Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a contradiction between Deuteronomy and Jonah?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 65 (107422)
05-11-2004 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by PaulK
05-11-2004 10:06 AM


Re: Proclamation
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2004 10:06 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2004 10:42 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 55 by Sylas, posted 05-11-2004 11:36 AM Percy has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 54 of 65 (107426)
05-11-2004 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
05-11-2004 10:32 AM


Re: Proclamation
Well I would like to know why you say that you can't see the contradiction when in fact you do, and why you minimise the problems by comparing a capital offence to a trivial one. I really don't see how you can say that either are valid.
I've already answered Cromwell's point - it is really quite contrary to the Book of Jonah as it is written. The idea is not even hinted at and even God agrees that the predicted disaster did not happen (nor is the qualifier "sinful" part of Jonah's prophecy as it appears in the book). Since Jeremiah makes much the same point and does not suggest that the prophecies need to be qualified by "sinful" or "virtuous" or any equivalents Cromwell's point is simply an irrelevance. He is adding ideas that are clearly not present in the text as it is written.
As for any "role rversal" on the part of the inerrantists I think you mistake their stated position for their actual position. Despite what they say the actual message of the Bible is secondary to their own beliefs - and thus they have no difficulty in ignoring or misrepresenting the actual text of the Bible to support their belief in Biblical inerrancy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 05-11-2004 10:32 AM Percy has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5259 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 55 of 65 (107440)
05-11-2004 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
05-11-2004 10:32 AM


Re: Proclamation
Percy writes:
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.
It has been interesting; although the phenomenon you describe seems to me common. The whole point of contradictions is to show up flaws in the strict literal inerrant mode of interpretation, and so of course that is what is used by those arguing against inerrancy.
Breaking my earlier vow of silence on this, if Jonah is historically accurate, then the passage in Deuteronomy -- taken literally, of course -- is false. It is weird that you won't recognize this as a contradiction. I read your articles, and I simply don't see any argument at all against this; but rather an argument that contradictions should be expected, and an implicit notion that they don't seriously devalue the text. I agree with that, by the way; but find that this insight on the triviality of conflicts is only obscured by a refusal to recognize their existence.
There are many ways to deal with this conflict, tension, contradiction, difference, contrast, whatever. I'll omit worrying about the need to prove other persons "wrong", or to refute someone else's view. The question for any student of the bible is this: what does this tension mean for you and your own attitude to the bible?
  1. The usual approach of the person who argues in favour of contradictions is that this discredits the bible or means it can't be trusted. That is not my own position, however; and in this I am probably fairly close to Percy.
  2. My own view is that tensions arise from genuinely different views and approaches by the authors of the bible. It enhances the value and scope of the bible that it includes such diversity. I frankly don't find much in Deuteronomy in isolation that is admirable. It represents (crudely) the "fundamentalist" stream within the Israelites. The book of Jonah, on the other hand, represents something from a more "liberal" theologian. The important conflict (in my opinion) is not over God changing His mind on things. It is about attitudes to enemies. But in any case, the author of Jonah would most likely have had some major theological disagreements with the author of Deuteronomy; even though he would have been unlikely to think of it in those terms.
  3. The inerrantist, of course, cannot recognize the contradiction. The analysis of the strict inerrantist invariably ends up actually denying some passages, but never admitting this.
For example, Cromwell in Message 50 responds to the claim that God changes his mind with the word "No", followed by a lot of text about how God should be expected to change His mind. What is that about? Of course God is described in Jonah as changing his mind. It is there is black and white. So somehow the inerrantist ends up in this rather bizarre position of justifying the fact that God is changing his mind, without actually recognizing this as something which can be brought out as an implication to be used if that might show a contradiction with something else.
Cromwell says the message of the prophet Jonah is "not applicable" to Deuteronomy, whatever that means. The real problem is, of course, that Jonah's story makes the sentence in Deuteronomy false; which means that you can't actually risk putting them side by side; or quoting the passage next to the relevant extracts of Jonah. He asks "Does Jonah really come under the context found in Deutronomy"; the simple answer to that, if we are honest to Deuteronomy, is "yes, of course". The context of Deuteronomy is any prophet making a prediction.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 05-11-2004 10:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2004 11:53 AM Sylas has not replied
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 05-11-2004 11:56 AM Sylas has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 56 of 65 (107449)
05-11-2004 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Sylas
05-11-2004 11:36 AM


Re: Proclamation
I agree the contradictions do not disprove the Bible.
As I said in post 1 my purpose in starting this thread is to show that Almeyda's claim claim that there are no contradictions in the Bible is false. If nobody had made that claim the thread would not have been started.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Sylas, posted 05-11-2004 11:36 AM Sylas has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 57 of 65 (107451)
05-11-2004 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Sylas
05-11-2004 11:36 AM


Re: Proclamation
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Sylas, posted 05-11-2004 11:36 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Sylas, posted 05-11-2004 12:13 PM Percy has replied
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2004 12:20 PM Percy has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5259 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 58 of 65 (107456)
05-11-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Percy
05-11-2004 11:56 AM


Re: Proclamation
Percy writes:
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.
I'm not as up on this as I could be, and I'm no legal expert. But I've read a couple of legal opinions, including some by Brennan. In fact, I even introduced one into a thread here, in Message 66, and expressed a rather uninformed and naive opinion that I preferred the view of the dissenting opinions -- Brennan was one of these.
In Australia we have justice Michael Kirby, who may be a kind of parallel in some respects. I'm not sure if that is a good comparison, but Kirby is big on interpretation as well, and a generous understanding of imputed rights; which some folks have found contentious.
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.
Sure; I understand all of that. But as I have already noted, I see you saying that the contradiction is trivial, or inconsequential; not that there is no contradiction.
I continue to observe that the verse which is in contradiction with Jonah is not the law itself, but a statement about prophecy introduced as a justification for the law. The statement is false as given. Perhaps we can rephrase it, or apply it by use of something other than the strict meaning of the text. That would be a way of dealing with the contradiction; but it fails as a way of saying that the contradiction is not there in the original text.
Indeed to deal with it adequately by an interpretation is to recognize that there is a contradiction, and a need to have an informed application which goes beyond the simple text.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 05-11-2004 11:56 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 05-11-2004 12:33 PM Sylas has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 59 of 65 (107458)
05-11-2004 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Percy
05-11-2004 11:56 AM


Re: Proclamation
I've got to say that I agree with Sylas on most points. But what I find puzzling - and disturbing - in your posts is the implication that executing an innocent man is a trivial matter.
An inerrantist would probably also be worried by the idea that God couldn't reasonably forsee that He might want to change His mind on occasion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 05-11-2004 11:56 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Sylas, posted 05-11-2004 12:36 PM PaulK has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 65 (107460)
05-11-2004 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Sylas
05-11-2004 12:13 PM


Re: Proclamation
Sylas writes:
Sure; I understand all of that. But as I have already noted, I see you saying that the contradiction is trivial, or inconsequential; not that there is no contradiction.
...
Indeed to deal with it adequately by an interpretation is to recognize that there is a contradiction, and a need to have an informed application which goes beyond the simple text.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Sylas, posted 05-11-2004 12:13 PM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Sylas, posted 05-11-2004 12:58 PM Percy has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5259 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 61 of 65 (107461)
05-11-2004 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by PaulK
05-11-2004 12:20 PM


Re: Proclamation
PaulK writes:
I've got to say that I agree with Sylas on most points. But what I find puzzling - and disturbing - in your posts is the implication that executing an innocent man is a trivial matter.
I don't think that is a valid implication. The fact is that the application and interpretation of Jewish law has, traditionally, been such that the strict penalties are effectively never applied.
It is harder to draw inferences about how things worked out in ancient Israel; but that is not the point.
It is most certainly not an implication of Percy's perspective that execution of the innocent is trivial. It is (I gather) that law is invariably interpreted in a larger context that the immediate text, and so that the conflict implicit in a putative execution of Jonah would, most likely, never arise.
Excuse me jumping in Percy; and feel free to correct any misunderstanding. But I want to be on record that although I agree with PaulK that he has shown a contradiction; I don't agree that considering the contradiction unimportant implies the execution of the innocent is unimportant.
Cheers -- Sylas
This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-11-2004 11:54 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2004 12:20 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2004 12:42 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 05-11-2004 12:57 PM Sylas has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 62 of 65 (107465)
05-11-2004 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Sylas
05-11-2004 12:36 PM


Re: Proclamation
I have no doubt that the application of Jewish law has varied quite significantly - and by the time Jonah was written it seems all but certain that the view expressed in Jeremiah would have triumphed anyway.
But I do have to be concerned when a capital offence is compared to motoring offences which are only technically illegal, if that (it would not surprise me if the rules about crossing white lines made exceptions for avoiding cyclists). I also have to be concerned when the only reason given for not executing Jonah is evidence (the statement in Jonah that Joanh was a true prophet) that would not be available at the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Sylas, posted 05-11-2004 12:36 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 63 of 65 (107469)
05-11-2004 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Sylas
05-11-2004 12:36 PM


Re: Proclamation
Sylas writes:
Excuse me jumping in 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Sylas, posted 05-11-2004 12:36 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5259 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 64 of 65 (107470)
05-11-2004 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
05-11-2004 12:33 PM


OT: Justice Michael Kirby
(Off topic warning)
Percy writes:
While I've heard of Kirby, I know nothing about him.
That's the invitation I must have been fishing for...
Justice Michael KirbyJustice Michael Kirby is big news in Australia. What he should be known for is that he is an internationally recognized expert on law and human rights, celebrated for his insights into theory and jurisprudence; and awarded many times over for his work. Here is an extract from my link:
Justice Kirby has held or holds numerous international posts. He has chaired two Committees of the OECD on Privacy and Data Security. He has taken an active part in UNESCO, at its General Conference and in specialised expert bodies studying the rights of peoples in international law. He served as a Member of the Global Commission on AIDS of the World Health Organisation. He has taken part in numerous judicial conferences of the Commonwealth Secretariat.
For the ILO he was part of a mission to South Africa in 1992-3 to examine that country's labour laws. In November 1993, he was appointed the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations on Human Rights for Cambodia - a position he held until April 1996. In February 1994 he was the Independent Chairman of the Constitutional Conference of Malawi. He returned there in 1997 for a Constitutional Symposium.
In March 1994, he was appointed by the Director-General of UNESCO to be a member of the International Jury for the UNESCO prize for the teaching of human rights. In 1995 he was appointed to the Ethical, Legal and Social Issues Committee of the Human Genome Organisation now based in London: monitoring the largest cooperative scientific project in history. Also in 1995 he was appointed to the Editorial Committee of the Commonwealth of Association for Education in Journalism and Communication.
In 1996 he was appointed to the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO, Paris. He was also appointed in 1996 to the International Advisory Group on Advocacy Training of the Inns of Court School of Law in London and the International Council for Conflict Prevention of International Alert, London. In 1997 he took part in the preparation of a Judicial Training Manual on Human Rights being prepared by the UN Centre for Human Rights. He has been a Commissioner of the International Commission of Jurists since 1984. In 1995, he was elected ICJ President, a position he still holds.
Justice Kirby was created a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George in 1983 and a Companion of the Order of Australia, the highest civil honour now awarded in Australia, in 1991. In 1991 he was awarded the Australian Human Rights Medal.
Kirby is very big indeed on human rights. But what really made him hit the popular news media a couple of years back was a scandal in which he was falsely accused in parliament of misuse of government cars to pursue sex. The whole thing was a crude frame-up that blew up badly in the face of the politician who pursued it. Kirby's open homosexuality and long term stable relationship makes him a target for many, especially the religious right. Fortunately they are not as influential here as in the USA, I think; but they certainly around. Sorry for going off topic... but I find the whole thing rather interesting in a sad kind of way.
Cheers -- Sylas
This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-11-2004 12:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 05-11-2004 12:33 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 05-11-2004 3:25 PM Sylas has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 65 of 65 (107529)
05-11-2004 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Sylas
05-11-2004 12:58 PM


Trade you
Two Judge Moores for one Judge Kirby?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Sylas, posted 05-11-2004 12:58 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024