Bible Error: Creation Contradiction

by JosephAlward 22 Replies latest watchtower bible

JosephAlward

Pom's reply is nonresponsive; he doesn't mention anywhere "plant" or "plants." His fixation on water is perplexing, and his argument is not understandable. He should explain how his perception of when and how water was created somehow negates the plain language of Genesis; it CLEARLY states that
"The land produced...plants...[on] the third day... [and] God created man..[on] the sixth day (Gen 1:12-13; 27).
This was the opinion of the author who called the deity "God" thirty-five times in a row, never "LORD God." In contrast, the author who called the deity "LORD God" nine times in a row, beginning suddenly at the beginning of the second story of creation, never calling him "God," believed that
“NO plant of the field had yet sprung up, for..there was no man to work the ground” (Gen 2:5)
The contradiction is clear; if Pom wishes to defeat this argument, he needs to explain CLEARLY why we should ignore the plain a simple meaning of the verses above, AND why he thinks it's just a coincidence that the writer suddenly switches after 35 "Gods" in a row at the beginning of what Pom thinks is a "summary" account of the creation, to nine "LORD Gods" in a row.
Explain how your "water," Pom allows us to ignore the plain reading of the verses, and then please explain why the switch in deity name is just coincidental.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
pomegranate

>>Pom's reply is nonresponsive; he doesn't mention anywhere "plant" or "plants."<<
Why should I mention plants, the passage at hand says there were NO plants when water came to be. That is all these passages are stating. That's my response, so me being "unresponsive" is clearly a misconception on your part. You just don't like a good logical answer to your supposed contradiction.
>>His fixation on water is perplexing, and his argument is not understandable.<<
Surley it is logical. Where did that water come from in the beginning that God was brooding over in Gen 1:2? Show me your explaination. It never says anywhere prior to the first "day" where the water came from. God surely brought water into existence. Then how and when? Or was water always in existence like God? No. The Bible makes clear WHERE WATER CAME FROM AND HOW IT CAME TO BE ON THE EARTH. My question was answered.
Gen 2:6 BUT streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground--
The "fixation" you claim is my explaination to you. This understanding is more than satisfactory for me. If you deny that these passages surely could be stating what I have shown, then say I am not satisfied with the answer because so and so...and make sure your reason is relative to the topic.
>>He should explain how his perception of when and how water was created somehow negates the plain language of Genesis; it CLEARLY states that "The land produced...plants...[on] the third day... [and] God created man..[on] the sixth day (Gen 1:12-13; 27).<<
Yes it does say the above and the above does absolutely NOTHING to further your point.
>>This was the opinion of the author who called the deity "God" thirty-five times in a row, never "LORD God." In contrast, the author who called the deity "LORD God" nine times in a row, beginning suddenly at the beginning of the second story of creation, never calling him "God," believed that<<
You are leaving the initial topic and going on to something else. Have you lost your ammunition? The above does not in any way prove the inaccuracy of my understanding that Genesis 2:4b and forward, detail some of what happened in the first chapter.
The above only shows that a change in the writers PERSON PERSPECTIVE may be indicated. It does not prove anything you are supposing in regard to your man was formed first contradiction.
I personally believe what you are revealing to be the writers full intention of showing the first half of the creation account was through one individuals perspective (35 times Elohim) and the second portion of the creation account is through another individuals perspective (9 times YHWH Elohim).
The chronoligical first chapter and some of the second chapter, I believe are through the perspective eyes of "evil", perhaps those bad eyes being Satan's perspective, while Elohim was creating the physical. The rest of the second chapter would be through the perspective eyes of "good", perhaps those good eyes being an angel who remained loyal during the heavenly rebellion.
>>“NO plant of the field had yet sprung up, for..there was no man to work the ground” (Gen 2:5)<<
I asked for you to show me after Gen 2:7 where God brings all other things into existence as YOU are teaching. You did NOT show me anything. You have shown me all the things that were NOT.
Joseph. Think and read:
Gen 2:7
7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
In order for man to be formed from the dust of the ground, THE GROUND HAD TO BE CREATED BEFORE MAN. In order for the dust of the ground to be present to form the man, the water had to have receded for the dust of the ground to be exposed.
>>The contradiction is clear; if Pom wishes to defeat this argument, he needs to explain CLEARLY why we should ignore the plain a simple meaning of the verses above, AND why he thinks it's just a coincidence that the writer suddenly switches after 35 "Gods" in a row at the beginning of what Pom thinks is a "summary" account of the creation, to nine "LORD Gods" in a row.<<
I thought we were talking man created first? One who changes arguments in the middle of a debate stream are the ones who have shown their loses and can no loger support their argument. So they bring in another topic that does NOTHING to support the first contention. Shame on you.
>>Explain how your "water," Pom allows us to ignore the plain reading of the verses, and then please explain why the switch in deity name is just coincidental.<<
My water is in the context of the point you questioned. Your number of times Elohim and YHWH Elohim are in the first two chapters of the Bible have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the CONTEXT of YOUR man formed first contradiction. NOTHING NOTHING.
Stick to the topic at hand. If you have no more defense, say so. Don't go onto to another topic entirley and say this also supports man being formed first BECAUSE IT DOES NOT. Otherwise, you have lost the debate.
Or perhaps you can explain to all reading this the relation to your "man formed first contradiction", and the number of times God and LORD God are mentioned in different passages of these first two chapters.
You are being illogical if you think it does.
JosephAlward

Pom writes:
"I personally believe what you are revealing to be the writers full intention of showing the first half of the creation account was through one individuals perspective (35 times Elohim) and the second portion of the creation account is through another individuals perspective (9 times YHWH Elohim).
The chronoligical first chapter and some of the second chapter, I believe are through the perspective eyes of "evil", perhaps those bad eyes being Satan's perspective, while Elohim was creating the physical. The rest of the second chapter would be through the perspective eyes of "good", perhaps those good eyes being an angel who remained loyal during the heavenly rebellion. "
Alward responds:
That's patently preposterous.
I'm sorry, Pom, but I let go for too long what I believe are far too imaginative interpretations from you, interpretations that surely could not be shared by a single other person in the world, let alone in this comparatively small forum. In the words of another poster, "Pom, WHERE in the world do you GET such ideas!?" (This is a rhetorical question; please don't answer it.)
Thus, I declare your interpretation above too far-fetched to warrant serious comment. I will not bother to contest what you've said, beyond the few words at the top of my response.
Pom also wrote:
Or perhaps you can explain to all reading this the relation to your "man formed first contradiction", and the number of times God and LORD God are mentioned in different passages of these first two chapters.
Alward responds:
If anyone else on this forum besides Pom doesn't understand clearly my argument regarding the order of creation of plants versus man, and why there are two different accounts matching up with the two different authors, let them explain what it is I haven't made clear and I'll will be happy to respond. Otherwise, I will consider this argument at an end.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
pomegranate

>>Alward responds:
That's patently preposterous.<<
I feel exactly the same regarding your position!
>>I'm sorry, Pom, but I let go for too long what I believe are far too imaginative interpretations from you, interpretations that surely could not be shared by a single other person in the world, let alone in this comparatively small forum. In the words of another poster, "Pom, WHERE in the world do you GET such ideas!?" (This is a rhetorical question; please don't answer it.)<<
Oh yeah. Look who's talking here. Mr. Liberal I Know All About Bible Contradictions Don't Tell Me. Your's is as far out there as they come. This is what happens when someone can't argue their point.
>>Thus, I declare your interpretation above too far-fetched to warrant serious comment. I will not bother to contest what you've said, beyond the few words at the top of my response.<<
I'll respond to you when I see fit regarding YOUR imaginitive and ridiculous contradictions.
>>Pom also wrote:
Or perhaps you can explain to all reading this the relation to your "man formed first contradiction", and the number of times God and LORD God are mentioned in different passages of these first two chapters.
Alward responds:
If anyone else on this forum besides Pom doesn't understand clearly my argument regarding the order of creation of plants versus man, and why there are two different accounts matching up with the two different authors, let them explain what it is I haven't made clear and I'll will be happy to respond. Otherwise, I will consider this argument at an end.<<
That WAS NOT the point sham man. YOUR contradiction was man created first with a proof being the number of times God and the LORD God is said in certain areas of the creative account. You're using the wrong evidence as proof to support man created first, and that's logical to you? Go for it Mr. Contradiction. You are your own philosophy in living form.
Here is YOUR logic train:
Joseph says, "Man was created well before everything else according to this part of the Bible's creative account."
He blabbers on ridiculously, "One way I know this to be a fact is because the first portion of the creative account uses only God, while the second portion of the creative account uses LORD God. That's how I know man was created before all other things. Cool huh?"
Did you lose all your High School debate sessions?
PS
Gen 2:7
7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
In order for man to be formed from the dust of the ground, THE GROUND HAD TO BE CREATED BEFORE MAN. In order for the dust of the ground to be present to form the man, the water had to have receded for the dust of the ground to be exposed.
Sounds exactly like IN THE BEGINNING eh Joey?
JosephAlward

This post is in response to an argument put forth by Larsguy last week.
I earlier indicated that Genesis contradicts itself in its description of the order of creation and man and plants, and pointed out that the author who called the deity God said “The land produced...plants...[on] the third day... [and] God created man..[on] the sixth day (Gen 1:12-13; 27).
However, the author who called the deity LORD God said “NO plant of the field had yet sprung up, for..for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground" (Gen 2:5)
In an attempt to harmonize the passages in Genesis 1 and 2, Larsguy argued last week that the author in Genesis 2 must have meant that "no CULTIVATED plant of the field have yet sprung up...for there was no man to work the ground," but that there were, indeed--according to Larsguy--UN-cultivated plants.
This makes little sense. First, an all-knowing god--if it HAD inspired the writer to use the words in these passages, would have realized how ambiguous his sentence was; he would have known that such sloppiness would lead to interminable arguments about the meaning of Genesis. If this book had been written by God, it obviously would have contained extremely important information, so this god would have wished to communicate this information *perfectly*, and he would have had power to make the writer receive, and transmit, the information *perfectly*. After all, this god is presumably all-powerful, and himself perfect, so he could have written a perfect book of Genesis. Thus, he would have put the word "cultivated" where Larsguy thinks it belongs. The fact that this god didn't do that when he easily could have done so is good evidence that perhaps the writer wasn't inspired by an all-powerful, all-understanding god.
Second, if the Genesis 2 writer wanted us to believe that there WERE plants before man--as Larsbuy believes, then why on earth would the writer tell us that there were no plants yet because God had not yet brought RAIN to the earth? The writer is seemingly telling us that it takes rain to grow plants, and the rains hadn't come yet, so there were no plants--of *any* kind, cultivated, or not cultivated. What possible use could the "God had not sent rain" information be to the readers if the reader was not supposed to reach the obvious conclusion that the reason there were no plants of *any* kind is that there was no water anywhere to promote their growth?
Having just presented what I believe is a reasonable case that there *are* contradictions between the two accounts of creation, let me now explain *why* there are contradictions.
The reason there are contradictions between the Genesis One and Genesis Two accounts is that the Genesis editors chose to publish two different accounts of the creation, accounts that had been part of the tradition of two different cultures for hundreds of years. In one of the cultures, the deity was called "God," while in the other one it was called "LORD God."
The story which came first was told through the eyes of the people who referred to the deity as "God," and this name is used--and only this name--35 times in a row.
The second story begins precisely at the spot where the deity's name suddenly becomes "LORD God"; this is the creation story of the second culture, removed in time and space by hundreds of years and miles. Naturally, the apologists will not accept me word for my claim that there were at two cultures and two contradicting stories, but how will they explain why one author--they believe it was Moses--would suddenly--after using "God" 35 times in a row, and never using "LORD God," switch to a different deity name--"LORD God" at the beginning of the second story?
If the apologists weren't committed to defend the literal truth of the Bible to the death, wouldn't they agree that the more likely explanation for the differences between the two stories is that they *were* different--and contradictory--because they came from two completely different traditions?
Why do the fundamentalists insist that every word in the Bible is "God breathed"? Just because the Bible says so? Because their parents told them so? Or, because they just decided to believe that it was so? Or, did they study every story and word in the Bible and only then conclude that every story made sense and was flawless, and that there were no errors or contradictions?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
pomegranate

>>Why do the fundamentalists insist that every word in the Bible is "God breathed"? Just because the Bible says so? Because their parents told them so? Or, because they just decided to believe that it was so? Or, did they study every story and word in the Bible and only then conclude that every story made sense and was flawless, and that there were no errors or contradictions?<<
I have yet to see you produce any evidence supporting otherwise.
JosephAlward

Well, then let me ask a different question. If Mohammed Al-Akbar told you that his god Allah tore the moon asunder--because it says this happened in the Koran, I expect that you would ask him how he knows that happened; Mohammed is making an extraordinary claim, so you would demand that he provide extraordinary evidence to support his claim. Surely you would say that his "god" could *not* have done such a thing because you believe that there is only one god, and that god is the god of the Bible. Mohammed believes that Allah is the one true god, while you believe that YHWH is the one true god.
So, let's turn this around. How would you respond to the question from Mohammed, "How do you know that Balaam's donkey spoke to him, or that God made the sun stand still for Joshua? Why do you accept this as absolutely and literally true? What extraordinary evidence do you offer in support of your belief?"
If the fundamentalist responds to Mohammed's question by stating that faith or revelation allows him to "know" that Balaam's donkey talked, then his evidence is no stronger than the Moslem's.
Is that it? Is is faith alone that gives you the certainty that the Bible is literally true? If that's the evidence, then the Christian fundamentalist's faith has no stronger foundation than the Moslem's, or, for that matter, the Hindu's, or the Haitian Voodoo worshipers.
How do you know for a certainty that the sun stood still for Joshua and Balaam's donkey spoke to him?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
ianao

Oh brother, I can just imagine the response:
"The bible says it's true, therefore, it's good enough for me."
pomegranate

Did you pass your bowels today Joseph?
There is a God.
JosephAlward

When Pom writes, "There is a God," I think he means,"There is a god, and that god is the one described in the Bible."
I believe there may be a god, but how does Pom know that it's the one described in the Bible, and not the one in the Moslem bible, the Koran, or in the Hindu bible, the Bhagavad Gita?
Furthermore, even if the Christian bible *does* describe some of the attributes and teachings of the true god, how does Pom know that *all* of the descriptions and alleged teachings about God found in his Bible are correct?
Does he believe *all* of the Bible is true just because the Bible says that "all scripture is God-breathed"? If that's true, then would he believe any document on which "truths" are written just because the writer wrote on that same document that he was telling the truth, that everything he wrote was true, and that he was writing under the direction of the one true god? I think not.
How does he know that he can trust every single one of the Bible writers? Does he know the names of the men on the committee in the fourth century AD which decided which writings were to be regarded as canonical? How does he know that those men were infallible in regard to sorting out God's words from those of the false prophets? Pom won't tell us.
I suspect that Pom doesn't have the slightest idea who did the selection of the canonical texts, nor does can he explain how he knows those men were guided by God in their selections. If Pom *does* know, I'm sure there are others on this list who would love to know what Pom thinks he knows.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Bible Error: Creation Contradiction

Share this