It’s interesting how this reporter frames a debate that occurred last night between an atheist and a Christian at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. The headline: “Atheist, Christian debate historical accuracy of the Bible.” The reporter’s lede summarizes the event in the same way. But the article makes it clear that the atheist is the one who spent his minutes focusing on errors and contradictions in the Bible, while the Christian talked about literary genres and interpretation. 

I’m doubting the Christian in this debate–a professor of ancient languages at Wisconsin-La Crosse–holds a highly literalist view of the Bible. He seems to have agreed that historical accounts in the Bible can be contradictory or misleading if read as documentary history. I’d wager he thinks the question of the Bible’s historical accuracy is complex and, for many parts of the Bible, beside the point. 

This is not an uncommon view. Wouldn’t it do a lot for debates like this one if we could move beyond quagmires about the Bible’s sufficiency as a history or science book?