Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

[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?

[spockrates]

My thought is also that Socrates was correct when he said:

"He who thinks, then, that he has left behind him any art in writing, and he who receives it in the belief that anything in writing will be clear and certain, would be an utterly simple person, and in truth ignorant ... if he thinks written words are of any use except to remind him who knows the matter about which they are written."

(Phaedrus 275)

But would you consider my interpretion correct if I were to say that Socrates believed every interpretation of written works is accurate?

[The Grand Nudger]

As I have repeatedly explained to you, yes, any interpretation of a fictional story is acceptable so long as we're not insinuating that our interpretation is anything more than that -our interpretation-.

How was it determined that the author of Little Red Riding Hood intended the moral you've offered? How, also, might Little Red Riding Hood differ from the narrative that this all began over? If you made some observation about Little Red Riding Hood, would it then follow that this observation must apply to the narrative of the last supper?

Why do you keep assuming that I agree with you on things which I explicitly state my disagreement on? Is this also a part of the socratic method? How many times will you rephrase (or simply repeat) the same assertions and questions, and how many times must I rephrase (or simply repeat) the same responses.

---

The true meaning of a story, as intended by the writer (and whatever that may be), is absolutely powerless in the face of the reader. Again, we are not having the same discussion.

2 full pages ago. The comment at the end seems as appropriate now as it did then.

---

Now, why would Catholics, for example, decide to partake of communion? Well, the narrative describes a covenant made which they would like to opt in on, and so they have their medicine man perform a ritual to reenact the particulars of this covenant. Protestants presumably feel that this particular ritual is just magic (which it is), they have a distaste for this kind of magic (though they are perfectly fine with other types of magic) and so they opt out (specifically on the magical bits), instead preferring to view this as symbolic in nature. Transubstantiation, in this example, has very little to do with the narrative, because jesus himself is not performing magic at the table with believers in the here and now. It is a story which has been elaborated upon and institutionalized by one sect and downplayed by another. The text doesn't say two things on this issue, two differing sects do.

A few more pages farther back then that. Does the narrative itself (or the writers intent -whatever it may have been) seem to have imposed limits on these two groups of people? On the one hand we have people who essentially call this a pretty story (symbolism) and o the other we have people who propose that this is an act of reproduceable magic, so important and so literal that it is an article of faith. If those are the kinds of limits the authors intent imposes then I'm at a loss as to how to proceed. There is a veritable canyon of difference separating these two interpretations. - and you...apparently, have your own as well.

Limits indeed....

[spockrates]

As I have repeatedly explained to you, yes, any interpretation of a fictional story is acceptable so long as we're not insinuating that our interpretation is anything more than that -our interpretation-.

How was it determined that the author of Little Red Riding Hood intended the moral you've offered? How, also, might Little Red Riding Hood differ from the narrative that this all began over? If you made some observation about Little Red Riding Hood, would it then follow that this observation must apply to the narrative of the last supper?

Why do you keep assuming that I agree with you on things which I explicitly state my disagreement on? ...

Why do you disagree with my interpretation of what you wrote if every interpretation is always the truth?



Or are you saying that only the authors of fictional stories are powerless to correct the interpretations of their readers?

[The Grand Nudger]

Because I'm the author, and haven't we established that the author is the best place to go looking for intent? That you are apparently interpreting my worlds differently -even though you have my repeated explanations to the contrary- does more to showcase exactly what I've been expressing here than it does what you hope to establish, doesn't it now?

[spockrates]

Because I'm the author, and haven't we established that the author is the best place to go looking for intent? That you are apparently interpreting my worlds differently -even though you have my repeated explanations to the contrary- does more to showcase exactly what I've been expressing here than it does what you hope to establish, doesn't it now?

Yes, I agree the author's intent is the standard by which one should measure the accuracy of one's own interpretation in the case of non-fiction writing. Now please answer the second question: Are you saying that the authors of fictional stories (unlike non-fiction stories) are "powerless to correct the interpretations of their readers"? (cf. your quote from post 324). Also, you keep saying we are not having the same discussion, but I don't understand your meaning. Please explain.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just stop, no one said anything about accuracy. Stop trying. You interpret my responses in the manner that you do because of some need or desire for my responses to be the way you interpret them, not because of my intent, not because of the "accuracy of your interpretations" not because of any "truth" there is to be had in them. Case in point, no matter how often I repeat myself or correct you, you continue to interpret them in the manner that suites you. I am apparently powerless (as the author) even in conversation.

Any story, any narrative, fiction or non-fiction, is likely to have a life beyond what the author intended. What a narrative means to a reader generally has far more impact than whatever the writer meant. You, as the author, could tell the reader that you didn't mean that, or that such-and-such was not your intent all day long, and it won't make a dent in what they took away from your narrative. Pages and pages ago I suggested that you might want to abandon this whole "truth" line because it doesn't seem to apply -at least not the way you seem determined to use it - in the case of the stories we tell, and how those stories affect us, regardless of whether a narrative is meant to be fiction or non-fiction.

You don't understand my meaning? Is the ambiguity in the text or have you created the ambiguity in your mind? Has this entire conversation been an attempt to establish that ambiguity exists in text, or an attempt to create it because you need it to be there (for whatever reason)?

---

Let me add this as well, and keep in mind I'm only repeating myself here. What do you hope to do, if you can establish such ambiguity in the first place? You hope to fill that gap you've created with specificity, don't you? You'd like to offer your interpretation, wouldn't you? Doesn't that set off alarms in your mind?

-"This line is ambiguous...what the author really meant here was......" -

[spockrates]

Just stop, no one said anything about accuracy. Stop trying. You interpret my responses in the manner that you do because of some need or desire for my responses to be the way you interpret them, not because of my intent, not because of the "accuracy of your interpretations" not because of any "truth" there is to be had in them.

Not so. I'm interpreting them as best as I can in an attempt to understand your meaning.

Case in point, no matter how often I repeat myself or correct you, you continue to interpret them in the manner that suites you. I am apparently powerless (as the author) even in conversation.

Yes, the fault is mine for not understanding you. Perhaps if you would be more specific, less vague and use examples, then I'd grasp your meaning.

Any story, any narrative, fiction or non-fiction, is likely to have a life beyond what the author intended. What a narrative means to a reader generally has far more impact than whatever the writer meant. You, as the author, could tell the reader that you didn't mean that, or that such-and-such was not your intent all day long, and it won't make a dent in what they took away from your narrative. Pages and pages ago I suggested that you might want to abandon this whole "truth" line because it doesn't seem to apply -at least not the way you seem determined to use it - in the case of the stories we tell, and how those stories affect us, regardless of whether a narrative is meant to be fiction or non-fiction.

Perhaps it would help me understand you if you tell me what you believe truth is. That would give context to your assertion that I should "abandon this whole 'truth' line because it doesn't seem to apply."

You don't understand my meaning? Is the ambiguity in the text or have you created the ambiguity in your mind?

I would say you are being too vague for me to get what you are trying to convey. Defining your terms and using examples might help.

Has this entire conversation been an attempt to establish that ambiguity exists in text, or an attempt to create it because you need it to be there (for whatever reason)?

No, it's a failed attempt to comprehend your meaning. Perhaps our ways of communicating is so vastly different that we are simply unable to understand one another?

Let me add this as well, and keep in mind I'm only repeating myself here. What do you hope to do, if you can establish such ambiguity in the first place? You hope to fill that gap you've created with specificity, don't you?

What created specificity? The term is too vague to have any useful meaning to me.

You'd like to offer your interpretation, wouldn't you?

Interpretation of what? The biblical text? The reason for the ambiguous nature of the text? Again, too vague to communicate anything helpful to the dialog.

Doesn't that set off alarms in your mind?

It might if I had the slightest idea what you are saying. I'm sure you know exactly what you mean, but your lack of clarity makes it impossible for me. You see? I'm OK with giving up on trying to understand you, if you are. If you have the patience and want to make an attempt at being more specific, clear and cogent, I'm willing to give it another try to grasp your meaning.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not so. I'm interpreting them as best as I can in an attempt to understand your meaning.

You looking for some meaning beyond what you see on the screen even in what I type now? There's a safer assumption to be made here.

Yes, the fault is mine for not understanding you. Perhaps if you would be more specific, less vague and use examples, then I'd grasp your meaning.

I don't think we're going to find any common ground, I've repeatedly made explicit statements. I don't seem to be having a whole hell of alot of trouble understanding you, even though I disagree with you. I think you very desperately want my statements to be vague...and so they seem to be.

Perhaps it would help me understand you if you tell me what you believe truth is. That would give context to your assertion that I should "abandon this whole 'truth' line because it doesn't seem to apply."

Just hold on now, was I being vague with the above? Why are we so quick to dash off to "truth". I take it you didn't have any trouble understanding me this particular time that I've repeated myself?

I would say you are being too vague for me to get what you are trying to convey. Defining your terms and using examples might help.

Except for the above, amiright? There you understood what I was saying well enough to realize that it was probably easier to waffle around about meaning of truth than to continue asking the same questions and getting the same responses.

No, it's a failed attempt to comprehend your meaning. Perhaps our ways of communicating is so vastly different that we are simply unable to understand one another?

Doubtful, there's a far simpler and more cynical explanation.

What created specificity? The term is too vague to have any useful meaning to me.

See below

Interpretation of what? The biblical text? The reason for the ambiguous nature of the text? Again, too vague to communicate anything helpful to the dialog.

You offered at least that both the catholic and protestant positions were incorrect, that's pretty specific.

It might if I had the slightest idea what you are saying. I'm sure you know exactly what you mean, but your lack of clarity makes it impossible for me. You see? I'm OK with giving up on trying to understand you, if you are. If you have the patience and want to make an attempt at being more specific, clear and cogent, I'm willing to give it another try to grasp your meaning.

Again, there's a far simpler and more cynical explanation for the direction our conversation has taken.