For today’s post we will tackle the question the Skeptic Annotated Bible asked: Bible Contradiction: From what were the animals created?
Here are the two answers which the skeptic believes indicate a Bible contradiction:
From water
“Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:20)
From out of the ground
“Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.” (Genesis 2:19)
(All Scriptural quotation comes from the New American Standard Bible)
Here’s a closer look at whether or not there is a contradiction:
- When dealing with skeptics’ claim of Bible contradictions it seems one can never be reminded enough of what exactly is a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when two or more claims conflict with one another so that they cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense and at the same time. To put it another way, a Bible contradiction exists when there are claims within the Bible that are mutually exclusive in the same sense and at the same time.
- One should be skeptical of whether this is a Bible contradiction given the Skeptic Annotated Bible’s track record of inaccurately handling the Bible. See the many examples of their error which we have responded to in this post: Collection of Posts Responding to Bible Contradictions. Of course that does not take away the need to respond to this claim of a contradiction, which is what the remainder of this post will do. But this observation should caution us to slow down and look more closely at the passages cited by the Skeptic Annotated Bible to see if they interpreted the passages properly to support their conclusion that it is a Bible contradiction.
- The skeptic tries to pit Genesis 1:20 as affirming the claim “Animals were created from water” against Genesis 2:19 as affirming “Animals were created from out of the ground.” Even taken at face value with the skeptic’s interpretation of Genesis 1:20 as affirming the claim “Animals were created from water” we see they don’t contradict with Genesis 2:19 as affirming “Animals were created from out of the ground.” Hypothetically something could be created from more than one ingredient.
- In order for it to truly be contradictory one of these verses has to say “Animals were not created from water” or “Animals were not created from out of the ground” while some other verse teaches “Animals were created from water” and/or “Animals were created from out of the ground.” But those verses don’t supply the premise “Animals were not created from water” or “Animals were not created from out of the ground.”
- Nor do these verses supply the claims “Animals were only created from water” or “Animals were only created from out of the ground.”
- Again even taking the skeptic’s claims in their own words we do not have a contradiction here.
- Examining Genesis 2:19 we see that the verse uses the verbal root יָצַר which has the meaning of “form” or “fashion” with God as the subject. This clearly refers to God’s creation since this is also used in Genesis 2 to refer to God creating man. The verse states “the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky.” When the skeptics asserted that Genesis 2:19 affirmed “animals were created from out of the ground” it is correct but to say “animals” to mean all creatures is too generalized since only land animals and birds of the skies are mentioned. Note it does not say anything about sea creatures.
- Let’s look at the skeptic assertion that Genesis 1:20 as affirming the claim “Animals were created from water.” It seems the skeptic misinterpreted ““Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures” as meaning “animals were created from water.” The verb translated as “teem” is from the Hebrew verbal root שָׁרַץ. It literally means “swarm” or “creeping” as seen in how the verb is used in Genesis 1:21, Genesis 7:21, Exodus 8:3, Leviticus 11:29, 11:41-43, Ezekiel 47:9. Sometimes it can taken with the meaning of multiplied as seen in Genesis 8:17 and Genesis 9:7. The reason why its can be used at times as “multiplied” is because when there’s a lot of something there’s a swarm of them. That is, there’s a lot of them. When there is more than one meaning of the word it is important to determine the best use of the meaning of the word according to its immediate context. In the context of Genesis 1:20 I think it is best to understand it as “swarm” or “creeping” in terms of animals functions and not as the skeptics take it of “producing a lot.” Why do I think the skeptics is wrong in their interpretation of Genesis 1:20?
- In the context of Genesis 1:20 God is describing the functions of creation/creatures and not functions of God Himself. For instance in talking about bird in the second half the verse God says “and let birds fly above the earth.” The parallel here strongly suggest it to be understood as “creeping/swarming.”The contrast with water and sky in the verse suggests its creatures that are swarming in the water just as birds are flying in the air.
- The next verse in Genesis 1:21 unpacks more details stated in Genesis 1:20 and notice it states what happened after God’s declaration in Genesis 1:20. Again notice creatures of the sea were swarming just creatures of the air were flying. The same verb here is translated in all the translations as “which the waters swarmed after their kind.” Once against Genesis 1:20 is describing the functions of animals of the sea.
- Even if went by the skeptics’ wrong interpretation of the meaning of Genesis 1:21 we still don’t have a Bible contradiction since Genesis 1:20 is not about God creating all animals from the sea/water but God creating sea creatures. So you can’t pit this verse against other verses on how God created things.
- Thus there is no contradiction here.
- We shouldn’t miss that worldviews are at play even with the skeptic’s objection to Christianity. The worldview of the author of the Skeptic Annotated Bible actually doesn’t even allow for such a thing as the law of non-contradiction to be meaningful and intelligible. In other words for him to try to disprove the Bible by pointing out that there’s a Bible contradiction doesn’t even make sense within his own worldview. Check out our post “Skeptic Annotated Bible Author’s Self-Defeating Worldview.”
Excellent. Love this series. Thanks for speaking the truth.
Blessings from mighty King Jesus!
Thanks for the very thorough rebuttal of another of Steve/Stephen Wells’ alleged contradictions. Yeah, his careless interpretation Genesis 1:20 is force-fitting a meaning that wasn’t intended. My 5th grade grammar school teacher would have scolded Steve/Stephen for his academic sloppiness.
Is this person deliberately uneducated? He has not done any true research into his claims. Null and Void is he.
The more one analyze his list of contradictions the more it makes Steve Wells the skeptic looks uneducated. And yet the atheist community promotes his “Skeptic Annotated Bible” what a shame isn’t it? But it shows the uneducated and how biblically illiterate these skeptics are to promote this while claiming to be free thinkers who supposedly think critically. What a sham isn’t it Maw Maw?
Yes it is, Grandson. In pray for you always as you minister.
Well done
[…] From what were the animals created? […]
One of the oddities I run into is that some people seem to think the mere fact they disagree with you is some sort of proof you are wrong. Effectively even they claim to make reasoned arguments, they make emotional, not reasoned arguments. They want credit for something they do not do.
This approach has become typical. Consider some examples.
1. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, but they insist otherwise.
2. Abortion is murder. Some of the advocates would kill newborns, if they could. Because they refuse to recognize the unborn are human, abortion “rights” advocates won’t put up with any restrictions.
3. Advocates for illegal immigration insist they don’t want open borders, but they won’t explain what restrictions they will tolerate. How do we negotiate with people who won’t negotiate?
4. Advocates for hate crime laws don’t seem to understand that crimes against whites can be racially motivated. At the same time, they have this strange notion they can discern the motives of a criminal who has committed a crime a against a minority. Since they require us to read minds, hate crime laws make no sense, not when we all are supposed to be equal before the law.
I could go on, but my point is that the folks who most engage in magical thinking (or deception) don’t believe the Bible. God is not the author of such confusion.
Our society has it so backwards even here in the UK. May the Lord convict and show the errors of their ways before its too late.
Thank you for keeping up with explaining the non contradictions.
Blessings
You’re welcome! Does the fire make your Friday evangelism difficult?
Only if the smoke is thick and the air quality dangerous. On such days we are not able to hit the streets . Thankfully we haven’t had many of those Fridays.
[…] via Bible Contradiction? From what were the animals created? — The Domain for Truth […]
They must be desperate! I think that’s the most cringe-worthy “contradiction” I’ve seen to date.
How can one take skeptics’ exegesis seriously?
You can’t they have an ax to grind
They say they are about reason but they are horrible in their reasoning ability
[…] 3.) Bible Contradiction? From what were the animals created? […]
[…] This particular contradiction is very similar to the previous we looked at: “Bible Contradiction? From what were the animals created?“ […]
The skeptic here is so silly
Those attacking the Bible here have a problem with reading comrehension
Atheists are stretching it. You gotta be a quack to say this a contradiction
[…] From what were the animals created? […]
This is not a Bible contradiction. Absolutely, positively, no way.
Is there a way to sue the Skeptic Annotated Bible for libel and slander?
If only one can sue…
In God’s Court the skeptics will lose
When I first heard people online said this was a contradiction from the skeptics I had to laugh.
[…] From what were the animals created? […]
I did learn something from this article