Why should the label 'scripture' confer on a text unchallenged (and unchallengeable) authority despite the fact that there is very often little or no certainty as to who wrote the text or when?
-
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 'Scripture' Syndrome
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
If the text claims to be an authority then you have to either accept that authority or oppose the author of the text. It places you into a position where you have to either resist or comply. It isn't like you just pick up a random text and decide that its authoritative. (I hope.)
Good point. Thanks.
Or what it means. What can I say about how the mind works - how people can interpret, misinterpret, reinterpret and invent out of whole cloth statements about the meaning of scripture.
As Shakespeare wrote:
“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”
True, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
Nonsense.
Given that the OP was about taking scripture as being authoritative, I think it did since text being unchallengeable authority implies someone interpreting its meaning.
But it seems that you had a different question in mind than what I responded to - not that a scripture is unchallengeable authority but instead you're questioning the very label "scripture" which many believe has a divine imprimatur. In other words, questioning the divine authority of scripture.
xic
Member
Scripture to me just means a text that some group of people adapt to as divinely inspired
So if a group of people believe it, it is scripture
Some define it as infallable and based upon previous authority
The three major monotheistist beliefs are all based upon Torah being scripture
Jew writings after Torah were viewed to confirm torah
Christian writings are viewed to confirm torah and the jew OT known as the septuagint
Islam views the Qu'ran as confirmation of all previous scripture with a caveat that it was all corrupted
So jews view torah and jew writings as scripture
christians view the bible as scripture
muslims view the Qu'ran as scripture
so as long as a group of people view it as divinely inspired it's scripture
I myself view all scripture to some degree emanating from the akashic record, that's why some of it contains true info, but the revelations came through men and women all with their own agenda's, so it's all true/false to some degree
So if a group of people believe it, it is scripture
Some define it as infallable and based upon previous authority
The three major monotheistist beliefs are all based upon Torah being scripture
Jew writings after Torah were viewed to confirm torah
Christian writings are viewed to confirm torah and the jew OT known as the septuagint
Islam views the Qu'ran as confirmation of all previous scripture with a caveat that it was all corrupted
So jews view torah and jew writings as scripture
christians view the bible as scripture
muslims view the Qu'ran as scripture
so as long as a group of people view it as divinely inspired it's scripture
I myself view all scripture to some degree emanating from the akashic record, that's why some of it contains true info, but the revelations came through men and women all with their own agenda's, so it's all true/false to some degree
Skwim
Veteran Member
Because it was written or inspired by god, who insured its truth as well as all its translations. Now you can either buy this or not.
Buy it, then nothing anyone says against scripture matters. They're simply wrong.
Don't buy, then you open it up to all kinds of criticism. Be prepared.
outhouse
Atheistically
Does it not come down to how we define Scripture?
Dale B Martin explains it should only be called scripture to people faithful to the religion, followers if you will.
For the rest it should be labeled "text" which would include historical studies, it Is no longer scripture.
So context of unchallengeable really does not apply because it is faith based, if I follow you correctly.
According to whom? On what authority?
Skwim
Veteran Member
By whoever wants to make the claim. Want to insulate the book of your faith from criticism then just declare it inviolable, and let that be that, and smugly walk away.
But even if you buy this you still have the problem of when scripture contradicts scripture. What do you do then?
Skwim
Veteran Member
From what I've seen here the most common tactic is to ignore them.
What!??? That can't be right. How can they just ignore the inspired word of God? That makes no sense. You must be mistaken.From what I've seen here the most common tactic is to ignore them.
gsa
Well-Known Member
the answer to the question is obvious: It should not. The bare assertion that a text is the inspired word(s) of a deity is hardly self-authenticating. However, few texts claim to be self-authenticating or inspired. I will leave Islam out of this, because it is the exception. Scriptural infallibility in both Judaism and Christianity is based on tradition, not the assertion of "scripture" itself, which did not exist as a canon when being reduced to present form.
It is extremely important to Protestant Christianity as a source of authority; sola scriptura is an alternative to institutional clerical guidance. And so the "fulfilled" prophecies contained in the gospels are deemed self-authenticating to believers, although few with knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures are convinced. But in other Christian traditions the role of scripture is downplayed; tradition is equally important, if not more so.
It is extremely important to Protestant Christianity as a source of authority; sola scriptura is an alternative to institutional clerical guidance. And so the "fulfilled" prophecies contained in the gospels are deemed self-authenticating to believers, although few with knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures are convinced. But in other Christian traditions the role of scripture is downplayed; tradition is equally important, if not more so.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Ya takes what ya need when ya need it, and don't take what you don't need when you don't need it.What!??? That can't be right. How can they just ignore the inspired word of God? That makes no sense. You must be mistaken.
One possible reason: because the scripture itself doesn't matter that much.
IMO, scripture is usually a malleable thing that can be used - or abused - however a person wants.
When you pour iron filings on a magnet to see the lines of the magnetic field, the brand of filings you use doesn't matter - they'll all show the same underlying thing. Same with scripture: whichever one you choose can probably be used for whatever one you want, so just pick one and run with it. It'll be no worse than any of the others.