Literalism Begets Scriptural Contradiction: Genesis 1:11, 26 and 2:5-7

[The Lady Kate]

Lol, no, the text does not indicate that - translations that have verse and chapter numbers lend to that misconception. Originally, there weren't any verse/chapter numbers - they were added centuries later to incorporate a reference system into the Scriptures. As a matter of fact, a popular view among scholars today is that what we have as the first 3-4 verses of our chapter 2 really belong at the end of chapter 1. So, in the original text, there is no "chapter 2 starting at the 7th day" because there is no chapter 2, there is no chapter 1, there are no chapters at all.

Well then, the "multiple authors" theory just got a boatload of new support.

Yes, I added that word, but your position requires that concept, regardless of whatever word you prefer to use.

My position is that the writing styles of the two stories are different enough to justify the entirely plausible belief of two separate authors -- and that there are a host of Biblical scholars who feel the same. If all you can do is argue against contradictions, then argue away, but my original point was that to a literalist, contradictions, real or imagined, are the least of their concerns.

Yes, He is portrayed "differently" - that does not mean "contradictory" - one being true doesn't require the other to be false.

Good thing nobody except you has ever insinuated that.

And, as already explained, He is portrayed differently be there are different topics: first is all of creation, second is man's creation.

And that explanation does not explain the different writing styles.

Lol, "I'm" not telling you - the rules of logical debate are. It's really not my fault that you haven't learned how those concepts work.

I do know enough that being condescending and patronizing does not make a logical argument.

If by "different", you mean "more detailed", then yes.

No, I mean "different." Again, if all you're prepared to argue against are "contradictions," perhaps you should debate someone who's actually claiming them.

Um, ok; whatever.

At least we agree on something.

Irrelevent. We're talking about "literalism begts contradiction". If your "different style/different author" argument has nothing to do with contradiction, then stop posting - you're discussing something different.

I'm discussing the larger issue... a related problem caused by literalism that is the cause of apparant "contradictions" which aren't there, and the not only plausible, but widely accepted way to reconcile those issues.

Really, we're on the same side here; we should be agreeing with each other... what are we not?

Irrelevent as per last comment.

Yes, I know... reconciling apparant contradictions is irrelevent unless it's done your way.

 

[gluadys]

As a matter of fact, a popular view among scholars today is that what we have as the first 3-4 verses of our chapter 2 really belong at the end of chapter 1.

Ironic that you should include this as it is a conclusion that depends on the theory of multiple authorship. Specifically, the end of the first story occurs in the middle of verse 4 with the phrase "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth.". The next phrase "In the day that the LORD God created the earth and the heavens...." begins the second story.

Yes, He is portrayed "differently" - that does not mean "contradictory" - one being true doesn't require the other to be false. And, as already explained, He is portrayed differently be there are different topics: first is all of creation, second is man's creation.

Different topics don't require a different portrayal of God. But I agree, different portrayals don't have to be contradictory either. I believe that is also the point Lady Kate is making. However, different portrayals do point to something being different. One possibility that has wide scholarly acceptance is different writers.

If by "different", you mean "more detailed", then yes.

It's a lot more than details. It is a completely different perspective. In the first story God is never named and is portrayed as transcendant, quite outside of creation which he brings into existence by merely speaking.

In the second story God has a name (Yahweh, usually translated as LORD) and is described very anthropomorphically. He does not speak creatures in to being. He forms them from the ground like a potter shaping clay. He makes woman from the rib of man. He appears to need a man to till the ground before he creates plants, not to realize until after the fact that it is not good for man to be alone, and then to experiment in trying to find a suitable companion. In short, the second story shows an entirely different relationship between the Creator and his creation than the first story does. Not necessarily contradictory, but very different indeed.

Irrelevent. We're talking about "literalism begts contradiction". If your "different style/different author" argument has nothing to do with contradiction, then stop posting - you're discussing something different.

Well, the apparent contradictions arise if one assumes a single author writing a single coherent narrative, even if one does assume the second story is a flashback to day six. That assumption is also the source of the discussion on what is meant by "bushes/beasts of the field" earlier in this thread.

However, the thesis of multiple authorship resolves these apparent contradictions. One needs no speculation that what was created in the second account is different from what was created in the first account. Both deal with the same creation from the different perspectives of different authors. In much the same way, when two or more of the gospel writers recount the same event, they often focus on it from a different angle and describe the details differently.

 

[gluadys]

One of the best refutations of higher criticism that I've seen is a book by Josh McDowell -- Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Volume 2.

What gets pretty funny is when researchers apply the exact same methods of textual criticism on articles written in support of the methodology. It demonstrates that the methods are flawed at their heart.

I would go deeper into the scholarship than Josh McDowell if I were you. I wouldn't be at all surprised that his applications of textual criticism bear as much relationship to the real thing as creationist applications of c14 testing have to the real thing.

But probably the biggest problem I have with it is a matter of pride. It puts humans in a position where they are judging Scripture.

First I agree with Lady Kate that it is interpretation, not judgment. In particular it is not negative judgment. Personally, I find that understanding scripture through historico-contextual analysis always leaves me more appreciative of scriptural insights. It opens up new levels of meaning that were hidden before and I find I have a better understanding of how and why they were significant to the first hearers and why they were treasured and preserved.

 

[Assyrian]

They don't contradict, the second is an elaboration. God (Elohim or God Almighty) creates the world and everything in it in six days. Then after discussing the seventh day Moses expands on the events of the sixth. Yes God created the plants on the third day but 'no small plant had sprung up'. Let's do it as an exposition:
When no bush (see'-akh a shoot as if uttered or put forth), that is, generically shrubbery: - bush, plant, shrub.) of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up. (tsaw-makh' A primitive root; to sprout transitively or intransitively, literally or figuratively: - bear, bring forth, cause to, make to bud forth, cause to, make to grow again, up, cause to spring forth, up.)
They were created but they had not started to grow. The language seems to indicate that plants had been created but had not grown because it had not rained. In other words they were germinating but had not gotten enough water to sprout and it had only been a couple of days.
The contradiction is in your head, not in the text.

This is the first time I have ever heard a YEC actually deny God created fully grown plants on day three. Of course it ignores the 'And it was so' and the 'And God saw that it was good', that tell us there were fully grown plants and trees in Gen 1:11 & 12. Verse 12 tells us And the earth brough forth... trees bearing fruit with seed in them. Time did not seem to be an issue there, the trees were bearing fruit.

Another problem is that you propose a completely different reason for not having plants than Gen 2 tells us. Your explanation should read When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for it had only been a couple of day since God created them, give it a chance. Gen 2 gives a completely different reason: no rain and no gardener.

So Genesis 2 ignores the fact that God created plants with no rain and no gardener back in Gen 1, and (if we read this literally) that dry land had only been seperated from the waters three days and would have been still very damp, damp enough for plant to grown in Gen 1, or that it had only been three days which isn't enough time for plants to grow (assuming Mark's take), and comes up with reason that make no sense if we try to reconcile a literal Gen 1 with a literal Gen 2.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Ironic that you should include this as it is a conclusion that depends on the theory of multiple authorship. Specifically, the end of the first story occurs in the middle of verse 4 with the phrase "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth.". The next phrase "In the day that the LORD God created the earth and the heavens...." begins the second story.

Also ironic that the claim of some sort of "editing error" has to be made to preserve the "literal, inerrant" word of God.

And how do we preserve the theory of "The second story is a detailed account of the sixth day of the first story," when most Biblical scholars agree that the second story was written long before the first one?

 

[mark kennedy]

This is the first time I have ever heard a YEC actually deny God created fully grown plants on day three. Of course it ignores the 'And it was so' and the 'And God saw that it was good', that tell us there were fully grown plants and trees in Gen 1:11 & 12. Verse 12 tells us

It does not say fully formed, it says let the earth bring forth. What is more the language uses terms like aw-saw' translated yielding which means to make in the broadest possible sense. There is nothing in this passage that contradicts the narrative of Genesis 2 expect the insistence that it must be meaningless or it's a contradiction.

What is really fascinating about this, not a single attempt at an exposition has been made.


"trees bearing fruit with seed in them Time did not seem to be an issue there, the trees were bearing fruit."

That word 'bearing' is also translated 'yielding'.

Another problem is that you propose a completely different reason for not having plants than Gen 2 tells us. Your explanation should read When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for it had only been a couple of day since God created them, give it a chance Gen 2 gives a completely different reason: no rain and no gardener. So Genesis 2 ignores the fact that God created plants with no rain and no gardener back in Gen 1, and (if we read this literally) that dry land had only been seperated from the waters three days and would have been still very damp, damp enough for plant to grown in Gen 1, or that it had only been three days which isn't enough time for plants to grow (assuming Mark's take), and comes up with reason that make no sense if we try to reconcile a literal Gen 1 with a literal Gen 2.

A plant can grow from a germinated seed, no real difficulty with God putting seeds in the earth. They stay damp but there is not enough water for them to sprout, the expressed reason is that there was no gardener. You keep telling me how it should be written but you don't show any genuine interest in how it is written.

You are also addressing my post in the third person. I'm wondering if I interrupting your little performance for the audiance in the theater of your mind.

 

[Assyrian]

It does not say fully formed, it says let the earth bring forth.

It says let the earth bring forth... and the earth brought forth. It says And it was so. It says And God saw that it was good. Not that it was a good start and that it would look even better when they sprout

What is more the language uses terms like aw-saw' translated yielding which means to make in the broadest possible sense. There is nothing in this passage that contradicts the narrative of Genesis 2 expect the insistence that it must be meaningless or it's a contradiction.

How do tree start making fruit before they have even sprouted? Because the text says the earth brought forth trees and that the trees were bearing fruit.

What is really fascinating about this, not a single attempt at an exposition has been made.

I thought we were discussing the contradictions in a literalist interpretation of the passages?

The meaning in Gen 1 seems quite clear. God commanded the earth to produce vegetation and the earth produced vegetation, grass and herbs and trees, not just the smallest sprouts but whole big trees that produced fruit. I would also say this is not simply 'grasses herbs and trees', but is describing God as the creator of all vegetation, including mosses, ferns, algae, even mushrooms.

I don't think this fits in a 24 hour timeframe as YECs like to claim. Genesis does not say that and it does not say God miraculously created vegetation but that he commanded the earth to make vegetation sprout, and that it was the earth that produced them. This takes times. It even takes time for trees to produce fruit, but that it what the account says.

However long or short you want to make it, if you take Genesis as a literal account of the order of creation, you have grasses and herbs and trees bearing fruit before God creates animals and man.

Genesis 2 tells us there wasn't any plants because man had not been created yet and there was no rain. It is a description of an arid dusty wilderness. In Genesis 2 plants are created after God makes man.

"trees bearing fruit with seed in them Time did not seem to be an issue there, the trees were bearing fruit."

That word 'bearing' is also translated 'yielding'.

The point is they were busy doing it back in Gen 1:12 - And God saw that it was good.

A plant can grow from a germinated seed, no real difficulty with God putting seeds in the earth. They stay damp but there is not enough water for them to sprout, the expressed reason is that there was no gardener. You keep telling me how it should be written but you don't show any genuine interest in how it is written.

Of course it doesn't say God planted seeds either.

The ground was damp enough for plants and trees to grow in Gen 1:11&12. What had happened to them all in Gen 2? Why weren't they still growing and why did they suddenly need a man? In the desert plants burst into bloom after rain, this ground had just received one of the two most thorough soakings the world had ever known, if you read it literally.

Saying there were no plants because here was no rain and there was no man, does not make sense if it is a literal account, nor does the order of creation make sense if the two accounts are literal. But it does make sense as a parable describing man's God appointed role as guardian and overseer over the world, over all the plants and all the animals. It is a perfect compliment to the creation mandate in Gen 1:28 7 29.

You are also addressing my post in the third person. I'm wondering if I interrupting your little performance for the audiance in the theater of your mind.

I did say Another problem is that you propose...

 

[Renton405]

Please observe these two texts from the two accounts of creation (ESV):

Genesis 1:11, 26:

Genesis 2:5-7:




In the first account of creation, God creates the planets, trees, and whatnot before he fashions humanity.

In the second account, the Lord fashions humanity before no bushes or even small plants sprung up.

Here we have apperant contradiction in Scripture. If you do not reinterpret one of them and take both literally, then you cannot maintain an inerrantist position. If one of the accounts is not symbolic or allegorical, then Scripture stands in contradiction to itself.

Can a good six-day YE creationist, whose primary goal is to preserve the unity and truth of Scripture allow such a thing? Six-day YE creationism must be sacrificed in order to maintain the consistency of Scripture.

It is therefore incumbant on inerrantists to read the passage in such a way as to understand that it is not a scientific text, but a theological text, with purely theological themes.

The only other option is to allegorize the second creation account in favor of the first. I sumbit that this would be sheer nonsense, since the second account is clearly more historical in nature, especially when compared to the first.
​

I consider the 7 days, more like 7 "periods".. I think thats what the genesis account writing is trying to convey... since God transends normal time and space he cannot be in human 24- hour day time.. As it says in peter, a thousand years could be a day to God and a day a thousand years..Even saints like Augustine and even the Quran say 7 periods.. there is no way we can condense God into literal human 24-hour time..