I hear so often that there are no contradictions in the Bible but we get a huge one in the very first book of Genesis:

@Charity Well, that explained nothing.

@ChipmunkErnie naturally it wouldn't to any and all who are continually trying to put contradictions in Scripture.

@Charity All you have to do is read it to see the contradictions.

@ChipmunkErnie

Are you suggesting I haven't read the Bible I've read it times and times and times again.

@Charity No, I'm suggesting you ignore the contradictions that you read because they don't fit in with your faith.

@ChipmunkErnie

I don't ignore any contradictions because they don't fit into my faith.

You see, I haven't read any true contradictions.

@Charity


Really? It was my understanding that the infallibility of God and Biblical inerrancy was a pretty big mountain for a lot of Christians...

I think you're misunderstanding.
This isn't commenting about whether the creations were good or not but with God's creation itself.

Let's start with a simple question: Was God's creation just as he wanted it the first time, yes or no?

@Pikachu

God created what he wanted, as he wanted it to be the first time.

Now if you say Adam was imperfect you have a good point because Adam was not perfect, if Adam were Adam never would have sinned but God did not say his creations were perfect. Which leads to why it grieved God in creating man in Genesis 6.

Creation, creation takes an act. The act of creating has nothing to do with man being alone.

Besides, it was never God's intent for man to be alone, everything he created before he formed man he created them where they could reproduce after their kind, male and female of species.

And there are some scriptures that Christians disagree on with their meaning. There is no contradiction, because there is only one meaning, Christians just can't agree on some subjects.

I don't see how you can separate whether God's creations were good or not and talk about God creation itself, when they are one in the same. That logic does not compute.

@Charity


You seem to be misunderstanding.
We're not talking about the created, we're talking about the creation and whether God got it right the first time as in Genesis 1 or if he needed to tweak it as in Genesis 2.


So then why, according to Genesis 2 did he create Adam and the see that it was NOT good that Adam should be alone, try to give him companionship via animals, see that, THAT was no good and then finally make woman?

@Pikachu

Nope I'm not misunderstanding, creating a woman is not a tweak. Nor does it have anything to do with God saying it is good.

If you cannot see or accept or understand that it was God's intent from the beginning that all of his creations are able to reproduce, first commandment was to be fruitful multiply and reaplenish the Earth.

I cannot tell you why God did not create Eve with Adam. I can only assume: he knew that woman would be the downfall of Adam.



But to each their own

@Charity

I want you to go read Genesis chapter 1 and 2 right now, it'll take you 3 minutes.
Then i want you to come back and explain why Genesis 1 has God creating humans and seeing that it is very good but in chapter 2, he creates man, sees that it is not good for him to be alone and so gives him animals in an attempt to fill that hole but that also fails and so finally does some holy surgery to create woman.


Then why create her at all? This is the act of an infallible god? I wouldn't bring that up if i were you lol.

@Pikachu

Good morning

I don't need to read Genesis chapter 1 or chapter 2 over again, I already know what it says.

You're making the same statements repeatedly which would cause me to make my same statements repeatedly, which is pointless.

And there is nowhere in the Bible that states are ""even indicates"" that animals was an attempt to fill in a hole and fails to do so or as companionship for Adam as was stated in another reply. A poor attempt to show contradiction.

But now you and those who agree with you, keep on thinking and doing as you do as written in the last book and the last verses of Revelation. It is your right to do so.

Have a nice day!

@Charity


Then i think you don't know what Genesis says as much as you thought:

The Lord God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and watch over it ...
18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.” 19 So the Lord God formed from the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and the man chose a name for each one. 20 He gave names to all the livestock, all the birds of the sky, and all the wild animals. But still there was no helper just right for him..
So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep. While the man slept, the Lord God took out one of the man’s ribs and closed up the opening. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib, and he brought her to the man.

23 “At last!” the man exclaimed.
“This one is bone from my bone,
and flesh from my flesh!
She will be called ‘woman,’
because she was taken from ‘man.’”

Feel free to offer an alternate interpretation.
Or of courses, don't.

Either way, enjoy your day✌

@Pikachu

Genesis 2 is a narration of Genesis 1.

God created the animals ""before"" he created man he did not create animals to be a companion for man. Which should be understood, how it is a narration.

In Genesis 2:18 God decided to make woman for Adam

Genesis 2:19 and 20 is just telling us how God allowed Adam to give names to each and every animal, not as companions or help meets.



And Genesis 2:20 KJV says BUT for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. The BUT is telling us God hadn't created woman yet. All of other gods creations had male and female.

Whatever book just for him is written, you continue to interpret it as you see fit for your cause / as written in Revelation keep doing it. Sounds like modern day translations written by none Christians.

You too as I've said already have a nice day.

Thanks for the conversation that didn't involve insults.

@Charity


According to Genesis 1, yes.
But in Genesis 2 it says he created animals after Adam and then brought each to him but Adam could not find a companion among them.
It's right there in the text.

I use the NLV but the KJV says the same thing:

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.

That's Genesis 2 again saying that Adam was alone and that was not good so God sent animals to be companions but they were not sufficient and THEN he made Eve.


So you're really just highlighting an additional contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 which i wasn't even talking about regarding the order of creation and without addressing my initial criticism regarding the contradiction on the infallibility of God between the two chapters.

I hope you have a nice day as well but you can't keep saying goodbye and then making another comment lol

@Pikachu

Genesis 2:18-20 King James Version and the Lord said it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fall 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.""

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fall of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found and help me for him.

Non-christians I have spoken to refuses to see Genesis 2 as a narration of Genesis 1. They continually want to make it two separate events, it's their right to choose what they believe or disbelief.

And it seems that none believing people have a tendency to think that people who were just learning to write and read would do so in the manner that people of today would do. People of today consider themselves educated and organized in the craft of authorship / literature. 6 to 10,000 years ago people wrote it as it came to mind, broken ways they felt the people would understand wrote in ways they felt with praise God and being inspired by God to write it doesn't mean they wrote it immediately.


100 years ago most people couldn't read or write, and definitely didn't form literature in the way people of the 20th century ground works. They didn't write in chronological order / literal, but often and none chronological and non literal order.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/09/reading-writing-global-literacy-rate-changed/#:~:text=In%201900%2C%20it%20still%20barely,strong%20regional%20inequalities%20remain%2C%20however

https://thejohnfox.com/2021/10/how-to-write-a-non-chronological-plot/

Ever read Plato, Nostradamus, Homer, Dickens?
https://fiveable.me/literature-in-english-the-mid-19th-through-the-mid-20th-century/unit-6

https://fiveable.me/key-terms/american-literature-since-1860/non-chronological-narratives

As I said you have your right to think believe as you do. If you think that's what I'm doing continue to think so.

Good by until I run into you on another post.

@Charity

And indeed you have the right to negotiate with the text in order to preserve your belief...but i don't think you've made a compelling argument.
I invite you to watch a short video by a biblical scholar on the subject. You might find it interesting

Catch you later✌

[media=https://youtu.be/U8qKDD4CxUs]