Creation Contradiction Proves Errancy

[JoeMama]

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?

[TRANSPONDER]

God's declaration, " its not good for man to be alone ...", implies a yearning of Adam, that God wanted to remedy. Such an assertion is not baseless.

You guys are reaching hard on this one.



Like, wow.

Ok..

I noticed you frequently respond to posts with : " Um, Ok, Wow "


Do you have anything beyond these exclamations?

If you're perpetually perplexed, fair enough, but articulate actual rebuttals. Use this site as an opportunity to have your views challenged. This will help you to better understand your views, as well as the views of others. If you simply hold opposition in contempt, and express your frustration with exclamations, you will experience no intellectual growth.

View debates as a stimulant, not an irritant!

I don't see it as a reach at all. Doctrinally I get it that Adam didn't see the need for animals as companions, but God did. The point being that Gen. 2 implies that man was created and God though he'd need companions, so made animals as an afterthought.

But Gen 1 indicates the animals were made as a step of creation and Man was made to look after them. Gen 1 is preferred of course, and it can be argued that Gos planned animals for companionship before Adam was made.

The only way it makes sense of course is God is not omniscient - as Genesis plainly suggests. Or Eden and indeed the Flood make no sense. God did not know that animals would not do as companions and he would have to make woman, just as he had no idea that the lizard would talk Eve into eating the apple or that He's regret destroying his own creation in a flood.

Yes, it can be made to work if God is working blind, but it isn't reassuring to se God as a big invisible ET alien making up as he goes along with no idea what's going to happen.

[Difflugia]

Which is that I refuse to believe that the author of both chapters literally, naively, and downright FOOLISHLY contradicted himself within two chapters back to back of a book that he wrote.

Do you find it confusing that the author of Das Kapital and The Wealth of Nations contradicted himself in the books he wrote, too?

Please explain.

Das Kapital and The Wealth of Nations weren't written by the same person. Neither were Genesis 1 and 2.

[Difflugia]

If anyone's interested in an in-depth discussion of Hebrew narrative sequences, one can be read in the Google Books preview of The Verb and the Paragraph in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach by Elizabeth Robar.

The discussion is a bit heavy with jargon, but a few things will help make more sense of it. Hebrew verbs have a "root" that is typically two or three letters. There is a specific pattern of prefixes, suffixes, and vowels that establish different tenses and "aspect." The way Hebrew scholarship designates these forms is by applying them to a particular verb root qal (קַל). So, qal is the basic verb, which is typically translated as "perfect past". A yiqtol verb is typically translated as "imperfect past." The form called wayyiqtol is the yiqtol form with a waw prefix that typically means "and."

Typically, a sequential narrative begins with a qal verb, followed by a series of wayyiqtol verbs. This is most often read as the qal verb representing the first action in the narrative with each wayyiqtol verb forming the next action in the sequence in the sense of "and then..."

The section of the linked chapter discusses whether or not there is more to this pattern, under what circumstances some scholars find exceptions in the biblical text, and whether or not they should properly be considered exceptions.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you for that and here is a thing or problem we have. Never mind denialists who ignore or dismiss evidence as 'opinion'. They will never be convinced even with hard evidence, and it is about the message getting out and as been for a long time.

But the people looking in are not experts and probably won't follow the more erudite arguments. Which is why, although the Greek grammar of 'pro' in Luke's nativity is handy to have, that it makes no sense in English to say 'the census was before Quirinus was governor' rather than say who was governor at the time is going to be understood, rather than a dissertation on Greek or Hebrew grammar.

Which is why I go for Biggies that are quite clear even using KJV; and denial of what is an obvious contradiction Should make the lurker and browser think 'The Bible critic is right and the Bible apologist is wrong, and won't see it'. The problem is not winning the case - that happened long ago - but getting the message out to people who only seem to get Christian propaganda, all the time.

Internet and chats and animations help. They gave We, the Goddless, a voice we never had, and it has to be easily understood. Which is handy for bods like me with a mediocre mind and not a masters' degree to bless myself with. But an atheist apologist cannot afford to be an expert on One thing, but be able to field a Gish -galop of false claims in a score of different fields. Because Bible apologetics relies on telling lies and trusting that the listener doesn't know any better.

Just take "Tyre was destroyed and never rebuit! Prophecy true". How many people know that it was rebuilt and still exists? I didn't, but now I do.

cue - of course - all the lies and excuses and even the ludicrous denialism of 'the old city was never rebuilt - a different one was built on top', which is where 'people laugh at creationists' because it is plainly denialism and any reasonable person will not be fooled.

But the lies or simply not knowing, have to be countered as otherwise people accept them. How many people know that Genesis says daylight (and night) was there before the sun was made? How many know that John has no Transfiguration, angelic message or Sanhedrin trial? How many even think of the sun standing still, endorsement of slavery and a passover release custom on all evidence not being a real thing?

These are easy to understand and just the apologists rely on nobody drawing attention to it.

But - if it kept simple and easy to understand and clearly the better explanation than the Bible excuse, the job is done, and the silly denials, evasions and fiddling are just 'good, bad examples', and we don't need to write a paper on it.

Not that erudite explanation is not valuable and required. It is there, even if most people (ahem ) don't read it. The Bible apologist is adroit at cut and paste or just linking an Expert and telling us to go argue with them A nice little trick we had to learn to counter (do your own research and post it here - don't send us to do it for you) along with 'Are you calling me a liar' apologetic (reversed burden of proof and the invalidity of anecdotal evidence).

It isn't less about evidence and more about rhetoric (lawyer tricks), and even more, controlling the medium of dissemination. That is why the Basic, basic Basic message of Bible apologist is 'Atheists, please shut up and go away" and it has been even since the term 'New Atheism' was invented by Bible apologists.

This is only to touch on the Real problem (which fascinates me more than the Bibleclaims and the refutations) but that's more than enough for one post

p.s just to check, I looked for any arguments For the Passover release. As i expected, all the evidence is against any such thing and apart from truly feeble appeals to Pilate's supposed examples of mercy the only response was to insist that the Gospels were good enough evidence (never mind they are demonstrably a contradictory shambles and in no possible way eyewitness or even fairly representing Judaism at the time) and the equally feeble 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. which is a misrepresentation of the actual point; absence of thing that ought by reason to be there is evidence it was never there

One good discussion summed it up thus "A response is that one should expect to find such evidence of these supposed “customs”." simple enough. This should be an Event annually and it is absurd that Josephus or Philo never mentioned anyone being released or there being such a custom, or that Judaism has no reference to the practice.

So in short, this is actually known and should be a good point and the miserable evasions of the bible apologists should help them not at all, yet how often do we hear it? No more than we ever hear about the sun standing still. Instead all we hear is "Jesus said we should all play nice, and we all agree with that, don't we?" Friends, don't let these Christian smarm - artists gloop you over with their pink Goo.

[SiNcE_1985]

Which is that I refuse to believe that the author of both chapters literally, naively, and downright FOOLISHLY contradicted himself within two chapters back to back of a book that he wrote.

Do you find it confusing that the author of Das Kapital and The Wealth of Nations contradicted himself in the books he wrote, too?

Please explain.

Das Kapital and The Wealth of Nations weren't written by the same person. Neither were Genesis 1 and 2.

Interesting theory.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION

Genesis is not written in strict chronological order. The writer gives a general interview of events (day #1-7) and then backs up to the fourth "day" to focus in on certain details.

One narrative from two different perspectives.



RELATED POSTS

Are there really two (conflicting) Genesis accounts?
viewtopic.php?p=941688#p941688

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

EVOLUTION, ADAM &EVE and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION

Genesis is not written in strict chronological order. The writer gives a general interview of events (day #1-7) and then backs up to the fourth "day" to focus in on certain details.

One narrative from two different perspectives.



RELATED POSTS

Are there really two (conflicting) Genesis accounts?
viewtopic.php?p=941688#p941688

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

EVOLUTION, ADAM &EVE and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS

That is merely rewriting the Bible to try to fit it to science. I wonder why when science is denied in the 6 day creation, animals made all in one go and the wrong order of creation labelled clearly by the day it supposedly happened.

[Difflugia]

Interesting theory.

If you genuinely think so and aren't just trying to dismiss it out of hand without presenting any arguments or data, the introduction to Richard Elliott Friedman's The Bible with Sources Revealed can be read in its entirety in the Google Books preview. In it, he presents a detailed overview of the data which support multiple authors within the Pentateuch. If you find the subject becoming even more interesting to you, I recommend Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible and Joel S. Baden's The Composition of the Pentateuch.

[Difflugia]

Genesis is not written in strict chronological order. The writer gives a general interview of events (day #1-7) and then backs up to the fourth "day" to focus in on certain details.

One narrative from two different perspectives.

This still doesn't solve the problem. Even if we project some sort of in medias res onto Genesis 2:4ff, the humans and the other animals are created in a different order than they are in Genesis 1. The "two different perspectives" still conflict with each other. Answers in Genesis claims for theological reasons that parts of Genesis 2 are wrong or must be read with a chronology not supported by Hebrew grammar, but that's a tough position to take in TD&D. Here, both creation accounts, or "perspectives," as it were, must be treated as authoritative. Just because they conflict, we don't get to change one of them to suit our theological biases.

[TRANSPONDER]

Interesting theory.

If you genuinely think so and aren't just trying to dismiss it out of hand without presenting any arguments or data, the introduction to Richard Elliott Friedman's The Bible with Sources Revealed can be read in its entirety in the Google Books preview. In it, he presents a detailed overview of the data which support multiple authors within the Pentateuch. If you find the subject becoming even more interesting to you, I recommend Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible and Joel S. Baden's The Composition of the Pentateuch.

I think I could bet the farm on it being a way of dismissing anything they can't handle as Opinion. Not opinion (and with no value at all) but opinion that has come (expertise) value but just an opinion after all and you can bet it is to be pushed aside with no discussion on the assumption that Jesusgod and the Bible is to be accepted as the Default theory.

This is how it is working. Christianity is the widely accepted and supported Belief and all that is needed is to dismiss anything else and they have the default win.

Now, they do get into apologetics, but the ones for Bible critic apologists follow the apologetics of the three kinds, evidence, fiddling of the evidence and Sauce, or the various ways they can tell themselves they got the last word. Basically..basically the idea is to shit the atheists up and make sure the Bible view is the only one they get to hear. I still remember a JW coming to the door with a mobile phone presentation with a string of lies (e.g No transitional fossils) which I was able to tell her was a lie, but I could see that made no difference to her that she's been lied to or misled (1) because Faith works on a different principle from Belief though evidence and reason, which requires that new information requires a rethink, but information, new or old makes n difference to the faithful who know a thing is true on Faith and having no supporting evidence never mind having been told a string of lies makes no difference - it is True on Faith and evidence is of no importance unless it supports the faith.

(1) denying the claim that transitional fossilsactually are transitional is one thing, but making it look like the evilooshunists have not m been able to produce any - which is what they are trying to mislead their dupes into thinking - is another.