Posts by JosephAlward

11

Bible Error: Which Came First, Man or Beast?

by JosephAlward in

the first creation story .

in the first part of genesis, the writer tells us that the animals were created before man: .

25 god made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

JosephAlward

I see nothing else in Pom's attempted rebuttals above to warrant comment.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

22

Bible Error: Creation Contradiction

by JosephAlward in

genesis contradicts itself in its description of the order of creation and man and plants.

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..there was no man to work the ground (gen 2:5) .

"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

11

Bible Error: Which Came First, Man or Beast?

by JosephAlward in

the first creation story .

in the first part of genesis, the writer tells us that the animals were created before man: .

25 god made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

JosephAlward

Patio34 writes, "From a cursory reading, after Gen. 2:18 it goes on to describe the creation of Eve; which is related to the statement that Adam was lonely. And that he may have created the animals beforehand, but was just now bringing them to Adam for naming."

Alward responds: Please reread the second to the last paragraph above:

The author uses the word "will," when referring to the helper he would create for the "alone" man. Hopeful literalists believe he was referring to Eve, not the animals; this is wrong, I believe. To clearly see that the helper Lord God "will" create in the future is an animal, and not Eve, one only has to look at the last sentence in the passage above: "But for Adam NO SUITABLE HELPER was found." (Genesis 2:20)

Thus, the first reference to "helper" is made when God refers to what he will create for the existing man; the next use of the word appears not when God refers to Eve, but to the not-suitable animals, "no suitable helper." Thus, this passage clearly shows that the writer is telling us that the animals came after man.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

22

Bible Error: Creation Contradiction

by JosephAlward in

genesis contradicts itself in its description of the order of creation and man and plants.

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..there was no man to work the ground (gen 2:5) .

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

22

Bible Error: Creation Contradiction

by JosephAlward in

genesis contradicts itself in its description of the order of creation and man and plants.

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..there was no man to work the ground (gen 2:5) .

JosephAlward

“The land produced...plants...[on] the third day... [and] God created man..[on] the sixth day (Gen 1:12-13; 27).

“NO plant of the field had yet sprung up, for..there was no man to work the ground” (Gen 2:5)

The posts on this topic have failed to directly address the apparent contradiction in these passages. In the first one, there were plants before man came, but in the second, there were no plants before man.

Inerrantists struggle mightily to hold to the illusion that these passages are literally true, but virtually every single objective university religious scholar knows--and teaches--that there were at least two different authors writing Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, authors from two different parts of Israel, and from times hundreds of years apart, and that there are two different stories of creation which contradict each other. I know that most inerrantists will refuse to read the evidence used by these scholars to support this view, but for those who are willing to be convinced, there are any number of books on this subject.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

11

Bible Error: Which Came First, Man or Beast?

by JosephAlward in

the first creation story .

in the first part of genesis, the writer tells us that the animals were created before man: .

25 god made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

JosephAlward

The First Creation Story

In the first part of Genesis, the writer tells us that the animals were created before man:

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, (Genesis 1:25-26)

Readers will note below that the author of this second story first tells us that God made man, then he tells us that God said it IS (present tense) not good for man to be alone and that he WILL (future tense) make animals for man. It is evident that the Bible writer wants us to know that the reason God is creating the animals is to relieve man's loneliness.

The Second Creation Story

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...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 beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. (Genesis 2:7-18)

How could the writer have made such a mistake? How could he tell us first that the animals were created before man, then later tell us they were created after man? The answer is, there were two different authors telling us two different stories based on two different cultures with different beliefs about God and creation; one group called the deity "God," while the other called him "Lord God." As evidence that there were two different writers at work in Genesis 1 and 2, the reader may note that the first author referred to the deity as "God" thirty-five times in a row from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3, and never referred to him by any other name. Then, suddenly, beginning at Genesis 2:4, where the creation story begins again, the writer starts calling the deity "Lord God," and does so nine times in a row, without ever referring to him by another name. Can anyone believe that it is just a coincidence that at the very point in Genesis where the creation story begins again, the writer begins to refer to the almighty by a different name, and never again in the creation story calls him by the other name?

The conclusion a reasonable person must reach is that two different authors, who each called the deity by a different name, told two different creation stories. The first author thought that "God" created the animals first, then man second, while the second author thought that "Lord God" created man first, and the animals second. They can't each be correct, so there is a contradiction in the Bible.

A Possible Harmonization?

Some apologists for biblical literalism argue that the phrase "HAD formed the beasts" (Genesis 2:19) means that the author is referring to something that HAD been done before man was created. However, one may equally reasonably well believe that after Lord God said he "WILL make" a helper, the narrator, writing from the perspective of one looking back into the past, is telling us what Lord God HAD done next, after he said he "will make" a helper for the alone man. The fact that the author was speaking in his own voice, and not God's voice, lets him use the past tense; when he put God's words in quotes, he would have God speak in the present tense ("It IS not good"), or the future tense ("I WILL make") because God is speaking of something in God's present or near future time.

But, which interpretation is the correct one? The correct one should be determined by context. I believe the evidence shows that the second one is correct. Let me explain why.

The author uses the word "will," when referring to the helper he would create for the "alone" man. Hopeful literalists believe he was referring to Eve, not the animals; this is wrong, I believe. To clearly see that the helper Lord God "will" create in the future is an animal, and not Eve, one only has to look at the last sentence in the passage above: "But for Adam NO SUITABLE HELPER was found." (Genesis 2:20)

Note that "no suitable HELPER was found " among the beasts of the field which were paraded in front of Adam. Clearly, the word "helper" refers back to the "helper" Lord God said he would make in Verse 18. Thus, the helper Lord God said he "will make" (future tense) was not Eve, but in fact was intended to be found among the "beasts of the field" Lord God made for man's inspection. We must conclude, therefore, that the "beasts of the field" were created after man was created, and this is in direct contradiction to Genesis 1.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

18

Return from Babylon: More Bible Errors

by JosephAlward in

during the reign of king nebuchadnezzar (605 - 562 bc) the babylonians conquered syria and palestine: .

"and he carried away all jerusalem:....none remained, save the poorest sort of people of the land ...those carried he into captivity from jerusalem to babylon.

(ezra 2:64, and nehemiah 7:66).

JosephAlward

>>Alward wrote: Thus, it doesn't make any sense at all that an all-knowing god would have inspired Nehemiah to waste two pages of God's Bible telling readers what the incompleted "vote-count" was; it was then, and is now, something of zero value and zero importance.<<

Pom responded:

Sure it would. It showed the concern of the leadership God had appointed over Israel, to keep track of ALL his people during a dangerous time of going from point A to point B.

>>Thus, God must NOT have inspired Nehemiah to do what he did.<<

You arguement has no merit to me. The leadership of Israel would certainly have counted as many times as deemed necessary to satisfy their concern of ALL the company of Israel arriving safely. It is all very simple...and a very trivial matter.
===============
Alward responds:

You're missing the point. Sure, it makes sense to count, and count, and count again, but that's not what we're talking about, and I think you must know that. We're talking about the need for God to have Nehemiah spend two pages of God's Bible to tell two millennia of readers how many from each family had been counted HALF-WAY THROUGH through the census. All that could possibly be of interest to you and me, and all of the readers of the last two thousand years, is what the FINAL totals were. Does anyone care what the partial totals were for the 1990 census? Of course not.

You seem to be suggesting that God had Nehemiah use those pages to show the partial numbers in a demonstration of the desire of God to keep track of his people. If that's what you're saying, then surely you understand that God didn't have to waste two pages to tell us that; he could have merely had Ezra say that "The LORD watched over the returnees, followed their every step."

Thus, it seems clear, I think--to any but the most diehard inerrantist--that Nehemiah thought he WAS reporting the final totals, as did Ezra, but one of them (perhaps both) were wrong.

Pom, I'm willing to drop this subject--since you seem to be tiring of it, provided you don't respond with objections which I will be forced to respond to.

In a recent post you asked me to offer other contradictions. I will be happy to do that, but first I need to know which Bible you consider to be without error. Is it the NIV, KJV, NASB, or what? Once I find out which one it is, I will be better able to give you want you're looking for.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

18

Return from Babylon: More Bible Errors

by JosephAlward in

during the reign of king nebuchadnezzar (605 - 562 bc) the babylonians conquered syria and palestine: .

"and he carried away all jerusalem:....none remained, save the poorest sort of people of the land ...those carried he into captivity from jerusalem to babylon.

(ezra 2:64, and nehemiah 7:66).

JosephAlward

As Pom sees it, the <b>completed</b> census of the return to Jerusalem of the Babylonian captives is reported in Ezra 2:1-70,while Nehemiah reports <b>incomplete</b> figures from Ezra's census in progress.

This doesn't make sense. Why would it matter to God that his Bible readers know what the uncompleted census was?

Consider the 2000 Census. Would it make sense for anyone to record for historical purposes the various county, state, and country figures before the census was over? What historian in his right mind would tell his readers that the census-in-progress, with six months left to count, was 237,456,123 citizens? Who would care? All that matters is how many citizens there REALLY are, not how many had been counted half way through the census, right?

Thus, it doesn't make any sense at all that an all-knowing god would have inspired Nehemiah to waste two pages of God's Bible telling readers what the uncompleted "vote-count" was; it was then, and is now, something of zero value and zero importance.

Thus, God must NOT have inspired Nehemiah to do what he did.

Why are so many of the family figures identical and the wording used to describe these figures almost identical? Is it not reasonable to imagine that what happened is that Nehemiah and Ezra were each reporting the final census figures using flawed copies of a third party's data (or else Nehemiah was using a flawed copy of Ezra's data)?

Finally, I note that Pom didn't respond to my query in an earlier post. If Nehemiah wanted his readers to know that his figures were incomplete, why--if he was guided to write flawlessly by an all-powerful god--didn't he tell the reader this important information?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

18

Return from Babylon: More Bible Errors

by JosephAlward in

during the reign of king nebuchadnezzar (605 - 562 bc) the babylonians conquered syria and palestine: .

"and he carried away all jerusalem:....none remained, save the poorest sort of people of the land ...those carried he into captivity from jerusalem to babylon.

(ezra 2:64, and nehemiah 7:66).

JosephAlward

Pom indicated that (what he believes are) the "two" censuses were taken at different times; one was of the "first" returning group, and the other of the second returning group. If that was the scenario Pom was suggesting (it evidently is not), then--as I argued previously--it would have been highly unlikely to find the same number of people from each family returning in each of two returns.

Pom, please clarify your argument for me. In your post, “Re: Return from Babylon: More Bible Errors Oct 18, 2001 9:26:59 PM,” you indicated that you believed the Ezra referenced one group, while Nehemiah referenced another one:

“NEHEMIAH's referencing the FIRST ones coming: …..EZRA's referencing the LAST ones coming: “

Thus, I was led to believe that you were stating that Nehemiah’s numbers were only for those returning first, while Ezra’s were only for those returning last. If this is not what you mean, please explain completely, and unambiguously, what you believe happened.

Also explain please why Nehemiah--according to you--writes about the numbers in the first wave of returnees, but then concludes his census by giving the TOTAL number after (what you believe is) the “second” wave. Would not a writer inspired by an all-knowing god KNOW that his words would surely lead people reading only Ezra’s book that Ezra wanted the readers to believe that the number he gave--42,360--was the sum of all of the persons in the “first” wave? Why would an all-knowing god let his writer communicate information in such a confusing way? Surely such a god would have known how to guide his writers to communicate far more precisely, isn’t that true?

I’ll wait for clarification from you before I analyze further your attempted harmonization of the two censuses.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

18

Return from Babylon: More Bible Errors

by JosephAlward in

during the reign of king nebuchadnezzar (605 - 562 bc) the babylonians conquered syria and palestine: .

"and he carried away all jerusalem:....none remained, save the poorest sort of people of the land ...those carried he into captivity from jerusalem to babylon.

(ezra 2:64, and nehemiah 7:66).

JosephAlward

Pom states that "It is obvious that these [censuses] were taken at different times."

If the censuses were taken at different times and of different groups of people, one would not expect that the two censuses would show any identical numbers. However, the figures given by Ezra and Nehemiah are IDENTICAL for more than a dozen families. To name a few: Parosh (2172), Shepthatiah (372), Elam (1254), Zaccai (760), Anathoth (128), Azmaveth (42).

The odds that these numbers are the same just by chance are impossibly low. Thus, it is clear that either Ezra was wrong, or Nehemiah was, or both of them were.

Furthermore, if it were true that Ezra and Nehemiah each report on different groups of returnees, then the numbers reported by each, taken together, should equal the grand total of 42,360 (Ezra 2:64); however, readers may verify for themselves that the number of returnees described Ezra is 29,818, while the number in Nehemiah is 31,089, for a total equalling 60,907.

Thus, it cannot be, as Pom claims, that there were two different censuses. Once again, we see that the Bible is in error.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html