Approaches to the scriptures seem to fluctuate between two extremes. One extreme views the scriptures as the complete, inviolable word of God, without error and unchallengeable, the interpretation thereof not open to debate and the meaning thereof set in proverbial stone. The other extreme views the scriptures as folk tales and pseudo-historical mumbo jumbo that only the simpleminded and superstitious take at all seriously, as relevant to we moderns as animal sacrifices and threshing floors.
My own approach to the scriptures I can only convey by way of analogy. Imagine a student taking a physics class. Everyday the student goes to class and the teacher tries to explain both the fundamental and more advances aspects of physics. Both the student and the teacher are conscientious and diligent; the student wants to learn and the teacher wants to teach. But of course, physics is a complicated matter. So as the teacher writes and draws on the blackboard, or white board, each lesson to illustrate the laws of physics, the student focuses on copying and taking note of what the teacher has written and drawn as accurately as possible while also listening to the words the teacher is saying. These notes are for the student to study later after class, when the teach is no longer present.
Assuming a diligent and conscientious student, and knowledgeable and willing teacher, would we expect for the student’s notes to be without error? Likewise, should we expect the student to be able to perfectly take note of everything the teacher tried to convey? The student is a student, right? Likely not. Physics is a very complicated subject and takes many years of study to understand, and even the most knowledgeable physicist does not understand completely all the laws of physics. There is always more to learn. A student trying to take note of a subject the student only imperfectly understands will almost certainly make errors.
And if there was a second student who for whatever reason did not make it to class, would it be beneficial to that second student to study the notes of the first student, even realizing that the notes are not a perfect reflection of what the teacher was trying to teach? Would it be better for the second student to study the first student’s imperfect notes or to have no notes at all? If the second student really wanted to more fully understand the first student’s notes, wouldn’t the second student seek out the teacher to ask the teacher questions?
As pertaining to the scriptures in general, the first students in this analogy would be the prophets and the teacher would be Our Heavenly Father. As pertaining to the Gospels in particular, the first student would be the Apostles and the teacher would be Our Heavenly Father through the intermediary of the Savior, Jesus Christ. In both cases, the second student is all of us.
I would add this caveat to the analogy. What are considered scriptures are not all the notes we have available to us regarding Our Heavenly Father’s attempts to communicate with us and teach us. Those notes are scattered far and wide and yet ever present, both universal and personal, if we have eyes to see and ears to hear. In this way we are both the first student and the second student. And both the first student and the second student would benefit from seeking out the teacher, if for no other reason than to confirm our own understanding.