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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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.
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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.
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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.
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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
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. 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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
9/113
. . . 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
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.
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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.
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
12/113
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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).
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
18/113
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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
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
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?
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
21/113
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,
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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,
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
23/113
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,
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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
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.
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
26/113
([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
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
27/113
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
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
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
28/113
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
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
29/113
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
30/113
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
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,
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
31/113
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
32/113
prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the
plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented
them from reaching truth.
For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical
inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible
" Contradictions"Answered ([M08]). I've found contradictions in
other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although
they may well exist.
The Erosion of Truthfulness
Martin Luther once said:
We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago
than six thousand years the world did not exist
([C05],3).
Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand
years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural
view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day
Adventist publication:
Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the
basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and
evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92).
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
33/113
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
. . . 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
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
34/113
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
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
35/113
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
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
36/113
"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
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),
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
37/113
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
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
38/113
to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture.
Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather
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
The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young
woman ; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
39/113
tense, " conceived ," which in Hebrew, as in English,
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
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,
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
40/113
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
Martin Luther once said:
We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago
than six thousand years the world did not exist
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
41/113
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
42/113
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
43/113
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
44/113
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
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
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.
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
45/113
Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather
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,
represents past and completed action. Honestly
translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young
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.
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
46/113
For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical
inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible
"Contradictions"Answered ([M08]). I've found contradictions in
other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although
they may well exist.
The Erosion of Truthfulness
Martin Luther once said:
We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago
than six thousand years the world did not exist
([C05],3).
Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand
years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural
view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day
Adventist publication:
Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the
basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and
evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92).
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:
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
47/113
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
. . . 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
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?
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
48/113
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
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
49/113
words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the
Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference,
Zechariah.
Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's
"inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows
Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or
acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture
and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error?
Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that
scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from
acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced
to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture.
Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather
than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have
happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know.
But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to
correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings.
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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).
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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 . .
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
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.)
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,
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."
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
54/113
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
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
55/113
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
. . . 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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
56/113
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, 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.
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
57/113
([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
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
7/27/2019 Bang Elk Hand
58/113
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
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