Re: Revelation

Jim Bell (70672.1241@compuserve.com)
27 Sep 95 13:45:21 EDT

Glenn writes:

<< I didn't see your response and a detailed
refutation of that post at all. If that post is wrong, why don't you show us
why? Why is it that you get so silent on certain issues?>>

You've obviously missed some posts (I assume you haven't chosen to ignore
them). See, e.g., the post citing Gleason Archer.

You're nothing if not creative with the Biblical data (actually ANY data!).
Let's take a look:

<<Abraham, was not a Hebrew; he was a Babylonian. God revealed himself to
Abraham. See Genesis 11:28-31.>>

Wrong. Abraham was a Hebrew. The word Hebrew derives from Eber, into whose
line Abraham was born. See Gen. 10:24; 14:13.

<<Melchizedek was a Canaanite. He was NOT a Hebrew or Chaldean.>>

Wrong again. He is without geneaology. Heb. 7:3. His case is special, and
can't be used one way or the other.

<< Even if the wife was not Roman, the Dream still constitutes revelatatory
knowledge given to Pilate at that time.Matthew 27:19>>

Nothing in the text says this dream was from God.

<<Pharoah's cup-bearer and baker also had dreams given them by God.>>

Actually, it is the INTERPRETATIONS that were from God, through Joseph (Gen.
40:8).

But even granting these dreams as coming from God, what were they? Warnings,
of course. Warnings that played a pivotal role in redemptive history.

That's what Balaam's rebuke was, too. A warning (see Jude 11). These fall
short of "revelation", which is a disclosure of previously hidden divine truth
(see Elwell's Dictionary of Theology).

Nebuchadnezzer? It took Daniel, an Israelite, to do the actual "revealing."
Under this reasoning, Israelites would have to be present for those guys in
China and Mexico who got the Flood story in order for it to be recorded.

The special revelation of God, especially regarding the "oracles" or written
history of God's work, was entrusted solely to Israel. To believe this special
revelation came to other cultures is unfounded, and calls into question the
exclusivity of the Bible as divine revelation (and THAT is what puts you in
the same ballpark as the LDS church, and against Christian orthodoxy).

Jim