Biblical accuracy watch

So they (accidentally) unearthed the Pool of Siloam. Drudge announced this today but the story link to The Jerusalem Post story is over a year old.

What interests me is the logic of skepticism when it comes to biblical artifacts and locations. The standard liberal theological approach is to assume that the things recorded in the Bible are purely metaphorical, or "theological conceits" that serve to "teach religious ideas." You read a lot of this gunk when it comes to John's Gospel, the innerleckshul term for which is "the Fourth Gospel" since, as far as we know, Henny Youngman might have written it.

But then when the item is actually found to exist exactly as the Bible puts it, the skeptics want to move on: "Yeah, but these other things just can't be historically accurate." Also doing business as an anti-supernatural bias.

I think its because people today mistake the literal sense of Scripture with fundamentalism -- theology's F word.

Next thing you know, someone's going to unearth Adam's navel lint. Then they'll have to consult this to see whether the find is bogus.