It seems to me that all great scientist of the past, those whose discoveries
once known to us seemed obvious, wrote results that transcended the ordinary
opinion of the writer's day. Witness Newton, Einstein, da Vinci, etc.
Christ spoke of the resurrection. Of course, He showed them by His very own
act of resurrection. How could He have explained that in terms of the
natural knowledge of the day? Why is it that people do not believe in the
resurrection of Christ today? Do you think if Christ had explained it
"scientifically" we would believe in His resurrection?
From: PHSEELY@aol.com <PHSEELY@aol.com>
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com
Date: Monday, February 15, 1999 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: Grapenuts, anyone?
>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
> 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
>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
>but are revealed in terms of the natural knowledge of the day.