Saba Rmati

7/27/2019 Saba Rmati

1/602

would liketo turn as

we would

like to turnas we

conclude


2/602

thischapter.The

first of

thesecommontop

ics or


3/602

problems isa time-

honoured

one,centringround the

idiographic


4/602

snomothetic

dichotomy

thatseparates

and unites


5/602

the socialsciences at

would like

to turn aswe

conclude


6/602

thischapter.The

first of

thesecommontop

ics or


7/602

problems isa time-

honoured


idiographic


8/602

snomothetic

dichotomy

thatseparates

and unites


9/602


would like

to turn aswe

conclude


10/602

thischapter.The

first of

thesecommontop

ics or


11/602

problems isa time-

honoured


idiographic


12/602

snomothetic

dichotomy

thatseparates

and unites


13/602


would like

to turn aswe

conclude


14/602

thischapter.The

first of

thesecommontop

ics or


15/602

problems isa time-

honoured


idiographic


16/602

snomothetic

dichotomy

thatseparates

and unites


17/602


one and the

one and thesame

time.Acentr


18/602

al point ofcontention,

especially

during theearly debate

about


19/602

exceptionalismingeog

raphy

(Schaefer1953),this

axis had


20/602

been adominant

one in the

human andsocialscienc


21/602

es at leastsince theMethodenst

reitin the

German


22/602

Staatswissenschaften

during

thesecondhalf of the

nineteenth


23/602

century(Strohmaye

r 1997b).Is

geography ascienceconc

entrating on


24/602

thespecific,on

difference

and theuniqueness

of place(s)?


25/602

Or is itsgoalto uncover

law-like

structuresthat apply

under


26/602

observableconditions

and

whichcanbe used for

planning


27/602

and othersocially

relevant

purposes?Human

geography


28/602

hasfoundmany

different

answers tothese

questions


29/602

during thecourse of

the

twentiethcentury and

has


30/602

witnessedseemingly

stable

configurations vanish

every so


31/602

often.Take,for

instance,the

resurrectionof a concern

for


32/602

particularitywithin the

postmodern

paradigm:was this a

return to an


33/602

earliergeographica

l practice or

somethingaltogetherne

w and


34/602

different?Was it a

child of its

time justlike any

other


35/602

epistemological

break and

thusnecessarily

a form of


36/602

localknowledge (Ley

2003)?


37/602

Geographicalvisions23

Mention ofparticularit

yshould

remind us

not to


38/602

overlook asecond axis

thatstructur

edgeographic

theories


39/602

during thetwentieth

century.Oft

en hiddenbeneath

theidiograp


40/602

hicnomothetic

divide,the

differencebetween

generality


41/602

andparticularity

isthought by

many to besynonymou

s with the


42/602

former.However,one

can well

imagineanomothetic

approach to


43/602

particulars,just as

idiographic

concerns forgeneralities

exist.Implic


44/602

it in thisdifference,t

herefore,is

little lessthan the

importance


45/602

of scale(Marston20

00) or the

reminderthat the

geographies


46/602

we observechange

depending

oncontext,fra

me of


47/602

referenceand point of

view.Both

axesmentioned

revolve


48/602

aroundepistemolog

ical issues

in that theypresent

us with a


49/602

choicebetween

different

conceptualizations of

what kind


50/602

of sciencegeography

isand

shouldbe.But there

is a third


51/602

axis we canidentify that

centres

aroundquestions

of causation


52/602

.Centrallyimplicated

here is the

dichotomybetween

structure


53/602

andagency.Larg

ely implicit

in thetheoretical

assumptions


54/602

of humangeography

up until the

1970s,thisaxis

provided


55/602

geographerswith a

whole set of

answers tothe question

of what


56/602

or who wasresponsible

for the

creation andmaintenanc

e of


57/602

geographicrealities:wa

s itpeoples

preferencesthat shaped

spaces,or


58/602

was theparticular

context

withinwhich

suchchoices


59/602

were maderesponsible

for the

geographieswe could

observe


60/602

empirically? For aslong

as

geographyheld fast to

the kind of


61/602

checklistmentality

observed

earlier inthischapter,t

his latter


62/602

part of thequestion

apparently

did notbecome an

issue.Thing


63/602

sstarted tochange,how

ever,with

the movetowards

more


64/602

theoretically informed

researchage

ndas:herethe choice

between


65/602

prioritizingindividual

actors over

socialstructure

(or vice


66/602

versa) wasoften

perceived to

befundamenta

l.But what


67/602

about theseaxes? The

real change

in theclosing

decade of


68/602

thetwentiethce

ntury has

been toview them

less as


69/602

essentialand

mutually

exclusivechoices and

toappreciate


70/602

theircommonalit

y of

construction.Here,agai

n,we need


71/602

toacknowledg

e

theimportance of the

debates


72/602

surroundingstructuratio

n theory in

the late1970s

andthrough


73/602

out the1980s for

the overall

shape oftheoretical

discourse


74/602

within thediscipline(H

arris

1991;Chouinard

1997).Toget


75/602

her withsimultaneou

s

developments in

feministgeo


76/602

graphy,itwas in these

debates that

theconnective

nature of


77/602

allegedopposites

wasfirst

acknowledged:what had

presented


78/602

itselfpreviously

as a choice

betweenmutually ex

clusive


79/602

positions ortheoretical

points of

origin wasnow

increasingly


80/602

viewedandtheorize

d as a field

in whichmutually

constructive


81/602

elementsacted to

bring

forthgeographic

realities


82/602

(Thrift1983;Grego

ry 1994).In

fact,theclosing

years of the


83/602

lastcenturywitnessed a

proliferatio

n of papersthat

analysed a


84/602

professedinstability

andconstruc

ted natureof the

categories


85/602

that wereused to

manufactur

e (oftenpolarized)a

xes in the


86/602

first place(Gibson-

Graham

1996;Battersburyet al


87/602

.1997;Whatmore

1999).In the

emerginghybrid

world of


88/602

networks,afuture

generation

ofgeographers

may


89/602

wellfindmany of the

issues and

conflicts ofold

unresolved,


90/602

perhapseven

unresolvabl

e(Thrift2000a). We

would like


91/602


92/602

geography for the

twenty-first

century willno longer

have to


93/602

deny thecontested

nature of

itscategories and move

towards


94/602

mature andtolerant

manners of

dispute anddiscourse. T

he


95/602

emergenceof research

in the years

flanking theturn of the

millennium


96/602

that aimstointegrate

rather than

dividepositions

that were


97/602

previouslythought to

be only

loosely


98/602

24Human

Geography: A


99/602

History for the

21st Century

connected,exclusive or

downright

opposed,might be read


100/602

as a signthat such

hopes

arenot invain

(Mattingly


101/602

andFalconer-

Al-Hindi

1995;Dixonand Jones

1998;Barnet


102/602

t2001;Castree

2003;Jacob

s and Nash2003;Engla

nd


103/602

2003).However,it

might also

be asign offatigue:only

history can


104/602

judge usnow.

knowing. One is necessity for salvation, deliverance, or

enlightenment. For example, the Catholic Church teaches:

Revelation is that saving act by which God furnishes

us with the truths which are necessary for our

salvation. ([M07],213).

The other belief is finality.

Christians . . . now await no newpublic revelation from

God. ([D09],4).

God's general public revelation is finished and done, even if private

revelations to an individual are still possible.

These two beliefs - necessity for salvation and finality - are

usually part of the revelational way of knowing even though they

don't necessarily follow from divine authorship. After all, God could

write many books, each helpful for salvation but not necessary. And

God could write another public revelation in the future. Yet most

religions claim that their revelation is final, not to be revised,

extended or superseded, and that it's necessary - required - for


105/602

salvation, deliverance, or enlightenment.

Of course, religions disagree over which writings are inspired. For

example, the fourteen books of the Apocrypha were in the Bible for

over 1,000 years. They're still in the Roman Catholic bible but other

Christian groups reject them. They aren't included in many modern

Bibles. Do they belong in the Bible or not?

Not only does the Catholic Church include books in its Bible that

Protestants do not, that church also labels some of the writings of

Athanasius, Augustine, John Chrysostom and others ([N09],20) as

"Divine Tradition" and believes that

. . . Divine Tradition has the same force as the Bible . .

Other Christian groups disagree. In fact,

[p]recisely at this point the greatest division in

Christendom occurs: the Bible as the final source

(standard or authority), or the Bible as a source.

([P07],18).

Of course, different religions accept entirely different revelations.

Islam holds the Koran to be revealed. Hindus believe God spoke the

Bhagavad-Gita and other writings. Buddhist accept the Tripitaka.

Though all of the religions we've mentioned may reject the

inspired writings of other religions, they believe their own scripture is

divinely revealed. In particular, religion often makes the following

four claims for their own scriptures: that scriptures:

(1) are consistent and truthful ("without error"),

(2) are complete and final ("all and only those truths . .

. no newpublic revelation"),

(3) are necessary for salvation, enlightenment, or

liberation ("necessary for our salvation").


106/602

(4) have an inspired or divine author ("God who is

their true Author"),

Are these claims true? Again, theological claims are difficult to

test.Is God the author of any particular book? That's beyond the reach

of logic to decide. Nonetheless, the four claims can be rationally

investigated. And, as we examine and test the four claims we'll come

to a better understanding of the revelational way of knowing. Let's

begin with the first claim, consistency and truthfulness.

Claim 1: External Consistency

An external contradiction is when a scripture contradicts something

outside itself, either some common belief or practice, or another

scripture. Lets examine some external scriptural contradictions,

beginning with three where the Bible contradicts common Christian

belief or practice.

First, Jesus says Just as Jonas was three days and three nights in

the whales belly; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three

nights in the heart of the earth. ([H08], Mt 12:40). According to a

footnote in another Bible ([N02], for Mt 12,38ff), this quote contains

an allusion to Jesus resurrection. However, common Christian

belief allows less than 48 hours between the Crucifixion and

Resurrection (Good Friday to Easter Sunday), two nights, not three.

Second, in Mark 6:3 the people of Jesus country say: Is not this

the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of

Juda, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? If Jesus

actually had a brother, then either the Roman Catholic belief in the

perpetual virginity of Mary is incorrect, or the standard Christian

belief that Jesus is the onlybegotten Son of God is wrong.


107/602

Lastly, Jesus forbids swearing (Mt 5:34-37), saying at one point

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever

is more than these cometh of evil ([H08],Mt 5:37). Nonetheless, it is

common practice in some Christian countries for a court witness to

swear on the Bible that their testimony shall be true.

Now lets turn to another type of external contraction, where one

scripture contradicts another. The world has many "revealed"

writings. If they are all, in fact, revealed then they should all agree

with each other because they all have the same ultimate author - God.

How well do revealed writings agree with each other? Not very well.

Let's examine some examples.

Of the three major revelations of Western religion, the earliest is

the Jewish Torah, which is also part of the Christian Old Testament.

Later, the Christian New Testament was written. Later still, the Koran

(Quran) of Islam. Are these three revelations consistent with each

other? No. For example, the Koran says Jews and Christians disagree:

The Jews say the Christians are misguided, and the

Christians say it is the Jews who are misguided. (Sura

2:13, [K07],344).

And the Koran disagrees with both:

. . . [T]he Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the

Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah . . .

How perverse are they! (Sura 9:30, [M10],148).

So, advises the Koran,

. . . admonish those who say that Allah has begotten a

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

Islam teaches that Jewish and Christian scriptures are only

partially true. For instance, it teaches that Jews were one of the first


108/602

peoples who

. . . recognized God's oneness, and also God's law.

([S16],12).

Quite an accomplishment, because after that recognition the

. . . doctrine of monotheism, established by Abraham,

never again quite lapsed. ([S16],12).

Unfortunately, the Jewish people (according to the Koran) failed to

accurately preserve God's words.

. . . [I]n course of time they allowed their copies of the

text . . . to become corrupted. Their "scripture"

became inaccurate. . . . In due course, to correct this

desperate error, God sent another messenger, Jesus.

([S16],12-13).

But the followers of Jesus erred, too, since they worshiped

. . . the messenger, instead of heeding the message. .

. . focused their attention on Christ to the partial

neglect . . . of God, whose transcendence they thus

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

Even worse, in their worship of Jesus they attributed

. . . to him and his mother wild, even blasphemous and

obscene, relations to God Himself. ([S16],13).

So, according to the Koran, God had to send another messenger,

Muhammad.

This time there was to be no error, no distortion, no

neglect. ([S16],14).

Since Muhammad perfectly captured God's revelation in the Koran,

no other messenger will be needed or sent. Therefore, Muhammad is

called the "seal" of the prophets.


109/602

For Muslims, the Koran is the perfect and complete revelation of

God.

For the Muslim, God's Message is wholly contained in

the Koran . . . This Book does not annul but rather

confirms the Divine Message as preserved, though in

a corrupt and distorted tradition, in the Holy Scriptures

of the Jews and the Christians. ([A08],12).

Can Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scriptures all be true?

Obviously not. At least one scripture is wrong, either the Koran in its

fault-finding or Jewish and Christian scriptures in their teachings. At

least one of these scriptures is incorrect, untruthful. We'll see how

Jewish and Christian scriptures disagree later when we discuss

scripture's finality and completeness. Now, however, let's discuss

scripture's truthfulness.

Claim 1: Truthfulness

Revealed writings often describe historical and miraculous events.

Did those events actually happen? They describe extraordinary

people. Did those people actually live? In general, are revealed

writings true?

Once, it was thought all events described in the Bible were

historically true. Christian medieval Europe based cosmology on

Genesis, the first book of the Bible. It based biological evolution on

Genesis, too. History was based on the Bible; stories such as Noah

and the Great Flood were accepted as historically true. Astronomy

was also based on the Bible. In fact, the source of Galileo's conflict

with the Roman Catholic Church was the church's belief in biblical

teachings about the earth and sun.


110/602

Today, some religious people still believe the Bible gives a

truthful picture of the natural world. Fundamentalist Christians, for

example, still accept biblical teaching about cosmology, biology,

history and astrology. For them biblical revelation is

. . . the supernatural (metaphysical) process by which

God penetrated man's senses to give him an external,

objective world view. ([P07],13).

How such religious believers have fought the advance of science in

biology, geography, astronomy, medicine, hygiene, history,

anthropology, and other fields is well described inA History of the

Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom ([W09]) by

Andrew White.

Fundamentalists (of any religion) who think revelation has

accurate teachings about the natural world disprove a common idea:

that the essential difference between science and religion is that

science deals with this world and religion deals with the next.

Fundamentalists show this opinion isn't true - some religions deal

very much with this world. And science - as we'll see - could

investigate the "next" world.

How, then, do science and religion differ? They fundamentally

differ in how they know, not necessarily in whatthey know. Both can

know the natural world and, as we'll see, both can know the

"supernatural" world. Therefore, the fundamental difference between

science and religion is their different ways of knowing. Science finds

truth with the scientific way of knowing. Religion finds truth with the

revelational way, by following scripture.

But is scripture truthful? Fundamentalist Christians believe the

Bible is entirely truthful. More than that, they believe


111/602

. . . the complete Bible . . . is the final authority for all

truth. ([P07],21)

and that

[a] problem of terminology and interpretation may exist

between science and the Bible but the only difficulty is

man's inability to resolve the problem, notany conflict

of truth. . . . The superior credence for Scripture over

science is clear. ([P07],31).

Other Christians, however, admit the Bible isn't entirely true.

They don't base their entire world view on revelation. For them

cosmology, biology, history, and astronomy are no longer based on

scripture. Such Christians view Genesis as mythological and accept a

scientific explanation of biological evolution and the origin of the

universe. Biblical stories once thought historically accurate are now

considered by many greatly exaggerated, if not mythological.

Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the

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

. . . the Bible is free from errorin what pertains to

religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not

necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g.

natural science). ([D09],12).

Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing

superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior

knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge

about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about

the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world,

too? We'll return to these questions later.


112/602

Claim 1: Internal Consistency

Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists

can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If

scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and

the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists,

science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact

is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when

the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal

consistence: does the bible agree with itself?

Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it

does. For example, inInerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that

Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were

errorless. ([I03],23),

that

Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures

contained no contradictory material nor error.

([I03],24),

that Origen

. . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and

noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25),

and, finally, that

[f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no

real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture.

([I03],49).

Augustine's definition of error was strict.

When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from

error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent

mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53).


113/602

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

actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at

least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other?

He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows.

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first

came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was

actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed

"Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the

words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the

Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference,

Zechariah.

Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's

"inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows

Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or

acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture

and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error?

Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that

scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from

acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced

to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture.

Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather

than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have

happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know.

But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to

correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings.

By the seventeenth century, errors had crept into ([M02],66)

medieval Russia's translations of scriptures and other holy writings.

Three monks decided to correct a minor holy writing. But


114/602

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

great saints of early Russian Christianity was

bordering on heresy. ([M02],66).

So

[i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had

been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared

heretical. ([M02],67).

One monk was

. . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in

Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with

physical cruelties and mental humiliations. ([M02],67).

Mistakes Perpetuated

Anyone who denies the smallest part of "revealed" scripture risks

humiliation, ostracism, and perhaps torture and death. This was true at

many times in the past. And in some countries it's still true.

It would be wrong, however, to think that only dishonesty or fear

prevents Augustine from acknowledging mistakes in scripture.

There's a deeper reason: he is blinded by his way of knowing.

Believing that scripture is penned by God and error-free prevents him

from correcting simple errors. His way of knowing, which is

supposed to help him find truth, hinders him. This illustrates a failing

of the revelational way of knowing itself, as opposed to a failing of

any individual.

To elaborate, people who follow a certain ideology or belong to a

certain group and who happen to be untruthful, sadistic or murderous

don't necessarily discredit the ideology or group. (If members of a

knitting club decide to poison their spouses, that doesn't necessarily


115/602

show there is something wrong with knitting.) On the other hand,

when the ideology or group itself turns truthful, sane people into

untruthful, sadistic or murderous persons, then something is wrong

with the ideology or group. (Racism, for example, can have this evil

effect on those whom it influences.)

Although Augustine's way of knowing didn't make him sadistic or

murderous (I don't know if the same can be said for the architects of

the Inquisition.), it did blind him to an untruth and force him to accept

the false as true. The principle that God is scripture's author blinded

Augustine to a simple fact - that scripture sometimes contradicts

itself.

Therefore, the revelational way of knowing can enshrine error and

hinder the search for truth. The reference in Matthew could be easily

changed from Jeremiah to Zechariah, but belief in divine authorship

doesn't allow it. Yet the Bible has been amended - not with the effect

of reducing an error but of increasing it. Here's the story of an

intentional mistranslation that persists even today.

Consistency versus Truthfulness

Christianity teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. About the Virgin

Birth of Jesus, Matthew writes:

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which

was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring

forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,

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

1:22-23).

One bible has a curious footnote to this verse.


116/602

[T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the

light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . .

([N02],NT,6),

the facts being Jesus's virgin birth, messianic mission, and special

relation to God. The footnote continues:

All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in

Is 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought

to light as God's plan. ([N02],NT,6).

It's not quite clear what "prophetic reinterpretation" and "faintly

traced" means. Perhaps a reference to Isaiah will help. Turning to

Isaiah 7:14, we read

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;

Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and

shall call his name Immanuel. ([H08],Is 7:14).

(This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we shall

soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote.

The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing

the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and

his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known

the full force latent in his own words; and some

Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial

fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King

Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke,

would have been a young, unmarried woman

(Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing,

however, for another Nativity which . . . was to fulfill . .

. the words of this prophecy in the integral sense

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


117/602

Again, a few things aren't clear. What does "transcendent

fulfillment" mean? Why would the church have to choose to follow

either Matthew (who never identifies the prophet he quotes) or Isaiah?

Why would some Catholic writers seek a "preliminary and partial

fulfillment" in King Hezekiah? How could a prophet fail to know the

"full force latent in his own words"? What does "integral sense

intended by the divine Wisdom" mean? The authors of the footnote

seem to be half-heartedly trying to tell us something. Like Augustine,

does their way of knowing prevent them too from acknowledging a

plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll see that it does.

Arsenal For Skeptics ([A09]) has selections of biblical criticism

whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness of

every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer can present a much clearer

explanation of the verses from Matthew and Isaiah.

Isaiah's original Hebrew . . . falsely translated by the

false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the

English: "Behold, a virgin shallconceive and bear a

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

The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young

woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect

tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English,

representspast and completedaction. Honestly

translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young

woman has conceived- (is with child) - and beareth a

son and calleth his name Immanuel."

Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable

age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad

general sense exactly like girlormaidin English, when we


118/602

say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or

vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is

always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68).

Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and

Matthew quotes no known prophet.

The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation,

but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author

prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the

plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented

them from reaching truth.

For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical

inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible

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

other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although

they may well exist.

The Erosion of Truthfulness

Martin Luther once said:

We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago

than six thousand years the world did not exist

([C05],3).

Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand

years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural

view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day

Adventist publication:

Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the

basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and

evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92).


119/602

Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally

realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't

come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the

Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous

men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired

pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of

their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures

don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example,

Leonard Swidler writes:

Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was

thought of in a very static manner: if something was

found to be true in one place and time, then it was

thought to be true in all times and places . . . [I]f it was

true for St. Paul to say that it was all right for slaves to

be subject to their masters (in fact, he demanded it!),

then it was always true.

But no Christian theologian today would admit the

truth of the Pauline statement. . . . [O]ur understanding

of truth statements in the West has become historical,

perspectival, limited, interpretive - in a single word:

relational. And that means deabsolutized. . . . Text can

be properly understood only within context; given a

significantly new context, a proportionately new text

would be needed to convey the same meaning.

([F02],xii).

The modern world is certainly a significantly new context. How

might a proportionately new text be written? By the continued

martyrdom of men and women? By taking some contemporary


120/602

writing, declaring it divine revelation, and blindly following it? Or by

employing science's way of knowing?

Claim 2: Attaining Completeness and Finality

Not only are scriptures said to be truthful and consistent, they're

thought to be complete and final, too. The second claim of the

revelational way of knowing is that scripture is complete - that it has

everything God wants to write - and that it's final - that no new

general revelation is in store. Of course, while it's being written

scripture isn't complete and final. Let's examine that period.

Scripture has been written over varying amounts of time. In the

West, it took about a thousand years to complete the Old Testament.

The New Testament, however, was accomplished in a few hundred

years. And the Koran was written within the lifetime of Muhammad.

While it's being written, scripture is often influenced by contemporary

beliefs, both foreign and local.

When Judaism was young, for example, its scriptures were

influenced by the older religion of Zoroastrianism, which especially

in its

. . . demonology, angelology, and eschatology,

influenced Judaism from the time of the exile onward.

([N04],v23,1013).

It seems to have influenced the Jewish conception of Satan, for

instance.

Before the exile - for example, in the prologue to Job

(1:6-12) and in the mouth of Zechariah (3:1-2) - Satan

was no more than the servant of God, acting on his

orders as prosecutor; after the exile he is portrayed as


121/602

God's adversary. ([N04],v23,1013).

As another example, there is a story that's told twice, in

. . . II Sam. 24:1 and I Chron. 21:1. In the first, the

preexilic version, the Lord incites David to wickedness

so that he may wreak vengeance on the Israelites; in

the second it is Satan, not God, who is responsible for

the calamity. ([N04],v23,1013).

(Yet another instance of scriptural inconsistency.)

How much did Zoroastrianism influence Judaism and

Christianity? The Ethical Religion of Zoroaster([D05],xxi-xxiv) lists

similarities in Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian scripture, doctrine

and practice. The list is four pages long. Writers have pointed out

other pagan influences. Powell Davies, for instance, writes:

Mithras was a Redeemer of mankind; so were

Tammuz, Adonis and Osiris. . . . Jesus as a

Redeemer was not a Judaic concept; nor was it held

by the first Christians in Palestine . . . ([D03],90).

It was only, continues Davies, when Christianity spread to pagan

culture that

. . . the idea of Jesus as a Savior God emerged. This

idea was patterned on those already existing,


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



peoples who


122/602


([S16],12).










([S16],12-13).





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





Muhammad.








123/602

God.

















writings true?











124/602











Andrew White.



















125/602

truth. ([P07],21)

and that



























126/602













that



([I03],24),

that Origen



and, finally, that



([I03],49).







127/602










Zechariah.




















128/602



So




One monk was



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

show there is something wrong with knitting.) On the other hand,


129/602

when the ideology or group itself turns truthful, sane people into

untruthful, sadistic or murderous persons, then something is wrong

with the ideology or group. (Racism, for example, can have this evil

effect on those whom it influences.)

Although Augustine's way of knowing didn't make him sadistic or

murderous (I don't know if the same can be said for the architects of

the Inquisition.), it did blind him to an untruth and force him to accept

the false as true. The principle that God is scripture's author blinded

Augustine to a simple fact - that scripture sometimes contradicts

itself.

Therefore, the revelational way of knowing can enshrine error and

hinder the search for truth. The reference in Matthew could be easily

changed from Jeremiah to Zechariah, but belief in divine authorship

doesn't allow it. Yet the Bible has been amended - not with the effect

of reducing an error but of increasing it. Here's the story of an

intentional mistranslation that persists even today.

Consistency versus Truthfulness

Christianity teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. About the Virgin

Birth of Jesus, Matthew writes:

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which

was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring

forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,

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

1:22-23).

One bible has a curious footnote to this verse.

[T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the


130/602

light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . .

([N02],NT,6),

the facts being Jesus's virgin birth, messianic mission, and special

relation to God. The footnote continues:

All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in

Is 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought

to light as God's plan. ([N02],NT,6).

It's not quite clear what "prophetic reinterpretation" and "faintly

traced" means. Perhaps a reference to Isaiah will help. Turning to

Isaiah 7:14, we read

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;

Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and

shall call his name Immanuel. ([H08],Is 7:14).

(This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we shall

soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote.

The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing

the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and

his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known

the full force latent in his own words; and some

Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial

fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King

Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke,

would have been a young, unmarried woman

(Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing,

however, for another Nativity which . . . was to fulfill . .

. the words of this prophecy in the integral sense

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

Again, a few things aren't clear. What does "transcendent


131/602

fulfillment" mean? Why would the church have to choose to follow

either Matthew (who never identifies the prophet he quotes) or Isaiah?

Why would some Catholic writers seek a "preliminary and partial

fulfillment" in King Hezekiah? How could a prophet fail to know the

"full force latent in his own words"? What does "integral sense

intended by the divine Wisdom" mean? The authors of the footnote

seem to be half-heartedly trying to tell us something. Like Augustine,

does their way of knowing prevent them too from acknowledging a

plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll see that it does.

Arsenal For Skeptics ([A09]) has selections of biblical criticism

whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness of

every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer can present a much clearer

explanation of the verses from Matthew and Isaiah.

Isaiah's original Hebrew . . . falsely translated by the

false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the

English: "Behold, a virgin shallconceive and bear a

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

The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young

woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect

tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English,

representspast and completedaction. Honestly

translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young

woman has conceived- (is with child) - and beareth a

son and calleth his name Immanuel."

Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable

age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad

general sense exactly like girlormaidin English, when we

say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or


132/602

vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is

always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68).

Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and

Matthew quotes no known prophet.

The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation,

but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author

prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the

plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented

them from reaching truth.

For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical

inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible

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

other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although

they may well exist.

The Erosion of Truthfulness

Martin Luther once said:

We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago

than six thousand years the world did not exist

([C05],3).

Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand

years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural

view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day

Adventist publication:

Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the

basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and

evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92).

Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally


133/602

realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't

come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the

Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous

men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired

pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of

their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures

don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example,

Leonard Swidler writes:

Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was

thought of in a very static manner: if something was

found to be true in one place and time, then it was

thought to be true in all times and places . . . [I]f it was

true for St. Paul to say that it was all right for slaves to

be subject to their masters (in fact, he demanded it!),

then it was always true.

But no Christian theologian today would admit the

truth of the Pauline statement. . . . [O]ur understanding

of truth statements in the West has become historical,

perspectival, limited, interpretive - in a single word:

relational. And that means deabsolutized. . . . Text can

be properly understood only within context; given a

significantly new context, a proportionately new text

would be needed to convey the same meaning.

([F02],xii).

The modern world is certainly a significantly new context. How

might a proportionately new text be written? By the continued

martyrdom of men and women? By taking some contemporary

writing, declaring it divine revelation, and blindly following it? Or by


134/602

employing science's way of knowing?

Claim 2: Attaining Completeness and Finality

Not only are scriptures said to be truthful and consistent, they're

thought to be complete and final, too. The second claim of the

revelational way of knowing is that scripture is complete - that it has

everything God wants to write - and that it's final - that no new

general revelation is in store. Of course, while it's being written

scripture isn't complete and final. Let's examine that period.

Scripture has been written over varying amounts of time. In the

West, it took about a thousand years to complete the Old Testament.

The New Testament, however, was accomplished in a few hundred

years. And the Koran was written within the lifetime of Muhammad.

While it's being written, scripture is often influenced by contemporary

beliefs, both foreign and local.

When Judaism was young, for example, its scriptures were

influenced by the older religion of Zoroastrianism, which especially

in its

. . . demonology, angelology, and eschatology,

influenced Judaism from the time of the exile onward.

([N04],v23,1013).

It seems to have influenced the Jewish conception of Satan, for

instance.

Before the exile - for example, in the prologue to Job

(1:6-12) and in the mouth of Zechariah (3:1-2) - Satan

was no more than the servant of God, acting on his

orders as prosecutor; after the exile he is portrayed as

God's adversary. ([N04],v23,1013).


135/602

As another example, there is a story that's told twice, in

. . . II Sam. 24:1 and I Chron. 21:1. In the first, the

preexilic version, the Lord incites David to wickedness

so that he may wreak vengeance on the Israelites; in

the second it is Satan, not God, who is responsible for

the calamity. ([N04],v23,1013).

(Yet another instance of scriptural inconsistency.)

How much did Zoroastrianism influence Judaism and

Christianity? The Ethical Religion of Zoroaster([D05],xxi-xxiv) lists

similarities in Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian scripture, doctrine

and practice. The list is four pages long. Writers have pointed out

other pagan influences. Powell Davies, for instance, writes:

Mithras was a Redeemer of mankind; so were

Tammuz, Adonis and Osiris. . . . Jesus as a

Redeemer was not a Judaic concept; nor was it held

by the first Christians in Palestine . . . ([D03],90).

It was only, continues Davies, when Christianity spread to pagan

culture that

. . . the idea of Jesus as a Savior God emerged. This

idea was patterned on those already existing,

I remember as a little boy learning of God from my mother, a religious woman with a life-longdevotion to Mary, the mother of Jesus. The idea of God thrilled me, but I soon grew to dislike some of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


136/602

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

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

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

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

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

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

seemed concerned in the least. Of course, the adults

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

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

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

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

really doesn't exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

science - until their thirst drives them back to religion.

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

sometimes with the excuse "Well, children need something to believe. It's better for them to grow upwith religion than without it."

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

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

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

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

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


137/602

Science Without Bounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

questions, about ultimate questions. What the great physicist Erwin Schrodinger wrote in 1948 is justas true today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same forevery one of us. Science has no answer to it.

Schrodinger says science hasn't investigated ultimate questions. Other writers believe science can't

investigate them. For example, M.I.T. philosophy professor Huston Smith believes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


138/602

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

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

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

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

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

Einstein describes such science as

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

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

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

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

world" as a boundary which science shouldn't cross. But did Einstein think science should foreverremain within that boundary? Perhaps not, for in the very next sentence he offers a broader

description of science's scope.

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

conceptualization.

knowing. One is necessity for salvation, deliverance, or

enlightenment. For example, the Catholic Church teaches:

Revelation is that saving act by which God furnishes

us with the truths which are necessary for our

salvation. ([M07],213).

The other belief is finality.

Christians . . . now await no newpublic revelation from

God. ([D09],4).

God's general public revelation is finished and done, even if private

revelations to an individual are still possible.

These two beliefs - necessity for salvation and finality - are

usually part of the revelational way of knowing even though they

don't necessarily follow from divine authorship. After all, God could

write many books, each helpful for salvation but not necessary. And


139/602

God could write another public revelation in the future. Yet most

religions claim that their revelation is final, not to be revised,

extended or superseded, and that it's necessary - required - for

salvation, deliverance, or enlightenment.

Of course, religions disagree over which writings are inspired. For

example, the fourteen books of the Apocrypha were in the Bible for

over 1,000 years. They're still in the Roman Catholic bible but other

Christian groups reject them. They aren't included in many modern

Bibles. Do they belong in the Bible or not?

Not only does the Catholic Church include books in its Bible that

Protestants do not, that church also labels some of the writings of

Athanasius, Augustine, John Chrysostom and others ([N09],20) as

"Divine Tradition" and believes that

. . . Divine Tradition has the same force as the Bible . .

Other Christian groups disagree. In fact,

[p]recisely at this point the greatest division in

Christendom occurs: the Bible as the final source

(standard or authority), or the Bible as a source.

([P07],18).

Of course, different religions accept entirely different revelations.

other? No. For example, the Koran says Jews and Christians disagree:

The Jews say the Christians are misguided, and the

Christians say it is the Jews who are misguided. (Sura

2:13, [K07],344).

And the Koran disagrees with both:

. . . [T]he Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the

Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah . . .

How perverse are they! (Sura 9:30, [M10],148).


140/602

So, advises the Koran,


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



peoples who


([S16],12).










([S16],12-13).





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





Muhammad.


141/602







God.

















writings true?





142/602

















Andrew White.













143/602







truth. ([P07],21)

and that






















144/602


















that



([I03],24),

that Origen



and, finally, that




145/602

([I03],49).















Zechariah.














146/602









So




One monk was



physi

Saba Rmati

Documents

Transcript of Saba Rmati