When I talk about there being a contradiction between the two Genesis accounts, I am talking about primarily the different orders of creation between the two accounts, which I find monumentally problematic, and I think should’ve been the obvious thing to address. Matt didn’t address this at all. He only talked about the difference in the creation order with respect to science. I don’t see how the two accounts are one more detailed than the other or how there could be a merger. In my experience, whenever I bring up this problem with the different orders of creation, in every occasion I’ve done this, the Christian pauses and admits that is a good point or that they had not thought about it. The average Christian nowadays concentrates on the New Testament much more and so you will find that this problem in Genesis is quite impactful from what I have observed. I can see how this may not be quite impactful to professional apologists or Christian philosophers or theologians, but for the average Joe, many of those who call the show, I think it can be quite impactful.
Yeah...then they think about it later, spend 10 seconds on Google, find dozens of apologetics responses, and think, "Darn...I wish I had known all of this when that guy talked to me so I could have corrected him." And they end up feeling sorry for you for being so mislead about the truth.
I did have that issue too. But another huge issue I had was how both made the cut for being included in the Bible. Didn't ANYONE notice the contradiction during interpretation process? Didn't ANYONE think 'maybe we should do some research, figure out the correct version of creation, and then leave the other one out of the book'?
@@jgunn03 Well, that same question might be asked when comparing the birth and death stories of Jesus. I think there was much more focus on copying the previous version as precisely as possible, instead of improving it.
@@IsaacCoverstone Yeah, I can see what you're saying. That makes sense for the follow-up versions. But what about the first people who supposedly found all these writings and had to figure out if they were Bible-worthy? DO you think maybe they were just too illiterate to notice there was contradiction?
It does not bother me if Genesis Chapter 1 or Chapter 2 contradict each other. The important questions should be, Does any part of Genesis contradict Reality. And the answer is YES. Keep up the great work Matt, I am sure I use to use this as an argument regarding contradictions in the bible. After many years listening to you, I have realized that many parts of the bible contradicting itself is not a major issue. Thank You
@Phillip Aman , sorry Phillip but reality contradicts the bible. We don't know if the universe had a beginning. And even if it did, and the cause was a creator, it clearly is not the creator God Yahweh from the Bible. Using the bible to prove the bible is circular reasoning.
@Phillip Aman , How does knowing who goes to heaven and who goes to hell make you perfect? If he really was perfect, why do you even need a heaven and hell. Couldn't you just make the universe perfect from the beginning? You still didn't answer which god you are referring to?
The best answer I got yesterday when I discussed Genesis 4 was the following. When I answered this: "About the incest thing in Genesis. There's something else that's always fascinated me. In Genesis 4: "8 Cain spoke to Abel his brother.[d] And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. 9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?” 10 And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. 11 And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” 13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear.[e] 14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” 15 Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him. 16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden." Note where Cain said: "and whoever finds me will kill me." If I'm not mistaken, but I might be wrong here, after he killed his brother only his mum and dad were there. I might be a simple anti-theist, but what the actual fuck? Were they high when they wrote the damned book??? And if god is watching all 8 billion of us, how hard was it to watch just the four of them that he had to ask what happened to his brother? Didn't his brother end up in heaven after he died?" I got the brilliant answer from an apologist: "Only Jews were made by god out of mud, Adams son married a girl from the next village, the bible says this clear as day. I think the next town were Atheists, which is why they are never mentioned again." They crack me up.
Another happy ending!! Or should I say, beginning! I'm sure you will enjoy the view with a clean and open mind. You are free from the rancid people that peddle lies and use scare tactics on children to enforce belief in the unbelievable and thoroughly disgusting. You are free from the mind control death cult!!!
Thanks man, I owe a lot to you. also got to say, I'm a bit jealous. You're one of the few people who just look better and better with age, love that you keep taking care of yourself, we need you around.
If Matt's anything like me, I'm sure he enjoys spending lots of time diving deep into a single idea. Luckily for us, if he is, we get to learn a lot from his brain
@@NathanAMeyers exactly bible is proven historically accurate yet u dont wanna follow it and neither does matt along with millions of others. U hate the gospel and so does matt.
This is the part that Matt skips right over. In G2 God makes all of the animals after Adam as if he's trying to find a helper for him among the animals and when that fails he puts Adam to sleep and makes women. This directly contradicts with G1s order.
Atheist here, i think it was because the Holy Spirit authored the Bible or something through people, but if were looking at this at face level its horse shit
To be honest, I didn't hear Matt accurately portray the contradiction as I'd seen it. The contraction I see is that chapter 1 clearly states that animals existed before any mankind. And chapter 2 clearly states that male existed before animals, because if they already existed why would god refer to adam being alone, (this is the part I find as the clear contradiction) and then animals, and then female. And, yeah, I'm not a fan of the apparent implication that among the animals there COULD have been sufficient help, but the only reason to make a woman was because the beasts didn't yield a sufficient partner. i.e. If dogs had proven sufficient partners, then we wouldn't have women. *Edit* I looked up Answers in Genesis, and they gave a fairly insufficient answer, in my opinion, but then basically said that the current bible is suffering from copying errors. In other words, it looks like they're conceding the point that the bible I'm looking at is indeed naccurate.
Yes, I was going to point out the same thing. When we talk about there being a contradiction between the two Genesis accounts, we are talking about primarily the different orders of creation between the two accounts, which I find monumentally problematic, and I think should’ve been the obvious thing to address. Matt didn’t address this at all. He only talked about the difference in the creation order with respect to science. I don’t see how the two accounts are one more detailed than the other or how there could be a merger.
Don't you think that an all knowing god with supernatural powers would have wrote the Bible In a language that was not going to be dead after a few centuries?
@@gou0630 as a jehovah's witness i was taught we'd probably all speak original Hebrew again in paradise. With faith in god you can explain anything away.
@@gou0630 that was on purpose tower of bable he invented other languages so nobody could understand each other or the book. I know that's not were languages come from but the bible has an explanation for that
What I like about the conflicting Genesis accounts is that in a conversation with a Christian, many of them *don't* know that contradictions exist, and that's a quick one to point to. Once they've admitted that every word of the Bible can't be true, that's a good jumping off point into a conversation where you (atheist) have already gotten them to concede something they never thought they'd concede, and you've demonstrated a knowledge of scripture at the same time. If one of these two verses *must* be untrue, how do we determine how much of the rest of the bible is true?
Once had a "Christian" (ulterior motives, may have been faking) yell at me "Well, it shouldn't!!!" when I pointed out "male and female maketh He them" in his Bible after a long drawn out argument. He claimed men were God's image, women were less, female tenants should pay "more" than rent to male landlords (and worse all women should be married), etc. And such "Christians" complain that atheists talk about religion and God, study the Bible *in self defense*, and actually know scripture better than our "betters" when we don't believe. I believe they know exactly why some atheists learn to argue religion better than those using it as a weapon.
@@kathryngeeslin9509 Yep, can't get across to some folks. I've only had a few of these conversations in my life, but if someone's down for talking about the Bible, I'm your huckleberry. I find the conversation described in this video to be a rather quick one. A "warp zone," if you will, to a conversation that starts with everyone agreeing that the Bible isn't flawless. Once everyone agrees that at least *part* of the Bible is bullshit, I've found it leads to a better conversation about *how much* of the Bible is bullshit.
That's because those indoctrinated cultists don't read their own texts. Nor do they usually have the reading comprehension of a child. That's why the book is written in columns and not as actual paragraphs like any other book. So they don't get lost in the words as they get lost in the Wholly Fallacy that is the goatherders guide to the Galaxy...
Exactly. Even studying Genesis in grad school at Tulane, we discussed this clear contradiction. I think one of the most powerful aspects of this is that it's literally the first thing in the Bible and already we have serious problems.
The contradiction I am most interested in is the one between the omni-benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient god of later books and the little, not very powerful, not very intelligent and far from omniscient god of Genesis. God was angry at Adam and Eve for eating the apple (whatever the apple was) which means God was surprised by the events, which means he was, or is, a lot less omniscient than you or I. If I make an ant farm in a bottle and the ants escape and I get angry it has nothing to do with the ants, it has to do with me.
@@katyungodly Yes, these little details are very incriminating because they are totally useless. A God-inspired book would not have these failings that only serve to show that God is not omniscient, and a human-inspired, human-written book would probably have mistakes like this one since the author of this first book would not even know about the (chronologically) later claims of omniscience. You could claim that God works in mysterious ways when a passage looks like a piece in a 3D Chess game, this detail looks more like a simple mistake in a game of Checkers.
I have been interested in the same thing. When I read Genisis, I found it problematic that god favored Able's offering and he did not respect Cain's. God's direct actions caused Cain to murder his brother. And the entire story leading up to the destruction of Sodom is very contradictory to god's supposed nature. If god is unchanging and does not change his mind, why does Abruhm negotiate so easily with god, or that a sleeping king can change God's judgment? If god is omnipresent and omniscient, why does god have to send angelic servants to search for 10 good men in Sodom( The angels did not even complete their job either)? And how did a 100+ year old drunk man successfully impregnate his daughters in ancient times. As far as I can interpret, gods nature seems to change while the bible states that god is an unchanging god. In addition to gods contradictory nature, there are just too many absurdities. For example, a sundial moving backwards, the sun stopping in the sky, a global flood, talking animals, resurrections, flying flaming chariots, angles impregnating women, everyone is a product of incest, etc.
@@jitakyoei4548 No, just google "omniscience in the bible" and you will find more direct quites of God's omniscience than you can count, in words like "of him who is perfect in knowledge" (Job 37:16). And being the creator of the universe, the omnipotence is quite clear. And the omnibenevolence is directly claimed by Christ, even though he is a bit ambiguous about it. Except for the omnipotence, the omnis in the Bible change and grow all through the book.
It just occurred to me - there is at least one omission in the Bible, regarding things that were "created". There is no mention of plants that grow in the sea (like kelp or seaweed).
@Marilyn Newman technically it classified them as flying things. Taxonomy wasn't exactly a thing when it was written, but why would that "bother" anyone? What is and isn't mentioned in the Bible isn't concerning. At any rate, all of the things you mentioned are covered when it talks about the land animals, so... Why are you here?
@Joseph Marton troll it is then. I simply can't believe anyone would come to such a simple comment with this ridiculous of a response. If it'd been on a more inflammatory comment, the thought might never have occured to me.
I'm a nudist and have never felt shame in being naked. Ever. That's other people's problem, not mine. Obviously, I have to stay within the confines of the law, but otherwise, I don't wear clothes. In fact I am naked right now. I don't get where the idea of "being naked is shameful", is somehow inborn. I am here to tell you, it's not.
I agree. There is nothing wrong with someone wanting to wear clothes, or even completely cover up, especially if it's for weather purposes. But who are you to make someone cover up just because your uncomfortable. People act like it's a violation of their consent, but logically, we aren't imposing anything on anyone by being naked, it's when you go flaunting your bits at other people and harassing them or worse. We even make kids cover up when they aren't even allowed to understand why. As long as responsible adults are watching over them, a naked child isn't going to have to worry about a pedophile, and a pedophile isn't going to not hurt children because a child is clothed. These arguments are the reason I was almost pushed to suicide because of societies rules on clothes, I have sensory disorder, I can barely handle spaghetti straps in the late spring, let alone a t-shirt because that's what they made me wear in school. Not to mention the gender biases, and body shame that comes with modesty. I'm okay with modesty, it can even look gorgeous, I just hate this enforcement of modesty on everyone.
@@GuyIllusion I found it interesting that you mentioned sensory disorder. I myself suffer from synesthesia. Where most people think of it as a novel, or at most, an irritating condition. In reality, it can actually be quite debilitating.
Another great video, Matt!😉👍 Keep up the good work. I'm also an atheist and I really enjoy your content here on your channel, and everywhere else, too! I just wanted you to know, that You have helped me more than you will ever know! I greatly appreciate all of the things that you do! I'm certain that I'm not the only one, either. I'm sure that you already know this, but just in case you ever go through a rough patch, or just wonder or feel like you're wasting your time, just read this comment my friend and realize that you (and a few others) actually saved my life a couple of years ago! So, I just wanted to personally thank you for making such a difference in my life! And also, let you know that all of your time and efforts, are truly worth it! Thanks again, brotha 👊 Keep making a difference 😉
The reasons for the “apple” is because _æppel_ used to be a generic word meaning “fruit” before becoming more specific to refer to the fruits we know of as apples today.
One of my first steps towards being a non-believer was when it was pointed out to me that Genesis has light and dark, day & night and even plants, before the creation of the sun and the moon. Where did the light come from and how did the plants survive, without the sun? It was immediately clear that the author/s of Genesis knew nothing of what existed above the clouds. And, with critical reading, it goes downhill from there.
Have you looked much into the “documentary hypothesis” where the first creation account is attributed to the “Priestly” source whereas the second is attributed to the “Yahwist” source? There’s a bunch of good books on the topic like Richard Elliott Friedman’s “Who wrote the Bible”. There’s awesome Yale lectures by Christine Hayes and the TH-cam channel “Digital Hammurabi” also has several excellent videos on the topic!
@Outis i’ve seen all of Hayes’ lectures and i read not Friedman’s book, but David’s Secret Demons by Baruch Halpern. i would say that both use generally sound scholarship, but take source criticism too far for a variety of reasons. Halpern seems to go for scholarly brownie/style points at the expense of maintaining proper exegesis at times, which Wes Howard-Brook and Michael Oblath avoid. Hayes simply wants to be “a good jew” and is overly protective of that status.
Of course there are contradictions in Genesis, there were at least two different authors Yahwist J and Elohist E. Its funny to think that Moses was the sole author of Pentateuch.
@Jamie as many times as the bible talk about other gods that God is jealous of. The bible shows a polytheistic view in the world because other nations had there own gods. The word "us", is fitting in genesis 1:26. Deuteronomy 13:6-9 6“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let’s go and worship other gods’ - which neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 any of the gods of the peoples around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other - 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity,Your eye must not pity him and do not spare him or shield him. 9 Instead, you must kill him. Your hand is to be the first against him to put him to death, and then the hands of all the people.
I realy enjoy these almost daily videos of yours. English is my second language and with your videos i can keep it going. Besides i am impressed by your knowledge and your way to debate.
Hearing your passing thoughts on the Skeptics Annotated Bible followed up by mentioning charitable listening was appreciated. I recently started reading the SAB and my biggest complaint so far (only in Exodus) is that there are definitely times where I feel like the text was clearly read a particular way to try and make something sound ridiculous where minimal charity or research fixes the issue. Yes, please count all the times God kills people, encourages things he then forbids, and the number of times it specifically says God hardens Pharaoh's heart but when the annotator seems to be going out of their way to not read the text reasonably it comes off poorly in my opinion. It's interesting to hear that some NIV show the similarities between Gilgamesh and the Genesis story. Are there skeptical annotated bibles or other books that anyone would suggest that do more of this sort of criticism/pointing out?
There's a recent apologetic trend out there that seeks to rationalise the two chapters as not merely repeats of the same story in different levels of detail, but as a sequential story in which 'Man' in the first chapter correlates to the first humans, and 'Man/Adam' in the second chapter refers to a specific 'father of the Hebrews' - a specially created human distinct from the already living humans created on the sixth day. They're actually giving a less reasonable interpretation in an attempt to pretend that the Bible is more logical and scientifically accurate.
I think it obviously reads that way even since I was a kid, its not trying to portray Adam as the first man, but as the first True man, a direct ancestor of Abraham, the first of the chosen. Which of course makes it all even more obviously doctrinal propaganda designed to incorporate older beliefs into their new cultural narrative, and exclude all others not in this lineage as sub-human.
It does ease the question of how Adam and Eve's offspring found mates. And (slightly) how Adam was expected to find a "helpmeet"/mate before Eve's creation.
@@kathryngeeslin9509 the question of who Adam and Eve's children married is eased - but I would argue that it makes a nonsense out of Eve's creation, because if the author had a mental picture of a world where there were other humans, he wouldn't have had God parading the animals in front of Adam for him to choose a mate - it would have made more sense for the story to at least say something like "Adam could not find a worthy mate among the peoples of the plains" or some such, "and so God made Eve..."
People doing it surely can't be believers themselves. I expect it would be somewhat blasphemous to claim to have any kind of ownership on the word of your god.
Looking back on it, its very scary and awful how as children we were taught to believe such nonsense... I was 47 years old before I even CONSIDERED questioning the things that I was taught in Sunday school. Im so grateful that I stumbled across Matt Dilahunty and Christopher Hitchens videos on TH-cam, they changed my life forever. Otherwise I would most likely, still be under the delusion that God and the bible were the answer to all my problems. Today I understand and believe that instead, the exact opposite is true.
I'm glad you brought up this topic because I grew up christian and you're right: even those who take it literally (as I did once upon a time) don't find this compelling in the slightest.
"Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". There are some questions about this translation. The original Hebrew word usually translated as "God" here is elohim, which is actually the plural form. Literally, this verse reads, "in the beginning, the GODS created the heavens and the earth." This is one of several places in the Bible where God is referred to in the plural. Biblical scholars conclude that these fragments are left over from an early part of Hebrew history when the Jewish religion was, like every other religion on earth at the time, polytheistic, with more than one god. During this time, the god Yahweh was a storm god, one of many others. There is also some dispute about the words. An alternate translation has this verse as "When god began to create the heavens and the earth". This verse implies that the "heavens and the earth" were created more or less at the same time. Scientifically, we know that the "heavens", that is, space, appeared billions of years before the earth ever appeared. The sun is at least a "third generation" star, which formed from condensed gas clouds made up of remnants of at least two supernovae from previous stars. 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. The early universe was not "dark". We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of "decoupling", about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today. The verse refers to "the face of the waters". If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accretion had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth. However, most Biblical scholars believe that the "waters" referred to here are those in heaven, from which rain comes. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans. But we know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong. 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. This verse has the formation of light occuring only AFTER the "waters" and the earth already existed. As noted above, this is simply wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being. 4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. This verse betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of "light", one that was common to the pre-industrial peoples who wrote the Bible. During these times, it was believed that "darkness" was an element separate and distinct from "light" (see, for example, Amos 5:8, which declares that God "maketh the day dark with night"). This of course is simply not true. Darkness is nothing more than the absence of light. One can no more "separate" light from darkness than one can separate "left" from "right" or "up" from "down". 5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Notice here that there is no Sun yet, it not having yet been created. This account is thus contradicted by science on several grounds. Since a "day" is itself based on the earth's rotation near the Sun, there could have been no "day" until AFTER the sun appeared. Nor is there any cosmic source of "day light" other than the sun. Scientifically, we know that the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably accrete. The Genesis account, which has the earth and the "waters" formed before the Sun, is simply wrong. 6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7: 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. 8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says "the windows of heaven were opened", and also in Genesis 8:2, which says "the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained". It is also referred to by other verses in the Bible like Acts 14:17, where God "gave us rain from heaven", Deuteronomy 11:11, which says "But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven", Deuteronomy 11:17, which says "And then the LORD's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain", Deuteronomy 28:12, which says "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season", Isaiah 55:10, which says "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud", and Revelations 11:6, which says "These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy". Needless to say, there is no "firmament" that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. The ancient writers of the Bible, having no knowledge or understanding of "gravity", simply postulated that this hard clear sphere MUST be there, or else the stars and planets would all fall down, and that the "firmament" must have "windows" to let the rain through. They were wrong. 9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. According to the Genesis account, the oceans come from water that was already existing when the earth was formed-----the "waters above" and "the waters below". From the description given, it appears that the Genesis writers assumed that the entire earth was covered with water ("the waters below"), and that the dry land was formed by moving all that water to specific locations to form the oceans. Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it accreted that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets. ..." Please continue reading at www.huecotanks.com/debunk/genesis.html
“The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures” (2009) by Nicholas Wade The origins of religion from the times of the ancient dance-trance hunter-gatherers to the origins of Judaism, Christianity and a surprising one for Islam.
“Early History of God” and “Origins of Biblical Monotheism” by Mark S Smith. “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day. “Rise of Ancient Israel” and “Did God have a Wife” by William Dever.
Been watching you since I was in junior high. I wanna let you know that, you and many others from ACA, axp, etc. Helped me when I was questioning at a young age. Thank you for all your contributions.
There is a good scholarly look at the two different creation accounts in the book "Who wrote the Bible?" by Richard Elliott Friedman. It speaks about the different authors of the first books of the bible.
It is very strange that chapter 2 begins where it does, because at verse 4, in the Hebrew text, the writing style, structure, & word selection shifts dramatically (like the difference between the writing styles of Stephen King & Shakespeare dramatically). Verse 4 of chapter 2 is also the first use of "Yaweh Elohim", as opposed to just "Elohim". It definitely seems like different authors
It's because the people who annotated the texts with chapters and verses didn't look at the original Hebrew texts but at Latin translations. The style change is literally lost in translation.
I've always assumed the first "creation account" was just the remnants of the story that involved Lilith, and everything about her was cut out of the newer versions of that story but the initial part was left in and then it jumps to the second where it goes into adam and eve.
I had never thought of this before, but I find it very odd that "And God saw that it was good" If he's God and he's got this plan, wouldn't he have known it was good before he made it? A little too anthropomorphic that he looks at his work to see how well he did, like a craftsman making a chair...
As a devoted Christian teen, I decided to read the entire Bible. First thing I read: conflicting creation accounts. Boy, was I surprised. It turned out to be my first step toward atheism. So it can indeed help.
The contradictions are not a go-to argument for me, but recently I had a weak theist friend claim the events are in the proper order, scientifically. After much back and forth and sitting down and reading the KJV together, he still makes that claim.
Trillions of planets a stars dont exist stop believing what nasa tells u and stop going for there fake cgi videos, what u see in the sky is what there is, we live in a enclosed system. There no such think as deep space with all those fake Galaxy's, get in tune
@@GaelicMongrel2023 Believe is what you mean, I suspect. Truth is what the facts are and belief doesn't fit into this. And the very *fact* that she isn't mentioned in the Torah, the old testament is evident to those that have read the texts. If she was part of the original storyline then it would be there still. Therefore it doesn't explain anything.
I'd like to hear your opinion on the apparent contradictions in the NT regarding the generl method for salvation, because this is the #1 reason I left the christian faith to begin with. It was the vast numbers of times where the NT, especially the gospels where it mentions the "acts of faith" that begets salvation, and Jesus even said that works were like filthy rags, and you are saved through faith and not by works, but it was when I reread the NT while still a christian and got to James chapter 2, and especially between verses 14-26, and within that entire context it emphasized strongly that works are just as important as faith to be justified, and by works are we justified, not by faith only, and all the examples of how works along with faith justified various folks, then using devils as an example of folks who had faith, but tremble. Works makes faith perfect. So please address this if you can please, why vast numbers of places in the NT assert that acts of faith are all one needs to be saved, but James says otherwise(faith+works unto salvation).
The answer I've heard is that James is talking about justification before men. As in, your works show others that you have faith in God, and have nothing to do with your justification before God, which is purely based on faith. Those who truly have faith in God will truly desire to do good works. Having faith in God but not working for him would be considered contradictory. Think of it this way: if you claimed to love someone, but you rarely did anything nice for them, people would dispute whether you actually loved them. Doing nice things isn't considered in deciding whether you actually love them, which is a more basic thing.
Though I mostly agree wit Matt here, I do think it interesting that 1:27 is usually rendered as verse. This to me indicates that the author is referencing an older verse tradition of the story we don’t have access to.
The 2 creation accounts are one of many differences in the first 5 due to the fact that the Northern and Southern kingdoms kept their own scriptures. Those scriptures diverged after years of separation and then were thrown back together, without correcting any differences. Apparently the early Hebrews weren't hung up on inerrancy.
To your first point of there not being good evidence of the two chapters of Genesis being written by two different people, the language use between the two (particularly in Hebrew) is so different that it makes no sense for them to be written by the same hand. The first is clearly poetry, while the second has a more prose aspect to it. *argument from authority coming* I was shown this by a Catholic priest who said that the idea that the whole thing was written by Moses was silly because of this specific aspect and the contradiction. His apologetic was to appeal to the myth of Lilith, where the man and woman created together was Adam and Lilith. They did indeed go forth and populate the world. She was not a "suitable" helper, which lead to the story of Genesis 2. It also solves the issue of who Cain marries and why the mark was a thing. I guess, but why is THAT stuff not in the Bible? Why do you have to go to Rabbinical writings for this? Shrug. That all said, you're right. Ultimately, this is a weak argument for atheism or against the Bible. I only use it as the opener of Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1, and the Bible goes down hill from here. The moral (or immoral) code in the Bible as well as all the refuted "history" are the best arguments in my opinion.
An easy trick to see that the two accounts were written by different authors is to note that Genesis 1 always refers to its deity as "God", but Genesis 2 calling him "the LORD God", where "LORD" in all caps is a disguised representation of the proper name Yahweh (YHWH). Genesis 1 was written by the so-called P writer, which only starts using God's name Yahweh after Exodus 6:2, when the name is revealed to Moses; Genesis 2 comes from the J source, which uses Yahweh (the LORD) throughout. This difference doesn't look that significant in the English translation, where the proper name is translated into something less conspicuous, but it pays to keep track of it. It was actually one of the factors that first allowed scholars to distinguish the different sources of the Pentateuch. I agree that none of this is in itself a good argument against the consistency of the creation account, but I think it might still be worthwhile to know.
Hi Matt! Your debates have been my guideline for years and this youtube channel is the best. I will support your patreon as soon as I get a job. I'd like to go deeper into the topic of secular morality. Any book recomendations? Greetings from Colombia!
The reason the first creation story account starts 3 verses into the second chapter instead of with the beginning of the second chapter like would he logical is that it puts the lie upfront in our faces so anybody looking past it will be subconsciously letting their logic guard down. If it started on the second chapter it would be much easier to point out to christians and have them see it conflicts and that theres even 2 accounts, with it separated illogically christians can allow themselves to assume the multitude of silly explanations for the differences. Like how they put the pyramid and nwo on their dollars
What the bible missed out is the bit where god said to Adam, "Wow, you're really good at this naming! I mean, _He of the Hopping Kind_ ... what'd you call him? 'Frog'. Why did you call him 'frog'?" And Adam replied, "Because it _looks_ like a fucking frog!"
Nope, not one single contradiction at all, because if there was then it would mean that the bible is complete bullshite...... and as we all know the bible is true.... for the bible says it's true. 😈
Correct, god NEVER says, "don't kill/murder" then has them commiting wholesale slaughter and genocide upon all people's the "chosen people" come across in the "promised land". That just doesn't happen.
@@tyrionlannister3459 Duh. I'm not stupid bro.... Everyone knows God wouldn't condone murder, regulate slavery, punish the rape victim while rewarding the rapist, gamble, torture, lie, lie about torturing someone he gambled with Satan about, sacrifice himself to himself to save himself from himself to act as a loophole for a rule he made. It's the Bible! Not some racist, female hating, gay bashing holy book. I's aints gonna lie tho's....sumthin' is not rite's hear...
@@jasonspades5628 Lol, too funny. But, don't let the theists hear you. They may try to tie rocks to you and throw you into a body of water to see if you're a witch. Like those good ole fashioned Christian's during the Salem witch hunt. I wonder how many of the accused floated. Must've been none. Would they have record of those that did?
I was even told about this contradiction before I read the Bible, so I was looking for it when I started, and I was surprised when I finished Genesis without seeing a contradiction.
These differences may be minor in terms of the overall message of the chapters, but it remains relevant to point out that it renders the narrator unreliable and likely multiplicitous.
Something feels flawed in the idea that we shouldn't point out that the stories are different because _'obviously the same guy wouldn't go back and immediately contradict himself in the very next sentence'..._ I guess I don't see the benefit in even granting that Moses wrote this in the first place.
@pot as What better evidence than the bible? What evidence does the bible provide? The only places it's implied that Moses wrote this stuff is in the NT, and the people who wrote *_those_* stories could have very well just been following the same traditions/assumptions that people today use. Hell, the authorship of half of Paul's letters is disputed, and his name is actually attached to them, rather than just being an anonymous story.
@pot as I mean, it's cute that you think it's incumbent on me to debunk the idea that Sybill Trelawney actually made the prophecy about Harry...but that's not how that works.
A cylinder when viewed end on appears to be a circle, when viewed from the side appears to be a rectangle. A contradiction? Is it a rectangle or a circle?
I thought the repeated stories of Genesis 1 and 2 were pretty widely accepted by scholars to be "doublets" resulting from two sources under the documentary hypothesis. Now, even if that were the case, scholarly consensus doesn't automatically mean the claim is true, nor would this single example perfectly disprove the Genesis account, and certainly not satisfactorily enough for a Creationist. On the other end of things, there are plenty of people who reject inerrancy and can reconcile the documentary hypothesis with belief. Not a silver bullet for theists by any measure. _But,_ when I was on my way out of Christianity, learning about the documentary hypothesis, along with several convincing examples demonstrating how it works, was extremely helpful to me in understanding _what_ the Bible was if not the inerrant word of God. It helped complete my journey. For me, that's the main value of Genesis 1 & 2: As a single piece of evidence for a broader naturalistic explanation of the Bible.
From what I can gather, the creation account in Genesis 2 has man being created in a different order from Genesis 1. I’m sure there’s some apologetic, but I haven’t heard it.
Regardless of whether one believes the two accounts to be different or complimentary, the Mesopotamian creation myth, the Enuma Elish, seems to me to be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. All of the tablets containing the myth, found at Ashur, Kish, Ashurbanipal's library at Nineveh, Sultantepe, & other excavated sites, date to c. 1200 BCE but their colophons indicate that these are all copies of a much older version of the myth dating from long before the fall of Sumer in c. 1750 BCE. As Marduk, the champion of the young gods in their war against Tiamat, is of Babylonian origin, the Sumerian Ea/Enki or Enlil is thought to have played the major role in the original version of the story. The copy found at Ashur has the god Ashur in the main role as was the custom of the cities of Mesopotamia. The god of each city was always considered the best & most powerful. Marduk, the god of Babylon, only figures as prominently as he does in the story because most of the copies found are from Babylonian scribes. Even so, Ea does still play an important part in the Babylonian version of the Enuma Elish by creating human beings. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic & religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin. Famous stories such as the Fall of Man & the Great Flood were originally conceived & written down in Sumer, translated & modified later in Babylon, & reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible. The Hebrew scribes revised the Mesopotamian creation story by tightening up the narrative & the focus, but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos. Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - just as God does in the Genesis tale - & human beings are expected to recognize this great gift & honor the deity through service. In Mesopotamia, in fact, it was thought that humans were co-workers with the gods to maintain the gift of creation & keep the forces of chaos at bay. The basic paradigm of the biblical narratives & the Mesopotamian stories align closely, & even though there are still significant differences, it's obviously clear to me that the Old Testament was not written in a vacuum.
I am truly interested in the idea that Matt stated about no good argument that chapter 1 and chapter 2 were written by different people. The orders are different for some events, the style is different in regards to how it handles the creation of man and woman. They style of telling itself is different. That is how some Christians have excused the slight order variations. There are plenty of good reasons that I and many others see that the first two could be written by different people. I would agree though that that as an issue it pales in comparison to ideas such as, how could Eve have known she was sinning before eating the apple or that we know for a fact we evolved. If the story is just an allegory it really weakens the need for a savior. Creation was the thread I pulled that lead to the unraveling. Just my thoughts though.
As someone who grew up in a Baptist family, I think most church leaders and pastors will just say that everythibg we can't know is God's secret and therefore shouldn't doubt what the bible says just because we can't know and confirm things. I think because a lot of stuff does make sense in the bible like some values and character, we just don't think much about those contradictions or problems presented because we already accepted it 100% true. It's like we think it's true therefore it will never be false. Because most of testimonies I hear from converted people are about how Jesus saved them from sin; from their past wrongdoings like drug abuse, murder, etc. So I think in a logical sense, they first accept q before p and not the other way around because q makes a lot of sense by itself for them (q for example is the New Testament and p is the old). And since it's a life-changing experience for them, they would assume that it can't be wrong since how else could have they feel Jesus and the Holy Spirit in their hearts? "If you don't understand it, pray to God for understanding and he will reveal it to you", that's what they will just say because it's what the vible says too. Our denomination isn't about the Old Testament but the evangelization of the New Testament as most Christian churches are today. I just want to take this out. I still go to church but it just messes with my head how empirical evidence doesn't support much of what scientists are finding out. And if you will ask a bible-believing Christian why they don't believe it, it's because they believe unsaved people (those who don't have a relationship with God through Christ) is deluded. Even my father, who just got convinced that the earth is flat even though most of us doesn't have that belief, believes that scientists are deluded. He believes that the sky has a firmament or like a dome which means NASA and other space travel companies are just the tool of the devil to deceive people. As for me, I really want to leave the church and find out for myself about how evolution, radiometric dating, and the Big Bang Theory stands because everyday I hear preachings about prophecies and how unsaved people are deceived and deluded by sin and the devil, I just can't seem to agree with them. I agree with the values Christianity has developed over the millenia but rejecting tested and verified evidence and throwing them out the window like because it's heresy? I'm kind of troubled.
The point of what Matt is saying when he addresses issues in the Bible is that there’s a difference between contradictions and confusion when it comes to the Bible, and it’s up to you to know the difference. If you’re going spend your time arguing “contradictions” in the Bible that aren’t important to Christians, and can be “explained” away by them depending on a literal or metaphorical account, then you may want to reevaluate the reasons why you’re taking this approach...and you may want to really study the source materials.
i forgot what John H. Walton and Wes Howard-Brook specifically had to say on the subject, but the idea that the text of Genesis was a collection of sayings from different “sources” compiled together by a “redactor” during the persian period is way over the top and quite silly on its face. As far as coupling and nakedness are concerned such themes reflect a mythic glorification of Gatherer-Hunter existence outside of the israelite/judahite monarchy and babylon. Gatherer-Hunters often left their parents when they married out of mutual cooperation and understanding for each other (Paul tries to instill this himself in 1 Cor. 7, etc.). Gatherer-Hunters also we’re not narcissistic. They were “naked,” weak. A modern illustration of this could be found in Ursula K. Le Guin’s recounting of Ishi. Lastly, it is indeed correct that the atheist should not put many chips in the Genesis 1-2 pot.
Well, I have a degree in biblical studies, and I must say the comments here show greater awareness and astuteness than Matt does in his video. Just about every university introduction to the Hebrew Bible taught from the perspective of mainstream biblical studies begins with or very soon addresses the fact that Genesis begins with two different creation accounts. Mainstream scholarship is pretty unanimous here. As the comments here reflect, the different orders of creation feature prominently in the demonstration. So, also, does the documentary hypothesis: generally speaking, chapter one is P and chapter two is J. There are detailed arguments. A good introduction to the HB textbook should serve as a useful guide.
In the first Genesis creation myth, the gods (Elohim: plural noun) fashion humans in their own image - male and female - and bid them procreate. In the second Genesis creation myth, one of the gods, Yahweh, plants a Garden - in the midst of which stand the gods' own Tree of Life (Immortality) and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. To tend to his orchard, the deity fashions himself a gardener, likewise in his own image - a single male - and, considering Eden's limited geographical confines (Gen 2:10-14), with neither mate nor mandate to procreate. Allowing his gardener access to the Tree of Immortality (Gen 2:16) ensured the deity a permanent staff of one, while forbidding him to to take of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 2:17) secured the adam remaining in perpetual innocence (infantile ignorance). Having taken of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and become "like unto gods" - as foretold by the serpent (Gen 3:5) and confirmed by the gods themselves (Gen 3:22) - the human couple now had to be denied access to their Tree of Immortality (Eternal Youth). And so they were evicted from the Garden, no doubt, to join the humans of the first Genesis creation myth being fruitful and multiplying beyond its confines.
Seems like a reasonable interpretation considering the poly-god beliefs of ancient Hebrews/Canaanites. I think different authorship/storytelling is still on the table though. What I understand os that there is a shift in writing style and word usage that indicates this.
I recommend a you read a book/study by Richard Elliot Friedman titled ‘who wrote the Bible’ that’s if you have not read it already. It presents the first six books of the Bible, their likely authors, what motivated their portrayal of events, their traditions and then the later redactors who combined the different books to make one. This is the most compelling case of the first books in the Bible that I have come across to date. The contradictions and the duology/trilogy of stories is mapped out.
I'm surprised to hear Matt say there is no evidence the two creation stories were written by two different authors- that's exactly what the scholarly consensus is. The first story is believed to come from an intellectual priestly tradition while the second one is the more traditional folklore story. In Hebrew they even call God by different names.
The biggest question is why did god say let US make man in OUR image? Who is US? Genesis 1says man was made after animals and #2 said man came 1st to name the animals which came after man was made.
@@kingsolomon7553 I think you missed my point. I could be convinced that a god exists, but that doesn't mean I am convinced that the god of Abraham exists. I could be convinced that the god of Abraham exists, but that doesn't mean I believe Jesus of Nazareth was an incarnation of that god. I could be convinced Jesus of Nazareth was an incarnation of the god of Abraham, that doesn't mean I worship that god or think his word was true and good. But I'm getting ahead of things. We should start at the beginning. Do you have evidence that a god exists?
Okay, but even if the seeming contradictions are due to language and interpretation, that just speaks to the poorly written nature of the story. How does a perfect god, inspire such a confused piece of work, as an instruction manual?
It's my understanding that much of Genesis was, in fact, synthesized from two different versions. These two accounts are written in different styles, iirc one poetry and the other prose. Also, iirc, there are two (very similar) accounts interleaved, paragraph for paragraph, which is why it sort of seems long-winded and repetitive, but one account uses "YHWH" (the name of God, usually translated in English is "the Lord") and the other "Elohim" (literally "gods", usually translated as "God"). So it seems like there are two versions of the first half or so of Genesis that got synthesized together into the canonical version. Your point still stands, of course; obviously whatever rabbi or council of rabbis ~2500 years ago, who laid down this definitive version, didn't see any problems/contradictions between the two creation accounts. (The Noah example, quoting from my childhood bible, a NRSV: Gen 6:19-22 : "And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark". . . blah blah blah. . . Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him. Gen 7:1-5 : Then the Lord said to Noah, "Go into the ark. . . Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate". . . etc. . . And Noah did all that the Lord had commanded him. Super similar, but varying slightly on the details (one pair versus seven pairs, but you could argue that this is a clarification of the earlier command) but structurally identical even ending with the same sentence, except with a different word for God.)
If I'm not mistaken, the general consensus for the double creation account (among bible scholars) is that they were written by 2 different people. The oldest German texts I think it was had major differences between the 2 in how they were written, like 1 referring to god as Elihim and the other referring to him as Adonai continuously. Other differences exist, but those are the main ones. Id look into it if I were you. Worst comes to worst you learn what the consensus among bible scholars is, which is useful to know even if you don't agree with it.
Yeah I was a little disappointed by Matt’s take on this. There is more to the hypothesis that the first two chapters of Genesis were written by two different people than their usages of certain verb tenses. And meanwhile, I do think that Gen 1 and 2 clearly conflict. Just because there exist apologist explanations doesn’t make the contradictions any less valid. Apologists have rapid-fire responses for all biblical contradictions, no matter how convoluted. Matt of all people should know this.
@@bass-tones its just been a while since I looked into it so I'm going purely off memory. I likely left out a good bit. And ya there are excuses for everything. There isn't much that you can every bring to the table with apologists that there isn't some answer for, even if the "answer" is crap that doesn't even address the issue raised
You mentioned that the start of Genesis chapter 2 is weird. And while I'm unsure why it starts where it starts, I do know that the chapter division in the Jewish holy books is a later addition. So it could either be a mistake, or maybe an attempt to connect 2 Genesis stories together.
What about the fact that the two accounts appear to be written by different writers in the Hebrew? The first account uses Elohim for God while the second account uses Adonai Elohim. The writers appear to switch at Bereshit Dalid.
Video title: "Conflicting creation accounts in Genesis?" Video text on screen: "Conflicting creation accounts in the Bible??" Audio: "Contradictory creation accounts?" I mean, it's not a problem, it's just something pedants like me get hung up on.
It was the contradiction of two creation accounts that was the nail in the coffin for my Christian journey back in 1999. I read a book by a biblical scholar named Richard Elliott Friedman called "Who Wrote the Bible?" He showed all these contradictory stories beside each other including the flood story. He talks about the different writing styles in the creation accounts and different names for god. I disagree with Matt to an extent, it is problematic, but I do agree the Bible has other problems more worthy to raise in talking to Christians.
Couple things. 1) You believe the same author was responsible for the first two chapters of Genesis. Does this mean that you reject the Documentary Hypothesis? 2) Simplest contradiction between the two stories is that the first clearly puts the creation of plants before that of humans, while the second has the creation of the first human, Adam, followed by the remark that there were no plants because it hadn't rained yet. No doubt over 2000 years someone has come up with some imaginative reconciliation for this, but I don't know what it is offhand.
When Matt read Genesis 1 and 2 in English, they both say "God". But when you study the original Hebrew, you would see that in Genesis 1 it says Elohim, but starting in from Genesis 2:4, it says Yahweh. This is good evidence that there were indeed different authors for the 2 chapters. It is not likely that the same author would have used different names for God, and told 2 different stories. But 2 separate authors would.
Hey I have some explanations, but it is still theological post hoc rationalization. First creation was body of light, second creation was the physical body. See the Kaballah and various Gnostic schools of thought.
The creation of Man is a good softball to get Theists thinking, but it's not a solid debating topic. I tried it on my spouse, and it was actually later verses that worked.
It seems that entire point of the Bible is to contradict itself. This combined with the chapter & verse parsing of the texts allow for both the pro and con side of virtually any issue to be supported depending on which is most beneficial to the clergy of that particular Christian sect.
Speaking of origins, how many Christians do you suppose know anything about the origin of their espoused religion? For example, where does King Henry VIII fit into the picture? Who was Martin Luther, and what was his place? What significant event happened in 1054 CE? Who was William Tyndale, and why was he brutally executed by the Church? Who was John Calvin, and why did he have Michael Servetus brutally executed? These are just the beginning.
I'm sure there are many apologetics addressing the two creation stories, and I am sure they are as logical and reasoned as the Rest of Christian apologetics.
I agree that the most telling difference is in the creation of woman. Was she created at the same time as man and in exactly the same way? Or was woman created last, an afterthought, from a piece of a man and solely for his benefit?
Matt is pretty damned honest about critiques of genesis and i appreciate it because my background is jehovah's witness and we thought we had answers for all the contradictory issues in genesis, which would garner converts because their preachers, pastors and priests couldn't give such seemingly reasonable answers. We even made fun of YEC and readily accepted that the earth was billions of years old. Jehovah's witnesses consider themselves "thinking people" and tear down christendom's old ideas quite readily and seem to make good sense to a lot of people who by default believe the bible is true. Unfortunately, the basis of their teachings are just as ridiculous and once someone applies the same level of skepticism to the watchtower's teachings about the bible it becomes recognizable as (nearly) the same level of bullshit. Edited to change "conveys" to "converts"
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
When I talk about there being a contradiction between the two Genesis accounts, I am talking about primarily the different orders of creation between the two accounts, which I find monumentally problematic, and I think should’ve been the obvious thing to address. Matt didn’t address this at all. He only talked about the difference in the creation order with respect to science. I don’t see how the two accounts are one more detailed than the other or how there could be a merger.
In my experience, whenever I bring up this problem with the different orders of creation, in every occasion I’ve done this, the Christian pauses and admits that is a good point or that they had not thought about it.
The average Christian nowadays concentrates on the New Testament much more and so you will find that this problem in Genesis is quite impactful from what I have observed. I can see how this may not be quite impactful to professional apologists or Christian philosophers or theologians, but for the average Joe, many of those who call the show, I think it can be quite impactful.
Yeah...then they think about it later, spend 10 seconds on Google, find dozens of apologetics responses, and think, "Darn...I wish I had known all of this when that guy talked to me so I could have corrected him."
And they end up feeling sorry for you for being so mislead about the truth.
I did have that issue too. But another huge issue I had was how both made the cut for being included in the Bible. Didn't ANYONE notice the contradiction during interpretation process? Didn't ANYONE think 'maybe we should do some research, figure out the correct version of creation, and then leave the other one out of the book'?
@@jgunn03 Well, that same question might be asked when comparing the birth and death stories of Jesus. I think there was much more focus on copying the previous version as precisely as possible, instead of improving it.
@@IsaacCoverstone Yeah, I can see what you're saying. That makes sense for the follow-up versions. But what about the first people who supposedly found all these writings and had to figure out if they were Bible-worthy? DO you think maybe they were just too illiterate to notice there was contradiction?
Much ado about nothing
It does not bother me if Genesis Chapter 1 or Chapter 2 contradict each other.
The important questions should be, Does any part of Genesis contradict Reality.
And the answer is YES.
Keep up the great work Matt, I am sure I use to use this as an argument regarding contradictions in the bible.
After many years listening to you, I have realized that many parts of the bible contradicting itself is not a major issue.
Thank You
@Dirk Knight Agreed
@Phillip Aman , sorry Phillip but reality contradicts the bible. We don't know if the universe had a beginning. And even if it did, and the cause was a creator, it clearly is not the creator God Yahweh from the Bible. Using the bible to prove the bible is circular reasoning.
@Phillip Aman , which God are you referring to?
The god of the bible Yahweh is clearly not perfect and definitely not love.
@Phillip Aman , How does knowing who goes to heaven and who goes to hell make you perfect?
If he really was perfect, why do you even need a heaven and hell. Couldn't you just make the universe perfect from the beginning?
You still didn't answer which god you are referring to?
@Phillip Aman , How?
The best answer I got yesterday when I discussed Genesis 4 was the following. When I answered this:
"About the incest thing in Genesis. There's something else that's always fascinated me. In Genesis 4:
"8 Cain spoke to Abel his brother.[d] And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. 9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?” 10 And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. 11 And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” 13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear.[e] 14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” 15 Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him. 16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden."
Note where Cain said: "and whoever finds me will kill me." If I'm not mistaken, but I might be wrong here, after he killed his brother only his mum and dad were there. I might be a simple anti-theist, but what the actual fuck? Were they high when they wrote the damned book??? And if god is watching all 8 billion of us, how hard was it to watch just the four of them that he had to ask what happened to his brother? Didn't his brother end up in heaven after he died?"
I got the brilliant answer from an apologist:
"Only Jews were made by god out of mud, Adams son married a girl from the next village, the bible says this clear as day. I think the next town were Atheists, which is why they are never mentioned again."
They crack me up.
I would like to thank you Matt, listening to you on the atheist experience, was the final nail in the coffin to my theist views years ago.
Another happy ending!! Or should I say, beginning! I'm sure you will enjoy the view with a clean and open mind. You are free from the rancid people that peddle lies and use scare tactics on children to enforce belief in the unbelievable and thoroughly disgusting. You are free from the mind control death cult!!!
Welcome to reality.
Thank you guys, yeah felt like a weight was lifted and I feel free.
U need to repent u need a savior we all do, bible is proven historically accurate, satan is using matt to lead u to hell.
@@repent.sinner Present your evidence
Thanks man, I owe a lot to you.
also got to say, I'm a bit jealous. You're one of the few people who just look better and better with age, love that you keep taking care of yourself, we need you around.
I know there long form videos are a lot of work but they are always my favourites. Thanks for all the content Matt 👍
If Matt's anything like me, I'm sure he enjoys spending lots of time diving deep into a single idea. Luckily for us, if he is, we get to learn a lot from his brain
@@NathanAMeyers listening to matt will take u to enteral torment.
@@repent.sinner its not about listening to Matt. Its about following the evidence; even if its uncomfortable.
@@repent.sinner What, specifically, do you find objectionable? And why?
@@NathanAMeyers exactly bible is proven historically accurate yet u dont wanna follow it and neither does matt along with millions of others. U hate the gospel and so does matt.
I thought the contradiction was that the two diffrent account presented what was created when in different orders.
This is the part that Matt skips right over. In G2 God makes all of the animals after Adam as if he's trying to find a helper for him among the animals and when that fails he puts Adam to sleep and makes women. This directly contradicts with G1s order.
As a jehovah's witness i was taught one was moses's understanding and the other was Adam's personal recollection.
@@jaretquiring8885 He talked about it for minutes? How is that skipping it over?
@Baphomet the Sabbatic Goat well thats a productive comment
@Baphomet the Sabbatic Goat and what was the reason you decided to post that comment?
My favorite bit of the Bible is when Jesus is alone talking to God (himself) and someone who wasn't there is writing a detailed account of it.
Atheist here, i think it was because the Holy Spirit authored the Bible or something through people, but if were looking at this at face level its horse shit
To be honest, I didn't hear Matt accurately portray the contradiction as I'd seen it. The contraction I see is that chapter 1 clearly states that animals existed before any mankind. And chapter 2 clearly states that male existed before animals, because if they already existed why would god refer to adam being alone, (this is the part I find as the clear contradiction) and then animals, and then female.
And, yeah, I'm not a fan of the apparent implication that among the animals there COULD have been sufficient help, but the only reason to make a woman was because the beasts didn't yield a sufficient partner. i.e. If dogs had proven sufficient partners, then we wouldn't have women.
*Edit* I looked up Answers in Genesis, and they gave a fairly insufficient answer, in my opinion, but then basically said that the current bible is suffering from copying errors. In other words, it looks like they're conceding the point that the bible I'm looking at is indeed naccurate.
Yes, I was going to point out the same thing. When we talk about there being a contradiction between the two Genesis accounts, we are talking about primarily the different orders of creation between the two accounts, which I find monumentally problematic, and I think should’ve been the obvious thing to address. Matt didn’t address this at all. He only talked about the difference in the creation order with respect to science. I don’t see how the two accounts are one more detailed than the other or how there could be a merger.
Alone could mean only person
Don't you think that an all knowing god with supernatural powers would have wrote the Bible In a language that was not going to be dead after a few centuries?
@@gou0630 as a jehovah's witness i was taught we'd probably all speak original Hebrew again in paradise. With faith in god you can explain anything away.
@@gou0630 that was on purpose tower of bable he invented other languages so nobody could understand each other or the book. I know that's not were languages come from but the bible has an explanation for that
What I like about the conflicting Genesis accounts is that in a conversation with a Christian, many of them *don't* know that contradictions exist, and that's a quick one to point to. Once they've admitted that every word of the Bible can't be true, that's a good jumping off point into a conversation where you (atheist) have already gotten them to concede something they never thought they'd concede, and you've demonstrated a knowledge of scripture at the same time. If one of these two verses *must* be untrue, how do we determine how much of the rest of the bible is true?
Once had a "Christian" (ulterior motives, may have been faking) yell at me "Well, it shouldn't!!!" when I pointed out "male and female maketh He them" in his Bible after a long drawn out argument. He claimed men were God's image, women were less, female tenants should pay "more" than rent to male landlords (and worse all women should be married), etc. And such "Christians" complain that atheists talk about religion and God, study the Bible *in self defense*, and actually know scripture better than our "betters" when we don't believe. I believe they know exactly why some atheists learn to argue religion better than those using it as a weapon.
@@kathryngeeslin9509 Yep, can't get across to some folks. I've only had a few of these conversations in my life, but if someone's down for talking about the Bible, I'm your huckleberry. I find the conversation described in this video to be a rather quick one. A "warp zone," if you will, to a conversation that starts with everyone agreeing that the Bible isn't flawless.
Once everyone agrees that at least *part* of the Bible is bullshit, I've found it leads to a better conversation about *how much* of the Bible is bullshit.
That's because those indoctrinated cultists don't read their own texts. Nor do they usually have the reading comprehension of a child.
That's why the book is written in columns and not as actual paragraphs like any other book. So they don't get lost in the words as they get lost in the Wholly Fallacy that is the goatherders guide to the Galaxy...
Exactly. Even studying Genesis in grad school at Tulane, we discussed this clear contradiction. I think one of the most powerful aspects of this is that it's literally the first thing in the Bible and already we have serious problems.
@@jordanmangano1933
Here's a better discrepancy;
Eve ate the forbidden fruit first in the story. Why didn't she know she was naked and hide from Adam?
The contradiction I am most interested in is the one between the omni-benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient god of later books and the little, not very powerful, not very intelligent and far from omniscient god of Genesis.
God was angry at Adam and Eve for eating the apple (whatever the apple was) which means God was surprised by the events, which means he was, or is, a lot less omniscient than you or I. If I make an ant farm in a bottle and the ants escape and I get angry it has nothing to do with the ants, it has to do with me.
He also didn’t know where humans were in the garden when he came down to speak with them. They hid from him.
@@katyungodly Yes, these little details are very incriminating because they are totally useless. A God-inspired book would not have these failings that only serve to show that God is not omniscient, and a human-inspired, human-written book would probably have mistakes like this one since the author of this first book would not even know about the (chronologically) later claims of omniscience. You could claim that God works in mysterious ways when a passage looks like a piece in a 3D Chess game, this detail looks more like a simple mistake in a game of Checkers.
I have been interested in the same thing. When I read Genisis, I found it problematic that god favored Able's offering and he did not respect Cain's. God's direct actions caused Cain to murder his brother. And the entire story leading up to the destruction of Sodom is very contradictory to god's supposed nature. If god is unchanging and does not change his mind, why does Abruhm negotiate so easily with god, or that a sleeping king can change God's judgment? If god is omnipresent and omniscient, why does god have to send angelic servants to search for 10 good men in Sodom( The angels did not even complete their job either)? And how did a 100+ year old drunk man successfully impregnate his daughters in ancient times. As far as I can interpret, gods nature seems to change while the bible states that god is an unchanging god. In addition to gods contradictory nature, there are just too many absurdities. For example, a sundial moving backwards, the sun stopping in the sky, a global flood, talking animals, resurrections, flying flaming chariots, angles impregnating women, everyone is a product of incest, etc.
As I recall it, none of the omnis is ever mentioned in the books. It's just something that got somehow attached later
@@jitakyoei4548 No, just google "omniscience in the bible" and you will find more direct quites of God's omniscience than you can count, in words like "of him who is perfect in knowledge" (Job 37:16). And being the creator of the universe, the omnipotence is quite clear. And the omnibenevolence is directly claimed by Christ, even though he is a bit ambiguous about it. Except for the omnipotence, the omnis in the Bible change and grow all through the book.
It just occurred to me - there is at least one omission in the Bible, regarding things that were "created". There is no mention of plants that grow in the sea (like kelp or seaweed).
@Marilyn Newman technically it classified them as flying things. Taxonomy wasn't exactly a thing when it was written, but why would that "bother" anyone? What is and isn't mentioned in the Bible isn't concerning.
At any rate, all of the things you mentioned are covered when it talks about the land animals, so... Why are you here?
Well, that's it! I'm not believing the bible anymore! Well done Stan.
@Joseph Marton hard to tell if you're trolling, or if you're an actual idiot. 🤷♂️
@Joseph Marton troll it is then. I simply can't believe anyone would come to such a simple comment with this ridiculous of a response. If it'd been on a more inflammatory comment, the thought might never have occured to me.
@Joseph Marton Sounds like a plan! Thanks Joe, keep up the good work. You are doing great!
Love your work!
Always have, probably always will.
Thank you!
I'm a nudist and have never felt shame in being naked. Ever.
That's other people's problem, not mine. Obviously, I have to stay within the confines of the law, but otherwise, I don't wear clothes. In fact I am naked right now.
I don't get where the idea of "being naked is shameful", is somehow inborn. I am here to tell you, it's not.
Heard about our SAUNA ? ..................
I agree. There is nothing wrong with someone wanting to wear clothes, or even completely cover up, especially if it's for weather purposes. But who are you to make someone cover up just because your uncomfortable. People act like it's a violation of their consent, but logically, we aren't imposing anything on anyone by being naked, it's when you go flaunting your bits at other people and harassing them or worse. We even make kids cover up when they aren't even allowed to understand why. As long as responsible adults are watching over them, a naked child isn't going to have to worry about a pedophile, and a pedophile isn't going to not hurt children because a child is clothed. These arguments are the reason I was almost pushed to suicide because of societies rules on clothes, I have sensory disorder, I can barely handle spaghetti straps in the late spring, let alone a t-shirt because that's what they made me wear in school. Not to mention the gender biases, and body shame that comes with modesty. I'm okay with modesty, it can even look gorgeous, I just hate this enforcement of modesty on everyone.
@@GuyIllusion
I found it interesting that you mentioned sensory disorder. I myself suffer from synesthesia. Where most people think of it as a novel, or at most, an irritating condition. In reality, it can actually be quite debilitating.
Conflicting creation accounts in Genesis? Personally? It's a fairytale book. Fuck it.
Another great video, Matt!😉👍 Keep up the good work. I'm also an atheist and I really enjoy your content here on your channel, and everywhere else, too!
I just wanted you to know, that You have helped me more than you will ever know! I greatly appreciate all of the things that you do!
I'm certain that I'm not the only one, either. I'm sure that you already know this, but just in case you ever go through a rough patch, or just wonder or feel like you're wasting your time, just read this comment my friend and realize that you (and a few others) actually saved my life a couple of years ago!
So, I just wanted to personally thank you for making such a difference in my life! And also, let you know that all of your time and efforts, are truly worth it! Thanks again, brotha 👊 Keep making a difference 😉
The reasons for the “apple” is because _æppel_ used to be a generic word meaning “fruit” before becoming more specific to refer to the fruits we know of as apples today.
Where did you get this information from?
One of my first steps towards being a non-believer was when it was pointed out to me that Genesis has light and dark, day & night and even plants, before the creation of the sun and the moon. Where did the light come from and how did the plants survive, without the sun? It was immediately clear that the author/s of Genesis knew nothing of what existed above the clouds. And, with critical reading, it goes downhill from there.
Have you looked much into the “documentary hypothesis” where the first creation account is attributed to the “Priestly” source whereas the second is attributed to the “Yahwist” source? There’s a bunch of good books on the topic like Richard Elliott Friedman’s “Who wrote the Bible”. There’s awesome Yale lectures by Christine Hayes and the TH-cam channel “Digital Hammurabi” also has several excellent videos on the topic!
Wholly Fable by Dr. Robert M. Price has a great explanation, too.
Friedman's book was excellent. Everyone should read it.
@Outis i’ve seen all of Hayes’ lectures and i read not Friedman’s book, but David’s Secret Demons by Baruch Halpern. i would say that both use generally sound scholarship, but take source criticism too far for a variety of reasons. Halpern seems to go for scholarly brownie/style points at the expense of maintaining proper exegesis at times, which Wes Howard-Brook and Michael Oblath avoid. Hayes simply wants to be “a good jew” and is overly protective of that status.
Of course there are contradictions in Genesis, there were at least two different authors Yahwist J and Elohist E.
Its funny to think that Moses was the sole author of Pentateuch.
How about the fact that the two different accounts make creation carried out by two different gods?
God did say let us make man in our image. Who is US?
@Jamie as many times as the bible talk about other gods that God is jealous of. The bible shows a polytheistic view in the world because other nations had there own gods. The word "us", is fitting in genesis 1:26.
Deuteronomy 13:6-9
6“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let’s go and worship other gods’ - which neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 any of the gods of the peoples around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other - 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity,Your eye must not pity him and do not spare him or shield him. 9 Instead, you must kill him. Your hand is to be the first against him to put him to death, and then the hands of all the people.
I realy enjoy these almost daily videos of yours. English is my second language and with your videos i can keep it going. Besides i am impressed by your knowledge and your way to debate.
Hearing your passing thoughts on the Skeptics Annotated Bible followed up by mentioning charitable listening was appreciated. I recently started reading the SAB and my biggest complaint so far (only in Exodus) is that there are definitely times where I feel like the text was clearly read a particular way to try and make something sound ridiculous where minimal charity or research fixes the issue. Yes, please count all the times God kills people, encourages things he then forbids, and the number of times it specifically says God hardens Pharaoh's heart but when the annotator seems to be going out of their way to not read the text reasonably it comes off poorly in my opinion.
It's interesting to hear that some NIV show the similarities between Gilgamesh and the Genesis story. Are there skeptical annotated bibles or other books that anyone would suggest that do more of this sort of criticism/pointing out?
There's a recent apologetic trend out there that seeks to rationalise the two chapters as not merely repeats of the same story in different levels of detail, but as a sequential story in which 'Man' in the first chapter correlates to the first humans, and 'Man/Adam' in the second chapter refers to a specific 'father of the Hebrews' - a specially created human distinct from the already living humans created on the sixth day.
They're actually giving a less reasonable interpretation in an attempt to pretend that the Bible is more logical and scientifically accurate.
I think it obviously reads that way even since I was a kid, its not trying to portray Adam as the first man, but as the first True man, a direct ancestor of Abraham, the first of the chosen. Which of course makes it all even more obviously doctrinal propaganda designed to incorporate older beliefs into their new cultural narrative, and exclude all others not in this lineage as sub-human.
@@PuffyCloud_aka_puffeclaude
that is indeed one of the more sinister side effects of that reading.
The next couple of books would seem to suggest it.
It does ease the question of how Adam and Eve's offspring found mates. And (slightly) how Adam was expected to find a "helpmeet"/mate before Eve's creation.
@@kathryngeeslin9509
the question of who Adam and Eve's children married is eased - but I would argue that it makes a nonsense out of Eve's creation, because if the author had a mental picture of a world where there were other humans, he wouldn't have had God parading the animals in front of Adam for him to choose a mate - it would have made more sense for the story to at least say something like "Adam could not find a worthy mate among the peoples of the plains" or some such, "and so God made Eve..."
Thanks Matt, Excellent video and really interesting.
Copyrighting a bible (or a religion for that matter) seems to be sort of self defeating. So much for spreading the word.
People doing it surely can't be believers themselves. I expect it would be somewhat blasphemous to claim to have any kind of ownership on the word of your god.
Looking back on it, its very scary and awful how as children we were taught to believe such nonsense... I was 47 years old before I even CONSIDERED questioning the things that I was taught in Sunday school. Im so grateful that I stumbled across Matt Dilahunty and Christopher Hitchens videos on TH-cam, they changed my life forever. Otherwise I would most likely, still be under the delusion that God and the bible were the answer to all my problems. Today I understand and believe that instead, the exact opposite is true.
Light before the sun and day and night before the Sun is a safe way of saying yes it was out of order in Genesis
I'm glad you brought up this topic because I grew up christian and you're right: even those who take it literally (as I did once upon a time) don't find this compelling in the slightest.
"Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".
There are some questions about this translation. The original Hebrew word usually translated as "God" here is elohim, which is actually the plural form. Literally, this verse reads, "in the beginning, the GODS created the heavens and the earth." This is one of several places in the Bible where God is referred to in the plural. Biblical scholars conclude that these fragments are left over from an early part of Hebrew history when the Jewish religion was, like every other religion on earth at the time, polytheistic, with more than one god. During this time, the god Yahweh was a storm god, one of many others.
There is also some dispute about the words. An alternate translation has this verse as "When god began to create the heavens and the earth".
This verse implies that the "heavens and the earth" were created more or less at the same time. Scientifically, we know that the "heavens", that is, space, appeared billions of years before the earth ever appeared. The sun is at least a "third generation" star, which formed from condensed gas clouds made up of remnants of at least two supernovae from previous stars.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The early universe was not "dark". We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of "decoupling", about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today.
The verse refers to "the face of the waters". If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accretion had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth.
However, most Biblical scholars believe that the "waters" referred to here are those in heaven, from which rain comes. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans.
But we know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
This verse has the formation of light occuring only AFTER the "waters" and the earth already existed. As noted above, this is simply wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
This verse betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of "light", one that was common to the pre-industrial peoples who wrote the Bible. During these times, it was believed that "darkness" was an element separate and distinct from "light" (see, for example, Amos 5:8, which declares that God "maketh the day dark with night"). This of course is simply not true. Darkness is nothing more than the absence of light. One can no more "separate" light from darkness than one can separate "left" from "right" or "up" from "down".
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Notice here that there is no Sun yet, it not having yet been created. This account is thus contradicted by science on several grounds. Since a "day" is itself based on the earth's rotation near the Sun, there could have been no "day" until AFTER the sun appeared. Nor is there any cosmic source of "day light" other than the sun. Scientifically, we know that the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably accrete. The Genesis account, which has the earth and the "waters" formed before the Sun, is simply wrong.
6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7: 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.
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says "the windows of heaven were opened", and also in Genesis 8:2, which says "the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained". It is also referred to by other verses in the Bible like Acts 14:17, where God "gave us rain from heaven", Deuteronomy 11:11, which says "But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven", Deuteronomy 11:17, which says "And then the LORD's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain", Deuteronomy 28:12, which says "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season", Isaiah 55:10, which says "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud", and Revelations 11:6, which says "These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy".
Needless to say, there is no "firmament" that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. The ancient writers of the Bible, having no knowledge or understanding of "gravity", simply postulated that this hard clear sphere MUST be there, or else the stars and planets would all fall down, and that the "firmament" must have "windows" to let the rain through. They were wrong.
9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
According to the Genesis account, the oceans come from water that was already existing when the earth was formed-----the "waters above" and "the waters below". From the description given, it appears that the Genesis writers assumed that the entire earth was covered with water ("the waters below"), and that the dry land was formed by moving all that water to specific locations to form the oceans. Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it accreted that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets. ..."
Please continue reading at www.huecotanks.com/debunk/genesis.html
I’m interested in work on the polytheistic origins of Judaism and the evidence for it in the Old Testament. Can you recommend any good books/articles?
“The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures” (2009) by Nicholas Wade
The origins of religion from the times of the ancient dance-trance hunter-gatherers to the origins of Judaism, Christianity and a surprising one for Islam.
“Early History of God” and “Origins of Biblical Monotheism” by Mark S Smith.
“Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day.
“Rise of Ancient Israel” and “Did God have a Wife” by William Dever.
Been watching you since I was in junior high. I wanna let you know that, you and many others from ACA, axp, etc. Helped me when I was questioning at a young age. Thank you for all your contributions.
There is a good scholarly look at the two different creation accounts in the book "Who wrote the Bible?" by Richard Elliott Friedman. It speaks about the different authors of the first books of the bible.
It is very strange that chapter 2 begins where it does, because at verse 4, in the Hebrew text, the writing style, structure, & word selection shifts dramatically (like the difference between the writing styles of Stephen King & Shakespeare dramatically).
Verse 4 of chapter 2 is also the first use of "Yaweh Elohim", as opposed to just "Elohim". It definitely seems like different authors
It's because the people who annotated the texts with chapters and verses didn't look at the original Hebrew texts but at Latin translations. The style change is literally lost in translation.
You the man Matt!
I've always assumed the first "creation account" was just the remnants of the story that involved Lilith, and everything about her was cut out of the newer versions of that story but the initial part was left in and then it jumps to the second where it goes into adam and eve.
I had never thought of this before, but I find it very odd that "And God saw that it was good"
If he's God and he's got this plan, wouldn't he have known it was good before he made it? A little too anthropomorphic that he looks at his work to see how well he did, like a craftsman making a chair...
It definitely isn't going to score big in a debate but it's a fair point to make.
As a devoted Christian teen, I decided to read the entire Bible. First thing I read: conflicting creation accounts. Boy, was I surprised. It turned out to be my first step toward atheism. So it can indeed help.
The contradictions are not a go-to argument for me, but recently I had a weak theist friend claim the events are in the proper order, scientifically. After much back and forth and sitting down and reading the KJV together, he still makes that claim.
Most troubling is that people believe that the trillions of other planets and stars took a day... so the sky wouldnt be so boring to look at.
Trillions of planets a stars dont exist stop believing what nasa tells u and stop going for there fake cgi videos, what u see in the sky is what there is, we live in a enclosed system. There no such think as deep space with all those fake Galaxy's, get in tune
@@repent.sinner Get a telescope
The Atheist Debates Patreon Project Proudly Presents
Lilith fixes the discrepancy pretty nicely.
No it doesn't.
@@tyrionlannister3459 How so?
@@GaelicMongrel2023
It only adds to the discrepancy really.
Then they'd have to explain why she left.
@@tyrionlannister3459 Mmm... I'll concede the latter, but I do think it explains the two creations of women.
@@GaelicMongrel2023
Believe is what you mean, I suspect.
Truth is what the facts are and belief doesn't fit into this.
And the very *fact* that she isn't mentioned in the Torah, the old testament is evident to those that have read the texts. If she was part of the original storyline then it would be there still.
Therefore it doesn't explain anything.
I'd like to hear your opinion on the apparent contradictions in the NT regarding the generl method for salvation, because this is the #1 reason I left the christian faith to begin with. It was the vast numbers of times where the NT, especially the gospels where it mentions the "acts of faith" that begets salvation, and Jesus even said that works were like filthy rags, and you are saved through faith and not by works, but it was when I reread the NT while still a christian and got to James chapter 2, and especially between verses 14-26, and within that entire context it emphasized strongly that works are just as important as faith to be justified, and by works are we justified, not by faith only, and all the examples of how works along with faith justified various folks, then using devils as an example of folks who had faith, but tremble. Works makes faith perfect.
So please address this if you can please, why vast numbers of places in the NT assert that acts of faith are all one needs to be saved, but James says otherwise(faith+works unto salvation).
The answer I've heard is that James is talking about justification before men. As in, your works show others that you have faith in God, and have nothing to do with your justification before God, which is purely based on faith. Those who truly have faith in God will truly desire to do good works. Having faith in God but not working for him would be considered contradictory.
Think of it this way: if you claimed to love someone, but you rarely did anything nice for them, people would dispute whether you actually loved them. Doing nice things isn't considered in deciding whether you actually love them, which is a more basic thing.
Though I mostly agree wit Matt here, I do think it interesting that 1:27 is usually rendered as verse. This to me indicates that the author is referencing an older verse tradition of the story we don’t have access to.
The 2 creation accounts are one of many differences in the first 5 due to the fact that the Northern and Southern kingdoms kept their own scriptures. Those scriptures diverged after years of separation and then were thrown back together, without correcting any differences. Apparently the early Hebrews weren't hung up on inerrancy.
To your first point of there not being good evidence of the two chapters of Genesis being written by two different people, the language use between the two (particularly in Hebrew) is so different that it makes no sense for them to be written by the same hand. The first is clearly poetry, while the second has a more prose aspect to it. *argument from authority coming* I was shown this by a Catholic priest who said that the idea that the whole thing was written by Moses was silly because of this specific aspect and the contradiction. His apologetic was to appeal to the myth of Lilith, where the man and woman created together was Adam and Lilith. They did indeed go forth and populate the world. She was not a "suitable" helper, which lead to the story of Genesis 2. It also solves the issue of who Cain marries and why the mark was a thing. I guess, but why is THAT stuff not in the Bible? Why do you have to go to Rabbinical writings for this? Shrug.
That all said, you're right. Ultimately, this is a weak argument for atheism or against the Bible. I only use it as the opener of Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1, and the Bible goes down hill from here. The moral (or immoral) code in the Bible as well as all the refuted "history" are the best arguments in my opinion.
An easy trick to see that the two accounts were written by different authors is to note that Genesis 1 always refers to its deity as "God", but Genesis 2 calling him "the LORD God", where "LORD" in all caps is a disguised representation of the proper name Yahweh (YHWH).
Genesis 1 was written by the so-called P writer, which only starts using God's name Yahweh after Exodus 6:2, when the name is revealed to Moses; Genesis 2 comes from the J source, which uses Yahweh (the LORD) throughout.
This difference doesn't look that significant in the English translation, where the proper name is translated into something less conspicuous, but it pays to keep track of it. It was actually one of the factors that first allowed scholars to distinguish the different sources of the Pentateuch.
I agree that none of this is in itself a good argument against the consistency of the creation account, but I think it might still be worthwhile to know.
Hi Matt! Your debates have been my guideline for years and this youtube channel is the best. I will support your patreon as soon as I get a job. I'd like to go deeper into the topic of secular morality. Any book recomendations? Greetings from Colombia!
I will need a definition of "helper" to grasp the concept here..
Given the language of the book, I would say they meant something like a wife. A sort of dependent "counterpart" or "complement" to the male.
The reason the first creation story account starts 3 verses into the second chapter instead of with the beginning of the second chapter like would he logical is that it puts the lie upfront in our faces so anybody looking past it will be subconsciously letting their logic guard down. If it started on the second chapter it would be much easier to point out to christians and have them see it conflicts and that theres even 2 accounts, with it separated illogically christians can allow themselves to assume the multitude of silly explanations for the differences. Like how they put the pyramid and nwo on their dollars
What the bible missed out is the bit where god said to Adam, "Wow, you're really good at this naming! I mean, _He of the Hopping Kind_ ... what'd you call him? 'Frog'. Why did you call him 'frog'?"
And Adam replied, "Because it _looks_ like a fucking frog!"
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, ......hold on...
..time out.....just a sec.....
The bible has contradictions?
Nope, not one single contradiction at all, because if there was then it would mean that the bible is complete bullshite...... and as we all know the bible is true.... for the bible says it's true. 😈
Correct, god NEVER says, "don't kill/murder" then has them commiting wholesale slaughter and genocide upon all people's the "chosen people" come across in the "promised land".
That just doesn't happen.
@@tyrionlannister3459
Duh. I'm not stupid bro....
Everyone knows God wouldn't condone murder, regulate slavery, punish the rape victim while rewarding the rapist, gamble, torture, lie, lie about torturing someone he gambled with Satan about, sacrifice himself to himself to save himself from himself to act as a loophole for a rule he made.
It's the Bible!
Not some racist, female hating, gay bashing holy book.
I's aints gonna lie tho's....sumthin' is not rite's hear...
@@jasonspades5628
Lol, too funny.
But, don't let the theists hear you.
They may try to tie rocks to you and throw you into a body of water to see if you're a witch.
Like those good ole fashioned Christian's during the Salem witch hunt.
I wonder how many of the accused floated.
Must've been none.
Would they have record of those that did?
I was even told about this contradiction before I read the Bible, so I was looking for it when I started, and I was surprised when I finished Genesis without seeing a contradiction.
These differences may be minor in terms of the overall message of the chapters, but it remains relevant to point out that it renders the narrator unreliable and likely multiplicitous.
Something feels flawed in the idea that we shouldn't point out that the stories are different because _'obviously the same guy wouldn't go back and immediately contradict himself in the very next sentence'..._ I guess I don't see the benefit in even granting that Moses wrote this in the first place.
@pot as What better evidence than the bible? What evidence does the bible provide?
The only places it's implied that Moses wrote this stuff is in the NT, and the people who wrote *_those_* stories could have very well just been following the same traditions/assumptions that people today use. Hell, the authorship of half of Paul's letters is disputed, and his name is actually attached to them, rather than just being an anonymous story.
@pot as I mean, it's cute that you think it's incumbent on me to debunk the idea that Sybill Trelawney actually made the prophecy about Harry...but that's not how that works.
A cylinder when viewed end on appears to be a circle, when viewed from the side appears to be a rectangle. A contradiction? Is it a rectangle or a circle?
It's a cylinder.
I thought the repeated stories of Genesis 1 and 2 were pretty widely accepted by scholars to be "doublets" resulting from two sources under the documentary hypothesis. Now, even if that were the case, scholarly consensus doesn't automatically mean the claim is true, nor would this single example perfectly disprove the Genesis account, and certainly not satisfactorily enough for a Creationist. On the other end of things, there are plenty of people who reject inerrancy and can reconcile the documentary hypothesis with belief. Not a silver bullet for theists by any measure.
_But,_ when I was on my way out of Christianity, learning about the documentary hypothesis, along with several convincing examples demonstrating how it works, was extremely helpful to me in understanding _what_ the Bible was if not the inerrant word of God. It helped complete my journey. For me, that's the main value of Genesis 1 & 2: As a single piece of evidence for a broader naturalistic explanation of the Bible.
From what I can gather, the creation account in Genesis 2 has man being created in a different order from Genesis 1. I’m sure there’s some apologetic, but I haven’t heard it.
Regardless of whether one believes the two accounts to be different or complimentary, the Mesopotamian creation myth, the Enuma Elish, seems to me to be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. All of the tablets containing the myth, found at Ashur, Kish, Ashurbanipal's library at Nineveh, Sultantepe, & other excavated sites, date to c. 1200 BCE but their colophons indicate that these are all copies of a much older version of the myth dating from long before the fall of Sumer in c. 1750 BCE.
As Marduk, the champion of the young gods in their war against Tiamat, is of Babylonian origin, the Sumerian Ea/Enki or Enlil is thought to have played the major role in the original version of the story. The copy found at Ashur has the god Ashur in the main role as was the custom of the cities of Mesopotamia. The god of each city was always considered the best & most powerful. Marduk, the god of Babylon, only figures as prominently as he does in the story because most of the copies found are from Babylonian scribes. Even so, Ea does still play an important part in the Babylonian version of the Enuma Elish by creating human beings.
Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic & religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin. Famous stories such as the Fall of Man & the Great Flood were originally conceived & written down in Sumer, translated & modified later in Babylon, & reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.
The Hebrew scribes revised the Mesopotamian creation story by tightening up the narrative & the focus, but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos. Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - just as God does in the Genesis tale - & human beings are expected to recognize this great gift & honor the deity through service. In Mesopotamia, in fact, it was thought that humans were co-workers with the gods to maintain the gift of creation & keep the forces of chaos at bay.
The basic paradigm of the biblical narratives & the Mesopotamian stories align closely, & even though there are still significant differences, it's obviously clear to me that the Old Testament was not written in a vacuum.
Good advice, thanks. Sometimes the most glaring discontinuities are the simplest to pass over, Passover, hmm there could be a story there somewhere...
I am truly interested in the idea that Matt stated about no good argument that chapter 1 and chapter 2 were written by different people. The orders are different for some events, the style is different in regards to how it handles the creation of man and woman. They style of telling itself is different. That is how some Christians have excused the slight order variations. There are plenty of good reasons that I and many others see that the first two could be written by different people. I would agree though that that as an issue it pales in comparison to ideas such as, how could Eve have known she was sinning before eating the apple or that we know for a fact we evolved. If the story is just an allegory it really weakens the need for a savior. Creation was the thread I pulled that lead to the unraveling. Just my thoughts though.
As someone who grew up in a Baptist family, I think most church leaders and pastors will just say that everythibg we can't know is God's secret and therefore shouldn't doubt what the bible says just because we can't know and confirm things. I think because a lot of stuff does make sense in the bible like some values and character, we just don't think much about those contradictions or problems presented because we already accepted it 100% true. It's like we think it's true therefore it will never be false.
Because most of testimonies I hear from converted people are about how Jesus saved them from sin; from their past wrongdoings like drug abuse, murder, etc. So I think in a logical sense, they first accept q before p and not the other way around because q makes a lot of sense by itself for them (q for example is the New Testament and p is the old).
And since it's a life-changing experience for them, they would assume that it can't be wrong since how else could have they feel Jesus and the Holy Spirit in their hearts? "If you don't understand it, pray to God for understanding and he will reveal it to you", that's what they will just say because it's what the vible says too. Our denomination isn't about the Old Testament but the evangelization of the New Testament as most Christian churches are today.
I just want to take this out. I still go to church but it just messes with my head how empirical evidence doesn't support much of what scientists are finding out. And if you will ask a bible-believing Christian why they don't believe it, it's because they believe unsaved people (those who don't have a relationship with God through Christ) is deluded. Even my father, who just got convinced that the earth is flat even though most of us doesn't have that belief, believes that scientists are deluded. He believes that the sky has a firmament or like a dome which means NASA and other space travel companies are just the tool of the devil to deceive people.
As for me, I really want to leave the church and find out for myself about how evolution, radiometric dating, and the Big Bang Theory stands because everyday I hear preachings about prophecies and how unsaved people are deceived and deluded by sin and the devil, I just can't seem to agree with them. I agree with the values Christianity has developed over the millenia but rejecting tested and verified evidence and throwing them out the window like because it's heresy? I'm kind of troubled.
This setup looks the best. The black background and the black Secret Lab chair and that shirt...what should I say...like the devil in person :)
The point of what Matt is saying when he addresses issues in the Bible is that there’s a difference between contradictions and confusion when it comes to the Bible, and it’s up to you to know the difference. If you’re going spend your time arguing “contradictions” in the Bible that aren’t important to Christians, and can be “explained” away by them depending on a literal or metaphorical account, then you may want to reevaluate the reasons why you’re taking this approach...and you may want to really study the source materials.
The NRSV allows one to copy up to 500 verses without permission.
i forgot what John H. Walton and Wes Howard-Brook specifically had to say on the subject, but the idea that the text of Genesis was a collection of sayings from different “sources” compiled together by a “redactor” during the persian period is way over the top and quite silly on its face. As far as coupling and nakedness are concerned such themes reflect a mythic glorification of Gatherer-Hunter existence outside of the israelite/judahite monarchy and babylon. Gatherer-Hunters often left their parents when they married out of mutual cooperation and understanding for each other (Paul tries to instill this himself in 1 Cor. 7, etc.). Gatherer-Hunters also we’re not narcissistic. They were “naked,” weak. A modern illustration of this could be found in Ursula K. Le Guin’s recounting of Ishi. Lastly, it is indeed correct that the atheist should not put many chips in the Genesis 1-2 pot.
Matt where can I find a Magic and Skepticism event calendar?
Well, I have a degree in biblical studies, and I must say the comments here show greater awareness and astuteness than Matt does in his video. Just about every university introduction to the Hebrew Bible taught from the perspective of mainstream biblical studies begins with or very soon addresses the fact that Genesis begins with two different creation accounts. Mainstream scholarship is pretty unanimous here. As the comments here reflect, the different orders of creation feature prominently in the demonstration. So, also, does the documentary hypothesis: generally speaking, chapter one is P and chapter two is J. There are detailed arguments. A good introduction to the HB textbook should serve as a useful guide.
In the first Genesis creation myth, the gods (Elohim: plural noun) fashion humans in their own image - male and female - and bid them procreate.
In the second Genesis creation myth, one of the gods, Yahweh, plants a Garden - in the midst of which stand the gods' own Tree of Life (Immortality) and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. To tend to his orchard, the deity fashions himself a gardener, likewise in his own image - a single male - and, considering Eden's limited geographical confines (Gen 2:10-14), with neither mate nor mandate to procreate.
Allowing his gardener access to the Tree of Immortality (Gen 2:16) ensured the deity a permanent staff of one, while forbidding him to to take of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 2:17) secured the adam remaining in perpetual innocence (infantile ignorance).
Having taken of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and become "like unto gods" - as foretold by the serpent (Gen 3:5) and confirmed by the gods themselves (Gen 3:22) - the human couple now had to be denied access to their Tree of Immortality (Eternal Youth). And so they were evicted from the Garden, no doubt, to join the humans of the first Genesis creation myth being fruitful and multiplying beyond its confines.
Seems like a reasonable interpretation considering the poly-god beliefs of ancient Hebrews/Canaanites.
I think different authorship/storytelling is still on the table though. What I understand os that there is a shift in writing style and word usage that indicates this.
@Laura Streeter Makes sense, I would have to fact check but seems consistent with two seperate traditions being meshed together.
I recommend a you read a book/study by Richard Elliot Friedman titled ‘who wrote the Bible’ that’s if you have not read it already. It presents the first six books of the Bible, their likely authors, what motivated their portrayal of events, their traditions and then the later redactors who combined the different books to make one. This is the most compelling case of the first books in the Bible that I have come across to date. The contradictions and the duology/trilogy of stories is mapped out.
I'm surprised to hear Matt say there is no evidence the two creation stories were written by two different authors- that's exactly what the scholarly consensus is. The first story is believed to come from an intellectual priestly tradition while the second one is the more traditional folklore story. In Hebrew they even call God by different names.
David Dunsmore, I came upon your post only after I posted mine; otherwise, I could merely have written ditto here.
The biggest question is why did god say let US make man in OUR image? Who is US?
Genesis 1says man was made after animals and #2 said man came 1st to name the animals which came after man was made.
Atheist forever ♥
Until you become a follower of Christ.
@@kingsolomon7553 Until we are convinced that a god exists. That's not the same thing as being a follower of Christ.
@@girlwithtehface5880 Followers of Christ are worshippers of God because God became Christ and gave His life for us.
@@kingsolomon7553 I think you missed my point. I could be convinced that a god exists, but that doesn't mean I am convinced that the god of Abraham exists. I could be convinced that the god of Abraham exists, but that doesn't mean I believe Jesus of Nazareth was an incarnation of that god. I could be convinced Jesus of Nazareth was an incarnation of the god of Abraham, that doesn't mean I worship that god or think his word was true and good.
But I'm getting ahead of things. We should start at the beginning. Do you have evidence that a god exists?
Okay, but even if the seeming contradictions are due to language and interpretation, that just speaks to the poorly written nature of the story.
How does a perfect god, inspire such a confused piece of work, as an instruction manual?
The latin word for evil is "malus". The latin word for apple is also "malus". That might have contributed to the confusion.
Thank you. :)
Do you reject the documentary hypothesis?
Could this be a strange chiastic structure?
It's my understanding that much of Genesis was, in fact, synthesized from two different versions. These two accounts are written in different styles, iirc one poetry and the other prose. Also, iirc, there are two (very similar) accounts interleaved, paragraph for paragraph, which is why it sort of seems long-winded and repetitive, but one account uses "YHWH" (the name of God, usually translated in English is "the Lord") and the other "Elohim" (literally "gods", usually translated as "God"). So it seems like there are two versions of the first half or so of Genesis that got synthesized together into the canonical version.
Your point still stands, of course; obviously whatever rabbi or council of rabbis ~2500 years ago, who laid down this definitive version, didn't see any problems/contradictions between the two creation accounts.
(The Noah example, quoting from my childhood bible, a NRSV:
Gen 6:19-22 : "And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark". . . blah blah blah. . . Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him.
Gen 7:1-5 : Then the Lord said to Noah, "Go into the ark. . . Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate". . . etc. . . And Noah did all that the Lord had commanded him.
Super similar, but varying slightly on the details (one pair versus seven pairs, but you could argue that this is a clarification of the earlier command) but structurally identical even ending with the same sentence, except with a different word for God.)
If I'm not mistaken, the general consensus for the double creation account (among bible scholars) is that they were written by 2 different people. The oldest German texts I think it was had major differences between the 2 in how they were written, like 1 referring to god as Elihim and the other referring to him as Adonai continuously. Other differences exist, but those are the main ones. Id look into it if I were you. Worst comes to worst you learn what the consensus among bible scholars is, which is useful to know even if you don't agree with it.
Yeah I was a little disappointed by Matt’s take on this. There is more to the hypothesis that the first two chapters of Genesis were written by two different people than their usages of certain verb tenses. And meanwhile, I do think that Gen 1 and 2 clearly conflict. Just because there exist apologist explanations doesn’t make the contradictions any less valid. Apologists have rapid-fire responses for all biblical contradictions, no matter how convoluted. Matt of all people should know this.
@@bass-tones its just been a while since I looked into it so I'm going purely off memory. I likely left out a good bit. And ya there are excuses for everything. There isn't much that you can every bring to the table with apologists that there isn't some answer for, even if the "answer" is crap that doesn't even address the issue raised
You mentioned that the start of Genesis chapter 2 is weird. And while I'm unsure why it starts where it starts, I do know that the chapter division in the Jewish holy books is a later addition. So it could either be a mistake, or maybe an attempt to connect 2 Genesis stories together.
See "Chapters and verses of the Bible" in Wikipedia
I love hearing you talk Bible, Matt. Would love to see mroe content like this.
What about the fact that the two accounts appear to be written by different writers in the Hebrew? The first account uses Elohim for God while the second account uses Adonai Elohim. The writers appear to switch at Bereshit Dalid.
Video title: "Conflicting creation accounts in Genesis?"
Video text on screen: "Conflicting creation accounts in the Bible??"
Audio: "Contradictory creation accounts?"
I mean, it's not a problem, it's just something pedants like me get hung up on.
It was the contradiction of two creation accounts that was the nail in the coffin for my Christian journey back in 1999. I read a book by a biblical scholar named Richard Elliott Friedman called "Who Wrote the Bible?" He showed all these contradictory stories beside each other including the flood story. He talks about the different writing styles in the creation accounts and different names for god. I disagree with Matt to an extent, it is problematic, but I do agree the Bible has other problems more worthy to raise in talking to Christians.
Couple things. 1) You believe the same author was responsible for the first two chapters of Genesis. Does this mean that you reject the Documentary Hypothesis? 2) Simplest contradiction between the two stories is that the first clearly puts the creation of plants before that of humans, while the second has the creation of the first human, Adam, followed by the remark that there were no plants because it hadn't rained yet. No doubt over 2000 years someone has come up with some imaginative reconciliation for this, but I don't know what it is offhand.
Volume is too low for me. Next.
When Matt read Genesis 1 and 2 in English, they both say "God". But when you study the original Hebrew, you would see that in Genesis 1 it says Elohim, but starting in from Genesis 2:4, it says Yahweh. This is good evidence that there were indeed different authors for the 2 chapters. It is not likely that the same author would have used different names for God, and told 2 different stories. But 2 separate authors would.
Hey I have some explanations, but it is still theological post hoc rationalization.
First creation was body of light, second creation was the physical body.
See the Kaballah and various Gnostic schools of thought.
The creation of Man is a good softball to get Theists thinking, but it's not a solid debating topic. I tried it on my spouse, and it was actually later verses that worked.
It seems that entire point of the Bible is to contradict itself. This combined with the chapter & verse parsing of the texts allow for both the pro and con side of virtually any issue to be supported depending on which is most beneficial to the clergy of that particular Christian sect.
Great!
Would anyone be down for personal bible studies? 😇🙏✨📖🙌🏼
Go check out Digital Hammurabi's TH-cam channel they have some really good information on doublets and on Genesis 1 and 2.
Speaking of origins, how many Christians do you suppose know anything about the origin of their espoused religion? For example, where does King Henry VIII fit into the picture? Who was Martin Luther, and what was his place? What significant event happened in 1054 CE? Who was William Tyndale, and why was he brutally executed by the Church? Who was John Calvin, and why did he have Michael Servetus brutally executed? These are just the beginning.
I'm sure there are many apologetics addressing the two creation stories, and I am sure they are as logical and reasoned as the Rest of Christian apologetics.
How is the word of God copywrited? Does god own the copyright?
I agree that the most telling difference is in the creation of woman. Was she created at the same time as man and in exactly the same way? Or was woman created last, an afterthought, from a piece of a man and solely for his benefit?
Makes sense
Matt is pretty damned honest about critiques of genesis and i appreciate it because my background is jehovah's witness and we thought we had answers for all the contradictory issues in genesis, which would garner converts because their preachers, pastors and priests couldn't give such seemingly reasonable answers. We even made fun of YEC and readily accepted that the earth was billions of years old. Jehovah's witnesses consider themselves "thinking people" and tear down christendom's old ideas quite readily and seem to make good sense to a lot of people who by default believe the bible is true. Unfortunately, the basis of their teachings are just as ridiculous and once someone applies the same level of skepticism to the watchtower's teachings about the bible it becomes recognizable as (nearly) the same level of bullshit.
Edited to change "conveys" to "converts"