MovieChat Forums > Inherit the Wind (1960) Discussion > Serious question for bible based creatio...

Serious question for bible based creationists

posted 9 years ago by johnwokeefe
20 replies | jump to latest

Firstly, I sit in the evolutionist camp. It is a theory that describes evidence that has been found. It is not a God given fact.

My question is directed to those who believe that the bible is the revealed word of God. That is, it is the reference source for your belief in a created world.

I read Genesis Chapter 1 and, given poetic licence, it is close enough to evolution. Things get created in a rational order with man and woman created last of all.

Then I read Genesis Chapter 2 and find that the man is created first, then all of the animals, lastly the woman is created. This is clearly a different version of creation to the one in the first chapter.

My problem is that, with my scientific bias, I can't get my head around how to resolve this apparent contradiction. If I pick one version over the other, the bible is no longer an undisputed reference as I can then pick and choose passages as I see fit. It is no longer God's words but only the stuff I like.

My question is, given the above - How do you resolve this apparent contradiction and use the Bible as an authoritative source for believing in creationism?

Please join this discussion with a spirit of enquiry. I would like to hear what you think in regard to my question, not what you think others think.

[–] danashley 9 years ago

I attended a Jesuit college and in my Freshman biology course the theory of evolution was taught and accepted. It melded the issue of Divine creation by suggesting that at one point in the evolutionary process, God infused man with an immortal soul and thus it was then that a human being was formed.

[–] johnwokeefe 9 years ago

Thank you for your reply, however, I don't see how it is related to my question. How I understand your post (noting that my understanding may be quite different to your intention) is that the Jesuit college said or implied, "Just accept divine creation and ignore the biblical inconsistencies."

I added the 'biblical inconsistencies' bit because I want to focus on how creationists use the Bible as an authoratative reference when it appears to contain a contradiction.

The only half way serious answer I can come up with is that the God of the Old Testament is a trickster God. Look at how he treated Job. I can construe making a bet with Satan as the act of a trickster.

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

You may not get many takers on this question. Religion is one of those subjects most people like to avoid.

In my opinion, the question you ask is only a problem if you believe in a literal translation of the Bible. I went to parochial schools and this was never an issue. The main thing was that man came first then woman was created as a companion. Some say it means men are superior to women; others say the opposite. I think we both have value and complement each other perfectly. This too is a lesson on differences; men and women couldn't be more different yet together we're really one. After all, part of man was taken to create woman.

There are differences between evolution and creation but I was taught both with neither conflicting with the other. Bible stories were lessons that taught us about God, values, life, etc. We were created in God's image, yes, but we also evolve. For instance, a child is born as a baby but will evolve as he/she ages. It's the same person but in different forms. A baby may not look much like anyone in the family at birth but at a certain age may be the spitting image of dad or mom when the parent was at a similar age. Differences aren't a big deal.

The Bible is inspired by God but it has different versions of many stories because, just as we have here in regards to movies, the authors focus on, feature, or stress different aspects of the story or tell the story in a different way. Overall, the messages don't really change.

Also, time is used to show progression. In some places, a great number of things happen in only a few days. In other sections, people are said to live extraordinarily long lives and do things we certainly wouldn't be able to do at the ages described. The point is not lost though. Details matter but the overall message is what we need to understand. Besides, time is relative; with some things aging at a faster or slower rate than others.

We put way too much emphasis on differences. I have always thought the same in regards to the various religions. I have many siblings and we all share the same two parents but our relationships with them are as different as we are. We call them by different (nick)names, sometimes recall memories differently and express our love in different ways.

All our perspectives are valid even though our parents are not exactly the same to each of us. Our own experiences, birth order, differences in age, gender, life experiences, etc. all factor into those equation. To say one of us has the 'right' or a 'better' relationship would be insane. It's not a competition; our parents love us all and we love them; just as God loves all his children.

[–] valis1984 9 years ago

...it ain't necessarily so". Ira Gershwin (1896-1983)

"Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects". Will Rogers (1879-1935)

[–] dolcineadelamantra 9 years ago

I am a believer in both the truth of the Torah, ( the bible in Hebrew) and science. Chapter 2 in Genesis does not state man was created before the animals. What translation are you reading from?

[–] johnwokeefe 9 years ago

Did you actually check your bible/Torah before responding?

I once posed this question to a serious Jewish acquaintance of mine. He initially rejected my assertion until he checked his primary source. He was unable to explain the contradiction to me. (I have not read the Torah myself.)

Most fundamentalist Christians I have met usually only pay attention to Genesis Chapter 2 and ignore the issue of man and woman created together in Chapter 1.

Any bible will do all versions I have read are substantially the same. This is the first one that came up on the internet.

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

Verse 7: man is created
Verse 19: all animals created
Verse 20: no suitable companion is found
Verse 22: woman is created

Hope this clarifies my post.

[–] taticat 9 years ago

Erm... The Torah *is* the first five books of the xtian bible, they are just organised a little differently.

And the xtian bible is rife with self-contradiction; if Genesis has you puzzled, try the so-called synoptic gospels. It'd be comical if people didn't actually believe this stuff.

Lastly, is it really surprising that most don't ever actually read their 'holy books'?

[–] juggle_dave 8 years ago

I have a slightly different interpretation of Genesis 2
Verse 7: man is created - I agree
Verse 19: all animals created - I don't agree

Let me explain why by writing down the verse: Genesis 2:19 (NIV) Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

So according to the NIV translation God had already formed the animals. Verse 19 is about how God brought the animals He had already created to be named. Verse 19 uses the past tense word had, at no point does it say that animals were created after man.

Verse 20: no suitable companion is found - I agree
Verse 22: woman is created - I agree

[–] rferrubbish 8 years ago

Interesting comment, thank you for you serious consideration, however, the broader issue of my question is - How do you use the Bible as an authoritative source? As such I have two issues with you statements.

Firstly, "I have a slightly different interpretation of Genesis 2". The word interpretation indicates that you have formed an opinion based on the words you have read. Allowing that it is well reasoned, it is still an opinion. You have given a theory of creation.

Secondly, "according to the NIV translation". I picked this version only because it was the first one that came up in a Google search. However, there are a number of different translations and the Authorized version does not use the past perfect construction "had formed". If I accept your interpretation, I am left in the position of having to read several different versions of the Bible and deciding which one is authoritative. This leaves me in the position of asking, how do I know which is authoritative one?

[–] jose-boscolo 9 years ago

My man, Genesis 2 won't retell the same history described in chapter 1. It's just a contextualization. Simple as that.

[–] johnwokeefe 9 years ago

Hi, I don't understand what you mean. You appear to agree that there are two separate histories of the same event. However, you don't address the problem of one true truth in the bible.

Could you please explain what you mean by contextualisation. This may be simple but without defining the subject that has been contextualised and without explaining the context, contextualisation is just a big word meaning nothing.

[–] jose-boscolo 8 years ago

Contextualisation: setting up of a scenario?
It's just as easy to understand as it gets. Moses - Genesis' writer - explains the order in which things and creatures were made. Then, the chronological order in which man was made. Just that simple. What makes you think it gives the impression man was created first?

[–] johnwokeefe 8 years ago

Contextualisation means putting something into a context. In art this is figure and ground. The central motif is placed in a background, the context. What I am asking is for you to be specific and explain what you see as the central motif and what you see as the context.

See my post from 23rd July 2015 for my reason for stating that Genesis chapter 2 says that man was created first.

Also, for the record, my Bible shows Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 27-
So God,created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The animals were created at Verses 24 and 25.

Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 still appear to be two separate chronological orders. Please explain how contextualisation fixes this problem.

[–] TheFlaneur 8 years ago

"Inherit the Wind" is nothing but a subtle form of propaganda.

"The Scopes Monkey Trial" had nothing to do with noble science prevailing against backwards religion.

The movie utterly fails to mention that the "Scopes Monkey Trial" was all about the class room use of a book called "Civic Biology".

"Civic Biology" only mentioned evolution in order to support the book's primary aim - the advancement of eugenics.

For those who aren't familiar, as an expression of evolution, eugenics believed that with selective and restrictive breeding, humans can be approved.

Here's some quotes from "Civic Biology" -

At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest form of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America. (Emphasis Added)

[...]

If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection. This improvement of the future race has a number of factors in which we as individuals may play a part. These are personal hygiene, selection of healthy mates, and the betterment of the environment.

[...]

If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried success fully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country. (Emphasis Added)

I doubt "Inherit the Wind" would be such a classic, if the contents of "Civic Biology" are known by most viewers.

[–] johnwokeefe 8 years ago

Your post is interesting although irrelevant to my original post.

Nevertheless, Scopes was charged under the Butler Act, a state law. His defence was conducted with regard to his First Amendment Rights. There is a total of at least 30 seconds during Cates arrest and final sentencing devoted to the actual legal charge.

"Civic Biology" was actually an authorised school text book. I know nothing about the contents of this book but from the quotes you have provided, it appears to support the Eugenics movement which was well established in the United States in the early 20th century. That is, until it became unpopular due to its implementation in Nazi Germany and subsequent revelation in 1945. Also, Eugenics is a misinterpretation of Darwin's theories.

Typical Hollywood "based on a true story" movie which I understand to be more like "never let the truth get in the way of a good story". An interesting note though is that the Butler Act was still on the books when this movie was made. It was not repealed until 1967.

[–] fguerra1 8 years ago

need to read darwin

[–] pabra-14905 8 years ago

There is a fairly straight forward answer to the question of the difference between the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis chapter 1 is a chronological broad outline of what was created and when. Genesis 2 focuses on the creation of man and woman on the 7th day and gives a rough context for their creation. Genesis 2 is not meant to be the same chronological account that Genesis 1 is.

[–] rferrubbish 8 years ago

Hi pabra-14905. It does not seem straight forward to me.

Firstly, my bible indicates that God had finished his work and rested on the 7th day. In my understanding this means nothing was created on the 7th day. So I will assume this is a typo and you meant 6th day. Please explain if this is not the case.

Secondly, you indicate that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are not meant to be the same chronological account. This is my problem, it is not an explanation.

Noting that you have overlooked the explicit differences in the creation order, my question remains, how do you understand that there are two chronologically different accounts and that they form one true non-contradictory account?

[–] pabra-14905 8 years ago

First off you're right that is a typo. God created the man and woman on the 6th day. Regarding your second point I can illustrate how a non-contradictory account can be formed but it will take some time and I'm at college so it might be a little while before I can invest that time. But I do plan to get to it when I can.

[–] pabra-14905 8 years ago

I've been looking at the early chapters of Genesis in my spare time and generally studying the matter. Genesis 1 gives specific time markers, first day, second day etc. Plants were formed on day 3 and man on day 6. We then go to Genesis 2:8-9 which appears to say that plants in general were created after man. It turns out to be in part a question of how to translate the Hebrew verbs. verse 9 reads in the King James "And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." It would also be a legitimate translation of the Hebrew for the the first sentence to read "And out of the ground The Lord God had made to grow every tree...." This means that it is referring the the past action on day 3. Verse 19 which mentions the creation of the animals follows a similar grammatical construction. Genesis 2:8 seems to in indicate that God created the Garden of Eden for man on Day 6 but generally speaking plants were created on day 3.