The first part of this series can be found here. This post is a bit longer than the others in the series, but it was hard to find a good breaking point.
After coming before the congregation and publicly repenting of allowing doubts to rock our faith, my wife and I weren’t happy with our situation, but we hoped it was going to lead to something better. We had avoided being withdrawn from, so we were hoping we could begin repairing our relationships with family, and in deciding to attend a different congregation, we could take a less public role in the services and keep our children out of the Bible classes without raising too much suspicion. We hadn’t wanted to mislead anyone about our beliefs — we were just trying to find a solution that both we and our families could live with. But we had one or two hurdles right at the beginning.
A couple of people from our old congregation didn’t like the way I had handled the public repentance. For one, my wife wasn’t present since two of our children were sick. My wife and I didn’t see a problem with that, since we were the kind of Christians that didn’t think women should speak during the service anyway — so even if she’d been there, it wouldn’t have changed much. Some of those same people were also disappointed that I didn’t get visibly upset when I went before the church. But my wife and I knew those were minor objections, so we weren’t too concerned about their traction with the congregation as a whole, and we were right about that — our confession/repentance was accepted.
The other issue that caused us some turbulence was our decision to leave our old congregation. I’ve already given our reasons for doing this — I knew I couldn’t go back to a public role in the congregation, so that would always shed doubts on the quality of my faith. And my wife and I were not comfortable sending our kids to Bible classes, which also would have raised a red flag with our former brethren. So our decision to leave was something we couldn’t compromise. Our families continued to ask us to come back to our old church, and we couldn’t tell them our real reasons for leaving.
Despite those hurdles, we followed through with our plan. Each service, we visited a different congregation (all church of Christ), and there are several in this area to choose from. We felt that if we could continue with our end of the deal, things would eventually get back to normal with our families. And at least with my dad, things looked good initially. He sent us a very nice letter following my public confession and stated that he felt we were on the right path. He said that he knew we weren’t 180 degrees away from our doubts, but he was sure that we would get there over time.
But in the end, our parents had difficulty giving us that time. They often wanted to know which congregations we were attending, but we refused to get into that with them. Of course, that made them wonder if we were going at all, which was unfortunate. But we knew if we told them where we were going and when, they would reach out through the network in an effort to keep tabs on us. We just weren’t comfortable with that. We didn’t want to be the Hester Prynne of every church we walked into. They also continually asked us to go back to our old congregation — something else we just weren’t going to do. I do sympathize with them a bit. They honestly believed our souls were in danger, and I understand why they would want to do whatever they could to correct that. But we had hoped after the way the previous 6 months had gone, they would take our repentance and continued church attendance as some small wins and let some time go by before pressuring us on other issues. Instead, the pressure in our families never had time to dissipate.
Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday. We don’t do it in the typical fashion, where people dress up and sit around a dining room table. Instead, we get together with about 50 or 60 extended family members at a large, one-room cabin deep in the woods of central Alabama. My grandfather and one of my uncles (as well as a few other family members) built the cabin back in the 70’s, and we’ve used it for family get-togethers since. We ride 4-wheelers, take hikes in the woods, and sit around playing guitars, etc. It’s very informal, and it’s a lot of fun. The weekend after Thanksgiving was always fun too, because I always went camping with my dad, my grandfather, my brothers, and my best friend. I looked forward to it every year.
The day after Thanksgiving 2010, we all loaded up and went for our annual camping trip. I took my two daughters with me, who were 7 and 5 at the time, but my son stayed home with my wife, since he was only 20 months old. My wife’s parents invited her over that Friday to watch football, and everything went fine that morning. She went home during the afternoon to let our son take a nap, but her parents asked her to come back that evening. She had a feeling that they would end up discussing all the religious drama we’d been going through, but she agreed to come over anyway. And though I don’t believe in prophecy, my wife’s prediction did come true.
Her parents began by asking if things were any better for us, which was their way of asking if our faith had grown any over the last several weeks. My wife replied that things were about the same. So they asked if we believed, and my wife said that we had made the decision to believe. This is obviously an important distinction. But when we were still in the stage of expressing our doubts, a few people had told us that if we would just decide to believe, our faith would eventually return. So that was the narrative we had run with in an effort to avoid withdrawal. But my in-laws weren’t happy with that answer, so they began asking specifics: “Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God? Do you believe the Bible is inspired?” And my wife finally just decided to quit using politically correct answers and revert to complete honesty. So she answered, “No.”
The conversation ended in an argument, and my wife called me on her way home. I didn’t get great reception in the woods, but it was good enough to figure out that I was probably on my last camping trip. I didn’t have the heart to tell my dad, so I just tried to make the most of that last trip. That annual camping trip is absolutely one of the things I miss the most.
The next week or two contained many phone calls with family and friends from our old congregation. My wife and I continued to point out that we were still going to church every service, just as we had said we would. But it’s true that we had admitted to no longer believing any of the doctrines in Christianity, so our old congregation felt like they would have to withdraw from us.
Knowing that was coming, I had one more thing I needed to do. My dad’s parents still had no idea any of this was going on. They live about an hour away from me and are stalwart members of their congregation — my grandfather is one of the elders, in fact. So I knew they would hear about everything as soon as our withdrawal became official. So I took a day off work and called them to see if I could come eat lunch with them. They were thrilled to have me over, and we spent some time just visiting with one another. It killed me to have to tell them about it, but I knew it needed to come from me and not someone else. So I finally began telling them about the doubts I had been having, how they began, what I had done about it, and what things were finally coming to. It was one of the most difficult things I’ve ever done. In some ways, it went better than I thought it would, but I imagine that was mostly due to their shock at what I was telling them. I couldn’t bring myself to tell them that the withdrawal was imminent, but I did tell them it was getting to that point. I haven’t seen my grandmother since then, though my grandfather did come to see me about six months later. We talked for about an hour at a gas station near my house (many Christians in the church of Christ don’t feel like they can come in our house now), and I was able to explain my position a little better to him since the initial shock had long since worn off.
Anyway, our withdrawal was made official shortly after I visited my grandparents. We received a letter from our old congregation dated December 5, 2010, in which they informed us we had been withdrawn from. It had been six weeks since I had gone before the congregation with a public repentance. Here’s one of the paragraphs from the letter:
The statement you read in October to the congregation provided some hope that you both were making progress in the right direction. However, we have not seen fruits of repentance since that time — such as efforts to repair relationships and any tangible evidence that you have rejected the human wisdom and skepticism that you say “crept in” and damaged your faith.
I’m not sure how much progress they expected to see in six weeks, but at the same time, I’m glad they didn’t wait any longer. Once we had been officially withdrawn from, my wife and I were finally able to just let go of all the pretense and get on with our lives. We stopped going to church, which actually surprised some people. We had only been going in an effort to stave off withdrawal, but since that failed, we had no reason to continue. We were shocked that anyone was surprised by that.
My wife and I have also speculated that our families wanted the withdrawal to go into effect before Christmas in the hopes that we would come back before we missed out on all the festivities. But honestly, we’re just not that shallow. When we were Christians, our faith was sincere. We held to our convictions, not because they were convenient, but because we firmly believed them. When we left Christianity, we were no less sincere. And the lure of Christmas gifts and get-togethers was not enough to make us pretend belief in something we found to be false. We had tried to walk the thin line between appeasing our families and keeping our kids from being indoctrinated, and we just weren’t interested in trying anything like that again.
There’s a little more to tell, and I’ll start digging into that in the next post.
Finding Truth 
Hi Graeme,
It’s nice to hear from you again! Thanks for the comment.
The only problem with that idea is that I honestly have no inkling of faith left. Once I realized that the problems in the Bible were real problems that couldn’t be resolved, I had no real reason to believe anything it said. For a little while, I still believed in God, because I just couldn’t figure out how everything came to be without a creator. But it was an uncomfortable belief, because I didn’t believe in the Judeo-Christian god, so I didn’t know how to picture this God I believed in — I knew nothing about him/she/it. And then, after reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, I stopped believing in a god at all. Dawkins made the point that while this Universe is extremely complex, a God that created it must be even more complex. So which is the more likely to just come into being on its own? Furthermore, the only way we’ve seen complex things develop is through evolution, so wouldn’t God have required a similar process? I thought those were good points. So while I can’t say that God doesn’t exist, I haven’t personally seen anything to make me believe he does.
There are things about the portrayal of Jesus in the NT that I admire, but I honestly don’t believe he was anything more than a man. I do appreciate your comment and the sentiment behind it — and it may hold true for some people. But for me, I don’t think it does. I just hold no more faith in any of the tenets of Christianity.
Thanks again for the comment!
LikeLike
@mybroom
“I’m wondering if you are not now more intimately connected to your saviour because you have stepped back from the many obstacles the system put in front of Him.”
That’s sort of an odd question to ask someone who no longer believes. Imagine a child who once believed fervently in Santa Claus, but now has found out that it was Mom and Dad all along, and that there is no workshop at the north pole, and that there never were any flying reindeer. Would you ask this child if they now had a “more intimate connection with Santa”? Once belief is gone, questions about “connection” become meaningless. Your question sounds more like wishful thinking on your part, rather than something that a non-believer might actually be thinking.
LikeLike
Hi again Nate,
the reason for my comment about “being more intimately connected” is because I also set sail away from the safe shores of traditional Christianity, I needed to find out for myself if He was real – not just for everyone else’s reasons – but my own, I fully expected to never return to Christianity. For me, it wasn’t about creation/evolution, or intellectual arguements – it came down to one question “could I really know and place faith in Jesus” – so I asked God to show me Jesus, and over several years a new kind of faith grew that held little resemblance to the old.
It was a faith that is not anchored in an internal debate about the pro’s & con’s of Christianity, it was just a gift that slowly took root & began to get hold of me…long story,
cheers Graeme
LikeLike
Nate,
Thanks for those links,
Do you know of any other websites (good quality websites that is) that presents evidence supporting Christianity and fufilled prophecy?
LikeLike
Hi again Nate,
I also wanted to ask,
During the time you stopped believing were you reading more literature critiquing Christianity than literature supporting Christianity?
During this time how much did you focus on how your questions had been addressed in the past by other Christians?
LikeLike
G’day Nate, I felt I must comment on this …
“Dawkins made the point that while this Universe is extremely complex, a God that created it must be even more complex. So which is the more likely to just come into being on its own? Furthermore, the only way we’ve seen complex things develop is through evolution, so wouldn’t God have required a similar process?”
These comments of Dawkins are really not reasonable or even consistent (IMO).
1. Why does God have to be more complex than what he created? The human race evolved from the first single celled life, so Dawkins knows this statement is not necessarily true. A computer is designed by human beings, yet can play chess way better than any human being. He has to justify his statement, not just assert it. I would think the more obvious statement might be that God has to be clever to create the universe, but that doesn’t help Dawkins’ argument at all.
2. I think Dawkins fails here because I don’t think he can define complexity in any useful way for his argument. e.g. he defines complexity in one place in physical terms – which makes a non-physical God the least complex thing we know!
3. But let’s accept that God is more complex than the universe in some sense, so what? His only argument is that this makes it more likely that the universe exists on its own than that God does. But that would only be true if he could show that the more complex thing is less likely, which is true in the physical world, but who knows how that applies to a God that isn’t physical?
4. It is hard to see how a series of physical events could be infinite in extent (you can’t count to infinity) but who can say that a supernatural non-physical non-temporal God can’t be infinite? So it is much more likely that God could be eternal than the universe is.
5. Dawkins hasn’t even grasped the philosophical concepts of necessary and contingent. A contingent thing is caused by something else, but a necessary thing isn’t. The universe is clearly contingent, but God as usually defined is necessary. The only way for anything to exist is for something necessary to have caused all the contingent things. This makes creation by God as one of the most likely possibilities, perhaps the only possibility.
6. Evolution is not at all the only way complex things develop. They could be necessary (like God); they could be designed (like a computer); they could grow by natural laws (like the universe from the big bang – which did not occur by evolution).
Dawkins doesn’t seem to be able to sensibly deal with philosophical matters because he doesn’t seem able to get his head outside his scientific paradigm.
I hope that one day you will find time to do some reading of some people who can do philosophy a whole lot better than Dawkins.
LikeLike
What good is philosophy though if it detracts from science?
if its purely abstractions then how effective is it really?
This is one of the reasons philosophy frustrates me. If it cannot be effectively practised in action then what is the purpose of a concept?
LikeLike
Furthermore, humn beings can make accurate and inaccurate inferences, not all ideas are equal and science helps us cull what is inaccurate. Science isin’t merely a “paradigm” its a tool to test if paradigms are accurate.
LikeLike
if science and philosophy ever disagree, science has the methods to test itself, and if it is proved wrong by its very nature science has to change to fit what is currently understood to be most accurate. Not so for philosophy.
LikeLike
Hi Ryan,
Philosophy is just good structured thinking, so we all do it, but some of us do it better than others.
Science depends a lot on philosophy, but scientists don’t always recognise it. Science depends on assumptions about our ability to accurately interact with the external world, with the reality of other minds, with our ability to draw logical inferences, etc.
When a scientists does science, he can test his theories (that is what science does). But when he does philosophy, his theories may not be testable scientifically. So Dawkins’ view that God is unlikely is difficult to test scientifically just as is my view that God does exist. Conclusions on the possibility of a supernatural world, of what happened before the big bang, of the mind-body problem or on ethics are all difficult to test by science, yet that are important questions which philosophy tries to answer.
Philosophy (logic and reason) help us cull wrong answers just as much as science does. They are just different questions.
LikeLike
I agree that Philosophy also can help cull wrong answers. science though is the best model we have to test what can be known. science does lean heavily on philosophy but it also moves beyond it in that it is based on experiment in the world of matter, not the “world” of ideas.
LikeLike
it looks at what is, rather than what could be
LikeLike
“science though is the best model we have to test what can be known”
Yeah, probably, except for the really important questions like:
Is science the best means of knowing? (This can’t be answered by science)
What is right and wrong?
Is there a God?
What is the purpose of my life?
How will I be happy?
Should I marry this person?
What is truth?
etc
etc
LikeLike
Okay, so pretty close to the end of the story now, and I’d like to comment a bit more.
First off, shunning you is absolutely ridiculous, but I understand where these misguided souls come up with the idea. As I said in an earlier comment, I’m working myself on learning to interpret all of Scripture through the lens of the words and actions of Jesus. To use shunning as a means to get someone back into the fold just doesn’t line up. I would have to conclude that people who use this practice are refusing to interpret Paul in light of Christ.
Second, the recounting of your journey has gotten me thinking about why I believe what I do. Over the past 6 years the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible has been deconstructed for me. But I asked myself after reading your blog, “If you don’t believe in inspiration or inerrancy, then why do you still believe?” The conclusion I came to ended up being two-fold: 1. life experiences, and 2. a hunger for something I know exists. I have no “evidence” for either of these points, but they both are something very real to me none-the-less. I wish I could give you something more concrete, but I simply cannot. 😦
Nate, I am so saddened by the loss of your family! I have a daughter who is living outside the bounds of what I like or believe is right, but I cannot bring myself to cut her off – nor would I want to. She continues to bring so much joy to my life (right along with the pain – for most of my life joy and pain have always been a package deal), I could not imagine living without her. Plus, I have no desire to manipulate anyone into doing anything that will please me and God doesn’t need that kind of “help” either, methinks.
Finally, the only thing I want to ask you is how you determine what Truth is? You talk a lot about whether or not something is true in the Bible, but considering you are reading a translation of what used to be (but is no longer) a living language, how can you be certain that the inconsistencies really exist? And if they do exist, you would have to know consistency to determine inconsistency. In other words, unless there is some “absolute truth” how can we know there is any truth? I certainly would not consider anything in science to be an absolute truth if based on hypotheses since we have seen throughout history so much of what people considered “truth” scientifically be overturned by new information/evidence (the sun revolves around the earth and such). Scientists are discovering new truths all the time that often overturn what they previously thought was true.
One of my recommendations to you, if you are willing, is to watch a video by Rob Bell called, “Everything is Spiritual.” He has helped me a lot in terms of reconciling the kinds of issues you bring up, but he is not dogmatic in his presentation – actually, much more scientific than faith-oriented. 🙂
I look forward to reading more. Peace to you on your journey to finding Truth.
LikeLike
“Is science the best means of knowing? (This can’t be answered by science)”
We associate meaning essentially through models of understanding we can’t really go beyond these models conceptually.
For example if you break down the English language
Q: what is love?
A: affection
Q: what is affection?
A: a feeling
Q: what is a feeling?
Ect.
Whether you agree with the definitions above or not it’s just to illustrate that deconstructing a meaning can’t go beyond our model of understanding. Because words can only be defined by other words you eventually get to a point where words will start overlapping. We cannot go beyond language, for that is our model to make inferences.
A question like “Is science the best means of knowing? (This can’t be answered by science)”
It’s asking something that people can’t do science to find out. All we can really say is that science is the best means of knowing because it works.
For example:
The practice of surgery really took off when people stopped speculating and comparing human anatomy with to other animals and started actually exploring inside real human beings (sorry for the graphics) to see how bodies work. This was achieved through trial and error, it’s not perfect.
The inferences we make through observation is what is explored through philosophy. Science needs philosophy because action needs effective models to organise our inferences.
But science is the most effective action that follows the philosophy. And we know this because it works, this model saves lives, increases understanding, improves living conditions and our ability to communicate.
Therefore I would say (unless there is a divine intervention) science is the best knowable way to effectively understand what is most accurate..
Thanks, Ryan
LikeLike
Ryan,
Science works in certain areas. It doesn’t work to answer other questions. We seem to agree on that.
So unless you think that science has answers to questions of God, meaning, etc, that philosophy tries to analyse, we are agreed that Richard Dawkins’ undoubted abilities in science don’t necessarily make him able to answer philosophical questions, and make in fact hinder him if he thinks the tools of science can be applied where we have agreed they cannot.
Have we not therefore agreed on everything we have been discussing? If so, let’s celebrate, agreement is all that common on the internet! : )
LikeLike
Unklee, those questions you posted above cannot (as far as I know) be answered because they are based on values. Values are what we attach to things, places, concepts, ideals and other people.
The question: how many times does Jenny’s heart beat in three minutes?
Is a question that (through hard work and study) can be answered
The question: How effective is Jenny’s heart?
Can also be answered i.e it keeps her alive by ect.
The question: How valuable is Jenny’s heart?
Is a question that only can be answered subjectively, since value is something human beings attach to others, its something we do. Other animals do this as well, but what they value is not the same as what we value.
To answer this question we would have to assume that we don’t attach values to things but values are intrinsic.
People’s values are based on how effective something is in accordance with our goals. Ever notice why symmetry is valued? Seen as beautiful?
This is because we are pattern-seeking creatures; We are pattern seeking creatures because it has been effective for us to find patterns in things. We then attach value to these patterns. Without this we would not have language, philosophy or science.
We are also capable of placing value on patterns that are (1) not actually effective or (2) are no longer effective for our survival.
Science is a method that tests these patterns and weighs them to assess whether they are accurate and effective.
Value based questions cannot be answered through science. Only what is and is not effective can be answered through science.
This is because people will value things even if they are harmful to them. People will value things even if they are ineffective. And people do this because value is something we do.
LikeLike
An example that value is something we do can be seen in how people value a sports team.
They then might use language that includes themselves in that team
eg: “we thrashed you guys today”.
Placing value on one particular team as “my team” doesn’t mean this team is more effective (this team might lose often).
This is where loyalty comes in (faith). A person’s value of a sports team is no longer necessarily based on how effective the team is, or even who is in the team, but the team begins to represent something more than what it is.
It becomes in a persons mind a part of their identity. How they see themselves. Eg: I am a father, a son, a friend and a crows supporter 🙂
Loyalty for a sports team can be a harmless and fun thing, but when that sports team becomes something more than it is in the persons mind, that can have consequences. For example, people have killed each other based on what soccer team they associate themselves with.
LikeLike
@Ryan
No, it was the other way around actually. Once I read the critiques against Christianity, I spent most of my time reading Christian sources in an effort to answer those criticisms.
I’m not quite sure what you mean here, so I’ll answer this in two ways. I spent a lot of my time focused on how other Christians had addressed the kinds of questions I was facing; hence, my reading a lot of Christian apologetic material.
But if you’re asking how much I dwelt on how my Christian friends and family had reacted to my questions, I thought about it a lot, but I don’t think it was debilitating. I was frustrated that they didn’t seem as concerned about these things as I was, but that didn’t affect how I reacted to the issues themselves.
LikeLike
@unklee and ryan,
As far as the philosophical arguments go (and the statements made by Dawkins), I don’t find them all that useful. The point is, no one knows. Unklee, you pointed out that Dawkins can’t really know if God is more complex than the universe or not, because non-physical things may not operate in the same way that physical things do. That’s true — they may not… or they may. There’s no way we can know. And it would be unreasonable for a being to expect us to know. So what rational being would judge us on something so nebulous?
The best we can do is determine what seems most likely to us. Personally, I find it possible that our universe was created by some intelligent being, but I don’t find it probable. To me, it makes more sense that everything has a natural cause, even if we don’t know what that cause was/is. But that’s me. I know others may view it differently. As long as we can all acknowledge that no one actually knows, then I think it’s great for us to have different opinions about it all. But if someone wants to proclaim that his particular idea is the only right one, he’d better have some outstanding evidence to back it up.
I think we all more or less agree on that outlook, so I won’t ramble on any more about it.
LikeLike
So what I’m trying to say is that value doesn’t exist in the natural world, it exists in the inferences of the human mind.
Eg: What makes “my” team more valuable than the other?
It’s not necessarily just because it wins premierships or has consistent players. So what is it? Well its because I’m a part of my team 🙂
In order to be a part of something a person has to find distinctions of separation to identify what we are then not a part of. So who are we not part of: the other team(s).
Generally speaking nations are developed this way, through valuing territorial boundaries that only exist in peoples minds before they act to build their walls and draw their lines.
Nothing unites people like conflict, whether it presents itself through competition, rivalry or total war. In fact its amazing how much technology and innovation has been developed through the military and competition. Conflict thrives when values clash.
Value doesn’t exist in the natural world; it exists in the inferences of the human mind. There are values that many people share which enable us to effectively thrive. For example of shared values: many German and British soliders would have prayed to the same God, asking that thier side be victorious. However one side has to lose in a fight for power. Values look very different depending where you stand and which side your on. Hence why they cannot really be answered.
Ryan 🙂
LikeLike
G’day Ryan,
I think you are right that science can’t resolve value questions. But i don’t think that answers the questions.
“Does God exist?” is not a value question but a truth question, but one that science cannot answer, though it may throw some light on it.
“Is selfishness objectively right or wrong?” may be a value question, but it may also be a truth question – you can’t just assume your answer. Ditto “the meaning of life”. And these questions will probably be answered if we can answer the God question, so they effectively become truth questions.
So I’m not sure where you’re heading in your recent comments, but I still think that we need other methods than science to determine answers to some important questions. And in fact we use some of these methods all the time.
Best wishes
LikeLike
“Does a god exist?”
Hi again 🙂
seems to me to be a value question, since it is assuming beyond verification that an Agency has complete authority and power. Just like recongnising that a invisible king has authority is a value based question.
Ryan
LikeLike
sorry i’ll retype that
I meant to write: just like asking if an invisible king has authority is a value based question.
LikeLike
JudahFirst,
Thanks for the great comment. And I genuinely appreciate your candor in describing why you believe. Not everyone would be so honest, and I respect that about you.
This is a really great question. In my own mind, my thinking on this is very clear, but I think it’s something that has puzzled a number of other people. I’ll do my best to answer it.
If a god like the Christian god exists, then he apparently expects people to figure out who he is and what he wants. I think most Christians would agree with that, even if they don’t believe the stakes are as high as a literal Heaven and Hell. This god would also be the one who gave us our ability to reason and our questioning spirit. He would know that we are so often torn between logic and longing that we don’t always make the best decisions or figure out how to see the big picture. Furthermore, we’re told that this god loves us all and desperately wants us to be reconciled to him.
To me, these “prerequisites” (can’t think of a better term) set up a situation in which this god would want to give us very clear directions on how to access him. Add to this mix the fact that every culture throughout time has had a different idea about which god (or gods) is the right one, and the deck is already stacked against us. Of course, it seems that truly divine revelation would be very easy to distinguish from all the fakes that have been created by man, but to me, the Bible doesn’t stand out in any real, meaningful way.
The Bible itself tells us that we shouldn’t trust false prophets — and we can tell who a false prophet is by how accurate his prophecies are. Then the Bible gives us some prophecies that fail; the prophecy of Tyre being one of the most notable. The Bible also has some stories that are obvious contradictions (many of them are in the gospels). So to explain this, we point out that even if God inspired the writers of the Bible, they were still human, and humans make mistakes. But humans also made mistakes in the other “false” religious texts in our world, so what really makes the Bible so different?
It’s true that we only have copies of the Bible and not the originals themselves. But why would God have us base something so important as our souls on faulty translations of his all important word? If the fact that we have so many manuscripts is evidence of God’s guidance, why don’t we have accurate copies? Or the originals?
In a way, it’s because I have such a high opinion of God that I find the Bible so unacceptable. It just seems extremely unlikely to me that a true God would use such a method to communicate such an important message.
As to the nature of truth (or fact), I don’t think it’s really all that elusive. It’s a fact that Barack Obama is President of the US. He can’t simultaneously be the Prime Minister of Great Britain. If someone claimed he was, we would know beyond a doubt that they are wrong. There are other things that are more difficult to ascertain, but many things are fairly straightforward. Some of the difficulties in the Bible are not clear enough to really call them contradictions, but others are very clear.
I’ll definitely check it out — thanks for the recommendation!
LikeLike