@fredsbend I'd read it.

@BruceAlderman But would you click the ads?

@BruceAlderman "If the Bible is not a math book, it is also not a history or science book." It's not a maths book or a science book. But it's ludicrous to say it isn't a history book. Sure there's debate over the beginning of Genesis, but there's no argument that the books of Kings, for example, are definitely of the history genre

"And if that's the case, then perhaps the same is true about other fields of study that are not central to the Bible's message." And actually, history is central to the Bible's message. God made promises and covenants with his people. A promise needs to actually be spoken at a point of time to be a promise. The idea of a promise isn't a promise. And if the life, death and resurrection of Jesus wasn't historical then there is no gospel.

You end by saying they should take Genesis 1 in the same way. I think the burden of proof is on you to show that they don't.

@curiousdannii There's a difference between saying that the Bible contains historical information, and saying that history is central to the Bible's message. The Bible is a book about a God who works in history, certainly, but in the end it is a book about God, not about history. To put it another way, the purpose of the Bible is not to tell us about things that happened in the past--its purpose is to connect us to that same God in the present.

Or to put it yet another way, "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." There's nothing in that passage about knowledge of history.

And here's how we can tell the genre of Kings is theology, not history: Everything in the book relates to what each king did that pleased or displeased God.

Every king's reign ends with a statement like this one: "Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred and how he reigned, are written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel," or this one: " Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah?"

The two books referred to--the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel and the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah--are ancient Israel's history books (long since lost). The books that made it into the Bible are theology. There is certainly some overlap when we're talking about a God who acts in history, but it should be clear to even the most casual Bible reader that history takes a back seat to theology.

@BruceAlderman History may be second, but it's still history. Yes it's biased. Yes it's based on excerpts or selective events. But all history books tell a particular story.