Thanks for your input. What you say makes a lot sense. I realize that non-contradiction has its difficulties. This is one reason the system I propose does not require it. The common denominator of my proposal is the observation that interpretation involves reasoning. The examples you or anyone may give for a particular interpretation (i.e. contradiction free or other options) are plain in simple reasons. They may be correct or they may be false but they are reasons advocating articular interpretation. This is all I want to accomplish. The robustness of the reasoning involved will be open to scrutiny by all.

I will be glad to come back to you with questions or help. But this will probably be a while. I’m still working on the technical implementation, which is unfortunately going slowly. Please stay tuned for any developments.

Well…. we might not know that. That is certainly an allegorical way of interpreting it where the attributes are compared. In sensus plenior it is a key to a cypher. Every rock mentioned in the scriptures becomes a metaphor for God.

He is the rock that was struck, he is the rock with the cleft where Moses hid, he is the stone that the builders rejected, he is the rock ladder in Jacob’s vision.

In sensus plenior when an object takes on a metaphorphic meaning it must keep that meaning everywhere it occurs. Like a substitution cypher. This is caused by the interpretive method of Drash shared with Midrash.

Portions of scriptures are linked by common themes, phrases and words. They are treated like transparencies (for all those over 50 and remember them) or like Photoshop layers, so that one picture is seen. Then differing from Midrash, sensus plenior applies the Christological approach for interpretation upon the unified picture.

It is this cypher aspect that makes sensus plenior reproducible and verifiable. All donkeys are prophets, all garments are works, blood is always life, all water is the word. These substitutions always produce sensible, theologically sound, double entendre in all the Old Testament.

You can see why tight linking is of interest to me.

Jesus is the Only Begotten Son and the Unbegotten Only Son. A contradiction? No each simply are symbols which reveal the meta reality. He is also the Usurping Second Son as typified by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and others. Again, not a contradiction, but a focus on him being the second Adam who gets the inheritance that the first lost.

Language is a set of symbols which point to the idea which is represented by all the symbols pointing to it. The symbols themselves can appear to contradict, but the reality does not.

When God first revealed himself to his creation, he separated his Holiness attributes from his Love attributes because we cannot comprehend them when they are mixed. If a judge gives mercy we ask “Where is justice?” He reconciles those two aspects of himself on the cross where holiness and love are combined.

Non-contradiction can only be applied at the meta layer, not at the symbolic layer.

Take a more difficult one: God is immutable, he changes not. But was he incarnate before the incarnation? Isn’t that a change? Did he grow up, move around, learn? aren’t those changes? On the cross when the Father “forsook” the Son, God was split, isn’t that a change? Here the symbol “I change not” has been interpreted as the reality and then is misapplied to other realities. “I change not” only means what God intended it to mean, not what a systematic theology imposes upon it.

Just for thought: What will you do with double entendre?
Because of the multiple meaning of words, Gen 2:21 can be read, “And God caused the man to die and he died, and he married a certain limping side and delivered mankind.”

This double entendre is a riddle which is a picture of Christ, where his limping side represents Gethsemane. This representation is confirmed by the bruised heel of the seed of the woman and Jacob’s withered thigh.

Now we have a contradiction in the meaning of the symbols themselves caused by double entendre. Does it mean one thing or the other. Does the law of non-contradiction apply to the Quadriga where four layers of meaning are purported to be contained in the same set of symbols?

I was referred here by caleb at Biblical Hermeneutics on stack exchange. I am hoping your project gets a good start. Having tightly linked arguments is of interest to me even without the law of non-contradiction.

Keep in mind, my purpose in the Orthotomeo Project is not to propose a theological solution or hermeneutic, rather to document and map existing theologies in way that remains as neutral as possible and to provide a framework for theological dialog.

It was a gathering of geeks who have been reconciled to God. This was evident in their demeanor, friendliness and desire to advance God’s kingdom through computer technology.

Are you going to be at Bible Tech?