Board index ‹ Bible

[Shazzam]

Why would a God capable of directly communicating with each of us decide to use the Bible as a method of communicating with us? As a means of communication, the bible is severely flawed. It has been altered throughout its history, parts added, parts removed, parts simply changed. There are numerous different versions of it, each with their own take on what it supposedly says. It has been translated into various different languages, with each translation suffering from the inevitable problems that any translated text suffers from. Some denominations of Christianity accept certain parts of the bible as canon, some outright reject them.

The biggest failure of the bible, however, is that its content can be interpreted in various different ways. There are thousands of different denominations of Christianity each with their own unique interpretation, and whilst I will grant that most of the disagreements are petty, some of them are major disagreements that result in different denominations that might as well be classed as different religions. So again, as far as a means of communicating with us, the bible really doesn't do a good job.

Direct communication with each and every one of us would be a much more effective method. Firstly, it would eliminate all of the problems listed above. Rather than a disjointed Christianity we would see a much more unified Christianity. Secondly, the number of people that believe in God would skyrocket. If God communicated directly with me, I would be much more inclined to believe in his existence.

So why doesn't God communicate directly with each of us? Why does he use the bible? I don't believe God exists, so my explanation is pretty simple: God doesn't communicate directly with each of us because he doesn't exist. The bible isn't a means of communication from God, it is simply man made.

[jimwalton]

Any communication, no matter what it is, whether written, oral, or even body language, is subject to interpretation. Communication theory tells us that there's the communicator, the message, and the receiver. The receiver is always in a position of interpretation. Even if God spoke to you, you'd have to interpret it. If God dropped golden tablets from the sky, there would be different interpretations of it. If God stood in front of you and wrote it down for you, you and the guy next to you would interpret it differently.

We all misunderstand conversations, terms, and intent. Every act of communication, whether oral or written, requires interpretation through the filter of the listener or receiver. You don't escape "interpreted in various different ways" with direct communication. I've been in conversations where afterward I said to someone else who was there, "Can you believe he said that?" and the other person says, "That's not what he said. That's not what I heard anyway." And off we go, trying to sort out what was said and what was meant by it. It's the character of communication because of our humanity.

Actually, the written word has a consistency and is able to be analyzed like no spoken word. When we are making a legal agreement we always say, "I want that in writing." When someone offers us a deal, we want it in writing. If a lawyer or the IRS is going to threaten me, they put it in a letter, a certified letter sometimes. Writing has a guarantee to it, a certainty, reviewability, able to be studied, and more easily passed to the next generation. It is able to be translated and passed on between cultures and language groups.

Now, to be fair, there are pros and cons to everything. If it's able to be translated, it's able to be mistranslated—no way around that one. As cultures change and the meanings of words change, translations need to be updated. And with translations there are always decisions to make: static or dynamic—do we translate exactly what it says, or do we translate what it means, because the words and their meanings have changed? But the oral word is no different. They passed stories on orally in the Bible, and you don't believe in their accuracy.

Why doesn't God communicate directly with each of us? You want a spoken voice, I take it. Would it suffice if he planted a thought in your head through a book or a conversation (like this one)? Is that direct communication with you? I'm curious: if you heard a voice coming from the sky, would you think something was wrong with you? If you heard a voice in your room from behind you, would it creep you out, or would you think it was God?

OK, so you probably want the voice to confirm it's the voice of God with some kind of empirical proof, do a little miracle or something to confirm it to you. Well, the Bible is full of that stuff, but you don't believe it. Would you believe it if it happened to you? In the Bible it didn't work that way. Lots of people heard the voice and saw the stuff, and didn't believe. Lots of people saw the acts of God during the Exodus and didn't believe. People knew Jesus, heard him talk, saw the miracles, and didn't believe. I'm curious: what makes you think if God talked to each individual, they'd all believe?

I don't buy it. I'm guessing you don't believe because you don't believe, not because God has chosen to communicate through the written rather than directly orally to you.

[Shazzam]

> Any communication, no matter what it is, whether written, oral, or even body language, is subject to interpretation.

Sure but what method would reduce the potential of misinterpretion more, written text or direct communication?

> If God stood in front of you and wrote it down for you, you and the guy next to you would interpret it differently.

God isn't capable of communicating with two people in a way that they both come away with the same understanding? Isn't God a God?

> I don't buy it. I'm guessing you don't believe because you don't believe, not because God has chosen to communicate through the written rather than directly orally to you.

I don't believe in a God because I haven't been given a good reason why I should believe in a God. If God exists he could communicate directly with me, like he supposedly does with some people, that would be a pretty good start.

[jimwalton]

> Sure but what method would reduce the potential of misinterpretion more, written text or direct communication?

That's a matter of interpretation. We are a textual culture, and often put more weight on the written word. I happen to think, as I said, that the written word reduces the potential of misinterpretation. That's why we demand all legal contracts, and sometimes even casual agreements, to be in writing. We value written records over oral transmission, which we believe is too fluid to be reliable.

The ancient cultures thought differently. Socrates said that words put in writing are incapable of being clear. He said written words can't be defended by argument and cannot teach truth effectively. He said written words are of little value unless an author is able to back them up by explanation. That's not how our culture works, though. We get written receipts, have written textbooks, write down legal contracts, and written bank statements. (We are transitioning, however, to a digital culture.) Often in my conversations with people, they strongly doubt the truth of the events of the Bible because they were "only transmitted orally." Interesting. So which method reduces the potential of misinterpretation more? I'm writing to you now. It's a reliable means of communication. If we were face to face we could have more live interaction, but there's nothing like the written word for remembrance and analysis.

> God isn't capable of communicating with two people in a way that they both come away with the same understanding? Isn't God a God?

Sure God is God, but humans are humans, using the same logic. I might be a good teacher, but the quality of my teaching depends on two things: my skills and the capabilities of my students. For them to be authentic participants, part of it is up to them. Same with God.

> If God exists he could communicate directly with me, like he supposedly does with some people, that would be a pretty good start.

So your demand on God is based on this condition, and if he doesn't meet your condition, he doesn't exist. Hm. Is this really a logical approach to the question of his existence?

[Big Goon]

You are intentionally putting limits on God. "Interpretation" is not a big deal to an omnipotent being unless you are positing that it is impossible for an all powerful being to impart knowledge to humans in a way that they can all understand unambiguously. Keep in mind how humans interpret information is a product of the brain and if God designed the brain it's honestly its fault when humans all interpret information differently.

> Is that direct communication with you? I'm curious: if you heard a voice coming from the sky, would you think something was wrong with you? If you heard a voice in your room from behind you, would it creep you out, or would you think it was God?

When everyone on Earth can observe the Sun in the exact same way, is there any doubt as to the Sun's existence? It honestly doesn't matter what hypothetical scenarios anyone throws out for God to use. He's GOD. This isn't that hard for an all powerful being. If you wanted to, you could walk up to any human on Earth and show your existence. The only thing stopping you being logistics.

> Well, the Bible is full of that stuff, but you don't believe it.

Uh yeah...you don't believe the stories in the Qur'an, do you? Non-believers generally don't believe the veracity of holy books. Which contain events which have never happened such as ....

> Lots of people saw the acts of God during the Exodus and didn't believe.

There is no evidence the Exodus even happened. How can people see anything by God during a non-existent event? All we have are unverifiable tales written down.

> what makes you think if God talked to each individual, they'd all believe?

The Sun doesn't speak, can't hear, contains no thought process, yet apparently it is easier for a giant ball of gas to get all humans to believe in its existence, than for the creator of the universe.

> I'm guessing you don't believe because you don't believe

This doesn't say anything. Non-believers are unconvinced. That's why they don't believe. God failing to convince people of its existence using sub-optimal methods like ancient Holy Books whose message people can't even agree on, is no one's fault but God. The Non-believer finds it more likely that these stories are just made up by Humans.

[jimwalton]

> unless you are positing that it is impossible for an all powerful being to impart knowledge to humans in a way that they can all understand unambiguously.

What I'm positing is that a dynamical world is superior to a static one. I think you would admit that the natural world is dynamic, with a large number of systems that interact, balance, and even depend on each other. Some exhibit characteristics more like chaos (though that is a scientific category of a dynamical system) and other more like order and purpose. It is within these categories that we find human knowledge.

Have you ever tried to balance a broom handle on the palm of your hand? You can do it for a while, but eventually something (distraction, wind, your movements) causes it to become less stable, and it falls. This principle was posited by a meteorologist in the late 60s, who wrote a paper titled, "Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wing in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?" This thought was so important we now know it as the Butterfly Effect. Even if we had delicate sensors in every square foot of the globe and its atmosphere, we would still not be able to reliably (100%) predict the weather. The "Butterfly Effect" would always be present.

Our world seems to manifest a huge number of interacting chaos systems: weather patterns, electrical impulses, the firing pattern of neurons in the brain, ecosystems, etc. Should God stop all of that? I contend that a dynamic world in which free creatures can exercise genuine creativity, thereby bringing about truly novel effects, is a better world than a static world. A consequent corollary is that God would want to create a dynamic world. For instance, since both our circulatory system and nervous system are beneficial chaotic systems, there is strong empirical evidence to say that dynamical systems are beneficial to life. The heart can recover from occasion arrhythmias; our brains can recover from some injuries. In addition, if the brain were static, creativity wouldn't be possible. If the natural system were just linear and status, natural processes (trees, snowflakes, clouds, shorelines, faces) couldn't produce novel outcomes.

Hopefully you can see that while God might have created a static world of nonlinear dynamical systems, eliminating all reason, creativity, and scientific inquiry, and people being born who would turn against him, and he might have created a world where his sovereignty imparted knowledge, this would not be a desirable world. Natural science, engineering, and education would be vapid; courage and excitement would be absent. The more desirable world is the one where people have real life choices, real life freedom, the great potential to choose God, and the real option to choose against him.

> When everyone on Earth can observe the Sun in the exact same way, is there any doubt as to the Sun's existence?

There are many things that exist that don't have empirical qualities or data to go along with them: time, memories, pain, reason, intuition, justice, knowledge, love, to name a tiny few. We are mistaken to think that the best proof of existence is being able to "observe [something] in the exact same way." Most of what we know if not by such observation, though the sciences have achieved wonders in that field. It is not the only field, however. If all knowledge and learning has to be reduced to empirical observation, you have just deprived humanity of most of what we know.

> Non believers generally don't believe the veracity of holy books.

Much of that non-belief is a priori, not evidentiary. You don't believe because you choose not to believe. The Bible has mountains of evidence corroborating what's written in it.

> There is no evidence the Exodus even happened.

There is no evidence one way or the other. Actually, if you examine the story of the Exodus in the Bible, and examine all available documents and artifacts, there is no direct evidence proving that the Exodus never happened. Egypt was overflowing with foreign slaves; some Asiatic foreign people groups actually came to power; slave built in the cities of Rameses; the exodus route was a sensible one—while there is no evidence supporting the exodus, there is no evidence contradicting it either.

[Gabriel]

so you say even if god appear in his real form, with it's true voice and power, to everyone, at the same time, saying the same things, people wouldn't believe ?

> I've been in conversations where afterward I said to someone else who was there, "Can you believe he said that?" and the other person says, "That's not what he said. That's not what I heard anyway." And off we go, trying to sort out what was said and what was meant by it. It's the character of communication because of our humanity.

God probably woudn't have this problem, since he is not human.

> If it's able to be translated, it's able to be mistranslated—no way around that one.

Oh yes, there is a way around that: don't mess with the language (like god did in the tower of babel). Or he could...you know, not allow mistranslations ?

> OK, so you probably want the voice to confirm it's the voice of God with some kind of empirical proof, do a little miracle or something to confirm it to you. Well, the Bible is full of that stuff, but you don't believe it.

No it's not. It's full of allegories. He appear in clouds, pillars of fire, lights from the sky, angels, "mysterious men", donkeys, etc. There isn't a single true appearance of god in his true almighty form. Well, you could say there is jesus, but he isn't like, total 100% god, right ?
Also, "little miracles" ? Raise the dead isn't a little miracle, as isn't food rain. I'd say turning water to wine is a little "lesser miracle", but even then, it's a hell of a miracle. People don't believe because these things don't happen, not because they happen and they choose to not believe. If you say to me "God cured me of my elbow pain" I'd say bullshit. Now if I know you don't have a leg, and god make your leg grow again instantly, that's a miracle.

> I'm guessing you don't believe because you don't believe, not because God has chosen to communicate through the written rather than directly orally to you.

People don't believe "just because". People don't believe because it's a really, really high chance that god wouldn't choose the time period, people and media he did, if he really wanted to propagate a message so important. I'm no specialist in any knowledge area, and even I can see the inefficiency of this method. He chose a nomad tribe, barely literate, with oral traditions to write a book about the salvation of mankind....in a long dead language. I guess you could see all the problems this causes, and you have better solutions, right ?

[jimwalton]

> so you say even if god appear in his real form, with it's true voice and power, to everyone, at the same time, saying the same things, people wouldn't believe?

Sure people would believe then, but that doesn't mean you'd be more ready to give your life in love to him, which is the point. It's a relationship of love, not one of mere belief because of existence. James 2.19 says that even Satan and demons know that God exists, but that doesn't mean they follow him or love him. It's not just a matter of belief that he exists.

> God probably woudn't have this problem, since he is not human

Then you've missed my point. I know God isn't human, but oddly enough we are. God can say something as clear as day, and it can be twisted or misunderstood by someone's brain. God doesn't force us to be robots, after all, but has made us to be human, with all the pros and cons that entails.

> It's full of allegories

It's not only full of allegories. The Bible is a rich literary reserve of music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc.

> There isn't a single true appearance of god in his true almighty form

That's because no one can see God and live (Exodus 33.20). He always appears in filtered forms, because our human bodies have a known frailness to them.

> Raise the dead isn't a little miracle

You're right it's not, nor did I claim that it was. What I was saying is that I think if we had a vision of God in our bedroom or something we'd still want some kind of experiential confirmation that it was God.

> People don't believe because these things don't happen, not because they happen and they choose to not believe.

And on what basis can you say they don't happen? There have been thousands upon thousands of stories from history that they do.

> If you say to me "God cured me of my elbow pain" I'd say bullshit.

So would I.

> People don't believe because it's a really, really high chance that god wouldn't choose...

Actually, I just had this conversation recently with another person, and there are very good reasons, arguably, why God chose the era that he did (it's all speculative, of course, since we aren't told).

> He chose a nomad tribe

This doesn't make the ignorant.

> barely literate, with oral traditions to write a book...

We don't really have a means to assess the literacy capabilities of the ancient Israelites. Moses was raised in the courts of Egypt, and was probably literate himself. As slaves, some of them may have been trained as scribes, but we can't know such things. Of course, in ancient cultures oral tradition was considered to be far more reliable than the written word. Even highly-respected Socrates said, "Words put in writing are incapable of being clear and are only useful to remind someone of what they have heard," and "Written words cannot be defended by argument and cannot teach truth effectively." "Barely literate" doesn't mean stupid.

[Shazzam]

> I happen to think, as I said, that the written word reduces the potential of misinterpretation.

Let me just get this straight. You believe that a collection of texts originally written centuries ago, ammended throughout history, translated into different versions and different languages, chopped and changed with some versions completely ommiting certain parts, other versions adding certain parts is better than direct communication with God?

> Sure God is God, but humans are humans...

... that were created by God. Are you seriously suggesting that God isn't capable of communicating with us in a better way than through the demonstrably poor way that is the bible?

>I might be a good teacher...

Hang on are you really trying to say that God's ability to communicate with us is analogous to that of a teacher communicating with his students? Omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God?

> So your demand on God is based on this condition...

I don't believe God exists, I'm not demanding anything. I'm posing a hypothetical to try and get you to think about the irrationality of your beliefs.

[jimwalton]

> You believe that a collection of texts originally written centuries ago, ammended throughout history, translated into different versions and different languages, chopped and changed with some versions completely ommiting certain parts, other versions adding certain parts is better than direct communication with God?

I think that every form of communication has its pros and cons, its strengths and weaknesses. I believe that good communication depends just as much on the receptor as the initiator. I believe that any communication, no matter how clear, is vulnerable to being messed up and misunderstood by certain people. And I think, most to the point, that if the word of God had been passed down only orally from generation to generation to the present day, it would get even less respect and credibility than the text we have today. Actually, because of the work of scholars, we can have confidence that the text we have is probably better than 95% accurate to the originals. That could never be the case (or even explored) if it was all orally transmitted.

> ... that were created by God.

...to be human, not divine. Humans weren't created to be perfect, y'know. Only God is perfect. Any created being is less than God (being uncreated) and therefore capable of imperfection, no matter how good.

> Are you seriously suggesting that God isn't capable of communicating with us in a better way than through the demonstrably poor way that is the bible?

I'm suggesting that the Bible is a demonstrably reliable document.

> Hang on are you really trying to say that God's ability to communicate with us is analogous to that of a teacher communicating with his students? Omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God?

Yep, because his omniscience doesn't guarantee flawless reception by us. He doesn't use his power to cram information into our reluctant brains, and his omnipresence is immaterial to the discussion. You seem to have an image of God that is inconsistent with what the Bible tells us, and quite incompatible with our humanness.