I am both sorry that I have not found this blog earlier, and pleased that I have found it when I have evidence that part of the presented history of the Bible is not historically accurate. I have often seen cited that Luke’s geographic accuracy is proof of his historical accuracy. I know see evidence that Luke’s geographical accuracy is cover for historical inaccuracy, at least in Acts. In fact the evidence seems to suggest that Theophilus might have been Vespasian, and Luke-Acts written to distance Christianity from Judaism at a time when Judaism was in clear disfavor in the Roman Empire.

You guys are awesome!

Charles and Dan, I agree entirely. I think the same problems arise with science AND history in this regard. One thing I added in the comments to that article can be easily adjusted to be relevant to this thread as well.

If we see an apparent contradiction between Scripture and history or science, then we can be sure there is EITHER a misinterpretation of science or history, OR there is a misrepresentation of Scripture, or both.

I think the problem has been that too many Christians have assumed that the misinterpretation MUST be on the part of science or history, and have failed to really consider that the fault may lie with their interpretation of Scripture.

We have fallible humans interpreting history and science, and we have fallible humans interpreting Scripture. I think God has given us both His book of Nature and His book of Scripture, and it is our job to consider all of this evidence together, and then only hold to our conclusions on these non-essential areas as tightly as the evidence allows.

My motto in all of these areas is “remember geocentrism”!

Dan, I remember those circles and I think it is really a great way to organize our thinking and prioritize our “battles”.

Vance,

That is a fabulous piece.

I don’t want to sidetrack the thread. My intent was to put “historical truth” in proper perspective. We should approach the scriptures without fear of what history (or science for that matter) will tell us. God never promised “proof” – rather He asked for faith.

Personally I have visceral objection to the arguments like, “if x is not literally true then we should all go home because God is a liar…” And you are right in seeing this type of stance as a severe stumbling block.

Well said, Vance! As for how long it took God to create the earth, I think the real question is what genre is Genesis 1? Is it meant to be taken literally? If so, how could there by a 24-hour day before the sun was created? I’m not going to argue for or against a young earth view; frankly, I don’t know what I believe about it, and it’s not central to my convictions. But I do think that once we elevate our interpretation to the level of certainty that belongs only to the text, we can get ourselves into a mess of trouble. And there are simply too many really decent Hebrew exegetes who would claim that Gen 1 is not meant to be taken literally, and that the text fits a theological apologetic genre that really gets at why the Jewish nation was supposed to rest on the Sabbath (after all, if God did, they don’t have a right not to!).

In my doctrinal taxonomy, there are four expanding concentric circles: the inner circle contains those beliefs that I consider vital to salvation; the next circle involves those beliefs that I think are important for spiritual growth; the next circle incorporates beliefs that are necessary for the practice of the local body of Christ; the outer circle are those things that we can speculate on and do not affect any of the inner circles. I place the method and time of creation in that outer circle. It’s one of those things that I would say is interesting but should never cause division for believers. Obviously, if God created the universe in six literal days, and this could be proven, there would be an end to atheism! But if God took millions of years to create all things, and chose as part of his means to accomplish it macro-evolution, this does not mean that atheism is correct. It just means that both views can be compatible with each other—except, of course, for the source of life in the universe as well as the source of ‘stuff’ in the universe.

Charles, on that issue, and in an effort to avoid this thread from getting side-tracked in that direction, here is an article I wrote earlier today over at Euangelion you might be interested in:

http://euangelion.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/creationism-v-evolution-the-danger-of-misplaced-dogmatism/

Interesting…

I think we can assume that the Bible is true.

But “true” does not necessarily mean conformed to what we want the truth to be. To believe that the Bible is true means being willing to admit that all of our theological sacred cows may not be right! It means being at peace with the idea of trusting God without “proof”.

I believe that Genesis is true. I also realize that most scientific evidence gathered thus far suggests that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Believing the “truth” of Genesis does not entail embracing any young-earth argument (no matter how far fetched) as long as it supports a literally true 6 day account. In believing that the account is “true” I am willing to accept something other than that which I was taught if it seems to make sense. And I am comfortable that God has the wisdom to have given us what He has given us in terms of His word.

For several years, I was very studious about the bible, but was not instructed on reading the bible in a clultural, historical, grammitacal context. And I was impacted by teaching that said, if you question then you don’t have faith. Needless to say that I believed all kinds of crazy stuff and, to be sure, my spritual growth was impacted.

About 1 1/2 years ago, I was challenged by a new acquiantance (now a good friend) on how I understood the bible. And so began a process that has underscored the importance of proper hermeneutics, historical and cultural significance and being like the Bereans, examining the scriptures to see if these things are so.

It’s quite libertating! And I agree with you Dan, it does our God a disservice, when He saw fit to reveal himself to us through 40 authors and 66 books that are so exquistedly orchestrated, that we would just settle for a superficial treatment and call it belief.

Kevin: I agree with Dr. Wallace – there should be no dichotomy between outreach and a quest for truth. After all, Jesus is the truth. In our evangelistic efforts we are merely pointing unbelievers to the One who is Truth.

Stephen Stallard

Kevin, I think this is a responsibility of all Christians to some degree. For most, it’s not practical to do independent research, but they can learn to trust those in the church who have a proven pedigree of honest scholarship. But as for reaching the lost, I’m not sure that there is any dichotomy between pursuing truth and reaching the lost. Why should there be?