Comments on: Paul’s Philosophy of History, Part Two http://religioninamerica.org/2009/07/19/pauls-philosophy-of-history-part-two/ A collaborative exploration of the history of religion in America Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:03:47 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Paul http://religioninamerica.org/2009/07/19/pauls-philosophy-of-history-part-two/#comment-41 Paul Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:16:09 +0000 http://religioninamerica.org/?p=132#comment-41 Apologies...for some unknown reason our program decided to delete comments. If yours was deleted it certainly had nothing to do with you. Apologies…for some unknown reason our program decided to delete comments. If yours was deleted it certainly had nothing to do with you.

]]> By: Paul http://religioninamerica.org/2009/07/19/pauls-philosophy-of-history-part-two/#comment-38 Paul Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:05:12 +0000 http://religioninamerica.org/?p=132#comment-38 Although the history presented by the Bible is accurate, it's not complete. Many historical events and contrasting perspectives are left out of the Biblical account. There is nothing wrong with this, but it's a reminder that God recorded the Biblical narrative of history for a didactic purpose. He shaped the historical account to remind humankind of their sinfulness and need of a Redeemer. The problem with comparing Biblical history to contemporary history is that we often end up conflating divine revelation with human speculation. I also am wary of church historians who do the inverse, use modern history (or post-Biblical history) to shape how they interpret the Scriptures. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-07-01-patriots-bible_N.htm" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> a pretty egregious example that Jess sent to me today at work. Although the history presented by the Bible is accurate, it’s not complete. Many historical events and contrasting perspectives are left out of the Biblical account. There is nothing wrong with this, but it’s a reminder that God recorded the Biblical narrative of history for a didactic purpose. He shaped the historical account to remind humankind of their sinfulness and need of a Redeemer.

The problem with comparing Biblical history to contemporary history is that we often end up conflating divine revelation with human speculation. I also am wary of church historians who do the inverse, use modern history (or post-Biblical history) to shape how they interpret the Scriptures. Here’s a pretty egregious example that Jess sent to me today at work.

]]> By: Dr. M http://religioninamerica.org/2009/07/19/pauls-philosophy-of-history-part-two/#comment-37 Dr. M Fri, 24 Jul 2009 03:11:41 +0000 http://religioninamerica.org/?p=132#comment-37 Paul, why not try to apply your philosophy of history to the historical books in the Bible in order to validate it? From the Exodus to the fall of Jerusalem there is a grand sweep of a 1000 years and an infallible record of the those years that can't be matched by any secular history. Plus, in some cases you get to see some of the behind the scenes actions taken by God as He intervenes in human history. It could be that the build up to the fall of Jerusalem mirrors the trajectory of our own day as we draw closer to the apocalypse. Just a thought. Dad Paul, why not try to apply your philosophy of history to the historical books in the Bible in order to validate it? From the Exodus to the fall of Jerusalem there is a grand sweep of a 1000 years and an infallible record of the those years that can’t be matched by any secular history. Plus, in some cases you get to see some of the behind the scenes actions taken by God as He intervenes in human history. It could be that the build up to the fall of Jerusalem mirrors the trajectory of our own day as we draw closer to the apocalypse.

Just a thought.

Dad

]]>