What is scripture?

[AmbiguousGuy]

I've always been perplexed by the idea that 1) God would select special men to channel His thoughts to us in the form of human words, and that 2) these Godly words retain their Godly meaning no matter how many times they are translated from century to century, place to place, language to language.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding how people view scripture.

What is the difference between your view of scripture and your view of poetry?

 

[Curious George]

You bring up some good questions Ambiguous Guy. I think different faiths deal with different Holy Texts in a variety of ways. Some eastern religion have a succession of Guru's who teach understanding. Some western religions have a similar process that involves much less time as a student.

I believe in many non-denominational christian churches- people are believed to have a personal relationship with "God" and thus the difference between their view of scriptures vs. poetry is that they have a buddy Chuy who informs them through their personal relationship with him.

Beyond all of these practices rests faith. That leap which jumps from rational-- questions dealing with dilutions, distortions, deviations, (both intentional and unintentional), and misinterpretation-- to the irrational--belief ultimately based on feeling and trust.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't get it either. Paganism (neo or otherwise) doesn't really have or rely scripture as understood by the dogmatic monotheistic religions. It has mythos, but not scripture. And for Neopaganism in particular, the idea of scripture from "special people" is silly since we all commune with our gods directly and there's nothing "special" about it. Nobody owns exclusive access to the gods, to put it another way, and while we certainly like our stories, there just isn't the kind of authoritative dogma in Pagan religions that there are in some others.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I believe in many non-denominational christian churches- people are believed to have a personal relationship with "God" and thus the difference between their view of scriptures vs. poetry is that they have a buddy Chuy who informs them through their personal relationship with him.

Yes, I think virtually every argument reduces to something like this: The Holy Spirit broadcasts God's Truth to all of humanity. I don't know why I hear and understand it so clearly while you are getting a garbled message, but....

Anyway, I have good friends, intelligent friends, who study the Bible and still live by our cultural assumption that there is nothing weird about doing so. I want them to discuss the concept of 'scripture' with me, but they won't do that. I doubt many scripture-believers here will do it either. It seems to be a taboo operation -- to look too closely at the concept of scripture.

That unwillingness to discuss it makes me pretty suspicious.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes, I think virtually every argument reduces to something like this: The Holy Spirit broadcasts God's Truth to all of humanity. I don't know why I hear and understand it so clearly while you are getting a garbled message, but....

Anyway, I have good friends, intelligent friends, who study the Bible and still live by our cultural assumption that there is nothing weird about doing so. I want them to discuss the concept of 'scripture' with me, but they won't do that. I doubt many scripture-believers here will do it either. It seems to be a taboo operation -- to look too closely at the concept of scripture.

That unwillingness to discuss it makes me pretty suspicious.

You're not supposed to actually point out that the Emperor has no secret decoder ring.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't get it either. Paganism (neo or otherwise) doesn't really have or rely scripture as understood by the dogmatic monotheistic religions. It has mythos, but not scripture. And for Neopaganism in particular, the idea of scripture from "special people" is silly since we all commune with our gods directly and there's nothing "special" about it. Nobody owns exclusive access to the gods, to put it another way, and while we certainly like our stories, there just isn't the kind of authoritative dogma in Pagan religions that there are in some others.

I watched a talk show once (Oprah, I think) where there was a panel of religious folk from various traditions. The Wiccan woman was weaving a beautiful description of her beliefs when the Baptist jumped up, waving his Bible, and demanding, "Where is your book? Where is all that stuff written?"

Some people really can't imagine a God who does not provide us a batch of holy words.

If I'd been the Wiccan, and quick-witted enough, I would have answered, "Oh, you can get a transcript of my holy words from the producers if you'd be happier with an extra sheaf of printed words to wave about."

 

[Levite]

I've always been perplexed by the idea that 1) God would select special men to channel His thoughts to us in the form of human words, and that 2) these Godly words retain their Godly meaning no matter how many times they are translated from century to century, place to place, language to language.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding how people view scripture.

What is the difference between your view of scripture and your view of poetry?

In my understanding, scripture is a mix of materials. Some of it is written by prophets (that is, people who experienced divine revelation with a message, which they then attempted to try and put into fitting words), some by people who were inspired by prophets (in other words, their ideas do not come from revelatory experiences, but from being inspired to reach for the numinous). The poetry is just the form-- especially given that, as a Jew, I understand that Written Torah is only part of the whole: Torah is incomplete without the Oral Torah also-- and therefore Torah as a holistic thing is not merely writing, but something that includes both writings of many people from many times and the potential for actions and writings in every age. Therefore "scripture" is a part of a greater whole, a keystone element in a living, evolving transgenerational dialogue and covenant between God and the People Israel.

At least, that's my understanding about Jewish scripture. Of course, I can't speak to scriptures of other faiths and peoples....

 

[Caladan]

What is the difference between your view of scripture and your view of poetry?

Scriptures typically have a specific goal, for example to inspire faith or hope in times in which these commodities are scarce. Scriptures also address social and geopolitical issues contemporary to an era from a point of view of people who were considered well equipped intellectually and socially to address them.
The Hebrew Bible addresses the geopolitical alliances of ancient civilizations such as Egypt, Babylon, and Persia for example and how the nation of the scribes plays in this. The New Testament discusses the challenges of living under the tensions of Roman rule and domestic religious disagreements. In addition such scripture inspire a consistent message, for example a faith of a nation in their God and their destiny in the case of the Hebrew Bible, or a devotion to the new moral philosophy of an exalted teacher, and of course to the teacher himself in the case of the NT. The way these messages have been transmitted generally do not have to appeal to the fashion of the hour but to challenge people for moral ground, loyalty, or other virtues.
Some scriptures did have some poetic elements for the sake of poetry, of course.

 

[Sir Doom]

You know, I don't really find the idea of scripture very odd, I just find the lack of modern scripture to be odd. Like, if the Pope writes a book about the Catholic faith, isn't that the same thing?

 

[Quintessence]

I watched a talk show once (Oprah, I think) where there was a panel of religious folk from various traditions. The Wiccan woman was weaving a beautiful description of her beliefs when the Baptist jumped up, waving his Bible, and demanding, "Where is your book? Where is all that stuff written?"

Some people really can't imagine a God who does not provide us a batch of holy words.

If I'd been the Wiccan, and quick-witted enough, I would have answered, "Oh, you can get a transcript of my holy words from the producers if you'd be happier with an extra sheaf of printed words to wave about."

*chuckles* I wonder when this was, because I try to pay attention to the Wild Hunt (a Pagan news blog; THE Pagan news blog, really) which tracks how our movement is seen in the public eye, including appearances like this. Might be interesting to watch if someone has it up on YouTube.

I actually have a book I could wave in his face, but it is written by myself and is a guide to my tradition. Some groups will have books like that to store things like liturgy and so forth, but others don't. And either way, it's not quite regarded in the same way as some regard the Bible. They are often living documents that are revised as we learn new things and have new experiences.

The idea of a tradition that grows with you is foreign and even frightening to those who really like to have set rules. I can see where they would hold fears about "moral degeneracy" for people like us who have more fluid traditions. What they probably need to understand is that certain core things change little, but we like trying new things to keep our rituals and stories fresh and inspiring. There's nothing worse than a stagnant religious tradition that ceases to bring joy to its adherents because it has fossilized itself into irrelevancy.

 

[Quintessence]

You know, I don't really find the idea of scripture very odd, I just find the lack of modern scripture to be odd. Like, if the Pope writes a book about the Catholic faith, isn't that the same thing?

There are a number of new religious movements that have an equivalent to modern scripture in that they have a sacred text they believe to be divinely inspired (and was delivered by a single prophetic individual channeling the deity). Oh... what was the one I heard of when I took some workshops at that New Age place years back. I forget. But it does exist. It just isn't mainstream.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, I think virtually every argument reduces to something like this: The Holy Spirit broadcasts God's Truth to all of humanity. I don't know why I hear and understand it so clearly while you are getting a garbled message, but....

I am not sure that all arguments really reduce to that. For instance, a Guru might point out the amount of time and discipline which disciples devote to pursuing understanding-(albeit, they would probably use some wise parable).

Rabbi's might note the years of discussion and study which they pursue

Catholics and other more traditional Christian Religions might suggest "some hear a calling and answer that calling" and understand only through that calling, study, and devotion.

While some of the newer Christian religions who articulate a personal relationship with God, might say that you have to put away logic and reason in order to take the leap of faith. This leap is based not on thought but on feeling and trust. Thus, they might suggest that your logic and reason are the reasons for what you hear.

I certainly understand what you are saying. There is no rational reason to take any holy book as Truth. Every single one, has potential flaws.

No sacred text will likely ever serve one exactly as it does another. Yet, at some juncture, someone in our history did indeed painstakingly take the time attempting to document and preserve that which lies within these texts. For linguistic reasons alone, many of these texts are invaluable. But more to the point, when you read these texts you read stories which certainly have themes still relevant today. Who cares whether Jonah was in a whale or whether Shiva has four arms. Who cares whether the Roman Guards or Mary Magdalene or some pauper first saw Jesus after he was resurrected.

If I were to find out that there was a textual mistranslation and there were really four witches in MacBeth or If I were to find out that Odysseus fought twenty Cyclops, I do not think that I would discard the entire story.

If you are looking for problems within these texts then that is all you are likely to find within them. If you are looking for meaning then you will likely find that. And in the case of your friends, if you are looking for a confirmation of your belief you will likely find that.

I think a more interesting way to look at interpretations is through just listening. Since that which we discover is usually just a facet of our self, listening to your friends interpretations might not help you know your friends' god or God or gods or Gods better, but it could very well help you know your friend.

 

[Sir Doom]

There are a number of new religious movements that have an equivalent to modern scripture in that they have a sacred text they believe to be divinely inspired (and was delivered by a single prophetic individual channeling the deity). Oh... what was the one I heard of when I took some workshops at that New Age place years back. I forget. But it does exist. It just isn't mainstream.

Yeah, it totally slipped my mind that there are lots of new religions that have new scripture, and then for some weird reason the Mormons completely slipped my mind as well. They have loads of new scriptures.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

In my understanding, scripture is a mix of materials. Some of it is written by prophets (that is, people who experienced divine revelation with a message, which they then attempted to try and put into fitting words), some by people who were inspired by prophets (in other words, their ideas do not come from revelatory experiences, but from being inspired to reach for the numinous). The poetry is just the form-- especially given that, as a Jew, I understand that Written Torah is only part of the whole: Torah is incomplete without the Oral Torah also-- and therefore Torah as a holistic thing is not merely writing, but something that includes both writings of many people from many times and the potential for actions and writings in every age. Therefore "scripture" is a part of a greater whole, a keystone element in a living, evolving transgenerational dialogue and covenant between God and the People Israel.

Thanks for that description. Well done.

I guess my question, in refined form, might look like this: What is the difference in truth value for you between the poetic writings of a (Jewish) prophet vs. the poetic writings of a (Jewish) non-prophet? Do you read the former with a greater sense of trust or acceptance perhaps?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Scriptures typically have a specific goal, for example to inspire faith or hope in times in which these commodities are scarce. Scriptures also address social and geopolitical issues contemporary to an era from a point of view of people who were considered well equipped intellectually and socially to address them.
The Hebrew Bible addresses the geopolitical alliances of ancient civilizations such as Egypt, Babylon, and Persia for example and how the nation of the scribes plays in this. The New Testament discusses the challenges of living under the tensions of Roman rule and domestic religious disagreements. In addition such scripture inspire a consistent message, for example a faith of a nation in their God and their destiny in the case of the Hebrew Bible, or a devotion to the new moral philosophy of an exalted teacher, and of course to the teacher himself in the case of the NT. The way these messages have been transmitted generally do not have to appeal to the fashion of the hour but to challenge people for moral ground, loyalty, or other virtues.

Thanks for the response. Your view of scripture seems quite a bit more sophisticated than the average religious American's view of it.

Anyway, what I'm really trying to get at with my question is the issue of truth or trust. Do you trust scripture to contain more of God's truth than poetry contains?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You know, I don't really find the idea of scripture very odd, I just find the lack of modern scripture to be odd. Like, if the Pope writes a book about the Catholic faith, isn't that the same thing?

For most people of my acquaintance, that wouldn't be the same. The Pope is not an actual prophet. He's more like God's general manager here on earth.

In my view, a prophet must actually announce: Listen! I am here, and I speak these words for God!

Think Joseph Smith.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I view scripture as Religious writings that are accepted as such by the particular religion.

I have great difficulty with the Idea that Scripture must be "Old" or written only by great men "in ancient times"

I do not agree that the ancient "doctors" of the church are the only ones who had the insights or the only ones through which God has spoken. I believe people today can equally hear and interpret God's word. We are just as capable of interpreting the ancient scriptures today, we can derive new insights and create new dogma for our time, even if it contradicts the old.

 

[rusra02]

I've always been perplexed by the idea that 1) God would select special men to channel His thoughts to us in the form of human words, and that 2) these Godly words retain their Godly meaning no matter how many times they are translated from century to century, place to place, language to language.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding how people view scripture.

What is the difference between your view of scripture and your view of poetry?

I believe what the Bible says about scripture: "no prophecy of scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man'a will, but men spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:20,21)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

*chuckles* I wonder when this was, because I try to pay attention to the Wild Hunt (a Pagan news blog; THE Pagan news blog, really) which tracks how our movement is seen in the public eye, including appearances like this. Might be interesting to watch if someone has it up on YouTube.

It was like 25-30 years ago. Someone in the humanist network had tipped me about it, which is the only reason I was watching Oprah, I swear.

Another interesting thing I saw once: On a busy, elevated interstate there was a car broken down. As I neared it, the father and mother and two children got out and began the hazardous trek down to ground level. It was so busy and wild that no one could really stop to give them a ride. Anyway, when the father got out of the car, he carried only one item -- a Bible clutched tightly under his arm.

I know there is comfort in the scriptures, but it's hard for me to understand how a person can think of scripture as 'truth.'

The idea of a tradition that grows with you is foreign and even frightening to those who really like to have set rules.

Yeah. Truth needs to stand still or else it isn't really truth... so goes the thinking.

There's nothing worse than a stagnant religious tradition that ceases to bring joy to its adherents because it has fossilized itself into irrelevancy.

I agree. But whenever I see an Orthodox Jew parading the Torah or a Christian clutching his KJV like a shield or a Muslim memorizing Quranic verses, I think that there are many people who value a standing-still God moreso than a dancing-around God.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There are a number of new religious movements that have an equivalent to modern scripture in that they have a sacred text they believe to be divinely inspired (and was delivered by a single prophetic individual channeling the deity). Oh... what was the one I heard of when I took some workshops at that New Age place years back. I forget. But it does exist. It just isn't mainstream.

The Urantia Book? We seem to have one of its followers here, although I can't remember who. And we have a good few LDS, although I wouldn't call them New Age.