Genesis contradiction

[showmeproof]

There are a couple of answers that all seem to work.

1 God brings that animals that ha had formed, not formed on the spot. So it'a an issue of translation, and not a contradiction in the originals.
2 Since only birds, beasts of the field, and cattle(no fish or creeping things) are brought to Adam, they were formed on the spot simply to save time, and were not novel creations at that point.

Those are the solutions I know of, and since I think that though Moses was responsible for Genesis, I do think that it is possible that he had access to earlier accounts that had been passed down through the generations, and he compiled some of the different accounts into one book. Anyway, it's probably a much shorter answer than reading the link that Whag gave.

Have you seen Proto-Canaanite or Proto-Sinatic scripts? Or was it written in Egyptian hieroglyphs or Akkadian?

[Carrikature]

(It should be noted that I do not follow the JEDP hypothesis, but there is some interesting information there.)

Jim, your question premises that both passages were written by the same person, for the same purpose. They weren't.

Despite the claims of those who insist on a single-authorship, these are two narratives from different times, written by different authors, and used for different purposes.

*snip*

It's entirely likely that the author of the Genesis 1 account had never even read the Genesis 2 account.

I'm curious, as I'm still new to such matters. You hold to multiple-source theory, but not JEDP specifically? Is there another alternative?

[Cerebrum123]

Have you seen Proto-Canaanite or Proto-Sinatic scripts? Or was it written in Egyptian hieroglyphs or Akkadian?

I haven't seen them, but I think that what I said is a valid option, and makes much more sense than a whole bunch of authors over hundreds of years for this one text.

[Doug Shaver]

I am wondering how apologists explain this contradiction?

The same way they explain all contradictions: they reinterpret one passage or the other. Any interpretation that produces a contradiction is a mistaken interpretation.

[Tassman]

Here's an incredibly long winded answer by an apologist who subscribes to single authorship:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...6&article=1131

“Incredibly longwinded” and of doubtful value! One notes that the author, Wayne Jackson, M.A. makes use of Archer Gleason’s: “A Survey of Old Testament Introduction” and “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”.

Valerie Tarico comments on Archer Gleason’s methodology in her book: ‘The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth’: "A whole industry has sprung up to convince believers and non-believers alike that these difficulties are inconsequential." She quotes from Gleason Archer's International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, where he tells his readers that when looking at the Bible one must first assume God inspired the authors and preserved them from error or mistake. Then ask yourself, `What explanations or interpretations can I come up with that would allow me to maintain my belief that these texts are not contradictory?' If you can find any at all, then you have succeeded in your task. By implication, if you cannot, the problem lies with you, not the text. Archer's approach, in almost any other field of inquiry, would be considered preposterous." (pp. 62-63 cited in book review). But it is not only tolerated in certain forms of Christian apologetics but seems to be standard practice.

[Doug Shaver]

Valerie Tarico comments on Archer Gleason’s methodology in her book: ‘The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth’: "A whole industry has sprung up to convince believers and non-believers alike that these difficulties are inconsequential."

I have long doubted that apologists have any serious interest in convincing nonbelievers. Nearly all of them, it seems to me, are mainly interested just in keeping believers from becoming nonbelievers.

Not that they wouldn't like to convert nonbelievers, but they know full well that their arguments are ineffective with anyone who is not already at least halfway convinced, or else just wants very badly to become convinced.

[Tassman]

I have long doubted that apologists have any serious interest in convincing nonbelievers. Nearly all of them, it seems to me, are mainly interested just in keeping believers from becoming nonbelievers.

Also, I think, a defense-mechanism among believers for the preservation and reinforcement of their own wavering beliefs.

[MaxVel]

Also, I think, a defense-mechanism among believers for the preservation and reinforcement of their own wavering beliefs.

Is that your professional opinion as a psychologist?

[Tassman]

Is that your professional opinion as a psychologist?

No, it is my observation of human nature and its subconscious coping strategies when confronted by an unpalatable but obvious reality such as the lack of substantiated evidence for the existence of the supernatural. One does not offer professional opinions concerning people one has never met.

[Doug Shaver]

No, it is my observation of human nature and its subconscious coping strategies when confronted by an unpalatable but obvious reality such as the lack of substantiated evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

It is obvious to you. Therefore it must be obvious to everyone?

[Calminian]

Genesis 1 (actually, Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a) and Genesis 2 (more specifically, Gen 2:4b through 25) have different didactic purposes. Genesis 1's purpose is to establish God as the creator of all things: Genesis 2 is to establish Man as the pinnacle of Creation, and as having dominion over the other created things.

It's been hypothesized that the Genesis 1 account may have come from the traditions of the Priestly community, and their emphasis is on the primacy of God in the universe. Genesis 2 is hypothesized as coming from southern Hebrew traditions (specifically, the kingdom of Judah)--note especially that the Genesis 2 account uses Yahweh as a personal name for God, while the Genesis 1 account uses Elohim. (It should be noted that I do not follow the JEDP hypothesis, but there is some interesting information there.)

Well you were okay, until you started getting into the outdated obsolete JEDP theory. In our age of archeological enlightenment, we know know that writing existed long before Moses and even Abraham. The JEDP theory was born out of the assumption that writing didn't exist until 1000 BC. But with the discovery of thousands of ancient clay tablets in Babylon and elsewhere, we now know that Genesis actually follows patterns of ancient writings that pre-date Moses. So you are right, that Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a is likely a separate tablet from Gen. 2:4b-5:1a. The latter is Adam's account per chapter 5 verse 1a. You are also right to include the colophon phrase "this is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." as a summary statement rather than a title to the next section.

Now Moses was the author of Genesis, but he likely worked from older written documents paced down from the patriarchs. We now know that writing was very extant in his day, and long before.

We also know that the ostensible "second creation account" is actually not a creation account at all, but rather part of Adam's account of the Garden of Eden. Now that we understand that Genesis 2:4a is not a title, there is nothing in the following account about the creation of the heavens and earth. It's a story about the creation of the Garden, and the cultivated plants that were to grow there with the help of a farmer—Adam. Plants of the field are specifically described as plants that only grow with the help of a cultivator. It's a;so the story of the creation of Eve, and the naming of the animals, and the first command, and the fall, and the murder of Abel and birth of Seth. It has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the heavens and earth.

There is only 1 creation account, and that starts in Genesis 1:1 with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", and end is Gen. 2:4a, with the ending phrase, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." What follows is the creation of the Garden of Eden.

[Calminian]

I'm curious, as I'm still new to such matters. You hold to multiple-source theory, but not JEDP specifically? Is there another alternative?

Yep! Tablet Theory! But sadly it seems no one on this thread has a clue about it. The truth is, JEDP is an obsolete theory born out of an age of archeological ignorance. In our enlightened age of archeology, we now know Genesis is a compilation put together by Moses, passed down to him by the patriarchs, probably on clay tablets. We now know through archeology that Genesis followed the ancient literary structure of colophon phrases or signature phrases. Seems to me rather clear that Genesis is a compilation of the writings of Adam, Noah, Noah's Son's, Shem, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph, all who would have had first hand access to the events the recorded. The mysterious redactor that JEDP theorists spoke about was non other than Moses himself, not some post exile priest.

JEDP was originally created with the premise that writing didn't go back past 1000 BC. We now know that's total bunk, and that writings were extant in Moses' time and even long before Abraham's. And from the Genesis record itself, we now know it went all the way back to Adam.

Here are some resources if you want to read up.

The Tablet Theory of
Genesis Authorship

Answers in Genesis:
Did Moses Write Genesis?

Who wrote Genesis:
Excerpted from Henry M. Morris, the Genesis Record, pp. 25-30

[JimL]

Yep! Tablet Theory! But sadly it seems no one on this thread has a clue about it. The truth is, JEDP is an obsolete theory born out of an age of archeological ignorance. In our enlightened age of archeology, we now know Genesis is a compilation put together by Moses, passed down to him by the patriarchs, probably on clay tablets. We now know through archeology that Genesis followed the ancient literary structure of colophon phrases or signature phrases. Seems to me rather clear that Genesis is a compilation of the writings of Adam, Noah, Noah's Son's, Shem, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph, all who would have had first hand access to the events the recorded. The mysterious redactor that JEDP theorists spoke about was non other than Moses himself, not some post exile priest.

JEDP was originally created with the premise that writing didn't go back past 1000 BC. We now know that's total bunk, and that writings were extant in Moses' time and even long before Abraham's. And from the Genesis record itself, we now know it went all the way back to Adam.

Here are some resources if you want to read up.

The Tablet Theory of
Genesis Authorship

Answers in Genesis:
Did Moses Write Genesis?

Who wrote Genesis:
Excerpted from Henry M. Morris, the Genesis Record, pp. 25-30

I don't think that the Biblical Adam had first hand access to creation prior to his own, and even if he had it doesn't explain the contradiction of Gods creating earthly light on day 1 prior to his creating the source of that light 3 days later.

[Calminian]

I don't think that the Biblical Adam had first hand access to creation prior to his own, and even if he had it doesn't explain the contradiction of Gods creating earthly light on day 1 prior to his creating the source of that light 3 days later.

Yeah, that one is interesting. Adam's actual tablet starts with the Garden account, and ends with Seth's birth. The very first tablet, doesn't have a human signature. It merely says this is the account of the heavens and earth. Some speculate perhaps god himself wrote this.

But he also could have given the information to Adam, as he and Adam had an open line of communication. He placed Adam in the Garden, and told him to name the animals. He could have also dictated the events of his creation to him some time when they were chatting.

An angel could have been employed for this task as well. But it is interesting that the very first colophon phrase has no human author, as it would have been the only one a human couldn't have personally witnessed.

Regarding the light issue, if you have no problem with supernatural intervention, then there is no issue. Angels are creatures of light and are often called "stars" or more literally "luminaries." They luminary properties, as scripture repots often.

There's no reason to say there was no original source of light, it was just merely a matter of a different source of light being created on day 1. When the heavens were expanded, the heavenly luminaries were created and were used as a new source of light.

Again, were talking about supernatural events. But this is a bit off topic.

Bottom line, JEDP is not a viable theory, and frankly never was as it started with a false premise. We now know that written language seems to exist as far back as we look or as deep down as we dig. We also now have great insights into the literary structure of Genesis thanks to modern archeology.

[magellan004]

In Genesis, Chapter 1, God creates the animals as well as plants and trees before he creates man. But, in Chapter 2, God creates man previous to his creating animals or plants. I am wondering how apologists explain this contradiction? Is one version correct and the other incorrect, or are we not to take the actual process of creation as it is explained in the Bible literally. If the latter is the case, then is there anything in the creation narrative that should be taken literally? If so, why?

Genesis Chapter One says God made man and animals (cattle, snakes etc) on the same day he made man - Day 6 (Or Day 5 if you like) . Genesis Chapter 2 gives a list of the things God made. Chapter 2 doesn't say on which day he made which thing. It's just a list.

Genesis Chapter 1 says God first divided Light FROM dark. Later God made the sun and moon to divide the day and night (into hours etc). The sense of 'divide' is different. You use 'separate' in the same sense.

I can divide something 'from' and I can divide 'into'.

(Based on Douay Rheims version of the Bible.)


Magellan