Allen Roy wrote:
> >Burgy said: "Note that Ron does NOT deny divine inspiration, he only has
> >decided, in the traditions of most historians, to discuss the issues w/o
> >using it." For, using it, anything you want can be claimed, and that is
> >both not very interesting or useful. Ron is not writing a theological book.
>
> But the issue is "divine inspiration." Numbers decided to "refrain from
> using divine inspiration as an historical explanation [for divine
> inspiration]." (p. xi) One might write and research such a book but it
> would be "both not very interesting or useful." It is true that Numbers was
> not writing a theological book, but since theology is based upon
> communications from people who were "inspired" by God then any "historian"
> who denies (or disallows) divine inspiration as historical evidence
> automatically disallows that theology has any valid basis. And promotes the
> concept that theology is purely an invention of the human mind.
>
> >Burgy says, "It [disallowing divine inspiration as historical evidence]
> >allows the author to examine issues in a neutral manner. That's all.
>
> Jesus says, "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not
> gather with me scatters." Matt 12:30 There is no such thin as examining the
> issues in a neutral manner when it comes to "divine inspiration."
>
There is an interesting article from the April 2, 2000 Christianity Today about
Chistians who are academic historians. It is even introduced by the question,
"If Christian historians write history like everyone else, what is their
value?"
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/005/1.42.html
Another very relevant book is Richard Ostling's book on mormonism. I don't have
it at work with me, but it quotes a mormon official as condemning a mormon
historian who examined the history of the origins of mormonism as a historian.
The work was condemned because it did not consider the history (which had some
embarassing points) from a supernatural perspective. Allen's statement struck
me as being very similar. A question this invites from Allen and the rest of
us, who are likely skeptical regarding mormon origins (my family background is
mormon), is how we can insist on a "supernatural' description of our own
tradition, while believing a natural description of other traditions? At some
point a questions of fairness and how we recognize God's action are difficult
to avoid.
One final note, the terms "supernatural" and "natural" originate from the
enlightenment. Our continued use of them mayevidence how the enlightenment has
subverted our thinking even as we resist it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
Physics Department |
Washington and Jefferson College |
Washington, PA 15301 |
attached mail follows:
>Burgy said: "Note that Ron does NOT deny divine inspiration, he only has
>decided, in the traditions of most historians, to discuss the issues w/o
>using it." For, using it, anything you want can be claimed, and that is
>both not very interesting or useful. Ron is not writing a theological book.
But the issue is "divine inspiration." Numbers decided to "refrain from
using divine inspiration as an historical explanation [for divine
inspiration]." (p. xi) One might write and research such a book but it
would be "both not very interesting or useful." It is true that Numbers was
not writing a theological book, but since theology is based upon
communications from people who were "inspired" by God then any "historian"
who denies (or disallows) divine inspiration as historical evidence
automatically disallows that theology has any valid basis. And promotes the
concept that theology is purely an invention of the human mind.
>Burgy says, "It [disallowing divine inspiration as historical evidence]
>allows the author to examine issues in a neutral manner. That's all.
Jesus says, "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not
gather with me scatters." Matt 12:30 There is no such thin as examining the
issues in a neutral manner when it comes to "divine inspiration."
Tim Ikeda wrote:
>I can't think of too many ways of using divine inspiration as an
accessible,
>historical explanation. At least, not in a way that makes study possible.
>History, like science, tries to avoid hearsay information and focus on
>that which can be documented. In that regard, I don't see Ronald as being
>different from any other good historian.
The Bible tells us that there are both false and true prophets and tells us
how to know the difference. Any "historian" who denies or disallows divine
inspiration automatically brands all prophets false. Any such "historian"
is NOT the means God has chosen to divine truth and falsehood.
>>All Ron does is show some similarities between some things that Ellen has
>>written and what others have written.
>Yes, Ronald is acting exactly like a historian.
Yes, as any typical, evolutionary, atheistic, revisionist "historian."
>>But Ron thinks he has exposed Ellen as false prophet (he hasn't and
>>couldn't) and therefore he has chosen to think of her as simply a deluded,
>>religious person. It is no wonder that he was sacked from LLU.
>Well, given that pseudo religious experiences abound for which we know
>have many organic causes and that bona fide experiences are smaller in
number
>and difficult to document, delusion (temporary or chronic) is a legitimate
>avenue of investigation.
As mentioned above, the Bible tells how to tell the true from the false.
And any 'historian' who is ignorant of this and or who denies divine
inspiration is incapable of finding truth.
>In any case, we do know that individuals are shaped by the cultures to
which
>they are exposed. And considering the interplay of ideas and the genesis of
>ideas in response to such interactions is certainly a legitimate method
>of historical analysis.
We are influenced by our culture AND by our relationship with God. By only
focusing on a part of the equation you cannot find the true answer.
>I don't think having an "impact on Creationism" was the intention. His
>interest and his work as a historian was not to prove or disprove
>creationism. Instead, Ronald's work have been to illustrate the various
>patterns and describe the various movements within creationism.
His book is filled from cover to cover jabs and innuendoes against
Creationism and Creationists.
>Again, Ronald's works as a historian have nothing to say about whether
>creationism is correct or even which versions of creationism are preferred.
The tone of the book is such that Creationism and Creationists are illogical
buffoons
>Numbers says *nothing* about whether the Bible is the inspired word of God.
>As a historian he is analyzing the impact and repercussions of such belief,
>and tracing how various groups have interpreted and accommodated such
ideas.
Number's attitude toward any "divine inspiration" as illustrated in his
disallowing "divine inspiration" for someone who claims to have received
"divine inspiration" directly impacts the inspired word of God. If you do
it in one case, you must do it in all cases. Thus John, Daniel, Isaiah and
others could not have received "divine inspiration" because there is no such
thing, from a revisionist "historical" perspective.
>He calls himself an agnostic. In reality he is one of Christianity's
>greatest enemies.
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 13 2001 - 14:17:56 EDT