Why is the Bible ambiguous?

[brightlights]

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?

It sounds like there are many questions here and each deserves its own attention. Let me try to identify what's really being asked and you can choose which question you'd like to deal with first. It seems to me that you're asking:

1. If God is in control of his word why would he allow anyone to be confused about what it says and means?
2. Why was the Bible written in a fixed language that would require translation?
3. Why would God allow for confusion in human language in general?
4. Why wouldn't God have ensured that there be one universal language?
5. Why isn't the meaning of the Bible clear to all who read it?

Am I understanding your questions?

 

[bhsmte]

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?

What challenge are you referring to, I have responded to your points and have followed up with the questions I had for you.

They are simple straight forward questions, that will help me understand where you are coming from.

And let me clarify one thing, you appeared to have misinterpreted. Yes, I do feel someone who believes something on faith, does indeed have to rationalize their belief to themselves. This is psychology 101.

Now to further clarify, I also said, I am not stating there is anything unhealthy or abnormal about that and for some people, their belief on faith is the right thing for them - makes them a better person. Hope that clears that up.

You stated it was your opinion the bible was perfect, so you have come to that conclusion, but also stated this conclusion is not based on your reasoning. How does that work, where you can determine you think the bible is perfect, but don't include any of your own reasoning?

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?

 

[Resha Caner]

What challenge are you referring to, I have responded to your points and have followed up with the questions I had for you.

Then please point me to the answer to the following from post #32:

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.

Your reply which quoted this in post #33 was a question, not a statement.

 

[bhsmte]

Then please point me to the answer to the following from post #32:



Your reply which quoted this in post #33 was a question, not a statement.

Correct me if I am wrong, as I went back to look at the posts. You stated people are going to interpret the bible differently, because humans are not perfect and it is understandable why this is. Would that be correct? You also made the statement that you believe the bible is perfect, and how can an imperfect being, recognize perfection, so I am assuming that plays a role in the ambiguity in your opinion. Would that be a correct statement?

You also made a correlation about biologists having disagreements in regards to evolution as an analogy. I would agree, when you have thousands of people, some will disagree on some things, not question. But, is it your position, that how some biologists question evolution, is on par with the disagreement over biblical interpretation?

So, I am hoping you will answer my questions.

 

[Resha Caner]

Correct me if I am wrong, as I went back to look at the posts. You stated people are going to interpret the bible differently, because humans are not perfect and it is understandable why this is. Would that be correct?

Yes.

You also made the statement that you believe the bible is perfect, and how can an imperfect being, recognize perfection, so I am assuming that plays a role in the ambiguity in your opinion. Would that be a correct statement?

Yes.

You also made a correlation about biologists having disagreements in regards to evolution as an analogy. I would agree, when you have thousands of people, some will disagree on some things, not question. But, is it your position, that how some biologists question evolution, is on par with the disagreement over biblical interpretation?

My only reason for bringing it up was to note that differences in interpretation are not unique to the Bible. There are some similarities to the efforts of biologists, but there are also differences.

I appreciate your reply, so don't take this the wrong way, but I didn't see anything that would lead me to believe you understand me yet.

 

[Resha Caner]

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

Yes.

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?

No. I think that statement would be too strong. We work to control (or model) our environment to an acceptable level of repeatability. It is that which we call an answer or a solution.

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

There isn't a criteria I can use. The answer has to come from a perfect being.

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?

The same way it applies to everyone else. The answer is given by a perfect being.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes.



Yes.



My only reason for bringing it up was to note that differences in interpretation are not unique to the Bible. There are some similarities to the efforts of biologists, but there are also differences.

I appreciate your reply, so don't take this the wrong way, but I didn't see anything that would lead me to believe you understand me yet.

Confused as to why you think I don't understand your position, it is easy to understand. I don't agree on the book being perfect thing, but I understand you believe that is a factor.

 

[Resha Caner]

Confused as to why you think I don't understand your position, it is easy to understand. I don't agree on the book being perfect thing, but I understand you believe that is a factor.

I answered your other questions. So, put posts #46 & #47 together and we'll see how you apply it all.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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?

If I read someone else's mail I would expect to find it ambiguous. Messages addressed to me are quite understandable.

 

[pyramid33]

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 ?

A great part about the Holy Bible is that only the Holy Spirit can guide one through it. Praise be to God.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A great part about the Holy Bible is that only the Holy Spirit can guide one through it.

Praise be to God.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes.



No. I think that statement would be too strong. We work to control (or model) our environment to an acceptable level of repeatability. It is that which we call an answer or a solution.



There isn't a criteria I can use. The answer has to come from a perfect being.



The same way it applies to everyone else. The answer is given by a perfect being.

Still confused on one point.

How exactly was the "answer given by a perfect being" that the bible is perfect?

And how did you determine this was reliable information? You mentioned I was being "circular" before and it would appear, you are being circular in how you reach your conclusions.

 

[Resha Caner]

How exactly was the "answer given by a perfect being" that the bible is perfect?

Romans 8:16, Hebrews 10:15

And how did you determine this was reliable information? You mentioned I was being "circular" before and it would appear, you are being circular in how you reach your conclusions.

I realize it appears circular to you, and I can suspect the reasons why it appears that way. So, what is a circular reference? Circular references can be very complicated, but at there simplest they are of the form "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

It sounds stupid to say, "Wood doesn't sink in water because wood doesn't sink in water." You might, however, accept the statement, "Wood doesn't sink in water because objects who density is lower than water float." In reality both are circular statements, it's just that I covered it up in the second statement with some tautologies:

Wood = Objects with densities less than water
Doesn't sink = Float

The second statement begs the question, "Why do objects with low densities float?" Answering that question requires a test (i.e. an experience). The reason you might accept the second statement (despite it's circularity) is because you've had the experience of testing the physics of density - which could be as simple as playing with a piece of wood in a stream as a boy.

But, the bottom line is that the experience breaks the circle. We both know a little about density (about physics) and we've both had the experience of wood floating in water so we agree the statement is true.

I've experience the Spirit, so I accept the Bible as true. You say (I assume) you haven't had that experience, so it appears circular to you.

 

[bhsmte]

Romans 8:16, Hebrews 10:15



I realize it appears circular to you, and I can suspect the reasons why it appears that way. So, what is a circular reference? Circular references can be very complicated, but at there simplest they are of the form "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

It sounds stupid to say, "Wood doesn't sink in water because wood doesn't sink in water." You might, however, accept the statement, "Wood doesn't sink in water because objects who density is lower than water float." In reality both are circular statements, it's just that I covered it up in the second statement with some tautologies:

Wood = Objects with densities less than water
Doesn't sink = Float

The second statement begs the question, "Why do objects with low densities float?" Answering that question requires a test (i.e. an experience). The reason you might accept the second statement (despite it's circularity) is because you've had the experience of testing the physics of density - which could be as simple as playing with a piece of wood in a stream as a boy.

But, the bottom line is that the experience breaks the circle. We both know a little about density (about physics) and we've both had the experience of wood floating in water so we agree the statement is true.

I've experience the Spirit, so I accept the Bible as true. You say (I assume) you haven't had that experience, so it appears circular to you.

Thanks for the reply, I understand how you think.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

One of the biggest misunderstandings that unbelievers have about believers is that they think our "hearts may be full but our heads are empty". But in fact our faith dwells in our heads more and more as we mature as Christians, and we actually can get a little stingy dispensing God's love from our hearts.

 

[bhsmte]

One of the biggest misunderstandings that unbelievers have about believers is that they think our "hearts may be full but our heads are empty". But in fact our faith dwells in our heads more and more as we mature as Christians, and we actually can get a little stingy dispensing God's love from our hearts.

I don't agree. There is uniqueness to how an individual believes on faith, just as there is individual uniqueness in how a non-believer doesn't believe.

One thing that is common for a believer of something on faith, is IMO, they have to rationalize this belief to themselves, because a lack of objective evidence will require one to do so. And, there is nothing wrong with that, until, that rationalization gets to the point of them needing to disregard reality to hold onto their specific belief.

There are numerous Christian posters on this board who I have great respect for. The reason is; they will state; I believe on faith and I recognize I don't have objective evidence and I understand why others would disregard my personal experiences as valid for them, but I still believe because it works for me. These same people, also have a faith that does not require them to ignore boatloads of objective evidence, which may go against a more dogmatic belief and they choose to not play that game.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

A great part about the Holy Bible is that only the Holy Spirit can guide one through it.

The issue with this is that, even if you believe in God, how can you be certain the he's the one guiding you in your interpretation? There have been a lot of people who believed that the Holy Spirit was guiding them who reached very different interpretations than yours. Emotion and personal opinion really aren't very good guides, and no one else can tell you whether it's God who's guiding you, or just your own mind.

 

[Resha Caner]

The issue with this is that, even if you believe in God, how can you be certain the he's the one guiding you in your interpretation? There have been a lot of people who believed that the Holy Spirit was guiding them who reached very different interpretations than yours. Emotion and personal opinion really aren't very good guides, and no one else can tell you whether it's God who's guiding you, or just your own mind.

The answer is largely, "You know it when you know it," and I realize that is a completely unsatisfactory answer.

But it's the same situation when your friend sits down and asks, "How do I know he/she loves me?" How many songs have been written about that situation? It is what it is. But the uncertainty doesn't mean no one ever loves.

Likewise, the uncertainty doesn't negate the Bible.

Rather than focusing on the uncertainty, though, I think it's better to ask yourself, "How does God overcome that undertainty?"

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't agree. There is uniqueness to how an individual believes on faith, just as there is individual uniqueness in how a non-believer doesn't believe.

One thing that is common for a believer of something on faith, is IMO, they have to rationalize this belief to themselves, because a lack of objective evidence will require one to do so. And, there is nothing wrong with that, until, that rationalization gets to the point of them needing to disregard reality to hold onto their specific belief.

There are numerous Christian posters on this board who I have great respect for. The reason is; they will state; I believe on faith and I recognize I don't have objective evidence and I understand why others would disregard my personal experiences as valid for them, but I still believe because it works for me. These same people, also have a faith that does not require them to ignore boatloads of objective evidence, which may go against a more dogmatic belief and they choose to not play that game.

You are actually agreeing with me, that is (from your point of view), if believers would stop empty-headedly ignoring the 'objective evidence' of the 'reality' all around them they would be able to think more rationally.

 

[bhsmte]

The answer is largely, "You know it when you know it," and I realize that is a completely unsatisfactory answer.

But it's the same situation when your friend sits down and asks, "How do I know he/she loves me?" How many songs have been written about that situation? It is what it is. But the uncertainty doesn't mean no one ever loves.

Likewise, the uncertainty doesn't negate the Bible.

Rather than focusing on the uncertainty, though, I think it's better to ask yourself, "How does God overcome that undertainty?"

How does a God overcome the uncertainty of the bible?

Well, first you would have to assume that if a God exists he had anything to do with the bible and it's stories being written. If he did, one would have to believe that on their own personal interpretations and experiences.

Your analogy of love is a bit different than the bible, because the bible is there for all to see in words and to evaluate on it's own merits. Very difficult to do that with the emotion of love, from a written perspective, because everyone experiences what they determine to be love on their own. There is no definitive book on what love is or isn't, but there is a book that many claim to be definitive in regards to God.