I accept the Challenge.
According to Wikipedia, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict one another:
“The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory but also complementary ...
I hold there is a reading of the text that resolves the apparent contradictions.
Did God make mistakes? If you agree with Wikipedia, let us know why.
I agree that the contradictions are in fact not.
I regard it as a given that we cannot know whether God makes mistakes. To say that necessitates understanding the mind of God and the outcomes of His actions.
Basic Rules:
- You are not allowed to take away from and/or add words to the verses.
The translations add words for clarity, so where the translation has added words, I reserve the right to dismiss them.
- Use any translation you wish (mix and match is OK).
Not all translations are scholarly. Some sacrifice literl accuracy for easy readability.
- The word ‘day’ must be interpreted as twenty-four hours or less.
I think that's a silly rule, given the context, but accept the day marks a division.
- The interpretation of the phrase ‘surely die’ must be consistent with its usage elsewhere in the Bible.
I've demonstrated your errors in that regard. But I accept that 'surely die' means death is an inevitability.
- Use as many or as few verses as needed.
OK
- Your interpretation must not contradict either Old Testament or New Testament.
OK
+++
Genesis 2:4 (KJV)
“These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”
Commentary:
The verse begins a series of ‘recaps’ of Genesis 1 with additional details being added. The focus here is on the Third Day, when the Heavens and Earth were completed and ready for its first form of life. Day means day, not 'six days'.
Response:
No issue here.
+++
Genesis 2:5 (New Living Translation)
“Neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the LORD God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil.”
Commentary:
We have confirmation that Genesis 2:4 is focusing in on the Third Day. Moreover, we are at the moment of time when no plants, and therefore no life, existed.
Response:
My first challenge is the wording of the NLT – If you look on
blueletterbible.org, of the 18 text translations into English –
- the NLT is the only version that qualifies plants as ‘wild’;
- the NLT omits the phrase ‘of the field’ שָׂדֶה sade;
- the NLT interposes a full stop before ‘for the LORD God’ (The NLT, like the The Living Bible of Kenneth N. Taylor, on which it's based, is in Taylor’s own words ‘a paraphrase’ translation for easy access rather than a scholarly one.)
- 16 of the 18 versions agree on 'of the field'.
Now, compare:
Genesis 1:11 “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the
herb yielding seed, and the
fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself”
Genesis 2:5 “And every
plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every
herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.”
We can see that in 1:11 we have
self-seeding flora, whereas in 2:5 we have ‘
of the field’ which generally suggests an agricultural setting –
cultivated flora. This then makes sense of the remaining phrase: ‘and there was no man to till the ground’.
So the focus of 2:5 is not the same as 1:11, and does not refer to the Third Day, but rather offers a commentary from after the work of the Six Days is complete – there is certainly not enough to assert it must mean the Third Day, and sufficient to say it does not.
And note this: Genesis 1:29:
"... I have given you every herb
bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is
the fruit of a tree yielding seed..." – which repeats verse 11, and makes no mention of plants ‘of the field’.
+++
As we can clearly see, we have an issue. Christians are told that Man was originally created on the Sixth Day. According to the Bible however, Man was originally created on the Third Day. Who is correct? Does the dogma of the Church get to overrule what is written? Heaven forbid.
Well as Judaism sees man as made on the sixth day, as does Islam, (unless I am mistaken?) – then this seems an attack on Christianity which suggests another agenda altogether.
+++
Genesis 2:8
“And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.”
Commentary:
According to the verse, Man was already formed before the Plants, obviously. Interestingly, God started with a Garden first, rather than filling the entire planet with plant life. This makes sense from a geoengineering perspective. Start small, then work your way up.
Response:
It simply says God "planted a garden eastward in Eden" – suggesting somewhere in the world He had created in the Six Days. This is clearly in the days after the Seventh Day.
+++
Genesis 2:9
“And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”
Commentary:
God begins to make Trees. They are pleasing to the eye and good for food. We are obviously still on the Third Day.
Response
No, we’re in the garden, on a day following the Day of Rest:
Genesis 1 is God creating the world and everything in it.
Genesis 2:9 is God
planting a garden,
and everything in that.
+++
Genesis 2:17
“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
Commentary:
Continuing within the Third Day, God gives a strict command to the First Adam to not partake of the Forbidden Fruit or else he will die on that very day. Note that there is nothing here to suggest that the First Adam would ‘die spiritually’ or ‘begin to die’ or ‘be separated from God’, etc. Those are false Church dogmas inserted into the text.
Response
- Not the Third Day.
- The emphasis in the Hebrew is on death, not the day.
- As evidenced elsewhere in Scripture, in Hebrew ‘in that day’ can cover a long period of time, a lifetime, or even longer.
- There is everything to suggest, when one reads on, that the union with God was lost in that moment.
+++
Now, since no Animals have been created yet, the First Adam is truly all alone. No problem, God has a solution…
Quite clearly an erroneous reading.
+++
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."
Commentary:
The verse above makes it clear that the First Adam was alone because no Animals were created yet.
Response:
It does no such thing – read on.
Genesis 2:19 (New Heart English Bible)
And out of the ground God formed every tame animal, and every wild animal, and every flying creature of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
Commentary:
The timeline jumps to the Fifth Day (creation of flying creatures) and then to the Sixth Day (creation of tame and wild Animals). Note that something very important just occurred. A Law was made. Did you catch it? Whenever God creates a living being, Adam must name it. Moreover, whatever Adam ‘calls’ the newly formed being, that was its name.
Response
Of the aforesaid 18 English translations, four translate the Hebrew וַיִּצֶר
yāṣar not as 'formed', but as 'had formed', to read logically in context with the text.
The pluperfect 'had formed' is the same as 'formed' – cf Genesis 2:8 "he put the man whom he had formed."
So the implication is that God had formed the animals, and now brought them to the man he had placed in the garden.
There is no need for the timeline to jump back and forth.
Also, the NHEB
repeats a phrase to qualify both ‘wild’ and ‘tame’ whereas there is no reason to do so from the Hebrew, however it does say 'of the field' which again one could read to infer domestic animals, cattle and sheep, etc., as v20 implies.
Note that something very important just occurred. A Law was made. Did you catch it? Whenever God creates a living being, Adam must name it. Moreover, whatever Adam ‘calls’ the newly formed being, that was its name.
I would have thought the more significant pointer was this is the first mention of 'Adam', as opposed to 'the man'.
Nor do I see where this naming was declared 'a law',
so as 'law' is not mentioned, you're inserting a text that is not there, breaking your own rule.
Commentary:
Because the Animals were not sufficient help, God creates a new being called ‘Ishshah’. Most Bibles translate this word as ‘Woman’. Note that this is not Eve! Nowhere does the name Eve show up until after the Fall.
Response
Quite, when she is so named by Adam.
Commentary:
Now, according to the Law, Adam must name this newly created being…
Response:
Hmmm ... not a law.
+++
Genesis 2:23 (KJV)
“And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
Commentary:
Adam ‘calls’ the new being ‘Ishshah’, thus that was her name. Again, it was not Eve. Note that Ishshah was named by the method by which she was created. This is a common theme in the Bible. Jacob was the ‘heal grabber’ etc.
Response:
But issa/ishshah – אִשָּׁה – means 'woman', 'wife' etc ... it's not a name in the sense of a Personal Noun.
Commentary:
And so it was, when the First Adam, along with his Wife Ishshah, partook of the Forbidden Fruit, they died on that very day. Not only did they die the First Death, but they also died the Second Death…
Response:
I've already sufficiently demonstrated that your emphasis is wrong. They shall surely die, yes ... but not necessarily 'on that very day'.
as for 'First Death' and 'Second Death', see below:
+++
Genesis 3:6 (KJV)
“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”
Commentary:
The phrase ‘surely die’ means ‘dying ye shall die’ or ‘dying the First Death, ye shall die the Second Death’. And that is precisely what happened, all within the Sixth Day. The couple became dust of the ground.
Response:
That's a clear misreading of the paranomastic usage of the Hebrew phrase. The repeat of the word 'death' is to create emphasis, and is translated as 'surely', it does not suggest two deaths.
Commentary:
Ministry Magazine | Dying You Shall Die: The meaning of Genesis 2:17
Response:
I've read it. Can you show me where it speaks of First and Second Death?
+++
Genesis 3:7 (KJV)
“And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”
Commentary:
Because the couple became dust of the ground, God had to resurrect them. Note that this was not the Resurrection of Glory, but rather the Resurrection of Damnation. Their eyes were opened because the dead are asleep and must be awakened. Did God lie? Of course not. Did the Word of God contradict? No.
Response:
This is a compounded error based on the false translation.
+++
Commentary:
And there we have it. Wikipedia and all the other false teachers out there have been thoroughly debunked.
Response:
I'm afraid not. What we have here is a litany of errors.
