• 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]

davidtaylorjr said:
How so? You read the text, it makes perfect sense, even if you just read it as a story.
Click to expand...

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

19 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.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Reading that with no outside information seems to suggest, at least that 19 and 20 came chronologically before 21 and 22 and after 18.
 
Anagram said:
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 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.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Reading that with no outside information seems to suggest, at least that 19 and 20 came chronologically before 21 and 22.
Click to expand...

That's not actually how the original language reads it. Verse 19 should actually read "had formed"
 
Lachean said:
This post is a perfect case study for denial.
Click to expand...

Except you, nor he can show where I changed my position or admitted that the text contradicts itself. I merely said that Chapter 1 does indeed give an order. Nice try though.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Except you, nor he can show where I changed my position or admitted that the text contradicts itself. I merely said that Chapter 1 does indeed give an order. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say, he who hasn't addressed a single counter argument then goes on to claim no one can argue with his bull****.

I have shown contradictions, you've not addressed them. You who believe geologists support the great flood :lamo
 
davidtaylorjr said:
That's not actually how the original language reads it. Verse 19 should actually read "had formed"
Click to expand...

Which version are you using? That was the King James Bible online. I don't own a King James version myself, but my New American version reads basically the same way. Either way the word had can both be there and not there in a correct translation from Hebrew.
 
Lachean said:
Whatever you say, he who hasn't addressed a single counter argument then goes on to claim no one can argue with his bull****.

I have shown contradictions, you've not addressed them. You who believe geologists support the great flood :lamo
Click to expand...

What contradiction in this thread have I not addressed that you would like to see addressed?
 
Anagram said:
Which version are you using? That was the King James Bible online. I don't own a King James version myself, but my New American version reads basically the same way. Either way the word had can both be there and not there in a correct translation from Hebrew.
Click to expand...

That is true, and the translator should have used context and mistranslated. Look at the NIV.
 
Anagram said:
Which version are you using? That was the King James Bible online. I don't own a King James version myself, but my New American version reads basically the same way. Either way the word had can both be there and not there in a correct translation from Hebrew.
Click to expand...

Some people don't understand that while the text is in the past tense everywhere in Genesis, the quotes from God are in the present tense. My assumption is that these people do not read much.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Actually that isn't until chapter 3. Nice try.
Click to expand...

I edited it, in case you were wondering. Anyway, how are you saying they don't contradict?

P.S. I'm surprised this thread is allowed in here. Can we move this to Philosophy so dissension is permitted?
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I edited it, in case you were wondering. Anyway, how are you saying they don't contradict?

P.S. I'm surprised this thread is allowed in here. Can we move this to Philosophy so dissension is permitted?
Click to expand...

You can read through the thread.
 
Tucker Case said:
:lol: Like the context of the preceding sentence where God said he was going to make something? You're a trip. :lol:
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't know how to read older texts or the Bible, in context. Are you saying nobody ever makes a statement, then goes and explains the background of that statement? Is that what you are saying?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Gentlemen... this is the Religion forum. You can disagree, but you must do so respectfully, without personal digs or needlessly inflammatory comments directed at another's religious beliefs. A couple of infractions have been issued already... let's not make more necessary.
 
Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here's what the text says:

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

I think where you're going wrong is that when God says "I will make a helper for him" you're reading it to mean "I'll make a helper for him out of scratch". "I'll make something brand new, right now, on the spur of the moment as a helper."

I don't see the logical necessity in that.

It could mean that, but it could also mean that God plans on parading a bunch of stuff he's already made in front of Adam with the hopes that something will tickle Adam's fancy and God will be able to call it ("make" it) man's helper.

Anyhow...

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.
Click to expand...

Right.

We already know this. God had made ("formed") all these things prior to making man.

He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
Click to expand...

God took all the things he had made prior to making man and told man to name them..

So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
Click to expand...

And he did.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
Click to expand...

Adam wasn't into beastiality, so he was sad. :(

So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh.

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Click to expand...

So God made something that made Adam's dick hard. :eek:

Now, note the different tenses here between God seeing if he could get Adam to hit a donkey vs. him creating a custom-made "helper" ;):

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

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken...
Click to expand...

There's no denying that God made man before he made woman.

That God made animals before he made man and then woman is implied but if you really want to stretch the bounds of language to the breaking point you could make a pretty convoluted argument (as you seem wont to do) that this isn't the case at all.
 
Tucker Case said:
Yes there is.



After god created the animals, he made man.

"then" is pretty clearly an order indicator word.
Click to expand...

Gottcha.

I was talking about the order of man/woman in GEN 1.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
That is true, and the translator should have used context and mistranslated. Look at the NIV.
Click to expand...

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. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Reading through this without any background knowledge still leads me to believe the animals were formed after Adam in this case. Even with the "had formed" which may or may not be the correct translation, it doesn't seem to me that the author is trying to suggest that this had been done before God created man. It could be read that way if you were trying to make it fit, but I don't think that is the most likely intent of the author.
 
They don't contradict. Genesis 1 is an overview of the creation account, Genesis 2 is more narrowed in on day 6.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Clearly you don't know how to read older texts or the Bible, in context.
Click to expand...

Clearly you have no idea what context is.

Are you saying nobody ever makes a statement, then goes and explains the background of that statement?
Click to expand...

Now you're making **** up. God didn't go and explain the background of that statement, and the person who wrote the bible didn't make the statement.

I'm saying that when one reads ANYTHING, they should read it in the way that makes sense. If they have to come up with some explanation for reading it in a way that doesn't make any sense in order to claim that no contradiction exists, they aren't competent at reading.

This is the test of who is actually reading into things:

Why are you reading it the way that you are reading it? Because if you don't read it that nonsensical, convoluted way, it will contradict what was said in genesis 1.

Why am I reading it the way that I am reading it? Because that is what it says.


I don't have a goal in the way I read it. You do. that is why your reading is flawed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom