Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jow@pacbell.com (Jeff Westman) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Wanted: Non-Fundamentalist Christian sect Message-ID: Date: 5 Aug 90 23:43:53 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA Lines: 41 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article irilyth@cs.swarthmore.edu (Josh Smith) writes: > > I've been looking at Christianity for a while now, and have begun to see >some of its appeal; however, I simply cannot accept the idea that the Bible is >100% true as an a priori assertion (i.e. the Bible is accurate simply based on >the fact that it is the Bible, not based on any analysis of what it actually >says). Josh, If someone told me the same thing, that the Bible is acuurate simply because it is the Bible, I would respond, "so what?". However, there is a book that I would challenge you to read. It's called 'Evidence That Demands a Verdict', written by Josh McDowell, a former critique of Christianity. In it, he argues from a historical context as well as from a cronological point-of-view for Christianity. I've read it, and it simply "re-inforces" my belief in a living God and His true word. As far as the 'inerrancy' part goes, all I can say is that science is getting closer-and-closer to agreeing with the Bible in a historical context. Archae- ological finds in the past 35 or 40 years have discovered different finds that are mentioned in the Bible, and even "lost cities" once thought to be fables that are also mentioned in the Bible. Again, these are found in McDowell's book. Paul, the apostle, in one of his letters said to be ready to give an answer (of your faith) to all who ask. I believe __not __ because it's the Bible ("priori assertion"), but because it has proven itself to be undenably the Word of God. -- Jeff [It's certainly reasonable to suggest that people look at Josh McDowell. It's a well-known and apparently attractive presentation of the conservative position. However those who find the inerrant position unacceptable -- and Josh Smith certainly seems to be leaning in that direction -- should know that there are other alternatives. A good treatment of the issues from a moderate liberal perspective is James Barr, "Holy Scripture: canon, authority, criticism", Westminster Press, 1983. It is possible to believe that the Bible is generally reliable without believing that it is supernaturally inerrant. --clh]