Watch me manipulate scripture to my own advantage

stiggy wiggy

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
PROVERBS 26:

4. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Here's the very next verse:

5. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Now we all know how some atheists love to pounce on a particular biblical passage as contradicting another. But that would be an awfully stupid accusation in this case. Why would Solomon or whoever compiled these proverbs place two contradictory proverbs in succession? These are obviously not injunctions or even advice. They are statements of consequence:

IF you answer a fool according to his folly, you will be like him, i.e. a fool.

And IF you do NOT answer a fool according to his folly, he will be conceited in thinking himself wise.

So we have two choices:

The first one degrades yourself. We stoop to the fool's level and become a fool ourselves.

The second one leaves our reputation intact, but harms the fool with deception.

What's a Bible believer to do? The first one seems more Christian. It contains sort of a self sacrifice for the good of the fool.

Yeah, so I just justified my own tit-for-tat style of obnoxious posting. I'm a fool for Christ. Pretty swift, huh?
 
stiggy wiggy said:
PROVERBS 26:

4. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Here's the very next verse:

5. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Now we all know how some atheists love to pounce on a particular biblical passage as contradicting another. But that would be an awfully stupid accusation in this case. Why would Solomon or whoever compiled these proverbs place two contradictory proverbs in succession? These are obviously not injunctions or even advice. They are statements of consequence:

IF you answer a fool according to his folly, you will be like him, i.e. a fool.

And IF you do NOT answer a fool according to his folly, he will be conceited in thinking himself wise.

So we have two choices:

The first one degrades yourself. We stoop to the fool's level and become a fool ourselves.

The second one leaves our reputation intact, but harms the fool with deception.

What's a Bible believer to do? The first one seems more Christian. It contains sort of a self sacrifice for the good of the fool.

Yeah, so I just justified my own tit-for-tat style of obnoxious posting. I'm a fool for Christ. Pretty swift, huh?
Click to expand...
OTOH, you could see the distinction as involving voluntary choice set against involuntary choice.

- If you are not obliged to answer a fool, then stay silent as one is inherently at risk of being degraded. This could occur, e.g. where one is confronted with a road-rage situation or where one is gratuitously insulted in the street. Unless (like in Germany) there is a law that specifically gives you a legal right to defend your "honor", then it's best to stay silent and avoid confrontation. Even in Germany, silence may well be the best option.

- If you are obligated to answer a fool, e.g. in a Court of law, or of necessity in any situation that demands an answer that supervenes the act of folly being committed, then answer the fool according to his folly.
 
Last edited:
stiggy wiggy said:
PROVERBS 26:

4. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Click to expand...
Agree completely - whenever I am trying to explain or convince somebody else of something, I always do so on my terms, never theirs, making no attempt to offer anything that will inform or sway them.

After all, why would I degrade myself by attempting to see things from their point of view?

?‍♂️
 
stiggy wiggy said:
PROVERBS 26:

4. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Here's the very next verse:

5. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Now we all know how some atheists love to pounce on a particular biblical passage as contradicting another. But that would be an awfully stupid accusation in this case. Why would Solomon or whoever compiled these proverbs place two contradictory proverbs in succession? These are obviously not injunctions or even advice. They are statements of consequence:

IF you answer a fool according to his folly, you will be like him, i.e. a fool.

And IF you do NOT answer a fool according to his folly, he will be conceited in thinking himself wise.

So we have two choices:

The first one degrades yourself. We stoop to the fool's level and become a fool ourselves.

The second one leaves our reputation intact, but harms the fool with deception.

What's a Bible believer to do? The first one seems more Christian. It contains sort of a self sacrifice for the good of the fool.

Yeah, so I just justified my own tit-for-tat style of obnoxious posting. I'm a fool for Christ. Pretty swift, huh?
Click to expand...

I think the key is to recognize the fool in his folly.

Sometimes people think others really are buried in that much foolin', so they answer and it becomes their folly.

For instance the fool days in his heart there is no God, right?

Well immediately around here I am cast on the fool playing field, with grass and lines and everything!

So if it's foolish to say it to yourself, to think it one of your life's mantras, this no God thing, then what of those where it travels from their heart to their mouth or writings? They've removed all doubt?

I've found it strangely satisfying to answer in just as foolish a manner as offered. Perhaps not right, who knows, but satisfying. :D
 
I like this answer--https://www.gotquestions.org/Proverbs-26-4-5.html

The futility of trying to impart wisdom to a fool is the basis of Proverbs 26:4-5, which tell us how to answer a fool. These seemingly contradictory verses are actually a common form of parallelism found in the Old Testament, where one idea builds upon another. Verse 4 warns against arguing with a fool on his own terms, lest we stoop to his level and become as foolish as he is. Because he despises wisdom and correction, the fool will not listen to wise reason and will try to draw us into his type of argument, whether it is by using deceit, scoffing at our wisdom, or becoming angry and abusive. If we allow him to draw us into this type of discourse, we are answering him “according to his folly” in the sense of becoming like him.

The phrase “according to his folly” in verse 5, on the other hand, tells us that there are times when a fool has to be addressed so that his foolishness will not go unchallenged. In this sense answering him according to his folly means to expose the foolishness of his words, rebuking him on the basis of his folly so he will see the idiocy of his words and reasoning. Our “answer” in this case is to be one of reproof, showing him the truth so he might see the foolishness of his words in the light of reason. Even though he will most likely despise and reject the wisdom offered to him, we are to make the attempt, both for the sake of the truth which is always to be declared, and for the sake of those listening, that they may see the difference between wisdom and folly and be instructed.

Whether we use the principle of verse 4 and deal with a fool by ignoring him, or obey verse 5 and reprove a fool depends on the situation. In matters of insignificance, it’s probably better to disregard him. In more important areas, such as when a fool denies the existence of God (Psalm 14:1), verse 5 tells us to respond to his foolishness with words of rebuke and instruction. To let a fool speak his nonsense without reproof encourages him to remain wise in his own eyes and possibly gives credibility to his folly in the eyes of others.

In short, in negligible issues we should just ignore fools, but in issues that matter, they must be dealt with so that credence will not be given to what they say.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Agree completely - whenever I am trying to explain or convince somebody else of something, I always do so on my terms, never theirs, making no attempt to offer anything that will inform or sway them.

After all, why would I degrade myself by attempting to see things from their point of view?

?‍♂️
Click to expand...

Nah, it might be better to use the socratic method on a fool. ACT the fool so as to show him (not tell him ABOUT) his own foolishness.

But on second thought:

Looks like Solomon may have fooled us both. Maybe King Sol is just telling us both times to answer the foolishness by taking into account that it is indeed foolishness.
 
Caroljeen said:
I like this answer--https://www.gotquestions.org/Proverbs-26-4-5.html

The futility of trying to impart wisdom to a fool is the basis of Proverbs 26:4-5, which tell us how to answer a fool. These seemingly contradictory verses are actually a common form of parallelism found in the Old Testament, where one idea builds upon another. Verse 4 warns against arguing with a fool on his own terms, lest we stoop to his level and become as foolish as he is. Because he despises wisdom and correction, the fool will not listen to wise reason and will try to draw us into his type of argument, whether it is by using deceit, scoffing at our wisdom, or becoming angry and abusive. If we allow him to draw us into this type of discourse, we are answering him “according to his folly” in the sense of becoming like him.

The phrase “according to his folly” in verse 5, on the other hand, tells us that there are times when a fool has to be addressed so that his foolishness will not go unchallenged. In this sense answering him according to his folly means to expose the foolishness of his words, rebuking him on the basis of his folly so he will see the idiocy of his words and reasoning. Our “answer” in this case is to be one of reproof, showing him the truth so he might see the foolishness of his words in the light of reason. Even though he will most likely despise and reject the wisdom offered to him, we are to make the attempt, both for the sake of the truth which is always to be declared, and for the sake of those listening, that they may see the difference between wisdom and folly and be instructed.

Whether we use the principle of verse 4 and deal with a fool by ignoring him, or obey verse 5 and reprove a fool depends on the situation. In matters of insignificance, it’s probably better to disregard him. In more important areas, such as when a fool denies the existence of God (Psalm 14:1), verse 5 tells us to respond to his foolishness with words of rebuke and instruction. To let a fool speak his nonsense without reproof encourages him to remain wise in his own eyes and possibly gives credibility to his folly in the eyes of others.

In short, in negligible issues we should just ignore fools, but in issues that matter, they must be dealt with so that credence will not be given to what they say.
Click to expand...

 
stiggy wiggy said:
Too bad you put quote marks around that. If it were YOU saying that, we would have a genuine exception to what you quoted.
Click to expand...
OK - you are a fool for believing in Christianity, but I can't prove to you that you are a fool, because you are a fool.

So I guess you'll just have to sit there in your unprovable foolishness...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top