The Bible's Biggest Problem(s)?

[POI]

In a continuation of this topic (viewtopic.php?t=39327&start=990), which only discusses one important topic, I present a follow-up....

For Debate:

1) Why didn't Jesus write the NT Himself? Why leave this task up to fallible humans to write what was floating around, only after decade(s) of oral traditions? Wouldn't Jesus know that earnest confusion would soon prevail, and that his true message(s) may get fouled up by human error and/or corruption?

2) Case/point: There exists countless denominations, with opposing belief systems, all in earnest in reading the exact same collection of books. If Jesus' intent is to convey truth, why not assure his message(s) are crystal clear and unified for all?

3) If Jesus also recognizes that many/most were/are illiterate, and/or the many who are literate merely read at a lower grade level, and that differing languages can also blur the message(s), why not write the Bible in a cohesive way in which even the most rudimentary person can understand, in all languages?

This is, in part, the problem of communication....

[POI]

I have to agree, the way the world is at present, anything that can be used for power and money, will be exploited.

Yes, maybe this is why the Watchtower exists.

[POI]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #47]

Let's say we found the originals. Okay. All this would mean is that we found the first written document. But we still have (2) large problems:

1) The first document was taken only after much oral traditions had been floating around. And oral tradition is objectively not a reliable pathway, when the goal is to convey truth.

2) Since humans are fallible, how would we know the fallible human is recording what Jesus actually said?

********************

BUT, these are two hypothetical questions, or non-starters, anyways. Because we do not have the originals....

Which gets us back to the original problem of communication.

[1213]

...God would have to be pleased that many earnest followers, you included, have conflicting conclusions about what the Bible says. Case/point, Jehovaswitness is following along here, and I'm fairly certain you two would not agree on all facets of what the Bible says. ...

I don't think we have. We may have conflict in how we understand some scriptures, but still, if Bible tells something, it is the same for everyone. For example, if Bible says, "love your neighbor", I am not saying it doesn't really say so, or that it can be ignored in cases where one doesn't like it.

I think people should not make own explanations but let the Bible explain what it means.

2) And yes, I'd say you are guilty of some twisting, when it comes to the ('slavery' in the Bible) topic You are clearly twisting or ignoring passages there, which you do not like....

That is almost funny. If I don't accept your rule that general rules can be ignored by some specific rule, it does not mean I have twisted or rejected something Bible says. If you want me to accept your doctrine, you should show where in the Bible it s said that you can ignore one of the highest commandments just to oppress others, which is wrong according to the Bible.

1) Give me an example of one teaching for which you think is not Biblical?
...

For example Trinity. Bible doesn't even have the word.

[otseng]

It's just denial, dismissal and self - deception.

I think you are just making stuff up and denying history and archaeology.

You lose, badly, again.

Moderator Warning



Personal comments are not allowed here.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[POI]

We may have conflict in how we understand some scriptures

Yes 1213. This presents as one of the Bible's biggest problems. Both of you are earnestly trying to translate what the Bible means, when you read passages. And you two come to differing conclusions sometimes. Why would the Bible God be pleased in knowing that literate followers come to differing conclusions about passages?

if Bible tells something, it is the same for everyone. For example, if Bible says, "love your neighbor", I am not saying it doesn't really say so, or that it can be ignored in cases where one doesn't like it.

We've been over this 1213. You already agreed... Specifics > generals (and/or) exceptions can exist to general rules...

I think people should not make own explanations but let the Bible explain what it means.

Then please stop trying to sugar-coat what the Bible actually allows for chattel slavery practices.

If I don't accept your rule that general rules can be ignored by some specific rule, it does not mean I have twisted or rejected something Bible says. If you want me to accept your doctrine, you should show where in the Bible it s said that you can ignore one of the highest commandments just to oppress others, which is wrong according to the Bible.

I've already done so, and also continue to do so. You simply ignore them because you do not like what these verses have to say.

For example Trinity. Bible doesn't even have the word.

So, if the Bible does not mention a specific word, it never actually means that specific word? I find this odd, since you and I agree that the Bible endorses certain instances of chattel slavery. And yet, the Bible does not mention the term chattel slavery.

What is your view here about the topic of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit 1213? Thus far, you believe all Catholics are flat out wrong! And you may believe they are wrong for something other than for purely earnest reasons alone.

[John17_3]

It would be way above humans' ability to understand, and grasp.

What you are saying here is that the God you believe in, is incapable of expressing a clear message for all to understand.

That's not what I am saying.
God is not a human.
Because God is not a human, it does not mean God is incapable of communicating a clear message for all to understand.

The teacher of a class of students may have all the answers, and know how children think, but because she does not spell out everything for the children, does not mean she doesn't know how to, or is incapable of doing so.
She chooses to communicate in the way she does, for reasons that are necessary to accomplish her goal.

God, likewise chooses to communicate his message, in the way he chooses, in order to accomplish his goal.
Consider one example, in the Bible book of John. John 6:28-71
Obviously, jesus knew how to break down what he said, in baby steps.
He deliberately chose to say what he did, in order to achieve his goal, and he did. He sifted the honest-hearted, and humble, from those not deserving.

So instead, his best alternative was to allow for an extensive amount of oral traditions to take place, only to later be written down to paper by fallible humans.

That's correct.
It achieves his objective.

In essence, here is the failed dichotomy:

A) God would write an incoherent message system to humans

Or...

B) God allowed for a widely non-unifying message

B
The honest-hearted, humble ones are given the unifying message. Hence, why they alone are united everywhere on the globe. Even if they are imprisoned for decades.

When it comes to communication, this does not prove to be a problem for God, as seen from the preceding.

Yes, it does prove a problem of communication. I demonstrated the problem only after your first given point. There is no need to address any more of your points. Your argument here is that we only have two choices. A) Confusion because of God's inability to convey a coherent message to all humans. Or, B) leave it to fallible humans to muck it up.

Sounds like a terrible strategy, unless God really did not want to convey a clear message to all humans.

I think you got the point then.
The scriptures reveal that God has determined that those unworthy of life will not get it, because they are not deserving, and so, they will remain in confusion. Matthew 13:10-16; 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12
Those worthy are freed from confusion, because they know how to listen, and they gain freedom and peace. John 6:44, 45; John 8:31, 32 Luke 8:18

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and declared, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was well-pleasing in Your sight.
1 Corinthians 1:27-29

[POI]

Those worthy are freed from confusion, because they know how to listen, and they gain freedom and peace. John 6:44, 45; John 8:31, 32 Luke 8:18

I find your response here interesting. The Bible states no one is worthy, which is why you need faith in Jesus (Romans 3). So I guess all are confused.

[SiNcE_1985]

In a continuation of this topic (viewtopic.php?t=39327&start=990), which only discusses one important topic, I present a follow-up....

For Debate:

1) Why didn't Jesus write the NT Himself? Why leave this task up to fallible humans to write what was floating around, only after decade(s) of oral traditions? Wouldn't Jesus know that earnest confusion would soon prevail, and that his true message(s) may get fouled up by human error and/or corruption?

Because he probably knew that if he did, skeptics living thousands of years later on religious debate forums would likely ask the question of..

"How do we know that Jesus actually wrote the NT Himself?"

After all, this is what they're currently asking in reference to the alleged authors of the books right now.

And since the claim isn't that Jesus wrote it, skeptics get to ask "How come Jesus didn't write it Himself", as you are asking.

Yet, another classic example of damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

2) Case/point: There exists countless denominations, with opposing belief systems, all in earnest in reading the exact same collection of books. If Jesus' intent is to convey truth, why not assure his message(s) are crystal clear and unified for all?

Because Scripture is clear that even during Jesus' ministry, there existed the Sadducees, Samaritans, Essenes, and not to mention the Pharisees; all of whom were different Jewish sects/denominations.

So, if those groups all existed and thrived during Jesus' earthly ministry, then there is no reason to think that the virtue of Jesus' writing would make them all disappear as they are dazzled with his authorship, given they didn't dazzle with his earthly Lordship.

3) If Jesus also recognizes that many/most were/are illiterate, and/or the many who are literate merely read at a lower grade level, and that differing languages can also blur the message(s), why not write the Bible in a cohesive way in which even the most rudimentary person can understand, in all languages?

This is, in part, the problem of communication....

If there was a better way to do it, then it would have been done.

[1213]

...Both of you are earnestly trying to translate what the Bible means, when you read passages. And you two come to differing conclusions sometimes. ..

Yet, what is said in the Bible, is the same for all. The conflict is in the conclusions, and people can have wrong conclusions. I don't think it is God's or Bible's fault. And in conflict case, the best solution is to go back to what is actually said in the Bible.

Why would the Bible God be pleased in knowing that literate followers come to differing conclusions about passages?

Literate is to remain in what is actually said, without adding own interpretations or conclusions. If all would remain in just what is said, all would have the same idea. However, people often want to know what some scriptures "really" mean, which is why the interpretations or conclusions.

You already agreed... Specifics > generals (and/or) exceptions can exist to general rules...

"Can exist" is not the same as "exists". Nowhere in the Bible it is said that one can ignore the love your neighbor part.

If I don't accept your rule that general rules can be ignored by some specific rule, it does not mean I have twisted or rejected something Bible says. If you want me to accept your doctrine, you should show where in the Bible it s said that you can ignore one of the highest commandments just to oppress others, which is wrong according to the Bible.

I've already done so, and also continue to do so.

No, you have not provide a scripture that says one can ignore the love your neighbor part.

So, if the Bible does not mention a specific word, it never actually means that specific word?

I don't think it necessary has to have the word, if it truly speaks about the matter that is called with the word.

I find this odd, since you and I agree that the Bible endorses certain instances of chattel slavery. And yet, the Bible does not mention the term chattel slavery.

Bible doesn't mention the word chattel, which is why I think it would be best not to use the word, especially because what Bible describes seems to be little different than what you think it means.

What is your view here about the topic of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit 1213?

I think they should be understood as the Bible explains them.

[POI]

Yet, another classic example of damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

Negative. Saul/Paul wrote his own stuff. Hence, skeptics can only really question what they think may have been left out of the later canon, or, edited after the canon was established 100's of years later. In essence, how much of what was written by Saul/Paul was original to him and how much of it is left unmolested? Further, Paul was a human, so expectations would be lower of him.

We have no starting point for an alleged Jesus. Thus, we do not even have this much.

Because Scripture is clear that even during Jesus' ministry, there existed the Sadducees, Samaritans, Essenes, and not to mention the Pharisees; all of whom were different Jewish sects/denominations.

So, if those groups all existed and thrived during Jesus' earthly ministry, then there is no reason to think that the virtue of Jesus' writing would make them all disappear as they are dazzled with his authorship, given they didn't dazzle with his earthly Lordship.

I'm asking why the followers of Jesus cannot agree. The Sadducees, Essenes, and Pharisees were presumably not. Please try again.

If there was a better way to do it, then it would have been done.

This is a cop-out response. Sorry.