Color me confused. Archaeologists discover evidence of an event that is not recorded in the Bible (did I miss an allusion to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD somewhere in the New Testament?) and somehow that provides external evidence to the internal claim of the authority of the Bible?
I suppose that I can agree with Pastor Tom that seeking external proof of the truth of the Bible is a fruitless endeavor. Except that the reason I would agree is that the "facts" of the stories in scripture do not lie in the historical accuracy of the events, but in the truths of the meanings.
This is one of those foundational, enormous issues that define differences among Christians, so I will resist going into it more here. The centrality of this issue for Tom likely explains why he so quickly made the connection between the "apples" of this discovery and "oranges" of his doctrine.
Blog you later,
Pastor Ian
Monday, September 10, 2007
APPLES OR ORANGES?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Not sure how his original post was relevant to the point he was making. BTW, I love the Word of God as well, but differ on the proof-texting for its reliablity. What he is saying is that if all the details he hold to aren't believed in lockstep, then you might as well not believe at all. That's an interesting way to evangelize.
waiting for your well thought out response to the next post which seemingly lumps pedophilia with homosexuality and doesnt seem to draw any distinctions.
Me too, as the point is well made.
Post a Comment