I want to point something out. It is a fact that the bible was not read literally by the Church Fathers (i.e., the very people who chose the books of the bible and who formulated the creeds and authoritative statements-such as the nature of Christ, etc- accepted by all but liberal Christians). Texts in the ancient world tended to be read allegorically. Thus Plato and Aristotle read Homer allegorically. The ancients were not very interested in what the original author may or may not have meant when writing the text in question. The bible was interpreted through the lens of Christ (who is love personified). Origen, for instance, said that you would have to be a "simpleton" to read the Genesis account literally; and he said that in the 3rd century! So the contradiction is only apparent, not real.
I want to point something out. It is a fact that the bible was not read literally by the Church Fathers (i.e., the very people who chose the books of the bible and who formulated the creeds and authoritative statements-such as the nature of Christ, etc- accepted by all but liberal Christians). Texts in the ancient world tended to be read allegorically. Thus Plato and Aristotle read Homer allegorically. The ancients were not very interested in what the original author may or may not have meant when writing the text in question. The bible was interpreted through the lens of Christ (who is love personified). Origen, for instance, said that you would have to be a "simpleton" to read the Genesis account literally; and he said that in the 3rd century! So the contradiction is only apparent, not real.