I don't know how to answer your question to Puritan Sailor, but I have an observation that may be of some help.

Why do liberals accept as historical evidence other writers of history? There are more copies of the OT than any of their other sources. It's authenticity and accuracy is supported more than any other historical writing of the time. In fact, there is not one thing in the OT that can be proven to be erroneous. Based on this alone there is no reason to believe a contradicting source above what the Bible says.

Another question for the liberals is, if you can't rely on this one book to be accurate, then what can we rely on? I know that they'll claim that it's sufficient for faith and practice, but has inaccuacies historically. However, the faith and practice that is so clear in the Scriptures is so because of the historical accuracy of what God has done historically.

Don't know if you can use that. Just a thought.

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Slave of Christ, husband, father, Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI. and TMS graduate. Personal website - SoundLife.org

I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine. ~ CHS