posted
I haven't seen many of OSC's openly religious works discussed in the forums, so I don't know if there's a hold on them to keep the peace or if nobody really has much to say about them, but I just finished "Sarah" and I have a question for Mr. Card, or anyone else willing to respond. In the afterward, OSC makes refernce to the inheriancy of scripture. My understanding of this concept is that "All scripture is God-breathed" (can't remember refrence ); that if scripture is indeed the writings of men, divinely inspired by God, then they are completely true. In "Sarah" OSC seems to suggest that he believes the scriptures are true, but that they are embellished upon, so the stories may not be exactly as they are told. My question is this: how can a person call in to question part of the scripture without questioning the veracity of the writings as a whole? This is a serious question, not an attack; I'm trying to learn how I can test my faith without completely destroying the belief I try to live my life on.
*As an afterthought -- I don't think this violates any forum rules, but if it does, just let me know Posts: 16 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Card subscribes to the Mormon view of scripture, which is that scripture is inspired, but that it is written, transmitted, and translated by men. There is no such thing as a perfect book ... only a book that is more correct or more inspired than other books.
For Mormons, this inherent imperfection of scripture is mitigated by a belief in a modern prophet and personal revelation. In other words, divine scripture can be misconstrued, but the truths you draw from it can be verified and corrected through direct communication with God.
Mormons also don't take an "all or nothing" attitude towards scripture. It doesn't have to be perfect or infallible to be generally reliable, and you'll find that Mormons rely as heavily on their scriptures as any Christians do. The sense that there may be a few imperfections doesn't invalidate an entire work. If anything, it makes it all the more plausible, comprehensible, and persuasive when you don't have to try and justify each word as direct dictation from God.
[ April 21, 2005, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The other aspect is the translations. Where Sarah appears in the bible, definately does not appear in English in the actual texts, so when going from Aramaic or Hebrew, to Latin, to Italian, to English creates many discrepencies and allows for embellishment and alterations of words to make things sound bigger or more out of proportion.
Posts: 84 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole idea of "God-breathed" scripture is contrary to the evidence we have, as far as I can see. What I believe is that what God breathed were actual revelations and inspirations to godly people in times past, which were then told and retold, or written and recopied, over many generations.
What God said and did were the sayings and acts of God. What men recorded will be altered by:
1. Their inability to completely undertand the will and purpose of God, and the natural tendency to add in the explanation that makes sense to them.
2. The natural errors that emerge through retelling and translation and recopying.
3. The tendency of later writers to "fix" what seems "wrong" to them, even though in fact they simply didn't understand what they were reading, and their "fix" is actually the introduction of a new error.
4. The suppression of non-useful parts because they give fuel to the arguments of the other side in a political or theological dispute.
5. The addition of material because it "feels" like scripture even though in fact it is the poetic or inspirational work of a human being.
To me, Genesis is a book that represents later editorial selection of human-written accounts of events that really happened. It was the events, not the accounts, that were guided and directed by God, to the degree mentioned in the scripture (i.e., Cain was not guided by God, of course. Duh).
Those who believe in the inerrancy of scripture are entitled to believe what they will, though it is odd that they have selected such an arbitrary moment in time for the scriptures to be "frozen" into the perfect expression of the will of God, given that there were earlier versions that were different and therefore, apparently, less "inerrant."
However, these days, when serious biblical "scholars" seem to be devoted to the idea of proving that the scriptures are ALL fiction and that God has never actually done anything, I think my position is radically pro-scripture. That is, I believe that these people really leaved, these events really happened, and God really does deal with the people of the world as shown in the Bible.
with exceptions. I think God did not punish the children who made fun of Elisha's bald head by sending bears to kill them. I don't think God works that way. I think there were probably children who made fun of Elisha, and later a bear killed one or some of them, and then everyone remembered and the story was TOLD that God did it. But I don't think God really did it. Thus I think the Bible is a faithful record of what the people of the time BELIEVED that God did, but that in fact they are wrong and God had nothing to do with it, beyond letting his children be born into a world that has bears and bald men.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, scripture uses literary techniques just like any other book, so the bear story is probably a good example of hyperbole. It still teaches a lesson to those who are willing to learn...
Posts: 25 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
The arguements against inerrancy of scripture make sense, and I can get my family to explain why scripture might truely be inerrent, but I've never heard this side of things, so please bear with me
But what makes scripture reliable in any way at all if it's an exageration of God's work mixed in with other "inspirational" works?
If I feel that God is leading me to do something (marry a particular person, or choose one job over another), the only way I know to be sure of God's leading is to test my feelings against God's word. If I feel God is calling me to steal my neighbor's car, for (an easy) example, I can look in the scripture and see that the lifestyle (and commandments) presented there forbids theft.
But I'm not sure how I can test the ideas and emotions that come to my mind agaisnt what has been presented in scripture if scripture itself is just a collection of stories, not written by men "under the influnce," so to speak, of God. In some ways, I would be living my life by a history book, and even if it's always true, it's not... the living word of God.
I guess it comes down to this: I know my heart well enough to know that I would most likely twist scripture to mean what I want it to mean, not what it really means... If the scripture isn't seen as inerrent, what safegaurds this possibility?
Posts: 16 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
NO human writings are utterly reliable, because even the most intelligent and honest of storytellers inadvertently bend the facts to fit their conception of the universe. It can't be helped.
So what we do is read, believe, but hold the details in abeyance, so that we don't have our entire faith structure overturned because of a flaw in some detail. Insist that the scriptures are inerrant, and when the undeniable flaw comes to the surface and you can no longer wish it away, then the whole structure comes tumbling down.
Better to recognize that we learn line upon line, precept on precept - and so did the prophets.
It is precisely the imperfections of spiritual men that give people like me hope: If they could be useful to God - his friends, his children - then perhaps in some way I can, too.
I think the insistence on the inerrancy of scripture is an answer to (and a reflection of) the claim of inerrancy on the part of the pope. The trouble, as far as I can see, is that God does not bestow inerrancy on ANY mortal institution, artifact, or human being. What he bestows is authority, information, and missions/quests to perform. But what we do with that authority, how we make sense of the information, and how well or badly we fulfil our quests - he leaves us our freedom and lets us exercise our own best thinking.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the key here is the meaning of "inerrancy." The Catholic position is that God inspired the scripture so it contained in it the meaning God wanted it to. However, often God's meaning is not in the historical details. Thus, the histoical bits are usually up for interpretation. It's all true, but in what way? Many Catholics believe that Genesis and other parts are more or less poetical. The creation account, for instance, was probably written more to demonstrate God's role as creator and the holiness of the Sabbath. And many of the lives of the Isrealites were probably more intended to show God's work in their lives than to show their lives precisely. The trouble arises only when you assume that everything is exactly, word for word true.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, these days, when serious biblical "scholars" seem to be devoted to the idea of proving that the scriptures are ALL fiction . . .
How strange. Out of all the serious Biblical scholars I’ve studied with, and whose writings I’ve read, I can only think of a handful who come close to this description, and none for whom it is completely accurate. (And I studied at one of the more “liberal” theological schools.) The vast majority are working with a text they love, out a deep faith commitment. Many even from the exact same assumptions you’ve laid out – that the events were inspired by God but recorded by human beings.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it's just that all the books I read seem to be either apologetics, which are useless to me in creating my fiction (books devoted to proving the Bible), or are by scholars who feel they must bear witness that there probably was no Abraham and certainly were no miracles.
By the way, I don't think of Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel & Leah as "religious" novels. I think of them has historical novels. You don't have to be a believer to enjoy these books; at the same time, you won't find anything to contradict the Bible if you ARE a believer. The idea is to make my spin on these fascinating women available to readers of any ideological stripe.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Positions that most people take on the degree of "truthfulness" in the scriptures has evolved over the last 500 years. It is interesting for me to understand the positions the different faiths have based on that history. The Bible in Modern Culture is a great book on that history. It helps me appreciate the position of evangelicals (who seem to hold a difficult position, in my opinion) when I see what movement or school of thought came before.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of the Mormon theology too, is the idea that scripture in and of itself is not meant to stand alone.
Since truth is fluid, in the sense that it does not change its basic structure but can be presented in different containers to meet audiences of varying needs, LDS adherants believe that a modern prophet is the first authority on revealing God's current will. The belief is that scripture provides guidance and blessings above and beyond what is read; there is an unseen spiritual benefit to regular reading. As long as the truth is accurate, the method by which its presented can vary. If there is conflict, the prophet's words come first.
A good example is from the writings of Abraham found in the Pearl of Great Price, part of the LDS canon of scripture. Abraham's account of the creation is much different than in Genesis, but the traditional version from the Bible is often used and retold as it is familiar and gets the basic truths across as needed. The details of the story may vary, but the truth is ultimately the same (and most important).
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
); that if scripture is indeed the writings of men, divinely inspired by God, then they are completely true. In "Sarah" OSC seems to suggest that he believes the scriptures are true, but that they are embellished upon, so the stories may not be exactly as they are told. 
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
