If a Biblical contradiction is REDEFINED as a non-contradiction, does that solve the problem?

Question

Or is it a mere semantic evasion of futilely trying to reconcile the irreconciliable? Here goes!

Answer 1

Ha ha! Great question. I like your "here goes" at the end. Obviously you know what you're getting into here! ;-)

I would answer that it depends. The thing is, like pretty much everything short of math, the Bible is subject to interpretation. Most Christians (though obviously a lot of the "angry" ones, as I like to call them, do not) believe that the Bible is a "living" word. This means that its usefulness evolves with us. Times are different now than they were two thousand years ago, therefore the meaning of the Bible has changed. Christian (and non-Christian) interpretation has certainly changed over the centuries, regardless of whether or not it should. That does not necessarily reflect badly on the Bible, no more than redefinition of the Constitution over the years is not always a bad thing (like getting rid of slavery, for example). That said, of course, it CAN be bad when it is used to justify evil.

So whether or not a redefinition is a semantic evasion (I love this phrase. Good one!) is dependent on why it is being redefined. What is the motivation of the questioner and interpreter? Many of the supposed "contradictions" in the Bible are not contradictions at all. Only the interpretation of them is contradictory. The Bible was written by different people at different times. Whether or not you believe those people to be inspired by God is irrelevant; the fact is that every book of the Bible was written in its own particular context, put together centuries later to form the Bible. My very least favorite thing that people do with the Bible, and Christians and non-Christians BOTH do it, is when people cherry-pick the verses to prove their point, taking them out of context. It is illogical, and it is wrong.

There was a perfect example of this on the Colbert Report the other night. They told the story of a doctor who used the Bible verse Leviticus 19:28 to turn away a woman's child because the woman had tattoos. It was an abhorrent misuse of the scripture. For one thing, that verse specifically was dealing with mutilation of the body for the dead, and is only arguably against tattoos in general. Second, that same chapter is FULL of verses that the doctor obviously was not applying to his own life, including a verse about cutting your hair and beard and HELPING YOUR NEIGHBOR. The book of Leviticus, in general, is a book about establishing the law for the Jewish people so that they could set themselves apart from those around them and survive as an individual nation. It has nothing to do with a woman whose child needs medical care in 2007. The book is also about creating a community of believers, and turning away people in need is ANTI-community. It certainly is anti-Christian.

Whether or not a person agrees with my interpretation of the Book of Leviticus is irrelevant. The point is that there is a context that the Bible is written in, and when you take into consideration the context of the Bible, there really are not any "contradictions" at all... no more than we are contradictions in ourselves. However, our interpretation of the Bible is subject to contradictions, because we do not agree on it. But that is human nature. The fact is that ALL our arguments against one another are matters of semantic evasion and bias. If we did not have the Bible, we would be creating irreconciliable arguments about something else. The fault does not like in the Bible. It lies in us.

Thanks for the interesting discussion! Have a good one.

Answer 2

Words mean what their author wants them to mean. You cannot properly or truthfully refine their meaning without saying somethng the author did not intend. That is why paraphrase is such a snake to deal with.

Answer 3

Why does it matter? You either believe in God or you don't.