Creation: Genesis contradictions? - by Don Batten

[AV1611VET]

Why 1 AD?

Because we don't use the year 0.

And yes, A.D. means after His death, but again, science has this all tied up in a knot, as usual.

 

[46AND2]

Can you tell me what day of the week 10 September 1752 fell on?

Sunday

 

[46AND2]

Because we don't use the year 0.

And yes, A.D. means after His death, but again, science has this all tied up in a knot, as usual.

AD doesn't mean after death. Never did.

AD/BC did not even exist until many centuries later...what makes you think the inventor had Jesus' birth year correct?

 

[OzSpen]

Coincidental? No. They kept good, dated records of their leadership (but that isn't all we have; dated coins and statues are also pretty convenient). It would be coincidental if their records were spotty except where it disagrees with the Bible, but that isn't the case.

As for why they didn't include something as important as the resurrection in their records, well, there are several possibilities:

1. It didn't happen the way the Bible states it did
2. It was intentionally left out of records due to a desire to suppress a religion they didn't believe in
3. It was recorded, and since lost, due to various reasons (anti-Christians destroying evidence, destroyed naturally before proliferation due to fire, etc.)
4. It just wasn't observed by, or informed to the historical writers whose writing has survived

I'm sure people can think of plenty of other explanations. It's one of the reasons for the statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The explanation you miss out is that the Bible records accurate history of the resurrected Jesus who was seen, touched and had conversations with people. The historical records include the eyewitness testimony of those who met with Jesus after his resurrection.

However, regarding the Bible as reliable history would punch holes in your alternate theories.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Jesus was born in the year AD 1.

This 4 BC junk can take a hike.

It's really 2020 -- but of course, scientists had to get their fingers in it and now everything's messed up.

You suggest you do a LOT more research. In case you are too lazy for that, here is some research done for you by the evangelical scholars at bible.org to provide evidence that Jesus was born in 4BC: 'The Birth of Jesus Christ'.

Your scoffing at this research does not help your cause.

 

[46AND2]

The explanation you miss out is that the Bible records accurate history of the resurrected Jesus who was seen, touched and had conversations with people. The historical records include the eyewitness testimony of those who met with Jesus after his resurrection.

However, regarding the Bible as reliable history would punch holes in your alternate theories.

Oz

I don't think you properly read my "alternate theories." Nothing you said is inconsistent with numbers 2-4.

 

[46AND2]

The explanation you miss out is that the Bible records accurate history of the resurrected Jesus who was seen, touched and had conversations with people. The historical records include the eyewitness testimony of those who met with Jesus after his resurrection.

However, regarding the Bible as reliable history would punch holes in your alternate theories.

Oz

Oh, and you don't have any eyewitness testimony. You have second hand claims of eyewitness testimony. We don't hear from any of the witnesses at all.

 

[OzSpen]

I don't think you properly read my "alternate theories." Nothing you said is inconsistent with numbers 2-4.

You wrote in #78:

As for why they didn't include something as important as the resurrection in their records, well, there are several possibilities:

1. It didn't happen the way the Bible states it did
2. It was intentionally left out of records due to a desire to suppress a religion they didn't believe in
3. It was recorded, and since lost, due to various reasons (anti-Christians destroying evidence, destroyed naturally before proliferation due to fire, etc.)
4. It just wasn't observed by, or informed to the historical writers whose writing has survived

You missed these factors:

a. There was no reason for other historians to record the resurrection when there are accurate historical records in Scripture.
b. These reliable historical records present eyewitness testimony of witnesses to Jesus' post-resurrection appearances.
c. There was no need for further verification of eyewitness testimony when there are records throughout the 4 Gospels and the Book of Acts.
d. There were historical writers after the close of the New Testament who affirmed the historicity of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances (which confirm he had risen from the dead). These include:

Tertullian affirmed the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of believers in the future in, 'On the Resurrection of the Flesh'.

Jack Wellman details 'Historical Evidence of Jesus Christ's Resurrection', including the expert evidence of lawyer, Dr Simon Greenleaf.

Oz

 

[SkyWriting]

Oh, and you don't have any eyewitness testimony. You have second hand claims of eyewitness testimony. We don't hear from any of the witnesses at all.

They've died....so....

 

[Armoured]

Start with your favorite, and I'll explain.
Most are easy, some may require me to research them.
Start with your most difficult "contradiction."

Knock yourself out
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Personally I'm interested to see an explanation of the "chariots of iron" bit.

 

[Armoured]

There are not contradictions in Genesis!!

Sure there are. The first chapter directly contradicts the second chapter.

 

[OzSpen]

Oh, and you don't have any eyewitness testimony. You have second hand claims of eyewitness testimony. We don't hear from any of the witnesses at all.

As a parallel: What eyewitness testimony do I, an Aussie, have of the twin towers' disaster on September 11, 2001?

What eyewitness account is available to you and me that Captain James Cook and his crew reached Australia in the Endeavour in 1770?

The Endeavour​

 

[Armoured]

As a parallel: What eyewitness testimony do I, an Aussie, have of the twin towers' disaster on September 11, 2001?

What eyewitness account is available to you and me that Captain James Cook and his crew reached Australia in the Endeavour in 1770?

The Endeavour​

Um, we have eyewitness accounts of both those events. Maybe try a different analogy?

 

[OzSpen]

Sure there are. The first chapter directly contradicts the second chapter.

Your assertion here, without evidence, demonstrates nothing but that this is your personal assertion.

My study of Genesis 1 and 2 over many years does not prove that Gen 1 contradicts Gen 2. Instead, Genesis 2 presents a view of creation that presupposes the completion of God's work of creation that has been outlined in Gen 1.

We see this in Gen 2:1-3 (NIV):

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

In these 3 verses, we have a demonstration of the Gen 1 narrative brought to its logical conclusion. The vocab and the style are similar.

I refer you to Gleason Archer's excellent explanation of this in Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties and his brief article, 'Doesn't Genesis 2 present a different creation order than Genesis 1?' (Regency Reference Library, Zondervan, pp. 68-69).

 

[OzSpen]

Um, we have eyewitness accounts of both those events. Maybe try a different analogy?

Were you in New York City to see the events when they happened. If you weren't, you and I depend on eyewitness accounts in print, video, etc.

And we have eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection appearances. The analogy is perfectly OK.

So are you prepared to accept the eyewitness accounts of the Endeavour ship coming to Australia in 1770 but you are not prepared to accept the eyewitness accounts recorded in the reliable Scriptures?

Oz

 

[Armoured]

Your assertion here, without evidence, demonstrates nothing but that this is your personal assertion.

My study of Genesis 1 and 2 over many years does not prove that Gen 1 contradicts Gen 2. Instead, Genesis 2 presents a view of creation that presupposes the completion of God's work of creation that has been outlined in Gen 1.

We see this in Gen 2:1-3 (NIV):


In these 3 verses, we have a demonstration of the Gen 1 narrative brought to its logical conclusion. The vocab and the style are similar.

I refer you to Gleason Archer's excellent explanation of this in Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties and his brief article, 'Doesn't Genesis 2 present a different creation order than Genesis 1?' (Regency Reference Library, Zondervan, pp. 68-69).

Were humans created before or after the other animals?
After the other animals
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind ... And God said, Let us make man ... So God created man in his own image. Genesis 1:25-27
Before the other animals
And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. Genesis 2:18-19

I didn't realise points obvious from basic reading comprehension needed "evidence", but there you go.

 

[OzSpen]

I didn't realise points obvious from basic reading comprehension needed "evidence", but there you go.

You didn't take notice of the evidence I provided explaining that Genesis 2 presumes the evidence from Gen 1 and that Gen 2 is the logical conclusion of the evidence from Gen 1.

 

[Armoured]

Were you in New York City to see the events when they happened. If you weren't, you and I depend on eyewitness accounts in print, video, etc.

Um, yes? So?

And we have eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection appearances. The analogy is perfectly OK.

Well, if you ignore the 2000 odd years difference between the primary evidence, and the different recording technologies, sure.

So are you prepared to accept the eyewitness accounts of the Endeavour ship coming to Australia in 1770 but you are not prepared to accept the eyewitness accounts recorded in the reliable Scriptures?

Oz

2000 years is different to 200.

 

[Armoured]

You didn't take notice of the evidence I provided explaining that Genesis 2 presumes the evidence from Gen 1 and that Gen 2 is the logical conclusion of the evidence from Gen 1.

That's not "evidence" that's opinion. Post hoc justification, even.

 

[OzSpen]

I didn't realise points obvious from basic reading comprehension needed "evidence", but there you go.

You wouldn't be asking this question if you had absorbed the evidence I provided in this brief article by Dr Gleason Archer, 'Doesn't Genesis 2 present a different creation order than Genesis 1?'