Not long ago, I shared a polite conversation with a missionary from another Christian church concerning his religious beliefs. He particularly stressed the importance of understanding scripture, which, he claimed, contained the inerrant word of God. The Bible, he highlighted, is the only true source through which we can learn the will of God.
A few days later, I read an article about a man whose profession as a Biblical researcher brought about a life transition which led from being an evangelical Christian with a literalist view of the Bible to becoming agnostic. This change began with the scrutiny of a single scripture. He discovered a Biblical verse which was contradicted in multiple places throughout the Bible. Finding no satisfactory rationalization, he was left to conclude that some mistake had been made in recording or translating the Bible. This discovery was the stone that shattered his belief in a 100% infallible and inerrant Bible.
These situations led me to think more about this idea of the Bible being the “infallible word of God.” The definitions of the words “perfect” and “infallible” differ from person to person. There are many who consider the Bible to be 100% accurate in every aspect. Some even go so far as to conduct extensive apologetic research aimed at rationalizing scriptural details which contradict historical, scientific, or other evidence.
For others, the Bible is not a “perfect” book, according to the literalist definition. I put myself into this category. I truly value the word of God I believe is contained therein, but also believe that “perfection” isn’t necessarily found in 100% inerrancy.
According to Joseph Smith, the first president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly” (Article of Faith 8). In other words, there might be errors in the scriptures.
The Bible and other scriptures were at some point written or otherwise recorded by human hands. In most cases, they have not only gone through one translation, but through many. Moreover, the original authors of the books of scriptures wrote based on their own understanding of their surroundings.
All these individuals who participated in the creation of scripture, just like you or me, were imperfect. The title page of the Book of Mormon even contains this caveat: “…if there are faults they are the mistakes of men…” There is admittedly room for error, even in scripture.
For some, this notion is troubling. However, this needn’t be the case. Two key considerations of scripture are important in confronting such a challenge:
1) Focus on the big picture, not on minute details or semantics
2) Recognize the true purpose of scripture
First, keeping the “big picture” in our perspective is always healthy. A Church leader once shared a parable concerning this concept. Imagine the Bible as a wonderful tapestry or masterpiece painting. As you view this beautiful work of art, you notice some flaws. In one corner there are some loose threads, or perhaps flaking paint. Do such errors negate the greater beauty?
Second, the true purpose of scripture should always been considered when reading them. Just a few months ago, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, one of the Apostles in the Church, visited Romania. One of the messages which he shared was this very principle – understanding the true purpose of scripture. He declared that if we read the scriptures for the purpose of understanding history, science, archeology, sociology, etc., we will be left wanting. The primary purpose of scripture is to record doctrines and prophecies, not travelogues or narratives. The word of God means the principles by which we should live.
In conclusion, I leave you with some questions. Do you feel the Bible, or any other book of scripture, requires literal accuracy? If so, why? Even if the Bible were infallible, would it be of use to us if we didn’t understand its true purpose?
I value the words of the Bible. This wonderful book, errors and all, contains truth, which, if properly applied, can lead along the path of perfection. However, before scriptures can become “perfect books,” we must first recognize “the good book” within them all.
DISCLAIMER:
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Nils,
Josh Snyder here. You bring up a very valid question and one which every Christian needs to understand. I remember dealing with this a lot with evangelicals in particular as a missionary. Many take the infallible approach to the Bible, but the ones who have done their homework know there are errors both deliberate and accidental in the translation. Even if the Bible were tranlated 99% accurately, that means that several hundred verses were still incorrect in some way. Odds are they were some of the key passages. We know they were just from the JST.
More importantly, those who believe the Bible should realize that it is a general foundation for doctrine and not a step by step manual the way the Mosaic law was for the Israelites.
We should no more hold the Bible as infallible anymore than we do a prophet, apostle, bishop, Relief Society president, fellow saint, etc. I would include the Book of Mormon in that list as well. Joseph said it was the most correct book, not a perfect one.
Christ really wants us to have a solid testimony of Gospel principles which will then allow us to govern ourselves and not to have to be instructed in all things.
If my stake president, etc were to go off deep end in some way, my faith would hold just as firm as if he had not.
Hi Josh,
Welcome to Mormon Thinking. Thanks for your thoughts and comments. We hope to hear more from you.
I really like your point of the scriptures providing a general foundation of doctrine, and not seeing them as step-by-step guide to salvation. I think many of the most important scriptural passages might mean different things for different people, and that is a good thing. It depends on the context of their life, the level of their individual spiritual understanding, etc. Those things which can be literally interpreted in a non-doctrinal manner are only to provide context for the doctrines to which they are attached. Moreover, the Bible or any other scripture is only as valuable as the thought and effort we put into them in terms of understanding and putting to application.
Good topic, Nils.
I would imagine that the number of people who take the Bible literally is declining. The question becomes one of interpretation. In almost every passage, almost every verse, the answer to the question "what did God really mean" is critical, because one the one hand, if God meant it literally, then logically xyz follows, and if God was just saying for example, then abc follows, and, if God was just kidding, then lmnop follows, if you follow my meaning.
The same goes for the Book of Mormon. If archaeological evidence shows that the majority of Native Americans came across the Bering Strait, then certainly there's a spiritual explanation here.
Tobyo-
I would agree that the number of people who interpret the Bible or any other book as 100% literally true is likely declining. On the other hand, people do have the tendency to go to extremes on any issue.
For Mormons, this has never been such a difficult issue, because of the sentiment which is expressed in the 8th Article of Faith. However, I think we may have some of the same troubles, as you alluded too, when it comes to things like the Book of Mormon. As I said, the Book of Mormon is meant to be a book of prophecy and applicable doctrine, and not a history textbook or anything else. However, often when people want to define truth, it is easier to lump everything into the same category rather than work through filters.
When Elder Oaks was here, he talked about reading the Book of Mormon as a kid, and how he was most interested in the war parts of the book. He said anytime a limb or a head was cut off, he would underline the passage. However, he said that as he got older, he realized that the value of the book wasn't in these action-packed passages, but rather in the spiritual lessons attached to the stories. Like you said, there must be a spiritual explanation.
Nils, you said:
"the Book of Mormon is meant to be a book of prophecy and applicable doctrine, and not a history textbook or anything else"
and I think that sentiment is expressed among our present leaders in one form or another.
The Bible has an advantage over the Book of Mormon in that it is a conglomerate of orally kept stories and writings, re-arranged, retranslated, handed from generation to generation, and perhaps distilled in it's present form. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, has a much more direct history, since there were two authors/compilers, writing from source documents, and one translator who brought the book to light fairly recently.
Where errors in the Bible could be ascribed to an unknown slightly inspired well meaning monk of the 11th century (or any of a number of folks), errors in the Book of Mormon would have to be directly attributed to either Joseph Smith, Mormon or Moroni, or to the original prophet/writer. The same person who is infallibly providing spiritual guidance is somehow including fallible material in the mix.
At least in the case of the Bible the source or sources could be excellent, and along the way, someone else (a bumbling idiot) could have messed it up.
I confess that I am not a firm reader of the Bible, which would - being catholic- my first book of refernce. When I was a child I got the childrens' version of the Bible, a hard-cover book with beautiful pictures, which I took with me every time I moved to another flat. I remember that I read through without stopping except for food and sleep(partly also because I was so young and excited about the beauty of having discovered reading :). When I was older I found that I should also be readin the Bble in its "original" version and was truly disappointed with how people approached this undertaking- I personally do not care who said what exatctly in the Bible- for me it is the message of each individual story or epoisode that makes the Bible a valuable book for everyone - a spirit which for me personally my childrens' version of the Bible captures best.
Michaela.
Michaela-
Funny you should mention the Bible for Children. I was having a conversation about this very book with my brother not long ago. He is not a member of any religion, but he had read a children's Bible at a younger age, and remembers many of the stories from the Bible as well as anyone who grew up attending Sunday School. I also remember reading one, and it became a great reference to reading the actual Bible, as the children's Bible truly made reading much more understandable.
Nils-
It is not so much about that it is just easier to read the children's Bible, but since it is written more like a narrative and less like a chronical it emphasises (maybe unintentionally) the focus on the actual story and its message(s) which are otherwise covered by dates, names and phrases. The Bible in its original version of course offers more to this, but I guess I am more like your brother- I remember (and love) the stories mainly.
Michaela.
Post a Comment