Authority of Scripture

[another_poster]

Yes we are seeking something. Connor, do you believe the bible to be inspired of God, that is to say The Holy Spirit used people to write the bible? 

Inspired does not mean without error. See to believe the bible is without error there are only two possible options.

1. That those who wrote scriptures are infallible. I can not believe this

 

2. God told them word for word exactly what to write. I can not believe this because we see that people put their own opinions into what they wrote. Did God really say write this word and now put your personal opinion in then write this word. Just can't believe God did that.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Yes we are seeking something. Connor, do you believe the bible to be inspired of God, that is to say The Holy Spirit used people to write the bible? 

Inspired does not mean without error. See to believe the bible is without error there are only two possible options.

1. That those who wrote scriptures are infallible. I can not believe this

 

2. God told them word for word exactly what to write. I can not believe this because we see that people put their own opinions into what they wrote. Did God really say write this word and now put your personal opinion in then write this word. Just can't believe God did that.

 

The words in the original language are documents are inspired.  All of the words.   He did not inspire ideas or concepts.  He inspired words.   We believe that God inspired the Scriptures in that he super-intended them upon the minds of the writers and they faithfully recorded what God transmitted to them  and they recorded those words without error.  The Bible contains no human opinions.

[Guest Butero]

What are you talking about Another Poster?  I was dealing precisely with the supposed contradiction.  It didn't exist.  In Genesis chapter one, there is just a general overview of the order of creation, and it mentions that God created mankind male and female.  In Genesis chapter 2, it goes into the details of the actual creation of the woman.  It is not a contradiction at all.  What I was saying is that when God created Adam, Eve did exist in the mind of God and she was still one of Adam's ribs.  Later, we see how God fashions the woman from Adam's rib.  In one way, she already existed as flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, but in another sense, she didn't come into existence physically in the form of a woman until after Adam.  What is hard to understand about that?  The person who started this thread thought there was a contradiction, but there was none, and I explained why it wasn't a contradiction.  I am not sure you are going to be content with this, so I am going to go the extra mile here and be more precise this time. 

 

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:  and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:  and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.  Genesis 1:26-28

 

In chapter one, you are only getting an overview of the creation of man, but in chapter 2, you are getting actual details of his creation.  If you move on to chapter 2, you see the creation of Adam in verse 7.

 

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 soul.  Genesis 2:7

 

There is only one human being at this time, Adam. The woman hadn't been created from Adam's rib yet.  Before God creates the woman, you see Adam giving names to all the animals.  Every animal had a mate, but he was alone.  God already knew he was going to create woman, and he mentions this in verse 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.  Genesis 2:10

 

God knew what he planned to do, but Adam did not.  We see the account of the creation of Eve in verses 21-23

 

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept:  and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;  And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.  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.  Genesis 2:21-23

 

With all of this in mind, you can go back once again and re-visit Genesis 1:27

 

So God created man in his own image, In the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  Genesis 1:27

 

Genesis 1:27 tells us what God ultimately did.  He created man (Adam) in his image, but he created mankind male and female.  It is not meaning at that very moment, as we know that is not what happened.  It means that is what God did.  We are given the details in the next chapter.  There is no contradiction.  I don't care if a lot of people do see a contradiction here.  They are wrong.  They see a contradiction because they want to create a contradiction because they have an agenda.  Inspired does mean without error.  I completely disagree with you.  I believe God did give them the exact words to write down, word for word.  Yes, you see their personalities in what they write, but that doesn't mean it isn't the exact words God gave them to write down.  I could be sitting here typing away on my typewriter keys, and if God wants to give a message, he can give me the words to write, word for word.  My personality and writing style will shine through, but they are still the perfect words of God.  That is how the inerrant Word of God came about.  They wrote as God gave them the words to speak.  To claim the Bible has errors is to deny inerrancy of scripture.  You can't have it both ways.  You either believe in inerrancy or you don't.  Clearly Another Poster, I would say you don't, and that explains a lot when it comes to your view on Bible translations and why you aren't more concerned over them having all the words exactly right, and why you don't care if passages are missing.  I wouldn't care either if I looked at the Bible as you do.  I can't fully trust it anyway, coming from your point of view. 

[another_poster]

 

 

Yes we are seeking something. Connor, do you believe the bible to be inspired of God, that is to say The Holy Spirit used people to write the bible? 

Inspired does not mean without error. See to believe the bible is without error there are only two possible options.

1. That those who wrote scriptures are infallible. I can not believe this

 

2. God told them word for word exactly what to write. I can not believe this because we see that people put their own opinions into what they wrote. Did God really say write this word and now put your personal opinion in then write this word. Just can't believe God did that.

 

The words in the original language are documents are inspired.  All of the words.   He did not inspire ideas or concepts.  He inspired words.   We believe that God inspired the Scriptures in that he super-intended them upon the minds of the writers and they faithfully recorded what God transmitted to them  and they recorded those words without error.  The Bible contains no human opinions.

 

so your saying the bible contains errors then. After all it states very clearly that an author has put their personal opinion in. That does not match with what you say.

[another_poster]

What are you talking about Another Poster?  I was dealing precisely with the supposed contradiction.  It didn't exist.  In Genesis chapter one, there is just a general overview of the order of creation, and it mentions that God created mankind male and female.  In Genesis chapter 2, it goes into the details of the actual creation of the woman.  It is not a contradiction at all.  What I was saying is that when God created Adam, Eve did exist in the mind of God and she was still one of Adam's ribs.  Later, we see how God fashions the woman from Adam's rib.  In one way, she already existed as flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, but in another sense, she didn't come into existence physically in the form of a woman until after Adam.  What is hard to understand about that?  The person who started this thread thought there was a contradiction, but there was none, and I explained why it wasn't a contradiction.  I am not sure you are going to be content with this, so I am going to go the extra mile here and be more precise this time. 

 

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:  and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:  and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.  Genesis 1:26-28

 

In chapter one, you are only getting an overview of the creation of man, but in chapter 2, you are getting actual details of his creation.  If you move on to chapter 2, you see the creation of Adam in verse 7.

 

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 soul.  Genesis 2:7

 

There is only one human being at this time, Adam. The woman hadn't been created from Adam's rib yet.  Before God creates the woman, you see Adam giving names to all the animals.  Every animal had a mate, but he was alone.  God already knew he was going to create woman, and he mentions this in verse 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.  Genesis 2:10

 

God knew what he planned to do, but Adam did not.  We see the account of the creation of Eve in verses 21-23

 

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept:  and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;  And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.  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.  Genesis 2:21-23

 

With all of this in mind, you can go back once again and re-visit Genesis 1:27

 

So God created man in his own image, In the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  Genesis 1:27

 

Genesis 1:27 tells us what God ultimately did.  He created man (Adam) in his image, but he created mankind male and female.  It is not meaning at that very moment, as we know that is not what happened.  It means that is what God did.  We are given the details in the next chapter.  There is no contradiction.  I don't care if a lot of people do see a contradiction here.  They are wrong.  They see a contradiction because they want to create a contradiction because they have an agenda.  Inspired does mean without error.  I completely disagree with you.  I believe God did give them the exact words to write down, word for word.  Yes, you see their personalities in what they write, but that doesn't mean it isn't the exact words God gave them to write down.  I could be sitting here typing away on my typewriter keys, and if God wants to give a message, he can give me the words to write, word for word.  My personality and writing style will shine through, but they are still the perfect words of God.  That is how the inerrant Word of God came about.  They wrote as God gave them the words to speak.  To claim the Bible has errors is to deny inerrancy of scripture.  You can't have it both ways.  You either believe in inerrancy or you don't.  Clearly Another Poster, I would say you don't, and that explains a lot when it comes to your view on Bible translations and why you aren't more concerned over them having all the words exactly right, and why you don't care if passages are missing.  I wouldn't care either if I looked at the Bible as you do.  I can't fully trust it anyway, coming from your point of view. 

you need to read the OP again. At no point in time did the OP argue a contradiction about how people were made. It clearly says in one passage that something was made before Adam was while in the second passage those same things were made after Adam. That is the contradiction you need to deal with not the imaginary one you have created. 

 

If given word for word what to write then there is not room to put your own style in other than the way you write certain letters if handwritten. If typed then there is no room for individual style if I am told exactly word for word what to write. The style will be that of the one dictating the words. An individual style can come through if one is given an idea and the person writes it down. However one can not say they were told word for word what to write when it is clear they put in their personal opinion. Note personal opinion not style. Once again you are not reading what is said and are answering something different to the point raised. 

[another_poster]

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

 

Yes we are seeking something. Connor, do you believe the bible to be inspired of God, that is to say The Holy Spirit used people to write the bible?

Inspired does not mean without error. See to believe the bible is without error there are only two possible options.

1. That those who wrote scriptures are infallible. I can not believe this

 

2. God told them word for word exactly what to write. I can not believe this because we see that people put their own opinions into what they wrote. Did God really say write this word and now put your personal opinion in then write this word. Just can't believe God did that.

Your first reason is not logical as The bible is full of people that God used and not one of them was infallible. In fact people that are infallible dont exsist. And your second reason dosent hold water either, I dont see peoples opinion in the bible. Quote a scripture where someones opinion is present.

The only part of the bible thats wrong/infallible/whatever word you want to use, is the parts where man has corrupted the translation or words do not translate word for word. If one would invest the time to study, really study, prayerfully study, then what I am saying becomes academic. As for errors, it would be interesting if you could list an error thats not one from translation/language barrier.

the words of the bible are not dead letter, there is life in the words. Doubt will only keep you from this life. People who deny the bible is Gods written word are really only denying themselves access to wisdom and knowledge and all the promises of God.

 

Firstly I never said it was not the inspired word of God. So I have not denied it is God's word. What I do do is look at what is written and see that not everything in the bible is from God according to the bible itself.

 

Secondly your counter argument does not stand. Yes the bible does not mention anyone as being infallible. A point I made so i don't know why you think it is important to bring it up. Yes God used infallible people. That does not mean that just becuase he used infallible people that it must be free from mistake.

 

Thirdly and most importantly you have not addressed the example given which is not explained by the options you mention. i am aware of those possibilities  and do not discount the bible because of translation issues. In fact I am well aware of them and am careful not to build doctrine around scripture where those issues can change the meaning. You can say man has corrupted translation if you like but then you need to explain how we find out the true meaning if it is corrupted especially since it is used by many to determine if someone is a christian or not. With my personal beliefs the example in the OP is totally irrelevant. However for others here it is vitally important they explain this. 

[Guest Butero]

I had to go back again and carefully read and re-read Genesis chapter 2 in order to even attempt to figure out what is claimed to be a contradiction.  The reason I didn't address this "contradiction" is because it is so absurd, I had trouble seeing it.  It is not saying in Genesis chapter 2 that God is still creating animals and then bringing them to Adam one by one to name them.  The very notion anyone gets that out of the passage is so unbelievable, it is hard for me to lower myself to such a level to address such a thing.  In other words, I am to seriously think that in Genesis chapter 2, God creates a lion, and brings it to Adam to name.  Then he creates a giraffe and brings it to Adam to name, etc.  That is plain crazy.  These animals were already created.  It is only noting that they were created by God and brought to Adam.  There is such a thing as common sense here, and you have to look at what is meant, not the way it appears on the surface.  In this case, I don't even think it looks that way on the surface, unless one is trying to create a contradiction when none exists. 

 

I honestly don't know how to put this in a better way than I have.  I literally had to throw away common sense and basic reading skills to even find a supposed contradiction in this passage.  It wasn't that I was having trouble defending the Bible here.  I just couldn't comprehend that anyone seriously looked at that passage like that. 

 

As for inerrancy, yes, God did dictate the words, and men put them down on paper.  He did allow their personalities to come through in the writing, as God created them the way they are.  He used them to write down what he wanted them to say, exactly the way he wanted them to say it.  There is not a single word in the entire 66 books of the Bible that is not perfect.  None.  And I disagree with you Another Poster, that because God let their personalities come out in the writing, that means there must be errors.  God created them as they are.  He just took over when they were writing scripture.  There is actually a thing in the occult called psychic writing, where a person allows their hand to sit on a piece of paper and it mysteriously writes things.  I have heard stories of people writing entire books in such a way.  It was like something took over and wrote for them.  I have no problem believing that God took over as Paul was addressing a church and wrote Ephesians or Galatians, word for word.  He gave prophecies to people, and they were clearly not the words of the author.  They would say thing they didn't understand under the inspiration of God.  Inerrancy means every word in scripture is God's words, period.  If you deny that, you simply don't believe in Biblical inerrancy.  If that is the case, so be it, but to claim you do while attacking the trustworthiness of scripture is to be in denial of the position you are taking. 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

Yes we are seeking something. Connor, do you believe the bible to be inspired of God, that is to say The Holy Spirit used people to write the bible? 

Inspired does not mean without error. See to believe the bible is without error there are only two possible options.

1. That those who wrote scriptures are infallible. I can not believe this

 

2. God told them word for word exactly what to write. I can not believe this because we see that people put their own opinions into what they wrote. Did God really say write this word and now put your personal opinion in then write this word. Just can't believe God did that.

 

The words in the original language are documents are inspired.  All of the words.   He did not inspire ideas or concepts.  He inspired words.   We believe that God inspired the Scriptures in that he super-intended them upon the minds of the writers and they faithfully recorded what God transmitted to them  and they recorded those words without error.  The Bible contains no human opinions.

 

so your saying the bible contains errors then. After all it states very clearly that an author has put their personal opinion in. That does not match with what you say.

 

No, I am saying it has no errors.  And it also contains no human opinions, either.   You are wrong.

[a-seeker]

Behind this question lies the enormous difference between you and me.  I treat the Bible as if it were any historical document; only then do I discover that it is much more than that; and only  from this approach do I let Scripture tell me how it is inspired.

 

It already tells you how it is inspired II Tim. 3:16 and II Pet. 1:21  

 

 2 peter says nothing about the definition of inspiration and refers specifically to prophecy.  Timothy tells me that Scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, for training in righteousness: a rather broad and vague description!  Does “teaching” include how to poach an egg, or how to dissect a frog, or pass the GRE’s?  Paul gives no content for “teaching”, but given the rest of the sentences, it seems his main concern is not with geology or science or history.   That might be a good point.  Depends.  If you acknowledge that Scripture can be God-breathed and not inerrant, then I agree the two concepts are independent.  But if that is a contradiction in terms, then the point is moot: a mere subtlety not worth mentioning or criticizing someone for missing—pedantry, in other words.  For instance, I believe Scripture is God-breathed; that is, a supernatural agent that created the  universe is operating behind Scripture.  But I don’t think it matters if canonical authors held a heliocentric view of the universe and described in Scripture a heliocentric universe.  That has no effect on the question of Christ’s resurrection or Divine creation or Sin or anything else.

 Well, no.  My definition of inspiration isn't inerrancy.   Inerrancy is an entirely different concept.  My definition of inspiration is based on the Scriptures being 100% God breathed.   Now inerrancy flows from that, in that an all knowing God cannot be in error on anything.   But to say that my definition of inspiration is inerrancy demonstrates that you don't really understand either concept. You (seem to) start with your own definition of inspiration, i.e. inerrancy; therefore you are forced to embrace what appears to me to be the most implausible solutions to apparent contradictions.  

 

 

 

 

That may be a good point.  Depends.  If you acknolwedge that Scripture can be God-breathed but include non-essential errors, then okay.  But if "inspiration" and "inerrancy" are indissolubly bound, then it is a rather moot point. 

My faith is not in inerrancy.  My faith is in Jesus.

 

 

My faith is not in inerrancy, either.   But it is my faith that allows to me understand that the Bible is 100% inerrant and 100% on everything it says.  If the Bible

 

 

So would it affect your faith if there were errors in the Bible?

Umm…”happened” is a word used of events. That is rather narrow.  Does that mean that inerrancy does not preclude the possibility of false ethics appearing in Scripture?  My guess is no: inerrancy claims the bible is free of all errors from morals to geography to history.  It seems that “completely trustworthy” is a better description of inerrancy than “if it says it happened, it happened.”  If inerrancy really only pertains to events, then, yes, I have misunderstood the doctrine all my life. Inerrancy simply means completely trustworthy—so inerrantists are basically saying that they “know the Bible is trustworthy because it is completely trustworthy”. Viciously circular.   that's not quite how it works.  Inerrancy simply means if the Bible says it happened, it happened.   Some people view the Bible as trustworthy despite the fact that they feel it has errors, and so I need to make the distinction between trustworthy and the actual definition of inerrancy.

 

 

To the man who claims the Bible is inerrant because he has examined every one of its discrepancies and found them resolvable, I can respect.  But very few meet that description ( I have met none).  Most begin with the assumption that it is inerrant, and then proceed to prove it's inerrant!  And of course the imagination of the fanatic is inexhaustible--characteristic of the fanatic is unquestioned belief in the teeth of overwhelming, reliable adverse evidence.  I am not a fanatic.  

 

 

Inerrancy has nothing to with discrepancies.   Not all discrepancies are created equal.    There are for example, scribal errors in the Bible that have no effect on inerrancy whatsoever.  Spelling errors and errors in how many chariots or foot soldiers were in a particular battles have no effect on inerrancy.  The kind of contradiction that needs to occur for there to a genuine challenge inerrancy would be something on the level with a claim that Judas hung himself in one Gospel and another Gospel that claims that Judas was murdered by a Roman soldier.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to have set your own standards on what the Bible can and cannot contain.  Who are you to say that the Bible can contain spelling errors?  God can't spell?  God can't copy accurately?

 

You seem to say that inerrancy is concerned with the big picture and not the details.  Could we not extend this to, say, Genesis?  Creation happened, whether it happened in 6 days, well, let’s not get caught up in the details?  That seems rather weak. By scribal errors you mean that Biblical authors made mistakes, or that church scribes over the years made mistakes while copying?  You seem to allude to the Chronicles/Kings discrepancy, right?  Or you saying that the Chronicler made a scribal error, or that Church scribes made an error?

 

 

The problem is that none of the silly alleged contradictions really come up with that example.  Most of them are scribal errors that are offered have no effect on the substance of the text and have no effect on any doctrine taught in Scripture.  This view that "the Bible is full of contradictions"  is really just a  lot of nonsense.

 

 

 

I certainly agree that most are ridiculous and blown out of proportion.  But there are “contradictions”; and some of the proposed solutions are so implausible only conviction in inerrancy would compel me to embrace them. Let’s look at a concrete example.  Most Christians will eventually meet the differing genealogies given for Jesus in Luke and Matthew.  When I was young I heard a lecturer explain that one genealogy was traced through Jesus’ mother, and the other through Jesus’ “father”, Joseph.

 

Excited, I picked up my Bible and studied the two passages….unfortunately I found no evidence in either gospel that Jesus’ ancestry was traced through anyone other than Joseph.   If the world had only one or the other gospel, it would never once question which parent our Lord’s genealogy was traced to.  So why the proposal? Because whoever made it needed the Bible to be free of errors.  Put another way, I have two options: either rely upon my reason which tells me that Matthew and Luke present incompatible genealogies, or embrace a theory despite all the exegetical evidence to the contrary?  If my faith were tied up with the conviction that unless the Bible is inerrant to the last iota, Jesus was not raised, I suppose my faith would crumble or my reasoning would take a back seat.  Since my faith is not tied up with inerrancy, I am free to say that the two genealogies are completely incompatible.

 

Put another way,I see the doctrine of inerrancy as merely a safeguard against doubt: (most) inerrantists hail the Bible as inerrant because they do not like the implications of it containing errors: like a man who claims a ladder is safe because he can’t stand the thought of falling.  

Yeah and you are wrong.   We don't impose inerrancy of the Bible because we are afraid to think of the Bible having errors.   We believe in the inerrancy of the Bible because the Bible purports and demonstrates its inerrancy and because both history and archeology also lend support to the Bible's claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Curious, how do you address this: There are clearly two angels in Luke’s Resurrection seen; there is clearly one in Matthew and Mark’s. 

And as I said, most do: and I should've been more cautious: most that I have met seem to need inerrancy as a security blanket: my evidence for this is that the solutions to certain contradictions sound so desperate, that if parallel solutions were offered by a Muslim in defense of the Koran, we would jump down his throat.  Why the different standards?  Because they need the Bible to be inerrant.

 

I think for some people, this is condonable, perhaps even advisable. There are certain minds or temperaments that are simply not equipped to meet head-on difficult theological questions. Let them remain under the comforting illusion of inerrancy.

 

 I would expect that kind of comment to come from Richard Dawkins.  It is disturbing when people who allege that they are Christians start sounding like atheists.  

That response means nothing to me.  I don’t know much of Dawkins.  My guess is that Dawkins is not concerned with inerrancy specifically but with Christianity as a whole.  My issue here is with inerrancy.  Specifically the damage it does to Christians fostered on it at home and at church; then they go to college and realize that the issue isn't so neat.  Their faith crumbles because they were forced fed the ridiculous idea that it is all or none with scripture.

Inerrancy is a doctrine, an essential doctrine of the Christian faith, not a placebo.   No you are not seeking truth.  You are challenging the integrity of God's word and by extension you are challenging God's integrity.   Your posts demonstrate direct enmity with the truth.

 

 

 

We need to make a distinction here between motives and consequences.  I claimed that I am seeking the truth: unless you can read my mind there is really nothing for you to say against the claim.  It is a matter of psychology.  Of course You can say that I have taken positions that are wrong, but that is different from denying that I seek the truth.  A person can seek the truth and be wrong.  Paul believed he was serving God by persecuting the Church.

 

clb

[a-seeker]

Apologies for there being quotes here from various participants.

 

Al Mohler, president of Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY observes:  “Without an inerrant, authoritative Bible, the minister has nothing to preach, because we depend upon an authority that is not our own, to declare to people.  And if we don’t have confidence in the absolute authority and perfection of the Word of God, your authority in preaching is completely compromised."

 

 

 

This is a perfect example of what I meant when I said “Inerrancy” was a security blanket.  Note that it is all based on “needs”.  The logic: we need the Bible to be this; therefore it is this.  Pure subjectivity.

The words in the original language are documents are inspired.  All of the words.   He did not inspire ideas or concepts.  He inspired words.   We believe that God inspired the Scriptures in that he super-intended them upon the minds of the writers and they faithfully recorded what God transmitted to them  and they recorded those words without error.  The Bible contains no human opinions.

 

 

 

We do not have the original documents; so how can you say that the original documents prove inerrancy?  Again, you acknowledge spelling errors.  Did God inspire those mistakes?  Paul says clearly that he has a word “from himself” and “not from the Lord” in 1 Corinthians.

What are you talking about Another Poster?  I was dealing precisely with the supposed contradiction.  It didn't exist.  In Genesis chapter one, there is just a general overview of the order of creation, and it mentions that God created mankind male and female.  In Genesis chapter 2, it goes into the details of the actual creation of the woman.  It is not a contradiction at all.  What I was saying is that when God created Adam, Eve did exist in the mind of God and she was still one of Adam's ribs.  Later, we see how God fashions the woman from Adam's rib.  In one way, she already existed as flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, but in another sense, she didn't come into existence physically in the form of a woman until after Adam.  What is hard to understand about that?  The person who started this thread thought there was a contradiction, but there was none, and I explained why it wasn't a contradiction.  I am not sure you are going to be content with this, so I am going to go the extra mile here and be more precise this time. 

 

 

 

That is exactly the kind of desperate solution which only an inerrantist would propose.  In the mind of God!  For that matter Adam was created before day 1, for surely God knew He was going to make him.  The fact of the matter is that if all we had were Genesis 2.4 onward we would, without question, believe that creation occurred in one day and not seven, that beasts and birds were created simultaneously and after Adam but before Eve.  The Hebrew and the narrative logic all indicate this.  There were easy ways for the writer to make it clear that the birds and beasts he was introducing had already been made.  He didn’t use them.

I had to go back again and carefully read and re-read Genesis chapter 2 in order to even attempt to figure out what is claimed to be a contradiction.  The reason I didn't address this "contradiction" is because it is so absurd, I had trouble seeing it.  It is not saying in Genesis chapter 2 that God is still creating animals and then bringing them to Adam one by one to name them.  The very notion anyone gets that out of the passage is so unbelievable, it is hard for me to lower myself to such a level to address such a thing.  In other words, I am to seriously think that in Genesis chapter 2, God creates a lion, and brings it to Adam to name.  Then he creates a giraffe and brings it to Adam to name, etc.  That is plain crazy.  These animals were already created.  It is only noting that they were created by God and brought to Adam.  There is such a thing as common sense here, and you have to look at what is meant, not the way it appears on the surface.  In this case, I don't even think it looks that way on the surface, unless one is trying to create a contradiction when none exists. 

 

 

 

Plain crazy, but precisely how the narrative flows.  Read Genesis 2.4 onward and put out of your mind Genesis 1.1 and what do you get?  Creation in one day, Adam, then birds and beasts, then Eve.  Also don’t use the ESV or NAS because they sneak in the word “had created”.  The Hebrew is the same form used every time God is creating something right there and then. It should read, "then God formed every bird...beast". 

 

Also, I am not sure why you think this anymore absurd then the notion of God creating all the animals before Adam, and having him name EVERY SINGLE ONE!

 

OF course the matter is solved if we treat Genesis as it was meant to be treated (I refer to everything prior to Abraham): as a myth.  It is absolutely wrong to say that if it is a myth then creation didn't happen--myths can have historic elements.  But they are not written in the style of the historian.

 

clb