Bible poorly written

[Lost]

It seems to me, following all these sad threads, that the bible is very poorly written.
No doubt every man and his dog will run to its defence but really for the average person, and it seems for the most learned gentleman, it is so ambiguous that it can be taken to mean many many different things.
I would have thought that the God who created all things, that has amazing abilitied and intellect, through his Holy Spirit, could have managed a much better set of documents.
Quite frankly I think the bible sucks.
It merely serves to keep theologians arguing for milleniums about all the concepts possible.
There is hardly a doctrine that is clearly stated at all.

[Ikkyu]

It seems to me, following all these sad threads, that the bible is very poorly written.
No doubt every man and his dog will run to its defence but really for the average person, and it seems for the most learned gentleman, it is so ambiguous that it can be taken to mean many many different things.
I would have thought that the God who created all things, that has amazing abilitied and intellect, through his Holy Spirit, could have managed a much better set of documents.
Quite frankly I think the bible sucks.
It merely serves to keep theologians arguing for milleniums about all the concepts possible.
There is hardly a doctrine that is clearly stated at all.

Help me out here Lost.....your "title" is Christian and yet you say that the Bible "sucks"?

I'm having a hard time understanding it quite frankly but maybe you need more "faith" or the "Holy Spirit"? :teeth:

[Lost]

Help me out here Lost.....your "title" is Christian and yet you say that the Bible "sucks"?

I'm having a hard time understanding it quite frankly but maybe you need more "faith" or the "Holy Spirit"? :teeth:

People love sticking labels on people or putting people into boxes don't they.
I wrote what I wrote because that's what I'm thinking and that's what my experience has taught me.

[Abelard]

Do you prefer the part written in Greek or the part written in Hebrew?

[Lost]

Do you prefer the part written in Greek or the part written in Hebrew?

The old testament seems to be less contradictory or more straight forward.
The more I read the NT and the more I read these threads the less I am impressed with the NT.

[Kenite]

It seems to me, following all these sad threads, that the bible is very poorly written.
No doubt every man and his dog will run to its defence but really for the average person, and it seems for the most learned gentleman, it is so ambiguous that it can be taken to mean many many different things.
I would have thought that the God who created all things, that has amazing abilitied and intellect, through his Holy Spirit, could have managed a much better set of documents.
Quite frankly I think the bible sucks.
It merely serves to keep theologians arguing for milleniums about all the concepts possible.
There is hardly a doctrine that is clearly stated at all.
What is the rationale employed when describing yourself as Christian?

[Lost]

What is the rationale employed when describing yourself as Christian?

ok I should have known I would just get kicked in the guts.
have fun at my expense - I'll leave while you do it.
Remember what goes around often comes around.

[Kenite]

ok I should have known I would just get kicked in the guts.
have fun at my expense - I'll leave while you do it.
Remember what goes around often comes around.
I asked a genuine question. I'd still like a proper answer.

[MaxVel]

What should the Bible read like? Can you give us some examples so we know what you're looking for it to be?

How does your complaint measure up when we consider that there are many, many, many people who have had their lives changed for the better by what's written in the Bible?

[Abelard]

The old testament seems to be less contradictory or more straight forward.
The more I read the NT and the more I read these threads the less I am impressed with the NT.

That explains a lot. The Gospels and Acts are cohesive, but the bulk of the NT is not even narrative. The epistles are just old letters from Church leaders to various churches. They deal with specific issues, and have little to do with each other.

Find a translation called The Message. It's much easier to follow for the casual reader.

[Kenite]

What should the Bible read like?
The author Mark Twain knew a thing or two. "It ain't what I don't understand in the Bible that bothers me, it's what I do understand in the Bible that bothers me, " he said.

[Ormly]

People love sticking labels on people or putting people into boxes don't they.
I wrote what I wrote because that's what I'm thinking and that's what my experience has taught me.

Out of the mouth, the heart speaks.

[Ormly]

That explains a lot. The Gospels and Acts are cohesive, but the bulk of the NT is not even narrative. The epistles are just old letters from Church leaders to various churches. They deal with specific issues, and have little to do with each other.

Find a translation called The Message. It's much easier to follow for the casual reader.

Burn it! Casual you will wind up, Christian you won't.

[James Peter]

I think it is reasonable to say that the Bible is, in places at least, poorly written. Often the grammar is ambiguous, other times it is just plain bad. That applies to both the OT and the NT but we notice it less in the OT because our reconstructions of biblical hebrew grammar are based on the OT - we just don't have the same sorts of external documents to compare it to that we do for the greek texts.

Why don't people notice this? Because they don't read greek and most translations cut out the ambiguity and correct the bad grammar. People's lives are changed not by Scripture, but by interpretations of Scripture. Take Abelard's point about the Message. Yes, it is easy to read and yes plenty of people have had their lives changed by it - but what they are reading is often very dissimilar to the Scripture they think they are reading. So does God work in spite of the translation? Maybe. But how do we explain when people reach ideas based on bad translation? Are they being actively deceived on a supernatural level? Is it because they haven't prayed enough? Or is it because Scripture has only the power we give it and it is what we believe to be true that changes us rather than God?

Surely there is something wrong when two people sincerely seeking God can sit down and read the same passage and reach diametrically opposed conclusions. The early Church survived pretty well without such a high view of Scripture (or indeed without very much Scripture at all)....maybe we'd be better off returning to our roots. The gospel rather than Scripture should be central.

[Kenite]

Surely there is something wrong when two people sincerely seeking God can sit down and read the same passage and reach diametrically opposed conclusions.
Let me know when it happens.

[rhutchin]

Kenite
What is the rationale employed when describing yourself as Christian?

Lost
ok I should have known I would just get kicked in the guts.
have fun at my expense - I'll leave while you do it.
Remember what goes around often comes around.

I think Kenite's reasoning is fair. If the Bible provides the means whereby a person is saved (becomes a Christian), but a person says that the Bible sucks, then it is difficult to understand how a person can claim to have become a Christian through something that sucks.

If a person says that the Bible sucks, wouldn't he also be implying that his faith sucks (is not real)?

[rhutchin]

I think it is reasonable to say that the Bible is, in places at least, poorly written. ...

Maybe it would be best to say that the ancient Hebrew and Greek is poorly understood and this leads to poorly written translations of the Bible.

If the ancient languages are understood properly, we should be able to get well written translations (but this would not necessarily be guaranteed as many people just write poorly regardless how smart they are).

[Kenite]

Maybe it would be best to say that the ancient Hebrew and Greek is poorly understood and this leads to poorly written translations of the Bible.
Original languages are now very well understood. We can tell the differences between the NT authors in their mastery of Greek, and can make due allowance. It makes no difference whatever to our understanding of the content of the NT, any more than it made any difference to the original readers who thought the NT books important and cogent enough to preserve. People who do not have perfect language skills have always been able to make their views known well enough.


If the ancient languages are understood properly, we should be able to get well written translations The NIV NT is is favoured by most Greek students because it translates naturally into current high level English the way they do, most of the time, and where it doesn't, the cause is heresy, not technical inability. As translations go, there is not much advance to be made on it, and it will surely remain the best-seller for the foreseeable future. This really isn't a major issue. Nobody uses translations for serious study anyway.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I think it is reasonable to say that the Bible is, in places at least, poorly written. Often the grammar is ambiguous, other times it is just plain bad. That applies to both the OT and the NT but we notice it less in the OT because our reconstructions of biblical hebrew grammar are based on the OT - we just don't have the same sorts of external documents to compare it to that we do for the greek texts.

Nietzsche made the same point---as a slam. He said that if God were to write a book in Greek, he would have done it better. But, these might just be human assumptions about the whole process. We've got a tendancy to analyze everything to death, from the exact mechanics of how God might have inspired the scriptures to projecting contemporary notions about correctness, error, and grammatical expectations. The NT was written by a variety of folks with varying educational backgrounds, and the language these writers employed reflects that fact. "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age?"

But, regardless of how the NT fares in modern opinion as to how it measures up to more polished Greek or how it might be evaluated via modern prejudices, I honestly believe that there are many things in the NT whose depth is simply unapproachable and incomparable.


Why don't people notice this? Because they don't read greek and most translations cut out the ambiguity and correct the bad grammar.

But the grammar and stylistic properties of the NT is something that has been the object of intense study by scores of scholars for a very long time. Tons of us read the NT in Greek, and don't we continue to take the scriptures very seriously?


People's lives are changed not by Scripture, but by interpretations of Scripture.

One must have the scripture before any intepretation can occur; they are indispensible links in the same chain.


Take Abelard's point about the Message. Yes, it is easy to read and yes plenty of people have had their lives changed by it - but what they are reading is often very dissimilar to the Scripture they think they are reading. So does God work in spite of the translation? Maybe. But how do we explain when people reach ideas based on bad translation? Are they being actively deceived on a supernatural level? Is it because they haven't prayed enough? Or is it because Scripture has only the power we give it and it is what we believe to be true that changes us rather than God?

You guys have some points here, but it looks like you are taking a sceptical stance in reaction to the controversies we humans are so inclined to create. God works in spite of bad translation---yes. The Message, as a translation, certainly has its problems----yes. Deception on a supernatural level? Perhaps---but the tone of your question appears to indicate that you might just be rather tired of what you've perceived as superstitious fundamentalist harping. I think that your last sentence reflects an exaggerated conclusion probably borne of personal frustration---which I believe I understand.


Surely there is something wrong when two people sincerely seeking God can sit down and read the same passage and reach diametrically opposed conclusions.

Given the slant of your own remarks, what might well be wrong is the human element---the interpretative element. Your critiques have to cut both ways. We ask and demand answers to questions the biblical writers weren't even asking so much of the time, and our readings of the scriptures are encrusted with centuries of wranglings and theological disputes with which we have become too preoocuppied.


The early Church survived pretty well without such a high view of Scripture (or indeed without very much Scripture at all)....maybe we'd be better off returning to our roots. The gospel rather than Scripture should be central.

How would we separate the gospel from scripture? Wouldn't it be more practical to recognize our own penchant for taking these writings and using them as fodder for our own sectarian concerns? Then we might have a better chance of seeing the scriptures as they are in themselves, apart from our inhereited frustrations....

[James Peter]

I think Kenite's reasoning is fair. If the Bible provides the means whereby a person is saved (becomes a Christian), but a person says that the Bible sucks, then it is difficult to understand how a person can claim to have become a Christian through something that sucks.

If a person says that the Bible sucks, wouldn't he also be implying that his faith sucks (is not real)?

Only if the way that somebody becomes/is a Christian is viewed bibliocentricly. If my faith is based solely on the Bible and the bible sucks then yes my faith sucks. If (for example) my faith is based primarily on the nature and character of He Who IS then, potentially at least, the Bible can be far from perfect and yet my faith can still be strong.

[Kenite]

Only if the way that somebody becomes/is a Christian is viewed bibliocentricly. If my faith is based solely on the Bible and the bible sucks then yes my faith sucks. If (for example) my faith is based primarily on the nature and character of He Who IS then, potentially at least, the Bible can be far from perfect and yet my faith can still be strong.
So if there were such a person, would it not be extremely odd if they spent long hours arguing about alleged ambiguities in the Bible?

[James Peter]

Maybe it would be best to say that the ancient Hebrew and Greek is poorly understood and this leads to poorly written translations of the Bible.

If the ancient languages are understood properly, we should be able to get well written translations (but this would not necessarily be guaranteed as many people just write poorly regardless how smart they are).

No, trust me when I say that the languages are pretty well understood and the texts just generally exhibit poor grammar. Some are a lot worse than others but as a collection it is reasonable to conclude that they are not of a high literary standard. If you don't believe me go and ask in Biblical Languages. The contents of Scripture may be of a high standard but the form isn't. Most translations are written to a far higher stylistic standard than the original texts.

Nietzsche made the same point---as a slam. He said that if God were to write a book in Greek, he would have done it better. But, these might just be human assumptions about the whole process. We've got a tendancy to analyze everything to death, from the exact mechanics of how God might have inspired the scriptures to projecting contemporary notions about correctness, error, and grammatical expectations. The NT was written by a variety of folks with varying educational backgrounds, and the language these writers employed reflects that fact. "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age?"

But, regardless of how the NT fares in modern opinion as to how it measures up to more polished Greek or how it might be evaluated via modern prejudices, I honestly believe that there are many things in the NT whose depth is simply unapproachable and incomparable.

Sure. My original intent was merely to support Lost's claim that Scripture is poorly written (in places at least). The significance of that fact is open to debate, the fact itself is not.

One must have the scripture before any intepretation can occur; they are indispensible links in the same chain.

Not necessarily. We can interpret somebody else's interpretations without ever actually dealing with the originals themselves. Somebody must have Scripture to start the ball rolling but you can get the situation where a particular translation (interpretation) of Scripture is so dominant in a particular circle that the members of that circle deal only with the interpretation of the translation rather than the interpretation of Scripture (of course they think that what they are doing is interpreting Scripture itself but that doesn't mean they actually are).

We ask and demand answers to questions the biblical writers weren't even asking so much of the time, and our readings of the scriptures are encrusted with centuries of wranglings and theological disputes with which we have become too preoocuppied.

Certainly that is true sometimes. But you only have to look at academic theology where people are simply trying to work out what the author actually believed (rather than expecting him to give an opinion on something else) to realise that things are far less clear than they certainly could be. Ultimately Scripture was written to be read in a particular context and we have lost that context. Its as if we only have half the story. Romans or Galatians were never meant to be read in isolation from Paul's (oral) teaching. We've lost (or rather those before us corrupted to the point that it was eventually lost) those oral traditions half the book and in the Reformation people starting claiming 'Scripture Alone' as a way of rejecting the Church of their day - but Scripture was never meant to stand alone.

How would we separate the gospel from scripture? Wouldn't it be more practical to recognize our own penchant for taking these writings and using them as fodder for our own sectarian concerns? Then we might have a better chance of seeing the scriptures as they are in themselves, apart from our inhereited frustrations....

With difficulty, certainly. Imagine Scripture and early Christian Tradition is a mixture of organic chemicals in a bottle. One of those chemicals is the gospel, the others may be useful but they are still not the gospel that we are seeking. How do we just get the one chemical out? We have to get a competent chemist to seperate the liquids, using fractional distillation or something similar. We then end up with half a dozen different, smaller, bottles. How do we then work out which is our gospel? We have to test each of the bottles to see what they contain.

It isn't easy, it isn't particularly straight forward but it is possible with the right combination of tools and knowledge. The same is true of recovering the true gospel from the mess that is History.

[Kenite]

trust me
:lol:

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Maybe it would be best to say that the ancient Hebrew and Greek is poorly understood and this leads to poorly written translations of the Bible.

If the ancient languages are understood properly, we should be able to get well written translations (but this would not necessarily be guaranteed as many people just write poorly regardless how smart they are).

James Peter
No, trust me when I say that the languages are pretty well understood and the texts just generally exhibit poor grammar. Some are a lot worse than others but as a collection it is reasonable to conclude that they are not of a high literary standard. If you don't believe me go and ask in Biblical Languages. The contents of Scripture may be of a high standard but the form isn't. Most translations are written to a far higher stylistic standard than the original texts.

My understanding is that there are certain words that appear rarely in the Bible that give translators problems. They may not be easy to understand and these generate some problems. In addition, translating from one language to another is as much art as it is science creating more problems (e.g., translating a work like, snow, to a equatorial region culture that has never seen snow).

In addition, some translations simply require that people understand language and the intent of the writer. I was listening to Rush the other day and he had a discussion with a caller about the number of troops in Iraq. In the discussion, Rush made the statement that there were about 135,000 troops "around" Iraq. I understood Rush to mean, correctly, that there were 135,000 deployed in various cities and regions in the country of Iraq. The caller was miffed thinking that Rush meant that there were 135,000 troops in countries bordering Iraq. From my vantage point, it was clear what Rush meant. From the caller's vantage point, it appeared that Rush was not addressing the issue raised by the caller.

Regardless, the majority of the Bible is accurately translated, well written, easily understood. Many problems seem to arise when people excise one verse (e.g., John 20:23) from the rest of the Bible and seek to create a doctrine from that one verse even when that doctrine does not fit other verses.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I think Kenite's reasoning is fair. If the Bible provides the means whereby a person is saved (becomes a Christian), but a person says that the Bible sucks, then it is difficult to understand how a person can claim to have become a Christian through something that sucks.

If a person says that the Bible sucks, wouldn't he also be implying that his faith sucks (is not real)?

James Peter
Only if the way that somebody becomes/is a Christian is viewed bibliocentricly. If my faith is based solely on the Bible and the bible sucks then yes my faith sucks. If (for example) my faith is based primarily on the nature and character of He Who IS then, potentially at least, the Bible can be far from perfect and yet my faith can still be strong.

If I understand you, the Bible may be very good in those areas that deal with the nature and character of He Who IS so that a person might understand his true situation. In other areas, the Bible may "suck" in the sense that the person is too lazy to devote the time and energy to read it and discover what God is saying (or some other reason).

Regardless, I think Kenite's observation is very telling. Why would anyone who has read and understood the Bible sufficient to lead the person to becoming a Christian ever say that the Bible sucks? It suggests, if nothing else, a great immaturity on the part of the person making the comment. This is only compounded by the person's reaction to Kenite's inquiry.

[Abelard]

As much as I enjoy you folks who like to compare Bibles, the OP was just a guy looking for a Bible he could read.

Wyou think about the relative merits of this or that one, isn't the one you read always better than the one you don't?

[Kenite]

As much as I enjoy you folks who like to compare Bibles, the OP was just a guy looking for a Bible he could read.
'Quite frankly I think the bible sucks.' Does that leave room for negotiation?

Wyou think about the relative merits of this or that one, isn't the one you read always better than the one you don't?Many people read several translations. But they are all pretty hopeless once one has experienced the real thing.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

...the texts just generally exhibit poor grammar.

I don't think poor grammar is as much the culprit as this statement or the OP appears to make it seem. Do all the texts of the NT "generally exhibit poor grammar?" Some do, and one certainly finds ambiguities, but how pervasive is the problem, in your estimation? And do you think that "poor grammar" itself is really the reason for most of our more strident theological disputes?

I tend to think that our disputes center less upon grammatical errors than upon our own tendancy to generate controversies. Then, our subsequent reading of the scriptures becomes bound by the contours of historical theology. Granted, grammaticl difficulties are often exploited for sectarian reasons, but I wouldn't say that bad grammar or poor writing is the major cause of controversy, as the OP seems to allege. I'd expect we'd have our share of controversies even if all the grammar in the NT was demonstrably flawless.


Some are a lot worse than others but as a collection it is reasonable to conclude that they are not of a high literary standard.

Poor grammar is one thing. Literary standard is another, although it is related. For example, though Revelation doesn't have the best grammar, it remains a fine piece of apocalyptic literature. Revelation hardly measures up to classical ideals, whether literary or grammatical, but it is yet worthy of close analysis. It stands as a part of its genre though, and despite its formal difficulties, its content remains worthy of our attention. The controversies surrounding the book seems to me to have to do with other issues though.

Luke/Acts and the epistles of Peter are pretty good, aren't they? Paul is a case unto himself, but do you think the controversies surrounding him are due mostly to his grammatical/stylistic flaws? Pauline scholarship has linked the formal characteristics of his letters with some pretty sophisticated rhetorical conventions. Although he can be confusing, I think there's more to it than that. Remember what Peter said about Paul?:wink:


The contents of Scripture may be of a high standard but the form isn't. Most translations are written to a far higher stylistic standard than the original texts.

I partially agree with this, but I find the admission that the content may be of a high standard curious when juxtaposed with a too generalized blanket assessment of its form. The OP said that the Bible sucks, and that our major theological disagreements stem from its not being very well written. I find that both ideas dubious, despite the fact that the NT is by no means classical literature.



Sure. My original intent was merely to support Lost's claim that Scripture is poorly written (in places at least). The significance of that fact is open to debate, the fact itself is not.

To evaluate something as being "poorly written" invlvoes criteria. My intent was to distinguish two sets of criteria, namely the criteria and expectations of the original writters and readers from those of our own day. At best, we can only do this partially, but the two notions of being poorly written don't coincide. If the scriptures were just terribly written, I very much doubt that they would have had the immense historical impact that they've had, let alone the persuasive power.

Grammatical difficulties have been no secret among scholars, and they didn't seem to pose an impediment to the authority of the scriptures in the early centuries of the church when these writing were copied without precedent and distributed to people under persecution who hung onto these words for life. These are facts, too. And these facts also have significance, however they are debated.

You may indeed support Lost's claim to some degree, but I both of you make more of it than is warranted.


Not necessarily. We can interpret somebody else's interpretations without ever actually dealing with the originals themselves.

My point is exactly what you admit below:


Somebody must have Scripture to start the ball rolling

Links in a chain, as I said...


but you can get the situation where a particular translation (interpretation) of Scripture is so dominant in a particular circle that the members of that circle deal only with the interpretation of the translation rather than the interpretation of Scripture (of course they think that what they are doing is interpreting Scripture itself but that doesn't mean they actually are).

This is another issue---one which I find more troublesome than bad grammar. Again, I don't think this problem is altogether due to grammatical errors or stylistic deficiencies, as intimated by Lost in his OP. Rather, I believe we'd have these difficulties in any case.


Certainly that is true sometimes. But you only have to look at academic theology where people are simply trying to work out what the author actually believed (rather than expecting him to give an opinion on something else) to realise that things are far less clear than they certainly could be.

I wonder if most academic theology is really centered upon working out what the original authors believed as much as it is preoccupied with its own sectarian and inherited historical concerns. And I doubt that lack of clarity is the fundamental issue that inspires these continuing disputes. It is an issue, but I don't think it the issue.

Can you or Lost make a convincing case, supported by example, detailing just how faulty grammar or less than literary style has been the prime factor in bringing about most of our theological disputes? You could give some examples of how these things have contributed to our confusion, but I just think Lost's OP is terribly overstated....


Ultimately Scripture was written to be read in a particular context and we have lost that context.

I'm more optimistic than that. We're not entirely in the dark, are we?


Its as if we only have half the story.

And I'm more optimistic than that too; we're better than 50%, aren't we? Is half the NT really unintelligible due to "lost context?" BUT AGAIN, this is yet another issue; lost context isn't the same as grammatical or stylistic deficiency, is it?


Romans or Galatians were never meant to be read in isolation from Paul's (oral) teaching.

No one's proposing that they were; yet, just because Paul is no longer giving live oratory here on earth doesn't mean we've lost the gist of what he wrote.


We've lost (or rather those before us corrupted to the point that it was eventually lost) those oral traditions half the book and in the Reformation people starting claiming 'Scripture Alone' as a way of rejecting the Church of their day - but Scripture was never meant to stand alone.

Again, you may present some potentially helpful insights here, but I think you've taken a mere historical insight about the Reformation and inflated it far beyond its valid application or significance. And this has little to do with the OP or with NT grammar or literary style. The efforts of biblical scholars and historians to reconstruct your "lost context" isn't in vain. We are at much better than 50%. Regardless of these side issues, the OP remains far less than compelling. I think you've largely spent your efforts bolstering a bad thesis---and a rather unsophisticated thesis---that "the Bible sucks." Your own thought and contributions are better than that, but you've allied yourself with Lost out of sympathy. I've got sympathy for Lost, too, but I think he's mistaken.

[Lost]

Sorry for the negative thread.
I had forgotten the reason I decided a few months ago to accept the NT as it is.
That reason is that I believe that the God of Israel exists and that Christ is God and therefore I must assume that God managed to keep the NT (& OT) safe even if it was delivered by perhaps a corrupted church (RCC) and then it follows that Christ was also man so that I must accept also the trinity.
I must assume that God is quite capable of using even a corrupted church to do his will or even corrupted humans for that matter.
So I'm sorry for raising my doubts again, I think I'm back on solid ground again.
Thanks for your helpful comments tho.

[James Peter]

There is a lot I could comment on from that pereynol but I don't think this is the thread to do so in. If you want to know the short answer to the 'why do theologians argue' though I'd suggest it is because certain ideas were advanced (say Luther's understanding of Paul) and became very widely accepted. They hinged on misconceptions of the world in which Paul lived though and on what words like pistis and charis actually meant. To Paul's audience I'm sure his letters were entirely clear but we quickly lost that Pauline context and are only now in the late 20th and early 21st century rediscovering it. People just have too much at stake to discard beliefs that their traditions have held for centuries. They pretend that they have been held for 2,000 years even when they haven't. I guess the other real reason for theological disputes is that Scripture is (in conservative circles at least) treated as a unity when it is not. Rather than just accepting that Paul and Luke believed different things they buy into a Eusebian myth of Christian History and try and force them together...in a way that cannot be forced. In short, our ontology of Scripture is flawed and so our interpretation of it is always flawed too.

[Lost]

There is a lot I could comment on from that pereynol but I don't think this is the thread to do so in. If you want to know the short answer to the 'why do theologians argue' though I'd suggest it is because certain ideas were advanced (say Luther's understanding of Paul) and became very widely accepted. They hinged on misconceptions of the world in which Paul lived though and on what words like pistis and charis actually meant. To Paul's audience I'm sure his letters were entirely clear but we quickly lost that Pauline context and are only now in the late 20th and early 21st century rediscovering it. People just have too much at stake to discard beliefs that their traditions have held for centuries. They pretend that they have been held for 2,000 years even when they haven't. I guess the other real reason for theological disputes is that Scripture is (in conservative circles at least) treated as a unity when it is not. Rather than just accepting that Paul and Luke believed different things they buy into a Eusebian myth of Christian History and try and force them together...in a way that cannot be forced. In short, our ontology of Scripture is flawed and so our interpretation of it is always flawed too.


That seems to be the road I am going down as I am very interested and have been studying early christian beliefs and ideas and I don't have any traditions to preserve for their own sake unless they are the truth.
Thanks for your comments.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

There is a lot I could comment on from that pereynol but I don't think this is the thread to do so in. If you want to know the short answer to the 'why do theologians argue' though I'd suggest it is because certain ideas were advanced (say Luther's understanding of Paul) and became very widely accepted. They hinged on misconceptions of the world in which Paul lived though and on what words like pistis and charis actually meant.

Again, I partially agree with you in principle. But theologians have always argued. Paul's own letters were partly polemical, reflecting a diversity of opinion even at the dawn of Christianity. As to Luther, he arguably left the church with a view closer to Paul than was the case prior to the Reformation, even though he made mistakes. In other words, Luther was one theologian among others who sought to recover Paul to the best of his abiltiy, and he probably fared better than many of his predecessors. We all try in our best conscience to understand the scriptures, but we all fall short in some ways. I think that there is much we do understand and that we ought to be optimistic about that rather than give way to a disproportionate scepticism.

My concern is that Lost has given way to this a little too much.


To Paul's audience I'm sure his letters were entirely clear but we quickly lost that Pauline context and are only now in the late 20th and early 21st century rediscovering it.

I certainly agree that we've gained good ground. And isn't this cause for a better hope?


People just have too much at stake to discard beliefs that their traditions have held for centuries. They pretend that they have been held for 2,000 years even when they haven't.

I agree.


I guess the other real reason for theological disputes is that Scripture is (in conservative circles at least) treated as a unity when it is not.

Well, I suppose that depends upon what one means by "unity." But I understand your point of view.


Rather than just accepting that Paul and Luke believed different things they buy into a Eusebian myth of Christian History and try and force them together...in a way that cannot be forced. In short, our ontology of Scripture is flawed and so our interpretation of it is always flawed too.


Luke and Paul are not that difficult to take together, and one doesn't need Eusebius in order to read them, IMHO. But all historians of the church try to make the best sense they can of its narrative history, as do all critics of that history. You yourself become a case in point. You are part of a narrative---which in turn, becomes a kind of unity. Has there been progress in biblical scholarship? If so, the narrative unifies itself as it progresses and our knowledge tightens, and our understanding is consequently bettered. Most scholars today aren't bound by Eusebius---that's old hat. Shouldn't we be patient in our hope rather than succumb to discouragement? We ought to lift one another up if we can. And that doesn't happen as much around here as it should. Thanks for talking with me.

[Sparko]

the topic of this thread is not suitable for Theology201 so it is being moved to Unorthodox Theology for want of a better place. Carry on