Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[spockrates]

Is what makes a story what it is the intention of the author who gave birth to it?

Not from the writers perspective, no. But from the readers, sure.

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 Grand Nudger]

In what way would a newspaper article be similar to a story of magic? They both have words? Granted. You really need to work on these analogies amigo.....

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.

Look, full stop. Until you can establish that there is a "true meaning" of this narrative than any appeals you make to it are completely and utterly meaningless. You are assuming what you hope to establish. In the interim, regardless of whether or not there is a "true meaning" there is a narrative. That exists, that is not in question. All of my comments on this narrative will be (and have been) about the narrative, and narratives in general, because as above, nothing has been established with regards to this "true meaning", and the story can stand as a story without one in the first place. I see no reasons to assume hidden meanings, and frankly, no benefit in shoehorning the narrative into them in the first place. Though obviously others disagree and have done so -repeatedly.

[spockrates]

In what way would a newspaper article be similar to a story of magic? They both have words? Granted. You really need to work on these analogies amigo.....

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.

You have not answered my question.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, I did, directly, reread. FFS, you just quoted my answer......

[spockrates]

My thought is that what an author intends as the meaning (whether it is the writing of an ancient historian, or the writing of an author of science fiction) is the true meaning of what the author writes. Any idea of a reader of the author's work, which contradicts what the author intends amounts to a misrepresentation of the author's intended meaning. But I suppose you still disagree.

[The Grand Nudger]

I would, because that's not the way that narratives appear to work at all.

(and you are still appealing to "true meanings" without establishing one btw-)

Look, the simplest "true meaning" of a narrative is exactly what you find printed on the page. No assumptions or arguments need be made in that case. If you have reasons to believe the author is using metaphor or allegory (but no confirmation from the author) then an argument must be made. I have handled a few arguments that might be made about the specific narrative this all began over, and I would love to hear any other arguments that might be made in that regard. Nevertheless, the explanation that what is on the page is what is meant stands as the best explanation if only due to parsimony (and thankfully, parsimony is not all that we have in this instance).

[spockrates]

I would, because that's not the way that narratives appear to work at all.

(and you are still appealing to "true meanings" without establishing one btw-)

Look, the simplest "true meaning" of a narrative is exactly what you find printed on the page. No assumptions or arguments need be made in that case. If you have reasons to believe the author is using metaphor or allegory (but no confirmation from the author) then an argument must be made. I have handled a few arguments that might be made about the specific narrative this all began over, and I would love to hear any other arguments that might be made in that regard. Nevertheless, the explanation that what is on the page is what is meant stands as the best explanation if only due to parsimony (and thankfully, parsimony is not all that we have in this instance).

You appear to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the meaning of a fictional story is whatever the reader wants it to be, and not what the author of the story intends it to be. But do you disagree that the true meaning (or the moral) the author Charles Perrault intended the story of Little Red Riding Hood to have is to be careful to not trust the advice of strangers? If someone said that true meaning of the fairy tale is to always trust strangers implicitly, would this be just as true as the the meaning the author actually intended?


Little Red Riding Hood



The version of this tale that most of us are familiar with ends with Riding Hood being saved by the woodsman who kills the wicked wolf. But in fact, the original French version (by Charles Perrault) of the tale was not quite so nice. In this version, the little girl is a well bred young lady who is given false instructions by the wolf when she asks the way to her grandmothers. Foolishly riding hood takes the advice of the wolf and ends up being eaten. And here the story ends. There is no woodsman – no grandmother – just a fat wolf and a dead Red Riding Hood. The moral to this story is to not take advice from strangers.

http://listverse.com/2009/01/06/9-grueso...e-origins/

[The Grand Nudger]

Why not instead prefer the overtly sexual interpretation, and if the authors original intent was somehow better, or more "true" than anyone else's, why has this story been retold, re-written and refined so many times Spock? In this case, we are referring to a story about a talking wolf, do we have reason to believe that the author did not intend for us to actually believe a wolf spoke to a little girl? Yes, we do. If we found this story on a tablet from two thousand years prior, an artifact of a culture which ardently believed that wolves did speak, it would be a little trickier to determine, wouldn't it?

[catfish]

I'm wondering whether there are any biblical passages that contradict one another. Please provide two contradictory passages for discussion and explain why they result in a contradiction. Thanks.

Jude 1:7
King James Version (KJV)

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

conflicts with:


[Ezekiel 16:48-55
King James Version (KJV)

48 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.

49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

51 Neither hath Samaria committed half of thy sins; but thou hast multiplied thine abominations more than they, and hast justified thy sisters in all thine abominations which thou hast done.

52 Thou also, which hast judged thy sisters, bear thine own shame for thy sins that thou hast committed more abominable than they: they are more righteous than thou: yea, be thou confounded also, and bear thy shame, in that thou hast justified thy sisters.

53 When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them:

54 That thou mayest bear thine own shame, and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done, in that thou art a comfort unto them.

55 When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate.


The former verse states that Sodom's "crimes" were fornication, and going after strange flesh and suffer the vengence of eternal fire

The latter states that Sodom's "crimes" were pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness, etc. and will be restored to it's former estate.

We have a conflict of alleged "crimes" and the duration of the punishment it seems...

[spockrates]

Why not instead prefer the overtly sexual interpretation, and if the authors original intent was somehow better, or more "true" than anyone else's, why has this story been retold, re-written and refined so many times Spock? In this case, we are referring to a story about a talking wolf, do we have reason to believe that the author did not intend for us to actually believe a wolf spoke to a little girl? Yes, we do. If we found this story on a tablet from two thousand years prior, an artifact of a culture which ardently believed that wolves did speak, it would be a little trickier to determine, wouldn't it?

What if a reader said the moral of the story is to trust strangers. Would you accept even this as true?

---

I'd say your silence is the answer, Rhythm. So I suppose we agree at last!



The meaning the author intends sets limits to what meaning the reader may give the the author's written work. So what does this tell us about the gospel writers, such as Mark and Matthew? Let's say they intended their gospels to be mythologies. They didn't believe Jesus did miracles (as the enemies of Jesus believed, as evidence from their extra-biblical writings). They did not believe Jesus rose from the dead, as they indicate he did. There might still be some moral lessons they intended to convey. For example, Matthew quotes Jesus as saying:

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

(Matthew 5)

Now if a reader of Matthew's gospel tells us that Matthew meant Jesus to say we should hate our enemies, should we believe her, or should we correct her as gently and respectfully as we are able? I would correct her, for I know that any meaning that obviously contradicts the author's intended meaning is a misinterpretation of the author's work. Would you correct her, too?

---

I'm wondering whether there are any biblical passages that contradict one another. Please provide two contradictory passages for discussion and explain why they result in a contradiction. Thanks.

Jude 1:7
King James Version (KJV)

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

conflicts with:


[Ezekiel 16:48-55
King James Version (KJV)

48 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.

49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

51 Neither hath Samaria committed half of thy sins; but thou hast multiplied thine abominations more than they, and hast justified thy sisters in all thine abominations which thou hast done.

52 Thou also, which hast judged thy sisters, bear thine own shame for thy sins that thou hast committed more abominable than they: they are more righteous than thou: yea, be thou confounded also, and bear thy shame, in that thou hast justified thy sisters.

53 When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them:

54 That thou mayest bear thine own shame, and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done, in that thou art a comfort unto them.

55 When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate.


The former verse states that Sodom's "crimes" were fornication, and going after strange flesh and suffer the vengence of eternal fire

The latter states that Sodom's "crimes" were pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness, etc. and will be restored to it's former estate.

We have a conflict of alleged "crimes" and the duration of the punishment it seems...

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.

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.