> The basic problem to which Howard's post calls our attention is not the _truth_
> of Scripture but the character or genre of biblical accounts. As long as Christians
> keep thinking that the Bible can be true only if it is accurate historical narrative,
> the church will be bogged down in fruitless concordism. (& to forestall a common
> objection, I'm not saying that biblical accounts are _in_accurate history. Some of them
> are not to be read as history in the modern sense at all.
And I think the basic problem is who decides what the "character or genre of biblical
accounts" is? Who decides which biblical interpretation is the correct one? What authority
can we appeal to for the correct answer? We Christians have been having heated arguments
(wars?) over just this point for almost 2000 years. Howard implies that we can settle
questions by the community entering into sincere give and take discussions a la scientific
discussions. But one man's historical narrative is another man's allegory. ( Were the
characters in Luke 16:19-31 real people?) I suspect we will never come to agreement on
biblical authority this side of heaven. How do we get out of this cul de sac?