Is there a contradiction between Deuteronomy and Jonah?

That was sort of my reaction: "What contradiction?"--Percy

First, an aside, only to say I hope we can stay focused on the topic and avoid becoming personal.On to the topic: I still don't see a contradiction. Jonah seems simply a circumstance not anticipated by Deuteronomy. The argument that Deuteronomy covers all possible contingencies and that anything not explicitly addressed must be interpreted using only Deuteronomy falls pretty flat for me.I also share the reaction of someone else who posted earlier to this thread, though I'd phrase it a bit differently: if this is one of the better contradictions you can come up with, then those who claim the Bible is without internal contradictions are in pretty good shape.--Percy

There are few words in the English language with a single definition across all contexts, and I don't believe prophecy is one of them. The context of this discussion interprets prophecy as a prediction of the future, and I think we've been consistent so far. Unless you think some of the opinions or Biblical quotes offered here have been using a different definition of prophecy.That being said, I don't agree with Cromwell that it wasn't a prophecy but a proclamation.--Percy

Well, yes, but the question concerns a possible contradiction, and an answer that seems more reasonable to me, and one that I think most people would find reasonable, is to look at Deuteronomy and say, "Jonah's situation isn't covered here."Deuteronomy is telling how to recognize a false prophet whose message did not come from God, but we know Jonah is not a false prophet, because we are told his message was given him by God. The punishment Deuteronomy proscribes is for false prophets. While the men of Jonah's time might have erroneously concluded Jonah was a false prophet and meted out the proscribed punishment, it would have been wrong, and so we agree.But it is not a contradiction, not a case of Deuteronomy saying one thing and Jonah saying another. It is simply a case that the reader of the Bible has information available to him, namely that Jonah's message did indeed come from God, that wasn't available to the people of Jonah's time.--Percy

Sorry, I don't see a contradiction on this point, either. It is not a case of Deuteronomy requiring one test for a false prophet, while Jonah provides a conflicting test. Jonah doesn't even suggest a test for detecting false prophets.And it isn't that Deuteronomy proposes one punishment for a false prophet while Jonah proposes another.All you've got is that God has left Jonah in the vulnerable position of appearing to be a false prophet by the rules of Deuteronomy.By the way, aren't there examples prior to Deuteronomy of God changing his mind? For example, when God wanted to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, didn't Abraham get God to repeatedly change his mind about the number of good men it would take to spare those cities? "If I find fifty righteous people...", and God said not for fifty, and then "If I find forty-five...", and God said not for forty five, and so forth on down in increments all the way to ten.--Percy

Although I'm replying to PaulK, this is actual a reply to both PaulK and to Sylas in his Message 40.I am as puzzled by both your interpretations of what constitutes a contradiction as you apparently are by mine. The codification of law is subject to some very natural limitations in that it can't possibly anticipate all contingencies, even in the view of an inerrantist, which I am not. Here in the states we have a driving law that says you can't cross a double white line down the middle of the road, yet people do it every day as they avoid potholes, squirrels, cyclists, and so on, in violation of law, and right in front of policemen who see no problem with it. Few people obey the speed limit, but unless you're going 10 mph over, policemen for the most part don't care. These aren't contradictions, just normal people behaving normally and rationally.I agree that the Deuteronomy prescription is limited and flawed, but you can't make law perfect. It isn't possible. That you've found a situation in the Bible not covered by Deuteronomy isn't a contradiction but just a natural limitation of legal codification.If you really want a "contradiction" of this nature I suggest you focus on Thou shalt not kill. This one gets "contradicted" all the time, often by God's own command, and in one instance on the very day of Moses descent from the mountain and by Moses and his lieutenants themselves.--Percy

I think we'll probably just have to agree to disagree, but Cromwell's last post reminds me of another thought I had.God forced Jonah to prophesize that in forty days the sinful city of Ninevah that had turned against God would be overturned or overthrown. The prophecy came true, for within forty days there no longer existed a sinful city of Ninevah that rejected God.This has turned into an interesting topic because it has produced the role reversal you sometimes see in these debates, and that strikes me as being so curious when it occurs. The inerrantists are arguing for some flexibility in interpretation, while the errantists are arguing for some strict and very literal interpretations.--Percy

Hi, Sylas!It might not be possible for us to reach agreement on this point, but I do have one idea for explaining why I think the way I do on this.It might come down to my own individual perspective on written law. The written law is a dead thing not meant to be interpreted in isolation. It must be informed by a wealth of experience and insight, something that judges are expected to bring to the courtroom. You're not an American, so you're probably not familiar with Justice Brennan's "penumbras and emanations" argument for interpreting the US constitution. Not that I'm in agreement with Brennan, because he managed to find a wealth of constitutional rights in the US Constitution that left many people (mostly conservatives) shaking their heads, but this gives a good feel for the attitude that lawyers and judges must bring to the interpretation of law.So the fact that Deuteronomy is inadequate for Jonah doesn't bother me a bit. If there were a clear fabrication in the Bible that was in a clearly identified fictional portion, no one would see a problem. The stricture from Deuteronomy introduced in this thread is in a clearly identified law portion, and I interpret it appropriately and see no problem vis a vis Jonah.--Percy

You know, I think I can go along with this for the most part, except that the word "contradiction" feels like not quite the right word to me in this context. If I can describe the way I feel about this in different terms, it isn't that there isn't a problem of legal interpretation here, it's that it's precisely the kind of problem that always arises and that one always expects in a legal context. One doesn't arrive at the courtroom because one's legal issue is black and white, and the courtrooms are full, so there must not be much black and white in our legal code, indeed, in any legal code. And that's not a criticism, just an acknowledgment of reality. If it were easy to write laws that decided any issue lawyers would be in slight demand. (Of course, a cynic would point out that it is lawyers who write the laws and that the ambiguity is intended to accomplish full lawyer employment, but that's another topic. )I'm impressed that you've not only heard of Brennan but are even familiar with some of his work. I can't make the reciprocal claim. While I'e heard of Kirby, I know nothing about him.--Percy

Jump right in, by all means, and more than welcome. There are no private conversations here.If I can mention a related meta-issue, much of this discussion, indeed of many discussions, is merely people's best rationalizations, justifications, and even (gasp!) evidences for what they would believe anyway. My position isn't based upon a thorough review of the evidence along with lengthy and deep reflections upon a variety of opinions and interpretations, but is more a reflection of an inner mental state over which I probably don't even exert a lot of conscious control.I think this is true of everyone. It's why arguments are so rarely conceded. The person losing an argument often isn't just giving up the logic of his argument, but something much greater, his inner self.--Percy