Common ground for Baptists?

Odale said:
My post has been corrected, and I am sorry I somewhat misconstrued your intentions. However, since some of us are looking at this from a historical view point, why does it matter where he gets his information from? History is history and it will never change, but in my opinion, getting it from a neutral source (as teachers should be a neutral source of knowledge and have no bias) is better than getting it from someone "who's knowledge is based solely on the bible" (by this I am assuming you mean a Pastor of some sort or someone who is affiliated with the church), as you put it, HCS.
Click to expand...

Everyone is biased, especially professors, I've noticed. No one should take what a professor says as "the truth", no matter what subject it is. And there are probably professors just at Harvard who would disagree with that professor mentioned. Harvard is an unabashedly liberal school, and they hire people who teach liberal ideas and theology for the most part. It's always better to do your own research on the subject.
 
If you are talking bout Dr. Avlaos ishylynn, then true, he's human, there is probably a bias. But, he's studied many world religions and for that reason and others, feels that it would be impossible to pick one as right in his mind, so he's an atheist. To me I don't seem to find a more fitting person for teaching the differences in the Old Testament as he doesn't have a biased on any of the forms. One of his first sayings in his class was, (don't quote me I don't have it word for word) taking his course will either make you want to read the Bible more or not at all. I wanted to read it more and not only it, but other books from that era and found myself wanted to know more detail on things then what the books of the Old Testament talked about.

On a side note, I've even gone to Dr. Avalos' debates before and personally, I don't like the way he debates. He attacks the person and not the issue. He takes a term and if it's not properly defined twists it to frazzle the other debater and I don't agree with that, just seems dirty.
 
Durruck said:
(snip) I'm not sure about that - every few years, another artifact that is 1500-2500 years old gets dug up, and changes what we "know" about an ancient city, group, or culture. We make a lot of assumptions based on what we've found.

The interesting thing is, there have been a lot of discoveries that confirm things in the Bible. So for those that aren't sure exactly how to look at the Bible (really history, or just a bunch of stories?) it's nice to see bits of history come forward and prove what a lot of us have read & already believed.

On a side note, my wife bought an Archaeological Study Bible. Some of the things in it are fascinating!
Click to expand...

No one even believed in the Hittites until 19th (?) century they found one of their cities, I believe. Now they're quite well-known, but for a long time they [Atheists and others] thought they disproved the historical accuracy of the Bible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top