Contradictions in Genesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter preb34
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

preb34

Guest
So, I came across this page today:
thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

And I noticed the following text:
Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.
Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.
Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.
I looked in the book of Genesis myself, and these contradictions seem to be true, which greatly concerns me. Should I be concerned? Does it matter that these are apparent contradictions? Are they really contradictions, or is this a problem with translation? Is there some connection I’m missing? :confused:

Thanks,
preb34
 
There is more than one creation story told in Genesis. When the writings were put together, these stories were not blended, but simply related/recorded, one after the other. So, in reality, Genesis 2 is not telling us anything different from Genesis 1, it’s merely that Genesis 2 is a more compact version of the same creation story–a Reader’s Digest version, if you will. The story says the same things–that God created everything. It’s just in the second story it assumes we know the order and doesn’t repeat it, that’s all.

Really, atheists, bless, 'em, ought to stop cherry picking verses and start studying how the Bible was composed if they want to understand what the Bible is, how the Church understands it, and perhaps, most importantly what the Bible is not and what it was never intended to be–a proof text for either religion or science.
 
There is more than one creation story told in Genesis. When the writings were put together, these stories were not blended, but simply related/recorded, one after the other. So, in reality, Genesis 2 is not telling us anything different from Genesis 1, it’s merely that Genesis 2 is a more compact version of the same creation story–a Reader’s Digest version, if you will. The story says the same things–that God created everything. It’s just in the second story it assumes we know the order and doesn’t repeat it, that’s all.

Really, atheists, bless, 'em, ought to stop cherry picking verses and start studying how the Bible was composed if they want to understand what the Bible is, how the Church understands it, and perhaps, most importantly what the Bible is not and what it was never intended to be–a proof text for either religion or science.
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks!
 
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks!
You’re welcome. :tiphat: Please don’t read that kind of website. As you can see, the people who point out “contradictions” have no biblical training and usually no theological training, either. Why they want to mess around with Scripture when they claim they don’t even believe God exists is unexplanable to me. 🤷 But you need not bother about their flawed ideas/perceptions of biblical/theological matters.
 
So, I came across this page today:
thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

And I noticed the following text:

I looked in the book of Genesis myself, and these contradictions seem to be true, which greatly concerns me. Should I be concerned? Does it matter that these are apparent contradictions? Are they really contradictions, or is this a problem with translation? Is there some connection I’m missing? :confused:

Thanks,
preb34
Chapter 1 is about the entire earth, Chapter 2 is about the garden of Eden specifically
 
Jewish commentaries (Jewish Publication Society, for example) explain how there are these and other places in scripture where there are different accounts, one after the other, or even interwoven. The story of the flood seems to be three different accounts interwoven.

The wrong way to read the Bible is to treat it as a science textbook, which the Catholic Church says, too. We should be looking for religious truth that bears on our salvation.

So much of Bible expertise was developed in those early chapters of Genesis, but all throughout scripture, as well.

The Jewish scholars postulate that, in this case, two main verbal traditions of creation were accepted as valid and incorporated into the text, not wanting to lose anything that they already considered to be inspired.

The Catholic Church (here, ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCJWSCR.HTM) says that the Hebrew Scriptures – what we commonly refer to as The Old Testament – ARE a part of the Bible [the heretic Marcion wanted to throw out the OT]. And, this document also says that the gospels and the new testament don’t even make sense without the Old Testament, up to and including Genesis.

I’ve seen a book or two from JPS discussing these “contradictions,” The Jewish scholars throughout history have taken the position of always trying to harmonize the apparently contradictory verses. I think it’s safe to say that is the Catholic position, as well.

I’ll say what might become obvious from reading a lot of Bible commentaries, no one has found that the New Testament fusses over these issues. For sure, endless discussion has taken place over the four gospels which do not agree in every detail. This problem of contradictions does not “go away” once you get to the New Testament.

And, there’s more. The Hebrew version of the Old Testament that the Jews accept as most authoritative is the Masoretic text, whereas the New Testament clearly is based on a knowledge of the Greek translation of the OT, called the Septuagint (which was also composed by Jews).

THIS IS why the Catholic Church has a “magisterium” established by Christ, to sort out and teach the true gospel message. Jesus said that whoever hears the Church, hears him. Nothing could make the issue clearer that that, but of course Protestants disagree and don’t even believe very strongly in the idea of “church,” anyway.
 
The question should first be asked whether these even ought to be called contradictions to begin with. That the verse recording the creation of Adam precedes the verse recording the creation of animals cannot be taken to mean that the animals were created after Adam. Genesis 2:18 reads,

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

But God would already have known beforehand that for Adam there would not be a suitable helper found among the animals. Therefore, it is impossible that God’s statement be in reference to the animals. Rather, I take this promise to look forward exclusively to Eve’s creation and it seems it is framed as coming after the creation of the animals. The following mention of the creation of the animals in 2:19-20 is only to point out the unique relationship between man and woman which could not have been satisfied by any animal, but it is in reference to an already past event.

As for the time of the creation of man and woman, Genesis 1 says only that they were created on the same day. There is no indication of an exactly simultaneous creation nor that one was created one after the other. If these two chapters are read critically, I don’t think there is anything in them that contradicts a six-day fundamentalist reading.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top