simon (03/09/83)
In a recent article Larry West states that "after 1900+ years no one has come up with any "contradiction" that doesn't have an answer." Suppose we take a look at this rather simplistic claim. For two people to agree that a contradiction is contained in a text such as the bible, they must first agree on the written meaning. But where is this obtained from? Since there is no recourse to the original authors the problem arises of providing interpretations for the many obscure passages, and, as Don Chan points out, this is a game where you can't loose. By carefully selecting the meanings of various words and phrases (termed 'biblical research') one can make any 'surface contradiction' vanish. A splendid example is provided by West who decides that (i.e., in his interpretation) "takes" means "rapes" in one place and "marries" in another. Since contradictions cannot, by design, occur within an interpretation the only danger left is from alternate interpretations. Now look at those 1900 years. Year after year, century after century, deviations from orthodoxy have appeared within the church, only to be violently repressed whenever possible. Of course, to the heretic, it is the church which has deviated while his is the correct interpretation. For example, Luther, at the Diet of Worms, offered to recant anything contradicted by scripture. In modern times, the church has lost its power to kill and torture dissenters. As a consequence the number of factions has mushroomed. Although the various splinters often hold mutually contradictory positions, each resolutely believes in the consistency and correctness of its particular interpretation. Simon Gibbs, U. of Toronto