7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
1/938
can alwayssay
revelation
is right andthe
accepted
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
2/938
"fact" iswrong. If
scientists
say theuniverse is
fifteen to
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
3/938
twentybillion
years old,
andthe Bible
says it's a
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
4/938
fewthousand
years old
then, sayfundament
alists,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
5/938
science iswrong and
the Bible
right. Butwhat
happens
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
6/938
when thefact
is in
anotherpart of the
revelation?
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
7/938
Forexample,
what
happenswhen
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
8/938
the Biblecontradicts
itself? This
brings usto the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
9/938
question ofinternal
consistence
: does thebible agree
with itself?
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
10/938
Throughout the ages,
many
leadingreligious
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
11/938
figureshave said it
does. For
example, inInerrancy
And The
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
12/938
Church([I03]) we
read that
Clement ofRome
claimed
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
13/938
that theScriptures
were
errorless.([I03],23),
that
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
14/938
Tertullianwas swift
to argue . .
. that theScriptures
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
15/938
containedno
contradicto
ry materialnor error.
([I03],24),
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
16/938
that Origen. . .
perceived
theScriptures
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
17/938
as perfectand
noncontrad
ictory . . .([I03],25),
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
18/938
and,finally, that
[f]or
Augustine,it was an
article of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
19/938
faith thatthere is no
real
discrepancy or
contradicti
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
20/938
on in all ofScripture.
([I03],49).
Augustine's definition
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
21/938
of errorwas strict.
When
Augustinedeclared
the Bible to
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
22/938
be freefrom
error, he
explicitlyrejected
the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
23/938
presence ofinadvertent
mistakes as
well asconscious
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
24/938
deception.([I03],53).
Yet he
knewMatthew
27:9
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
25/938
attributes aquote to
Jeremiah
which is
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
26/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
27/938
Underhill inher classic
work
Mysticism:A Study in
the Nature
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
28/938
andDevelopme
nt of Man's
SpiritualConsciousn
ess writes:
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
29/938
He seemsalways to
have worn
it upon hisperson: a
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
30/938
perpetualmemorial of
the supernal
experience,the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
31/938
initiationinto Reality,
which it
describes.([U01],188)
.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
32/938
Shebelieves the
experience
concluded. . . a long
period of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
33/938
spiritualstress, in
which
indifferenceto his
ordinary
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
34/938
interestswas
counterbala
nced by anutter
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
35/938
inability tofeel the
attractive
force of thatDivine
Reality
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
36/938
which hisgreat
mind
discerned asthe only
adequate
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
37/938
object ofdesire.
([U01],189)
.Underhill
mentions
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
38/938
otherChristian
mystics
whoseexperience
of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
39/938
Lightparallels the
experience
ofAugustine,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
40/938
Fox, andPascal.
LIGHT,
ineffableand
uncreated,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
41/938
the perfectsymbol of
pure
undifferentiated Being:
above the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
42/938
intellect, asSt.
Augustine
reminds us,but known
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
43/938
to him wholoves.
This
UncreatedLight is the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
44/938
"deep yetdazzling
darkness"
of theDionysian
school,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
45/938
"dark fromits
surpassing
brightness .. . as the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
46/938
shining ofthe sun on
his course is
as darknessto weak
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
47/938
eyes." It isSt.
Hildegarde'
s lux vivens,Dante's
somma
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
48/938
luce,wherein
he saw
multiplicityin unity, the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
49/938
ingatheredleaves of all
the
universe:The Eternal
Father, or
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
50/938
Fount ofThings.
"For well
we know,"says
Ruysbroeck
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
51/938
, "that thebosom
of the
Father isour ground
and origin,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
52/938
wherein ourlife
and being is
begun."([U01],115)
.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
53/938
Is not theUltimate
Ground of
Existenceour ground
and origin,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
54/938
root andsource as
well? Is not
Energy pureIsness, pure
Suchness,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
55/938
pureundifferenti
ated
Existence?
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
56/938
EasternChristian
Seers
Of course,other
religions
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
57/938
speak ofdirect
experience
of theEternal
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
58/938
Light.Hesychasm,
a mystical
tradition ofthe Eastern
Orthodox
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
59/938
ChristianChurch, is
particularly
explicit.The Eastern
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
60/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
61/938
branches ofa single
Christian
church.About
1054, the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
62/938
twodivided.
Hesychasm
is themonastic
tradition of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
63/938
the EasternOrthodox
church that
expressesits
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
64/938
([M02],106)"central
mystical
doctrine."Hesychast
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
65/938
monksclaim
direct
experienceof God in
the form of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
66/938
Uncreatedlight.
One of the
greatestHesychast
saints lived
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
67/938
about athousand
years
ago. Hisname is
Symeon.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
68/938
He's called"the New
Theologian"
toindicate he
ranks
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
69/938
second([S26],37)
only to
theologian"par
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
70/938
excellence,"Gregory of
Nazianzus.
In his ThirdTheological
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
71/938
Discourse,Symeon
writes:
God is light,a light
infinite and
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
72/938
incomprehensible . . .
one single
light . .simple,
non-
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
73/938
composite,timeless,
eternal . . .
The light islife. The
light is
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
74/938
immortality.The
light is the
source oflife. . . . the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
75/938
door of thekingdom
of heaven.
The light isthe very
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
76/938
kingdomitself.
([S25],138).
We've seenhow Energy
is simple
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
77/938
and non-composite
(not
composed
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
78/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
79/938
toexperience
the Light
which isGod.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
80/938
Our mind ispure and
simple, so
when it isstripped of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
81/938
every alienthought, it
enters the
pure,simple,
Divine
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
82/938
light . . .God is light
- the highest
light.([W11],132
),
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
83/938
andFor if
nothing
interfereswith its
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
84/938
contemplation, the
mind - the
eye of thesoul - sees
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
85/938
God purelyin a pure
light.
([W11],137).
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
86/938
How didSymeon
know that
God is asimple,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
87/938
non-composite,
eternal
Light whichcan be
seen? He
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
88/938
claimed hisknowledge
was
firsthand.I have often
seen the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
89/938
light,sometimes
it has
appearedto me
within
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
90/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
91/938
and silence.. .
([L09],118-
9).Symeon's
relation to
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
92/938
the Lightwas
anything
but cold andimpersonal.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
93/938
In histwenty-fifth
hymn he
writes:- But, Oh,
what
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
94/938
intoxicationof light, Oh,
what
movementsof fire!
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
95/938
Oh, whatswirlings of
the flame in
me . . .coming
from
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
96/938
You andYour glory!
. . .
You grantedme to see
the light of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
97/938
Yourcountenanc
e
that isunbearable
to all. . . .
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
98/938
Youappeared as
light,
illuminatingme
completely
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
99/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
100/938
doubly,with my
two
sets of eyes,of the body
and of the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
101/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
102/938
this LightGod.
It
illuminatesus, this light
that never
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
103/938
sets,without
change,
unalterable,never
eclipsed; it
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
104/938
speaks, itacts,
it lives and
vivifies, ittransforms
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
105/938
into lightthose whom
it illumines.
God is light,and those
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
106/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
107/938
light; . . .Those who
have not
seen thislight have
not seen
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
108/938
God, forGod is
light.
([L09],121).As might be
expected,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
109/938
theexperience
of the Light
which isGod can
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
110/938
be quiteintense.
If a manwho
possesses
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
111/938
within himthe light of
the
Holy Spiritis unable to
bear its
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
112/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
113/938
out in greatfear and
terror, as
one whosees and
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
114/938
experiencessomething
beyond
nature,above
words or
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
115/938
reason. Heis then like
a man
whoseentrails
have been
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
116/938
set on fireand,
unable to
bear thescorching
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
117/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
118/938
Some yearsafter
Symeon,
theorthodoxy
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
119/938
and validityof the
Hesychast
experienceof God as
Light was
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
120/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
121/938
Palamas(1296-
1359) is
perhaps themost
famous.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
122/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
123/938
Energy aphilosophic
al basis
acceptableto Orthodox
Christianity.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
124/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
125/938
Godhead inan
effulgence
of light,which it is
possible
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
126/938
for humansbeings to
see, God
willing. Thelight that
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
127/938
the apostlessaw on the
mount of
thetransfigurati
on
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
128/938
wasuncreated
light, not a
createdeffulgence.
([P15],69).
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
129/938
LikeSymeon,
Palamas
insistsUncreated
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
130/938
Light is anactual
experience,
not asymbol or a
metaphor
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
131/938
forintellectual
understandi
ng.Palamas
affirms the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
132/938
utter realityof the
saints'
vision ofGod,
constantly
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
133/938
repeatingthat the
grace that
revealsGod, like
the light
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
134/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
135/938
([M14],120).
Palamas's
defense ofthe
Hesychast
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
136/938
experiencewas
successful.
TheOrthodox
Church
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
137/938
([N04],v11,465)
accepts his
teachingsand
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
138/938
numbershim among
its saints.
Uncreated
Light
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
139/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
140/938
experienceof God as
an
experienceof
Uncreated
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
141/938
Light. Theyassociate
that Light
with the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
142/938
light of ascriptural
incident.
Take forexample the
term
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
143/938
"Taboritelight," with
which
hesychastsalways
describe
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
144/938
theirexperience
of God.
For theyidentify the
divine
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
145/938
reality thatreveals
itself to
the saintswith the
light that
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
146/938
appeared tothe Lord's
disciples at
HisTransfigurat
ion on
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
147/938
MountTabor. Such
an
identification seems to
them
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
148/938
justified notmerely as
a symbol
but assomething
very real.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
149/938
([M14],116).
But why is
the Lightcalled
Uncreated?
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
150/938
The biblicalaccount
doesn't use
that word. Itsays while
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
151/938
Jesus waspraying
. . . his face
changed itsappearance,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
152/938
and hisclothes
became
dazzlingwhite. . . .
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
153/938
Moses andElijah . . .
appeared in
heavenlyglory . . .
his
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
154/938
companions. . .
saw Jesus'
glory . . .([G02],Lk
9:29-32).
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
155/938
But Lukedoesn't call
the light
"uncreated"and neither
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
156/938
doesMatthew
(17:1-8) or
Mark (9:2-8). Matthew
uses light
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
157/938
imagerywhen he
describes
Jesus' face(Mt
17:2,[G02],
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
158/938
18) as"shining
like the
sun."And Mark
says (Mk
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
159/938
9:3,[G02],42) Jesus'
clothes
"becameshining
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
160/938
white -whiter than
anyone in
the worldcould wash
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
161/938
them." Butwhy is
the light
calledUncreated?
Perhaps, the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
162/938
monks'experience
of the
Light whichis
Uncreated
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
163/938
came first,and
identificatio
n with thelight
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
164/938
whichshone on
Mount
Taborsecond.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
165/938
Imaginemonks see a
reality
withinthemselves.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
166/938
The realityis a
kind of
Light. Theyrealize that
the reality is
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
167/938
God, thatseeing the
Light is an
experienceof God. So
they
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
168/938
naturallyidentify It
with an
incident intheir own
scriptures,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
169/938
the Lightthat shone
at the
transfiguration of Jesus
Christ on
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
170/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
171/938
by a Hindumystic,
would it be
called thelight of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
172/938
Krishna?Might not a
Buddhist
identifysuch a light
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
173/938
with thepure
Essence of
Mind or theClear Light
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
174/938
of theVoid?
Could it be
that mysticsof all times
and cultures
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
175/938
have hadvision
of the same
EternalLight? Was
the Islamic
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
176/938
mystic,Sumnun,
speaking
of thatLight when
he wrote
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
177/938
I haveseparated
my heart
from thisworld -
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
178/938
My heartand Thou
are not
separate.And when
slumber
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
179/938
closes myeyes,
I find Thee
between theeye and the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
180/938
lid.([S04],62)?
And was
AngelusSilesius, a
Christian
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
181/938
mystic ofthe 17th
century
whosesimple,
clear verses
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
182/938
have a Zen-like quality,
speaking of
that
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
183/938
same Lightwhen he
wrote:
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
184/938
A heartawakened
has eyes:
perceivesthe Light
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
185/938
in dark ofnight.
([B05],109)
?And how
might a
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
186/938
scientistwho
happened to
see thatLight speak
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
187/938
of It? As theE in
E=mc2?
Probablynot. If they
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
188/938
spoke of Itat all, it
would
probably bein a
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
189/938
religiouscontext.
Essenceand
Energies
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
190/938
We'll seeother
mystics'
records ofthe Light,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
191/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
192/938
He alone isimmortal;
he lives in
the lightthat no one
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
193/938
canapproach.
No one has
ever seenhim; no one
can
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
194/938
ever seehim.
([G02],1Tm
6:16).If Paul was
right, then
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
195/938
the mysticsare wrong.
They didn't
see God atall. Who is
wrong, Paul
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
196/938
or them?Paul, I
believe.
It isprobably
worth re-
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
197/938
emphasizing that this
book's
world viewagrees with
some
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
198/938
beliefs ofestablished
religions
anddisagrees
with
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
199/938
others.Since
religions
disagreeamong
themselves,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
200/938
no worldview
could
possiblyagree with
all beliefs
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
201/938
of allreligions.
So I usually
don'tremark
when a
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
202/938
point I'mmaking
disagrees
with somereligion or
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
203/938
another,except
when the
disagreement, like the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
204/938
one we'rediscussing
now, brings
up aninteresting
point.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
205/938
Can Godactually be
directly
experienced. Can God
be seen?
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
206/938
VladimirLossky in
The
MysticalTheology of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
207/938
the EasternChurch
writes:
It would bepossible to
draw up
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
208/938
two sets oftexts taken
from the
Bible andthe Fathers,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
209/938
contradictory to one
another; the
first toshow the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
210/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
211/938
that Goddoes
communicat
e Himself,can be
known
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
212/938
experimentally,
and can
really beattained to
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
213/938
in union . . .([L08],68).
(Lossky, in
fact, drawsup such a
list in the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
214/938
secondchapter of
The
Vision ofGod
([L09]), a
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
215/938
book whichtreats the
above
contradiction in
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
216/938
greatdetail.) He
continues:
Thequestion of
the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
217/938
possibilityof any real
union with
God, and,indeed, of
mystical
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
218/938
experiencein general,
thus poses
forChristian
theology the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
219/938
antinomy ofthe
accessibility
of theinaccessible
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
220/938
nature.([L08],69).
The Eastern
OrthodoxChurch
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
221/938
resolves thisscriptural
contradictio
n bydistinguishi
ng between
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
222/938
the essenceof God,
which is
inaccessible, and the
"energies"
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
223/938
of God,which are
. . . forces
proper toand
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
224/938
inseparablefrom God's
essence, in
which Hegoes forth
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
225/938
fromHimself,
manifests,
communicates, and
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
226/938
givesHimself.
([L08],70).
The famousphilosopher
Immanuel
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
227/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
228/938
the things inthemselves,
which we
cannever know,
and the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
229/938
phenomena,the
appearances
,which are
all that our
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
230/938
senses cantell us
about.
([D04],329).
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
231/938
An analogyto both
ideas might
be this: Noone has
ever really
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
232/938
experiencedfire's
essence;
they've onlyexperienced
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
233/938
fire'senergies,
that is, seen
its light, feltits heat, or
heard the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
234/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
235/938
may beconsidered
(compare
[U01],109)transcenden
t,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
236/938
inaccessible, and
unknowable
. From thisviewpoint,
Energy is
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
237/938
not identicalwith the
God which
is not aPerson
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
238/938
but rather isthat God's
first
emanation,the primary
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
239/938
manifestation
upon which
the entireuniverse is
based. This
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
240/938
distinctionmay be
applied to
theChristian
Trinity so
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
241/938
that theFather is
transcenden
texistence,
and the Son
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
242/938
or Logos isthe Father's
first-born,
the firstmanifestatio
n through
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
243/938
which theuniverse is
made.
God hasreal
existence in
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
244/938
the worldinsofar as
He
creates theworld, i.e.,
gives it
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
245/938
existence bygiving it a
share in His
own realexistence in
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
246/938
and throughthe
energies.
([M03],72).Therefore,
the Logos is
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
247/938
theUncreated
Light
consideredas the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
248/938
Root of theuniverse,
exterior to
one's self.Paul
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
249/938
picturesJesus, the
Logos, in
this way:Who is the
image of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
250/938
the invisibleGod, the
firstborn of
everycreature;
For by him
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
251/938
were allthings
created . . .
And he isbefore all
things, and
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
252/938
by him allthings
consist.
([H08],Col,1:15-17).
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
253/938
And what isthe Spirit?
The same
Root andSource seen
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
254/938
interiorly,as
one's own
UltimateGround of
Existence.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
255/938
Jewish
Seers
Let's nowturn to other
religions
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
256/938
andexamine
what
Jewish,Islamic,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
257/938
Hindu, Sikhand
Buddhist
seers sayabout the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
258/938
Light whichis God.
Jewish
records I'vefound aren't
as explicit
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
259/938
asHesychast
descriptions
ofUncreated
Light. Yet,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
260/938
someJewish
mystics do
speakof divine
Light. In
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
261/938
fact, RabbiKook
expressed
the mystic'sgoal in
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
262/938
terms ofLight.
The divine
lightsustains all
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
263/938
life, is to befound in
everything
that exists,and is also
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
264/938
the goal ofall
creation . . .
[T]hemystic's
goal is to
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
265/938
perceiveand
experience
this divinelight and to
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
266/938
be unitedwith the
universe.
([C16],30).Was Kook,
a man who
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
267/938
undoubtedly believed
in a God
who is aPerson,
speaking of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
268/938
the Godwhich is not
a Person?
Perhaps. It'shard
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
269/938
to see howperceiving
the radiance
of someGod who is
a Person,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
270/938
separatefrom
creation,
would unitea mystic
with the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
271/938
universe.But
perceiving
theuniverse's
ultimate
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
272/938
Substanceunites a
mystic with
theuniverse in
an obvious
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
273/938
and intimateway.
In any case,
Kookidentifies
light with
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
274/938
God. Hewrites of
([K05],221)
"the light ofEn Sof, the
light of the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
275/938
living God"and says
that
holy men,those of
pure
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
276/938
thought andcontemplati
on,
jointhemselves,
in their
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
277/938
innersensibilities,
with the
spiritualthat
pervades
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
278/938
all.Everything
that is
revealedto them is
an
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
279/938
emergenceof light, a
disclosure
of the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
280/938
divine . . .([K05],208)
,
and alsowrites of
([K05],225)
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
281/938
the "light ofeternity . . .
in which the
temporaland the
eternal
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
282/938
merge inone whole."
Might not a
vision ofEternal
Light merge
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
283/938
thetemporal
and eternal
- forinstance,
the table
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
284/938
and itsEternal
Basis - into
one whole?
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
285/938
IslamicSeers
The next
religionwe'll
discuss is
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
286/938
Islam. TheKoran,
Islam's
scripture,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
287/938
speaks ofAllah's
Light.
Allah is thelight of the
heavens and
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
288/938
the earth.His light
may be
compared toa niche that
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
289/938
enshrines alamp,
the lamp
within acrystal of
star-like
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
290/938
brilliance. .. . Light
upon light;
Allahguides to
His light
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
291/938
whom Hewill.
(Sura 24:35,
[K07],217).And the
Sufis, who
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
292/938
are Islam'smystics,
call
themselves([N11],1)
"the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
293/938
followers ofthe Real",
and speak
of "a pillarof light
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
294/938
formedfrom the
souls of . . .
saints" and"the
preexistent
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
295/938
light ofMuhammad
"
([S04],56),as well as
the "light of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
296/938
God"([S04],60)
which
guides themystic.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
297/938
Ghazzali isone of the
most
famousSufis. His
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
298/938
The Nichefor
Lights
([A03])"shows a
highly
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
299/938
developedlight
metaphysics
- God isthe Light"
([S04],96).
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
300/938
Moreover,Ghazzali
believed
mystics cansee
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
301/938
actuallyZechariah
11:13. If
not aconscious
deception,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
302/938
wasn't thisat
least a
mistake?Could
Augustine
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
303/938
avoidseeing it as
one or the
other?He could.
Augustine'
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
304/938
sexplanatio
n ([I03],44)
was asfollows.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
305/938
Under theinspiration
of the Holy
Spirit, thename
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
306/938
"Jeremiah" first
came to
Matthew'smind. Then
Matthew
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
307/938
realized thequote was
actually
Zechariah's but
decided the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
308/938
Holy Spirithad
allowed
"Jeremiah" to come
to mind to
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
309/938
indicate"the
essential
unity of thewords of
the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
310/938
prophets."So
Matthew
bowed "tothe
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
311/938
authorityof the
Holy
Spirit" andwrote
"Jeremiah
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
312/938
" instead ofthe correct
reference,
Zechariah.Augustine
illustrates
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
313/938
howreligious
believers
defendscripture's
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
314/938
"inerrancy" and
"harmoniz
e" itsinconsisten
cies.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
315/938
Augustineknows
Matthew
27:9 iswrong. Yet
he can't
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
316/938
make asimple
correction
oracknowled
ge a simple
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
317/938
mistake.Why? Why
can't he
improvescripture
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
318/938
and makeit more
truthful
andconsistent
by
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
319/938
correctinga simple
error?
Because hisway of
knowing
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
320/938
doesn'tallow it.
The
principlethat
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
321/938
scripture iswritten by
God and
alreadyerror-free
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
322/938
preventshim from
acknowled
ging andcorrecting
a simple
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
323/938
mistake.Instead,
he's forced
to find an"explanati
on" that
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
324/938
upholds theinerrancy
of
scripture.Augustine
takes the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
325/938
safe,though not
entirely
truthful,path.
Rather
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
326/938
actuallyZechariah
11:13. If
not aconscious
deception,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
327/938
wasn't thisat
least a
mistake?Could
Augustine
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
328/938
avoidseeing it as
one or the
other?He could.
Augustine'
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
329/938
sexplanatio
n ([I03],44)
was asfollows.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
330/938
Under theinspiration
of the Holy
Spirit, thename
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
331/938
"Jeremiah" first
came to
Matthew'smind. Then
Matthew
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
332/938
realized thequote was
actually
Zechariah's but
decided the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
333/938
Holy Spirithad
allowed
"Jeremiah" to come
to mind to
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
334/938
indicate"the
essential
unity of thewords of
the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
335/938
prophets."So
Matthew
bowed "tothe
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
336/938
authorityof the
Holy
Spirit" andwrote
"Jeremiah
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
337/938
" instead ofthe correct
reference,
would liketo turn as
we would
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
338/938
like to turnas we
conclude
thischapter.The
first of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
339/938
thesecommontop
ics or
problems isa time-
honoured
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
340/938
one,centringround the
idiographic
snomothetic
dichotomy
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
341/938
thatseparates
and unites
the socialsciences at
would like
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
342/938
to turn aswe
conclude
thischapter.The
first of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
343/938
thesecommontop
ics or
problems isa time-
honoured
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
344/938
one,centringround the
idiographic
snomothetic
dichotomy
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
345/938
thatseparates
and unites
the socialsciences at
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
346/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
347/938
first ofthese
commontop
ics orproblems is
a time-
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
348/938
honouredone,centring
round the
idiographic
snomothetic
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
349/938
dichotomythat
separates
and unitesthe social
sciences at
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
350/938
would liketo turn as
we
concludethis
chapter.The
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
351/938
first ofthese
commontop
ics orproblems is
a time-
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
352/938
honouredone,centring
round the
idiographic
snomothetic
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
353/938
dichotomythat
separates
and unitesthe social
sciences at
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
354/938
one and theone and the
same
time.Acentral point of
contention,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
355/938
especiallyduring the
early debate
aboutexceptiona
lismingeog
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
356/938
raphy(Schaefer
1953),this
axis hadbeen a
dominant
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
357/938
one in thehuman and
socialscienc
es at leastsince the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
358/938
Methodenstreit
in the
GermanStaatswissen
schaften
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
359/938
duringthesecond
half of the
nineteenthcentury
(Strohmaye
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
360/938
r 1997b).Isgeography a
scienceconc
entrating onthe
specific,on
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
361/938
differenceand the
uniqueness
of place(s)?Or is itsgoal
to uncover
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
362/938
law-likestructures
that apply
underobservable
conditions
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
363/938
andwhichcan
be used for
planningand other
socially
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
364/938
relevantpurposes?
Human
geographyhasfound
many
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
365/938
differentanswers to
these
questionsduring the
course of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
366/938
thetwentiethce
ntury and
haswitnessed
seemingly
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
367/938
stableconfiguratio
ns vanish
every sooften.Take,f
or
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
368/938
instance,theresurrection
of a concern
forparticularity
within the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
369/938
postmodernparadigm:w
as this a
return to anearlier
geographica
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
370/938
l practice orsomething
altogetherne
w anddifferent?
Was it a
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
371/938
child of itstime just
like any
otherepistemolog
ical
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
372/938
break andthus
necessarily
a form oflocalknow
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
373/938
ledge (Ley2003)?
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
374/938
Geographical
visions23
Mention ofparticularit
yshould
remind usnot to
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
375/938
overlook asecond axis
thatstructur
edgeographic
theories
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
376/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
377/938
hicnomothetic
divide,the
differencebetween
generality
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
378/938
andparticularity
isthought by
many to besynonymou
s with the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
379/938
former.However,one
can well
imagineanomothetic
approach to
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
380/938
particulars,just as
idiographic
concerns forgeneralities
exist.Implic
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
381/938
it in thisdifference,t
herefore,is
little lessthan the
importance
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
382/938
of scale(Marston20
00) or the
reminderthat the
geographies
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
383/938
we observechange
depending
oncontext,fra
me of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
384/938
referenceand point of
view.Both
axesmentioned
revolve
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
385/938
aroundepistemolog
ical issues
in that theypresent
us with a
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
386/938
choicebetween
different
conceptualizations of
what kind
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
387/938
of sciencegeography
isand
shouldbe.But there
is a third
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
388/938
axis we canidentify that
centres
aroundquestions
of causation
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
389/938
.Centrallyimplicated
here is the
dichotomybetween
structure
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
390/938
andagency.Larg
ely implicit
in thetheoretical
assumptions
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
391/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
392/938
geographerswith a
whole set of
answers tothe question
of what
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
393/938
or who wasresponsible
for the
creation andmaintenanc
e of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
394/938
geographicrealities:wa
s itpeoples
preferencesthat shaped
spaces,or
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
395/938
was theparticular
context
withinwhich
suchchoices
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
396/938
were maderesponsible
for the
geographieswe could
observe
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
397/938
empirically? For aslong
as
geographyheld fast to
the kind of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
398/938
checklistmentality
observed
earlier inthischapter,t
his latter
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
399/938
part of thequestion
apparently
did notbecome an
issue.Thing
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
400/938
sstarted tochange,how
ever,with
the movetowards
more
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
401/938
theoretically informed
researchage
ndas:herethe choice
between
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
402/938
prioritizingindividual
actors over
socialstructure
(or vice
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
403/938
versa) wasoften
perceived to
befundamenta
l.But what
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
404/938
about theseaxes? The
real change
in theclosing
decade of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
405/938
thetwentiethce
ntury has
been toview them
less as
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
406/938
essentialand
mutually
exclusivechoices and
toappreciate
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
407/938
theircommonalit
y of
construction.Here,agai
n,we need
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
408/938
toacknowledg
e
theimportance of the
debates
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
409/938
surroundingstructuratio
n theory in
the late1970s
andthrough
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
410/938
out the1980s for
the overall
shape oftheoretical
discourse
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
411/938
within thediscipline(H
arris
1991;Chouinard
1997).Toget
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
412/938
her withsimultaneou
s
developments in
feministgeo
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
413/938
graphy,itwas in these
debates that
theconnective
nature of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
414/938
allegedopposites
wasfirst
acknowledged:what had
presented
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
415/938
itselfpreviously
as a choice
betweenmutually ex
clusive
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
416/938
positions ortheoretical
points of
origin wasnow
increasingly
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
417/938
viewedandtheorize
d as a field
in whichmutually
constructive
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
418/938
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
419/938
(Thrift1983;Grego
ry 1994).In
fact,theclosing
years of the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
420/938
lastcenturywitnessed a
proliferatio
n of papersthat
analysed a
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
421/938
professedinstability
andconstruc
ted natureof the
categories
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
422/938
that wereused to
manufactur
e (oftenpolarized)a
xes in the
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
423/938
first place(Gibson-
Graham
1996;Battersburyet al
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
424/938
.1997;Whatmore
1999).In the
emerginghybrid
world of
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
425/938
networks,afuture
generation
ofgeographers
may
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
426/938
wellfindmany of the
issues and
conflicts ofold
unresolved,
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
427/938
perhapseven
unresolvabl
e(Thrift2000a). We
would like
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
428/938
to end byexpressing
our
admittedlyminimalist
hope that a
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
429/938
geography for the
twenty-first
century willno longer
have to
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
430/938
deny thecontested
nature of
itscategories and move
towards
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
431/938
mature andtolerant
manners of
dispute anddiscourse. T
he
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
432/938
emergenceof research
in the years
flanking theturn of the
millennium
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
433/938
that aimstointegrate
rather than
dividepositions
that were
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
434/938
previouslythought to
be only
loosely
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
435/938
24Human
Geography: A
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
436/938
History for the
21st Century
connected,exclusive or
downright
opposed,might be read
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
437/938
as a signthat such
hopes
arenot invain
(Mattingly
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
438/938
andFalconer-
Al-Hindi
1995;Dixonand Jones
1998;Barnet
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
439/938
t2001;Castree
2003;Jacob
s and Nash2003;Engla
nd
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
440/938
2003).However,it
might also
be asign offatigue:only
history can
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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").
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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).
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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.
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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).
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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).
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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
7/27/2019 Bundel Khan
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
Top Related