Why is the Bible ambiguous?

[NannaNae]

"Why is the Bible ambiguous?" always this issue isn't with the Bible but always look to the reader. Because the reader isn't going to see what they don't want to see!

God has to change and heal us to understand his truths. ( he says to a man ," come let us reason together though your sins be as scarlet they shall be made white as snow" ) if we want to see his truths be have to be changed first.
because even his creation , are so foreign to the void of hell and imagination that is between mankind's ears.
so in actuality is is only ambiguous to the mind who refuses to understand it in the first place.
or worse only wants to get stuckkkkkkk so it can always be about themselves..

 

[Resha Caner]

That's one way to look at it, to provide some excuse for trying to reconcile the book with reality.

I realize you're trying to be clever, but you just made a circular statement.

 

[bhsmte]

I realize you're trying to be clever, but you just made a circular statement.

How so? Would you deny that many come up with all kinds of creative statements to make sense of the bible and to make sense out of God's actions in the bible? These explanations are a dime a dozen and are all over the place. Saying, humans just can't understand it, is just another one of those explanations that basically says; don't critique the bible, it is off limits and you can't understand it anyway.

Why would a God inspire a book that people couldn't understand? Sort of defeats the purpose, IMO.

 

[juvenissun]

Or... a desperate attempt to make sense of nonsense.

Thousands of different denominations disagree.

It doesn't. Not any more then any other religion.

Why are you arguing like a kid? How old are you?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I cannot speak for all Christians... but the major groups of Christians (Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists Orthodox, Presbyterians) do not believe the Bible is the "one and only truth". What you are attacking is simply not recognizeable, to me, as a Christian.

Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians do at least sort of believe that it's the only rule in faith. It can vary from denomination to denomination within those faith traditions, though (I know that Anglicans are technically one denomination, but I think that you would get a cage match if you put a Ugandan Anglican in the same locked room as an American Episcopal and had them talk about homosexuality). Lutherans, I know, have historically held to sola scriptura.

The Orthodox and Catholics, though, do hold to sacred tradition. Still, their traditions differ, so there's that.

 

[granpa]

No one can deny that the Bible is subject to widely differing interpretations due linguistic factors. I've seen opposite meanings derived from the same passage depending on how a word or phrase is translated. For believers, this should be more than just an academic concern. Different understandings of the Bible is perplexing, and is one of the reasons that Christianity has split into so many denominations. (And back in the bad old days, people could be imprisoned, or worse, for teaching or publishing unorthodox Bible doctrines.)

So why would God allow this confusion because of language? This may sound fatuous, but why would we need translations at all? If the Bible is of divine origin, why wouldn't God use his supernatural power to make it crystal clean and unambiguous to every reader, no matter what his native language?

you can't see the forest for the trees.
the ambiguity IS the message

according to revelation there are 12 different ways to interpret the fruit of the tree knowing good and evil
all of which are correct

 

[Resha Caner]

How so?

You said, "That's one way to look at it, to provide some excuse for trying to reconcile the book with reality."

Yeah, specifically showing circularity probably entails too many assumptions on my part. It could just be my interpretation of what you said ... (Ha! There's a delicious irony in that statement!) At a high level it would have gone something like this:

1) You think faith is some kind of psychological rationalization.
2) Any attempt to explain the truths of the Bible is just an excuse for that rationalization.

#2 is already contained in #1, so it's a circular conclusion that discounts the possibility of an honest study of the Bible.

More to the point, I'll note the following:
A) I assume you agree with me that none of us is perfect. If not, this becomes a different conversation. If you do agree, it means you're not perfect.
B) I assume you also agree with my position that imperfect people can't determine if something is truth. Again, if you disagree, this becomes a very different conversation.
C) Your statement above claims to know what reality is.

Statement C contradicts statement B.

Why would a God inspire a book that people couldn't understand? Sort of defeats the purpose, IMO.

That's not what I said. Understanding a statement and knowing it to be truth are two different things.

 

[bhsmte]

You said, "That's one way to look at it, to provide some excuse for trying to reconcile the book with reality."

Yeah, specifically showing circularity probably entails too many assumptions on my part. It could just be my interpretation of what you said ... (Ha! There's a delicious irony in that statement!) At a high level it would have gone something like this:

1) You think faith is some kind of psychological rationalization.
2) Any attempt to explain the truths of the Bible is just an excuse for that rationalization.

#2 is already contained in #1, so it's a circular conclusion that discounts the possibility of an honest study of the Bible.

More to the point, I'll note the following:
A) I assume you agree with me that none of us is perfect. If not, this becomes a different conversation. If you do agree, it means you're not perfect.
B) I assume you also agree with my position that imperfect people can't determine if something is truth. Again, if you disagree, this becomes a very different conversation.
C) Your statement above claims to know what reality is.

Statement C contradicts statement B.



That's not what I said. Understanding a statement and knowing it to be truth are two different things.

I do believe believing in a certain God on faith does take a certain psychological rationalization that is geared towards filling a need yes, and the work done in the area of; psychology of belief, backs this up. By no means am I saying that need to be an unhealthy one, because it can be very healthy for some, not so healthy for others.

Now, none of us are perfect, no question. Do you believe humans have the ability to ferret out what is most likely to be true, using the intellect and methods we have developed over the years? In your work as an engineer, I am sure you have to think logically and use methods to assure you are going down the right path, correct? So, if we as humans have this capability, why wouldn't we be able to determine (at least) what is most likely to be true?

In regards to the bible, we don't see that same level of rational thinking involved, as we would see applied to other areas of our life, that require rational logical thinking to make the right choices, like in engineering. We see a myriad of explanations, that are designed to reconcile a book and these explanations many times do not make rational sense, except to the person trying to convince themselves they have an explanation for this piece or that piece.

Believe on faith if you will, but to claim the bible can not be understood and this is why is just another one of those personal rationalizations, to protect the same.

 

[Resha Caner]

I do believe believing in a certain God on faith does take a certain psychological rationalization that is geared towards filling a need yes, and the work done in the area of; psychology of belief, backs this up. By no means am I saying that need to be an unhealthy one, because it can be very healthy for some, not so healthy for others.

Let me reiterate the problem with what you're saying here. I have no doubt some people rationalize their faith, but you're generalizing that without justification. Your statement amounts to: Some people rationalize their faith, therefore all people rationalize their faith. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Second, there is a patronizing subtext in all this. I don't expect you'll ever confirm the subtext - maybe you will - but this is how it comes across to me: "I do believe believing in a certain God on faith does take a certain psychological rationalization [for people who can't deal with reality]." The phrase in brackets is the subtext I'm hearing from your quote.

Someone close to me suffers from PTSD and I see the same condescension regarding that situation. People give this person all kinds of "You just have to be tough" advice. Lovely. Someone admits they have a problem and that's the reaction they get. It doesn't help. All it does is communicate how much people don't understand.

Same here. The message that "reality" has problems needing God's help is met with, "Just toughen up and deal with it on your own. You don't need God." Lovely.

Now, none of us are perfect, no question. Do you believe humans have the ability to ferret out what is most likely to be true, using the intellect and methods we have developed over the years? In your work as an engineer, I am sure you have to think logically and use methods to assure you are going down the right path, correct? So, if we as humans have this capability, why wouldn't we be able to determine (at least) what is most likely to be true?

No. Engineering is not about searching for truth. It's about finding solutions that minimize the problem as cost effectively as possible.

In regards to the bible, we don't see that same level of rational thinking involved ...

Sigh. I stop listening when a paragraph begins this way. More unjustified condescension. And it all ends with some kind of statement about how there's no harm in little Johnny wanting Spiderman on his bandage.

 

[bhsmte]

Let me reiterate the problem with what you're saying here. I have no doubt some people rationalize their faith, but you're generalizing that without justification. Your statement amounts to: Some people rationalize their faith, therefore all people rationalize their faith. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Second, there is a patronizing subtext in all this. I don't expect you'll ever confirm the subtext - maybe you will - but this is how it comes across to me: "I do believe believing in a certain God on faith does take a certain psychological rationalization [for people who can't deal with reality]." The phrase in brackets is the subtext I'm hearing from your quote.

Someone close to me suffers from PTSD and I see the same condescension regarding that situation. People give this person all kinds of "You just have to be tough" advice. Lovely. Someone admits they have a problem and that's the reaction they get. It doesn't help. All it does is communicate how much people don't understand.

Same here. The message that "reality" has problems needing God's help is met with, "Just toughen up and deal with it on your own. You don't need God." Lovely.



No. Engineering is not about searching for truth. It's about finding solutions that minimize the problem as cost effectively as possible.



Sigh. I stop listening when a paragraph begins this way. More unjustified condescension. And it all ends with some kind of statement about how there's no harm in little Johnny wanting Spiderman on his bandage.

I know you stop listening, because you simply don't like what is stated.

In engineering, do you use logic and tested methods to determine what the best solution to a problem is? I would imagine, you don't choose a solution that has not been tested as being reliable and producing the same results when tested.

With the bible, do you apply this same type of logic, or do you rely on faith that your personal interpretation is correct? Can your personal interpretations be tested like the potential methods you use in engineering, to determine if they are reliable and produce certain predictable results?

And yes, whenever someone believes in something with no objective evidence or reliable verification technique to determine if it is correct, they are going to rationalize with themselves that they are right. There is no way around this and to claim otherwise, is only fooling yourself.

When so many people have different interpretations and explanations of the bible, are they using reliable methods to come to this determination? if those methods can not produce reliable accurate results, they can not be reliable by nature and if so many come to different conclusions, everyone can not be correct.

 

[Resha Caner]

In engineering, do you use logic and tested methods to determine what the best solution to a problem is? I would imagine, you don't choose a solution that has not been tested as being reliable and producing the same results when tested.

This simply doesn't apply. I don't engineer my relationships with my parents, siblings, children, friends, or work associates. Similarly, I don't engineer my relationship with God.

My relationship with my father is very different from my relationship with my children. Some things apply between the two, but many do not. Sometimes I might apply logic to those relationships, but often times emotional intelligence (amongst other things) is needed. Likewise some of the things from those relationships apply to my relationship with God. Many do not.

For as long as you keep trying to put God in the box of human logic, you'll never get it.

And yes, whenever someone believes in something with no objective evidence or reliable verification technique to determine if it is correct, they are going to rationalize with themselves that they are right. There is no way around this and to claim otherwise, is only fooling yourself.

It would be nice if you would give me some yes/no answers to the following questions:

Do you understand that:
1) I'm not trying to prove God's existence to you?
2) I'm not trying to give you a "verification technique"?
3) I have no control over whether or not you ever encounter God?
4) I'm answering a question - giving an explanation?
5) That within the discipline of informal logic an explanation is something completely different than the type of logic you're demanding?
6) That without the specifics of particular cases there is no basis for handing down judgement on the psychology of those specific cases?

When so many people have different interpretations and explanations of the bible, are they using reliable methods to come to this determination? if those methods can not produce reliable accurate results, they can not be reliable by nature and if so many come to different conclusions, everyone can not be correct.

The whole "reliable" thing is more circular reasoning. Regardless, is this justification for concluding all the conclusions are wrong? No, it is not.

So, with all that said, I challenge you to demonstrate that you understood my answer to the ambiguity of the Bible - not that you agree with it (I realize you don't), but that you understand it.

 

[bhsmte]

This simply doesn't apply. I don't engineer my relationships with my parents, siblings, children, friends, or work associates. Similarly, I don't engineer my relationship with God.

My relationship with my father is very different from my relationship with my children. Some things apply between the two, but many do not. Sometimes I might apply logic to those relationships, but often times emotional intelligence (amongst other things) is needed. Likewise some of the things from those relationships apply to my relationship with God. Many do not.

What is emotional intelligence and what impacts how you use this intelligence?

For as long as you keep trying to put God in the box of human logic, you'll never get it.

I thought we were discussing interpretation of the bible, not God.

It would be nice if you would give me some yes/no answers to the following questions:

Do you understand that:
1) I'm not trying to prove God's existence to you? Yes
2) I'm not trying to give you a "verification technique"? You stated the bible was something humans could not figure out and I am asking how you came to this conclusion.
3) I have no control over whether or not you ever encounter God? Correct.
4) I'm answering a question - giving an explanation? Was looking for an explanation as to why you feel humans can not understand the bible and how you came to this conclusion.
5) That within the discipline of informal logic an explanation is something completely different than the type of logic you're demanding? What sort of logic do you apply to your personal interpretation of the bible and how reliable would you say that logic is? Could you be wrong?
6) That without the specifics of particular cases there is no basis for handing down judgement on specific cases? No idea what you mean here.



The whole "reliable" thing is more circular reasoning. Regardless, is this justification for concluding all the conclusions are wrong? No, it is not.

Would this mean, being reliable in your own interpretations of the bible is not important to you?

So, with all that said, I challenge you to demonstrate that you understood my answer to the ambiguity of the Bible - not that you agree with it (I realize you don't), but that you understand it.

Again, how did you come to the conclusion that humans can not understand the bible? And how did you come to the conclusion that humans can not understand the bible?

 

[bhsmte]

This is irrelevant. You're missing the point.

How can an imperfect being recognize perfection? truth?

For further clarification.

Are you stating the bible is perfect?

If so, what reasoning did you use to come to this conclusion?

 

[Resha Caner]

FYI, this method where you imbed your comments inside mine makes it hard to reply.

What is emotional intelligence and what impacts how you use this intelligence?

I'm surprised someone who has studied psychology would not have encountered the term. Emotional intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You stated the bible was something humans could not figure out and I am asking how you came to this conclusion.

I did not.

What sort of logic do you apply to your personal interpretation of the bible and how reliable would you say that logic is? Could you be wrong?

I don't have a personal interpretation, but could the Confessional interpretation be wrong? Of course. This whole "science is willing to admit it could be wrong but religion won't" thing is just completely wrong. As someone else stated in this thead, one of the basic premsises of Christianity is that we are fallible. So how does God deal with that?

In fact, that's the whole point of this thread.

No idea what you mean here.

As an example, one symptom of PTSD is depression. Should I assume from this that everyone who admits they are depressed has PTSD? No. It would take a trained psychologist studying the details of that person's situation to determine if they have PTSD.

The same applies here. Just because someone says they have faith is not sufficient for you to conclude it is a rationalized faith based on nothing.

Would this mean, being reliable in your own interpretations of the bible is not important to you?

I do my best and sometimes I fail. So then I try again. Why is that a problem for you? How does that make faith somehow worse than all other human endeavors?

Are you stating the bible is perfect?

Yes, I believe it is.

If so, what reasoning did you use to come to this conclusion?

It's not based on my reasoning.

Again, how did you come to the conclusion that humans can not understand the bible?

I never said this. I said we can't know of ourselves what truth is.

So, I answered your questions, but I'm done now until you can articulate an understanding of what I've said. We're starting to repeat ourselves.

 

[bhsmte]

FYI, this method where you imbed your comments inside mine makes it hard to reply.



I'm surprised someone who has studied psychology would not have encountered the term. Emotional intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I did not.



I don't have a personal interpretation, but could the Confessional interpretation be wrong? Of course. This whole "science is willing to admit it could be wrong but religion won't" thing is just completely wrong. As someone else stated in this thead, one of the basic premsises of Christianity is that we are fallible. So how does God deal with that?

In fact, that's the whole point of this thread.



As an example, one symptom of PTSD is depression. Should I assume from this that everyone who admits they are depressed has PTSD? No. It would take a trained psychologist studying the details of that person's situation to determine if they have PTSD.

The same applies here. Just because someone says they have faith is not sufficient for you to conclude it is a rationalized faith based on nothing.



I do my best and sometimes I fail. So then I try again. Why is that a problem for you? How does that make faith somehow worse than all other human endeavors?



Yes, I believe it is.




It's not based on my reasoning.



I never said this. I said we can't know of ourselves what truth is.

So, I answered your questions, but I'm done now until you can articulate an understanding of what I've said. We're starting to repeat ourselves.

Let's get back to the main point here, which started this whole discussion. You made this comment:

How can an imperfect being recognize perfection? truth?

I acknowledged that humans are not perfect and you acknowledged that you believed the bible was perfect, correct?

I believe you also acknowledged, that humans do have the ability to use logic etc.. to ferret out what is likely true or not, but with limitations, correct?

So, how do you conclude the bible is perfect, what criteria did you use to come to this conclusion?

And, since you stated an imperfect being would have difficulty to recognize perfection, how does this statement apply to your own self, in declaring the bible as perfect?

 

[FireDragon76]

Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians do at least sort of believe that it's the only rule in faith..

Anglicans and Methodists believe it's the only infallible rule for faith. This is far different than saying the Bible is the only truth. Anglicans and Methodists are free to believe there are other truths not found in the Bible, even truths about God or religion, as long as these things do not contradict the doctrines reasonably derived from Scripture- which is why we have theological debates. However, debates on these matters means that theology is a pointless endeavor anymore than scientists disagreeing about theories of quantum physics makes science a pointless endeavour.

This is why Anglicans do not agree on all matters, of course, and Anglicans on the whole actually view this as a healthy thing, a gift or charism of their church.

 

[juvenissun]

No one can deny that the Bible is subject to widely differing interpretations due linguistic factors. I've seen opposite meanings derived from the same passage depending on how a word or phrase is translated. For believers, this should be more than just an academic concern. Different understandings of the Bible is perplexing, and is one of the reasons that Christianity has split into so many denominations. (And back in the bad old days, people could be imprisoned, or worse, for teaching or publishing unorthodox Bible doctrines.)

So why would God allow this confusion because of language? This may sound fatuous, but why would we need translations at all? If the Bible is of divine origin, why wouldn't God use his supernatural power to make it crystal clean and unambiguous to every reader, no matter what his native language?

The Bible is ambiguous because you have not studied it well enough.

I have read this Book more than 30 years. It is becoming more clear every day.

 

[Resha Caner]

Lutherans, I know, have historically held to sola scriptura.

Yet I need to note the version of sola scriptura people attack is often not the version espoused by Lutherans, i.e. it is often a strawman.

 

[Resha Caner]

Hmm. Here you are asking me more questions rather than answering my challenge. Do you need these answers before you can articulate your understanding of what I've said?

I acknowledged that humans are not perfect and you acknowledged that you believed the bible was perfect, correct?

I believe you also acknowledged, that humans do have the ability to use logic etc.. to ferret out what is likely true or not, but with limitations, correct?

So, how do you conclude the bible is perfect, what criteria did you use to come to this conclusion?

And, since you stated an imperfect being would have difficulty to recognize perfection, how does this statement apply to your own self, in declaring the bible as perfect?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Yet I need to note the version of sola scriptura people attack is often not the version espoused by Lutherans, i.e. it is often a strawman.

I actually haven't seen that very often, so I would need a little bit of clarification on what version of sola scriptura people here frequently attack to really say that much. I do know that Lutherans don't hold to the strictest variant of the doctrine, though.