RE: Historical honesty if not accuracy

Following up on Charles Austerberry's post of June 8:
"Glenn has asked list participants to explain why Christians can trust
the theology of the Bible more than (for example) the theology of the
Book of Mormon. Wouldn't part of our answer be that the Bible is more
historically and scientifically accurate than is the Book of Mormon?
And if that were not part of our answer, on what basis could one
consider the Bible to be theologically superior to other writings deemed
sacred within other religious traditions?" <snip>

The topic of the historical accuracy of the Bible has been covered a number of times in books. One of the better ones is Norman Geisler & Frank Turek's "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist." While the chapters on creation and evolution may be a bit superficial, it seems to me that the chapters on the New Testament, Jesus, and the Resurrection are quite good. They help to give me "reason for the hope that is within me" and give a reason to believe that Christianity has a stronger foundation than Mormonism, the Great Green Slug or any other worldview.

That still leaves the problem of how literally to take Genesis 1-11, but that's why we have the ASA email list. I'm learning a lot from the various threads and appreciate the efforts of all the contributors.

Paul Bruggink
Clarington, PA
Received on Sat Jun 10 21:26:29 2006