Is this a contradiction in the Genesis?


#1

No. There is none.
Mwahahaha sorry to have to trick you again, but my questions are pretty boring so I have to trick people into reading them. :slight_smile:
Having said that…

Ok can someone ( hopefully someone with knowledge of the original texts) please explain the seeming contradiction between Genesis 10: 31-32 which states that the sons of shem divided into the various nations according to their language, families, and land. Then In genesis 11:1 the whole of the earth spoke the same language. So, how does that not contradict itself? The reason I ask is because it seems like an instance where two different words in the original texts were translated into language, but only one is correct. Can anyone tell me if this is true? Did the original hebrew or even greek use two different words in this example, or were both instances translated from the same word? Thank you ahead of time for any and all responses.


#2

[quote=Wormwood]No. There is none.
Mwahahaha sorry to have to trick you again, but my questions are pretty boring so I have to trick people into reading them. :slight_smile:
Having said that…

Ok can someone ( hopefully someone with knowledge of the original texts) please explain the seeming contradiction between Genesis 10: 31-32 which states that the sons of shem divided into the various nations according to their language, families, and land. Then In genesis 11:1 the whole of the earth spoke the same language. So, how does that not contradict itself? The reason I ask is because it seems like an instance where two different words in the original texts were translated into language, but only one is correct. Can anyone tell me if this is true? Did the original hebrew or even greek use two different words in this example, or were both instances translated from the same word? Thank you ahead of time for any and all responses.
[/quote]

You sir are encouragable!


#3

[quote=Wormwood]No. There is none.
Mwahahaha sorry to have to trick you again, but my questions are pretty boring so I have to trick people into reading them. :slight_smile:
Having said that…

Ok can someone ( hopefully someone with knowledge of the original texts) please explain the seeming contradiction between Genesis 10: 31-32 which states that the sons of shem divided into the various nations according to their language, families, and land. Then In genesis 11:1 the whole of the earth spoke the same language. So, how does that not contradict itself? The reason I ask is because it seems like an instance where two different words in the original texts were translated into language, but only one is correct. Can anyone tell me if this is true? Did the original hebrew or even greek use two different words in this example, or were both instances translated from the same word? Thank you ahead of time for any and all responses.
[/quote]

I believe that there is truth in Genesis but I don’t take it literally. So, for me, there is no problem in trying to connect these two contradectory verses. Of course, I think that you are looking for an answer from people who take the stories in Gensis literally, not from someone like me who leaves the possiblity open that God inspired the first part of Genesis to teach us lessons not literal history.


#4

[quote=twiztedseraph]You sir are encouragable!
[/quote]

Ok, if Wormwood is encouragable, then Wormwood shall be encouraged:

Wormwood, you are doing really well. Keep up the good work.

Was the word “encouragable” meant here or was another word meant?:

thefreedictionary.com/incorrigible

On another subject:

We read in Gen10:25 that in the time of Peleg and Joktan the earth was divided so perhaps for some of Joktan’s life all the earth was of one speech (11:1) but in the latter part after the earth was divided (10:25) the descendants of Noah had different tribes, tongues etc. (10:31)

How’s that for a literal noncontradictory way of interpretting it? Of course, it could well be completely and utterly wrong.


#5

There is really no contradiction, if you figure that at first, there was only one language, & later, there were many.
In other words, Genesis is not describing events in chronological order. It tells one story, finishing it with information that describes the descendants of Noah, & what happened to them, later in time.
We sometimes have to stand back a little & realize that the way we write today, is not the way that things were written in Bible time.

Even so, haven’t you had the experience–in writing, or in speaking–that you “got ahead of yourself”, & told things out of order? That seems to be what is happening in this case.
Of course, Noah’s family all spoke the same language when they were all together. But as the generations went on, & they moved apart, they would have begun to pick up other languages,etc.


#6

I’m currently reading Genesis my self and trying to make sense of it…hahahahaha…wish me luck.

One thing I’ve noticed however is that Genesis has various literary styles. Some are literal, some are figurative and some are lessons for life. Keeping this in mind, there are several instances in Genesis that the same story is told in different ways (or styles of writing, if you will), so is it contradictory if I tell my percesption of events and another author has his/her own rendition of the same events.

For example, when my wife and I tell the story of the birth of one of my children, we tell it differently. I might explain the factual events - i.e. I drove her to the hospital, the baby was born, we named her. And she might describe the emotions she felt during the birth - i.e. her story might not describe the events in order but rather how she felt about the event.
I think of Genesis in this manner. Although God is the author, the story is told through different people, who have different reactions to the stories.

Look at the styles of writing or the intent of the stories being told…that might help.

SG


#7

in my new american catholic bible, it says that there are 3 sources. Yahwist{J}, Elohist{E}, and Priestly(P}…

so there were three inputs to Genesis. which can explain some apparent conflicts.

actually, these sources contributed to almost the entire old testament

my bible has some pretty good notes and cross references. i have read disparaging remerks abut it, but it has full church approval with a forward form paul vi.


#8

[quote=Wormwood]No. There is none.
Mwahahaha sorry to have to trick you again, but my questions are pretty boring so I have to trick people into reading them. :slight_smile:
Having said that…

Ok can someone ( hopefully someone with knowledge of the original texts) please explain the seeming contradiction between Genesis 10: 31-32 which states that the sons of shem divided into the various nations according to their language, families, and land. Then In genesis 11:1 the whole of the earth spoke the same language. So, how does that not contradict itself? The reason I ask is because it seems like an instance where two different words in the original texts were translated into language, but only one is correct. Can anyone tell me if this is true? Did the original hebrew or even greek use two different words in this example, or were both instances translated from the same word? Thank you ahead of time for any and all responses.
[/quote]

On the assumption that the same person wrote both passages: 11.1 is speaking proleptically - that is, by anticipation, describing a situation in which there is one language, and anticipating the end of the story, which is, that they will be divided into many (which would agree with 11. 9 & 10.31)


In 10.31, “tongues”, translates lashon

11.1, 6,7,9 use the word saphah - “lip”, which in the AV/KJV is translated as “language”

“speech” in AV/KJV 11.1 translates “dabar” (literally, “word”)

So, different words are used in 10.31 & 11.1 to describe the linguistic situation.

Whether 10.31, 10.32, & 11.1 all come from the same author is another matter: stylistically, 10.20 & 10.31 belong together, but 10.32 may originally have come from a different set of traditions from 10.31. There are hints in chapter 10 that more than set of traditions has been drawn upon - compare the listings of the sons of Shem & of Ham, for example.

But none of this affects the theological or doctrinal position of the Bible ##


#9

[quote=Gottle of Geer]## On the assumption that the same person wrote both passages: 11.1 is speaking proleptically - that is, by anticipation, describing a situation in which there is one language, and anticipating the end of the story, which is, that they will be divided into many (which would agree with 11. 9 & 10.31)

In 10.31, “tongues”, translates lashon

11.1, 6,7,9 use the word saphah - “lip”, which in the AV/KJV is translated as “language”

“speech” in AV/KJV 11.1 translates “dabar” (literally, “word”)

So, different words are used in 10.31 & 11.1 to describe the linguistic situation.

Whether 10.31, 10.32, & 11.1 all come from the same author is another matter: stylistically, 10.20 & 10.31 belong together, but 10.32 may originally have come from a different set of traditions from 10.31. There are hints in chapter 10 that more than set of traditions has been drawn upon - compare the listings of the sons of Shem & of Ham, for example.

But none of this affects the theological or doctrinal position of the Bible ##
[/quote]

Well done Michael. I learn something new everyday.


#10

Thanks to everyone for taking time to answer.

I believe that there is truth in Genesis but I don’t take it literally. So, for me, there is no problem in trying to connect these two

But why and how do you draw this conclusion? How can you say the first part is made up, but the rest is true?

We read in Gen10:25 that in the time of Peleg and Joktan the earth was divided so perhaps for some of Joktan’s life all the earth was of one speech (11:1) but in the latter part after the earth was divided (10:25) the descendants of Noah had different tribes, tongues etc. (10:31)

How’s that for a literal noncontradictory way of interpretting it? Of course, it could well be completely and utterly wrong.

Well this seems to be the concensus. I guess I can see it this way, but no one answered my questions concerning the original texts.

I’m currently reading Genesis my self and trying to make sense of it…hahahahaha…wish me luck.

Seeks God, good luck, you’ll need it.
People cursed for seeing their father’s genitals, giants roam the earth, and soddom is wiped out by something described suspiciously like a nulear explosion; total madness.

so there were three inputs to Genesis. which can explain some apparent conflicts

thank you for addressing that.

So, different words are used in 10.31 & 11.1 to describe the linguistic situation.

I knew it!! I knew there were two different words used those passages.

Even so, haven’t you had the experience–in writing, or in speaking–that you “got ahead of yourself”, & told things out of order? That seems to be what is happening in this case

Your position is that your religious texts which were divinely inspired, have little errors in the story? Seems more likely to be a translational error, than a mistake on the part of the narrator.


#11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.