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]

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?

That depends upon whom you ask. Believers will say there are no errors, not unexcusable ones anyway. The Big Ones the will deny and ignore (1) . The whole Genesis -literalism thing. Some Believers give in and accept that it is wrong but try to excuse it as Metaphor ('Metaphorically true' means 'not true at all')
. Ithers try to work out Flat earthist tabletop models of trying to make Genesis work like the cloud cover or hydroplate hypotheses but Genesis -literalism is the whole basis of science (especially) evolution -denial.

The order of creation defies cosmology and evolution and thus the science is denied, even though some vainly try to fiddle the Bible to fit the science, e.g divide 14 billion years (though it may be 25 billion now ) by 7 and call each one a 'day' and he presto the Bible agrees with science, and then claim the Bible predicts science.

(1) e.g and notoriously, the daylight switching on and off to mimic day and night before the sun was made, as though claiming the earth was made before the sun is not massive science - denial anyway.

[Difflugia]

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?

Yes, of course.

There are many contradictions that can only be errors if the Bible must otherwise be historically accurate. Just between the two creation narratives (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3), there are several more than just the one you pointed out.

• Genesis 1 has no garden. "Man" is given dominion over the entire Earth (1:28). In Genesis 2, "the man" was created to tend God's garden. These are quite clearly not the same thing.
• In Genesis 1, God created human beings after plants. In Genesis 2, humans were created before God planted the garden ("And no plant of the field was yet in the Earth").
• In Genesis 1, God gave humanity all the herbs and fruit of the Earth for food. In Genesis 2, God forbade the man from eating of the tree of knowledge.

The problem is that inerrancy apologists don't see these contradictions as disproving the doctrine of inerrancy, but rather the doctrine itself proves that these contradictions must somehow be able to be harmonized.

[TRANSPONDER]

Order of creation is wrong. That is unlessone deniesscience, which is what genewsis -literalist Creationism does.

I don't of course make a nit -pick about 'evolution is biology, not cosmology'.Never mind evolution doesn'tinclude abiogenesis.

only because it isn't proven yet and is still theoretcal. Once proven Abiogenesis will of course become part of evolution. But evolutiob -theory also does not depend on Abiogenesis, Even if a god made life to start off, the evidence is that it evolved over millions of years; it wasn't nmade in a week.

But that said I parse'evolution' (pron.evilooshun, aka 'Darwinism'), alias science -religion) is considered to include chemical evolution (including cosmic origins) and can go as far as social evolution, including morality.

That said, the orderof creation is wrong in a few respects.


day 1, we are in a cooled earth with an ocean and daylight alternating with night which means a sun and rotating earth.

day 2 The waters above the firmament (heaven) doesn't seem to make any sense

day 3 nor does the third day where the waters on the earth seem to gather into an ocean, - so what were they before then? Science says the earth was all ocean other than a island, which at times split into continents and then combined into one island again Pangaea being the last. Day three we get plants. Now that is a fair guess by the Bronzeagers, but it happened long after life appeared. Grass for instance didn't appear till the Jurassic.

Further, God makes the stars and planets including sun and moon. Aldready we had day and hight and there have been all kinds of excuses about what is just wrong and primitive creation -guesses.

Fifth day We get sea creatures and birds, and it mentions whales. This is a mess.

Pre cambrian and Cambrian sea life. vegetation, Silurian I think, Animals on land Carbiniferous.

Birds don't appear until the Jurassic and whales after mammals, that should be the 6th day.

6th day. land animals which were there before birds and whales. This is a best guess by ancient people who didn't have science. It will not do now and must require massive amounts of science -denial and I am fervently glad that I am not a Creationist. I don't know what it is like to constantly have to pretend to deny something one knows is at least credible if not demonstrably true.

[William]

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 1:25-26
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

KJV

Genesis 2:18-19
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

KJV

If these are contradictory, does that mean the Bible is not without error?

What make you think these are contradictory (for clarity re argument) and what does it matter if the Bible is not without error?

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to JoeMama in post #1]
Most monumental creation contradiction is the fact that genesis has not one but two creation storys.

Thats where Gap Creationists come in to solve.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism

(They say; Yes there were indeed two creations of the world. One after another.)

[TRANSPONDER]

Good point. I do the order of creation in the Bible (and it is wrong whether one uses the KJV or ESV) and leave alone the two creation stories, but I welcome anyone doing that problem. I can imagine some creationist hi -jacking geological science (the snowball earth, for instance) to argue for two creations or they might try the Triassic extinction which could be represented as starting over with sea life. Though of course there was plant and animal life, but deliveries had been severely interrupted.

P.s Folks I must apologise for some of my bad typos. I am no spring chicken and my eyes are no longer what they used to be, though my cranial stodge is not coming apart, thankfully.

[Difflugia]

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.

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

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

[William]

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?

[Difflugia]

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

What do you see that makes you think that it's 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.