help w/ contradiction

[preacherinblack]

is there a contradiction on the 6th day of creation with Gen. 2:17 ? because it seems the order of creations gets switched? can some one help ASAP I believe in biblical inerrancy and I need help interpreting this passage?

 

[dysert]

There is no contradiction whatsoever. Gen. 2 is simply a detailed account of what happened on the Day Six. Gen. 1 gives an overview of creation, and then the details are presented in Chapter 2. No contradiction.

 

[classicalhero]

In Genesis two we are in the Garden of Eden whereas Chapter one gives the whole story and not just about man's special place.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

[Staff Deletion of Quoted Post]



Moving right along ...

The first account, in Genesis 1, is from God's perspective. The second, in Genesis 2, is man's perspective. No contradiction, different emphasis.

 

[98cwitr]

Also no contradiction if you read Genesis 1 and 2 as separate creation stories. God makes everything and people in Gen 1, makes Adam and Eve in Gen. 2:4+, with Gen 2:4-6 being a quick recap... done.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

[Staff Deletion of Quoted Post]

It is not necessary to accept the narratives in Genesis as literal in intent from God. Instead, we take from them that God is Creator. How God actually did the creating is, of course, addressed by science and we now know evolution paid a prominent role. Literal interpretation requires we accept a contradiction as not being a contradiction, which some of us can do, obviously, but others cannot.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

[Staff Deletion of Quoted Post]

Clearly, the two creation narratives were originally orally transmitted and there came a time when they were reduced to writing. Because the narratives were sacred, those who reduced them to writing were careful to not alter their received oral transmission. But they did conflate them together.

 

[Bluelion]

You forgot to add, " ... in my opinion." It is perfectly sound reasoning for a plethora of biblical scholars down through history. In fact, it is their analysis, not my own. So argue with them. What's notable here is that you do not deny the statement. No, I don't agree with Jefferson's practice, but you probably don't realize why he did it. It was not because he rejected the truth. It was because he felt the Indians would have a difficult time understanding it. He prepared that text for them, not his own use. Anyway, you've shown yourself, and I respect that. Thanks, and God bless.

epic

 

[LilLamb219]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a clean up. Please remember that this is the Baptist forum and those who do not share their beliefs and hold that icon are only allowed fellowship posts and to ask legitimate questions. I have deleted debating posts and the responses.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[standingtall]

Clearly, the two creation narratives were originally orally transmitted and there came a time when they were reduced to writing. Because the narratives were sacred, those who reduced them to writing were careful to not alter their received oral transmission. But they did conflate them together.

Exactly. This fact is often lost on some folks.

 

[Keachian]

Judges 4-5 is a parallel to what I think is going on though kind of in reverse, we have an exalted theological description of the creative works of God followed by a revealed account of God's setting up of the Edenic Temple

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

Clearly, the two creation narratives were originally orally transmitted and there came a time when they were reduced to writing. Because the narratives were sacred, those who reduced them to writing were careful to not alter their received oral transmission. But they did conflate them together.

"Clearly"? How so? Moses was divinely inspired by God to write the account. It was, in effect, "direct dictation" from God. Therefore, the aforementioned reasons for the surface differences of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, as I stated them earlier, are why they appear to be different, but upon closer examination, are not. There was no "conflation." They were two differing viewpoints, God's and man's.

 

[standingtall]

Therefore, the aforementioned reasons for the surface differences of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, as I stated them earlier, are why they appear to be different, but upon closer examination, are not.
<snip>
They were two differing viewpoints, God's and man's.

In one sentence you state they are not different, but in another, you state they are.

Which is it?

 

[Skala]

[Staff Deletion of Quoted Post]

It is not necessary to accept the narratives in Genesis as literal in intent from God. Instead, we take from them that God is Creator. How God actually did the creating is, of course, addressed by science and we now know evolution paid a prominent role. Literal interpretation requires we accept a contradiction as not being a contradiction, which some of us can do, obviously, but others cannot.

We don't "know" anything about evolution, as there is absolutely zero evidence that everything shares a common ancestor, or that one kind of animal can change into another kind of animal.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

In one sentence you state they are not different, but in another, you state they are.

Hmm ...

Thought that was pretty plain English. Please note, my first reference to "differences" was in response to Paul's erroneous comment that the account <-- (take note, that's the key word here)

-- was oral, and represents two differing accounts <--- (see, there's that word again)

-- I stated it is the inspired writing of Moses, and is one account from two differing viewpoints. One account, two viewpoints, same exact detail. Got it?

 

[standingtall]

-- I stated it is the inspired writing of Moses, and is one account from two differing viewpoints. One account, two viewpoints, same exact detail. Got it?

To answer your snarky reply, allow me to post the definition of "differing"

dif·fer (d&#301;f&#8242;&#601;r)intr.v. dif·fered, dif·fer·ing, dif·fers
1. To be dissimilar or unlike in nature, quality, amount, or form: Ambition differs from greed.
2. To be of a different opinion; disagree: The critic differed with the author on several facts.


So, in your own words, there is one account with two differing viewpoints (by definition meaning the two viewpoints disagree with each other), but they have the same exact detail and agree with each other?

I believe the phrase you are looking for is two concurring viewpoints, or maybe two separate, but concurring viewpoints:

con·cur (k&#601;n-kûr&#8242intr.v. con·curred, con·cur·ring, con·curs
1. To be of the same opinion; agree: concurred on the issue of preventing crime.
2. To act together; cooperate.

 

[JuJube]

We don't "know" anything about evolution, as there is absolutely zero evidence that everything shares a common ancestor, or that one kind of animal can change into another kind of animal.

Amen...Genesis 1:20-25 makes it clear that God created animals (it/their) according to it/their kind, making them unique. There are some characteristics that do evolve within a specie, but they did not evolve from each other.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

To answer your snarky reply, allow me to post the definition of "differing"

This contrived provision of definitions has nothing to do with the fact the words were used to describe two separate issues: Account, and viewpoint. Witnesses to the same care accident can have differing viewpoints, but it's only one accident.

God's viewpoint is most assuredly different than man's, though Genesis 1 (God's view) and Genesis 2 (man's view) regard the same event, Creation. You can choose to understand that or not, but continuing to debate the issue is, again, contrivance, primarily designed to create an argument that doesn't exist.

 

[standingtall]

God's viewpoint is most assuredly different than man's, though Genesis 1 (God's view) and Genesis 2 (man's view) regard the same event, Creation.

So you're saying that God's view of Creation and man's view of Creation are "differing", and thus by definition don't agree with each other......got it. Thank you.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

So you're saying that God's view of Creation and man's view of Creation are "differing", and thus by definition don't agree with each other......got it. Thank you.

How disingenuous of you, to put words in my mouth. This is the reason animosity develops on discussion boards, because people can't debate honestly, and argue with default circular reasoning: "I’m correct because I’m smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I’m correct."

Whatever. Have a blessed day.