not to gift

8/22/2019 not to gift

1/298

ism orfeminism.

Whether the

discipline asa whole

stands to


2/298

profit fromthis

evolution

remains tobeseen.


3/298

CONCLUDI

NG


4/298

THOUGHTSThe often

disparate

image of


5/298

thediscipline

notwithstan

ding,thereare a

number


6/298

of clearlyidentifiable

epistemolog

ical issuesthat run

through


7/298

many of thedebates

andtheoretic

al positionstaken up by

various


8/298

practitioners within

human

geography.It is tothese

that we


9/298

would liketo turn as

we

concludethis

chapter.The


10/298

first ofthese

commontop

ics orproblems is

a time-


11/298

honouredone,centring

round the

idiographic

nomothetic


12/298

dichotomythat

separates

and unitesthe social

sciences at


13/298

one and thesame

time.Acentr

al point ofcontention,

especially


14/298

during theearly debate

about

exceptionalismingeog

raphy


15/298

(Schaefer1953),this

axis had

been adominant

one in the


16/298

human andsocialscienc

es at least

since theMethodenst

reit


17/298

in theGermanStaatswissen

schaftenduring

thesecond


18/298

half of thenineteenth

century

(Strohmayer 1997b).Is

geography a


19/298

scienceconcentrating on

the

specific,ondifference

and the


20/298

uniquenessof place(s)?

Or is itsgoal

to uncoverlaw-like

structures


21/298

that applyunder

observable

conditionsand

whichcan


22/298

be used forplanning

and other

sociallyrelevant

purposes?


23/298

Humangeography

hasfound

manydifferent

answers to


24/298

thesequestions

during the

course ofthe

twentiethce


25/298

ntury andhas

witnessed

seeminglystable

configuratio


26/298

ns vanishevery so

often.Take,f

orinstance,the

resurrection


27/298

of a concernfor

particularity

within thepostmodern

paradigm:w


28/298

as this areturn to an

earlier

geographical practice or

something


29/298

altogethernew and

different?

Was it achild of its

time just


30/298

like anyother

epistemolog

icalbreak and

thus


31/298

necessarilya form of

localknow

ledge (Ley2003)?


32/298

Geographical

visions23

Mention of

particularityshould


33/298

remind usnot to

overlook a

second axisthatstructur

ed


34/298

geographictheories

during the

twentiethcentury.Oft

en hidden


35/298

beneaththeidiograp

hic

nomotheticdivide,the

difference


36/298

betweengenerality

and

particularityisthought by

many to be


37/298

synonymous with the

former.How

ever,onecan well

imagine


38/298

anomotheticapproach to

particulars,j

ust asidiographic

concerns for


39/298

generalitiesexist.Implic

it in this

difference,therefore,is

little less


40/298

than theimportance

of scale

(Marston2000) or the

reminder


41/298

that thegeographies

we observe

changedepending

on


42/298

context,frame of

reference

and point ofview.Both

axes


43/298

mentionedrevolve

around

epistemological issues

in that they


44/298

presentus with a

choice

betweendifferent

conceptuali


45/298

zations ofwhat kind

of science

geographyisand

should


46/298

be.But thereis a third

axis we can

identify thatcentres

around


47/298

questionsof causation

.Centrally

implicatedhere is the

dichotomy


48/298

betweenstructure

and

agency.Largely implicit

in the


49/298

theoreticalassumptions

of human

geographyup until the

1970s,this


50/298

axisprovided

geographers

with awhole set of

answers to


51/298

the questionof what

or who was

responsiblefor the

creation and


52/298

maintenance of

geographic

realities:was itpeoples

preferences


53/298

that shapedspaces,or

was the

particularcontext

within


54/298

whichsuchchoices

were made

responsiblefor the

geographies


55/298

we couldobserve

empirically

? For aslongas

geography


56/298

held fast tothe kind of

checklist

mentalityobserved

earlier in


57/298

thischapter,this latter

part of the

questionapparently

did not


58/298

become anissue.Thing

sstarted to

change,however,with

the move


59/298

towardsmore

theoreticall

y informedresearchage

ndas:here


60/298

the choicebetween

prioritizing

individualactors over

social


61/298

structure(or vice

versa) was

oftenperceived to

be


62/298

fundamental.But what

about these

axes? Thereal change

in the


63/298

closingdecade of

the

twentiethcentury has

been to


64/298

view themless as

essential

andmutually

exclusive


65/298

choices andtoappreciate

their

commonality of

constructio


66/298

n.Here,again,we need

to

acknowledge

theimportan


67/298

ce of thedebates

surrounding

structuration theory in

the late


68/298

1970sandthrough

out the

1980s forthe overall

shape of


69/298

theoreticaldiscourse

within the

discipline(Harris

1991;Choui


70/298

nard1997).Toget

her with

simultaneous

developmen


71/298

ts infeministgeo

graphy,it

was in thesedebates that

the


72/298

connectivenature of

alleged

oppositeswasfirst

acknowledg


73/298

ed:what hadpresented

itself

previouslyas a choice

between


74/298

mutually exclusive

positions or

theoreticalpoints of

origin was


75/298

nowincreasingly

viewed

andtheorized as a field

in which


76/298

mutuallyconstructive

elements

acted tobring

forthgeogra


77/298

phicrealities

(Thrift

1983;Gregory 1994).In

fact,the


78/298

closingyears of the

lastcentury

witnessed aproliferatio

n of papers


79/298

thatanalysed a

professed

instabilityandconstruc

ted nature


80/298

of thecategories

that were

used tomanufactur

e (often


81/298

polarized)axes in the

first place

(Gibson-Graham


82/298

1996;Battersburyet al

.1997;Whatmore

1999).In the


83/298

emerginghybrid

world of

networks,afuture

generation


84/298

ofgeographers

may

wellfindmany of the

issues and


85/298

conflicts ofold

unresolved,

perhapseven

unresolvabl


86/298

e(Thrift2000a). We

would like

to end byexpressing

our


87/298

admittedlyminimalist

hope that a

geography for the

twenty-first


88/298

century willno longer

have to

deny thecontested

nature of


89/298

itscategories and move

towards

mature andtolerant

manners of


90/298

dispute anddiscourse. T

he

emergenceof research

in the years


91/298

flanking theturn of the

millennium

that aimstointegrate

rather than


92/298

dividepositions

that were

previouslythought to


93/298

be onlyloosely


94/298

24Human

Geography: A

History for the

21st Century

connected,exclusive or

downright

opposed,mi


95/298

ght be readas a sign

that such

hopesarenot in

vain


96/298

(Mattinglyand

Falconer-

Al-Hindi1995;Dixon

and Jones


97/298

1998;Barnett2001;Castr

ee

2003;Jacobs and Nash

2003;Engla


98/298

nd2003).How

ever,it

might alsobe asign of

fatigue:only


99/298

history canjudge us

now.

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


100/298

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

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"),


101/298

(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").

(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 ofMan 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


102/298

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.

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,


103/298

. . . 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

. . . 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


104/298

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

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


105/298

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

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


106/298

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

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


107/298

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

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).


108/298

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

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


109/298

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

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.


110/298

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

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


111/298

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.

[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


112/298

(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).

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


113/298

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

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


114/298

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

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.


115/298

([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

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.


116/298

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

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,



117/298

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



peoples who


([S16],12).










([S16],12-13).





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





Muhammad.




118/298





God.

















writings true?







119/298















Andrew White.















120/298





truth. ([P07],21)

and that
























121/298
















that



([I03],24),

that Origen



and, finally, that



([I03],49).



122/298














Zechariah.
















123/298







So




One monk was









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


124/298

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

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,


125/298

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

1:22-23).

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,


126/298

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).

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."


127/298

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

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:


128/298

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

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).


129/298

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

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


130/298

(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

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,

I remember as a little boy learning of God from my mother, a religious woman with a life-long

devotion to Mary, the mother of Jesus. The idea of God thrilled me, but I soon grew to dislike some of

my religion's ideas. For example, I learned in a second grade Roman Catholic religion class that only

people who are baptized and believe in Jesus can get into heaven. I recall thinking "What about

Chinese who lived five thousand years ago? They had no chance of being baptized or believing in


131/298

Jesus. Is it fair to keep them out of heaven for no fault of their own?" I remember suspecting that the

teacher, a nun, was wrong about who could or couldn't get into heaven, that she didn't know what she

was talking about. As I grew up, I encountered other things I didn't believe. I found some of the ideas

very odd, and wondered how anyone in their right mind could believe them. For example, I was

taught that anyone who dies with an unforgiven serious sin spends the rest of eternity in Hell. In those

days, intentionally eating meat on Friday or missing Mass on Sunday was a serious sin. So, a child

who knowingly ate a hot dog on Friday, or skipped Mass and went fishing on Sunday, might die and

spend the rest of eternity in hell, horribly tortured, in the company of murderers and devils.

Strange. But even stranger was the behavior of people who, supposedly, believed those ideas. Their

words said the ideas were true but their actions said otherwise. They acted as if they themselves

suspected they didn't know what they were talking about. For example, in third or fourth grade, a

classmate died of appendicitis. Though some fellow classmates worried if he was in heaven, no adult

seemed concerned in the least. Of course, the adults

were sorry for the little boy and his family. But none showed any real worry about the fate of his

eternal soul. They all assured us (glibly, I thought) that our deceased classmate was in heaven with

God and the angels. Since then, I've never attended a funeral where anyone, clergy included, seem the

slightest bit worried about the eternal fate of the deceased. They act as if no one goes to hell, as if hell

really doesn't exist.

Science is different; scientists act as if they believe what they say. If science says plutonium is deadly,

you won't find a scientist with plutonium in his pockets. And scientists seem to know what they are

talking about. When astronomers say an eclipse will happen, it does. But when some religious group

predicts the world will end by September fifteenth or April tenth, it doesn't. It seems science is truer

than religion, more to be taken seriously, more real. But why compare science and religion? Why not

leave science to scientists and religion to religious people? What's to be gained? Well, a person might

reasonably have a more than passing interest in what really happens after death. They might wonder

Where do I come from? How should I live my life? and What really happens when I die? Religion

discusses those questions but, for many people, its answers are not believable. Science, on the other

head, ignores such questions. It has nothing to say about them.

To use an analogy, it's as if science has food of all kinds, wholesome, true, healthy food, but no water.

And as if religion has water, brackish water, polluted with confusion, fantasy, contradiction and lies.

Seeing the quality of religion's water, some people decide to eat only the healthy, clean food of

science - until their thirst drives them back to religion.

Religion fulfills a deep need so they eventually participate, sometimes in spite of themselves,

sometimes with the excuse "Well, children need something to believe. It's better for them to grow up

with religion than without it."

If only science had water of its own, pure, clean water. Or, dropping the analogy, if only science had

answers to questions like Where do I come from? How should I live my life? and What happens when


132/298

I die? If it had such answers, science would have a religion of its own, a religion as true, as powerful,

and as accurate as the rest of science. The reports of science and religion would be as concordant as

sight and sound. Science would finally have a comprehensive world view.

Science Without Bounds

What is a world view? It's our explanation of ourselves and the world around us. It's what we believe

to be true. It's our estimation of "what is what."

Most people have some explanation of themselves and the world around them. They have some idea

of who they are and how they fit into the world. But ask them "ultimate" questions such as Did you

exist before you were born? Will you still exist after you die? Is there an overall purpose for your life

and, if so, what it is? and they usually give a standard religious answer, or say "I don't know." That is,

their world view is either religious and non-scientific, or it's incomplete. Does anyone have a

scientific world view that's comprehensive, that answers ultimate questions? Probably not, because

science itself doesn't have a comprehensive world view. Science's world view is incomplete. Science

is very good at explaining part of ourselves our liver and heart function, for example - and part of

the world around us - the behavior of electricity. But science has little to say about really important

questions, about ultimate questions. What the great physicist Erwin Schrodinger wrote in 1948 is just

as true today.

. . . [T]he scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of

factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is . . .

silent about all . . . that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. . . . [T]he scientific

world-view contains of itself no ethical values, no aesthetical values, not a word about our

own ultimate scope or destination, and no God . . . Science is reticent too when it is a

question of the great Unity . . . of which we all somehow form part, to which we belong. . . .

Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for

every one of us. Science has no answer to it.

Schrodinger says science hasn't investigated ultimate questions. Other writers believe science can'tinvestigate them. For example, M.I.T. philosophy professor Huston Smith believes:

Strictly speaking, a scientific world view is impossible; it is a contradiction in terms. The

reason is that science does not treat of the world; it treats of a part of it only.

He continues: Values, life meanings, purposes, and qualities slip through science like sea

slips through the nets of fishermen. Yet man swims in this sea, so he cannot exclude it from

his purview. This is what was meant . . . that a scientific worldview is in principle impossible.


133/298

But is it? Will science's world view always be limited, always less than comprehensive? Or will

science someday develop a comprehensive world view, a world view that explains our place in the

universe, our origin and destiny? Can science investigate questions it has ignored for centuries? Or

has it ignored those questions for good reason? Certainly, some early scientists had good reason to

ignore ultimate questions - their own survival. The most famous is, perhaps, Galileo, who had to

answer to the Inquisition for teaching the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo escaped with his life.

Other early scientists were not so fortunate. In its struggle to be born in the 16th and 17th century,

science wisely decided not to investigate certain religious, philosophical, or metaphysical questions.

Rather, it limited itself to the natural world, within bounds set by organized religion. Today, science

still lies within those boundaries, certainly no longer out of necessity, perhaps only out of habit.

Einstein describes such science as

. . . the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the

perceptible phenomena of this world into as thorough-going an association as possible.

"This world" seems to limit science's domain. It seems to bar science from investigating the

possibility of existence before birth or after death. It sets up the "perceptible phenomena of this

world" as a boundary which science shouldn't cross. But did Einstein think science should forever

remain within that boundary? Perhaps not, for in the very next sentence he offers a broader

description of science's scope.

To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process ofconceptualization.

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


134/298

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

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.

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:


135/298

. . . [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,


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



peoples who


([S16],12).










([S16],12-13).





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




136/298



Muhammad.







God.

















writings true?


137/298




















Andrew White.










138/298










truth. ([P07],21)

and that



















139/298





















that



([I03],24),

that Origen




140/298

and, finally, that



([I03],49).















Zechariah.











141/298












So




One monk was









prevents Augustine from acknowledging mistakes in scr

Date post:	08-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	invincible-balu
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

not to gift

Documents