Creation: Genesis contradictions? - by Don Batten

[AV1611VET]

So you read the 1775 edition.

If that's the year it came out ... yes.

I prefer to go back and study the original language usually the Hebrew sometimes the Greek.

From what source document?

And for the record, what makes you think you're above the King James translators, who worked under God's supervision?

For instance, would I be correct if I assumed you translate "Easter" in Acts 12 ...

Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

... to "Passover"?

 

[joshua 1 9]

If that's the year it came out ... yes.From what source document?

And for the record, what makes you think you're above the King James translators, who worked under God's supervision?

For instance, would I be correct if I assumed you translate "Easter" in Acts 12 ...

Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

... to "Passover"?

I use Strongs KJV and the Blue Letter Bible. http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs.html https://www.blueletterbible.org/

I am not above the KJV translators I am descended from the Bible editor and Martyr of the Thomas Matthew Bible that the KJV was based on. I am more interested in an expository approach. I mostly just want to know what the words mean. Many of the words in the Hebrew Bible would take a whole book to define and understand. If you look at the first verse of the Bible: "1:1 In the beginning God created * the heaven and the earth." There are actually 7 words in the Hebrew. One word is used twice and they only translated it once. So the translators do not go far enough to translate this passage. What is left out is the connection between God and His Creation, and the connection between Heaven and Earth. If you look at the Hebrew then you understand more then what we read in the English translation. Although perhaps you would consider this to be commentary.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H0853&t=KJV

I do not seek a better understanding. My goal is to have as much of a understanding as the people that God used to give us the Bible. I do not think I can obtain the level of understanding that Moses had. When we get to Heaven we can talk directly to these people and we will understand better then. Even I am sure they will be happy to see us because as we read the Bible we see that they were given words to write that they were told were for our benefit today in our day and age.

 

[AV1611VET]

I mostly just want to know what the words mean.

No, you don't.

If that were so, then ... well ... let me word it as a question.

Are you telling me that "knowing" the word "heaven" in Genesis 1:1 is really "heavens" is good enough to sate your curiosity?

To me, that would just cloud the issue.

If your child came to you and said, "Daddy, what does 'cat' mean?"

And you would answer, "Honey, 'cat' means 'cats.'"

You would expect her to say, "Oh. Now I understand. Thank you."?

 

[joshua 1 9]

For instance, would I be correct if I assumed you translate "Easter" in Acts 12 ...

Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

... to "Passover"?

It sure looks that way to me. All the other verses translate this word as passover. It is interesting that they translate this as a pagan holiday most likely to be consistent with looking at this from Herod's perspective who perhaps celebrated Easter rather then Passover.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Are you telling me that "knowing" the word "heaven" in Genesis 1:1 is really "heavens" is good enough to sate your curiosity?

I just got through saying that you would have to write a whole book to understand the meaning of the word: Heaven. There are lots of words in the Bible that it would take a whole book to understand. As John said: "If they were all written down, I suppose the whole world could not contain the books that would be written." I do not know how many book were in the world at that time, but I am sure there were libraries full of books.

 

[AV1611VET]

It sure looks that way to me.

Acts 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
Acts 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
Acts 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Do you expect me to believe the disciples were there to celebrate the Passover?

If so, I disagree.

They were there to celebrate Easter, not the Passover.

As Paul puts it ...

Galatians 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

They weren't gaining anything by keeping the Law (the Passover).

And Herod made sure Peter would spend this new holy day ... Easter ... in prison.

 

[Hoghead1]

Looking to "pagan" sources, OzSpen, can be extremely helpful. The early fathers, such as Augustine, said there were "treasures" among the pagans and that Christians should not hesitate to use them. As AV1611 well knows, I love to air conduct Wagner, especially his "Ring Cycle." The latter is a huge synthesis of Norse religion, Christianity, Buddhism, and radical politics. The music just blows me away and it deeply inspires me. Frankly, I have gotten more of a connection with a transcendental reality, out of Wagner, than out of listening to church choirs sign boring tunes and hymns off pitch.

 

[Hoghead1]

Many say they are using th 1611KJV, but really are not. Between it and the KJV today, about 10,000 changes were made to make it more reader friendly.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just got through saying that you would have to write a whole book to understand the meaning of the word: Heaven.

Better yet, why not just ask my mentally-challenged nephew about Heaven.

He's better at understanding Heaven than any educated theologian today, IMO.

Matthew 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

 

[AV1611VET]

Frankly, I have gotten more of a connection with a transcendental reality, out of Wagner, than out of listening to church choirs sign boring tunes and hymns off pitch.

Wagner died and went to aitch.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, Abel, most definitely there are serious contradictions in Genesis. I think I already sent you a rundown on this. Just in case I didn't or you just chucked it and didn't read it, here it is again. I encourage you to study it very carefully.

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.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I don't consider gullibility a virtue.

A lot of people would disagree with you. For example people often say, "Children born with Down syndrome are angels." One thing is for sure. God works everything for our advantaged. For the redeemed all things work together for the best. For example Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery, yet his response to them was: "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." We may not consider it good to be sold as a slave. But God is able to "work all things together for the good of those who love him." There is nothing that ever has or ever well happen in our lives that God can not work all things together for our advantage.

"Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you."

 

[Hoghead1]

You have to remember, JOushua19, that the Bible really says very little about heaven or Hell. The popular concepts we have of these re largely the work of later Christian imaginations.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yes, Abel, most definitely there are serious contradictions in Genesis. I think I already sent you a rundown on this. Just in case I didn't or you just chucked it and didn't read it, here it is again. I encourage you to study it very carefully.

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.

There is absolutely no contradictions between science and the Bible. None. In fact Science goes a long way to help us to better understand the Bible. God gives us Science and He gives us the Bible. God does not contradict Himself.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You have to remember, JOushua19, that the Bible really says very little about heaven or Hell. The popular concepts we have of these re largely the work of later Christian imaginations.

Yes there is very little in the Bible about Hell. A lot of what people believe comes from Dante Divine Comedy. There are lots of passages in the Bible which would indicate annihilation for the unbeliever. For example we see that God will "destroy those who destroy the earth." I would like to be a universalist and I think that whosoever is willing to be saved can be saved. Still God gives you and each and every individual the choice if they want to be saved or not. So universalism only applies to who can be saved, not who actually will be saved. Because it is each individuals choice to decide what they want. Annihilation is a choice that people can make. Although I do believe there is a time of "punishment" and no one gets away with anything.

 

[Hoghead1]

The KJV translators, AV1611, never claimed they were inerrant. The tradition was that no translation could ever be considered inerrant, only the originals. Also, they incorporated massive amounts of earlier translations. They were not always accurate. There is no Jehovah in Scripture. YHWH, yes; Jehovah, definitely no. Also the Reid Sea was mistranslated as the Red Sea. Generally, it is assumed that reading the Bible or any text in the original language is superior to reading it in a translation.

 

[stevenfrancis]

Reading the bible is what solidified my atheism into this monster I'm not sure I will ever defeat.

Please don't take this as internet chaff. This is sincere. The statement above is first of all, and most of all, for me, a sadness. A heartbreak. And I don't even know you. I believe it is a side affect of the chestnut from the protestant reformation called "sola scriptura", which created as many bishops as there have been bibles sold. It often results in heresy, reformations, splits, etc., but the inevitable byproduct is something less than God, (gnostiscism, agnosticism, deism), and eventually, distrust, and critical skepticism, and finally atheism. Because to ingest the bible and all it's content apart from the authority which gathered it together in the first place, and to take it completely out of context of liturgy. To have what was always intended as "readings", without a sermon or homily is to be lost to ones own imagination and interpretation without guidance. Of course it would eventually lead to atheism. How could it do any other? If there is no earthly interpretive authority to settle disputes among even believers, what of those who are skeptical and leaning toward disbelieve to begin with. It is the Holy Spirit of God that converts souls. That brings the graces of the Father and the Son to creatures. It is the shepherds. The bishops, patriarchs, and rabbis anointed by the Holy Spirit and given the grace of teaching authority, (magisterium), who bring out the truth of the scriptures, just as the Lord Himself set it up to be. I don't blame you, or feel anything apart from love for you, as we are to love all of our brothers and sisters, and I am inspired to pray for you. If you were also a person of faith, I would ask for your prayers for me as well. We all need each other in this journey, and prayer can join us, and break down many barriers. It is not that I have anything that you don't. I am dust. But our Lord said to love one another. It is the basic buy in for humanity. Sorry. A little long winded. Pithyness is not my strong suit. All I can say is please don't let the written word of God or even the believers of God be a stumbling block or a barrier to a genuine openness to the eternal Word of God, (John 1:1-18), Jesus Christ.

Peace to you,

Steve

 

[AV1611VET]

What gifts has God given to your nephew? Has God given him the gift of teaching? If he is: "mentally-challenged" then it maybe difficult for him to communicate to others what he understands for his own edification. Does he have good social skills?

He's a little hard to understand when he talks, but at least can tell us about Heaven.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no Jehovah in Scripture. YHWH, yes; Jehovah, definitely no.

Psalm 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him.

Your songs must be dooseys.

 

[AV1611VET]

And haitch too, I suppose.

Aitch can be either Heaven or Hell.

They both start with the same letter: aitch.