You’ve found one of the main ones, that of two accounts of creation. The second one starts about at Gen 2:4.
Another inconsistency is the wives of Cain and Seth. Where did these women come from? Surely they weren’t marrying their sisters. But it doesn’t say anything about God making extra women anywhere. I’ve long been of the opinion that the story of Cain and Abel was originally unrelated to that of Adam and Eve, but was attached to it when Genesis was compiled. Or perhaps there was a third account of creation that didn’t make it into the Bible that had more people be created.
For a fascinating book on the subject of Old Testament authorship(specifically, Genesis and the first five books), check Richard Freedman’s WHO WROTE THE BIBLE. It’s easy reading, even if you don’t have much background, and he writes it almost like a detective story, how to track down clues, etc.
This is the scholarly theory, of course, that the Bible was originally an oral tradition of stories that developed over the years, and were finally written down, compiled, and edited – probably over two or three centuries.
Their explanations of seeming contradictions in the text are based on different authors, different time periods, different political backgrounds, etc.
The religious tradition holds that the first five books were dictated to Moses, by God, on Mount Sinai, word for word. They do have explanations of all the seeming contradictions – after all, they have had over 3,000 years of studying the text from that point of view. They can reconcile the contradictions in terms of hidden implications and more profound meanings.
In the two examples you have cited, there is a third approach – simple literary device, a focused story-telling emphasis that made the stories memorable in the days before the printing press.
The first creation story is focused on the world – sun, lights, water, etc. The second creation story is focused on mankind. The two are not ‘different’ but just present the same events from a different focus, a different emphasis.
The wives of Cain and Abel are not important to the story, and so they are omitted. The Bible is usually very sparse, it does not provide lots of descriptive detail. Generations get skipped over with just a brief mention; does that mean “nothing happened”? No, it just means nothing happened that the Biblical Author wanted to draw our attention to. Homer doesn’t mention what song the sirens sang to Ulysses, either. A provocative story-telling doesn’t side track with unnecessary details, and the Biblical Author (whether multiple people or one Divinity) certainly is a provocative story-teller.
If I can butt in for just a second regarding the issue of how long the days were in Genesis:
I’ve read things written by other people about this, and one of the articles (I forget where now, unfortunately) brought up an interesting point. In Hebrew, there are multiple words for “day”. In the original Hebrew of Genesis, the word for day used there means “24-hour period”.
Whereas many of the newer novel "ism"s may have a basis, in part or in whole, in evolution, more of the most malignant and heinous institutions came from beliefs in God(s) or interpretations of Their words. Persecution of witches, The Inquisition, the Crusades, stoning of heretics and drowning of blasphemers, burning alive of those who conspired with the devil…
Science is pure, in the sense, that it was not designed to be a tool of exclusion. Religion was designed to be nothing but a tool of exclusion. One cannot preach love and advocate war without some modicum of righteous blame. Is it the Bible’s fault that people kill each other? Of course not; Humans are violent and greedy – and merely need the excuse for repugnant actions (any excuse will do) which can either benefit them materially or make themselves seem or feel superior.
The fault was not with the theory of Evolution but with sinister motivations and desire. That predates Darwin and his ilk by at least orders of generations.
As per the proof dilemma… It would then seem that either you will accept no proof at all or you are taking a duplicitous stand on validity of evidence.
I have seen nothing to support creationism. Sure, we can point to the Bible, but it’s words on pages. That’s as valid as my High School Text books, and even less admissible as evidence in a court of law as a story by Poe.
If you will accept scientific proof that supports creationism, then the same standards should permit me to introduce mitochondrial DNA lineages and radio-carbon dating.
ren, you are right. I see your point: in different lands, humans could have “evolved” at the same time, traveled, and met up with the opposite sex, no relation; obviously.
even within the same group of proto-humans, mating with close relatives is not necessary.
The basic idea (to recap what you probably already know) is that some random genetic mutation endows its owner with a behaviour or property that gives it an edge in survival, and then this advantage is propagated through reproduction. Now, if the mutation is dominant, I don’t see how it matters WHO you reproduce with (in your own species), the mutation will be inherited. So, anyone from the same species will do.
[deadhorsebeating]
The evolutionary process takes place over long periods of time (at least from a human perspective). At any particular point in time, there aren’t really clear lines between one creature and others that are evolving from it. It takes a long and gradual accumulation of “mutations” or variations in genetic structure before we decide to classify to creatures as different species. And even then the dividing line is arbitrary.
Even if you could travel in time, it would be impossible to go back and locate the “first” homo sapiens (or whatever). You could only go back to a time around which an animal existed that had the characteristic that we associate with homo sapiens and see some of them. There would be other creatures that had some or most of the same characteristics. It would not necessarily be clear, in that time, which ones were going to be the survivors.
Right now there are, among us, some humans who have genetic characteristics that favor their survival, and maybe some day, those genetic markers will be considered the key markers for identifying the next “evolutionary step” in humans. But to us, they’re just other humans, and we can mate with them just fine, they don’t need to be in our immediate families, or our cousins, or even distant relatives.
[/deadhorsebeating]
This thread seems to have wandered far afield of its OP. Does it still belong in this forum?
On the use of the word “day”: It’s POETRY, dammit. It’s not meant as “24 hours” or “1,234,567 years” or anything so specific. Just like when the Bible talks about bringing “exiles from the four corners of the earth”, it doesn’t mean the earth is flat with four corners (if the earth were a cube, it’d have six). Whent the Bible says God split the Sea with a “blast of his nostrils”, it doesn’t mean that God has a semitic nose. When the Bible says God brought Israel out of Egypt with “a mighty hand and outstretched arm,” it doesn’t mean that God has an actually arm (with tatoo of an anchor, that’s for the Anchor Bible.)
The Bible uses poetic expressions. The Bible was written (whether by men or by God) many thousands of years ago, and it was written in the language of the people of that time (which was not King James English.) It uses metaphors, it uses poetry. It does this all over and consistently.
So, if you wanna be a creationist, why can’t you accept that the Biblical poetry of the creation story is NOT a literal reading, and is not a physics or biology text???
I think there’s a misunderstanding here. I took the phrase “relatives” in your post to mean, literally, relatives, as in cousins and brothers and such. If that’s what you meant, then I’ve already said what I had to.
If, on the other hand, you meant other, more distant species (say, a human and a chimp, or whatever farm animal you care to imagine), then you’re right, interbreeding is not likely to be…ummm…fruitful.
I still stand by my posts, but perhaps they were overkill.
As for people being in various stated of “peopleness”, well, every human on the planet is in one stage or another of “peopleness” - there’s a lot of genetic diversity within the species, for cryin’ out loud - and we can “intermate” just fine.
I’ve always thought of the Bible as much like most Hollywood movies. It has grandure, pomp, ceremony, sex, sin, killings, etc. It, like most movies, lacks conceptual continuity.
Some of the good stories are in the old testement parts. Story lines about some Hebrew yahoodie getting up at dawn, getting all decked out in the fighting dudes n’ armor. Going out with his army to smite their enemies by hacking them up, knocking their cities down, etc. And after a long day of battling the “bad folk” head back to the house to drink vino and lay with the wife’s hand maidens.
Dinosaurs and men around at the same time? If there were there wouldn’t be any men (or women) about(for long). They’d all ended up, eventually, a two bite lip smackin’ (assuming dinosaurs had lips) snack for dino. Don’t believe it? Ever notice all the trouble the people in “Jurrasic Park” and “Lost World” were having? But, perhaps thats why the ancient people didn’t wear pants … no time wasted changin’ their shorts.
And the questions that are raised by reading those stories.
Such as:
Cain kills off his lazy brother Able and gets sent over to a place called “Nod” or something. Right away he starts begatting children. Where did the woman/women come from to aid him in this task? Did god whip some up for him?
Later, God tells Noah to build up an ark to pack full of pairs of all the different varmints trudging or flying about the earth. God tells Noah that reason for this is that all the people are bad (except for Noah’s clan) and need being killed off. A bit later in the bible the earth is populated back up again and folks are back to being naughty. Doesn’t seem like God is as all “knowing” as it is claimed, eh? SO this time God makes em’ all talk funny (parable to explain why there are different languages).
Later still, God nukes the twin cities of Sodom and Gommora cause once again folks are being exceptional naughty. Seems like God also might be a tad gullable as well, eh? I have always kinda like the Hollywood version of this story (“Last Days of Sodom and Gommora” starring Stuart Grainger) because of the way their (the Sodomites) government delt with law breakers.
i just read the article david did on creationism vs. evolution, and i’m not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet or not, but he left out a point which is clearly a defining factor in the debates: time. he wrote:
“In summary, it’s nice of creationists to admit that microevolution occurs, but the truth is that there is no magical dividing line between micro- and macroevolution. Biological evidence shows that changes within species are caused by the same natural forces that eventually cause differences between species, genera, families, and all the way up the line.”
the problem is, most (i daresay all) creationists are Biblical literalists, as well. it is widely believed by creationists that the history of time as we know it, from Adam and Eve to the present is 10,000 years or less. therefore, it stands to reason that not enough time has elapsed for humans to have evolved from lower primates, etc., but there has been substantial time for smaller, less consequential changes to have taken effect, what question-writer referred to as micro-evolution. that, david, is one reason why we can accept one and not the other.
But that is using a conclusion to prove a conclusion.
Young earth creationists have already concluded, via unscientific methods, that the world is young. To therefore use this as a reason to reject “macroevolution” is absolutely backwards.
actually, david, i’ve seen several articles/tv shows that concluded the universe to be young also. one in particular said that since the launch of the hubble telescope, they haven’t been able to find evidence farther out in the universe that proves it’s any more than 10,000 years old. also, carbon dating has been disproven more than once, but scientists are stubborn and don’t like to admit they’re wrong, so they continue to persist in their methods.
The ancient priests who wrote Genesis were ignorant of science but they were not stupid. They outlined the creator and how sin enters life, (focussing on yourself instead of listening to your conscience, e.g. being vain), and set up the basic structure of how people get along with each other.
People who deny evolution are expressing vanity because evolution means something better than them can evolve and they are therefore not the point of God’s universe.