-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Another addition to that actually (and this is something I have been pondering on for a while):
Does it matter how long it took God to create us?
What I mean is, when I read it, it says to me 'God is extremely, infinitely powerful. And His breath, mind, thought, will, life, existence, is throughout everything. Nothing is besides or outside or unknown to Him. He is the author of even time itself'
That's the message rather than the literal 'facts'.
Does it matter how long it took God to create us?
What I mean is, when I read it, it says to me 'God is extremely, infinitely powerful. And His breath, mind, thought, will, life, existence, is throughout everything. Nothing is besides or outside or unknown to Him. He is the author of even time itself'
That's the message rather than the literal 'facts'.
T
Let's take a hypothetical person. Oh, for argument's sake, let's just call her "Jane Doe."
She has recently come to Christ, repented for her past sins, was baptized, and is starting her new life in Christ. She has prayed for discernment of the Holy Spirit in all things, especially in Scripture. Then she picks up the Bible for the first time and start reading Genesis 1.
In this situation, Jane sees the writing as allegory. The phrase "it was evening, it was morning," to Jane, is a clear indication that this is a song, an epic poem. She loves the imagery, and sees that it clearly points out that God is still active in our lives, creating new life every day.
Now, she has come to the text with no assumptions, no agendas, no preconceptions. She has prayed for the Holy Spirit. How can you say that she is "wrong"?
Isn't it possible ... just possible ... that she is the one who is correct, and it is those who say it's literal who are wrong?
Millions of Christians have been in the exact situation as "Jane Doe" above. They were not taught that Genesis was allegorical; they just read the text, and that's what the text said. They did not come to it with a pre-supposition of darwinian evolution, and tried to twist the words into something that would fit that picture, nor did they come to it with a pre-supposition of literalism, and tried to twist the words to force it to be literal. They simply opened the book and read it. For thousands of years before Darwin, Christians, and Jews before them, read Genesis that way. I am not saying that is the only way to read it, but it is one way to read it, and it has been understood that way by millions of people just as "spirit-filled" as anyone on this board.
She has recently come to Christ, repented for her past sins, was baptized, and is starting her new life in Christ. She has prayed for discernment of the Holy Spirit in all things, especially in Scripture. Then she picks up the Bible for the first time and start reading Genesis 1.
In this situation, Jane sees the writing as allegory. The phrase "it was evening, it was morning," to Jane, is a clear indication that this is a song, an epic poem. She loves the imagery, and sees that it clearly points out that God is still active in our lives, creating new life every day.
Now, she has come to the text with no assumptions, no agendas, no preconceptions. She has prayed for the Holy Spirit. How can you say that she is "wrong"?
Isn't it possible ... just possible ... that she is the one who is correct, and it is those who say it's literal who are wrong?
Millions of Christians have been in the exact situation as "Jane Doe" above. They were not taught that Genesis was allegorical; they just read the text, and that's what the text said. They did not come to it with a pre-supposition of darwinian evolution, and tried to twist the words into something that would fit that picture, nor did they come to it with a pre-supposition of literalism, and tried to twist the words to force it to be literal. They simply opened the book and read it. For thousands of years before Darwin, Christians, and Jews before them, read Genesis that way. I am not saying that is the only way to read it, but it is one way to read it, and it has been understood that way by millions of people just as "spirit-filled" as anyone on this board.
Perhaps this might help.
The Bible is the literal word of God, not meant to be always taken literally. And it is a living, breathing word, which means God may talk to me one way thru a verse in a particular situation, and then speak to someone else's situation differently thru the same verse. And keep it all within context. That doesn't mean that one of us is wrong and one of us is right, or that the two applications conflict. It means that God talks to us, for which I am eternally grateful, and we shouldn't try to buttonhole that effort on His part to one application in eternity.
The Bible is the literal word of God, not meant to be always taken literally. And it is a living, breathing word, which means God may talk to me one way thru a verse in a particular situation, and then speak to someone else's situation differently thru the same verse. And keep it all within context. That doesn't mean that one of us is wrong and one of us is right, or that the two applications conflict. It means that God talks to us, for which I am eternally grateful, and we shouldn't try to buttonhole that effort on His part to one application in eternity.
K
That "sour grapes" verse is clearly a proverb being quoted. We must remember, neither Hebrew nor Greek has quotation marks. Greek doesn't even have a period, comma, or the custom of starting new paragraphs with an indentation. We need to allow for that also in reading.
About myths: Myth is not necessarily fictional. Some folklorists use the term for a story told a certain way. In English (determined by centuries of Greek logic), we say "Person is to house as car is to garage", and this defines garage. In primitive languages, you tell a story: "One night I was cold outside, so I went inside my house to keep warm. Then one morning, it got so cold my car would not start, so now I keep it in a garage." None of that ever happened to me, but I say it just to express the truth without the logic.
The Jeremiah quote is both. First it is a quote, second it is a story told to say "children suffer from the father's poor choices in what they do."
Jews interpret the three parts of the Bible three ways: Torah is valid in the words, letters, even the the spaces, or even if a letter is inserted too high on the line. Prophets are valid in the theology and in the symbols. The writings are valid in the theology. So, Jeremiah is valid that father's actions (used to, because of what he says after) affect children, and that grapes are a good symbol for that. It does not prove that sour grapes hurt your children.
About myths: Myth is not necessarily fictional. Some folklorists use the term for a story told a certain way. In English (determined by centuries of Greek logic), we say "Person is to house as car is to garage", and this defines garage. In primitive languages, you tell a story: "One night I was cold outside, so I went inside my house to keep warm. Then one morning, it got so cold my car would not start, so now I keep it in a garage." None of that ever happened to me, but I say it just to express the truth without the logic.
The Jeremiah quote is both. First it is a quote, second it is a story told to say "children suffer from the father's poor choices in what they do."
Jews interpret the three parts of the Bible three ways: Torah is valid in the words, letters, even the the spaces, or even if a letter is inserted too high on the line. Prophets are valid in the theology and in the symbols. The writings are valid in the theology. So, Jeremiah is valid that father's actions (used to, because of what he says after) affect children, and that grapes are a good symbol for that. It does not prove that sour grapes hurt your children.
T
This is true. Hebrew doesn't have punctuation, either, nor paragraphs and indentation, and it doesn't even have vowels.
FTN N SS RD TT CLD B SVRL DFFRNT RDS ND N S N T TLL C RD T S BCS TR R N VLS
And if that made any sense at all to anyone, congratulations, you're starting to understand how hard Biblical interpretation can be.
Fortunately, the Hebrew text has been protected by the Mazorites, and we have a pretty good idea what most of the words are supposed to be, based on oral tradition from Jewish leaders who have handed down these important texts to us. But there are still different opinions, even among the Jews, about certain passages.
In Judaism, they recognize that no one person could possibly have all the right answers. They accept many different interpretations of the Torah. There are different interpretations -- including some that completely contradict each other (the "minority report," as it were) collected and studied in the Rabbinic literature (Talmud and others). It's okay that Jews disagree about how to interpret. They do so respectfully (mostly) and in fact find strength in different opinions.
In the 3rd Century, as the early Christian Church was putting together its Scripture, they didn't like the multiple possible meanings of the same text. So it took one of these possible interpretations and "codified" it into what we now have as Old Testament. Then it added some later Jewish writings (the Apocrypha and Pseudopegrypha) and several early Christian writings (the Gospels, Acts, the Epistles that we have, and the Revelation of John) and that's how we got the Christian Bible we have today.
FTN N SS RD TT CLD B SVRL DFFRNT RDS ND N S N T TLL C RD T S BCS TR R N VLS
And if that made any sense at all to anyone, congratulations, you're starting to understand how hard Biblical interpretation can be.
Fortunately, the Hebrew text has been protected by the Mazorites, and we have a pretty good idea what most of the words are supposed to be, based on oral tradition from Jewish leaders who have handed down these important texts to us. But there are still different opinions, even among the Jews, about certain passages.
In Judaism, they recognize that no one person could possibly have all the right answers. They accept many different interpretations of the Torah. There are different interpretations -- including some that completely contradict each other (the "minority report," as it were) collected and studied in the Rabbinic literature (Talmud and others). It's okay that Jews disagree about how to interpret. They do so respectfully (mostly) and in fact find strength in different opinions.
In the 3rd Century, as the early Christian Church was putting together its Scripture, they didn't like the multiple possible meanings of the same text. So it took one of these possible interpretations and "codified" it into what we now have as Old Testament. Then it added some later Jewish writings (the Apocrypha and Pseudopegrypha) and several early Christian writings (the Gospels, Acts, the Epistles that we have, and the Revelation of John) and that's how we got the Christian Bible we have today.
K
Points of clarification: Hebrew has a period, it is : Hebrew shifts tenses in quotes, and this helps a little bit. Hebrew does divide words with a space. I have seen Greek and Latin texts that do not. I'm sure spaces were added to the Greek NT by the early copyists, if they were not there originally. The apocrypha are in the Catholic Bible, but not the protestant. There are no pseudepigrapha in the Bible; this is quite important today, as there are violent disagreements going on about the Book of Enoch among Christian conspiracy theorists.
Grunge Diva, to what extent do you think we can trust the vowels as added by the Masoretes?
Grunge Diva, to what extent do you think we can trust the vowels as added by the Masoretes?
T
The ":" punctuation was added by the Mazorites as well, and is not found in the original Hebrew.
Personally, I trust the Mazoritic points (vowel markings and punctuation) almost as much as the original words. They know better than anyone else what it "should" say. If they say that Elijah was fed by Ravens in the wilderness, and some modern Christian apologist says, "No, the Mazorites got it wrong ... that word should have been pointed differently so it reads "Elijah was fed by Arabs in the wilderness," I'm gonna put my money on the Mazorites. (For one thing, I think the second is less likely and more miraculous, but that's another story.) Know what I mean?
But all of this still comes down to a deeper question. Who is God? God is love. What is the Bible? The Bible is the Word of God. I see too many Christians these days worshiping the word, not the God who spoke that word. That is idolatry. ANY translation, ANY version, can never be more than a human interpretation of that word.
So yes, I get a little angry when I see people shooting other Christians down with these "Bible bullets," using these imperfect, "less-than-god" pieces of a Scripture that can only be as perfect as the humans who shape it, who read it, who try their best to live it but fail every time ... using that imperfect document to "damn" their sisters and brothers in Christ.
Personally, I trust the Mazoritic points (vowel markings and punctuation) almost as much as the original words. They know better than anyone else what it "should" say. If they say that Elijah was fed by Ravens in the wilderness, and some modern Christian apologist says, "No, the Mazorites got it wrong ... that word should have been pointed differently so it reads "Elijah was fed by Arabs in the wilderness," I'm gonna put my money on the Mazorites. (For one thing, I think the second is less likely and more miraculous, but that's another story.) Know what I mean?
But all of this still comes down to a deeper question. Who is God? God is love. What is the Bible? The Bible is the Word of God. I see too many Christians these days worshiping the word, not the God who spoke that word. That is idolatry. ANY translation, ANY version, can never be more than a human interpretation of that word.
So yes, I get a little angry when I see people shooting other Christians down with these "Bible bullets," using these imperfect, "less-than-god" pieces of a Scripture that can only be as perfect as the humans who shape it, who read it, who try their best to live it but fail every time ... using that imperfect document to "damn" their sisters and brothers in Christ.
Every writing in the bible has to be read with a certain amount of idiomatic understanding. A kind of 'lens', if you like.
Simply because there have been so many translations, interpretations etc.
i know the God that a lot of people see is not the almighty, unfailing, genius creator, in all and through all, of ageless wisdom and love that the texts wish to convey, but rather a hateful God whose policies make no sense and whose very methods contradict his own will and his own name.
I am as I am.
Jesus of Nazareth's attitude and life and love and will perfectly reflect just what God is.
Simply because there have been so many translations, interpretations etc.
i know the God that a lot of people see is not the almighty, unfailing, genius creator, in all and through all, of ageless wisdom and love that the texts wish to convey, but rather a hateful God whose policies make no sense and whose very methods contradict his own will and his own name.
I am as I am.
Jesus of Nazareth's attitude and life and love and will perfectly reflect just what God is.
1Kings 4:26 is generally believed to be a scribal error for “four thousand.
There is no contradiction with Proverbs 26:4-5. Rather, the verses simply contrast the right and the wrong ways to answer a stupid person. Verse four gives instruction not to answer a stupid person in harmony with his foolishness in the sense of resorting to his degrading methods of argument-ridicule, attacks on personalities, loud boisterous talk, fits of rage, and so forth. One would thereby show oneself to be on the same level as the stupid one, and that is what the latter part of verse four warns against. So, it is the second part of the verse that indicates how the first part is to be understood.-Compare Proverbs 20:3; 29:11.
On the other hand, it would be proper to answer the stupid one “according to his foolishness” in the sense of analyzing his contentions, exposing them as being ridiculous. Showing that his arguments lead to entirely different conclusions from those he has drawn would be deterrent to his continuance in his stupid way. It should serve as a reproof and a rebuke. He should not feel so wise. Enforcing the consequences of a foolish argument, that is, demonstrating the absurdity and undesirability to which that viewpoint leads, is one of the best ways of dealing with such an argument.
The reference to “heavens” at 2 Kings 2:11 were neither the distant parts of the physical universe nor the spiritual place where God and his angelic sons dwell. (Deuteronomy 4:19; Psalm 11:4; Matthew 6:9; 18:10) “The heavens” to which Elijah ascended were the atmospheric heavens. (Psalm 78:26; Matthew 6:26) Racing through earth’s atmosphere, the fiery chariot evidently transferred Elijah to another part of the earth, where he continued living for a time. Years later, in fact, Elijah wrote a letter to Jehoram, the king of Judah.—2　Chronicles 21:1, 12-15.
My translation reads: “And I myself also let them have regulations that were not good and judicial decisions by which they could not keep living.”-Ezekiel 20:25.
Jehovah had brought his people into the Promised Land in the year 1473　B.C.E. It was then, as Jehovah said, “a land that I had spied out for them, one flowing with milk and honey. It was the decoration of all the lands.” (Ezekiel 20:6, 15) The generation of those Israelites that Jehovah brought into this beautiful land remained faithful to Him. But their descendants began to defile the land by adopting idolatry and unrighteously shedding innocent blood. Repeated religious purgings followed, but the Israelites would always fall back into idolatry. Finally, in 607　B.C.E., Jehovah cleared off all the Jewish idolaters and thus left the land of Judah utterly desolate.
The land of Judah and Jerusalem did not then go out of existence. For seventy years it lay desolate, Jehovah not permitting even pagan, non-Israelite idolaters to move in and continue the defilement of it. Jehovah purposed for his pure worship to be reestablished in that land which was undergoing a purging. At the end of the seventy years of desolation Jehovah brought back to the land a repentant purified remnant of Israelites to reoccupy the land of Judah and Jerusalem and to restore the clean worship of their God there. Jehovah repeopled the land with his worshipers who would use it in harmony with the sacred purpose for which he had given them the land.
There is no contradiction with Proverbs 26:4-5. Rather, the verses simply contrast the right and the wrong ways to answer a stupid person. Verse four gives instruction not to answer a stupid person in harmony with his foolishness in the sense of resorting to his degrading methods of argument-ridicule, attacks on personalities, loud boisterous talk, fits of rage, and so forth. One would thereby show oneself to be on the same level as the stupid one, and that is what the latter part of verse four warns against. So, it is the second part of the verse that indicates how the first part is to be understood.-Compare Proverbs 20:3; 29:11.
On the other hand, it would be proper to answer the stupid one “according to his foolishness” in the sense of analyzing his contentions, exposing them as being ridiculous. Showing that his arguments lead to entirely different conclusions from those he has drawn would be deterrent to his continuance in his stupid way. It should serve as a reproof and a rebuke. He should not feel so wise. Enforcing the consequences of a foolish argument, that is, demonstrating the absurdity and undesirability to which that viewpoint leads, is one of the best ways of dealing with such an argument.
The reference to “heavens” at 2 Kings 2:11 were neither the distant parts of the physical universe nor the spiritual place where God and his angelic sons dwell. (Deuteronomy 4:19; Psalm 11:4; Matthew 6:9; 18:10) “The heavens” to which Elijah ascended were the atmospheric heavens. (Psalm 78:26; Matthew 6:26) Racing through earth’s atmosphere, the fiery chariot evidently transferred Elijah to another part of the earth, where he continued living for a time. Years later, in fact, Elijah wrote a letter to Jehoram, the king of Judah.—2　Chronicles 21:1, 12-15.
My translation reads: “And I myself also let them have regulations that were not good and judicial decisions by which they could not keep living.”-Ezekiel 20:25.
Jehovah had brought his people into the Promised Land in the year 1473　B.C.E. It was then, as Jehovah said, “a land that I had spied out for them, one flowing with milk and honey. It was the decoration of all the lands.” (Ezekiel 20:6, 15) The generation of those Israelites that Jehovah brought into this beautiful land remained faithful to Him. But their descendants began to defile the land by adopting idolatry and unrighteously shedding innocent blood. Repeated religious purgings followed, but the Israelites would always fall back into idolatry. Finally, in 607　B.C.E., Jehovah cleared off all the Jewish idolaters and thus left the land of Judah utterly desolate.
The land of Judah and Jerusalem did not then go out of existence. For seventy years it lay desolate, Jehovah not permitting even pagan, non-Israelite idolaters to move in and continue the defilement of it. Jehovah purposed for his pure worship to be reestablished in that land which was undergoing a purging. At the end of the seventy years of desolation Jehovah brought back to the land a repentant purified remnant of Israelites to reoccupy the land of Judah and Jerusalem and to restore the clean worship of their God there. Jehovah repeopled the land with his worshipers who would use it in harmony with the sacred purpose for which he had given them the land.
Ye Olde English certainly doesn't help.
What I usually read is the Good news Translation, however, I like to cross reference interpretations, internet articles, hebrew translation accprding to different people, to allow for hyperbole, even in the hebrew. For if I was to say to a Chinese person perhaps, 'it's rainign cats and dogs' they'd have no idea what I was talking about. In the same way, I cannot fully understand the hebrew idioms without proper reference.
It can be dangerous also to assume any translation is right.
For anyone interested in this, i would recommend always having a few ideas in one's mind when reading anything about rhe bible;
That God is love, and love is defined in Paul's letter to the corinthians, and also that if we look at Jesus attitude, we can safely assume it is the attitude of God,for they share the same will.
With those ideas and truths, one can take a great deal of meaning from any scripture and be pretty safe about it.
It's like the verse, for instance;
The letter brings death, but the spirit brings life.
One could say 'okay, so it is a supernatural spirit that gives us life (and in a way would be correct, as it is God's breath that gave the dust of the Earth life). But someone could continue and say 'the supernatural spirit of God gives us our eternal life'. And one would also be somewhat correct, as without that breath, we would be nothing but dust. Someone could go further and say 'so we don't need to read letter, for the supernatural spirit of God gives us our eternal life, so I put my bible down'.
One could instead see 'the spirit' not as a supernatural being, but as a 'in the spirit of charity' kind of spirit. As a will rather than a supernatural force . So then it is not the literal lettwe of the bi le that brings life, but the will contained within it, and within the person who reads it and understands it. One could say 'having the attitude of God brings life, but the simple act of reading without understanding, brings death'
Then what is death?
One could say that it means death in life, so 'we should die if we donthave the spirit'. One could take it further 'kill those without the spirit'.
One could say death means not receiving eternal life and dying at the end of our Earthly life.
One could be philosophical about it and say 'well, if I am not in the attitude of love, and 'in the spirit of God.', then of course I am dead, because life is worth nothibg without that attitude of love'.
It really depends on the person.
Personally, to me, it means 'share in the will of God, be fruitful, have the 'spirit' of love in you because wihout it, all is meaningless,. Therefore, to use letter (law) without the application of love, mercy, kindness and forgiveness, is meaningless. It is a dead work, and a useless precept in the eyes of God.
Of course, even my interpretation itself can be misconstrued depending on how one reads it. If one uses an attitude that I am twisting God's word, then nothing I say will means anything, for one is already against me.
So for all these reasons that is why the bible is read through a lens of love. It completes itself and reaffirms itself and reveals without bias, impatience, or anything else which can blind.
The bible is a very personal 'mirror', and even in our interpretation of it, it shows us who we are.
What I usually read is the Good news Translation, however, I like to cross reference interpretations, internet articles, hebrew translation accprding to different people, to allow for hyperbole, even in the hebrew. For if I was to say to a Chinese person perhaps, 'it's rainign cats and dogs' they'd have no idea what I was talking about. In the same way, I cannot fully understand the hebrew idioms without proper reference.
It can be dangerous also to assume any translation is right.
For anyone interested in this, i would recommend always having a few ideas in one's mind when reading anything about rhe bible;
That God is love, and love is defined in Paul's letter to the corinthians, and also that if we look at Jesus attitude, we can safely assume it is the attitude of God,for they share the same will.
With those ideas and truths, one can take a great deal of meaning from any scripture and be pretty safe about it.
It's like the verse, for instance;
The letter brings death, but the spirit brings life.
One could say 'okay, so it is a supernatural spirit that gives us life (and in a way would be correct, as it is God's breath that gave the dust of the Earth life). But someone could continue and say 'the supernatural spirit of God gives us our eternal life'. And one would also be somewhat correct, as without that breath, we would be nothing but dust. Someone could go further and say 'so we don't need to read letter, for the supernatural spirit of God gives us our eternal life, so I put my bible down'.
One could instead see 'the spirit' not as a supernatural being, but as a 'in the spirit of charity' kind of spirit. As a will rather than a supernatural force . So then it is not the literal lettwe of the bi le that brings life, but the will contained within it, and within the person who reads it and understands it. One could say 'having the attitude of God brings life, but the simple act of reading without understanding, brings death'
Then what is death?
One could say that it means death in life, so 'we should die if we donthave the spirit'. One could take it further 'kill those without the spirit'.
One could say death means not receiving eternal life and dying at the end of our Earthly life.
One could be philosophical about it and say 'well, if I am not in the attitude of love, and 'in the spirit of God.', then of course I am dead, because life is worth nothibg without that attitude of love'.
It really depends on the person.
Personally, to me, it means 'share in the will of God, be fruitful, have the 'spirit' of love in you because wihout it, all is meaningless,. Therefore, to use letter (law) without the application of love, mercy, kindness and forgiveness, is meaningless. It is a dead work, and a useless precept in the eyes of God.
Of course, even my interpretation itself can be misconstrued depending on how one reads it. If one uses an attitude that I am twisting God's word, then nothing I say will means anything, for one is already against me.
So for all these reasons that is why the bible is read through a lens of love. It completes itself and reaffirms itself and reveals without bias, impatience, or anything else which can blind.
The bible is a very personal 'mirror', and even in our interpretation of it, it shows us who we are.
M
I haven't read through this topic, so I don't know if anyone else has answered it, but Proverbs 26:4-5 is not a contradiction. I'll copy/paste from my website, and post a link at the bottom of this post.
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26:4-5
The Claim: Blatant contradiction here. Verse 4 tells us not to answer a fool according to his folly, and verse 5 tells us to answer a fool according to his folly.
The Explanation: This would be a contradiction, but only if you ignore the second half of each sentence. However, each verse does not stop at the word folly, so let's examine each verse and see what they're really saying.
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
This verse serves as a warning statement. The proverb is warning us not to become like the fool ourselves. Now let's look at verse 5.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
This verse is about correction. It's telling us to correct the fool, in an attempt to get them to see their own foolishness, so that the fool doesn't mistakenly think he is wise when he is actually foolish.
Now let's put both ideas together. We are to correct the fools so that they do not continue in their own foolishness thinking they are wise. At the same time we are to be careful when we attempt to correct the fool, and the fool responds back with more foolishness. Verse 4 is warning us not to get caught up with the fool's folly, and verse 5 is telling us to correct the fool's folly. There is no contradiction here.
Link: Proverbs 26:4-5
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26:4-5
The Claim: Blatant contradiction here. Verse 4 tells us not to answer a fool according to his folly, and verse 5 tells us to answer a fool according to his folly.
The Explanation: This would be a contradiction, but only if you ignore the second half of each sentence. However, each verse does not stop at the word folly, so let's examine each verse and see what they're really saying.
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
This verse serves as a warning statement. The proverb is warning us not to become like the fool ourselves. Now let's look at verse 5.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
This verse is about correction. It's telling us to correct the fool, in an attempt to get them to see their own foolishness, so that the fool doesn't mistakenly think he is wise when he is actually foolish.
Now let's put both ideas together. We are to correct the fools so that they do not continue in their own foolishness thinking they are wise. At the same time we are to be careful when we attempt to correct the fool, and the fool responds back with more foolishness. Verse 4 is warning us not to get caught up with the fool's folly, and verse 5 is telling us to correct the fool's folly. There is no contradiction here.
Link: Proverbs 26:4-5
