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....

[1213]

....Assuming JW is completely wrong, and also assuming JW is earnest, does JW receive grace anyways?...

It depends on the reasons why and on what one is wrong.

Would you be deemed a successful instruction giver, if you were hired to write an instruction manual, and an earnest reader, who fails to comprehend what you wrote, winds up in eternal torment for failure to comprehend what you wrote?

I believe people end up in second death and are utterly destroyed, if they are unrighteous. If person fails to understand correctly something, it doesn't necessary mean the person is not righteous.

Please re-read my question. You did not answer it.

I think your question is loaded. Failure to comprehend something doesn't necessary mean one is not righteous. And if person is righteous, he will not end up in "eternal torment".

I think the instructions are not successfully given, if they can't be understood. Because Bible can be understood correctly, it is successfully given.

[POI]

Your non sequitur is a non sequitur. Here's the correction:

1. Jesus is said not to be just a mere human with 'good ideas' alone.
2. Jesus is also said to be both the law maker, as well as the law enforcer.
3. Jesus's objective is also said that he wants to convey/impose such law(s) to all humans.
4. Jesus opted not to ensure any of these laws were conveyed using reliable means, nor did he bother to assure these laws were preserved.
5. Jesus instead opted for his rules and messages, or the 'law', to be conveyed by fallible humans by way of unrestricted oral traditions and later written by who-knows-who - (which means we do not know of these particular folks' motivations), and then canonized by an emperor centuries later.

I concede your points

how does it follow that therefore, Jesus should have written the Bible/NT himself?

Explained right below.

Well, your "opinion" agrees with me, in the sense that the Bible is not any other claimed human contrived book. Hence, my 'opinion' is that IF Jesus cared to convey truth, Jesus would not only write it himself - (to avoid any human corruption, or any inaccuracy, or other), but Jesus would also assure that his message(s) were secured/preserved. To instead allow for fallible humans to complete this task demonstrates negligence.

I've addressed the crux of this point already...and I am led to believe that despite your implication to the contrary; that his message was carefully preserved, at least within the text.

Your response cannot logically follow. Is oral tradition a reliable pathway to truth?

Not so fast.

We agree that the message has been corrupted, but not the textual message.

That being said, JW's are the only sect of "Christianity" of whom I'm aware that have deliberately altered the Bible to fit their own theology, with their New World's Translation (NWT) of the Scriptures...which is a translation that is only used by them (no other Christian group studies from it), and a translation that they will only study from (they won't read from any other translation).

They've been called out on it (and exposed) in academic and theological circles.

That aside, the text says what it says, although there are at least two additions to the text that are questionable but overall, the text is now as it was then, based on the earliest manuscripts.

However, the message has been corrupted in the sense of false/wrong interpretations of the text that has been preached and taught, thus misleading many.

I would agree JW propaganda is extremely suspect. However, I doubt there exists much in-fighting regarding the belief that "blood transfusions are bad." This means even the 'Watchtower' propaganda is clearer in its message. Jesus cannot even achieve this much? i.e. How is one saved?

But we have no true starting point anyways. Why? We have oral traditions, followed by later writings, followed by the much later 'canonization' of 'the church'. This is not a reliable pathway to convey a truth; even under the lowest of standards.

That's the point. Those Jewish sects I mentioned, are analogous to the different denominations of Christianity in today's age. Those Jewish sects only existed because, despite them all being Jewish, they did not agree on certain particulars of Judaism...just like what we have with Christianity today. And that was when Jesus dwelled among them!! So how much more when he is no longer present some centuries later.

Let's play devil's advocate here. Let's just concede your argument for a moment... Okay...

The best Jesus could muster up is to allow for decades of oral tradition(s), to later be followed up by writings in response to whatever some no-names decided to actually write down -- to whatever version of a story they heard or other, and then 100's of years later, to be canonized by a theocracy?

Okay, back to retracting your devil's advocate. If Jesus wrote and preserved the message(s) himself, there would be much less in-fighting.

Yet, there is an active thread on this forum which casts doubt on the existence of Paul, right now as we speak.

Would you agree that all claims from antiquity present with a confidence percentage level? I'd say it's 95+% that Saul/Paul existed and wrote stuff. I'd say Jesus's existence/etc percent is lower.

It's amazing how one man, who had such a lesser starting point, was able to shake the world.

It 'shook the world' because the emperor of Rome made this belief system the official religion.

And he didn't write one word

Hence, the problem of communication. He instead left the task to human fallibility and/or possible corruption.

A wealthy person could go in the kitchen and make himself dinner. But why do that when you have chefs? Again, when you are great, others will write about you. When you are just merely good or an average joe, you write about yourself.

No substance in this response. Jesus opted not to both write and protect truth.

The concept of how Jesus conducted his business wouldn't be negligent, even if it drank a fifth of whiskey and got behind the wheel of a tank.

No substance here, again. Unrestricted oral tradition(s), followed by writings (unknown), followed by picking and choosing what gets placed into the canon. Jesus opted for negligence, as Jesus had the ability to assure clarity.

I'll ask again, please tell me how Jesus could have preserved his message in a way that would have prevented people from running wild with it decades/centuries later.

Jesus is said to perform acts which defy human abilities, right? Write the dang book, make it indestructible, clarify to assure that language barriers do not add further confusion, drop a copy in many key places, etc....... Easy stuff for a god who cares that his word is spread correctly, and also not molested by fallible humans

Um, not so fast. Even if the verse is not true and thus fiction, it is clear that they deserted him precisely because they did not understand...they called his words "difficult/hard".

I doubt the ones who dropped everything to follow him, did not understand his message. That would be silly.

Do I have you correctly before I recommend you something?

No. I've expressed repeatedly, why I come here.

[POI]

....Assuming JW is completely wrong, and also assuming JW is earnest, does JW receive grace anyways?...

It depends on the reasons why and on what one is wrong.

Is the Bible God okay with blood transfusions?

I think your question is loaded. Failure to comprehend something doesn't necessary mean one is not righteous. And if person is righteous, he will not end up in "eternal torment".

I think the instructions are not successfully given, if they can't be understood. Because Bible can be understood correctly, it is successfully given.

My question is not loaded. It instead follows basic logic.

Would you be deemed a successful instruction giver, if you were hired to write an instruction manual, and an earnest reader, who fails to comprehend what you wrote, winds up in eternal torment for failure to comprehend what you wrote?

I'll answer for you, since you failed to answer the simple question twice. The answer is NO. If your job/mission was to convey a truth/truths, and the ones who try don't get it, then your job/mission failed.

[SiNcE_1985]

Your response cannot logically follow. Is oral tradition a reliable pathway to truth?

I don't buy your given response as to why your objection logically follows.

So, we'll just have to agree/disagree.

Anyways, is oral tradition a reliable pathway to the truth?

Yes, it could be.

But that question is irrelevant, since we are talking about written manuscripts (the NT).

I would agree JW propaganda is extremely suspect. However, I doubt there exists much in-fighting regarding the belief that "blood transfusions are bad." This means even the 'Watchtower' propaganda is clearer in its message.

Yeah, but I betcha if all the defectors and whistleblowers (ex JW'S ) of the WTS got together and formed a newly reformed version of the organization, they would speak out against blood transfusions..which is precisely what some of them do now, as individuals.

That, amongst other reformed changes.

So, there you have it; not only another "Christian" (if one is to continue them Christian) sect, but a sect, within a sect, in JW theology.

That's how crazy it can get.

Jesus cannot even achieve this much?

Did he achieve that much with the Pharisees?

They were still doing their own thing all the way up to the crucifixion, weren't they?

That answers your question.

i.e. How is one saved?

By accepting Christ and living your life for him, with him, and through him.

But we have no true starting point anyways. Why? We have oral traditions, followed by later writings,

Well, most writings tend to surface after the words are said, ya know.

followed by the much later 'canonization' of 'the church'. This is not a reliable pathway to convey a truth; even under the lowest of standards.

Opinions.

The best Jesus could muster up is to allow for decades of oral tradition(s)

Yeah, of which you've offered no good reason(s) why oral tradition isn't reliable.

Lots of opinions, though.

, to later be followed up by writings in response to

Yeah, forgive them for not having a pen & notepad to jot down every word of which Jesus spoke, as he spoke it.

whatever some no-names decided to actually write down -- to whatever version of a story they heard or other, and then 100's of years later, to be canonized by a theocracy?

And what was the result? The world's #1 religion in terms of followers.

So, it worked...and if it ain't broke, why do you need a tool kit?

Okay, back to retracting your devil's advocate. If Jesus wrote and preserved the message(s) himself, there would be much less in-fighting.

I could be repetitive in my response, but, never mind.

Would you agree that all claims from antiquity present with a confidence percentage level? I'd say it's 95+% that Saul/Paul existed and wrote stuff. I'd say Jesus's existence/etc percent is lower.

I actually agree. So what percentage would you give Jesus' existence?

I say..

Paul: 95+%

Jesus: 80%

It 'shook the world' because the emperor of Rome made this belief system the official religion.

Nonsense. Christianity had already swept through the Roman empire well before Constantine.

Try again

Hence, the problem of communication. He instead left the task to human fallibility and/or possible corruption.

Opinions.

No substance in this response. Jesus opted not to both write and protect truth.

When you are great..

No substance here, again. Unrestricted oral tradition(s)

Um, it wasn't unrestricted.

The oral traditions you speak of began with the apostles, so not much falsehood (false Gospel, heresies) would creep in if you have the original Apostles out there on the front lines preaching and defending the truth.

The message/creed, as it was originally formulated some 3-5 years after the crucifixion, was still being used by Paul and passed down to congregations 20-30 years after the crucifixion.

So no, it was very restrictive...for example, you wouldn't have falsehoods spread that Jesus allegedly rose on the 5th day and not the 3rd, not with Paul & company around.

, followed by writings (unknown)

We know.

, followed by picking and choosing what gets placed into the canon.

Forgive them for being careful and cautious about deciding which books belonged in the canon, and which didn't.

They should have been more careless in their doings, apparently.

Jesus opted for negligence, as Jesus had the ability to assure clarity.

Opinions.

Jesus is said to perform acts which defy human abilities, right? Write the dang book, make it indestructible, clarify to assure that language barriers do not add further confusion, drop a copy in many key places, etc....... Easy stuff for a god who cares that his word is spread correctly, and also not molested by fallible humans

If he did all that, would you believe?

I doubt the ones who dropped everything to follow him, did not understand his message. That would be silly.

I was only pointing out that if some did not understand while he was here, why would they understand while he is away.

No. I've expressed repeatedly, why I come here.

Oh, I had you wrong then.

No worries.

[John17_3]

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.

I'm happy to hear that you understand that all are deserving of death, and needed a savior.
Since the savior has come, and persons put faith in him, why do you declare unworthy, those whom God declares worthy? Galatians 2:15, 16; Galatians 3:8, 9, 23-25
You are aware that your declaration is invalid, because it has no authority, I hope. Only God has authority to decide that. Romans 8:33:24; Titus 3:4-7; 2 Thessalonians 1:4, 5

God sent his son, as John 3:16, For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
So, your guess is incorrect.

[Tcg]

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.

I'm happy to hear that you understand that all are deserving of death, and needed a savior.
Since the savior has come, and persons put faith in him, why do you declare unworthy, those whom God declares worthy? Galatians 2:15, 16; Galatians 3:8, 9, 23-25
You are aware that your declaration is invalid, because it has no authority, I hope. Only God has authority to decide that. Romans 8:33:24; Titus 3:4-7; 2 Thessalonians 1:4, 5

God sent his son, as John 3:16, For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
So, your guess is incorrect.

Moderator Clarification

Please note the following from the Guidelines for this subforum:

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

5. Please avoid "preaching" and using the forum as simply a way to blast people with the gospel message. This is a debating forum, not a convenient place to overtly proselytize.

7. For debates purely on theology with the assumption that the Bible is an authoritative source, please consider posting in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum.

If you choose to debate in this sub-forum you are REQUIRED to honor the Guidelines. Notice specifically that the Bible can be used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says. It cannot be used to prove that a statement or story is true.

Both the site Rules and Guidelines for this subforum should have been read before posting here. If you haven't done so yet, now would be a good time to do so.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[1213]

....Assuming JW is completely wrong, and also assuming JW is earnest, does JW receive grace anyways?...

It depends on the reasons why and on what one is wrong.

Is the Bible God okay with blood transfusions?

It is not directly said in the Bible. Only scripture that I know that are close to this issue are these:

Now there were some present at the same time who told him about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
Luke 13:1
But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written our decision that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from food offered to idols, from blood, from strangled things, and from sexual immorality."
Acts 21:25

I would not say it is not allowed, but I also would not want that to myself, because I think it may be bad.

Would you be deemed a successful instruction giver, if you were hired to write an instruction manual, and an earnest reader, who fails to comprehend what you wrote, winds up in eternal torment for failure to comprehend what you wrote?

I'll answer for you, since you failed to answer the simple question twice. The answer is NO. If your job/mission was to convey a truth/truths, and the ones who try don't get it, then your job/mission failed.

I think I answered that. But, to say it with other words, if someone would fail because of the book, it would not be his fault and not deserve to be punished for the failure that was not his fault. I don't think anyone fails because of the Bible, but for example because doesn't remain in truth, skips 99 % of what is said and then makes up the missing parts, like how Homer Simpson makes his grill.

[otseng]

You strike me as one whom, wants to believe, but just can't get over that skeptical hump.

Moderator Comment

Please just debate without making personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[POI]

Yes, it could be.

Your response above is telling.... The term 'could' will do much heavy lifting.

As I've stated, if God wanted to convey truth, why use oral tradition as the main mechanism?

But that question is irrelevant, since we are talking about written manuscripts (the NT).

Oh, really? We know who wrote the 4 Gospels? And we also know these 4+ individuals were direct eyewitnesses to all said supernatural events in which are claimed? Do tell?

Yeah, but I betcha if all the defectors and whistleblowers (ex JW'S ) of the WTS got together and formed a newly reformed version of the organization, they would speak out against blood transfusions..which is precisely what some of them do now, as individuals. That, amongst other reformed changes. So, there you have it; not only another "Christian" (if one is to continue them Christian) sect, but a sect, within a sect, in JW theology. That's how crazy it can get.

My point here was missed. The Watchtower's message is clear here. No blood transfusions. The Watchtower's messages are clear on topics in which it wishes to state a position upon. The Bible's message(s) is not as clear about certain things. "Salvation" being one of them... The authors of the WTS convey clear messages. The ones who later defect, do so because they can no longer continue in cognitive dissonance/other.

Did he achieve that much with the Pharisees? They were still doing their own thing all the way up to the crucifixion, weren't they? That answers your question.

The Pharisees did not 'do their own thing' because they did not know what Jesus was saying. If they did, this would mean Jesus's direct verbal messages were also not clearly understood. Which is even worse than the topic I raised about the Bible alone. The Pharisees likely 'did their own thing', for other reason(s), like disbelief, pride, other... Jesus/God decided to instead use fallible ancients to write down his important messages at a much later time???

By accepting Christ and living your life for him, with him, and through him.

Then anyone who does not come to your conclusion about how one is saved, does so because?

Well, most writings tend to surface after the words are said, ya know.

Then God, who was to deliver THE TRUTH, could think of no better way?

Opinions.

Whenever you do this, I will take your response as a concession. In this case, the chosen path used to transmit truth is unreliable, at best.

Yeah, forgive them for not having a pen & notepad to jot down every word of which Jesus spoke, as he spoke it.

Jesus would be doing all the writing and preserving, not fallible humans.

And what was the result? The world's #1 religion in terms of followers. So, it worked...and if it ain't broke, why do you need a tool kit?

God's goal was to eventually win a popularity contest? Will he be upset someday if Islam takes over as the most popular belief system? It is ~700 years behind since its beginning but is moving ever closer to the number one spot. But, I digress....

I actually agree. So what percentage would you give Jesus' existence? I say.. Paul: 95+% Jesus: 80%

Even if I were to grant 80% that he even existed, the likelihood that he performed supernatural acts would be much much much lower. Just like the likely percentage of Alexander's existence, (as you have mentioned), does not also mean it is also the same likely percentage he WAS also the son of Zeus

Nonsense. Christianity had already swept through the Roman empire well before Constantine. Try again

I do not need to try again. You stated 'shook the world'. This belief system did not spread to the rest of the world until well after Constantine's efforts.

When you are great..

When you wish to convey the truth, do not leave into the hands of a very fallible methodology. Basic logic...

Um, it wasn't unrestricted. The oral traditions you speak of began with the apostles, so not much falsehood (false Gospel, heresies) would creep in if you have the original Apostles out there on the front lines preaching and defending the truth. The message/creed, as it was originally formulated some 3-5 years after the crucifixion, was still being used by Paul and passed down to congregations 20-30 years after the crucifixion. So no, it was very restrictive...for example, you wouldn't have falsehoods spread that Jesus allegedly rose on the 5th day and not the 3rd, not with Paul & company around.

Paul was not there for the "resurrection tour." Also, we do not know who wrote the Gospels, which means we logically cannot know exactly where their source information came from? Why? We are speaking about one-time claimed events of supernatural origins. Case/point, what was "Matthew's" source for many coming out of their graves and walking through the city? And why was this event alone not spoke about all over the place??? This event alone would create quite the ruckus. Wouldn't you think? Unless walking zombies was a normal thing in ancient times...

Forgive them for being careful and cautious about deciding which books belonged in the canon, and which didn't.

LOL! Again, leaving such a task up to fallible humans.

Opinions.

I'll take your concession here, that it is negligence. Thanks.

If he did all that, would you believe?

If the book was physically indestructible and presented with statements in which mere humans could not convey at the time, etc, then it would certainly raise an eyebrow or two.

[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.

I'm happy to hear that you understand that all are deserving of death, and needed a savior.
Since the savior has come, and persons put faith in him, why do you declare unworthy, those whom God declares worthy? Galatians 2:15, 16; Galatians 3:8, 9, 23-25
You are aware that your declaration is invalid, because it has no authority, I hope. Only God has authority to decide that. Romans 8:33:24; Titus 3:4-7; 2 Thessalonians 1:4, 5

God sent his son, as John 3:16, For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
So, your guess is incorrect.

You missed my point. Since you too agree that no one is worthy, then all will also remain confused. Please explain this illogical conundrum. Maybe this is why faith is propped up?