Bang Elk Hand

7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand

1/113

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, in Inerrancy 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).

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


2/113

It with a God who is a Person.Of Pascal's Memorial, Evelyn Underhill in her classic work

Mysticism: A Study in the Nature and Development of Man's Spiritual Consciousness writes:He seems always to have worn it upon his person: a

perpetual memorial of the supernal experience, theinitiation into Reality, which it describes. ([U01],188).She believes the experience concluded. . . a long period of spiritual stress, in whichindifference to his ordinary interests wascounterbalanced by an utter inability to feel theattractive force of that Divine Reality which his greatmind discerned as the only adequate object of desire.([U01],189).Underhill mentions other Christian mystics whose experience of Light parallels the experience of Augustine, Fox, and Pascal.LIGHT, ineffable and uncreated, the perfect symbol of pure undifferentiated Being: above the intellect, as St.

Augustine reminds us, but known to him who loves.This Uncreated Light is the "deep yet dazzlingdarkness" of the Dionysian school, "dark from itssurpassing brightness . . . as the shining of the sun onhis course is as darkness to weak eyes." It is St.Hildegarde's lux vivens , Dante's somma luce , whereinhe saw multiplicity in unity, the ingathered leaves of allthe universe: The Eternal Father, or Fount of Things."For well we know," says Ruysbroeck, "that the bosomof the Father is our ground and origin, wherein our life

and being is begun." ([U01],115).Is not the Ultimate Ground of Existence our ground and origin,root and source as well? Is not Energy pure Isness, pure Suchness,

pure undifferentiated Existence?

Eastern Christian SeersOf course, other religions speak of direct experience of the EternalLight. Hesychasm, a mystical tradition of the Eastern OrthodoxChristian Church, is particularly explicit. The Eastern Orthodox andthe Roman Catholic churches were once branches of a singleChristian church. About 1054, the two divided. Hesychasm is the

monastic tradition of the Eastern Orthodox church that expresses its([M02],106) "central mystical doctrine." Hesychast monks claimdirect experience of God in the form of Uncreated light.One of the greatest Hesychast saints lived about a thousand yearsago. His name is Symeon. He's called "the New Theologian" toindicate he ranks second ([S26],37) only to theologian "par excellence," Gregory of Nazianzus. In his Third Theological

Discourse , Symeon writes:God is light, a light infinite and incomprehensible . . .one single light . . simple, non-composite, timeless,eternal . . . The light is life. The light is immortality. The

light is the source of life. . . . the door of the kingdomof heaven. The light is the very kingdom itself.


3/113

([S25],138).We've seen how Energy is simple and non-composite (not composedof parts), timeless and eternal.Symeon emphasized it's possible to experience the Light which isGod.

Our mind is pure and simple, so when it is stripped of every alien thought, it enters the pure, simple, Divinelight . . . God is light - the highest light. ([W11],132),andFor if nothing interferes with its contemplation, themind - the eye of the soul - sees God purely in a purelight. ([W11],137).How did Symeon know that God is a simple, non-composite,eternal Light which can be seen? He claimed his knowledge was firsthand.I have often seen the light, sometimes it has appearedto me within myself, when my soul possessed peaceand silence. . . ([L09],118-9).Symeon's relation to the Light was anything but cold and impersonal.In his twenty-fifth hymn he writes:- But, Oh, what intoxication of light, Oh, whatmovements of fire!Oh, what swirlings of the flame in me . . . coming fromYou and Your glory! . . .You granted me to see the light of Your countenancethat is unbearable to all. . . .You appeared as light, illuminating me completelyfrom Your total light. . . .O awesome wonder which I see doubly, with my two

sets of eyes, of the body and of the soul! ([S26],24-5).And he left no doubt he considered this Light God.It illuminates us, this light that never sets, withoutchange, unalterable, never eclipsed; it speaks, it acts,it lives and vivifies, it transforms into light those whomit illumines. God is light, and those whom he deemsworthy of seeing him see him as light; . . . Those whohave not seen this light have not seen God, for God islight. ([L09],121) .As might be expected, the experience of the Light which is God can

be quite intense.

If a man who possesses within him the light of theHoly Spirit is unable to bear its radiance, he fallsprostrate on the ground and cries out in great fear andterror, as one who sees and experiences somethingbeyond nature, above words or reason. He is then likea man whose entrails have been set on fire and,unable to bear the scorching flame, he is utterlydevastated by it . . . ([W11],113).Some years after Symeon, the orthodoxy and validity of theHesychast experience of God as Light was questioned. Many rose toHesychasm's defense. Gregory Palamas (1296-1359) is perhaps the

most famous. Palamas gave the Hesychast experience of UncreatedEnergy a philosophical basis acceptable to Orthodox Christianity.


4/113

Gregory argued that the divine energies manifest theGodhead in an effulgence of light, which it is possiblefor humans beings to see, God willing. The light thatthe apostles saw on the mount of the transfigurationwas uncreated light, not a created effulgence.([P15],69).Like Symeon, Palamas insists Uncreated Light is an actualexperience, not a symbol or a metaphor for intellectual understanding.Palamas affirms the utter reality of the saints' vision of God, constantly repeating that the grace that revealsGod, like the light that illumined the disciples on MountTabor, is uncreated. ([M14],120).Palamas's defense of the Hesychast experience was successful.The Orthodox Church ([N04],v11,465) accepts his teachings andnumbers him among its saints.

Uncreated LightHesychast monks almost always describe their experience of God asan experience of Uncreated Light. They associate that Light with thelight of a scriptural incident.Take for example the term "Taborite light," with whichhesychasts always describe their experience of God.For they identify the divine reality that reveals itself tothe saints with the light that appeared to the Lord'sdisciples at His Transfiguration on Mount Tabor. Suchan identification seems to them justified not merely asa symbol but as something very real. ([M14],116).But why is the Light called Uncreated? The biblical account

doesn't use that word. It says while Jesus was praying. . . his face changed its appearance, and his clothesbecame dazzling white. . . . Moses and Elijah . . .appeared in heavenly glory . . . his companions . . .saw Jesus' glory . . . ([G02],Lk 9:29-32).But Luke doesn't call the light "uncreated" and neither does Matthew(17:1-8) or Mark (9:2-8). Matthew uses light imagery when hedescribes Jesus' face (Mt 17:2,[G02],18) as "shining like the sun."And Mark says (Mk 9:3,[G02],42) Jesus' clothes "became shiningwhite - whiter than anyone in the world could wash them." But why isthe light called Uncreated? Perhaps, the monks' experience of the

Light which is Uncreated came first, and identification with the lightwhich shone on Mount Tabor second.Imagine monks see a reality within themselves. The reality is akind of Light. They realize that the reality is God, that seeing theLight is an experience of God. So they naturally identify It with anincident in their own scriptures, the Light that shone at thetransfiguration of Jesus Christ on Mount Tabor. But if the same Lightwas experienced by a Hindu mystic, would it be called the light of Krishna? Might not a Buddhist identify such a light with the pureEssence of Mind or the Clear Light of the Void?Could it be that mystics of all times and cultures have had visionof the same Eternal Light? Was the Islamic mystic, Sumnun, speakingof that Light when he wrote


5/113

I have separated my heart from this world -My heart and Thou are not separate.

And when slumber closes my eyes,I find Thee between the eye and the lid. ([S04],62)?And was Angelus Silesius, a Christian mystic of the 17th century

whose simple, clear verses have a Zen-like quality, speaking of thatsame Light when he wrote:

A heart awakened has eyes:perceivesthe Lightin dark of night. ([B05],109)?And how might a scientist who happened to see that Light speak of It? As the E in E=mc 2? Probably not. If they spoke of It at all, itwould probably be in a religious context.

Essence and EnergiesWe'll see other mystics' records of the Light, but let's pause toconsider a question. Of God, St. Paul writes:He alone is immortal; he lives in the light that no onecan approach. No one has ever seen him; no one canever see him. ([G02],1Tm 6:16).If Paul was right, then the mystics are wrong. They didn't see God atall. Who is wrong, Paul or them? Paul, I believe.It is probably worth re-emphasizing that this book's world viewagrees with some beliefs of established religions and disagrees withothers. Since religions disagree among themselves, no world viewcould possibly agree with all beliefs of all religions. So I usually don'tremark when a point I'm making disagrees with some religion or another, except when the disagreement, like the one we're discussingnow, brings up an interesting point.Can God actually be directly experienced. Can God be seen?Vladimir Lossky in The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Churchwrites:It would be possible to draw up two sets of texts takenfrom the Bible and the Fathers, contradictory to oneanother; the first to show the inaccessible character of the divine nature, the second asserting that God doescommunicate Himself, can be known experimentally,and can really be attained to in union . . . ([L08],68).(Lossky, in fact, draws up such a list in the second chapter of TheVision of God ([L09]), a book which treats the above contradiction ingreat detail.) He continues:The question of the possibility of any real union withGod, and, indeed, of mystical experience in general,thus poses for Christian theology the antinomy of theaccessibility of the inaccessible nature. ([L08],69).The Eastern Orthodox Church resolves this scripturalcontradiction by distinguishing between the essence of God, which is

inaccessible, and the "energies" of God, which are. . . forces proper to and inseparable from God's


6/113

essence, in which He goes forth from Himself,manifests, communicates, and gives Himself.([L08],70).The famous philosopher Immanuel Kant has a similar idea: he defines

. . . noumena, the things in themselves, which we cannever know, and the phenomena, the appearances,which are all that our senses can tell us about.([D04],329) .An analogy to both ideas might be this: No one has ever reallyexperienced fire's essence; they've only experienced fire's energies,that is, seen its light, felt its heat, or heard the sound of its burning.Similarly, the God which is not a Person may be considered (compare[U01],109) transcendent, inaccessible, and unknowable. From thisviewpoint, Energy is not identical with the God which is not a Person

but rather is that God's first emanation, the primary manifestation

upon which the entire universe is based. This distinction may beapplied to the Christian Trinity so that the Father is transcendentexistence, and the Son or Logos is the Father's first-born, the firstmanifestation through which the universe is made.God has real existence in the world insofar as Hecreates the world, i.e., gives it existence by giving it ashare in His own real existence in and through theenergies . ([M03],72) .Therefore, the Logos is the Uncreated Light considered as theRoot of the universe, exterior to one's self. Paul pictures Jesus, theLogos, in this way:Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature; For by him were all things created . . .

And he is before all things, and by him all thingsconsist. ([H08],Col,1:15-17).And what is the Spirit? The same Root and Source seen interiorly, asone's own Ultimate Ground of Existence.

Jewish SeersLet's now turn to other religions and examine what Jewish, Islamic,Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist seers say about the Light which is God.Jewish records I've found aren't as explicit as Hesychastdescriptions of Uncreated Light. Yet, some Jewish mystics do speak of divine Light. In fact, Rabbi Kook expressed the mystic's goal interms of Light.The divine light sustains all life, is to be found ineverything that exists, and is also the goal of allcreation . . . [T]he mystic's goal is to perceive andexperience this divine light and to be united with theuniverse. ([C16],30) .Was Kook, a man who undoubtedly believed in a God who is aPerson, speaking of the God which is not a Person? Perhaps. It's hardto see how perceiving the radiance of some God who is a Person,separate from creation, would unite a mystic with the universe. But

perceiving the universe's ultimate Substance unites a mystic with theuniverse in an obvious and intimate way.


7/113

In any case, Kook identifies light with God. He writes of ([K05],221) "the light of En Sof, the light of the living God" and saysthatholy men, those of pure thought and contemplation,

join themselves, in their inner sensibilities, with the

spiritual that pervades all. Everything that is revealedto them is an emergence of light, a disclosure of thedivine . . . ([K05],208),and also writes of ([K05],225) the "light of eternity . . . in which thetemporal and the eternal merge in one whole." Might not a vision of Eternal Light merge the temporal and eternal - for instance, the tableand its Eternal Basis - into one whole?

Islamic SeersThe next religion we'll discuss is Islam. The Koran, Islam's scripture,speaks of Allah's Light.

Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth. His lightmay be compared to a niche that enshrines a lamp,the lamp within a crystal of star-like brilliance. . . . Lightupon light; Allah guides to His light whom He will.(Sura 24:35, [K07],217).And the Sufis, who are Islam's mystics, call themselves ([N11],1) "thefollowers of the Real", and speak of "a pillar of light formed from thesouls of . . . saints" and "the preexistent light of Muhammad"([S04],56), as well as the "light of God" ([S04],60) which guides themystic.Ghazzali is one of the most famous Sufis. His The Niche for

Lights ([A03]) "shows a highly developed light metaphysics - God isthe Light" ([S04],96). Moreover, Ghazzali believed mystics can see

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


8/113

"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



He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows. can always say revelation is right and

the accepted "fact" is wrong. If











that



([I03],24),

that Origen


9/113



and, finally, that



([I03],49).






It with a God who is a Person.

Of Pascal's Memorial, Evelyn Underhill in her classic work

Mysticism: A Study in the Nature and Development of Man's Spiritual

Consciousness writes:

He seems always to have worn it upon his person: a

perpetual memorial of the supernal experience, the

initiation into Reality, which it describes. ([U01],188).

She believes the experience concluded

. . . a long period of spiritual stress, in which

indifference to his ordinary interests was

counterbalanced by an utter inability to feel the

attractive force of that Divine Reality which his great

mind discerned as the only adequate object of desire.

([U01],189).

Underhill mentions other Christian mystics whose experience of

Light parallels the experience of Augustine, Fox, and Pascal.


10/113

LIGHT, ineffable and uncreated, the perfect symbol of

pure undifferentiated Being: above the intellect, as St.

Augustine reminds us, but known to him who loves.

This Uncreated Light is the "deep yet dazzling

darkness" of the Dionysian school, "dark from its

surpassing brightness . . . as the shining of the sun on

his course is as darkness to weak eyes." It is St.

Hildegarde's lux vivens , Dante's somma luce , wherein

he saw multiplicity in unity, the ingathered leaves of all

the universe: The Eternal Father, or Fount of Things.

"For well we know," says Ruysbroeck, "that the bosom

of the Father is our ground and origin, wherein our life

and being is begun." ([U01],115).

Is not the Ultimate Ground of Existence our ground and origin,

root and source as well? Is not Energy pure Isness, pure Suchness,

pure undifferentiated Existence?

Eastern Christian Seers

Of course, other religions speak of direct experience of the Eternal

Light. Hesychasm, a mystical tradition of the Eastern Orthodox

Christian Church, is particularly explicit. The Eastern Orthodox and

the Roman Catholic churches were once branches of a single

Christian church. About 1054, the two divided. Hesychasm is the

monastic tradition of the Eastern Orthodox church that expresses its

([M02],106) "central mystical doctrine." Hesychast monks claim

direct experience of God in the form of Uncreated light.

One of the greatest Hesychast saints lived about a thousand years


11/113

ago. His name is Symeon. He's called "the New Theologian" to

indicate he ranks second ([S26],37) only to theologian "par

excellence," Gregory of Nazianzus. In his Third Theological

Discourse , Symeon writes:

God is light, a light infinite and incomprehensible . . .

one single light . . simple, non-composite, timeless,

eternal . . . The light is life. The light is immortality. The

light is the source of life. . . . the door of the kingdom

of heaven. The light is the very kingdom itself.

([S25],138).

We've seen how Energy is simple and non-composite (not composed

of parts), timeless and eternal.

Symeon emphasized it's possible to experience the Light which is

God.

Our mind is pure and simple, so when it is stripped of

every alien thought, it enters the pure, simple, Divine

light . . . God is light - the highest light. ([W11],132),

and

For if nothing interferes with its contemplation, the

mind - the eye of the soul - sees God purely in a pure

light. ([W11],137).

How did Symeon know that God is a simple, non-composite,

eternal Light which can be seen? He claimed his knowledge was firsthand.

I have often seen the light, sometimes it has appeared

to me within myself, when my soul possessed peace

and silence. . . ([L09],118-9).

Symeon's relation to the Light was anything but cold and impersonal.


12/113


13/113

a man whose entrails have been set on fire and,

unable to bear the scorching flame, he is utterly

devastated by it . . . ([W11],113).

Some years after Symeon, the orthodoxy and validity of the

Hesychast experience of God as Light was questioned. Many rose to

Hesychasm's defense. Gregory Palamas (1296-1359) is perhaps the

most famous. Palamas gave the Hesychast experience of Uncreated

Energy a philosophical basis acceptable to Orthodox Christianity.

Gregory argued that the divine energies manifest the

Godhead in an effulgence of light, which it is possible

for humans beings to see, God willing. The light that

the apostles saw on the mount of the transfiguration

was uncreated light, not a created effulgence.

([P15],69).

Like Symeon, Palamas insists Uncreated Light is an actual

experience, not a symbol or a metaphor for intellectual understanding.

Palamas affirms the utter reality of the saints' vision of

God, constantly repeating that the grace that reveals

God, like the light that illumined the disciples on Mount

Tabor, is uncreated. ([M14],120).

Palamas's defense of the Hesychast experience was successful.

The Orthodox Church ([N04],v11,465) accepts his teachings and

numbers him among its saints.

Uncreated Light

Hesychast monks almost always describe their experience of God as

an experience of Uncreated Light. They associate that Light with the


14/113

light of a scriptural incident.

Take for example the term "Taborite light," with which

hesychasts always describe their experience of God.

For they identify the divine reality that reveals itself to

the saints with the light that appeared to the Lord's

disciples at His Transfiguration on Mount Tabor. Such

an identification seems to them justified not merely as

a symbol but as something very real. ([M14],116).

But why is the Light called Uncreated? The biblical account

doesn't use that word. It says while Jesus was praying

. . . his face changed its appearance, and his clothes

became dazzling white. . . . Moses and Elijah . . .

appeared in heavenly glory . . . his companions . . .

saw Jesus' glory . . . ([G02],Lk 9:29-32).

But Luke doesn't call the light "uncreated" and neither does Matthew

(17:1-8) or Mark (9:2-8). Matthew uses light imagery when he

describes Jesus' face (Mt 17:2,[G02],18) as "shining like the sun."

And Mark says (Mk 9:3,[G02],42) Jesus' clothes "became shining

white - whiter than anyone in the world could wash them." But why is

the light called Uncreated? Perhaps, the monks' experience of the

Light which is Uncreated came first, and identification with the light

which shone on Mount Tabor second.

Imagine monks see a reality within themselves. The reality is a

kind of Light. They realize that the reality is God, that seeing the

Light is an experience of God. So they naturally identify It with an

incident in their own scriptures, the Light that shone at the

transfiguration of Jesus Christ on Mount Tabor. But if the same Light


15/113

was experienced by a Hindu mystic, would it be called the light of

Krishna? Might not a Buddhist identify such a light with the pure

Essence of Mind or the Clear Light of the Void?

Could it be that mystics of all times and cultures have had vision

of the same Eternal Light? Was the Islamic mystic, Sumnun, speaking

of that Light when he wrote

I have separated my heart from this world -

My heart and Thou are not separate.

And when slumber closes my eyes,

I find Thee between the eye and the lid. ([S04],62)?

And was Angelus Silesius, a Christian mystic of the 17th century

whose simple, clear verses have a Zen-like quality, speaking of that

same Light when he wrote:

A heart awakened has eyes:

perceives

the Light

in dark of night. ([B05],109)?

And how might a scientist who happened to see that Light speak

of It? As the E in E=mc2? Probably not. If they spoke of It at all, it

would probably be in a religious context.

Essence and Energies

We'll see other mystics' records of the Light, but let's pause to

consider a question. Of God, St. Paul writes:

He alone is immortal; he lives in the light that no one


16/113

can approach. No one has ever seen him; no one can

ever see him. ([G02],1Tm 6:16).

If Paul was right, then the mystics are wrong. They didn't see God at

all. Who is wrong, Paul or them? Paul, I believe.

It is probably worth re-emphasizing that this book's world view

agrees with some beliefs of established religions and disagrees with

others. Since religions disagree among themselves, no world view

could possibly agree with all beliefs of all religions. So I usually don't

remark when a point I'm making disagrees with some religion or

another, except when the disagreement, like the one we're discussing

now, brings up an interesting point.

Can God actually be directly experienced. Can God be seen?

Vladimir Lossky in The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church

writes:

It would be possible to draw up two sets of texts taken

from the Bible and the Fathers, contradictory to one

another; the first to show the inaccessible character of

the divine nature, the second asserting that God does

communicate Himself, can be known experimentally,

and can really be attained to in union . . . ([L08],68).

(Lossky, in fact, draws up such a list in the second chapter of The

Vision of God ([L09]), a book which treats the above contradiction in

great detail.) He continues:

The question of the possibility of any real union with

God, and, indeed, of mystical experience in general,

thus poses for Christian theology the antinomy of the

accessibility of the inaccessible nature. ([L08],69).


17/113

The Eastern Orthodox Church resolves this scriptural

contradiction by distinguishing between the essence of God, which is

inaccessible, and the "energies" of God, which are

. . . forces proper to and inseparable from God's

essence, in which He goes forth from Himself,

manifests, communicates, and gives Himself.

([L08],70).

The famous philosopher Immanuel Kant has a similar idea: he defines

. . . noumena, the things in themselves, which we can

never know, and the phenomena, the appearances,

which are all that our senses can tell us about.

([D04],329).

An analogy to both ideas might be this: No one has ever really

experienced fire's essence; they've only experienced fire's energies,

that is, seen its light, felt its heat, or heard the sound of its burning.

Similarly, the God which is not a Person may be considered (compare

[U01],109) transcendent, inaccessible, and unknowable. From this

viewpoint, Energy is not identical with the God which is not a Person

but rather is that God's first emanation, the primary manifestation

upon which the entire universe is based. This distinction may be

applied to the Christian Trinity so that the Father is transcendent

existence, and the Son or Logos is the Father's first-born, the first

manifestation through which the universe is made.

God has real existence in the world insofar as He

creates the world, i.e., gives it existence by giving it a

share in His own real existence in and through the


18/113


19/113

perceiving the universe's ultimate Substance unites a mystic with the

universe in an obvious and intimate way.

In any case, Kook identifies light with God. He writes of

([K05],221) "the light of En Sof, the light of the living God" and says

that

holy men, those of pure thought and contemplation,

join themselves, in their inner sensibilities, with the

spiritual that pervades all. Everything that is revealed

to them is an emergence of light, a disclosure of the

divine . . . ([K05],208),

and also writes of ([K05],225) the "light of eternity . . . in which the

temporal and the eternal merge in one whole." Might not a vision of

Eternal Light merge the temporal and eternal - for instance, the table

and its Eternal Basis - into one whole?

Islamic Seers

The next religion we'll discuss is Islam. The Koran, Islam's scripture,

speaks of Allah's Light.

Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth. His light

may be compared to a niche that enshrines a lamp,

the lamp within a crystal of star-like brilliance. . . . Light

upon light; Allah guides to His light whom He will.

(Sura 24:35, [K07],217).

And the Sufis, who are Islam's mystics, call themselves ([N11],1) "the

followers of the Real", and speak of "a pillar of light formed from the

souls of . . . saints" and "the preexistent light of Muhammad"

([S04],56), as well as the "light of God" ([S04],60) which guides the


20/113

mystic.

Ghazzali is one of the most famous Sufis. His The Niche for

Lights ([A03]) "shows a highly developed light metaphysics - God is

the Light" ([S04],96). Moreover, Ghazzali believed mystics can see










Zechariah.














21/113














Zechariah.












22/113

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,










Zechariah.












23/113




represents past and completed action. Honestly

translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young

woman has conceived - (is with child) - and bear eth a

son and call eth 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 girl or maid in English, when we

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


24/113

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).

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

subatomic components of an uranium atom are suitably rearranged,

the uranium atom ceases to exist and two barium atoms come into

existence. exist and other atoms are formed. For example, ([L02],170) if the

Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the

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


25/113

. . . the Bible is free from error in 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.

Claim 1: Internal Consistency

Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists












that




26/113

([I03],24),

that Origen



and, finally, that



([I03],49).















Zechariah.






27/113
















Zechariah.













28/113







that



([I03],24),

that Origen



and, finally, that



([I03],49).












29/113


30/113





















Zechariah.





31/113


32/113






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







([C05],3).















33/113



























34/113








that



([I03],24),

that Origen



and, finally, that



([I03],49).











35/113






Zechariah.




















Zechariah.



36/113





















that



([I03],24),

that Origen




37/113

and, finally, that



([I03],49).















Zechariah.










38/113












Zechariah.














39/113











Zechariah.















40/113




























41/113


42/113


43/113


44/113













Zechariah.















45/113

























46/113










([C05],3).


















47/113



























48/113





that



([I03],24),

that Origen



and, finally, that



([I03],49).














49/113



Zechariah.











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

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


50/113

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


51/113

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).


52/113

One bible has a curious footnote to this verse.

[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 . .


53/113

. the words of this prophecy in the integral sense

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

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 shall conceive and bear a

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









54/113























([C05],3).





55/113




























56/113

















that



([I03],24),

that Origen



and, finally, that




57/113

([I03],49).















Zechariah.













58/113




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

[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 humil

Date post:	02-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	invincible-balu
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Bang Elk Hand

Documents