Re: Grapenuts, anyone?

PHSEELY@aol.com
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:06:26 EST

Moorad wrote to Howard,

<< You make the basic assumption that in the past there was no privileged
knowledge. That is, the existing knowledge of a given writer must invariably
indicate the level of knowledge of his culture. What are we to make of the
term reveled truths? Is it meaningless? Can it be that someone right now
knows something that surpasses all the knowledge that we have in our
scientific texts? >>

My studies of Scripture have uncovered a number of places where the history
and science mentioned in Scripture reflects the ordinary opinion of the
writer's day. On the other hand, I have never seen a reference to history or
science which transcends the ordinary opinion of the writer's day. On this
empirical ground as well as the way I understand that God has delegated the
discovery of natural knowledge to mankind (Gen 1:28; 2:19, 20), it is my
conclusion that natural truths are not revealed by God. Hence I see a sound
basis for Howard's assumption that in the past there was no privileged
knowledge, i.e., natural knowledge.

Theological truths, on the other hand, are the proper subjects of revelation,
but are revealed in terms of the natural knowledge of the day.

Paul Seely