From the birth of modern science at the end of the sixteenth century, Galileo famously believed that God had written two books — the scriptures and the Book of Nature. The scriptures, he contended, should be interpreted by scholars and theologians, whereas the Book of Nature was the province of scientists: Continue reading
We’re approaching Christmas and the end of 2014. It seems appropriate, therefore, to thank all those whose generous donations of time, energy, and money have made the accomplishments of The Interpreter Foundation possible. We’re deeply and humbly grateful. We know that you owe us and the Foundation nothing whatever, and we’re genuinely moved by the support that our work has received.
I also wish to report on the current status of The Interpreter Foundation, and, candidly, to encourage further support, in whatever form, from those able to give it. Some of you, I expect, will be thinking about year-end charitable deductions this month. There are many extremely worthy causes for you to support; we hope that you’ll keep Interpreter in mind. Continue reading
Abstract: Both reason and experience are essential to religious life, which should be neither completely irrational nor entirely cerebral. But surely, of the two, the experience of direct and convincing revelation would and should trump academic debate, and most obviously so for its recipient. The Interpreter Foundation was established in the conviction that reasoned discussion and analysis necessarily have a place in faithful discipleship, but also in the confidence that divine revelation has genuinely occurred. The role of reason, accordingly, is a helpful one. It serves an important ancillary function. However, it does not supplant experience with God and the divine and must never imagine that it can. Academic scholarship can refine and clarify ideas, correct assumptions, defend truth claims, generate insights, and deepen understanding, but, while human inquiry sometimes creates openings for revelation, it will never replace direct divine communication. Interpreter knows its place. Continue reading
I’m delighted to hear that Royal Skousen’s superb and helpful Yale University Press edition of The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text has just gone into its third printing.
The folks at Yale didn’t really expect it to make a second printing, so this represents considerable success.
And, just in case you missed the announcement, the massive books outlining his arguments for his various text-critical decisions are now up and freely accessible on the website of The Interpreter Foundation:
I’ve recently picked Stephen T. Davis’s Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection up again.1 It’s an impressive book that had a pivotal effect on my thinking when it first appeared. Davis, the Russell K. Pitzer Professor of Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College in California, argues that “Christians are within their intellectual rights in believing that Jesus was raised from the dead.”2 “The thesis of the book,” he explains, “is that the two central Christian resurrection claims — namely, that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead and that we will all be raised from the dead — are defensible claims.”3 Continue reading