• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict? [W:178]

In some English versions it says that. According to my Hebrew/ Jewish Bible professor I had awhile back that phrase could be correctly translated from Hebrew both as had and not as had. This is part of the trouble with trying to come to conclusions about this.

lots of crap gets lost in translation.
 
In some English versions it says that. According to my Hebrew/ Jewish Bible professor I had awhile back that phrase could be correctly translated from Hebrew both as had and not as had. This is part of the trouble with trying to come to conclusions about this.

What about "make", though? If we look at the preceding passage, God says he will make something, then he "had formed from the ground" something. That implies that "had formed from the ground" in that context is the making of that something.
 
What about make? Do you think that means something other than make?

"18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. "

what are you blabbering about? I already said that there is contradiction concerning man and woman.
 
In some English versions it says that. According to my Hebrew/ Jewish Bible professor I had awhile back that phrase could be correctly translated from Hebrew both as had and not as had. This is part of the trouble with trying to come to conclusions about this.

Since the passage explains *why* God created the animals, I don't see any trouble:

The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
 
What about "make", though? If we look at the preceding passage, God says he will make something, then he "had formed from the ground" something. That implies that "had formed from the ground" in that context is the making of that something.

let us make: means it hasn't happened yet

had formed: means it has already happened
 
What about "make", though? If we look at the preceding passage, God says he will make something, then he "had formed from the ground" something. That implies that "had formed from the ground" in that context is the making of that something.

I agree. That's what leads me to believe that the probable meaning is that in Genesis 2 animals were created after men. Considering the translation issues, I couldn't say for certain though.
 
Genesis 2:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

the bolded word is important.

Yes referring to Eve. The animals had already been created see vs 19.
 
But the two passages don't contradict even if you do take it literally. Still waiting for someone to show how they contradict.

Who cares about contradictions in jibberish. Both passages are completely impossible if taken literally. Man did not come before animals, we evolved from them. Everyone with a brain knows that now.
 
Since the passage explains *why* God created the animals, I don't see any trouble:

Maybe the animals already existed, but were in a different location, or they existed but were not a suitable helper. Maybe there is more translation uncertainty in the preceding sentence to "Now God had formed." I believe that the probable intent from the passage was that animals were created after man, but I cannot draw any conclusion.
 
Both passages are completely impossible if taken literally. Man did not come before animals, we evolved from them. Everyone with a brain knows that now.

This is the religion forum, and your comment is meaningless to the thread. Thanks for stopping by.
 
Taking anything in the first to chapters of Genesis literally is a big mistake. Nobody that wrote them was there to see it happen. They're both stories told thousands of years later by people trying to grapple with "How did we get here?" In fact, most of Genesis and Exodus are that.

The Bible is not literal. It's literature. Psalms and Song of Songs are poetry for crying out loud. I think it's entirely possible that a lot of the rest of the OT is literature.
 
In genesis one, man and woman were made simultaneously, both after the animals. In genesis 2, man came first, then the plants, then animals, then woman last.

Explain how that doesn't contradict.

As far as the man and woman thing go there's no necessary contradiction.

You need to take the chapters in context in their entirety.

GEN1 is the macro, 30,000 foot, week-long view.

On the 6th day God created both man and woman. No further detail given.

GEN2 is the micro, 50 foot, day-long view.

It provides more detail into, more color on, what God did on that 6th day and when he did it.

It's like me saying, "I went to the grocery store and got a haircut this past Saturday".

So you say, "What? You got a haircut at the grocery store?"

And I say, "No, no, that's not what I mean. What happened was, I woke up and took a shower and ran to the grocery store. I had to pick up a few things. On the way home I passed the barber shop and the parking lot was empty so I figured I may as well stop in and get my hair trimmed."

See what I mean?

I did do both on the same day, but one description is a general overview of my day and the other is more reliably chronological within the day.
 
Last edited:
what are you blabbering about? I already said that there is contradiction concerning man and woman.

He said he would make something just before he "had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky". Later on, after Adam meets and greets all of teh animals and birds, it says "But for Adam no suitable helper was found."

That implies that God made the animals and birds when he had formed out of the ground in order to see if any were suitable helpers.
 
As far as the man and woman thing go there's no necessary contradiction.

You need to take the chapters in context in their entirety.

GEN1 is the macro, 30,000 foot, week-long view.

On the 6th day God created both man and woman. No further detail given.

GEN2 is the micro, 50 foot, day-long view.

It provides more detail into, more color on, what God did on that 6th day and when he did it.

That was a great illustration.
 
Yes referring to Eve. The animals had already been created see vs 19.

Then why did he **** around with all of th eanimals before he mad eeve, if his decision to make a helper was a decision to make eve? Doesn't make any sense. I have to believe that God does not suffer from ADD, so I reject your hypotehsis.
 
As far as the man and woman thing go there's no necessary contradiction.

You need to take the chapters in context in their entirety.

GEN1 is the macro, 30,000 foot, week-long view.

On the 6th day God created both man and woman. No further detail given.

GEN2 is the micro, 50 foot, day-long view.

It provides more detail into, more color on, what God did on that 6th day and when he did it.

That wouldn't change the order of things, though.
 
He said he would make something just before he "had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky". Later on, after Adam meets and greets all of teh animals and birds, it says "But for Adam no suitable helper was found."

That implies that God made the animals and birds when he had formed out of the ground in order to see if any were suitable helpers.

No you are reading into the text.
 
Then why did he **** around with all of th eanimals before he mad eeve, if his decision to make a helper was a decision to make eve? Doesn't make any sense. I have to believe that God does not suffer from ADD, so I reject your hypotehsis.

It's not a hypothesis, that is exactly what the text says. The premise is that it is not a contradiction. You tried to prove that it was and failed.
 
let us make: means it hasn't happened yet

had formed: means it has already happened

The whole chapter is written in the past tense.

God didn't speak in the past tense, though.

One comes from a quote of God (make, future tense), one is in the description of events (which are ALL in the past tense).
 
The whole chapter is written in the past tense.

God didn't speak in the past tense, though.

One comes from a quote of God (make, future tense), one is in the description of events (which are ALL in the past tense).

Once again, you are adding things that just simply are not there.
 
It's not a hypothesis, that is exactly what the text says.

No it isn't. the text says that God said he would make something. then it describes him making something, then it describes him presenting that something to adam and realizing that the thing he wanted to make wasn't made yet, so then it describes him making something else.

Your hypothesis is that the stuff in the middle is god experiencing an ADD moment between stating what he was going to do and doing it.
 
Back
Top Bottom