For me, the first notable contradiction is in the creation accounts, but not the stuff about the sun and plants and the order of creation. It's the part near the end of each account.
Man and woman created together. The impression is not that god made one and then the other, but that he created mankind. There is no mention that he placed them in one area of the world and limited them to it. In this version, god gives them the world as a gift. They can partake of the fruit of every plant on the whole planet as food. The apologist can at least provide a bit of cover for that last part, in that the text specifically mentions "seed-bearing" and "green" plants. The assumption that the two magic trees were not seed-bearing is reasonable, and having them a different color could differentiate them from the rest of the world's plants. Even allowing for this kind of nitpicking doesn't address the other differences between this account and Genesis 2.
Genesis 2:
In Genesis 2, man is created first, and some time passes before he is provided a "helper." But more notable is that humanity isn't given the Earth as a gift, and they aren't given its green, seed-bearing plants to eat. Man is placed in the garden of Eden and allowed to eat of any tree in the garden, with one exception. To reconcile the two accounts, we need to believe that it was not until after Adam and Eve had sinned that god blessed(???) them and gave them a privileged place in the animal hierarchy as well as access to all of the plants in the world. That in particular is a sticking point for me. The rest can be rationalized to varying degrees, none of which I find compelling but the mental gymnastics aren't too embarrassing. But that one presents a clear difference between the two writers and I don't see how that conflict can be ascribed to language differences or how it can be resolved by simply juggling the descriptions to fit them into a new timeline.
The Bible Wrote:Genesis 1: 27-30: So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
Man and woman created together. The impression is not that god made one and then the other, but that he created mankind. There is no mention that he placed them in one area of the world and limited them to it. In this version, god gives them the world as a gift. They can partake of the fruit of every plant on the whole planet as food. The apologist can at least provide a bit of cover for that last part, in that the text specifically mentions "seed-bearing" and "green" plants. The assumption that the two magic trees were not seed-bearing is reasonable, and having them a different color could differentiate them from the rest of the world's plants. Even allowing for this kind of nitpicking doesn't address the other differences between this account and Genesis 2.
Genesis 2:
Quote:7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
In Genesis 2, man is created first, and some time passes before he is provided a "helper." But more notable is that humanity isn't given the Earth as a gift, and they aren't given its green, seed-bearing plants to eat. Man is placed in the garden of Eden and allowed to eat of any tree in the garden, with one exception. To reconcile the two accounts, we need to believe that it was not until after Adam and Eve had sinned that god blessed(???) them and gave them a privileged place in the animal hierarchy as well as access to all of the plants in the world. That in particular is a sticking point for me. The rest can be rationalized to varying degrees, none of which I find compelling but the mental gymnastics aren't too embarrassing. But that one presents a clear difference between the two writers and I don't see how that conflict can be ascribed to language differences or how it can be resolved by simply juggling the descriptions to fit them into a new timeline.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould
