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]

Yes, of course it can be excused in that way, even though it reads like Man was made first and animals as an afterthought when, read with Gen 1, the animals were actually made first knowing that Man would want a companion. But that can't work and God would have known that woman was to be the intended companion ,not the animals, so the supposed reason for them has to be wrong.

Your explanation for that if you please.

Um, no where in the text does it say, hint, or imply that man wanted a companion.

Where did you pull that one from?

Such a baseless assertion unravels whatever point it was you were trying to make.

You misunderstand. The point is that God (it says) knew that man would want a companion even if man didn't.

Often what looks like they are seqintial or at least around the same tome may be dismissed as not necessarily in order. It makes no sense, but one can't disprove it - unless one is a grammar expert.

This one specifically is insidious because English lacks such a narrative tense, while both Hebrew and Greek have forms of it. It's one of those cases where an English translation necessarily conveys less information than is present in the original language. One could sort of remedy that in Hebrew by translating all of those vav prefixes as "then" instead of "and," but that wouldn't make it any more readable and most translation decisions aren't meant to ensure that apologists can't intentionally misunderstand the text.

I thought we had discussed this already in another thread, but when I searched for it, it turned out it was this thread! I guess apologists are nothing if not persistent.

I don't recall anyone discussing it before, but the point is that Greek or Hebrew experts can argue the grammatical implications.

But here even if the english does not confirm a narrative order, the point remains that in the 2nd creation, it says that God created the animals for Adam to have a companion and since He became aware of problems with that, He made woman as a 2nd thought.

Whereas in the 1st the animals were made first and man and woman made later. In any language, that is a contradiction in the stories, and they cannot complement; they are different versions of the story and cannot be wangled together by inventing excuses like different order of events.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, of course it can be excused in that way, even though it reads like Man was made first and animals as an afterthought when, read with Gen 1, the animals were actually made first knowing that Man would want a companion. But that can't work and God would have known that woman was to be the intended companion ,not the animals, so the supposed reason for them has to be wrong.

Your explanation for that if you please.

Um, no where in the text does it say, hint, or imply that man wanted a companion.

Where did you pull that one from?

Such a baseless assertion unravels whatever point it was you were trying to make.

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.

Exactly. The point is not whose idea it was to make animals as a companion for man, but that was the reason to make the animals. Whereas in the 1st creation, the animals were clearly made first and Adam was made more to look after the animals, not the animals for Adam.

Of course the meaning can be fiddled and in the 2nd version it only looks like the critters were made later when Actually they were made to be companions for Adam before he was made, but that strains the English, too and we are in the area of what reading is more likely and which is more convenient for the believer in Biblical inerrancy, never mind what unlikely readings have to be argued.

We are really having to have God work it all out beforehand before the creating started. But there foresight failed and God only realised afterwards that the critters would not do as company. We are getting into the area of rewriting the Bible in order to correct the errors, which is of course why the nativities were written - and why the angelic message at the tomb was changed in Luke.

As this is by no means the only contradiction the inerrantists have to try to argue away.

[SiNcE_1985]

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..

[SiNcE_1985]

You misunderstand. The point is that God (it says) knew that man would want a companion even if man didn't.

That's not what it says, though.

This would be equivalent to someone trying to somehow extrapolate Adam's state of mind after God tasked him with naming the animals.

"Adam must of been pissed, having to name all the animals", when the scriptures provides zero indication of his state of mind.

Sure, you can believe that...but don't make it seem as if that is what the text is saying, because it isn't.

That is how false doctrines are started, with small little stuff like that.

[Difflugia]

This is an excellent article pertaining to this subject...

Then I'd hate to see a bad one.

In a nutshell, the author of that article is claiming that since Hebrew verbs can be flexible in how tenses are translated, they can in turn be translated however the author wants in any particular verse. The article has many, many flaws.

• The author is arguing that his ideological opponents are "critics of the Bible." We're not. We're critics of inerrantists and their terrible methodologies. The Bible's just fine as it is. It doesn't mean what inerrantists want it to, but that's neither the fault of the Bible or its authors.
• The author declares that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 must have the same author on purely theological grounds. He claims that the overwhelming scholarly opinion that Genesis 1 and 2 have different authors "is not a position that can be a legitimate option for evangelicals to hold." This is his only evidence for that position.
• Building on this incorrect premise, the author then doubles down and claims that Genesis 1 "provides context" for Genesis 2. HIs reasoning is that "God’s inspired word includes a preface at the front-end."
• He actually ignores the overall context of Genesis 2. Genesis 2 uses a long series of wayyiqtol verbs following a qal verb. This structured pattern is used nearly always to construct sequential narratives. The article doesn't address this at all, but just says that since "sometimes" wayyiqtol verbs may be translated in a pluperfect sense, he feels justified doing so here.
• The context he presents, then, is that since Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 otherwise contradict, verse 2:19 should be translated in a pluperfect sense because the same author (as he asserts) wouldn't write two conflicting verses so close together and, besides, the whole thing is inspired.

It's nothing more than apologetics. Without taking as read that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were by the same author and inspired of God, his thesis completely falls apart. If we do accept those things, then he's simply saying that theological harmony is more important than the Hebrew grammar established by the very Bible that he claims scholars are opposing.

So from what I gather, it can go either way, depending on the context.

The article is using the word "context" differently than Hebraists do. When the article's author says "context," he means that he's allowed an exception to accepted Hebrew grammar when faced with an uncomfortable theological position.

That said, unless I am to entertain the notion that the author literally, naively, and downright FOOLISHLY contradicted himself in just two chapters (back to back)..I find it difficult to believe.

There were (at least) two different authors responsible for Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Which is why I am sticking by my original statement and assessment.

Which also has nothing to do with an uncomfortable theological position, I'm sure.

You and I have had similar discussions regarding the original languages in the past.

Um, not so fast.

I agree.

[Yozavan]

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!

[SiNcE_1985]

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

Do you have anything beyond these exclamations?

Do you also notice that I frequently offer much more than that, though?

Apparently not.

But let me just tell ya; I do.

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!

Lord, please bless this child's heart.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #95]

Well granted, it sounds like you know much more about this stuff than I do.

But either way, it all comes down to which Hebrew scholar is "better".

Instead of falling down the rabbit hole of interpretations and/or translations, my stance is based on what I said earlier...

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.

So, since we have two viewpoints on how verse 19 should be rendered, I will go with the view of non-contradiction, since I find it unlikely that any author would contradict himself in such manner.

And that goes for anyone...regardless of context or literary methodology (lack of a better term).

That is where I stand.

[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?

[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.