Creation: Genesis contradictions? - by Don Batten

[OzSpen]

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

2000 years is different to 200.

Historical, eyewitness evidence is still historical, eyewitness evidence, whether it is 2, 200 or 2,000 years ago.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Goats will separate into herds according to the patterns of their coats.
And the offspring will be of similar patterns. It's possible you've
not herded goats.

It is also possible you do not know what part of the bible I was referencing when I said that. Yes, in the bible, Jacob breeds PATTERNLESS goats in a specific way WITH EACH OTHER to get striped offspring. He does a similar thing with sheep, but they are spotted. If you know anything about genetics like I do, you would know that the striped allele is dominant over the patternless one; it is literally impossible to consistently get striped offspring from nonstriped parents (in the case of goats).

But, if the bible doesn't contradict with reality, you should be able to do exactly as Jacob does, and ensure that you get striped goats every time from nonstriped parents. "But Sarah, my bible doesn't explicitly say the parents didn't have stripes, so via heterozygotes, I should be able to get both from striped parents." Absolutely, but the bible explicitly states that doing the necessary steps got striped offspring every time. Statistically, if both parents are striped heterozygotes, 25% of their offspring will not have stripes. Furthermore, it is also explicitly stated that not doing the steps Jacob did ensured that the offspring DIDN'T have stripes (otherwise, telling the weak and strong ones apart by stripes and spots would not have worked). The only way for that to be the likely result is if the parents didn't have stripes. Now, what do you think the chances are that all the goats in the herd already that were strong were also striped, while all the weak ones were already without stripes? Even if that unlikely scenario was the case, to give the illusion that the resulting offspring fit what Jacob wanted, that would still make the bible wrong, because it gave an incorrect reason for the results.

 

[Armoured]

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?'

Again, not "evidence", opinion.

 

[Armoured]

Historical, eyewitness evidence is still historical, eyewitness evidence, whether it is 2, 200 or 2,000 years ago.

No one disagrees with this. However, the style of the chroniclers must be taken into account, a poetic eyewitness description and a scientific eyewitness description may be unrecognisably different to each other, but refer to the same events.

There's also the small issue of transmission and editing errors, that tend to accumulate the more time passes. It's not just scripture, either. It's a simple fact of historical research. This is why we know more about what happened in the Second World War than in the First, and more about what happened in the First World War than in the Crusades, and more about what happened in the Crusades than in the Trojan War, and so on.

 

[OzSpen]

Again, not "evidence", opinion.

Not true! I provided you with evidence given by Dr Gleason Archer. I provided a link to evidence. What are you complaining about?

 

[Armoured]

Not true! I provided you with evidence given by Dr Gleason Archer. I provided a link to evidence. What are you complaining about?

That it's an interpretive opinion, not "evidence".

 

[AV1611VET]

AD doesn't mean after death. Never did.

That's true.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[PsychoSarah]

lol, I won't bother with all of this but clearly if you ignore context then you have these imaginary contradictions. God's anger lasts forever against his enemies but against his own people, his anger is short. So all of these things are simply based upon contextual fallacies.

You forgot about the lying ones. Furthermore, if context is the issue, then bring the context, don't just claim it.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Okay, thanks, Oz.

I'm not going to spin my wheels here over this matter about four years.

 

[OzSpen]

No one disagrees with this. However, the style of the chroniclers must be taken into account, a poetic eyewitness description and a scientific eyewitness description may be unrecognisably different to each other, but refer to the same events.

There's also the small issue of transmission and editing errors, that tend to accumulate the more time passes. It's not just scripture, either. It's a simple fact of historical research. This is why we know more about what happened in the Second World War than in the First, and more about what happened in the First World War than in the Crusades, and more about what happened in the Crusades than in the Trojan War, and so on.

That is not the issue we are discussing. You are adding new factors about variants in transmission.

You seem to have forgotten a key factor - the God factor - that all Scripture is theopneustos (breathed out by God) - 2 Tim 3:16-17 - and that the writers of Scripture involved men who 'spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit' (2 Peter 1:21 ESV).

Dr Bruce M Metzger, a specialist in NT manuscripts, wrote:

"In evaluating the significance of these statistics...one should consider, by way of contrast, the number of manuscripts which preserve the text of the ancient classics. Homer's Iliad ... is preserved by 457 papyri, 2 uncial manuscripts, and 188 minuscule manuscripts. Among the tragedians the witnesses to Euripides are the most abundant; his extant works are preserved in 54 papyri and 276 parchment manuscripts, almost all of the later dating from the Byzantine period...the time between the composition of the books of the New Testament and the earliest extant copies is relatively brief. Instead of the lapse of a millennium or more, as is the case of not a few classical authors, several papyrus manuscripts of portions of the New Testament are extant which were copies within a century or so after the composition of the original documents" (The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption & Restoration, 1992, Third Enlarged Edition, Oxford University Press, pp. 33-35

For the NT, we are blessed that we have approx. 5,000 Greek NT or partial NT MSS to compare and some of these go back to the second century.

Oz

 

[PsychoSarah]

Historical, eyewitness evidence is still historical, eyewitness evidence, whether it is 2, 200 or 2,000 years ago.

I know, and still very, very unreliable. Even worse, a lot of it was passed around by word of mouth before being written down, and if you have ever played the telephone game, you know how badly an account can end up being distorted that way.

 

[Queller]

.

No disrespect intended but...asking this question reminds me of a crime scene. Two witnesses see the same crime but one says the man had on a red shirt and the other says he had on a green shirt. Who cares?

I'm sure the defendant and his attorney would care a great deal. Something like that is enough to induce reasonable doubt in a jury.

The important fact was Jesus was born. I don't see that as a contradiction.

Really. You don't see two different claims as to the time of the birth of Jesus as a contradiction?

How do you define contradiction?

 

[Queller]

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

The discussion isn't about Jesus' death, but the year of his birth.

 

[46AND2]

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

Can you give me an example of testimony by an eyewitness given in the Bible?

 

[46AND2]

You wrote in #78:


You missed these factors:

a. There was no reason for other historians to record the resurrection when there are accurate historical records in Scripture.

What does this have to do with the writings of contemporary (those who lived and wrote AT THE TIME of the resurrection) historians?

b. These reliable historical records present eyewitness testimony of witnesses to Jesus' post-resurrection appearances.

What eyewitness testimony? You have testimony from non-eyewitnesses that eyewitnesses existed.

c. There was no need for further verification of eyewitness testimony when there are records throughout the 4 Gospels and the Book of Acts.

I wonder why you keep bringing this up when those books did not exist when the historians of whom I was speaking wrote.

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

How can someone (Tertullian) who lived centuries after an event independently confirm that the event occurred, simply by claiming it so?

 

[Hoghead1]

I went to the trouble, OzSpen, of sending you my case for their being two separate, contradictory accounts in Genesis. Having done so, I am curious to hear your response in light of what I said. In case, you missed what I sent, here it is again.

1. 
   \
   
   
   
   
   As I have said before, and will say again, I do not think Genesis can be taken as literal, scientific, or historical.
   When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
   
   
   
   Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scence, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.
   
   
   
   Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled
   
   “The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from tow different time periods.
   
   
   
   Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.
   
   
   
   There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
   
   
   
   There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.
   
   
   
   There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.
   
   
   
   Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.
   
   
   
   P.S. Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

 

[florida2]

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.

Um...what?

You do realise that AD stands for Anno Domini, Latin for 'the year of our Lord' and that AD 1 was (supposed) to have been the year that Jesus was born.

But the again, why let reality stand in the way of another yawn tactic rant against science?

 

[AV1611VET]

Um...what?

You do realise that AD stands for Anno Domini, Latin for 'the year of our Lord' and that AD 1 was (supposed) to have been the year that Jesus was born.

But the again, why let reality stand in the way of another yawn tactic rant against science?

Catch up, chief.

Why do you think we have a generation of Thalidomites?

Because scientists [allegedly] didn't go far enough.

I've already been corrected on that, and have responded to the correction.

 

[ewq1938]

You forgot about the lying ones. Furthermore, if context is the issue, then bring the context, don't just claim it.

I didn't forget, I said I didn't want to bother with the other supposed contradictions because all were false.

Using a lying spirit to deceive his enemies does not make God a liar by proxy. I brought up previous context, not just claimed it. Your list of contradictions are not contradictions.

 

[florida2]

Catch up, chief.

Why do you think we have a generation of Thalidomites?

Because scientists [allegedly] didn't go far enough.

I've already been corrected on that, and have responded to the correction.

Um... What the heck has that got to do with the fact I pointed out you were using AD incorrectly?