(January 11, 2016 at 5:37 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:(January 11, 2016 at 4:21 pm)athrock Wrote: I won't waste my time trying to illustrate the truth of what I said since it's clear that you can't or won't accept any examples. But let me say this: The Old and New Testaments of the Bible may have all sorts of problems that need to be sorted out if one is to be a believer, but archaeology isn't among them. If anything, the evidence in the ground suggests that the Bible is surprisingly reliable with regard to these things.
Whether that accuracy supports its supernatural claims is another matter, of course.
I never claimed that the Bible does not contain some archaeological (and historical) accuracies.
The problem is, it contains so many inaccuracies.
And wouldn't you say that texts, supposedly inspired by the all powerful creator of the universe, shouldn't contain any? And wouldn't you say that the fact that it does contain inaccuracies, call into question the credibility of the texts?
The number, importance and relevance of these alleged inaccuracies is the crux of the matter, isn't it?
Whole books have been written by both sides, so each camp has its ammunition at the ready.
However, does "inspiration" automatically require "inerrancy"? For example, if the ancient writers had no knowledge of medicine, geography and what-not, would God necessarily have forced the authors to write accurately about things that they could not possibly know?
No, that's not what it means for the Bible to be an "inspired" text, and the writers were not merely taking dictation.
