Evidence for God from Science

One of the toughest hurdles I have encountered with Christianity is that the bible itself is too vague and up to interpretation. As a message from God (or God-guided), I would expect a message that was clearer and didn't require years of study to understand. Just recently, I read an apologetic site claim that the homosexuality condemned in the bible was in reference to the how Romans raped their male slaves and children. It's frustrating to be open to learning about the bible, and then get hundreds of different and conflicting interpretations. Why wouldn't God guide those who are genuinely reading the bible to get the same meaning?

Different culture?
Much of the thoughts around this issue have been that the book was written thousands of years ago for a different people and a different culture. I find it hard to accept this line of reasoning because I would expect God to be able to craft a message that would be timeless and clear.

Lost in translation?
I would expect God to protect his word/message as it is being translated. Why would God not also inspire or guide the translators?

Contradictions and Apologetics
I will concede that most of the contradictions have been resolved by some apologetic. However, the resolution often feels very unsatisfying. It often involves odd twisting of words, or metaphorical gymnastics that make it hard to believe.

An example would be the fate of Judas, where he buys a field (or vicariously though the church), it is nicknamed because of his death AND/or because of the source of the money, he hangs himself and then rots and explodes on the ground.

While this ties up the two books, it does so very messily. One book had me feeling that Judas was repenting by giving away the money and hanging himself. The other book made me think that he bought a field and God smites him in it as a punishment. It's hard to see the apologetic solution from reading the individual stories.

The best answer I've heard
The most satisfying answer I have found is that the bible is not meant to be literal, but to be used as a tool to convey a personal and potentially different message to individual readers. The problem with this answer is that it makes the bible an unreliable source of information, since it's understanding is so arbitrary.

Why is the bible so hard to understand? Is there a point where one can gain enough knowledge through study to have the "correct" interpretation, or is there no way to reach such a consensus?

Well, I don't agree with you, but if you're right, would you throw out the baby with dirty water?

You're not a Christian, so why even bother treating Scripture in a serious manner?

Christianity is first and foremost about Christ Himself.

Gary Habermas takes a "minimal facts approach" to this.

Recommend it to you.

GenericAtheist wrote:One of the toughest hurdles I have encountered with Christianity is that the bible itself is too vague and up to interpretation. As a message from God (or God-guided), I would expect a message that was clearer and didn't require years of study to understand.

I don't understand where you are coming from. I was an atheist for most of my life and the Bible never seemed difficult to understand. The atheist that I was found the Bible silly, full of contradictions and lacking credibility but I never had any real difficulty understanding what I was reading. I'm no genius either! I'm an unschooled, average-intelligence person.

Maybe the problem is with you. Approach the Bible as you would a newspaper, read the words written on the page and understand them for what they say. Don't look for any hidden meaning. If you don't understand something, skip over it and continue reading. Read the Bible as quickly as you can, avoid dragging the reading over many months or years. Keep at it.

GenericAtheist wrote:Just recently, I read an apologetic site claim that the homosexuality condemned in the bible was in reference to the how Romans raped their male slaves and children. It's frustrating to be open to learning about the bible, and then get hundreds of different and conflicting interpretations. Why wouldn't God guide those who are genuinely reading the bible to get the same meaning?Different culture?

Avoid apologetics for now. You do not yet have the understanding to discern the worthwhile from the fanciful.

GenericAtheist wrote:Different culture?

Much of the thoughts around this issue have been that the book was written thousands of years ago for a different people and a different culture. I find it hard to accept this line of reasoning because I would expect God to be able to craft a message that would be timeless and clear.

The message is timeless and clear. Accept that you are like a first grader looking at an algebra text. Nothing makes sense to you but the subject is quite simple. Most human authors of the various books in the Bible were simple people. Like it or not, simple people write...simply. Read it in the same spirit.

GenericAtheist wrote:Lost in translation?

I would expect God to protect his word/message as it is being translated. Why would God not also inspire or guide the translators?

You are jumping ahead way too far. You have left algebra and picked up a trigonometry text all the while having trouble adding 11 + 14... Get back to basics! There will be time to worry about bible translations a few years down the road.

GenericAtheist wrote:Contradictions and Apologetics

I will concede that most of the contradictions have been resolved by some apologetic. However, the resolution often feels very unsatisfying. It often involves odd twisting of words, or metaphorical gymnastics that make it hard to believe.

Read the Bible and understand it for what it clearly says. You don't have to believe what you are reading - I never did as an atheist - but you'll never, never! understand anything until you trust yourself and understand it for yourself. Forget what the ''experts'' say..you can't judge who is and who isn't an expert.

GenericAtheist wrote:The best answer I've heard

The most satisfying answer I have found is that the bible is not meant to be literal, but to be used as a tool to convey a personal and potentially different message to individual readers. The problem with this answer is that it makes the bible an unreliable source of information, since it's understanding is so arbitrary.

That is the stupidest answer I've ever heard! If you throw out the literal meaning of the Bible, you are hopelessly lost. You haven't a clue what it means because it can mean whatever you wish it to mean. That is just so full of crap...can you not see it?! I'm happy that you understand that such an answer makes the Bible unreliable, because that can be the only conclusion. I'm disappointed that you say this is ''The best answer I've heard''.

GenericAtheist wrote:Why is the bible so hard to understand?

It isn't. Start reading it again for the first time.

FL

... and if you have some really great difficulties, something haunting your mind, just post a question in Questions for Christians forum. One issue at a time please.

Welcome to the forum

Kurieuo wrote: Well, I don't agree with you, but if you're right, would you throw out the baby with dirty water?

You're not a Christian, so why even bother treating Scripture in a serious manner?

To be honest, yes I would also throw the baby out. If I'm told that the bible is a source of truth and the perfect word of God, I can't reconcile that in a situation where verses seem to contradict and nobody can come to a conclusion on correct interpretation. It would be different if there were a central Christian doctrine surrounded by fringe beliefs. However, there are major denominations all with well-intentioned (I assume) and smart people that fundamentally disagree on important things.

If I have a genuine interest in the search for truth, why would I not seriously evaluate scripture? I am not an atheist because I have some sort of disdain for Christianity or Christian beliefs. I am an atheist because I am left with unanswered questions. Are you implying that the bible cannot stand on it's own without the reader already having a underpinning of faith?

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
I don't understand where you are coming from. I was an atheist for most of my life and the Bible never seemed difficult to understand. The atheist that I was found the Bible silly, full of contradictions and lacking credibility but I never had any real difficulty understanding what I was reading. I'm no genius either! I'm an unschooled, average-intelligence person.

Maybe the problem is with you. Approach the Bible as you would a newspaper, read the words written on the page and understand them for what they say. Don't look for any hidden meaning. If you don't understand something, skip over it and continue reading. Read the Bible as quickly as you can, avoid dragging the reading over many months or years. Keep at it.

This gets to the crux of my question, but I think you may misunderstand what I was getting at. I came from a Lutheran background and was taught the bible early on. The bible seems very clear when I read it, however a straight forward reading of the bible has lead to the criticisms of contradiction and absurdity. If it were that easy and clear, why do so many disagree on the meaning? I can understand minor differences in belief, but readings of the same bible result in some huge differences. One of my friends is an Adventist and very knowledgeable. From him, I've seen the biblical reasoning behind why Sunday worship is a mark of the beast, how hell is only a metaphor for separation from God, and how judgement began in the holy sanctuary (a separate place from heaven) sometime in the 1840's.

It is very tempting to believe in what I think the meaning should be, but the bible can't be a source of truth unless there is a "correct" interpretation. People much smarter than I, who are Catholic, have come to the conclusion that the only way to heaven is through the Catholic church (even if you don't consider yourself Catholic). Seventh-day Adventists, based off of the same bible, believe that the pope is the anti-Christ. Both of them seem to think the other is not bound for heaven (especially from the Adventist side). How do I resolve something like this?

Browsing this forum, I come across a lot of comments criticizing the reader as having not understood the bible. Explaining that they have it wrong, and are not in a position to question it until they have essentially dedicated their life to its study. I'm just so frustrated at how all of these people who do dedicate their life to biblical scholarship do not seem to converge on a common interpretation. Why is it like that?

However, there are major denominations all with well-intentioned (I assume) and smart people that fundamentally disagree on important things.

Those important things are what you mentioned in your above post?

Ok, this is important:

People much smarter than I, who are Catholic, have come to the conclusion that the only way to heaven is through the Catholic church (even if you don't consider yourself Catholic).

Why do they claim that? What do they claim in more detail?

GenericAtheist wrote: If I'm told that the bible is a source of truth and the perfect word of God, I can't reconcile that in a situation where verses seem to contradict and nobody can come to a conclusion on correct interpretation.

The Bible is not the perfect word of God, it is a book about mans interactions with God as written by the people of the time. Jesus was the word of God, not the Bible. I have yet to find a contradiction within the Bible that does not have an easy, logical explanation that can be reconciled with the rest.

It seems silly to me to throw out the baby with the bath water every time we see something we don't understand, could you imagine what our scientific progress would look like if we used that sort of logic.

GenericAtheist wrote:This gets to the crux of my question, but I think you may misunderstand what I was getting at. I came from a Lutheran background and was taught the bible early on.

I understand that you don't understand the Bible. And that you are too concerned with what Peter, Paul and Mary have to say about what they think the Bible says. I'm sorry to hear that you came from a Lutheran background; don't for a minute think that this gives you any credibility as an atheist discussing Christianity. Rather, you are at a disadvantage because you assume you know what you are talking about when you really do not.

(At this point, maybe someone smart can drag up the post I wrote to Neha about the time I was a flight instructor. I'm too dumb to make a link! It is in the Through the Lens of Evolution: What About Transitional Forms? thread, page 12, top of the page. Read that post, GA, and see yourself in my student Eric.)

GenericAtheist wrote:The bible seems very clear when I read it, however a straight forward reading of the bible has lead to the criticisms of contradiction and absurdity.

It's OK. You are an atheist so you should expect that. It was the same for me when I was an atheist. Allow me to repeat myself:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:The atheist that I was found the Bible silly, full of contradictions and lacking credibility but I never had any real difficulty understanding what I was reading.

Do you know who can give you the understanding to resolve the apparent contradictions and absurdities?

GenericAtheist wrote:One of my friends is an Adventist and very knowledgeable. From him, I've seen the biblical reasoning behind why Sunday worship is a mark of the beast, how hell is only a metaphor for separation from God, and how judgement began in the holy sanctuary (a separate place from heaven) sometime in the 1840's.

GenericAtheist wrote:It is very tempting to believe in what I think the meaning should be, but the bible can't be a source of truth unless there is a "correct" interpretation. People much smarter than I, who are Catholic, have come to the conclusion that the only way to heaven is through the Catholic church (even if you don't consider yourself Catholic). Seventh-day Adventists, based off of the same bible, believe that the pope is the anti-Christ. Both of them seem to think the other is not bound for heaven (especially from the Adventist side). How do I resolve something like this?

Jesus reserved his harshest words for those in the religious establishment. Why do you think that was the case?

GenericAtheist wrote:Browsing this forum, I come across a lot of comments criticizing the reader as having not understood the bible. Explaining that they have it wrong, and are not in a position to question it until they have essentially dedicated their life to its study.

Most people don't understand the Bible - this includes professing Christians - because they never read it. Reading a verse here and there and going to church is pretty much useless in understanding the Bible. As for people ''not being in a position to question [the Bible] until they have essentially dedicated their life to its study'', that is just more crap. My guess is that you just misunderstood. I can't imagine any of the regulars on this site who would say such a thing.

GenericAtheist wrote: I'm just so frustrated at how all of these people who do dedicate their life to biblical scholarship do not seem to converge on a common interpretation. Why is it like that?

Pride. Self-righteousness. Sinful nature.

On the essentials, however, there is agreement. Since you have read the Bible, can you tell us what those essentials are?

FL

GenericAtheist wrote:To be honest, yes I would also throw the baby out. If I'm told that the bible is a source of truth and the perfect word of God, I can't reconcile that in a situation where verses seem to contradict and nobody can come to a conclusion on correct interpretation. It would be different if there were a central Christian doctrine surrounded by fringe beliefs. However, there are major denominations all with well-intentioned (I assume) and smart people that fundamentally disagree on important things.

If I have a genuine interest in the search for truth, why would I not seriously evaluate scripture? I am not an atheist because I have some sort of disdain for Christianity or Christian beliefs. I am an atheist because I am left with unanswered questions. Are you implying that the bible cannot stand on it's own without the reader already having a underpinning of faith?

Biblical Inerrancy is not required to be a Christian.

To this degree of truth, the Bible will never stand on it's own to someone who already finds it suspect because of the subject themselves. They see error rather than a point for theological discussion.

However, one can still see the many truths within, even if they reject many parts. And as such a "minimal facts approach" is beneficial.

To me your saying the Bible is entirely and always wrong (your "yes I would also throw the baby out") is just the other extreme. Seems obvious to me that you're being irrational and emotional on the matter.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4aLT-2dKXQ[/youtube]

GenericAtheist wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Well, I don't agree with you, but if you're right, would you throw out the baby with dirty water?

You're not a Christian, so why even bother treating Scripture in a serious manner?

To be honest, yes I would also throw the baby out. If I'm told that the bible is a source of truth and the perfect word of God, I can't reconcile that in a situation where verses seem to contradict and nobody can come to a conclusion on correct interpretation. It would be different if there were a central Christian doctrine surrounded by fringe beliefs. However, there are major denominations all with well-intentioned (I assume) and smart people that fundamentally disagree on important things.

If I have a genuine interest in the search for truth, why would I not seriously evaluate scripture? I am not an atheist because I have some sort of disdain for Christianity or Christian beliefs. I am an atheist because I am left with unanswered questions. Are you implying that the bible cannot stand on it's own without the reader already having a underpinning of faith?

GA, are you saying that smarter people disagree on issues within the bible, that is why you are confused about faith and that is why you left?

Please post your questions.

Are you implying that the bible cannot stand on it's own without the reader already having a underpinning of faith?

No one has implied that, just that the bible is a document and for you to understand it, you need to understand the nuances of the text. Please see that we get a lot of trash talking atheist traffic too, there have been times when people have wasted hours and pages here, just to get a trash one liner in the end from the atheist who wasn't serious, and left.

Some of what you are saying is not even issues outside of faith, they are minor things, internal things. As some have pointed out, you don't need to have harmony among all denominations to have faith.

The truth of the gospel is, naked, bare and very straightforward, believe in Christ and you shall be saved. That is it, period. Anything else is man's folly mixed with the gospel, don't fall for that.

Stop looking at how smarter people than you disagree or denominations disagree. Your faith is what saves you and your faith is what counts. God won't be asking you why you were catholic or lutheran.

We are trying to understand you, why don't you do the same? I understand some replies seem a bit harsh but they are not ill-intentioned.

The bible requires as much or as little study as one "needs".
For some it requires MUCH because if it is the word of God without error then, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ( I do not agree with that).

The Holy Bible is "The very Word of Almighty God" given by the Holy Spirit to be penned by God's chosen pen-men to write.

What did Jesus say to His Apostles when they asked Him why He spoke to the multitudes in parables and not in plain words?

If one reads Matthew 13 verses 1 through 16 the answer is crystal clear.

The one who has little knowledge of the Holy Scriptures will be given more knowledge of the same by the Holy Spirit.

The little knowledge has to be the truth. For the vast majority of people in the world truth is relative. In the Holy Bible it is concrete. So when Jesus spoke about the truth, He meant true knowledge about Himself because according to Jesus Christ He Is the Truth (John 14:6: Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me). So, those who have true knowledge about Who Jesus Christ was/is, they have the little knowledge to build up on.

No one can start off with even a little knowledge about the Truth i.e., Jesus Christ if they start off by trying to ridicule the Word of God--the Holy Bible!!!

To the question as to why the Bible requires much study, the answer is this: Because anything worthwhile needs much time to accomplice. For example to get a get a university degree to become a heart surgeon takes a lot of study and time. To become a street cleaner one doesn't need any study time.

In studying the Holy Words of the Bible, one needs to do so with an attitude of love towards them and also Jesus Christ. On those two "foundations" the Holy Spirit will "build" the "house."

To do anything worth while, it takes much time and effort.

GenericAtheist wrote:
The best answer I've heard
The most satisfying answer I have found is that the bible is not meant to be literal, but to be used as a tool to convey a personal and potentially different message to individual readers. The problem with this answer is that it makes the bible an unreliable source of information, since it's understanding is so arbitrary.

Why is the bible so hard to understand? Is there a point where one can gain enough knowledge through study to have the "correct" interpretation, or is there no way to reach such a consensus?

First, we need to understand that the Bible is a library of 66 books. Some are literal. But whatever we read, whether a novel, comic book, newspaper or historical narrative, we always need to understand the author's intent and audience. I'm sure you can distinquish all of these literary methods. So, why should the 66 books of the bible be under some other status?

I watched a video some time ago, of some Chinese people receiving the Bible and how overjoyed they were.

It made me pause and question within me how I felt about the Bible.

For it seems that I just do not seem to get bothered anymore about whether one believes it is errant or inerrant... I think it's more an age thing and mellowing more than anything else. For myself I accept that Scripture speaks truth based on most passages I've been presented which I have found resolvable. Over time, I have found Scripture to be rather detailed and reliable, so why not?

However, I by no means expect a non-Christian to accept this for it does I think take first coming to Christ to even begin to appreciate a book that tells the story of God's relationship with humanity, from the fall to the Gospel and end.

But... regardless. Even for the non-Christian, I can't see how any clear thinking person could not see the impact the Bible has had on the world. How it has shaped individuals, families, cultures, and great nations. Positive impacts that have transformed lives, people and nations for the better.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LcEDPRfHMY[/youtube]