[Aragorn turns and walks away] Merry: I don't think he knows about second Genesis, Pip. Pippin: What about Exodus? Leviticus? Amos & Titus? Deuteronomy? Samuel? He knows about them, doesn't he? Merry: I wouldn't count on it.
Man this is super embarrassing but I was like in high school when I realized men didn't have one less rib than women. It just goes to show you how misinformed I was by my religious community as a kid.
The biggest sign of the Bible's contradictions & illogic & inaccuracy is the resources dedicated to explaining how it's not contradictory or illogical or inaccurate.
@@mil401 That's the thing though: the New Testament says that "all Scripture" is God-breathed. Jesus and the New Testament authors believed in the literality of the events that occurred in the Old Testament, such as the Fall, the Flood, etc. That seems to have forced Christianity into a position that they pretty much HAVE to take the Bible literally. And that opens it up to being undermined by all these contradictions, historical falsehoods, etc.
@Psychonaut621 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. - this doesn't read as if he is saying everything must be literal. Did Paul think jesus' parables were literal truths?
I could definitely see someone intentionally or unintentionally using this verse to justify literalist interpretation, and it is clear that some of the Bible IS literal, and also that some IS parable. One should be quite careful when determining the intention
In Genesis 1:1 alone, there are tons of questions that just can’t get answered sufficiently for me. The level of mental gymnastics that must be done to explain just this verse, is exhausting. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. In the beginning of what? Beginning of time? Beginning of God? Did time exist before god? Did god exist before time? Did they come into existence at the same….time? So there was absolutely nothing floating around, and then all of a sudden….god? Or was god just existing since the beginning of non-time, chilling out doing nothing, bored out of his mind, then decided to start creating? Where was god, since no heaven or earth existed until he created them? How can god exist without a place for him to exist in? Who poofed god into existence? Doesn’t a creation have to have a creator? Who shit out the god that shit us out? Did he shit himself?
Man created god in their own image not the other way around makes more sense. But all those are good points and the apologists would get dizzy trying to make excuses for all of them lol
I also don't understand why Genesis 1:1 is not used by skeptics more. I mean the FIRST SENTENCE of your Bible states that the Earth was created in the beginning. We know that Earth could not have possibly appeared before Sun or stars or some other astronomical objects, and definitely wasn't there to see the Big Bang. Yeah you could say that 'Earth' here refers to the 'Earthly realm' (i.e. God created the Heavens - the 'realm' or 'dimension' for angels - and the Earth - the realm for people), i. e. read 'Earth' here as 'cosmos' or 'universe' in general. Well, first, Genesis 1 after that reads such that the Earth clearly refers to the planet Earth, or to some material body in an unformed-yet universe, but definitely not the 'plane of existence' in general. But even then, second, why not just write 'cosmos' or 'universe'? Well, yeah, the authors (here, Moses, allegedly) did not have a concept of the universe at the time, so it makes sense that they would describe it in understandable terms. Oh so you're saying that the language of the Bible is determined by human culture at the time?:) From my perspective, Gen 1:1-1:5 alone are so contradictory with our understanding of cosmology that an all-knowing being could not have possibly been that inaccurate in inspiring the Genesis's author, even if that being intended Genesis to be metaphorical. Also, how can God create any material body without first creating its elements? Like, he wrote the laws of physics. Did he create Earth first, and then retcon chemistry and physics onto it, such that it would no longer be necessary for him to spend mana to uphold a universe without natural laws? It seems more reasonable to suggest that he first figured out quarks and photons, then protons and neutrons and electrons, then atoms, then he would need to organize a system for how things made of atoms can have micro- and macro-level properties, and only then make macroscopic objects of these. At least, the 'God saw that it was good' makes sense, as it starts to appear in Gen 1 only after God creates light which is prerequisite to seeing things.
When I first read Genesis (stoned), it almost came across like an ancient fertility story. The formless earth, representing the mother, the egg. Then god the father hovers the mother, moving upon her waters to bring forth life. God as father, his spirit ...just sperms. Kinda makes me sad the term "Big Bang Theory" is already taken.
A keen and astute observation. This concept resonates deeply with me. Considering cannabis is an ingredient in the holy oil along with other psychoactive and psychedelic ingredients it is no surprise that the wisest comment so far owes itself to an enhanced mental/emotional state.
The *relationship of the first woman* to the man and the deity(s) is one of the two most overlooked contradictions. In G1, she is spoken into existence, apparently simultaneously with the first man in the image of (an?) Elohim. In G2, she is an afterthought and an ally/helper for the man after he rejects all the non-human animals his ally. She is created from the side of a man who was sculpted from clay. Yahweh Elohim gives his rules to the man. Apparently the man relays the rules to Eve. So in G1 the first woman appears to be equal. In G2, Eve is second-class scapegoat for the Fall.
@James Jungles *“Created in the image of Elohim”* seems to be mostly a visual image. All uses of “image” have a visual aspect. It sure can’t mean moral image if Genesis 2 and 3 is accurate. The two humans don’t have knowledge of good and evil and quickly disobey Yahweh Elohim in Eden. Is disobeying Yahweh part of a moral “image” of Elohim? (In Genesis 3:5, the serpent explains accurately that the people will learn about good and evil. Yahweh Elohim must already know about these, so the people are morally different from him.)
@James Jungles At risk of repeating myself, Genesis 1:27 is apparently (no pun intended) at least in part about appearance, regardless of what image or likeness mean to you. In Genesis 1, Elohim spoke the land, skies, people, etc, into existence, which makes them gods, regardless of what other gods might be above them. Some people take Elohim to be various things, and different authors probably meant different entities when using the word. But in G1, they are gods. One could make an argument that it refers to a single god, but 1:27 indicates the eu are not always seen as one.
The thing that got me when I started thinking about the Genesis story when I was young, is that I was taught that the Bible says man and woman were created innocent of the knowledge of good and evil. Then God put a totally unnecessary tree in the garden and told them not to eat its fruit. Meanwhile, neither Adam or Eve has any clue whether ignoring God's requirement that they leave the tree of knowledge alone is evil or not. In fact, I was taught, that god created the universe and the inhabitants the way they were on purpose and he knew that he had created beings, in his image, that would eat the fruit of that tree. Not a fair test at all to create people ignorant of good and evil and then grade them on behavior he built into them. But that wasn't good enough for God because what if Adam and Eve just obeyed God because the never had any desire to test the fruit of that tree. So God decided to send a "serpent", which was one of the most beautiful creatures, to lie to and tempt the people into eating the fruit that they might not have ever thought twice about. So these innocent people that didn't know about deceit and lies, and had no defenses against them,, were tricked into eating the fruit and then judged as failing the test because they didn't know what they were doing was bad or evil. If fact, God made sure there was a creature there to trick them into failing the test. That is some pretty evil stuff and at age 11 or 12, this definitely set me against any God that would do something that evil. And then God judged ALL the rest of humanity that was to come on the actions of the first two, which were unfairly tested and judged in the first place. I may not have had the details all correct (I didn't read Hebrew and still don't), but this is the story I was taught and the King James Bible seemed to back the story up. I still think I got the essence of the story correct to this day - I'm 67 now.
One of the problems of seeing what seems to be clear evidence of YHWH-elohim putting Adam and Eve into an unfair situation, is that this is a story. If this were based on facts, then it wouldn't have to make sense, as the authors would be relaying what little they knew from their perspective. As it's a story, then we'd have to believe that either the author wasn't aware that he was making YHWH-elohim into the bad guy, which is troubling, or the author IS aware that he's making YHWH-elohim into the bad guy, which is at least as troubling. We can't entirely get into the author's head, but I don't think this legend can say much about the "goodness" of the YHWH-elohim character. Even if this is flat proof that the author of the story thought YHWH-elohim was evil, it doesn't necessarily reflect on later judaism's views. Even the nasty things attributed to the various gods of judaism later on were either used as justification for human beings to commit atrocious acts in the name of god, or they were apologetics for why bad times had hit their nations. As a foundational myth, it's less apparent why YHWH-elohim would be implicitly painted as the bad guy. Maybe cultural differences have us perceive a bitterness in the writing that wasn't intended by the author; I couldn't say.
@robertekis2450 First off, where does it say that the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil is unnecessary? That is just an assumption on your part. Secondly Adam and Eve didn’t need to know good and evil to know that they should probably obey the literal God of the universe, the one who made them, and the one who is essentially their only parent. And GOD also very clearly warned them that they will die if they eat from the tree. Thirdly GOD loves people enough to give them a choice and how can anyone take a choice they were never given? So he let the serpent come and test them and the serpent came and tempted them. They knew they would be disobeying God if they took and ate the fruit yet were led away not by the snake but their own desires (which is said in the scripture) and deliberately CHOSE to disobey and not only that but both Adam and Eve tried to blame someone else for it for it. The fourth thing you mentioned about God cursing all the earth through the first two. He’s not the one who cursed them and the earth he was simply explaining to them the consequences of their own actions so that they would understand that the world’s not the same as it once was so that they weren’t taken completely off guard by it when they left. As for banishing them from the garden it was so they wouldn’t spend eternity trapped by sin as it results in fear and shame.
When we look at what the waters are referred to as, "The deep" (Tiamat), it starts to make sense. The corpse of the god of the primordial water Tiamat, were divided to make the firmament, the Earth and all life, including humans. This myth in Genesis is just a reflex of an older Babylonian myth from the Enuma Elish, not that Christians will acknowledge this. I've seen the claim before that Gen 1 is more so the reflex of the Babylonian myth with Gen 2 serving as a more Judaic spin on the same myth probably as Yahwism grew in popularity, hence the name change.
Thank you Matt.... always enjoy your content. Like you, I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Although I've been atheist since I was about 13, I attended a religious college and took several classes on religion. These were not taught by apologists.... more religious scholars in my view. I learned in those classes that there are indeed two different and distinct stories of creation in Genesis that were written about 1000 years apart from each other. The version beginning in Gen 2:4 is the older of the two and is based more on the oral tradition that was passed down. It's not the complete legend of Adam and Eve. There are other texts not included in the Bible that fill in many of the gaps in the Hebrew story. I believe there is a Book of Adam and Eve that was written around the 2nd century AD. The story that begins in Gen 1:1 was one that priests added much later than the oral tradition. One of the clearest ways to see that there are two writers is how each distinctly refers to God. You touched on this a bit with the Hebrew words. In Gen 1 through Gen 2:3 "God" created everything. Beginning in Gen 2:4 "The Lord God" did all the work. To your point, there are contradictions between the 2, just as there are between the gospels of Mark and John, because in each case they had different authors in different times.
There was a set of “TED Talk” like talks I came across on YT some years back (will try to find them) where a group of Christians (non evengelicals) were running some interesting talks / presentations and one of those was on Genesis and the guy presenting said the same thing (ie more than one author) and in fact thought there may have been 3 and/or another 1 or 2 sources being referenced (bit like the Q document that gets mentioned regards the gospels). This would make sense as serious Bible scholars are always noting that many of the books of both Old and New Testament seem to have multiple writers and that parts of specific books were written at different times.
Cool story bro, not sure why theists find their holy books so convincing if they don't even agree on who/when/where they were written. This book is the supposed source of all morality and truth and you can't agree on where it came from.. how ridiculous
I have been trying to find sources for the 2 different Genesis creation accounts stating there were written 1,000 years apart. Can you provide source of this? thank you
When I was a Christian I took it to mean that the animals actually were created twice. First all of the animals were created all over the world and then he makes another one of each, one at a time, so Adam can name them. The bigger problem (as I see it) isn't trying to make it match itself but trying to make it match reality. As an example, the waters were separated above and below with something called a firmament (whatever that is) in the middle and then the sun, moon and stars are made inside the firmament. So we have water, then the sun, moon, and stars, then more water. Where is all the water 'above' the sun? Is the firmament space? Is the universe in a bubble? How does any of that make any sense?
Simple. It's snow globe Earth. Well, underwater snow globe Earth. One of the bigger class of flat Earths. That was, in fact, a popular cosmology model around the time. It makes sense, too - it explains springs (water coming from below) and rain (water coming from above). It just happens to be completely wrong.
@@gotisc That's one of the creationist 'theories'. The problem is the water wasn't just above the earth it was 'above' the stars. The bible is pretty clear that the stars were placed in the firmament and that there was water above the firmament. Like all creationist stuff it only tries to explain some of the information and ignores any it doesn't like.
Another issue with the notion of Adam choosing a mate is that God knew that Adam would not choose any of the animals brought to him. God created Adam with particular needs and attractions so knew him intimately. It is like someone bringing me all different plates of pasta to taste knowing I don't like pasta. The process is completely redundant and deceitful towards Adam, providing a false sense of free will and choice.
Chapter 2 treats the creation of Eve as a seeming afterthought. Accepting apologists assertion that god is omniscient, then god has never not known that he was going to create animal life, humans specifically in the case, mating pairs representing a bi-modal distribution of complementary sexual dimorphism. Should we understand verse 18 as implying that the decision to create Eve was a result of god reaching a previously unheld awareness/conclusion that Adam needed a mate? Is this just a case of god messing with the author, play-acting as if pretending not to know that the creation of Eve was part of his plan all along? Or are we to understand that god felt compelled somehow to explain the reasoning behind just this one decision, revealing the evolution of this specific divine creation philosophy, to justify his creation of Eve or to awe? Are we to be impressed with god's thoughtful imagination, even though the author would presumably already be well aware of the concept of human sexual reproduction through lived experience? Ostensibly god could have created man any number of ways with or without the ability to reproduce, or able to reproduce by any number of different mechanisms, limited only by god's own imagination.
My sticking point was that Gen 1 states that plants come before humans: Gen 1:12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13: And the evening and the morning were the third day. But, Gen 2 says there are no plants before man: Gen 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. They can't both be true.
@James Jungles Right where you said. *BEFORE* it sprung up. Because it hadn't rained and there was nobody to till the ground. Gen 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. Gen 1 has the plants coming first. Gen 2 has the plants coming after humans. They can't both be right.
@James Jungles Nope. Man was created first. It doesn't matter how the water came. Gen 2:8-9: Man first, then plants. And we can keep going. Gen 2:19 has the animals coming after man while Gen 1 has animals before. This is to be expected as the two stories were not written by the same people.
The excuse I’ve heard is that “plants of the field” is a more specific category than plants in general. So there were plants created before Adam, and then other plants that were created after.
I thought the "one less rib" thing was true way too long, even long after I stopped believing. Never thought is was a good proof for the creation myth anyway, so I never checked if it was true. I just thought, that the writers of the Bible knew about that oddity in anatomy and made up a story to explain that. The possibility of it not being true never crossed my mind, since I heard it so many times.
You mentioned fungi as possible plants without sunlight, but fungi are not plants. You might have said this just because fungi are often colloquially referred to as plants, but I just thought I'd mention in case there was confusion.
Taxonomy is classification and naming. Ancient Taxonomy wouldn't necessarily have to align with modern Taxonomy. As you mentioned colloquial use of fungus as plants. If the writers intended to classify fungus as plants that could hypothetically be used to rationalize the verse. Even if it is horribly wrong.
@K. Bosch well if our assumption that God was a bunch of sheep herding nomads in the cannanite region then no we shouldn't expect them to get it right lmfao
While despise kent ham, Hovind, Ray Comfort, and etc, i get why they deny all fields of science. If the very beginning of sin is wrong, then what's the point of Jesus?
That’s always been my thought…if a Christian says Genesis should not be taken literally, or is myth etc etc then surely the whole basis of sin, the fall of man and hence down to the need for Jesus collapse (or at least becomes a much harder theology to defend )
Yeah, they don't deny science because of problems with the science, they deny it because it puts the lie to their Creation myth, and if the Creation myth is false....then the whole Jesus/Resurrection/Salvation for Sin concept is false...and that means they don't get to go to the Heaven that they desperately believe in.
Bingo. Never mind that sacrifice as described is utterly atavistic behavior. If you transgress (against an individual or society) you apologize, make some restitution, and move on. That’s how the modern world works. You don’t need blood sacrifices; that’s just weird.
I was hoping you were going to delve into the Documentary Hypothesis that most biblical scholars talk about with regards to the first five books, and especially explain the differences between Genesis 1 & 2. It’s illustrated very well in “The Bible with Sources Revealed” by Richard E. Friedman.
Some scholars of the european/scandinavian tradition, would say "Yes, there are contradictions. And it is evidence for how the scriptures were treated when different sources had to be edited. Any and all source was held as sacred. But when one and a single joined version was to be produced, all of them HAD to be represented and included. For purely political reasons, creating a "book of law" for a nation, all minorities and versions had to be merged into the text. Now, here in scandinavia, the "Holy Book" is really not that "holy" even to the theists....
In the church I grew up in chapter 2 was described as the “8th day”, and not in any way connected to the first week of creation. It implied Adam was then not the first man but the first to have a relationship directly with God. I’m now agnostic, but this makes more sense to me because it removes the correlation and continues the story.
In Hebrew Bible YHVH created the seeds on day three. Then on day six in Genesis 2, Eloah caused them to sprout. See at scripture4all where it mentions seeds and no sprouting in 1, then mentions sprouting and no seeds in Genesus 2. Messiah King David was born in Bethlehem, and YHVH promised him that his throne shall be an everlasting throne. He is going to be resurrected and rule the nations and heaven on earth will be reality. Jesus is a Greek mythology false god. YHVH is One Person and no Christians pronounce His Name right, except for Hallelu YaH (Praise You YaH). VH ending is where they err.
Matt, I know you know this much better than I. But the Tree thing!!! I was so waiting for the 'he created them, male and female', then that Adam couldn't find a mate, so the rib thing! And that is where the legends of Lilith came from, Adam's first wife! But the main thing, and it's the same in the hebrew/ aramaic, is that there were TWO forbidden trees! One of knowledge but the other of life! They may have brought sin, (and I always wondered why their nudity was the big thing but!) but not death! They were not 'created' immortal. It drives me nuts when apologists say that is where death came from! Yahweh was told by the 'others' to get his toys (ok, paraphrase!) out of the garden, 'lest they also eat of the tree of life and become immortal like us', depending on translation, 'live eternally' , etc. So, he did. With the guards , flaming swords to keep them out. And really, I wish eve had taken from the other tree, since they stayed pretty dumb. For millenia! I'd have rather had the life, lol. Yeah, I miss my young, active and 'hot' time!👍💙💖🥰✌
One apologetic I’ve seen is that Genesis 1 is the creation of the whole universe, and 2 is God setting up a special preserve inside it for his favourite pet. This also is convenient for explaining why there seem to be whole cities of people outside the garden after Adam and Eve get kicked out of it.
@@juanausensi499 But they all got wiped out in the flood, and the Bible tells us that Noah was a direct descendent from Adam…so the flood wiped out all those not tainted by original sin, leaving only descendants of Adam populating the world.
@@AlBundyOz My point is that, whether or not humans did the moss/rock eating thing you’re describing, they also understood that day light came from the sun. Which is what the OP used as the basis of their comment. How you believe pointing out that some unrelated point speaks to OP is beyond me.
@@dingdongism, asks _"Do you have any sort of citation for saying this?"_ No, but it explains the claims of the bible and the order of creation. It also makes total sense when you think about it without modern knowledge of the solar system -- without an understanding of the rotation of the Earth, it explains how it becomes day before the sun appears and doesn't become night until *after* the sun has disappeared. And even when it's cloudy and there is no sun to give sunlight, you still have day and night.
Hitting home the idea of the weakness of handwaving it as allegory really helped me. Grew up in a more liberal but more devout Christian home and we always criticized fundamentalist/biblical literalists. But it was the allegory and symbolism that kept my faith strong until this video. If it is allegory then God omitted the truth about what actually happened from the beginning. This helped me take another step down from faith toward atheism.
@Matt. You should look into booking biblical scholars like Dr. Dennis R. MacDonald, Dr. Kipp Davis, Dr. Richard C Miller, etc. This would help you expose the bible to other contradictions. Those scholars left Christianity after discovering contradictions while they had to study other religions for their's PhD programs.
It's interesting to hear about it, but when it comes to a conversation with a believer, I will never remember all the little detaiils of this line of reasoning, and since they are the believers they have an advantage in that respect. Matt has a good memory for that kind of thing, and more power to him. I have a poor memory, and there's no way I'm going to remember how many space planes Zeenu flew into the volcano, or how many magic rocks were in Joseph Smith's hat. That's why I'm always trying to get better at #StreetEpistemology, because you don't really need to remember anything about the dogma in question. Just ask what, why, and how, and let them do all the work.
These are good tools for the old counter-apologetic belt but I personally stopped arguing with theists a long time ago. It’s a pointless and exhausting endeavor.
What ever happened with that video that was going to be made for Haqiqatju, to give him all the talking points and all that, in advance of the debate. Is it on another channel or something? I cant find it.
The thing that got me as a kid was....and on the 7th day ,god rested. 😳😳😳god get tired???? How can a god get tired ???? He's god right??? And that was it for me. Period!!!! And the rest of the bs..... Gimme a break😏
Words have multiple meanings. Even English "rest" does not have to mean one is physically tired and needs a nap. An attorney might "rest" his case and that means he is simply finished with his presentation. In music, it means to pause and do nothing. Thus, it conveys the idea of cessation; on the seventh day, Yah ceased/paused. But my preference--the Hebrew word used here (as well as the additional meanings that English rest has, coincidentally) also has another meaning-- that of "enthronement" or "coronation." It is sad to me that your best reasoning was limited to the sophistication of a child. I call upon you to put away childish things and seek truth with all the tools of reason available to you.
exactly. if the order of events in genesis 1 is literal then it is wrong and if it is metaphorical then it is useless and meaningless! 'prepare for tap dancing' ;-)
As a person raised as a Christian i can say that for the most part, most of the people i knew back then, that were at leas half intelligent, never thought about any of this. They essentially pretend these issues dont exist but I think deep down they know the truth.
Discrepancy also in Bible Exodus 31:17 God rests It is a sign between me and the children of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. Isaiah 40:28 God never rests lol The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.
The part about the creation story in the bible that I always found funny is not the contradictions or any of that, is actually how short it is. I mean this is the most important of all stories, the creation of all things...yet is only 2 pages out of 1000+. Sooooo dumb
*_The findings of science Vs. Stories told about God_** ;* It would have been truly amazing, if the Bible had told us what actually causes disease & plagues. Instead of only offering demons, evil spirits & God as the source for these things. Or that God had created life, through _a complex system,_ called "evolution". Instead of, God simply _blowing into a pile of dust,_ to create the first human. (God magic)
@Fred Derf nah. The "original language " was not erased, or there's no evidence in the Bible of that. Just that many others emerged and people were confused. I mean, the whole story is false/inaccurate, but just arguing from its premises...
@@FakingANerve “Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom … Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.” [Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148] Or in other words, "if reason conflicts with the bible, reason is wrong" a.k.a. "stop thinking".
@@FakingANerve, writes _"Weird. If that's the case, then how did the stories from Genesis survive?"_ According to common christian belief, god told (inspired) Moses to tell the stories in the bible so it just inspired them in whatever language Moses used and for whatever reason, didn't inspire him to write down the list of Animals. Any existing list (assuming a written list was ever made) would have been in the pre-Babel language and not understandable by those who came after (just gibberish) so it wouldn't have been preserved. But yah, you're right, anytime you look into biblical stories they get weird... really quickly.
I think its a contradiction when christians dismissed the old testiment , because how could God say something and then change his mind about that thing he said unless he wasn't wrong about it , its a contradiction is the sense that the new God contradicts the old God
@@mil401 I think its an abrahamic tradition to believe so , because infalliblity in their view is what disnguish God's nature from Human nature , like for exmaple you see many muslims accuse the bible of being corrupted by the hands of christians and its no longer the word of God therefore no longer valid , because there has been many adding and changing in the bible over the time, so if the bible is fallible then its not word of God or in this case its no longer the original word of God as humams added to it and that's why its fallible
@@rinos7902 In the Abrahamic religions God is thought of as being infallible. That part makes sense. I’m just not really seeing how we can then get to “therefore Christians should think their Bible _also_ happens to be the word of this infallible God.” Presumably Christian’s don’t think all books have to have been written by God - why couldn’t they potentially think of the Bible as another example of a collection of books that’s only _attributed_ (incorrectly) to this infallible God?
my favorite contradiction to bring up is the contradictory genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Not only are the genealogies irreconcilable, but the apologetic for it is miserable. They try to say that one of them is a genealogy of Mary, which just demonstrably is not the case. They're clearly both for Joseph. The cherry on the top of this one is that it forces your christian interlocutor to see that there's a real problem with the prophecy that says that the messiah will come from the line of David, because Jesus isn't supposed to be the son of Joseph, and these are genealogies of Joseph, not Mary. If you have time too, and you really want to drive the point home, you can point out that these genealogies don't jive with genealogies in the old testament, and in one spot there's actually a very obvious mistake in the number of names Matthew says there is. He just straight up miscounts them and says there's 14 in one of the groupings when there's actually only 13. As far as bang for your buck, this one really drives the point home that the bible is a hodgepodge of silly nonsense with about the same truth value as a bag full of moldy chicken wings.
"They try to say that one of them is a genealogy of Mary, which just demonstrably is not the case. They're clearly both for Joseph. " Of course, they both say Joseph, but hey, who can believe that? And what reason is there to believe that it is a geneology of Mary? Um.....none. Not a lick. The only reason to think that it is a geneology of Mary is if you assume there are no contradictions in the bible, so the geneology in Luke MUST BE for Mary. If it weren't, then that would mean there are contradictions in the bible, and since that can't be true, then it obvious is. Seriously, that is the argument. If you presume the bible has no contradictions, then you should interpret the text in a way so that there are no contradictions.
They can both be for Joseph and both be correct if one is the legal lineage and the other is biological. Here's how that can be. If Heli (Luke's legal version) was childless at death then his Half-Brother Jacob (Matthew, biological version) would marry his widow in order to begat a legal heir for Heli. Thus Joseph is legally Heli's heir but biologically Jacob's son. John of Damascus is credited with this explanation. He wrote: "One ought also to observe this, that the law was that when a man died without seed, this man's brother should take to wife the wife of the dead man and raise up seed to his brother." and then suggests "when Mathan died, Melchi, who was of the lineage of Nathan and the son of Levi and brother of Panther, married the wife of Mathan. It was she who was the mother of Jacob, and from her Melchi begot Heli. Thus, Jacob and Heli were born of the same mother, but Jacob was of the lineage of Solomon, while Heli was of the lineage of Nathan. Heli, however, who was of the lineage of Nathan, died childless, and his brother Jacob, who was of the lineage of Solomon, took his wife and raised up seed for his brother and begot Joseph. So, while Joseph was by nature a son of Jacob of the descent of Solomon, he was by law son of Heli, who was of the line of Nathan."
@@nathanjohnson9715 That is what I said, absent your manipulative straw-man of "unsupported." I supported it with the quote of John of Damascus, and I can support it by citing the Hebrew law Even today we have the same concept--that one's legal father is not necessarily one's biological father, yet one might be described as the son of either. Since we have the same custom, it is a very simple and idiotically overlooked answer. And it seems you have a little too much invested in something you obviously did not think through very well, since you know about adoption and the difference between biological and legal parentage. It's ok. Let go of the idea you have to be right about everything. It can be enjoyable learning when you might be wrong.
Re - Eve was made from Adam's rib... I was watching something recently where the focus was on this "rib" thing. Apparently, "rib" was deliberately mistranslated. The Hebrew word used more accurately represents a side, as in half-of-the-whole. It appears to be a deliberate mistranslation because that same word is correctly translated everywhere else where it appears, but when it appears in relation to Eve being created from Adam, it's translated as "rib" instead of "one-half-of-his-body/ side." The narrator suggested that this was because the Christian translators of the Hebrew bible didn't want to create the idea in people's heads that women were equal to men in any way and were in fact only small representations of part of a man, hence, 'she was made from his rib.' I've never looked into this personally, so I can't say if it's accurate or not, but if there's anyone there who speaks Hebrew better than I can then please do look into it (for reference, I can barely follow a conversation in Hebrew). edit - I've looked into it, albeit briefly and it appears to be correct. The word "tsela" is used to describe a side of something, like a left hand side of a building, or a right hand side of a tree, etc... The word "tsela" appears 40 times in the Old Testament and is NEVER translated as "rib" in ANY of those 40 appearances, except the one time it appears in the story of adam and eve. Secondly - It's because of this whole _'40 correct translations vs 1 incorrect translation when talking about this "rib" of Adam,'_ that I feel confident in ascribing intent to this mistranslation and thus claiming that it was deliberately mistranslated. It's still remotely possible that it was an accidental mistranslation, but to my mind, the numbers involved (40-to-1) seem to make this possibility an astonishingly unlikely one. I can't be certain, of course, but I think it's a VERY safe bet to say that the mistranslation was deliberate!
@James Jungles Seems hard to argue a lack of intent when the ONLY place where "tsela" is translated as "rib" is in the adam + eve story and the other *40 (ie - forty)* appearances of the word "tsela" are translated accurately. It's also not the only occurrence of this kind of deliberate mistranslation. This very phenomenon can be observed in numerous cases with the Christian translation of the Hebrew bible. And so, I'm afraid that I have to *strenuously* disagree with your contention that it was not deliberate. The evidence clearly indicates intent and shows that it was indeed a deliberate mistranslation. If it had happened even ONCE more in any of the forty (40) other appearances of the word "tsela," then I might entertain the notion that it could be an accident. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
@James Jungles One possibility I read was that it said God took a rib like bone from Adam's front. Chimpanzees have a rib like bone on their front. Other Male animals had such a bone but between their legs. Humans do not have this particular bone.
I'm pausing the video before you get to the verdict. I'm at 0:46 right now. I really hope you're going to say that Genesis 1&2 are among the hardest to disprove for theists. Because they're clearly two completely different narratives of the same event, and scholarship agrees on this. Likely different authors as well. And they describe the events as happening in different orders. But I'm super interested in what you have to say. Maybe you'll agree. Or maybe you'll disagree and I'll learn something. Or maybe you'll disagree and I'll be annoyed! Here goes nothing!
Does the Genesis account of the creation imply that all animals are vegetarians? Except for snakes that are now supposed to only eat dust/dirt forever. Might have been just the gideon version i was reading, but i sure got that impression of 'god' saying all the fruits of the plants were for the animals to eat.
23:20 - original sin is absolutely not a cornerstone of Judaism. In fact it is an alien concept, and there's no reason to expect the authors of any of the sections of genesis to have anticipated a future Christian repurposing of the text.
Thanks. Great video! Happy atheist here for about 30 years. 66 years alive so far. It was only a few years ago that I realised that God didn't create everything out of nothing. Genesis 1:2 indicates quite clearly that when he began creation everything was composed of water (and there was an empty space where the Earth is now which is weird). Since we now know how the elements were made and that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen how did God create those two elements before everything else? This is as ridiculous as creating plants before light and the stars, planets, the Sun and the Moon. (The breath of God sweeping over the face of the waters is also strange.) None of this makes any sense.
@@scienceexplains302 Right, different details of generally the same creation myth. But this is like arguing over how tall elves are. If they are 4'10 or 6' they are still elves and not real.
The bible is just confused and if you try to make sense out of it, your head will ache. As per story, Adam didn't even become aware of the use of his sexual organs until when he ate the fruit, and realised that he was naked. But again somewhat, it is the realization of "nakedness" whatever that means, that was required for him to procreate. But somewhat, that nakedness was only to be realized after eating a fruit which he was forbidden to eat in the first place. Too much nonsense that you can't wrap your head about it
I find the passage in Genesis 2 where it talks about "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth" when God created Man pretty contradictory. It very much seems to be saying the lack of shrubbery was down to the lack of anyone to work the land, and so God created Man to work the land. This of course contradicts the order in Genesis 1, where plants were created on day 3, and Man a few days later.
I feel like there's a problem or two in every line of Genesis, but here's my problem: It has always seemed to me that the creation story(ies) in Genesis existed solely to provide a backdrop for the creation of Adam. That is, a bunch of stuff happened culminating in the "Creation of Man" (much fanfare). And if that was the point, then it was ridiculous that God needed to make Adam out of clay (after already creating everything out of nothing but his own spoken word), and then that he needed to make Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. There's just no consistency there - no sense. It always felt to me like man was some kind of afterthought, or hand-me-down, or even like a copy-of-a-copy. Not made directly by god's will, like the rest of the universe, but cobbled together out of junk lying around AFTER the universe was made. And then Eve is even worse. A copy-of-a-COPY-of-a-copy. It's always felt like a story that a child would write, without thought to logic or continuity or even the previous sentence. Insane rambling at best.
@James Jungles Of course it says he needed to do it that way. If god is "perfect" and omnipotent, He MUST do things in the most perfect way possible. Do do less would be IMperfect. So making man out of clay was THE way to do it. And how would man, not knowing the difference between good and evil at this point - having not eaten from the tree - have any ability to be "humbled" by knowing he was made from clay? It would just be a valueless fact. "I'm made from clay, ok, whatever." Nothing about the story has any logical sense. And trying to interpret it with mental gymnastics into the superficial APPEARANCE of sense only highlights how weak the story is to begin with.
@James Jungles If apologists, and YOU, can interpret the book to say what you like, like that part about humbling man by making him from dirt, then I can certainly look at the book as a whole and draw conclusions from what it says also. Christians claim god is perfect and omnipotent. It follows that to BE perfect, an all powerful god MUST BEHAVE perfectly, which means he MUST do things the way they MUST be done. He made man from dirt because that was the PERFECT way to do it. It's a pretty logical interpretation. You haven't actually done anything to make sense of the story. Instead, you've posed some weak 'maybe's that shouldn't be necessary if the book was written (or inspired by) god.
@James Jungles Are you dense? I answered very clearly. There is no chapter/verse that says that explicitly. Just as there is no chapter and verse that says what YOU want it to say. You have no problem interpreting the book to suit you, I am interpreting it to suit me. A book written by god should not be open to interpretation. It should make sense. The Bible does not make sense.
@James Jungles Wow. You have a serious reading comprehension problem. You seem to only see what you like. I guess that's a prereq for defending the Bible.
@James Jungles We're not talking about "someone" that is capable of doing things half-assed. We're talking about the book's hypothetical "perfect" GOD. Can't be perfect unless EVERY moment and every iota of everything you ever think and do is also perfect. Does god make mistakes? no? then he HAD to have made everything EXACTLY as he did. It's kinda funny that I have to keep explaining this to you. The book has painted gof into a corner by claiming that god has all these attributes that effectively FORCE him into these impossible, contradictory, paradoxical positions. My uncle is a priest (retired) and my dad was a deacon. I had access to some pretty sharp minds in the church. They admit that these kinds of ctradictions and paradoxes exist. They don't try to ignore or deny them as you're doing. They simply say, "That's they Mystery of faith." They know better than to take the apologist route. But you go ahead and continue trying to fit the Bible's square peg into logic's round hole if it makes you happy. Just know that the issues you're trying to hand-wave away haven't been satisfactorily explained in thousands of years by the best bible scholars to have ever lived. NO AMOUNT of interpretation or mental gymnastics has ever untied this particular Goridan knot.
I had one creationist say about Adam having one less rib than Eve: "God just didn't make a rib of Eve so that they were the same." I have had other creationist ague that God made a replacement rib for Adam. But neither of these a justified by a literal reading of the Bible.
I'm confused. As the sun is our source of light in our solar system/here on earth, what light did god create prior to the sun? What was the source of that light and what happened to it that it does not seem to be apparent today? Why did god even create that light? Is it so that he could see to create because he can't see in the dark?
The majority of people do not know that the early manuscripts of the biblical texts did not contain the chapter and verse divisions in the numbered form familiar to modern readers. In antiquity Hebrew texts were divided into paragraphs (parashot) that were identified by two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Peh (פ) indicated an "open" paragraph that began on a new line, while Samekh (ס) indicated a "closed" paragraph that began on the same line after a small space.[4] These two letters begin the Hebrew words open (patuach) and closed (sagur), and are, themselves, open in shape (פ) and closed (ס). The earliest known copies of the Book of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls used parashot divisions, although they differ slightly from the Masoretic divisions.[5] The Hebrew Bible was also divided into some larger sections. In Israel, the Torah (its first five books) were divided into 154 sections so that they could be read through aloud in weekly worship over the course of three years. In Babylonia, it was divided into 53 or 54 sections (Parashat ha-Shavua) so it could be read through in one year.[5] The New Testament was divided into topical sections known as kephalaia by the fourth century. Eusebius of Caesarea divided the gospels into parts that he listed in tables or canons. Neither of these systems correspond with modern chapter divisions.[6] (See fuller discussions below.) Chapter divisions, with titles, are also found in the 9th-century Tours manuscript Paris Bibliothèque Nationale MS Lat. 3, the so-called Bible of Rorigo.[7] Archbishop Stephen Langton and Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro developed different schemas for systematic division of the Bible in the early 13th century. It is the system of Archbishop Langton on which the modern chapter divisions are based.[8][9][10] While chapter divisions have become nearly universal, editions of the Bible have sometimes been published without them. Such editions, which typically use thematic or literary criteria to divide the biblical books instead, include John Locke's Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (1707),[11] Alexander Campbell's The Sacred Writings (1826),[12] Daniel Berkeley Updike's fourteen-volume The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, Richard Moulton's The Modern Reader's Bible (1907),[13] Ernest Sutherland Bates's The Bible Designed to Be Read as Living Literature (1936),[14] The Books of the Bible (2007) from the International Bible Society (Biblica), Adam Lewis Greene's five-volume Bibliotheca (2014),[15][16] and the six-volume ESV Reader's Bible[17] (2016) from Crossway Books. Therefore, there are absolutely zero contradictions in the Genesis account of creation. Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest); Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week-the sixth day-and there is no contradiction. In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the sequence to focus on the sixth day, when God made mankind. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man and woman. There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.” There is no contradiction, though, because Genesis 2:5 does not say how long before man’s creation there was no plant life. In fact, the previous verse mentions the first and second days of creation (at which point there were no plants), so it makes sense that Genesis 2:5 would mention there were no plants. Several days of creation occur between Genesis 2:6 and Genesis 2:7. Verse 7 details the creation of man on the sixth day. Verse 8 mentions the garden that God had created for him-the fourth day is spoken of in the past tense. The trees that God makes to grow in verse 9 are those in the garden. So the passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation on the third day; Genesis 2:5 speaks of the first and second days when there was no vegetation; and Genesis 2:9 speaks of the specific growth of trees in Eden. The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals. By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.
The biblical creations stories are simply two retellings of other creation myths with small changes made to fit the cultural traditions of the tribes that adopted them from their surrounding nations' cultures. Nothing is truly original except for people's names and gods doing the creating.
"Genesis 1 and 2 - are they contradictory?" Since the events described in Genesis haven't been proved to have happened, does it matter? In Captain America comics, depending on which issue you read, has Steve Rogers being shown receiving his super-soldier powers by injection, by drinking a serum, and by exposure to special energy rays. ( these are contradictory accounts which were eventually redacted to show the procedure was actually a combination of an injection, ingesting a serum, and the energy rays). So what? The contradictions don't really make any difference.
The point is that, if they are contradictory, the book can't be the infallible and literal message of an omnipotent perfect being. It contradicts itself almost immediately, anyway. You don't even have to get as far as chapter 2.
26:01 "...is the deathNAIL..." ?? no. If I heard it correctly Matt's mixing metaphors/analogies here: - the last NAIL in the coffin - the death KNELL (the ringing of the funeral bell) Don't be fooled, I do thoroughly enjoy the video, but also can't miss out on making this connention: th-cam.com/video/bpUtJw4x2qg/w-d-xo.html
Checkout Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. There was no mention of a father or mother, so who is the mother or father at this point.
This verse is an instruction to future generations that they are to become one as Adam and Eve did. The verse isn't saying that Adam and Eve left their parents. "Therefore"...fore... future
@@SansDeity To name something means it exists.. how can something be named if it does not exist.. unless to write a script(ure) that needs to be followed. Correct it doesn't say parents, it says father and mother. Who was Adam and Eve's Mother let alone their Father?
Part of the problem is translation, but not how you might think. The Hebrew of Genesis 1 doesn't say that the fish and birds came from the water. It says let the waters swarm with swarms of souls and let there be flying things that fly across the face of the sky dome that holds the upper water. This doesn't change the fact that you are comparing two very different stories.
the last 10 words in your 1st paragraph sums it all up perfectly. "Face of the sky dome that holds up the water..........." Every. Single. Word. before THAT hilarity is moot. Can you head out and take a pic of this firmament for us???
Someone I've talked to told me that it's basically the other way around: That Genesis 1 is the general overview (God created male and female) and Genesis 2 explains the details (At some point God created Adam and later he created Eve)
its still crazy to me that God needed a rest day. i think the only reason they put that in there is because a week is 7 days amd they needed to make up something to have that 7th day.
@James Jungles Genesis 2:2 “And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.”
“And on the seventh day God finished his work he had done” - this seems to indicate God did work on the 7th day as you can not finish your work without doing some work, it also seems to indicate God engaged in effort and/or activity which suggests God may not have all the traits typically attributed to him, it also seems to indicate God has a male gender while it’s unclear of his biological circumstance thus confirming gender as a construct separate from biology, it also seems to indicate something with the apparent redundancy of the phrase “he had done” - did he contract some of the work out?, were others attempting to claim credit for work “he had done”? “and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done” - this seems to indicate that the rest is a function of all his work (again the redundant phrase “he had done” which seems to indicate there may be some issue about who actually did the work, after all it does seem paradoxical for an omnipotent entity to do work), and since the rest is a function of all his work that then suggests that all his work induced a need for rest Point is, excessive literalism, along with the typically attendant coyness, is a tool weaponized by bad faith operators in an attempt to win bad faith arguments.
I had a creationist try to dismiss the errors in Genesis 1 by arguing essentially that humans didn't know better at that time, so that makes it okay lol.
On day three, YHVH created the seeds in Genesis one, then on day six, He caused them to sprout. In Hebrew, it specifically mentions seeds and no sprouting in Genesis one. In Genesis two, it specifically mentions sprouting and no seeds. Look scripture4all and compare the Hebrew yourself. The Hebrew word rekioa means expanse, not necessarily atmosphere alone, and firmament is complete mistranslation.
@@Mackaylagrace I will but use scripure4all Bible from now on. The goal is to prove the Hebrew Bible itself has errors. Including for me. I already know the Hebrew Bible has errors, at least 1,000 words are errors in the Hebrew Bible. The seed creation on day 3 and the sprouting on day 6 isn't one of them. Who cares about the translations? They are all garbage, anyways. 2Kings 8:26 says King Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign. 2Chronicles 22:2 says King Ahaziah was 42 when he began to reign. This is an error, in the actual Hebrew Bible.
10:31 - "In chapter 2 verse 7 it is, 'God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed nostrils into his life.'"??? LOL. Interesting translation you're reading from there. 😆 Sorry, had to be said.
Genesis is one of the most misappropriated and misunderstood books of ancient literature, largely because of its use as a religious text. It deserves study because it represents a chapter in the development of human culture, but it is absurd to use it as a template for science or history. It is primarily a social and political text that applied to a particular society in a particular era and is obsolete in our modern context except as a record of how an ancient people sought to solve certain questions for themselves. The book has a trajectory that Creationists too often miss, and that is towards the idea of a people under covenant surviving exile. Look at the motif of exile that occurs over and over: Adam and Eve exiled from the garden, the nations scattered after Babel, Hagar exiled from the household of Abraham, Jacob exiled from his family, and ending with Joseph setting the stage for Israel in exile in Egypt. The trajectory, even though some divine being is behind the stage, is the forming of a particular identity: Israel. If, as many scholars think, Genesis, along with the rest of Torah/Pentateuch was formed around the late fifth century BCE (cobbled together from numerous older sources), then it probably is an artifact of the transition period when Persia was taking over what had been the Babylonian empire. That is when descendants of upperclass citizens of Jerusalem taken into exile under Nebuchadnezzar were allowed to return to Judah. And though Judah was politically separate from Israel before the Babylonian conquest (israel having actually been conquered by the Assyrians generations before the fall of Judah) the returnees from exile had their own internal reasons for claiming to be the true israel (that I will not go into here). Genesis chapter one is a hymn. Genesis chapters two and three is about the fall, which is an exile story. The ark story introduces a proto-covenant (and that rainbow is an ancient near eastern phallic symbol, something that casts a different meaning on all those Sunday school pictures lol). In the ancient world it was culturally expedient (politically expedient) to claim your people’s god was superior to neighboring societies’ gods). Yahweh, a sky, storm, and warrior god speaks creation into being in the opening hymn, but he does it in the presence of other gods (notice the theme of “let us”). We should be getting beyond this conflating political identity with god’s will in the 21st century, but unfortunately the increase in Christian nationalism in recent years along with a host of other nonsense only shows we refuse to grow up.
Naming the animals is a good thing. But Adam had no knowledge of good. Adam couldn't name the animals before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. No knowledge of good or evil. That's a contradiction.
What never gets discussed in Genesis is where did Adam and Eve (and the snake) get their language skills? Babies take years to learn their parent's and teacher's language, and spend a good part of their childhood building up a vocabulary, by from day 1 (or should that be day 6?) Adam and Eve are talking to each other , to a serpent, and to God and they all understand each other. If God "gave" Adam and Eve their language skills, he also gave them their vocabulary. They knew the word Tree, they knew the word Fruit, (yet oddly Adam had to make up names of all the animals.) Why did God only give a partial Vocabulary to Adam? Why did God give the serpent a vocal cords and language skills. Did he not forsee the possibility of a talking serpent leading Adam and Eve astray? Discuss
From my point of view creation of Eve narrative is about god realizing Adam needs a suitable helper. Whether or not the animals were created after Adam or before really has little bearing on what the story relates. God realizes Adam is alone, that that is not a good thing and that he needs a "suitable helper" (or helper suitable or whatever translation phrase). So he brings all the animals before Adam for "naming", CANNOT FIND a 'suitable helper' among the animals, and only then clones Eve from Adam. If it was merely about getting Adam a helper you could just do verse 18 and skip to verse 21. Verses 19 and 20 would be unnecessary. I mean really? An "all knowing" god doesn't realize Adam needs a mate at the time he creates Adam? And he has to have Adam "name" all the animals to realize none of them fit the bill? Really? Multiple translations to appease the "you've got the wrong version" apologetics". If that comes up I can produce about any ENGLISH version you wish. TNIV Gen 2:18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Gen 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. Gen 2:20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Gen 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. ESV Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. NASB Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all the livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. Gen 2:22 And the LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. KJV (for the KJV onlyists) Gen 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. Gen 2:19 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. Gen 2:20 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. Gen 2:21 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; Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 1568 Bishops Bible Gen 2:18 And the Lord God sayde: It is not good yt the man should be alone, I wyll make hym an helpe lyke vnto hym. Gen 2:19 And so out of the grounde the Lorde God had shapen euery beast of the field, and euery foule of the ayre, and brought it vnto man, that he myght see howe he woulde call it. For lykewyse as man hym selfe named euery lyuyng thyng, euen so was the name therof. Gen 2:20 And the man gaue names to all cattell, and foule of the ayre, & euery beast of the fielde: but for man founde he not an helpe lyke vnto hym. Gen 2:21 The Lord God caused a deepe sleepe to fall vpon Adam, and he slept, and he toke one of his ribbes, and closed vp the place with fleshe in steade therof. Gen 2:22 And the ribbe which the lord god had taken from man, made he a woman, & brought her vnto the man. 1587 Geneva Bible Gen 2:18 Also the Lorde God saide, It is not good that the man should be himself alone: I wil make him an helpe meete for him. Gen 2:19 So the Lorde God formed of the earth euery beast of the fielde, and euery foule of the heauen, and brought them vnto the man to see howe he would call them: for howsoeuer the man named the liuing creature, so was the name thereof. Gen 2:20 The man therefore gaue names vnto all cattell, and to the foule of the heauen, and to euery beast of the fielde: but for Adam founde he not an helpe meete for him. Gen 2:21 Therefore the Lord God caused an heauie sleepe to fall vpon the man, and he slept: and he tooke one of his ribbes, & closed vp the flesh in steade thereof. Gen 2:22 And the ribbe which the Lorde God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her to the man. 1611 KJV Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him an helpe meet for him. Gen 2:19 And out of ye ground the LORD God formed euery beast of the field, and euery foule of the aire, and brought them vnto Adam, to see what he would call them: and whatsoeuer Adam called euery liuing creature, that was the name thereof. Gen 2:20 And Adam gaue names to all cattell, and to the foule of the aire, and to euery beast of the fielde: but for Adam there was not found an helpe meete for him. Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deepe sleepe to fall vpon Adam, and hee slept; and he tooke one of his ribs, and closed vp the flesh in stead thereof. Gen 2:22 And the rib which the LORD God had taken from man, made hee a woman, & brought her vnto the man.
I'm only 6 minutes into the video, so I don't know if you talk about this contradiction. Genesis 1:1 ... beginning god made the heaven and earth. Genesis 1-7/8: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. So which one was it? Did he start with heaven and earth or did he create heaven on the second day. Also these "days" can't be millions of years because it says the evening and the morning, not multiple evenings and mornings were the second day.
Genesis 1:20 doesn’t say the waters brought forth. Genesis 1:20 says literally, they “swarm with swarms.” This cognate construction is simply emphasizing the abundant life on Earth. Genesis 2:19 uses a different verb. You can easily confirm this, not to mention more and most modern English translations use “swarm with swarms” or something similar in 1:20 vs. the KJV which was selected in this video. Moses uses Elohim Yahweh starting in Chapter 2:4 to emphasize both God’s power but also His covenantal relationship with man, as Chapter 2 is more centered around the creation of man and the position He has put man in. Before modern science, theologians wrestled with Genesis 1-2 and doubted it was a literal interpretation. Augustine, for example, who lived in the 4th century recognized that Genesis 1-2 was likely not literal. He opted for an instaneous creation but would have been open to different interpretations. He recognized the genre in which Genesis 1-2 was written which led him to this conslusion. I have my own view of Genesis 1-2 but that is not relevant here. I could go on…, but my point is I’m not an atheist, but for your benefit I wouldn’t use these as examples of contradictions. There are much tougher issues to wrestle with and we all need to be honest in our discussions.
I'll give you a good explanation for why Genesis 1 and 2 sound so parallel and yet could have been written by the same person: it sounds like an authorial device. It sounds like a verse trick or maybe a prose trick, like so many other tricks we use like repetition or metaphor or rhyming, but one that is lost to time. Holy crap: can anybody think of any examples of this other than here? Are there old folk songs that use a structure like this? Is it used elsewhere in the Bible, maybe in Psalms? The only thing that I can think of is the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, where frodo's journey sort of parallels bilbo's, but it's only a vague resemblance. Any literature people out there know of anything like this? Or did Tolkien maybe write that he took this trick from somewhere?
One day god saw adam wondering around the garden. They chatted for a few minutes about how perfect everything was. Then god asked adam where eve was. adam said she was swimming in god's perfect ocean. god said, "oh no, now all the fish will smell".
I love both the first and second Genesis. I love all the stories, the hardship and adventures and the destruction and death! ...but I always liked the Sonic games the most! ...hum, what? Not that Genesis? Do you mean the English band then? No? Oh, that sh!t! Okej, sorry! 😒
The explanation is ... when Moses wrote down the word of God , his shorthand was poor . He should have hired a typist, the tight git. I guess God was busy doing other stuff to worry about Moses making a mess of his creation account.
14:29. Genesis has the primitive earth made before the sun. We know by scientific evidence this isn’t true. The sun is way way older than the earth. Genesis has it backwards.
Pippin : What about Genesis? Aragorn : You've already had it. Pippin : We've had one, yes. What about second Genesis?
hahahahaha!
[Aragorn turns and walks away]
Merry: I don't think he knows about second Genesis, Pip.
Pippin: What about Exodus? Leviticus? Amos & Titus? Deuteronomy? Samuel? He knows about them, doesn't he?
Merry: I wouldn't count on it.
😂
😂😅🤣👍🏼
A Jesus is never late, he always arrives precisely when h-
Holy shit! Is it 2023 already?!?
I had a neighbor who was totally convinced he had one rib missing and got very angry when I laughed at him.
Man this is super embarrassing but I was like in high school when I realized men didn't have one less rib than women. It just goes to show you how misinformed I was by my religious community as a kid.
@@danhoff4401 😇
I was taught in school that women had one less pair of ribs!
@@DemstarAus That’s doubly weird then, because it would be males that would have fewer ribs following the biblical creation story logic, not females.
@@DemstarAus it's such a strange thing to lie about because every anatomy lab has a human skeleton.
Genesis 1: Ant Philips on guitar and assorted drummers
Genesis 2: Steve Hackett on guitar and Phil Collins on drums
Genesis 3 : Collins / Banks / Rutherford with live members Darryl Stuermer and Chester Thompson.
Genesis 2 is the best lineup. 😊
Shock the monkey.....
@@Chorkaloopagotta love Peter gabriel 👍🏻
@lassebongo126 personally, I have always preferred genesis when Peter gabriel was in the band, very early prog.
The biggest sign of the Bible's contradictions & illogic & inaccuracy is the resources dedicated to explaining how it's not contradictory or illogical or inaccurate.
@@mil401 That's the thing though: the New Testament says that "all Scripture" is God-breathed. Jesus and the New Testament authors believed in the literality of the events that occurred in the Old Testament, such as the Fall, the Flood, etc. That seems to have forced Christianity into a position that they pretty much HAVE to take the Bible literally. And that opens it up to being undermined by all these contradictions, historical falsehoods, etc.
@Psychonaut621 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. - this doesn't read as if he is saying everything must be literal. Did Paul think jesus' parables were literal truths?
I could definitely see someone intentionally or unintentionally using this verse to justify literalist interpretation, and it is clear that some of the Bible IS literal, and also that some IS parable. One should be quite careful when determining the intention
That’s like saying a doctoral thesis is bad because he had to write a whole thesis to defend it.
In Genesis 1:1 alone, there are tons of questions that just can’t get answered sufficiently for me. The level of mental gymnastics that must be done to explain just this verse, is exhausting.
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
In the beginning of what? Beginning of time? Beginning of God? Did time exist before god? Did god exist before time? Did they come into existence at the same….time? So there was absolutely nothing floating around, and then all of a sudden….god? Or was god just existing since the beginning of non-time, chilling out doing nothing, bored out of his mind, then decided to start creating? Where was god, since no heaven or earth existed until he created them? How can god exist without a place for him to exist in?
Who poofed god into existence? Doesn’t a creation have to have a creator? Who shit out the god that shit us out? Did he shit himself?
Man created god in their own image not the other way around makes more sense. But all those are good points and the apologists would get dizzy trying to make excuses for all of them lol
I also don't understand why Genesis 1:1 is not used by skeptics more. I mean the FIRST SENTENCE of your Bible states that the Earth was created in the beginning. We know that Earth could not have possibly appeared before Sun or stars or some other astronomical objects, and definitely wasn't there to see the Big Bang.
Yeah you could say that 'Earth' here refers to the 'Earthly realm' (i.e. God created the Heavens - the 'realm' or 'dimension' for angels - and the Earth - the realm for people), i. e. read 'Earth' here as 'cosmos' or 'universe' in general. Well, first, Genesis 1 after that reads such that the Earth clearly refers to the planet Earth, or to some material body in an unformed-yet universe, but definitely not the 'plane of existence' in general. But even then, second, why not just write 'cosmos' or 'universe'? Well, yeah, the authors (here, Moses, allegedly) did not have a concept of the universe at the time, so it makes sense that they would describe it in understandable terms. Oh so you're saying that the language of the Bible is determined by human culture at the time?:)
From my perspective, Gen 1:1-1:5 alone are so contradictory with our understanding of cosmology that an all-knowing being could not have possibly been that inaccurate in inspiring the Genesis's author, even if that being intended Genesis to be metaphorical.
Also, how can God create any material body without first creating its elements? Like, he wrote the laws of physics. Did he create Earth first, and then retcon chemistry and physics onto it, such that it would no longer be necessary for him to spend mana to uphold a universe without natural laws? It seems more reasonable to suggest that he first figured out quarks and photons, then protons and neutrons and electrons, then atoms, then he would need to organize a system for how things made of atoms can have micro- and macro-level properties, and only then make macroscopic objects of these.
At least, the 'God saw that it was good' makes sense, as it starts to appear in Gen 1 only after God creates light which is prerequisite to seeing things.
Your debates are always on point Matt. Keep up the great work.
When I first read Genesis (stoned), it almost came across like an ancient fertility story. The formless earth, representing the mother, the egg. Then god the father hovers the mother, moving upon her waters to bring forth life. God as father, his spirit ...just sperms.
Kinda makes me sad the term "Big Bang Theory" is already taken.
If you view the Milky Way as a phallus, it appears to penetrate mother earth.
big bang😂😂
One of the most intelligent tongue in cheek comments I have ever seen
I prefer satva
A keen and astute observation. This concept resonates deeply with me. Considering cannabis is an ingredient in the holy oil along with other psychoactive and psychedelic ingredients it is no surprise that the wisest comment so far owes itself to an enhanced mental/emotional state.
Thanks, Matt will have to watch it again. So easy yet complicated to absorb it all.
The *relationship of the first woman* to the man and the deity(s) is one of the two most overlooked contradictions.
In G1, she is spoken into existence, apparently simultaneously with the first man in the image of (an?) Elohim.
In G2, she is an afterthought and an ally/helper for the man after he rejects all the non-human animals his ally. She is created from the side of a man who was sculpted from clay. Yahweh Elohim gives his rules to the man. Apparently the man relays the rules to Eve.
So in G1 the first woman appears to be equal. In G2, Eve is second-class scapegoat for the Fall.
@James Jungles *“Created in the image of Elohim”* seems to be mostly a visual image. All uses of “image” have a visual aspect.
It sure can’t mean moral image if Genesis 2 and 3 is accurate. The two humans don’t have knowledge of good and evil and quickly disobey Yahweh Elohim in Eden. Is disobeying Yahweh part of a moral “image” of Elohim?
(In Genesis 3:5, the serpent explains accurately that the people will learn about good and evil. Yahweh Elohim must already know about these, so the people are morally different from him.)
@James Jungles At risk of repeating myself, Genesis 1:27 is apparently (no pun intended) at least in part about appearance, regardless of what image or likeness mean to you.
In Genesis 1, Elohim spoke the land, skies, people, etc, into existence, which makes them gods, regardless of what other gods might be above them.
Some people take Elohim to be various things, and different authors probably meant different entities when using the word.
But in G1, they are gods. One could make an argument that it refers to a single god, but 1:27 indicates the eu are not always seen as one.
@James Jungles I’m not sure we disagree on 1:27, but you are focusing on defining English words. I’m focusing on the meaning of _Tselem_
The thing that got me when I started thinking about the Genesis story when I was young, is that I was taught that the Bible says man and woman were created innocent of the knowledge of good and evil. Then God put a totally unnecessary tree in the garden and told them not to eat its fruit. Meanwhile, neither Adam or Eve has any clue whether ignoring God's requirement that they leave the tree of knowledge alone is evil or not. In fact, I was taught, that god created the universe and the inhabitants the way they were on purpose and he knew that he had created beings, in his image, that would eat the fruit of that tree. Not a fair test at all to create people ignorant of good and evil and then grade them on behavior he built into them. But that wasn't good enough for God because what if Adam and Eve just obeyed God because the never had any desire to test the fruit of that tree. So God decided to send a "serpent", which was one of the most beautiful creatures, to lie to and tempt the people into eating the fruit that they might not have ever thought twice about. So these innocent people that didn't know about deceit and lies, and had no defenses against them,, were tricked into eating the fruit and then judged as failing the test because they didn't know what they were doing was bad or evil. If fact, God made sure there was a creature there to trick them into failing the test. That is some pretty evil stuff and at age 11 or 12, this definitely set me against any God that would do something that evil. And then God judged ALL the rest of humanity that was to come on the actions of the first two, which were unfairly tested and judged in the first place. I may not have had the details all correct (I didn't read Hebrew and still don't), but this is the story I was taught and the King James Bible seemed to back the story up. I still think I got the essence of the story correct to this day - I'm 67 now.
One of the problems of seeing what seems to be clear evidence of YHWH-elohim putting Adam and Eve into an unfair situation, is that this is a story. If this were based on facts, then it wouldn't have to make sense, as the authors would be relaying what little they knew from their perspective. As it's a story, then we'd have to believe that either the author wasn't aware that he was making YHWH-elohim into the bad guy, which is troubling, or the author IS aware that he's making YHWH-elohim into the bad guy, which is at least as troubling.
We can't entirely get into the author's head, but I don't think this legend can say much about the "goodness" of the YHWH-elohim character. Even if this is flat proof that the author of the story thought YHWH-elohim was evil, it doesn't necessarily reflect on later judaism's views. Even the nasty things attributed to the various gods of judaism later on were either used as justification for human beings to commit atrocious acts in the name of god, or they were apologetics for why bad times had hit their nations. As a foundational myth, it's less apparent why YHWH-elohim would be implicitly painted as the bad guy. Maybe cultural differences have us perceive a bitterness in the writing that wasn't intended by the author; I couldn't say.
So, essentially god is a prick.
@robertekis2450
First off, where does it say that the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil is unnecessary? That is just an assumption on your part. Secondly Adam and Eve didn’t need to know good and evil to know that they should probably obey the literal God of the universe, the one who made them, and the one who is essentially their only parent. And GOD also very clearly warned them that they will die if they eat from the tree. Thirdly GOD loves people enough to give them a choice and how can anyone take a choice they were never given? So he let the serpent come and test them and the serpent came and tempted them. They knew they would be disobeying God if they took and ate the fruit yet were led away not by the snake but their own desires (which is said in the scripture) and deliberately CHOSE to disobey and not only that but both Adam and Eve tried to blame someone else for it for it. The fourth thing you mentioned about God cursing all the earth through the first two. He’s not the one who cursed them and the earth he was simply explaining to them the consequences of their own actions so that they would understand that the world’s not the same as it once was so that they weren’t taken completely off guard by it when they left. As for banishing them from the garden it was so they wouldn’t spend eternity trapped by sin as it results in fear and shame.
I had 12 years of Hebrew school- your pronunciations are pretty good
When we look at what the waters are referred to as, "The deep" (Tiamat), it starts to make sense. The corpse of the god of the primordial water Tiamat, were divided to make the firmament, the Earth and all life, including humans. This myth in Genesis is just a reflex of an older Babylonian myth from the Enuma Elish, not that Christians will acknowledge this. I've seen the claim before that Gen 1 is more so the reflex of the Babylonian myth with Gen 2 serving as a more Judaic spin on the same myth probably as Yahwism grew in popularity, hence the name change.
Right on point
TEHOM in Hebrew. Just being nit picky I guess.
Thank you Matt.... always enjoy your content. Like you, I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Although I've been atheist since I was about 13, I attended a religious college and took several classes on religion. These were not taught by apologists.... more religious scholars in my view. I learned in those classes that there are indeed two different and distinct stories of creation in Genesis that were written about 1000 years apart from each other. The version beginning in Gen 2:4 is the older of the two and is based more on the oral tradition that was passed down. It's not the complete legend of Adam and Eve. There are other texts not included in the Bible that fill in many of the gaps in the Hebrew story. I believe there is a Book of Adam and Eve that was written around the 2nd century AD.
The story that begins in Gen 1:1 was one that priests added much later than the oral tradition. One of the clearest ways to see that there are two writers is how each distinctly refers to God. You touched on this a bit with the Hebrew words. In Gen 1 through Gen 2:3 "God" created everything. Beginning in Gen 2:4 "The Lord God" did all the work. To your point, there are contradictions between the 2, just as there are between the gospels of Mark and John, because in each case they had different authors in different times.
There was a set of “TED Talk” like talks I came across on YT some years back (will try to find them) where a group of Christians (non evengelicals) were running some interesting talks / presentations and one of those was on Genesis and the guy presenting said the same thing (ie more than one author) and in fact thought there may have been 3 and/or another 1 or 2 sources being referenced (bit like the Q document that gets mentioned regards the gospels). This would make sense as serious Bible scholars are always noting that many of the books of both Old and New Testament seem to have multiple writers and that parts of specific books were written at different times.
Maybe the different versions were dictated by different gods.
Cool story bro, not sure why theists find their holy books so convincing if they don't even agree on who/when/where they were written. This book is the supposed source of all morality and truth and you can't agree on where it came from.. how ridiculous
I have been trying to find sources for the 2 different Genesis creation accounts stating there were written 1,000 years apart. Can you provide source of this?
thank you
When I was a Christian I took it to mean that the animals actually were created twice. First all of the animals were created all over the world and then he makes another one of each, one at a time, so Adam can name them. The bigger problem (as I see it) isn't trying to make it match itself but trying to make it match reality. As an example, the waters were separated above and below with something called a firmament (whatever that is) in the middle and then the sun, moon and stars are made inside the firmament. So we have water, then the sun, moon, and stars, then more water. Where is all the water 'above' the sun? Is the firmament space? Is the universe in a bubble? How does any of that make any sense?
That's why I believe it's talking about star constellations.
Simple. It's snow globe Earth. Well, underwater snow globe Earth. One of the bigger class of flat Earths. That was, in fact, a popular cosmology model around the time. It makes sense, too - it explains springs (water coming from below) and rain (water coming from above). It just happens to be completely wrong.
I was taught that the water above the Earth was used for Noah's flood. That's why it's not there anymore.
@@gotisc That's one of the creationist 'theories'. The problem is the water wasn't just above the earth it was 'above' the stars. The bible is pretty clear that the stars were placed in the firmament and that there was water above the firmament. Like all creationist stuff it only tries to explain some of the information and ignores any it doesn't like.
@@gotisc That explanation probably only exists because NOW we know where rain actually comes from. 😅
Another issue with the notion of Adam choosing a mate is that God knew that Adam would not choose any of the animals brought to him. God created Adam with particular needs and attractions so knew him intimately. It is like someone bringing me all different plates of pasta to taste knowing I don't like pasta. The process is completely redundant and deceitful towards Adam, providing a false sense of free will and choice.
Chapter 2 treats the creation of Eve as a seeming afterthought. Accepting apologists assertion that god is omniscient, then god has never not known that he was going to create animal life, humans specifically in the case, mating pairs representing a bi-modal distribution of complementary sexual dimorphism.
Should we understand verse 18 as implying that the decision to create Eve was a result of god reaching a previously unheld awareness/conclusion that Adam needed a mate? Is this just a case of god messing with the author, play-acting as if pretending not to know that the creation of Eve was part of his plan all along?
Or are we to understand that god felt compelled somehow to explain the reasoning behind just this one decision, revealing the evolution of this specific divine creation philosophy, to justify his creation of Eve or to awe? Are we to be impressed with god's thoughtful imagination, even though the author would presumably already be well aware of the concept of human sexual reproduction through lived experience?
Ostensibly god could have created man any number of ways with or without the ability to reproduce, or able to reproduce by any number of different mechanisms, limited only by god's own imagination.
My sticking point was that Gen 1 states that plants come before humans:
Gen 1:12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
But, Gen 2 says there are no plants before man:
Gen 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.
They can't both be true.
@James Jungles And...keep going. You're making my point.
Gen 1 says they came up *before* humans.
Gen 2 says they came up *after.*
@James Jungles Right where you said. *BEFORE* it sprung up.
Because it hadn't rained and there was nobody to till the ground.
Gen 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.
Gen 1 has the plants coming first. Gen 2 has the plants coming after humans.
They can't both be right.
@James Jungles Nope. Man was created first. It doesn't matter how the water came. Gen 2:8-9: Man first, then plants.
And we can keep going. Gen 2:19 has the animals coming after man while Gen 1 has animals before.
This is to be expected as the two stories were not written by the same people.
@James Jungles You're imposing upon the text. "The garden" is Eden.
Gen 1 contradicts Gen 2.
The excuse I’ve heard is that “plants of the field” is a more specific category than plants in general. So there were plants created before Adam, and then other plants that were created after.
I thought the "one less rib" thing was true way too long, even long after I stopped believing. Never thought is was a good proof for the creation myth anyway, so I never checked if it was true. I just thought, that the writers of the Bible knew about that oddity in anatomy and made up a story to explain that. The possibility of it not being true never crossed my mind, since I heard it so many times.
I think the writers of the Bible knew that other Male animals have a bacculum but they didn't have a word for it.
The real question should be, "Are they relevant?"
Forest learned from the king, you. Haha
You mentioned fungi as possible plants without sunlight, but fungi are not plants.
You might have said this just because fungi are often colloquially referred to as plants, but I just thought I'd mention in case there was confusion.
Taxonomy is classification and naming. Ancient Taxonomy wouldn't necessarily have to align with modern Taxonomy. As you mentioned colloquial use of fungus as plants. If the writers intended to classify fungus as plants that could hypothetically be used to rationalize the verse. Even if it is horribly wrong.
@@gurgleblaster2282
You’d think God should’ve gotten it correct. Like bats being called birds.
@K. Bosch well if our assumption that God was a bunch of sheep herding nomads in the cannanite region then no we shouldn't expect them to get it right lmfao
While despise kent ham, Hovind, Ray Comfort, and etc, i get why they deny all fields of science. If the very beginning of sin is wrong, then what's the point of Jesus?
That’s always been my thought…if a Christian says Genesis should not be taken literally, or is myth etc etc then surely the whole basis of sin, the fall of man and hence down to the need for Jesus collapse (or at least becomes a much harder theology to defend )
Yeah, they don't deny science because of problems with the science, they deny it because it puts the lie to their Creation myth, and if the Creation myth is false....then the whole Jesus/Resurrection/Salvation for Sin concept is false...and that means they don't get to go to the Heaven that they desperately believe in.
Bingo.
Never mind that sacrifice as described is utterly atavistic behavior. If you transgress (against an individual or society) you apologize, make some restitution, and move on. That’s how the modern world works. You don’t need blood sacrifices; that’s just weird.
I was hoping you were going to delve into the Documentary Hypothesis that most biblical scholars talk about with regards to the first five books, and especially explain the differences between Genesis 1 & 2. It’s illustrated very well in “The Bible with Sources Revealed” by Richard E. Friedman.
Prof. Joel Baden is also great on the documentary hypothesis!
Some scholars of the european/scandinavian tradition, would say "Yes, there are contradictions. And it is evidence for how the scriptures were treated when different sources had to be edited.
Any and all source was held as sacred. But when one and a single joined version was to be produced, all of them HAD to be represented and included.
For purely political reasons, creating a "book of law" for a nation, all minorities and versions had to be merged into the text.
Now, here in scandinavia, the "Holy Book" is really not that "holy" even to the theists....
Matt you are such a wise man. You amaze me.
In the church I grew up in chapter 2 was described as the “8th day”, and not in any way connected to the first week of creation. It implied Adam was then not the first man but the first to have a relationship directly with God. I’m now agnostic, but this makes more sense to me because it removes the correlation and continues the story.
In Hebrew Bible YHVH created the seeds on day three. Then on day six in Genesis 2, Eloah caused them to sprout. See at scripture4all where it mentions seeds and no sprouting in 1, then mentions sprouting and no seeds in Genesus 2. Messiah King David was born in Bethlehem, and YHVH promised him that his throne shall be an everlasting throne. He is going to be resurrected and rule the nations and heaven on earth will be reality.
Jesus is a Greek mythology false god. YHVH is One Person and no Christians pronounce His Name right, except for Hallelu YaH (Praise You YaH). VH ending is where they err.
Matt, I know you know this much better than I. But the Tree thing!!! I was so waiting for the 'he created them, male and female', then that Adam couldn't find a mate, so the rib thing! And that is where the legends of Lilith came from, Adam's first wife! But the main thing, and it's the same in the hebrew/ aramaic, is that there were TWO forbidden trees! One of knowledge but the other of life! They may have brought sin, (and I always wondered why their nudity was the big thing but!) but not death! They were not 'created' immortal. It drives me nuts when apologists say that is where death came from! Yahweh was told by the 'others' to get his toys (ok, paraphrase!) out of the garden, 'lest they also eat of the tree of life and become immortal like us', depending on translation, 'live eternally' , etc. So, he did. With the guards , flaming swords to keep them out. And really, I wish eve had taken from the other tree, since they stayed pretty dumb. For millenia! I'd have rather had the life, lol. Yeah, I miss my young, active and 'hot' time!👍💙💖🥰✌
One apologetic I’ve seen is that Genesis 1 is the creation of the whole universe, and 2 is God setting up a special preserve inside it for his favourite pet. This also is convenient for explaining why there seem to be whole cities of people outside the garden after Adam and Eve get kicked out of it.
Then most of the people of today would be descendants of people outside the Garden, so most of the pople would be without original sin.
@@juanausensi499 But they all got wiped out in the flood, and the Bible tells us that Noah was a direct descendent from Adam…so the flood wiped out all those not tainted by original sin, leaving only descendants of Adam populating the world.
@@donsample1002 So, the ones tainted with the original sin, were better that the ones who don't?
The bible claims that god created light before the sun because the people at that time thought daylight was a separate thing from sunlight.
Do you have any sort of citation for saying this? I think ancient humans understood the sun was the source of day light.
@@dingdongism ancient humans used to lick moss off rocks for food ... then eat those rocks.
What is your point??
@@AlBundyOz My point is that, whether or not humans did the moss/rock eating thing you’re describing, they also understood that day light came from the sun. Which is what the OP used as the basis of their comment. How you believe pointing out that some unrelated point speaks to OP is beyond me.
@@dingdongism, asks _"Do you have any sort of citation for saying this?"_
No, but it explains the claims of the bible and the order of creation. It also makes total sense when you think about it without modern knowledge of the solar system -- without an understanding of the rotation of the Earth, it explains how it becomes day before the sun appears and doesn't become night until *after* the sun has disappeared. And even when it's cloudy and there is no sun to give sunlight, you still have day and night.
Hitting home the idea of the weakness of handwaving it as allegory really helped me. Grew up in a more liberal but more devout Christian home and we always criticized fundamentalist/biblical literalists. But it was the allegory and symbolism that kept my faith strong until this video. If it is allegory then God omitted the truth about what actually happened from the beginning. This helped me take another step down from faith toward atheism.
@Matt. You should look into booking biblical scholars like Dr. Dennis R. MacDonald, Dr. Kipp Davis, Dr. Richard C Miller, etc. This would help you expose the bible to other contradictions. Those scholars left Christianity after discovering contradictions while they had to study other religions for their's PhD programs.
It's interesting to hear about it, but when it comes to a conversation with a believer, I will never remember all the little detaiils of this line of reasoning, and since they are the believers they have an advantage in that respect. Matt has a good memory for that kind of thing, and more power to him.
I have a poor memory, and there's no way I'm going to remember how many space planes Zeenu flew into the volcano, or how many magic rocks were in Joseph Smith's hat. That's why I'm always trying to get better at #StreetEpistemology, because you don't really need to remember anything about the dogma in question. Just ask what, why, and how, and let them do all the work.
These are good tools for the old counter-apologetic belt but I personally stopped arguing with theists a long time ago. It’s a pointless and exhausting endeavor.
What ever happened with that video that was going to be made for Haqiqatju, to give him all the talking points and all that, in advance of the debate.
Is it on another channel or something?
I cant find it.
Peter Gabriel vs Phil Collins?
Garbriel
@@SNORKYMEDIA Amen
The thing that got me as a kid was....and on the 7th day ,god rested. 😳😳😳god get tired???? How can a god get tired ???? He's god right???
And that was it for me. Period!!!! And the rest of the bs.....
Gimme a break😏
Words have multiple meanings. Even English "rest" does not have to mean one is physically tired and needs a nap. An attorney might "rest" his case and that means he is simply finished with his presentation. In music, it means to pause and do nothing. Thus, it conveys the idea of cessation; on the seventh day, Yah ceased/paused.
But my preference--the Hebrew word used here (as well as the additional meanings that English rest has, coincidentally) also has another meaning-- that of "enthronement" or "coronation."
It is sad to me that your best reasoning was limited to the sophistication of a child. I call upon you to put away childish things and seek truth with all the tools of reason available to you.
exactly. if the order of events in genesis 1 is literal then it is wrong and if it is metaphorical then it is useless and meaningless! 'prepare for tap dancing' ;-)
As a person raised as a Christian i can say that for the most part, most of the people i knew back then, that were at leas half intelligent, never thought about any of this. They essentially pretend these issues dont exist but I think deep down they know the truth.
Discrepancy also in Bible
Exodus 31:17
God rests
It is a sign between me and the children of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
Isaiah 40:28
God never rests lol
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary,
and his understanding no one can fathom.
The part about the creation story in the bible that I always found funny is not the contradictions or any of that, is actually how short it is. I mean this is the most important of all stories, the creation of all things...yet is only 2 pages out of 1000+. Sooooo dumb
Speak to Francesca Stavrakopoulou. Please!
*_The findings of science Vs. Stories told about God_** ;*
It would have been truly amazing, if the Bible had told us what actually causes disease & plagues.
Instead of only offering demons, evil spirits & God as the source for these things.
Or that God had created life, through _a complex system,_ called "evolution".
Instead of, God simply _blowing into a pile of dust,_ to create the first human. (God magic)
I think the problem we are dealing with here is the two genesis accounts are written by different authors at different times.
I've always argued "where's the list made by Adam?" To fundamentalists... never gotten an answer except deer-in-the-headlights stares.
The list became useless after languages were messed up after Babel.
@Fred Derf nah. The "original language " was not erased, or there's no evidence in the Bible of that. Just that many others emerged and people were confused.
I mean, the whole story is false/inaccurate, but just arguing from its premises...
@@fred_derf Weird. If that's the case, then how did the stories from Genesis survive?
@@FakingANerve “Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom … Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.”
[Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148]
Or in other words, "if reason conflicts with the bible, reason is wrong" a.k.a. "stop thinking".
@@FakingANerve, writes _"Weird. If that's the case, then how did the stories from Genesis survive?"_
According to common christian belief, god told (inspired) Moses to tell the stories in the bible so it just inspired them in whatever language Moses used and for whatever reason, didn't inspire him to write down the list of Animals. Any existing list (assuming a written list was ever made) would have been in the pre-Babel language and not understandable by those who came after (just gibberish) so it wouldn't have been preserved.
But yah, you're right, anytime you look into biblical stories they get weird... really quickly.
Excellent.
I think its a contradiction when christians dismissed the old testiment , because how could God say something and then change his mind about that thing he said unless he wasn't wrong about it , its a contradiction is the sense that the new God contradicts the old God
@@mil401
I think they need to credit God for a job he did otherwise he'll be useless
@@mil401
I think its an abrahamic tradition to believe so , because infalliblity in their view is what disnguish God's nature from Human nature , like for exmaple you see many muslims accuse the bible of being corrupted by the hands of christians and its no longer the word of God therefore no longer valid , because there has been many adding and changing in the bible over the time, so if the bible is fallible then its not word of God or in this case its no longer the original word of God as humams added to it and that's why its fallible
@@rinos7902 In the Abrahamic religions God is thought of as being infallible. That part makes sense.
I’m just not really seeing how we can then get to “therefore Christians should think their Bible _also_ happens to be the word of this infallible God.”
Presumably Christian’s don’t think all books have to have been written by God - why couldn’t they potentially think of the Bible as another example of a collection of books that’s only _attributed_ (incorrectly) to this infallible God?
Can someone tell me where all these things took place?
my favorite contradiction to bring up is the contradictory genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Not only are the genealogies irreconcilable, but the apologetic for it is miserable. They try to say that one of them is a genealogy of Mary, which just demonstrably is not the case. They're clearly both for Joseph.
The cherry on the top of this one is that it forces your christian interlocutor to see that there's a real problem with the prophecy that says that the messiah will come from the line of David, because Jesus isn't supposed to be the son of Joseph, and these are genealogies of Joseph, not Mary.
If you have time too, and you really want to drive the point home, you can point out that these genealogies don't jive with genealogies in the old testament, and in one spot there's actually a very obvious mistake in the number of names Matthew says there is. He just straight up miscounts them and says there's 14 in one of the groupings when there's actually only 13.
As far as bang for your buck, this one really drives the point home that the bible is a hodgepodge of silly nonsense with about the same truth value as a bag full of moldy chicken wings.
"They try to say that one of them is a genealogy of Mary, which just demonstrably is not the case. They're clearly both for Joseph. "
Of course, they both say Joseph, but hey, who can believe that?
And what reason is there to believe that it is a geneology of Mary? Um.....none. Not a lick.
The only reason to think that it is a geneology of Mary is if you assume there are no contradictions in the bible, so the geneology in Luke MUST BE for Mary. If it weren't, then that would mean there are contradictions in the bible, and since that can't be true, then it obvious is.
Seriously, that is the argument. If you presume the bible has no contradictions, then you should interpret the text in a way so that there are no contradictions.
They can both be for Joseph and both be correct if one is the legal lineage and the other is biological. Here's how that can be. If Heli (Luke's legal version) was childless at death then his Half-Brother Jacob (Matthew, biological version) would marry his widow in order to begat a legal heir for Heli. Thus Joseph is legally Heli's heir but biologically Jacob's son.
John of Damascus is credited with this explanation. He wrote: "One ought also to observe this, that the law was that when a man died without seed, this man's brother should take to wife the wife of the dead man and raise up seed to his brother." and then suggests "when Mathan died, Melchi, who was of the lineage of Nathan and the son of Levi and brother of Panther, married the wife of Mathan. It was she who was the mother of Jacob, and from her Melchi begot Heli. Thus, Jacob and Heli were born of the same mother, but Jacob was of the lineage of Solomon, while Heli was of the lineage of Nathan. Heli, however, who was of the lineage of Nathan, died childless, and his brother Jacob, who was of the lineage of Solomon, took his wife and raised up seed for his brother and begot Joseph. So, while Joseph was by nature a son of Jacob of the descent of Solomon, he was by law son of Heli, who was of the line of Nathan."
@@davideverett1863 and you think the completely unsupported Rube Goldberg-esque scenario you just described is the most likely explanation, do you?
@@nathanjohnson9715 That is what I said, absent your manipulative straw-man of "unsupported." I supported it with the quote of John of Damascus, and I can support it by citing the Hebrew law
Even today we have the same concept--that one's legal father is not necessarily one's biological father, yet one might be described as the son of either.
Since we have the same custom, it is a very simple and idiotically overlooked answer. And it seems you have a little too much invested in something you obviously did not think through very well, since you know about adoption and the difference between biological and legal parentage.
It's ok. Let go of the idea you have to be right about everything. It can be enjoyable learning when you might be wrong.
Re - Eve was made from Adam's rib...
I was watching something recently where the focus was on this "rib" thing. Apparently, "rib" was deliberately mistranslated. The Hebrew word used more accurately represents a side, as in half-of-the-whole. It appears to be a deliberate mistranslation because that same word is correctly translated everywhere else where it appears, but when it appears in relation to Eve being created from Adam, it's translated as "rib" instead of "one-half-of-his-body/ side."
The narrator suggested that this was because the Christian translators of the Hebrew bible didn't want to create the idea in people's heads that women were equal to men in any way and were in fact only small representations of part of a man, hence, 'she was made from his rib.'
I've never looked into this personally, so I can't say if it's accurate or not, but if there's anyone there who speaks Hebrew better than I can then please do look into it (for reference, I can barely follow a conversation in Hebrew).
edit - I've looked into it, albeit briefly and it appears to be correct. The word "tsela" is used to describe a side of something, like a left hand side of a building, or a right hand side of a tree, etc... The word "tsela" appears 40 times in the Old Testament and is NEVER translated as "rib" in ANY of those 40 appearances, except the one time it appears in the story of adam and eve.
Secondly -
It's because of this whole _'40 correct translations vs 1 incorrect translation when talking about this "rib" of Adam,'_ that I feel confident in ascribing intent to this mistranslation and thus claiming that it was deliberately mistranslated. It's still remotely possible that it was an accidental mistranslation, but to my mind, the numbers involved (40-to-1) seem to make this possibility an astonishingly unlikely one. I can't be certain, of course, but I think it's a VERY safe bet to say that the mistranslation was deliberate!
@James Jungles
Seems hard to argue a lack of intent when the ONLY place where "tsela" is translated as "rib" is in the adam + eve story and the other *40 (ie - forty)* appearances of the word "tsela" are translated accurately.
It's also not the only occurrence of this kind of deliberate mistranslation. This very phenomenon can be observed in numerous cases with the Christian translation of the Hebrew bible.
And so, I'm afraid that I have to *strenuously* disagree with your contention that it was not deliberate. The evidence clearly indicates intent and shows that it was indeed a deliberate mistranslation. If it had happened even ONCE more in any of the forty (40) other appearances of the word "tsela," then I might entertain the notion that it could be an accident. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
@James Jungles
One possibility I read was that it said God took a rib like bone from Adam's front.
Chimpanzees have a rib like bone on their front. Other Male animals had such a bone but between their legs.
Humans do not have this particular bone.
I'm pausing the video before you get to the verdict. I'm at 0:46 right now. I really hope you're going to say that Genesis 1&2 are among the hardest to disprove for theists. Because they're clearly two completely different narratives of the same event, and scholarship agrees on this. Likely different authors as well. And they describe the events as happening in different orders.
But I'm super interested in what you have to say. Maybe you'll agree. Or maybe you'll disagree and I'll learn something. Or maybe you'll disagree and I'll be annoyed! Here goes nothing!
Joel Baden has some interesting things to say about the two creation stories
Does the Genesis account of the creation imply that all animals are vegetarians? Except for snakes that are now supposed to only eat dust/dirt forever. Might have been just the gideon version i was reading, but i sure got that impression of 'god' saying all the fruits of the plants were for the animals to eat.
It's like asking if it's fiction or fantasy.
23:20 - original sin is absolutely not a cornerstone of Judaism. In fact it is an alien concept, and there's no reason to expect the authors of any of the sections of genesis to have anticipated a future Christian repurposing of the text.
Thanks. Great video! Happy atheist here for about 30 years. 66 years alive so far.
It was only a few years ago that I realised that God didn't create everything out of nothing. Genesis 1:2 indicates quite clearly that when he began creation everything was composed of water (and there was an empty space where the Earth is now which is weird). Since we now know how the elements were made and that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen how did God create those two elements before everything else? This is as ridiculous as creating plants before light and the stars, planets, the Sun and the Moon.
(The breath of God sweeping over the face of the waters is also strange.)
None of this makes any sense.
You should do like a whole Bible read through...alot of work but it would be so good!
That would be boring to tell you the truth. Some of the stories are entertaining though.
They do read as two different versions of the same story. However, both seem far-fetched and without good evidence to believe as true.
Same story? Follow the events and circumstances and sequences related to the first woman in each version. Completely different.
@@scienceexplains302 Right, different details of generally the same creation myth. But this is like arguing over how tall elves are. If they are 4'10 or 6' they are still elves and not real.
@@monsterram6617 Yes, but I wasn’t questioning the mythical status, just that they are the same story told differently. They are not.
@@scienceexplains302 According to your opinion or some unnamed official source?
So the gist is that Genesis Ch. 1 and Genesis Ch. 2 were written by two different authors?
Great topic.
what about the shroud ??????
If you are designing a game it doesn't matter when you create the elements, there is no contradiction, lighting effects are often done later.
Matt needs to make a follow up to this video saying all the same stuff but with different words.
29K views as I write this and only 1.4K thumbs up. Hmmmmm... maybe a consider showing a bit more love and support, folks.
Wait when it says Adam couldn't find a partner does that mean that Adam tried to have sex with all the animals and couldn't find one? Lol
The bible is just confused and if you try to make sense out of it, your head will ache. As per story, Adam didn't even become aware of the use of his sexual organs until when he ate the fruit, and realised that he was naked. But again somewhat, it is the realization of "nakedness" whatever that means, that was required for him to procreate. But somewhat, that nakedness was only to be realized after eating a fruit which he was forbidden to eat in the first place. Too much nonsense that you can't wrap your head about it
I find the passage in Genesis 2 where it talks about "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth" when God created Man pretty contradictory. It very much seems to be saying the lack of shrubbery was down to the lack of anyone to work the land, and so God created Man to work the land. This of course contradicts the order in Genesis 1, where plants were created on day 3, and Man a few days later.
Was a herring involved?
@@diogeneslamp8004
and a little path running down the middle...
@@bengreen171
😂
I feel like there's a problem or two in every line of Genesis, but here's my problem:
It has always seemed to me that the creation story(ies) in Genesis existed solely to provide a backdrop for the creation of Adam. That is, a bunch of stuff happened culminating in the "Creation of Man" (much fanfare). And if that was the point, then it was ridiculous that God needed to make Adam out of clay (after already creating everything out of nothing but his own spoken word), and then that he needed to make Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. There's just no consistency there - no sense.
It always felt to me like man was some kind of afterthought, or hand-me-down, or even like a copy-of-a-copy. Not made directly by god's will, like the rest of the universe, but cobbled together out of junk lying around AFTER the universe was made. And then Eve is even worse. A copy-of-a-COPY-of-a-copy.
It's always felt like a story that a child would write, without thought to logic or continuity or even the previous sentence. Insane rambling at best.
@James Jungles Of course it says he needed to do it that way.
If god is "perfect" and omnipotent, He MUST do things in the most perfect way possible. Do do less would be IMperfect. So making man out of clay was THE way to do it.
And how would man, not knowing the difference between good and evil at this point - having not eaten from the tree - have any ability to be "humbled" by knowing he was made from clay? It would just be a valueless fact. "I'm made from clay, ok, whatever."
Nothing about the story has any logical sense. And trying to interpret it with mental gymnastics into the superficial APPEARANCE of sense only highlights how weak the story is to begin with.
@James Jungles If apologists, and YOU, can interpret the book to say what you like, like that part about humbling man by making him from dirt, then I can certainly look at the book as a whole and draw conclusions from what it says also.
Christians claim god is perfect and omnipotent. It follows that to BE perfect, an all powerful god MUST BEHAVE perfectly, which means he MUST do things the way they MUST be done. He made man from dirt because that was the PERFECT way to do it. It's a pretty logical interpretation.
You haven't actually done anything to make sense of the story. Instead, you've posed some weak 'maybe's that shouldn't be necessary if the book was written (or inspired by) god.
@James Jungles Are you dense? I answered very clearly. There is no chapter/verse that says that explicitly. Just as there is no chapter and verse that says what YOU want it to say. You have no problem interpreting the book to suit you, I am interpreting it to suit me. A book written by god should not be open to interpretation. It should make sense. The Bible does not make sense.
@James Jungles Wow. You have a serious reading comprehension problem. You seem to only see what you like. I guess that's a prereq for defending the Bible.
@James Jungles We're not talking about "someone" that is capable of doing things half-assed.
We're talking about the book's hypothetical "perfect" GOD. Can't be perfect unless EVERY moment and every iota of everything you ever think and do is also perfect. Does god make mistakes? no? then he HAD to have made everything EXACTLY as he did.
It's kinda funny that I have to keep explaining this to you. The book has painted gof into a corner by claiming that god has all these attributes that effectively FORCE him into these impossible, contradictory, paradoxical positions.
My uncle is a priest (retired) and my dad was a deacon. I had access to some pretty sharp minds in the church. They admit that these kinds of ctradictions and paradoxes exist. They don't try to ignore or deny them as you're doing. They simply say, "That's they Mystery of faith." They know better than to take the apologist route.
But you go ahead and continue trying to fit the Bible's square peg into logic's round hole if it makes you happy. Just know that the issues you're trying to hand-wave away haven't been satisfactorily explained in thousands of years by the best bible scholars to have ever lived. NO AMOUNT of interpretation or mental gymnastics has ever untied this particular Goridan knot.
I had one creationist say about Adam having one less rib than Eve: "God just didn't make a rib of Eve so that they were the same." I have had other creationist ague that God made a replacement rib for Adam. But neither of these a justified by a literal reading of the Bible.
I'm confused. As the sun is our source of light in our solar system/here on earth, what light did god create prior to the sun? What was the source of that light and what happened to it that it does not seem to be apparent today? Why did god even create that light? Is it so that he could see to create because he can't see in the dark?
The majority of people do not know that the early manuscripts of the biblical texts did not contain the chapter and verse divisions in the numbered form familiar to modern readers. In antiquity Hebrew texts were divided into paragraphs (parashot) that were identified by two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Peh (פ) indicated an "open" paragraph that began on a new line, while Samekh (ס) indicated a "closed" paragraph that began on the same line after a small space.[4] These two letters begin the Hebrew words open (patuach) and closed (sagur), and are, themselves, open in shape (פ) and closed (ס). The earliest known copies of the Book of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls used parashot divisions, although they differ slightly from the Masoretic divisions.[5]
The Hebrew Bible was also divided into some larger sections. In Israel, the Torah (its first five books) were divided into 154 sections so that they could be read through aloud in weekly worship over the course of three years. In Babylonia, it was divided into 53 or 54 sections (Parashat ha-Shavua) so it could be read through in one year.[5] The New Testament was divided into topical sections known as kephalaia by the fourth century. Eusebius of Caesarea divided the gospels into parts that he listed in tables or canons. Neither of these systems correspond with modern chapter divisions.[6] (See fuller discussions below.)
Chapter divisions, with titles, are also found in the 9th-century Tours manuscript Paris Bibliothèque Nationale MS Lat. 3, the so-called Bible of Rorigo.[7]
Archbishop Stephen Langton and Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro developed different schemas for systematic division of the Bible in the early 13th century. It is the system of Archbishop Langton on which the modern chapter divisions are based.[8][9][10]
While chapter divisions have become nearly universal, editions of the Bible have sometimes been published without them. Such editions, which typically use thematic or literary criteria to divide the biblical books instead, include John Locke's Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (1707),[11] Alexander Campbell's The Sacred Writings (1826),[12] Daniel Berkeley Updike's fourteen-volume The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, Richard Moulton's The Modern Reader's Bible (1907),[13] Ernest Sutherland Bates's The Bible Designed to Be Read as Living Literature (1936),[14] The Books of the Bible (2007) from the International Bible Society (Biblica), Adam Lewis Greene's five-volume Bibliotheca (2014),[15][16] and the six-volume ESV Reader's Bible[17] (2016) from Crossway Books.
Therefore, there are absolutely zero contradictions in the Genesis account of creation.
Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest); Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week-the sixth day-and there is no contradiction.
In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the sequence to focus on the sixth day, when God made mankind. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man and woman.
There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.” There is no contradiction, though, because Genesis 2:5 does not say how long before man’s creation there was no plant life. In fact, the previous verse mentions the first and second days of creation (at which point there were no plants), so it makes sense that Genesis 2:5 would mention there were no plants. Several days of creation occur between Genesis 2:6 and Genesis 2:7. Verse 7 details the creation of man on the sixth day. Verse 8 mentions the garden that God had created for him-the fourth day is spoken of in the past tense. The trees that God makes to grow in verse 9 are those in the garden. So the passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation on the third day; Genesis 2:5 speaks of the first and second days when there was no vegetation; and Genesis 2:9 speaks of the specific growth of trees in Eden.
The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.
By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.
Zzzzzzzzz....
The texts of the Abrahamic faiths are anonymous sources all the way down.
matt, when can we play a game of chess?
Ohhh, my brother, BAC , says that when eve ate the apple... all creation fell... including all of the universe and beyond....eeks !!!!
The biblical creations stories are simply two retellings of other creation myths with small changes made to fit the cultural traditions of the tribes that adopted them from their surrounding nations' cultures. Nothing is truly original except for people's names and gods doing the creating.
"Genesis 1 and 2 - are they contradictory?"
Since the events described in Genesis haven't been proved to have happened, does it matter?
In Captain America comics, depending on which issue you read, has Steve Rogers being shown receiving his super-soldier powers by injection, by drinking a serum, and by exposure to special energy rays. ( these are contradictory accounts which were eventually redacted to show the procedure was actually a combination of an injection, ingesting a serum, and the energy rays). So what? The contradictions don't really make any difference.
The point is that, if they are contradictory, the book can't be the infallible and literal message of an omnipotent perfect being.
It contradicts itself almost immediately, anyway. You don't even have to get as far as chapter 2.
The order of creation in Genesis 1 is suspiciously like the order of the generations of gods in the Enuma Elish.
26:01 "...is the deathNAIL..." ?? no.
If I heard it correctly Matt's mixing metaphors/analogies here:
- the last NAIL in the coffin
- the death KNELL (the ringing of the funeral bell)
Don't be fooled, I do thoroughly enjoy the video, but also can't miss out on making this connention:
th-cam.com/video/bpUtJw4x2qg/w-d-xo.html
Checkout Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
There was no mention of a father or mother, so who is the mother or father at this point.
This verse is an instruction to future generations that they are to become one as Adam and Eve did. The verse isn't saying that Adam and Eve left their parents.
"Therefore"...fore... future
@@SansDeity To name something means it exists.. how can something be named if it does not exist.. unless to write a script(ure) that needs to be followed.
Correct it doesn't say parents, it says father and mother.
Who was Adam and Eve's Mother let alone their Father?
Adam and Eve's mother and father are yhwh and Asherah.
Part of the problem is translation, but not how you might think. The Hebrew of Genesis 1 doesn't say that the fish and birds came from the water. It says let the waters swarm with swarms of souls and let there be flying things that fly across the face of the sky dome that holds the upper water.
This doesn't change the fact that you are comparing two very different stories.
the last 10 words in your 1st paragraph sums it all up perfectly. "Face of the sky dome that holds up the water..........."
Every. Single. Word. before THAT hilarity is moot.
Can you head out and take a pic of this firmament for us???
Someone I've talked to told me that it's basically the other way around: That Genesis 1 is the general overview (God created male and female) and Genesis 2 explains the details (At some point God created Adam and later he created Eve)
its still crazy to me that God needed a rest day. i think the only reason they put that in there is because a week is 7 days amd they needed to make up something to have that 7th day.
@James Jungles
Genesis 2:2 “And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.”
@James Jungles
No, I figured you were going for the _needed_ emphasis when I first read your message, but wanted to get the citation out of the way.
“And on the seventh day God finished his work he had done” - this seems to indicate God did work on the 7th day as you can not finish your work without doing some work, it also seems to indicate God engaged in effort and/or activity which suggests God may not have all the traits typically attributed to him, it also seems to indicate God has a male gender while it’s unclear of his biological circumstance thus confirming gender as a construct separate from biology, it also seems to indicate something with the apparent redundancy of the phrase “he had done” - did he contract some of the work out?, were others attempting to claim credit for work “he had done”?
“and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done” - this seems to indicate that the rest is a function of all his work (again the redundant phrase “he had done” which seems to indicate there may be some issue about who actually did the work, after all it does seem paradoxical for an omnipotent entity to do work), and since the rest is a function of all his work that then suggests that all his work induced a need for rest
Point is, excessive literalism, along with the typically attendant coyness, is a tool weaponized by bad faith operators in an attempt to win bad faith arguments.
I had a creationist try to dismiss the errors in Genesis 1 by arguing essentially that humans didn't know better at that time, so that makes it okay lol.
On day three, YHVH created the seeds in Genesis one, then on day six, He caused them to sprout. In Hebrew, it specifically mentions seeds and no sprouting in Genesis one. In Genesis two, it specifically mentions sprouting and no seeds. Look scripture4all and compare the Hebrew yourself.
The Hebrew word rekioa means expanse, not necessarily atmosphere alone, and firmament is complete mistranslation.
@@jamescobrien If you think those are the only errors in the creation myth account, you might want to study it further yourself.
@@Mackaylagrace I will but use scripure4all Bible from now on. The goal is to prove the Hebrew Bible itself has errors. Including for me. I already know the Hebrew Bible has errors, at least 1,000 words are errors in the Hebrew Bible. The seed creation on day 3 and the sprouting on day 6 isn't one of them.
Who cares about the translations? They are all garbage, anyways.
2Kings 8:26 says King Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign. 2Chronicles 22:2 says King Ahaziah was 42 when he began to reign. This is an error, in the actual Hebrew Bible.
And that kids, is why we call the elephants behemoths.
10:31 - "In chapter 2 verse 7 it is, 'God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed nostrils into his life.'"???
LOL. Interesting translation you're reading from there. 😆
Sorry, had to be said.
That was really funny😂
Still working on your book, Matt?
When did he say he’s working on a book?
I wonder why Matt was going to paraphrase genesis but decided against it. Was he worried about a copyright strike from god?
In the beginning there was nothing. Then god said "let there be light". There was still nothing, but now you could see it.
Genesis is one of the most misappropriated and misunderstood books of ancient literature, largely because of its use as a religious text. It deserves study because it represents a chapter in the development of human culture, but it is absurd to use it as a template for science or history. It is primarily a social and political text that applied to a particular society in a particular era and is obsolete in our modern context except as a record of how an ancient people sought to solve certain questions for themselves.
The book has a trajectory that Creationists too often miss, and that is towards the idea of a people under covenant surviving exile. Look at the motif of exile that occurs over and over: Adam and Eve exiled from the garden, the nations scattered after Babel, Hagar exiled from the household of Abraham, Jacob exiled from his family, and ending with Joseph setting the stage for Israel in exile in Egypt. The trajectory, even though some divine being is behind the stage, is the forming of a particular identity: Israel.
If, as many scholars think, Genesis, along with the rest of Torah/Pentateuch was formed around the late fifth century BCE (cobbled together from numerous older sources), then it probably is an artifact of the transition period when Persia was taking over what had been the Babylonian empire. That is when descendants of upperclass citizens of Jerusalem taken into exile under Nebuchadnezzar were allowed to return to Judah.
And though Judah was politically separate from Israel before the Babylonian conquest (israel having actually been conquered by the Assyrians generations before the fall of Judah) the returnees from exile had their own internal reasons for claiming to be the true israel (that I will not go into here).
Genesis chapter one is a hymn.
Genesis chapters two and three is about the fall, which is an exile story.
The ark story introduces a proto-covenant (and that rainbow is an ancient near eastern phallic symbol, something that casts a different meaning on all those Sunday school pictures lol).
In the ancient world it was culturally expedient (politically expedient) to claim your people’s god was superior to neighboring societies’ gods). Yahweh, a sky, storm, and warrior god speaks creation into being in the opening hymn, but he does it in the presence of other gods (notice the theme of “let us”).
We should be getting beyond this conflating political identity with god’s will in the 21st century, but unfortunately the increase in Christian nationalism in recent years along with a host of other nonsense only shows we refuse to grow up.
Naming the animals is a good thing. But Adam had no knowledge of good. Adam couldn't name the animals before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. No knowledge of good or evil. That's a contradiction.
What never gets discussed in Genesis is where did Adam and Eve (and the snake) get their language skills? Babies take years to learn their parent's and teacher's language, and spend a good part of their childhood building up a vocabulary, by from day 1 (or should that be day 6?) Adam and Eve are talking to each other , to a serpent, and to God and they all understand each other. If God "gave" Adam and Eve their language skills, he also gave them their vocabulary. They knew the word Tree, they knew the word Fruit, (yet oddly Adam had to make up names of all the animals.) Why did God only give a partial Vocabulary to Adam?
Why did God give the serpent a vocal cords and language skills. Did he not forsee the possibility of a talking serpent leading Adam and Eve astray?
Discuss
From my point of view creation of Eve narrative is about god realizing Adam needs a suitable helper. Whether or not the animals were created after Adam or before really has little bearing on what the story relates. God realizes Adam is alone, that that is not a good thing and that he needs a "suitable helper" (or helper suitable or whatever translation phrase). So he brings all the animals before Adam for "naming", CANNOT FIND a 'suitable helper' among the animals, and only then clones Eve from Adam. If it was merely about getting Adam a helper you could just do verse 18 and skip to verse 21. Verses 19 and 20 would be unnecessary. I mean really? An "all knowing" god doesn't realize Adam needs a mate at the time he creates Adam? And he has to have Adam "name" all the animals to realize none of them fit the bill? Really?
Multiple translations to appease the "you've got the wrong version" apologetics". If that comes up I can produce about any ENGLISH version you wish.
TNIV
Gen 2:18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Gen 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
Gen 2:20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and then closed up the place with flesh.
Gen 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
ESV
Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”
Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.
Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
NASB
Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all the livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
Gen 2:22 And the LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
KJV (for the KJV onlyists)
Gen 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.
Gen 2:19 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.
Gen 2:20 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.
Gen 2:21 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;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
1568 Bishops Bible
Gen 2:18 And the Lord God sayde: It is not good yt the man should be alone, I wyll make hym an helpe lyke vnto hym.
Gen 2:19 And so out of the grounde the Lorde God had shapen euery beast of the field, and euery foule of the ayre, and brought it vnto man, that he myght see howe he woulde call it. For lykewyse as man hym selfe named euery lyuyng thyng, euen so was the name therof.
Gen 2:20 And the man gaue names to all cattell, and foule of the ayre, & euery beast of the fielde: but for man founde he not an helpe lyke vnto hym.
Gen 2:21 The Lord God caused a deepe sleepe to fall vpon Adam, and he slept, and he toke one of his ribbes, and closed vp the place with fleshe in steade therof.
Gen 2:22 And the ribbe which the lord god had taken from man, made he a woman, & brought her vnto the man.
1587 Geneva Bible
Gen 2:18 Also the Lorde God saide, It is not good that the man should be himself alone: I wil make him an helpe meete for him.
Gen 2:19 So the Lorde God formed of the earth euery beast of the fielde, and euery foule of the heauen, and brought them vnto the man to see howe he would call them: for howsoeuer the man named the liuing creature, so was the name thereof.
Gen 2:20 The man therefore gaue names vnto all cattell, and to the foule of the heauen, and to euery beast of the fielde: but for Adam founde he not an helpe meete for him.
Gen 2:21 Therefore the Lord God caused an heauie sleepe to fall vpon the man, and he slept: and he tooke one of his ribbes, & closed vp the flesh in steade thereof.
Gen 2:22 And the ribbe which the Lorde God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her to the man.
1611 KJV
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him an helpe meet for him.
Gen 2:19 And out of ye ground the LORD God formed euery beast of the field, and euery foule of the aire, and brought them vnto Adam, to see what he would call them: and whatsoeuer Adam called euery liuing creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen 2:20 And Adam gaue names to all cattell, and to the foule of the aire, and to euery beast of the fielde: but for Adam there was not found an helpe meete for him.
Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deepe sleepe to fall vpon Adam, and hee slept; and he tooke one of his ribs, and closed vp the flesh in stead thereof.
Gen 2:22 And the rib which the LORD God had taken from man, made hee a woman, & brought her vnto the man.
I'm only 6 minutes into the video, so I don't know if you talk about this contradiction. Genesis 1:1 ... beginning god made the heaven and earth. Genesis 1-7/8: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
So which one was it? Did he start with heaven and earth or did he create heaven on the second day. Also these "days" can't be millions of years because it says the evening and the morning, not multiple evenings and mornings were the second day.
Thank God he used you to strengthen my faith.
May Jesus Christ bless you.
Genesis collectively -- as real as the Little Mermaid.
Genesis 1:20 doesn’t say the waters brought forth. Genesis 1:20 says literally, they “swarm with swarms.” This cognate construction is simply emphasizing the abundant life on Earth. Genesis 2:19 uses a different verb. You can easily confirm this, not to mention more and most modern English translations use “swarm with swarms” or something similar in 1:20 vs. the KJV which was selected in this video.
Moses uses Elohim Yahweh starting in Chapter 2:4 to emphasize both God’s power but also His covenantal relationship with man, as Chapter 2 is more centered around the creation of man and the position He has put man in.
Before modern science, theologians wrestled with Genesis 1-2 and doubted it was a literal interpretation. Augustine, for example, who lived in the 4th century recognized that Genesis 1-2 was likely not literal. He opted for an instaneous creation but would have been open to different interpretations. He recognized the genre in which Genesis 1-2 was written which led him to this conslusion. I have my own view of Genesis 1-2 but that is not relevant here.
I could go on…, but my point is I’m not an atheist, but for your benefit I wouldn’t use these as examples of contradictions. There are much tougher issues to wrestle with and we all need to be honest in our discussions.
Adam and Eve’s only sin was the invention of body shame.
I'll give you a good explanation for why Genesis 1 and 2 sound so parallel and yet could have been written by the same person: it sounds like an authorial device. It sounds like a verse trick or maybe a prose trick, like so many other tricks we use like repetition or metaphor or rhyming, but one that is lost to time. Holy crap: can anybody think of any examples of this other than here? Are there old folk songs that use a structure like this? Is it used elsewhere in the Bible, maybe in Psalms? The only thing that I can think of is the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, where frodo's journey sort of parallels bilbo's, but it's only a vague resemblance. Any literature people out there know of anything like this? Or did Tolkien maybe write that he took this trick from somewhere?
Because the few that take it seriously are a danger to society.
One day god saw adam wondering around the garden. They chatted for a few minutes about how perfect everything was. Then god asked adam where eve was. adam said she was swimming in god's perfect ocean. god said, "oh no, now all the fish will smell".
The bible is the most popular and most read book in history for a reason
What’s the reason?
I love both the first and second Genesis. I love all the stories, the hardship and adventures and the destruction and death!
...but I always liked the Sonic games the most!
...hum, what?
Not that Genesis?
Do you mean the English band then?
No?
Oh, that sh!t! Okej, sorry! 😒
On the fourth day he created the sun and the moon. How can you have three previous days without sun.
The explanation is ... when Moses wrote down the word of God , his shorthand was poor . He should have hired a typist, the tight git.
I guess God was busy doing other stuff to worry about Moses making a mess of his creation account.
Ah, but Adam was simply naming the animal kinds! Checkmote Atheosts! /s
14:29. Genesis has the primitive earth made before the sun. We know by scientific evidence this isn’t true. The sun is way way older than the earth. Genesis has it backwards.