So, if the Bible is historically accurate the accuracy is irrelevant, but if the Bible is historically inaccurate the inaccuracy is relevant. Thus, under these views the archaeological record is not important as long as it supports the Bible, but when the archaeological record seems contrary to the Bible, atheists and Bible doubters want to jump all over the archaeological record as critical to the Biblical claims.
No offense, but you cannot have it both ways.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Why Do I Doubt Detractors of Biblical Archaeology?
I just wrote an essay on the evidence for Solomon, this was a good article on archaeology and the bible: CADRE Comments: Why Do I Doubt Detractors of Biblical Archaeology?:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment