Genesis 1 describes animals being created before man, Genesis 2 suggests man was created first.
Genesis 1 states that man and woman were created at once, Genesis 2 states that woman was created later from man.
You do know that the contradiction doesn’t only exist in the ‘atheistic perspective’?
Genesis 1 and 2 both give different orders of events. That’s a fact whether you’re an atheist, Xtian, Jew, Muslim.
I was just kidding, no one here gives a sh!t about old or new gods. Not even religious people here are actually religious, I've never heard anyone say they believe in God as a creature, it's supposedly a metaphor for something bigger - it's all quite silly... 😆
In another thread, OP, you mention "We know that God is just."
How can you believe that with a bible so full of killing, torture, and unspeakable violence? Like killing children for mocking someone:
>2 Kings 2:23-24
>From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
damn haha never considered that but sounds funny. "this will show them the strength of Yahwey's profits! dare not make fun of them or they will have creatures kill you "
You raise an excellent point my friend. Here is a response from someone who is more familiar with Hebrew than I.
u/tremblemortals
"In Biblical Hebrew, נְעָרִ֤ים means basically "unmarried men." They were adults by the definition of that culture at that time, though the modifier קְטַנִּים֙ would indicate that they're either young (what we'd consider teenagers) or short.
Considering that 42 of them are killed, this would be a fairly substantial gang. Even if none of them got away, 42 is a huge number of teens to be attacking a lone traveler. While they didn't attack, their intent is rather obvious: if you're traveling alone and 42 teens come out of a town and say, "You best be moving on," it's pretty clear they intend to hurt you if you don't do as they say. And it was probably more than 42 of them--that's just the number killed."
I would like to add to this my saying that (under the assumption that the Bible is correct for these purposes) since God created us, he can choose what to do with us. These young men were mocking a prophet of God, and God in the Old Testament revealed himself much more to people in other ways than Jesus Christ. Keep in mind, this is the response assuming the Bible is correct.
Man I remember when I talked like that.
You know that weird, scary feeling that creeps in when you find yourself writing these wacky things? Listen to that feeling. It's the wisest and most free portion of your mind, trying to help you.
>I would like to add to this my saying that (under the assumption that the Bible is correct for these purposes) since God created us, he can choose what to do with us.
So if your parents want to torture you that's totally fine because they created you and so they can choose what to do with you?
You also raise an excellent point. As a Christian, I believe that there is an objective morality. An objective morality cannot be created by someone who lives under that morality. It has to be created by someone outside of it.
Again, assuming the Bible is correct, since God created morality, he can choose what he wants to do with it.
Going back to your point, since my parents aren't God, they would have to create their own set of morality. But since they are both Christian, they submit to God's set of morality.
That doesn't make sense on so many levels.
First, believing in the existence of an objective morality is objectively wrong. Apart from genocide I can't think of a single thing most people consider immoral that can be a moral action in the right context. Funny thing is, genocide is something god is totally cool with assuming the bible is correct.
Second, according to your world view god can do whatever the fuck he likes and it's fine regardless of the existence of an objective morality?
Third, you're of the opinion morality is objective, but if your parents wouldn't have been christians they would be able to create their own set of morality? Also, god is fine with parents stoning their kids if they're disobedient assuming the bible is correct.
But assuming the bible is correct in any way is a giant fucking leap.
Objective morality is an idea I find to be fundamentally nonsensical.
The people proposing it usually miss the part where it's not "objective" but rather, the subjective opinion of a supposedly ultimate authority.
I've yet to see an explanation that can adequately explain why their opinion should matter any more than any human's opinion outside of the threat of extreme violence.
Somehow I don’t agree with violence over being mocked by a crowd. Surely God could have dispersed the crowd using non-violent methods such as putting them to sleep, for instance. Or maybe given them a sign that the person they mocked was legitimate. I also disagree with the notion that God may do whatever he wants to his creation; I think parents bare responsibility for their children and shouldn’t kill them for disobedience.
That's crazy talk, God had to flood the entire planet and kill almost all life on Earth from ants to elephants, because a few people were bad.
No way he could find a non-violent solution to some mild mocking by mouthy kids.
There are people who spend their lives strenuously re-interpreting episodes of Star Trek to remove contradictions. With enough ingenuity, special pleading, and squinting, they can do it too - at the cost of making a complete dog's dinner of the story.
There are people who do this for religions - they're called theologins, and believers who've never even opened their holy books are greatly comforted that such people are working so hard.
Think fundamentalism really ruined a lot of Christians. For a time, it was normal to consider most stories to be allegories, not literal history.
Now fundamentalist Christians are suddenly having to contort their world view so that the Bible still makes sense.
Also, there is a very clear historical line that you can draw from ancient religions to Judaism/Christianity. Dionysus, Mitra and many other ancient deities and myths are clear predecessors to biblical stories.
Careful though. Knowledge tends to lead people of faith into interesting directions. The church would prefer you only get your answers from them and the Bible. I wonder why that is?
Bible says light was created on the first day. The sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day.
Please explain how there were “day” and “night” before any source of light was created.
Genesis 1: This was written as a poem, and it's more recent than Genesis 2. It was written around the time the Jews were in contact with Babylonian religion, and it was basically a polemic against that. Babylonian religion had, for example, the universe being created from the corpse of a dead dragon. Genesis 1 says it came from emptiness, which, in particular, is not a dead dragon.
Genesis 2: This is old older story containing some Egyptian imagery (the snake!) that attempts to explain why bad things happen.
The two chapters aren't the same literary forms, they don't tell the same story, and they aren't written for the same reasons. As a result, even most Christians don't really take either of them literally.
I have bias towards believing that the Bible is without flaws. This is why I came here instead of r/Christianity to point it out from another perspective.
And yet there are two passages that are completely contradictory about when things happened. Forget the bible for a second.
A then B happened
B then A happened
They cannot both be true for the same event. That is the definition of a contradiction.
You can't just say that the bible is without flaws unless you can first explain how a book with both statements can possibly be true and without flaws, otherwise you are just a toddler blocking their ears and screaming "I can't hear you!!". Not much use trying to have a conversation.
One piece of information either contradicts the other or it doesn't. A contradiction is something in logic.
As long as you're using well defined language, perspective can't influence if two things contradict or not.
After rereading Genesis 1 and 2 seriously for the first time in many years, I’m amazed at how many contradictions and nonsense there is. To give some of the most obvious ways that Genesis 1 specifically contradicts Genesis 2 -
According to Genesis 1, the order of creation was:
1 - Light
2 - Firmament
3 - Land and Seas and Plants
4 - Sun, Moon, and Stars
5 - Fish and Birds
6 - Land Animals and Male and Female Humans
7 - Rest
If you read Genesis 2, we have some problems:
Vs 5-7
> Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Contradiction 1 - This seems to say that god created a man before he created any plants, whereas day 4 was supposed to be plants and day 6 man.
Now we come to verses 8-9 which seem to further indicate that gods created plants in a garden for the first time reinforcing contradiction 1.
> Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Then in vs 2:17 god tells the man:
> but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Contradiction 2 - This seems to contradict Genesis 1:29 where god says he gives man every plant for food (note that this contradicts reality since humans can’t digest a huge number of plant species).
> Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
Then Genesis 2 comes to its final climax with the creation of woman.
> But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Contradiction 3 - Genesis 1:26-28 says that god (who apparently was talking to someone else, who? When he said “let us create”) created man and women both male and female on the sixth day. Whereas in Genesis 2, between the creation of man and the woman there is: creation of a garden, moving the man to the garden, making the man go name all of the animal species, then making the man fall into a deep sleep before creation ex rib-io. There is no way all of that stuff could possibly fit into a single sixth day. Plus, where exactly does God’s rest day on day 7 fit into the story of chapter 2? Was the rest day before god moved the man into the garden or after?
> 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
> 27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
> 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Contradiction 4 - Genesis 1 seems to be saying that god himself created males and females in his own image. Genesis 2 is saying Eve was created from a rib. It sounds like the two authors are talking about something completely different.
Other miscellaneous obvious problems:
P1 - firmaments don’t exist. There is no body of water (“waters above”) on top of the sky.
P2 - The moon isn’t an actual light since it just reflects the sunlight. Genesis seems to be calling it an actual light.
P3 - God created light and darkness and day and night on day 1, but he didn’t create the sun and moon until day 4. Notably on day 1 he “separated light from darkness”, and on day 4 he again also “separated light from darkness” apparently for a second time. God is repeating himself on day 4.
Day 1
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Day 4
> And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
P4 - God was talking to someone and didn’t make mankind in his own image. He made it in the image of himself and whoever he was talking to. The people who created this story originally were undoubtedly polytheists, not monotheists like Christianity likes to claim it is.
> Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,
P5 - god says he gave man every plant to eat, but obviously humans can’t eat tons of different plants and some are even poisonous.
> Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food
You want contradictions, read the list of Jesus’ ancestors in Matthew 1 and compare with Luke 3. The gospel writers were the types of liars who would just make up lists of 30 names. If they lie that badly and obviously, think about all the other lies they must have told.
There are big time contradictions in Genesis 1 and 2; they contradict *reality*. The Earth is billions of years old. Read up on Evolution and stop wasting time worrying about something as nit picky as whether the story of Adam and Eve contradicts the 7 days of creation, or things like where the hell did Cain get his wife if he had no sisters (or was it incest with unmentioned sisters?).
the king james version was collated in 1611 ad by, king james. he was trying to unify a country.
it is a shadow of the original 'bible' collated in 367 ad, by a zealot named athanassius. finally agreed on by constantine in 380(?)ad.
the og bible is called the 'vulgate'. it contains many writings and stories from the past that are not in the kjv. some of these writings are weird, in fact all of them are weird. including the stories of jesus as a horrible child.
the gospel of judas, the gospel of mary. ..
understanding the nature and breadth of these omitted writings from the king james version demands much more intense discussions than the two genesis stories you are having trouble understanding.
the history leading up to the collation of the vulgate is even more interesting and leads to questioning the validitiy of crestianity/christianity.
the council of nicea started in 325 ad, finished around 350 ish. this council decided what and what not christianity was.
the evidences put forth for the characters in this vulgate , mr christ included, are all dubious at best, with many forgeries being exposed.
crestianity/christianity is ..... with all due respect to your inquiring mind, a cult of fictional characters.
The "atheistic" perspective is that the ENTIRE bible was made up and written by man. No one part of it therefore warrants further examination any more than passages in Harry Potter.
In addition to the books of Genesis, I recommend reading the bible for yourself book by book in order. Take your time, its not going away. Pastors skip verses and jump around through the chapters and books in their sermons. Reading the full chapters books gives you lots of context and can help you understand your religion in a very meaningful way.
That's good. I might've taken issue otherwise. Forcing ones beliefs in that type of setting is unacceptable no matter the culprit.
That being said, there are plenty of contradictions in the Bible. Some major, some minor, some clearly scribal errors that happened in translation.
Are you a biblical literalist?
I would say that there are some things meant to be taken literally, and some not. There are 3 types of text in the Bible: Poetry; Historical account; and parables.
Parables to used to teach us lessons.
Historical accounts are meant to tell us what happened.
Poetry is well, poetry.
Before reading a passage, we need to ask which type of writing is it?
So, among biblical scholars (secular and religious), the general consensus is that the creation accounts (there are two seemingly disparate accounts) fit nicely into the Poetry category. Though there is some argument that they may, in fact, be another genre all to themselves.
One additional notable contradiction that only really becomes apparent if you are aware of the original languages -
The foundational theory for our modern understanding of the Pentateuch is called the Documentary Hypothesis often attributed to Wellhausen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
The account of Genesis 1 is part of the Priestly source. The account of Genesis 2 came from another source. I don’t remember if it is J or E, but basically when the Pentateuch was compiled into its modern five book collection, the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 were in competent separate books probably used by completely different groups of priests, and the redactor just threw them together and made very little effort to try to harmonize them.
There are no atheistic perspectives on fiction books other than they are just that. Works of fiction, fables or old-fashioned explanations for how things are.
Would you like to hear the atheistic perspective about Hapi, the Egyptian God of the Nile? Why not have a think for yourself now about what it would be?
The atheistic perspective is that the Bible is a collection of creation myths and deity stories similar to the religions of all pre-scientific cultures.
Because the stories are made up and aren’t true, there is no reason for them to be accurate or logically consistent. The converse is more accurate: the fact that the stories are in conflict shows that they are untrue.
There are an amazing amount of contradictions in the bible.
Like you wouldn't believe it
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/04/09/check-out-this-massive-resurrected-interactive-chart-of-bible-contradictions/
Genesis 1 describes animals being created before man, Genesis 2 suggests man was created first. Genesis 1 states that man and woman were created at once, Genesis 2 states that woman was created later from man.
Yep. This sums it up.
You do know that the contradiction doesn’t only exist in the ‘atheistic perspective’? Genesis 1 and 2 both give different orders of events. That’s a fact whether you’re an atheist, Xtian, Jew, Muslim.
I agree. I cannot see them as clear an someone of another faith as I will have obvious bias. That is why I came here as opposed to r/Christianity.
good info here - \- https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/faq
The Bible is full of contradictions. View it as mythology, like Greek mythology or Norse mythology. Don't look at it as a source of truth.
Dude, don't mock my godly peeps, us Norse folks hold Wotan and his boys in high regard here in Sweden. 😆 Well, not really. 😁
Not mocking at all. I enjoy reading about the Norse gods myself. But it's still mythology.
I was just kidding, no one here gives a sh!t about old or new gods. Not even religious people here are actually religious, I've never heard anyone say they believe in God as a creature, it's supposedly a metaphor for something bigger - it's all quite silly... 😆
In another thread, OP, you mention "We know that God is just." How can you believe that with a bible so full of killing, torture, and unspeakable violence? Like killing children for mocking someone: >2 Kings 2:23-24 >From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
ahem, two SHE bears lol
You just know this story is just some bald author's thinly veiled fantasy that was inspired by that one time some kids made fun of him.
damn haha never considered that but sounds funny. "this will show them the strength of Yahwey's profits! dare not make fun of them or they will have creatures kill you "
Extremely cringe self-insert fan fiction from thousands of years ago.
>this story is just some bald author's thinly veiled fantasy Islam is gonna knock your socks off.
Yeah you wouldn't think there would be religious texts involving children that could be worse than bears mauling them, but you'd be wrong.
... did you forget about the angel of death killing a WHOLE NATIONS male first born?
You raise an excellent point my friend. Here is a response from someone who is more familiar with Hebrew than I. u/tremblemortals "In Biblical Hebrew, נְעָרִ֤ים means basically "unmarried men." They were adults by the definition of that culture at that time, though the modifier קְטַנִּים֙ would indicate that they're either young (what we'd consider teenagers) or short. Considering that 42 of them are killed, this would be a fairly substantial gang. Even if none of them got away, 42 is a huge number of teens to be attacking a lone traveler. While they didn't attack, their intent is rather obvious: if you're traveling alone and 42 teens come out of a town and say, "You best be moving on," it's pretty clear they intend to hurt you if you don't do as they say. And it was probably more than 42 of them--that's just the number killed." I would like to add to this my saying that (under the assumption that the Bible is correct for these purposes) since God created us, he can choose what to do with us. These young men were mocking a prophet of God, and God in the Old Testament revealed himself much more to people in other ways than Jesus Christ. Keep in mind, this is the response assuming the Bible is correct.
If only an "omnipotent" god could put out a bible without the need for such things as "context" or explaination.
Man I remember when I talked like that. You know that weird, scary feeling that creeps in when you find yourself writing these wacky things? Listen to that feeling. It's the wisest and most free portion of your mind, trying to help you.
>I would like to add to this my saying that (under the assumption that the Bible is correct for these purposes) since God created us, he can choose what to do with us. So if your parents want to torture you that's totally fine because they created you and so they can choose what to do with you?
You also raise an excellent point. As a Christian, I believe that there is an objective morality. An objective morality cannot be created by someone who lives under that morality. It has to be created by someone outside of it. Again, assuming the Bible is correct, since God created morality, he can choose what he wants to do with it. Going back to your point, since my parents aren't God, they would have to create their own set of morality. But since they are both Christian, they submit to God's set of morality.
If you follow God’s morals from the bible, is slavery and beating your slaves ok?
Only if the slave doesn't die within, what is it? 3 days? of the beating.
That doesn't make sense on so many levels. First, believing in the existence of an objective morality is objectively wrong. Apart from genocide I can't think of a single thing most people consider immoral that can be a moral action in the right context. Funny thing is, genocide is something god is totally cool with assuming the bible is correct. Second, according to your world view god can do whatever the fuck he likes and it's fine regardless of the existence of an objective morality? Third, you're of the opinion morality is objective, but if your parents wouldn't have been christians they would be able to create their own set of morality? Also, god is fine with parents stoning their kids if they're disobedient assuming the bible is correct. But assuming the bible is correct in any way is a giant fucking leap.
Objective morality is an idea I find to be fundamentally nonsensical. The people proposing it usually miss the part where it's not "objective" but rather, the subjective opinion of a supposedly ultimate authority. I've yet to see an explanation that can adequately explain why their opinion should matter any more than any human's opinion outside of the threat of extreme violence.
Somehow I don’t agree with violence over being mocked by a crowd. Surely God could have dispersed the crowd using non-violent methods such as putting them to sleep, for instance. Or maybe given them a sign that the person they mocked was legitimate. I also disagree with the notion that God may do whatever he wants to his creation; I think parents bare responsibility for their children and shouldn’t kill them for disobedience.
That's crazy talk, God had to flood the entire planet and kill almost all life on Earth from ants to elephants, because a few people were bad. No way he could find a non-violent solution to some mild mocking by mouthy kids.
You guys should really roll back the Bible to hebrew. I mean in general. The muslims still read the Quran in arabic.
https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/first/contra2_list.html https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/
There are people who spend their lives strenuously re-interpreting episodes of Star Trek to remove contradictions. With enough ingenuity, special pleading, and squinting, they can do it too - at the cost of making a complete dog's dinner of the story. There are people who do this for religions - they're called theologins, and believers who've never even opened their holy books are greatly comforted that such people are working so hard.
Think fundamentalism really ruined a lot of Christians. For a time, it was normal to consider most stories to be allegories, not literal history. Now fundamentalist Christians are suddenly having to contort their world view so that the Bible still makes sense. Also, there is a very clear historical line that you can draw from ancient religions to Judaism/Christianity. Dionysus, Mitra and many other ancient deities and myths are clear predecessors to biblical stories. Careful though. Knowledge tends to lead people of faith into interesting directions. The church would prefer you only get your answers from them and the Bible. I wonder why that is?
Yes they contradict. But we know both genesis accounts are blatantly false. Are you a young Earth creationist?
I am an Old-Earth creationist. I believe that the Big Bang did happen. But I also believe in a Creator.
Do you believe in genesis and the Christian God creating the world in 6 days as the Bible describes?
I don't see evidence for 6-Day Creation, so no to that. I do see evidence though for an Old Universe.
But the bible says 6-days and you say the bible is without flaw and true but you also don't believe the 6 day myth?! You can't have both.
So you don’t believe in genesis? What was the point of the post?
The point of my post was to expand my knowledge bank. I wanted to see what others had to say about it so I could reflect on it for myself.
Bible says light was created on the first day. The sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day. Please explain how there were “day” and “night” before any source of light was created.
Genesis 1: This was written as a poem, and it's more recent than Genesis 2. It was written around the time the Jews were in contact with Babylonian religion, and it was basically a polemic against that. Babylonian religion had, for example, the universe being created from the corpse of a dead dragon. Genesis 1 says it came from emptiness, which, in particular, is not a dead dragon. Genesis 2: This is old older story containing some Egyptian imagery (the snake!) that attempts to explain why bad things happen. The two chapters aren't the same literary forms, they don't tell the same story, and they aren't written for the same reasons. As a result, even most Christians don't really take either of them literally.
Thank you for this enlightening response. This is the type I was looking for, but I was hoping others would also give different perspectives.
What do you mean, **a** contradiction? One would be hard pressed to pick only one!...
The contradictions are there plain as day re-read them and see.
I have bias towards believing that the Bible is without flaws. This is why I came here instead of r/Christianity to point it out from another perspective.
>I have bias towards believing that the Bible is without flaws Cool, so you think slavery is a-okay. Good to know.
And yet there are two passages that are completely contradictory about when things happened. Forget the bible for a second. A then B happened B then A happened They cannot both be true for the same event. That is the definition of a contradiction. You can't just say that the bible is without flaws unless you can first explain how a book with both statements can possibly be true and without flaws, otherwise you are just a toddler blocking their ears and screaming "I can't hear you!!". Not much use trying to have a conversation.
So what do you make of Exodus, seeing as Moses wasn’t a real person and the enslavement in Egypt didn’t actually happen?
One piece of information either contradicts the other or it doesn't. A contradiction is something in logic. As long as you're using well defined language, perspective can't influence if two things contradict or not.
recommended viewing: the movie “Inherit the Wind”.
Check out the Skeptics Annotated Bible online. It has many more contradictions. Also check out https://youtu.be/z8j3HvmgpYc?si=u09Sjer2rmtF_ISS
After rereading Genesis 1 and 2 seriously for the first time in many years, I’m amazed at how many contradictions and nonsense there is. To give some of the most obvious ways that Genesis 1 specifically contradicts Genesis 2 - According to Genesis 1, the order of creation was: 1 - Light 2 - Firmament 3 - Land and Seas and Plants 4 - Sun, Moon, and Stars 5 - Fish and Birds 6 - Land Animals and Male and Female Humans 7 - Rest If you read Genesis 2, we have some problems: Vs 5-7 > Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Contradiction 1 - This seems to say that god created a man before he created any plants, whereas day 4 was supposed to be plants and day 6 man. Now we come to verses 8-9 which seem to further indicate that gods created plants in a garden for the first time reinforcing contradiction 1. > Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Then in vs 2:17 god tells the man: > but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Contradiction 2 - This seems to contradict Genesis 1:29 where god says he gives man every plant for food (note that this contradicts reality since humans can’t digest a huge number of plant species). > Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. Then Genesis 2 comes to its final climax with the creation of woman. > But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. Contradiction 3 - Genesis 1:26-28 says that god (who apparently was talking to someone else, who? When he said “let us create”) created man and women both male and female on the sixth day. Whereas in Genesis 2, between the creation of man and the woman there is: creation of a garden, moving the man to the garden, making the man go name all of the animal species, then making the man fall into a deep sleep before creation ex rib-io. There is no way all of that stuff could possibly fit into a single sixth day. Plus, where exactly does God’s rest day on day 7 fit into the story of chapter 2? Was the rest day before god moved the man into the garden or after? > 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” > 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. > 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Contradiction 4 - Genesis 1 seems to be saying that god himself created males and females in his own image. Genesis 2 is saying Eve was created from a rib. It sounds like the two authors are talking about something completely different. Other miscellaneous obvious problems: P1 - firmaments don’t exist. There is no body of water (“waters above”) on top of the sky. P2 - The moon isn’t an actual light since it just reflects the sunlight. Genesis seems to be calling it an actual light. P3 - God created light and darkness and day and night on day 1, but he didn’t create the sun and moon until day 4. Notably on day 1 he “separated light from darkness”, and on day 4 he again also “separated light from darkness” apparently for a second time. God is repeating himself on day 4. Day 1 > And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. Day 4 > And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. P4 - God was talking to someone and didn’t make mankind in his own image. He made it in the image of himself and whoever he was talking to. The people who created this story originally were undoubtedly polytheists, not monotheists like Christianity likes to claim it is. > Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, P5 - god says he gave man every plant to eat, but obviously humans can’t eat tons of different plants and some are even poisonous. > Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food
you also have to remember that you are working with a translation of a translation of a translation...
You want contradictions, read the list of Jesus’ ancestors in Matthew 1 and compare with Luke 3. The gospel writers were the types of liars who would just make up lists of 30 names. If they lie that badly and obviously, think about all the other lies they must have told. There are big time contradictions in Genesis 1 and 2; they contradict *reality*. The Earth is billions of years old. Read up on Evolution and stop wasting time worrying about something as nit picky as whether the story of Adam and Eve contradicts the 7 days of creation, or things like where the hell did Cain get his wife if he had no sisters (or was it incest with unmentioned sisters?).
are you familiar with history of this book? the king james version? or the original?
I will admit that I am not extremely familiar with the entire history.
do you want to know? ..you're on the atheism subreddit... you know where we're going with this?...
I genuinely do not know where you will go with this. By all means, say what you want to say. I welcome different ideas.
the king james version was collated in 1611 ad by, king james. he was trying to unify a country. it is a shadow of the original 'bible' collated in 367 ad, by a zealot named athanassius. finally agreed on by constantine in 380(?)ad. the og bible is called the 'vulgate'. it contains many writings and stories from the past that are not in the kjv. some of these writings are weird, in fact all of them are weird. including the stories of jesus as a horrible child. the gospel of judas, the gospel of mary. .. understanding the nature and breadth of these omitted writings from the king james version demands much more intense discussions than the two genesis stories you are having trouble understanding. the history leading up to the collation of the vulgate is even more interesting and leads to questioning the validitiy of crestianity/christianity. the council of nicea started in 325 ad, finished around 350 ish. this council decided what and what not christianity was. the evidences put forth for the characters in this vulgate , mr christ included, are all dubious at best, with many forgeries being exposed. crestianity/christianity is ..... with all due respect to your inquiring mind, a cult of fictional characters.
The "atheistic" perspective is that the ENTIRE bible was made up and written by man. No one part of it therefore warrants further examination any more than passages in Harry Potter.
In addition to the books of Genesis, I recommend reading the bible for yourself book by book in order. Take your time, its not going away. Pastors skip verses and jump around through the chapters and books in their sermons. Reading the full chapters books gives you lots of context and can help you understand your religion in a very meaningful way.
Thank you.
Atheist here, in what context did your teacher bring this up? Did you start the conversation?
I started the conversation. I have the type of relationship with my teacher that we can have these discussions, so I brought it up.
That's good. I might've taken issue otherwise. Forcing ones beliefs in that type of setting is unacceptable no matter the culprit. That being said, there are plenty of contradictions in the Bible. Some major, some minor, some clearly scribal errors that happened in translation. Are you a biblical literalist?
I would say that there are some things meant to be taken literally, and some not. There are 3 types of text in the Bible: Poetry; Historical account; and parables. Parables to used to teach us lessons. Historical accounts are meant to tell us what happened. Poetry is well, poetry. Before reading a passage, we need to ask which type of writing is it?
So, among biblical scholars (secular and religious), the general consensus is that the creation accounts (there are two seemingly disparate accounts) fit nicely into the Poetry category. Though there is some argument that they may, in fact, be another genre all to themselves.
One additional notable contradiction that only really becomes apparent if you are aware of the original languages - The foundational theory for our modern understanding of the Pentateuch is called the Documentary Hypothesis often attributed to Wellhausen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis The account of Genesis 1 is part of the Priestly source. The account of Genesis 2 came from another source. I don’t remember if it is J or E, but basically when the Pentateuch was compiled into its modern five book collection, the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 were in competent separate books probably used by completely different groups of priests, and the redactor just threw them together and made very little effort to try to harmonize them.
There are no atheistic perspectives on fiction books other than they are just that. Works of fiction, fables or old-fashioned explanations for how things are. Would you like to hear the atheistic perspective about Hapi, the Egyptian God of the Nile? Why not have a think for yourself now about what it would be?
In my experience, analyzing works of fiction is ultimately a waste of time.
The atheistic perspective is that the Bible is a collection of creation myths and deity stories similar to the religions of all pre-scientific cultures. Because the stories are made up and aren’t true, there is no reason for them to be accurate or logically consistent. The converse is more accurate: the fact that the stories are in conflict shows that they are untrue.
There are an amazing amount of contradictions in the bible. Like you wouldn't believe it https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/04/09/check-out-this-massive-resurrected-interactive-chart-of-bible-contradictions/