Re: 2:7-8 and Contradictions?

From: Andrew Kulikovsky (
Date: Wed Sep 24 1997 - 09:08:16 EDT

On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Rolf Furuli wrote:

> Dear Andrew,
> Have you ever tried to explain colours to one who is born blind? It would
> be difficult indeed. Perhaps we could let him smell different flowers and
> say that just as flowers have different odours which can be detected by the
> nose, so objects have different characteristics called colours which can be
> detected by the eyes. It would not be of much help but it is the best we
> can offer.
> We are born blind as respects the world where spirit beings are (1 Cor
> 13:12), and to give us a vague impression of this world, objects from our
> world of three dimensions are used. But God does not consist of gold and
> gems and angels don`t have wings. The language expressing the three
> dimensions is the natural language of the time, and there usually are no
> paradoxes. Thus the problem is not that the langugae is not formal, but the
> fact that we are "blind" regarding this particular world.

yes i agree with you here. I mentioned in another post the reason we see
paradoxes is because God is infinite and man is finite.

> Most of the contents of the Bible relates to our world. There is nothing
> special with most of the language used in the Bible compared with the
> everyday language of the time when the different books were written. People
> don`t intentionally use paradoxes in their communication with others, so we
> should not expect to find paradoxes or inconsistencies inside one
> particular book, say 1 John. Only when there is no other logical
> explanation available should we see a paradox. I am in line with Paul Dixon
> here.

I think we are saying the same things in different ways or from different
> The problem, therefore,is not the nature of the biblical language - it was
> understood by the people of the first century in spite of occational
> problems (2 Pet 3:16)- but the problem is our modern presupposition pool
> which is coloured by our theology. Read in the light of this presupposition
> pool there are paradoxes and inconsistencies. It is impossible to read the
> Bible in a "neutral" way, but we should try as much as possible to come to
> grip with the presupposition pool of the Christians, Jews and Greeks of the
> first century. With some knowledge of this pool we can apply our logic
> directly to the biblical text.

I think people of the first century understood what was being said
because they saw Jesus there face to face, they could ask him
questions etc. and they could also see the way he acted and his
behaviour in general. Basically they had a much wider context than just
written scriptures. Having said that there were still many cases where
people still misunderstood. Christians today have the Holy Spirit as well
as the scriptures, who Jesus promised would lead us into all truth,
including that of the supernatural realm which we don't naturally see.

I think it is really our world view that colours our presuppositions,
which in turn determines our theology.

Sure we can apply logic to the text, but there is a danger in saying if A
then B, and then concluding that B is not because A is not, when in fact
B could be true due to an implied or unstated (or stated elsewhere)
proposition such as: if C then B

There may be many rules running in parallel to each other, so I am a bit
cautious about conclusions drawns from if A then B, even though it may be a
correct statement.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:29 EDT