How confusing is the Bible?

[brownprose]

---

Ang naka confuse sa Bible kay naay mga Verse nga we need to Prove Historically kay wala kaau ma Detail, But its not the Issue, the issue is people misinterpreted it.

This is also CORRECT. The literary construction of the Bible alone is NOT AT ALL TIMES "what you see is what you get." The diversity of writing styles reflect the culture or practices the authors saw at the time of writing. That's why you read a different "feel" of God during Moses' time (who is a bit legalistic and wrathful) and during the time of David (who is merciful and forgiving). The same goes for other scriptures. We CANNOT EXACTLY KNOW why they were written in such themes simply for sheer lack of historical data.

There are Christians that scare the hell out of another [Christian] by quoting mostly the anthologies of God's wrath which you will find mostly in the Old Testament or perhaps the Revelations.

Some or many quote indiscriminately the Bible to conveniently support their own views or certain theologies. Examples of which are the verses just presented by the thread-starter (no offense meant to the thread-starter, and i don't also mean he is like that). If you're going to read each verse in ISOLATION you will find out there are seemingly contradictory verses elsewhere. But if you'll read the verses before or after it, you will find it actually meant another thing. You may try reading those examples and you'll see what I mean.

Some just also literally interpret the Bible rather than symbolically. This is where most of the conflict arises. A good is Noah's Story. For the fundamentalists, they say it was a global flood. For those who interpret the Great Deluge symbolically, they say it was just one strong downpour/catastrophy long ago and that it is not relevant to the whole message of the story.

Others also liberally interpret the Bible out of whim to cash in on gullible people. And you know darn well who they are

[makusama]

This is also CORRECT. The literary construction of the Bible alone is NOT AT ALL TIMES "what you see is what you get." The diversity of writing styles reflect the culture or practices the authors saw at the time of writing. That's why you read a different "feel" of God during Moses' time (who is a bit legalistic and wrathful) and during the time of David (who is merciful and forgiving). The same goes for other scriptures. We CANNOT EXACTLY KNOW why they were written in such themes simply for sheer lack of historical data.

There are Christians that scare the hell out of another [Christian] by quoting mostly the anthologies of God's wrath which you will mostly in the Old Testament or perhaps the Revelations.

Some or many quote indiscriminately the Bible to conveniently support their own views or certain theologies. Examples of which are the verses just presented by the thread-starter (no offense meant to the thread-starter, and i don't also mean he is like that). If you're going to read each verse in ISOLATION you will find out there are seemingly contradictory verses elsewhere. But if you'll read the verses before or after it, you will find it actually meant another thing. You may try reading those examples and you'll see what I mean.

Some just also literally interpret the Bible rather than symbolically. This is where most of the conflict arises. Example of which is Noah's Story. For the fundamentalists, they say it was a global flood. For those who interpret the Great Deluge symbolically, they say it was just one strong downpour/catastrophy long ago and that it is not relevant to the whole message of the story.

Others also liberally interpret the Bible out of whim to cash in on gullible people. And you know darn well who they are

I agree. I totally agree. The fact that some religions believe that Christ has siblings means no research of ancient traditions, language and way of writing. The same people who say that all other religions are not the way and they are the one true way inspired by God... dili man gani kasabot og history.. tsk tsk tsk...

very confusing? how come? understood by whom?
"no longer an easy task"? you mean to say that by our own will we can understand the bible but its an hard task?

Where in the bible that we should strive hard to know the truth and wisdom of Gods word?
false prophets gani nya mangutana kag "are they correct". why believe or why giving attention to these false prophets? look for the prophet of God.
By the way according to the bible how can you consider that they are false prophets?
false prophet gani nya "are they good enough". Prophet can't convince people but its God the Father who will lead them to listen to His prophet.

and about your question "who do you lean to when looking for bible interpretation"? its the bible itself also because the bible interprets itself, read Isaiah 34:16 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Let me tell you bro from the bible, it will be make known to you by God if you turn to His reproof, read Proverbs 1:23.
is this confusing to you?
are these verses confusing or you're the one who are confused?
let me tell you bro when reading the bible you should know these things:
1. when it was said by God.
2. To whom it is said or applicable.
3. And when it will be applicable (prophecy).

again aron dili confusing just read again Proverbs 1:23 and Mark 4:11-12.
Knowledge, Wisdom and Mystery from God will be given to God fearing People and no matter how you try and just relying on your self then CONFUSING is what you will get.

Trust in the Lord with all of your heart.

Peace!

Dont be such a know it all. Unsay confusing? ka klaro anang daghan na kaayo tao na mu mata lang og kalit then start thier own religion! and worse backed up by the Bible pa daw?! Kung dili pana confusing then united ta tanan types of Christiansim diba? Roman Catholic unta ta tanan.. or given a chance only one other branch that defies Roman Catholicism... ngano pwerte naman daghana types of protestant? Answer is nalibog bisag unsa nalang tu-ohan kay daghan mu angkon na sila moy sakto unya sayop ang uban. Naka basa lang gani og Bible feeling ginoo na... Remember Charles Manson also uses the Bible to butcher people... and daghan ni follow niya... mu deny pa gyud ka na the Bible is confusing? labi na sa mga people na wala gyud ni dig deeper.. from the roots... even to the point of understanding ancient culture and tradition and language? bisan gani og studyhan libog man gani...

hahay nimo rcruman! kung mao nang storyaha then sakto diay mi mga Catoliko kay daghan man mi? "gi lead sa ginoo padulong namo"? so gi lead sa ginoo ang mga followers ni Charles Manson? pataka raman ka oi! Prophet of GOd? tanan mu ingon man prophet of God... naay boang sa dalan ai ingon siya prophet of god daw siya.. hehehehehe headbang bro!

[makusama]

@rcruman
Quote from: makusama on January 15, 2008, 09:08:21 PM
I will provide no answers. Look for it yourself.
"For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12)
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." (Jeremiah 17:4)

is this confusing to you?

basaha balik bro so that makasabot ka sa ako gi mean e taod palihog imong antipara

PEACE

[Sinyalan]

Echoing makusama's point:

Like David Koresh that he led his people to death because of Biblical revelations... naa ba diay insturctions sa bible to stock weapons (i.e. guns, knives, etc...) to them they were true children of god. Like "the prophet" that poisoned his entire people becaues god will deliver them straight to heaven. Their interpretations arre wicked for a normal non-literal christian but to them they are correct. Pretty soon, one congregation there sa atoa will result to mass killing because people will never believe in their system. Only thing is, their beliefs are based on the bible.

[geoseph]

Taking a verse out of context, and placing it in another, is like a fake photograph, where the face doesn't belong to the body.

Taking two or more verses out of their individual contexts, and placing them together, is like Dr. Frankenstein's monster. At first, he looks terrible but, when one gets to know him, he is quite harmless.
---

The variety in interpretations, if respected, is cause for sharing and enriching everyone's understanding. If not respected, it is cause for dissent and division.

It's easy to cause disrespect for an interpretation, unless you created the universe, simply claim it to be the absolute truth.

[amingb]

This is also CORRECT. The literary construction of the Bible alone is NOT AT ALL TIMES "what you see is what you get." The diversity of writing styles reflect the culture or practices the authors saw at the time of writing. That's why you read a different "feel" of God during Moses' time (who is a bit legalistic and wrathful) and during the time of David (who is merciful and forgiving). The same goes for other scriptures. We CANNOT EXACTLY KNOW why they were written in such themes simply for sheer lack of historical data.

There are Christians that scare the hell out of another [Christian] by quoting mostly the anthologies of God's wrath which you will mostly in the Old Testament or perhaps the Revelations.

Some or many quote indiscriminately the Bible to conveniently support their own views or certain theologies. Examples of which are the verses just presented by the thread-starter (no offense meant to the thread-starter, and i don't also mean he is like that). If you're going to read each verse in ISOLATION you will find out there are seemingly contradictory verses elsewhere. But if you'll read the verses before or after it, you will find it actually meant another thing. You may try reading those examples and you'll see what I mean.

Some just also literally interpret the Bible rather than symbolically. This is where most of the conflict arises. Example of which is Noah's Story. For the fundamentalists, they say it was a global flood. For those who interpret the Great Deluge symbolically, they say it was just one strong downpour/catastrophy long ago and that it is not relevant to the whole message of the story.

Others also liberally interpret the Bible out of whim to cash in on gullible people. And you know darn well who they are

So then who is Correct because all christian denomination are base on the interpretation of the Bible.

14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

It is clearly men makes the confusion not the Bible. The Bible is written para sayon saboton dili complicated nor misleading.

And God only Justifies to those who correctly interpret it.

Its the erroneous thinking that has caused confusion among christians that caused the division among us.

[amingb]

Mao na mga Christian Churches not the Protestant nor Roman Catholic, Mga cult, they prefer not to argue with other denomination becuase they think cla ang Sakto nag interpret sa Bible. And I Admire Them bisan daghan na cla nga denomination but parihas na cla ug Doctrine meaning mostly parihas ang ilaha interpretation sa Bible.

[necrotic freak]

So then who is Correct because all christian denomination are base on the interpretation of the Bible.

14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

It is clearly men makes the confusion not the Bible. The Bible is written para sayon saboton dili complicated nor misleading.

And God only Justifies to those who correctly interpret it.

Its the erroneous thinking that has caused confusion among christians that caused the division among us.

Now who do you think were confused?

[amingb]

Now who do you think were confused?

Ang na confuse katong tawong nag salig sa Science of Interpretations or hermeneutic.

[necrotic freak]

Ang na confuse katong tawong nag salig sa Science of Interpretations or hermeneutic.

kinsa man gud nang mga tawhana ba?