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?

[Difflugia]

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.

It's the same kind of limitation as keeping a train on its tracks. Magical thinking is the result of a derailed mind.

[The Tanager]

[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.

[Difflugia]

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?

Why 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.

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.

I don't think it's rationalists that are reading it that way.

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.

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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.

Rubbish. 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.

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]

[Replying to William in post #19]

New topic (viewtopic.php?t=41600)

[The Tanager]

Why 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.

I 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.

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.

I don't think it's rationalists that are reading it that way.

First, what do you understand “rationalists” to refer to? Second, why don’t you think they are reading it that way?

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?

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.

As far as claiming the concept of inerrancy is meaningful, what do you think my position on that is?

[The Tanager]

Rubbish. A fairy tale, no matter how poetic is still a fairy tale.

And an historical event, no matter how poetically relayed, is still an historic event. So what?

Benefit of doubt still requires that credible doubt be there. 'Clean hands' does apply. Genesis is known to be wrong, unless one denied science.

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.

So contradictions do not deserve 'harmonisation' aka fiddling different stories together to prop up Genesis literalism.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

Rubbish. A fairy tale, no matter how poetic is still a fairy tale.

And an historical event, no matter how poetically relayed, is still an historic event. So what?

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.

Benefit of doubt still requires that credible doubt be there. 'Clean hands' does apply. Genesis is known to be wrong, unless one denied science.

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.

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.

So contradictions do not deserve 'harmonisation' aka fiddling different stories together to prop up Genesis literalism.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #20]

What other science is there? Mental science?

Science of the mind, yes. Did you not know that?

That, too, is physical.

How so? Perhaps you mean there are instruments which are physical and are helpful to the process?

The mind works like body works

Perhaps here you are conflating the brain with the mind?

mystifying or supernatiuralising it seems to me unhelpful.

I am not (and have not) made any claims that the mind/mindfulness is "supernatural".

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?

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.

(SOURCE)

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.

[William]

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.

It's the same kind of limitation as keeping a train on its tracks. Magical thinking is the result of a derailed mind.

Magical 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.

Trains of thought are one thing...where they end up is related.

Choo on that if you will.