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....

[Clownboat]

In the NT talking in tongues was speaking a foreign language they never spoke before. Not gibberish.

I still have the ability to speak in tongues, therefore I must have proper Holy Spirit understanding/guidance according to your prior statement.

1 Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.
(This topic in not about Biblical contradictions though, so I don't want to derail. Just wanted to point out that the Bible is not 100% in agreement with you).

[1213]

So its illogical that you would cling to one or two whilst ignoring hundreds.

Please tell me what I am ignoring?

[oldbadger]

So its illogical that you would cling to one or two whilst ignoring hundreds.

Please tell me what I am ignoring?

OK.......tell me what you know about the Mosaic Poor laws. ???

These include laws about loans, debt, urgent need, gleaning rights, business errors and losses.

And that only involves about ten out of 613 laws, the other hundreds you can make mention of yourself, if you like.

[armchairscholar]

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....

1) Regarding why Jesus didn't write the NT himself: This actually aligns perfectly with the Jewish oral tradition of his time. The emphasis on personal transmission of knowledge through relationships was central to ancient Near Eastern culture. I find it fascinating that this method of transmission actually creates deeper neural pathways and stronger community bonds than simple text reading. The disciples' personal experiences and emotional investment in their accounts likely preserved the essential truth more effectively than a single written document would have.

2) On denominational differences: human beings naturally interpret information through their cultural and personal lenses. This isn't necessarily a weakness - it allows Christianity to remain relevant across vastly different cultures and times. Historically, we see that core doctrinal unity has remained remarkably consistent on essential matters (Christ's divinity, resurrection, etc.) despite denominational variations on secondary issues.

3) About accessibility: The Bible was actually revolutionary in its time for being written in common Greek (Koine) rather than classical Greek, making it accessible to ordinary people. The early Church actively translated it into various languages (like Jerome's Vulgate). The varying levels of complexity within Scripture - from simple parables to powerful theological discourse - actually serve different cognitive needs and developmental stages.

I'd argue that what some see as "problems" are actually features that enhanced the Bible's preservation and transmission across cultures and centuries. The human element in Scripture's transmission doesn't diminish its divine inspiration - rather, it reflects God's consistent pattern of working through human agency, meeting people where they are.

What are your thoughts on this perspective?

[Clownboat]

1) Regarding why Jesus didn't write the NT himself: This actually aligns perfectly with the Jewish oral tradition of his time. The emphasis on personal transmission of knowledge through relationships was central to ancient Near Eastern culture. I find it fascinating that this method of transmission actually creates deeper neural pathways and stronger community bonds than simple text reading. The disciples' personal experiences and emotional investment in their accounts likely preserved the essential truth more effectively than a single written document would have.

2) On denominational differences: human beings naturally interpret information through their cultural and personal lenses. This isn't necessarily a weakness - it allows Christianity to remain relevant across vastly different cultures and times. Historically, we see that core doctrinal unity has remained remarkably consistent on essential matters (Christ's divinity, resurrection, etc.) despite denominational variations on secondary issues.

3) About accessibility: The Bible was actually revolutionary in its time for being written in common Greek (Koine) rather than classical Greek, making it accessible to ordinary people. The early Church actively translated it into various languages (like Jerome's Vulgate). The varying levels of complexity within Scripture - from simple parables to powerful theological discourse - actually serve different cognitive needs and developmental stages.

I'd argue that what some see as "problems" are actually features that enhanced the Bible's preservation and transmission across cultures and centuries. The human element in Scripture's transmission doesn't diminish its divine inspiration - rather, it reflects God's consistent pattern of working through human agency, meeting people where they are.

What are your thoughts on this perspective?

Oral history has more flaws since it changes faster. Written history usually only changes when it is translated or possibly edited by a later author and examples of the edits/additions (like the ending of Mark) then become known instead of believed to have always been there.
Surely you are familiar with the telephone game as well...

Do you think the 10 commandments would have changed more or less over time had they never been written down? I believe they would have changed more because writing better preserves a message and is a mechanism that inhibits personal details from entering a story over time and retellings.

Secondly, it's bad enough that some people claim that a God wrote a message intended for everyone, but than requires pastors, priests and theologians to then interpret the said message. If all we had over the last 2,000 years was an oral Bible, the message would be far more convoluted today than it already is.

This is my perspective.

[servant1]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #301]

So what foreign language are you speaking while speaking in tongues that you never spoke before?

[POI]

1) Regarding why Jesus didn't write the NT himself: This actually aligns perfectly with the Jewish oral tradition of his time. The emphasis on personal transmission of knowledge through relationships was central to ancient Near Eastern culture. I find it fascinating that this method of transmission actually creates deeper neural pathways and stronger community bonds than simple text reading. The disciples' personal experiences and emotional investment in their accounts likely preserved the essential truth more effectively than a single written document would have.

Even if all this is true, that's all well and good and all. However, why would Jesus merely resort to much fallible human methodology, as it relates to exchange in truth? Couldn't Jesus do just a bit better? Millions of earnest believers disagree with one another on many points. I can't imagine a God would be pleased with such a result.

2) On denominational differences: human beings naturally interpret information through their cultural and personal lenses. This isn't necessarily a weakness - it allows Christianity to remain relevant across vastly different cultures and times. Historically, we see that core doctrinal unity has remained remarkably consistent on essential matters (Christ's divinity, resurrection, etc.) despite denominational variations on secondary issues.

I instead see it as a weakness. Example: Protestants believe Catholics are not saved, causing families to completely rip apart. And this is before we even get into the weeds regarding all of the sub-divisions. Why would Jesus be pleased knowing that three main branches (Catholicism, Protestantism, and the Orthodox) would first manifest, and then later, multiple splintering sects would form under each main branch -- many of which teach conflicting ideas which drive people apart from one another? It's illogical IF Jesus's goal was to convey universal truths.

3) About accessibility: The Bible was actually revolutionary in its time for being written in common Greek (Koine) rather than classical Greek, making it accessible to ordinary people. The early Church actively translated it into various languages (like Jerome's Vulgate). The varying levels of complexity within Scripture - from simple parables to powerful theological discourse - actually serve different cognitive needs and developmental stages.

Even IF this were true, the Bible has sense been retranslated countless times. The translation(s) alone change meaning(s). Again, If Jesus cared about conveying universal truth(s), why not convey the message in a way all understand the same? Reducing his ability to ancients of the day is holding him to a very low standard.

I'd argue that what some see as "problems" are actually features that enhanced the Bible's preservation and transmission across cultures and centuries. The human element in Scripture's transmission doesn't diminish its divine inspiration - rather, it reflects God's consistent pattern of working through human agency, meeting people where they are.

What are your thoughts on this perspective?

I'd instead argue that you are required to produce excuses. Sorry. Jesus apparently has no problem laying down the rules. To instead suggest "Jesus likes to meet people where they are" only seems to work when it is convenient for the believer, as there are many examples (i.e. Commandments), which do not care as to whether or not humans are ready.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #301]

So what foreign language are you speaking while speaking in tongues that you never spoke before?

Please see your Bible.
1 Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

[PaulCaporale]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

A Valid Question. Well it appears that from the following passages that the current form in which the Gospel is presented to us is sufficient enough for the Salvation of any sole. We find that .

1.In John 17 :20 Jesus prays for those who would believe on him through their word. ( the apostles writings). This means that Jesus knew full well that his message would be recorded by those who followed and heard him teach being recoded in primarily Greek and Hebrews. But also knowing that there were hundreds of other languages that the gospel would have to be translated into in order for those people groups to receive the message. Jesus didn't see that as an obstacle. This means that Jesus considered what we have today 2000 years later as valid, reliable and accurate enough to save a soul.

2. Again in Luke 24:25

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Jesus made this comment about writings in his day that were several thousand years old. That is copy after copy after copy after copy was considered accurate, reliable and accurate enough to save a soul and predict the future. It was accurate enough that when it said o Bethlehem out of you shall come a governor that shall rule my people. Though it was copied and copied over and over what it predicted happened just as it was recorded. So Jesus considers a person a fool not to look upon those writings as dependable, reliable and accurate enough to save the soul.

again 2 Tim 2Th 1:10

When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

In that day is the day we live in today 2024. The testimony he speaks of are the writings of the new testament we have today of which he states was believed in our day. Thus Paul predicting that his writings would be be preserved in such away that they would be dependable, accurate and reliable enough for us to be saved.

We have to accept that what has preserved today for us is what Jesus considers reliable enough for us to be saved.

Regarding why people who read the same writings and come up with different interpretations thus all the different denominations. Well in the end all true Christian denomination all hold to the same believe that Jesus was the Messiahs spoken of in Dan 9 and Due 18 that prophet .That he was crucified died and rose again 3 days latter. That these all hold in common. The differing begins in Was Jesus Actually God or Gods first creation. weather the holy spirit is a person or the power of God. Is the trinity the truth or just a concept,Is their a literal burning hell or Just eternal death ,can we live without sin or are we always sinners. ect. The differences are in Doctrine other than the fundamental doctrines I mentioned at the first.

The answer is that The doctrine of men Gets in the way of the truth. If one is truly searching the scriptures' without prejudice they will find the truth

[POI]

The answer is that The doctrine of men Gets in the way of the truth. If one is truly searching the scriptures' without prejudice they will find the truth

But aren't the scriptures written by men?