Of course, one can’t be surprised that Christopher Hitchens made a handsome living refuting attempts to prove divine revelation. All the attempts are sterile unless there is agreement on what would be considered valid proof. And, the initial burden of defining “proof” would properly lie with the one who demands such proof. Otherwise, as Hitchens well knew, we find ourselves in an interminable struggle against arbitrary and fluctuating standards, and the belief, and WWII should be enough proof to reject this, that inner core of human goodness would prevail despite the vagaries of moral relativity.
—Moses returns to the mountain where God reveals His glory and gives the Ten Commandments to Moses, who writes them on stone tablets. God again repeats His promise to take Israel to the Promised Land. He also repeats the command of no compromise. The people cannot mix with other nations because they will lead them astray. After this last encounter with God, Moses face is “radiant” and the people are afraid. He begins to wear a veil except when he is with God. —Read More:http://www.daily-manna.com/read-bible-in-a-year/day-31-aaron-and-the-golden-calf
Since there is an intrinsic inadequacy in any proposed proof, the concept of revelation is easy not to accept. But, the fact, that there are those questing to articulate what would be a valid proof, shows some degree of being open to persuasion, and a standby situation, a pause in not rejecting the authenticity of Biblical texts out of hand.
Quite chillingly, Moses did not glorify the children of Israel and their leaders. Instead, he chastised his people, not only for past sins, but those to be committed in the future. He foretold of the destruction of Israel, the dispersion, and the sufferings in exile. It was only the five books of Moses that gave a preview of Israel’s future humiliation. The question arises as to whether this could have been the work of a mere mortal, even one of Moses’s stature? How is one to explain that this has been proven true beyond question: the prediction that despite sufferings, Israel will survive. It can be seen as a proof , a preview of future history that no human being could have written.
—Artist: Champaigne Philippe de
Location: Hermitage Museum
Medium: Oil Painting on Canvas—click image for source…
Ultimately, the persuasive factor may be the unbroken survival of the tradition, and the circumstance that all Israel, not just Moses alone, experienced the revelation on the mountain in the wilderness. So, the mind has to arrive at an impasse regarding Divine Revelation. It cannot deal with the subject, but it is likely no reason to dismiss the matter out of hand as being anti-rational, anti-logic, anti-reasonable, anti doing violence to proof. Whether reason can accept the idea of Divine Revelation, is to the believer, no obstacle to its acceptance,faith enabling to cross the frontier where the believer knows they cannot really understand the infinite, something beyond time ans space set boundaries, where past, present and future don’t really exist. The argument here is that only an irrational conceit will refuse to admit the possible existence of anything beyond human capacities and experience.
COMMENTS