You're a contradiction Johnny!

It's probably been said already. But this "contradiction" has a lot more to do with the problems of translation. The Genesis reference uses a different word which means less "face of God" and more "was aware of the presence of God" when Jacob says it.
While the in John reference means directly seeing God.
So it's not a contradiction. There's a reason it was against the law to translate the bible for so long.

>be atheist
>my mom is really religious
>still best mom ever
>go to hotel for family vacation
>find bible in drawer
>say it's really stupid that hotels put this in drawers
>mom says its their religious right
>say that it was just written by some retarded guy who was high
> mom says "it was written by several retards gets your facts straight" then slaps me
>mfw i love my mom

This is the biggest contradiction ever

**thatsmrnoob rolls 11**

Warning: Shit storm below and it's the same exact shit in the Shit storm as usual

by the phrase "saw the face of God," would they be meaning that metaphorically or literally? It was taken out of context so it is hard to tell. For instance, some people after seeing something absolutely spectacular and breathtaking, would say that they saw within the spectacle the sheer face of God. Whereas the passage from John probably literally means that nobody has seen the actual face of God.

I'm an atheist but I still find it displeasing to bash a religion based on trivial things

Considering the bible, and Genesis in particular, is filled with metaphors, this isn't really a contradiction.

It'd kinda be like saying: "It's raining cats and dogs" and then some fucker is like: "It's impossible for that to happen Cats and dogs cant rain!!" It's not a contradiction if it's not meant literally. :-)

I've personally never read the bible and don't really plan on reading it.
But if you're going to post bible quotes in a way which demeans the bible, post them in fucking context.

You can't take a single sentence out of legislation and apply it directly, there are inter-lapping sections and subsections that provide much-needed context for that one sentence. The same rule applies to most texts. Including the bible.

I guarantee you if you read all the applicable versus or chapters or whatever they're called in this bible those sentences would actually make sense.
I know for a fact that the bible describes a trinity, so those two sentences could mean completely different parts of the trinity.

Shit happens all the time and it's a childish way of attempting to put down religious people.

They were written by different people.

YOU MEAN THE BIBLE IS FLAWED?

And thus, God made Eve. And she was bammin’ slammin’ bootylicious.

Genesis uses a lot of figurative language. That's not the exact quote from genesis either.

Nice try OP. It at first looks like it is a contradiction, but it is actaully Jesus in John 1 correcting a common misconception. You see, in the old testament, there are many instances where people see God, but is not God the Father that most people think they saw. Jesus is clarifying, it was Jesus that they saw, not God the Father. Read the chapter in it's context, or at least the whole sentence, man. That's as bad as the political adds.
John 1:
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NIV

On the first day got created light.
how was is day if light wasn't created?

New testament contradicts with the old one? Gee, it's almost like they were written by different people.