RE: Does the Bible Contradict Itself?
July 31, 2012 at 3:54 pm
(This post was last modified: July 31, 2012 at 4:03 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Sorry, back, been busy having my children serenade Lilly. No, the authors intent seems to place No limits on what a reader interprets from those words.
Whenever you begin with "lets assume" and then proceed to a conclusion without elaborating upon that assumption you have abandoned "truth" entirely. You see, you aren't even asking me to assume that they didn't believe you are asking me to conclude that they did not -but based upon what, precisely?
I would ask a reader why they felt the text indicated this, and presumably they would have something that lead them to this.
In every one of your examples you are assuming the truth and then arguing against examples which you feel are not the truth -you still have not established what this truth or meaning is beyond what interpretation you prefer..and clearly, in this example, another reader disagrees with you. In fact, there is a mountain of assumptions behind the way you are approaching this. Here's a fun one, why are you assuming that any two jesus' in the narratives are the same jesus? If jesus says something that seems out of charcter, does it seem so because jesus didn't say it (or because jesus didn't mean it as written), or because the author has made modifications to the character of jesus? Even within a single narrative, you assume that the entirety of the narrative is a complete work from a single author -a concise story-line with no added or subtracted bits. Perhaps the author of the first verse had a different meaning in mind than the author of the second verse? Hows about that for "apparent contradictions" vanishing? At no point do any of these obfuscating theories rely on ambiguity within the text at all, only ambiguity within our mind as regards the text applied to some other object or event. The story still stands, there in the black and white, all by it's ones-sies.
Whenever you begin with "lets assume" and then proceed to a conclusion without elaborating upon that assumption you have abandoned "truth" entirely. You see, you aren't even asking me to assume that they didn't believe you are asking me to conclude that they did not -but based upon what, precisely?
I would ask a reader why they felt the text indicated this, and presumably they would have something that lead them to this.
In every one of your examples you are assuming the truth and then arguing against examples which you feel are not the truth -you still have not established what this truth or meaning is beyond what interpretation you prefer..and clearly, in this example, another reader disagrees with you. In fact, there is a mountain of assumptions behind the way you are approaching this. Here's a fun one, why are you assuming that any two jesus' in the narratives are the same jesus? If jesus says something that seems out of charcter, does it seem so because jesus didn't say it (or because jesus didn't mean it as written), or because the author has made modifications to the character of jesus? Even within a single narrative, you assume that the entirety of the narrative is a complete work from a single author -a concise story-line with no added or subtracted bits. Perhaps the author of the first verse had a different meaning in mind than the author of the second verse? Hows about that for "apparent contradictions" vanishing? At no point do any of these obfuscating theories rely on ambiguity within the text at all, only ambiguity within our mind as regards the text applied to some other object or event. The story still stands, there in the black and white, all by it's ones-sies.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
