The Bible

[Richard735]

Thr Bible is the inspired word of God. Why did God not say what He means and mean what He says? Why would God not inspire the authors of the books to speak clearly and straightforward? Why do we need hundreds of books to explain what God means? Inspiring someone to write clearly, in simple declarative sentences would not seem to be so difficult for God. It is insulting to God for us to presume we know what His words really mean and that we have to write volumes on His words beause He is incapable of making Himself understood.

Richard

 

[NHInsider]

Richard-

I think you may be asking two different questions. One has to do with why God doesn’t speak to us in an unmistakeable way. I think this gets to the issue of faith and love - that God does not want to just “make us” love Him and follow Him, because that wouldn’t be love, it would be coerced. God gives us free will because He has made us in his image, and that includes being free.

As to your specifically stated question, I disagree that it is easy to write language that doesn’t need to be interpreted to be understood. Virtually every written communication is subject to varying understandings, as it is filtered through the mind of the reader, each of whom brings to the process their own experiences and understandings, the ways they use language, etc. Written communication loses the impact of vocal inflection, body language, and the opportunity to restate and reshape in response to the responses of the listener. Just think of how often we see misunderstandings in emails for this very reason.

Now add to the inherent weakness of written communication the implications of passing down written communication through generations and in multiple, ever-changing languages. Think about the difference in the ways people thought about and understood the cosmos in Moses’ day and the ways we think about it now. What examples, what references, what images could be used that would have exactly the same meaning for us that they had for them? Consider even the ways English has changed in the few centuries since the D-R and KJV translations were done - (Luke 18:16 - “Suffer the little children to come unto me” Huh? “Suffer” has changed meaning drastically in the intervening years.) Even documents written with every effort to be explicit, clear and unambiguous frequently require re-interpretation over the years (think of laws in general, or the U.S. Constitution in particular.)

Then, finally, there is the question of inspiration. We do not, obviously, believe that God wrote the words with a giant quill (although many of us probably thought that when we were children). We also do not believe that God dictated the words that were written. The process of inspiration includes what was recorded, and how and by whom, and what was preserved, and how and by whom, and what was determined to have authority, and how and by whom. So the Scripture we treasure today includes fragments of ancient songs, multiple narrative accounts of the same events, a variety of genres and themes, all passed down, transcribed, copied, translated and copied again. It is, in some ways, a process more astounding than it would have been had God written it with a giant quill! But it is, as you rightly observe, not straightforward.

But insulting? I don’t think so. If you think someone is an imbecile, you speak slowly and directly and try not to leave any possibility for interpretation and misunderstanding. If you are engaging in conversation with someone you respect and love, your language is very different, more interesting, more inspiring, more poetic, more playful.

I don’t know if this helps answer your query at all, but it’s an interesting thought process- thanks for that!

 

[ohioszo]

Richard-

I think you may be asking two different questions. One has to do with why God doesn’t speak to us in an unmistakeable way. I think this gets to the issue of faith and love - that God does not want to just “make us” love Him and follow Him, because that wouldn’t be love, it would be coerced. God gives us free will because He has made us in his image, and that includes being free.

As to your specifically stated question, I disagree that it is easy to write language that doesn’t need to be interpreted to be understood. Virtually every written communication is subject to varying understandings, as it is filtered through the mind of the reader, each of whom brings to the process their own experiences and understandings, the ways they use language, etc. Written communication loses the impact of vocal inflection, body language, and the opportunity to restate and reshape in response to the responses of the listener. Just think of how often we see misunderstandings in emails for this very reason.

Now add to the inherent weakness of written communication the implications of passing down written communication through generations and in multiple, ever-changing languages. Think about the difference in the ways people thought about and understood the cosmos in Moses’ day and the ways we think about it now. What examples, what references, what images could be used that would have exactly the same meaning for us that they had for them? Consider even the ways English has changed in the few centuries since the D-R and KJV translations were done - (Luke 18:16 - “Suffer the little children to come unto me” Huh? “Suffer” has changed meaning drastically in the intervening years.) Even documents written with every effort to be explicit, clear and unambiguous frequently require re-interpretation over the years (think of laws in general, or the U.S. Constitution in particular.)

Then, finally, there is the question of inspiration. We do not, obviously, believe that God wrote the words with a giant quill (although many of us probably thought that when we were children). We also do not believe that God dictated the words that were written. The process of inspiration includes what was recorded, and how and by whom, and what was preserved, and how and by whom, and what was determined to have authority, and how and by whom. So the Scripture we treasure today includes fragments of ancient songs, multiple narrative accounts of the same events, a variety of genres and themes, all passed down, transcribed, copied, translated and copied again. It is, in some ways, a process more astounding than it would have been had God written it with a giant quill! But it is, as you rightly observe, not straightforward.

But insulting? I don’t think so. If you think someone is an imbecile, you speak slowly and directly and try not to leave any possibility for interpretation and misunderstanding. If you are engaging in conversation with someone you respect and love, your language is very different, more interesting, more inspiring, more poetic, more playful.

I don’t know if this helps answer your query at all, but it’s an interesting thought process- thanks for that!

I really like your posting. The OP question and your clear response does bring to mind what my cousin once wondered about, whether there were secret messages in the Bible. You found them by somehow jumping within the pages, over words … I don’t know how it was done, but, my cousin is Catholic. The idea was that the Bible is so perfect that even hidden messages from God are there.

 

[Epistemes]

Thr Bible is the inspired word of God. Why did God not say what He means and mean what He says? Why would God not inspire the authors of the books to speak clearly and straightforward? Why do we need hundreds of books to explain what God means? Inspiring someone to write clearly, in simple declarative sentences would not seem to be so difficult for God. It is insulting to God for us to presume we know what His words really mean and that we have to write volumes on His words beause He is incapable of making Himself understood.

Richard

Beyond the Bible, why isn’t the Qur’an, which is believed by Muslims to be the *direct *word of God, more easy to understand? This is a question for the non-Catholic forums, but it at least touches upon the same concern - a question concerning inspiration, prophecy and interpretation.

I’m reminded of a passage from the Letter to the Hebrews:

*Since in Jesus, the Son of God, we have the supreme high priest who has gone through to the highest heaven, we must hold firm to our profession of faith. For the high priest we have is not incapable of feeling our weaknesses with us, but has been put to the test in exactly the same way as ourselves, apart from sin. Let us, then, have no fear in approaching the throne of grace to receive mercy and to find grace when we are in need of help. * (4:14-16)

Why this passage? Because the alternative is that we’re given an unsympathetic, judging God who demands a regimental lifestyle lived in strict observance and any deviations are tantamount to damnation. This is why cults are so popular: a list of rules defines one’s life, everything is laid out, and human ingenuity, spontanaeity, and general good will are sacrificed for a life of asceticism and bitterness. (Catharism and Heaven’s Gate immediately springs to mind.)

The Bible is truly a sympathetic *hypostatic *document if you really take the time to understand it. Even if Bible were to contain nothing but a list of rules and regulations by which we should live, life itself would prove a great hindrance to carrying out those rules and regulations daily. Rather, instead of such, we’ve been given a document that conveys its message of salvation within the context of what it’s like to be human, to err, to seek, etc.

 

[ohioszo]

Beyond the Bible, why isn’t the Qur’an, which is believed by Muslims to be the *direct *word of God, more easy to understand? This is a question for the non-Catholic forums, but it at least touches upon the same concern - a question concerning inspiration, prophecy and interpretation.

I’m reminded of a passage from the Letter to the Hebrews:

*Since in Jesus, the Son of God, we have the supreme high priest who has gone through to the highest heaven, we must hold firm to our profession of faith. For the high priest we have is not incapable of feeling our weaknesses with us, but has been put to the test in exactly the same way as ourselves, apart from sin. Let us, then, have no fear in approaching the throne of grace to receive mercy and to find grace when we are in need of help. * (4:14-16)

Why this passage? Because the alternative is that we’re given an unsympathetic, judging God who demands a regimental lifestyle lived in strict observance and any deviations are tantamount to damnation. This is why cults are so popular: a list of rules defines one’s life, everything is laid out, and human ingenuity, spontanaeity, and general good will are sacrificed for a life of asceticism and bitterness. (Catharism and Heaven’s Gate immediately springs to mind.)

The Bible is truly a sympathetic *hypostatic *document if you really take the time to understand it. Even if Bible were to contain nothing but a list of rules and regulations by which we should live, life itself would prove a great hindrance to carrying out those rules and regulations daily. Rather, instead of such, we’ve been given a document that conveys its message of salvation within the context of what it’s like to be human, to err, to seek, etc.

Thank for your post, good reading. To the OP: The message of the OT is rather simple, whether looking at it closely or at the totality … a salvation story, awaiting the messiah, belief in God. The NT, as fullfillment of the OT. Jesus’ parables taken from the simple lives of a farming, shepherding people. Parables that they understand quicker then by the arrogant Pharisees, who are kind of locked into the law’s do’s and don’ts. Readings of the Bible are arranged for reading at Mass, by putting alike messages together. Books that are written about the Bible are inspirational reading, historical reading, … someone else can elaborate … but, interpretational, it is not absolutely necessary. If you listen to the Popes, for instance, you will not hear anything that is not from God, when they teach. It is the individual who leaves some beliefs that are from God, behind, that finds the teachings unusual.

 

[Bible_Reader]

I am rather fond of the multi-valent nature of Scripture (which I find to be, even without its divine meaning, exquisitely beautiful literature – particularly in the original languages).

The CCC 115-118 refers to this ancient tradition:

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.

1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

Without the subtlety and complexity of scripture, rich exegesis would not be possible.

Incidentally, there is a strikingly similar Jewish tradition for the four-fold interpretation of Scripture, called PaRDeS (PaRaDiSe).