Inconvenient Evidence

The quote comes from a comment Tyler left on Tony Breeden’s blog, which I thought made an important point very clearly and succinctly.

"Emma Higgs: "These events, whether we believe them to have been divinely initiated or imagined ..."

Describing the Indescribable
"I have finally managed to get hold of Gullotta's article. It's a good read, and ..."

What Happens When You Review Richard ..."
"Obviously The Gospel of Thomas is a prime example of Jesus’ teaching using one-liners. So, ..."

New Age Translation of the Lord’s ..."
"From the Magarik piece:It is easy to recognize the foolish evil of the Green Bible ..."

Bible Nation around the Blogosphere

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Censored

    Trump ‘Verse!

  • Tony Breeden

    Odd that you omitted my answer, which reveals why his quote is nonsense:

    “Nothing is plain in the record, credulous serpent. What we have is evidence – and evidence is never self-explanatory. It has to be interpreted. You can interpret that evidence on the authority of men committed to pure naturalism, on the authority of God’s revealed Word, or on your own authority as you do, picking and choosing when you believe the Bible is true and when it must be wrong because the naturalists object to the supernatural revelation of God.”
    Keep thinking,
    Tony Breeden

    • $41348855

      You mean on the authority of those who interpret the evidence as God’s revealed word.

      • James F. McGrath

        On the authority of those who interpret their interpretation of the words of ancient human beings as “God’s revealed Word.”