ANSWERS: 15
  • The bible is clear..its man's Ego that confuses it
  • For those who believe, they feel that you will read it how god wants you to read it. That's what I've been told anyway, but i have many theories on this.
  • Maybe it`s only people that think we have to understand everything.Maybe He thinks we are not supposed to know or understand.
  • Jesus always worshiped with truth. On one occasion when praying to his heavenly Father he said: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) Might it not be expected that the true followers of Christ would view the written Word of God as Jesus did—as truth? Many clergymen today, however, do not view the Bible as Jesus did; they claim that it is filled with myth and does not consider the Bible as “inerrant” or free from error. Perhaps you have noted that the clergy are becoming more open in revealing their disbelief in the Bible as the inspired Word of God, How unlike Jesus and his apostles such clergymen are! One of Jesus’ apostles wrote: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching.”—2 Tim. 3:16. So whom will you imitate—Jesus and his apostles, or the many faithless clergymen, What if such ministers continue in good standing in the religious organization of which you are a member? Then is it not time to face the fact that the religion itself has deviated from the example Jesus set and so is disapproved by God? If you choose to stay with an organization whose ministers downgrade the Bible, then do you not turn your back on Jesus? It is that serious as that.
  • I've noticed that others have a very good way of dodging answering your question. One would think that the "God" person would be able to dictate clear and concise passages...
  • 1) "Evangelical Christians generally accept the findings of textual criticism, and nearly all modern translations, including the popular New International Version, work from a Greek New Testament based on modern textual criticism. Since this means that the manuscript copies are not perfect, inerrancy is only applied to the original autographs (the manuscripts written by the original authors) rather than the copies. For instance, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says, We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture. Less commonly, more conservative views are held by some groups" 2) "According to Bishop John Shelby Spong, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy has been a historical substitute for papal infallibility. "When Martin Luther countered the authority of the infallible pope, he did so in the name of his new authority, the infallible Scriptures. This point of view was generally embraced by all of the Reformation churches. The Bible thus became the paper pope of Protestantism." " Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_innerrancy 3) "The term Biblical infallibility is used in at least two distinct ways. In some circles, it is a theological term to describe the belief that the Bible is free from errors on issues of faith and practice, while minor possible contradictions in history (or geography, science etc.) can be overlooked as insignificant to its spiritual purpose. This stance is also known as Limited Inerrancy, in contrast to Biblical inerrancy, which is the belief that the Bible is free from all errors, not only in spiritual areas, but in the natural as well. Other people use the term to refer to the doctrine that the Bible cannot "fail", or mislead. In this sense it is seen as distinct from Biblical Inerrancy, but always accompanying it. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy uses the term in this sense, saying, "Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated." - Second Vatican Council: There was a controversy during the Second Vatican Council on whether the Roman Catholic Church taught infallibility or inerrancy. Some have interpreted Dei Verbum as teaching the infallibility position, while others note that the conciliar document often quotes previous documents such as Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu that clearly teach inerrancy." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility Further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
  • Because it was written by people who only wanted to control all or most of Europe and the middle east.. actually they thought it was the whole world.. SURPRISE! There was a whole lot more world and it wasn't flat or made up of just 4 corners and didn't rest on pillars after all. Plus they didn't take into account the idea that someday a guy named Gutenberg would invent the printing press and the rest of humanity would learn to read. I can just imagine those old priests saying: Drat, drats and double drats! Our plan foiled again! They just didn't think far enough ahead to realize some of us would actually think for ourselves so they wrote a bunch of rubbish hoping the entire planet would stay just as gullible as the ones still just as gullible.
  • Because of the interpretor...has little to do with the book itself. "If a tree falls in a forrest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound?" "If you do not praise my name the rocks will cry out."
  • I don't find the Bible to be unclear or contradictory at all. There are so many interpretations because people use it to justify almost anything. All you have to do is take out a few words, switch some verses around, use verses out of context and boom! you got a sect who doesn't celebrate holidays and think only 144,000 people will go to Heaven. The Bible is meant to be read as one story from beginning to end. If you treat it as just a bunch of numbered verses that have very little to do with each other then it does seen unclear, open to interpretation, or contradictory.
  • For starters, if you took any subject, combined many books from many authors , all from different cultures and languages written over a couple thousand years and tried to pass it off as one book, it would no doubt be contradictory and confusing.
  • It is only unclear to unbelievers. This is because one must read the Bible with faith and understanding provided by the Holy Spirit. To attempt to do otherwise is to invite misunderstanding. The Bible is a living Book. And it will affect your life in miraculous ways if you let it. No need to beleive me. Try it for yourself and see if I tell the truth.
  • Partially because of differences and even changes in language. Also, ones understanding or preconceived ideas could be part for some. There are also some scriptures that can be translated more than one way. There are also a few additions to the scriptures that have come to light the last 100 years or so. I definately don't have all of the answers, but I have received satisfactory answers to my questions. I will give a couple of examples. . John says Jesus carried his staurus (stake or cross), while Matthew, Mark, and Luke say that Simon carried it. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:16-18;%20Mat27:31-33;Mark%2015:20-21;Luke%2023:25-27;&version=31;50;78;47;49; From reading it carefully, it becomes evident that Jesus started out carrying it, but then as they were going along, Simon was pressed into carrying it. . We also have the issue of Paul saying "saved by faith alone" while James says "saved by works along with faith". Paul was speaking of works of the Jewish law. (Romans 3:19,20,28) The following is from "The Bible, God's word or man's?": "11 Our considering the context also helps us to understand what some have claimed is a disagreement between the apostle Paul and James. At Ephesians 2:8, 9, Paul says that Christians are saved by faith, not by works. He says: “You have been saved through faith . . . not owing to works.” James, however, insists on the importance of works. He writes: “As the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:26) How can these two statements be reconciled? 12 Considering the context of Paul’s words, we find that one statement complements the other. The apostle Paul is referring to the efforts of the Jews to keep the Mosaic Law. They believed that if they kept the Law in all its details, they would be righteous. Paul pointed out that this was impossible. We can never become righteous—and thus deserve salvation—by our own works, for we are inherently sinful. We can only be saved by faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.—Romans 5:18. 13 James, however, adds the vital point that faith in itself is valueless if not supported by actions. A person who claims to have faith in Jesus should prove it by what he does. An inactive faith is a dead faith and will not lead to salvation. 14 The apostle Paul was in full agreement with this, and he often mentions the kinds of works that Christians should engage in to demonstrate their faith. For example, to the Romans he wrote: “With the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.” Making a “public declaration”—sharing our faith with others—is vital for salvation. (Romans 10:10; see also 1 Corinthians 15:58; Ephesians 5:15, 21-33; 6:15; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 10:23-25.) No work, however, that a Christian can do, and certainly no effort to fulfill the Law of Moses, will earn him the right to everlasting life. This is “the gift God gives” to those who exercise faith.—Romans 6:23; John 3:16."
  • I find that studying the Greek with the translation underneath is helpful. What a difference and really changes what the whole verse means. I try to get back to the original for the New Testament. Study and then really not just take it out of context but study the whole vs.with chapter.
  • Mostly because we're not reading it in the original languages, because of culture differences between then and now, and because it was originally written for people who DID understand that culture and language.. Example of the culture thing...most of us know the parable of the prodigal son. Jesus told this story to his disciples. Jesus didn't have to describe just how shameful an act the father's running to greet his son would have been in their culture - they would have known. Something we may read and be like "ok, he ran, so what" would have been interpreted totally differently at the time - more like "what?! this rich powerful guy RAN to greet his son who had squandered everything and dishonored the entire family? People would have seen his ANKLES!" Seriously.
  • 6-15-2017 It is unclear because people can be remarkably stupid when their position depends on not understanding something. It is open to interpretation because there are people who will argue about what the meaning of "is" is.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy