GENESIS TWO BEGINNING.....Albert Barnes' Bible Commentary

ALBERT  BARNES'  BIBLE  COMMENTARY....another  view  of  Genesis  two  with  chapter  one.

 THE GARDEN. — Gen. ii. 8-14.

And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden to the east; and put there the man whom he had formed.

And the Lord God made to grow out of the soil every tree likely for sight and good for food; and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 10. And a river was going out of Eden to water the garden: and thence it was parted and became four heads. 11. The name of the one was Pishon; it is that compassing the whole land of Havilah, in which was gold. 12. And the gold of that land was good; there were the bdellium and the onyx stone. 13. And the name of the second river was Gihon; it is that compassing the whole land of Kush. 14. And the name of the third river was Hiddekel: it is that going east of Asshnr.   And the fourth river was Perath.

This paragraph describes the planting of the garden of Eden, and determines its situation. It goes back, therefore, as we conceive, to the third day, and runs parallel with the preceding passage.

8. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden to the east. It is evident that the order of thought is here observed. For the formation of man with special allusion to his animal nature immediately suggests the means by which his physical wants are to be supplied.  The order of time is an open question so far as the mere conjunction of the sentences is concerned. It can only be determined by other considerations.

Here, then, the writer either relates a new creation of trees for the occasion, or reverts to the occurrences of the third day. But though in the previous verses he declares the field to be without timber, yet in the account of the third day the creation of trees is recorded. Now, it is unnecessary, and therefore unreasonable, to assume two creations of trees at so short an interval of time. (COULD  BE  A  VALID  ARGUMENT BUT  CERTAINLY  NOT  GUARANTEED -  GOD  CAN  DO  WHAT  HE  WANTS  WHEN  HE  WANTS,  TIME  MEANS  NOTHING  TO  HIM;  HE  IS  NOT  BOUND  BY  TIME - Keith Hunt). In the former paragraph the author advanced to the sixth day, in order to lay before his readers without any interruption the means by which the two conditions of vegetative progress were satisfied. This brings man into view, and his appearance gives occasion to speak of the means by which his wants were supplied.

For this purpose the author drops the thread of events following the creation of man, and reverts to the third day.

He describes more particularly what was then done. A centre-of vegetation was chosen for the trees, from which they were to be propagated by seed over the land. This central spot is called a garden or park. It is situated in a region which is distinguished by its name as a land of delight. It is said, as we understand, to be in the eastern quarter of Eden. For the word 'on the east' is most simply explained by referring to some point indicated in the text. There are two points to which it may here refer, — the place where the man was created, and the country in which the garden was placed. But the man was not created at this time, and, moreover, the place of his creation is not indicated; and hence we must refer to the country in which the garden was placed.

And put there the man whom he had formed. The writer has still the formation of man in thought, and therefore proceeds to state that he was thereupon placed in the garden which had been prepared for his reception, before going on to give a description of the garden. This verse, therefore, forms a transition from the field and its cultivator to the garden and its inhabitants.....

.......

EMPHASIS IS  MINE [Keith  Hunt]

SO  DO  YOU  SEE  HOW  BARNES  UNDERSTANDS  THIS  SECTION.  CHRONOLOGY  THAT  GOES  BACK  AND  FORTH.  HENCE  TO  READ  IT  AS  BARNES  DOES  WOULD  BE:  Verse 8 "And  the  Lord  God  [HAD]  planted [already on the 3rd day] a garden in Eden to the east."

As  Barnes  says  the  writer  EITHER  relates  a  new  creation [a  garden  created  when  man  was  created  on  the  6th  day]  OR  reverts  back  to  the  third  day  -  THE  GARDEN  CREATED  ON  THE  3RD DAY  READY  FOR  THE  MAN  TO  BE  PUT  IN  IT  ON  THE  6TH  DAY WHEN  MAN  AND  WOMAN  WERE  CREATED  AND  TOLD  TO  CARE  FOR  IT.  

THIS  LATTER  IS  THE  WAY  BARNES  WANTS  TO  UNDERSTAND  IT,  A  CHRONOLOGY  THAT  MOVES  BACK  AND  FORTH.  BUT  STILL  NO  CONTRADICTION  WITH  CHAPTER  ONE.

....................

JEHOVAH supposed CONTRADICTION with ABRAHAM

THE  SO-CALLED  CONTRADICTION  ABOUT  ABRAHAM  NOT  KNOWING  JEHOVAH....BUT......

This  argument  is  by  no  means  new  at  all.  It  was  around  in  the  days  when  Adam  Clarke  wrote  his  Bible  Commentary  a  few  hundred  years back.  Here  is  what  he  has  to  say  on  this  argument  that agnostics  and  atheists  try  to  use  to  debunk  the  Bible.

But by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.  This passage has been a sort of crux criticorum, and has been variously explained. It is certain that the name Jehovah was in use long before the days of Abraham, see Gen. ii. 4, where the words Jehovah Elohim occur,  as they do frequently afterwards; and see Gen. xv. 2, where Abraham expressly addresses him by the name Adonai Jehovah; and see the 7th verse, where God reveals himself to Abraham by this very name: "And he said unto him, I am Jehovah, that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees." 

How then can it be said that by his name Jehovah he was not "known unto them"?    

Several answers have been given to this question;  the following are the chief: —

1. The words should be read interrogatively, for the negative particle, not, has this power often in Hebrew.  "I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by the name of God Almighty, and by my name Jehovah was I not also made known unto  them?"  

2. The name Jehovah was not revealed before the time mentioned here, for though it occurs so frequently in the book of Genesis, as that book was written long after the name had come into common use, as a principal characteristic of God, Moses employs it in his history because of this circumstance; so that whenever it appears previously to this, it is by the figure called prolepsis or anticipation.     

3.  As   the  name  Jehovah signifies existence, it may be understood in the text in question thus:  "I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac,  and Jacob by my name God Almighty,  or God ALL-sufficient, i. e., having all power to do all good; in this character I made a covenant with them, supported by great and glorious promises;  but as those promises had respect unto their posterity, they could not be fulfilled to those fathers: but now, as Jehovah, I am about to give existence   to all those promises relative to your support, deliverance from bondage, and your consequent, settlement in the promised land."    

4. The words may be considered as used comparatively: though God did appear to those patriarchs as Jehovah, and they acknowledged him by this name, yet it "was but comparatively known unto them; they knew nothing of the power and goodness of God, in comparison of what the Israelites were now about to experience.

I believe the simple meaning is this, that though from the beginning the name Jehovah was known as one of the names of the Supreme Being, yet what it really implied they did not know. El-Shaddai, God All-sufficient, they knew well by the continual provision he made for them, and the constant protection he afforded them: but the name Jehovah, is particularly to be referred to the accomplishment of promises already made; to the giving them a being, and thus bringing them into existence, which could not have been done in the order of his providence sooner than here specified: this name therefore in its power and significancy was not known unto them; not fully known unto their descendants till the deliverance from Egypt and the settlement in the promised land. It is surely possible for a man to bear the name of a certain office or dignit, before he fulfils any of its functions. King, mayor, alderman, magistrate, constable, may be borne by the several persons to whom it legally belongs, before any of the acts peculiar to those offices are performed. The king, atacknowledged as such on his coronation, is know to be such by his legislative acts; the civil magistrate, by his distribution of justice, an issuing warrants for the apprehending of culprits; and the constable, by executing those warrants. All these were known to have their respective names, but the exercise of the powers alone shows what is implied in being king, magistrate, and constable. 

The following is a case in point, which fell within my own knowledge.

A case of dispute between certain litigious neighbours being heard in court before a weekly sitting of the magistrates, a woman who came, as an evidence in behalf of her bad neighbour, finding the magistrates inclining to give judgment against her mischievous companion took her by the arm and said, "Come away. I told you, you would get neither law nor justice in this place." A magistrate, who was as much an honour to his function as he was to human nature, immediately said, "Here, constable take that woman and lodge her in Bridewell that she may know there is some law and justice in this place."

Thus the worthy magistrate proved he hid the power implied in the name by executing the duties of his office. And God who was known as Jehovah, the being who makes and gives effect to promises, was known to the descendants of the twelve tribes to be THAT JEHOVAH, by giving effect and by being to the promises which he had made to their fathers.

....................

SO  WE  SEE  PEOPLE,  MINISTERS  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  RELIGION,  HAD  ANSWERS  TO  THE  SUPPOSED  BIBLE  CONTRADICTION  MANY  AGNOSTICS  AND  ATHEISTS  LIKED  TO  THROW  UP TO  DISCREDIT  THE  BIBLE  -  Keith Hunt

GENESIS ONE AND TWO -- A CONTRADICTION ???

GENESIS  1  AND  2  -  CONTRADICTIONS??

When I first read Genesis chapters one and two at age 7, in the Church of England school my parents sent me to, I never thought of them as being contradictory with each other. I did not know the full detail truth of Genesis one as I came to find out later when 19 and 20. But one thing I knew was that Genesis one is chronological; it was very clear to me at even 7 years old that it is a 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 chronological events. It is a 7 day week being spoken about. That I had no doubt at all.

I had no problem with Genesis chapter two either at a young age.

Through the decades after I was 20, now and again I would hear that Genesis 1 and 2 were contradictory to each other. I never took the time to try and figure out why some people said such an idea, not until recently.

Now, using some logic, if a person was writing one chapter after another, and wanting people to believe this was inspired and coming from the God of the universe, it would be crazy and ill-logical for someone to give a contradiction  in shall we say the same breath. It does not make logic sense to claim you are writing from God, inspired, and give right off the bat, a contradiction within the same section, right after each other. That would not give anyone confidence you were writing from a God who was above error and contradictions.

Now even as a kid I somehow knew [I truly believe it was the Spirit of God telling me] that some things in the Bible are chronological and some things, even related to the general same subject are not  chronological.

This is the exact case with Genesis chapters one and two.

Another pretty  simple  rule  to  read  the  Bible  correctly,  is  to  read  and  believe  the  simple  verses  first; then  in  their  light  tackle  the  harder  verses  of  the  same  subject.  Again  even  as  a  kid  I  could  see  the  straight  forward  simple  to  understand  verses  should  be  read  and  believed  first  on  any  subject  of  the  Bible.

So  with  all  that  in  mind,  read  what  happened  in  the  chronological  1  to  6  days  of  Genesis  one.

Coming  to  the  fifth  day  we  have  all  that  is  in  the  sea  created,  and  all  that  fly  in  the  air.  Kinda  very  logical.  Many  of  the  flying  birds  eat  things  in  the  sea;  you  know,  you've  seen the  birds  that  come  like  a  dive-bomber  down  from  the  air  into  the  sea  to  catch  fish,  some  can  dive  down  to  50  feet  or  more  to  catch  fish.

On the sixth  day  the  beasts  of  the  earth  are  created;  AND  verse  26  to  28  man  and  women  are  created.  All  this  on  the  sixth  day. Then  into  chapter  two,  the  7th  day  is  sanctified  and  God  rests  from  the  work  He   has  just  done.  So  we  have  the  7  days  of  the  week,  in  chronological  order  and  what  was  done  on  each  of  them.  Pretty  simple  I  would  say,  sure  was  to  me  as  a  kid  of  7  years  old.

Now  we  go  into  chapter  two.

This  is  where  things  get  "un-chronological"  in  a  sense,  but  this  is  written  mainly  to  AMPLIFY  the  6TH  DAY;  God  telling  us  what  else  He  did  with  this  man  and  woman  He  had  created  on  the 6th  day  of  the  week.

I  will  quote  from  the  Farrar  Fenton  translation:  verse 7,  "The ever-living God afterwards [after creating the beasts of the earth - on  the  6th  day  -  Keith Hunt]  formed  man  from  the  dust  of the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  life  of  animals....The ever-living  God  THEN  planted  a  garden  in  Eden  -  in  the  East  -  and  there  He  placed  the  man  whom  He  had formed."

Just  reading  this  as Fenton  gives  the  Hebrew,  simply  means  on  the  6th  day, after  creating  man,  God  makes  a  garden  to  just  appear....bingo....just  with  the  word  of  His  mouth,  there  is  a  garden  in  a  place  called  Eden.  What's  so  hard  for  God  to  do  that?  The  Bible  states,  "Is  there  anything  too  hard  for  God?"  The  answer  is  well...NO!  So  a  garden  is  created  by the  command  of  the  ever-living  God.  Just  that  simple.

Verse  9.  "Out  of  the  ground  the  ever-living  God  caused  to  grow  all  the  trees  that  were  beautiful  and  good  for  food,  as  well  as  the  tree  of  Lives  in  the  center  of  the  garden;  and  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil."

It  was  an  orchard  God  created,  and  the  sense  is,  as  we  read  the  translation  from  Fenton,  it  was  on  the  6th  day,  same  day  as  God  made  man,  and  the  garden,  that  God  made  an  orchard  in  the  garden,  as  well  as  the  tree  of  life  and  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  All  then,  in  context,  on  the  6th  day.  What's  so  hard  for  God  to  do  that?  Not  hard  at all,  He  just  speaks  and  it  is  done....bingo  not  there  one  second  and  there  the  next  second.

Verses  11 - 14;  the  ever-living  God  makes  a  spring  in  the  garden  to  supply  the  garden  with  water.  It  was  divided  into  four  sources,  and  names  are  given  to  them.  Wow,  no  big  deal  for  God;  on  the  6th  day  He  speaks  and  it  is  done....one  second  not  and  the  next  it  is.  Just  that  simple  for  Him.

Verse  15-17.  "The  ever-living  God  took  the  man  and  placed  him  in  the  garden  of  Eden  for  the  purpose  of  cultivating  and  taking  care  of  it."  Sense  is  the  man  was  not  in  the garden,  but  God  took  him  to  the  garden,  put  him  in  it  to  look  after  it.  Then  God  gives  some  instruction  to  him  about  the  tree  of  life  and  the  other  "not  so  good"  tree;  guess not  for if  he  eats  of  it  he  shall  die.

Verse  18-20  "The  ever-living  God  also  said,  'It  is  not  good  for  man  to  be  in  solitude;  I  will  make  a  comforter  to  be  with  him.'  There  the  ever-living  God,  who  HAD  FORMED  out  of the  ground  every  animal  of  the  field  as  well  as  every  bird  of  the  skies,  took  them  to  the  man  to  see  what  he  would  call  them.  And  whatever  the  man  with  the  living  soul  called them,  that  was  their  name.  So  the  man  gave  names  to  all  the  quadrupeds,  and  all  the  birds  of  the  skies,  and  to  all  the  wild  animals;  but  it  was  no  comfort  for  the  man  to  be  with them."

THIS  WAS  STILL  ON  THE  6TH  DAY!!

The  birds  and  animals  [note  some  "wild"  ones  also....wild  animals  were  wild  from  their  creation]  which  already  God  had  made  on  the  5th  day  and  on  the  6th  day,  before  man  was made,  came  to  man  to  be  named.  But  they  did  not  console  man,  did  not  fit  with  man  to  really  be  his  comfort.

Verses  21-25  "So  the  ever-living  God  threw  the  man  into  a  stupor,  and  he  slept.  And  taking  one  of  his  ribs,  He  closed  up  the  flesh  in  its  place.  And  from  the  rib,  which  the  ever-living  God  had  taken  out  of  the  man,  He  constructed  a  woman,  and  brought  her  to  the  man.  And  the  man  said, 'This  form  is  bone  of  my  bone,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh.  This  shall  be called  woman,  because  she  was  taken  from  man.'

Man  shall  therefore  leave  leave  his  father  and  his  mother,  and  shall  unite  with  his  wife;  and  they  shall  be  one  body.  And  they  were  naked,  the  man  and  his  wife,  but  they  were  not ashamed."

THIS  WAS  ALL  ON  THE  6TH  DAY!!  NO  CONTRADICTION  AT  ALL  WITH  CHAPTER  ONE,  JUST  A  MORE  DETAILED  ACCOUNT  OF  WHAT  GOD  DID  ON  THE  6TH  DAY  WITH  MAN,  AND  ALSO  HE  CREATED  WOMAN  FROM  MAN  ON  THE  SAME  6TH  DAY.

WHAT  FOLLOWS  THAT  TAKES  PLACE  IN  THE  GARDEN  OF  EDEN,  TILL  GOD  EXPELLED  ADAM  AND  EVE  FROM  THE  GARDEN,  WE  ARE  NOT  TOLD  THE  TIME  FRAME; COULD  HAVE  BEEN  DAYS,  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  WEEKS,  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  MONTHS.  THAT  SECTION  DOES  NOT  MATTER  IN  WHAT  WE  ARE  DISCUSSING.

WHAT  MATTERS  IS  I  HAVE  JUST  PROVED  TO  YOU  THERE  IS  NO  CONTRADICTION  IN  THE  FIRST  SECTION  OF  GENESIS  TWO  WITH  GENESIS  CHAPTER  ONE  -  NO CONTRADICTION  WHAT-SO-EVER!!

IT  ALL  HARMONIZES  WHEN  YOU  UNDERSTAND  GOD  NOT  ONLY  CREATED  MAN  AND  WOMAN  ON  THE  SIX  DAY,  BUT  THE  GARDEN  OF  EDEN  AS  WELL,  AND  THE  FRUIT TREES  IN  THE  GARDEN  AND  THE  SPRING  OF  WATER  TO  WATER  THE  GARDEN.

LIKE  I'VE  SAID  THROUGH  THE  DECADES  I  WOULD  HEAR  NOW  AND  AGAIN  HOW  SOME  WOULD  SAY  GENESIS  ONE  AND  THE  FIRST  PART  OF  GENESIS  TWO, CONTRADICTED  EACH  OTHER;  I  WOULD  SCRATCH  MY  HEAD  AND  THINK,  "HOW  ON  EARTH  ARE  THEY  FIGURING  A  CONTRADICTION HERE, I SEE NO  CONTRADICTION  AT ALL."

NOW  YOU  SHOULD  SEE  NONE  ALSO,  IF  YOU  THOUGHT  THERE  WAS,  BECAUSE  SOME  PEOPLE  PUT  THE  CART  BEFORE  THE  HORSE,  OR  GOT  THINGS  SO  TWISTED UP,  THEY  COULDN'T  SEE  THE  TREES  FOR  THE  FOREST.

NOW  YOU  KNOW  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  MATTER.

Keith Hunt (July 28  2014)

BIBLE DISCREPANCIES (CONTRADITIONS) .....ANSWERS FROM FRIEND MATTHEW

A  MEMBER  OF  GOD'S  CHURCH  AND  FREIND  (NEVER  MET  IN  PERSON  ONLY  WITH  EMAILS)  HAS  GIVEN  ME  PERMISSION  TO  POST  THIS  ANSWER  FROM  HIM  CONCERNING  THE  RECENT  BLOGS  FROM  TARA  CHAPMAN.  

THERE  COULD  WELL  BE  MORE  TO  COME...  SO  STAY  TUNED  AS  THEY  SAY.

Recently, a co-worker of my friend and teacher, Keith Hunt, came to the conclusion that her life as a Christian has been a lie.  This came as a shock to many people who knew her in their walks as Christians.  Personally speaking, I had not known this individual very well.  I had read articles she had posted on her web site (now defunct) and occasionally read her blog posts, but I had never communicated with her much outside of discussing recipes that conformed to God’s dietary laws and questions regarding Pastor Hunt’s site, on which she had worked.  Therefore, I can only state what is my perception is on her within a very narrow scope.

 

Tara Chapman is a strong woman; perhaps too strong at times.  She had no problems in expressing what she thought about certain dogmas and people, even to point where she would use words such as “idiots” in her descriptions.  I was afraid that such language might cause some to discredit her views and to pass her off as a mudslinger.  Granted, her material wasn’t saturated with such language, but it was noticeable.  If people ever did decide to disregard her for this reason, it’s a shame.  The truth is that Tara is an intelligent woman and a rational thinker.  In fact, it is that aspect of her character to which I hope to appeal in my post.

 

Strength and intellect are two invaluable tools towards any endeavor in life.  They can be used, as they once were, to proclaim the Gospel, or they can be used to denounce it.  Certain influences in our lives may direct us towards either direction.  While I can’t claim to know all the influences in Tara’s life, it is evident that her emotions are part of the reason she has returned to the world.  She has been thrown around in different directions in her life with various people telling her what to believe.  For instance, she would be kept up at night struggling with the notion of the Trinity.  The concept of this dogma made no sense to her, but she continued to believe it for a long time because her loved ones told her that it was true.

 

More recently, Tara has left an organization, the UCG, which she (rightly) denounced as a cult.  I have no reason to doubt that this event has hurt her in some ways as well.  One of her priorities in life has been to seek truth.  Naturally, when one is exposed to enough individuals or organizations claming to have the truth (the UCG claimed to be the only true church in the world) and can be proven wrong, that person may begin to lose faith in the idea that anybody can objectively understand the truth others also claim to have.  This is understandable.  I am not going to go through the reasons why I believe that she has left the true straight and narrow path, but I will state reasons for why she should reconsider her decision.

 

The post announcing her new beliefs is entitled My Exodus in Genesis: The Beginning of a Dogma-Free Life.  In a way, this proclamation identifies her problem.  Tara is a young woman at 31 years of age, and she is only beginning what she calls a “dogma-free life.”  I have read her posts up until the most recent, and it is obvious that she has done a lot of research and introspection.  I’m sure that she has also discussed things with her husband and others, but I still find the following story to be relevant.  I am currently studying to be a programmer, and in the book I’m reading there’s some wise advice.  He suggests that when debugging your code (meaning to remove all the errors or bugs) that somebody look at it to help you identify problems.  Even though he has over 40 years of experience, a colleague can find an error in his code in a few seconds when he’s stared at it for over an hour.

 

The lesson of the story here is that people sometimes can’t see the problems they’ve created without help.  Fortunately, Tara doesn’t seem to be the type of person who hates asking for directions while driving (or a type of person who hates asking for help debugging while programming!).  She’s still searching for truth, so I wish to help her find it.  Why?  The beliefs that Tara currently has are ones that I used to have.  It is because of this that I can see the faulty logic and shallow observations Tara has made in her recent posts.  This is not meant to belittle her in any way.  All of us sometimes are blinded to things and can use help from those who have experienced the same.

 

Years ago I had read a book from Bart D. Erhman entitled Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them).  For a little while, this book had convinced me that Scripture was not infallible.  I believed that the Bible was full of irreconcilable discrepancies that proved that it wasn’t an inspired text.  It was only later that I came to realize how superficial the book’s claims I once held in high regard actually were.  Tara has spent time presenting what she believes to be contradictions, stories with foreign parallels, and logical refutations to biblical accounts and dogmas.  Part of my post will spend some time pointing out the problems with her opinions.  I do not claim to know all of the answers to her questions, but I will present logical counter-arguments to her examples.

 

First, in her post entitled Nearly 500 Serious Contradictions in the Bible, Tara gives a few examples on contradictions from a web site.  One of them is in regards to whether Abraham knew God by the name Jehovah.  The texts under comparison are:

 

 

Genesis 22:14

 

And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah Jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

 

and

 

Exodus 6:3

 

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

 

First, it is folly to be reading an English translation of a text without regard to the grammatical features and literary conventions from the language and culture from which it’s translated.  This is unfortunately a mistake that far too many people commit in their criticism of the Bible.  Quoting these two verses to point out a supposed contradiction in Scripture is not something that Tara is qualified to do.  Let’s start with the sentence fragment “but by my name.”  The word but is prefixed to the word name and is an instance of the consecutive waw.  In addition to meaning but it can also mean and.  Additionally, the entire sentence can be read in an interrogative manner, giving us, “and by my name Jehovah was I not known to them?”  Considering the next sentence (not quoted by Tara) is in a positive sense, this alternative rendering makes sense.

 

This isn’t the only explanation that exists; I’ve found one that reads into a specific biblical convention known as the beth essentiae that also appears valid.  However, it is not my purpose to give all the explanations for this alleged contradiction.  I hope instead to show that explanations exist and have existed for many years.  If Tara seeks the truth as she asserts, it seems strange that she would have neglected to perform adequate preliminary research on this matter.  She commits this same error in comparing the Creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2.  First of all, Genesis 1 could be categorized as either poetry or poetic prose and shouldn’t be regarded as a scientific account of how the animals were created.  This might shock someone possessing only a modern literalist means of interpretation or who seeks to find a scientific basis on which to verify the authenticity of Scripture (something which Tara said she had planned to do).

 

Second, it is often thought that Genesis 1 presents a more general account of Creation while Genesis 2 focuses more on the creation of mankind.  Could it be that the author wished to, though artistic convention, show that animals are brought forth from water in the sense that life is sustained (if not universally, then nearly universally) through it?  I don’t have the data on chemical composition in my head on various creatures that Tara may have, but I was taught that the human body is composed of mostly water.  Generally speaking, then, water is the form of matter that brought forth life on this planet because it is required.  Genesis may be more specifically telling us that the animals were brought forth from the Earth as Adam was created from the dust of the Earth.  Is it unreasonable to think that God used both water and the land elements in His formation of the animals?  This brings me to an important point: Differences do not mean discrepancies.

 

Let’s take another account which seemingly conflicts with another.  2 Samuel 24:1 says that the Lord incited David to take a census while 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that it was Satan.  Which is right?  Is it not possible that both accounts are accurate but with differing degrees of agency between the two characters involved?  Compare these two English sentences:

 

“John broke the vase.”

 

“John caused the vase to be broken.”

 

            These two sentences are similar, but one stresses agency, while the other patiency.  Could it be that God, as the Creator, caused David to be incited to take a census because He created Satan?  This context was not alien to the Hebrew language of biblical times and is exemplified in its verbal forms.  I hope by now that it’s clear that context plays a key implicitly within the context of a story and also explicitly through the grammatical features of a language.  Furthermore, why not give the authors, or at least the compilers, credit that they weren’t incompetent in putting together stories that were so obviously divergent in their messages?  People make mistakes, but to somehow miss contradictions that would slap a normal person in the face is difficult to imagine, especially given the fact that they wanted the texts to pass as inspired of God.  We need to consider that these people did not recognize these differences as the contradictions many throughout different ages afterwards have suggested.  I don’t mean to suggest that any alleged discrepancy should be resolved by conflating different accounts, but it should at least be considered when plausible.

 

            In her next example, Tara once again fails to note the difference between exclusivity and inclusivity.  She quotes Genesis chapter 11 which describes the world as having only one language, while Genesis 10:5-31 speaks of a world with many different languages.  I made the point in the preceding paragraph that we should give the authors and compilers credit that they weren’t putting together a pile of gobbledygook when writing Scripture.  Considering that the two sections of the Bible Tara presents are almost immediately connected – one verse separates the two – Moses (or whoever she believes wrote the Bible and compiled it) would have had a pretty short attention span and had been a very poor editor to miss this mistake.  Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was a sane person, this “discrepancy” may be easily explained by the fact that a world with many languages could have one common language with which different peoples could communicate with each other.  I think that, considering the evidence, that this explanation makes a lot more sense than dismissing the two accounts as being contradictory.

Matt

TARA CHAPMAN'S DISTANE FOR THE BIBLE....REJECTS CHRIST AS ONLY SAVIOR!!!

TARA  CHAPMAN'S  THROW  AWAY  THE  BIBLE  AND  JESUS.....SO-CALLED  TRUTH  OF  FREEDOM!!

TARA  CHAPMAN'S  LATEST BLOG  DOES  QUITE  A  BIT  OF  RAMBLING  ON  ABOUT  VARIOUS  GUYS  AND  WHOEVER  THAT  SUPPOSEDLY  HAVE  DIS-PROVED  THE  BIBLE,  WHO  HAVE  SHOWN  IT  IS  MAN  MADE,  JEWISH  MADE,  WHOEVER  MADE,  BEING  FALSE  STORIES,  OR  MADE  UP  STORIES,  OR  COPIED  STORIES  FROM  THIS  NATION  OR  THAT  NATION.  IN  PLAIN  SIMPLE  TERM'S  SHE  NO  LONGER  BELIEVES  THE  BIBLE  IS  THE  INSPIRED  WORD  OF  A  GOD  IN  HEAVEN,  WHO  CREATED  THE  UNIVERSE,  MADE  MANKIND,  AND  HAS  THE  POWER  TO,  AS  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL  PUT  IT,  "GOD  BREATH"  HIS  WORD  TO  US.

IN  HER  LATEST  BLOG  SHE  EVEN  WONDERS  IF  THERE  IS  A  GOD.....BUT  IF  SHE  DOES  KINDA  STILL  BELIEVE  THERE  MAYBE  A  LITERAL  GOD,  IT  IS  ABUNDANTLY  CLEAR  SHE  NO  LONGER  BELIEVES  THAT  GOD  HAS  WRITTEN  AN  INSPIRED  WORD  OVER  CENTURIES  THROUGH  MEN,  AND  FINALLY  HAD  IT  ALL  PUT  TOGETHER,  PRESERVED,  AND  HANDED  DOWN  TO  US  TODAY  IN  WHAT  IS  CALLED  THE  "CHRISTIAN  BIBLE."

SHE  HAS  BEEN  READING  THE  CLEVER  ARGUMENTS [NOTHING  NEW  IT'S  BEEN  GOING  ON  WITH  PEOPLE  FOR  CENTURIES]  OF  PEOPLE  TRYING  TO  DISPROVE  THE  BIBLE  AS  THE  INSPIRED  WORD  OF  A  CREATOR  GOD.  THOSE  ARGUMENTS  ARE  NOT  NEW,  AND  HAVE  BEEN  ANSWERED  BY  MANY  THEOLOGIANS  ALSO  DOWN  THROUGH  TIME.

SHE  HAS  BEEN  READING  BOOKS  FROM  OTHER  "RELIGIONS"  OF  THE  WORLD,  AND  HAS  COME  TO  SAY  SOME  OF  THEM  ARE  BETTER  THAN  THE  BIBLE.  SHE  HAS  FALLEN  INTO  THE  TRAP  OF  THINKING  THE  JEWS  TOOK  THINGS,  STORIES  FROM  OTHER  NATIONS  THAT  WERE  IN  THOSE  NATIONS  BEFORE  THEY  WERE  PART  OF  THE  BIBLE,  AND  JUST  ADDED  THEM  AS  THEY  CONTINUED  TO  MAKE  THEIR  OWN  BIBLE,  OR  STORY  BOOKS  FOR  THEIR  OWN  MAN  MADE  RELIGION.  SHE  CANNOT  REASON  ANY  MORE  THAT  EVEN  IF  A  FEW  OF  THE  STORIES  ADOPTED  BY  THE  JEWS  CAN  BE  FOUND  IN  OTHER  NATIONS  CLAIMED  TO  BE  OLDER  THAN  THE  BIBLE  STORIES,  SATAN  THE  GREAT  DECEIVER  CAN  INSPIRE  PEOPLE  OF  OTHER  NATIONS  TO  HAVE  A  TYPE  OF  STORY  THAT  IS  SOMEWHAT  IN  PARTS  SIMILAR  TO  THAT  FOUND  IN  THE  BIBLE.  OF  COURSE  WITH  HER  PRESENT  THINKING  SHE  MAY  NOT  EVEN  BELIEVE  THERE  IS  A  PERSONAL  DEVIL,  WITH  GREAT  POWER  TO  DECEIVE  PEOPLE.

SHE  HAS  FALLEN  INTO  ANOTHER  TRAP  OF  THE  DEVIL,  AND  THAT  IS  SO-CALLED  "EXPERTS"  WHO  GIVE  THIS  DATE  AND  THAT  DATE  FOR  THIS  OR  THAT,  WHICH  ENDS  UP  IN  SUPPOSEDLY  DISPROVING  THE  BIBLE.  IT  IS  LIKE  THE  ATHEISTS  ARCHEOLOGISTS  WHO  TELL  YOU  THIS  PIECE  OF  STRATA  IS  "EX"  MILLIONS  OF  YEARS  OLD,  AND  HENCE  WITH  THEIR  TIME  CHARTS  SAY  TO  YOU,  EVOLUTION  IS  A  PROVEN  FACT.  YET  THESE  SAME  EVOLUTIONISTS  NOW  CLAIM  THE  UNIVERSE  WAS  OR  DID  COME  INTO  BEING  FROM  A  NOTHINGNESS  WITH  A  "BIG  BANG."  PROVING  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  SAYS  IS  TRUE,  THE  PHYSICAL  UNIVERSE  CAME  FROM  NOTHING,  WAS  BROUGHT  INTO  BEING  FROM  NOTHING.  IT  REALLY  BOTHERS  THEM  NOW  AS  TO  FIGURE  OUT  WHAT  WAS  BEFORE  THIS  NOTHINGNESS  OR  TINY  SPECK  OF  AN  ATOM  OR  WHATEVER,  THAT  COULD  NOT  BE  SEEN  WITH  THE  HUMAN  EYE.

WELL  MANY  PhD  CHRISTIAN  SCIENTISTS  HAVE  ANSWERED  IN  BOOKS  AND  DVDs  ETC.  THE  WRONG  AND  FALSE  IDEAS  OF  THE  EVOLUTIONISTS.  JUST  AS  MANY  "CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGIANS"  HAVE  ANSWERED  IN  BOOKS  AND  DVDs  ETC.  THE  FALSE  IDEAS  THAT  TARA  CHAPMAN  GIVES  YOU  IN  HER  BLOG,  FROM  THOSE  WHO  CLAIM  TO  DISPROVE  THE  BIBLE.

SHE  OBVIOUSLY  HAS  NOT  READ  ALL  THE  MANY  STUDIES  ON  MY  WEBSITE  THAT  WOULD  ANSWER  THE  NATURE  OF  BIBLE  PROPHECY;  THE  NATURE  OF  BIBLE  PROPHECY  RELATING  TO  JESUS  CHRIST;  HOW  GOD  HAS  WRITTEN  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  THE  FIRST  COMING  OF  CHRIST  AND  THE  SECOND  COMING  OF  CHRIST,  MANY  OF  THEM  IN  A  WAY  THAT  IS  A  DUALITY  OF  PROPHECY,  FOR  THE  TIME  THEN  AND  FOR  A  FUTURE  TIME.  I  AM  DOUBTING  SHE  HAS  READ  MY  STUDY  CALLED  "DUALITY  OF  PROPHECY"  ON  MY  WEBSITE.  SHE  OBVIOUSLY  HAS  CLOSED  HER  MIND  TO  PROPHECIES  TAKING  PLACE  RIGHT  NOW  AND  FOR  THE  PAST  400  YEARS,  THAT  ARE  LEADING  UP  TO  THE  END  OF  THIS  AGE,  AS  IT  WILL  COME  TO  PASS  IN  THE  NATIONS  OF  THIS  WORLD,  THAT  I  HAVE  EXPOUNDED  FULLY  FOR  YOU  ON  MY  WEBSITE.

TARA  CHAPMAN  FOR  NOW  HAS  BECOME  DECEIVED  BY  THE  ATHEISTS  OF  THIS  WORLD,  WITH  THEIR  CLEVER  SO-CALLED  "WISDOM" TO  DISPROVE  AND  DISCREDIT  THE  BIBLE,  WITH  THEIR  CLEVER  BUT  WRONG  AND  DECEITFUL  ARGUMENTS  THAT  TO  THEM  MAKES  THE  BIBLE UN-INSPIRED  AND  CERTAINLY  NOT  FROM  A  LITERAL  CREATOR  GOD  OF  THIS  UNIVERSE.

SHE  THINKS  READING  THE  ACOUNT  OF  THE  GENESIS  FLOOD  OVER  AND  OVER  AGAIN,  PROVES  THE  BIBLE  IS  SAYING  IT  WAS  WORLD-WIDE.  NOTHING  COULD  BE  FURTHER  FROM  THE  TRUTH.  IT  IS  LIKE  READING  THE  WORLDS  IN  LUKE 2:1  OVER  AND  OVER,  AND  SAYING  THE  BIBLE  IS  CLEARLY  SAYING  THE  WHOLE  WORLD  WAS  TO  BE  TAXED  OR  ENROLLED [MARGIN],  AND  SO  THE  BIBLE  IS  WRONG  AS  THE  WHOLE  WORLD  COULD  NOT  POSSIBLY  HAVE  BEEN  TAXED  BY  CAESAR.  

TARA  CHAPMAN  HAS  FALLEN  INTO  THE  TRAP  OF  NOT  READING  THE  WHOLE  BIBLE,  AND  NOTING  HOW  WORDS  ARE  USED  IN  VARIOUS  CONTEXTS.  SHE  IS  NOW  DOING  WHAT  ATHEISTS  LIKE  TO  DO  WITH  THE  BIBLE..... NOT  READING  IT  ALL,  NOT  PUTTING  THIS  VERSE  WITH  THAT  VERSE,  NOT  UNDERSTANDING  HOW  GOD  WROTE  THE  BIBLE  IN  DIFFERENT  WAYS [LIKE  OFTEN  THE  DUALITY  OF  PROPHECY]  TO  YES  DELIBERATELY  KEEP  PEOPLE  BLINDED  TO  TRUTHS.

SHE  HAS  FALLEN  INTO  THE  TRAP  OF  SEEING  HOW  THE  JEWS  ADDED  THINGS  TO  GOD'S  FESTIVALS,  FROM  PAGAN  NATIONS  OR  THE  JEWISH  CAPTIVITY  IN  BABYLON,  AS  I'VE  WRITTEN  ABOUT  ON  MY  WEBSITE  FOR  DECADES.  HENCE  TO  HER  IT  IS  ALL  JUST  MAN  MADE  NOW,  AND  ADDS  IN  HER  MIND  TO  THE  BIBLE  BEING  JUST  MAN  MADE,  JEWISH  MADE,  AND  HENCE  WORTHLESS,  WITH  OTHER  MAN  MADE  WRITINGS  AND  BOOKS  BEING  MUCH  BETTER  THAN  THE  BIBLE.

WHAT  TARA  CHAPMAN  HAS  NOW  DONE  IS  TO  HAPPILY  LIBERATE  HERSELF  FROM  THE  BIBLE.  THROW  IT  TO  ONE  SIDE;  LIKE  OUR  NATIONS  HAVE  DONE,  THROW  IT  IN  THE  TRASH  GARBAGE  PILE,  AND  READ  OTHER  BOOKS  BETTER  THAN  THE  BIBLE.  SHE  HAS  HAPPILY  IT  SEEMS  FREED  HERSELF  FROM  A  GOD  SHE  NOW  QUESTIONS  MAY  NOT  EXISTS,  FROM  A  GOD  SHE  THINK  IS  EVIL  IF  THERE  IS  SUCH  A  GOD  IN  THE  FIRST  PLACE.  SHE  HAS  FREED  HERSELF  HAPPILY  IT  WOULD  SEEM  FROM  DOING  AS  JESUS  CHRIST  SAID  WE  SHOULD  DO,  "MAN  SHALL  NOT  TO  LIFE  BY  BREAD  ALONE  BUT  BY  EVERY  WORD  OF  GOD" [MAT.4:4].

TARA  CHAPMAN  HAS  SET  UP  HER  OWN  RELIGION  IF  YOU  CAN  CALL  IT  A  RELIGION.  MAYBE  SHE  HAS  DECIDED  SHE  NEEDS  NO  RELIGION  AT  ALL.

THE  WORST  THING  TARA  CHAPMAN  HAS  NOW  DONE  IS  TO  REJECT  JESUS  CHRIST  AS  PERSONAL  SAVIOR!!!

IN  HER  OWN  WORDS: 

"...I do think that there are good lessons and some wise sayings in the bible, but I think the stories therein and of "Jesus" being the saving son of God, etc. are a big lie...."

THE  BIBLE  CLEARLY  STATES  THERE  IS  NO  NAME  GIVEN  UNDER  HEAVEN  WHEREBY  YOU  CAN  BE  SAVED,  BUT  JESUS  CHRIST!!

JESUS  BEING  THE  SAVING  SON  OF  GOD,  IS  NOW  TO  TARA  CHAPMAN  A  BIG  LIE!!

IT  IS  SAD  FOR  ME  TO  HAVE  TO  SAY,  THAT  TARA  CHAPMAN  IS  NO  LONGER  A  CO-WORKER  WITH  ME  IN  THE  GOSPEL  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  I  WILL  TAKE  DOWN  THE  LINK  ON  MY  WEBSITE  TO  HER  WEBSITE.  I  WILL  PRAY  FOR  HER,  BUT  WILL  HAVE  NO  FURTHER  CONTACT  WITH  HER  UNTIL  SHE  COMES  TO  SEE  HER  FOLLY  IN  REJECTING  THE  INSPIRED  CHRISTIAN  BIBLE  AND  THE  ONLY  SAVIOR  JESUS  CHRIST,  TO  ETERNAL  LIFE  IN  THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD.

Keith  Hunt [July  20th  2014]

P.S.

I  LOVE  YOU  TARA.  I  BELIEVE  YOU  HAVE  BEEN  GREATLY  DECEIVED  IN  YOUR  PRESENT  MIND-SET.  I  ASK  YOU  TO  GO  AND  STUDY  ALL  THE  STUDIES  ON  MY  WEBSITE  REGARDING  "HOW  WE  GOT  THE  BIBLE."

I'M  ALSO  GOING  TO  START  TO  UPLOAD  A  BOOK  FROM  AN  ATHEIST  JOURNALIST  OF  16  YEARS  BACK,  WHO  SET  OUT  [BECAUSE  HIS  WIFE  BECAME  A  CHRISTIAN]  TO  INVESTIGATE  THE  EVIDENCE  FOR  JESUS,  AND  FOUND  THE  EVIDENCE  FOR  THE  BIBLE  AND  GOD  AND  JESUS  TOO  OVER-WHELMING  TO  SAY  IT  IS  NOT  SO.  I  WILL  PUT  IT  UNDER  "MISCELLANEOUS"  ON  MY  WEBSITE.

IT'S  TIME  TARA  FOR  YOU  TO  START  FROM  THE  BEGINNING:  START  WITH  "HOW  WE  GOT  THE  BIBLE"  AND  THEN  "ALL  ABOUT  GOD  AND  CHRIST"  THEN  "HOW  TO  UNDERSTAND  THE  BIBLE"  ON  MY  WEBSITE.  YOU  NEED  TO  GET  THE  ROCK  BOTTOM  FOUNDATION  SO  SOLID  THAT  NO  ATHEISTIC  ARGUMENTS  CAN  EVER  TAKE  YOU  OFF  THE  STRAIGHT  AND  NARROW  PATH  TO  GOD'S  KINGDOM  EVER  AGAIN.