Trusting the Bible – Ex-nihilo, The 10 Commandments, And The Tapestry

Greetings, my friends!

Pascal, I just read your Counting Threads post and I wanted to respond as soon as possible. I actually wanted to write something last night to smooth things over a bit after my last post and our difficult breakfast conversation, but I fell asleep. We went to the early service at your church today. I want to reassure you of our friendship despite the tough spot where we ended breakfast the other morning, and my rather direct questions in my last post. I don’t want to push you into a corner or make you feel pressure. Seriously. I know that I did that without thinking about it and I’ll probably do it again. I apologize. Your beliefs are valid for you, and I’m very glad that you care enough to express your reasons to those who disagree.

I also want to apologize for working so hard to keep my last post, Is The Bible Trustworthy?, under 3000 words that I didn’t go back and add the soft touches that I normally try to add. As I mentioned at breakfast, I usually write the facts first, and then go back and fill in my emotions about those facts. Writing is a very dangerous medium for communicating about such closely-held, heartfelt worldviews, especially for me, because I often forget to communicate my heart effectively. You can judge how quickly I rushed through a post by two things. The typos, and how soft the direct statements feel. If I made it sound like an interrogation, that means I didn’t go back through to turn my computer voice into my human voice. I think that sometimes has an impact on how my writing is perceived. I’ll work on it, and I’ll try to use more emoticons, as P3 wisely pointed out. 🙂

I’m not going to try to restrain the length of this post. Honestly, it’s not that I can’t be concise. I actually specialize in concise, simple phrases for marketing and content at work. It’s just not my goal here. This is an online record, and here’s to hoping my posterity has a super-computer to parse the relevant info directly into their brain whenever they want it. I know that you presently lack this computer, and for that, I also apologize. 🙂

Okay, so where are we? I’m sorry that I pressed you and I apologize if I said something that made you feel that your position was misrepresented in some way. That happens often in such dialogues and I want to at least try to avoid it. I can tell you make an effort to do so with me. I understand your anger over our last two communications, even if I don’t share it. I readily admit to feeling a bit challenged at breakfast – and feeling like I needed to take time to clarify my position. Your latest post seems to confirm that. So, here we go.

Are the 10 Commandments the best moral system?

I think our issues at breakfast started when you made a statement, or perhaps asked a question about the 10 commandments. I don’t want to misrepresent you, and science shows us that my memory of the conversation cannot be fully relied upon since it’s been a few days. I will refrain from saying what you said and instead state what I think I heard. I believe the gist of the challenge was that you believed the 10 commandments were the best moral guide and do I agree? Please clarify if that’s not what you meant. I responded in person with three things that make it difficult for me to accept that the 10 commandments are the best moral guide. I actually started by saying that I think there are better ones but then I backed up from that because it depends on what we mean. We started by agreeing that the first 3 (I said maybe the first 4) are not very relevant to the skeptic, but the last 6 are. Here are the three things I mentioned (as I recall them) in no particular order about the 10:

  • It’s not just 10. There are something like 613 commandments (I read that somewhere, I didn’t count them all, haha) and it is not clear to me that the other 603 were significantly less important.
  • The other 613 commandments include many things that are not moral.
  • The 10 commandments that we traditionally think of are not the only set of 10 commandments listed in the Bible.

When you pulled out the Bible and asked where this second set was and I couldn’t remember the verse, I can see why you’d question my understanding of the Bible. I said the last commandment in the section was something like, “You shall not boil a baby goat in it’s mother’s milk.” Yes, I do know about sanitary laws in the Old Testament and I understand the reasons for many of them. I’m not offended by your response that I don’t understand scripture because my comment made it sound like it wasn’t taught to me well. That’s a very fair question. You asked me several times at breakfast, “Russell, who taught you the Bible?” Your question is a good one and it deserves an answer.

Who taught me the Bible

I grew up hearing storybook lessons on cassette tape and hearing sermons and Bible lessons from my grandfather, the evangelist with a Bible degree. I also went to church with my parents until about age 7 or so. My father, the missionary and pastor with a Bible degree, taught me some as a child, then my mother. I listened to and read the Bible growing up and attending many different churches and Bible studies from ages 16-24. I took 5 Bible courses in college including focused studies from Seminary accredited teachers in Old Testament Studies and prophecies, Minor Prophet studies, New Testament, Studies on the life and teachings of Paul, and on Romans. I taught Bible studies and read popular books about the Bible. I had commentaries, learned some Hebrew, and built tools to help people memorize Bible verses. I studied the Bible daily and read it through multiple times (Old and New Testament). I referenced the Strong’s Concordance very regularly. I memorized over 300 verses and passages, some of them long. I prayed for people regularly with them, lead people to faith along the Roman road, and read apologetics books to learn to defend and share my faith in a secular world. My bible was heavily highlighted and circled.

Who taught me? Many people. My experiences ranged from the fundamentalist, Young Earth Creationists, to the liberal arm of many different denominations. My Christian route went from Pentecostal, to Baptist, to Catholic, to Non-denominational, to Church of Christ, to Episcopalian, to Methodist, back to Baptist, to Church of Christ, to Lutheran, to Presbyterian, to non-denominational again, and finally again to Baptist. Along the way I had studies of comparative religions, and delved into other non-Christian schools of thought for a time in high-school, including shintoism, taoism, buddhism (mainly Zen) and others. In my 20’s I spent a decent amount of time studying Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, traditional Judaism, Hinduism and Islam to understand where our beliefs differ so I could communicate with them.

I studied the Bible and wrote in journals and read books on journaling and how to study the Bible. I experienced many different methods (slow, deep exegesis and quick daily messages). Each led to reflection, self-evaluation, change, and magnification, and worship. I taught the Bible so I could learn it better. I led as many Church of Christ ministries as Baptist ones. When I accepted the role as president of the Baptist Student Ministry at my college I actually had my eyes set on seminary after a few years because I wanted to learn as much about God’s love letter as I could in this short life. Since my college didn’t offer any more than 5 Bible classes total, I actually dropped out of my major and left school to dedicate more time in Bible study and local mission work (planning to come back to school in a few years to aim for seminary). That’s why I graduated so much later in life. It may sound like a crazy idea to you now, but college degrees just didn’t matter much to my family at the time and the Bible and its message were of ultimate, eternal importance.

So, who taught me the Bible? Like most people, it’s many “who’s.” I learned from many people. Do I think I understand the Bible any better than you or any Bible scholar or self-taught student of the Bible? Absolutely not. Do I admit of my own blindspots? Yes! Definitely. In fact, I know I have the wrong interpretation in many areas, I just don’t know which ones they are. I know I was taught wrong and still hold a many incorrect interpretations, so I’m definitely not claiming superiority here. It’s also been over eight years since I’ve read it all the way through. I fear overcommitting to the wrong view, which is why I’m generally a skeptic and an agnostic. I know enough to know how little our best scholars know compared to the working-class people at the time that these events took place. I would never say that I understand the Bible correctly. We all seek for a coherent concept of God based on our interpretations of the verses. We wiggle things around in our minds until they fit. Even now, I feel that I’m learning. I’m just doing it in a different way than you are. A way that is comfortable and natural for me. 🙂

For years now I’ve felt I read it differently than my believing friends. It’s not that I don’t see the bigger picture, or the tapestry as you put it. It’s just that I also see problems. Contradictions or conflicts jump out at me so very easily. I’m not looking for them. I just can read far without noticing them. A friend may read the flood account and notice something new about God’s providence. I notice that some animals came 2 by 2, and others came 14 by 14, depending on whether they were clean or not. I just read things the way my mind is wired and the way I’m taught in my field. I can’t turn that off. You say the Bible understands you. I remember what that feels like. But that was before I was cursed? with reading it objectively. When I tried to make my faith stand up to reason, my personal attempt failed. Yours may fair better. The faith of many others has.

Am I just rejecting fundamentalism?

As you can read in Not an outsider, I experienced life through the filter of the Bible. My views were sometimes firm, but they were often held loosely depending on the topic and how close I felt it was to the core message of Christianity. I can understand how one would want to assume that if someone is rejecting their faith, they’re really rejecting the extreme versions of the faith that should be rejected. I do not think that is the case for me, though I do of course admit that I could be wrong. It’s really not that I’m rebelling against a 6000 Year Old Earth. That is not the whole of my cognitive dissonance. There is so much more that is claimed by the Bible that must be accepted, even in the liberal interpretations that I was familiar with. I’m not just rejecting the extreme versions of Christianity. I’m rejecting all of them that I’ve heard and can make sense of. Some of the more moderate/liberal/progressive interpretations are definitely compatible with science and help me maintain cognitive resonance, but they also leave me unable to trust the Bible enough to believe the core claims – which is why we’re in this apparent circle.

I started with belief in fundamentalism or conservatism. But as I grew and my reasoning matured, I held some of those views as less relevant to the core faith and left them as an open question. I actually haven’t read anything from N.T. Wright in Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today or in Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues that I didn’t agree with at some point in my faith journey. When even the more moderate claims seemed unlikely, I felt myself slipping down a slope that had no ledge to grasp. Now I’m at the bottom of the abyss staring up at a ledge of confidence far above and no obvious way to scale the torn web of what I used to think were valid arguments for belief. You may have given up a few paces, maybe not. It’s still unclear to me. I hope you find your footing. As much as I’d like company, I’d much prefer you safe and confident in your worldview, your answers about eternity, your support system for grief, and your reasons for denying yourself for the sake of others.

Am I just rejecting some other false doctrine?

I’d like to answer what I think is behind your question, am I rejecting the Bible as it was meant to be understood, or am I rejecting some false version that should be rejected? Might it really be that I just lack the proper understanding what the authors meant? To this I say, absolutely. That’s why I’m blogging. That’s why I’m still engaged in Christianity, still go to church, and blog things like Calling All Christians – Help An Atheist Believe. It’s why I opened my last post (Is The Bible Trustworthy?) with the idea that my goal is not challenging you, but finding a way to get to where you are. I need the understanding and the proper reasoning to get there. I hope my interpretation of the Bible is wrong and that I can find a coherent version of a God that I can believe is likely to exist. I don’t want to lead my family astray. I want to be the spiritual leader they need. With that said, the problem I mentioned in Inerrancy? is that we can’t know the author(s)’ intents. Nobody should have great confidence that they have it right in all cases, or that they ever truly properly understand the Bible. I suspect you agree. I’m just looking for a version that is coherent. If you know of one, please show it to me. I think that’s where our friendship is headed. Maybe not to finding such a version, but to exploring options to see if there is a place where we can both comfortably land.

Back to the 10 commandments

So, what about my statement about the things that didn’t sit well with me regarding the perfection of the 10 commandments, specifically the statement about there being two different places where the 10 commandments were mentioned (and they weren’t the same commandments)? Again, I completely get why this made you feel attacked in some way, and like I must not understand scripture. I was calling into question a book that you love and that hurts. I don’t want to hurt you. I do want to avoid what I did for the first several months of our friendship, which was holding in my honest thoughts to the point that you had little idea what I actually struggled with. If I can be honest, my friend, I think that the future will hold much more of this. We’ll need to decide in many situations if we place more value on honesty or peace, and I know you said you yearn for the struggle. I suspect that I will be bringing up answers to your questions about my doubts that will challenge the way you see scripture. As long as you can expect that and try to be prepared for it, I think it will help you not feel attacked personally. Remember that I validate your beliefs, I just don’t hold them myself. I want to be able to share why that is.

You’ll recall from my text I sent just after breakfast that the verses I was referring to but couldn’t remember were here in Exodus 34.

This tells that God will actually write on the stones this time. You can compare the story (the second writing of the 10 commandments on the tablets, this time being written by God rather than by Moses) to that told in Deuteronomy 10 which leaves out the actual commandments. Deuteronomy 5 is another version of Exodus 20. In the Exodus account the verses are followed with many other laws that must be obeyed. The writers in the Exodus 34 version say that God calls it a covenant in that version, which doesn’t explicitly happen right around those verses in the commonly accepted Deuteronomy 5 version or in the Exodus 20 version. Some of the same verses are included (don’t worship another God, don’t make idols, don’t work on the seventh day, etc.), but others also make it in that don’t seem all that relevant for modern morality. Edit: I edited the rest of this paragraph a bit to clear up some poor wording and clarify my interpretation. I knew the passage well enough to know that there’s significant wiggle room. It could have been (and very likely was, given what’s said about the event in Deuteronomy 10) talking about the words which were to follow (which aren’t recorded in the story), but the wording was a little confusing. That’s basically all I meant. As an example, the chapter has God introducing the words as the “covenant,” giving some commandments in verses spread about in 12-26 (some of which were in the original 10 commandments), asking Moses to write “these words,” and then affirming the covenant with “these words” – implying the words that were just spoken. There are more than 10 rules there, but they could be combined easily enough. At a surface reading, the laws given right there could easily be interpreted to be 10 commandments, though we both agree they aren’t. Taken in full context with the other tellings, it’s clear there are only one set of 10 commandments. I think I was wrong to suggest they might be. I do think that the whole thing odd, especially since only Moses and God (who describes himself in an unusual way) were present. And, if I understand your position, neither of us are convinced that Moses existed. Is Exodus 34 a point to get hung up on or a reason to doubt the Bible? Not at all. I just thought it worth bringing up when discussing the divinity of the perfect ethical system I thought you were proposing. In retrospect, it wasn’t. The goodness of any set of rules will stand or fall on its own. 🙂

So why did I mention the Exodus 34 version (I couldn’t remember the verses) at breakfast? It was all off the top of my head in response to why I doubt the divinity of the 10 commandments. I don’t spend time thinking about this stuff, but I have a sense of some things that cause me, as a skeptic, to doubt the Bible. From that point in the conversation I felt like things derailed a bit because the focus was on who taught me the Bible wrong.

The issue with the law of the covenant is a bit dubious to me. The way the story is told does not support the hypothesis that this religion in question is reporting the truth – but rather that they are trying to justify their laws using a divine authority. That’s my personal assessment and I hope it doesn’t upset you. I as myself why God would change the commandments (or make it seem as if they’d been changed) between those two passages? Do the differing versions support the hypothesis that it is divine? If we didn’t already believe in Christianity (pretend it was another religion we were being introduced to) would there be any obvious way to distinguish the 10 commandments and subsequent laws, as far as divinity is concerned, from the many other societal laws such as the Code of Hammurabi and the Egyptian 42 Commandments called the MA’AT – Right and Truth, (see my post called Who Was Right for a refresher)? In each of these other cases we would probably put the weight of evidence on the side of the laws not being divine. In other words, it would seem more likely that the rulers were either, mistaken or intentionally using divine authority to give weight to the laws. And those laws seem to have predated the Jewish ones. There are many more laws for other cultures developed since then that also claim divine inspiration. Even some modern constitutions do. I need to know what sets the Jewish laws apart in such a way that the weight of evidence is actually on it being divinely inspired, especially if we don’t know who wrote the books and can’t find much of the evidence that we’d expect to find if the claims were true?

Moving on. We can discuss this more later (J just cut out 1000 words of this). 🙂

Great verse!

Isn’t it better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt?

Haha. Yes. When I read this I immediately thought, Proverbs 17:28. It was one of my memorized verses, along with the verse before. Here they are together in NIV (the version I grew up with).

The one who has knowledge uses words with restraint, and whoever has understanding is even-tempered

Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues.

I spent many many hours praying for wisdom, patience, humility, the fruits of the spirit and an even-temper. Perhaps it has shaped me and perhaps it’s my nature, but I managed to end up with the last one, at least. 🙂

The 10 commandments – a good place to start or the Best set of ethics?

We talked about ways to live and why I thought the ten commandments provided a good start, acknowledging that the anchor of authority was the Hebrew God.

Ah. See, I think I misunderstood you at breakfast. What I thought I heard you say was the the 10 commandments were more than just a good place to start, but were the best set of ethics. That’s why I felt the need to provide an explanation for why I doubted their divinity and ultimate superiority to some other systems. If you just meant to say they’re a good place to start when evaluating how to live, I’m fine with that. 🙂

You said there were two incompatible versions of the ten commandments.  I blanched.

What I meant to say (and what I remembered saying, but I could definitely be mistaken) was that there seems to be more than one set of verses that appear to be the 10 commandments, and that casts doubt on the ultimate superiority of the rest of the laws which are already in question (including the main 10 and the rest of the Bible – it’s all on the same foundation).

Russell, who taught you the Bible?!?!

I asked who had taught you how to study the Bible.  I truthfully admitted that I had not been taught and suggested that the same might be true for you.  And then we left.

Haha. Yes. I do remember hearing, “Russell, who taught you the Bible?!?!???!” a few times after I mentioned the second set of the 10 commandments. 🙂 At the end you did suggest that you might be projecting. I answered this above, so we’ll leave it at that. 🙂

N.T. Wright – Simultaneously a fan and Not a fan

You quoted him again in your last post and he’s come up in a few others. I’m partway through Wright’s book called Surprised by Scripture, which you just finished. Immediately after you recommended him I read his book called Scripture and the Authority of God (hoping to find a way to justify trust in the Bible). I did not. I’m finding the first few chapters of Surprised to be very full of logical problems. I respect Wright very much. His writing, intellect, faith, and calling are all high-quality. I want him to be right (giggle). Right now, I can’t find the justification I’m looking for in his reasoning. I think he is right to believe as he does, just as I think you are, but his reasons, unfortunately (at least so far), are unconvincing to me. Despite his scholarship and renown, he seems to be somewhat (and by self-proclamation) unexercised in formal science and doesn’t appear to have a firm grasp on many of the subtler logical fallacies that plague us and our first century counterparts. I’ll save this for another time, but I appreciate you pointing me to him.

Scratching the surface of biblical doubt…

The second chapter is titled, “Do We Need a Historical Adam?”  From the faith perspective that I grew up in, even the question is disrespectful.  To doubt a literal Genesis and a young earth was to doubt Jesus, the resurrection and everything else precious.

This is part of the dichotomy that I now see as false.  If Genesis is not literal, can scripture still be inerrant, infallible, God-breathed (inspired) and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness?

I think we’re getting to it now. 🙂 This is exactly where I and many of our readers are. But it’s much more than your statement is pointing to. It’s not about Genesis, and specifically not about YEC. Bringing up YEC is effectively pointing to a strong position that many don’t support. What you seem to be saying, and please correct me if I’m wrong, is that not only is it not “literal” in the traditional since, it’s metaphorical to the extent that Adam and Eve did not exist as the first humans. That leaves a lot of room for questions to creep in. Many of us have found that once you get there, those issues are just the beginning. You doubt that a man named Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. You haven’t responded to my and CC’s questions yet, or Howie’s follow-up comment, but you may doubt that at least some laws and conquests recorded in the Old Testament were actually commanded by God. These are just the tip of the iceberg.

I would never say that inerrancy vs non-divine is a true dichotomy. God can make a book that errs. I completely agree that the Bible could still be true, inspired, and some version of the God we read about it in it could exist. I just can’t muster confidence in such a God if significant and foundational Bible claims are false.

Does wisdom provide compelling evidence of divinity?

1)  The scripture was useful to me in recognizing, but not acting upon my anger in sin.  I was able to find solace in 1 Corinthians 13, reminding me that love is patient and kind.  If I dwelled in anger, that would work against the call to love.

2)  The scripture was useful to me in correcting my errant path.  I turned back (repented).

3)  The scripture was useful to me for training in righteousness.  Training implies a perpetual preparation.  I am hopeful that I’ll become more like Christ with age, maturity, and constant use.  Scripture will be my measure.

I completely agree with this. You are extremely Christ-like and easy to love. However, I found that scripture being useful does not demonstrate that it is divine or infallible in its entirety. I don’t think anyone is saying that none of it is useful to us in the ways you’re mentioning, but nothing in your response makes Biblical claims stand out from the claims of any other religious text regarding how they shape the way we live. Not that saying this diminishes your character or my appreciation of you by one iota.

You are braver than I

4)  I don’t believe in a literal Adam or a six day creation.  That is not surprising for my skeptical colleagues, but what about for the loved sisters and brothers with whom I’m about to fellowship?  It would be very surprising, perhaps threatening, for some.  Like our Taco Tuesday, it could provoke anger.  I should be careful.

I admire and respect you so very much for this.

Metaphorical language

5)  I think in metaphorical language.  If Genesis is the story of transition from prehominid woman to humans in recorded civilization then what value does it have?  Is there still a creation?  Yes.  Is there still a creator?  Yes.  Does the creator communicate with his creations?  Yes.  Can these creations worship themselves as in Romans 1?  Yes.  Is there a Problem deeper than a generalized misunderstanding of logical fallacy?  Yes.  Much deeper.

I think the issue I have with this interpretation is that it casts doubt on the narrative. Not that it disproves it. It makes it less likely for various reasons we can go into later (many of them are referenced in the other 42 reasons I listed in Why I Am Not A Christian). I’ll leave aside what you might mean by “creations worshiping themselves” once again. I touched on this before but I don’t think I heard an acknowledgement or response from you. I probably buried it in a long post. Essentially, I think Paul is redefining worship to mean something other than what we express to deities, so it feels like a caricature. I, as I hope you know by now, completely agree that there is a Problem deeper than a generalized misunderstanding of logical fallacy. I’m not sure we’ve connected here yet, despite our multiple conversations about it. This comment seems to imply that you think I’m saying logical fallacies are the root problem of nature. I’m still a little doubtful that I’ve successfully communicated my position with the problem I mentioned. I’ll come back to this in a moment.

Let’s talk Multiverse! Now I’m happy! 🙂

6)  You know that I love studying science and even practice it in an applied manner.  The m-verse doesn’t solve a problem for me. The m-verse doesn’t expand the denominator of time to infinity where anything can happen.

Yes. You know science well, my friend. I would never question that. You even sat through a few of Sean Carroll’s videos, posts and books. I’ve loved accompanying you on the journey. I’m still one audio course behind and have about thirty related videos and blog posts to share with you at some point. 🙂

As for the multiverse, I’m not sure which multiverse theory you’re referring to. We both know there are several categories of Multiverse theories. I don’t think any of them require the universe to be ultimately discrete. In other words, the quantum math works within the framework we set upon it based on observations and theory. The universe can definitely be continuous (ultimately infinite) despite our inability to measure below the plank-length. Based on what I understand right now, I don’t think anyone can assert that we don’t have (or can’t imagine) plausible hypotheses that expand the denominator of time to infinity where anything can happen. I’ll try to find some for you if you like. 🙂

The m-verse can not redefine nothing.

There is an assumption that we have the correct definition of nothing. From my readings and lectures on infinity and nothing, the concept (like most concepts) is profound and much more nuanced and complicated than we imagine. The truth is, we simply have no frame of reference for it. What is the default state of nature? That is the question. We cannot assert it is the absence of all possible relationships, states, fluctuations, etc. We just don’t know that.

Quantum fluctuation is not nothing.

Actually, it’s as close to nothing as we know to exist and it might actually be the empty set of all possible states that could possibly exist. I’m not claiming one way or another. Anyone who is, is doing so to fulfill a need to support their world-view. Nothing can’t even be described except for the absence of all things. Virtual particles in a quantum foam don’t exist, they just have potential. I’m not arguing that this is the ultimate nothing. Far from it. I’m just saying that we can’t say otherwise with any authority. This may not satisfy our philosophical rhetoric about nothing that we’ve been taught, be we have no reason to think such a nothing is possible in the default state of some ultimate reality, much less what the rules might be that would govern such a state, or if our paradigm of rules and sequences even makes sense in that reality.

Also, on this point, here’s another thing that isn’t nothing. A God; a supernatural environment that this God exists in; etc. A being is not nothing so the argument is vacuous in my assessment. What is more likely? A random fluctuation that led to our universe, or a complex, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being with a will and desire to create a universe for us? With this question, we cannot make an assertion that is backed up by evidence, but Occam’s Razor supports the former (not that I have complete confidence in Occam’s Razor applied to logic outside our universe, or even some places inside of it). If something must be eternal, there’s not a compelling reason to think that thing must be a complex mind rather than a default state of existence that has the potential to be in some kind of fluctuation (enter the quantum foam as one possible state of this that we can observe).

I find it intellectually coherent to say that our observable universe began with low entropy because God created it with order.

Low entropy is not order. Low entropy is disorder. If it had zero entropy it would be order. It also would never evolve. It needed some disorder built into the system to form what we see today. As far back as we look, we see or infer entropy. There are both order and disorder in the universe now, just as there were both as far back as we look. This doesn’t conflict with the concept of a God; nor does it support or require a God of Order to explain it – at least to me. 🙂 (This sentence was a train wreck that J fixed with a semicolon. Grammar genius) (She added that part).

I still find it compelling that a beginning begs a beginner.

I agree that it is compelling, which, as you know, is one reason I’m on the fence about the existence of something we might consider a God or prior mind (should I mention it now? Why not… iMultiverse :)). However, if we take this further and say that a beginning demands a beginner, we’re committing the composition fallacy. That’s the false notion that you can apply to the whole of a system what is required by parts of that system. It may be the case, we can’t know one way or the other and we have no universes we can definitively compare ours with.

Ex nihilo nihil fit

First, our universe may yet be flat. The world of cosmology is ever-changing on these topics and I’m doing my best to keep up with the multiple hypotheses. A zero state universe would not violate Ex nihilo nihil fit. Second, neither God, nor the description of the Universe in Genesis 1 represents the philosophical nothing that many assume must have existed (something we can’t really fathom). Third, nothing comes from nothing is not very relevant for convincing me to Christianity for two reasons.

  1. A creation event doesn’t directly and exclusively promote the Biblical claims; it could be any kind of previous state (another God, the God described in some version of the Bible, a multiverse, a simulation, and on and on we could go).
  2. Nothing comes from nothing is honestly irrelevant to me as a philosophy for demonstrating the truth of a God-claim because we don’t need a good understanding of the ultimate first cause. All we need is an explanation for the cause immediately prior to our state of the universe. You know I’m going to point to iMultiverse here, too. 🙂

So, I’m not challenging your belief here. I think you are right to find it compelling that a beginning begs a beginner if that works for you. I’m just saying that it isn’t compelling to me and want you to have a little hint about why that is. If someone believes, they can use Ex nihilo nihil fit to promote their existing belief. If not, it often doesn’t help get someone to belief, although I’m sure there are exceptions. I could be a deist. 🙂

The untruth behind myth, or when trust becomes unobtainable

7)  So my view of scripture has changed.  It no longer bothers me to consider that the creation story in Genesis was a myth (story to teach truth:  not a fiction).

Okay. This is where we differ. The first definition I find for myth in Google is, “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.” The second is, “a widely held but false belief or idea.” In neither case is the story likely to be true. Useful, perhaps, but useful for what? Eliciting a cultural behavior of some kind, usually. I actually loved Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth. It was fascinating and really resonated with me. I’ve long believed in a transcendent that is similar to how he describes it in the book and there is a sort of truth there. However, I didn’t feel that the stories were true beyond the meaning they had for the people. With the Bible and our conversation now, we’re talking about justifying belief in an ultimate reality. That is an issue wholly separate from the meaning we might get from such a belief. It may resonate within us, but it may be no more real than any of the beliefs in the Power of Myth.

If someone tells us a story as if it happened, but the events behind that story did not actually happen, the story they told us was, in fact, a lie, or perhaps a misunderstanding – but not a truth. They were untrustworthy about their story and their future trust is in question. There may be truth in the metaphor, but it should be clear that it is a metaphor. If some of the Bible authors weren’t who it lead us to believe they were and if some of events they claimed occurred didn’t actually happen, how can you and I be confident in which ones are right? How can we gain enough confidence to believe the supernatural claims that, without the assumption of divine authority, are more likely to have been mistaken, made up, etc.?

Did God supernaturally intervene to create Eve from Adams ribs? Sounds like that was probably a metaphor. Did God supernaturally flood the world to kill everyone except Noah and those on the Ark? Was it metaphor? Did God supernaturally harden Pharaoh’s heart and send plagues on Egypt? Metaphor? Did the Exodus happen? Metaphor for the small band that left captivity and want to shape their history and consolidate their wisdom and community through story? Were the laws and commandments supernaturally given by God to Moses on a Mountain? Metaphor? Were the killings commanded by God? How much scripture is better interpreted as a metaphor, or something that is important for story but didn’t actually happen, and what impact does it have? Where does it end? What can we trust?

You’re Wright quote from Surprised by Scripture was good, but didn’t include the answer. His answer seems to be that we can’t know, so we should just trust. Asking too many questions and looking too closely at the tapestry may reveal the work of an unskilled artist who learned as the ages passed, but couldn’t start over afresh. What should we trust if we weren’t brought up in the religion but instead evaluated it now as people who are new to these claims from another religion? These are what I ask myself. I cannot trust. Perhaps I could if it weren’t for the other 42 random but mostly independent reasons I’ve listed in Why I’m Not A Christian. But I can’t make those go away either.

Missing the threads for the tapestry (like missing the trees for the forest)?

You quoted me saying “N.T. Wright seems to be saying that if we start discussing why the Bible can be trusted, we’re missing the point of scripture. That is not a satisfactory answer. We must each make up our mind. Is the Bible without error, or might it have some error (in the intent of the original writings)? We must acknowledge the problems listed in the Inerrancy? post. It is not a distracting topic that misses the point. It is the foundation of trust for the whole Bible.”

I disagree with you.  I’m not angry and I don’t plan to revisit that place often.

Okay. That’s fair. But that’s my key issue. If I can’t trust the Bible, I can’t believe what it says about Jesus. That’s it. I’ve explained why. I’m not upset at all. I just want to be clear where that leaves me. I need an answer for the Inerrancy? post and related issues.

I feel that you have been counting threads and missing the tapestry.

If someone came to you and said this tapestry they loved was directed by God, would you look at it closely? If you saw perfection, it may validate the perfection of the one that created it. If not, it doesn’t mean there’s no way that the creator was perfect, but it also does not give evidence to validate the claim that its creator was perfect. Please don’t misunderstand. Again, I do not believe I have missed the tapestry. I’ve been staring at this tapestry for years at many different levels. I can see why you think I’ve missed it since I see it differently than you, and it’s certainly possible that I have. But I agree that we disagree here. It sounds like you still think I’m reading the Bible wrong because I wasn’t taught how to read it. Maybe. Show me what it’s supposed to look like that I haven’t seen.

In the scientific method, the question matters.

Well said. 🙂 What, in your opinion, are the right questions that Buddhism missed? I want to make sure I’m asking the right questions as well.

Why hold that the Bible is trustworthy?

You quoted me saying: “If you believe the Bible is without error in any sense (the meaning or letter of the original authors’ intentions, etc.), do you have a reason that doesn’t depend on the Bible’s claims about itself?”

My non-biblical reason is pragmatic.  With scripture I have the tools to criticize my own heart, to overcome my own biases and to change.  I have the tools to turn (repent) when I’m wrong and the instruction to pursue humility and patience – – difficult character traits.

I want you to know that I deeply respect and identify with your answer. However, I also want you understand that, to me, it doesn’t answer why you think the Bible is without error. It can be meaningful and cause self-evaluation and a heart-change without being wholly true or divine. So I’m not connecting the dots. If you’re willing, please take the time to explain how this answers the question, or rephrase it in a way that might be better for me. The question is driving at how we can trust the Bible so much that we take its word in supernatural claims. It’s not about whether the Bible has some use in how we see the world or govern our ethics. All religious beliefs provide that and we don’t think they’re all divine.

Another possible misinterpretation of The Problem?

You also quoted me saying, “How certain are you in your belief and can you justify your level of certainty in the face of The Problem and what other believers say about their sacred texts?”

I don’t elevate the problem you reference above to The Problem.  On that we fundamentally disagree.

I’m not sure how you interpreted this, so I can’t confirm that there’s a disagreement here. I want you to know, as I tried to explain in Small Bites (response) and Clarifying “The Problem”, that what I’m talking about isn’t the root of all evil. Human’s are perfectly capable of evil regardless of their worldview or meta-cognition. We both knew this before we read The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology and The Lessons of History. I only capitalize The Problem because it’s a blog post title, not because it’s the only problem plaguing us. 🙂

I just think our logical fallacies and cognitive biases (especially those I highlighted in The Problem) are so deceptive, pervasive, and hidden that it’s worth highlighting whenever possible. If we’re not walking around continually aware of them, we’re subject to them without knowing it and we’re digging our own grave in terms of objectively justifiable (and more likely true) beliefs. I actually suspect we are in complete agreement about the problem I mentioned. It seems that you (due to your faith) just posit an additional problem that I (due to my skepticism) think is unwarranted and unnecessary to explain things. I mean that in the most general and nicest and possible way.

We know for certain, as well as we can know anything, that the problem of hidden, unintuitive logical and cognitive biases dealing with perception I’m referencing exists. Christianity adds to that by declaring there is an additional problem of fallenness and a curse from God due to the sin of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve who we think might have been a myth. I think that problem may exist, but I would need a compelling reason to believe that it does exist. The forces of natural selection and our resulting hidden fallacies (bread for survival and reproduction rather than truth) are sufficient to explain our nature without requiring a curse from God. We both agree that the problem I’m referring to exists, right? And the biblical fall might exist. I could be wrong and I don’t want to speak for you, but I think you’d agree with those two statements. In any case, I think you’re trying to apply The Problem to more than I’m trying to apply it to. Does that make sense?

As our favorite historian says, “Every vice was once a virtue.” Our evolution bread us for self-preservation. The Moral Animal taught us about familial circles and the genetic drive to favor preserve and protecting those with a larger Hamiltonian R value (more closely related). Couple those qualities with those hidden fallacies (and motivated reasoning) and you have all the ingredients necessary for man-made woes. That doesn’t mean there aren’t more, but I’m not personal drawn to the conclusion that a supernatural curse and a fall from a state of perfection (a state that doesn’t look like ever existed) is necessary to explain our nature. Unless you’re only running off of photosynthesis, historical records show you were eating, evolving, adapting, competing, and killing to survive all the way back to single-celled life – much earlier than the hominids that would have received the curse and subsequent “fall.” The natural explanation makes more sense to me.

Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills is still the book I think is most essential for understanding me and is most descriptive of what I mean by the problem. Chapter 12 is a great 30 minute review if you ever want a refresher. 🙂

How to muster confidence that supernatural Bible claims are true?

You quoted me saying, “If you believe the Bible has errors, how do you have confidence in which parts are true? Why trust it in claims regarding the supernatural?”

If I believe God created, and have no dissonance in accepting mechanisms of a bang, abiogenesis, and evolution writ large, then cognitive resonance and coherence results.

Hey! I have no dissonance there either! Yay! 🙂 If we could stop there at deism I would be whole. I can’t quite make it there, though, and the world pushes us further – towards a specific God-claim. To claims like the set of those made in the Bible, which lead to many problems. I guess you know I’m going to say that your response doesn’t seem to explain how to have confidence about which parts to believe. You seem to believe (please correct me if I’m misinterpreting) that God created and communicated his Word in the Bible, but much of the Bible may not mean what it appears to say (either through the corruption of man, carelessness, misinterpretations of God’s will, or other methods, errors may have slipped in). Some major themes are written normally but science has forced us to believe they are allegorical. How can I know which parts to trust, and how can I justify trusting in any of the supernatural claims (resurrection, etc.)?

Hey! Just over 8000 words! I. Am. So. Sorry. I’ll give an air hug to anyone who actually reads all this. 🙂

I hope this post didn’t upset you too much, other than the length, of course. I’m very much looking forward to time together. See you at Détente!

Gentleness and respect,


  1. Hi Russell and Pascal

    I really appreciate the honesty and vulnerability you both display on this site. It must be hard at times. However I would encourage you both to keep the dialogue going.

    One of the most compelling documentaries I have seen is ‘The Fog of War’. The reminiscence of Robert McNamara are enlightening, here we have one of the most brilliant men looking back on two conflicts, Vietnam and the Cuban missile Crisis. One was solved against all odds the other became a debacle. What was the major difference in the Cuban Missile Crisis there was communication between the parties and a degree of understanding of the other’s perspective, in Vietnam neither the USA or Viet Cong understand the position of the other party, if they had they would have realised the war was totally unecessary.

    I don’t want to paint you both as adversaries, rather just to say that maintaining dialogue even when things are difficult is better than the alternative.

    I leave with you the message from Apollo 8. The Astronauts realized that the good old earth was all we had and from space it looked beautiful but also vulnerable.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I slept in relatively late this morning but I’m eager to read, absorb and think this evening. I’m confident that it won’t offend me, because honestly – – you don’t. I hope to read and answer by tomorrow morning.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Pascal, at one point before I went to sleep, I edited his version at that time and took out over 1000 words with one select/delete move (they were better-suited for their own post later). Russell then added THREE THOUSAND more (unedited thus far). I’m sorry. I tried. But this is who he is, and I love him for it. I know you do, too.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. 🙂 I read it all… it took 46 minutes… Can’t say I followed ALL of it. But for the most part it has got my brain processing different thoughts, ideas and questions…
    I can say though… to both of you… please keep the discussion going… to and from whichever topic that happens to be bought up over time.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Haha, I was impressed with myself also, some times some of the stuff I read here goes right over my head, other times I get little snippets of understanding and I like where it takes me, in terms of processing thoughts, ideas and questions…
        I’m in Australia (East coast). 🙂
        I’m not great at receiving things, including hugs, but it is something I’m working on… So I’ll graciously accept it whenever it happens to come my way.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. Good morning (for you – 3pm here) this time tomorrow sounds fine to me. I’m in a public place right now, it could cause issues if I were to receive an air hug at the moment. Hehe.


  4. Hey Russell, great job writing what’s in my mind as usual. Could have been broken into a few posts, and some redundancy could have been removed. But that’s ok – I know the drawbacks of that too, and I’ve gotten used to your style.

    A being is not nothing so the argument is vacuous in my assessment. What is more likely? A random fluctuation that led to our universe, or a complex, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being with a will and desire to create a universe for us?

    This is why I lean toward a more naturalistic worldview, but as I’ve said before, not with strong certainty. But the cosmological argument for God has no force for me because of this.

    The “who taught you the bible?” question didn’t seem necessary, but I understand why you felt the need to reply, especially since it was brought up more than once. How many of us have made sure we were taught the scriptures of Bahaism or Hinduism by the proper experts? How much time and effort have we given to delve deep into those compared to the time and effort we’ve spent with the bible? And yet we reject those without complaint.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Could War and Peace be broken into a few posts? Bite your tongue oh Russell doppelganger.

      As Russell noted above, I think the “who taught you how to study the Bible?” was a projection on my part. Russell and I share a very similar background in so many ways. My Bible teaching was very much through the lens of evangelical fundamentalism. I was taught to memorize evolution for the test but know that a literal 6 day creation was the actual answer. I didn’t know about redaction criticism, the benefits and weaknesses of different types of scholarship. I didn’t actually know that Jesuits and Jews did a far better job with scholarship in general. So, to answer my own projected question: I’ve only learned how to study recently.

      I really appreciate Russell’s patient answer about his own journey. He went many places and learned many things. We’re all composites of the places we go and the people we learn from. I have the Bhagavad Gita on my shelf and even took it with me to India. It is true that I won’t seek the advice of a guru before reading it. I hope not to reject everything without complaint. If all truth is God’s truth, there is likely much of benefit. As a monotheist, I’m certainly starting in a different place and my reading of it will be with the intention of better understanding a billion people. I plan to read the Quran with a similar orientation and motivation. Will I learn Arabic to do so? No – – life is short and I can only attempt to master one language. So – – you’re right. I did not mean to imply that we must learn at the feet of masters to evaluate scripture. I did mean that study (Russell outlined many methods and venues well) is different than reading.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hi Pascal!

        I edited the post (search for the word “Edit”) where I talked about the potential “second set” of the 10 commandments. Basically, I regret bringing it up at all. Haha. I give the Bible the benefit of the doubt whenever I can, and I really shouldn’t have mentioned my very minor issue with how the second set of tablets were delivered (making it sound at a cursory reading like a second set of 10 commandments). It’s really a non-issue. Basically, I was wrong to think it was even as much of an issue as I was making it – it definitely didn’t deserve space in a blog post. It’s just that I remembered being a little confused the last time I read Exodus 34, and telling myself I’d read a little deeper. I hadn’t had a chance to do that before we met and it came up in conversation. You were right to question me. I’m very hard on myself when I phrase things inaccurately, especially about the Bible. I probably will re-read the whole thing from the beginning soon.

        The Bhagavad Gita and the Quran are on my reading list as well. 🙂

        See you in a few days!

        Gentleness and respect,

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Could War and Peace be broken into a few posts? Bite your tongue oh Russell doppelganger.

        Ok, this truly made me laugh quite a bit for many different reasons (I wonder if I could list 43). Definitely a different use of the word doppelganger than I’m used to, but it works. 😉

        Regarding the question, I think I just felt a little bad that it ended up making Russell feel like he had to write out the long form of his resume regarding bible learning down to the detail of the fact that his bible was heavily highlighted. But Russell is clearly fine with it (what isn’t he fine with? 😉 ), and it’s not that big of a deal so maybe I’ve written too much already.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Haha. Well, in Pascal’s defense, I did question one of the most basic things, the 10 commandments (which I did have memorized, by the way :))… so I can certainly see the reason for such a question. You’re great, Howie!

          Liked by 1 person

    2. Could have been broken into a few posts, and some redundancy could have been removed.

      Haha. Exactly! That’s what I thought when I read it the next day. That’s what I get for posting after 3 AM. 🙂

      The first part was a response to breakfast conversation. The rest was a response to Pascal’s last post which covered some of his thoughts from breakfast. So, yes, some duplication. I didn’t do it well, but hopefully those future quantum computers embedded in our grandchildren’s brains will be able to sift through the noise. 🙂

      Great points, as always!

      Gentleness and respect,

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Howie, your first paragraph made me smile—as usual. You have, at an alarming pace, commented yourself into becoming one of our favorite people on the planet.

    I, of course, wasn’t at breakfast. I usually don’t even hear about breakfast beyond “It was great. Pascal is well. We talked about [insert really geeky topic] and some other things.” I don’t need to know all the details—I just need to make sure Russell comes home with my breakfast tacos and green sauce. Taco Tuesday isn’t just for the boys.

    I did hear about this breakfast in Russell’s gentle and respectful manner of reporting. What we talked about the most was Pascal’s question, “Who taught you the Bible?” I think there might be a difference between how Russell heard it and how Pascal intended it, but I can’t be sure since I wasn’t part of the conversation. I don’t really think Pascal was saying that Russell needed to be taught scripture by experts. What did he mean by the question? I don’t know—he can tell us. If I had to guess, I would say he was wondering more about Russell’s interaction with faithful followers of Christ who would disciple him in scripture, and less about his tutelage under esteemed experts of it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you very much for your kind words here – it’s nice to hear my comments have landed well most of the time.

      I’m glad you mentioned that expert wasn’t the right word to use. I think I ruined my comment by using it. But I still feel the sentiment of what I wrote is there given that the question suggests that there are more correct people to be taught by. I’m not holding it against Pascal for asking it – I know he is trying his best to help out. I think I’ll leave a little more in reply to Pascal.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hello Howie & CC,

        Even after the Friday night Detente, I’m still working through my own motivation. Isn’t it interesting when we try to discern what someone was thinking? Even more interesting is trying to slow down and unwind what motivates your own words in an unscripted conversation. Russell’s resume means a lot to me and helps me to understand him and myself better. He has benefitted from many people, many views. Howie, after meeting him in person, you would probably agree that he fits in with diverse groups of people.

        Two people were missing from the resume: his parents. From the age of seven Russell’s family stopped going to church and didn’t talk much about it. Russell and J will very soon face the direct questions of a precocious child. She has already noticed that Sunday school says one thing about loving the Bible and perhaps observes that her father feels differently. Perhaps not. I often over/under estimate the capabilities and comprehensions of children. It is humbling.

        Russell and I are both interested in childrearing and education. My starting point in observation and education studies (primarily adult learning) is that we should not underestimate what is learned from imitation. I’m not so much interested in a family history reflection or psychotherapy session as I am in the contrast between Russell and myself as sons, and now as fathers.

        What will my sons say to that impertinent Taco Tuesday question? I hope that one bullet on the list will be: my Dad. Not because I teach them historical criticism or redaction criticism or even church history. But because they see me most mornings at this table with an open Bible, a pen, and my journal. They will hopefully say that I taught them how to study the BIble. It is an early memory for them and they see it now. If I live long enough their children will see it too.

        (I think) that is at least part of what I meant.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Hey Pascal,

          Howie, after meeting him in person, you would probably agree that he fits in with diverse groups of people.

          Absolutely, and I’m also sure he enjoyed writing out his experiences – who doesn’t enjoy telling their own stories? So some good came out of it.

          I hope that one bullet on the list will be: my Dad.

          Pascal, from what I’ve learned about you, your children will have a long list of things to want to imitate from their father.

          I look forward to reading whatever posts your motivations are capable of in the future. Have a great week.


  6. Okie-dokie…here goes nothing. :op

    To ask “who taught you the Bible” is to assume that there is one particular (read, correct) way to approach the Bible. Which, again, given the fact that we have not one, but hundreds, of commentaries on each book of the Bible sitting upstairs on Moody 3, seems questionable. I can go up there and find any number of different ways of reading scripture: clinical, intuitive, literary, postcolonial, liberationist, feminist, womanist, queer, etc., etc. And they are all perfectly legitimate ways of looking at an extremely complex set of writings.

    I think one of institutional Christianity’s biggest problems is the fact that it insists on two contradictory propositions: God is beyond understanding, AND there is only one legitimate way to understand him. Even in the Baptist tradition, the bastion of soul competency, we can’t seem to accept that the Bible can be, and probably should be, understood in a great variety of ways. There’s a reason there are more sub-denominations of Baptists than of almost any other denomination out there. Faith is a personal thing, until we bring it to church, at which point we’d better toe the line.

    To CC’s comment (and this is assuming either one of us can read Pascal’s mind): Even if Russell had been taught to read the Bible by “faithful followers of Christ,” he would still have been exposed to a number of different outlooks and interpretations. There is a theology per Christian, whether they think of it as such or not; put five different believers in a room, and you’ll end up with five different sets of beliefs. Maybe not radically so, but different. Even, I’d argue, if each one of those five is ready to defend inerrancy to the death.

    Irony: when confronted with discrepancies between Gospel accounts, the standard answer is what? Four people approaching the same story from different perspectives. Hmmm… Why is it that in the Evangelists’ case, this is seen as a strength (“it gives us a fuller, richer picture of Jesus”), but in the case of Joe-Blow believers, it’s a recipe for chaos?

    I doubt very much that this is what Pascal was referring to, but I will say one final thing: systematic theology is never a good idea. It is the high school English teacher who insists that a given poem must mean a given thing, and nothing else. It doesn’t enhance meaning; it limits it. It takes what is incomprehensibly complex and reduces it to ossified meaninglessness (there’s a turn of phrase for you! Patent pending…). Which is a shame since, even though I don’t believe the Bible has a divine origin, it is at the very least an intriguing body of literature.


    Liked by 4 people

    1. Vance,

      Thank you for this. Sometimes I don’t know my own mind until it is reflected in the responses of a friend. I have been struggling with my dislike for the systematic theology Christian Beliefs by Wayne & Elliot Grudem. It is a digested version of Wayne Grudem’s longer, denser systematic theology. It is intended as a curriculum for the middle school youth group where Mrs. Pascal and I teach. With my youth pastor’s permission, if not understanding, I only take the chapter heading from the book. The last two weeks were resurrection and election – – easy, right?

      I agree so much with what you have written here, and – – there is no but.

      “It takes what is incomprehensibly complex and reduces it to ossified meaninglessness”

      It is a pleasure to read your writing!



    1. I loved your comment—and hey! It’s only Tuesday!

      With regard to your correction…Pascal remembered it one way, Russell another. Both may have been said, and each of the very similar questions could have a few different interpretations of its own. Conversation is hard!

      Liked by 1 person

  7. I’m here to collect my air-hug. 🙂 Haven’t made it through the other comments yet, though.

    To me, one other potential problem with viewing Adam and Eve as allegory is the way they’re constantly referred to in genealogies. It’s not just that the story itself seems to be told as though it were true, both Old and New Testaments continue to reinforce it whenever they run through the genealogy.

    Anyway, great post, as usual. I find y’all’s dialogue really fascinating.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi Nate!

      Excellent point about the genealogies! That’s why I seem to always find myself losing confidence in the Bible as things are forced to move from the meaning gathered from a natural reading to a metaphorical one.

      Let me know when you’d like your air hug and a general area of the world you are so I know which direction to face. 🙂

      Gentleness and respect,


      1. Birmingham, Alabama, my friend. 🙂

        And yeah, I agree with you on meaning. The context gives us no reason to think the writer wasn’t being literal. Just like in Daniel 7, the writer refers to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar as father and son 7 different times. If that’s the idea he was trying to get across, he couldn’t have been plainer. Yet now that we know the two weren’t related — that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, who had no relation to Nebuchadnezzar — we’re told that “Daniel” didn’t mean literal father and son. It gets hard to swallow all the “explanations” when they can’t be derived from the text itself, and we’re only forced to change position once new evidence comes to light that overturns our previous understandings.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Hi Nate! More good points. God could intend the Bible to be deceptive – some gospel accounts seem to paint that picture (e.g. it’s not to be understood by the wise, learned, proud, etc., and I feel like I have pride which I must always try to keep in proper balance). However, that quality seems to conflict with the notion that God is not the author of confusion. If the stories are correct, He seems to cause quite a bit of confusion. It’s another conundrum which goes away if we don’t presuppose that specific God exists.

          What time works well for the air hug? 🙂


    2. Nate – – that’s fair. There are ways to reconcile it but it can very quickly seem like unnatural mental gymnastics. That said, I don’t want to write off a legitimate concern. I tend to view Adam and perhaps others in the genealogies as representatives of epochs in time. I may very well be wrong, but it allows a balance between the truth I see in science and the truth I see in scripture.


  8. Here’s an interesting statement I came across while cataloging books today (yes, Russell, I do actually work from time to time, during the day). It simultaneously epitomizes the flaws in an uncritical approach to the Bible, demonstrates the extent to which the uncritical masquerades as the critical, and shows off the complete lack of self-awareness involved. It’s from a book titled Did Adam Exist?, by Vern Poythress (Westminster Seminary Press, 2014), and is in “answer” to the question “How long ago did Adam and Eve live?”

    “The studies from population genetics do seem to suggest long periods for the past of human populations. Figures of 40,000 years, 100,000 years, and more crop up in various articles. How do we evaluate these large figures? To begin with, we should observe that these figures all depend on mathematical models that rely on assumptions about the past. The models assume that the past is like the present, and that the rates of mutation and other genetic processes remain the same. IF WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE’S INSTRUCTION, WE MUST BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT SUCH ASSUMPTIONS. The assumptions may be right, but then again they may not: the fall into sin resulted in a curse that may have had extended, multigenerational effects on mankind.”

    I’m not even going to comment on this; it leaks for itself.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi Vance

      In 2011, Biblical Scholar C. John Collins wrote a book. “Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?”

      My basic summary of its conclusion is that because Jesus and Paul seemed to suggest Adam and Eve we real people then people of faith should conclude that they did indeed exist. Collins is a serious scholar and I think he makes his point well. It is difficult to accept the Bible as true and argue away the early chapters of Genesis as myth.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Peter,

        Oddly enough, I just cataloged that book (Collins’) for Baylor’s collection about two weeks ago. I didn’t really have time to look through it much, but based on what I did read, your summary seems fairly accurate.

        I would agree with your last sentence by turning it around, and there’s my sticking point: It’s difficult to take a mythical view of the Genesis story (Adam and Eve, Eden, Noah, etc.), and still accept the Bible as THE truth. I still think “containing truth” and “being true” are different propositions; I’m fine with the Bible on the first count, not so much on the second.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Hi Peter,

        Hm. This may be an interesting book for Pascal, me or any other interested readers. Thanks for mentioning it. There are so many ways to put the Bible pieces together to try to make all the claims, stories, attributes, meanings, interpretations, etc., make sense, and few of them work. The only puzzles I’ve assembled that use all the pieces of the Bible I can hold in my head look very allegorical, and thus lack enough meaning, evidence and weight to cause me to believe the less likely claims which are the core of the faith. I’m still trying to arrange new puzzle configurations, though, and that book may help me see more patterns.

        Thanks for the input! 🙂


    2. Wow, my friend. That was a poignant quote, indeed. Fortunately, Pascal and many more of our believing friends recognize that the Bible, too, relies on assumptions about the past. I can’t really fault this author too much. I was once standing where he was. I find myself feeling the same way about N.T. Wright as I listen to Surprised by Scripture, but I know Pascal admires his work.

      What I pick up in almost all these writings is a distrust for science and the limitations of what repeatable experiments can tell us about the past. We have to make an assumption. Yes, those of us who study science understand induction and we know about the required assumptions already. I was far less aware of any such assumptions when I just knew the answers from my religious heritage. I’m so very glad our friend Pascal is a science-friendly believer. 🙂

      Thanks for sharing the quote!


      1. Greetings Russell,

        I am happy that we both read Wright and remain interested in our different responses. We likely confirmed the biases that we came with. Of all the logical fallacies we have studied together, that seems the most intractable to me. I will offer this on the distrust of science (you may have meant C. John Collins rather than N.T. Wright). Surprised by scripture describes a three layered epistemology. Knowing through: science, history, love. The first two are well described. The last intrigued me and said something that I’ve tried and failed to say before. I don’t think you can or should pit one against the other.


    3. I’ll comment. This is where Francis Collins helps me. He knows population genetics better (I’m making a warranted assumption here) than Dr. Poythress. I’ll go farther into a less warranted assumption. He knows the Bible better too. I’m not trying to marry myself to one interpretation of scripture – – I agree with you there. I’m only trying to divorce myself from the false dichotomy forced by Biblical literalism.



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s