This is a review of the first installment of the 13-part series from VeggieTales creator Phil Vischer which sets out to teach kids about the Bible. I purchased many of the “What’s In The Bible” (WITB) DVD’s based upon a recommendation from someone at our church and because someone from a men’s small group that I was involved with allowed me to preview two DVDs from the series. Having watched some of the Veggie Tales video’s and being generally pleased with their content, I decided that I would buy THE WITB series for the spiritual edification of my children. However, before doing so, I quickly found out that there were issues with some of the content that is included in the series’ first video. Although, I did eventually purchase 10 of the 13 videos in the series, I could not in good conscience purchase the first video after what I discovered. This post is only a review of content from the first video in the series: Buck Denver Asks: What’s in the Bible? Volume 1- In the Beginning
The following is a dialogue that took place in the comments section of an Amazon Customer Review. Based upon some of the comments made below, I suspect that the person(s) in this dialogue defending Phil Vischer’s work is/are somehow affiliated with the What’s In The Bible project, but I could be wrong. There were many other comments in the review but I have only included the comments that comprise my dialogue with the WITB proponent(s). You can see the full listing of comments @ https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1JAIWX59E8GOS/ref=cm_cr_pr_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00FM5PT0E
Momma of 5 (Original Amazon Customer Reviewer):
We couldn’t disagree with this review more.
The video merely presents the two prevailing viewpoints Christians have about the creation event: a young earth and an old earth. The viewer is left to draw their own conclusions. It is entirely unfair to represent this video as doing anything more than this. Apparently, some people are offended that opposing viewpoints to their own exist or are ever mentioned. Certainly we shouldn’t bury our heads in the sand and try to convince ourselves that we can protect our children from the opinions of others. Instead we should welcome opportunities to discuss these differences and explain why we, as parents, have arrived at certain conclusions ourselves.
Honestly, I cannot see how on God’s green earth someone could watch this DVD and come away with the thought that the creators were endorsing evolution as a viable theory. This is simply not the case. The discussion ONLY covers viewpoints that CHRISTIANS have, and not what science says. (Though, I personally don’t find science the least bit threatening to the Truth if you believe that God’s big enough to handle our questions.)
In fact, there’s even a very witty piece on the show that comes to the conclusion “never send a scientist to do a Sunday school teacher’s job”. It’s pretty funny. 🙂
These topics are all handled in an extremely fair and often tongue-in-cheek way. I’m afraid those who draw conclusions like the original reviewer’s have grossly misunderstood the video’s content and are, unfortunately, giving parents unmerited cause for concern about a truly great series of videos that can absolutely enlighten the hearts and minds of children worldwide.
The bible says that God created from nothing (Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.-Heb 11:3) while the big bang (depending on which version you subscribe to) contradicts this proposition. (For more information see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/does-big-bang-fit-with-bible)
“The Bible says that earth was created before the stars and that trees were created before the sun. However, the big-bang view teaches the exact opposite. The Bible tells us that the earth was created as a paradise; the secular model teaches it was created as a molten blob.” – http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/does-big-bang-fit-with-bible
The big bang is not how God said He created; it IS varied speculation that has scientific and logical problems. Why couldn’t Phil just not mention this anti-biblical speculation instead of trying to undermine the clear view of a six-day creation as a mere “view” within other views?
Now I actually have to go through the other DVDs to make sure Phil isn’t selling us more of his eisegesis.
Amazon Customer
@James
I would refer you to this enlightening book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830837043/ref=cm_cd_asin_lnk
It fully resolves the conflict you seem to be having. Quoted from a reviewer of the book:
“Walton says that the account described in Genesis one is actually a description of God forming a cosmic temple in which he will dwell, a literary device that was common in ancient Near East creation accounts. Walton’s theory is that the creation account we know so well is not an account of material origins, but rather functional origins. Genesis one is describing God creating order out of chaos. It would have been assumed in the ancient world that God created everything material. It was important that the Israelites know that it was God(Yahweh) that gave order and function to all.” – Scandalous Sanity
I’ve read the book and give it my full endorsement. In one fell swoop, the author of the book (John Walton) does away with the compulsion Christians have to fit science into the Biblical narrative, and vice versa. Anyway, it’s a brilliant premise and one that I think you’d find intriguing. 🙂
James @ ChristPlusZero.org
The hermeneutic espoused in the book you recommend is not sustainable. Even if the bible were contemporaneous to various Ancient Near East texts, one cannot take terms from the bible and redefine them using ideas from pagan literature & customs. The mere fact that God is the Author of the bible should prompt the reader to afford Him the reverence of not having His words redefined by pagan texts. Of course, if ANE pagan texts can redefine the meaning of words in Genesis then why can’t they do so in other books of the bible? Who says that Jesus’ death needs to be literal as long as we can find contemporaneous literature that suggests the Greek word for death has been used to instead mean “disappointment” ? As you can see, this hermeneutic immediately undermines and obviates Hebrew and Greek lexicons. Steve Ham of Answersingenesis.org states the following regarding Walton’s position:
“Walton has provided an example of what happens when one gives extra-biblical texts magisterial authority over the text of Scripture. His basis for interpreting the text of Genesis comes from ancient people who were polytheistic, believed in the ultimate source of the power of magic, and wrote much of their history in the form of mythic narrative…A ministerial use of the ANE is where this external literature is used as an enhancement to our understanding of the historical backgrounds of the text. Magisterial use is where the ANE literature is used to actually determine the meaning of the text…The application of Dr. Walton’s use of the ANE texts has resulted in extensive retranslation of the commonly held word meanings, a rejection of the significance of God’s materially creative acts in the history of the early chapters of Genesis, and new emphases impacting definitions of key Christian doctrines. An acceptance of Dr. Walton’s view must conclude that the Church has been without access to the real meaning of Scripture for over 1,800 years.” – Steve Ham, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: A Response
My children don’t need help undermining the Word of God, the present world they live in has already risen to that challenge in spades. I would prefer that they take God’s words literally and if it turns out that I am wrong then I am ready to answer for my actions since my conscience is clear about how I have attempted to honor God by taking Him at his Word within the confines of the language He used and its rules. I mean, even Walton admits that the days of creation are ordinary days in Genesis 1 according to the Hebrew language. So why does he yet feel the need to come up with a way to allow for millions of years and evolution when such an endeavor is uncalled for by the text? The absurdity in relegating the meaning of Genesis 1 to the creation of God’s “Cosmic Temple” sets a dangerous precedent and hermeneutic that our children will probably be consistent about applying to other parts of the bible.
References
https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/genesis-in-ancient-near-east/
https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/books/lost-world-adam-and-eve-response/
There’s a difference between being informed by what was going on in the world around when the Bible was composed and redefining terms in terms of pagan uses. If we refuse to do the former, then we pretend the word of God was written in a vacuum, and the end result is that we can’t even learn the languages the Bible was written in and just have to make up what we want it to mean. We have to see how other texts use these words even to know what they mean. It’s contrary to a high view of scripture to act as if we don’t need to look to the surrounding culture to interpret scripture.
You’re right that we shouldn’t just assume things such as when John uses “logos” it means what Plato meant by the term, and so on. But certainly the Platonist use of that term was part of what John was aware of when he chose to use it, even if he’s using it to indicate something that isn’t Platonic. So it would be out of keeping with proper methods of interpretation if we didn’t place the first few chapters of Genesis in their context to see what kinds of literature are being used and so on. It’s quite possible that Walton doesn’t do that as well as other ways of doing it. I hadn’t read his work in detail, and I’m sure I’d disagree with some of what he says. But it’s definitely not a good argument against him to say that he’s wrong because he’s paying attention to the literature of the time. It’s those who don’t do that who aren’t willing to submit to the text, who are bringing their own ideas of what it must mean instead of seeing what it would have meant to those who first received it, keeping in mind that God might have been doing something different with the background concepts that informed it but recognizing that those are the concepts it starts with, because that’s what the original recipients would have been familiar with.
Again, your understanding of how things work seems to undermine the bible. God already created language and ascribed meanings to the words within the language. This is how Adam knew what was meant in Genesis 2:17 when God told him that in the day he ate of the forbidden fruit he would die. Adam didn’t need to read up on the Ancient Near East texts of his day in order to understand what those words meant. He already knew the language. Similarly, the Israelites knew the Hebrew language and did not need to bone up on the Gilgamesh Epic in order to understand that God caused a global flood in Genesis 6-9. There is no prerequisite that calls for one to read contemporaneous literature in order to understand the bible. If one does decide upon doing so, one should be careful not to let those ideas change the way they look at the bible. I extremely dislike the idea that not turning to extra-biblical texts as a rule in some way leaves the reader unprepared or incapable of already having the complete picture. I did not mean for this to turn into a bible study session but 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that Scripture is sufficient (not needing supplementation) while 2 Peter 1:19-21 says that Scripture is superior (to even empirical evidence). Peter, through the propositional revelation of the Holy Spirit, was able to declare in Matthew 16:16 that Jesus was the Son of the living God without needing to consort with rabbinic literature. Thus a principle of biblical interpretation is learning “not to think beyond what is written”, this way, in our minds God’s word stays true while all other literature remains unreliable (1 Corinthians 4:6, Romans 3:4).
Walton is not “wrong because he’s paying attention to the literature of the time,” he is wrong because he uses ideas from those extra-biblical text to redefine the clear meaning of words in Genesis 1. Similarly, Vischer introduces doubts about the clarity of the Genesis text where there are none–at least none grammatically. It is one thing to explain that various views have arisen concerning the Genesis text (though this in itself is unnecessary and pointless, exegetical contentions apply to virtually every verse in Scripture), it is quite another thing to gloss over the issue by suggesting that either view is orthodox after bringing it up in the first place.
BTW, I purchased about 10 other volumes of What’s in the Bible and I have found other issues apart from just Vischer’s compromising the Genesis text. It’s not all bad but there are certainly enough issues to keep us busy talking for a while which is not my intent–at least not in this forum
@James: This conversation has veered quite a bit from a review of the actual product. Nowhere in any video within the series is the Bible ever undermined as the Word of God. Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection are treated as literal (as are all other stories from the Bible). For you to take issue with an entire series of videos which seek to inspire in children a love and appreciation for Scripture and the God of the Bible, based merely on a few sentences you disagree with in the first volume, is entirely counter-productive, and lacks the grace and love that Jesus exemplified. He said himself “whoever is not against us is for us”. I’ve watched the entire series and can attest that it COMPLETELY affirms the divine authorship of Scripture and espouses the authority of Scripture throughout the series. If you have not watched the entire series, you do not have the authority to speak against it. As I’ve pointed out in other replies, the issues brought up from the first video (which appear nowhere in the remainder of the series) were an obvious attempt of the producer(s) to present a “balanced” view of the two predominant Christian-held opinions concerning the creation event. It never takes a side, nor does it promote one over the other. If they had chosen one viewpoint to present, they would have risked alienating the large portion of the church who hold the opposite viewpoint. And vice versa. But, wisely, they chose to explain that there are differences of opinion and that it is OK for Christians to disagree. Explaining that we don’t all have to agree on everything, and showing how we can love one another in spite of our differences of opinion is (as far as I’m concerned) FAR more powerful than simply taking a hard line stance on one side and saying “my way or the highway”.
I get that you’re passionate about your opinion. Good! Nothing wrong with that. But, in the position of the producer(s) who are trying to make a ministry product that will be meaningful to the greatest number of people, I feel they handled the subject matter brilliantly, with tact, grace, and humor. I’m sorry if you cannot see this through your dogma. But, if you could take off your religious glasses for a moment, and find the good that pervades the entirety of the series, you would become enlightened to a powerful spiritual force called grace. It’s truly a beautiful thing. And, I would venture to say that more than your dogma, grace is what your children need to learn from you most. Because, they may not always hold your opinions… but pray to God that they gain the heart of Christ through your example, because that will sustain and bring them life, regardless of the words and beliefs they ultimately align themselves with.
Look, Scripture was “inspired” by God, not “dictated” by God. (2 Tim 3:16) This certainly allows for us to enter the realm of discussion as to the language used, words chosen, and the influencing culture of those who penned the words of the Bible (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit). I see no evidence to show that they were in a trance-like state when writing, or that God took over control of their bodies so He could literally write every line of Scripture. This is not to say the Bible is not approved in its form by God, because He has certainly taken an interest in preserving it through the years and liberally quoted from Scripture when He walked among us. But, to understand the method of transmission and transcription does make a difference in our interpretation. But, beyond all of that, as 2 Cor. 3:6 admonishes, “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” The God’s message to us is not that we should be slaves to the letter, as were the Pharisees. But, that we should also enter into a daily communion with the Holy Spirit in that His words will be written on our heart, and moreover that we will simply gain his heart. As Jesus quoted, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (paraphrased) Thank God for the Bible, but we can argue about every jot and tittle all day long. But, when I act in LOVE toward my fellow man… who can argue with that?? I want my children to look for and find good in others, not to be finding fault (which is not love) and ready to pounce on those who are “missing it” here or there. I want them to be inspired by and in awe of the awesome God of creation who loves them beyond measure so they can share that love with everyone they come in contact with, not trained to pick a fight with the unfortunate souls who disagree with them on petty doctrinal issues. And, because I want that for them, I must model that myself.
So, while I could discuss at length my assertions as to why I feel your argument (or the one you are getting from Answers in Genesis) is fundamentally flawed, I know that it would not be of any real benefit to you or Amazon customers. And, again, it has absolutely nothing to do with the product in question, because none of this is covered in the video.
I do wish you the best. Shalom! 🙂
James @ ChristPlusZero.org
I did not see this response before my last reply but there are so many things wrong with what you have said that I simply could not allow them to go unanswered. I don’t think this conversation has veered from the actual product because I still believe that the product is guilty of trying to appease those that adhere to the big bang view of creation which many customers (including myself) have argued is thoroughly unbiblical. Despite the products’ attempt to appear neutral, it is certain that based upon the transcript of WITB Volume 1, Vischer both subtlety and plainly advocates for the big bang position (which requires billions of years) and thus for old earth cosmogony. This is discussed in more detail later.
You also state that:
“Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection are treated as literal (as are all other stories from the Bible…”But this is exactly the point that you seem to miss regarding the Creation account. Visher did not take Genesis 1 literally for if he had then there would be no need to introduce the concept of “God days” as he did. There is no Hebrew lexicon that discusses or supports the notion of “God days.” If the mere mention of the word day requires the reader to evoke the notion of “God-days” then why doesn’t Vischer do this in other books of the bible that employ the word day? For instance, it was interesting to see that in the 20 seconds or so that WITB Vol 9 actually spends speaking about the book of Jonah, Vischer doesn’t launch into a discussion about whether the 3 days Jonah spent in the fish were actually “earth days” or “God days.” Such a discussion would have been appreciated, even if only for the sake of consistency. Furthermore, the WITB character Chester says “He must have had a loud voice because it made a big BANG!) Heh, heh, heh… get it? Big bang?” and later Phil clearly says that “God created everything from the big bang to Adam and Eve…” so please lets knock off this talk about how Vischer “never takes a side” in the dialogue about the Creation Event. That there was a Big Bang is never even questioned in the DVD, and is actually stated as a matter of fact. Though two viewpoints were discussed (whether the Creation took 6000 years or 4.5 Billion years) the explanation given to elucidate the issue was really a veiled attempt to justify non-literal days. In fact, Vischer erroneously uses the Big Bang to describe the young earth position when he states:
“some Christians believe [Moses] was actually referring to “earth days”, 24 hour periods, the amount of time it takes the world to rotate once. Now if that’s the case, it means God created everything from the big bang to Adam and Eve in 144 hours. So, the earth couldn’t be more than 6 or 7,000 years old.”A more “balanced” approach, though still unnecessary, would have completely left out the big bang talk and simply stuck to old earth vs. young earth dialogue.
Further, you state:
“Nowhere in any video within the series is the Bible ever undermined as the Word of God.”Yet, in the transcript of the DVD in question we read Phil Vischer saying:
“God communicated this story to Moses and then like the other authors of the Bible, let Moses choose the words to tell the story to the people around him. So, why did Moses choose the word “DAY” when he described God’s creative activity?”According to the bible it is not true that God merely “communicated this story to Moses and then like the other authors of the Bible, let Moses choose the words to tell the story to the people around him.” Rather, God breathed out the actual words of Scripture; the word “inspiration” literally means “God-breathed” in the Greek (2 Timothy 3:16). Otherwise, how else could the bible assert that the very words of Scripture are God-breathed if Moses was the one who actually authored those words? In fact, Scripture vociferously militates against the idea that the prophets had anything to do with the actual words of the bible. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 we are told that Paul’s message was not “the word of men” but “the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). In case that is not clear enough for you, Acts 1:16 tells us that the “Holy Ghost [spoke] by the mouth of David “; in 2 Samuel 23:2 David tells us that: “The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his WORD was in my tongue”; in Jeremiah 1:9 we read, “Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth”; and in Zechariah 7:12, Scripture is defined as “the words which the LORD of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets…” Obviously, I could provide several other bible verses were it deemed necessary. There are at least two other important reasons why the actual words of Scripture could NEVER originate from the minds of men but these should only need to emerge if the aforementioned verses could ever be called into question. From these verses of Scripture, we clearly see that God is not only in control of the process by which Scripture is relayed, but He also controls the actual words that are communicated. To borrow a phrase from the 16th century reformer, Martin Luther; “if you cannot understand how this could have been done…, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are.”
You say:
“I feel they handled the subject matter brilliantly, with tact, grace, and humor. I’m sorry if you cannot see this through your dogma. But, if you could take off your religious glasses for a moment…”This is a video about the bible, how else was I supposed to look at the content? With secular glasses? The Author of the bible did not attempt to communicate ambiguously. He meant to convey a univocal message and is no doubt frustrated that some bible teachers are more concerned with accommodating the “greatest number of people” rather than rightly dividing the Word of Truth.
You say:
“Look, Scripture was ‘inspired’ by God, not ‘dictated’ by God. (2 Tim 3:16) This certainly allows for us to enter the realm of discussion as to the language used, words chosen, and the influencing culture of those who penned the words of the Bible (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit). I see no evidence to show that they were in a trance-like state when writing, or that God took over control of their bodies so He could literally write every line of Scripture.”Since I have already addressed this issue earlier in my response, you must now understand that the bible is in fact “dictated” by God. And if so, then your entire argument about the “influencing culture” or the “method of transmission and transcription” necessarily becomes irrelevant.
Finally, when you say:
“2 Cor. 3:6 admonishes, ‘The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.’ The God’s message to us is not that we should be slaves to the letter, as were the Pharisees. But, that we should also enter into a daily communion with the Holy Spirit in that His words will be written on our heart…”apart from the fact that you have completely misapprehended the verse in question, I am also disappointed that you did not first consult contemporaneous Ancient Near East texts so as to properly understand how to redefine the words of 2 Cor 3:6 the same way you believe folks should do in Genesis 1. Furthermore, if we are to “enter into a daily communion with the Holy Spirit” how else better to do so than to “tremble at His Word” rather than disdain them by expanding their semantic range? (Isaiah 66:2). Contrary to what you have implied, the “letter” in 2 Cor 3:6 has nothing to do with a rigid adherence to the words of the bible. Rather, it refers to the Law and its “ministration of death.” The bible tells us in Romans 3:19, 5:12-21 that the “killing” perpetrated by the “letter” results from the pronouncement of condemnation that is exercised upon all flesh by the Law. Through Adam’s disobedience (and subsequently ours), sin used the Law to confer upon us all death (Romans 7:11, 2 Cor 3:7), before the glorious appearance of Christ’s sacrifice which would ultimately render this death-issuing aspect of the Law inoperable (Col 2:14, 1 Cor 15:56-57).
Of course, if according to your comprehension of 2 Cor 3:6, being a “slave to the letter” is rigid adherence to the text, and if such behavior is not what God wants, then we must impugn Christ with such a charge since there is perhaps no One who was a bigger “slave to the letter” than Him. In fact, in Matthew 22:32, Jesus goes further than any other logician by actually drawing necessary inferences from the tense of the letter. Talk about being enslaved to the text! Regarding this servitude to the letter, Dr. Henry Morris states: “With a single word from the Old Testament (“am” rather than “was,” stressing the tense of the verb), the Scripture, as cited by Christ, both confirms the truth of life after death, rebukes the Sadducean priests, and illustrates the vital importance of the doctrine of the verbal (word-by-word, rather than general concepts) inspiration of the Bible.”
The plain fact is that this video puts forth ideas that are controversial to what we are teaching our children about the bible and Creation; this is the main reason why customers such as my self and others have decided to speak out about what we’ve observed. Again, I don’t think this is the forum for a theological debate, I am merely trying to ensure that the point the original reviewer made is clearly understood as being valid.
Jeremy Pierce
1. You can believe in the Big Bang and hold to a young earth theory. The Big Bang just refers to the initial moment of creation and the method by which God brings things into being. You can believe that happens in a much shorter time than our best science tells us. But it’s certainly compatible to speak of a Big Bang and hold to an old earth theory. So it’s no mark against Phil’s attempt not to take sides that he’s willing to use that language. He probably is an old earther, and it’s not clear that he accepts common descent by evolution and such. But I don’t think his language is intended to rule out any position, and I don’t think it needs to do so.
2. You seem to be defending a weird position on inspiration. You find it problematic that Phil thinks God inspired Moses in a way that Moses’ conscious choices were involved in the choice of the words he used. Do you really think God dictated everything to the biblical authors without working through their conscious choices? So when God inspires Paul to tell Timothy to bring him a cloak, that’s not something that Paul had been thinking on his own but was merely dictated by God? None of the biblical authors chose any of their words in any sense? That’s ludicrous. And there’s no reason to limit God’s omnipotence the way you’re doing. It’s certainly within the abilities of an omnipotent being to inspire people by means of their own choices. If God can use the king of Assyria in Isaiah 10 and the choices of Judas as described in Acts 2 and 4, while both ensuring those people do what God’s plan requires and while blaming them for their bad choices, then surely God can inspire Paul to choose the particular words in his letters or the gospel writers to use particular Greek terms to translate Jesus’ Aramaic words while still ensuring that they’re the words God wanted to come out. So thinking of Moses making word choices is not remotely contrary to taking God to have inspire them. Your piece of evidence against Vischer is ridiculous. He does think God inspired every word, and he does think Moses made choices to end up with the words God wanted him to end up. That’s in fact what the historic view of inerrancy has always amounted to. You don’t seem to think that’s possible. That’s a huge limit on God’s power and a very weird view of inspiration. Maybe you don’t really think that, but your argument against Vischer about Moses choosing words makes no sense unless you do.
James @ ChristPlusZero.org
Jeremy,
1. You are clearly confused about what the term “big bang” entails and I say this in the nicest way possible. The big bang is not something that you can simply redefine to make fit whatever idea you like. Integral to the big bang theory is the idea that billions of years have elapsed since the beginning of the universe. I have included a few references to help you understand the Big Bang Theory:According to the American Heritage Dictionary of Student Science, the Big Bang is “the violent explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter between 12 and 18 billion years ago.”
The Princeton University WordNet Dictionary defines the Big Bang as “the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature.”
The Encyclopædia Britannica defines the Big Bang as the “widely held theory of the evolution of the universe. Its essential feature is the emergence of the universe from a state of extremely high temperature and density-the so-called big bang that occurred 13.8 billion years ago.”
And finally, as if any more sources were needed, Oxford University Press Dictionary defines the Big Bang as “The rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe…and …. is believed to have formed around 13.7 billion years ago.”
Both you and Phil Vischer are thus presenting confused information about the Creation Event and the young earth position. If you are going to advocate a secular position on a video meant for wide dissemination, you should at least understand its fundamentals.
2. Secondly, I noticed that you completely side-stepped the several bible verses provided in my previous response that require the very words of the bible to have originated from God. I suspect that you did so because you are unable to refute those powerful declarations of God’s control over the actual words employed in the bible. Therefore, until you can engage those verses and their repudiation of your “Moses chose the words” theory, I do not think it prudent to continue discussing this particular matter.
Jeremy Pierce
So now you’ve decided to pretend that I don’t think God inspired the very words of the Bible. My point is that you can hold both that God inspired the very words of the Bible and that God worked through the thought processes of the human authors. Then you claim that I didn’t say the first part, when that was my very point. I’m not going to argue with someone who pretends I’m saying the opposite of what I’m saying. No reason to continue this nonsense.
The Christ Plus Zero Movement 