If God is not the author of confusion, why is the Bible so confusing?

[Mark The Non-Apostle]

This is the question that has haunted me since I was a child growing up in a conservative Baptist church, and I continue to struggle with it today. I would have a lot easier time believing the Bible if this verse wasn't in there.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Because god didn't write the bible.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If there's a god, it's bible is physics.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Because god didn't write the bible.

Pretty sure the Bible says inspired if anything.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Pretty sure the Bible says inspired if anything.

It doesn't actually say this at all. However, the general belief among Christians is that it is inspired.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It doesn't actually say this at all. However, the general belief among Christians is that it is inspired.

Well I mean the bible doesn't, but supposedly one of Pauls letters (Timothy), says "All scripture is inspired" or something along those lines. I figured he was talking about the scriptures that had already been written and not every potential religious scripture.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well I mean the bible doesn't, but supposedly one of Pauls letters (Timothy), says "All scripture is inspired" or something along those lines.

Sure. And there are other passages used to justify the position. But even if it were actually written clearly in some passage, the most common interpretation of this doctrine is that the bible was written by humans and subject to human error.

 

[nazz]

Well I mean the bible doesn't, but supposedly one of Pauls letters (Timothy), says "All scripture is inspired" or something along those lines. I figured he was talking about the scriptures that had already been written and not every potential religious scripture.

Critical scholarship casts doubt on Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. If Paul did write it then he could only be speaking about the Jewish Scriptures for which no canon had yet to even be determined.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Sure. And there are other passages used to justify the position. But even if it were actually written clearly in some passage, the most common interpretation of this doctrine is that the bible was written by humans and subject to human error.

That seems to run contrary to much of protestant belief, and even some catholic beliefs.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That seems to run contrary to much of protestant belief, and even some catholic beliefs.

It is Catholic belief. Catholics (and not just Roman Catholics) have never viewed the bible as inerrant and neither have most major (older) protestant faiths. In RCC, the only entity capable of speaking infallibly is the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra. If the Pope declared, ex cathedra, that the OT was all lies, technically this would be God speaking (it wouldn't happen, and even if it did the guy wouldn't be pope long, but it's in the bylaws, so to speak). One reason for the development of biblical inerrancy was the lack of an Ecclesiastical structure capable of determining what was and wasn't accurate in the bible. As soon as Luther nailed his condemnation on the door, he opened the floodgates. He didn't actually believe that sola scriptura meant "ignore the Church Father" but it quickly became that. And once there is only scripture, then any interpretation is possible. Add to this an ability to simply decide what components of the bible are true or inspired and every interpretation becomes a Christianity. Fundamentalism in the form of inerrancy is a check against that. It's all true and inspired means that god was responsible for every line. This is the radical protestant equivalent of the Pope- a theological containment, as it were.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It is Catholic belief. Catholics (and not just Roman Catholics) have never viewed the bible as inerrant and neither have most major (older) protestant faiths. In RCC, the only entity capable of speaking infallibly is the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra. If the Pope declared, ex cathedra, that the OT was all lies, technically this would be God speaking (it wouldn't happen, and even if it did the guy wouldn't be pope long, but it's in the bylaws, so to speak). One reason for the development of biblical inerrancy was the lack of an Ecclesiastical structure capable of determining what was and wasn't accurate in the bible. As soon as Luther nailed his condemnation on the door, he opened the floodgates. He didn't actually believe that sola scriptura meant "ignore the Church Father" but it quickly became that. And once there is only scripture, then any interpretation is possible. Add to this an ability to simply decide what components of the bible are true or inspired and every interpretation becomes a Christianity. Fundamentalism in the form of inerrancy is a check against that. It's all true and inspired means that god was responsible for every line. This is the radical protestant equivalent of the Pope- a theological containment, as it were.

Well bugger....

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This is the question that has haunted me since I was a child growing up in a conservative Baptist church, and I continue to struggle with it today. I would have a lot easier time believing the Bible if this verse wasn't in there.

The simple stuff is there for you. The harder stuff requires some commitment to it's understanding. A pastor once said, "If I could understand the whole Bible that means God's not any smarter than I am."

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That seems to run contrary to much of protestant belief, and even some catholic beliefs.

A lot of things run contrary to those beliefs.

 

[Hawkins]

This is the question that has haunted me since I was a child growing up in a conservative Baptist church, and I continue to struggle with it today. I would have a lot easier time believing the Bible if this verse wasn't in there.

One of the purpose of the Bible is to intelligence-independently filter off the goats/wolves. It serves the purpose for His sheep to read then believe, and at the same time for the goats/wolves to read then disbelieve.

It's thus not a confusion but well-designed to serve the purpose that it's truth can be discovered by even the foolish and blind even the intelligent.


Matthew 25:29 (KJV)
For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

One of the purpose of the Bible is to intelligence-independently filter off the goats/wolves. It serves the purpose for His sheep to read then believe, and at the same time for the goats/wolves to read then disbelieve.

It's thus not a confusion but well-designed to serve the purpose that it's truth can be discovered by even the foolish and blind even the intelligent.


Matthew 25:29 (KJV)
For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

So confusion.

 

[Koldo]

It is Catholic belief. Catholics (and not just Roman Catholics) have never viewed the bible as inerrant and neither have most major (older) protestant faiths.

I would like to see your source on that if possible.

As far as I know, bible inerrancy is a rather common catholic belief. Or are you talking about a time period before the protestant movement started?

EDIT:

I am going to add a source of my own:

"II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book". Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, "not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open (our) minds to understand the Scriptures."74"

- Cathecism of the Catholic Church

 

[BruceDLimber]

Why is the Bible so confusing?

Quite simply, because it was written by humans millenia ago!

If you would like to see far CLEARER scriptures, I invite you to examine those of the Baha'i Faith, which I suggest to you are vastly lucid in comparison!

You can find them here:

• http://www.bahai-library.org (click "Writings" for our scriptures), and
• http://www.reference.bahai.org (this site is multilingual).

Please note especially such works as Some Answered Questions, which is entirely in modern English.

I wish you good hunting!


Bruce

 

[Muffled]

This is the question that has haunted me since I was a child growing up in a conservative Baptist church, and I continue to struggle with it today. I would have a lot easier time believing the Bible if this verse wasn't in there.

I believe it is a matter of discernment. My cousin had a picture and asked me what I saw. I saw a fox. She said I was supposed to see Jesus. After studying the picture for a bit I was able to see a facsimile of Jesus in the picture. What was so easily discerned by her was not so easily discerned by me.

So the answer I have for you is I believe that the text is not confusing on purpose but simply that some things are more easily understood than others. Even Nicodemus who was an educated man had trouble discerning the meaning of the statement by Jesus that "one be born anew." However I believe spiritual concepts are naturally obscure and difficult to describe. I beleive that is one reason Jesus spoke in parables t liken spiritual things to earthly things that people understand better.

 

[Muffled]

So confusion.

I sometimes get confused as to which day of the week it is but it isn't the fault of the calendar but simply that I have strayed from the calendar and relied on something else.

However the calendar sometimes has a Feb 29 which can be confusing but necessary and I believe not all that difficult for someone conversant in calendars.

 

[Mark The Non-Apostle]

The Bible is chock full of statements that are confusing and seemingly contradictory. Think: baptism, judging others, debt, justification, flattery, forgiveness, etc., etc.... Trust me, I know that every one of these confusing statements can be explained away by doing cognitive gymnastics with elaborate, murky rationalizations. But if God is not the author of confusion, why did He "author" an undeniably confusing book?