Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[spockrates]

It means "This is my body".........

A mythical narrative is not bound by the laws of reality, magic can and does happen within these narratives. Magic often provides a wonderful narrative device (up to a point, when it becomes dues ex machina the narrative begins to loose it's impact).


-What does

"Once upon a time" mean in the mythical tale?

Have you answered the question? I asked for the meaning of the words, and you repeated the words without offering any opinion on what the author intended them to mean. Is your point that Mark intended the words to be meaningless?

[The Grand Nudger]

I have answered the question for you repeatedly. Are you trolling me here or do you simply not like my answers?

You continue to ask a question which leads to precisely what I criticized in the first place. The text is clearly not good enough for you, you have to search for "meaning". That is not ambiguity, that is your own dissatisfaction with the story (for whatever reason).

Perhaps I'm not communicating this well, what is it in my responses that you feel is difficult to understand?

[spockrates]

I have answered the question for you repeatedly. Are you trolling me here or do you simply not like my answers?

You continue to ask a question which leads to precisely what I criticized in the first place. The text is clearly not good enough for you, you have to search for "meaning". That is not ambiguity, that is your own dissatisfaction with the story (for whatever reason).

Perhaps I'm not communicating this well, what is it in my responses that you feel is difficult to understand?

Trolling is unsportsmanlike. I always use bait when I fish!



The reason I ask is that I don't understand your answers. For they are ironically ambiguous!

Perhaps you will be kind enough to make it easy for me? Please answer this question with one word--either yes, or no: Did Mark have a meaning in mind when he wrote that Jesus said, "...this is my body"?

[The Grand Nudger]

Halfwitted apologetics always begin with "answer yes or no". Is this all that's left?

[spockrates]

Halfwitted apologetics always begin with "answer yes or no". Is this all that's left?

OK, please let me ask you this: when I said, "Trolling is unsportsmanlike. I always use bait when I fish," was I speaking of catching fish, or catching men?

[The Grand Nudger]

Halfwitted apologetics always end with diversionary asides. So I suppose that this is all that's left. Ah well.

[spockrates]

Halfwitted apologetics always end with diversionary asides. So I suppose that this is all that's left. Ah well.

I guess I'll never learn why you believe every word of the Bible is crystal clear. If only I had your faith in its words! As it is, important passages of it are only clear as mud to me. Thanks for trying to cure my blindness. A toast to you, sir: Here's mud in your eye.

Now let's see, did I mean to wish someone would sling mud at you the way you slung mud at me? And is this real wet dirt, or muck of another kind? Hmmm.

[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.

[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?

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Or maybe, just maybe, they might have both a literal and symbolic meaning. Maybe, just maybe, the story is meant to entertain and engage. Ask yourself this, why is it that so often in the narrative the character of christ performs a miracle directly before laying down some "wisdom"? Perhaps the storyteller is simply looking to grab the listeners attention before delivering the meat of the tale?

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.)

See the above.

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's easy to know the point at which the catholics and protestants have it all wrong with regards to comparison to myself -the moment they start blathering on about god.

What I've been expressing to you aren't statements of belief. Look, find me a narrative with floating text that changes depending upon who lays eyes on it, otherwise we're only discussing peoples interpretations of a narrative. Can a personal opinion be said to be wrong? That there are words on the page is a given, if we're insisting that there is something beyond those words. some "meaning behind it all" -that is not. If we are insisting that the words -as written- are an accurate assessment of some event or of reality that is also not a given.

As for the rest, and honestly, the majority of your questions along this line of "reasoning"......
-All of this begins with the assumption that there is something "right" or "wrong" in any interpretation, that someone got it "right" or "wrong" to begin with...and why are we even making that assumption? These narratives do not have to be "right", no one has to "get them right" etc- It is a story, and it has been used by many people for many purposes. The purpose, it seems, is what matters, not so much the narrative itself.