Discrepancy 1: Genesis 1 vs 2

[rusra02]

I want to know what their attempts are harmonization are so I can educate myself on them and sharpen my critical thinking skills in an attempt to refute such harmonization attempts. Actually, not everyone who holds to a literalistic view of the creation stories will not be persuaded. I used to believe that these stories were literally true. Until I saw the evidence that they couldn't not be literally true. I would like to reach people who were in my shoes many years ago but didn't have the resources until much later in life. If I knew back in my teen years what I know now I would've rejected fundamentalism amd fundamentalist doctrines like plenary inspiration and inerrancy.

Actually, the two chapters can be harmonized easily. I am surprised to think people would see discrepancies between contiguous chapters in the Bible. I think some people want to find discrepancies.

 

[gnostic]

I would argue that trying to find a way to rationalize the discrepancies in these stories is futile, and completely misses the point. Each story must be taken on it's own, and by doing such, the "truth" of each account can shine through.

In my dealing with Greek literature, particularly literature with mythological themes, I've come across one myth that may have more than one tradition, so there may be several different versions of this one myth.

A myth may go through evolutionary changes over a period of time, like a later author may tell a myth that is different from another author(s) from an earlier time. It is also possible for two or more contemporary authors may have got their story from different sources or different traditions, or even different localities.

So I would not be surprise that there may have been authors in different times, who may tell 2 different creation myths or 2 different flood myths in the Genesis, and at some points in time someone or some people tried to combine the 2 different traditions together.

It is one of the reasons why I find the Genesis so fascinating. Despite the discrepancy, I like the genesis story.

Some people here may think I am trying to pick-apart the Genesis creation story. But that's not really true.

I love all myths, I just don't believe any of them to be true or historical factual (I just don't like creationists who cannot distinguish fact or reality (like science or history) from religious belief). They give us insight on how ancient people perceive the world back then, and sometimes in the hands of some masters, they tell great stories.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying the story as it is. But there is also nothing wrong with enjoying them as 2 different stories.

 

[Thief]

No, it's not.

Nor were they written at the same time. When you consider that chapter 2 (after verse 4) to chapter 4 were written before Genesis 1 & 2:1-4, then Genesis 1 creation story didn't exist at the time of Genesis 2 creation story were composed.



All true. No garden, no names, and the directive to multiply and rule all the animals.

But it is not just that, thief.

All Genesis 1 say about creating male and female, is that they were created in God's image, but nothing to say HOW they were created. Genesis 1 says nothing about creating man being from the earth (soil, dust or clay), nor creating female out of Adam's rib.

Likewise, Genesis 2 never say that God will create man (Adam) in his image.

I still hold Chapter One as primary.
Man as a species....evolved.....no names....no law...no garden.

Chapter Two ...AS.... Chapter Two....makes sense.
Intervention to alleviate many of the animal traits Man still held.

As for dust....
We are all taken up from the ground.
That's right.....you too.
Immediately.

Before your conception all that you are was out in a field somewhere.
A mother eats for two.

You were brought up from the earth...back to the earth you will go.

As for one text preceding the other...
We weren't there when the writings were written and stored away.
Many teachings were verbal.....for centuries.
So far removed from such events......
and you believe you are sure which came first?

 

[Matthew78]

Actually, the two chapters can be harmonized easily.

Okay, harmonize them.

I am surprised to think people would see discrepancies between contiguous chapters in the Bible.

I am surprised that some people can look at two or more narratives believed to be describing the same event and not see the discrepancies between them. This doesn't just apply to the Genesis creation stories and flood stories. This applies to the resurrection accounts of the gospels as well as the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke. But it doesn't stop here. There are many such discrepancies between two or more accounts describing the same story.

I think some people want to find discrepancies.

And some people desperately want to believe that the Bible is God's word regardless of whatever any evidence says. I should know. I used to be someone who wanted very badly to believe that the Bible was God's word. Honesty forced me to conclude otherwise.

Okay, now, harmonize the accounts. The ball is in your court!

 

[rusra02]

Okay, harmonize them.



I am surprised that some people can look at two or more narratives believed to be describing the same event and not see the discrepancies between them. This doesn't just apply to the Genesis creation stories and flood stories. This applies to the resurrection accounts of the gospels as well as the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke. But it doesn't stop here. There are many such discrepancies between two or more accounts describing the same story.



And some people desperately want to believe that the Bible is God's word regardless of whatever any evidence says. I should know. I used to be someone who wanted very badly to believe that the Bible was God's word. Honesty forced me to conclude otherwise.

Okay, now, harmonize the accounts. The ball is in your court!

I think Pegg did a fine job in explaining the viewpoints expressed in Genesis 1 and 2. Jehovah may well have continued to create animals after creating Adam. But I doubt you will accept whatever does not agree with your views. Some people want desperately to believe the Bible is not God's Word.

 

[gnostic]

I think Pegg did a fine job in explaining the viewpoints expressed in Genesis 1 and 2. Jehovah may well have continued to create animals after creating Adam.

Actually, Pegg was only speculating or making assumption. There is no way to verify what Pegg is speculating to be true.

The Genesis is the only we record that we really have about the creation myth. And what it say doesn't in any way confirm that god had created animals before the creation of Adam and was continuing to create animals after Adam's creation.

Genesis only stated God created humans AFTER be had created animals in chapter 1, and there is nothing to say he created man out of dust. And nothing in this chapter to indicate that special about the 1st humans, like immortality. The only directive God in Genesis 1 was to "be fruitful and multiply"...in another word, to populate the word...so that they could rule the world and all the animals.

The 2nd chapter (and 3rd) tell a completely different story, which included the creation of man before animals and before the first woman. I know that Christians thought that humans lost their immortality because they were disobedience and therefore sinned. But I don't think that's the real story.

The real story isn't JUST about creation or about sin. :no: there are more to this story than just that.

The story is ALSO about why there are pain and suffering, why humans must toil for their food, and lastly, why people will eventually die.

The whole miraculous creation human from dust and talking serpent is mostly fantasy (or fable) and smokescreen to mask the need to find out why we live and why we die.

Sure there is moral to the story (like don't disobey God or taking responsibility for your action instead of pointing your finger at other, and I am not denying these are some of the messages nor do I deny it is important for religious belief), but that's the whole purpose of using fable or myth to tell a story.

The whole purpose of fable is either to provide moral to a story, or to impart a bit of wisdom to the audience or readers (similar to parable). And Genesis 3 is a fable, for why else would a story include a talking serpent?

But Genesis 2 & 3 (as well as Genesis 1) is also a myth(s) too. The purpose of myth is to describe something that they couldn't really explain. The author or authors (of Genesis) only had primitive understanding of how the world work. Like any other civilisations and cultures, they created stories by associating a deity or deities with nature, but have no understanding of science.

There is more Genesis 1 to 3 than just sins or creation.

And it appeared there are two different creation stories, which they have tried to join into one. And the more plausible two-traditions model would explain why there is a contradiction about which were created first - animals or humans?

 

[Matthew78]

I think Pegg did a fine job in explaining the viewpoints expressed in Genesis 1 and 2. Jehovah may well have continued to create animals after creating Adam. But I doubt you will accept whatever does not agree with your views. Some people want desperately to believe the Bible is not God's Word.

If you think Pegg did a fine job of explaining them then perhaps you can answer my rebuttal to her post. You're welcome to your doubts but it's sily that you insinuate that I am desperate to believe that the Bible is not God's word. Why on earth would I be desperate?

It's actually fundamentalists and other conservatives who are desperate. They have been on the losing side of the battle between the Bible and history for many years and their far-fetched and silly attempts only show how far they will go to defend their precious doctrines.

 

[rusra02]

If you think Pegg did a fine job of explaining them then perhaps you can answer my rebuttal to her post. You're welcome to your doubts but it's sily that you insinuate that I am desperate to believe that the Bible is not God's word. Why on earth would I be desperate?

It's actually fundamentalists and other conservatives who are desperate. They have been on the losing side of the battle between the Bible and history for many years and their far-fetched and silly attempts only show how far they will go to defend their precious doctrines.

I bolded the claim you made because I believe the opposite is true. Time and time again, critics who claimed persons mentioned in the Bible, such as Pilate, Belshazzar, and Jesus never existed,have been proven wrong. Bible critics have been forced to concede the Bible was correct after all. As archaeologist Nelson Glueck once said: “I have excavated for thirty years with a Bible in one hand and a trowel in the other, and in matters of historical perspective I have never found the Bible to be in error.” (Quote from g-1/11)

 

[Matthew78]

I bolded the claim you made because I believe the opposite is true. Time and time again, critics who claimed persons mentioned in the Bible, such as Pilate, Belshazzar, and Jesus never existed,have been proven wrong. Bible critics have been forced to concede the Bible was correct after all. As archaeologist Nelson Glueck once said: “I have excavated for thirty years with a Bible in one hand and a trowel in the other, and in matters of historical perspective I have never found the Bible to be in error.” (Quote from g-1/11)

I noticed that you did nothing to resolve the discrepancy or explain why my rebuttal to Pegg was wrong. Would you care to take a stab at it the next time you respond?

You state that critics who claimed that people in the Blible such as Pilate, Belshazzar, and Jesus never existed. Care to cite these critics? That some critics may have been wrong doesn't show that the concensus of archeologists are wrong. Nelson Gleuck, IIRC, is an Evangelical. I don't know exactly what kind of "research" he has done over the years but the consensus view is that many events in the Bible such as the Exodus never happened. Since we're referring to experts, I believe that I am entitled to refer to one of my own.

I doubt that you will be persuaded to take this reputable archeologist seriously, but, I will refer to him anyways. Ze'ev Herzog is a professional Israeli archeologist who argues that the Exodus never happened. Why is he wrong and Gleuck right? Israel Finkelstein is also a professional archeologist who also argues that the Exodus never happened as well. Why is Gleuck right and Finkelstein wrong? If you want me to quote these two archeologists, I will be very happy to. That the Exodus story never happened is the consensus of professional archeologists. I can quote statements to this effect but I would encourage you to acquaint yourself with the literature on the subject.

 

[gnostic]

I bolded the claim you made because I believe the opposite is true. Time and time again, critics who claimed persons mentioned in the Bible, such as Pilate, Belshazzar, and Jesus never existed,have been proven wrong. Bible critics have been forced to concede the Bible was correct after all. As archaeologist Nelson Glueck once said: "I have excavated for thirty years with a Bible in one hand and a trowel in the other, and in matters of historical perspective I have never found the Bible to be in error." (Quote from g-1/11)

I really don't see what Belshazzar, Pilate or Jesus have anything to do with the subject regarding to Genesis 1 & 2 creation stories.
And just because they exist, doesn't in any way mean what happen in the OT or gospels, happen in the way it was written.
For example, Jesus do exist, historically, but what it say about Jesus miraculously walk on water or raising Lazarus from the dead, may not have happened at all. Just because Jesus existed doesn't mean he performed all these miracles.

And it is these miracles that no archaeologists or historians can verify to be true. Nelson Glueck may be able to prove that Jesus exist, but Glueck could not possibly prove that Jesus' miracles have occurred.

Another example is that of Belshazzar. We do have historical records of Belshazzar ruling the Neo-Babylonian empire, during the Jews living in exile in Babylon, sources that are independent to the Book of Daniel, but there is absolutely no evidences to support Belshazzar seeing writing miraculously appearing on the wall. No archaeologists can support this miracle of writing magically appearing on the wall of his palace.

Can you provide evidences to support that all events of Belshazzar occurred in the OT or Jesus and Pilate did what they did, as they were written in the gospels?

Do you understand the differences between historical existence and supposed claims of miracles?

Without evidences to verify the claims of miracles, we can only take it on faith that miracles had occurred, but it is highly unlikely that they had occurred.

And as to Gleuck's claim that:

"I have excavated for thirty years with a Bible in one hand and a trowel in the other, and in matters of historical perspective I have never found the Bible to be in error." (Quote from g-1/11)

Sorry, but the archaeological existence of cities or towns doesn't in any way to prove the Bible to be ALL CORRECT, that everything happen the way they happened, such as the miracles, or even the people existing.

Archaeology can only deal with physical evidences. Miracles are beyond what archaeology can discover, and is possible that miracles cannot be discovered because they didn't happen.

 

[Xchristian]

Each story must be taken on it's own, and by doing such, the "truth" of each account can shine through.

what truth? ...

 

[fallingblood]

what truth? ...

The "truth" is different in both accounts. They do relate the idea that God created everything. That does not have to be taken literally though, as in they are exact accounts of how creation is made.

The first account (the Genesis 1) shows that within the world, there is chaos and disorder. But that is okay as it allows for creativity.

To really do the subject justice though, a new thread would be needed, as I wouldn't want to hijack this one.

 

[Xchristian]

. That does not have to be taken literally though, .

it's alright I never take that book seriousley anyway. you just reassured me.

 

[fallingblood]

it's alright I never take that book seriousley anyway. you just reassured me.

How did I reassure you? Seriously and literally are very different. I don't think I actually reassured you of anything, you simply set your mind to an idea and won't budge.

 

[Xchristian]

How did I reassure you? .

Because your answer is not convincing, I thought you had an answer, when you failed to answer I have been reassured.

 

[fallingblood]

Because your answer is not convincing, I thought you had an answer, when you failed to answer I have been reassured.

Or, as I stated, a more detailed look would require a new thread as that is not the topic of this thread.

 

[kiwimac]

Genesis is a parable. It is not about HOW the universe was created but WHY.

 

[Matthew78]

The "truth" is different in both accounts. They do relate the idea that God created everything. That does not have to be taken literally though, as in they are exact accounts of how creation is made.

The first account (the Genesis 1) shows that within the world, there is chaos and disorder. But that is okay as it allows for creativity.

To really do the subject justice though, a new thread would be needed, as I wouldn't want to hijack this one.

Actually, creating a new thread is a good idea. A new thread can be about what people in ANE cultures thought "truth" was and how myths functioned for them. It's my belief that the Bible contains some mythical stories. But a good question for another thread would be why people constructed myths. Were myths supposed to explain or teach some kind of "truth" and did this notion of "truth" differ from our modern ideas about "truth"?

I have noticed that in today's world, the word "myth" for some people denotes any untrue story that was believed by people in ancient times because they didn't know any better and through creative storytelling, they were simply taking their best guess at how the world began. But such myths are rejected by modern scientifically enlightened people. This seems to be how the word "myth" is often used by people who probably don't have the slightest idea of how the ancients perceived "truth" and what modern anthropologists and modern historians believe myths were and how they functioned.

 

[Xchristian]

Genesis is a parable. It is not about HOW the universe was created but WHY.

that's news to me.

You can change the bible as much as you want, to serve your needs.
However a person with minimum IQ will quickly reject it. Because it's YOUR bible, not THE bible.

 

[fallingblood]

that's news to me.

You can change the bible as much as you want, to serve your needs.
However a person with minimum IQ will quickly reject it. Because it's YOUR bible, not THE bible.

First, your insinuation here is insulting. Second, it displays a complete ignorance towards Biblical scholarship. Essentially you are rejecting something because of ignorance ("that's news to me"), and a lack of study.

That's a problem with reading the Bible. People think they can just open it and know what it is saying. However, most also ignore the genre, context, etc of the actual text. Simply, the Bible is a complicated text that requires serious study of many different cultures to actually fully understand.