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?

[historia]

It seems to me that you are criticizing the Bible for failing to achieve a particular goal.

The expectation would be clarity, not confusion.

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

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.

I think the text ought to achieve clarity first and foremost. Without a clear understanding of its many parts, one would have a hard time putting together an overall purpose.

But, again, clarity in regard to what?

You wouldn't fault the TV Guide for failing to give you tomorrow's weather report, for example, as that's not its purpose.

No, but I might fault it for misguiding TV viewers.

Exactly! Once we ascertain the purpose of a text, we can make these kinds of judgements. So what, then, is the purpose of the Bible?

But your criticism of the Bible took as one of its founding assumptions (for the sake of argument, of course) that God had 'authored' or otherwise inspired the text. Does that not give the Bible some over-arching purpose?

Not necessarily. Maybe the purpose is for his own amusement.

Again, it seems to me that your criticism of the Bible earlier in this thread already assumes an implicit conclusion about the purpose of the Bible, otherwise you'd have no grounds for criticizing the text in the first place. I'm simply asking you to spell that out.

Let's consider brunumb's comments above, as an example:

God's holy instruction manual was left to humans to produce. Consequently it was collated in such an ad hoc manner that it spawned thousands of disagreeing sects.

Ignoring for a second the odd misuse of the term "collate" here, why should we consider the Bible an "instruction manual"? Is that it's purpose? Is that how the early Christians thought of it?

[The Tanager]

I respect your honesty and your willingness to dissect and reach some conclusion. That's not the point. Whatever we look at allows us to take a vote on whose interpretation is right. We are not, here, looking for a true interpretation of something, just a simple concession that there's much to argue about. I can't see why that's in dispute. If clarity was there for us to find, intelligent people would find it, without disagreement.

Intelligent people come to texts in complex ways that extend beyond mere rationality. We bring our worldviews, emotions, languages, cultures, etc. Because of that, if clarity was there for us to find, intelligent people could still not agree upon it.

I'm fine just talking about the general point, rather than the specific examples. I'm saying there are different causes of disagreements. One type of disagreement is when a verse is used to address a question/issue that it does not attempt to answer itself. I think this is the case when people try to answer the transubstantation question (either way) by looking at Luke 22:19, for example. It doesn't address that question directly. Anything will look unclear when it is taken to address something beyond what it was meant to address.

At other times, when we are actually talking about the issue the text is addressing, we have some interpretations that don't have merit, that don't fit the context at all. It is harder to see with figurative interpretations because of the nature of figurative language, but we cannot allow just any claim of figurative meaning to count against clarity, because one could say anything had a figurative meaning. The question there becomes whether the proposed figurative meaning has any contextual support. As we've discussed in another thread, I don't believe the context of John 8:58 can rationally support the meaning that Jesus is talking about his truth existing before Abraham.

Ultimately, my point is not to dissect particular examples (I'd be willing to, of course), but to go beyond the surface to see exactly where confusion comes in. I don't think it is in the Biblical text itself (at least not on most of the issues and definitely not any of the important ones relating to God's ultimate project as revealed in the Bible). I think the confusion you all are rightly observing is being misplaced there from how it actually comes in: through the interpreter(s). I do not think we should fault a text or author for an interpretation that is read into their intended meaning. I do not think we should fault a text for not clearly answering a question it didn't have in mind. I do not think we should fault an author for not anticipating and answering a different question than she wanted to address. The Bible is not God's answers to every specific question someone may have. The Bible is meant to point towards a relationship with God, while providing general guidance about what God is about.

[The Tanager]

If I used those words "clear to the point that no one could misunderstand it" you need to point out where but I don't think I used those words. People with impaired mental capacities wouldn't be expected to understand it.

As for my "critique"...When one says that something should be absolutely clear they are also saying it should be clearer and that's what I said. I haven't changed my position.

I never thought you were saying clear even to those with impaired mental capacities. We are talking about normal human mental capacities. Where I got it from was a quote like this:

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.([your] added emphasis)

"No room for misunderstanding" seems different to me than saying "understand better than they do." The latter, in my mind, is saying it is okay to leave some room for misunderstanding. I'm not saying you are changing your position because we could just mean different things by the phrases. I'm pointing out how those things seem like different critiques to me and wanting to know which one (or some nuance of them) you actually believe so we aren't talking past each other.

amortalman wrote:
Asking God to overcome natural limitations isn't a problem, is it? Isn't that what miracles are all about?

I was talking about the logical consequences that follow from the nature we have.

I know what you were talking about. God knows all about human nature since he put us together, right? What you are saying is that we can't blame God who put us together with natural limitations and then use that against us to create confusion in the instruction manual. I say it is reasonable for mere mortals to expect their creator to leave us a book free of errors, contradictions, and vast confusion.

Knowing what I was talking about, then how is it not a problem to ask God to act illogically? If our nature logically causes room for misunderstanding of clear truths to occur, then no book (even the clearest) can overcome that. If a book could overcome that, then our nature does not logically cause room for misunderstanding. I don't see how miracles change that point.

A different critique (I'm not saying you are changing your critique) is to ask why God would make us with that room to begin with. I think that points back to what I've said about the choice God has between creating beings with free will or no free will.

I think you understand perfectly what I wrote.

Okay, but I'm telling you I don't. I'm not playing some game by saying this. I realize some nuances and I don't want to assume you mean one over the other and start talking about some straw man.

Are you saying that if the Bible gives two contradictory views of Hell, then we can't trust it as a valid source of information on the important things?

Finally, you get it!

I sense the possibility of a double standard here. When the Bible isn't clear it's the author's fault. When I ask you to clarify, it's the reader's fault. I do not think the Bible gives two contradictory views of Hell. I think one of those views is forced upon the text even by sincere people. It is unclear to me whether you want to deeply look into those views or leave our points at the general level. You said what you said, but what you said is unclear to me. I think that may be all your fault, that it may be all my fault, that it may be a mixture of both of our faults and helped by the complexity of what we are as beings. I don't care who's fault it is. I want to come to a better understanding and engagement with each other in our pursuit of knowledge.

Are you saying that traditionalism vs. annihilationism is vital concerning God's ultimate project?

Maybe, maybe not. The fact remains that there is confusion on these and other issues. Why would God do that?

Becoming a part of God's ultimate project does not depend on one's view of Hell. I don't see why God should be so concerned that we know exactly what occurs in Hell. Neither option is good. God doesn't want people (and I don't want to be a person) who just know everything about everything. That's what I said earlier about a kind of hide-and-seek with God that draws us out of reliance on ourselves. God wants a relationship, not a student who is trying to pass a class.

[marco]

Intelligent people come to texts in complex ways

The bible is presumably God's message to all, not just the intelligent.

One type of disagreement is when a verse is used to address a question/issue that it does not attempt to answer itself... …. Anything will look unclear when it is taken to address something beyond what it was meant to address.

This is not addressing confusion but giving advice on how best to interpret, as you see it. It would be surprising if, in this analysis, you explained your own particular reasons for reaching wrong interpretations or ones that differ from other reasonable people. Is it always a simple matter they are wrong?

I don't believe the context of John 8:58 can rationally support the meaning that Jesus is talking about his truth existing before Abraham.

Perhaps not. Join the confusion! I extract a meaning and you extract yours. Our differences indicate some problem. It is unhelpful to say the position is easily resolved: I'm right and you are wrong. Effectively that is your approach, though you may not intend it to be and you certainly don't express this unpleasantly.

I think the confusion you all are rightly observing is being misplaced there from how it actually comes in: through the interpreter(s). I do not think we should fault a text or author for an interpretation that is read into their intended meaning.

Then how do we identify the "correct" interpretation. Is it invariably yours, since you've taken context and everything else into consideration? Let's suppose- just for argument's sake - you are wrong in some area. That would mean that despite your conscientious care you found problems. That is what we are discussing, not the system of getting the right answer.

I do not think we should fault a text for not clearly answering a question it didn't have in mind.

That goes without saying, but we're not discussing false expectations. We are discussing areas of confusion in the Bible. If someone says to me: "Bring your confusion to me and I'll unconfuse it for you" I might ask for identification. Were such a gifted exegete in evidence, he'd be able to glue together the cracks in Christianity. What we have are people who claim to have answers: popes, prelates and preachers. It has always been so, and confusion persists. Your antidote is something to bear in mind when we have to deal with confusing passages.

[The Tanager]

The bible is presumably God's message to all, not just the intelligent.

I agree. And I think the main point God wanted to get across is clearly expressed for all. But, I was responding to what I thought you were saying. You seemed to say that if the text was clear, then intelligent people would not disagree on what was meant. I think that is false because even intelligent people come to the text in complex ways that combine rationality, worldview, emotions, languages, cultures, etc.

This is not addressing confusion but giving advice on how best to interpret, as you see it. It would be surprising if, in this analysis, you explained your own particular reasons for reaching wrong interpretations or ones that differ from other reasonable people. Is it always a simple matter they are wrong?

I am addressing the confusion. There it was that the confusion comes about when the "interpreter" reads a question into the text that was not addressed by the author. The text is not confusing. The issue of transubstantation may be confusing. It's possible that God does not care that much about the transubstantiation question itself. Christians are famous for making mountains out of mole hills and trying to be the gatekeepers. I think John 10, among other passages, should challenge Christians on this. If the above is the case, then there is no reason to expect God to answer the transubstantiation question directly in the Bible.

I think I have recently read into a verse during one of my conversations on this website. It was about why God created Satan. I believe Satan was created to freely join in on God's ultimate project, but chose to reject it. I was challenged to give a verse to back up my reading of that in Scripture. I talked about Ezekiel 28 and what I thought it had to say about Satan's origin. The context does not connect it to Satan, but to the King of Tyre. I forced my interpretation into that verse because I was sure that my belief was coming from Scripture and I was asked to provide a verse to back up my view. That one came to mind and I used it to support my view, without as critical a reflection as I should have done because lots of other people read that belief into that verse as well. After that discussion God continued to bring that issue back for my consideration (or perhaps I gave that issue more thought) and I realized that I was reading that belief into that text. Now, in that process, I came across other verses that reinforced why I held the belief concerning Satan's free will and fall to begin with, having read them before, but that is irrelevant: I had reached a wrong interpretation of a specific verse. If I thought hard enough, I could share times where my initial beliefs have been overturned when I actually look at the text(s), rather than just an example of misusing one verse for a belief.

Perhaps not. Join the confusion! I extract a meaning and you extract yours. Our differences indicate some problem. It is unhelpful to say the position is easily resolved: I'm right and you are wrong. Effectively that is your approach, though you may not intend it to be and you certainly don't express this unpleasantly.

I own that approach. I'm not saying people aren't confused about what the texts say, I'm saying that the problem is we read things into the texts that aren't there, usually for sincere reasons. It should be helpful when someone shows that the position is easily resolved. Sometimes one is wrong and clearly reading things into a text. It is helpful to have that pointed out to us, whether we will listen to it or not. If you mean helpful in regards to making us change our mind, then this seems to me to be moving into the free will question.

Then how do we identify the "correct" interpretation. Is it invariably yours, since you've taken context and everything else into consideration? Let's suppose- just for argument's sake - you are wrong in some area. That would mean that despite your conscientious care you found problems. That is what we are discussing, not the system of getting the right answer.

In the Bible as in any other field. We humbly approach the issue because we are more than intelligent people (i.e., rational, emotional, cultural, etc. beings). We make mistakes, so we are always open to reassessing the evidence. We consider the thoughts of others, so-called intelligent or not. I think God is there to help us get rid of our blinders. I think God always wanted us to live life in concert with Him, not just get all of the right test answers for a test that is never coming.

That goes without saying, but we're not discussing false expectations. We are discussing areas of confusion in the Bible.

Well, I think reading transubstantiation (or it's negation) into Luke 22:19 is a false expectation, but I agree not all the examples you shared or that are confusing to people are like that.

[amortalman]

It seems to me that you are criticizing the Bible for failing to achieve a particular goal.

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. There are hundreds of theological points that people have argued about for over 2000 years.

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.

I think the text ought to achieve clarity first and foremost. Without a clear understanding of its many parts, one would have a hard time putting together an overall purpose.

But, again, clarity in regard to what?

Is this so hard to understand? 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. There are many other important issues that divide Christianity and create confusion as to what the truth is. Yet the Bible says God is not the author of confusion. Despite what it says reality proves otherwise.

[amortalman]

If I used those words "clear to the point that no one could misunderstand it" you need to point out where but I don't think I used those words. People with impaired mental capacities wouldn't be expected to understand it.

As for my "critique"...When one says that something should be absolutely clear they are also saying it should be clearer and that's what I said. I haven't changed my position.

I never thought you were saying clear even to those with impaired mental capacities. We are talking about normal human mental capacities. Where I got it from was a quote like this:

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.([your] added emphasis)

"No room for misunderstanding" seems different to me than saying "understand better than they do." The latter, in my mind, is saying it is okay to leave some room for misunderstanding. I'm not saying you are changing your position because we could just mean different things by the phrases. I'm pointing out how those things seem like different critiques to me and wanting to know which one (or some nuance of them) you actually believe so we aren't talking past each other.

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.

amortalman wrote:
Asking God to overcome natural limitations isn't a problem, is it? Isn't that what miracles are all about?

I was talking about the logical consequences that follow from the nature we have.

I know what you were talking about. God knows all about human nature since he put us together, right? What you are saying is that we can't blame God who put us together with natural limitations and then use that against us to create confusion in the instruction manual. I say it is reasonable for mere mortals to expect their creator to leave us a book free of errors, contradictions, and vast confusion.

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?

A different critique (I'm not saying you are changing your critique) is to ask why God would make us with that room to begin with. I think that points back to what I've said about the choice God has between creating beings with free will or no free will.

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."

I think you understand perfectly what I wrote.

Okay, but I'm telling you I don't.

Okay. I accept that. It just looked like you were throwing back something at me. No problem.

Are you saying that if the Bible gives two contradictory views of Hell, then we can't trust it as a valid source of information on the important things?

Finally, you get it!

I sense the possibility of a double standard here. When the Bible isn't clear it's the author's fault.

Because the author is God.

When I ask you to clarify, it's the reader's fault.

Point well taken.

I do not think the Bible gives two contradictory views of Hell. I think one of those views is forced upon the text even by sincere people.

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.

It is unclear to me whether you want to deeply look into those views or leave our points at the general level.

The short answer is no. It is enough to know that there are conflicting views because God could not/would not make his text clear to every seeker of the truth.

Are you saying that traditionalism vs. annihilationism is vital concerning God's ultimate project?

Maybe, maybe not. The fact remains that there is confusion on these and other issues. Why would God do that?

Becoming a part of God's ultimate project does not depend on one's view of Hell. I don't see why God should be so concerned that we know exactly what occurs in Hell.

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.

[The Tanager]

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.

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.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 97 by The Tanager]

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.

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?

[marco]

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?

"God should" is of course an impossible start. But we can say: We would anticipate that an intelligent God would make his messages clear to all and we then work on the logic that if we are presented with stuff that is really a workbook for old tribesmen, we can, without fault, reach the conclusion that the book has nothing to do with an intelligent being. If we've reached this conclusion honestly, and see the text as ambiguous or confusing, then it is not really for us to arrogate ourselves to the position of God's correctors and interpreters. Why suppose God would present us with jig-saws and conundrums if he actually wanted us to understand his words? Does God play games?

We await some objective proof that we are wrong in supposing the Bible is made by men for men, with no divine input. If Yahweh can make a universe, he can easily communicate to foolish mortals..... if of course he wants to. Do we want to believe that in this age of high speed communication across the globe we still have to consult an old book about Canaanites and giants getting killed by a boy and people building a tower into the sky or a drunken old man seen naked by his son and cursing the insult? How sad it would be if primitive writing is superior to Einstein's formula - but it's not impossible I suppose.