Bundel Khan

7/27/2019 Bundel Khan

1/938

can alwayssay

revelation

is right andthe

accepted


2/938

"fact" iswrong. If

scientists

say theuniverse is

fifteen to


3/938

twentybillion

years old,

andthe Bible

says it's a


4/938

fewthousand

years old

then, sayfundament

alists,


5/938

science iswrong and

the Bible

right. Butwhat

happens


6/938

when thefact

is in

anotherpart of the

revelation?


7/938

Forexample,

what

happenswhen


8/938

the Biblecontradicts

itself? This

brings usto the


9/938

question ofinternal

consistence

: does thebible agree

with itself?


10/938

Throughout the ages,

many

leadingreligious


11/938

figureshave said it

does. For

example, inInerrancy

And The


12/938

Church([I03]) we

read that

Clement ofRome

claimed


13/938

that theScriptures

were

errorless.([I03],23),

that


14/938

Tertullianwas swift

to argue . .

. that theScriptures


15/938

containedno

contradicto

ry materialnor error.

([I03],24),


16/938

that Origen. . .

perceived

theScriptures


17/938

as perfectand

noncontrad

ictory . . .([I03],25),


18/938

and,finally, that

[f]or

Augustine,it was an

article of


19/938

faith thatthere is no

real

discrepancy or

contradicti


20/938

on in all ofScripture.

([I03],49).

Augustine's definition


21/938

of errorwas strict.

When

Augustinedeclared

the Bible to


22/938

be freefrom

error, he

explicitlyrejected

the


23/938

presence ofinadvertent

mistakes as

well asconscious


24/938

deception.([I03],53).

Yet he

knewMatthew

27:9


25/938

attributes aquote to

Jeremiah

which is


26/938


27/938

Underhill inher classic

work

Mysticism:A Study in

the Nature


28/938

andDevelopme

nt of Man's

SpiritualConsciousn

ess writes:


29/938

He seemsalways to

have worn

it upon hisperson: a


30/938

perpetualmemorial of

the supernal

experience,the


31/938

initiationinto Reality,

which it

describes.([U01],188)

.


32/938

Shebelieves the

experience

concluded. . . a long

period of


33/938

spiritualstress, in

which

indifferenceto his

ordinary


34/938

interestswas

counterbala

nced by anutter


35/938

inability tofeel the

attractive

force of thatDivine

Reality


36/938

which hisgreat

mind

discerned asthe only

adequate


37/938

object ofdesire.

([U01],189)

.Underhill

mentions


38/938

otherChristian

mystics

whoseexperience

of


39/938

Lightparallels the

experience

ofAugustine,


40/938

Fox, andPascal.

LIGHT,

ineffableand

uncreated,


41/938

the perfectsymbol of

pure

undifferentiated Being:

above the


42/938

intellect, asSt.

Augustine

reminds us,but known


43/938

to him wholoves.

This

UncreatedLight is the


44/938

"deep yetdazzling

darkness"

of theDionysian

school,


45/938

"dark fromits

surpassing

brightness .. . as the


46/938

shining ofthe sun on

his course is

as darknessto weak


47/938

eyes." It isSt.

Hildegarde'

s lux vivens,Dante's

somma


48/938

luce,wherein

he saw

multiplicityin unity, the


49/938

ingatheredleaves of all

the

universe:The Eternal

Father, or


50/938

Fount ofThings.

"For well

we know,"says

Ruysbroeck


51/938

, "that thebosom

of the

Father isour ground

and origin,


52/938

wherein ourlife

and being is

begun."([U01],115)

.


53/938

Is not theUltimate

Ground of

Existenceour ground

and origin,


54/938

root andsource as

well? Is not

Energy pureIsness, pure

Suchness,


55/938

pureundifferenti

ated

Existence?


56/938

EasternChristian

Seers

Of course,other

religions


57/938

speak ofdirect

experience

of theEternal


58/938

Light.Hesychasm,

a mystical

tradition ofthe Eastern

Orthodox


59/938

ChristianChurch, is

particularly

explicit.The Eastern


60/938


61/938

branches ofa single

Christian

church.About

1054, the


62/938

twodivided.

Hesychasm

is themonastic

tradition of


63/938

the EasternOrthodox

church that

expressesits


64/938

([M02],106)"central

mystical

doctrine."Hesychast


65/938

monksclaim

direct

experienceof God in

the form of


66/938

Uncreatedlight.

One of the

greatestHesychast

saints lived


67/938

about athousand

years

ago. Hisname is

Symeon.


68/938

He's called"the New

Theologian"

toindicate he

ranks


69/938

second([S26],37)

only to

theologian"par


70/938

excellence,"Gregory of

Nazianzus.

In his ThirdTheological


71/938

Discourse,Symeon

writes:

God is light,a light

infinite and


72/938

incomprehensible . . .

one single

light . .simple,

non-


73/938

composite,timeless,

eternal . . .

The light islife. The

light is


74/938

immortality.The

light is the

source oflife. . . . the


75/938

door of thekingdom

of heaven.

The light isthe very


76/938

kingdomitself.

([S25],138).

We've seenhow Energy

is simple


77/938

and non-composite

(not

composed


78/938


79/938

toexperience

the Light

which isGod.


80/938

Our mind ispure and

simple, so

when it isstripped of


81/938

every alienthought, it

enters the

pure,simple,

Divine


82/938

light . . .God is light

- the highest

light.([W11],132

),


83/938

andFor if

nothing

interfereswith its


84/938

contemplation, the

mind - the

eye of thesoul - sees


85/938

God purelyin a pure

light.

([W11],137).


86/938

How didSymeon

know that

God is asimple,


87/938

non-composite,

eternal

Light whichcan be

seen? He


88/938

claimed hisknowledge

was

firsthand.I have often

seen the


89/938

light,sometimes

it has

appearedto me

within


90/938


91/938

and silence.. .

([L09],118-

9).Symeon's

relation to


92/938

the Lightwas

anything

but cold andimpersonal.


93/938

In histwenty-fifth

hymn he

writes:- But, Oh,

what


94/938

intoxicationof light, Oh,

what

movementsof fire!


95/938

Oh, whatswirlings of

the flame in

me . . .coming

from


96/938

You andYour glory!

. . .

You grantedme to see

the light of


97/938

Yourcountenanc

e

that isunbearable

to all. . . .


98/938

Youappeared as

light,

illuminatingme

completely


99/938


100/938

doubly,with my

two

sets of eyes,of the body

and of the


101/938


102/938

this LightGod.

It

illuminatesus, this light

that never


103/938

sets,without

change,

unalterable,never

eclipsed; it


104/938

speaks, itacts,

it lives and

vivifies, ittransforms


105/938

into lightthose whom

it illumines.

God is light,and those


106/938


107/938

light; . . .Those who

have not

seen thislight have

not seen


108/938

God, forGod is

light.

([L09],121).As might be

expected,


109/938

theexperience

of the Light

which isGod can


110/938

be quiteintense.

If a manwho

possesses


111/938

within himthe light of

the

Holy Spiritis unable to

bear its


112/938


113/938

out in greatfear and

terror, as

one whosees and


114/938

experiencessomething

beyond

nature,above

words or


115/938

reason. Heis then like

a man

whoseentrails

have been


116/938

set on fireand,

unable to

bear thescorching


117/938


118/938

Some yearsafter

Symeon,

theorthodoxy


119/938

and validityof the

Hesychast

experienceof God as

Light was


120/938


121/938

Palamas(1296-

1359) is

perhaps themost

famous.


122/938


123/938

Energy aphilosophic

al basis

acceptableto Orthodox

Christianity.


124/938


125/938

Godhead inan

effulgence

of light,which it is

possible


126/938

for humansbeings to

see, God

willing. Thelight that


127/938

the apostlessaw on the

mount of

thetransfigurati

on


128/938

wasuncreated

light, not a

createdeffulgence.

([P15],69).


129/938

LikeSymeon,

Palamas

insistsUncreated


130/938

Light is anactual

experience,

not asymbol or a

metaphor


131/938

forintellectual

understandi

ng.Palamas

affirms the


132/938

utter realityof the

saints'

vision ofGod,

constantly


133/938

repeatingthat the

grace that

revealsGod, like

the light


134/938


135/938

([M14],120).

Palamas's

defense ofthe

Hesychast


136/938

experiencewas

successful.

TheOrthodox

Church


137/938

([N04],v11,465)

accepts his

teachingsand


138/938

numbershim among

its saints.

Uncreated

Light


139/938


140/938

experienceof God as

an

experienceof

Uncreated


141/938

Light. Theyassociate

that Light

with the


142/938

light of ascriptural

incident.

Take forexample the

term


143/938

"Taboritelight," with

which

hesychastsalways

describe


144/938

theirexperience

of God.

For theyidentify the

divine


145/938

reality thatreveals

itself to

the saintswith the

light that


146/938

appeared tothe Lord's

disciples at

HisTransfigurat

ion on


147/938

MountTabor. Such

an

identification seems to

them


148/938

justified notmerely as

a symbol

but assomething

very real.


149/938

([M14],116).

But why is

the Lightcalled

Uncreated?


150/938

The biblicalaccount

doesn't use

that word. Itsays while


151/938

Jesus waspraying

. . . his face

changed itsappearance,


152/938

and hisclothes

became

dazzlingwhite. . . .


153/938

Moses andElijah . . .

appeared in

heavenlyglory . . .

his


154/938

companions. . .

saw Jesus'

glory . . .([G02],Lk

9:29-32).


155/938

But Lukedoesn't call

the light

"uncreated"and neither


156/938

doesMatthew

(17:1-8) or

Mark (9:2-8). Matthew

uses light


157/938

imagerywhen he

describes

Jesus' face(Mt

17:2,[G02],


158/938

18) as"shining

like the

sun."And Mark

says (Mk


159/938

9:3,[G02],42) Jesus'

clothes

"becameshining


160/938

white -whiter than

anyone in

the worldcould wash


161/938

them." Butwhy is

the light

calledUncreated?

Perhaps, the


162/938

monks'experience

of the

Light whichis

Uncreated


163/938

came first,and

identificatio

n with thelight


164/938

whichshone on

Mount

Taborsecond.


165/938

Imaginemonks see a

reality

withinthemselves.


166/938

The realityis a

kind of

Light. Theyrealize that

the reality is


167/938

God, thatseeing the

Light is an

experienceof God. So

they


168/938

naturallyidentify It

with an

incident intheir own

scriptures,


169/938

the Lightthat shone

at the

transfiguration of Jesus

Christ on


170/938


171/938

by a Hindumystic,

would it be

called thelight of


172/938

Krishna?Might not a

Buddhist

identifysuch a light


173/938

with thepure

Essence of

Mind or theClear Light


174/938

of theVoid?

Could it be

that mysticsof all times

and cultures


175/938

have hadvision

of the same

EternalLight? Was

the Islamic


176/938

mystic,Sumnun,

speaking

of thatLight when

he wrote


177/938

I haveseparated

my heart

from thisworld -


178/938

My heartand Thou

are not

separate.And when

slumber


179/938

closes myeyes,

I find Thee

between theeye and the


180/938

lid.([S04],62)?

And was

AngelusSilesius, a

Christian


181/938

mystic ofthe 17th

century

whosesimple,

clear verses


182/938

have a Zen-like quality,

speaking of

that


183/938

same Lightwhen he

wrote:


184/938

A heartawakened

has eyes:

perceivesthe Light


185/938

in dark ofnight.

([B05],109)

?And how

might a


186/938

scientistwho

happened to

see thatLight speak


187/938

of It? As theE in

E=mc2?

Probablynot. If they


188/938

spoke of Itat all, it

would

probably bein a


189/938

religiouscontext.

Essenceand

Energies


190/938

We'll seeother

mystics'

records ofthe Light,


191/938


192/938

He alone isimmortal;

he lives in

the lightthat no one


193/938

canapproach.

No one has

ever seenhim; no one

can


194/938

ever seehim.

([G02],1Tm

6:16).If Paul was

right, then


195/938

the mysticsare wrong.

They didn't

see God atall. Who is

wrong, Paul


196/938

or them?Paul, I

believe.

It isprobably

worth re-


197/938

emphasizing that this

book's

world viewagrees with

some


198/938

beliefs ofestablished

religions

anddisagrees

with


199/938

others.Since

religions

disagreeamong

themselves,


200/938

no worldview

could

possiblyagree with

all beliefs


201/938

of allreligions.

So I usually

don'tremark

when a


202/938

point I'mmaking

disagrees

with somereligion or


203/938

another,except

when the

disagreement, like the


204/938

one we'rediscussing

now, brings

up aninteresting

point.


205/938

Can Godactually be

directly

experienced. Can God

be seen?


206/938

VladimirLossky in

The

MysticalTheology of


207/938

the EasternChurch

writes:

It would bepossible to

draw up


208/938

two sets oftexts taken

from the

Bible andthe Fathers,


209/938

contradictory to one

another; the

first toshow the


210/938


211/938

that Goddoes

communicat

e Himself,can be

known


212/938

experimentally,

and can

really beattained to


213/938

in union . . .([L08],68).

(Lossky, in

fact, drawsup such a

list in the


214/938

secondchapter of

The

Vision ofGod

([L09]), a


215/938

book whichtreats the

above

contradiction in


216/938

greatdetail.) He

continues:

Thequestion of

the


217/938

possibilityof any real

union with

God, and,indeed, of

mystical


218/938

experiencein general,

thus poses

forChristian

theology the


219/938

antinomy ofthe

accessibility

of theinaccessible


220/938

nature.([L08],69).

The Eastern

OrthodoxChurch


221/938

resolves thisscriptural

contradictio

n bydistinguishi

ng between


222/938

the essenceof God,

which is

inaccessible, and the

"energies"


223/938

of God,which are

. . . forces

proper toand


224/938

inseparablefrom God's

essence, in

which Hegoes forth


225/938

fromHimself,

manifests,

communicates, and


226/938

givesHimself.

([L08],70).

The famousphilosopher

Immanuel


227/938


228/938

the things inthemselves,

which we

cannever know,

and the


229/938

phenomena,the

appearances

,which are

all that our


230/938

senses cantell us

about.

([D04],329).


231/938

An analogyto both

ideas might

be this: Noone has

ever really


232/938

experiencedfire's

essence;

they've onlyexperienced


233/938

fire'senergies,

that is, seen

its light, feltits heat, or

heard the


234/938


235/938

may beconsidered

(compare

[U01],109)transcenden

t,


236/938

inaccessible, and

unknowable

. From thisviewpoint,

Energy is


237/938

not identicalwith the

God which

is not aPerson


238/938

but rather isthat God's

first

emanation,the primary


239/938

manifestation

upon which

the entireuniverse is

based. This


240/938

distinctionmay be

applied to

theChristian

Trinity so


241/938

that theFather is

transcenden

texistence,

and the Son


242/938

or Logos isthe Father's

first-born,

the firstmanifestatio

n through


243/938

which theuniverse is

made.

God hasreal

existence in


244/938

the worldinsofar as

He

creates theworld, i.e.,

gives it


245/938

existence bygiving it a

share in His

own realexistence in


246/938

and throughthe

energies.

([M03],72).Therefore,

the Logos is


247/938

theUncreated

Light

consideredas the


248/938

Root of theuniverse,

exterior to

one's self.Paul


249/938

picturesJesus, the

Logos, in

this way:Who is the

image of


250/938

the invisibleGod, the

firstborn of

everycreature;

For by him


251/938

were allthings

created . . .

And he isbefore all

things, and


252/938

by him allthings

consist.

([H08],Col,1:15-17).


253/938

And what isthe Spirit?

The same

Root andSource seen


254/938

interiorly,as

one's own

UltimateGround of

Existence.


255/938

Jewish

Seers

Let's nowturn to other

religions


256/938

andexamine

what

Jewish,Islamic,


257/938

Hindu, Sikhand

Buddhist

seers sayabout the


258/938

Light whichis God.

Jewish

records I'vefound aren't

as explicit


259/938

asHesychast

descriptions

ofUncreated

Light. Yet,


260/938

someJewish

mystics do

speakof divine

Light. In


261/938

fact, RabbiKook

expressed

the mystic'sgoal in


262/938

terms ofLight.

The divine

lightsustains all


263/938

life, is to befound in

everything

that exists,and is also


264/938

the goal ofall

creation . . .

[T]hemystic's

goal is to


265/938

perceiveand

experience

this divinelight and to


266/938

be unitedwith the

universe.

([C16],30).Was Kook,

a man who


267/938

undoubtedly believed

in a God

who is aPerson,

speaking of


268/938

the Godwhich is not

a Person?

Perhaps. It'shard


269/938

to see howperceiving

the radiance

of someGod who is

a Person,


270/938

separatefrom

creation,

would unitea mystic

with the


271/938

universe.But

perceiving

theuniverse's

ultimate


272/938

Substanceunites a

mystic with

theuniverse in

an obvious


273/938

and intimateway.

In any case,

Kookidentifies

light with


274/938

God. Hewrites of

([K05],221)

"the light ofEn Sof, the

light of the


275/938

living God"and says

that

holy men,those of

pure


276/938

thought andcontemplati

on,

jointhemselves,

in their


277/938

innersensibilities,

with the

spiritualthat

pervades


278/938

all.Everything

that is

revealedto them is

an


279/938

emergenceof light, a

disclosure

of the


280/938

divine . . .([K05],208)

,

and alsowrites of

([K05],225)


281/938

the "light ofeternity . . .

in which the

temporaland the

eternal


282/938

merge inone whole."

Might not a

vision ofEternal

Light merge


283/938

thetemporal

and eternal

- forinstance,

the table


284/938

and itsEternal

Basis - into

one whole?


285/938

IslamicSeers

The next

religionwe'll

discuss is


286/938

Islam. TheKoran,

Islam's

scripture,


287/938

speaks ofAllah's

Light.

Allah is thelight of the

heavens and


288/938

the earth.His light

may be

compared toa niche that


289/938

enshrines alamp,

the lamp

within acrystal of

star-like


290/938

brilliance. .. . Light

upon light;

Allahguides to

His light


291/938

whom Hewill.

(Sura 24:35,

[K07],217).And the

Sufis, who


292/938

are Islam'smystics,

call

themselves([N11],1)

"the


293/938

followers ofthe Real",

and speak

of "a pillarof light


294/938

formedfrom the

souls of . . .

saints" and"the

preexistent


295/938

light ofMuhammad

"

([S04],56),as well as

the "light of


296/938

God"([S04],60)

which

guides themystic.


297/938

Ghazzali isone of the

most

famousSufis. His


298/938

The Nichefor

Lights

([A03])"shows a

highly


299/938

developedlight

metaphysics

- God isthe Light"

([S04],96).


300/938

Moreover,Ghazzali

believed

mystics cansee


301/938

actuallyZechariah

11:13. If

not aconscious

deception,


302/938

wasn't thisat

least a

mistake?Could

Augustine


303/938

avoidseeing it as

one or the

other?He could.

Augustine'


304/938

sexplanatio

n ([I03],44)

was asfollows.


305/938

Under theinspiration

of the Holy

Spirit, thename


306/938

"Jeremiah" first

came to

Matthew'smind. Then

Matthew


307/938

realized thequote was

actually

Zechariah's but

decided the


308/938

Holy Spirithad

allowed

"Jeremiah" to come

to mind to


309/938

indicate"the

essential

unity of thewords of

the


310/938

prophets."So

Matthew

bowed "tothe


311/938

authorityof the

Holy

Spirit" andwrote

"Jeremiah


312/938

" instead ofthe correct

reference,

Zechariah.Augustine

illustrates


313/938

howreligious

believers

defendscripture's


314/938

"inerrancy" and

"harmoniz

e" itsinconsisten

cies.


315/938

Augustineknows

Matthew

27:9 iswrong. Yet

he can't


316/938

make asimple

correction

oracknowled

ge a simple


317/938

mistake.Why? Why

can't he

improvescripture


318/938

and makeit more

truthful

andconsistent

by


319/938

correctinga simple

error?

Because hisway of

knowing


320/938

doesn'tallow it.

The

principlethat


321/938

scripture iswritten by

God and

alreadyerror-free


322/938

preventshim from

acknowled

ging andcorrecting

a simple


323/938

mistake.Instead,

he's forced

to find an"explanati

on" that


324/938

upholds theinerrancy

of

scripture.Augustine

takes the


325/938

safe,though not

entirely

truthful,path.

Rather


326/938

actuallyZechariah

11:13. If

not aconscious

deception,


327/938

wasn't thisat

least a

mistake?Could

Augustine


328/938

avoidseeing it as

one or the

other?He could.

Augustine'


329/938

sexplanatio

n ([I03],44)

was asfollows.


330/938

Under theinspiration

of the Holy

Spirit, thename


331/938

"Jeremiah" first

came to

Matthew'smind. Then

Matthew


332/938

realized thequote was

actually

Zechariah's but

decided the


333/938

Holy Spirithad

allowed

"Jeremiah" to come

to mind to


334/938

indicate"the

essential

unity of thewords of

the


335/938

prophets."So

Matthew

bowed "tothe


336/938

authorityof the

Holy

Spirit" andwrote

"Jeremiah


337/938

" instead ofthe correct

reference,

would liketo turn as

we would


338/938

like to turnas we

conclude

thischapter.The

first of


339/938

thesecommontop

ics or

problems isa time-

honoured


340/938

one,centringround the

idiographic

snomothetic

dichotomy


341/938

thatseparates

and unites

the socialsciences at

would like


342/938

to turn aswe

conclude

thischapter.The

first of


343/938

thesecommontop

ics or

problems isa time-

honoured


344/938

one,centringround the

idiographic

snomothetic

dichotomy


345/938

thatseparates

and unites

the socialsciences at


346/938


347/938

first ofthese

commontop

ics orproblems is

a time-


348/938

honouredone,centring

round the

idiographic

snomothetic


349/938

dichotomythat

separates

and unitesthe social

sciences at


350/938

would liketo turn as

we

concludethis

chapter.The


351/938

first ofthese

commontop

ics orproblems is

a time-


352/938

honouredone,centring

round the

idiographic

snomothetic


353/938

dichotomythat

separates

and unitesthe social

sciences at


354/938

one and theone and the

same

time.Acentral point of

contention,


355/938

especiallyduring the

early debate

aboutexceptiona

lismingeog


356/938

raphy(Schaefer

1953),this

axis hadbeen a

dominant


357/938

one in thehuman and

socialscienc

es at leastsince the


358/938

Methodenstreit

in the

GermanStaatswissen

schaften


359/938

duringthesecond

half of the

nineteenthcentury

(Strohmaye


360/938

r 1997b).Isgeography a

scienceconc

entrating onthe

specific,on


361/938

differenceand the

uniqueness

of place(s)?Or is itsgoal

to uncover


362/938

law-likestructures

that apply

underobservable

conditions


363/938

andwhichcan

be used for

planningand other

socially


364/938

relevantpurposes?

Human

geographyhasfound

many


365/938

differentanswers to

these

questionsduring the

course of


366/938

thetwentiethce

ntury and

haswitnessed

seemingly


367/938

stableconfiguratio

ns vanish

every sooften.Take,f

or


368/938

instance,theresurrection

of a concern

forparticularity

within the


369/938

postmodernparadigm:w

as this a

return to anearlier

geographica


370/938

l practice orsomething

altogetherne

w anddifferent?

Was it a


371/938

child of itstime just

like any

otherepistemolog

ical


372/938

break andthus

necessarily

a form oflocalknow


373/938

ledge (Ley2003)?


374/938

Geographical

visions23

Mention ofparticularit

yshould

remind usnot to


375/938

overlook asecond axis

thatstructur

edgeographic

theories


376/938


377/938

hicnomothetic

divide,the

differencebetween

generality


378/938

andparticularity

isthought by

many to besynonymou

s with the


379/938

former.However,one

can well

imagineanomothetic

approach to


380/938

particulars,just as

idiographic

concerns forgeneralities

exist.Implic


381/938

it in thisdifference,t

herefore,is

little lessthan the

importance


382/938

of scale(Marston20

00) or the

reminderthat the

geographies


383/938

we observechange

depending

oncontext,fra

me of


384/938

referenceand point of

view.Both

axesmentioned

revolve


385/938

aroundepistemolog

ical issues

in that theypresent

us with a


386/938

choicebetween

different

conceptualizations of

what kind


387/938

of sciencegeography

isand

shouldbe.But there

is a third


388/938

axis we canidentify that

centres

aroundquestions

of causation


389/938

.Centrallyimplicated

here is the

dichotomybetween

structure


390/938

andagency.Larg

ely implicit

in thetheoretical

assumptions


391/938


392/938

geographerswith a

whole set of

answers tothe question

of what


393/938

or who wasresponsible

for the

creation andmaintenanc

e of


394/938

geographicrealities:wa

s itpeoples

preferencesthat shaped

spaces,or


395/938

was theparticular

context

withinwhich

suchchoices


396/938

were maderesponsible

for the

geographieswe could

observe


397/938

empirically? For aslong

as

geographyheld fast to

the kind of


398/938

checklistmentality

observed

earlier inthischapter,t

his latter


399/938

part of thequestion

apparently

did notbecome an

issue.Thing


400/938

sstarted tochange,how

ever,with

the movetowards

more


401/938

theoretically informed

researchage

ndas:herethe choice

between


402/938

prioritizingindividual

actors over

socialstructure

(or vice


403/938

versa) wasoften

perceived to

befundamenta

l.But what


404/938

about theseaxes? The

real change

in theclosing

decade of


405/938

thetwentiethce

ntury has

been toview them

less as


406/938

essentialand

mutually

exclusivechoices and

toappreciate


407/938

theircommonalit

y of

construction.Here,agai

n,we need


408/938

toacknowledg

e

theimportance of the

debates


409/938

surroundingstructuratio

n theory in

the late1970s

andthrough


410/938

out the1980s for

the overall

shape oftheoretical

discourse


411/938

within thediscipline(H

arris

1991;Chouinard

1997).Toget


412/938

her withsimultaneou

s

developments in

feministgeo


413/938

graphy,itwas in these

debates that

theconnective

nature of


414/938

allegedopposites

wasfirst

acknowledged:what had

presented


415/938

itselfpreviously

as a choice

betweenmutually ex

clusive


416/938

positions ortheoretical

points of

origin wasnow

increasingly


417/938

viewedandtheorize

d as a field

in whichmutually

constructive


418/938


419/938

(Thrift1983;Grego

ry 1994).In

fact,theclosing

years of the


420/938

lastcenturywitnessed a

proliferatio

n of papersthat

analysed a


421/938

professedinstability

andconstruc

ted natureof the

categories


422/938

that wereused to

manufactur

e (oftenpolarized)a

xes in the


423/938

first place(Gibson-

Graham

1996;Battersburyet al


424/938

.1997;Whatmore

1999).In the

emerginghybrid

world of


425/938

networks,afuture

generation

ofgeographers

may


426/938

wellfindmany of the

issues and

conflicts ofold

unresolved,


427/938

perhapseven

unresolvabl

e(Thrift2000a). We

would like


428/938

to end byexpressing

our

admittedlyminimalist

hope that a


429/938

geography for the

twenty-first

century willno longer

have to


430/938

deny thecontested

nature of

itscategories and move

towards


431/938

mature andtolerant

manners of

dispute anddiscourse. T

he


432/938

emergenceof research

in the years

flanking theturn of the

millennium


433/938

that aimstointegrate

rather than

dividepositions

that were


434/938

previouslythought to

be only

loosely


435/938

24Human

Geography: A


436/938

History for the

21st Century

connected,exclusive or

downright

opposed,might be read


437/938

as a signthat such

hopes

arenot invain

(Mattingly


438/938

andFalconer-

Al-Hindi

1995;Dixonand Jones

1998;Barnet


439/938

t2001;Castree

2003;Jacob

s and Nash2003;Engla

nd


440/938

2003).However,it

might also

be asign offatigue:only

history can


441/938

judge usnow.

knowing. One is necessity for salvation, deliverance, or

enlightenment. For example, the Catholic Church teaches:

Revelation is that saving act by which God furnishes

us with the truths which are necessary for our

salvation. ([M07],213).

The other belief is finality.

Christians . . . now await no newpublic revelation from

God. ([D09],4).

God's general public revelation is finished and done, even if private

revelations to an individual are still possible.

These two beliefs - necessity for salvation and finality - are

usually part of the revelational way of knowing even though they

don't necessarily follow from divine authorship. After all, God could

write many books, each helpful for salvation but not necessary. And

God could write another public revelation in the future. Yet most

religions claim that their revelation is final, not to be revised,

extended or superseded, and that it's necessary - required - for


442/938

salvation, deliverance, or enlightenment.

Of course, religions disagree over which writings are inspired. For

example, the fourteen books of the Apocrypha were in the Bible for

over 1,000 years. They're still in the Roman Catholic bible but other

Christian groups reject them. They aren't included in many modern

Bibles. Do they belong in the Bible or not?

Not only does the Catholic Church include books in its Bible that

Protestants do not, that church also labels some of the writings of

Athanasius, Augustine, John Chrysostom and others ([N09],20) as

"Divine Tradition" and believes that

. . . Divine Tradition has the same force as the Bible . .

Other Christian groups disagree. In fact,

[p]recisely at this point the greatest division in

Christendom occurs: the Bible as the final source

(standard or authority), or the Bible as a source.

([P07],18).

Of course, different religions accept entirely different revelations.

Islam holds the Koran to be revealed. Hindus believe God spoke the

Bhagavad-Gita and other writings. Buddhist accept the Tripitaka.

Though all of the religions we've mentioned may reject the

inspired writings of other religions, they believe their own scripture is

divinely revealed. In particular, religion often makes the following

four claims for their own scriptures: that scriptures:

(1) are consistent and truthful ("without error"),

(2) are complete and final ("all and only those truths . .

. no newpublic revelation"),

(3) are necessary for salvation, enlightenment, or

liberation ("necessary for our salvation").


443/938

(4) have an inspired or divine author ("God who is

their true Author"),

Are these claims true? Again, theological claims are difficult to

test.Is God the author of any particular book? That's beyond the reach

of logic to decide. Nonetheless, the four claims can be rationally

investigated. And, as we examine and test the four claims we'll come

to a better understanding of the revelational way of knowing. Let's

begin with the first claim, consistency and truthfulness.

Claim 1: External Consistency

An external contradiction is when a scripture contradicts something

outside itself, either some common belief or practice, or another

scripture. Lets examine some external scriptural contradictions,

beginning with three where the Bible contradicts common Christian

belief or practice.

First, Jesus says Just as Jonas was three days and three nights in

the whales belly; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three

nights in the heart of the earth. ([H08], Mt 12:40). According to a

footnote in another Bible ([N02], for Mt 12,38ff), this quote contains

an allusion to Jesus resurrection. However, common Christian

belief allows less than 48 hours between the Crucifixion and

Resurrection (Good Friday to Easter Sunday), two nights, not three.

Second, in Mark 6:3 the people of Jesus country say: Is not this

the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of

Juda, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? If Jesus

actually had a brother, then either the Roman Catholic belief in the

perpetual virginity of Mary is incorrect, or the standard Christian

belief that Jesus is the onlybegotten Son of God is wrong.


444/938

Lastly, Jesus forbids swearing (Mt 5:34-37), saying at one point

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever

is more than these cometh of evil ([H08],Mt 5:37). Nonetheless, it is

common practice in some Christian countries for a court witness to

swear on the Bible that their testimony shall be true.

Now lets turn to another type of external contraction, where one

scripture contradicts another. The world has many "revealed"

writings. If they are all, in fact, revealed then they should all agree

with each other because they all have the same ultimate author - God.

How well do revealed writings agree with each other? Not very well.

Let's examine some examples.

Of the three major revelations of Western religion, the earliest is

the Jewish Torah, which is also part of the Christian Old Testament.

Later, the Christian New Testament was written. Later still, the Koran

(Quran) of Islam. Are these three revelations consistent with each

other? No. For example, the Koran says Jews and Christians disagree:

The Jews say the Christians are misguided, and the

Christians say it is the Jews who are misguided. (Sura

2:13, [K07],344).

And the Koran disagrees with both:

. . . [T]he Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the

Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah . . .

How perverse are they! (Sura 9:30, [M10],148).

So, advises the Koran,

. . . admonish those who say that Allah has begotten a

son. (Sura 18:4, [K07],91).

Islam teaches that Jewish and Christian scriptures are only

partially true. For instance, it teaches that Jews were one of the first


445/938

peoples who

. . . recognized God's oneness, and also God's law.

([S16],12).

Quite an accomplishment, because after that recognition the

. . . doctrine of monotheism, established by Abraham,

never again quite lapsed. ([S16],12).

Unfortunately, the Jewish people (according to the Koran) failed to

accurately preserve God's words.

. . . [I]n course of time they allowed their copies of the

text . . . to become corrupted. Their "scripture"

became inaccurate. . . . In due course, to correct this

desperate error, God sent another messenger, Jesus.

([S16],12-13).

But the followers of Jesus erred, too, since they worshiped

. . . the messenger, instead of heeding the message. .

. . focused their attention on Christ to the partial

neglect . . . of God, whose transcendence they thus

compromise . . . ([S16],13).

Even worse, in their worship of Jesus they attributed

. . . to him and his mother wild, even blasphemous and

obscene, relations to God Himself. ([S16],13).

So, according to the Koran, God had to send another messenger,

Muhammad.

This time there was to be no error, no distortion, no

neglect. ([S16],14).

Since Muhammad perfectly captured God's revelation in the Koran,

no other messenger will be needed or sent. Therefore, Muhammad is

called the "seal" of the prophets.


446/938

For Muslims, the Koran is the perfect and complete revelation of

God.

For the Muslim, God's Message is wholly contained in

the Koran . . . This Book does not annul but rather

confirms the Divine Message as preserved, though in

a corrupt and distorted tradition, in the Holy Scriptures

of the Jews and the Christians. ([A08],12).

Can Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scriptures all be true?

Obviously not. At least one scripture is wrong, either the Koran in its

fault-finding or Jewish and Christian scriptures in their teachings. At

least one of these scriptures is incorrect, untruthful. We'll see how

Jewish and Christian scriptures disagree later when we discuss

scripture's finality and completeness. Now, however, let's discuss

scripture's truthfulness.

Claim 1: Truthfulness

Revealed writings often describe historical and miraculous events.

Did those events actually happen? They describe extraordinary

people. Did those people actually live? In general, are revealed

writings true?

Once, it was thought all events described in the Bible were

historically true. Christian medieval Europe based cosmology on

Genesis, the first book of the Bible. It based biological evolution on

Genesis, too. History was based on the Bible; stories such as Noah

and the Great Flood were accepted as historically true. Astronomy

was also based on the Bible. In fact, the source of Galileo's conflict

with the Roman Catholic Church was the church's belief in biblical

teachings about the earth and sun.


447/938

Today, some religious people still believe the Bible gives a

truthful picture of the natural world. Fundamentalist Christians, for

example, still accept biblical teaching about cosmology, biology,

history and astrology. For them biblical revelation is

. . . the supernatural (metaphysical) process by which

God penetrated man's senses to give him an external,

objective world view. ([P07],13).

How such religious believers have fought the advance of science in

biology, geography, astronomy, medicine, hygiene, history,

anthropology, and other fields is well described inA History of the

Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom ([W09]) by

Andrew White.

Fundamentalists (of any religion) who think revelation has

accurate teachings about the natural world disprove a common idea:

that the essential difference between science and religion is that

science deals with this world and religion deals with the next.

Fundamentalists show this opinion isn't true - some religions deal

very much with this world. And science - as we'll see - could

investigate the "next" world.

How, then, do science and religion differ? They fundamentally

differ in how they know, not necessarily in whatthey know. Both can

know the natural world and, as we'll see, both can know the

"supernatural" world. Therefore, the fundamental difference between

science and religion is their different ways of knowing. Science finds

truth with the scientific way of knowing. Religion finds truth with the

revelational way, by following scripture.

But is scripture truthful? Fundamentalist Christians believe the

Bible is entirely truthful. More than that, they believe


448/938

. . . the complete Bible . . . is the final authority for all

truth. ([P07],21)

and that

[a] problem of terminology and interpretation may exist

between science and the Bible but the only difficulty is

man's inability to resolve the problem, notany conflict

of truth. . . . The superior credence for Scripture over

science is clear. ([P07],31).

Other Christians, however, admit the Bible isn't entirely true.

They don't base their entire world view on revelation. For them

cosmology, biology, history, and astronomy are no longer based on

scripture. Such Christians view Genesis as mythological and accept a

scientific explanation of biological evolution and the origin of the

universe. Biblical stories once thought historically accurate are now

considered by many greatly exaggerated, if not mythological.

Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the

sun, stars, and planets. And the Catholic Church now teaches that

. . . the Bible is free from errorin what pertains to

religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not

necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g.

natural science). ([D09],12).

Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing

superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior

knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge

about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about

the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world,

too? We'll return to these questions later.


449/938

Claim 1: Internal Consistency

Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists

can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If

scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and

the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists,

science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact

is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when

the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal

consistence: does the bible agree with itself?

Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it

does. For example, inInerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that

Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were

errorless. ([I03],23),

that

Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures

contained no contradictory material nor error.

([I03],24),

that Origen

. . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and

noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25),

and, finally, that

[f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no

real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture.

([I03],49).

Augustine's definition of error was strict.

When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from

error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent

mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53).


450/938

Yet he knew Matthew 27:9 attributes a quote to Jeremiah which is

actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at

least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other?

He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows.

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first

came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was

actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed

"Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the

words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the

Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference,

Zechariah.

Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's

"inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows

Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or

acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture

and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error?

Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that

scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from

acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced

to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture.

Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather

than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have

happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know.

But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to

correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings.

By the seventeenth century, errors had crept into ([M02],66)

medieval Russia's translations of scriptures and other holy writings.

Three monks decided to correct a minor holy writing. But


451/938

[t]o correct any text that had been good enough for the

great saints of early Russian Christianity was

bordering on heresy. ([M02],66).

So

[i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had

been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared

heretical. ([M02],67).

One monk was

. . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in

Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with

physical cruelties and mental humiliations. ([M02],67).

Mistakes Perpetuated

Anyone who denies the smallest part of "revealed" scripture risks

humiliation, ostracism, and perhaps torture and death. This was true at

many times in the past. And in some countries it's still true.

It would be wrong, however, to think that only dishonesty or fear

prevents Augustine from acknowledging mistakes in scripture.

There's a deeper reason: he is blinded by his way of knowing.

Believing that scripture is penned by God and error-free prevents him

from correcting simple errors. His way of knowing, which is

supposed to help him find truth, hinders him. This illustrates a failing

of the revelational way of knowing itself, as opposed to a failing of

any individual.

To elaborate, people who follow a certain ideology or belong to a

certain group and who happen to be untruthful, sadistic or murderous

don't necessarily discredit the ideology or group. (If members of a

knitting club decide to poison their spouses, that doesn't necessarily


452/938

show there is something wrong with knitting.) On the other hand,

when the ideology or group itself turns truthful, sane people into

untruthful, sadistic or murderous persons, then something is wrong

with the ideology or group. (Racism, for example, can have this evil

effect on those whom it influences.)

Although Augustine's way of knowing didn't make him sadistic or

murderous (I don't know if the same can be said for the architects of

the Inquisition.), it did blind him to an untruth and force him to accept

the false as true. The principle that God is scripture's author blinded

Augustine to a simple fact - that scripture sometimes contradicts

itself.

Therefore, the revelational way of knowing can enshrine error and

hinder the search for truth. The reference in Matthew could be easily

changed from Jeremiah to Zechariah, but belief in divine authorship

doesn't allow it. Yet the Bible has been amended - not with the effect

of reducing an error but of increasing it. Here's the story of an

intentional mistranslation that persists even today.

Consistency versus Truthfulness

Christianity teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. About the Virgin

Birth of Jesus, Matthew writes:

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which

was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring

forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,

which being interpreted is, God with us. ([H08],Matt

1:22-23).

One bible has a curious footnote to this verse.


453/938

[T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the

light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . .

([N02],NT,6),

the facts being Jesus's virgin birth, messianic mission, and special

relation to God. The footnote continues:

All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in

Is 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought

to light as God's plan. ([N02],NT,6).

It's not quite clear what "prophetic reinterpretation" and "faintly

traced" means. Perhaps a reference to Isaiah will help. Turning to

Isaiah 7:14, we read

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;

Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and

shall call his name Immanuel. ([H08],Is 7:14).

(This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we shall

soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote.

The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing

the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and

his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known

the full force latent in his own words; and some

Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial

fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King

Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke,

would have been a young, unmarried woman

(Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing,

however, for another Nativity which . . . was to fulfill . .

. the words of this prophecy in the integral sense

intended by the divine Wisdom. ([N02],OT,832).


454/938

Again, a few things aren't clear. What does "transcendent

fulfillment" mean? Why would the church have to choose to follow

either Matthew (who never identifies the prophet he quotes) or Isaiah?

Why would some Catholic writers seek a "preliminary and partial

fulfillment" in King Hezekiah? How could a prophet fail to know the

"full force latent in his own words"? What does "integral sense

intended by the divine Wisdom" mean? The authors of the footnote

seem to be half-heartedly trying to tell us something. Like Augustine,

does their way of knowing prevent them too from acknowledging a

plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll see that it does.

Arsenal For Skeptics ([A09]) has selections of biblical criticism

whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness of

every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer can present a much clearer

explanation of the verses from Matthew and Isaiah.

Isaiah's original Hebrew . . . falsely translated by the

false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the

English: "Behold, a virgin shallconceive and bear a

son, and shallcall his name Immanuel." (Isa. VII, 14.)

The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young

woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect

tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English,

representspast and completedaction. Honestly

translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young

woman has conceived- (is with child) - and beareth a

son and calleth his name Immanuel."

Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable

age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad

general sense exactly like girlormaidin English, when we


455/938

say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or

vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is

always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68).

Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and

Matthew quotes no known prophet.

The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation,

but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author

prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the

plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented

them from reaching truth.

For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical

inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible

"Contradictions"Answered([M08]). I've found contradictions in

other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although

they may well exist.

The Erosion of Truthfulness

Martin Luther once said:

We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago

than six thousand years the world did not exist

([C05],3).

Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand

years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural

view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day

Adventist publication:

Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the

basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and

evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92).


456/938

Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally

realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't

come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the

Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous

men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired

pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of

their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures

don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example,

Leonard Swidler writes:

Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was

thought of in a very static manner: if something was

found to be true in one place and time, then it was

thought to be true in all times and places . . . [I]f it was

true for St. Paul to say that it was all right for slaves to

be subject to their masters (in fact, he demanded it!),

then it was always true.

But no Christian theologian today would admit the

truth of the Pauline statement. . . . [O]ur understanding

of truth statements in the West has become historical,

perspectival, limited, interpretive - in a single word:

relational. And that means deabsolutized. . . . Text can

be properly understood only within context; given a

significantly new context, a proportionately new text

would be needed to convey the same meaning.

([F02],xii).

The modern world is certainly a significantly new context. How

might a proportionately new text be written? By the continued

martyrdom of men and women? By taking some contemporary


457/938

writing, declaring it divine revelation, and blindly following it? Or by

employing science's way of knowing?

Claim 2: Attaining Completeness and Finality

Not only are scriptures said to be truthful and consistent, they're

thought to be complete and final, too. The second claim of the

revelational way of knowing is that scripture is complete - that it has

everything God wants to write - and that it's final - that no new

general revelation is in store. Of course, while it's being written

scripture isn't complete and final. Let's examine that period.

Scripture has been written over varying amounts of time. In the

West, it took about a thousand years to complete the Old Testament.

The New Testament, however, was accomplished in a few hundred

years. And the Koran was written within the lifetime of Muhammad.

While it's being written, scripture is often influenced by contemporary

beliefs, both foreign and local.

When Judaism was young, for example, its scriptures were

influenced by the older religion of Zoroastrianism, which especially

in its

. . . demonology, angelology, and eschatology,

influenced Judaism from the time of the exile onward.

([N04],v23,1013).

It seems to have influenced the Jewish conception of Satan, for

instance.

Before the exile - for example, in the prologue to Job

(1:6-12) and in the mouth of Zechariah (3:1-2) - Satan

was no more than the servant of God, acting on his

orders as prosecutor; after the exile he is portrayed as


458/938

God's adversary. ([N04],v23,1013).

As another example, there is a story that's told twice, in

. . . II Sam. 24:1 and I Chron. 21:1. In the first, the

preexilic version, the Lord incites David to wickedness

so that he may wreak vengeance on the Israelites; in

the second it is Satan, not God, who is responsible for

the calamity. ([N04],v23,1013).

(Yet another instance of scriptural inconsistency.)

How much did Zoroastrianism influence Judaism and

Christianity? The Ethical Religion of Zoroaster([D05],xxi-xxiv) lists

similarities in Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian scripture, doctrine

and practice. The list is four pages long. Writers have pointed out

other pagan influences. Powell Davies, for instance, writes:

Mithras was a Redeemer of mankind; so were

Tammuz, Adonis and Osiris. . . . Jesus as a

Redeemer was not a Judaic concept; nor was it held

by the first Christians in Palestine . . . ([D03],90).

It was only, continues Davies, when Christianity spread to pagan

culture that

. . . the idea of Jesus as a Savior God emerged. This

idea was patterned on those already existing,

. . . admonish those who say that Allah has begotten a

son. (Sura 18:4, [K07],91).

Islam teaches that Jewish and Christian scriptures are only

partially true. For instance, it teaches that Jews were one of the first

peoples who


459/938

. . . recognized God's oneness, and also God's law.

([S16],12).

Quite an accomplishment, because after that recognition the

. . . doctrine of monotheism, established by Abraham,

never again quite lapsed. ([S16],12).

Unfortunately, the Jewish people (according to the Koran) failed to

accurately preserve God's words.

. . . [I]n course of time they allowed their copies of the

text . . . to become corrupted. Their "scripture"

became inaccurate. . . . In due course, to correct this

desperate error, God sent another messenger, Jesus.

([S16],12-13).

But the followers of Jesus erred, too, since they worshiped

. . . the messenger, instead of heeding the message. .

. . focused their attention on Christ to the partial

neglect . . . of God, whose transcendence they thus

compromise . . . ([S16],13).

Even worse, in their worship of Jesus they attributed

. . . to him and his mother wild, even blasphemous and

obscene, relations to God Himself. ([S16],13).

So, according to the Koran, God had to send another messenger,

Muhammad.

This time there was to be no error, no distortion, no

neglect. ([S16],14).

Since Muhammad perfectly captured God's revelation in the Koran,

no other messenger will be needed or sent. Therefore, Muhammad is

called the "seal" of the prophets.

For Muslims, the Koran is the perfect and complete revelation of


460/938

God.

For the Muslim, God's Message is wholly contained in

the Koran . . . This Book does not annul but rather

confirms the Divine Message as preserved, though in

a corrupt and distorted tradition, in the Holy Scriptures

of the Jews and the Christians. ([A08],12).

Can Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scriptures all be true?

Obviously not. At least one scripture is wrong, either the Koran in its

fault-finding or Jewish and Christian scriptures in their teachings. At

least one of these scriptures is incorrect, untruthful. We'll see how

Jewish and Christian scriptures disagree later when we discuss

scripture's finality and completeness. Now, however, let's discuss

scripture's truthfulness.

Claim 1: Truthfulness

Revealed writings often describe historical and miraculous events.

Did those events actually happen? They describe extraordinary

people. Did those people actually live? In general, are revealed

writings true?

Once, it was thought all events described in the Bible were

historically true. Christian medieval Europe based cosmology on

Genesis, the first book of the Bible. It based biological evolution on

Genesis, too. History was based on the Bible; stories such as Noah

and the Great Flood were accepted as historically true. Astronomy

was also based on the Bible. In fact, the source of Galileo's conflict

with the Roman Catholic Church was the church's belief in biblical

teachings about the earth and sun.

Today, some religious people still believe the Bible gives a


461/938

truthful picture of the natural world. Fundamentalist Christians, for

example, still accept biblical teaching about cosmology, biology,

history and astrology. For them biblical revelation is

. . . the supernatural (metaphysical) process by which

God penetrated man's senses to give him an external,

objective world view. ([P07],13).

How such religious believers have fought the advance of science in

biology, geography, astronomy, medicine, hygiene, history,

anthropology, and other fields is well described inA History of the

Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom ([W09]) by

Andrew White.

Fundamentalists (of any religion) who think revelation has

accurate teachings about the natural world disprove a common idea:

that the essential difference between science and religion is that

science deals with this world and religion deals with the next.

Fundamentalists show this opinion isn't true - some religions deal

very much with this world. And science - as we'll see - could

investigate the "next" world.

How, then, do science and religion differ? They fundamentally

differ in how they know, not necessarily in whatthey know. Both can

know the natural world and, as we'll see, both can know the

"supernatural" world. Therefore, the fundamental difference between

science and religion is their different ways of knowing. Science finds

truth with the scientific way of knowing. Religion finds truth with the

revelational way, by following scripture.

But is scripture truthful? Fundamentalist Christians believe the

Bible is entirely truthful. More than that, they believe

. . . the complete Bible . . . is the final authority for all


462/938

truth. ([P07],21)

and that

[a] problem of terminology and interpretation may exist

between science and the Bible but the only difficulty is

man's inability to resolve the problem, notany conflict

of truth. . . . The superior credence for Scripture over

science is clear. ([P07],31).

Other Christians, however, admit the Bible isn't entirely true.

They don't base their entire world view on revelation. For them

cosmology, biology, history, and astronomy are no longer based on

scripture. Such Christians view Genesis as mythological and accept a

scientific explanation of biological evolution and the origin of th

Bundel Khan

Documents

Transcript of Bundel Khan