Bible Contradiction?

[loopholes]

This states that trees were created before man was created.

Genesis 1:11-12
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:26-27
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Here it states man was created before trees were created.

Genesis 2:4-9
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


This seems like an obvious contradiction to me. How could it not be?

 

[pehkay]

It is a contradiction because you view it historically and the Bible tends not to do that

Genesis chapter 2 reveals the way God uses to accomplish His purpose. This is why we have the second record of creation in Genesis 2. Although the record of creation in Genesis 1 reveals God's purpose in creating man, it does not show us the way to fulfill this purpose. Genesis 2 is for that.

 

[ebia]

This seems like an obvious contradiction to me. How could it not be

It's a contradiction if you treat them both (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2) as historically and scientifically precise chronologies. But since neither of them attempt to be that...

They are the story of creation done in different ways for different purposes and in different genres, but genres being more literal than technical.

 

[calluna]

This seems like an obvious contradiction to me.

It does to everyone. It's an sign of allegory or other figurative language, as found in many parts of the Bible. Further signs in these allegories are a talking snake, and sin being due to a fruit.

 

[loopholes]

It is a contradiction because you view it historically and the Bible tends not to do that

I realize the Bible has no historical significance

Genesis chapter 2 reveals the way God uses to accomplish His purpose. This is why we have the second record of creation in Genesis 2. Although the record of creation in Genesis 1 reveals God's purpose in creating man, it does not show us the way to fulfill this purpose. Genesis 2 is for that.

But Genesis 2 states something different than Genesis 1. This is called a contradiction.

So, what is this purpose?

 

[loopholes]

It's a contradiction if you treat them both (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2) as historically and scientifically precise chronologies. But since neither of them attempt to be that...

They are the story of creation done in different ways for different purposes and in different genres, but genres being more literal than technical.

I read one story and then I read the other story. Since they were both in the same book and stated something different, it seemed like a contradiction to me. Shouldn't there only be one way? If not which one should I go by?

I took them literally. I know the bible is not technical.

 

[loopholes]

It does to everyone. It's an sign of allegory or other figurative language, as found in many parts of the Bible. Further signs in these allegories are a talking snake, and sin being due to a fruit.

So do you take the entire bible as allegory? If so, why do you worship something that you admit to be from a fictional book?

 

[calluna]

So do you take the entire bible as allegory?

Are there talking snakes all the way through?

 

[loopholes]

Are there talking snakes all the way through?

No, but there is a talking supernatural being in the sky

The question still stands to be answered. Do you take all of it as allegory?

 

[ebia]

I read one story and then I read the other story. Since they were both in the same book and stated something different, it seemed like a contradiction to me. Shouldn't there only be one way? If not which one should I go by?

They do not state something different, because neither of them is trying to tell you about the chronological order of creation.

I took them literally.

And there's your problem - when 20th century people say they took them literally that means taking them to be factually precise (in a 20th century sense) - which was never their intention. Roughly speaking, one is liturgy and the other is myth, and each is crafted to tell us something of the relationship between God, creation, and us.

 

[loopholes]

They do not state something different,

One of them states that God created plants and then man. The other states that God created man and then plants. How is this not different? Are you reading the same bible as I am?

because neither of them is trying to tell you about the chronological order of creation.

What are they trying to tell us then?

And there's your problem - when 20th century people say they took them literally that means taking them to be factually precise (in a 20th century sense) - which was never their intention. Roughly speaking, one is liturgy and the other is myth, and each is crafted to tell us something of the relationship between God, creation, and us.

What about this relationship? Are you referring to the simple idea that God created man and earth? Why did it have to add all of the extra details?

 

[ebia]

One of them states that God created plants and then man. The other states that God created man and then plants. How is this not different? Are you reading the same bible as I am?

They don't "state" either of those things, because they are not that sort of literature.

What are they trying to tell us then?

What I said before

What about this relationship? Are you referring to the simple idea that God created man and earth? Why did it have to add all of the extra details?

A bit more than that - the 7 day pattern of Genesis 1 is signficant, they tell us about creation as an ongoing project that was "good", "very good" with humanity in it's proper role, and so on. And within that they are written as narrative because that's the best way of explaining, preserving and teaching those kinds of truths.

 

[calluna]

No

Then why would anyone take it all as allegory?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Are there talking snakes all the way through?

Don't forget talking donkeys

Reve 2:14 But I am having against of thee a few, that thou are having there ones-holding the teaching of Balaam, who taught to-the Balak to be casting a snare before the sons of Israel, to be eating idol sacrifices and to prostitute.

[Rotherham] Numbers 22:28 And Yahweh opened the mouth of the ass,--and she said unto Balaam--What have I done to thee, that thou hast smitten me, these three times? 29And Balaam said unto the ass, Surely thou hast been making sport of me,--Would there had been a sword in my hand, for, now, would I have slain thee. 30 Then said the ass unto Balaam--Am not I thine own ass on which thou hast ridden all thy life, until this day? Have I, been wont, to do unto thee, thus? And he said, Nay!

 

[loopholes]

They don't "state" either of those things, because they are not that sort of literature.

What sort of literature is it? Should it be placed in the fiction or non-fiction category?

the 7 day pattern

That is a chronological order. I thought it wasn't a book of that sort. You are contradicting yourself just like the bible my friend.

 

[loopholes]

Then why would anyone take it all as allegory?

You are welcome to answer the question at anytime. Do you always reply to simple questions with another question? All it takes is a simple yes or no, buddy.

 

[ebia]

What sort of literature is it? Should it be placed in the fiction or non-fiction category?

The dichotomy is somewhat of an artificial one. It should be placed in theology, noting that it talks about theology not through abstract propositions but (two different styles) of narrative. One might also appropriately file it under 'myth' (Genesis 2) and liturgy (Genesis 1).

That is a chronological order. I thought it wasn't a book of that sort. You are contradicting yourself just like the bible my friend.

Not as a literal chronology. The 7 day pattern sets the work/rest pattern for us. Man comes at the end not because he is literally the last to be created (though that might be so) but to say that he's the pinacle of the whole thing, who takes it from "good" (all the previous days) to "very good". Genesis 2 has different parts of the truth to tell through it's story.


If you keep trying to file it under "factual" vs "entertainment" (which is the prejudice that goes with fiction vs non-fiction) then you will miss the mark on both counts. It's truth, but truth told through narrative, not facts told as a post-enlightenment historian would report it.

 

[pehkay]

As a record of God's creation, it is too simple. But we know that the Bible is not a record of creation, neither a record of history, nor a record of any stories. The Bible is completely a book of life. The whole Bible is focused on life. If we read the first chapter of Genesis carefully and have light from the Holy Spirit, we can realize that it is absolutely a chapter of life. It was written from the point of view of life.

Each item in creation corresponds to our Christian experiences.

For example:

The plant life on the land was generated. The lowest life, a life without consciousness, came into existence (Gen. 1:11-13; cf. Mark 4:8; Hosea 14:5-7). This is the generating of life and happened on the third day, after the land emerged out of the death water. At that time, there was no growth of life, only the lowest form of life, a life without any consciousness. If we talk to the grass or to the trees, the grass cannot understand and the trees will not react because they have no feeling, no consciousness. They have no emotion, thought, or will because they are lives without any consciousness. This is the lowest life.

When we received Christ into us, Christ appeared out of the death water within us. Christ appeared and now we have life, the generating of life. We are saved and we have life. At the time we were saved, we received life, but the life within us was very low. This is signified in the record of Genesis by the life of the grass, the life of the herbs, and the life of the fruit trees.

Even with the plant life there are three levels: grass, the lowest plant life; the herbs which yield seeds, a higher level; and the fruit trees, an even higher level. If we read Genesis 1:29-30, we will see that God gave the herbs and the fruit trees to man for his food. Then, God gave the grass to the beasts and to the cattle for their food.

When you became a Christian, you received life, but that life in you was very low. Perhaps the life within you is similar to grass: it is life and it grows; yet it is the lowest life. Even when compared with the other plant life, grass is quite low. Although last week you might have been like the grass, today you have grown a little higher and you have become the herb yielding the seed. I hope after two months, you will be a tree bringing forth fruit. How would you liken yourself—to the grass, the herb, or the trees? Suppose the Lord Himself would ask you, "How about you? Are you like the grass or the herb or the tree?" Today you may be an herb, but after a certain period of time perhaps you will be likened to a fruit-bearing tree. But when you become a tree, don't become satisfied. This is not the last verse of chapter 1; it is something which happened on the third day.

On the fourth day, there was no growth of life, but the appearance of the stronger, more solid lights (Gen. 1:14-17). Although light came in on the first day, it was not that solid, not that strong. On the fourth day, not only the lights came, but also the light bearers—the sun, the moon, and the stars. These are lights which are stronger, more solid, and more available. This is the first requirement for the growth of life.

Suppose that you are not only the grass or the herb, but also the tree. By this time you will receive more light. Although you have the light of the first day, you need something to happen on the fourth day. You need to receive some higher lights, some fuller lights, some richer, stronger, and more available lights. First John 1:5-7 tells us that after we are saved we need more light, that we need to walk in the light.

Genesis 1:14-19 does not speak about lights in a loose way, but in a very definite way—the sun, the moon, and the stars. In typology, the sun typifies Christ. Christ is our sun. Malachi 4:2 tells us that Christ is the Sun of Righteousness and that there is healing in His wings. His shining forth is the wings, and with this shining forth there is healing. The second half of this verse tells us that we all will grow up under the shining of Christ. Also, Luke 1:78-79 tells us that Christ is our dayspring, the sunrise in the early morning. Hallelujah! Jesus the Lord is our sun. He is the "great light" which has sprung up over darkness and the shadow of death (Matt. 4:16).

The overcoming saints are also likened by the Lord Jesus to the sun (Matt. 13:43). They are so one with the Lord that one day they will shine as the sun, even as He does.

etc ... till man was created ....

Man as the center was generated, the higher life with the highest consciousness. This is the maturity of life that has the image of God and is able to exercise dominion for God. On this earth, man is the center. Everything in the sky—the sunshine, the rain, and the air—are for the growth of life on earth. Without sunshine, rain, and air there is no possibility to have life on earth. So, the heavens are for this earth, and this earth, with all kinds of life, is for man. We all know that the minerals are for the plants, the plants are for the animals, both the plants and the animals are for man, and man is for God. So man is the center.

The main purpose of God's restoration and further creation was to have man, a corporate man, to express God (Gen. 1:26-27).

(more on this ....)

 

[pehkay]

In Gen 2 God is going to accomplish His purpose by means of His own life.

God had not caused it to rain upon the earth. This signifies that God had not sent down His Spirit to mingle with man who was to be made with the dust of the ground. In Joel 2:23, 28-29 we see that God's Spirit is allegorized as the rain.

Genesis 2:5-6 shows us that God did not cause rain to come on the earth. This signifies that God had not yet sent His heavenly rain, His Spirit, down to earth. When the rain descends to the earth, it soaks into the ground and mingles with it for the purpose of producing life. Now we can see the point: that there was no rain before God created man signifies that the Spirit from heaven had not yet mingled with something of dust to produce life.

- There Was No Man to Till the Ground

"And there was not a man to till the ground." This signifies that there was no man to work with God in coordination by human labor with the divine (cf. 1 Cor. 3:9). While there was no man on the earth to till the ground, God did not send the rain. There was no man to work with God in coordination by human labor with the divine. We must labor in coordination with God's divine labor. Day and night we must pray for our relatives and our friends. We must work on them. Then the rain will come. If we do not cooperate with God by tilling the ground, the rain will never come. God does not waste His rain. When it comes, it comes to produce life.

- No Life Had Grown Out of the Earth

"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew." This signifies that there was not yet any life, for life had not grown out of the earth. Since there was no one to till the ground and no rain had fallen, it was impossible to have life.

- A Mist Went Up from the Earth

"But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground" (v. 6). This signifies that there was only something out of the earth to work on the earth; there was nothing from heaven coming down to cause the earth to grow out life.

These four items compose the background of the creation of man. If we approach these verses in an allegorical way, we will find them worthy to be in the Bible.

should I go on?....

 

[loopholes]

The dichotomy is somewhat of an artificial one. It should be placed in theology, noting that it talks about theology not through abstract propositions but (two different styles) of narrative. One might also appropriately file it under 'myth' (Genesis 2) and liturgy (Genesis 1).

I agree that these chapters are two different styles. In fact, they were written hundreds of years apart. Chapter 1 refers to the 7 headed pantheon sumerian godhead Elohim (7 day creation story). Chapter 2, the god is of the hebrew Jaweh and has a much different attitude.

Not as a literal chronology. The 7 day pattern sets the work/rest pattern for us. Man comes at the end not because he is literally the last to be created (though that might be so) but to say that he's the pinacle of the whole thing, who takes it from "good" (all the previous days) to "very good". Genesis 2 has different parts of the truth to tell through it's story.


If you keep trying to file it under "factual" vs "entertainment" (which is the prejudice that goes with fiction vs non-fiction) then you will miss the mark on both counts. It's truth, but truth told through narrative, not facts told as a post-enlightenment historian would report it.

Would you refer to the bible as being philosophical?