God of the Bible as Flawed Human

quote:

---

Not contradiction but apparent contradiction?

---

Not neccessarily.There may, indeed, be blatant, unreconcilable contradictions that can be attributed to many causes, not the least of which is that the Bible was written, translated, copied, and edited by humans.

quote:

---

Fair enough. That is movement. So try Arachs little test then. I see no contradiction. Do you?

---

Yes.The two statements are wholly contradictory. Perhaps this is one of those mysteries that we are never meant to understand.Those two statements taken together could be taken as a lesson that teaches that there is simply no good way to answer fools, so it is better to not answer them at all.One must read in context, in understanding of the Jewish scholar tradition in which the Bible is written, and ponder greater meaning to get the meaning from the Bible.Literal, simplistic reading misses ALL of this.

uh, no, iano. you're the one doing the evading here. as you admit in your first sentance -- you're not answering my question.we "assert" that you are playing semantic games, because yo uare. your whole point is based on twisting the meanings and connotations of words. i only see one person wriggling, here. actually, i addressed about four individual posts regarding god making errors. you chose it quibble about what the word "regret" means -- semantics. actually, it is. that's the, uh, definition of semantic games -- especially when you are using the wrong usage. i pointed out to you how you were using the wrong usage. yes, because the word in bold up there is "possession." that's the usage we are using. fine. run away. ok. avoid the topic. it is a bit off topic, sure. but if you continue to purport that the bible is a homogenous entity devoid of any contradictions, let alone individual artistic style, i will ask you again to explain away this contradiction.but you are failing to see how your assumption is clouding your judgement in this (the on-topic) issue. we just have a difference of assumptions here, afterall. i believe the bible should be read literally, and you do not.

---

i beg to differ. when i say "literal" i (ahem, apparently) mean something wholly different than the literalists mean.indeed, context (both literary and cultural), subtext, grammar, pragmatics, and logic are all part of any good literal reading. the people who are "over literal" often never get past the definitions of the words (semantics), and fail to see the larger picture. or, like iano, they start with the larger picture and try to explain away any little lumps along the way with semantics. part of the context, as i mentioned is cultural. part is what we can gather about what the text is, and why it was written. part is pragmatic application -- what the text is saying. not to be confused with the lesson. that's the next step.the book of proverbs is just that, a book... of proverbs. the things contained in it are proverbs, not the words of god. something iano likely missed, in his crusade to make the bible easily ingestible through a straw."answer a fool" is one proverb."answer not a fool" is another proverb.the person who collected the book of proverbs was collecting the sayings and expressions, old wives' tales, and moralistic teachings of his society at the time. both of these expressions existed... and people used them exactly like iano and i just did. calling each other a fool.in fact, as you might have gathered from our quips, one exists as the answer to the other. it's impossible to say which one came first -- but someone was being a smartass. but you are right about one thing. the literal does miss this: we can gather that in the next step, application, where we determine the lesson to be learned from the text and how to apply that teaching to our lives. you are however wrong about the next part: there is simply no way to gather that information at all. one says it is better, one says to avoid it. if you think about this for more than one second, you will quickly see that no one application works for all uses. iano would call this "useless," i'm sure, as there's no way to tell when we should do which. but if we did not answer fools, no one would ever learn. and if we answered every fool, we'd just be wasting our time and looking stupid ourselves.so the point i mean to make of this: contradictions are important. they let us know more about the bible than the parts that agree. and it is a mistake to try to whitewash them to fit into our "word of god" preconceptions. to ignore them, or to try and twist the text so they appear to agree is to misunderstand to disrespect the text.

---

you will notice that all of the main points i brought up are in regards to mistakes, omissions, inconsistencies, and regrets of god. jealousy was one of schraf's claims. errors are another. i was well aware that you would try to color the jealous nature of god as a positive. indeed, i might even agree that it is.however, you are missing the larger argument for the minutia.i'm attempting to point out one aspect that should -- SHOULD -- be practically indisputable, and the lowest level of bible study: what the bible actually says. this should be a starting place, against arguments like yours. focusing on the details that do not agree with your point.in posts to others, i have talked briefly about differening portrayals of god, and different qualities the authors of the bible describe him as having. i have talked a little about subtext, and impressions. but if i can't get you to follow the obvious literal meanings of things, what hopes do i have in convincing you of the stuff in between the lines? i side-tracked this thread once -- to ask you to explain your methodology with a particular example. you have since spent two pages bobbing and weaving and refusing to answer. a simple explanation would have been all that was required.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

it's a little late, don't bother. it's evident to everyone reading this that you have no intentions of justifying your position or methodology with logic or reason -- you're just out make sure your preconceptions stay intact.

---

In this answer to you I am going to use examples of EvC discussion to illustrate "No Contradiction" between these two verses. I will be placing people in certain positions and commenting purely for the sake of illustration.Earlier, I assumed the position of 'fool' in order to allow Arach to demonstrate his own take on these verses - to let him be the person to whom these verses are addressed and to find out what he would do. He holds my position to be foolish afterall, so the question (given he holds these verses to be contradictory) is: what will Arach do? Should he answer me or not? This is what he said: 1. "Fool for not ignoring me". Arach is reading verse 26:4 (in the same way as I assume you do) and he concludes that to answer a fool results in him being like me - a fool.2. "also clearly disobeying" Arachs reading means that he is correct here too. The instruction "not to answer a fool" is given and Arach hasn't followed that instruction.3. "obeying 'answer a fool'" Arach has indeed obeyed verse 26:5 in answering iano the fool.The rationale for picking one to obey and another to disobey? I suspect Arach here is using plain common sense, even though this means a disobedience. I will elaborate on why I reckon it must be on grounds of common sense in a minute.We shall now temporarily hide the phrase 'according to' from 26:4 for Arachs take on it, as illustrated in points 1 and 2 above doesn't actually require it. See if you agree. Arach does not obey this instruction. Probably because it makes less no sense to him. He sees me as a fool, he sees my ideas as folly. And no one sees anything wrong with answering a fools folly. It is common sense that we do so. What kind of world would we have where we didn't answer a fools folly? What kind of EvC could we have? Neither do we think that in answering a fools folly we ourselves become foolish. Verse 26:4 makes no common sense to us if Arachs reading is correct. Verse 26:5 does make sense though - and Arach applies common sense in obeying it. I agree with Arachs reading of 26:5 and and his choosing to follow its instruction. Me, the fool, should be answered in order to have my folly challenged. Not to let me walk conceitedly around spouting foolishness as if it weren't. Thus 26:5 can be set aside. We both agree on its wisdom.The phrase 'according to' is not necessary for Arachs reading verse 26:4, a verse which seems to clash with all common sense. But the phrase is there. What then is its purpose? Well, the root of the phrase "according to" is "accord". Some general dictionary definitions of accord to set background. We now re-insert the phrase 'according to' back into verse 26:4 . In re-inserting it, I will use a Wikionary definition which illustrates well the sense I am going to apply to verse 26:4 in showing no contradiction with the common sense of verse 26:5 The following paraphrase re-positions 'according to' in order to make the sense clearer. You can read the actual verse 26: 4 again in the light of this.

quote:

---

Let not your answer to a fool accord with his folly, lest you become like him.

---

"not accord with his folly" can also be read "not correspond with his folly" or "not be in harmony with his folly"The wisdom of verse 26:4 might be becoming somewhat clearer. But don't worry if its not just yet. I'll use another EvC example to illustrate. This time CK gets to play the fool and I get see if I can apply the wisdom contained in the verse (it is somewhat humbling to see how quickly I could find an clear example ) Remember not to be deflected by your opinion of the correctness of the positions - this is only an illustration.Charles plays the Fool Charles foolishness is apparent. The rules of the site hold that ad hom attacks break rule 10. And here Charles is trampling all over it. Such fools get suspended around here and Charles is being foolish in courting Judgement. The question now is, does my answer accord to, harmonise with, correspond to, his foolishness. The answer, I am afraid to say, is that it does. I engage in an ad hom attack in my answer CK the fool. I allow my answer to harmonize with and accord to his foolishness. And in so doing I become like him. I too open myself up to admin sanction. One final point. There is another easily missed problem in Arachs position as shown in points 1 and 2 above. He says that verse 26:4 tells him he is a fool for answering me. The word 'lest' however doesn't imply he is a fool. 'Lest you become' means 'in case you become'. A fool is not the same as a person who does something foolish. A fool is a person who continually, in ongoing fashion engages in foolish behaviour. More correctly, CK is a fool if he continually engages in ad hom attacks. I am being warned by verse 26:4 not to let my answer accord to his foolishness (ad hom attacks) - lest I get to the point of ad homs becoming a feature of my own posts. In which case I have become a fool just like him.
.
.
.
.
.
.The wisdom of 26:4 doesn't contradict the instruction of 26:5. 26:4 gives a warning about the pitfalls. 26:5 instructs as to what to do regarding fools and why to do it. "By all means answer a fool. But don't let your answers be ones where you are a kettle calling a pot black. Otherwise you may well become a fool too."Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : clean upEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Bump for Arach. Above post to Schraf for you to.

i'll get to your response, no need to bump. actually, it means a "disobedience" either way. and if it's just common sense that tells me what to do, of what use is the advice?i think i'm gonna take verse 4's advice this time, and ignore your semantics. they hurt my brain. instead, i will answer you in a way that does not "accord" with your folly.so again, i will point out, in even plainer english:

quote:

---

Pro 26:4 Do not answer not a fool...
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool...

---

---

I did the best I could. Sorry our minds cannot meet

see my reading in Message 93

The post is interesting in so far as it sketches aspects of your approach to Bible reading and your opinions as to its source. But there is no "reading of the verses" in it. Indeed the verses aren't referred to in any detail at all. The most I could extract was the above quoted.The lesson "one says its better" is not contained in the text, nor is it clear what is to be avoided" - that I can see. Could you justify your arrival at this conclusion with reasoning, methodology and logic? Edited by iano, : clarify verses not being referred to

educated opinion. not just an assumption. there is. perhaps you missed it? your posts has even less justification. yes, they were.

quote:

---

"answer a fool" is one proverb.

​

"answer not a fool" is another proverb.

---

i failed to include the most basic quotation, and explanation of the grammar to schraf, because she can read, and we've all seen the verses numerous times now. she knows what they say. (on the other hand, we have problems getting you show that know what they say) then you clearly missed the next few sentances:

quote:

---

if you think about this for more than one second, you will quickly see that no one application works for all uses. iano would call this "useless," i'm sure, as there's no way to tell when we should do which. but if we did not answer fools, no one would ever learn. and if we answered every fool, we'd just be wasting our time and looking stupid ourselves.

---

...do you know what reasoning, justification, and logic are?

---

On what assumption was the education based? Sorry, I edited to state that there was no dealing with what the verses were saying with direct reference to the complete verse. You arrived at your conclusion as if by magic In an ignore the wisdom of 26:4 moment: is this the education you mean The next few sentences based on the conclusion "one says it's better" without explanation as to how that conclusion was arrived at from what the verses say? Yup. I'm an (educated) mechanical engineer: reason and logic are essential tools. Justification is a technique which I use to extract funds to allow those skills to be applied.Can we have your analysis of the two verses now. And the reasoning and logic and justification for arriving at the conclusion you arrive at (which will include them being contradictory)

There is the real issue. There really are folk that believe that the education is based on assumptions other than learning.The God of the Bible is often just a flawed human, sometimes more, sometimes even less. There is no God of the Bible but rather a series of cameos, snapshots of Human perceptions of God, attempts to paint in words what is beyond words. What we see in the Bible are but those feeble human efforts, and so we see an image of what the author saw at that moment.There are those who feel reality must reflect what they want it to be rather than looking at reality and simply saying, "That's how it is."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Maybe Arachs education was developed upon these assumptions. I suspect not. But no matter if it is. Whoever wrote them was conveying information and that is what we are here to find out about