Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[spockrates]

Hey, Catfish--thanks for posting! Regarding the first suggestion, it seems to me the two lists of sins do not contradict each other, though Ezekiel's list is more exhaustive. Do you think these words of Ezekiel,

"'And they ... committed abomination before me...'"

echo these words of James?

"...giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh..."

I'm thinking they are describing the same sins, though James is certainly less vague. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, it describes how gang rape was a common occurrence in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Yes, I do believe one list was more complete than the other. Kinda like the flood narative.

Regarding the second suggestion, I'm not sure I see a conflict. James describes the fate of those who died in the original catastrophe (whether it was a meteor strike, or a powerful volcanic eruption, I don't know). Ezekiel describes the fate of those who take after the people who died long ago by committing the same sins they committed.

My take on Ezekiel is that Sodom will be restored to it's former estate which appears to contradict the "fate" of Sodom described in Jude.

Yes, sorry. It's Jude we are comparing, not James.



Could it be that Jude is describing the fate of those already dead, but Ezekiel is describing the fate of those who survived them?

---

Please explain why the true meaning of a story is not what the writer intends. For example, why would the true meaning of a newspaper article not be what the journalist who wrote the article intends?

The truth is not always what what the journalist writes or says.

Watch Fox news for reference.

I'd call too much of what Fox reports as news commentary, rather than objective and unbiased reporting. I'd say MSNBC commits the same sin. That's why I prefer CNN.

---

Why do you keep blathering on about questions I "haven't answered". You know what, keep it up and all you're going to get is a long litany of "go fuck yourself"s for an answer. Why would I even take the time to respond to you if you're going to be a little prat about my responses?

Am I not answering your questions, or is it simply that you don't like my answers? How many times do I have to give you the same answers before you stop hoping for a different answer?

Don't you think there's something just a little bit strange about asking what the "truth" of any given work of fiction is, definitively?

I ask questions for two reasons: (1) Asking questions is the best way to receive answers. (2) I'm attempting to use the Socratic Method in my own inexperienced way. Asking questions to test the reliability of answers one gives is part of that method. The use of analogies and examples is another part of it, and they help me understand that which I have trouble wrapping my head around.

At the moment I'm wondering if you believe any interpretation of a fictional story is acceptable, or if there is a limit to how far a reader may reasonably go. My thought is that some interpretations are indeed incorrect, such as a reader of Little Red Ridinghood saying the French author intended to teach little children to trust every stranger they meet. I assume you agree, but by assuming do I make an ASS out of U and ME?