Is the Bible confusing?

[amortalman]

Dan Barker, atheist activist, and author asked the question: "Can you think of any book more confusing than the Bible?"

The topic for debate:

1) Is the Bible confusing to the average person?

2) If Biblical scholars disagree on many theological points how can we know what the truth is?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 3 by bjs]

The Bible is a lengthy and important document

There are a least two falsities here:

1) There is no such thing as THE Bible - see the thread "Whose Bible is THE Bible"

2) None of THE Bibles is a document - each is a very selective collection of Jewish factional propaganda and mythology and so forth

... and not one soul ever demonstrates that one verse of it came from any version of "God".

[amortalman]

Because he is supposedly full of loving kindness and compassion and "not the author of confusion" and truthful, and our "Heavenly Father" who desires "everyone to come to a knowledge of the truth," and 'not be led astray.' That's why.

I'm not sure we could ever get to certainty in anything that exists as more than just a concept.

Speak for yourself. I'm pretty sure my sons and grandsons are much more than concepts.

If God appeared to you right now and did the things your critique is asking Him to do, you could still think it was just a hallucination or that we are brains in a vat or whatever.

I suppose that's possible but highly unlikely. I am convinced by scientific and physical evidence and I'm sure this God IF he were real, and IF he appeared to me would do so in a way that I could not deny. I wouldn't even try. I would fall down and worship him.

I think it is possible that this hiddenness is more out of uncontrolling love than cruelty.

Actually, we were talking about why this God left us a book that is so confusing, not to mention contradictory, full of errors and unanswered questions. I don't care if he remains hidden. Obviously, he would have to be real to show himself anyway.

What is God after?

What is Santa Claus after?

If you are going to use what the Bible says (like you do above), we need to be consistent in that and take note of the stories where people have God's existence being obvious and still rejecting God (like the Israelites after the Exodus).

I don't understand your use of "consistent" because it makes no sense in this context. If you want me to respond to the claim that people rejected God when he was obvious I will gladly do that. The logical answer is that there was no God to respond to because the tale is a fable. There is no evidence that a band of nomadic people numbering in the millions along with livestock ever wandered in the wilderness for forty years. No relics from campsites, no bones, no graves.

For me, it's the mystery in, say, my wife that keeps pushing me deeper into the relationship. Or I think about a game like hide-and-seek. If I'm not searching for something, I'm going to stay right where I am at. God's hiddenness might be for a life-transforming purpose like that. If we are all going to be know-it-alls, then I'm not sure the point of life in community.

Well, we can all be guilty of confirmation bias, can't we? During my years as a Christian, I was always comparing things as you did above. I look back now and see that it was all a game of nonsense. You said you are searching for something. I wonder what that is. Way back when I became a Christian I thought I had found everything I ever needed. I stopped searching and devoted over 15 years to learn all I could about my evangelical faith, the Bible, and my purpose as a child of God. It took 15 years to learn that I was chasing an illusion. But this is not the place to talk about that.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 20 by tam]

Greetings,

You do give food for thought, Tam. And I can see where one could be tempted to believe in its simplicity. I just don't see how you can form this theology apart from the Bible, apart from teachers. When you read your Bible how do you separate truth from non-truth? You say that Christ directs you into the truth. How do you know it's Christ doing it and not your own imagination? Haven't countless people been led astray by what they THOUGHT Jesus was telling them? Men have left their wives because they thought God wanted them to be with another woman. In this case, their pastor would surely refer them to what God has said in his word about marriage, divorce, and adultery. But if he doubts the commands of scripture he can always come back and say that God said that in his case it is Ok and meant to be.

I just don't see how your beliefs, theology, whatever you call it plays out in daily life. There seems to be no solid basis you can rely on other than your own subjective belief.

The whole of Christendom is based on the Bible, the supposedly infallible word of God. If one can't trust what God wrote through men inspired by the Holy Spirit, how can one trust one's fallible mind?

[The Tanager]

Speak for yourself. I'm pretty sure my sons and grandsons are much more than concepts.

I'm pretty sure my kids are, too. But we can't prove we aren't in some Matrix like existence. We can't get to 100% certainty. I'm fine with that.

Actually, we were talking about why this God left us a book that is so confusing, not to mention contradictory, full of errors and unanswered questions. I don't care if he remains hidden. Obviously, he would have to be real to show himself anyway.

I thought it applied. If the book made God's existence and project obvious to every single person, then it's still not clear this would achieve the actual goal. We could always doubt the book is a recording of actual encounters with God, thinking they were hallucinations or fables. Having everything laid out for us doesn't call us into a deeper relationship since we wouldn't have anything new to learn.

I don't understand your use of "consistent" because it makes no sense in this context.

You are arguing that there is no good reason for God to allow the Bible to be less then perfectly clear, answering all of our questions. You said God is "supposedly" or said to be all sorts of things, I'm assuming according to the Bible since that is what were talking about. Since you were willing to talk about the Bible's supposedlies, I was saying we should talk about how the Bible says some people react to being shown God's existence as obvious. I'm not assuming the Exodus story is true for this principle. I don't see anything logically impossible about rejecting God even though His existence or project is obvious. Your argument seems to bear the burden of showing that there are no good reasons for God to allow a lack of clarity. I don't think you have done that.

Well, we can all be guilty of confirmation bias, can't we? During my years as a Christian, I was always comparing things as you did above. I look back now and see that it was all a game of nonsense.

I don't think it's about confirmation bias here. You are making the argument that the lack of clarity is contradictory to God's existence. If what I said is true, it makes sense of the lack of clarity. I'm more than open for you to show me how it's just confirmation bias, though.

You said you are searching for something. I wonder what that is. Way back when I became a Christian I thought I had found everything I ever needed. I stopped searching and devoted over 15 years to learn all I could about my evangelical faith, the Bible, and my purpose as a child of God. It took 15 years to learn that I was chasing an illusion. But this is not the place to talk about that.

I've found the human love of my life in my wife. I'm still constantly learning things about her and about myself through her. I feel it even deeper about God. I'm obviously not saying this proves my belief. In the (gist of the) words of CS Lewis, "further up and further in." God is supposedly infinite.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 23 by amortalman]

The whole of Christendom is based on the Bible, the supposedly infallible word of God. If one can't trust what God wrote through men inspired by the Holy Spirit, how can one trust one's fallible mind?

Possibly one of the most accurate posts I've seen here.

And certainly the most pertinent to the OP ...!

Because, you see, no EVER demonstrates that the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh is "God" with a capital G ...

Or that he inspired humans, through the offices of the Holy Ghost, to write such collections of jumbled and contradictory and confusing and confounding "scripture".

One of the few things that ISN'T confusing, is that no one should trust these Jewish propaganda writings as the "Word of God".

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 25 by StuartJ]

Maybe it's because these ancient campfire fables had a few thousand years to set their ideas in the minds of ignorant and superstitious people. Give a snowball that much time and hill and it becomes unstoppable.

[amortalman]

Speak for yourself. I'm pretty sure my sons and grandsons are much more than concepts.

I'm pretty sure my kids are, too. But we can't prove we aren't in some Matrix like existence. We can't get to 100% certainty. I'm fine with that.

No, we can't, can we? And our universe could exist within a bubble in a giant swimming pool for the gods. Just because something can't be proven wrong doesn't automatically lend it credence.

Actually, we were talking about why this God left us a book that is so confusing, not to mention contradictory, full of errors and unanswered questions. I don't care if he remains hidden. Obviously, he would have to be real to show himself anyway.

I thought it applied. If the book made God's existence and project obvious to every single person, then it's still not clear this would achieve the actual goal. We could always doubt the book is a recording of actual encounters with God, thinking they were hallucinations or fables. Having everything laid out for us doesn't call us into a deeper relationship since we wouldn't have anything new to learn.

No, I don't think it applies at all. It's two different subjects. You insist on talking about the hiddenness of God. The OP asked the question: Is the Bible confusing? Furnishing mankind with a book that is clear about what God requires is not "laying everything out" whatever that means.

I don't understand your use of "consistent" because it makes no sense in this context.

You are arguing that there is no good reason for God to allow the Bible to be less then perfectly clear, answering all of our questions.

No, that is a misrepresentation of what I said. Here is what I said: "One would think the nature of an almighty God would be above even pure mathematics and able to produce a book that left no room for misunderstanding.(added emphasis)

Your argument seems to bear the burden of showing that there are no good reasons for God to allow a lack of clarity. I don't think you have done that.

I can't help what you think. I'm only using logic and common sense to point out that a god who presents himself as the Almighty and claims to love the world should leave us a guidebook that is free of errors, contradictions, and write his message in such a way as not to lead to thousands of religions. I don't think that's too much to ask. If he purposefully caused all the confusion then he is being less than honest and even cruel.

[The Tanager]

No, that is a misrepresentation of what I said. Here is what I said: "One would think the nature of an almighty God would be above even pure mathematics and able to produce a book that left no room for misunderstanding.(added emphasis)

Well, that doesn't help me to understand exactly what you mean. With those words one could be saying that God is able to produce a book that left no room for misunderstanding, but still have a good reason not to do so. I'm pretty sure you are not saying that.

One could be saying that the Bible should prove God's existence and what He requires on level with a proof in pure mathematics?

One could be saying that the message of the Bible should just be clearer in what it claims and that whether those claims are true or not should not be expected to be proven on level with a mathematical proof? It seems like maybe this last one?

Or something completely different or slightly nuanced?

[amortalman]

No, that is a misrepresentation of what I said. Here is what I said: "One would think the nature of an almighty God would be above even pure mathematics and able to produce a book that left no room for misunderstanding.(added emphasis)

Well, that doesn't help me to understand exactly what you mean. With those words one could be saying that God is able to produce a book that left no room for misunderstanding, but still have a good reason not to do so. I'm pretty sure you are not saying that.

One could be saying that the Bible should prove God's existence and what He requires on level with a proof in pure mathematics?

One could be saying that the message of the Bible should just be clearer in what it claims and that whether those claims are true or not should not be expected to be proven on level with a mathematical proof? It seems like maybe this last one?

Or something completely different or slightly nuanced?

Or one could be saying exactly what I said without adding to it.

[Clownboat]

One would think the nature of an almighty God would be above even pure mathematics and able to produce a book that left no room for misunderstanding.

Why?

It is not logical that a God would inspire the writing of a book with a message for everyone and then require Theologian to interpret and explaine the book.

Also, see Luke:
Luke 21:15 - For I wll give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.
Whoops!