Does the Bible contradict itself?

by senoj53 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Leolaia

  Good post, Narkissos.

  I would just add that the presupposition of inerrancy privileges harmonistic interpretations (aimed at resolving "contradictions") over readings that deal with what a given text says in context and imho this results in an artificiality that is not present in the text itself. Such an approach would miss out on inner-biblical criticism and exegesis (that is, reinterpretation and disagreement within the Bible itself) and thus ignore the "richness" that I referred to earlier.

  And what the writers themselves considered "scripture" is not necessarily what may today be considered "scripture". The author of Jude quotes from 1 Enoch as genuine "prophecy," and thus considered this book as inspired. And books today accepted as canonical scripture may not have been accepted as such by the writers (e.g. it is doubtful that Paul regarded his own letters as inspired scripture, distinguishing as he does between his own opinions and commands he had received from the Lord).
• 

  JCanon

  I just saw this:

  " does the bible contradict itself " has a good link that shows many verses that are conflicting

  There will be always different interpretations of things and thus I don't consider an interpretation of a verse a contradiction. I was expecting something different for those claiming the Bible contradicts itself but the above examples are judgment calls on the way God does things. In the case of whether Jehovah incited David or Satan, we know that Jehovah sends Satan to do certain things, like Satan had hands-on when testing Job. Later after the millennium is over, Satan is sent to test mankind but its with Jehovah's approval. So my initial response (before actually reading this) is that there would be no conflict if one verse said God incited David and one said Satan did, because Satan was simply carrying out what Jehovah was permitting. So while some might be offended by this idea, there is no textual conflict here, just two different references to the same thing. It's no different than a father sending his son to deliver a message, and upon questioning where the messge came from, one saying it came from the son and one from the father. Both are correct. So this isn't the Bible contradicting itself in this case. Saying Satan incited David or God are not contradictory if God allowed or sent Satan to do this. An architect highers a building contractor to build a building but at one point either will stand in front of the building and say, "I built this building." JC
• 

  JCanon

  I've seen a list of "inerrancy" issues in the Bible and some are not resolvable or could be interpreted different ways, but here's an example in one of the lists above, which is an example of a "contradiction":

  Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven: "For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12 ASV) I don't know why anyone would follow the teachings of someone who literally tells all men to cut off their privates.

  Someone is interpreting here that Jesus is speaking of castrating yourself literally to become a "eunuch" for the sake of a life of singleness. But that's just that interpretation. Another interpretation is that a "eunuch" here, is someone without the usual attraction to women and thus those born that way from their mothers is a reference to a gay person. Thus what Christ is saying is that if you're gay, use that as an advantage and consider a "gift" to be unattracted to women so that you can remain single. It's a general reference to the advantage of not having the usual strong heterosexual mating drive.

  So there's nothing here.

  So, blueviceroy, if there is some particular verse you have in mind you want me to comment on, please list it specifically, like maybe three major ones you consider clear-cut contradictions, but not those involving an interpretation of something that others would interpret in a different way that would not be a contradiction, simply based on context or language. For instance, I saw one where the Bible says "There are many gods and many lords" and in another place where "there is just one god and one lord." Is that a contradiction? Or just simple context and usage, much like a maid or a child will come to the door and tell a witness, "Sorry, there's nobody home right now." Obviously, if they are answering the door somebody is at home, they are, so can't anybody see through that lie? So sometimes it is just context, what is meant by the writer versus the actual words in another context.

  See ya!

  JC
• 

  choosing life

  JC Canon,

  I agree in that verse that Jesus was not talking about literal castration. However, how would being a homosexual with urges towards the same sex be any different than a heterosexual? There would be no more freeing of oneself in this situation. It would make sense if the verse meant a person felt no need for sex and therefore could concentrate wholly on their service to God, without this distraction.

  I feel you are taking liberties with the meaning of this verse that just don't apply.
• 

  Homerovah the Almighty

  Jcanon would make an excellent spin doctor for the WTS., is there contradiction in that or value based on fact
• 

  blueviceroy

  >>>jcanon<<<<no not really I'm not out to prove or disprove anything thats not my style I just wanted to hear your point of view as you always defend thats all
• 

  Leolaia

  The statement on eunuchs is actually fascinating in a number of ways. Regardless of how one interprets the text, the remarkably positive attitude here towards eunuchs as an example worth emulating is radically different from the usual Jewish attitude which looked at eunuchs with derision and disgust (see Josephus especially). The term indeed had a broad range of signification well beyond that of the English term "eunuch," as indicated in the text itself which mentions different kinds of eunuchs. I would hesitate to use an anachronistic term like "gay" or "homosexual" (as sexualities in ancient societies often differed hugely from our own, cf. Foucault), but I agree that it partially overlaps with what could be expressed by the term in ancient literature. I have also seen it referred to instances where sexuality was not at issue such as infertility. Josephus seems to describe eunuchs in transgendered terms (see Antiquities, 4.8.40). The other interesting thing about the text is its relation to early proto-gnostic texts in the Gospel of Thomas and elsewhere on women making themselves male and "making the male and female one and the same". As I discussed in my thread on the status of women in early Christianity, this notion relates to sexual aceticism and withholding marriage and childbearing (cf. 1 Timothy 4:3; cf. 2:14-15 which recommends childbearing for women). Making oneself a "eunuch" seems to be the male equivalent of this....refraining from participating in the "evil" of reproduction (i.e. celibacy). Matthew however is otherwise not proto-gnostic so this is not necessarily directly relevant to an exegesis of this text in question, and it is quite possible that the Matthean community had a different understanding of this notion, such as an eschatological one (cf. Matthew 24:19 on the coming woes of those having children and v. 38 on people marrying before the Flood). An eschatological reading is attractive in light of the prominent role of eschatology in Matthew and the trajectory in which proto-gnostic realized eschatology is a later development of the kind found in Matthew (cf. April De Conick on this developmental trajectory). Or it could relate to an itinerant lifestyle that eschews sedentary family life (cf. Matthew 10). Or it may pertain to an anticipation of the kingdom in which there is no marriage or giving in marriage for those in the resurrection (Matthew 22:30). But whatever the interpretation, the positive attitude towards eunuchs is very striking.
• 

  Narkissos

  I would just add that the presupposition of inerrancy privileges harmonistic interpretations (aimed at resolving "contradictions") over readings that deal with what a given text says in context and imho this results in an artificiality that is not present in the text itself.

  One effect of this harmonising perspective on Biblical intertextuality is the creation of a paratextwhich then screens out the texts themselves. You cannot harmonise text A with text B without generating a (strictly unscriptural) paratext C which then remains in your mind as "what 'the Bible' actually says". Then you cannot read either A or B without superimposing C on them. (An easy example of that is the scenario gathered from Matthew's and Luke's alternative and complete Nativity stories, neither of which is read anymore for its own sake: what stays in mind is Luke's Nazareth + census + journey + manger + shepherds + Matthew's Magi + Egypt).

  As a result, you find that most unscholarly "Bible apologists" vs. "Bible critics" debates focus on a commonly admitted paratext (what "the Bible" supposedly "says") rather than on any particular text.
• 

  kerj2leev

  we know that Jehovah sends Satan to do certain things, like Satan had hands-on when testing Job. Later after the millennium is over, Satan is sent to test mankind but its with Jehovah's approval. So my initial response (before actually reading this) is that there would be no conflict if one verse said God incited David and one said Satan did, because Satan was simply carrying out what Jehovah was permitting

  Isn't sending and permitting something entirely different?
• 

  JCanon

  Isn't sending and permitting something entirely different?

  One could certainly argue that, but the WTS actually often goes into the "permitting" mode with some of these things, and it is complex.

  Case in point, the issue where Pharaoh likely would have let the Jews go (remember that?) but God kept "hardening his heart" so that he wouldn't. So some might think that God is forcing pharaoh's hand here in this situation, so the WTS backs away from this a bit and suggests that God just permitted pharoah's heart to become hardened.

  Fact is, though, if you cross God he is known to trip you up. He traps the wise in their own cunning as he did Satan. That whole Garden of Eden thing wasn't a trap for Adam and Eve, but for Satan. Remember, Satan got condemned too. So he's not that much of an unbiased bystander in all these things. Another time we find an account where God was up in heaven and he asked which of the angels thought they could trip up someone to induce him to disobey. It's quite fascinating, but it's in the Bible for a reason.

  At any rate I included "both" not either, so if sending is not the same as "permitting" then that's fine with me. But then there is the case with Job. Satan is the one who came up with the idea and issue of testing Job. Jehovah asked where Satan had been and he said he was roving about in the earth and then God asked him about Job and Satan challenged God as far as Job's loyalty saying he was only serving him because God had made Job rich. So God took Satan up on the challenge and God "permitted" Satan to go down and kill all of Job's children and take all his money away, etc. But didn't god also "send" him since God "permitted" him?

  So it's semantics. But if you see a clear difference, that's fine. The issue is whether or not there is a textual contradiction where one verse says God tempted him and another that Satan did. Obviously, both are the case.

  JC