Why is the Bible so hard to understand?

ChristianForCats said:

You would think God wanted to make the Bible a very easy book to understand so no Christian reader can misinterpret anything. It is His Word. He knows our limitations. What is the purpose of making people need help figuring out what everything means and allowing interpretations to be wrong?

This problem is why we have totally different opinions on things like evolution, infant baptisms, alcohol, and Communion. It is why we do not all agree on when Jesus was conceived and born, crucified, and risen. All this is even among Bible scholars with college degrees in theology.

Click to expand...

There are also questions “outside” the Bible. For instance, it nowhere claims to be the final judge in all matters of religion & morals. Nor does it state anywhere that it is totally inerrant in all respects. Nor does any part of it list its contents. Nor does it anywhere explain how its contents are to be interpreted. As a result, Christians have adopted a variety of positions on all of these, and many other, issues. And in all likelihood, they always will.

Christians do of course have their answers to all of these questions, and others, but the point is that none of these questions is given an answer within the Bible itself. What one is to make of that situation, is anyone’s guess. Very likely Christians will have their disagreements on that as well.

I recomend reading New king James as its much easier to understand.

ChristianForCats said:

You would think God wanted to make the Bible a very easy book to understand so no Christian reader can misinterpret anything. It is His Word. He knows our limitations. What is the purpose of making people need help figuring out what everything means and allowing interpretations to be wrong?

This problem is why we have totally different opinions on things like evolution, infant baptisms, alcohol, and Communion. It is why we do not all agree on when Jesus was conceived and born, crucified, and risen. All this is even among Bible scholars with college degrees in theology.

Click to expand...

Perhaps to invoke more study and debate of His word to further spread the gospel.

ChristianForCats said:

Is it better than the NIV?

Well, what I really mean by hard to understand is many passages are contradictory (or seem to be) and others are just clues in a puzzle.

Click to expand...

You’ll learn more and more as you read thru over and over. The first read thru will give you a very basic understanding but a second read thru will reveal a great deal more because you’ll be taking into consideration many verses that you read on your previous read thru which sheds more light on the message. For example when you read thru the gospels the first time you haven’t received the knowledge of Paul’s writings yet so the second time you read thru them you will see how they reflect Paul’s teachings which will help you to better understand them.

pescador said:

The subject of the thread is "why is the Bible so hard to understand". Are you seriously recommend the KJV as being easy to understand?

Click to expand...

The problem (with all versions) isn't understanding what is written, it's believing what is written.

ChristianForCats said:

You have to understand it to believe it.

Click to expand...

That's what bible study is for. Regardless of the version study is still needed.

The Bible is a whodunnit. As it turns out, it was us.

timothyu said:

The Bible is a whodunnit. As it turns out, it was us.

Click to expand...

"I have met the enemy...and he is us." -Pogo

sunshineforJesus said:

I recomend reading New king James as its much easier to understand.

Click to expand...

Much easier to understand than the old King James? That may be true, as most modern Bibles are much easier to understand than the King James of 1611.

Removing thy's and thou's is one thing. Putting it into American lingo that alters the original concept is another. This is still a matter of the Reformation where the side insisting church authourity is more important than scripture, gave up burnings of books and people to instead make scripture lose credibility. The Adversary changed it's tactics.

timothyu said:

Removing thy's and thou's is one thing. Putting it into American lingo that alters the original concept is another. This is still a matter of the Reformation where the side insisting church authourity is more important than scripture, gave up burnings of books and people to instead make scripture lose credibility. The Adversary changed it's tactics.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by putting it into American lingo that alters the original concept? Can you give an actual example of this?

I seriously doubt that "The Adversary" has anything to do with improved translation of the Bible source texts into modern English. Does that mean that those of us communicating in modern English are tools of Satan? Or does Satan want us all to regard a 17th Century translation as the only reliable source of Scripture?

BTW, can you give a single example of an original concept in the source documents that has the meaning altered in modern translations such as the NRSV, the NIV, the ESV? With evidence and proof of course.

ChristianForCats said:

Is it better than the NIV?

Well, what I really mean by hard to understand is many passages are contradictory (or seem to be) and others are just clues in a puzzle.

Click to expand...

There is no reason why you can't have a few versions and compare them over. Most of the Bible is quite straightforward once you remove whatever lens is hindering your reading. Greek and Hebrew is also available to compare where English falls short.

Many passages have a milk level understanding and a meatier deeper level understanding. God isn't asking you to dive for meat until you have gone through the milk.

1 Peter 2:2
Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation—

I like to have an Old Kings James, a new King James and an NIV.

ChristianForCats said:

Is it better than the NIV?

Well, what I really mean by hard to understand is many passages are contradictory (or seem to be) and others are just clues in a puzzle.

Click to expand...

Do you have an example of what you mean?

There are no contradictions just us not understanding or missing something. That is a good time to get into the Hebrew or Greek and compare versions as sometimes it can be a tiny word choice that throws off the meaning.

coffee4u said:

Do you have an example of what you mean?

There are no contradictions just us not understanding or missing something. That is a good time to get into the Hebrew or Greek and compare versions as sometimes it can be a tiny word choice that throws off the meaning.

Click to expand...

That is a risky idea. Hebrew/Aramaic/Koine Greek are ancient languages that have no direct parallel to English. Trained translators who have been involved with their work for many years can disagree over the meaning of some parts of the earliest manuscripts.

A tiny word can indeed throw off the meaning, not to mention idioms, cultural context, etc. I'm sure you realize that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the ancient languages and modern languages. Even the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, differs from the Hebrew Bible.

ChristianForCats said:

You would think God wanted to make the Bible a very easy book to understand so no Christian reader can misinterpret anything. It is His Word. He knows our limitations. What is the purpose of making people need help figuring out what everything means and allowing interpretations to be wrong?

This problem is why we have totally different opinions on things like evolution, infant baptisms, alcohol, and Communion. It is why we do not all agree on when Jesus was conceived and born, crucified, and risen. All this is even among Bible scholars with college degrees in theology.

Click to expand...

To me, this is why Jesus implemented His church on earth with Peter at the helm. To guide and teach.

Whoever has been at the helm, the teachings have remained solid, through many a storm.

With Luther, came the birth of countless Popes / churches. Each, interpreting Gods word, how they saw fit.

pescador said:

That is a risky idea. Hebrew/Aramaic/Koine Greek are ancient languages that have no direct parallel to English. Trained translators who have been involved with their work for many years can disagree over the meaning of some parts of the earliest manuscripts.

A tiny word can indeed throw off the meaning, not to mention idioms, cultural context, etc. I'm sure you realize that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the ancient languages and modern languages. Even the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, differs from the Hebrew Bible.

Click to expand...

Are you saying we should never look up a Lexicon or a Septuagint? I will have to disagree.

I think a few Bible versions are best to start on but once someone progresses or comes across Hebrew or Greek used in a Bible study that owning such books to cross reference can be quite helpful.

Lost4words said:

To me, this is why Jesus implemented His church on earth with Peter at the helm. To guide and teach.

Whoever has been at the helm, the teachings have remained solid, through many a storm.

With Luther, came the birth of countless Popes / churches. Each, interpreting Gods word, how they saw fit.

Click to expand...

Jesus did not implement His church on earth with Peter at the helm. That is a misinterpretation of Scripture put forth by Catholics. Why would Jesus entrust the church to someone He called "Satan" shortly thereafter? And scolded him for putting man's interests ahead of God's.

Matthew 16:23, "But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”

It is wrong to say that the church's difficulties began with Martin Luther. Try reading Paul's letters to the various churches and the beginning of Revelation to clearly see that the churches had difficulties from the earliest days -- centuries before Martin Luther addressed the many problems of the Catholic church.