Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Atheists and Agnostics are quick to point out what they believe are contradictions in the Bible.
For instance They state this:
Quote:
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time. GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
But there is really no contradiction.
Man originally was created as a hermaphrodite in which the female was inside him. He was male/female. When God put him to sleep he took the female parts out of him and built Eve around them. This is why, when a man has sex with a woman they "become one."
Again, no contradiction.
Here is an interesting article on The Building of Woman:
The Building of Woman, by A. E. Knoch (http://www.gtft.org/Library/condon/TheBuildingOfWomanKnoch.htm - broken link)
But there is really no contradiction.
Man originally was created as a hermaphrodite in which the female was inside him. He was male/female. When God put him to sleep he took the female parts out of him and built Eve around them. This is why, when a man has sex with a woman they "become one."
Again, no contradiction.
Here is an interesting article on The Building of Woman:
The Building of Woman, by A. E. Knoch (http://www.gtft.org/Library/condon/TheBuildingOfWomanKnoch.htm - broken link)
The creation passage is allegoric, so anything goes. The Holy RCC recognizes the Big bang and understand this is allegoric.
If i was God and I had created the universe with the Big bang I would not write down the big bang because it would take up too much space. I would simply use poetry to describe the creation.
Man and women evolved they were not created. The passages are allegoric.
But, don't worry, that does not change the character of the Bible. It is well accepted most of the Bible is allegoric.
Quote:
Since the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859, the attitude of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has slowly been refined. For about 100 years, there was no authoritative pronouncement on the subject. By 1950, Pope Pius XII agreed to the academic freedom to study the scientific implications of evolution, so long as Catholic dogma is not violated.[1] Today, the Church's unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, also known as evolutionary creation,[2] stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins. Moreover, the Church teaches that the process of evolution is a planned and purpose-driven natural process, actively guided by God.[3][4][5]
Last edited by Julian658; 02-24-2012 at 09:56 AM..
The creation passage is allegoric, so anything goes. The Holy RCC recognizes the Big bang and understand this is allegoric.
If i was God and I had created the universe with the Big bang I would not write it down the big bang because it would take up too much space. I would simply use poetry to describe the creation.
Man and women evolved they were not created. The passages are allegoric.
But, don't worry, that does not change the character of the Bible. It is well accepted most of the Bible is allegoric.
There is nothing allegorical about Christ's genealogy. If there wasn't a real man called "Adam" (who is in Christ's genealogy) who started our race then Christ's whole genealogy is suspect and so He can't be the Messiah if Adam didn't really exist.
Secondly, God did not create the animals or mankind in some primordial scum pond of amoebas. He created the animals and humans fully complete.
Thirdly, as far as the big bang theory goes, the whole creation came out of God and through Christ (Romans 11:32, 1 Corinthians 8:6).
Fourthly, Genesis 1:2 onward is about making the earth habitable again (from a planet that became chaos and vacant) and creating plants, animals and humans on it.
But there is really no contradiction.
Man originally was created as a hermaphrodite in which the female was inside him. He was male/female. When God put him to sleep he took the female parts out of him and built Eve around them. This is why, when a man has sex with a woman they "become one."
Again, no contradiction.
See, this is what I call "pretzelling". You really have to twist and turn to make those two verses into a consistent whole.
Genesis 1:2 onward is about making the earth habitable again (from a planet that became chaos and vacant) and creating plants, animals and humans on it.
Say what? So in the beginning the earth was fully formed, then later became what is described in Genesis 1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." ??
There is nothing allegorical about Christ's genealogy. If there wasn't a real man called "Adam" (who is in Christ's genealogy) who started our race then Christ's whole genealogy is suspect and so He can't be the Messiah if Adam didn't really exist.
Secondly, God did not create the animals or mankind in some primordial scum pond of amoebas. He created the animals and humans fully complete.
Thirdly, as far as the big bang theory goes, the whole creation came out of God and through Christ (Romans 11:32, 1 Corinthians 8:6).
Fourthly, Genesis 1:2 onward is about making the earth habitable again (from a planet that became chaos and vacant) and creating plants, animals and humans on it.
If you accept the Bible is allegoric God still exists. Nothing changes!
But there is really no contradiction.
Man originally was created as a hermaphrodite in which the female was inside him. He was male/female. When God put him to sleep he took the female parts out of him and built Eve around them. This is why, when a man has sex with a woman they "become one."
Again, no contradiction.
Here is an interesting article on The Building of Woman:
The Building of Woman, by A. E. Knoch (http://www.gtft.org/Library/condon/TheBuildingOfWomanKnoch.htm - broken link)
It's not a contradiction when one realizes that the 1st Creative Account (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) was written by a different author than the 2nd Creative Account (Genesis 2:4b-3:ff). This has long been recognized in scholarly circles as part of the Documentary Hypothesis.
I think introducing the concept of a Hermaphrodite is interesting, but does not pass the test of Ocham's Razor in this instance. Now - you COULD possibly apply this to JUST the 2nd Creative Account (and this has a long and storied tradition). But to the 1st Creative Account? No, for it clearly states they were both created at the same time, and of both sexes. The word used in that 1st Account is akin to "humanity" or "mankind" as a collective, not "man" as in the singular.
The problem lies in trying to understand these two separate Creative Account as narrating the same story - which they most definately do not. Thus, the contradiction is solved by positing multiple authorship. I personally do not use these verses as some sort of "weapon" against Christians. I understand the composite authorship (whether oral or written) and see absolutely no contradiction when this is taken into account. Two stories - two different chains of events. The person who chose to include these two accounts probably liked both of them, and wanted to retain them both - for they both undoubtedly had importance to various different groups of people.
There is nothing allegorical about Christ's genealogy. If there wasn't a real man called "Adam" (who is in Christ's genealogy) who started our race then Christ's whole genealogy is suspect and so He can't be the Messiah if Adam didn't really exist.
Secondly, God did not create the animals or mankind in some primordial scum pond of amoebas. He created the animals and humans fully complete.
Thirdly, as far as the big bang theory goes, the whole creation came out of God and through Christ (Romans 11:32, 1 Corinthians 8:6).
Fourthly, Genesis 1:2 onward is about making the earth habitable again (from a planet that became chaos and vacant) and creating plants, animals and humans on it.
It's not a contradiction when one realizes that the 1st Creative Account (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) was written by a different author than the 2nd Creative Account (Genesis 2:4b-3:ff). This has long been recognized in scholarly circles as part of the Documentary Hypothesis.
I think introducing the concept of a Hermaphrodite is interesting, but does not pass the test of Ocham's Razor in this instance. Now - you COULD possibly apply this to JUST the 2nd Creative Account (and this has a long and storied tradition). But to the 1st Creative Account? No, for it clearly states they were both created at the same time, and of both sexes. The word used in that 1st Account is akin to "humanity" or "mankind" as a collective, not "man" as in the singular.
The problem lies in trying to understand these two separate Creative Account as narrating the same story - which they most definately do not. Thus, the contradiction is solved by positing multiple authorship. I personally do not use these verses as some sort of "weapon" against Christians. I understand the composite authorship (whether oral or written) and see absolutely no contradiction when this is taken into account. Two stories - two different chains of events. The person who chose to include these two accounts probably liked both of them, and wanted to retain them both - for they both undoubtedly had importance to various different groups of people.
Ding ding ding. I was looking to see if someone had said that. That's what I learned long ago, too. And Genesis 1 is in poetry form.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
