Answer this and maybe I can
better understand where you are coming from.
Look, I think we are having a semantics problem here more than anything. In its context, I stand by what I said. Now, if the context had been a question to this effect: which is more important - the Word or history, I would have chosen different words. When one discusses a religious matter with a Catholic, if that Catholic is knowledgeable, he might refer to a historical occasion as if that settled the question of faith (whatever it might be ) under discussion. In that context, I do not care about history. I have never read Aquinas or Luther and walked away saying to myself, I now understand what God was trying to say in the Good Book.
Personally, and bear with me, when I have a problem, I exegete. Anyone can do it.
It takes some doing, but anyone can learn to truly exegete (with the greek and all that) any passage of scripture and draw a reasonable conclusion There are several keys to an accurate exegete -- one is a contextual review of the passage in question and , two, a historical understanding of the times, geography, authors, primary audience and so on. In that since, truth cannot be arrived at apart from history.
Does any of this help?
John
