Religion E6

Page E6

Fair The Town Voice First

How to Read the Holy Scriptures

By Arlon Staywell
RICHMOND — Have humans at various times in history misread their Holy Scriptures? The evidence appears difficult to dodge, but we don't really need to dodge it here. While many established religions hold the Holy Scriptures to be perfected, to be the word of God, they do not guarantee imperfect humans will readily know what they mean. That is an approximate, general consensus of the established religions anyway. There are differing views and we should be careful not to disrespect them. For the purposes of the discussion here it will be "assumed" that although the Holy Scriptures might indeed be perfectly true the point is generally not immediately relevant. Some points of salvation might be immediate, but the full understanding of the Bible is generally not.
Another issue that should be cleared at the outset is whether the Holy Scriptures are "literally" true or contain highly symbolic, allegorical or less direct language. An illustration that has served for years is the discussion of colors, for example green, and how to describe it to someone blind since birth. It really isn't possible to describe "green" "literally" to such a person or to "literally" describe anything to anyone who has no prior experience of it. It is only possible to speak indirectly, to speak of the differences in the pitch of sounds or smoothness of textures or something known in order to compare it symbolically to the unknown.
The degree to which we can speak literally depends on the degree to which known experiences compare to the unknown. If a person has never been to Amarillo but has been to Houston we can describe much of Amarillo literally because of the high degree of similarity. There are likely only a few subtle differences that require more symbolic language. If the same person had never been to New Delhi our ability to describe literally would be less in that case.
So anyone who tries to tell you the Holy Scriptures must be "literal" is telling you they contain nothing you have not already experienced. Perhaps "literal" in that sense was not at some points the intention for the Holy Scriptures. For the purposes of the discussion here it will be "assumed" that while much of the Holy Scriptures can be taken literally some parts were likely never intended that way.
Having made these points on literal truth and the complexities thereof the question might arise what value then are the Holy Scriptures?
The relationship between science and art is such that you should be careful criticizing anyone for their lack of science not to expose your own artlessness, an important point for american education these days.
The great value of the Holy Scriptures is most readily found when they are used as they were intended. They are part of a process that has worked. Error prone as humans are the process has perhaps not worked everywhere all the time, but still the best results seem obtained from the process. The process involves the religious congregation.
There are limits to what books alone can do. A paper could be written for example on how to check the lights and indicators on your car. Still you can't well see all the lights work from where the switches are. You need someone or something, a mirror perhaps, to help you see what you can't otherwise. The book or paper would have to list the other requirements. For their purpose the Holy Scriptures do that. One of the other requirements is the religious congregation.

Test Your Knowledge The type of flower below ... a) is about a foot across. b) is common in Richmond, Virginia. c) is featured on the state quarter of Mississippi. d) blooms about through June and July. e) all of the above. Click here for answers.	For sociological and cultural reasons too deep to address in this brief article many Americans depend too heavily on scriptures. That is a curious thing because their own scriptures do not instruct them to do that. Yet they do and the result is that various likely misinterpretations and misapplications of those scriptures abound. And it has opened the door to people who aren't religious at all deciding what the scriptures mean. The further result is that people tend to disregard scriptures altogether, which can also be detrimental. Holy Scriptures are the ancient foundations of the world's ethical systems. Those ethical systems and traditions that survived the centuries are important because they did survive the centuries. The representatives of those ethical systems have current information on the meaning and significance to modern life of the scriptures. Most key writings are so ancient they are set in primitive, lawless times before the ethical system thoroughly established itself and are best understood as beginning in and diplomatically rising out of that context. The Key Controversy The most problematic of interpretations as many of you already know is of course the Judeo-Christian story of "creation." Most intelligent, educated people consider it more art than science and they might well be correct. It is suspected that even the primitive people who first heard the story did not take it literally, but there were actually people who believed males have one less rib than females because of the story. Anyway if it is art it is not likely art alone but art with moral lessons. An important moral lesson still valid today is that life did not arise from nothing or from dead or inanimate matter. Something else existed before and brought life into this world, albeit by a series of steps. That is the enormous error of modern "science" to say that life arose by a series of accidents out of inanimate material. The theory of evolution in no way explains how life might arise from non-living matter, but it is a quite common mistake for people to think that it does. Especially when those first primitive microscopes showed unicellular life forms people believed life was a simple thing that could have arisen by chance. Of course modern microscopes show that even unicellular life forms are complex beyond any reasonable possibility of being randomly assembled. If we have scientific proof of an intelligent designer why isn't that taught in public schools? In those days of primitive microscopes when it seemed there was no proof of an intelligent designer people tried to convince themselves their ethical systems could be strong and could work without such proof. Grapes you can't reach are probably sour as Aesop's fox decided.
Photo by Arlon Staywell

Surprisingly though even lately a writer came to speak at Virginia Commonwealth University for "Darwin Day" to assure people that evolution did not undermine any religion or ethical system. I was a guest at his table for the dinner after. I believe he still has a website. As you can see I still have one.
It is clear today though that belief in an intelligent designer was a key strength of many strong ethical systems. It is also clear that evolution as currently taught in american public schools does undermine religion especially with the arrogance it ignores evidence from modern microscopes.
One of the big mistakes people made when they thought life was simple was to believe that they could now depend less on "magic" to explain things. But it is not because we believe in magic that we must dismiss godless evolution, it is because we do not believe, as wise men and sages for centuries did not believe, that life arose from non-life unaided.
Far less "magical" is the belief that an existing form of life, call it "God" or an "intelligent designer," did albeit by several stages bring life into this world.
Read your Holy Scriptures. The wisdom of the ages is in there. Perhaps someone or something will open it up to you.
Contradictions in the Bible
Some people have expectations about God that are recently developed. "If there is a god" they think it should speak more directly to them and tell them what to do for a perfect world. For most people God has never done that. Instead God tells us what not to do for a perfect world and then apparently does not prevent anyone doing those things. Our life on this Earth is apparently supposed to be our project to manage on our own. It is left to us to persuade others not to do things God told us not to do.
The task is very complicated though and rife with exceptions and expediencies. There is no book that can deal with all that without a skillful interpreter. Although the Bible does contain prophesies, it also contains histories, a bit of crude science, and other elements to satisfy various expectations of early societies before there was such a thing as "science."
It is a complete collection of several books, not all written by prophets. Isaiah was a prophet, Ecclesiastes was not. Matthew and John were apostles, Mark and Luke were not.
Much of the first part of the Bible was an oral tradition never directly revealed to any prophet. Moses is considered a prophet since he heard directly from God, but much of the Old Testament resulted from his saving the oral tradition he perhaps did not hear directly from God. Debate continues of course.
It is only by Deuteronomy (c18v15) that God promises to send "his people" (only recently gathered) a prophet. Notice it is not a book, but a man with books. The need for professional interpretation continues to this day. The books mean whatever the congregation of the faithful says they mean through their anointed leaders.
Isaiah was a prophet because he tells you plainly to hear the word of the Lord. He describes how he was sent in Isaiah Chapter 6. Ecclesiastes was not a prophet since in his book Chapter 1 verse 13 he says plainly that "I proposed in my mind to seek and search out wisely ... "
Even much of the general public knows Mark and Luke were not apostles.
There is a children's game called "Simon Says" where a leader instructs players to do things. They are only supposed to do them if the leader precedes the instruction by saying "Simon says," otherwise they are not supposed to follow that instruction.
Also very recently some people have attempted to argue that the book of Genesis should be taken "literally." No one did that even in Bible times depending what you mean by "literally." One famous proponent of a "literal" interpretation of Genesis was asked where the Garden of Eden is and angel with the flaming sword. He never responded at all to the question. It might be he is a fraud funded by people who are trying to undermine religion.
Is Genesis "Literal"
A very recent development in the history of religion and science is that people who believe the book of Genesis should be taken literally are getting organized and expecting others to take them seriously. You might see lists of "scientists" who take the "Biblical creation story" literally. However it is not likely even the most devout Jews or Christians took Genesis literally, even millennia ago.
It is important to understand why the recent development is happening. Probably the most significant reason it is happening is that many people are aware that science has not developed hard evidence. The techniques for establishing the age of the Earth are not free from possible errors.
Another important thing to understand is what is happening. What exactly does a "literal" interpretation mean? Does it mean that each event and claim in Genesis has been checked out by science, by physics or archaeology? No it does not. Science has not found any Garden of Eden, the angel with the flaming sword guarding it, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the Tree of Life, or any substantial convincing evidence of many details in Genesis.
The reality then is that science indeed has evidence that suggests the Earth is far older than the Bible appears on a cursory reading to indicate, but proof is beyond reach. That is all. So what we have is the possibility that Genesis might be "literally" true if you grant some very special tress existed and several others details that strain scientific knowledge.
Now consider what people who take Genesis literally expect you to do and why. They expect you to take it literally because they believe it, they are smart, and there are several of them. They do not even try to show one point in Genesis they can prove one way or any other. They might be "scientists," but that is not the scientific method.
Are there indications in actual fact that certain events in Genesis are based on them?
In the Indus river valley food grows in the forest without need of human care. You simply reach up and pick it off the trees. Unlike forests to the north you don't need to hunt animals to survive. A "forest dweller" was, and to some very limited extent still is, a stage in the life of a practicing Hindu. However there is no "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" or any "Tree of Life" to report.
More than one major flood scenario has been suggested where perhaps the Mediterranean or other sea bed was once dry and yet somehow lower than the nearby waters. It then filled when some part of the wall around it broke. Although very remotely possible, they might indeed be. That of course requires the expression "the whole world" be taken a trifle less than "literally."
The reality then is that people who think they are scientists, but really aren't, expect you to believe that the book of Genesis should be taken literally. That is the same thing the people who believe there is no god do. They also think they are scientists, but really aren't.

The Town Voice Home | Religion Index E1 | E5 | E6 | E7