Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I've just recently have had a back and forth with a Christian regarding contradictions in the bible, the creation story more specifically. Pointing out the two conflicting accounts of creation to them, their rebuttal was that by using a more correct translation of the original text it nullifies this contradiction. So, I guess my question is, even if having a better translation fixes the conflicting creation accounts in Genesis, would using a better translated text of the original really make that much of a difference than using the King James?

In the fact that some stories of the Bible blatantly contradict each other by telling the same events in different ways? No.

The other-language translations do sometimes insert some problems, the occasional odd translation pick, but not *that* much, not enough to change that there's flat two different versions of Genesis that aren't the same in terms of events in any language.

I should probably review, but, if memory serves, the two accounts are different because they are describing different events, NOT the same events, as Q asserts, and the language used supports this.

What are those 2 events?

Event 1: The creation of the world entire.

Event 2: The planting and making of the Garden of Eden specifically.

Note that the Garden of Edem is much smaller than the entire world.

Note that Adam and Eve were later banished from the Garden of Eden --
but not banished from the world entirely.

Kent Hovind actually covered this point quite well in one of his talks years ago.


Click and view the following from the 3 minute 20 second mark until the 6 min 30 second mark.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-CY-jX9juoQ

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
I've just recently have had a back and forth with a Christian regarding contradictions in the bible, the creation story more specifically. Pointing out the two conflicting accounts of creation to them, their rebuttal was that by using a more correct translation of the original text it nullifies this contradiction. So, I guess my question is, even if having a better translation fixes the conflicting creation accounts in Genesis, would using a better translated text of the original really make that much of a difference than using the King James?

Better question, if the Bible came from the word of God directly, why would it need to be changed in any shape or form? Wouldn't God know best?

The Bible also went through the Roman censor back in the day, so there's that.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I should probably review, but, if memory serves, the two accounts are different because they are describing different events, NOT the same events, as Q asserts, and the language used supports this.


There's plenty more than that.

Like, whether humans were created first before animals and plants (genesis 2, where animals were brought to Adam immediately upon creation, and noting specifically that man was alone before bringing them from the ground, and this was also before Eve), or last (genesis 1, where they were made before Adam and Eve - who are also kinda implied to be made at the same time but that is more ambiguous - and the first thing he says to them includes mentioning the animals in the sea, air, and land). It's very hard to have animals created both before and after.

But for more basic and more clear contradiction that's not an order of operations thing, let's take the flood. How many animals Noah carried varies. 2 of each kind of all living things, or 7 pairs of each clean kind and 2 of each unclean. Numbers is not something we're confused on translation wise.

Originally posted by Q99
There's plenty more than that.

Like, whether humans were created first before animals and plants (genesis 2, where animals were brought to Adam immediately upon creation, and noting specifically that man was alone before bringing them from the ground, and this was also before Eve), or last (genesis 1, where they were made before Adam and Eve - who are also kinda implied to be made at the same time but that is more ambiguous - and the first thing he says to them includes mentioning the animals in the sea, air, and land). It's very hard to have animals created both before and after.

Quoting the simple table presented in Hovind's video above, which is based on the Genesis text ...


The sequence of events is:

Day 3. God made the plants.
Day 5. God made the birds out of the water.

Day 6. God made the animals, then man,
THEN he made the Garden of Eden and put man in it,
trees good for food in the garden,
one MORE of each animal out of the ground for Adam to name them.

And select a wife, Eve.



Adam saw God create.

Eve did not.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Quoting the simple table presented in Hovind's video above, which is based on the Genesis text ...


The sequence of events is:

Day 3. God made the plants.
Day 5. God made the birds out of the water.

Day 6. God made the animals, then man,
THEN he made the Garden of Eden and put man in it,
trees good for food in the garden,
one MORE of each animal out of the ground for Adam to name them.

And select a wife, Eve.



Adam saw God create.

Eve did not.

The problem is the events described in Chapter 2 are not all specified as taking place within the garden. This just sounds like Hovind is imposing his own interpretation of the verses.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Quoting the simple table presented in Hovind's video above, which is based on the Genesis text ...


The sequence of events is:

Day 3. God made the plants.
Day 5. God made the birds out of the water.

Day 6. God made the animals, then man,
THEN he made the Garden of Eden and put man in it,
trees good for food in the garden,
one MORE of each animal out of the ground for Adam to name them.

And select a wife, Eve.



Adam saw God create.

Eve did not.

Select a wife, Eve... who specifically was made out of his side...? After women already existed, having been made before animals?

Also, he did not form one more of each animal, the word used is translated as 'every'. Every beast of the field (or every wild beast in some versions) and bird of the air. This is pretty consistent across about a dozen different versions, that I checked.



That's not so much re-ordering things as re-writing things.

Basically, yes, you can re-write things that contradict, and people do, but there are lines that very clearly do say different versions of the same thing.

Originally posted by Q99
Select a wife, Eve... who specifically was made out of his side...?


I have little problem with Hovind asserting that.

Eve was made from Adam's side AFTER everything else mentioned according to the text.

From the Authorized King James Version of the Bible on BibleGateway.com:



Genesis 2:18-24

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2

Originally posted by Q99
This is pretty consistent across about a dozen different versions, that I checked.


Basically ... you can re-write things that contradict, and people do ...


You counter your own argument. Are those dozen DIFFERENT versions that you checked the King James Version of the Bible that the original poster of this thread is basing half his title question on? Or are those dozen DIFFERENT versions the Original Hebrew Text he's basing the other half of the title question on?

Or are they, most likely ... neither?



As I'm sure you're aware, it is the contention of serious Christians that people HAVE written inaccurate versions of the Bible.


That is precisely WHY the King James Version of the Bible is generally insisted on, barring the so-called "new" King James Version of the Bible, as the most accurate and authoritative.