Originally posted by Proper Knob
This little snippet was posted by the illustrious Mr Carrobie in another thread,
the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.
If this is true, could our fun loving Christians, who are fond of the literal interpretation of the Bible, present me (and the forum obviou y 6,000yrs or so.
Please, none of this the Bible is true because the Bible says so nonsense.
you see dear Noobster in the case of Adam and eve, out with the sacred text one has recourse to what? The data cannot be independently corroborated. We can of course put forth the case that the interpretation of data can be used to corroborate the case by attacking evolution, by calling onto question carbon dating methods and their reliability, by the lack of fossil evidence, the lack of intermediary creatures, that mutations don't produce new species etc etc but that ends up the usual evolution v creation which quite frankly is tiresome. Again we could try to use the data in a positive way, stating that DNA mapping leads us to believe that there was indeed a primordial eve but that hardly satisfies the creation account and simply seeks to rationalise it, or we could go even further and state that its purely allegorical and it has certain archetypes and symbols and is not altogether without beauty.
To deny us the use of our sacred text though is to fight an unarmed man for clearly the basis for our belief has its roots in the validity of the text, now if we can establish that its trustworthy, by looking at prophecy and its fulfilment, by looking at epochs of history, of dates and rulers, of cultural aspects brought to the surface and corroborated by archaeology, then we can attempt that, but to fight an unarmed man is piracy of the high seas, for we are being held to ransom without our sacred text!
Perhaps i did not make myself clear originally, we hold that scripture is inspired, science, archaeology whatever, simply may lend corroborative details, they are not in themselves though absolutely necessary to establish the trustworthiness of scripture. To state that there is no need for scripture is a gross misrepresentation and I may add a liberty that has been taken without consent!