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?

[amortalman]

Well, the two phrases ARE different. What I said was "no room for misunderstanding". I did not say "understand better than they do". I assume that is your paraphrase of what I actually said, which was: "Human will could still exist and human minds could still understand better IF the writing was made clearer." If that is what you're referring to then I think I explained it already. I didn't know it would create such a stir since writing something that leaves no room for misunderstanding is, in effect, making it clearer. I hope that clears up my position.

If that is what you mean, then it just brings us back to my earlier response to your position concerning the role of free will on this issue. If I want to believe, say, that God is an impersonal force of love and interpret the Bible in that light, you seem to be saying that God should write the Bible in a way that it is impossible for me to have that belief. My beliefs are being determined. I don't see how determinism and free will go together.

If you want to believe that and any other preferred belief you can certainly do that but you might be going against what God

Knowing what I was talking about, then how is it not a problem to ask God to act illogically?

Because there is something dreadfully wrong with this whole picture. God creates people and requires certain things from them. God writes a book. The book is vastly misunderstood. Now, either God messed up with the book or he messed up with mankind. Which is it?

If by "messed up with mankind" you mean that God made them free creatures instead of determining their beliefs and actions, then it's that one. I don't think that is a bad thing, however.

I don't see what free will has to do with misunderstanding the Bible. Can you imagine someone saying, "Oh if I just didn't have free will I would have a complete understanding of all these disputed issues."

If they didn't have free will and misunderstood things then confusion would be God's fault.

And it could be that both views were forced upon the text. But if sincere people are forcing views on a text there must be a good reason. More than likely some related passages have not been made clear.

Yes, both views could be forced upon the text. And there is a good reason for why the misunderstanding is occuring. You think it's more than likely because another passage isn't clear. I think it's more than likely because the interpreter is making a mistake. To say one verse is unclear because of other passages that are unclear moves that particular discussion one step back, but it's still the same general principle that is being contested: whether the problem is with a text or an interpreter.

I'm not concerned with God's so-called ultimate project. I'm concerned with the question of why would he mislead people in any way? When disagreements keep piling up and contradictions mount it makes me question God's very motive in creating this mess. So it is much more logical to believe the God of the Bible does not exist and this mess is man-made.

If what I'm saying is true, then it's not God creating this mess, but creating the possibility of a mess occuring. God is rightly blamed for that. Although, at that level it seem to me to be a choice between (a) having free will creatures that can freely join in on God's community of love or, if not, maintain various other belief systems or (b) robotic creatures and no possibility of them joining in a community of love since robots don't love, but having everyone with the same belief system. I think choice (a) is the better choice.

[amortalman]

Well, the two phrases ARE different. What I said was "no room for misunderstanding". I did not say "understand better than they do". I assume that is your paraphrase of what I actually said, which was: "Human will could still exist and human minds could still understand better IF the writing was made clearer." If that is what you're referring to then I think I explained it already. I didn't know it would create such a stir since writing something that leaves no room for misunderstanding is, in effect, making it clearer. I hope that clears up my position.

[qoute]If that is what you mean, then it just brings us back to my earlier response to your position concerning the role of free will on this issue. If I want to believe, say, that God is an impersonal force of love and interpret the Bible in that light, you seem to be saying that God should write the Bible in a way that it is impossible for me to have that belief. My beliefs are being determined. I don't see how determinism and free will go together.

God could have written his book perfectly clear and you (having free will) could still believe as you wish or not believe at all. Your reasoning seems to be that God purposely gave us a confusing Bible so that we would go astray from his wishes. Is God playing games? Is God so cruel?

Knowing what I was talking about, then how is it not a problem to ask God to act illogically?

Because there is something dreadfully wrong with this whole picture. God creates people and requires certain things from them. God writes a book. The book is vastly misunderstood. Now, either God messed up with the book or he messed up with mankind. Which is it?

If by "messed up with mankind" you mean that God made them free creatures instead of determining their beliefs and actions, then it's that one. I don't think that is a bad thing, however.

Writing clear instructions in no way forces those instructions on someone. Clarity in communication is a virtue, not a fault. Write clearly and let people decide if there is truth there.

I don't see what free will has to do with misunderstanding the Bible. Can you imagine someone saying, "Oh if I just didn't have free will I would have a complete understanding of all these disputed issues."

If they didn't have free will and misunderstood things then confusion would be God's fault.

According to that reasoning God gave free will so his precious words would be misunderstood.

And it could be that both views were forced upon the text. But if sincere people are forcing views on a text there must be a good reason. More than likely some related passages have not been made clear.

Yes, both views could be forced upon the text. And there is a good reason for why the misunderstanding is occurring. You think it's more than likely because another passage isn't clear. I think it's more than likely because the interpreter is making a mistake. To say one verse is unclear because of other passages that are unclear moves that particular discussion one step back, but it's still the same general principle that is being contested: whether the problem is with a text or an interpreter.

I don't think it's moving the discussion one step back. It is actually supporting my argument. I was stating a plausible reason for views to be forced upon the text. You stated that you thought one view is correct and the other view is forced upon the text. For the sake of argument, I agreed that could be the case. But a view is forced (although I wouldn't use that word for it) because the consensus of related passages leaves no room for any other interpretation. Confusion of what God meant leads to all kinds of trouble.

I'm not concerned with God's so-called ultimate project. I'm concerned with the question of why would he mislead people in any way? When disagreements keep piling up and contradictions mount it makes me question God's very motive in creating this mess. So it is much more logical to believe the God of the Bible does not exist and this mess is man-made.

If what I'm saying is true, then it's not God creating this mess, but creating the possibility of a mess occuring. God is rightly blamed for that.

I'm glad you have agreed that God is rightly blamed for something!

[The Tanager]

No. What you want is irrelevant. God should write the Bible so that the truth is plain and clear to everyone. It is not a violation of free will to present all of the compelling evidence for any situation and allowing people to reach the obvious conclusion from that evidence. Is a jury denied their free will and do they become robots when they examine the evidence and decide that the accused is irrefutably guilty?

I didn't mean "want to believe" in that way. I am saying that, for instance, a person who believes that God is an impersonal force of love could come to the Biblical text and figuratively interpret any statement impersonally, even if it flatly said "God is not impersonal." That's just a feature of those mystical, figurative types of beliefs some people have. No amount of contextual or historical or whatever kind of evidence is going to necessarily change that person's mind on what was intended, because anything can be interpreted figuratively to best fit their worldview. You (and others) seem to me to be saying that God should be able to keep that from happening. I don't see how that can be guaranteed without negating their free will concerning the beliefs they bring to their reading of the Bible.

[The Tanager]

God could have written his book perfectly clear and you (having free will) could still believe as you wish or not believe at all. Your reasoning seems to be that God purposely gave us a confusing Bible so that we would go astray from his wishes. Is God playing games? Is God so cruel?

I don't see how you conclude that this is my reasoning. I don't think the Bible is confusing. I never said God confuses us so that we will go astray from His wishes. I don't think God is playing some cruel game or that the evidence shows that He is. I think reality is complex and that the Bible is not God's attempt to answer every complex question of reality. But I think it is clear in its intended messages.

Writing clear instructions in no way forces those instructions on someone. Clarity in communication is a virtue, not a fault. Write clearly and let people decide if there is truth there.

I'm weary of the word "instructions," but I think the Bible is written clearly. You haven't given an example that proves it is not written clearly. Saying people disagree is not an example that proves the Bible is not written clearly.

If they didn't have free will and misunderstood things then confusion would be God's fault.

According to that reasoning God gave free will so his precious words would be misunderstood.

That is not "according to that reasoning" at all. Misunderstanding is a possible result, but not necessary. That possibility necessarily accompanies the project of having agents freely join in God's ultimate project, so the choice is, simplistically put, (a) free will and possible misunderstanding or (b) no misunderstanding and robots.

I don't think it's moving the discussion one step back. It is actually supporting my argument. I was stating a plausible reason for views to be forced upon the text. You stated that you thought one view is correct and the other view is forced upon the text. For the sake of argument, I agreed that could be the case. But a view is forced (although I wouldn't use that word for it) because the consensus of related passages leaves no room for any other interpretation. Confusion of what God meant leads to all kinds of trouble.

I was arguing something like: that Passage A has only one unforced interpretation of it. For the sake of argument, you concede that, but respond that the forced interpretation is required by a consensus of the interpretations of related passages (X, Y, Z). One clear line of response for me is going to be saying the same thing about passages X, Y, and Z as I did for A. Logically, it may be true of one passage, but not another, but it's the same general principle being discussed at both "levels".

If what I'm saying is true, then it's not God creating this mess, but creating the possibility of a mess occuring. God is rightly blamed for that.

I'm glad you have agreed that God is rightly blamed for something!

So you agree that (a) is the better choice than (b) (since that was the context of my statement that you only partially quoted)? You agree with me that God is rightly blamed for making choice (a) over choice (b)?

[amortalman]

I'm weary of the word "instructions," but I think the Bible is written clearly. You haven't given an example that proves it is not written clearly. Saying people disagree is not an example that proves the Bible is not written clearly.

Contrasting views on Hell

Hell is everlasting:

Eternal conscious punishment (also called traditionalism) holds that the wicked will suffer in hell forever. Annihilationism (or conditionalism) holds that the final punishment of the wicked is their extinction of being. This extinction is irreversible, and the annihilationist definition of eternal punishment is extermination without remedy.

I reject annihilationism and believe in endless punishment for three main reasons. First, traditionalism is the historic view of the Christian church. Second, endless punishment fits better than annihilationism with other scriptural teachings. Third, and most importantly, five biblical passages constrain my belief in eternal conscious punishment: Matthew 25:41, 46; Mark 9:42–48; 2 Thessalonians 1:5–10; Revelation 14:9– 11; and Revelation 20:10, 14–15.

Jesus declares in Matthew 25:41 that the destiny of the unsaved is “the eternal fire prepared for the devil.� Matthew 25:46 uses the same adjective, eternal, to describe the fates of the lost and saved: “eternal punishment� and “eternal life.� Jesus depicts “hell� as a place “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched� (Mark 9:47–48). Paul’s reference to “eternal destruction� in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, indicates a figurative devastation that the damned will experience forever in hell, separated from the Lord’s royal presence. Revelation 14:10, where we read that the impenitent “will be tormented with burning sulfur,� depicts the hellfire imagery as agony, not annihilation. John speaks of everlasting torment when he adds, “and the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever� (v. 11). John’s description of Satan’s fate in Revelation 20:10 as being placed in “the lake of fire and sulfur� and being “tormented day and night for ever and ever� signifies everlasting pain, a fate that lost human beings share (Rev. 20:15). https://www.equip.org/article/the-dark- ... unishment/

Hell is annihilation:

What reasons do people give for denying eternal conscious punishment and affirming annihilationism (or what is sometimes called “conditional immortality�)? Many appeal to the biblical language of hell, primarily the words “to destroy�, “destruction�, and “perish� (see Phil. 3:19; 1 Thess. 5:3; 2 Thess. 1:9; 2 Peter 3:7). The “fire� of hell, so they contend, burns up, consumes, and utterly “destroys� its object, leaving nothing (see Matt. 10:28). Thus, they interpret “destroy� to mean deprive of life and existence, hence the extinction of being. Annihilationists also point to the Greek word often translated “forever� (aion) and insist that it more literally means “age�, referring to a lengthy but limited period of time. One also often hears an appeal to the dictates of justice. It goes something like this: A “just� penalty will be in proportion to the crime or sin committed. How can a sin committed in time by a finite creature warrant eternal, unending torment?

It is also said that to suggest hell lasts forever is to say that God does not, in actual fact, achieve victory over sin and evil. How can God be said to “win� if his enemies continue to exist forever? Would not eternal punishment entail an eternal cosmological dualism? Would not the eternally continuous existence of hell and its occupants mar the beauty and joy of heaven? Perhaps the most emotionally charged argument is that eternal conscious punishment in hell is morally repugnant to any sensible conscience. It is emotionally abhorrent to suggest that a God of love and mercy and kindness would “torture� (their word) people in hell forever and ever. No matter how grievous the sin(s), horrific pain, whether spiritual or physical or both, that goes on and on for billions of years, and after that for billions of years, ad infinitum, is more than they can tolerate. https://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god- ... punishment

If the Bible is not confusing how can these different views exist? Both give supporting texts. Some people come down on one side and some on the other. And some believe neither one is correct because there is no heaven and no hell.

[historia]

It seems to me that you are criticizing the Bible for failing to achieve a particular goal. But such a criticism is only meaningful if we first assume that the text ought to achieve that goal in the first place, which necessarily entails a prior conclusion about the purpose of the text.

The expectation would be clarity, not confusion.

Clarity in regard to what? Clarity is a means, not an end.

Clarity as to whatever teaching or doctrine is being presented.

Okay, would you say then that the purpose of the Bible is to present doctrines?

Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Baptists, Charismatics, Episcopals, Seven Day Adventists, etc. all have different interpretations of the scriptures, different views of heaven, hell, baptism, what part Jesus Christ plays or doesn't play.

It seems to me these examples actually reveal a major deficiency in your argument.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims, for example, diverge, not so much in their interpretation of Scripture, as in what texts they consider to be Scripture in the first place. Likewise, the difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics lies less with their specific interpretation of Scripture as with the former's rejection of Tradition, which Catholics hold as having equal authority to Scripture. Liberal and Conservative Protestants also have fundamentally different views on the nature and authority of Scripture itself.

It is not the case, then, that even most of the groups named here diverge in their beliefs simply because they interpret the Bible differently. Rather, other factors play a much more determinative role. And so to conclude from these examples that the Bible must be confusing is unfounded.

Yet the Bible says God is not the author of confusion.

When Paul wrote these words -- which are better translated as "God is not the author of disorder," (so NRSV) rather than "confusion," as the key term here, akatastasias, connotes instability rather than a lack of understanding -- he wrote at a time when there was wide disagreement among competing Jewish sects (more so than today) and even competing Christian groups. Clearly, his meaning here cannot be that God would not allow people to disagree, as you seem to take it.

[The Tanager]

If the Bible is not confusing how can these different views exist? Both give supporting texts. Some people come down on one side and some on the other. And some believe neither one is correct because there is no heaven and no hell.

Because people have the freedom to read the Bible through their own lenses, which may result in misreading the passage or reading into it a question it isn't answering and those kinds of things. Yes, the various sides give texts in support (well, maybe not the "no heaven and no hell" position), but the question is whether those texts actually support their views or not. To really test your assertion out, we need to look at every passage from both sides and see where the difference of interpretation lies. Your post is a good summary of many of the positive reasons for each side of the issue, but doesn't really deal with each specific passage from both views. I'm willing to go in depth with our analysis or to leave our points at the general level.

Also, could you answer my question concerning choice (a) or (b)? It's just a philosophical question. Which choice would a loving being make?

[amortalman]

Clarity as to whatever teaching or doctrine is being presented.

Okay, would you say then that the purpose of the Bible is to present doctrines?

No, but the doctrines are what most people disagree on.

Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Baptists, Charismatics, Episcopals, Seven Day Adventists, etc. all have different interpretations of the scriptures, different views of heaven, hell, baptism, what part Jesus Christ plays or doesn't play.

It seems to me these examples actually reveal a major deficiency in your argument.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims, for example, diverge, not so much in their interpretation of Scripture, as in what texts they consider to be Scripture in the first place. Likewise, the difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics lies less with their specific interpretation of Scripture as with the former's rejection of Tradition, which Catholics hold as having equal authority to Scripture. Liberal and Conservative Protestants also have fundamentally different views on the nature and authority of Scripture itself.

Jews and Christians both consider the Old Testament to be the inspired word of God. Judaism, however, does not accept the central Christian teaching that Jesus Christ is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. Both claim to be the "correct" one.

Both Christianity and Islam sprang from Judaism. Who has the correct religion?

The difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants has everything to do with the interpretation of scripture. They both rely on scripture to form their beliefs.

Your remark about liberal and conservative Protestants only supports my position. The nature and authority of scripture is part of the issue of confusion.

It is not the case, then, that even most of the groups named here diverge in their beliefs simply because they interpret the Bible differently. Rather, other factors play a much more determinative role. And so to conclude from these examples that the Bible must be confusing is unfounded.

Not unfounded at all. The Bible is the basis of all these beliefs and as hard as you try you cannot get away from that.

Yet the Bible says God is not the author of confusion.

When Paul wrote these words -- which are better translated as "God is not the author of disorder," (so NRSV) rather than "confusion," as the key term here, akatastasias, connotes instability rather than a lack of understanding -- he wrote at a time when there was wide disagreement among competing Jewish sects (more so than today) and even competing Christian groups. Clearly, his meaning here cannot be that God would not allow people to disagree, as you seem to take it.

The KJV translates Strong's G181 (akatastasia) in the following manner: confusion (2x), tumult (2x), commotion (1x). "Confusion" is an acceptable translation.
The bigger question is why did God write his holy book in such a way as to be open to so many disagreements?

[amortalman]

If the Bible is not confusing how can these different views exist? Both give supporting texts. Some people come down on one side and some on the other. And some believe neither one is correct because there is no heaven and no hell.

Because people have the freedom to read the Bible through their own lenses, which may result in misreading the passage or reading into it a question it isn't answering and those kinds of things.

So do you claim to have the correct "lens" through which to read scripture? How do you know your lens sees any clearer than others' lens?

Yes, the various sides give texts in support (well, maybe not the "no heaven and no hell" position), but the question is whether those texts actually support their views or not. To really test your assertion out, we need to look at every passage from both sides and see where the difference of interpretation lies. Your post is a good summary of many of the positive reasons for each side of the issue, but doesn't really deal with each specific passage from both views. I'm willing to go in depth with our analysis or to leave our points at the general level.

You asked for an example and I gave you one. I am not inclined to get bogged down in a debate over opposing scriptures. I'm sure others more qualified than either of us has done that and proven that there's no bottom to that conundrum. Maybe God didn't anticipate these disagreements.

Also, could you answer my question concerning choice (a) or (b)? It's just a philosophical question. Which choice would a loving being make?

The answer is (a) of course (given that there is such a loving being) but that does not lead to your conclusions. We've debated the issue of free will from several angles and at some point, we have to agree to disagree. You think free will in people prevents them from agreeing on what exactly the texts are saying. I think the problem lies in the failure of clarity in the texts.

[The Tanager]

So do you claim to have the correct "lens" through which to read scripture? How do you know your lens sees any clearer than others' lens?

I'm not saying that. I even shared an instance where my lens caused me to misinterpret a specific Bible passage. I am saying we need to try our best to not read a text with a specific lens or prior belief.

You asked for an example and I gave you one. I am not inclined to get bogged down in a debate over opposing scriptures. I'm sure others more qualified than either of us has done that and proven that there's no bottom to that conundrum. Maybe God didn't anticipate these disagreements.

Your critique requires one to get bogged down in the gritty details or it is impotent. Saying people disagree isn't enough. Your point requires us to look at exactly what is causing the disagreement: if it's the text itself or the various lens brought to the texts, etc. For your point to go through one must prove that the Bible actually gives two contradictory teachings concerning Hell (or whatever topic). We can travel that boggy road together or we can leave our points at the general level and anyone who wants to see if your critique is actually potent, can travel that road on their own. I'm fine if you don't want to travel that boggy road here. Perhaps you've done it before to your satisfaction. There is no pressure from me to follow it out, I'm just laying out what I think your critique requires of one honestly seeking an answer to whether the Bible is confusing. I'm not saying you aren't honestly seeking it if you don't look at these passages right now. And, yes, there are definitely others more qualified than me to travel that road, but that's true about every topic we talk about here.

The answer is (a) of course (given that there is such a loving being) but that does not lead to your conclusions. We've debated the issue of free will from several angles and at some point, we have to agree to disagree. You think free will in people prevents them from agreeing on what exactly the texts are saying. I think the problem lies in the failure of clarity in the texts.

Thank you for sharing your answer. I know it does not lead to my conclusions about the Bible not being confusing. I think how you phrased my conclusions is misleading (not purposefully so). I'm not saying that free will prevents people from agreeing, I'm saying that free will prevents God from making sure they agree.