Creation Contradiction Proves Errancy

[JoeMama]

In the animal Creation passages, (Genesis 1:25-26), God already had made the animals, but later (Genesis 2:18-19) he said that making the animals was something he planned to do.

If these are contradictory, does that mean the Bible is not without error?

[SiNcE_1985]

In the animal Creation passages, (Genesis 1:25-26), God already had made the animals, but later (Genesis 2:18-19) he said that making the animals was something he planned to do.

If these are contradictory, does that mean the Bible is not without error?

Where does it say that God planned to make the animals in Gen 2:18-19?

[TRANSPONDER]

In the animal Creation passages, (Genesis 1:25-26), God already had made the animals, but later (Genesis 2:18-19) he said that making the animals was something he planned to do.

If these are contradictory, does that mean the Bible is not without error?

Where does it say that God planned to make the animals in Gen 2:18-19?

it's here: Genesis 2.18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

The plan of gen 1 is that all the creation including the animals were done before man, who was the last creation of all.

In Gen. 2 Man is made first and God makes the animals afterwards to provide company and to give Adam practice in naming things. This is clearly a different version of Creation from Genesis 1. It appears they had both in the Babylon library and so put both in, supposing that, one of them had to be right and we could ignore the other one or (more likely) fiddle the two contradictory stories together and ignore the bits that don't fit, just as they do with the nativities, Resurrections...and Most of the Rest of the Book.

[SiNcE_1985]

it's here: Genesis 2.18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

The plan of gen 1 is that all the creation including the animals were done before man, who was the last creation of all.

In Gen. 2 Man is made first and God makes the animals afterwards to provide company and to give Adam practice in naming things. This is clearly a different version of Creation from Genesis 1. It appears they had both in the Babylon library and so put both in, supposing that, one of them had to be right and we could ignore the other one or (more likely) fiddle the two contradictory stories together and ignore the bits that don't fit, just as they do with the nativities, Resurrections...and Most of the Rest of the Book.

Sry, no dice.

Verse 19 doesn't specifically state that the creation of animals began in that verse.

The verse just simply states what God did, it doesn't say when (as it pertains to the animals).

Now of course, I can understand how it can be interpreted that way..and I would do the same if it weren't for the specific, day-by-day creation account in chapter 1..in addition to verse 19 not being specific on when.

[TRANSPONDER]

it's here: Genesis 2.18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

The plan of gen 1 is that all the creation including the animals were done before man, who was the last creation of all.

In Gen. 2 Man is made first and God makes the animals afterwards to provide company and to give Adam practice in naming things. This is clearly a different version of Creation from Genesis 1. It appears they had both in the Babylon library and so put both in, supposing that, one of them had to be right and we could ignore the other one or (more likely) fiddle the two contradictory stories together and ignore the bits that don't fit, just as they do with the nativities, Resurrections...and Most of the Rest of the Book.

Sry, no dice.

Verse 19 doesn't specifically state that the creation of animals began in that verse.

The verse just simply states what God did, it doesn't say when (as it pertains to the animals).

Now of course, I can understand how it can be interpreted that way..and I would do the same if it weren't for the specific, day-by-day creation account in chapter 1..in addition to verse 19 not being specific on when.

Yes, of course it can be excused in that way, even though it reads like Man was made first and animals as an afterthought when, read with Gen 1, the animals were actually made first knowing that Man would want a companion. But that can't work and God would have known that woman was to be the intended companion ,not the animals, so the supposed reason for them has to be wrong.

Your explanation for that if you please.

[Difflugia]

Verse 19 doesn't specifically state that the creation of animals began in that verse.

According to Hebrew grammar rules, it does. The use of the "vav consecutive imperfect" or wayyiqtol verb form sets up a narrative sequence. Verses 4-5 are an introduction to the sequence. Each wayyiqtol verb after that designates the next event in a sequential narrative. This is why many Bible stories include so many statements that begin with "and." Such a narrative sequence begins with verse 6 and continues on through the end of chapter 2.

From Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar:



Sry.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Often what looks like they are seqintial or at least around the same tome may be dismissed as not necessarily in order. It makes no sense, but one can't disprove it - unless one is a grammar expert.
For example 'pro' in describing the census of Quirinus , makes no sense as why say a census was held before a later governor (about 10 governors later) rather than 'who was governor at the time. *which is reasonably what it does)

But it Was used to try r to wangle the census into before 1 A BC. So it was quite handy to find a Greek expert who explained how grammatically 'pro' ' made no sense referring to some later event (as well as no sense rationally) and meant 'When Qurinus was governor'. That, along with blocking the Missing governorship of the last years BC and that deflates the 2nd census apologertic.

[Difflugia]

Often what looks like they are seqintial or at least around the same tome may be dismissed as not necessarily in order. It makes no sense, but one can't disprove it - unless one is a grammar expert.

This one specifically is insidious because English lacks such a narrative tense, while both Hebrew and Greek have forms of it. It's one of those cases where an English translation necessarily conveys less information than is present in the original language. One could sort of remedy that in Hebrew by translating all of those vav prefixes as "then" instead of "and," but that wouldn't make it any more readable and most translation decisions aren't meant to ensure that apologists can't intentionally misunderstand the text.

I thought we had discussed this already in another thread, but when I searched for it, it turned out it was this thread! I guess apologists are nothing if not persistent.

[SiNcE_1985]

Verse 19 doesn't specifically state that the creation of animals began in that verse.

According to Hebrew grammar rules, it does. The use of the "vav consecutive imperfect" or wayyiqtol verb form sets up a narrative sequence. Verses 4-5 are an introduction to the sequence. Each wayyiqtol verb after that designates the next event in a sequential narrative. This is why many Bible stories include so many statements that begin with "and." Such a narrative sequence begins with verse 6 and continues on through the end of chapter 2.

From Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar:



Sry.

Um, not so fast.

This is an excellent article pertaining to this subject...

https://creationbc.org/index.php/pluper ... 9-problem/

Excerpt..

"(b) Aalders notes the importance of context in making a decision as to what sort of past tense to use for the Hebrew verb in Genesis 2:19. “As far as the creation of the animal world is concerned, the whole question of when this took place depends on how 2:19 is translated. It is possible to translate it either as ‘when the LORD God had formed’ or as ‘then the LORD God formed.’ The Hebrew permits either translation. How it must be translated in this specific instance depends entirely on the context.”

So from what I gather, it can go either way, depending on the context.

Well, the context is that Gen 1 gives the full day-by-day breakdown of the six day creation event...and it doesn't get any more chronological than that.

That said, unless I am to entertain the notion that the author literally, naively, and downright FOOLISHLY contradicted himself in just two chapters (back to back)..I find it difficult to believe.

Which is why I am sticking by my original statement and assessment.

[SiNcE_1985]

Yes, of course it can be excused in that way, even though it reads like Man was made first and animals as an afterthought when, read with Gen 1, the animals were actually made first knowing that Man would want a companion. But that can't work and God would have known that woman was to be the intended companion ,not the animals, so the supposed reason for them has to be wrong.

Your explanation for that if you please.

Um, no where in the text does it say, hint, or imply that man wanted a companion.

Where did you pull that one from?

Such a baseless assertion unravels whatever point it was you were trying to make.

[Yozavan]

Yes, of course it can be excused in that way, even though it reads like Man was made first and animals as an afterthought when, read with Gen 1, the animals were actually made first knowing that Man would want a companion. But that can't work and God would have known that woman was to be the intended companion ,not the animals, so the supposed reason for them has to be wrong.

Your explanation for that if you please.

Um, no where in the text does it say, hint, or imply that man wanted a companion.

Where did you pull that one from?

Such a baseless assertion unravels whatever point it was you were trying to make.

God's declaration, " its not good for man to be alone ...", implies a yearning of Adam, that God wanted to remedy. Such an assertion is not baseless.