Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[The Grand Nudger]

This really is flying over your head isn't it. It must be, because you continue to insert ambiguity (even into your own remarks), which is precisely where I've explained that this ambiguity you perceive arises in the first place.

There is no ambiguity in the text of the fairy tale. The ambiguity exists in your mind as an effect of attempting to shoehorn this fairy tale into a world (or other beliefs) which does(do) not accommodate it. The story's meaning is to you not immediately recognizable from the text, but in conceding this you open the door to any number of variable meanings or interpretations (including those who take a completely literal approach -and they don't even need to make any arguments to justify their belief that the text says precisely what it says...). Anyone may insert their own ambiguity wherever they see fit. The story itself is not doing this, people are.

The narrative is one of magic, in this narrative magic is a given, and so when a character performs magic it is exactly as is. Now, did the author believe in magic? Perhaps he did, perhaps he did not. In either case, it matters very little with regards to whether or not the text describes magic, or whether or not it is explicit in this description, it is. Are you meant to draw a message from this, I'd say yes, but is the narrative only symbolic of magic (a covenant )? Given all the other magic flitting about at literally every turn of the page, I'm inclined to say no. Myth is rarely an either/or situation.

This same criticism applies to the claims that "apparent contradictions dissappear". They do not, arguments are made that attempt to establish special cases for this or that piece of the narrative as it is opposed to another, but this does not mean that the text is somehow altered, or that the argument is compelling. If you choose to believe that ambiguity affords one an opportunity to reconcile the narrative with itself and the world outside of the narrative then you are likely to invoke that ambiguity at any point that seems convenient....but this is where it gets really strange. Whenever ambiguity is invoked as an excuse the arguer immediately replaces that ambiguity with specificity (and this specificity always aligns itself with the arguers beliefs, and not that of their competing cultists). It's complete and utter bullshit.

After all of this, I have to add, that these narratives do not have to be made to reconcile with each other or reality. It is entirely and utterly unimportant. Suppose, for a moment, that the entire narrative could be reworked to have no internal contradictions or inconsistencies -by any interpretation- that would mean precisely what? Nada, zip, bupkiss. Go ahead and find the internal contradictions and inconsistencies in Bram Stoker's Dracula and then get back to me on how the narrative of christ and the narrative of Dracula differ, because as it stands, Dracula had a better editor and in all other ways they are on a level playing field. So, when the author writes that the vampire sank it's teeth into the victim "yes, but what does that mean" is just as effective in this narrative as it is in any other, and it will always lead to opinion and conjecture -aside from the author themselves stating any subtext or meaning explicitly, but it will never change the text of the narrative itself.