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]

What make you think these are contradictory (for clarity re argument)

In Genesis 1, human beings were created after the other animals. In Genesis 2, the lone human being was created first.

It sounds like a creation within a creation. A story within a story.

and what does it matter if the Bible is not without error?

It matters to people that hold to the doctrine of inerrancy.

Do you hold to that doctrine? If not, then does it matter to you?

An excuse within an excuse. I don't see a repeated story of the creation on earth as being anything like that.

Inerrancy is pretty much proven to Christian apologetics - rather as evolution is They accept that the Bible has errors but try "God's message, Man's errors". Just as evolution is only within species, but not beyond.

From 'Disproving the Bible as God's word', it quickly moved on from perfect and without error to a claim of a true message, though conveyed in a book with some errors.

But nothing serious. You could have two differing accounts of an event, but the event had to be true. You could not have a lie or falsehood in the Bible or the (revised) Inerrancy claim would collapse. Just as the Nativities establish a principle - one of those stories is a lie - in the NT: if one claim is false, the Bible has 'no clean hands', Genesis is the principle of Fail for the OT.

It is contradicted by Geology, cosmology, biology and palaeontology.. That is why science had to be denied and debunked as a false belief. True, some Christians shrug Genesis off as a metaphor, but, while that's good in itself, (1) it raises problems about the NT, sin and salvation. If man isn't to blame for sin, then why does anyone need to repent from it, let alone anyone needing to die for it?

Genesis is more than a tall tale of a sun standing still that can be shrugged off, it undermined the who point of Christianity.

Incidentally, we saw here how the Bullet was bit and the sun was (it seems) made later than the earth, the daylight being produced by a Cosmic Light that imitated daylight before the sun was made

But on another board, it was another Creationists excuse - cloud cover; the sun was there but could not be seen.
"But that isn't what the Bible says."

"But it was how it looked from earth."

"So, who saw it? It happened before the first man."
*crickets* as I recall. but I went on to provide an answer.

"God told Moses."

"Then why didn't God tell Moses what actually happened? What a coup that would be if advanced science knowledge was really in the Bible, not wrong things that have to be excused."

Of course the Apologists could come up with excuses, even "God has his reasons." But the damage is done...if anyone sees it. It is yet more evidence that the Bible is the work of men who didn't know better than average at the time. It does not contain the truths, knowledge or message of an actual god.


(1) 'cafeteria Christianity' is a sorta Christianity that we goddless can talk to more than unbending creationists, but it is still sticking with as much of the lie as possible. But you can't heal people instantly. Perhaps we then get to Deism/irreligious theism. They are actually in the atheist camp, our brethren, sistren and kissin cuzzins. But in fact (because they have so little to cling but but 'god' faith, never mind hatred of the very name 'atheist', they can be some of the most toxic of god - apologists.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #10]

It sounds like a creation within a creation. A story within a story.

If that were the case, I would expect to see complementary theologies and details, but I don't.

Do you mean you'd expect to see these complimentary theologies, elsewhere within the Bible?
Or do you mean in general?

It looks to me like one story and then a different story.

The thing about stories, is that ultimately they are all related. In that, a "different story" might appear to be unrelated to another different story, but I am hard-pressed to find any example of totally unrelated stories.

For example, the Lord of the Rings story appears unrelated to the Star Wars story, but the story-line (subject matter) is very similar.

What do you see that makes you think that it's a story within a story?

The apparent contradiction mentioned. It can be explained as a non-contradiction if it were seen to be a story within a story.

Do you hold to that doctrine? If not, then does it matter to you?

I don't. It matters as such because I find theology entertaining.

Is that to say, it matters (perhaps superficially?) as a source of entertainment for you? Stories are like that (whether based in theology or non-theology). I think of the universe as a stage and our lives as stories. In that, I understand the entertainment value, although (being in amongst it) there is the temptation to take things seriously on occasion - I have to remind myself in those moments that my life in the human experience is a story. It had a beginning, it has a middle and will one day have an ending. I think of it as an opportunity for character development personality growth.

I wrote a song about it (several actually) but a favorite is this one.



I intentionally make a mythology out of something which I experienced as a real event. I suspect many biblical stories use the same technique.

Sometimes I think that the Earth-story is entertainment for minds which tune into the channel for that explicit purpose. Who knows? It may be even be true. Stories within stories/entertainment value.

[TRANSPONDER]

Have you fun, William, experiment with your own mind, (and never mind Godwin's law, I rather dismiss any argument that requires a song as evidence) I'm just an ol skeptic. And I'm not impressed by the tap dancing around the Bush. I'd actually expect the Bible to have been a coherent story throughout. It surprising to have two different versions of the Creation, just as it is surprising to find a second feeding (of 4,000) wangled in that appears to be a clumsy addition, but it is what it is and in no way seems to me to validate anything in the bible, rather bring it into doubt.

[Difflugia]

Do you mean you'd expect to see these complimentary theologies, elsewhere within the Bible?
Or do you mean in general?

I mean between the two creation stories. I'd expect that if Genesis 1 and 2-3 were meant to be a "story within a story," then the details and theologies wouldn't be at odds with each other.

The thing about stories, is that ultimately they are all related. In that, a "different story" might appear to be unrelated to another different story, but I am hard-pressed to find any example of totally unrelated stories.

For example, the Lord of the Rings story appears unrelated to the Star Wars story, but the story-line (subject matter) is very similar.

Sure. And an interesting part of that discussion might be to decide if the author of Star Wars read Lord of the Rings, but I'm much more interested in authorial intent than, say, Jungian archetypes. To each his or her own, though.

The apparent contradiction mentioned. It can be explained as a non-contradiction if it were seen to be a story within a story.

I don't think it can without changing one or both stories, but I'm willing to be shown that I'm wrong.

Is that to say, it matters (perhaps superficially?) as a source of entertainment for you? Stories are like that (whether based in theology or non-theology).

Sure. Using your Star Wars analogy, it's kind of like watching fans retcon various Star Wars media in order to explain away continuity errors. Most fans know that they're overwhelmingly just things like mistakes, an evolving story, and input from different authors. Star Wars fans do have their version of inerrantists, though. George Lucas tried to claim at one point that he had all of the movie plots planned out before he even began Star Wars, but that's contradicted by things like early scripts, deleted scenes, and other evidence that shows that the stories were evolving even as each was written. Of course, True Believers rarely trifle with such mundane stuff as evidence.

I think of the universe as a stage and our lives as stories.

I see the appeal for a lot of reasons, but that's not how I approach the Bible.

[William]

Do you mean you'd expect to see these complimentary theologies, elsewhere within the Bible?
Or do you mean in general?

[Replying to Difflugia in post #14]

I mean between the two creation stories. I'd expect that if Genesis 1 and 2-3 were meant to be a "story within a story," then the details and theologies wouldn't be at odds with each other.

Have you stopped to consider that those theologies are at odds with the two stories, and wouldn't be, if they treated the two stories as two stories?

Sure. And an interesting part of that discussion might be to decide if the author of Star Wars read Lord of the Rings, but I'm much more interested in authorial intent than, say, Jungian archetypes. To each his or her own, though.

Why limit oneself? How is that ultimately helpful to you/your own?

The apparent contradiction mentioned. It can be explained as a non-contradiction if it were seen to be a story within a story.

I don't think it can without changing one or both stories, but I'm willing to be shown that I'm wrong.

I have no doubt that you could work it out for yourself how one story (The Garden of Eden) can be inserted into the other (the Garden of Earth). You have a minds eye, why not use it?

Otherwise I can walk you through step by step, but if I have to, then I expect it will be a lengthy process as we will have to examine each step along the storylines path, starting with the big bang.

But like I said, I have no doubts you can figure out the details for yourself.

Is that to say, it matters (perhaps superficially?) as a source of entertainment for you? Stories are like that (whether based in theology or non-theology).

Sure. Using your Star Wars analogy, it's kind of like watching fans retcon various Star Wars media in order to explain away continuity errors. Most fans know that they're overwhelmingly just things like mistakes, an evolving story, and input from different authors. Star Wars fans do have their version of inerrantists, though. George Lucas tried to claim at one point that he had all of the movie plots planned out before he even began Star Wars, but that's contradicted by things like early scripts, deleted scenes, and other evidence that shows that the stories were evolving even as each was written.

And of course, even the science can be fudged.

Of course, True Believers rarely trifle with such mundane stuff as evidence.

Indeed, if such "true believers" prefer shoddy explanations and simply want the entertainment holes and all.

I think of the universe as a stage and our lives as stories.

I see the appeal for a lot of reasons, but that's not how I approach the Bible.

Why not? Also, do you ever use the approach at all, and if so, when?

I think this man's approach has merit in relation to understanding mythological stories too.

[Difflugia]

Have you stopped to consider that those theologies are at odds with the two stories, and wouldn't be, if they treated the two stories as two stories?

Yes.

To be frank, I doubt that you're treating the text with more consideration than I am.

Why limit oneself? How is that ultimately helpful to you/your own?

I already have limits, like time and attention that I can give the text. It's like having two hours to watch a movie and watching it backwards or without sound. Those are novel approaches, but they don't really add anything that I'm looking for. Maybe some people would get something out of it. I'm pretty sure that I treat the text in ways that most others don't as well. I've seen enough of your exegesis methods that I'm pretty sure that the meaning you find in the texts (and many other things) is meaning that you unwittingly put there yourself. That's not what I'm looking for.

I have no doubt that you could work it out for yourself how one story (The Garden of Eden) can be inserted into the other (the Garden of Earth). You have a minds eye, why not use it?

I have no doubt that I can imagine a variety of hamhanded harmonizations. Once again, you and Christian apologists that use this technique are putting your own meaning into the text and then reading it back out. If I want meaning from my mind's eye, I don't need to smuggle it into the Bible first.

Otherwise I can walk you through step by step, but if I have to, then I expect it will be a lengthy process as we will have to examine each step along the storylines path, starting with the big bang.

But like I said, I have no doubts you can figure out the details for yourself.

If you can convince me that the Big Bang is somehow represented in texts from the 7th century BCE, I'd be interested. To say that I think that's unlikely is a profound understatement, though.

I think of the universe as a stage and our lives as stories.

I see the appeal for a lot of reasons, but that's not how I approach the Bible.

Why not? Also, do you ever use the approach at all, and if so, when?

Because it's effectively a daydream and my reason for reading the Bible isn't to daydream. That's not to say that it isn't for some, just not for me.

I do use the approach at the local bar. I occasionally stop for a drink and when I cash out, I usually buy a single lottery ticket. I imagine that it's time in the story for me to win. I can do math, though, so I know that it's a fantasy of my own rather than something I'm legitimately seeing outside of myself.

I think this man's approach has merit in relation to understanding mythological stories too.

Maybe and in some contexts, but a bit of shared symbology doesn't somehow define the narratives nor does it somehow create harmony where it doesn't exist.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #16]

Have you stopped to consider that those theologies are at odds with the two stories, and wouldn't be, if they treated the two stories as two stories?

Yes.

To be frank, I doubt that you're treating the text with more consideration than I am.

Well Frank, I doubt that too. We are just "considering" different treatments of the text.

I'm much more interested in authorial intent than, say, Jungian archetypes. To each his or her own, though.

Why limit oneself? How is that ultimately helpful to you/your own?

Those are novel approaches, but they don't really add anything that I'm looking for.

What exactly are you "looking for"? Perhaps arguments you feel you can win, as long as they are confined to what you are willing to give time/effort to?

I'm pretty sure that I treat the text in ways that most others don't as well.

Hard to say. In what way are you treating the particular text of the thread subject which you think shows this to be the case?

I've seen enough of your exegesis methods that I'm pretty sure that the meaning you find in the texts (and many other things) is meaning that you unwittingly put there yourself.

What makes you "pretty sure" that this is what I am doing?

What "meaning" do you find in the text which you can say is not unwittingly put there yourself?

That's not what I'm looking for.

What are you looking for, re the thread subject?

I have no doubt that you could work it out for yourself how one story (The Garden of Eden) can be inserted into the other (the Garden of Earth). You have a minds eye, why not use it?

I have no doubt that I can imagine a variety of hamhanded harmonizations.

Not what I meant. Not what I myself am doing either.

Once again, you and Christian apologists that use this technique are putting your own meaning into the text and then reading it back out.

It is all very well claiming this is what I am doing (I don't speak for others of course) but your apparent reluctance to show this is actually what I am doing, is conspicuous. It is one thing to say it doesn't interest you and another to imply that the method I use is clumsy, inept, or heavy-handed.

If I want meaning from my mind's eye, I don't need to smuggle it into the Bible first.

What exactly do you think you would be "smuggling" which currently you are not?
For example, are you talking the stories literally (as many Christians do) or otherwise?

Otherwise I can walk you through step by step, but if I have to, then I expect it will be a lengthy process as we will have to examine each step along the storylines path, starting with the big bang.

But like I said, I have no doubts you can figure out the details for yourself.

If you can convince me that the Big Bang is somehow represented in texts from the 7th century BCE, I'd be interested.
To say that I think that's unlikely is a profound understatement, though.

Do you mean in a literal sense, and if the stories are taken literally, that it is unlikely you would be interested?
If so, then no - I cannot show you where it says in the bible that god made a big bang at the beginning.

I think of the universe as a stage and our lives as stories.

I see the appeal for a lot of reasons, but that's not how I approach the Bible.

Why not? Also, do you ever use the approach at all, and if so, when?

Because it's effectively a daydream and my reason for reading the Bible isn't to daydream.

I meant "why not" in relation to say, how you view your own life experience.

I myself do see my life experience as a story/play and this does influence how I see other folks stories, including those stories in the bible.

I don't think it is about "day-dreaming". At least, not in the sense you apparently are using the expression.

I think this man's (Carl Jung's) approach has merit in relation to understanding mythological stories too.

Maybe and in some contexts, but a bit of shared symbology doesn't somehow define the narratives nor does it somehow create harmony where it doesn't exist.

I disagree. But then I may not be understanding what you mean by "create harmony". Internally, I have found the framework of the Jungian Archetypes to add considerable harmony within my psyche in relation to understanding biblical stories from this approach.

Only yesterday I watched a youtube video and was surprised by how Rabbi Simon Jacobson speaks about the symbology of the Exodus story (2:20 - 3:16) in terms of psychology having Egypt representing the oppressor within the psyche of the individual. This is taken from the approach of Theist mysticism - something perhaps everyday run of the mill Christians might shy away from (and apparently something many atheists also shy away from) and yet there it is existing as a device theism (an aspect of) employs.

So yes, one can ignore such, or pretend that such has no relevance/does not belong in debate between theist and atheist, but one would be untruthful for that...I think so anyway.

[TRANSPONDER]

It all seems to me likea discussion that belongs more in literature and should not be confined to the Bible but include any other holy book But the problem seems to be using such discussions as a smokescreen to smuggle in validity for one particular Holy Book and its' religion or two when in all reason the evidence should render it a myth, a tall tale and a fairy story, and people should wise up and withdraw their support and money and see the back of this social scam.

As to Jungian archetypes, That struck me as weird as the slit experiment and the apparent agreement between Dawkins and Krauss that there had to be a mind outside the brain. But not the Jungian archetype seems to have a fair explanation, and maybe the others, too.

But such matters belong to the psychology forums and not religion, since discussion of the idea of the mandala belongs to bringing religious ideas into human psychology and the relevant forum, rather than dragging psychology and the human mind into the religion (validity) debate.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #18]

I 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.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #18]

I 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.

What other science is there?Mental science? That, too, is physical. The mind works like body works and mystifying or supernatiuralising it seems to me unhelpful.

Do me and yourself a favor and do not fall into the 'appeal to unknowns' fallacy. This is a favourite of Theism and a most egregious one.