creation Contradiction Proves Errancy
Post #25In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
- The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5257
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 166 times
Re: Creation Contradiction Proves Errancy
Post #26I was saying that the author chose not to harmonize them for a reason. If the author was interested in explaining to us a scientific order of creation, then the author would have harmonized them. Since the author didn’t harmonize them (or adjudicate between them), the author wasn’t giving us a scientific explanation of the order of creation. This isn’t shoehorning inerrancy into a contradictory text, but avoiding shoehorning a question into the text that wasn’t a concern of the author.Difflugia wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 11:23 amWhy is harmonizing the texts giving the author the benefit of the doubt? It seems to me that giving the author the benefit of the doubt is to assume that the author crafted the text the way he or she wanted to. Trying to shoehorn inerrancy into a contradictory text is the problem.
First, what do you understand “rationalists” to refer to? Second, why don’t you think they are reading it that way?
I’m talking about the final redactor(s). If they were concerned about the order of creation being known, then they would have harmonized (or editorialized) on which order of creation was correct since charity calls for us to not treat them like idiots in the face of a clearly different order of creation.Difflugia wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 11:23 amThat's the question, isn't it? You're claiming that it's obvious that the author wasn't making a claim about the order of creation, but it should be just as obvious that there is a combination of authors and redactor with different, and sometimes conflicting, theological perspectives. It should also be obvious that an author relating traditions from centuries earlier might not be relating history. If Samson is a retelling of a Mesopotamian sun deity, are we still trying to claim that the concept of inerrancy is even meaningful?
As far as claiming the concept of inerrancy is meaningful, what do you think my position on that is?
- The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5257
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 166 times
Re: Creation Contradiction Proves Errancy
Post #27And an historical event, no matter how poetically relayed, is still an historic event. So what?TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 11:46 amRubbish. A fairy tale, no matter how poetic is still a fairy tale.
If it’s not making a scientific claim about the order of the universe, then it isn’t denying science. It can’t be wrong about that, if you can’t show it is trying to be right about that.TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 11:46 amBenefit of doubt still requires that credible doubt be there. 'Clean hands' does apply. Genesis is known to be wrong, unless one denied science.
Who said I’m trying to prop up Genesis literalism? You are the Genesis literalist (one that rejects it as true of course, not the believer kind), not me.TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 11:46 amSo contradictions do not deserve 'harmonisation' aka fiddling different stories together to prop up Genesis literalism.
Look, it says, “But, soft! What light through yonder window breaks? / It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.” Reasonable guess that Romeo thought Juliet was actually a 4.5 billion year old yellow dwarf star, a hot ball of hydrogen and helium at the center of our solar system. Just so happens, science showed Romeo (and Shakespeare) to be wrong.TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 11:46 amLook, it says, morning and evening first day, second day. Reasonable guess at order of creation. Just so happens, science shows it to be wrong. Sorry, but this attempt to make Genesis work when it does not is without merit.
Genesis does describe creation in a seven day cycle. It also then immediately describes it as happening all in one day (2:4). That should tell us that the final author (at least) isn’t thinking these are both literal statements. The seven day cycle reflects later Jewish thinking centered around the Sabbath. We’ve got to look deeper than surface language to understand what the author(s) is trying to get at.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8463
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 986 times
- Been thanked: 3656 times
Re: Creation Contradiction Proves Errancy
Post #28The Tanager wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 12:45 pmTRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 11:46 amRubbish. A fairy tale, no matter how poetic is still a fairy tale.So it comes down to the evidence not whether the event is presented as bald prose or poetry. The evidence is that genesis is wrong. So That.And an historical event, no matter how poetically relayed, is still an historic event. So what?
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 11:46 amBenefit of doubt still requires that credible doubt be there. 'Clean hands' does apply. Genesis is known to be wrong, unless one denied science.Evasive, if not worse. This is about the othger of creation including earth, sea, biosphere and indeed the celestial bodies visible, and they disagree with science. You can either deny science or accept science and accept that Genesis is wrong. Appealing to poetry means So Nothing. It is Wrong.If it’s not making a scientific claim about the order of the universe, then it isn’t denying science. It can’t be wrong about that, if you can’t show it is trying to be right about that.
Who said I’m trying to prop up Genesis literalism? You are the Genesis literalist (one that rejects it as true of course, not the believer kind), not me.TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 11:46 amSo contradictions do not deserve 'harmonisation' aka fiddling different stories together to prop up Genesis literalism.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 11:46 amLook, it says, morning and evening first day, second day. Reasonable guess at order of creation. Just so happens, science shows it to be wrong. Sorry, but this attempt to make Genesis work when it does not is without merit.So ok. You can try to pick the fact out of the poetry, but the fact is it says the dawn is in the east. It it had said “But, soft! What light through yonder window breaks? / It is the west, and Juliet is the sun.” we would, knowing dact throw up our hands and say "Pure poetry, and the fact is wrong".If you try to excuse Genesis as poetry, (a miserable excuse of an apologetic - atheists at least respect it enough to take what it says as what it means) then it would be poetry based in wrong fact - unless you dismiss science.Look, it says, “But, soft! What light through yonder window breaks? / It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.” Reasonable guess that Romeo thought Juliet was actually a 4.5 billion year old yellow dwarf star, a hot ball of hydrogen and helium at the center of our solar system. Just so happens, science showed Romeo (and Shakespeare) to be wrong.But I can equally well explain that (the multiple author theory supports that) that two different creations were put together rather than chuck out some Scripture.Genesis does describe creation in a seven day cycle. It also then immediately describes it as happening all in one day (2:4). That should tell us that the final author (at least) isn’t thinking these are both literal statements. The seven day cycle reflects later Jewish thinking centered around the Sabbath. We’ve got to look deeper than surface language to understand what the author(s) is trying to get at.
However, let's have a look at the other... Look I don't have a problem. After it has described the (wrong) order of Creation, it goes into detail about the creation of man. If I were a Bible apologist I wouldn't bother about that ch 2 creation any more than I do as an atheist.
So it isn't even a problem let alone an excuse. I recall that some atheists have made a deal about it but to me it's irrelevant. I'd suggest you leave alone Jewish mindset excuses about the sabbath as it only makes one think it was all invented later on when such things mattered to Jews. Like writing their history in Babylon and using Babylonian records to do it.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14377
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 922 times
- Been thanked: 1666 times
- Contact:
Re: Creation Contradiction Proves Errancy
Post #29[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #20]
But it sure is a mystery, don't you agree? (Apparently not.)
I think that the Jungian Archetypes go a long way in helping the individual understand the mind/mindfulness - demystifying the mind - at least more so than physical instruments have so far achieved.
But please do share how you have come to the knowledge and explain the mind, that it is no longer a mysterious thing.
Perhaps you are conflating "deeper understanding" with demystifying?
A quick search reveals that while physical scientists are making progress, understanding the mind/mindfulness is a long way from being demystified.
A word of wisdom. Don't be like this guy.
Science of the mind, yes. Did you not know that?What other science is there? Mental science?
How so? Perhaps you mean there are instruments which are physical and are helpful to the process?That, too, is physical.
Perhaps here you are conflating the brain with the mind?The mind works like body works
I am not (and have not) made any claims that the mind/mindfulness is "supernatural".mystifying or supernatiuralising it seems to me unhelpful.
But it sure is a mystery, don't you agree? (Apparently not.)
I think that the Jungian Archetypes go a long way in helping the individual understand the mind/mindfulness - demystifying the mind - at least more so than physical instruments have so far achieved.
But please do share how you have come to the knowledge and explain the mind, that it is no longer a mysterious thing.
Perhaps you are conflating "deeper understanding" with demystifying?
(SOURCE)For millennia, philosophers have grappled with consciousness, trying to discern the distinction between mind and body or to show that such a distinction is illusory. But only in the present millennium have scientists engaged these arguments in a serious way, equipped with substantial scientific data.
Science News neurocience writer Laura Sanders has explored the latest efforts by consciousness researchers to demystify the mind and reports her findings in a three-part series. Her account describes how consciousness, long regarded by neuroscientists as a taboo topic, has finally emerged as a legitimate realm of scientific inquiry. Research results have begun accumulating, and theorists have begun transforming explanations of consciousness from philosophical speculations into quantitative concepts and equations.
A quick search reveals that while physical scientists are making progress, understanding the mind/mindfulness is a long way from being demystified.
A word of wisdom. Don't be like this guy.
The Vain Brain is meat headedness having no comprehension of the mind which uses it, refusing to hand over the helm to that mind and refusing to assume its placement as subordinate to the mind. Post #36
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14377
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 922 times
- Been thanked: 1666 times
- Contact:
Re: Creation Contradiction Proves Errancy
Post #30Magical thinking is not my argument and it may well be a delusional limitation that I pointed out. It isn't enough to keep a train on it's tracks as one can do so by parking it on a siding and letting it slowly turn to rust, or putting it on a looped track that it goes nowhere in particular.Difflugia wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:00 amIt's the same kind of limitation as keeping a train on its tracks. Magical thinking is the result of a derailed mind.William wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 8:19 pmI think the main problem many/most atheists have re this is that they tend carry around the baggage of belief that the only process of science which matters, is the process of physical science.
Such belief is an obvious limitation difficult for them to free their minds from.
Trains of thought are one thing...where they end up is related.
Choo on that if you will.
The Vain Brain is meat headedness having no comprehension of the mind which uses it, refusing to hand over the helm to that mind and refusing to assume its placement as subordinate to the mind. Post #36