Why does Genesis 1 and 2 contradict?

[NathanH83]

Genesis 1 says plants were made before man.
But Genesis 2 says that when man was made, plants didn’t exist yet.

Uh oh! We have a contradiction here!

So, should we rip chapter 1 out of our Bibles, or chapter 2? Or should we just remove Genesis entirely from our Bibles?

Certainly we shouldn’t look for a way to harmonize these two chapters. Because the answer to everything is to rip things out of the Bible.

 

[Lamb]

It could be that you haven't read the original language that Genesis 1 and 2 are written in to clarify why you believe there is confusion and contradiction. You aren't giving God, who is the author of scripture, the benefit of the doubt. It's more likely YOU who is confused, not scripture.

 

[NathanH83]

It could be that you haven't read the original language that Genesis 1 and 2 are written in to clarify why you believe there is confusion and contradiction. You aren't giving God, who is the author of scripture, the benefit of the doubt. It's more likely YOU who is confused, not scripture.

Exactly!

Give God the benefit of the doubt. Don’t rip it out.

 

[Lamb]

Why do I get the feeling this is a ploy to talk about the apocrypha AGAIN?

 

[NathanH83]

Why do I get the feeling this is a ploy to talk about the apocrypha AGAIN?

Because it is.

There’s lots of “supposed” contradictions all throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. But there are perfectly reasonable answers to them.

 

[Asuk]

Because it is.

There’s lots of “supposed” contradictions all throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. But there are perfectly reasonable answers to them.

What is the answer to the original post?

 

[Lamb]

Because it is.

There’s lots of “supposed” contradictions all throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. But there are perfectly reasonable answers to them.

The subject line is misleading and you don't really care to learn the answer?

 

[Asuk]

The subject line is misleading and you don't really care to learn the answer?

I would like to learn the answer if you don’t mind sharing it. Thanks.

 

[NathanH83]

.

 

[NathanH83]

I would like to learn the answer if you don’t mind sharing it. Thanks.

"before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
-Genesis 2:5-7 (NKJV)

Notice how it says "of the field" two times in a row.
Genesis chapter 2 is only talking about plants that are "of the field".

Imagine you're in Colorado, hiking up the side of a steep mountain. And on the side of the winding path there's all kinds of pine trees, a bunch of plants and shrubbery, a few berry bushes and even some flowers.

Now would those be considered plants "of the field"? Well, they're not in a field, are they? They're on the side of a steep mountain. I wouldn’t exactly call that a field.

Now, imagine you're in a boat in shallow water. And you look down into the clear water and see all kinds of plants growing at the bottom. You see moss, seaweed, and all kinds of marine plant life. Now, would those be considered plants "of the field"? Well, they're not exactly in a field. They're under water.

Genesis 2 is just saying that God created Adam before any plants "of the field" had yet sprung up. It's not talking about plants of the mountain, plants of the forest, of the garden, of the ocean, of the desert, etc. It's only talking about plants "of the field."

In other words, when God created the plants on the 3rd day of creation, there was a field outside the garden of Eden. It was an empty dirt field with no plants. And it says that the REASON there were no plants in the field yet is because #1. God had not sent rain yet, and #2. there was no man to till the ground.

So the reason why that field was empty is NOT because the plants didn't exist. It was because of a lack of rain and a lack of man tilling the ground.

You see, when God created all the plants on day 3, if God had caused plants to grow up over the whole surface of the Earth, then when day 6 rolls around and God plans on creating man and animals out of the dirt, where is God going to get the dirt from? If plants are covering the whole surface, then he'd have to uproot some plants to get to the dirt underneath. Why would God want to uproot plants that he had just recently planted? That wouldn’t make sense.

So God planned ahead. God knew that on day 6 he was going to use a bunch of dirt to create people and animals. So he left a field empty. An empty dirt field. And he used the dirt from that field to created Adam (and the animals).

Adam was not created in the garden. But rather, Adam was created outside the garden, in an empty, dirt field. And then God took the man and placed him in the garden. Look at what it says:

"The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed."
-Genesis 2:8 (NKJV)

"Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. "
-Genesis 2:15 (NKJV)

Notice how it says he "put the man in the garden".
And then it says he "took the man and put him in the garden."

Clearly, Adam was not in the garden to begin with. Adam was created outside the garden, in an empty dirt field. Then God took him and placed him in the garden.

Then, after Adam and Eve sinned, God punished them and kicked them out of the garden, and put them back into the empty dirt field from which he was taken:

"therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken."
-Genesis 3:23 (NKJV)

Genesis is saying here that Adam was taken from the ground that was outside of the garden.

So, even after Adam and Eve sinned, the field was still empty. That field was empty until man started to till the ground.

I tell you what, going from a beautuful, lush garden to an empty dirt field is definitely a change in scenery! They must have felt awful!

Thus, Genesis 1 and 2 are not contradictory, as atheists would have us think.

There's always an answer. No need to rip chapters out of the Bible.
Same thing is true with the Apocrypha. When you see a supposed contradiction, ask God for the answer. No need to rip it out.

 

[Lamb]

Ah, so it looks like @NathanH83 already has the answer for his topic and this one was another set up for discussing the Apocrypha. You know that members really don't like that type of bait and switch, right? I know that I personally don't care for that so next time, if you're learning toward talking about the apocrypha, then do so. Otherwise it's possibly bearing false witness to say you want to talk about one thing and then you really don't want to because you had other intentions.

 

[Asuk]

There’s lots of “supposed” contradictions all throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. But there are perfectly reasonable answers to them.

I would like for you to start a thread addressing all the supposed contradictions. I would find it interesting to read.

 

[NathanH83]

I would like for you to start a thread addressing all the supposed contradictions. I would find it interesting to read.

There’s definitely a lot of them. And atheists love to bring them up.

 

[NathanH83]

Ah, so it looks like @NathanH83 already has the answer for his topic and this one was another set up for discussing the Apocrypha. You know that members really don't like that type of bait and switch, right? I know that I personally don't care for that so next time, if you're learning toward talking about the apocrypha, then do so. Otherwise it's possibly bearing false witness to say you want to talk about one thing and then you really don't want to because you had other intentions.

What are you so angry about?

Often times Jesus gave a parable without telling people what it was all about. Then he explained afterwards. Is Jesus guilty of bait and switch?

The term “bait and switch” is usually having to deal with retailers who show an advertisement of an expensive product being on sale for a really low, low price. But then after customers show up, they find that the item isn’t available. Then they’re pressured into buying less desirable products for inflated prices.

I’ve actually encountered these kinds of bait and switch scams, when I found a website selling a $3,000 professional camcorder that I really wanted for a low price of only $700. I found that it was a scam. After you place the order, they call you up and tell you it’s out of stock, and then try to get you to spend a bunch of money on a cheap consumer camcorder which I don’t want for a ridiculous and inflated price. I had to call my credit card company and tell them to cancel my number and give me a new credit card number. Just a safety so those scammers didn’t charge me.

THAT’S bait and switch, FYI.

Anyway, I was curious to see if anyone had the answer to the Genesis 1 and 2 question. Seeing that nobody had the answer, I gave what I believe to be the correct answer.

But I also wanted to make the point that this is how we should treat the Apocrypha also. We should trust that there’s an answer instead of flippantly ripping it out. Even Martin Luther thought James contradicts Romans and wanted to rip out James. This flippant attitude is not Christlike by any means, and ought to be condemned.

If you think that I’m practicing bait and switch, then I strongly disagree. I’m really sorry you think that.

 

[Lamb]

What are you so angry about?

Often times Jesus gave a parable without telling people what it was all about. Then he explained afterwards. Is Jesus guilty of bait and switch?

The term “bait and switch” is usually having to deal with retailers who show an advertisement of an expensive product being on sale for a really low, low price. But then after customers show up, they find that the item isn’t available. Then they’re pressured into buying less desirable products for inflated prices.

I’ve actually encountered these kinds of bait and switch scams, when I found a website selling a $3,000 professional camcorder that I really wanted for a low price of only $700. I found that it was a scam. After you place the order, they call you up and tell you it’s out of stock, and then try to get you to spend a bunch of money on a cheap consumer camcorder which I don’t want for a ridiculous and inflated price. I had to call my credit card company and tell them to cancel my number and give me a new credit card number. Just a safety so those scammers didn’t charge me.

THAT’S bait and switch, FYI.

Anyway, I was curious to see if anyone had the answer to the Genesis 1 and 2 question. Seeing that nobody had the answer, I gave what I believe to be the correct answer.

But I also wanted to make the point that this is how we should treat the Apocrypha also. We should trust that there’s an answer instead of flippantly ripping it out. Even Martin Luther thought James contradicts Romans and wanted to rip out James. This flippant attitude is not Christlike by any means, and ought to be condemned.

If you think that I’m practicing bait and switch, then I strongly disagree. I’m really sorry you think that.

#1 You're not Jesus.

#2 I'm not angry, just getting annoyed by these same types of threads with one goal, to express your desire for everyone to embrace the Apocryphal books (which you've never given us a list of which ones you think should be even though we've asked repeatedly in multiple threads) should be canon.

#3 bait and switch is a term and yes, it started off with advertising but it absolutely applies to what you do here. Like I said, don't mislead people with your topics because just like this one here, you weren't interested in the subject title and you admitted to that fact early on.

 

[NathanH83]

#1 You're not Jesus.

#2 I'm not angry, just getting annoyed by these same types of threads with one goal, to express your desire for everyone to embrace the Apocryphal books (which you've never given us a list of which ones you think should be even though we've asked repeatedly in multiple threads) should be canon.

#3 bait and switch is a term and yes, it started off with advertising but it absolutely applies to what you do here. Like I said, don't mislead people with your topics because just like this one here, you weren't interested in the subject title and you admitted to that fact early on.

I think you’re really just annoyed that I’m bringing up the Apocrypha, because you don’t want to talk about it.

As for the list, there’s definitely a core list that most churches have accepted, such as the first two books of Maccabees, and Tobit and Judith, wisdom and Sirach.

But then the Orthodox accept 3 Maccabees, which Catholics do not. So I’m not sure about that, although I’ve read it and am open to the truth.

Then there’s books like 4 Maccabees, 4 Esdras, and Enoch which Catholics and Orthodox reject, but the Ethiopian church accepts. Again, I’m open to the truth. When I see Jude quoting Enoch, and the Ethiopian church accepting Enoch, and even Tertullian voting to include Enoch, then I’m open to the possibility that maybe it belongs. When I see that Jesus seems to have quoted 4 Esdras, the KJV including 4 Esdras in the apocryphal section, etc., then I’m open to the possibility of its inclusion.

So, there are some fringe books such as these that I’m not going to dogmatically say they do or do not belong.

But when it comes to the books like 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, and Judith, which are accepted by so many…by Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Ethiopian, Coptic…. Declared to be scripture by multiple early church councils, contain history that fulfills prophecies in Daniel, and even many of them have evidence to have been written in Hebrew, even found in Hebrew among the Dead Sea Scrolls…. There’s just so much strong evidence for their inclusion.

I think that the main things that concern me are the books that are in the King James Apocrypha, which were removed from the main body of text in the Latin Vulgate. These are books that our sect of Christianity (Protestant) have actually removed from the Bible.

But if you don’t want to talk about any of these things, then you’re basically admitting (on a Christian Bible study forum) that you don’t want to discuss the Bible. Because the truth is, these books were in the Bible for the first 1500 years of church history, all the way up until our Protestant sect removed them. If you don’t want to talk about it, then you don’t want to talk about the Bible.

Removing things from the Bible is a grave sin. And it should concern Christians. But if you want to just flippantly rip stuff out because you think there’s a contradiction, then that’s a very poor and irreverent attitude towards the Holy Word of God. I fear for people who take on this attitude.

 

[Lamb]

I think you’re really just annoyed that I’m bringing up the Apocrypha, because you don’t want to talk about it.

As for the list, there’s definitely a core list that most churches have accepted, such as the first two books of Maccabees, and Tobit and Judith, wisdom and Sirach.

But then the Orthodox accept 3 Maccabees, which Catholics do not. So I’m not sure about that, although I’ve read it and am open to the truth.

Then there’s books like 4 Maccabees, 4 Esdras, and Enoch which Catholics and Orthodox reject, but the Ethiopian church accepts. Again, I’m open to the truth. When I see Jude quoting Enoch, and the Ethiopian church accepting Enoch, and even Tertullian voting to include Enoch, then I’m open to the possibility that maybe it belongs. When I see that Jesus seems to have quoted 4 Esdras, the KJV including 4 Esdras in the apocryphal section, etc., then I’m open to the possibility of its inclusion.

So, there are some fringe books such as these that I’m not going to dogmatically say they do or do not belong.

But when it comes to the books like 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, and Judith, which are accepted by so many…by Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Ethiopian, Coptic…. Declared to be scripture by multiple early church councils, contain history that fulfills prophecies in Daniel, and even many of them have evidence to have been written in Hebrew, even found in Hebrew among the Dead Sea Scrolls…. There’s just so much strong evidence for their inclusion.

I think that the main things that concern me are the books that are in the King James Apocrypha, which were removed from the main body of text in the Latin Vulgate. These are books that our sect of Christianity (Protestant) have actually removed from the Bible.

But if you don’t want to talk about any of these things, then you’re basically admitting (on a Christian Bible study forum) that you don’t want to discuss the Bible. Because the truth is, these books were in the Bible for the first 1500 years of church history, all the way up until our Protestant sect removed them. If you don’t want to talk about it, then you don’t want to talk about the Bible.

Removing things from the Bible is a grave sin. And it should concern Christians. But if you want to just flippantly rip stuff out because you think there’s a contradiction, then that’s a very poor and irreverent attitude towards the Holy Word of God. I fear for people who take on this attitude.

I told you what annoyed me. Maybe you should believe me.

 

[NathanH83]

I told you what annoyed me. Maybe you should believe me.

What annoys me is that nobody even tried answering the question about Genesis 1 and 2. Not one person even took a jab at it.

It also annoys me how flippantly people are willing to rip out scriptures from the Bible just because of one “supposed” contradiction.

 

[Lamb]

What annoys me is that nobody even tried answering the question about Genesis 1 and 2. Not one person even took a jab at it.

It also annoys me how flippantly people are willing to rip out scriptures from the Bible just because of one “supposed” contradiction.

Well, when you repeatedly make these types of threads where you pretend you want to discuss one thing but then really only want to discuss why you think the Apocrypha should be canon, no one wants to waste their time doing any research and then responding to the thread only to have the topic change on them. I guess it annoys other members too when you do that.

 

[NathanH83]

Well, when you repeatedly make these types of threads where you pretend you want to discuss one thing but then really only want to discuss why you think the Apocrypha should be canon, no one wants to waste their time doing any research and then responding to the thread only to have the topic change on them. I guess it annoys other members too when you do that.

Well, that’s where you’re wrong. I didn’t ONLY want to discuss the Apocrypha. I have a lengthy explanation for Genesis 1 and 2. Nobody else gave one. And nobody else wanted to respond or object to my explanation either. The only reason Genesis 1 and 2 are not still being discussed is because nobody wants to discuss it.