Why such poor writers?

[Zzyzx]

.
If the Bible was "God breathed" (or inspired or whatever is claimed) and if God is taken to be all-wise, why wouldn't "he" have chosen better writers – people with ability to convey information clearly without ambiguities, contradictions, errors, and need for "interpretation"?

Compared to some of the world's great writers, Bible writers "come in third in a two-horse race." There may be some kernels of wisdom (or "diamonds among the dung" as Thomas Paine said). However, the vast bulk of the 800,000 words or so of the bible are intelligible, inapplicable, incredible, fluff that convey no wisdom or guidance to modern people.

Here is a list of the top twenty best writers of all time (from a list of the top one hundred).

William Shakespeare
Charles Dickens
Fyodor Dostoevsky
J.R.R. Tolkien
Leo Tolstoy
Ernest Hemingway
Jane Austen
George Orwell
John Steinbeck
Mark Twain
James Joyce
C.S. Lewis
Alexandre Dumas
Edgar Allan Poe
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Oscar Wilde
Kurt Vonnegut
Franz Kafka
J.K. Rowling
William Faulkner
http://www.thebest100lists.com/best100authors/

A supposedly omniscient God would have (by definition) known that the Bible would be variously transcribed, translated, edited, revised, altered, etc since it is so poorly written -- and choose (or "inspire") some of the likes of the above to produce a better product.

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 19 by Ancient of Years]

If you say Revelation is not enigmatic when you've fought with the symbols and tied them down to some sane meaning I might say that Sumerian is not enigmatic once you recognise the frequently occurring symbol for king or god. To the initiated, what is enigmatic? Am I incorrect in believing that there is great debate over the meaning of the number of the beast, which some, inconclusively, associate with Nero?

But we are in general agreement and your concession on J.K. is a bonus. Here it is past midnight and the choirs of angels have now stopped singing. Ave atque vale.

The number of the beast is rendered as 666 in early Greek manuscripts and 616 in early Latin manuscripts. The Greek name Neron Kaisar transliterated into Hebrew and rendered in Hebrew Gematria yields 666. The Latin name Nero Caesar transliterated into Hebrew and rendered in Hebrew Gematria yields 616. There was a rumor in the late 1st century, an ‘urban legend’ if you will, that Nero did not die but was in hiding and would return to resume the persecutions.

Other interpretations assigning the number to post 1st century persons go against the spirit of Revelation that the end of days was going to happen any time now and not some indefinite time in the future as was becoming popular to say when the expected imminent eschaton never arrived. Revelation’s ultra-dramatic tone and imagery and the piling on of eschatological prophecies was effectively shouting: Listen to me! The end really is near!

Look here for the Catholic Encyclopedia take on Apocalypse (aka Revelation). Find ‘Interpretation’ for a detailed discussion of the meaning of the various symbols in terms of 1st century understanding.

Not sure if this is all on topic or not. If not cave canem.

[Saint_of_Me]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Well, a couple things I gotta say about the Bible. IN defense of the allegedly "poor writers" as you claimed.

First, remember how old it is. The OT was written from between, what? Around 1500 BC till up to around 400 BC? And then the NT begins with Paul's letters which began around 50 AD. Going thru the Four Gospels, dating from around 60 AD with Mark up to about 95 AD with John.

Long time ago! Think about it: we are now closer to Middle Age Writings, like in the 13th to 15th Centuries than THEY were to Biblical times. The vast majority of the people in Palestine and those Near East areas in biblical times were illiterate.

Also, the Bible is NOT a cohesive work. It was compiled from many small scrolls (biblias)--ranging over a dozen or so centuries. Then it was cobbled together in the form we read now not until the 4th century AD or so.

And we have all those translations. First from the Hebrew of the OT writers, into the Greek. (The Pentateuch). And then the Aramaic and Greek NT into Latin. And then German. And then English.

SO it is no wonder about all those discrepancies. Like the differing genealogies; the different accounts of who exactly discovered JC's "empty tomb." Etc. Hell, even Genesis has two different Creation stories. (Of course that book was NEVER meant to be a literal Creation account of the Earth.) But that is another topic.

Also, most of the writers--both OT and NT--had their own personal agendas and Theology. The early Church Leaders also did a LOT of editing. This is why we are only offered a measly four Gospels about Jesus, when ya know there had to be dozens. If the Gospels did not dovetail into the Early Church's own personal dogma, well, they didn't make the cut! LOL

So with all this is it any wonder about all those factual errors? Also you have to remember that most of those stories are metaphorical and allegorical. NOT actual accounts. They are myths. Like my signature says: "The Bible is Not a book of literal truths, but rather, of ETERNAL ones." (Contrary to popular belief, a Myth does not have to be pure fiction.) Sometimes myths is used to convey larger and more profound truths than mere everyday parlance and words can convey.

Of course, though I do consider myself a Christian, I am NOT a biblical literalist. Like some. And I truly feel that people who share my view actually get MORE out of the bible then do the Literalists. This is of course very ironic!

Besides, I don't think all of the writing is that bad. Some of it is awesome! Psalms; Proverbs; Ecclesiastes; Song of Solomon. So are some of the OT stories. I love the stuff about Daniel; Judges; and some of the Genesis writings, like about Joseph. Again....allegory; metaphor. The Exodus tells us that for all of us, we usually live in "Egypt." LOL...that is: Slavery. But that there IS hope and a better place awaiting. But to get there is a long and often torturous Journey. We must go through our own Wilderness.

Again....Allegory. Larger truths. NOT literal. NOT inerrant word of God, certainly.

Inspired by God? Maybe. Some of it. I also think Paul had some damn fine Theology. I love the Gospel of John, though I think it might be the least accurate of the Gospels as far as accurately quoting Jesus. We must remember when it was written, and what the socio-political climate was like. And what the author was TRYING to say to his audience.

There is an old saying that tells us "You can never take a man out of his Time."

This is true with the Bible authors.

God Bless.

[Zzyzx]

.

There is an old saying that tells us "You can never take a man out of his Time."

This is true with the Bible authors.

My thought with the OP is that a supposedly all-wise, all-powerful God could, it seems, choose or make or inspire the world's greatest writers to compile "his" book and convey information effectively to humans (without errors, contradictions, embellishments, etc).

An omniscient, omnipotent God should also be capable of insuring that copies were accurate, translations were faithful to the originals, revisions were not made to alter the message, etc.

[marco]

[Replying to post 19 by Ancient of Years]

If you say Revelation is not enigmatic when you've fought with the symbols and tied them down to some sane meaning I might say that Sumerian is not enigmatic once you recognise the frequently occurring symbol for king or god. To the initiated, what is enigmatic? Am I incorrect in believing that there is great debate over the meaning of the number of the beast, which some, inconclusively, associate with Nero?
quote]
The number of the beast is rendered as 666 in early Greek manuscripts and 616 in early Latin manuscripts. The Greek name Neron Kaisar transliterated into Hebrew and rendered in Hebrew Gematria yields 666. The Latin name Nero Caesar transliterated into Hebrew and rendered in Hebrew Gematria yields 616. There was a rumor in the late 1st century, an ‘urban legend’ if you will, that Nero did not die but was in hiding and would return to resume the persecutions.

Not sure if this is all on topic or not. If not cave canem.

It is absolutely on topic in that, if such arcane symbolism is correct, we can hardly call the author(s) stupid. It also illustrates that, if we move away from simple folk recording the Life of Christ, then we are plagued with extraneous cleverness. Your reference is fascinating but I much prefer Suetonius on the death of Nero (qualis artifex pereo). The numeric association with Nero's name is maybe a clever contrivance. If we take triple acceptance (oui, oui, oui) as the mark of some Faustian bargain and transliterate our French into Latin, we get vi vi vi - Q.E.D. The opinions of the formidable array of early scholars are not something for a casual observer to trifle with but it looks as though OT texts were taken and embroidered in symbols. If we conclude Revelation is not God-inspired we are firmly in the field of the OP.

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

There is an old saying that tells us "You can never take a man out of his Time."

This is true with the Bible authors.

God Bless.

All very well but they are supposed to be writing "out of their time" rather than giving mere details of the lost family pet. And to a great extent they do function as commentators on events far beyond them, giving folk a blueprint for living their modern lives. Our impatience at their nonsense about sacrifices is offset by our surprise at their proverbial wisdom.

Our surprise turns to irritation when God starts his soliloquy. Go well.

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 19 by Ancient of Years]

If you say Revelation is not enigmatic when you've fought with the symbols and tied them down to some sane meaning I might say that Sumerian is not enigmatic once you recognise the frequently occurring symbol for king or god. To the initiated, what is enigmatic? Am I incorrect in believing that there is great debate over the meaning of the number of the beast, which some, inconclusively, associate with Nero?
quote]
The number of the beast is rendered as 666 in early Greek manuscripts and 616 in early Latin manuscripts. The Greek name Neron Kaisar transliterated into Hebrew and rendered in Hebrew Gematria yields 666. The Latin name Nero Caesar transliterated into Hebrew and rendered in Hebrew Gematria yields 616. There was a rumor in the late 1st century, an ‘urban legend’ if you will, that Nero did not die but was in hiding and would return to resume the persecutions.

Not sure if this is all on topic or not. If not cave canem.

It is absolutely on topic in that, if such arcane symbolism is correct, we can hardly call the author(s) stupid. It also illustrates that, if we move away from simple folk recording the Life of Christ, then we are plagued with extraneous cleverness. Your reference is fascinating but I much prefer Suetonius on the death of Nero (qualis artifex pereo). The numeric association with Nero's name is maybe a clever contrivance. If we take triple acceptance (oui, oui, oui) as the mark of some Faustian bargain and transliterate our French into Latin, we get vi vi vi - Q.E.D. The opinions of the formidable array of early scholars are not something for a casual observer to trifle with but it looks as though OT texts were taken and embroidered in symbols. If we conclude Revelation is not God-inspired we are firmly in the field of the OP.

“If we move away from simple folk recording the Life of Christ, then we are plagued with extraneous cleverness.�

The cleverness is not at all extraneous. There is actually no reason for thinking that the Gospels were written by simple folk. Even in the most orthodox traditions Mark and Luke were not Apostles but were later researchers educated enough to write in Greek. Mark was supposed to have recorded Peter’s recounting. Luke said he investigated multiple sources including apparently eyewitnesses. Matthew was supposed to be a tax collector and likely educated. One could make a case that John, the ‘beloved disciple’, was a rabbi well known in Jerusalem. This of course differs from the tradition that he was the Apostle John, who would presumably have been a ‘simple folk’.

But for me the ‘proof positive’ demonstration that the Gospel writers were rewriting the traditions they received and inventing new material as they needed is the clear agendas of each of the writers. These agendas are not only oriented to their respective audiences to the point of theological slant but address the theological problems raised by the passage of time and even by each other. The Gospels survived and became de facto canonical because like Paul’s letters they addressed the problems facing early Christians.

John of Patmos, the author of Revelation and clearly not the author of the Gospel of John, was certainly well read in the scriptures and capable of weaving all those references into a smooth (if startling!) narrative. He was no ‘simple folk’.

Concerning that number:

To begin with chi xi stigma (See Rev 13:18) does not mean three 6s. It means six hundred and sixty and six. Arabic numerals and positional notation were centuries in the future. The modern representation as 666 is the correct number but would not have been separated into three sixes in Greek. Remember that the Greek words for Nero end up in 666 and the Latin words for Nero end up in 616. The Greek texts use 666. The Latin texts use 616. Any interpretation other than the Emperor Nero would have to align with the two numbers.

Consider that John of Patmos expected his 1st century audience to ‘get it’.

Revelation 13:18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.

Now consider that the original audience of Revelation was 1st century Christians who would well know who Nero was and would fear his return from the ‘dead’ as was frequently rumored. (Nero Redivivus) It is not that Nero was not dead but that he might not have been really most sincerely dead.

[marco]

The cleverness is not at all extraneous. There is actually no reason for thinking that the Gospels were written by simple folk.

I have no quarrel at all with what you've written. We are arguing, Ancient, about why God would choose simple writers. I was presumptuously supplying reasons. We both, it seems, have tossed God overboard and that being so it strengthens our convictions if we find "extraneous intelligence" - by which I meant signs of authorial rather than divine inspiration; writers going their own way.

The details revealed in Revelation don't enhance God's position but merely commend the ingenuity of humans, especially those who were persecuted. Ubi est voluntas, ecce via.

[Ancient of Years]

The cleverness is not at all extraneous. There is actually no reason for thinking that the Gospels were written by simple folk.

I have no quarrel at all with what you've written. We are arguing, Ancient, about why God would choose simple writers. I was presumptuously supplying reasons. We both, it seems, have tossed God overboard and that being so it strengthens our convictions if we find "extraneous intelligence" - by which I meant signs of authorial rather than divine inspiration; writers going their own way.

The details revealed in Revelation don't enhance God's position but merely commend the ingenuity of humans, especially those who were persecuted. Ubi est voluntas, ecce via.

To be clear, it is not finding the cleverness or intelligence that strengthens my non-theist convictions. I would expect messages from God to be delivered through competent individuals. It is the plain reading of the contents of the several works in the context of the times and the implications that has for a supposedly univocal Bible. It is as you said “writers going their own way� and for readily discernable reasons that are clearly not God-inspired.

Concerning my Latin skills “Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas� (*). After all, it has been nearly sixty years. Or is that six hundred?


* Translation: The pony would sing but he is a little hoarse today.

[Willum]

.

There is an old saying that tells us "You can never take a man out of his Time."

This is true with the Bible authors.

My thought with the OP is that a supposedly all-wise, all-powerful God could, it seems, choose or make or inspire the world's greatest writers to compile "his" book and convey information effectively to humans (without errors, contradictions, embellishments, etc).

An omniscient, omnipotent God should also be capable of insuring that copies were accurate, translations were faithful to the originals, revisions were not made to alter the message, etc.

So why does god have to be all wise?
In another OP that went nowhere, no one could handle the idea that when God put Jesus on Earth all the might of Omnipotence, and all All-Seeingness was put on equal footing with stupid human stupidity: Pilate could have been sick that day, or let Jesus go, or any number of things could have gone right or wrong.

Not accounting for the fact that whomever was trusted to write the Bible, would have re-written it to suite their needs.

[Zzyzx]

.

So why does god have to be all wise?

According to many Religionists, their favorite God is all-EVERYTHING (perfect in every respect). Of course this claim leads to problems for Apologists attempting to make sense of tales that credit God with words and actions that appear to be far from "perfect".