Contradictions in Genesis

In the New Testament, God states that woman shall have no authority over man because she was second in creation and first in the fall, which leads Christians to subsume the Priestly account of creation (in which male and female were created simultaneously). Jewish rabbis took the contradiction seriously, and explained it to keep the Genesis story as the word of god (who wouldn’t contradict himself). There’s a theory that the first creature was created as androgynous, with both a male and female head. The Hebrew word for the act of taking from Adam’s rib to make Eve comes up later in the Bible when the holy Tabernacle is literally cut in two, leading the rabbis to argue that Eve was not in fact created from Adam’s rib but was half of the androgynous creature and maintaining that they were created simultaneously.
So it’s Christianity that enforces the submissive gender role of women.

I just haven’t been able to figure out how Christians argue away the two different creation stories. I know they take the Yahwistic account to be real, but what do they make of the Priestly account? Why is it included in the Bible? How do Christians explain away the fact that Genesis clearly states (first and foremost) that male and female were created simultaneously?

All I know is Lilith is pretty damn hot.

Because nobody actually cares about 90% of what’s in there anyway. Have you read it? Crazy shit.

I’m a Christian male, but I consider much of Genesis to be mythology. Notably the creation story and the Great Flood. And I certainly don’t believe in the inherent subservience of women.

Don’t Christians care what’s in the Bible? And isn’t the Bible supposed to be the word of God, thus the reason it’s “holy?”

Which rabbis, exactly, where these?

Judaism is all new to me. This is what I’ve been reading. I’m just trying to set some things straight in my mind.

Sure. But the majority are perfectly happy to accept the Biblical creation myths as myths, and much of the rest of the OT as either myth or allegory.

Sure. But again, the majority of Christians do not need their word of God to be literal or inerrant in all its particulars.

The Cathollc view is more or less the same as the secular one, that there were two different sources drawn on for the text, and while they were generally in agreement, differences are explained by their authors wishing to emphisize different theological and moral concepts via the story.

I’m not sure how the more fundamentalist branches of Christianity reconcile the two stories.

ETA: Here’s the Catholic Enclopedia’s take"

As a liberal Protestant I have no difficulty realizing that there are more than 2 creation myths and that they differ in details, according to the points of view of those who recorded them. And that God did not write the Bible, but people did who had various insights and inspirations. Anyone who knows the Bible knows of a lot more -contradictions- if you are collecting them.

What day was it any religious believer anywhere was ever fully on board with every bit of their sacred Holy Book? It has never happened.

Some intelligent Christians realize that the OT is a collection of bronze age myths, and also happen to understand that when Jesus talked about bringing a “new law” and not putting new wine into old wine skins he was talking about abandoning the stuff that makes up the OT. In a way it is super weird that it’s included in the Bible, since it’s the very stuff Jesus was teaching against (though later editing has tried to obscure that).

Old Testament = An eye for an Eye
Jesus = Turn the other cheek

That should have been a clue you’d think…

I believe the usual way to explain discrepancies in the Bible is to declare that one (or both) of the passages is an allegory. So it’s true but in a symbolic sense.

So a person who believes the Bible is inerrant could read the first part of Genesis where it says God created plants and animals before he created man and say that that’s the actual account of what happened. And then that same person could read the second part of Genesis where it says that God created man before the plants and animals and say that this is an allegory for how man is God’s most important creation. Or he could take it the other way around if he wanted and declare the first account is the allegory and the second account is the literal description.

I think Plato was the one who argued an androgynous first creation. I’ve been Jewish for 49 years, and I never heard that connected to rabbis before.

Just to inject a little levity: (this is, however, true) the “Adam’s rib” story started out as a just-so story to explain why human men do not have bacula like most mammals. The “rib” removed from Adam is a euphemism for the baculum. Apparently in ancient Hebrew, instead of getting a “boner,” you got an “extra rib,” so when a rib was removed from Adam, the people hearing the story would have understood-- not that it was a story about sex, mind you, but that this was when and why HaShem removed the baculum that humans used to have.

It also probably explained why human woman got horny pretty frequently, as opposed to going into comparatively infrequent heats, like other mammals.

There is only ONE Creation story. It’s spread out over two chapters, with a different emphasis in each chapter. Anybody who says that there are different stories is simply too lazy to read the plain language of the Bible or else too stupid to understand it.

I don’t think swinging a dead cat in a graveyard at midnight cures warts, but I still think Tom Sawyer is a great novel. Similarly, the Old Testament is great literature whatever its relationship to “truth.”

Some of the inconsistencies in the Bible are deliberate hints at suppressed truth. There may be a very clever logic puzzle hidden in Genesis 46.

Genesis 46 verses 9-15 list 32 living descendants of Jacob by his wife Leah and then announces the total as 33! The summary in 26-27 is also contradictory:

Arithmetic error? If posed as an abstract logic problem, there is a specific solution … whose nature would give the writer good reason to suppress its overt expression!

Is this a whoosh or are you serious? If it’s the latter, then clarify for me what happened in the one creation story; did God create man before or after he created the other animals?

As a bonus New Testament question, what was the last thing Jesus said before he died on the Cross?

You do realize Jesus literally says “I have come not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it”?

>unironically using the phrase “Bronze Age myths”

What’s wrong with “bronze age myths?”