Category Archives: Contradictions

Genesis 1 and 2 recapitulation

Genesis 1 and 2 recapitulation

Are there differences in the inspired narratives of Genesis 1 and 2? Of course there are. But differences do not necessarily imply contradictions, much less multiple authorships. The real question is this: Is there a purpose to those variations? Indeed there is. Furthermore, there are a number of factors which militate against the notion that Genesis 1 and 2 are independent and contradictory accounts of the creation. Think about these points.

(1) There is method in the emphases of these two sections of scripture. In Genesis 1 there is a broad outline of the events of the creation week, which reaches its climax with the origin of mankind ” in the very image of God. In Genesis 2 there is a special emphasis upon man, the divine preparation of his home, the formation of a suitable mate, etc.

This type of procedure was not unknown in the literary methodology of antiquity. Gleason Archer observes that the

“technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance” (1964, p. 118).

(2) These respective sections have a different literary motif. Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment. (This procedure is not unknown in biblical literature. Matthew’s account of the ministry of Christ is more topical, while Mark’s record is more chronological.)

Professor Edward J. Young has a good statement of this matter:

“There are different emphases in the two chapters . . . but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1” (p. 53).

(3) There is clear evidence that Genesis 2 was never an independent creation account. There are simply too many crucial elements missing for that to have been the case. For instance, there is no mention in Genesis 2 of the creation of the earth, and there is no reference to the oceans or fish. There is no allusion to the sun, moon, and stars, etc.

Archer points out that there is not an origins record in the entire literature collection of the ancient Near East that omits discussing the creation of the sun, moon, seas, etc. (Archer, 1982, p. 69). Obviously, Genesis 2 is a sequel to chapter 1. The latter presupposes the former and is built upon it.

Even Johnston, who is sympathetic to the Documentary Hypothesis (at least in part), is forced to concede:

“The initial chapter [Genesis 1] gives a general account of the creation. The second chapter is generally declared by critics to be a second account of the creation, but, considered in the light of the general plan, that is not an accurate statement. Evidently the purpose of this chapter is to show that out of all the creation we have especially to do with man. Therefore only so much of the general account is repeated as is involved in a more detailed statement concerning the creation of man. There is a marked difference of style in the two accounts, but the record is consistent with the plan to narrow down the story to man” (p. 90).

The following summary statement by Kenneth Kitchen is worthy of notice:

“It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly complementary nature of the ‘two’ accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism” (pp. 116-117).

Conclusion
When the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 have been carefully considered, one thing is clear. An objective evaluation reveals no discrepancies, nor is a dual authorship to be inferred. Devout students of the Bible should not be disturbed by the fanciful, ever-changing theories of the liberal critics. It is wise to remember that the Word of God was not written for the benefit of “scholars,” but for the common person. The Scriptures assume that the average person is able to understand the message and to know that the source is divine

Genesis 1 and 2

Genesis 1 and 2

One major controversy concerning a biblical narrative and its valid or invalid explanation of nature is the dispute over the creation accounts put forth in the first and second chapters of Genesis. There has been much debate as to whether these two chapters are contradictory or complementary. Some of those with the former view insist that, due to the seeming differences, more than one author is involved, neither of which was aware of what the other wrote.

Traditionally, though, Moses has been taken to be the writer of both accounts. If so, why do there appear to be differences between the chronologies of chapters one and two? Upon superficial reading, the following seems to be the order of events of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, with direct comparison easily seen:

Comparison of Genesis 1 & Genesis 2
Genesis 1: Order of Events Genesis 2: Order of Events
1) heavens and earth created 1) heavens and earth created
2) light shines on earth 2) plant life appears
3) light divided from darkness 3) man (male only) created
4) firmament divided 4) animal life created
5) land separated from water 5) woman made from man’s side
6) plant life appears
7) sun, moon, and stars appear
8) animal life created
9) man (male and female) created

There do appear to be differences in the two accounts. The main difference is that, in the Genesis 1 account, animal life came into existence (1:20-25) before mankind (both male and female) did (1:26,27); whereas, in the Genesis 2 account, it looks as though man was created (2:7) before the animals (2:19a), and after that woman was formed (2:22a). Why the discrepancy? Actually, there is none.

The first chapter of Genesis, a chronolog (an account of events in chronological order), is a general overview of the creative activity of God. It is a sequential sketch, an outline. Other things (for example, dinosaurs) came into being at this time. But if everything that God made during His creative process had been written down, it no doubt would have taken many volumes to contain it.

On the other hand, the second chapter of Genesis focuses primarily on God’s final (and greatest) creation, mankind, and on mankind’s interaction with God’s other creations. In Genesis 2:19a, the verb “formed” (or “had formed” in the NIV) is the pluperfect tense of the verb, implying that what follows (that is, “all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air”) had already been formed at some point in the past.

Because Genesis 2 is consistent with and complementary to Genesis 1, we know that the animals were made before Adam was created. Then the animals were brought to Adam to be named (Genesis 2:19bc). However, no suitable helper for Adam could be found among the animals (2:20b); so God placed Adam in a deep sleep, removed one of his ribs (or a part of his side), formed Eve, and brought her to him”and Adam named her “woman” (2:21-23).

Whether one believes in a creative period of six literal 24-hour days or in six “age-days” should make no difference in perceiving Genesis 2 as being an account consistent with Genesis 1. Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, who believe that God created in six 24-hour days, sum up well their view of the consistency between the two chapters:

The material dealing with the creation in the first two chapters of Genesis should be treated as a unit for a correct understanding of the creation and its theological teachings. The second account is complementary to the first, dealing more fully with the creation of our first ancestors, while the initial account gives a description of the world which was being fashioned for Adam and Eve to occupy.

A much more detailed explanation is given in a chapter entitled, “Don’t Genesis one and two contain two contradictory accounts of creation?” in McDowell and Stewart’s book, Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask about the Christian Faith. Similarly, Hugh Ross, who opts for the six “age-days” (billions of years) of creation, states this:

Without question, the description of creation in Genesis 1 is markedly different from that in Genesis 2. However, an examination of the point of view in each passage clarifies why. Genesis 1 focuses on the physical events of creation; Genesis 2, on the spiritual events. More specifically, Genesis 1 describes those miracles God performed to prepare the earth for mankind. Genesis 2 presents God’s assignment of authority and responsibility.

Careful attention to verb tenses and to the purpose of each account eliminates any supposed contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Plants, rain, man, animals, and woman are subjects of discussion in Genesis 2, but creation chronology is not the issue. The man (Adam) simply interacts first with the plants, then with the animals, and last of all, with the woman (Eve). His role with respect to each is delineated.

Misunderstanding of the creation chronicle (Genesis 1) and development (Genesis 2) has prevented many from taking seriously the rest of what the Bible has to say. By accepting the explanations put forth above as plausible, hopefully many skeptics will be able to open their minds to consider additional Bible messages and revelations as cogent and believable.

Genesis contradictions

Genesis contradictions

Genesis was written like many historical accounts with an overview or summary of events leading up to the events of most interest first, followed by a detailed account which often recaps relevant events in the overview in greater detail. Genesis 1, the ‘big picture’ is clearly concerned with the sequence of events. The events are in chronological sequence, with day 1, day 2, evening and morning, etc. The order of events is not the major concern of Genesis 2. In recapping events they are not necessarily mentioned in chronological order, but in the order which makes most sense to the focus of the account. For example, the animals are mentioned in verse 19, after Adam was created, because it was after Adam was created that he was shown the animals, not that they were created after Adam.

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not therefore separate contradictory accounts of creation. Chapter 1 is the ‘big picture’ and Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of creation.

The final word on this matter, however, should really be given to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In Matthew chapter 19, verses 4 and 5, the Lord is addressing the subject of marriage, and says: “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”

Notice how in the very same statement, Jesus refers to both Genesis 1 (verse 27b: ‘male and female he created them’) and Genesis 2 (verse 24: ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.’). Obviously, by combining both in this way, He in no way regarded them as separate, contradictory accounts.

Contradictions

God Will By No Means Leave The Guilty Unpunished: The Apparent Contradiction Of Exodus 34:7

1). INTRODUCTION

The issue this post seeks to clarify is simply this:

What does it mean when God says He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished? (KJV “by no means clear the guilty”)

In considering the encouraging topic of God’s forgiveness, we read one verse that is both important and puzzling (caps for emphasis):

“[5] The Lord came down in a cloud, stood with him there, and proclaimed His name Yahweh. [6] Then the Lord passed in front of him and proclaimed: Yahweh — Yahweh is a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in faithful love and truth, [7] maintaining faithful love to a thousand generations, forgiving wrongdoing, rebellion, and sin. But HE WILL NOT LEAVE THE GUILTY UNPUNISHED, bringing the consequences of the fathers’ wrongdoing on the children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:5‭-‬7 HCSB)

For the record in passing, note the LORD (in the HCSB given His correct name Yahweh), is NOT Allah and there is no linguistic contortion any Muslim can make that equates them, but that is not our focus here.

2). FORGIVENESS OR CONDEMNATION?

On the one hand, God emphasizes that it is His nature to forgive. And then He immediately follows that by saying He “will by no means leave the guilty unpunished.” Hmmm…which is it? Does God forgive, or does he refuse to clear the guilty?

A puzzling verse of apparent contradiction can sometimes best be explained with a paraphrase. God is saying: ‘I forgive the iniquity and transgression and sin of those who come to me in faith and repentance. But, toward those who refuse to repent and continue stubbornly in their sin, I will be perfectly just and will by no means clear them of guilt. In fact my justice is so thorough that I will visit the iniquity of stubborn, unrepentant sinners not only on them but also on their descendants who walk in the ways of their sinful fathers and likewise stubbornly disobey me.’

How can this interpretation be reached?

3). SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE

After the rule “Scripture must harmonise”, there is another golden rule of hermeneutics “Scripture interprets Scripture” which Muslims also ignore at their peril. A further rule, ‘context is king’ in other words ‘a verse without a context is a pretext’ is also ignored by the Muslim fraternity. All three rules once followed, allow for correct interpretation of Scripture and understanding that God is indeed not a god of confusion (such as plagues the Quran).

The Bible is its own interpreter. We don’t need any other sources to glean its truth. We don’t need a degree in Hebrew or special historical knowledge. We don’t need to know about other faiths, and we sure don’t need the Quran. We only need the Holy Spirit to convict us.

People of every race culture and creed can understand Biblical truth. We don’t need any special knowledge to understand sin, grace, forgiveness, and salvation. These are universal concepts. As the subject of this post is exemplary proof.

The best commentary on any one verse is the rest of the Scriptures. The Bible is unified truth that is ultimately from one author—God himself—and He does not contradict Himself. His revelation of His will unfolds and develops over time as a sequential narrative, and within the context of that story He does not contradict Himself (that is to say, God dealt differently with people at different points in the story of redemption).

We interpret a verse within the context of its biblical book, such is the case here in Exodus; then within the wider context of all that the human author of the book has written in the Bible, such as in this case all the writings of Moses; then within the context of the Old or New Testament story of redemption, such as in this case the Old Testament; then within the context of the entire Bible, with the New Testament being God’s final revelation of His will and ways.

4). THE TWO GROUPS: THE FORGIVEN AND THE GUILTY

So, what does the rest of the Bible teach about forgiveness? Verse 7 itself unmistakably teaches that God forgives sinners and emphasizes that by saying He forgives “iniquity and transgression and sin.” That is, He forgives everything that needs forgiving!

And God repeatedly promises forgiveness of sins under the Old Covenant to those who fulfill its obligations by confessing their sins and offering blood sacrifices at the tabernacle/temple, as taught by Moses in the Book of Leviticus. David writes in Psalm 103:2–3, “Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, who forgives all your iniquity.”

But forgiveness in the Old Testament is provisional, contingent and incomplete.

Muslims and other sceptics often argue: “Well, didn’t He forgive the Israelites before the cross?” The answer is: Yes, but only superficially and contingently.

The New Testament consistently teaches that OT forgiveness was not the same as the forgiveness that came through the Cross:

“For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” (Hebrews 10:1-4)

Instead of the eradication of sin, the Old Testament forgiveness merely covered over sin:

“[Jesus] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.” (Romans 3:25)

Because Israel’s sins were merely “passed over,” Jesus’ atonement had to work retroactively to cleanse the sins of the OT saints:

“For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.” (Hebrews 9:13-15)

It is only through Christ that our sins are cleansed and purified so that we can confidently enter into the presence of God (Hebrews 10:19-22). Instead, OT forgiveness was only a matter of God passing over sins, not purifying them:

“Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” (Psalm 32:1;)

“Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance?” (Micah 7:18)

The OT saints would only experience a “passing over transgression,” but they were also promised a New Covenant through which God would “remember their sins no more” (Jeremiah 31:34).

Because their sins hadn’t been eradicated, even the deceased OT saints could not come into the presence of a God whose righteousness had not yet been satisfied by the Cross:

“And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.” (Hebrews 11:39-40)

Consequently, after Jesus proclaimed that “It is finished” and the veil of the Temple was torn in two, symbolizing the fact that the way into presence of God was now opened, there was a great earthquake to reinforce this lesson:

“And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” (Matthew 27:51-53)

The New Testament promises forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ. At the Last Supper, Jesus offered the cup to the disciples and said, “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28).

From beginning to end in the Bible, God forgives the sins of those who confess and repent and put their faith in the shed blood offered in sacrifice, the blood of animals prior to the revelation of Jesus, and then the blood of Jesus after his sacrifice on the cross. It is no coincidence that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD brought the curtain down on temple sacrifices.

So, when Exodus 34:7 says, “He will by no means clear the guilty,” it cannot possibly mean that He forgives sinners but doesn’t “clear” them. Rather, it must mean that “the guilty” are a different group of people who have not been forgiven of “iniquity and transgression and sin.” They are “guilty” because they have not done what is necessary to be forgiven.

5). NOT LEAVING THE GUILTY UNPUNISHED/NOT CLEARING THE GUILTY

This interpretation agrees with how the word/phrase “clear the guilty” (these three words translate the one Hebrew word ‘naqah’) is used in another Old Testament passage. Nahum 1:3 says:

“The Lord is slow to anger but great in power; the Lord will never leave the guilty unpunished. His path is in the whirlwind and storm, and clouds are the dust beneath His feet.” (Nahum 1:3 HCSB)

The Book of Nahum is a prophecy against the Assyrian capital of Nineveh. God had used the wicked nation of Assyria to punish His people Judah for their long-term disobedience. Assyria had conquered Judah and taken its people into exile. But soon God would deal with idolatrous Assyria differently from those in Judah who remained faithful to Him. God would forgive those in Judah who returned to Him in repentance, but He would by no means clear the guilty nation of Assyria, for they followed idols and cruelly oppressed other nations.

This contrast between how God would deal with Judah versus how He would deal with Assyria illustrates the meaning of Exodus 34:7—“forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means leave the guilty unpunished/clear the guilty.”

6). OUR WAY AND GOD’S WAY

■ Our way (eg Islam): Fallen people presume that God will overlook their sins, that He can be appeased by an unholy combination of good deeds and shedding blood for His cause and they will escape judgment. They do not think God will really condemn people for even one sin. Or they give the shrug of fatalism “Allah knows best.” This is the casual way of Islam, where sins are mere mistakes which can be outweighed by good deeds and even magically transformed into good deeds! (Surah 25:68-71) Allah just shows mercy and forgives at his whim, but always without retribution and at the expense of justice.

Since there is no atonement and no vicarious sacrifice as the basis for forgiveness in Islam, the Muslim will try to find an alternative basis for Allah to show mercy. They claim he can just “blot out” sins as if they never existed, ignoring the fact that there is a tension between mercy and justice. Showing mercy at the expense of retributive justice is not the hallmark of a perfectly just God. As William Lane Craig argues: “A Judge in a criminal case “has an obligation to do justice—which means, at a minimum, an obligation to uphold the rule of law. Thus if he is moved, even by love or compassion, to act contrary to the rule of law—to the rules of justice—he acts wrongly.” That Islam’s god is morally deficient is alone enough to destroy Islam as a way to reach God.

■ God’s way (ie the Cross of Christ): God is perfectly just. He punishes all sin. He cannot overlook sins, still less just brush small sins under the rug as Allah claims to. We have the binary choice of whether our sins are punished by the death of Jesus on the Cross or by our eternal condemnation. Those who do not have their guilt removed through the blood of Jesus Christ will not be cleared by God of condemnation.

7). CONCLUSIONS

From the Old through the New Testament, God requires justice and accountability. Blood atonement has ALWAYS been the means for forgiveness. And whereas Old Testament sacrifices enabled the passing over of sins, the superior once and for all perfect sacrifice of Jesus is the only way to be permanently CLEANSED from sin and have Christ’s righteousness imputed to us.

Hebrews chapter 9 bears repeating; it sums it up perfectly:

“For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.” (Hebrews 9:13-15)

An infinitely just and holy God cannot allow unjust and unholy people like you and me to go unpunished, still less into His presence. His plan of redemption from eternity, was simple: He punished Himself in our place. He’s the ransom. He has to judge sinners, just like a judge in a courtroom. He has to punish people that have broken the law. That is a fundamental paradigm which everyone should be able to understand, but which Islam completely ignores. Atonement in Islam is non existent and there is nothing offered in its place. Muslims have no protection from God’s wrath. Good deeds can never save you. Fasting, pilgrimages, 5x a day prayer-times observed cannot save you. They are all useless. Only the blood of Jesus saves. It’s all about what He did in love for us, it has nothing to do with our efforts.

Life principle: God will be perfectly just with you and your sins. He will either condemn you for your sins or punish Jesus for your sins. Your choice. Repent and follow Jesus and receive forgiveness; or reject Christ, die in your sins, and stand at the Judgment seat of Christ someday to give account for every wrong you have ever committed.

Bottom line: Muslims you need to act now before its too late. Thank me later.

Make No Mistake: #HisWrathFallsOnTheUnsaved #JesusBloodAtones