I had it drawn to my attention by John Pieret and the Sensuous Curmudgeon that Ken Ham mentioned me in a recent blog post. There isn’t anything really that needs to be said in response. On the one hand, he says he is glad that he hasn’t had the sort of education I have. On the other, he claims that there are people with theological education among his staff – and at the top of his list is Terry Mortenson, who came to Butler and was unable even to recognize audibly the difference between Greek and Hebrew. Yet he spoke as though he knew the Biblical languages, and disputed my claim that Genesis 1:6-8 refers to something solid that can aptly be translated “dome.”
And so I’m guilty as charged – I absolutely, unequivocally and unapologetically prefer knowledge over ignorance, in particular knowledge of what the Bible says, how it came to be in the form in which we now have it, and other such knowledge. I view this as preferable to the ignorance that once allowed me to make sweeping – and inaccurate – assertions about the Bible. Of course, with such knowledge comes a potentially unsettling uncertainty. But I presume that the appropriate response is to learn to live with uncertainty, rather than pretend that God gave us a Bible different than the one we actually have, so as to provide us with a certainty that perhaps we aren’t meant to have.
Also relevant to this topic, Pete Enns shared the text of a lecture he gave entitled “The Challenge of Reading the Bible Today: Can the Bible be read both Critically and Religiously?”
Perhaps also worth mentioning, for the sake of “fair and balanced reporting”, is that I have also been quoted in the “General Dismissive Comments” section of the “Christ Myth Theory” entry on WikiQuote.