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.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

An answer is your point is well taken (as always!),

"Wouldn't God..."?

Absolutely, so, one must look for other explanation, a null hypothesis, so to speak.

What is a good "null"?

That is was written by men to be persuasive, and the techniques they use would be the weaknesses you identified. The instillation of doubt.

If we approach this from this standpoint, we would see a theme OF doubt and the inability to disprove negatives, like "you can't prove that there aren't any unicorns," and false paths of the general form, "Thou shalt not offend thy lord thy dragons, for thou art tasty when roasted."

So, ultimately, are the gems of wisdom in the Bible:
"Thou shalt have no gods before me."? Even though there may not be any gods, or even the one?
Are most arguments resolved by: "You can't prove there isn't a god"? or other reliances on the unknown.

If this is the case, then this is the case. QED.

[WinePusher]

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"?

Ambiguity is actually a literary device that good writers employ all the time. A few examples would be The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ulysses by James Joyce, Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger, the list goes on and on, and this is just from the American literary tradition. So to suggest that ambiguity is an indication of "poor writing" is flat out wrong.

Similarly, all literary texts require interpretation. Shakespeare has been interpreted in hundreds of papers written by highschoolers and doctoral candidates in literature. His plays, particularly his tragic plays, require interpretation and literary criticism in order to be fully understood. The works of Edgar Allen Poe, a famous author of gothic literature, requires intense interpretation and criticism. In fact, there is an entire field of literature called Literary Theory and Criticism that is devoted to interpreting and criticizing the literary works written by the authors on your list. So to suggest that the "need for interpretation" is an indication of poor writing is again, flat out wrong.

Lastly, errors and discrepancies do have any relevance to whether or not a text is well written. Good writing has to do with sentence structure, word choice, imagery, character development, syntax, etc.

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.

Your opinion really doesn't matter though. There are many people who find much, much truth and wisdom in the Bible. Your opinion is no better than theirs.

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/

And many of these authors employ ambiguity in their works. The texts written by many of these authors also require interpretation and criticism.

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.

Translating a text does not have any bearing on whether or not the text is well written. Texts are translated because people speak different languages. Many classical texts from antiquity have been translated, such as the Odyseey, the Iliad, the Aeneid, Antigone, all of which are texts that are held in high esteem. Seems like that idea that the biblical authors were poor writers has no merit.

[Goose]

Good writing has to do with sentence structure, word choice, imagery, character development, syntax, etc.

I'll add to this that one of the common arguments against the traditional authorship of some New Testament books is that the Greek is SO good they couldn't possibly have been written by Jewish fishermen. In light of this, it seems Zzyzx may be unwittingly arguing for the traditional authorship of some of the NT.

[2Dbunk]

Ambiguity is actually a literary device that good writers employ all the time. A few examples would be The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ulysses by James Joyce, Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger, the list goes on and on, and this is just from the American literary tradition. So to suggest that ambiguity is an indication of "poor writing" is flat out wrong.

The Bible is a universal "Do as God says . . . to lead a good, moral and fearing life" not a Grapes of Wrath or The Great Gatsby, compartmentalized stories moralizing on social problems of the day. It is to many the ultimate "To-Do" manual and should be written as simply as possibility, allowing no room for misunderstanding. You (WinePusher) are of the one percent who appreciate the fine nuances of literature, but I believe (or should hope) the Bible was written for the understanding of the masses (at least that was Luther and other Protestants' interpretation). How many of the masses understand Ulysses or The Idiot?

For God's sake man, the Bible is nothing less than a how-to manual for attaining eternal life -- it should be kept as unambiguous as possible. Would you appreciate a "how-to-operate your water softener" manual to be open to different interpretations? I don't think so.

What's REALLY interesting is that many of intelligentsia (connoisseurs of fine literature not without standing) find the Bible lacking in overall morality and historical accuracy -- just read what many of Z's 20 mentioned authors have to say about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Islam is ALL that a religion can be!

[marco]

[quote="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"?"

Your list of great writers pays almost exclusive tribute to those writing in English!

If God had used a Dickens or a Tolstoy then the literary brilliance would have detracted from the intended message. Christ chose simple folk, not a Plato, an Aristotle, a Virgil, a Dante... and that leads the reader to deduce the message comes not from the scribe but the teacher. I am sure that Raskolnikov, as the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son, would have been a great distraction.

It is interesting to note that Allah chose the illiterate Muhammad and that choice renders - some argue - the Koran an obvious work of God.

Having said this, I find some passages in Scripture remarkably touching - David's lament for example. During the week I am not usually a theist but I am finding myself supporting the Lord more and more in my arguments - so I hope he is watching and taking note.

[Pompey]

[Replying to post 6 by marco]

Actually there are a lot of non-english writers on that list. Their books may have been translated into English, but I see multiple Russians, Czechs, French, etc. on that list.

I also don't really buy that good writing would be a distraction. I would think bad writing would be a distraction. When you read a great writer, you forget that you're reading someone else' words, they absorb you into the text. Bad writers constantly break that immersion unintentionally, as does happen in certain biblical books.

Now personally, I don't believe the bible is quite as bad as many say it is. Job, for example, is remarkable. I do agree that it is interesting as to the reason that God would have flawed people write it. Compared to the greats listed in the OP, it does seem to beg the question as to why people of that caliber weren't chosen. Of course to the non-Christian the answer is obvious, or perhaps to the liberal Christian as well. It is the way it is because PEOPLE are responsible for it. Does the bible claim any different? Can one not be "inspired" by God to write a flawed text? What is the extent of the word "inspire" or "God Breathed?" Christians would be wise to not treat the bible like it is actually God's word. Especially because it seems to be a very un-biblical concept.

[Ancient of Years]

Much of the ambiguities and contradictions arise from the fact that the scriptures were written by many different people for varying purposes, not to mention for audiences of cultures very different from today. Since they were written long ago, errors are not surprising.

Most of the works of the authors on the top 100 list also convey no wisdom or guidance to modern people. They range from high art to just plain entertainment. J.K. Rowling is #19! Surely Harry Potter is inapplicable fluff.

The purpose of the scriptures was to hold communities together. For the Jews, it was rules on how to live and thereby be a Jew, various stories invented whole or co-opted to illustrate Hebrew theology or embellishments of history to amplify the sense of a Jewish community. For the early Christians, it was explaining why Jesus had to die and building a proto-orthodox conceptual framework for it, dealing with the unexpected delay in the eschaton and otherwise establishing a sense of community. The perceived need for interpretation is often due to a misunderstanding of what the NT authors really thought and meant.

Except for the 613 mitzvot for the Jews and occasional useful rules of thumb for proper living in the NT, the Bible is not a guide to living, despite the claims of some. It is literature. And like any literature from other times and places it is sometimes not easily understood by present day readers.

[marco]

[Replying to post 6 by marco]

Actually there are a lot of non-english writers on that list. Their books may have been translated into English, but I see multiple Russians, Czechs, French, etc. on that list.

I was referring to the 20 listed - 80% of them write in English. The poll was a popularity thing in any case, so I suppose it doesn't necessarily reflect literary excellence.

You say:

"I also don't really buy that good writing would be a distraction. I would think bad writing would be a distraction. When you read a great writer, you forget that you're reading someone else' words, they absorb you into the text. Bad writers constantly break that immersion unintentionally, as does happen in certain biblical books."

That's not what I meant. I accept that good writing has the reader involved - by distraction I meant that the reader would be taken into the private literary mansions of the august writer rather than hearing in simple terms that the meek are blessed. I am of course arguing the devil's case - I don't accept that the Bible was divinely inspired. A stroll through Deuteronomy or Leviticus will supply evidence of nomads, inspired only by war, lust and clean water.

[pshun2404]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Sadly this summary of the "best" is an opinion poll, racially biased, judging people by western, European, standards...

I personally like Chuang Tze and Solomon but each to their own...