The first contradiction listed in the SAB is "The two contradictory creation stories." No surprise; this is usually the first point any list like this will bring up, because it's the first thing evident in a casual reading. In verse 1:1, God starts creating the world, in verse 2:1, He finishes, and after a breather, He seems to start over again in verse 2:4. What the heck?
First of all, it's quite right to notice this. A person who reads the book of Genesis and fails to notice two separate accounts of creation wasn't reading closely enough. It doesn't take a genius; I think I first noticed this when I was about 9 years old. Even at that age I noticed a lot of the repetitiveness between chapters 1 & 2. Didn't God already do all this?
On the other hand, if you think there's a real problem with this, I don't think you're reading as closely as you could. Yes, there are two stories, but I don't think they contradict, and having two stories serves a very specific purpose for the original writer/editor of the Bible.
The book of Genesis is odd for various reasons, and this particular oddity of the book shows up early: it's not a single story, but a collection of stories put together. Among skeptics of a more scholarly bent, there is a prevailing idea that the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) was not written my Moses as is claimed by Bible believers, but rather "redacted" or edited together from several sources hundreds of years later. I'm not sure what that has to do with the validity of the content (and maybe they don't intend to impugn its validity anyway), but the concept doesn't bother me much, especially in the case of the book of Genesis. I seem to recall as a child (and as I was raised Jewish, it may be a belief among some Jewish sects) being told that the book of Genesis was not so much written by Moses but edited by him and committed to paper from oral history. This makes sense, since Moses wasn't there when all the events took place, nor were any of Moses' contemporaries.
So, the phrase "These are the generations" that appears in 2:4 is a key to the structure of the book as a whole. Every time you see those words, the indication is, "And now, another story." most of the time, these stories overlap time periods they represent:
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth
Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah (cf. Gen 10:1)
Gen 11:10 These are the generations of Shem
Gen 11:27 Now these are the generations of Terah
Gen 25:12 Now these are the generations of Ishmael
Gen 25:19 And these are the generations of Isaac
Gen 36:1 Now these are the generations of Esau (cf. Gen 36:9)
Gen 37:2 These are the generations of Jacob
So, including chapter 1, there are nine main stories. The problem that one encounters with these stories is trying to make sense of them as a sequential whole when that key phrase is telling you, "Now I'm going to go back and tell you this other story." If you doubt that's what it means, sit down and read Genesis 25 and tell me that it makes any sense to read it as a single, continuous story. (V.1, Abraham gets married, has some children. V.5, Abraham gives everything he has to Isaac, a child from a previous marriage. Vv.8-9, Abraham dies, and "his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him". V.12 Abraham sires Ishmael. V.18 Ishmael dies after having many children and grandchildren. V.19 Abraham sires Isaac. And so on... remember as you reconcile all of this that the Bible states plainly that Ishmael is only 13 years older than Isaac.)
If you want a more contemporary example of non-linear storytelling, check out the movie "Pulp Fiction". (Spoilers ahead: for those who haven't seen the movie but intend to, skip this paragraph.) One of the main characters in the movie is Vincent Vega. In the course of the movie, we see these things happen to Vincent, in order: 1) He enters apartment A, and we do not see him leave it. 2) He takes his boss' wife to dinner, same day, after dark. 3) He is shot to death in the early afternoon of day two. 4) He leaves apartment A, and it's still day one somehow. 5) He and his partner go get breakfast, same day, midmorning. Which do we conclude about Director and screenwriter Quentin Tarantino? A) He doesn't understand concepts like the linear flow of time, the order of meals in the day, and the finality of death. OR B) He's decided the story would be told better in three parts, each of which overlaps in time. I vote for B.
The story that we see in vv. 1:1-2:3 is concerned with the physical origins of the world. The following story, vv. 2:4-6:8 (roughly) is concerned with the spiritual origins of mankind. The time scale is different, the stories overlap, and the details are focused on in another manner. I'm going to focus on only the supposed differences in the order of events, and leave problems with the details in themselves for later.
The easiest one to refute is the assertion that Genesis 1:27 says both sexes of human being were created simultaneously. It doesn't. It says God created humans male and female, but the word "simultaneously" doesn't appear, nor am I aware of anything in the Hebrew grammar that points definitively to this interpretation of events. Nonetheless, on a genetic level, He did anyway, since in creating a man first, one might be fair to assume the presence of both an X and Y chromosome in the first human being. But that's another matter.
A little more involved is the problem of what order mankind, plants, and beasts were made (plants are for some reason omitted from the list on the page linked above, probably an oversight). I see mankind as being created last, definitively. Why does chapter two seem to contradict? In the case of plants, vv.2:5-9 do not say that God created them at this time, but rather that they were lying dormant in the ground, waiting for water. Whether this was upon all the earth, or perhaps only in the area of the garden He proceeded to plant is not clear.
Verse 19, where God seems to create animals all over again is trickier, but involves a translation subtlety. In the NIV, this passage is translated, "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." The question becomes whether God is creating animals all over again, if the stories contradict, or if we've translated in a way that makes it sound wrong. I believe that God had already done the process of creation at this time, and He's only taking a moment to bring the animals to Adam to let him give them names. Sure, it's not 100% clear, but that's not the same as outright contradiction and as a believer I'm certainly willing to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
Some people do spend a lot of time pondering these lost books, and it's an interesting subject. I've often wondered if, for instance, Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans were to be discovered and authenticated some day, would it be added to the Canon? Would that imply that the previous Canon(s) were incorrect?
Your talk of labelling certain books as "non-spiritual" is, I think, misguided, but it may lead one to another point that ought to be logically examined. Just because a book has a spiritual title doesn't mean it's spiritual, nor does it mean that it has specific value to add to the existing Canon. If you take a look at the "Gospel of Thomas", there's a book that has a lot of spiritual things to say, but it has never been accepted into the Canon, because it just doesn't fit in with the teachings of the rest of the accepted books.
Now, the thought that this brings up to me personally when I look to it is that Christians, who are so keen on insisting that the Bible is a compilation of 66 books that make up a cohesive whole collection, may be missing out on the fact that if you get to pick and choose the books you put in it, it's going to be considerably easier to make that collection cohesive. I think there's more to it historically than simply a Christian here or there saying, "Oops, I don't like what this book is saying, let's toss it!" but at the same time, It's worth contemplation.
As for Solomon, though, the deal with having far less proverbs recorded than 1Kings attibutes to him is, in my opinion is just that Proverbs collects the ones that were considered to be the best of the bunch. The number of verses from Proverbs 10:1 through 22:16 is 375, which is the gematria value of Solomon's name, so no doubt limiting the number was intentional for that section.
I can't deny that far too many Christians don't actually read their Bible in depth. I had an elder at a church I once attended who told me that he never bothered reading the Old Testament. I was in a Bible study group with him, and somebody was talking about something that bothered them, and he said, "Don't forget that the Bible says we need to forgive our enemies!" The ther guy replied, "I've always liked that verse that says doing nice things for your enemies piles hot coals on their heads, heh-heh!" Then this elder says, "The Bible doesn't say *that*!" I replied, "Actually, it's in both the Old and New Testaments."
I also know what you mean by flipping from 0 to 1. I remember in college I was largely an agnostic, but usually I leaned stronger for or against the existence of God, almost never completely indetermined. Maybe that's why I have a fair amount of respect for hard-thinking, determined agnostics: I just find it hard to find solid ground in the middle.
Your spiritual journey sounds like an interesting one. I'm always interested in hearing about people who have tried a lot of different sorts of religious viewpoints, and are still searching. Perhaps that's part of my own reason for searching out Bible contradictions; having once been on that journey myself, there's probably a part of me that misses the search for Truth. While of course it is better to have found it (if indeed I have) there's something fun in the pursuit, isn't there?
One pastor friend of mine says that the Bible has been studied for 2,000 years, and as such, it's not so likely that anyone will find something wrong with it today that wasn't already known by somebody somewhere. As Paul said in ICor.15:19, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." I'm not really worried about your "MOTHER OF ALL BIBLE MISTAKES", and I suggest you check the SAB to see whether or not it's already there, and if not, post it on the discussion board, as many will be wanting to hear about it, and it deserves a greater audience than you'll get in my comments section.
I came accross your site by accident. However, I had just finished writing something very similar on Genesis. There is only one slight problem, you state things in a much better way than I can. Thank you.
That's not a problem. There's always a better writer out there somewhere. If I only wanted to write on the condition that I was the best there is at this stuff, then I probably wouldn't have written a single post. My old philosophy instructor always told me I was much too verbose, and I believe she was right, but I've never seemed to get over it. Read some more of the blog, I'm sure quite a few of these posts are awful.
In any case, thanks for the compliment. I suggest that you keep writing for yourself and publish it or don't as you see fit.
Each of us takes a journey of our choosing...
According to Mathew 7:7 we can ask.. A door will open.. Through my own interpretation is that we just have to keep our minds open enough to see the answers we seek..
Your story is truly inspiring, strange little spammer.
Just going to make one comment for now, you say
"Nonetheless, on a genetic level, He did anyway, since in creating a man first, one might be fair to assume the presence of both an X and Y chromosome in the first human being. But that's another matter."
Actually although from an evolutionary perspective humans would have arrived as man and woman, that being dealt with through its early ancestry, as far as male and female are concerned, the Y would be the mutation, so you would assume just the X chromosome to being with; effectively adam would have been made from eve's rib.
Sure, from an evolutionary perspective that's the case, but that's not the perspective I was running with here. Evolutionarily speaking, nobody was made from anyone's rib.
On a side note, I just noticed I never put in a note about something interesting I learned last year. Durokemit mentioned in the first comment that there may be pieces missing from the Bible. While as I said before, that doesn't really bother me, there is an interesting factoid about one of those books: the so-called "Epistle to the Laodiceans". As the SAB itself notes, "Also, the words 'to the saints which are in Ephesus' does not occur in the best manuscripts."
When you read about the founding of the Ephesian church in the book of Acts, you find that Paul himself was the founder of that church, and he spent about three years there teaching them and having fellowship with them. Yet unlike most of his other epistles, this one doesn't end with personal messages to people he knows there. Why would he leave that out when he must have had many dear friends in Ephesus? A suggested answer is that this is not actually a letter to the Ephesians, but may actually be the "lost" epistle to the Laodiceans.
Well, I find it interesting anyway.
I was speaking metaphorically, I'm not crazy! ;p
I hope you are going to read this, Brucker, but I will like to know that big mistake Durokemit was talking about. I don't know how to reach him and I thought he might have told it to you.
No, Durokemit never told me, and I was awfully curious, too!
The SAB does have plenty of material, though, and not all of it was stuff I could handle, so if you're interested in Bible mistakes, I've used the tag "contradiction" for any post where I come across a contradiction the SAB suggests that I couldn't resolve. (Of course it doesn't mean that there is no resolution necessarily, just that I couldn't think of one.)
In regard to what he said, I don't mean to be rude, but throwing the word of God out the door because you found what seems to be to you a contradiction doesn't really indicate a true child-like faith in God. He doesn't cite what version he was reading, what were those Hebrew sources and the Septuagint isn't the most reliable source; his only argument was that he studied the Bible for a long time and that he thought so because, well, he thought so. Studying and reading the Bible thousands of times doesn't mean anything to me, since people can study the Bible their whole life and still be unsaved if they aren't guided by the Holy Ghost in their journey. I find people like these sensationalists, trying to justify their own sins and weaknesses and needing an excuse to just throw away everything and reducing the holy word to man made doctrines and fables, plagued by errors and contradictions which only the "enlightened ones" can see; this is what I am left with from these kinds of people.
I was just curious what all the boasting was about, since he is the only one in history (what a bloated ego) to find something like that. I don't think it's possible to reach him since his profile doesn't show anything and I can't find his name anywhere else.
I will consider your suggestion and see to it if I have the time.
Regarding the subject of apparent contradictions or errors, I believe that the King James Bible is inspired and preserved and God can test our faith in this way too, to see if we care about what He says about His word or what man says. It's always been like this for a true believer: you want to trust God with all your heart (Proverbs 3:5) or listen to man, including yourself, for you too can be in error.
I think you're right, and it matters a great deal where you are spiritually. I recently had a commenter who insisted that if I believed in the Bible, it could only be because I haven't really read it. I informed him that truthfully, I've only read about 60 of the 66 books comprising the Bible, but if I could read through the books of Joshua and Judges and not be turned away by the violence, I'm not sure what I could be missing that's so horrible.
The Bible is a tool for helping you in your spiritual life, but really most people get out of it whatever they expect to get out of it. In my own past, I read the Bible before I was a Christian, and thought it was a good book. Later when I truly gave my heart to God through the leading of the Holy Spirit, it was a whole new book like I'd never read it before.
You said it well, the Bible is just a good book if you take God out of it.
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." - John 6:63
Once the Spirit of God indwells you, the words are more than words, they are life. I think, not dogmatic about it, that if the words are spoken by nonbelievers, they don't mean anything; for example:
13 ¶Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?" - Acts 19:13
That exorcist didn't believe in Jesus Christ, he just said His name. I think it's the same with the words of God, if you don't believe they are life and that the word is the sword of the Spirit, able to pierce, break and tear down the enemy strongholds, they won't have any effect. You see all kinds of cults "exorcising" by using the Bible and not having any effect at all. I don't want to elevate man in a position where he has any power at all (our strength is Christ), hope I'm not transmitting that. The power comes from God, but believing makes you a complete tool for Him to use. Just like adding a handle to a tool head, making it fit for the master's use.
You know, it's funny, but while I do of course hope that anything that I do, whether blogging or talking with people face-to-face about my beliefs, might have some positive effect on their spiritual life, I have no expectations that this blog will ever convert a single non-believer. Even if I were clever enough to explain away every footnote of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, in the end it's no better than sophistry because people believe whatever they will. I guess I'm too much of a Calvinist to believe I have any power to change hearts, but I think that's okay doctrinally. I hope I do change a few minds from time to time.
I find the fact that you referenced NIV for the creation of the animals in the second creation story rather disturbing. A quick look at every other version clearly shows the distinct lack of "had". If we were to consider just plain translation alone, which is more likely, that KJV, ASV, NASV, NLT and orthodox jewish bible all got that wrong, or that the translators of NIV intentionally put it there to bypass the contradiction?
In general, it would be far more credible if you had double checked every translation first for correlation.
You've got a point, I'll have to admit. While I can't realistically check "every translation", I suppose I've cherry-picked a translation that happens to work. A couple things still could be said, though. The Hebrew verb in that sentence is in the imperfect tense, which I understand to indicate an ongoing action; creation was not instantaneous, but an ongoing process. Secondly, I'm not sure it really matters; the two creation stories are telling the story in two different ways with two different focuses, meaning that a lot of these differences are more stylistic than technical.
In the end, it really depends on how you look at it. Some people are going to insist that the contradiction is there, and they've got a basis for asserting that. I happen to look at it differently.
Post a Comment