A specific biblical contradiction

[tame_deuces]

There was a thread on the bible, and I originally posted this in it, but the thread was long and starting to slide and I didn't want the point to get lost. Anyway, in that thread a few posts claimed there were no contradictions in the bible etc.

I remembered something from the past, and decided to look it up - and you only need to look at the first pages so it's easy.

In Genesis 1 god creates fish/birds/animals and then man.

In Genesis 2 god creates man and then the animals.

There is also some philological evidence for this being two distinctly different creation stories, but that's refutable by being stubborn so let's stick to the non-refutable point.

Now, for non-fundamentalists or people who admit the bible contains contradictions the above isn't a problem, but for the others I would think it poses a major problem of credibility?

[Prodigy54321]

I believe the standard christian apologitic response is that Genesis 1 is a chronological account, while Genesis 2 is not...

in the specific verses...2:18-19

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

19And 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

from the KJV at BibleGateway.com

according to apologetics, God does not make man then think that he should create the animals...he thinks ahead before he even creates man.

I can't seem to find the specific tektonics explanation though...I think that's where I first heard this explanation a while back

I haven't studied Genesis thoroughly, I've only read it..so I don't know how this "genesis 1 is in order and genesis 2 is not in order" holds up.

I would guess that NotReady is familiar with this supposed contradiction and knows more than I do.

EDIT: here's my Big thread of holy book contradictions, errors, etc. from a while back...we didn't make much progress thanks to txag [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I would guess that NotReady is familiar with this supposed contradiction and knows more than I do.


[/ QUOTE ]
Tek
RTB

[GeezyTehSnowman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would guess that NotReady is familiar with this supposed contradiction and knows more than I do.


[/ QUOTE ]
Tek
<a href="pnm://broadcast.reasons.org/rtbradio/cu20050315.rm?start=00:39:12.0" target="_blank">RTB</a>

[/ QUOTE ]

splendour's gimmick account?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

splendour's gimmick account?


[/ QUOTE ]


Where you been? Everybody knows I'm Sklansky.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would guess that NotReady is familiar with this supposed contradiction and knows more than I do.


[/ QUOTE ]
Tek


[/ QUOTE ]

That first link is a disgrace to the field of theology, who gave us the brilliant field of hermeneutics in the first place and gave birth to scientific text analysis.

I also note that the author J.P Holding is a man who specializies in debunking alleged contradictions, and that has a certain notoriority for being a fraud both amongst christian peers peers and others and also that he only holds a masters in library science.

Feel free to link other articles by more respected scholars if you wish.

[thesnowman22]

Actually, genesis 2 states that no plant of the filed had yet sprung up because no rain had fallen, which means they were in the ground but not coming up yet.

[tame_deuces]

Ok, that I didn't see but that is a nice observation. However genesis 1 states that: 'The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.'

I would take this as a pretty strong argument that there should in fact be plants around.

Is the general acceptance that this expression: 'When the lord God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth' (which can also mean land) - refers to a specific piece of land with no vegetation? It seems odd, as it even makes a point to state that Adam is moved to the garden of eden in a later verse. And the whole expression seems oddly made up if that is in fact its meaning.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would guess that NotReady is familiar with this supposed contradiction and knows more than I do.


[/ QUOTE ]
Tek


[/ QUOTE ]

That first link is a disgrace to the field of theology, who gave us the brilliant field of hermeneutics in the first place and gave birth to scientific text analysis.

I also note that the author J.P Holding is a man who specializies in debunking alleged contradictions, and that has a certain notoriority for being a fraud both amongst christian peers peers and others and also that he only holds a masters in library science.

Feel free to link other articles by more respected scholars if you wish.

[/ QUOTE ]
Note the technique though.

1) NotReady deals with specific contradictions with links to a load of old rope that no-one can take seriously.

2) he claims consistancy is a reason to believe the bible

3) when 2) is questioned he refers us to 1)

good hard sales technique, double glazing anyone? or I've got this rather nice bridge if you're interested.

chez

[tame_deuces]

Well, as they would say in the arts and literary sciences, NR's posts tell us a narrative, in this case of someone who believes the bible to be free of contradictions. Hence anyone who seeks to understand if it does, would do bad to rely on him alone.

Thesnowman's post points out nicely that there is some ambiguity here, and it doesn't really have to go further than that - the obvious conclusion from my point and his point would have to be that it could be a contradiction, but not necessarily so, and it requires more study atleast. From NR we get a fairly bad article telling us there can't be one, and suddenly we most likely strawman out of the original question. Your point is a good one imo.