Maybe the old analogy of The Blind Men and The Elephant will fit the question of how it is that so many scriptures teaching us about God can differ, but still be bringing the same essential truths. Religion comes from sources outside of our material, visible world; it gets simultaneously accepted by some and rejected by others with equal intensity.
Those emotional roots go very deep, creating chasms between varying reports concerning the same phenomenon. How can an apparently trustworthy Source come up with so many variations on a theme and still be valid? I believe it has to do with the fact that we humans are such a small part of the whole, that we can only grasp a relatively tiny portion of the universe’s truth. Our perspective is too limited to cope with very much more. Anything removed from tangible proof gets dismissed because we don’t like uncertainties.Remember the story?
A dozen blind men desired to know Ultimate Truth and so one by one they were led to a massive elephant by that name. Each was provided with a very comfortable chair, a silken canopy, and attendants to bring food and drink. Their hands were placed directly upon the gentle elephant. Over time, these newly-educated-to-the-elephant experts reported back their findings to their native populations who lived in twelve portions of the globe. The trouble began when the nations grew to the point of overlap and fought about what constituted Truth, because their beliefs diverged to the point of irreconcilability. No one, in any of the twelve provinces would recognize the beast if an actual elephant came blundering through their villages.
This elephant named Truth had been described as a tree trunk, a small swinging rope, a vast circular bulge, a thin fluttering flag, a marble-like curve and a large hose. Four nations agreed on the tree trunk description; two each on the flag, the bulge and the curve; but only one nation each felt that Truth was a small, suspended rope or a large swinging hose.
The only points upon which all could agree were that Truth felt very leathery and that it had a unique smell. However, those two articles of agreement were not enough to prevent an ingrown certainty that almost everyone else was following a false truth. Even the ones who shared a basic shape agreement, found that their theories were often reversed and completely opposite, so they weren’t interested in any dialogue, either.
The renowned elephant expert, Mr. Goddtt, who had arranged this truth demonstration, could have cleared up much of the problem, but the blind men would have had to trust his words and not their own hands. He found them unwilling to take that leap of faith. So, he untied his elephant, climbed upon its back and rode off to look for people who could see the whole truth instead of just a portion of it,
What if the nations of those blind men had taken their portion of the truth and carefully added it to the other descriptions, assuming that everyone was right? They might have come up with enough clues to sketch the whole animal. But that would have required perseverance and an open mind. Could that have actually been the object of the whole exercise in the first place?