The problem with the bible.

[Jayhawker Soule]

You see, I would agree with you that some readers are the problem. But I also think the Bible is part of the problem, as it lends itself to so many interpretations and confusion.

As does art. Perhaps the problem lies in the expectations.

 

[Starfish]

As does art. Perhaps the problem lies in the expectations.

Perhaps.
The Bible has been at the mercy of centuries of human handling, but it's still invaluable. We owe a great deal to those who wrote it and to those who did their best to preserve it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Bible has been at the mercy of centuries of human handling, but it's still invaluable. We owe a great deal to those who wrote it and to those who did their best to preserve it.

Amen ...

 

[McBell]

That's not the Forer Effect, as the article explained it.

You yourself said that it was possible to interpret the Bible in a variety of ways.
and it is rather obvious, given the number of denominations, that it is written in such a manner that shows it is indeed the Forer Effect.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You yourself said that it was possible to interpret the Bible in a variety of ways.
and it is rather obvious, given the number of denominations, that it is written in such a manner that shows it is indeed the Forer Effect.

What are you claiming to be the Forer Effect?

 

[McBell]

What are you claiming to be the Forer Effect?

Here is the convo in question:

Yes.
The Bible is a most excellent study of the Forer Effect.

I'm not familiar with that term. What is it, and in what way is the Bible a "most excellent study"of it?

Forer effect

I read the article. The Bible seems to work backwards from the Forer Effect. the Forer Effect takes sweeping, general statements that can be applied to anyone. The Bible makes very specific statements that can be interpreted in a variety of different ways. Biblical wisdom is not the same thing as astrological "reading."
Sorry. Try again.

VERY SPECIFIC STATEMENTS that can be INTERPRETED IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS
​

And I need to try again?

​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here is the convo in question: ...

Thank you.

You're wrong. While the Forer effect may influence the selection of one interpretation over another, it is not the fact of multiple interpretations nor the ability to generate them.

 

[McBell]

Thank you.

You're wrong. While the Forer effect may influence the selection of one interpretation over another, it is not the fact of multiple interpretations nor the ability to generate them.

Opinions differ.

 

[d3vaLL]

Thank you.

You're wrong. While the Forer effect may influence the selection of one interpretation over another, it is not the fact of multiple interpretations nor the ability to generate them.

You've got to be kidding me.

 

[sojourner]

It was sincere. Were you referring to all readers, or some? If some, who are they?
You see, I would agree with you that some readers are the problem. But I also think the Bible is part of the problem, as it lends itself to so many interpretations and confusion.
Thanks.

The possibility of multiple interpretations is the whole reason why the Bible has lasted. I don't think that could be defined as a "problem."

 

[Starfish]

The possibility of multiple interpretations is the whole reason why the Bible has lasted. I don't think that could be defined as a "problem."

I think it might be considered a problem in light of what Paul said in Ephesians:

"There is one body, one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. . . .
Till we come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.
That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." 4: 4-6,13,14

 

[Kcnorwood]

We have the science of textual criticism, which has traced every possible change in every extant copy we have of the New Testament. We find 99.5% agreement. Of course, there's a short gap between the first extant copy and the actual first copy (the autograph). However, to posit radical revisions in that period when none appear in the copies we have stretches credulity a tad.[/font]

Says who Christians?





That's why professional translations are done in committees at the hand of scholars who are widely regarded as competent. These same professional translations will put alternative renderings in the footnotes so readers can see where the tricky bits are. And by comparing multiple translations, we can see the range of meanings possible. So I just don't see why people should have a problem with translations.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We have the science of textual criticism, ...

Science? :no:

 

[sojourner]

I think it might be considered a problem in light of what Paul said in Ephesians:

"There is one body, one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. . . .
Till we come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.
That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." 4: 4-6,13,14

:biglaugh:
That's your interpretation of what Paul's saying. I don't share it. Thank you for proving my point. It works for you, because your interpretation is possible. It works for me, because my interpretation is possible. It worked for 3rd-century Christians, because it was possible in their world view. It wors for post-moderns world views, too.

 

[oldcajun]

Or at least my problem with it.


The bible is some 2,000 years old so then is not telling just how long those who found it had it in their possession. It is believed that the bible is the inspired writings of God written by man. So how do you know that those who had the original text in their possessions did not alter it in some way?
After all, are you not putting your trust in man & not the Christian God?
What about the translations in the bible? One word can have multitude meanings depending on how it is used. Besides why would God relay on a book to get his message out?

If you are truly interested in answers, go to the United Church Of God's website, (not my church). They have a lot of solid answers for hard questions.

 

[sojourner]

If you are truly interested in answers, go to the United Church Of God's website, (not my church). They have a lot of solid answers for hard questions.

Many people aren't interested in answers, because they know that answers often get in the way of growth. The aim of religion isn't to provide answers for tough questions, it's to provide space to ask the tough questions in the first place, and then wrestle with the implications.

 

[Kcnorwood]

If you are truly interested in answers, go to the United Church Of God's website, (not my church). They have a lot of solid answers for hard questions.

So go to a website that believes as you do?

 

[sojourner]

That's not what he said. He said it wasn't his church. But I'm still not at all convinced that "answers" are what we need. The ability to question is what we need. Because religion isn't goal-oriented. It's process-oriented. The seeking (not the finding) is the important activity.

 

[idea]

That's not what he said. He said it wasn't his church. But I'm still not at all convinced that "answers" are what we need. The ability to question is what we need.

what is the point of asking a question if you don't want an answer?

Matt 7:7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

the whole point is to find, to receive, to open. Not one or the other, you need both, the humility to honestly ask a question (without already having an answer in mind) and the beauty of having it answered. Why would you ask if you don't have faith that He would hear your prayers and answer your questions? Why ask?

Because religion isn't goal-oriented. It's process-oriented. The seeking (not the finding) is the important activity.

Life is a journey not a destination is that it? Not about goals, or final destinations, or visions...

Prov 29:18 Where there is no vision, the people perish...

What exactly are you seeking if you have no goal in mind?

"The problem with not having a goal is that you run up and down the field and never cross the finish line" - Hinckley I think...

It is impossible to "seek" without having a goal to seek for. No goal = randomly wandering around - that is not "seeking".

seeking and finding are both important activities.

 

[darkendless]

Or at least my problem with it.


The bible is some 2,000 years old so then is not telling just how long those who found it had it in their possession. It is believed that the bible is the inspired writings of God written by man. So how do you know that those who had the original text in their possessions did not alter it in some way?
After all, are you not putting your trust in man & not the Christian God?
What about the translations in the bible? One word can have multitude meanings depending on how it is used. Besides why would God relay on a book to get his message out?

The only way we know that the bible hasn't been altered is because christians say so, everyone who may have had contrary evidence was most likely killed or bought off.

The fact that the bible is 2000 years old poses endless questions on its reliability and history.
I find it weird how when asked question about the bible people use quotes from the bible :S