Thread: Holy Bible Scriptures: Hard to understand or easy to understand?

Originally Posted by Sean Michael

Can you not see you are exactly making my point you are saying they are wrong, but they are saying the same thing about you.
Protestants do this all the time, claiming they are right and the way they have interpretted the Bible is correct and that those who say differently are incorrect.
The Bible is a book, it is authorative, but it does not interpret itself as Protestants claim, it cannot literally speak. What you take from the Bible is what You believe it means. The Catholic Church as an institution and guidance from the Holy Spirit interprets it and the Catholic Church has assurance from Christ it will not error. Each individual should not interpret the meanings of the Bible for themself even with what they believe to be guidance from the Holy Spirit, the 'Holy Spirit' may in fact not actually be the 'Holy Spirit' at all it maybe their own subconcious telling them what to take from the verses that which is already in accordance with their own theology.

Unless they are able to back it up with scripture then they are only expressing their personal opinion. So unless they can show me for example where in the Bible it says that I am in error about baptism they are wrong. The interpretation of one part of a chapter, verse or book can be found in that same chapter, verse, that same book or even another book in the Bible.

Here's an example.

Peter's vision

Acts 10:9-18 (ASV)
9 Now on the morrow, as they were on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour:
10 and he became hungry, and desired to eat: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance;
11 and he beholdeth the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth:
12 wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the heaven.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean.
15 And a voice came unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, make not thou common.
16 And this was done thrice: and straightway the vessel was received up into heaven.
17 Now while Peter was much perplexed in himself what the vision which he had seen might mean, behold, the men that were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon's house, stood before the gate,
18 and called and asked whether Simon, who was surnamed Peter, were lodging there.

The interpretation of Peter's vision


Acts 10:19-33 (ASV)
19 And while Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
20 But arise, and get thee down, and go with them, nothing doubting: for I have sent them.
21 And Peter went down to the men, and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?
22 And they said, Cornelius a centurion, a righteous man and one that feareth God, and well reported of by all the nation of the Jews, was warned of God by a holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words from thee.
23 So he called them in and lodged them. And on the morrow he arose and went forth with them, and certain of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
24 And on the morrow they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius was waiting for them, having called together his kinsmen and his near friends.
25 And when it came to pass that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter raised him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and findeth many come together:
28 and he said unto them, Ye yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to join himself or come unto one of another nation; and yet unto me hath God showed that I should not call any man common or unclean:
29 wherefore also I came without gainsaying, when I was sent for. I ask therefore with what intent ye sent for me.
30 And Cornelius said, Four days ago, until this hour, I was keeping the ninth hour of prayer in my house; and behold, a man stood before me in bright apparel,
31 and saith, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call unto thee Simon, who is surnamed Peter; he lodgeth in the house of Simon a tanner, by the sea side.
33 Forthwith therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore we are all here present in the sight of God, to hear all things that have been commanded thee of the Lord.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

It is hard to understand a work as infallible truth when that same work contradicts itself numerous times.

But very few Christians understand the Bible as infallible. In fact, that's Islam's thing. Most Christians will tell you that the Bible is not the verbatim word of God. And therein lies the answer, if you're a believer. To see why the Scriptures can be vague, one need only look at a kind of cosmic game of telephone. Every single person, Christian or otherwise, accepts that the physical ink was put onto physical paper by human beings, even if it was divinely inspired, humans did the literal writing. So let's accept that it is divinely inspired. That means that the omniscient God relayed His message to not omniscient human beings, and so, obviously, something will have been lost, because no human can comprehend the divine. Further, in addition to being "dumbed down" the information would have been filtered through the life experiences and prejudices of the human author. There would be loss here as well. Finally, almost no one reads the Scriptures in Aramaic anymore. Most read it in their native language, or if you're especially educated, maybe Latin or Greek. And as with any translation, certain subtleties are lost when the Bible is translated. So there's a possible answer if you're a believer. The passages are vague not because the passages were meant to be vague (although, maybe many were.) But rather because the Bible comes to us through a cosmic game of telephone.

Originally Posted by SGTKPF

But very few Christians understand the Bible as infallible. In fact, that's Islam's thing. Most Christians will tell you that the Bible is not the verbatim word of God. And therein lies the answer, if you're a believer. To see why the Scriptures can be vague, one need only look at a kind of cosmic game of telephone. Every single person, Christian or otherwise, accepts that the physical ink was put onto physical paper by human beings, even if it was divinely inspired, humans did the literal writing. So let's accept that it is divinely inspired. That means that the omniscient God relayed His message to not omniscient human beings, and so, obviously, something will have been lost, because no human can comprehend the divine. Further, in addition to being "dumbed down" the information would have been filtered through the life experiences and prejudices of the human author. There would be loss here as well. Finally, almost no one reads the Scriptures in Aramaic anymore. Most read it in their native language, or if you're especially educated, maybe Latin or Greek. And as with any translation, certain subtleties are lost when the Bible is translated. So there's a possible answer if you're a believer. The passages are vague not because the passages were meant to be vague (although, maybe many were.) But rather because the Bible comes to us through a cosmic game of telephone.

Not everything in the Bible is written in those who were inspired own words.......some things in it are God's direct own words or command. For example, God instructed Noah how to build the Ark. Another example, the clothing that the priests were to wear and the temple and how the sacrifices were to be administered and so on.

But any so-call Christian that says the Bible is not infallible is not what they make themselves out to be. But then, maybe that’s why so many do not read it let alone study it or even really understand it. But I would love to know what denomination those "Christians" belong to because I have never heard any say that.

Originally Posted by BFSmith@764

Unless they are able to back it up with scripture then they are only expressing their personal opinion. So unless they can show me for example where in the Bible it says that I am in error about baptism they are wrong. The interpretation of one part of a chapter, verse or book can be found in that same chapter, verse, that same book or even another book in the Bible.

Here's an example.

Peter's vision

Acts 10:9-18 (ASV)
9 Now on the morrow, as they were on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour:
10 and he became hungry, and desired to eat: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance;
11 and he beholdeth the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth:
12 wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the heaven.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean.
15 And a voice came unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, make not thou common.
16 And this was done thrice: and straightway the vessel was received up into heaven.
17 Now while Peter was much perplexed in himself what the vision which he had seen might mean, behold, the men that were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon's house, stood before the gate,
18 and called and asked whether Simon, who was surnamed Peter, were lodging there.

The interpretation of Peter's vision


Acts 10:19-33 (ASV)
19 And while Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
20 But arise, and get thee down, and go with them, nothing doubting: for I have sent them.
21 And Peter went down to the men, and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?
22 And they said, Cornelius a centurion, a righteous man and one that feareth God, and well reported of by all the nation of the Jews, was warned of God by a holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words from thee.
23 So he called them in and lodged them. And on the morrow he arose and went forth with them, and certain of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
24 And on the morrow they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius was waiting for them, having called together his kinsmen and his near friends.
25 And when it came to pass that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter raised him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and findeth many come together:
28 and he said unto them, Ye yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to join himself or come unto one of another nation; and yet unto me hath God showed that I should not call any man common or unclean:
29 wherefore also I came without gainsaying, when I was sent for. I ask therefore with what intent ye sent for me.
30 And Cornelius said, Four days ago, until this hour, I was keeping the ninth hour of prayer in my house; and behold, a man stood before me in bright apparel,
31 and saith, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call unto thee Simon, who is surnamed Peter; he lodgeth in the house of Simon a tanner, by the sea side.
33 Forthwith therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore we are all here present in the sight of God, to hear all things that have been commanded thee of the Lord.

You are doing exactly what I said all Protestants do. You have given only verses that support your argument that baptism is not neccessary, other Protestants who claim baptism is neccessary as do Catholics also can also quote verse in favour of their intepretation.
Ezekiel 3 6:25, Matthew 28:19, Mark 1:4, Mark 16:16, Luke 3:3, John 3:5, Acts 2:38-41, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-41, Corinthians 6:11, Corinthians 10:1-2, Galatians 3:26-27, Ephesians 4:5, Ephesians 5:26, Colossians 2:12, Titus 3:5, Hebrews 10:22, 1 Peter 3:20-21.

I canalso quote verse that supports infant baptism.

Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, Acts 18:8, 1 Corinthians 1:16 (Many biblical passages connect household and children) Genesis 18:19, Genesis 47:12, Numbers 18:11, Chronicles 10:6, Matthew 19:29, 1 Timothy 3:12

In other biblical passages, entire households are referred to as being saved:
Luke 19:9, Acts 11:14, Acts 16:31.

Infants are part of the covenant and salvation.
Genesis 17:7, Deuteronomy 10:16, Deuteronomy 29:10-12, Deuteronomy 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4, Jeremiah 9:25, Matthew 19:14, Romans 2:26-29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13.

Protestants quote Bible verses to support their own postion, but ignore the verses that quite evidently are in opposition to their theology. I do not believe it is intentional, I think they are looking for verses to support their view, when they find the verses they think that proves I'm right, and they simply ignore other verses that are in complete contradiction to their view.

Wake up to your hypocrisy. You claim all these other Protestant churches that say they go by the Bible and use it as their sole authority are wrong. And they are making the same claim about you. The thing is the Bible should be interpretted through the magesterium of the Church.

Originally Posted by Sean Michael

You are doing exactly what I said all Protestants do. You have given only verses that support your argument that baptism is not neccessary, other Protestants who claim baptism is neccessary as do Catholics also can also quote verse in favour of their intepretation.
Ezekiel 3 6:25, Matthew 28:19, Mark 1:4, Mark 16:16, Luke 3:3, John 3:5, Acts 2:38-41, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-41, Corinthians 6:11, Corinthians 10:1-2, Galatians 3:26-27, Ephesians 4:5, Ephesians 5:26, Colossians 2:12, Titus 3:5, Hebrews 10:22, 1 Peter 3:20-21.

First thing: Ezekiel 36:25 is not baptism, baptism means to immersion, submersion and emergence. The second thing: baptism is supported in the Bible and all those who believed the gospel were baptized. But there is nothing special about being baptized other than it being a testament that one has come under a particular belief or teaching. It also symbolized one's death and coming up a new creation. I have also said that some people had received the Holy Spirit and were not baptized but did so or was allowed to after the evidence of them receiving the Holy Spirit was expressed. And I also asked who would refuse to be baptized? But nowhere in the Bible does it say that baptism is necessary for salvation any more than reading the Bible, but a child of God would never refuse to read the Bible.

Originally Posted by Sean Michael

I canalso quote verse that supports infant baptism.

Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, Acts 18:8, 1 Corinthians 1:16 (Many biblical passages connect household and children) Genesis 18:19, Genesis 47:12, Numbers 18:11, Chronicles 10:6, Matthew 19:29, 1 Timothy 3:12

In other biblical passages, entire households are referred to as being saved:
Luke 19:9, Acts 11:14, Acts 16:31.

Infants are part of the covenant and salvation.
Genesis 17:7, Deuteronomy 10:16, Deuteronomy 29:10-12, Deuteronomy 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4, Jeremiah 9:25, Matthew 19:14, Romans 2:26-29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13.

Protestants quote Bible verses to support their own postion, but ignore the verses that quite evidently are in opposition to their theology. I do not believe it is intentional, I think they are looking for verses to support their view, when they find the verses they think that proves I'm right, and they simply ignore other verses that are in complete contradiction to their view.

Wake up to your hypocrisy. You claim all these other Protestant churches that say they go by the Bible and use it as their sole authority are wrong. And they are making the same claim about you. The thing is the Bible should be interpretted through the magesterium of the Church.

Well, one would be assuming that infants were baptized just because it says his household. In fact one would also be assuming that such a person's household had infants. And to clarify again, sprinkling and being baptized are two different things. One has to do with sprinkling and the other have to do with putting the person under water and immediately bring them back up.

Originally Posted by 4Horsemen

Why do people, in general, claim that Biblblical scripture is hard to understand and so vague that you have to put your own interpretation on it? When that couldn't be further from the truth?

I would compare it to the Constitution. It is only useful when it can be used to justify our position. If it contradicts our position, then it becomes a living breathing ever changing document that needs revision to keep up with modern times.

Originally Posted by BFSmith@764

But nowhere in the Bible does it say that baptism is necessary for salvation any more than reading the Bible, but a child of God would never refuse to read the Bible.

How do you explain Mark 16:16?
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Notice that being "saved" is dependent upon two actions: 1) believing; 2) being baptized.

BTW, that passage is attributed to Jesus. Are you calling him a liar?

Originally Posted by The Wyrd of Gawd

How do you explain Mark 16:16?
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Notice that being "saved" is dependent upon two actions: 1) believing; 2) being baptized.

BTW, that passage is attributed to Jesus. Are you calling him a liar?

If you read it carefully you will see that it only say those who don't believe will be condemned. The problem though is people today do not understand what baptism means…..it means professing publicly that the individual comes under the teaching of a particular person. That is why Jesus got baptized by John…..it was not a matter that His salvation was dependent on that but to show the world whose teaching He is under. The next problem is we live in an age in which people are so rebellious that the only way they will do what is right is if they are compelled by law to do it, so they can’t imagine God’s people knowing and wanting to do something without being compelled or threatened to do it. To the rebellious that is what Christianity and religion is about…..do this or that or else.

Originally Posted by 4Horsemen

Why do people, in general, claim that Biblblical scripture is hard to understand and so vague that you have to put your own interpretation on it? When that couldn't be further from the truth?

I can't even make it all the way through the Book of genesis. I can no longer suspend reality once I get to chapter 5 and the list of the descendants of Adam. Come on... people living 1000 years?! Bible says it so it must be true! I have talked to a few Christians about this, and they either defend it as 100% truth, or they say look beyond the words to see the bigger picture.

I am more a fan of the New Testament anyway.

Originally Posted by SGTKPF

But very few Christians understand the Bible as infallible. In fact, that's Islam's thing. Most Christians will tell you that the Bible is not the verbatim word of God. And therein lies the answer, if you're a believer. To see why the Scriptures can be vague, one need only look at a kind of cosmic game of telephone. Every single person, Christian or otherwise, accepts that the physical ink was put onto physical paper by human beings, even if it was divinely inspired, humans did the literal writing. So let's accept that it is divinely inspired. That means that the omniscient God relayed His message to not omniscient human beings, and so, obviously, something will have been lost, because no human can comprehend the divine. Further, in addition to being "dumbed down" the information would have been filtered through the life experiences and prejudices of the human author. There would be loss here as well. Finally, almost no one reads the Scriptures in Aramaic anymore. Most read it in their native language, or if you're especially educated, maybe Latin or Greek. And as with any translation, certain subtleties are lost when the Bible is translated. So there's a possible answer if you're a believer. The passages are vague not because the passages were meant to be vague (although, maybe many were.) But rather because the Bible comes to us through a cosmic game of telephone.

Close but no cigar...GOD made us with limited knowledge because he wants certain things to not be known. that's just how it is. And mankind has to accept that.

So when GOD inspired mankind to write the pages of the Bible, it was gonna have some vagueness in it, and that alone shows that GOD's mind is too powerful to comprehend, so we were given only a morsel of his abilities by have 30+ authors write the Bible but none of them knew each other, but all their strories connect like dominos thru time all the way to the end.

The Bible is indeed mankind's timeline on earth.