# Contradictions in Genesis **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2016, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629 "2016-01-30T00:54:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/21 "2016-01-30T08:59:37Z")
If Eve was formed from Adam’s rib, wouldn’t Adam and Eve have exactly the same DNA? So where did XY and XX chromosomes come from then? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/22 "2016-01-30T09:08:31Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > If Eve was formed from Adam’s rib, wouldn’t Adam and Eve have exactly the same DNA? So where did XY and XX chromosomes come from then? You forget, religious people think God is magic. So he magicked up some chromosomes. Why didn’t He just create Eve without going through the needless nonsense of pulling out a rib? Hey, aren’t sunsets beautiful? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/23 "2016-01-30T14:07:07Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > What’s wrong with “bronze age myths?” They’re more “iron age myths”, really… ---
**Author:** ![T.M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ad7895/32.png) [@T.M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.M)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/24 "2016-01-30T16:00:20Z")
The accepted version of creation is in the correct order, preparing a planet to accept living beings, man arriving when everything is complete. The confusion is that the King James version tells us that God made man and out of man came woman, this is at odds with Hebrew scripture that predates the bible and tells us that God created both man and woman equal in his own image. Is this an attempt to give men dominion over woman? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/25 "2016-01-30T16:24:32Z")
> [@lpixler](#): > > 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?” Some Christians might tell you, “Actually, Jesus is the [Word of God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_(Christianity)).” Different Christians regard the Bible in different ways, but only a small minority believe the Bible to be a word-for-word revelation directly from God, in the way Muslims believe the Quran to be. A larger subset, though still far from all Christians, hold to [Biblical inerrancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy). To them, any apparent contradictions in Scripture are the result of misinterpreting or misapplying the problematic passages. They’re just not “allowed” to say, “The Bible’s wrong about that” or “That’s a mistake” or “That particular part of the Bible doesn’t count.” They’re okay with more than one Creation story, or more than one gospel account, as long as they can explain away any apparent direct contradictions between them. As for how they do that in particular cases, you should be able to find examples online if you look in the right places, though I don’t know offhand of any particularly good sources to recommend. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/26 "2016-01-30T18:06:35Z")
Genesis does indeed contain two entirely different creation stories, from two different sources (called the J and the P document, respectively), and there are other source documents that were later combined at some point a long long time ago to become the torah. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/27 "2016-01-30T18:22:18Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > All I know is [Lilith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith) is pretty damn hot. My pastor baptized a sweet little baby girl “Lilith,” thereby dooming her to only date demons. The parents must’ve liked the name of that “pretty lady on Cheers” without researching why the name was intended to be funny. :smack: > [@MrDibble](#): > > They’re more “iron age myths”, really… Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![lpixler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@lpixler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lpixler)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/28 "2016-01-30T18:25:04Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. This is very helpful. I guess I’m interested in how Biblical literalists would explain away the contradictions, and how much of that population are literalists. What is the most popular belief: that animals were created first or man created first? And what implications does this have for the respect for the animal kingdom on Christians? I could see an argument that, if animals were created first, they should be respected, not dominated; I can also see the argument that, if man was created first, man is at the top of the hierarchy. ---
**Author:** ![lpixler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@lpixler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lpixler)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/29 "2016-01-30T18:27:24Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Genesis does indeed contain two entirely different creation stories, from two different sources (called the J and the P document, respectively), and there are other source documents that were later combined at some point a long long time ago to become the torah. So which of the stories is held to be true for most Christians? There are important implications in each different story, and I’m trying to get at the root of some issues regarding male domination and regarding domination of the earth. ---
**Author:** ![lpixler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@lpixler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lpixler)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/30 "2016-01-30T18:37:53Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You forget, religious people think God is magic. So he magicked up some chromosomes. Why didn’t He just create Eve without going through the needless nonsense of pulling out a rib? > > Hey, aren’t sunsets beautiful? Again, this (and the original post quoted in your reply about chromosomes) brings me to the issue of fundamentalist Christianity. Do many Christians take the account literally, or do most Christians take it symbolically? I suppose there are issues with both, as symbolically if woman was created from man there are implications that she is to submit to man. ---
**Author:** ![lpixler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@lpixler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lpixler)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/31 "2016-01-30T18:42:42Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > 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. This is fascinating. Can you direct me to a source that explains how the rib is a euphemism for the baculum? I am very interested in this. Also, would this mean that this theory comes from those who take the Bible literally or symbolically? Is this intended as an actual account of how man lacks a baculum, or a symbolic account? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/32 "2016-01-30T18:49:22Z")
> [@lpixler](#): > > This is fascinating. Can you direct me to a source that explains how the rib is a euphemism for the baculum? I am very interested in this. Also, would this mean that this theory comes from those who take the Bible literally or symbolically? Is this intended as an actual account of how man lacks a baculum, or a symbolic account? I’m having a little trouble buying this one, myself. It just sounds to me that on the “Plausible Theory\<—\>Pulled It Out Of My Ass” scale, it leans slightly to the right. ---
**Author:** ![lpixler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@lpixler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lpixler)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/33 "2016-01-30T18:53:40Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’m having a little trouble buying this one, myself. It just sounds to me that on the “Plausible Theory\<—\>Pulled It Out Of My Ass” scale, it leans slightly to the right. I found this article to explain the origins of this theory. Still not sure how prevalent it is, though. It would be interesting to find out. > **[\- Biblical Archaeology Society](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/the-adam-and-eve-story-eve-came-from-where/)** > > The Adam and Eve story states that God formed Adam out of dust, and then Eve was created from one of Adam’s ribs. Was it really his rib? ---
**Author:** ![lpixler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@lpixler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lpixler)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/34 "2016-01-30T18:55:32Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’m having a little trouble buying this one, myself. It just sounds to me that on the “Plausible Theory\<—\>Pulled It Out Of My Ass” scale, it leans slightly to the right. Also, this quick little blurb explains a counter to the theory as well. I would be interested in input regarding this. > **[Was Eve Made from Adam’s Rib—or His Baculum? - The BAS Library](https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/was-eve-made-from-adams-rib-or-his-baculum/)** > > The Book of Genesis tells us that God created woman from one of Adam’s ribs. But our author says that the traditional translation of the Biblical text is wrong: Eve came from a different part of Adam’s body—his baculum. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/35 "2016-01-30T18:57:34Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > … 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, Not really so weird. If you look at a modern legal textbook, you will find many stories of what the law _used to be_, a description of the legal case or enacted law that changed it, and then a statement of what the law is now. The history helps understand the context and reason for the current rule. ---
**Author:** ![lpixler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@lpixler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lpixler)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/36 "2016-01-30T19:00:54Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Not really so weird. If you look at a modern legal textbook, you will find many stories of what the law _used to be_, a description of the legal case or enacted law that changed it, and then a statement of what the law is now. The history helps understand the context and reason for the current rule. So I’m wondering how much of the Old Testament Christians (or modern Christians, maybe?) take as holy. If Jesus said to abandon the Old Testament laws (did he say this?), then do Christians only hold the New Testament to be law? Also, how do you explain Christians believing in the Old Testament Genesis account of creation if Jesus said to abandon the Old Testament? This, of course, is assuming the person was right that Jesus said to abandon the OT laws, which I am unsure of. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/37 "2016-01-30T19:12:16Z")
> [@lpixler](#): > > Also, how do you explain Christians believing in the Old Testament Genesis account of creation if Jesus said to abandon the Old Testament? This, of course, is assuming the person was right that Jesus said to abandon the OT laws, which I am unsure of. I think there is a difference between abandoning OT Law and the OT itself. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/38 "2016-01-30T19:13:41Z")
Well, just off the top of my head, he may have meant to change the OT laws without abandoning the OT history. ---
**Author:** ![lpixler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@lpixler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lpixler)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/39 "2016-01-30T19:17:31Z")
> [@outlierrn](#): > > Well, just off the top of my head, he may have meant to change the OT laws without abandoning the OT history. Oh, ok. This makes more sense. So that’s also why Christians don’t follow the myriad of commandments from the OT? The history is God’s word, but Jesus made following all those commandments obsolete? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629/40 "2016-01-30T19:28:11Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > 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! No, you need to learn to read those word-things. The list enumerates 7 sons, 27 grandsons and a daughter, for a total of 35; but 2 of the grandsons buy the farm in Canaan (one is Onan, who may or may not be the dude that jehovallah smote for not spooging inside his wife). So a careful reading works out if one assumes they were all in the kitchen with Dinah. The the first line of the second thing there excludes the wives of the sons, then adds them in in the second line. I guess the goal of writing this way is to force the reader to pay attention to the text. By making the text obfuscatory, the users of it are given wiggle-room to declare what it actually means. Given that it was written in an era where some smaller towns did not even have a whole complete copy on hand to work from. > [@lpixler](#): > > So which of the stories is held to be true for most Christians? There are important implications in each different story, and I’m trying to get at the root of some issues regarding male domination and regarding domination of the earth. From what I can remember, they kind of meld the two stories and use the parts they need. The first chapter has the part about “fill the earth and subdue it”, so that is handy. And the nameless humans are created side-by-side, like all the beasts, so that takes care of the snares of biology that the second chapter gets caught up in. But the bit about Eve and the snake is very useful for keeping those nasty women under the patriarchy and for laying out that original sin guilt trip. Most Chrislims never actually read the words so carefully that they even see two different stories there, they just assume that it makes sense. That is what I remember. _Do not question the holy scripture_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contradictions-in-genesis/744629.md?page=3)