I am interested in your commentary on the historical accuracy of the Bible. One point of note, you quote Lee Stroble (The Case for Christ) who was an atheist when wife became a born again Christian. In his own effort to disprove the historical accuracy of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, determined there was too much evidence in favor of the events being historically accurate than there were against. Even among atheist historians, the life and death of Jesus are not disputed, but only his resurrection which leaves the question, "Why would thousands of individuals risk their lives to follow the teachings of man, the crux of which rely on his resurrection, if he did not in fact rise from the dead?" Consider Paul, for example, who was a devout Jew and well respected Roman citizen. He tarnished his reputation to follow The Way. Why?

I am interested to see how you address these questions. For the record, I am a literalist leaning Christian, but accept more scientific explanations for many phenomenons in the universe. Evolution, for example. From my perspective, there is enough evidence in the creation story of Genesis to assume a poetic interpretation of the text, rather than a historical one. I, for one, welcome open debate over the more fluid aspects of Christian beliefs. There are a few I will not budge on. The aforementioned, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus being one, but I welcome the debate!