RE: Rational defense of Christianity?
January 4, 2015 at 5:07 pm
(This post was last modified: January 4, 2015 at 5:08 pm by fr0d0.)
(January 2, 2015 at 11:04 am)watchamadoodle Wrote: To clarify, the factual errors that bother me relate to the historical narratives - not science. The nativity stories in the gospels are a good example (since we just finished Christmas). I'm sure somebody could list hundreds of these types of factual errors. In other words, the factual errors problem is bigger than Noah's ark and affects the NT as well as the OT.
Also, your point about science always changing leads me to ask why Christianity and the Bible shouldn't be always changing too. Biblical inerrancy works against this.
I'm waiting for a book to come out on the flood story to put that one to bed. I'm sure it will. Primarily I look at the whole thing in relation to it's subject matter. If the Bible claimed to be foremost a perfect historical account then it'd be an open and shut case. And I know there are those who will claim absolute historical accuracy. I think the argument is locked with those two factions. Sensible understanding lies elsewhere.
Why I accept inerrancy with the condition that it could possibly change is for that very reason. Religious expression keeps digging away for better answers... It just hasn't found any for 2000 years. Or perhaps it has and I'm unaware of it. We seem to be reinventing the wheel, or rediscovering it. Atheism is another struggle to understand purpose from that same mold (UK meaning :p).
