But I don't think this ends just on literal reading. It is a contradiction no matter how you turn it around. Even if you, as some have done, say "in the eyes of God," that does not change the relationship of mutual exclusivity between these two statements. Certainly both can't be true (in the same sense). So, literal interpretation is impossible. Expanded interpretation adds human element which is corrupt, so instead of a resolution we have a rationalization.
" So, literal interpretation is impossible. Expanded interpretation adds human element which is corrupt, so instead of a resolution we have a rationalization."
It is interesting that you use a different standard of interpretation when it comes to issues like "perpetual virginity", "brothers of Jesus, "praying to saints","primacy of Peter" and "apostolic succession" etc. Instead of reconciling scripture with scripture you force scripture to be the handmaid of your church's dogma and tradition. You would rather use an expanded interpretation of "till", "brother,brethren" "keys" or "right hand of fellowship" than their normal and usual meaning since that contradicts the dogma and tradition, yet you would devalue the sacrifice of Jesus for the sins of the world by presenting two "perfect" people, exceptions to sin, Job and Mary, in spite of Job's declaration of his own sin and the complete absence of any evidence that Mary was sinless.