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?

[Don McIntosh]

Disagreement (or drawing different conclusions) does not mean there cannot be a clear truth of the matter. Some people still believe the earth is flat. Using your logic (if this is the critique you are making), we'd have to conclude that the truth about the shape of the earth isn't clear then.

Great point. On this forum it's commonly asserted that disagreement over a proposition somehow signals incoherence of the proposition itself.

Of course on that premise both atheism and theism are irrational " since expressing disagreement over which is correct is the very purpose of this forum. But how can a belief and its negation both be irrational?

[Overcomer]

amortalman wrote:

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.

He did write a book that was free of errors. The fact that people don't understand it perfectly and have misinterpreted and misrepresented it in some cases is a reflection on us, not on God. But I can see that it's easier to blame him than take some responsibility for one's own failure to grasp it.

Aquinas rightly noted that there are things about God that we can learn using our reason, but there are other things that can only be known through God's revelation. But we always have to bear in mind that we are a sin-damaged lot which means our ability to reason is flawed. We can get things wrong. That means nobody -- and I mean nobody -- is going to understand God and His Word perfectly this side of heaven. As Paul put it, while we're here on earth, we only see in part as through a glass darkly (1 Cor. 13:9).

There are two principles that I think have bearing on this topic. The first is called the Wide Availability Principle. It states that, if God exists, he will make a relationship with him available to as many people as possible. Therefore, he wouldn't make himself (or his Word) so difficult to grasp that only scholars could do so. In fact, children can and do understand the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The second is called the Easy Resistability Principle. God makes himself easily accessible to anybody who wants to know him, but he does not make his presence (and the understanding of his Word) so obvious that people lack the free will to choose whether or not to believe he exists.

The Tanager has spoken of free will, but I didn't see anybody address that. If someone did, and I missed it, my apologies. But the issue is important because it puts the onus on us, not on God. Remember that God wants us to choose him, but he will not coerce us. That's a key to this discussion.

[Tcg]

He did write a book that was free of errors.

Assuming the "He" you refer to is the God of your faith, "He" only wrote a very brief list of ten recommended things to do or not do.

Humans wrote the many booklets that were eventually pasted together to compose the "book" you are referring to. Humans decided which of these booklets should be pasted together.

Humans also translated these pasted together booklets into modern languages.

Humans also interpret this pasted together group of booklets which were translated by humans to mean pretty much anything modern day humans want to twist this pasted together book of booklets to say.

"He" didn't write a book at all and to claim it is free of errors is amusing, but not believable to anyone who has bothered to examine it honestly.

[historia]

[Replying to amortalman]

In other words, the Bible isn't the kind of book you assume it ought to be. Before we blame the Bible or God for failing to meet that expectation, perhaps we should critically examine the expectation itself.

For starters: What do you think is the purpose of the Bible?

[amortalman]

I didn't day God should have the ability to make square circles, but I suppose even that could be heavily debated.

Writing something that can be understood is a far cry from trying to make a square circle. Most man-made textbooks, instruction manuals, legal codes, wills, and other documents do a pretty good job of eliminating confusion. Surely a deity who declared, "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9), and said, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1) can do a much better job than man.

I didn't say that you did say that.

Close enough. You said: "That would seem to me to be like saying a being with enough power could create a square circle."

If you are saying that the message of the Bible is unclear on important points, I disagree that it is confusing. I agree with what Clownboat said (he said it about Luke 21:15), that people are able to read the words for what they are, while others try to put their own spin on it to try to save face or to hold onto some preconceived idea.

That's because the message is unclear and often contradictory. It leaves the door wide open for many interpretations. An Almighty God could, if he chose to, unspin the spins, and debunk the preconceived ideas before they had a chance to go whacko.

Consider the confusion on the issue of Hell. Some say it is a place of annihilation for the damned, some say the damned will be tormented in fire forever. The Almighty could have easily erased or at least mitigated the confusion with a concise statement such as: "Let me make this perfectly clear...when the damned are thrown into Hell here is exactly what happens..." Instead, you have scriptures that could be reasonably interpreted either way by sincere students of the Bible.

If you are saying that the claims the Bible makes are not 100% provable to others, and that God should not have allowed this kind of confusion, then I don't see a problem with this kind of confusion.

I'm not making such a claim. Expecting clarity isn't expecting end result perfection. God could have, but did not, make his book perfectly clear to sane, reasonable people on a search for truth. There will always be those who insist the earth is flat.

Two examples readily come to mind. One is the Calvinist sect of the Protestant faith....Another example is the doctrine of Hell and eternal punishment....

Sometimes both sides of the argument fit into the framework of the verse, but are not directly stated by the verse.

That's where a deeper study is required and related scriptures are examined in pursuit of clarity. But what if even that fails? It has happened many times.

Sometimes people twist scripture to hold onto their preconceived idea. Sometimes people falsely think there is a contradiction that would follow if the other side was true, so that can't be what the verse is saying.

Sure, some do, sometimes. But you can't lay such mass disagreement and confusion at the feet of dishonest, biased people. Are there not also honest, unbiased God-seekers? They, too, in all sincerity cannot come to the same conclusions on important theological points.

I read somewhere concerning clear writing that if there is confusion it's not the reader's fault, it's the writer's fault. It is the writer's responsibility to communicate clearly and understandably. Now either God could not do that or he purposefully did that. Neither one is very pleasant to think about. For unbelievers, there is another option. Man wrote the Bible with no help from a higher power. This seems to be the logical answer.

I find no reason to think this is true.

I agree. I wasn't quoting the statement and I see now that my recollection is faulty. My bad.

So, even if a being could write something perfectly clear, we could muck it up.

"A being?" I think you mean God, right? As expressed above some could muck it. But God has the perfect foresight to work with. He foresaw the various misunderstandings such as the ones mentioned here and hundreds more. Did he not have the power, the intelligence, to correct it? The sensible answer to me is that an infallible God did not write the Bible, fallible men did.

[amortalman]

amortalman wrote:

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.

He did write a book that was free of errors.

This isn't the proper thread to dig into the errors in the Bible beyond the mention. But it might a good debate subject.

The fact that people don't understand it perfectly and have misinterpreted and misrepresented it in some cases is a reflection on us, not on God.

Of course, a believer would take that position because his god is incapable of making a mistake. But if you consider that scripture was written by men the argument is meaningless.

But I can see that it's easier to blame him than take some responsibility for one's own failure to grasp it.

I like the sign President Harry Truman kept on his desk, "The buck stops here." God is the most responsible one to see to it that there aren't a thousand disagreements about his instruction book. He could even now, thousands of years too late, clear up most if not all the confusion. He chooses not to. But more importantly, with his perfect foreknowledge of the coming problems he could have, as one comedic on television said, "Nip it in the bud." He chose not to. Perhaps he couldn't.

Aquinas rightly noted that there are things about God that we can learn using our reason, but there are other things that can only be known through God's revelation.

Aquinas obviously believed in a supernatural power for which there is no reasonable evidence.

But we always have to bear in mind that we are a sin-damaged lot which means our ability to reason is flawed.

You have made an absolute claim that can't be proven. Besides, the concept of sin is a Biblical creation and the Bible is what we're debating. That's almost like saying this instruction manual on building a bridge is correct because it says so.

We can get things wrong. That means nobody -- and I mean nobody -- is going to understand God and His Word perfectly this side of heaven.

Because humans aren't perfect. God supposedly is. Perfect understanding is not expected but much more clarity is.

There are two principles that I think have bearing on this topic. The first is called the Wide Availability Principle. It states that, if God exists, he will make a relationship with him available to as many people as possible. Therefore, he wouldn't make himself (or his Word) so difficult to grasp that only scholars could do so.

IF God exists. If he does not exist the Wide Availability Principle is meaningless. Show me good evidence that God exists. By the way, scholars can't come to an agreement on many important theological issues, either.

In fact, children can and do understand the gospel of Jesus Christ.

That depends on the age of the child and whether or not the child really understands the implications of her decision. Do they fully understand or are they simply repeating what a Bible teacher or parent taught them in a response to outside pressure?

The second is called the Easy Resistability Principle. God makes himself easily accessible to anybody who wants to know him, but he does not make his presence (and the understanding of his Word) so obvious that people lack the free will to choose whether or not to believe he exists.

Your second principle is refuted on the same grounds as the first.

The Tanager has spoken of free will, but I didn't see anybody address that. If someone did, and I missed it, my apologies. But the issue is important because it puts the onus on us, not on God. Remember that God wants us to choose him, but he will not coerce us. That's a key to this discussion.

More Christianese. I have heard that all my life and it sounds good to Christians. Some Christian bodies, like Calvinists, don't believe the Bible supports freewill when it comes to choosing God. They can point you to several verses that clearly state that God chooses his elect and the call is irresistible. More evidence that God has not made the issue clear because there are supporting scriptures for either position.

Thanks for your comments.

[amortalman]

[Replying to amortalman]

For starters: What do you think is the purpose of the Bible?

To start with it is not incumbent on me to explain the purpose of the Bible. And does it have to have only one purpose? The Bible is a collection of 66 books (in the Protestant Bible), by 40 different authors from all walks of life, over a span of about 1500 years.

There could be many reasons these books were written. Maybe an expression of ancient beliefs, the preservation of fables passed down for generations or a way to control a population for political or monetary gain. All these come to mind. I'm sure there are many more.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 52 by Overcomer]

The fact that people don't understand it perfectly and have misinterpreted and misrepresented it in some cases is a reflection on us, not on God. But I can see that it's easier to blame him than take some responsibility for one's own failure to grasp it.

For every person who has an interpretation and understanding of the Bible, there is another who has a different interpretation and understanding. Hence the countless sects and denominations of Christianity based on the Bible. Of course, the correct interpretation is always the one that you agree with. None of this reflects on God. He is just an imaginary participant in the whole charade. Responsibility for all the disagreement lies squarely with humans, because it was fallible humans that produced the flawed omnibus in the first place.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

and a lot of the stories are simple enough for a small child to understand.

As a young child, reading the story about Moses commanding that women who had not known men be kept confused me: I thought it meant that if a woman knew a man, as in had talked with a man, then she was to be killed. I didn't know it meant carnal relations.

Ask God (pray) and don't stop asking until you find the help you need.

I prayed for the better part of twenty odd years. At some point, when there is not even so much as a dial tone to suggest that the "number" I was "ringing" was even valid, you've just got to put down the "phone".

Be humble enough to accept help from the people who take a personal interst in helping you individually at great cost to themselves

Is this a not so subtle hint to listen only to JWs, that only JWs teach at great cost to themselves, that people of other denominations aren't to be bothered with?

by approaching you and offering to help you understand the bible .

If it is JWs you're hinting at here, then the ones in my area and capital city don't actually approach anyone. I've seen them set up a stand and hold their pamphlets but they don't go up to people.
I get more interaction from charity workers or people looking to get me to sign a petition than I do from JWs.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 20 by tam]

Thank you for your wish of peace!

Not on the street corner per se, but:

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." Rev 3:20

You mean the same book that, on several occasions, you have described as having been tampered with via the 'lying pens of the scribes' (or words to that effect)?
Do you not see the position you've put yourself in? You're trying to convince us to listen to a one Christ, whom you say is here, a being that we can talk to. Okay, how do I know that that is true, I might ask? Oh, it says so here in this book? Oh? I'll retort, is this book trustworthy? No, you'll say, scribes have edited it.
Of course, what could convince me that Christ is there is well...Christ being there. If you so desire, I can take my phone and record a video of my front door, complete with the sounds of knocking, or should I say...the complete lack of sounds of knocking. I can open the door if need be. Shall I do so?
I'd really like an answer to that question, tam. Should I record video and audio of my front door, and post it here?

Now you may not believe that Christ lives and speaks, but that is what that book (and the apostles, and other disciples, and Christ Himself) testifies TO.

The way you wrote this sentence it's like you consider the book to be separate from the apostles/disciples/Christ, as in the book says this thing, and then so do the apostles, the disciples and even Christ himself.

Why drink downstream after the water has been muddied, rather than drink that water directly from the source?

Precisely my point about you and your attitude towards the Bible. Here you are implying that the Bible is muddied, not to be trusted, for us to go to Christ...and yet up above you're using this very same Bible to justify your own claims.
Is Christ there at my door, knocking? Yes, you might say, it says so here in this Bible, this thing that I have described as being muddied waters...

From Christ Jaheshua, the Holy One of God, who is alive and who speaks. He said that His sheep would hear His voice; and we have examples of Him doing just that, from the very bible you are asking questions about.

From the very Bible that you don't trust, that you describe as being muddied waters.

He spoke to Peter in his vision of clean and unclean foods and to tell Peter to go to Cornelius; He spoke to Paul; He spoke to Phillip, sending Philip to the Ethiopian; He spoke to Ananias, sending Ananias to Paul; He gave John the revelation; etc. These are just some examples that were written down.

Written down in the muddied waters book...

He has not stopped speaking because He has not stopped living. He is the living Word of God. How can a living Word not speak?

Strange then that I don't hear him. I don't hear this Christ for the exact same reason I don't hear Thor or Saruman the White or any number of other named characters: they are imaginary. If I can't distinguish your Christ from other imaginary characters, then he might as well be imaginary for all the difference it makes.

We are also told to test the inspired expressions (the things that we hear and/or the things that others claim to be true); and we are certainly permitted to test those who claim to be apostles but who are not.

So should I post that video of my front door? It certainly sounds like you're speaking to the scientific method here, that you say you're welcome to testing being done.

In fact, here ya go

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

So I stopped looking for a religion from that moment; exercised faith in my Lord and what He told me, and simply listened to and followed Him. He has never led me wrong.

He's not at my front door, in spite of what you (and the muddied waters Bible) say. I can only conclude you have been led wrong.

"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers." Mattew 23:8

Why do you quote from the Bible, after saying it's muddied waters?

It also does no good to simply listen to people who claim to be apostles and teachers and leaders, if what they teach and preach is false. We are to listen to Christ, the Teacher, the Truth.

According to tam, Christ is at my front door. According to tam, she got this phrase from the Bible. According to tam, this phrase in the Bible is from Christ. According to tam, the Bible is muddied waters. According to tam, we are to listen to Christ himself.

According to my video, there is no one at my front door.