Book of Contradictions: A Challenge

[Cinjin]

---

You're putting words in my mouth. I, like any commoner throughout the centuries, reads the Bible as it is presented to them in the language handed down by Christians. I will say this one more time for you - Pay Attention - I don't need an interpretive principle. The only people who have to redefine words and interpret scripture are christians trying desperately to defend the contradictions found therein.

Spin it how you like. It's a contradiction .... and it's FAR from the only one. How do you defend the blatant contradiction of facts that Min presented in post #2 or that RefJer presented in post #3? Are you going to argue interpretation then?

---

You may well feel that you are not applying an interpretive principle, but the fact is that you are doing so. You consider any talk about what the original Hebrew or Greek words meant and implied to Hebrew and Greek hearers to be "desperate redefinition", as if the translations we use (which differ, of course) somehow provide a direct correspondence between the original languages and modern English - and that is the interpretive principle that you are implying. "Interpretation" is not a dirty word - it is a perfectly normal thing that we have to do with any form of communication - it just means understanding what is intended to be meant.

I would hardly consider the King James Version to be modern english. I also don't think interpretation is necessarily a bad (dirty) thing. I do however find it contemptible when CONSTANTLY used to justify blatant discrepancies in the Bible - whether it be this or any other. If your god is all-knowing as you claim, than one would think that he could've forseen all these "miss-interpretations" that seem to be so prevalent.

You also assume that every Christian is some how ultimately emotionally invested in defending the Bible, when the reality is that many (myself included) are entirely disinterested in the whole matter. On matters of interpretation, I just approach it like everything that requires to be interpreted - I try to understand what the authors originally were communicating through it. It is not clear to me that anyone who has presented a "contradiction" in this thread has actually tried to get to grips with the original intent of the authors.

I made no such claims that quote, "all christians are emotionally invested in defending the Bible" ... in fact, I was only referencing the christians who do. Which is a great many.
About "getting to grips with the original intent of the authors" ........ Are you saying that the millions of people who read the bible should have Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek translations with them whenever they open a Bible? I thought Christianity was for the entire world? Didn’t god see this coming? For that matter, am I going to need a Hebrew lawyer when I get to heaven?

Are you willing to argue that the author of Genesis means to imply that God rested because he was tired? If you are not, then you are not even getting started when it comes to providing a contradiction. You have solely relied on what English translations appear to you to imply - this exposes the interpretive principle which, whether you like it or not, you assume by the way that you argue your case. If you really are serious that you think there is a contradiction, and you think that it is in any way important that other people know about it, then actually provide some argumentation for your interpretation of the text.

I have provided my argument: I submit that based on its own merit and without the interpretation of ancient writings, the Bible is contradictory in many of its quoted passages. My entire argument IS the absence of interpretation therefore your provocation to provide argumentation for just that - would become my own contradiction.