Allen Roy writes:
[...reply to Burgy removed...]
Tim Ikeda wrote:
TI>I can't think of too many ways of using divine inspiration as an
TI>accessible, historical explanation. At least, not in a way that
TI>makes study possible. History, like science, tries to avoid hearsay
TI>information and focus on that which can be documented. In that regard,
TI>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.
Please be careful. Numbers may disallow divine inspiration as an
explanatory mechanism available for a good historian but he does not
*deny* the possibility. He's particularly explicit about that.
In absolutely *no* case has he branded "all prophets false". Ronald
makes a statement of the following form: "*IF* we presume that Ellen
White was not divinely inspired, *THEN* it may follow from the
available records that ..."
>Any such "historian" is NOT the means God has chosen to divine truth and
>falsehood.
Numbers has *never* suggested otherwise and I would be skeptical of any
historian that did.
I notice that the term "historian" keeps appearing in quotes so as to
suggest that Numbers is not a bona fide historian. I think this is
a queer and ironic distinction to make. Historians are "common Joes"
simply trying to fathom what happened in the past in the absence of access
to divine inspiration. They don't claim to know the precise, true path of
past events but deal instead in possibilities, subject to further revision
as other data becomes available. For example, historical research initially
suggested that some venereal disease spread from the New world to
Europe. Recent evidence suggests that the VD had always existed in
both areas. That's historical research. In contrast, someone that receives
divine inspiration about past events is more properly called a prophet,
oracle or seer. Those that use allegedly inspired testimony to understand
past events should probably be called acolytes, or perhaps, believers.
They may "know" the "true history" of an event, but ironically that does
not make them historians. If anyone should be labelled as a
quote-historian-unquote, it is person who relies on supernatural
intervention.
TI>All Ron does is show some similarities between some things that Ellen
TI>has written and what others have written.
TI> Yes, Ronald is acting exactly like a historian.
>Yes, as any typical, evolutionary, atheistic, revisionist "historian."
Which turns out to be the same way most of us pump gasoline as well:
a-theistically.
And, as Joel Cannon referenced in a URL, Numbers writes as any typical,
professional, theistic historian.
(http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/005/1.42.html)
There are also any number of Christian YECs that would write the same
book about Ellen as Numbers did. Not YECs all are members of the SDA.
>>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.
TI>Well, given that pseudo religious experiences abound for which we know
TI>have many organic causes and that bona fide experiences are smaller in
TI>number and difficult to document, delusion (temporary or chronic) is a
TI>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.
I suggest that the Bible is sufficiently sketchy about the
criteria to make evaluations of alleged events of divine
inspiration difficult. Clearly the existence of multiple schisms
within the tree of Christianity (Roman Catholic, Greek
Orthodox, Protestant, Mormon, SDA & etc.) supports that opinion.
And I repeat: Please be careful. Numbers may disallow divine
inspiration as an explanatory mechanism available for a good
historian but he does not *deny* the possibility of such
inspiration. Historical research, like science, cannot claim to
find "Truth" (note the capital-T). Historians do what they
can with the verifiable tools they have available.
But, if you have any reliable, objective and generally
accepted tests for supernatural intervention you'd care to
suggest, perhaps I can help set them up.
Here's one test for theistic history. I've written "Numbers was
wrong to ignore divine intervention in his book about Ellen White"
on a piece of paper and left it in the middle of my floor. I'll
place a pen in my kitchen. Now tomorrow, if I wake up an see that
pen driven through the note and imbedded in the oak floor below,
I'll concede that supernatural mechanisms are resolvable and
objectively verifiable explanations that should be included in
historical studies.
TI>In any case, we do know that individuals are shaped by the cultures
TI>to which they are exposed. And considering the interplay of ideas
TI>and the genesis of ideas in response to such interactions is
TI>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 think there is great dispute among theists about what constitutes the
other parts of the "equation". Those disputed, auxiliary details make
all the difference. Would you expect a different book from Numbers if
he'd been a devout Muslim or Taoist? A Quaker?
TI>I don't think having an "impact on Creationism" was the intention.
TI>His interest and his work as a historian was not to prove or disprove
TI>creationism. Instead, Ronald's work have been to illustrate the
TI>various patterns and describe the various movements within
TI>creationism.
>His book is filled from cover to cover jabs and innuendoes against
>Creationism and Creationists.
Perhaps it is an actual impossibility to discuss some claims of some
of the YECs mentioned in the book and place them in the context of
the general culture & science without some of the ideas looking
somewhat "naive" or ill-informed. Certainly some of the ideas and
beliefs some held were. Thus what may appear as a "jab" to someone may
simply be considered a simple statement of fact to another. But YMMV
(Your Mileage May Vary).
TI>Again, Ronald's works as a historian have nothing to say about
TI>whether creationism is correct or even which versions of
TI>creationism are preferred.
>The tone of the book is such that Creationism and Creationists are
>illogical buffoons
Oddly, I thought the book was exceptionally sympathetic. What a contrast
of opinions!
TI>Numbers says *nothing* about whether the Bible is the inspired word
TI>of God. As a historian he is analyzing the impact and repercussions
TI>of such belief, and tracing how various groups have interpreted and
TI>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.
That's an odd, "slippery-slope" kind of argument, IMO. Surely there are
any number of Christians that don't think Ellen White received divine
inspiration but believe that John et al. did. In Islam, it is
specifically stated that Mohammed was the last prophet. This would
leave Ellen "out of the loop" for Muslims although they too accept
explanations of divine inspiration in other cases. So clearly, one
can accept divine inspiration in some instances while denying it in
others (even categorically denying specific cases).
Further, like the case of "theistic science", few if any people know how
to objectively study or evaluate historical events within the context of
divine intervention. Even YECs make attempts to frame some miraculous,
Biblical events within the context of basic, non-theistic physics (eg.
The "Hydroplate theory" of Walt Brown or feasibility studies about
Noah's ark by others).
>He calls himself an agnostic. In reality he is one of Christianity's
>greatest enemies.
Since when does the honest pursuit of possible, alternate explanations
for alleged cases of divine inspiration make one the greatest enemy
of Christianity? To me, that's like claiming the Enlightenment was
actually the start of the Dark Ages.
- Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 13 2001 - 23:00:51 EDT