If the bible is god's handbook for man, why is it such gobbledegook?

by Aussie Oz 112 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  PrimateDave

  If god wanted my attention, it could have made an indestructible object with the proportions of 1:4:9 somewhere on Earth. He could then have placed a similar object on the moon, and then a third object in the orbit of Jupiter.

  Seriously, though, the Bible is a collection of writings that have been idolized by a group of related religions that claim to reject idolatry. (What irony!) Bibliolators hold their idol in the highest esteem, higher than whatever divinity actually exists, if any. For example, if modern science demonstrates that living things evolve, bibliolators consider it an affront against their chosen idol instead of simply accepting that the Bible writers didn't know squat about geology, paleontology, astronomy, genetics, or even simple addition and subtraction since half the time their numbers didn't add up.

  At least not all Christians are bibliolators.
• 

  tec

  Aussie - Who says God did not make it simple? That man didn't just screw it up? I know you don't want anyone to use scriptures, so I'm going to try hard not to - but you're ideas about God are based on how those scriptures have been interpreted, aren't they?

  Don't eat from this tree (symbolic or literal, doesn't matter) or you will die.

  Very simple instruction.

  Love one another. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Forgive. Show mercy. Do not judge.

  All simple instructions once again. The OT points to Jesus. Jesus is the truth and the life. Follow Jesus. Its simple. But again, we mess it up, and put meanings on it where there are none to justify the way we want to live.

  Tammy
• 

  steve2

  Heard it before: God will reveal His truth through the Holy Spirit. Talk about a tired and empty sell.

  Trouble with the otherwise intriguing idea of asking the "Holy Spirit" toreveal God's truth, is depending on who you are, the "Holy Spirit" will reveal something different. I remember a nice conversation with some Mormons in the 1960s: They honestly believed that God saw what was in people's hearts and then revealed to them the "truth" of the Book of Mormon. They reasoned that, should we JWs genuinely submit ourselves to God's spirit, He would reveal to us the Book of Mormon as truth.

  Interesting that pretty quickly, someone on this thread who seemingly believes in the truth of the Bible has to resort to personal judgement to make his point. Calling another poster a "proud athiest" doesn't advance the discussion - and let's the believer off the hook through judgement (i.e., "you're an athiest - I suspect your motive for asking this question therefore I don't have to answer..." Sounds like a JW - only they say this to everyone who questions their bleiefs.
• 

  Juan Viejo2

  Where the logic fails can be described by this illustratrion:

  Moses delivered the Ten Commandments and then the Law - which over centuries expanded into the Torah and all of the Hebrew writings.

  By the time of Christ - Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and others tried to interpret and enforce those laws. None agreed, especially on details. No one could follow the law perfectly.

  Jesus sits down with his followers and simplifies everything:

  "Look brothers, it's not that hard. Just remember to 'love God with your whole heart and soul - you do all love God, don't you? And love your neighbor the same as you would your own family and yourself. Do those two things perfectly and you will be following the intent of the law."

  Does it then make any sense that he would leave behind a mish-mash of gobbledeegook like Revelation for his followers to try and figure out? Would it make sense for him to inspire Paul to preach to the Gentiles and spread the word to all nations, and then have a "governing body" fight him tooth and nail over Law related issues like circumcision, eating of blood, etc.?

  I'm sure that Jesus message was a simple and straight-forward one. His uninspired followers, especially those who did not ever know him, are the ones that made everything so damn complicated.
• 

  designs

  Juan- You're to damn close to the flame.............

  Don't let the little secret out ssshh, you'll upset the JWs and Fundamentalists on the Board
• 

  PSacramento

  What the bible is TODAY, or more correctly how it is regarded bt some, is not what it was after it was written, during the time it was written or even before someone decided to write stuff down.

  It is a collection of stores, parables, history, speculation, prophecy, hopes and even dreams, written by some who were inspired by God to write about God and in some cases, written by man to control man in the "name" of God.

  It should be admired for what it is and should be disregarded for what it is not and it is up to EACH person to decide where that line is drawn.

  Here is an interesting quote:

  In 1992, when Bruce Metzger was on campus at Dallas Seminary for a week, delivering the Griffith Thomas lectures, students would often ask him whether he embraced inerrancy. Frankly, I thought their question was a bit uncharitable since they already knew the answer (he does not). But as one who, like Warfield before him, taught at Princeton Seminary, and as a generally Reformed scholar, Metzger certainly had earned the right to be heard on this issue. His response was simply that he did not believe in inerrancy because he felt it unwise to hold to any doctrines that are not affirmed in the Bible, and he didn’t see inerrancy being affirmed in the Bible. In other words, he denied Warfield’s first argument (viz., that inerrancy was held by the biblical writers). It should be pointed out that Metzger would not disagree with Warfield’s second argument. In other words, he has a high view of the Bible, but not as high as most American evangelicals precisely because he does not think that the biblical writers held to the doctrine of inerrancy.

  As an aside, I think it is important for us to note degrees of theological differences within Christendom. It is one thing to believe that inerrancy is not true because this doctrine is not found in the Bible, and quite another to believe that it is not true even though it is found in the Bible! The first view is consistent with what is called infallibility (viz., the Bible is true in what it teaches), while the second view takes a lower view of scripture.
• 

  PSacramento

  AT the sametime we need to admire the work and effor put into the Biblical canon.

  EX:

  "At present, we have more than 6,000 manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament or portions thereof. No other work of Greek literature can boast of such numbers. Homer's Iliad, the greatest of all Greek classical works, is extant in about 650 manuscripts; and Euripides' tragedies exist in about 330 manuscripts. The numbers on all the other works of Greek literature are far less. Furthermore, it must be said that the amount of time between the original composition and the next surviving manuscript is far less for the New Testament than for any other work in Greek literature. The lapse for most classical Greek works is about eight hundred to a thousand years; whereas the lapse for many books in the New Testament is around one hundred years. Because of the abundant wealth of manuscripts and because several of the manuscripts are dated in the early centuries of the church, New Testament textual scholars have a great advantage over classical textual scholars. The New Testament scholars have the resources to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament with great accuracy, and they have produced some excellent editions of the Greek New Testament.

  "Finally, it must be said that, although there are certainly differences in many of the New Testament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. Frederic Kenyon, a renowned paleographer and textual critic, affirmed this when he said, 'The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries.' " -- Philip W. Comfort, The Complete Guide to Bible Versions, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1991.
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  I think that most people now realize that the bible is a collection of stores, parables, history, speculation, prophecy, hopes and even dreams and not the inspired Word of God that it falsely claims to be. But why has this God not personaly written a book and presented it to the human race?

  My Car and every appliance or gadget I buy has a handbook or user guide. The alleged creator of the human race has provided nothing. Diddly squat.

  So I can only assume that there is no creator or if there is, then it has lost interest in humans. The alternative is to invent a guiding God in my mind but such a delusion is simply not viable. For those that are satisfied by this trick of the mind. Salute!
• 

  warmasasunned

  good question aussie oz.....i think the answer lyes in most of the answers from the "christians" yet more goobledegook. the bible like all religious books written by men to control men. my creator (if there is one) would not make it hard to understand because .....he wants me to understand.

  simple.
• 

  Aussie Oz

  1. 130 million in china on u tube or something does not constitute doing well in a country of 3 billion odd.

  2. yes, dont eat and love, very simple. Most of the rest? Gobbledook that has sweet bugger all to do with love. seeing as the first sin was breaking the 'simple' rule' dont eat, then why thousands of pages of mystery, portents, visions and hallucinations to explain how it would be 'undone' for the benefit of ALL MANKIND when very plainly all mankind will not and cannot understand it?

  3. Love Jesus, shucks! Jesus showed a better way to worship than the law. Would i rather love than the law? yes. BUT love explains diddly squat about what i am asking guys. WHY DID HE NOT MAKE IT SIMPLE? the WHOLE book, not one subject...

  4. How can you 'admire' a collection of books that 'god' had penned but was incapable or unwilling to make sure was firstly translated and copied correctly down through the eons of time and not able to be understood by simpletons today? How can i admire a book that i am told ; ''It should be admired for what it is and should be disregarded for what it is not and it is up to EACH person to decide where that line is drawn'' when that means i can still draw the line in the wrong place, therefore misunderstand 'gods plan'?

  so again, defenders of the bible; if god wants ALL of mankind to live why did he not make it a simple 'brochure' of easy to understand information?

  answer; because he wanted mankind to search for him, but did not want all mankind to know this little fact!

  answer; because if he made it simple he would not have been able to have 6000 years of human misery to prove himself the good guy. 'god' is interested only in his own right and to issue clear simple instructions for mankind would have circumvented the 'need' he had to win the fight and have mankind scrambling around in the dust making a mess. He WANTS mankind to fail because if they didnt, he is not needed.

  And even IF he just wanted too, he could have issued instructions of what happened, how i'll fix it and that i will be back in 6000 years on april the 5th 2017. sorry for the delay but i will be busy in the gamma quadrant of the universe till then...ok?

  As for the canon of books, THEY were selected by elite church elders and theologians in a time when practically nobody was literate except for them and that meant they had power and prestige over everybody else because THEY ALONE could 'understand' the mysteries of god. So if anybody did figure that they needed god, why, they had to approach those lofty ones and trust their particular regards and disregards of the bible as true.

  Now, the 'all knowing' god of the bible also would have known this would happen to his precious guide, leading to more people that would have to die for getting it wrong.

  If god wanted everybody to live and none to die, then he could have made it very basic and easy. I am sure you realize that! SO WHY DID HE NOT?

  oz