• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Impossibility of Scriptural Authority

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
People will cite their religion's scriptures in discussions or disputes over differences in beliefs to settle the debate in their favor. You will hear claims, "The Bible says...", "God says....", "The Holy Koran says....", etc., but in all of these cases such beliefs in external authorities such as this completely ignores the person interpreting the words. It ignore themselves. It presumes that what they are understanding by reading something outside themselves qualifies as objective truth. It completely ignores the processes involved in how we perceive and interpret truth and reality, and in effect absolves themselves of any responsibility in absolutist thought. It denies that they say what they say God says.

It is impossible to say "God's word says....", because what they are reading is completely filtered through their own mind's interpretive frameworks; language, culture, personality, developmental stages, cognitive abilities, fears, anxieties, hopes, expectations, needs, desires, and a long list of such filters through which the whole of reality is mediated, including their religion's sacred scriptures. "God's word says...", is in reality, what their culture and personality is capable of seeing, and nothing more. Therefore, as one grows and develops, and their consciousness is expanded through various types of awareness that changes over time, what "God's word says...", will become different. It is therefore impossible to cite something you read as an authority, because it has the individual's mind and culture completely embedded within that interpretation.

I have yet to hear any literalist deal with this reality. How can they cite scripture as authoritative, when they are the interpreters? I will even add, that to cite scholars, also has that problem. Even at best, the scholar is still embedded within his own set of presumptions. Is objective truth ever truly objective?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I suppose when a Judge in a Criminal Court incarcerates a person based on his/her own reading of the Law of the Land, it's just the Judge's interpretation and cultural view of how the law should be read...

We are not incapable of reading and understanding. This could go for pretty much any text, not just scripture.
 

Orbit

I'm a planet
I suppose when a Judge in a Criminal Court incarcerates a person based on his/her own reading of the Law of the Land, it's just the Judge's interpretation and cultural view of how the law should be read...

Actually, yes, this is correct, and it is exactly how social scientists analyze the law and its application.

We are not incapable of reading and understanding. This could go for pretty much any text, not just scripture.

I don't think Windwalker is saying we are incapable of understanding. I think he's pointing out that our understanding is strongly influenced by our culture and its multiplicity of interpretive lenses. Many truths come out of scripture, not one, and this is where the literalists fail.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
I suppose when a Judge in a Criminal Court incarcerates a person based on his/her own reading of the Law of the Land, it's just the Judge's interpretation and cultural view of how the law should be read...

We are not incapable of reading and understanding. This could go for pretty much any text, not just scripture.
Good point, but still it is recognized that a judges interpretation of the law is a human interpretation of a human document. This does not mean it has no value, but it does mean it can be wrong, either in the law can be wrong or the interpretation can be wrong (or both). Either can be questioned. And neither the law or the judges interpretation can really say anything authoritative about "God". And I think the point is that it is important to realize that this is all true of scripture as well.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
I suppose when a Judge in a Criminal Court incarcerates a person based on his/her own reading of the Law of the Land, it's just the Judge's interpretation and cultural view of how the law should be read...

We are not incapable of reading and understanding. This could go for pretty much any text, not just scripture.
Fail.
The law of the land is not presented in English after being translated numerous times.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is also a problem with the original idea. That also is subject to "their own mind's interpretive frameworks; language, culture, personality, developmental stages, cognitive abilities, fears, anxieties, hopes, expectations, needs, desires, and a long list of such filters "

It is why I keep telling them it isn't about EACH idea of scripture. It is about the whole picture of scripture.

2 Timothy 16 All [the whole thing or whatever a person believes to be true] Scripture is inspired of God+ and beneficial for teaching,+ for reproving, for setting things straight,* for disciplining in righteousness,+17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

The problems of interpretation started at first with the writing of it, then the copying of it, then the translation of it and the copying again. Each step is inescapably linked to the writer's and then the reader's perception. That is why it must be viewed all together without prejudice and not ever taken out of context.
 

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This reason is specifically why there have been so many debates as to what the Hindu Scriptures mean because unlike other religions, we do recognize that we have different tendencies and that could show when you translate a text (in Sanskrit, out of all languages). There have been many translations of Vedic scriptures, and then there were many debates with opposite viewpoints to decide which view is correct/more plausible.

That being said, I would never bring up a quote from scripture to an atheist unless to explain a particular Hindu concept.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
When a believer in scripture hears from someone their scripture should not be trusted they see it as a tearing down of all they hold dear, true and good. But dear, true and good can't be torn down.

I think if they fear that it is what someone is doing, or trying to do, then there is something wrong with what they believe to be true.

Real truth is not able to be destroyed.

Is it?
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Another thing I see is that quoting scripture to explain scripture can't be trusted is some people's pet peeve and I understand that.

I think that if a person believes every idea of scripture can be trusted as the plain truth he won't be able to view the whole thing like it is meant to be viewed.

I believe the scriptures of The Bible are like a city. But each scripture is like a tool. A tool can't be a city and a city should not be a tool. But that is what they do.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Another way of looking at it is the writer of scripture is a rider and the scripture is a horse. Inspired of God means the rider is in control of the horse and his intentions are honorable. It means without God he can not ride and of course there would be no horse. To trust in scriptural authority is to trust in horses. Which is funny and may be why God allows it.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
People have been interpreting and re-interpreting Scripture for centuries. Jews are especially good at this. Consider Jewish Midrash.

From Karen Armstrong's "The Bible: The Biography." Pg 100.

'The student must add his own gemara to the sacred page, because without it the line of tradition would come to an end. "What is Torah?" asked the Bavli, "It is: the interpretation of Torah." '

And that was before 1000 A.D.

This is old hat. :p
 

Christ's Lamb

~Catholic Mystic~
People will cite their religion's scriptures in discussions or disputes over differences in beliefs to settle the debate in their favor. You will hear claims, "The Bible says...", "God says....", "The Holy Koran says....", etc., but in all of these cases such beliefs in external authorities such as this completely ignores the person interpreting the words. It ignore themselves. It presumes that what they are understanding by reading something outside themselves qualifies as objective truth. It completely ignores the processes involved in how we perceive and interpret truth and reality, and in effect absolves themselves of any responsibility in absolutist thought. It denies that they say what they say God says.

It is impossible to say "God's word says....", because what they are reading is completely filtered through their own mind's interpretive frameworks; language, culture, personality, developmental stages, cognitive abilities, fears, anxieties, hopes, expectations, needs, desires, and a long list of such filters through which the whole of reality is mediated, including their religion's sacred scriptures. "God's word says...", is in reality, what their culture and personality is capable of seeing, and nothing more. Therefore, as one grows and develops, and their consciousness is expanded through various types of awareness that changes over time, what "God's word says...", will become different. It is therefore impossible to cite something you read as an authority, because it has the individual's mind and culture completely embedded within that interpretation.

I have yet to hear any literalist deal with this reality. How can they cite scripture as authoritative, when they are the interpreters? I will even add, that to cite scholars, also has that problem. Even at best, the scholar is still embedded within his own set of presumptions. Is objective truth ever truly objective?

Christianity never used the bible as the sole rule of faith, until Martin Luther that is. It was always Scripture, Tradition, and Church authority. Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition, thus Tradition is the keys to unlocking the true interpretation of the Bible. Where can we find Church Tradition? In the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Christianity never used the bible as the sole rule of faith, until Martin Luther that is. It was always Scripture, Tradition, and Church authority. Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition, thus Tradition is the keys to unlocking the true interpretation of the Bible. Where can we find Church Tradition? In the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
Be not forsaking the gathering together [to the truth who is Jesus] as some have the custom [or traditions of men]. Hebrews 10:25
 

Christ's Lamb

~Catholic Mystic~
Be not forsaking the gathering together [to the truth who is Jesus] as some have the custom [or traditions of men]. Hebrews 10:25

So what is your point? Follow the Traditions of Jesus Christ, or follow the traditions of men in Protestantism, I'll pick Christ's. Why do we need Apostolic Tradition? Because all it is, is the correct interpretation of Scrpture that has been deposited into the Church by the Apostles.
 

Awoon

Well-Known Member
With scriptures or without scriptures, I wanna know who is raising the dead out of cemeteries?
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So what is your point? Follow the Traditions of Jesus Christ, or follow the traditions of men in Protestantism, I'll pick Christ's. Why do we need Apostolic Tradition? Because all it is, is the correct interpretation of Scrpture that has been deposited into the Church by the Apostles.
What?

Christianity never used the bible as the sole rule of faith, until Martin Luther that is. It was always Scripture, Tradition, and Church authority. Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition, thus Tradition is the keys to unlocking the true interpretation of the Bible. Where can we find Church Tradition? In the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

Do you have two heads or one? LOL

My point is letting tradition lead you is wrong not right.

Hebrews 10:25 means (because I can see it happening) tradition prevents people from being led to The Christ, to be gathered to him. One body. One flock. One faith.
 

Awoon

Well-Known Member
Is or will?

Is.

That should be easy for religious people. They got the authority of scripture plus their traditions, priests, prophets, Bishops, Popes and Messiahs. Between the two there is no need for any ancient to return from the past with any so called new spiritual or physical insights, leadership or powers beyond what has been handed down and confirmed by the "Holy Books."
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
I have yet to hear any literalist deal with this reality. How can they cite scripture as authoritative, when they are the interpreters? I will even add, that to cite scholars, also has that problem. Even at best, the scholar is still embedded within his own set of presumptions. Is objective truth ever truly objective?
So true.

Essentially, God is a subjective experience, and should not be put into an objective plane. I think the same problem happens when people try to prove God's existence. It's trying to make this subjective thing into an objective thing that everyone should somehow agree with, and that would kill God. Objective God is dead. Subjective God is alive.

Scriptures of different kinds are there to help people work their way to the experience. To see the "spirit of the word" rather than the letters.
 

gsa

Well-Known Member
Christianity never used the bible as the sole rule of faith, until Martin Luther that is. It was always Scripture, Tradition, and Church authority. Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition, thus Tradition is the keys to unlocking the true interpretation of the Bible. Where can we find Church Tradition? In the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

They disagree as much as they agree, so I don't see how they're much help. Plus, the meaning of words changes over time and through translation, so when you read them you are imposing meaning on their work that wasn't there at the time.
 
Top