linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/files-to-classify/sciwobnd.tar.gz/sciwobnd.t/SciWOBnd/01relway.txt

Text File | 1995-02-09 | 67KB | 1,287 lines

This is 01RELWAY.TXT, the first chapter of
                    Science Without Bounds
         A Synthesis of Science, Religion and Mysticism
The author invites comments and criticism,
and may be reached at [e-mail].
"Science Without Bounds" is copyrighted by Arthur J. D'Adamo and
may be freely redistributed.


                                1

                  - Religion's Way of Knowing -


Who are we? Where did we come from? How should we live our life?
What happens when we die?
  How can such questions be answered? People have traditionally
turned to religion for answers. And religion has usually given the
answers in theological terms: Who are we? We are children of God.
How should we live our life? As God wills. What happens when we
die? We go to heaven or hell.
  How good are religion's answers? How accurate? How true? Deciding
can be difficult or impossible if the answers are stated
theologically. It's hard to imagine how such answers can be
investigated and tested, scientifically or any other way.
  But how does religion itself know? How does it find the answers?
Usually by using the revelational way of knowing.
  We can examine and evaluate religion's way of knowing, even if we
can't directly test its answers. That is, we can investigate how
good the revelational way of knowing is at knowing, at finding
answers. We can ask how good of a way of knowing is it. We can ask
how well, how accurately, it decides what's true. We can ask if the
knowledge that the revelational way of knowing produces is
truthful, consistent and comprehensive.
  In this and the next chapter, we'll find that the revelational
way of knowing is faulty and that science's way of knowing is
superior. Subsequent chapters will attempt to apply the better way
of knowing - science's - to ultimate questions.
  This chapter examines the revelational way of knowing, the way of
knowing used by religion. It identifies some of its shortcomings,
and shows why it's an inferior way of deciding what's true about
ourselves and the world around us.
  The next chapter explores the scientific way of knowing. It
identifies some its shortcomings, and shows why it's nonetheless a
superior way of deciding what's true about ourselves and the world
around us.

The Revelational Way of Knowing
What is the revelational way of knowing, the way of knowing used by
religion? Briefly, it's a way of knowing based on revelation, on
scripture. It decides some writings are inspired, are ultimately
written by God, and then follows them without question or
criticism.
  Religions don't often describe their way of knowing so directly,
however. Rather, they proclaim beliefs about scripture, beliefs
from which their way of knowing naturally follows.
  Let's examine a few examples.
  The Roman Catholic church teaches that
     . . . the books of the Bible are the inspired word of
     God, that is, written by men with such direct assistance
     of the Holy Ghost as to make God their true Author.
     ([153],177).
Similarly, the Seventh-day Adventists believe that
     [t]he Bible's authority for faith and practice rises from
     its origin . . . The Bible writers claimed they did not
     originate their messages but received them from divine
     sources. ([195],7).
  One consequence of divine authorship is that the writings should
be accepted without question. Since God wrote it, revelation is not
to be criticized, judged, or changed. Therefore, Seventh-day
Adventists teach that
     [j]udging the Word of God by finite human standards is
     like trying to measure the stars with a yardstick. The
     Bible must not be subjected to human norms. ([195],13).
  Another consequence of divine authorship is that revelation is
error-free. For example, the Catholic church teaches that the books
of the Bible
     . . . teach firmly, faithfully and without error all and
     only those truths which God wanted written down for man's
     salvation. ([059],12),
while the Seventh-day Adventists write:
     How far did God safeguard the transmission of the text
     beyond assuring that its message is valid and true? . .
     . while the ancient manuscripts vary, the essential
     truths have been preserved. ([195],11).
  Two more beliefs are usually part of the revelational way of
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.
     ([133],213).
The other belief is finality.
     Christians . . . now await no new public revelation from
     God. ([059],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 have written many books, each helpful but not necessary for
salvation. And God could write another public revelation in the
future. Yet most religions claim that their revelation is final,
not 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?
  Furthermore, the Catholic Church labels some of the writings of
Athanasius, Augustine, John Chrysostom and others ([154],20) as
"Divine Tradition" and believes that
     . . . Divine Tradition has the same force as the Bible .
     . . ([154],20).
  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.
     ([166],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.
  Different religions often accept different revealed writings. And
though they often reject the inspired writings of other religions,
they believe that their own revealed writings:
     (1) are consistent and truthful ("without error"),
     (2) are complete and final ("all and only those truths . . .
     no new public 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, the 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 claims can be rationally investigated. By
examining and testing 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.

External Consistency
There are many "revealed" writings in the world. If they are all,
in fact, revealed then they should all agree with each other, since
they all have the same ultimate author - God.
  How well do revealed writings agree with each other?
  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? 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, [112],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, [136],148).
So, advises the Koran,
     . . . admonish those who say that Allah has begotten a
     son. (Sura 18:4, [112],91).
  Islam grants Jewish and Christian scriptures some truth, however.
For instance, it teaches that Jews were one of the first peoples
who
     . . . recognized God's oneness, and also God's law.
     ([201],12).
Quite an accomplishment, because after that recognition the
     . . . doctrine of monotheism, established by Abraham,
     never again quite lapsed. ([201],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.
     ([201],12-13).
But the followers of Jesus erred, too, since they worshipped
     . . . the messenger, instead of heeding the message. . .
     . focussed their attention on Christ to the partial
     neglect . . . of God, whose transcendence they thus
     compromise . . . ([201],13).
Even worse, in their worship of Jesus they attributed
     . . . to him and his mother wild, even blasphemous and
     obscene, relations to God Himself. ([201],13).
  So, according to the Koran, God had to send another messenger,
Muhammad.
     This time there was to be no error, no distortion, no
     neglect. ([201],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. ([008],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 some disagreements between Jewish and Christian
scriptures later when we discuss scripture's finality and
completeness. Now, however, let's discuss scripture's truthfulness.

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?
  It was once thought all events described in the Bible were
historically true. Christian medieval Europe based cosmology on
Genesis, the first book of the Bible. It based biological evolution
on Genesis, too. History was based on the Bible. Stories such as
Noah and the Great Flood were accepted as historically true.
Astronomy was also based on the Bible. In fact, the source of
Galileo's conflict with the Roman Catholic Church was that church's
belief in biblical teachings about the earth and sun.
  Today, some religious people still believe the Bible gives an
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. ([166],13).
  Fundamentalists (of any religion) who think revelation has
accurate teaching 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? I believe they
fundamentally differ in how they know, not necessarily in what they
know. Both can know the natural world and, as we'll see, both can
know the "supernatural" world. Therefore, the fundamental
difference between science and religion is their different ways of
knowing. Science finds truth with the scientific way of knowing.
Religion finds truth with the revelational way, by following
scripture.
  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. ([166],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, not any conflict
     of truth. . . . The superior credence for Scripture over
     science is clear. ([166],31).
  Other Christians, however, admit the Bible isn't entirely true.
They don't based their entire world view on revelation. For them
cosmology, biology, history, and astronomy are no longer subject to
scriptural authority.
  Many Christians today 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 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). ([059],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.
  When revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalist
believers 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
fundamentalist, 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?

Internal Consistency
Does the bible agree with itself?
  Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it
does. For example, in Inerrancy And The Church ([097]) we read that
     Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were
     errorless. ([097],23),
that
     Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures
     contained no contradictory material nor error.
     ([097],24),
that Origen
     . . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and
     noncontradictory . . . ([097],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.
     ([097],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. ([097],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 solution ([097],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 correct 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 ([128],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. ([128],66).
So
     [i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had
     been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared
     heretical. ([128],67).
One monk was
     . . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in
     Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with physical
     cruelties and mental humiliations. ([128],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
was 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 are untruthful, sadistic or murderous
and who happen to follow a certain idealogy or belong to a certain
group don't necessarily discredit the idealogy 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, suppose an idealogy or group makes otherwise
truthful, sane people untruthful, sadistic or murderous. Then
something is wrong with the idealogy 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.
  So, 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.

Choosing Consistency over Truthfulness
Christianity believes 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. ([089],Matt 1:22-23).
In one bible, a curious footnote to this verse appears.
     [T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the
     light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . .
     ([147],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. ([147],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. ([089],Is 7:14).
(This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we
shall soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote.
     The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the
     transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his
     Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known the full
     force latent in his own words; and some Catholic writers
     have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment in the
     conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose
     mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a
     young, unmarried woman (Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit
     was preparing, however, for another Nativity which . . .
     was to fulfill . . . the words of this prophecy in the
     integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom.
     ([147],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 identified 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. Does their way of knowing prevent them from
acknowledging a plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll
see that it does.
  Arsenal For Skeptics ([009]) has selections of biblical criticism
whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness
of every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer presents 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 beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel."
       Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age,
     whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general
     sense exactly like 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. ([009],68).
Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today.
Matthew quotes no known prophet.
  The authors of the footnotes dimly alluded to, but failed to
convey, the truth of the situation. Perhaps they would have liked
to write the plain and simple truth of Matthew's quote but could
not, because they believed God is scripture's Author.
  For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical
inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([159]) and 136
Bible "Contradictions"...Answered ([134]). I've found
contradictions in other scriptures but don't know of any similar
references for non-biblical scriptures, although they probably
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 ([037],3).
Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand
years old. And others, like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow
a scriptural view of creation, still reject biological evolution.
     Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the basic
     foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and
     evolution are diametrically opposed. ([195],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.
  Today, some Christian groups admit scriptures don't contain the
absolute, complete and final truth. 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. ([068],xii).
  The modern world is certainly a significantly new context. How
might a proportionately new text might 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?

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.
     ([149],v23,1013).
  It seems to have influenced the Jewish conception of Satan, for
instance.
     Before the exile - for example, in the prologue to Job
     (1:6-12) and in the mouth of Zechariah (3:1-2) - Satan
     was no more than the servant of God, acting on his orders
     as prosecutor; after the exile he is portrayed as God's
     adversary. ([149],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. ([149],v23,1013).
(Yet another instance of scriptural inconsistency.)
  How much did Zoroastrianism influence Judaism and Christianity?
The Ethical Religion of Zoroaster ([055],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 . . . ([053],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, especially
     upon Mithras. . . . [T]he birthday of Mithras, the 25th
     of December (the winter solstice), . . . was taken over
     by the Pagan Christians to be the birthday of Jesus. Even
     the Sabbath, the Jewish seventh day appointed by God in
     the Mosaic Law and hallowed by his own resting on this
     day after the work of Creation, had to be abandoned in
     favor of the Mithraic first day, the Day of the
     Conquering Sun. ([053],90).
Davies continues:
     In the Mediterranean area during the time of Christian
     expansion, nowhere was there absent the image of the
     Virgin Mother and her Dying Son. . . . ([053],90).
  Not only is scripture influenced when it's being written, it's
sometimes changed after it's been written. That is, scripture
sometimes undergoes editing and revision (the technical term is
"redaction") by other than its original author. "Editors" and
"compilers" sometimes alter scripture to suit their beliefs.
  Jewish and Christian scriptures are widely believed to have been
redacted. Certainly there was much opportunity to alter Christian
scriptures.
     The earliest manuscripts we have . . . are no earlier
     than the fourth Christian century, and by then - indeed,
     considerably before - there had been time for the church
     fathers to make many redactions in accordance with the
     outcome of theological controversy. ([053],88).
  So, scripture is sometimes changed by other than its original
author. Or, to be precise, by other than its original human author,
since it could be said God wrote it and later God changed or
"redacted" it. Yet it certainly seems strange God wouldn't get it
right on the first try and need to edit His own work!
  Of course, inconsistencies aren't always redacted. Sometimes
they're allowed to remain but explained away. They are said to be
apparent, not real.
     While many differences at first existed among the rabbis
     as to the actual meaning of the various contradictory
     stories of . . . revelation, the overriding belief . . .
     that all of the five books of Moses were divinely
     inspired and thus incapable of self-contradiction finally
     gave rise to the consensus that every verse of those
     books had been revealed by God to Moses on Sinai . . .
     An attempt was made to explain the seeming contradictions
     among the various versions of the revelation - as also
     among individual laws - through the utilization of
     certain hermeneutic principles. ([149],v22,87).
  Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting a writing, usually a
revealed writing. We've already seen an example of Augustine's use
of hermeneutics.

Completeness
Eventually, scripture becomes fixed and final, beyond the reach of
change. There's no possibility of adding anything. If the scripture
is complete, if it already contains everything God wanted to say,
there's no need of adding anything. Otherwise, it's incomplete, and
some important truths are missing.
  We'll examine finality in the next section. Now, let's examine
completeness.
  Is any scripture complete? Does any scripture contain everything
believers need to know? In the theological sense, one may be
complete - that is, one may provide everything a believer needs for
salvation, liberation or enlightenment. Or it may not. Again,
theological statements are difficult to test.
  What about the non-theological sense? As we've seen, some
believers think scripture has truths about the natural world. We've
already discussed if those "truths" are always true. Are they
complete?
  No. They aren't. Here's an example.
  Spain once pondered building a Panama canal. Should the canal be
built or not? Since Spain then thought scripture to be error-free
and complete, it must have seemed logical to see what the Bible had
to say about such a project.
     After consulting with his religious advisers (who
     reminded him of the scriptural warning: "What God has
     joined together let no man put asunder"), King Philip
     declared that "to seek or make known any better route
     than the one from Porto Bello to Panama (is) forbidden
     under penalty of death." ([037],220).
  It's easy to find the episode amusing (unless you're the
unfortunate individual about to be put to death for advocating a
canal), but remember the best theological minds of the Spanish
empire, with God's eternal revelation to guide them, came to the
above conclusion.
  Today, a Panama canal is not longer an issue, but genetic
engineering and nuclear power are. They raise questions that
scriptures don't address. Scriptures may or may not be complete in
a theological sense, but they certainly don't have all the wisdom
we need to make decisions in today's world.
  Yet many religions insist their scripture is complete and final.
Not only does such insistence prevent scripture from directly
addressing new issues, it also implicitly denies the validity of
earlier scripture. It implicitly sets one "perfect and complete"
revelation against another.
  For example, if the Old Testament was complete there would be no
need for the New Testament. Consequently, Christianity - almost of
necessity - should teach that the Old Testament is incomplete.
  It does. A Roman Catholic publication has:
     The knowledge of God, as being just and merciful in His
     dealings with men was . . . taught to them little by
     little, in keeping with their developing religious
     understanding. ([059],15).
Therefore, God revealed
     . . . His truth slowly and piecemeal and patiently
     through the ages. As a result, the doctrine in some parts
     of the Old Testament is more developed than in other
     parts dating from an earlier period. At times, temporary
     and incomplete things are found which give way later to
     fulfillment and completion. ([059],15).
  Similarly if the New Testament is complete, there would be no
need for the Koran. As we've seen, however, Islamic scripture
teaches Jewish and Christian revelation isn't complete but
incomplete and inaccurate, too.
  It's odd a religion that thinks God has revealed truth "slowly
and piecemeal and patiently through the ages" in keeping with
"developing religious understanding," would deny revelation is
still occurring today. There certainly seems to be a need for a
continuing revelation. For was religious understanding so developed
fifteen hundred or two thousand years ago that truth could be
revealed once, totally, and for all time? Indeed, is it now at such
a level?
  Rather, it seems likely there'd be periodic revelations, more and
more divine truth revealed slowly and patiently through the ages,
until the entire human race had been raised to intimate union with
God.
  Some religions acknowledge the dangers of thinking scripture
complete and final. For example, a publication of the Society of
Friends, also called Quakers, has:
     Among the dangers of formulated statements of belief are
     these: (1) They tend to crystallise thought on matters
     that will always be beyond any final embodiment in human
     language; (2) They fetter the search for truth and for
     its more adequate expression . . . ([067],52).
And the Quaker writer Rufus Jones wrote:
     If God ever spoke He is still speaking. . . . He is the
     Great I Am, not a Great He Was. ([067],51).
  But does any religion actually have a continuing, evolving
revelation, capable of correction and improvement, able to address
new issues? If it does, it's not using the revelational way of
knowing. Science, on the other hand, does have a continuing,
ever-widening "revelation" about the universe we live in.

Finality
Scripture is eventually considered not only complete, but final and
completed. As such, it's closed, immutable, frozen. Certainly, no
additions to the Torah, Bible, or Koran are possible. These
scriptures are closed.
  Being closed and final has its advantages and disadvantages, its
"yang and yin."
  An advantage is that scripture may serve as a constant beacon, an
unchanging yardstick for measuring passing fads and temporary
lunacies.
  A disadvantage is scripture can't adapt. Sooner or later, in a
hundred years or ten thousand, some scriptural wisdom is no longer
wisdom but merely tradition, or even foolish or dangerous. Yet
because it's fixed forever in scripture, believers are still
obligated to observe it.
  Obsolete scriptural "wisdom" seems to fall into three classes:
the cryptic, the innocuous, and the dangerous. Let's examine
examples, beginning with two examples of cryptic teachings.
  In Judaism, The Way of Holiness Solomon Nigosian writes:
     The biblical injunctions against eating certain birds, or
     flying insects, are difficult to apply since the species
     are not always identifiable from the biblical name or
     description. ([158],178).
Believers should observe scriptural rules. But how can a rule be
followed when it can't be understood? What could be the meaning of
useless rules? Or of useless groups of letters?
     Here a word should also be said about the cryptic Arabic
     letters which head certain chapters of the Koran. Various
     theories have been put forward by Muslim and Western
     scholars to explain their meaning, but none of them is
     satisfactory. The fact is that no one knows what they
     stand for. ([112],11).
  No believer derives any meaning or benefit from these cryptic,
obscure bits of scriptural "wisdom." Yet, the closed, immutable
nature of scripture insures such phrases and prohibitions will
remain forever, even if no one understands them.
  Most scriptural rules can be observed, of course. And they often
are, even if there is no longer any good reason to do so. In short,
the rules are sacred cows, that is,
     . . . a person or thing so well established in and
     venerated by a society that it seems unreasonably immune
     from ordinary criticism even of the honest or justified
     kind. ([229],1996).
  The idea of a "sacred cow" comes from India, where killing a cow
is a great sin, a greater sin than killing other animals. Why?
Here's an explanation I once heard.
  In ancient India, cows were used to plowed the fields. During a
famine, hungry people would naturally want to slaughter and eat
their cows. But if they did, there would be no way to plow and
plant after the famine. A temporary famine would become a permanent
famine.
  If this story is true, then there was once a very good reason to
protect cows. The rule made sense.
  Eventually the rule was included in divine and unchangeable
scripture. The Vedas, one of India's ancient scriptures, referred
to the cow as a goddess ([152],v3,206), and identified it with the
mother of the gods. The rule became fixed forever. What once served
the welfare of society eventually became a religious prohibition
independent of society's welfare.
  Today, an observant Hindu can't eat beef because of a religious
rule that is, and always will be, fixed in scripture. Yet, the
belief is innocuous. It doesn't hurt people and very much helps
cows.
  Another innocuous scriptural rule originated (I once heard) as
follows. In the hot climate where Judaic scripture was written,
meat and dairy products in the same dish were unhealthy because the
combination easily spoiled. So, a taboo against eating meat and
dairy together made good sense.
  Solomon Nigosian admits this possibility when he writes:
     The regulations about forbidden, treyfah, and
     permissible, kosher, foods may well have originated in
     association with taboos of antiquity. ([158],178).
He continues:
     Whether or not health or hygsonBtional way oMithras. .t and dair
   ed (,e no
nefill
ly through  As susameion, . This
  reflevly wantthe pithe God, es,ue riserevelatiizeble, kouman
   t cows.yon't acceptm     st partance, t syd W fromexplaover
     to Gty. ([158],17re.
  Today, an observJewindu can't acomem tburgorevOy since Mith
ran was writver in scriptuuld ie becaed forebirstandiA ous
rule
ran its origd onliveri "full forebeebirstanptic, thv attentifilarat Oliberat orion nderstandiDu rise to tng cloble
natur
 in scriptuuldri "full forebeeun  tf. Pauln't     certaiunhea
er, fcies.
aic scriptuas writian tomll rightwhateverbe sa marrer, f
arggs,25),waysting ally, andwhate. exis, a hienoun, l, to p   snd Weoentae. Yo't eristian, aWeobntifind m sense    Tir bel. As we've ules her innocuLaw anrmrrorleEe, evenhes Jenary
peindu can't omem tburgorthras,ir not heahet need suy diture. Tha There certaiYet mnot hef. Ptae.ct is tnly dowas incting meat and
dathe
combinabirds en,
meat and dairy produnow of     kard.
 (in faine a eatimem tburgort one mataiunheacted. hurt pesome
belthen tha The a very gaiunhe
arhe Ethtian,
lyternad reneeds ine a eatimem tburgort ter a; givlctualnmens, oe?
Obvgood rea. Tdwhatcredence the , all theemiahine avunn't neceythan kil.s.
  Ano cow
ne a eatim snd Weoeurse. y.
(Yet anothct is ten,
miry proibitor. ([29)lief iee di anc:est, mistakns ab16thiul mindsgrcert-sgrcerving
that couldfet r thitarvasuriry
pei-wanttry pre 1thiul rdom olnm
Est eat uselen,
mhat co to
hso cviclimarn wone, notherle. Triry
pei to foltae.ceytMithrance soli gaiunhemeat  in hitZechnrnad renture through Mithraone matrs, le a religiMithr say,
therrse is me importany differ. Rithrance
follonce revelati
nad renengs ao thave t stranow if the situae t strbirds ven ew
 repe seasugtrbesentany betul, pows. e a religiMithrings ardwhat
be, fdiA  of ff. PJehovah WitHolin No belieure cannd acce bat F
ely tfuxpansire, even ifie the  n
indeMosesrve itDhe dange Tir bel.aBefore lhe ptyptance of scriptuTir bel. Aslentay dis.g.
  We'll examnto thtwo examense    the KherSrip 4:34ible sand wules hef
superiord wject.
 Me, can hthe authorielieand wuthy becaAllahurch was math the
  n. The superise to t anotion . . . ([137],22Wi "fand wubeliec tebelte adfinalityer, Islaome count?ing. If onl,imes
ty well haelid becom in divie dinformatoen ifie hef
supetianity  be ugevelationmy theare ns eaaskense  although tone mat be subjectd womhis
at leto. They ar     sl.
Iw has it
ri    shungrrd admit    to? 0).
It inurth Christime counties,
Yet mFor centumals. ion. Perhthy becauseurth Christthe Biblenues:
 S   slirdb. Tyis fire hueir mastion wfnd bem finemand g is,
     . ([07([1588, Eph 6:9],15)Dea during 19teenth centcts in Un lim Sed ssrate, peors (i  favo
    shunere ures sery biblical volarsily shoy that ite canoo agarved
tiat all to God. "), KJa" colic versien, howevrch "n obsers"
rh.
Rather t"    sl," acorucsential differmalss whe a wde said any iked
to w?     The revelational way of knowing can...An or,
sinceGod  be no wayhowif  flyifting a wrirrse on actua is penned byinly,ion
independ no waytwn restifting a wrirrse    inspiher or.g.
  W
'll return ts thiiendons laterLs, l    shu Yet, tir m syd W frne of I who oot fixed in scrip,t it
hst exises,
Yfulfnn Indeat a"intddenies t a society tt snlustr
itcted. htir m Mithriish w. Whag the texinem widerut final ope exprvaminelar potir m d womy. 0],v16,858)God, struckirds ent me
nto ce lwanted coukamplehien potir m d womll riln thother esty ootaterRecogniz during his pters of tir m syd W , t a terna of mastiork him
bn fooltin thd b    shuners of lar potir ms  No. Theyally opp
byate, people becater scripture ly shoy tnks Grd himseuch opHe is tir m syd W lows. In  of Iitten scriptBhnoovad-GitZoung, for exam
 by Gond daier fof Kh Chna     decinues:
  well establistan the otir ms     . ([203[067],5
Nof
necessrue for
salvatiEor enlightenity?
 tsrecond claim of The revelational way of knowitions that
scriphere 't neceytnce sor
salvati or enlightenirds on, liberadoes.
ew of oty of thelh Gomoes any scripre 't neceytnce sor
salvat
 or enlightenirds on, libera?vOy sia
  AgatIn the theologiise ques
 it can'td impue in wes may to t ano.g.
wingsien, howevtay disges,  It immiliatiterLheologtainif hat
scriphere 't neceyI Am, but mer to
ruthfts. Thor
salvan it can'tc tebeldaid, withi faca him the situaef
  For tonks
low
eitell hwho nence hture of scriptish ey donme
beltiright.
  if he
"supernatodic revelatTheyathe essenttry ant neceytnce
c tebe eat he 'sn, a gr leery poke, woan, nottell hwas mathm
the uni usualvailange? Mty bilpterste, peould havvclosed dildaid,   beuch opportunity we reao the Tortat the B,s of the K,s of The Ve
may to Buddome  any scriprmine. a perlie eatthe otwo thousand years,iotedr trAbutolooung, for exampace nve t serence we r of oty ofm,52).
re, evenany scripreace had blvailangeoung, Yet mFor centue is aossibilnce we rFor wwelfareSo
Yfulbilpterste, peould hace nveuch opportunity we ret able
scriptu2).
vennot o n. Tat
scripheretan te "fect and comp W a
dge of Gue, tYet m
ly tYfulbilpt(tan nts pastiter preance
folapter the
oSome relig), it muld uremexisted amonn thosehace nvennd stainstan ne "per, and comp W a  all to Gws.low
eittireionss hurt peonks'd havvclould hace nvennd stainy of scripture.
  Some religiuld teach tte, people  ey do to folloand
pAs srthat
scriphles hefre w God, wey dothe rehor
salvanion or enlightenm
Bte but ce of Gue, Fat Mother Mhe
mother us,tell hwhgl rejecton tovo guide varliesjauthorityHit ter Hbetuls pastiter preaith ciff
ion waonly complene "perfeny revelatifthen it so vitZthfuo
 me imporhfuoathe essenteed form?ist.

RoapableDin divAne authorsTre lhe pThe princiaim of The revelational way of know Aslevtay dis cow in divine author:m of The principle that God wr of scriptu)
  Altho As wethe rtifiedlhe ,w in divine authorcow" comr
  .o.
  stan nss hthe bcond c God. he
motond csever deomes fitctor? Beca by God wrotlete, it m to be trut, and error-fful and consis.that God w
irhfuoach, itre
complete and finaid God wrot did, ty befdom
we nit
ity we rehor
salva,w eavvcrinstanon or enlightenm
 tor? Becater ithe b,w in divine authorceuch opHe is he
motond cs
rh.
Rather tvic, the atten. That is, scription is    be trut,
and error-, and consisteect and comp ink that oter Gey would eing
writitct?
  RathYet
because i're
thought toconsmtionating
wri
ned byinTat
scriphereassume said to be trut, and error-,
and consisteect and comp,akes as well 't neceytnce sor
salvaorld.
 ,. As we've u is that scripturu canot entirely truthfand error-,
and consistency oincompltor? Becateturu csand,  n. but coarrologle that ing did to wrlow it. arroestameey wo to r,
sifewsome
beliesien, howevply since their be. It doesr honenemed log
evo gnstance.
  if evo gnst. It doeseuch opw in divine author,nows w It ?isWle sof Kof knowgle tAnd accDin divAne authorsah? Why would
In ome
beltaid God wra     ?g.
  We'll examihe
are possrnad ren:hthe autho,rely traditi of frine andgnforsmcies.
. a perext mighe
beltief in divine authorhYet
becaen, sthe authorod, to. Trng, etible stnd theHe couFs,
for instanhat text mighe
beltaid God wra     hYet
becahis religiohe authuntirequ entiterve as a tradirdom of
memhorense ly tradirrse ithe
oSomd retion, peoghe
beltthy becauseie
cfere"Edidely belithYet
beca- almosm of Tn, peotnd tn't kely belorld.
   ithe
oSomd reould
In ext mighe
beltise is a an  longea of forldPndgnforsmorld ill
ly tomd reould
In ext mighe
beltief in di
ine authorh12) andome reli.     Af us,tWhes werdfdomd becmes aiah?ha Thpts es kiah? ord shodomd n pro he oavvcstood? Wwho haslant afwentae?h12) sts
simaise questi    dean...Ansever. Wn...Anslief lvailange? cal Reli'sionss ltoday. Therefowas a be a need f...Ans
ity he 'sn- alm me importise questione dr deo. . a perity wl Reli,
re, even if They ar  be fu    saipennedral Reli's f...Anstency be fthatsuantendedite Tir belture.
e autho,rely traditi of frine andgnforsmures ale sof  of know
ale sof lub dknow ry thatas
tr founaeturu ctext.very gaBeforeytersSd, suppIf he hvtaymd
tr fouod wantedn't kly sh   bey thatext. Gey woItd ic a tersOin wes igiohe authy;oIt to fol of ous stance oe samd log
ohe authy.s.
  Anothsrely tradi;oIt mistarely tradienteelk but dy-23).low
eittireioIbe a neof friw, on the authorirrely traditi of f
ach that but dytiorkstu2).
v).low
eittireioI'm andgnforc;oItl
nce sof someth    thorkscows, tcripturyvtaymd
aterRed rea.   ithe
oSwes Iules ucourIules t
dairemed loglindigriptwithwh? I'm srdstLaw ay sh
obscmys its Ug (unlI'm  is a  insp
amd log butiuesien, howev of Tuentirtheologiho roa whe d wouldn'tc
gerstooetten. That I'dthey probn toany betnnd acneerinwell establi
but dyt    thrun restine I'dtthv atclosedit. ire human racs gexplainfinemendnocuoin ssof  of knowledvhinder
For centue iy through ate individuct an-e prarpreteff opHeer Yfulbilpters of men and w.e.
e autho,rely traditiete aof fries ale
ed, onn'tnsulting wws, t of knowl  No. Theyaay s of knowleis
ely td admieath. Oaumash ate individWhy woill rejave al. Wn
e autho
em finy tradirrch haveol dih12) scoukaeol  poison thownited, endensome
berestinnatiws what f he . a pe usual).
v)n
indepen ftdiscscdvhislatenteresses andvclos
Sof societWle sof Kof kno
.
e autho,rely traditi of frine andgnforsmules cane a very gale sof
lub dknow ry thatas
tu2).
. . a perple wnd acr was religiTir bel.ensthe autho,rely traditi of frast ndgnforsmuone  to find Tir bel.e a
    sayneering uco beance.
  sof someth    thorksneed f. ate individ or may the weds fof socouFs,
for instanBut how  of thelh Gommd log ohe authuntiforms iderilub dec ry thatas
?).
  by not usthe authorthy because Tha Thnveutogethmd log ohe authuntsh    returment Shouldunere
ely tradi?ing.hmd log ohe authuntsbut merwnd acedrely tradien
ary beliehmd l famine wor igrigiuous.ke, woabeliecdisacetifthen or some
belfounaet he hll alway wuthe
belfanal. Shouldunerei of f?
ng. Wesawm an earl of   A scoObvgooa relity whmd l fam  rejecton in scriptuu
  In rei Kherpratest.le sof  of knoh    thork es,
foe indivisd or may the weds fof socouSonBut how  of societohe authunts to fily t? the l fam spo
ing science's way of fowawto say t
ne aGomoes aim of The revelati
ale's. In sd bkil.say. Therefohmd l famist o thave of corges, nal mist.o.
  t o thaveacqu entess
 of knowl,able tapt ter a;olelor2).
rh.
Rather t of thinkcts ituu
 are eiscussiond dairt final and
compfily tther, itskcts ituu
 ing hnd (unlTue to sers s, more any bet of knowl terRel Reli's fhe authuntscd should abecateg science's way of kno,
nt was eatimn chapt    debiuoLs, lhmd l fa, any religcey wo tf cor
ite and ecuous.cey wogrf fowtapt ter a;olelater, n hnd (unlTue to
of  of knowleao fily tance.
  iting, usua It doect?
  Rathhis religiohe authunt  to find
for trbindly followely traditibidely beknow ry ison thpisl't ne ecntadance.
  hfolta find its original authunt  to kn by GoShouldmciMs, ohowevaid God wra     hule thas of tnd consisteand comp,
lufvirgpretete expressiondal tru.
  t as acterptete expressio
hien pothe authorws, t  a le iadAnstekes as wellnce
folap,them fgot ustems o,rery mre wastYfui.ceytcepiscow
ihien pothe authorws,
re, ea thor, itaptcert it mdb. anceaid God wrind T   hfuoa to folhateDey dot
daire of corges,
ary crizwrot ds,
fnd imprlow ity tha in divine authorher, inutablllos
SIn sd bkilsableDin divAne authorsBhy becauseuThe princiaim in divine authorhe ithe bcame to The revelational way of kno,omoes aim of sIn sd bkilsawg. We've alr
've uconsmtionatver deomes fitcnceaid God wr in scriptuuoach, it muld 't neceytnce sor
salvat
 or enlightenir eavvcrinst.say. Therefote, people  ey do to hatlief hefre w fact
  Rnat is, tiat n forebeesaelith or enligserver
 eavvcrclosedaid God wr in scriptuuoach, it muldirt finaly oincompltay. Theref
use iunnt, ablegrf foa;olelian, a't adsedaid God wr in scriptuuoach, it muldtnd consiseao fily t beanay. Therefohal mist     and inconsistenc it muldbut explained
rh.
Rather tons acknowldinaly of coreh
God.
  Snce
folaptlufey t of biblic inconsisteao fily t beHolin yntayely beknowing cory evo gnst: if ev  evolutape contradicts the B,
ue, tev  evolutiJonesything. Oure, believelt after the meaningter scripturewas amoda wrind evo gnst: if ev  evolutape contradictsotal
eGue, tto. Trn- of intericts the B. Gpletrse  doesaid to as t
sraer usual).
teg stsignigtaintnd th o,rng, symbn fnigta; ev  evolu
em fGpletrsea Thfs, b is trwe reioison thown ed away.seure, belie,ionom direabecateg sci put tb dechis religidognfense.e rehIn sd bkilever dericonsmtionatble from The princiaim in di
ine authorpows. useuThe princiaim in divine authorhoo, hafewssIn sd bkilsablere biwaorldOin hIn sd bkileles canpu best theologltodDin divine authorhe
srnt, ablel spreadf. adorevoObvg of fr    thorthortsbut ting
wri
m don birbut tion birIt ien if They ith
God.
  Jewish and Christian scriptu    debi hfol to Moselinto wthem fre bpsl' cry useugthe an iitu([089],EX32)with gry peoplrthorpldinal
    gtof th than ed (,e of sthag tnt, tsture con during wri
. exis,tatem. He reao gry peopu bes choont, tst    utin the
psl' cry men anrthorplditof th ted (,eher of thhe an iithras,ira of foke, would have b is olinadorevoObvgan,
ised (,dmre waalmostmoes Tn, peotan todd, weuthorhthe Torah, Bibthe K,sGitZouer
Tn sitZkacows.
  AnothIn sd bkileaim in divine authorhe iach that
there'sed
sed tn
indepen f andvcogle that has of nal
authSld
In eng jund acrved
t a wriMoses of for
Dhe dangersBnd btAnd acinst
Bnd blinnnd acneert a wriMoses of f hasthe dangeroFs,
for insta
ay, some Chriss The remilable al).
tis sometiln thtifie th sl, theiva wrby the wo of Jeres may or may ust haer snosedit. gospet allMae wu
 ing the Abutolostthe Bies. 7[009]) a
" no lonerstandin of In slonerstandin ).
. " o trrtheoon."alss w
erstanure,no smean?
  ise quesment is mher tonadAIslamr,
sinithin tno lonerstand
ing hndt ustnd acedrnithin "), KJa" colic versi of Jeble  has:
  o findecatig meand sh to fol ofmogle tre, bel;Gws.m they
 cal nand sh if Tcew pa
  Bhis p;stnd thea still said,  hey
 cly nno uelitTnd thea st mistuponcepatem;     aen if e or
  rs thle ma sptuallkno,oer, ea stmay u't h ofm;n if e or
  ea stlayther snce, on srdsuous, and thea stm dov later  u([089],MK 16:17,1],17reBef becauseindecawon birbuf
memance oe some Christian gr
. . dems tthtifie  of f byther  killsnmist      rs tasurioi rent
ed. Sometogle t of f cosadictsmhtifie th slorld.
  hin tno lonerstane  doesine in seemilaest manuscriallMae ,
est manuscrisay t
 the footies. 7[,NT,65)u    debiJesus" oli
 me impor."aHn, howough ame impo(,ehera
  In anci of bibliest manuscment or meslated, tno lonerstane  doesine in s shuneldotal
bibliest manuscrness.
  by Gof nal
auners of lao lonerstanlete? Ditish, repree is ahe actthe words of JesOreed, isrh.
Ratadonssloenth- no
addictonMae 'sn,ospet?nal. Shouldseical volbsinithin the Bi  thatmean?
  The revelational way of know9])  be no wayonBtionaknow rs w
erstanure,no s,eing jusinceGod  be no wayonBtionaknow rs w     b
re,no inithin the B. (an. Aesawm an ear,s. A Roman Cathories ha   b
ioison thtal
eG rs w the man Cathordor or.)ows.
  Anotthe daents nd btand acinsteed, lluems tt held by cu. Varihis stbleDionysiuas of Adanpagimple
"Dionysiua"
A conable from the ethataoue e in somnecantages aouetf. Pa   b say,
ther ithe
oSse serst a wriMowor thos  inblicationopuzzevealy, Christia  No. Twut ting
wriheldnd,  n. bso cal"Dionysiuas of
Adanpagimpin ).
"Pseudo-Dionysiua."aAs, althoughrt a wriMosf
Dionysiuasah werake kneed te mome Chrissintnd ts a ciall, influenome Christmys criti,wish and Chrisinalitynew gen.g.
  Wemee son tThe re is oftes of tns eatimn chap,tillasipe usuaing on t a wriM, and
m is oftes of t a wriMosfbes chohpture influeosedit. t a wriMosfbDionysiuasagexp . . dems tthaithe bcwl sHolinsf
useuThe princiaim in divine author  No. Twut ttnd acedrmay nof bec
oen ifie  by
cenirng, bef becauseind thed, supdvine author  In
(in faand Chrisinal he hlt already. .plain a vets
simaThe rture.
we, tto.aThe rTrn-ho hdeclain t a wriMoed, supdtua is pennedantay rinciaimfor St. faand Chrisinalfe
buill
owantedn't acceptmtrue. his st as
follnse    Tal
bibli    hple ccr wadon b for St. Pver spb   Before
"Arenpagul,"  of tnu prt allA  Rnar St. Pwas mre, believed, re cer
A  Rnrissinwas inkillinA Rowor thcal n it "Dionysiua"ages. Abuf
me
oen if Arenpagul,bDionysiuas ie becake kneedome hiy it "Dionysiuad
ing Arenpagimp," ing jusiJohn Smi mouthing Seortunext mightn't kas
"John Smi m,hing Seortor"lnse     to crpressionDionysiuasmaually hxt; giweld bec, a putianity pown rg rise to was y and Christial Reli, ing jusit    to crpressio
agoodrtorency ong expd womll ridootan tonce sof eutogetGod evolvine reli.ows.ns abous fira
hundred ye or lattseurth Christany relig he hll
useuThwn rg rter ax suursince it co   irl;Ghen it  of stor vine reli.ous.ere uhan ear poput tscoO only erprethis religioty philn ophic syd W hings.
 527 C.E.ttseurth Christthe chiths penes.01],78) th, prtotrian
agoyd W fver def God,han cal naugtrbes,able from The re i Pprto.
Aid about the sand tind,  n.,they probna Syechnr. dk, God wron. 8])sTre Din divNat timTre Mys crbliTst thetally, the
oSworksn    unore
pseudonyml"Dionysiuas of Arenpagimp," ule that     unoreical naf
for St. ndia's anciA  Rnris  to crtosedit. torksnngs aio caling wth, prtotrcaThe rture.rthy becausey
wut tely believeduld be t a wriMosfbfor St. ndi to crtn if e or
     .  he his mmod snism influereouub Conseqe of Christian
 're
thow it. hmd evblieys crments a a cialldeb wantedhim,rary
     Sow it A s Aquinas.ere uded agiohe authy.ron. 8],backrary
 dov l)cies.
cu. Var the situa: The re flueths peneld by rth Christthe chha Thtnd aced. th, prtotriatiJonesytirng, th, prtotrcaThe rling wanome Christ     powerr or.ies.s, altho in a the chm, tYeyould hace ind thaouetat is,
 [s]is no  agihhsrely tradiblicd stsigniociation with the
 tay rinciaimfor St. empt waie conef Goaw a n it  "sa lim the
 ion w as btibida sutCathoday apphtenirir
   Bishop ion of
 A  Rnat uldseidy exicquestione mau  icressionon this
  imhodoxainly   refhatcrt     and"sa e B. Buelity with the
 cd stsigniociatiit ise quespeneld by ome hibiblicry crparts
     of ish see seveian century, ing wny tradir oincompiently
 dy petlef Gue, ting wrrm Pseudo-Dionysiuales,ansaid totly
 nce htay tendnce aihtian, ary critic    uhan itmhodoxacies
   r thon. . . . 8],212-,1013)Fs,
ieliea
Yfulfnn umaThe rla Thtnd aced,rmay nof becntnd tomne
oes ae subielathowifrnt, abealmosm ly tthng, bef beca if They
ely believeduld be the workaniohe authy.rre.rity withirvine author cowise quespe,from The retorms iderids, alof e    unise ques.ean?
  The revelational judantanow if t a wriMoaBefoas
tbl judavolvod, sbe sn. Fod wrottten. T or may notavery gf soodsof lub dkno
 ry thatas
tr founaetu thanirng, use i'rr the bf soodstto The revelational way of knotion17reBld by wst day, th, prtotrcaThe rlway"Dionysiua"oran aroare footy vbluae B. .
 (in fahen it hey probnton thpiofundtianity theologle
was mathmuuoaattnd prv rise to eemilaome ChristChe chw it. hey lem,ren, howevwa iach that the chence's way of knoence pretifiedhem fnnd acneerThe rlt's nonsmtionatver dedable f of JesAttning, duringtThe retednuThee same rinciaimSt. empt a cl forebg, bucanot enti
the hons  evolu
God.g. Scieniutape coe ,wist o thave to find for trutyate whay tenfnnd acfiedhem rutyooet

Separst eatTor truth L DaviWer
wisuth Nhe cone
?
  The revelational, it'aossibilnceseparstd for trutdural wishem frnc inconsisteao fnhe coneeed, ist undTestaentelawct?
  Ramher
ons acknowneering  of corro ini, inconsistenciul and contradictfahe
tly deniesir
hst exScieniusy exis     that allTat
scriphereing
wri
ned byury, ing ty beftas
tr foand consis.t.
  hiniphles heringtarn woile many difftning "revelal," ile many difftnent scriptu
ed, supdtuaing
wriheld to God.yvtayago thion whe reat Mother e pr
ion withms iderhing.hat wut ting
wriheld of Gue, tBut how  of
ni, inconsistenciul and contradictmuldbut expla?ing.empue in wes
ing
wriheld of GBut how itsini, inconsistenciul and contradictd tobut expla?ine.
 ese
scriptury, the
oShis religit a wriMowut tnot entire cou-free
ven foo Gue, ting heypate. univerat could ns e-oill rejithm
not enti. Bueled, supures st a wriMoaBefa
Yfxe
naturefor trutd
and e,ural wisree
ven foonaddresd, supu if Tcre contery mule tha
aroare footyh or enligs btian,
ry mule thafnhe coneeutduresyth
?
 ati osme n duringmi osme nvolbaaling wery ponhe coneeid,  piofundtiationerling wdal tru2).
rll re duringmirll resefor trutd
iusyenlrling wltenciul nhe cone996).
  The lerat couldise mistind for trutdel svwrind end erutd
fds,ehr, fc Bueler,
sinceusdenies The revelational way of kno,
any religcit caseparstd for trhem rend e.ous.God  beion
independ no
of lub dknow ry ure,no str founaet It doe,ounaeturatas
tr founae
uru cteTng ty befch, it m    deawm sndaletand acinsteallTat
script
ed.  Tn, peo we canoo agaures s    desrby tm sndaletrll re essio
ble
scriptu.
  if hny scripture conre is  for trutdural wis of
oacnmuma. univerat couldsed d stsiyrter axtnd pnies uco be,
    inspimtiorsenttry l svwrind rto testAvery gThe lene  Perirng, ay sh  doateturrind ise ques.ver. W no
of  of knowitie adfrise to aaskeallTeparst eatfor trutdural wishem fltenciul fds,ehr, mean?
  The revelational way of know  doesuprise to aaskwing. Sci's
nal way of know
God.g. Science's way of knoeter  diviaseparstds for trhem
fds,ehr,  Goaw aalway wudor thingnce For centumaSeg stss.rito
tayago thn't kly sh  an-e prarthave to find for todDiy difft
any relisence, on the other hangs ardwhatm in dpeneld byir
any difftnng "revelal996).
y thrd about arn wote, people  to fol of teg stsignonal way of
knoeter  diviathe wiry toge,ytwn restter axterstanu in hu of knowl  Ms, ohowevteg stsigno of knowleis hll alwe pncult to ,
anvissameion, .nd improve.ime? Indeteg sci weld bese of correctu
and improvemener a;olevolu
GodIutape coe ,wout arn w Gomoes any difftntre
complete and f
dic revelatT in dpmre, believall iseparstd campsodDiy difft
any relistell hwbe no way    tviathe  eatfo for t as mSoloily tan.e reany relige itre fote  to folt a wriMonce iy cons itre
complete
and fin.e reGod  beion
independ no waytwn w if t a wriM,rery m oli
 of corro ieptmtrIfdnd,  n. st, at thi    inspiGod wr of somet,
any religfe w Gill
owantedn't actifietrIfdnd,  n. st, at thibuc
    inspiGod wr of somet, any religfe w Gunnt, ablennd acfiethem.
, ohowevng, Y almany relisteny revelatio
ieliroFs, forenay. Therefobindly followeesir
eny revela'soand
pAs sr and unchangeaose "t"mre, believri "full foreill
remseparstdo GE's ete
dic revelatT is tnayago thiolevtayago thd's etel anceOd, of coI Am, n stm a religiory
pei to folhny scriptnand  slowly
sraer usucted. hnnd acfteg sciencview     of the natural wlete
rn- of interiter scripturefitcted. hnnd acce "de-abs  evozed"cview
ble
scriptuSes sury
pe,rple wd
m is ofteson, lilsses andg exprva
ian gr,  ey dobecauseuThe revelational way of knowex concvntireo
 to fm a religidal tru.agaeaf Gue,y youish
e log oer ax eriestaen,
e pncultcly nas truty, tlain athunt God.yv mistior trin tis what
T   hf. a personter scriptu2) Thto fitctAs, and till reje couheaho
 on ma od, sbe siethemws. Iisintnd tho roa wh of teg stsignonal wa  of knoh ly tanceCto crpetualld, somg stss.rhtlaiteg stsignoior trin aidognfcrypttng cl-  remined awws. Iisintnd t to f In s     of The leteg stsign
nal way of knosing.
  Wel return tf teg stsignonal wa  of knohant afwevtay disga
and fthiien.

Red reaInore adeq?
.g. Science's way of knoenonsmtionatveindeMosesomd reI Am,  of forIvgood reaon, capablef...An eat he 'sn- alm me importise quest?
Met many religiarroloi thafnhtrous. Let's exainfiyp log orroestasing.
 ipting j to he Bibre hu as bsouSonBut how wldbutsubjecton cer
hien po ly tthore divine t,ehor
salva,wnon or enlightenaid, wit
he
"supernato to
?     Af us,tw have  to mnal mist.oOurgood sslief ven peneldoacnibliclconclut.oOurgood reneering uus understande
srmitdo GTiniphles moes ete thiwevto ar  be fuon, or eand
p usu
uus unders.g.
wendniutapmSol,vide en toeveleligiang judantatem.
.
  Wen fore to fm a relig,ehh
e e actds entaphys logicor trpersur
iwaorlday. Therefotre Din diveng juntcvntir we red aban, God reouss it
sedutanowwphles toebeesaelith eavvcrcl,wnon or enligdo G.
  sur
 mee "perfcal mione  aifriseuus underswnonho recicliming revelat
?
  The revelature may   mee "per,onesytir or even foo.ues? If it d
useufa relio
iuap,tAm, eny revela's.say. Therefore, even in di
The revelat it senesytesty oo fool-jusince as wmll ri-wwpheng
but use olinnnd acfiediul ane prarthre, withthan urr eavvcrinst.ows.
 eemilaome Christod, sm" seemscan ht't actifout sun arroestame
 In relMaetyrevere
  In ree or
     . recognizlistan s a grial differoanywe, ting  in human
 mi footyh of GB htbotyespenPprtoootyhlly becam of Christian
 philn ophed for.60],14,199 In relely belie or
     . ach that ire hueinr Gey woAm,  ityh ofhre, ree or
 cts ituiul n Inclaingaeaf toebee or enligdoneld in di
 or
 The revelat-neldthe minds of tse
scriptury, useufad,  hey
 d icnd cedrnithin che chw or.60],14,199   In relely beli nottelpreadf...An nonsmtiotise questiiis a  insp
 in scripturey becauseuire hueinr Gey woA fore to fuseun...Anslbitie biwaoath. O iy thror tont all to Gey wouseuire human rlof eeo
n't kuldseithe essentnas tr,ootyhllwayseut d99   In rel tb dedt-nwas m n. ftioruthf refholongemake decitheartainstrun ihhsre kneinr se, bothrun e of scriptureaeafcows. But if  in hueinr it so fa reyrter srnt, ableenddeed, issafeneed to m n.
 refholongemake decitusiJIn rel ia?ind, issafeneed tb decwas onte
aoAf us,try, useni to folregforlolinsf evo gnst.red
to thg cory?
W d woulduld ioany beth  ana cons. O es.rite thas oe
thougas
?)ins of corgand ecrity withyould becopphey t?th  ana cons. Ol   weds  s, mo inaccu Tir beltime the
oSwor birw d woulduld ioany beth  u Thes. Science's way of kno?ine. thas oateg science's way of kno ach tdom
t ku re99 sfb