[Superman]

Again, the debate regarding the historical accuracy of the Bible is a digression and a distraction and deflection, unless the discussion is purely historic. The trouble with the debate, usually, is that the discussion does not remain contained in the field of History. I see it happening in this thread. The Church, my Church, the Catholic Church, teaches and has long taught that this debate is inappropriate if any part of the discussion is theological. The message in the article at the start of this thread, is the same message the Church has been giving all my life. That for historical purposes, scientific doubt should be active. But for theological purposes, historical accuracy questions are moot.

Frankly, and this is going to surprise some of you coming from a known liberal, I don't doubt the historical accuracy of the Bible. Nor do I assert it. I don't know that Eve was not fashioned out of a rib. For my purposes, my Faith, I assume she was. But that's not the same as assuming she was fashioned out of a rib for historical purposes. It's a trap, and my assumptions avoid the trap. If I discover that Eve was not fashioned out of a rib (which in fact no one will ever be able to prove or disprove, but if it could be proven inaccurate...) it will not impact my Faith. This is the importance of separating these two fields of study.