Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[spockrates]

This really is flying over your head isn't it.

Flying over my head. Mud in your eye. Mudslinging. Trolling. This is my body. All of these statements might have a literal meaning, or a symbolic one. The meaning might be easily discernible from the context of the words, or it might not. Doesn't the true meaning of an author's words reside in his mind alone? If his meaning is unclear, are not the reader's only options to ask the author to explain himself, ask someone else to explain, or make a guess? If the reader guesses, or relies on someone else's opinion, isn't possible she might misunderstand what the author intended?

I'm thinking it is not easily discernable in the case of Jesus' words. Protestants tell me it is. The words mean what they say, and they say the bread Jesus held in his hands was merely symbolic of his body. Catholics tell me it it is. The words mean what they say, and they say Jesus was holding his own body in his hands. Now you tell me it is. The words mean he was holding his own body in his hands, and that body he held was also a symbol of the body holding that body in its hands. (At least, I think that is what you are telling me, but please correct me if I'm wrong.)

What I wonder is this: Which of you three is correct? How do I know you are correct and Catholics and Protestants all have it wrong? Having learned what you believe, I wonder why you believe. Once I know that, I'll be in a better position to decide if why you believe is a good reason why I should believe, too. See what I mean?

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.

Well, the beliefs to which I'm trying to align the text cannot be Catholic, for I suggest Catholics might be wrong. The beliefs to which I'm trying to align the text cannot be Protestant, either. For I suggest Protestants might be wrong, too. So to what beliefs do you believe I'm trying to align the text?