Why is the Bible ambiguous?

[Albion]

Well, it just appears to me, that this God likes to confuse people.

I know, but then take Jesus for a personal example. He seems to have played cat and mouse repeatedly with the people he encountered during his public ministry. They often misunderstood the deep subjects he was speaking about, but he didn't sit them down and say "Look, here's the deal...." Nicodemus went away sadly. The Jews he told about eating his body never got the point because it was so unthinkable. He didn't tell his own apostles in no uncertain words what his Kingdom was all about. And on and on. It must be that we are to figure some of this out if it is to have a meaningful impact upon us.

 

[bhsmte]

I know, but then take Jesus for a personal example. He seems to have played cat and mouse repeatedly with the people he encountered during his public ministry. They often misunderstood the deep subjects he was speaking about, but he didn't sit them down and say "Look, here's the deal...." Nicodemus went away sadly. The Jews he told about eating his body never got the point because it was so unthinkable. He didn't tell his own apostles in no uncertain words what his Kingdom was all about. And on and on. It must be that we are to figure some of this out if it is to have a meaningful impact upon us.

I understand and have no issue with folks believing the story on faith, especially when it makes them a better person.

Myself, after 40 years of believing it, I simply gained knowledge that has gotten me to the point, where I can't reconcile the story with reality any longer. The more I learned, the less credible it became.

 

[granpa]

most of the people asking Jesus for explanations were not interested in the truth.
They were just looking for something to use against him

most people can't see the forest for the trees.
The ambiguity IS the message.
The fact that Jesus was able to speak in a way that can be interpreted in so many different ways proves that he had the Holy Spirit

45 Then the officers came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why have you not brought Him?”

46 The officers answered, “No man ever spoke like this Man!”

this is why there was so much confusion at his trial

 

[Albion]

I understand and have no issue with folks believing the story on faith, especially when it makes them a better person.

Myself, after 40 years of believing it, I simply gained knowledge that has gotten me to the point, where I can't reconcile the story with reality any longer. The more I learned, the less credible it became.

I can't speak for everyone else, of course, but I found that I also went through that phase of unbelief...and came out the other side, as though it's necessary to go on that journey. It reminds me of the way formal education works. In secondary school you learn basic things about society and history, etc. Then when you get to college, you learn that most of it is superficial, folklore, or otherwise simplistic. At that point you feel wise and educated. Then you learn--if you continue with your education in or outside of school--that the original story was basically correct after all but with a few rough edges.

 

[theophilus777]

Sure, different texts that were copied from copies of copies, over many many years and different interpretations.

So, it would not have been helpful, to have the actual original text available?

You seem to be swayed by the opinion that some Bible was handed down from the sky. Let me help you: that never happened. Nobody cared about any such thing as "original text" or "official version" until Constantine decided he wanted a Bible, offered a reward for one because Rome had supposedly wiped them all out, and nearly instantly had some 50 of them. All different

Nobody found this odd except for Constantine. Unfortunately, Christians were all too easily swayed to adopt his opinion, but let's give them some sympathy anyway? They went from severe persecution and being forced underground, to being allowed into the light of day.

Fortunately cooler heads prevailed, and what we now consider to be "the Bible" is what it began as: nothing more than literature that was used in large group worship. (The lone exception being the book of Revelation) So it should be easy to understand that this is not some static thing. In short, if you want to consult a Bible - go to Church. And every one will be different, and the same one will be different every Sunday.

While I realize this is not the answer you expect, this is still correct. I think you would be better served by pursuing different questions, such as why we have a Bible, what its purpose is, and why its held as sacred. I think the answers to all of this would surprise you lots. I'm not saying you'd then find any of it more agreeable to you, but I do think you'd come across more understanding. That way if you're still inclined to dissent, at least it'd be on stronger footing

 

[theophilus777]

I know, but then take Jesus for a personal example. He seems to have played cat and mouse repeatedly with the people he encountered during his public ministry. They often misunderstood the deep subjects he was speaking about, but he didn't sit them down and say "Look, here's the deal...." Nicodemus went away sadly. The Jews he told about eating his body never got the point because it was so unthinkable. He didn't tell his own apostles in no uncertain words what his Kingdom was all about. And on and on. It must be that we are to figure some of this out if it is to have a meaningful impact upon us.

Yes, and while this is a direct answer to the thread title, I think the word "ambiguous" should be revised. I don't offer a superior word, but I will point out it can be observed that God gives us enough rope to hang ourselves with. He weighs our hearts, and if we live our life by playing fast and loose with Scripture to justify ourselves with disregard for Him, we can do that. I think it is part of His judgment being just, because such things become obvious.

 

[bhsmte]

You seem to be swayed by the opinion that some Bible was handed down from the sky. Let me help you: that never happened. Nobody cared about any such thing as "original text" or "official version" until Constantine decided he wanted a Bible, offered a reward for one because Rome had supposedly wiped them all out, and nearly instantly had some 50 of them. All different

Nobody found this odd except for Constantine. Unfortunately, Christians were all too easily swayed to adopt his opinion, but let's give them some sympathy anyway? They went from severe persecution and being forced underground, to being allowed into the light of day.

Fortunately cooler heads prevailed, and what we now consider to be "the Bible" is what it began as: nothing more than literature that was used in large group worship. (The lone exception being the book of Revelation) So it should be easy to understand that this is not some static thing. In short, if you want to consult a Bible - go to Church. And every one will be different, and the same one will be different every Sunday.

While I realize this is not the answer you expect, this is still correct. I think you would be better served by pursuing different questions, such as why we have a Bible, what its purpose is, and why its held as sacred. I think the answers to all of this would surprise you lots. I'm not saying you'd then find any of it more agreeable to you, but I do think you'd come across more understanding. That way if you're still inclined to dissent, at least it'd be on stronger footing

Why we have a bible, or other holy books is not a difficult question. People have created Gods and stories to support them for thousands of years.

 

[bhsmte]

I can't speak for everyone else, of course, but I found that I also went through that phase of unbelief...and came out the other side, as though it's necessary to go on that journey. It reminds me of the way formal education works. In secondary school you learn basic things about society and history, etc. Then when you get to college, you learn that most of it is superficial, folklore, or otherwise simplistic. At that point you feel wise and educated. Then you learn--if you continue with your education in or outside of school--that the original story was basically correct after all but with a few rough edges.

My route was different.

I have a masters degree in a science related field and still held onto my belief for 20 years after attaining that. My journey, revolved more around learning about the bible itself, the historical background and scholarly investigation. Then applying that new knowledge to the realities of the world we live in.

 

[Albion]

My route was different.

I didn't doubt that, but I thought I'd take the opportunity to "share" experiences.

 

[bhsmte]

I didn't doubt that, but I thought I'd take the opportunity to "share" experiences.

No problem.

 

[theophilus777]

Why we have a bible, or other holy books is not a difficult question. People have created Gods and stories to support them for thousands of years.

And thus ends any chance you had to understand. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[bhsmte]

And thus ends any chance you had to understand. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Please explain your conclusion.

Do you deny that man has created many Gods over the years and there are other holy books and writings besides the bible?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The Bible is ambiguous because 'teaching' is not the same as 'learning'. Nor is 'reading' the same as 'understanding'.

Some people simply do not want to learn. They refuse to learn. They ain't goin' and you can't make 'em.

Some things in the Bible are ambiguous in the actual meaning of the word. That is because God does not in all things demand detailed adherence to a specific set of instructions. The Bible is not ambiguous about God, man and the problem of separation. The Bible is not ambiguous about how man can be made 'right' with God. That's the primary thrust of the Bible and is very clear.

All the other things are merely side issues. Too many people want to deal with the side issues and ignore the primary matter. One must deal with the primary matter and then the side issues become clearer.

Fat chance, right?

 

[variant]

"historical method"? Now you are just throwing around pseudo-jargon.

Most postmodern historians have given up on the idea that there can ever be an objective account of history. You are stuck in the past. The kind of scientific accuracy you demand for the subject is now considered naïve.

Post modernists say we reinvent history in terms of the present, it wouldn't help with biblical criticism to rely on post modernism to defeat modernist biblical criticism, as it dismisses basic biblical truth.

Modernism is actually a bit kinder to the Bible as a historical document as the post modernist is likely to just call it fiction.

So Modernist:

The bible is not likely to be a reliable source material.

Postmodernist:

The bible is largely fiction with some elements of truth to it.

 

[bhsmte]

The Bible is ambiguous because 'teaching' is not the same as 'learning'. Nor is 'reading' the same as 'understanding'.

Some people simply do not want to learn. They refuse to learn. They ain't goin' and you can't make 'em.

Some things in the Bible are ambiguous in the actual meaning of the word. That is because God does not in all things demand detailed adherence to a specific set of instructions. The Bible is not ambiguous about God, man and the problem of separation. The Bible is not ambiguous about how man can be made 'right' with God. That's the primary thrust of the Bible and is very clear.

All the other things are merely side issues. Too many people want to deal with the side issues and ignore the primary matter. One must deal with the primary matter and then the side issues become clearer.

Fat chance, right?

How did you reach these conclusions?

So, what is the right way of learning and how do you know it is the right way of learning?

 

[Blessedj01]

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 not ambiguous. The short answer I will give is that God gives us free-will and that we are supposed to explore God's word (a Word which we can never fully understand), not try to nail it down completely as we will always fall short of doing that. We can interpret the Bible as correctly as possible and then still find out new ways that it applies.

Some things are always true...for instance Jesus is the only Way, Truth and Life. Other things aren't so easy to define. That's okay. That doesn't mean that the Bible is ambiguous - it is certainly very clear on the subjects that matter. There will always be people who choose (out of their free will or ignorance) to interpret the Bible contrary to it's consistent messages...

If God chose to speak or write the Bible in some "supernatural" language, what makes you think we could understand it? God chooses to speak through our language, not only because that's just what he wants to do but because if we think we can level with God and understand him purely on His terms, we will fall short. God also provides His spirit, the Holy Spirit, to help us understand the Bible. In that sense, the Bible is already written in "supernatural" language.

This link may help you to understand a few things about the Bible...it's called "How to Read the Bible like a Hebrew", by Shane Willard.

Session 01 Introduction - YouTube

 

[granpa]

not ambiguous?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_fruit

Potential forbidden fruits of the Garden of Eden include the apple, pomegranate,[1] the fig,[2] the carob,[1] the etrog or citron,[1] the pear, the quince and, more recently, the datura.[3] The pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch describes the tree of knowledge: "It was like a species of the Tamarind tree, bearing fruit which resembled grapes

another possibility is that the forbidden fruit was flesh

 

[Blessedj01]

not ambiguous?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_fruit

Potential forbidden fruits of the Garden of Eden include the apple, pomegranate,[1] the fig,[2] the carob,[1] the etrog or citron,[1] the pear, the quince and, more recently, the datura.[3] The pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch describes the tree of knowledge: "It was like a species of the Tamarind tree, bearing fruit which resembled grapes

another possibility is that the forbidden fruit was flesh

It doesn't matter to me one jot what kind of fruit they ate in the garden of Eden, it's more important to me that the "fruit" was something forbidden that they shouldn't have eaten because God specifically told them not to. Therefore they gained the knowledge of "good and evil," or specifically evil because they had just done it.

The type of fruit is never even specifically referenced in the Bible. Just like a lot of things that happened a long time ago, especially of some things that happened a long time ago in the Bible, the details aren't always precise down to the very last thing.

Instead of getting hung up on things like what wikipedia says, we should focus on the stuff that matters.

We can call the Bible ambiguous if we want, but if we are just going to get hung up on little details then it's us creating a problem, not a problem with the Bible.

 

[granpa]

I'm not getting hung up on minor details.
I am making a very important point about the deliberate ambiguity of the Scriptures

(and it is certainly not a minor point.
the story of the Garden of Eden sets the tone for the rest of the book
how you interpret the fruit will dramatically affect how you interpret the rest of the Scriptures)

 

[dayhiker]

Of course the Bible is ambiguous. If it was detailed like saying we should build our house from the clay of a local clay deposit that clay would have been used up centuries ago and the people today would have no clay to use to obey the command of the Bible. Ambiguity of the Bible is one of the things that makes the Bible such an amazing book.