Complicated and/or Controversial Scriptures in the Bible

[TheFinalWord]

The bible contains passages that are hard to understand. Some passages are controversial and cause for concern for some people. Even Peter said some of the things Paul wrote were hard to understand.

 

"His (Paul's) letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

 

If that's Peter, an apostle of Christ saying some scriptures are hard to understand, we should all take a humble approach

 

Please use this thread to state your contentions or questions about controversial or hard to understand scriptures from the Christian bible. The thread can range from creationism to Mosaic Law to prophecy. It would be nice to have it limited to one topic, but that probably won't happen With that said, I think it would be helpful to consider BetheButterfly's wise words of wisdom

 

 

There are Bible verses that are questionable. It is very good to ask questions about what they mean and why they were written. Asking questions can be done without insulting what others believe. One does not have to agree with the answers given, but respect can be mutually given even when disagreements happen.

 

Peace <><

[M30USA]

Oh boy...

 

Without a freaking doubt...Genesis chapter 6. The identity of the Nephilim. People think this is just a fringe, insignificent topic tucked away in the wee chapters of Genesis; but the subject rears its head throughout the entire Bible, even in the the New Testament and relates to future prophecy.

[TheFinalWord]

Oh boy...

 

Without a freaking doubt...Genesis chapter 6. The identity of the Nephilim. People think this is just a fringe, insignificent topic tucked away in the wee chapters of Genesis; but the subject rears its head throughout the entire Bible, even in the the New Testament and relates to future prophecy.

 

M30USA,

 

Who are the sons of God and the Nephilim?

 

The above link provides three possible explanations for that passage.

 

Why don't you tell us why you believe in interpretation 1, and if it's not accurate representation of what you believe, please tell us why

 

Other links which suggest Nephilim were not offspring of angelic beings:

 

What are the nephilim? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

Who Were the Nephilim and Sons of God?

 

Who are the Nephilim in the Bible?

 

What do you make of these? Thanks.

 

I shall return, for now I must gather my questions and quotes for you. Although I realize why the things said what they said alot more than you think I do.

 

Great! I do ask that if you are taking your questions and quotes from internet sites or other sources that you please cite those sources. Plagiarizing is immoral after all.

Edited August 9, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[TheFinalWord]

As an offshoot for those wanting to study these things independently, the following are web sites I recommend:

 

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/apol_index.html#philosophical

 

Evidence for God from Science

 

http://carm.org/

 

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy

 

Reasons To Believe : Where Science & Faith Converge

 

Have fun exploring!

Edited August 9, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[M30USA]

I will take time to examine all them. In the meantime, I just wanted to say that none of these interpretations (except #1) existed until ~450 AD. All the early church fathers, including Paul, Tertullian, Josefus, and Ambrose all interpreted it as #1. I've heard all the interpretations, but I will review what you posted and get back to you.

[TheFinalWord]

I will take time to examine all them. In the meantime, I just wanted to say that none of these interpretations (except #1) existed until ~450 AD. All the early church fathers, including Paul, Tertullian, Josefus, and Ambrose all interpreted it as #1. I've heard all the interpretations, but I will review what you posted and get back to you.

 

No rush brother. What I think would be good is for this thread to educate others and ourselves and if we have to take a couple days to research and respond, no problem.

 

I like the dialogue that is not just out to prove someone else wrong, but more so about understanding others' opinion: the cornerstone of respect

 

From Stephen Covey (RIP)

 

Habit 5: Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood

 

Communication is the most important skill in life. You spend years learning how to read and write, and years learning how to speak. But what about listening? What training have you had that enables you to listen so you really, deeply understand another human being? Probably none, right?

 

If you're like most people, you probably seek first to be understood; you want to get your point across. And in doing so, you may ignore the other person completely, pretend that you're listening, selectively hear only certain parts of the conversation or attentively focus on only the words being said, but miss the meaning entirely. So why does this happen? Because most people listen with the intent to reply, not to understand. You listen to yourself as you prepare in your mind what you are going to say, the questions you are going to ask, etc. You filter everything you hear through your life experiences, your frame of reference. You check what you hear against your autobiography and see how it measures up. And consequently, you decide prematurely what the other person means before he/she finishes communicating. Do any of the following sound familiar?

 

"Oh, I know just how you feel. I felt the same way." "I had that same thing happen to me." "Let me tell you what I did in a similar situation."

 

Because you so often listen autobiographically, you tend to respond in one of four ways:

 

Evaluating: You judge and then either agree or disagree.

 

Probing: You ask questions from your own frame of reference.

 

Advising: You give counsel, advice, and solutions to problems.

 

Interpreting: You analyze others' motives and behaviors based on your own experiences.

 

You might be saying, "Hey, now wait a minute. I'm just trying to relate to the person by drawing on my own experiences. Is that so bad?" In some situations, autobiographical responses may be appropriate, such as when another person specifically asks for help from your point of view or when there is already a very high level of trust in the relationship.

[M30USA]

My own research has uncovered the following problems with interpretation #2 (ie, Sons of Seth view):

 

1) How does mere mixed marriages between "good" and "bad" people create giants? Or even if you don't interpret them as giants, how does mere mixed marriage create a distinct class of people which continually gets mentioned in history until Chronicles and Numbers? It doesn't add up.

 

2) Not all of Seth's line were good. There were some wicked men in Seth's line.

 

3) The prohibition to avoid intermarrying was not issued by God until much later in history.

 

4) The language seems a bit too much in contrast if this view is correct. Why say "daughters of men" and not just women? It's implying that the other parties in the union were not of men/humans.

[M30USA]

Problems with view #3 (the royalty view):

 

This view is the most "reasonable" to modern people, but within the context of the Bible it is the most inconsistent and falls apart the quickest.

 

Why the heck would "royalty" be the product of sexual union between "good" men and "bad" women? It makes zero sense. If anything, you'd expect criminals and delinquents, right?

[M30USA]

This guy is a powerhouse...listen to what he says on Genesis 6 and Nephilim. It's 8 parts, but it will put to rest any doubts you have:

 

Dr Chuck Missler: Genesis Chapter 6 - Days of Noah 1-8 - YouTube

[TheFinalWord]

Oh boy...

 

Without a freaking doubt...Genesis chapter 6. The identity of the Nephilim. People think this is just a fringe, insignificent topic tucked away in the wee chapters of Genesis; but the subject rears its head throughout the entire Bible, even in the the New Testament and relates to future prophecy.

 

I don't think it has been treated insignificantly. I've seen quite a bit of documentation of this topic. Personally, I get concerned when a doctrine is created out of an area of scripture that is rather obscure. Some of the off-shoots resulting from the Cosmologically Mixed Races argument to explain UFOs are rather far reaching and I don't think we are on biblical grounds to make such connections. I mean no insult in that and I respect your personal biblical persuasion for the Cosmologically Mixed Races argument. Like many things in the bible, we are given scant information. We have the record of nature which we can use to try to decipher truth. It is up to us to decide what to do with that information, however, personally I think it is dangerous to create far-reaching doctrine from scant information.

 

Good overview of the three views. Also represents my personal opinion on the topic:

 

http://jmsmith.org/downloads/Sons-of-God-and-the-Nephilim.pdf

 

Conclusion

 

In summary, the phrase “sons of God” is to be understood as a title chose by the Biblical author, possibly facetiously, to describe tyrannical rulers who ruled unjustly and took whoever they wanted as wives. The judgment of 120 years probably refers to the period preceding the destruction of wicked humanity by the flood; though it may also just as easily apply to the limiting of sinful humanity’s life spans. The Nephilim, or “fallen ones” are most likely fierce warriors, of whom many stories and legends were told

throughout the ancient world. Having looked at Genesis 6:1-4 and the different views pertaining to it, and having chosen as most plausible the interpretations stated above, a few comments must be made. First, the exact meaning of this passage has eluded scholars for millennia. Thus, one should be careful in approaching it. It is impossible to rule out, entirely, any of the above views. It is particularly important not to rule out the “angels” view on account of it’s “mythical” feel. If this is one’s criteria for interpreting Scripture then much of the Bible must be reinterpreted as well, for events such as Jonah’s ordeal inside the fish, the speech of Balaam’s donkey, the fiery furnace of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednigo, as well as most of the miracles of Jesus have just as much of a

“mythical” feel to them. The job of the interpreter is to find out what the text says and let it speak for itself rather than imposing unnecessary, outside restrictions upon it. That was the author’s purpose in writing this paper, and hopefully, that purpose was accomplished.

[TheFinalWord]

He can't. If the myth is even actually true its impossible that everyone there was evil. How do I know this? Well I am pretty sure there were probably infants and children there... and I am pretty sure they weren't into raping or homosexuality. But there's nothing like a little "divine genocide."

 

Dear Yellow Shark,

 

How do you define "evil"?

 

How do you define "divine genocide"

 

I personally feel we are all talking past each other b/c we are using different definitions for terms. Peace.

[M30USA]

I don't think it has been treated insignificantly. I've seen quite a bit of documentation of this topic. Personally, I get concerned when a doctrine is created out of an area of scripture that is rather obscure. Some of the off-shoots resulting from the Cosmologically Mixed Races argument to explain UFOs are rather far reaching and I don't think we are on biblical grounds to make such connections. I mean no insult in that and I respect your personal biblical persuasion for the Cosmologically Mixed Races argument. Like many things in the bible, we are given scant information. We have the record of nature which we can use to try to decipher truth. It is up to us to decide what to do with that information, however, personally I think it is dangerous to create far-reaching doctrine from scant information.

 

Good overview of the three views. Also represents my personal opinion on the topic:

 

http://jmsmith.org/downloads/Sons-of-God-and-the-Nephilim.pdf

 

Conclusion

 

In summary, the phrase “sons of God” is to be understood as a title chose by the Biblical author, possibly facetiously, to describe tyrannical rulers who ruled unjustly and took whoever they wanted as wives. The judgment of 120 years probably refers to the period preceding the destruction of wicked humanity by the flood; though it may also just as easily apply to the limiting of sinful humanity’s life spans. The Nephilim, or “fallen ones” are most likely fierce warriors, of whom many stories and legends were told

throughout the ancient world. Having looked at Genesis 6:1-4 and the different views pertaining to it, and having chosen as most plausible the interpretations stated above, a few comments must be made. First, the exact meaning of this passage has eluded scholars for millennia. Thus, one should be careful in approaching it. It is impossible to rule out, entirely, any of the above views. It is particularly important not to rule out the “angels” view on account of it’s “mythical” feel. If this is one’s criteria for interpreting Scripture then much of the Bible must be reinterpreted as well, for events such as Jonah’s ordeal inside the fish, the speech of Balaam’s donkey, the fiery furnace of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednigo, as well as most of the miracles of Jesus have just as much of a

“mythical” feel to them. The job of the interpreter is to find out what the text says and let it speak for itself rather than imposing unnecessary, outside restrictions upon it. That was the author’s purpose in writing this paper, and hopefully, that purpose was accomplished.

 

I don't espouse the "cosmological mixed races" argument.

[TheFinalWord]

I don't espouse the "cosmological mixed races" argument.

 

This is the term I have seen used for the hypothesis that angels and humans interbred. Feel free to correct the argument or title it whatever you so desire. Peace.

[M30USA]

This is the term I have seen used for the hypothesis that angels and humans interbred. Feel free to correct the argument or title it whatever you so desire. Peace.

 

Cool.

 

Hey you should read up on a guy named Michael Heiser, PhD. He is a Hebrew language scholar and he used his expertise on Hebrew to figure out, simply based on grammar and grammatical context, that views #2 and #3 cannot be true. He says that if these views are true, then there are numerous grammatical and syntax errors in not only Genesis but the New Testament in 2 Peter. You should check him out.

[TheFinalWord]

Cool.

 

Hey you should read up on a guy named Michael Heiser, PhD. He is a Hebrew language scholar and he used his expertise on Hebrew to figure out, simply based on grammar and grammatical context, that views #2 and #3 cannot be true. He says that if these views are true, then there are numerous grammatical and syntax errors in not only Genesis but the New Testament in 2 Peter. You should check him out.

 

Thanks for that information. Can you provide a link or is it only in book format? To be honest I am swamped with projects. If it is presented some way on-line I can review it. If it is a book, I can't promise to be able to get to it in the near future.

 

For me, I am not a Hebrew scholar in any way, shape, or form. I do have a lexicon for word studies. But it is still a laymen view so I have to rely on English translations by and large. I like ESV for more in-depth analysis of harder to understand verses. A good on-line one is: Bible Lexicon

 

ESV: English Standard Version (ESV Bible) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

[sally4sara]

I have a couple questions.

 

It was often talked about in the church I grew up in about how sinful it was to change in anyway the contents of the bible. It was felt that the KJV was the only acceptable version of the bible despite the original texts not being in English.

 

Now with the story of Sodom, specifically Gen 19:1-9, the people of Sodom asked for the two visitors in Lot's house to be sent out so that they could "know them" and it was generally assumed that by "know them" they meant to have sex with them. As shown by the term "knowing someone biblically".

But the NKJV has added to that verse the word "carnally" despite it not originally being in the text.

 

Now on top of that, I'm not sure why it was always assumed that by "know them" these people meant to rape the visitors. I also remember the story of the leprosy infected general Naaman. It spoke of his wife "knowing" a holy man of god. Why doesn't it mean she had had sex with the guy, yet the people of Sodom HAD to be wanting to have sex with the visitors? As well many times I have been asked if I "know Jesus". But somehow it would be rude for me to say "nah he was dead before I was born and I'm not into necrophilia". They seem to not be asking me if I have had sex with Jesus but rather just if I'm aware of him. Yet readers of the KJV believed the request to send the visitors out so that the people could "know them" meant sexually so much so that someone felt it needed clarification enough to break the instruction about not changing the contents of the book.

Edited August 9, 2012 by sally4sara

[TheFinalWord]

I have a couple questions.

 

It was often talked about in the church I grew up in about how sinful it was to change in anyway the contents of the bible. It was felt that the KJV was the only acceptable version of the bible despite the original texts not being in English.

 

Good points. I don't believe the KJV is infallible. Many words have no meaning in our current vocabulary.

 

Now with the story of Sodom, specifically Gen 19:1-9, the people of Sodom asked for the two visitors in Lot's house to be sent out so that they could "know them" and it was generally assumed that by "know them" they meant to have sex with them. As shown by the term "knowing someone biblically".

But the NKJV has added to that verse the word "carnally" despite it not originally being in the text.

 

Now on top of that, I'm not sure why it was always assumed that by "know them" these people meant to rape the visitors. I also remember the story of the leprosy infected general Naaman. It spoke of his wife "knowing" a holy man of god. Why doesn't it mean she had had sex with the guy, yet the people of Sodom HAD to be wanting to have sex with the visitors? As well many times I have been asked if I "know Jesus". But somehow it would be rude for me to say "nah he was dead before I was born and I'm not into necrophilia". They seem to not be asking me if I have had sex with Jesus but rather just if I'm aware of him. Yet readers of the KJV believed the request to send the visitors out so that the people could "know them" meant sexually so much so that someone felt it needed clarification enough to break the instruction about not changing the contents of the book.

 

Good question. I am by no means a Hebrew scholar. But I believe this is generally inferred because a few verses later Lot offers his daughters to the people of Sodom if they left the strangers alone. It appears from the text this interaction had sinister intentions as well as the response is the people of Sodom will now treat Lot and his family worse than they originally intended.

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2019&version=ESV

 

"But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9 But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down. "

 

But this is a point of contention:

 

Sodomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

*"The primary word in contention is the Hebrew word yâda‛ used for know in the Old Testament. Biblical scholars disagree on what "know" in this instance refers to, but most of conservative Christianity interprets it to mean "sexual intercourse", while the opposing position interprets it to mean "interrogate."Lot's offering of his two virgins has been interpreted to mean that Lot is offering a compromise to assure the crowd that the two men have no untoward intentions in town, or that he is offering his virgins as a substitute for the men to "know" by sexual intercourse."*

 

What do you think?

[M30USA]

TheFinalWord,

 

Here is a link to Dr. Michael Heiser's presentation on Genesis 6. Its over an hour long and gets really detailed with grammar. Fair warning, lol.

 

Genesis 6 - Michael Heiser - YouTube

[TheFinalWord]

I have a couple questions.

 

It was often talked about in the church I grew up in about how sinful it was to change in anyway the contents of the bible. It was felt that the KJV was the only acceptable version of the bible despite the original texts not being in English.

 

I didn't mean to brush this off so fast. We can discuss KJV only dogma if you want. I personally think it is dangerous to only accept KJV. The KJV was written in old English. It is difficult to understand, and practically useless to the common man. I personally love it, but for more the beauty of old English.

 

But by and large it is not comprehensible to most people. I don't want the bible to be incomprehensible to the common man. Because then they can't study themselves and have no gauge for telling if someone is misleading them (cults).

 

Many times in historicity of the bible, those who were abusing power tried to suppress a certain people from receiving God's word. In England, Tyndale was burned for heresy for spreading his translation of the bible from Latin to English. God's Word is for everyone. It is not meant to be oppressed so only a few people can tell us what it says.

 

Yes, some parts are difficult to grasp and require critical study. But as Tyndale said even a ploy boy should understand the concept of salvation. No man has a right to withhold that information. Now some interpretations are sloppy, but some like ESV are very solid and are compatible with current English.

 

I recommend Christians watch:

 

God's Outlaw The Story Of William Tyndale 1986 - YouTube

[sally4sara]

Good points. I don't believe the KJV is infallible. Many words have no meaning in our current vocabulary.

 

 

 

Good question. I am by no means a Hebrew scholar. But I believe this is generally inferred because a few verses later Lot offers his daughters to the people of Sodom if they left the strangers alone. It appears from the text this interaction had sinister intentions as well as the response is the people of Sodom will now treat Lot and his family worse than they originally intended.

 

Genesis 19 ESV - God Rescues Lot - The two angels came - Bible Gateway

 

"But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9 But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down. "

 

But this is a point of contention:

 

Sodomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

*"The primary word in contention is the Hebrew word yâda‛ used for know in the Old Testament. Biblical scholars disagree on what "know" in this instance refers to, but most of conservative Christianity interprets it to mean "sexual intercourse", while the opposing position interprets it to mean "interrogate."Lot's offering of his two virgins has been interpreted to mean that Lot is offering a compromise to assure the crowd that the two men have no untoward intentions in town, or that he is offering his virgins as a substitute for the men to "know" by sexual intercourse."*

 

What do you think?

 

Well it was also suggested to me that there are many instances of the public treating women who had been by their standards, overtly sexual, poorly compared to pious women. And that seeing as how Lot doesn't say that they should lay with his daughters but points out that they are "pure" and that the group should do to them what was good in their eyes, that he was not offering them up sexually. He was instead sending pious women out in the hope of influencing an unruly mob into calming down out of respect for the presence of good women. Really this makes more sense to me because if the mob was a bunch of homosexual men, what would be the point of sending out women? Homosexual men don't switch teams to whatever the gender is made available.

 

It has also been suggested to me that there is significance in Lot hanging around the gate of Sodom. That Sodom had become notorious for hate crimes on the poor and intolerant of vagrants piling up in the town square begging for resources without any to offer in barter. Perhaps Sodom's big sin was breaking hospitality and miss treating the poor and not much to do with homosexuality at all?

[sally4sara]

I didn't mean to brush this off so fast. We can discuss KJV only dogma if you want. I personally think it is dangerous to only accept KJV. The KJV was written in old English. It is difficult to understand, and practically useless to the common man. I personally love it, but for more the beauty of old English.

 

But by and large it is not comprehensible to most people. I don't want the bible to be incomprehensible to the common man. Because then they can't study themselves and have no gauge for telling if someone is misleading them (cults).

 

Many times in historicity of the bible, those who were abusing power tried to suppress a certain people from receiving God's word. In England, Tyndale was burned for heresy for spreading his translation of the bible from Latin to English. God's Word is for everyone. It is not meant to be oppressed so only a few people can tell us what it says.

 

Yes, some parts are difficult to grasp and require critical study. But as Tyndale said even a ploy boy should understand the concept of salvation. No man has a right to withhold that information. Now some interpretations are sloppy, but some like ESV are very solid and are compatible with current English.

 

I recommend Christians watch:

 

God's Outlaw The Story Of William Tyndale 1986 - YouTube

 

As far as it being hard to read the KJV for common man. Wouldn't it be a better plan to up the educational standard rather than risk angering your god? My first time through the KJV, I was 10. I understood it and I have only a midwest public school background.

[TheFinalWord]

As far as it being hard to read the KJV for common man. Wouldn't it be a better plan to up the educational standard rather than risk angering your god? My first time through the KJV, I was 10. I understood it and I have only a midwest public school background.

 

Hi,

 

I don't see any reason why God would be angry. You'll have to make that case. That's awesome you were able to read it! Many people do not receive the gospel until they are much older. If you were raised in church and a Christian home that may have helped you understand it. Too many variables to say for sure, but I don't think there is any biblical justification for saying KJV is the only true version. That's an argument espoused by man, much like the argument made in Tyndale's time.

 

Sure, I'd love to increase education in America.I think that is quite a different task altogether. I would rather have a modern version approved by a team of scholars that is true to the original.

[TheFinalWord]

So how do you personally know what version is to be trusted the most? Wouldnt it be the oldest version in its true language?

What version is most accepted by society now?

 

I base it only studying the background of the version and examining the scholarship of those involved in the interpretation. For me personally, I also know KJV well so if it varies greatly, I would know it from personal experience.

 

I think you would enjoy New International Version for cursory overview. If you want in-depth study English Standard Version.

 

You can access them here:

 

BibleGateway.com - Over 50 online Bibles in 35 languages, in text and audio format.

[TheFinalWord]

Well it was also suggested to me that there are many instances of the public treating women who had been by their standards, overtly sexual, poorly compared to pious women. And that seeing as how Lot doesn't say that they should lay with his daughters but points out that they are "pure" and that the group should do to them what was good in their eyes, that he was not offering them up sexually. He was instead sending pious women out in the hope of influencing an unruly mob into calming down out of respect for the presence of good women. Really this makes more sense to me because if the mob was a bunch of homosexual men, what would be the point of sending out women? Homosexual men don't switch teams to whatever the gender is made available.

 

It has also been suggested to me that there is significance in Lot hanging around the gate of Sodom. That Sodom had become notorious for hate crimes on the poor and intolerant of vagrants piling up in the town square begging for resources without any to offer in barter. Perhaps Sodom's big sin was breaking hospitality and miss treating the poor and not much to do with homosexuality at all?

 

Sure, that is one interpretation. I don't think the text says they were exclusively any sexual orientation. We don't know that they were only homosexual. Bi perhaps? I personally think the text is pretty blatant that there is a sexual connotation when read in line with the other verses using the same verbiage, but I can see your point.

[M30USA]

Oh crap sorry...i posted on the wrong thread

Edited August 10, 2012 by M30USA