"The Clarity Complaint" Resurrected
"Jimmy-Pat" Holding Can Mock It, Can Delete It, Can Defer to Ancient Jews, But He Cannot Answer Why the Bible is Not More Clear
Brett Palmer, © 2010
CONTENTS
I. Introduction
III. Revisiting the Clarity Complaint
IV. The Bible's Information Minister
V. Six of One, Half Dozen of Another
VI. The Clarity Complaint Complainer Complains
VII. Self-Publishing Made Easy!
VIII. Exegesis Smexegesis
X. Conclusion
XI. Notes
XII. Sources
At the conclusion of many of my articles here on The Bible Skeptic I have commented, following a critique of some failed work of an apologist explaining a difficult passage from the Bible, that the apologist’s job is not an enviable one. The Bible is filled with absurdities and contradictions that apologists feel they have been called to defend (1Peter 3:15). The really athletic participants in this sport are very good at stretching their (and their readers') imaginations in the creation of explanations and interpretations to account for these observations of biblical awkwardness while at the same time maintaining the illusion that what they are performing is rational, reasoned and well-researched. After reading a shoot-from-the-hip response to my article Deleting "The Clarity Complaint" which noted internet apologist James Patrick Holding’s removal of his "The Clarity Complaint" article from his website–an article which weakly tried to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent deity could not inspire a more clearly written text or assure inerrant copies of his book after inspiring a supposed inerrant "original"—I pity these poor souls all the more. The contortions they must go through to author an apologetic leaves one both astounded and depressed.
Mr. Holding published his reply to me on his "parody," cartoon page again in which he believes my article laments a belief that he doesn't take me seriously. I don’t recall in any way suggesting that Mr. Holding need take me seriously or care about me in any way. What I've stated he should take seriously and care about are the skeptical challenges to his faith and apologetic efforts. After all, he's an apologist who has opened up shop on the internet, responding to carefully selected skeptical attacks on the Bible and asking others to contribute financially to his endeavor. Naturally he should care, not about me personally, but about the skeptical observation that the Bible–supposedly authored from an omniscient perspective—is often not very clear in what it tries to convey, is sometimes scientifically or historically inaccurate and contradictory. He obviously has some concern about the charge because he originally authored a short, dismissive article about the subject which he later removed in a "revamp" of his site (I, of course, have suspicions as to why he removed it, but we needn’t entertain those thoughts here). He obviously continues to care about the issue, and particularly my take on it, because of all the articles on my site that dissect his apologetics [1], he continues to pay the most attention to my observations about how he is handling this "clarity complaint." [2]
I certainly have no qualms stating that I take Mr. Holding seriously as an apologetic presence. He does not have the prestige, history, education, qualifications or backing as other, more well-known apologists (like Norman Geisler or Lee Strobel) but he nonetheless has a following (largely via the internet) and his writings turn up quite high in Google searches. While I may personally think his apologetic efforts are less than well-reasoned, less than academic in standard and often caustic in nature against his opponents, there is no denying his popularity among the crowd with whom I come into contact on a regular basis. Professor of biology at Brown University Kenneth R. Miller noted in his book, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul, regarding the budding but highly popular and (politically) influential Intelligent Design movement:
…there's only one sure way to find out [if Intelligent Design is revolutionary, legitimate science], and that's to take the idea seriously. If design really is the key to the complexity of living things, we ought to be eager to do a lot more than merely say, "Well, that means there must be a designer." We should be embracing design as a central principle of earth history, biological development, genetics, and genome organization. Design should be the tool we use to understand fossils, to develop new drugs, and to classify organisms. After all, that's how we use evolution now, and if design is to replace Darwinian evolution, it should do all those things---and it should do them a whole lot better. (p. 45)
Prof. Miller then went on to demolish the idea of Intelligent Design in the following pages but his reasoning to take the notion seriously at the outset is commendable. I feel the same about Mr. Holding's work at his Tekton Apologetics Ministries website. While his efforts are deficient in a number of areas, Mr. Holding nonetheless commands a certain presence among (young?) believers and his apologetic style (what I would call pseudo-intellectual and sarcastic) is gaining popularity as can be recognized by his appearance in recent video dialogues with Pastor Craig Johnson and book endorsements from professor of Christian apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary Richard G. Howe, and the aforementioned Lee Strobel. [3] But my opinions of, and personal feelings toward, Mr. Holding and his works are irrelevant. There's only one sure way to find out if Mr. Holding's assertions and apologetics are a legitimate way to study the Bible and that's to take his assertions and apologetics seriously regardless of how I feel personally about them. If Mr. Holding's ideas are really the key to reading and understanding the Bible, we ought to be eager to do a lot more than merely say, "Well, that Mr. Holding sure can craft words to insult a skeptic!" or "His webpage sure comes up a lot in Google!" We should be embracing his apologetics as central to Biblical study. Tekton should be the tool we use to understand ancient Israel, to read the Bible in its historical and culture contexts, and to defend it against skeptical attacks. After all, that's how mainstream biblical studies are used in major universities the world over and that is how believers use other sources of apologetics. If Mr. Holding's Tektonic Ministries is to really rise to the top of all forms of biblical studies and apologetic resources, Mr. Holding's work should do all those things---and he should do them a whole lot better.
Revisiting the Clarity Complaint
In his original article, "The Clarity Complaint," Mr. Holding briefly acknowledged the skeptical observation that the Bible is sometimes not very clear in some of what it narrates or describes. This lack of clarity, skeptics note, calls into question the assertion that such a document would have ultimately come from a divine, omniscient, omnipotent source. For example, the Bible describes the sun as moving around the earth (e.g. Psalm 19:6; Psalm 19:4-5). Clearly, this is scientifically inaccurate but some apologists are quick to defend such a claim by asserting that when discussing certain features of cosmology God allowed the biblical authors to employ "phenomenological language". Catholic apologists concoct elaborate schemes to get us to believe that "brother" doesn't mean "brother" in the Bible so that we'll agree with them that Jesus didn't have any biological male siblings. Inevitably you get apologists at odds with one another having one apologist telling his or her audience not to pay attention to another apologist because they're not reading the Bible right. Then, along will come a third apologist to tell everyone that the other two are nothing more than knuckleheads and neither is reading the Bible correctly. This strife among believers underscores the skeptical observation that the Bible is not clear. The apologists cannot even keep their own house in order, so if they can't come to agreement amongst themselves, what business do they have telling skeptics what to think? And this strife is not just between "dumbass" apologists on the one hand and articulate ones on the other. They are all True Believers® who genuinely have faith in, and to one degree or another persuasively argue, the validity of their positions.
Occasionally you’ll encounter an apologist who explains that the Bible is misunderstood largely because it needs to be approached in its cultural, social, temporal or religious context. But even if an apologist is sometimes right in directing us to a context in which we can understand a difficult passage in the Bible, it still remains true by virtue of these contexts that the Bible sometimes doesn't mean what it clearly says. When the Bible says God was grieved for having created humankind because they had grown wicked since the time of Adam, and that to correct his mistake in making them God would "bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die" (Genesis 6:17), clearly telling the reader that the deity intended to flood the whole earth, some apologists want us to understand that the Bible doesn't mean what it clearly says. Geology and physics provides evidence that no such global disaster ever occurred. While some apologists attack the sciences of geology and physics in order to rescue the story of Noah's flood from the trash heap [4], other apologists reinterpret (exegete) these passages in a cultural context so that the contradiction between science and the biblical claim disappears. These creative apologists argue that the flood of Noah was not worldwide in scope but merely a local event [5], demonstrating that the Bible does not mean what it clearly says. But, by appealing to some context which ultimately restricts the text to the boundaries of its own limited composition, all reason to suppose there is an additional, supernatural context for the passages become superfluous and overly cumbersome. If I use these same techniques to understand any piece of ancient literature, and those techniques are sufficient and effective for noninspired documents, why do I need to consider divine inspiration for a text which can only be properly understood using these same tools? And, regardless of the value of an apologetic explanation, by the mere existence of an apologetic effort to better explain some Bible difficulty, the apologist is demonstrating that there does indeed exist a better way to say something than what the Bible offers. Apologetics, by definition, is evidence that the Bible was not written clearly!
Mr. Holding largely dismisses this skeptical observation, placing the burden of the Bible's lack of clarity at the skeptics' feet. Basically, Mr. Holding has argued, skeptics are too stupid and/or too lazy to understand the Bible properly and that is hardly the divine Author's fault. I responded to this assertion in an earlier article by noting Mr. Holding's less than convincing effort to address the skeptical complaint. To that response, Mr. Holding called me names such as pompous and "dumbass." Calling into question how such attempts to insult me personally in any way addressed the subject of our disagreement, I noted in reply, stressing again that Mr. Holding
…cannot explain why the Bible is not more clearly written, given that it was inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent being, other than to call those who don't bow to his ruling of what is 'true' and 'not true' as intellectually lazy, pompous and ignorant and to sweep his earlier assertions off his website and barf up a vulgar reply to me personally as an after-thought.
And in response this time around I was treated to:
"Waaah. Sorry I'm so stupid. Waaah. He hit me! Mommmmmeeeee!!!!"
Indeed, taking Mr. Holding's apologetics seriously requires a Herculean effort in the face of such grade school antics but, plod on we must if only in the interest of personal integrity. Someone has to be the grown-up here and, if we're lucky, we might just stumble upon something loosely resembling an actual argument amid Mr. Holding's otherwise petulant, distractive and largely incoherent ramblings.
The Bible's Information Minister
Noting that Mr. Holding had also made a limp-wristed defense of the Bible's lack of clarity in his self-published book, Trusting the New Testament, I pointed out in my last reply that he continued to lay "most of the blame for the lack of clarity in the Bible at the feet of those who read it." I liked Mr. Holding to "certain despots like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or North Korea's Kim Jong-il" who "defer all blame for any personal misappropriate action" onto their subjects. This is what Mr. Holding does on behalf of his deity. Mr. Holding holds blameless the Bible's divine Author "for any perceived biblical historical, scientific, scribal or moral errancy."
And, again, stifling the humor one must ultimately see in trying to take such shenanigans as "serious apologetics," I note Mr. Holding's reply consisted solely of a mock summary of my points. He wrote:
"I'm not stupid! God is a dictator! It's his fault my panties are too tight! I have no responsibility to change them! That dictator God MAKES me wear tight panties!"
Mr. Holding's reading comprehension is about at the same level of his apologetic treatments. I did not say the deity was a dictator; that title belongs to Mr. Holding. It is Mr. Holding–standing in for the deity, explaining the deity's lack of ability to author a clear text—who defers blame for this fault of clarity. But perhaps equating Mr. Holding with a political dictator wasn't the best analogy I could have used. I think it better to describe Mr. Holding as a spokesman; the Author merely incompetent. Mr. Holding is to apologetics as Baghdad Bob, Muhammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, the Iraqi Information Minister was to news regarding the 2003 American-led invasion of Iraqi. [6]
At any rate, in his rather awkward way Mr. Holding seems to be suggesting that the Author of the Bible has no responsibility whatsoever in the production of a clear text. Mr. Holding has stereotyped the skeptical argument regarding the lack of biblical clarity as one which asserts that readers should be completely passive when approaching the biblical narrative. He is under the impression that skeptics believe readers of the text have no responsibility in trying to understand the writings within various contexts. What gave him such an idea? Certainly it is much easier to beat the straw man of such a construction rather than to actually address the true skeptical position, but what does this say (again) about the apologetic efforts found on Mr. Holding's Tekton website? Efforts to distract readers of the exodus population problem by dredging up the Scythians is another example of this strange apologetic technique. It must be an absolute delight to sit around all day, constructing easy skeptical caricatures in the morning then, following a large lunch of bologna and cheese, Pringles and a tall, cool glass of sweetened tea, create a vulgar, high-pitched squeal of an apologetic beating down this cardboard construction in the afternoons. Probably by 3pm the apologist can call it a day, waddle over to his La-Z-Boy in front of a rabbit-eared television for an evening of Rosanne reruns. What a life, eh?
But skeptics don't insist on divine Authors creating "pop-up books" for their sacred texts. It is not that skeptics believe a god owes us anything. Apparently Mr. Holding is too steeped in Calvinistic-like delusions to recognize this. All skeptics are doing is pointing out an inconsistency. The apologists have asserted that God is omniscient and omnipotent. God knows everything and is all-powerful. God is also claimed to have inspired authors to write the divine text. God has the power to inspire such a text and the knowledge to write it clearly. However, the Bible is not clear. In fact, the Bible lacks clarity over items that human authors–given the same foresight and power available to omniscient and omnipotent beings—would never fudge if given half the chance. And it's not just this lack of clarity generally. It is also the apologists' assertions regarding awkward passages in the Bible that they apparently need to correct which wouldn't have been necessary had the Perceptive Power not created these literary messes in the first place. As pointed out in earlier treatments of this topic, if the deity had written, or inspired to have written, passages with the same clarity which apparently drips with ease from the apologist's pen, we would have no need of the Norman Geislers, Lee Strobels and James Patrick Holdings of the world in the first place. And wouldn't the world be a much nicer place without them, tight panties and all?
Again playing the Christian Apologetics Information Minister, Mr. Holding diverts attention away from his being unable to evidence why an omniscient, omnipotent god could not have preserved copies of his divine text with the same oversight and power with which he inspired the "originals" (other than to imply there is some sort of Calvanisticlike free pass for whatever the deity wishes to do) by asserting that doing so would have made God a "micromanaging fundy." Of course, as is Mr. Holding's style, he does not explain why the inspiration of inerrant "originals," but not the inspiration of inerrant copies, makes God a micromanaging fundy but it sounds funny and the sarcastic dismissal stuns his readers into believing that he's made some sort of clever rhetorical point. [7] We'll return to this assertion of "micromanagement" later in this article.
Six of One, Half Dozen of Another
After I laughed at the idea that Mr. Holding believes in some ethereal "home office copy" of the original Bible (which is the only inerrant copy in existence, apparently), he blows his stack and again calls me "a remarkable dumbass" in this latest reply of his. He says I turned his "exegetical explanation of Matthew 5:18" into his own personal witness that an inerrant original exists in heaven because he saw it. But that is not what I said. I asked how Mr. Holding could possibly know about this supposed inerrant "home office" edition of the Bible. Mr. Holding explains that there is a "defining background of the 'Word/Logos' in Judaism," and implies this should be considered as the foundation for his assertion that this perfect edition resides in heaven. Bravo! Mr. Holding has uncovered a tradition within Judaism that he relies upon to support his assertion that there is an inerrant copy of the Bible, on file, back at the home office. The Word/Logos is a pre-existent, co-existing trait of God, his Wisdom, his revelatory power, his communication medium between himself and humankind. Christians view it as the creative power by which all was made and by which all will be saved, a living personality, a uniting force between humans and the divine. Being with God, being as God, being God (yes, I know, it's all so very clear), it is of course perfect in every way and inerrant in all that it produces. Now Mr. Holding needs to reason with his audience why this assertion regarding the "Word/Logos" holds some sort of explanatory power over and above his own claim regarding a home office copy of an inerrant Bible. This is a step I rarely see Mr. Holding take. He can tell us why ancient people talked the way they did, wrote the way they did, felt the way they did, interacted with each other the way they did by quoting from books by Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh or some other social scientist of ancient Near Eastern customs and beliefs, but he never takes the next step into telling us that any of these things necessarily lead to a conclusion that what these ancient peoples believed was true. It's irrelevant to the point I was making that an ancient people believed in a pre-existent Logos and that this Logos is the original, inerrant Bible "on file at the home office." It's no better than merely asserting that "I say God exists, an ancient person asserted that God existed, therefore God exists." Mr. Holding needs to show us that this belief is true! Mr. Holding's assertion is no truer because there's a "defining background of the 'Word/Logos' in Judaism." Researching that ancient peoples believed in such things doesn't make it any truer! We should be no more impressed with such an exegetical circle jerk than we should be if Mr. Holding had merely deferred his ideas to Norman Geisler or Lee Strobel instead of some ancient custom. Why should anyone care one whit about who came up with the idea first? Whether it was an ancient Jew or a modern Christian, if the idea itself is based upon a fantasy what does it matter who takes credit for making it up?
I don't mean to belittle the value of understanding some biblical passages in their cultural or historical contexts from an apologetic perspective. For example, some skeptics believe there's a problem with the biblical assertion that Jesus was in the tomb for three days and nights (just a Jonah was three days and nights in the belly of the whale). However, the Bible says he was buried on a Friday before sunset and resurrected the following Sunday morning around sunrise. Friday night and Saturday night, then, are the only two nights he was in the tomb and Saturday the only full day. As apologist author Gleason Archer explains in his book, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, the problem is merely a misunderstanding of an ancient idiom:
According to ancient parlance, then, when you wished to refer to three separate twenty-four-hour days, you said, "three days and three nights"—even though only a portion of the first and third days might be involved…A similar usage is apparent from the narrative in 1 Samuel 30:12, where "he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights" is equated in v.13 with "three days ago"—which could only mean "day before yesterday"…We simply have to get used to slightly different ways of expressing time intervals.
There are times when knowing details regarding an ancient Near Eastern custom, idiom or practice helps in putting into perspective or context such passages and this takes nothing away from the supposed inerrancy of the text. However, ancient customs or practices of themselves are not evidence of biblical inerrancy nor are they witnesses of their own truth. For example, the Bible mentions something known as asherahs. For example, 2Kings says Hezekiah "removed the high places, broke the pillars and cut down the Ashereah" during a reform of the nation's religious practices while his son Manasseh did the opposite and actually set up "a graven image of Asherah" in Solomon's Temple. What was this Asherah and why would someone like Hezekiah go to lengths to have it "cut down" while his son (described biblically as one of the worst religious apostates who had "made Judah to sin") erected them? The answer can be understood in the context of ancient Israeli culture as discussed in William Dever's book, Did God Have a Wife: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. In Dever's study we learn that, contrary to popular belief, ancient Israel was not a pure, monotheistic culture throughout its history. There was a belief, apparently quite dominate among the rural population, that the Israelite god Yahweh had a "wife" or "consort." While such a cultural study of Israel's belief in, or use of, Asherahs can help us understand certain biblical narratives, just as the "defining background" of the Judaic concept of "Word/Logos" can help us understand the source for asseting the existence of an etherial, inerrant Bible, the contexts themselves in no sense make such beliefs true. It is no truer that there was a real "wife of God" because there is a cultural context and archaeological evidence for such an idea any more than it is true there is a One True God who would have been upset at such beliefs and ordered the destruction of her shrines, statues, etc. because such practices are described in 2Kings. Surely no apologist cut from the same cloth as Mr. Holding would agree that this cultural context and archaeological evidence is the "defining background" of "God’s consort: in folk Judaism and therefore proof that God had a wife! While placing the Bible in these contexts make for a much fuller, richer, more meaningful and more satisfying reading experience, they don't make such biblical assertions true. Remember, Mr. Holding is trying to convince us that there really exists an inerrant Bible ("on file at the home office") and that there is a rational, practical, logical reason why there are no inerrant copies left, available, to us today. While he can give us the context for a Judaic idea of the "Word/Logos" and tell us that this is how he and the ancient Jews viewed such an inerrant Bible, this context does not make his assertion true. There is no more a true, inerrant Bible "on file back at the home office" than there is a divine spouse for the Lord just because Mr. Holding and Prof. Dever can point to ancient contexts for such ideas.
The Clairity Complaint Complainer Complains
Mr. Holding parenthetically moans that "having to explain everything to [Brett Palmer] is like trying to explain nuclear physics to an infant." Yes, and I suppose Mr. Holding fancies that he is to apologetics what Otto Hahn was to nuclear physics. [8] And he calls me pompous! If explaining an apologetic to me is like explaining nuclear physics to an infant, then what exactly is Mr. Holding admitting? When it comes to nuclear physics, I am like a child. I know very little about the subject. I dare say the same holds true for the vast majority of the people in our population and I'd hazard to guess that would include Mr. Holding as well. After all, nuclear physics, like archaeology, biology, astronomy, etc. are all "outside his field of expertise." There are probably only a handful of individuals who have a full grasp of nuclear physics and can understand it well. If nuclear physics is akin to Mr. Holding's Christian apologetics, what is he admitting? He is admitting that his subject, apologetics, is extraordinarily complex. It is largely a mystery to most people. And, what that means is that the subject of his apologetics, the Bible, is even more complicated still. For, if 
apologetics are meant to explain and interpret the Bible, and the apologetics are highly complex and complicated, then the Bible itself must be magnitudes more complex and complicated on its own. And doesn't this underscore exactly what I've been arguing? That the Bible is not as clearly written as it could be should it have come from an omniscient, omnipotent source which, by definition, could have done better? But his efforts are hardly akin to such a discussion. Nuclear physics is the field of science which studies the structure, forces and behavior of atomic nuclei. It involves detailed understanding of highly complex mathematics and natural laws. In such a discussion one needn't invoke make-believe characters with supernatural powers or ancient, "defining contexts" which themselves are proof of nothing. A more accurate analogy Mr. Holding could use would be to liken his efforts to a child trying to explain his imaginary friend and the imaginary game they play together –complete with those precious but disjointed "rules" children often dream up for such games—to a sober adult. (Click the illustration)
He also complains, "Palmer advertises his site as 'rational' and 'researched'" referring to the fact that I apparently "missed" knowing about this Jewish custom of the "Word/Logos" and that this "is one of the main reasons I don't take him seriously." Yes, I advertise my site as rational and researched. Researched as in uncovering unflattering data regarding the limitations of ancient population growth from archaeology instead of weakly whining that such research is "outside" my "field of expertise." Researched as in discovering Garstang's fabrication of an earthquake in 1927 which created a mudslide, blocking the flow of the Jordan River and using this to substantiate the story of the conquest of Jericho in the biblical book of Joshua instead of merely parroting the old yarn as it has been passed down among blinded believers since its creation. Researched as in learning that the original Declaration of Independence never made a nationwide tour but that rare Dulap copies, owned by individuals or certain private organizations, sometimes travel in order to make their owners a bit of cash. Rational as in not merely reading about an ancient Jewish belief in the "Word/Logos" and passing this off as some sort of support for the idea, but actually questioning why I should take the ancient Jewish belief in this assertion any more seriously than a modern Christian apologist's updated version of the same thing. Rational as in understanding that the definition of the words "omnipotent" and "omniscient" don't imply someone exercising those characteristics would be seen as a "micromanager" or a "fundy." Rational as in not replying to a critic with words like "dumbass," "stupid," or "retarded."
Probably the most disjointed portion of Mr. Holding's reply comes when he leaves his schoolyard taunts and actually tries to defend his assertion that inerrant copies of the Bible would have been as equally revered –even violently so—as an inerrant original. When I noted that copies of holy relics (including hypothetical inerrant copies of Scripture) hardly have the same prestige as the original, even though they may be faithful reproductions, Mr. Holding objected that,
Inerrantly inspired copies WOULD have the "prestige value" of the original precisely because they'd be created through the same divine process as the original…
Mr. Holding goes on to note that this "prestige value" is directly related to the "divine touch" which would have been necessary to create inerrant copies. He notes that "the original Declaration [of Independence] is sacred, where the copies are not, because it was the hands-on product of the Founders! Just like inerrant copies of the Bible would have to be!"
Well, perhaps the inerrant copies would retain a certain high degree of "prestige value" but lacking any shoddy, errant competitors I hardly think that's a point in favor of arguing why none would exist.
The Founding Fathers of the United States are dead. They are incapable of reproducing copies of the Declaration from their own hands. That's the paramount reason for the rarity of that document and why it holds such high "prestige value." The same does not apply to a supernatural being which exists the same yesterday, today and forever. This is not a discussion about a mortal being but one that transcends limitations (even those imposed upon him by dull-witted apologists) and time. "Prestige value" is directly related to supply and demand. But even modern copies of the Declaration of Independence, available in a variety of places, are valuable to those who possess them. While not directly touched by a Founding Father, they nonetheless hold great value to those who possess them (I know my copy is framed and proudly on display in my office) because of what they represent. And in similar fashion, we have copies of the Bible today –in hotel nightstands, in church pews, in car glove boxes, on library shelves, in sock drawers—that many think really are inerrant –preserved that way by the very Will of God—so what's the problem with giving this belief some validity? Those who hold such a belief have not experienced the vision of cataclysmic Armageddon that Mr. Holding envisions such copies would inspire. Does he really believe that the original inerrant Bible is the only object ever to be believed to have come into contact with the divine presence? Many people today believe that certain objects they possess have been "touched" supernaturally. A handkerchief; a stone; a vile of sand; a piece of toast. And what is the result? Increased faith, usually. I fail to see why inerrant copies of the Bible are either a burden to this deity or keys to some sort of rip in the time-space continuum.
Even though there are multitudes of various "holy" objects in personal collections which Mr. Holding doesn't want to acknowledge, I can envision without much effort a couple of ways in which God could have ensured inerrant copies of his sacred text. The first, apparently, is the only way limited thinkers like Mr. Holding image such a trick can be done: by direct intervention one copy at a time. Mr. Holding has called this "micromanagement" which would have turned God into some slack-jawed Christian fundamentalist straight from the halls of good ol' Southern Evangelical Seminary. But would such desire to assure faithful reproductions of a text necessarily make an author a micromanaging fundy? If it does, then I have to wonder if Mr. Holding would like to wear this label. Does Mr. Holding's desire to have word-for-word accurate reproductions of his Xulon books make him a micromanaging fundy? Or does such a desire merely reflect his motive to assure what he wrote and what he wanted to convey does not get distorted and misunderstood? Does Xulon's implementation of methods to assure just this sort of inerrant reproduction of Mr. Holding's original manuscript (likely on file back at his home office) make them into the drooling micromanagers of Mr. Holding's imagination (they're fundies, in all likelihood, but that's not because they want to assure the faithful reproduction of their clients' manuscripts!). What exactly would Mr. Holding do if he found errors in one of his books (or, especially all of them)? Would he let those errors go and trust that someone else would write corrections for the text? Or would Mr. Holding contact Xulon and demand that future reproductions of his book align with what he actually wrote? Maybe more accurately for our purposes of examining biblical reproductions, what if Mr. Holding had employed a ghost writer for his books and that writer, and Xulon who reproduced the texts, didn't convey exactly what Mr. Holding intended? What would Mr. Holding do if his text was confusing, inaccurate, not reflective of his ideas because of failures in his ghost writer or his publisher? Wouldn't he want to assure the production of a text more faithful to his intentions? And, were it in his power to do so, wouldn't he assure this more faithful text and its faithful reproduction? But, while Mr. Holding may desire that every copy of his books be a faithful (and not merely a sufficiently approximate) reproduction of his original text, he cannot be expected to micromanage each jot and tittle of each and every copy. So how does Mr. Holding get faithful reproductions of his text? By an overarching "supervisor" put into place by his publisher. Xulon has techniques of assuring each and every copy of Mr. Holding's books is an exact and unerring duplication of his original manuscript. Similarly, there are protocols in place which assure the accurate reproduction of website articles for everyone who accesses these pages online without the micromanagement of human intervention. A similar technique could be envisioned for the inerrant reproduction of God's sacred texts.
Could God have assured the reproduction of his original, inerrant manuscript in a way similar to that used by book publishers and the internet? Is there a way to assure such accuracy without requiring God to have been directly involved with every reproduction of his sacred text? Just as religious folks believe God is not required to usher in each and every summer, winter, spring or fall; just as he is not required to roll the tides in and out, day and night; or to keep Mars from crashing into Saturn on a minute-by-minute schedule; just as he isn't required to recreate each and every living thing day-to-day, surely there exists a way for God to assure the inerrant reproduction of his holy text each and every time it was copied. As with other protocols that govern his creation (according to believers in these sorts of things), God could have set up some sort of "law of inerrant reproduction" by which copies of his Bible could not be reproduced without error. This would remove Mr. Holding's objection that inerrant copies would require God to "micromanage" the copying of his text and certainly wouldn't make the Lord into some sort of Southern evangelical "fundy." Such a protocol, or law, wouldn't be that different from those techniques implemented by book publishers and webpage designers to assure the accurate transmission of media today.
Before the idea of a "law of inerrant reproduction" is rejected as nonsensical and beyond what God would do, we know that those in Mr. Holding's audience (and maybe even Mr. Holding himself) already believe God is the author of other such "natural" laws. The law of the conservation of energy, the general law of gravitation, and the laws of thermodynamics, to name just a few, are all believed to have been authored by God. Mr. Holding's friends [9] at Answers In Genesis (a website ministry devoted to a literal interpretation of the Bible, affirming creationism, and "dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively") have firmly declared:
Everything in the universe, every plant and animal, every rock, every particle of matter or light wave, is bound by laws which it has no choice but to obey. The Bible tells us that there are laws of nature—"ordinances of heaven and earth" (Jeremiah 33:25). These laws describe the way God normally accomplishes his will in the universe. [emphasis mine] (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/god-natural-law)
Is God considered a "fundy" micromanager because he set physical laws to rule our universe? Is life any less precious because, even though it is a gift from God, it is so profoundly abundant on earth? I suppose I could see the charge of "micromanagement" if every passing moment of time God needed to keep the moon from crashing into the earth, or the earth from hurtling into the sun, or water from running uphill, or a cute, fuzzy bunny rabbit from spontaneously morphing into a gigantic Tyrannosaurus rex, but why not have a god that makes a law to oversee the production of his holy texts in the same manner that he is believed to have made laws to govern his physical Creation? It's not really that difficult to conceive (not any more so than dreaming up an inerrant original Bible "on file at the home office").
But I can imagine an objection to this suggestion already: If God created a universal law to govern the production of his texts, wouldn't this take away the "freewill" he gave to human beings? It would be a form of coercion, I can hear someone object. But would such a law be any different in restricting human freewill than the other laws governing our universe? Wouldn't this law, like the law of the conservation of energy, just be another "way God normally accomplishes His will in the universe" (especially if his will is "not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2Peter 3:9) and that such faith in repentance "comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17) accurately reproduced in God’s Word, the Bible)? It wouldn't seem so strange if such a law had always been around, as part of our lives, like Newton's general law of gravitation. And obeying this "law of inerrant reproduction" wouldn't be any more a violation of our freewill, or a coercion of our emotions or intellect, any more so than our strict adherence to any of the laws which currently do exist. I would very much like to exercise my freewill and invent a perpetual motion machine but I can't because of physical laws. And, according to believers, the laws preventing me from creating a perpetual motion machine were put into place by their god; laws which I have "no choice but to obey." So why are these physical laws any less a violation of my freewill than a hypothetical law of inspiration and inerrancy? And, do the laws governing my physical existence –again, laws believers like those at Answers in Genesis say I have "no choice but to obey"--constitute a coercion to live within the parameters they set against some other type of existence I might choose should the fancy strike me? But while a "law" to preserve inerrancy in copies of Scripture would assure each and every edition of the Bible be as faithful to the "original on file back at the home office," such a law would not require that I believe in the Bible's message. I may have no choice because of the law of the conservation of energy to fail in every attempt to build a perpetual motion machine but the law itself does not stop me from trying new inventions to construct such a contraption. I can still exercise my freewill to build a perpetual motion machine (as absurd and doomed to failure as it might be) just as I could choose not to believe in the message of the Bible even should every copy of it have been inerrantly reproduced. [10]
In the end, all of these protestations are merely an excuse by Mr. Holding to draw attention away from the central fact: God did not inspire inerrant copies after supposedly inspiring inerrant originals (an assertion, of course, in and of itself which cannot be proved) and he, the Bible's Information Minister, cannot reasonably explain why!
In my article I noted,
Scraping for more reasons why God did not ensure inerrant copies, Mr. Holding appeals in his chapter to something he calls "The Coercion Factor." He believes "[t]he presence of inerrant copies would implicitly coerce people into conversion." (p. 123) But how so? Apologists, even without inerrant copies, maintain that what we do have is "sufficient" for anyone to come to faith in Jesus Christ. What would inerrant copies be? More than sufficient? And what is wrong with that? Adam and Eve are said to have spoken to God face to face but that didn't seem to prevent them from disobeying his commands and exercising their freewill. By the way, how would having inerrant copies supplied for the support of faith be any different than that which was supplied to the apostle Thomas following Jesus's resurrection? The New Testament gospel of John, 20:24-28…
To which Mr. Holding replied,
"God should too loosen my panties! I have no responsibility for it! Besides, He gave Joe over there new panties, so why can't I have them too!"
Back to the schoolyard taunts. Just what does he think such clowning gains him? The foolishness certainly doesn't in any way engage the criticism. He then noted,
He [Brett Palmer] appeals also to John 20:28, which he's unaware (once again) he's mis-exegeting. Nothing like explaining things to an infant.
Unwittingly, Mr. Holding provides a sterling example of what this entire discussion is about. He claims I have "mis-exegeted" a passage from John 20. First of all, I referenced more than John 20:28. In my article I reproduced John 20:24-28, illustrating the New Testament story of the disciple Thomas's refusal to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead from the testimony of the other disciples alone. I stressed that Thomas needed to see for himself "the nail marks" from the crucifixion in Jesus's hands and to put his "finger where the nails were" and to put his hand into Jesus's side where the Roman centurion and pierced him with his spear. I wanted to draw a parallel between that story of how Jesus appeared like a genie fulfilling Thomas's demands and the modern skeptic's own need to have a truly inerrant Bible if they are to believe in the apologists's assertion of biblical inerrancy. If a man rose from the dead, show him to me. If the Bible is inerrant, show me an inerrant copy. But, somehow –probably because it's the knee-jerk reaction of most apologists when a skeptic pulls some example from the Bible—Mr. Holding thinks I have somehow misread (i.e. "mis-exegeted") the story. Apparently, without Mr. Holding's exegetical help, I cannot understand this rather straight-forward story. There is something else there that the plain reading of the text doesn't reveal and so we are required to call upon the services of an apologist like Mr. Holding to explain it to us. But there's the rub: if the apologist can understand and explain the "real" point of the story, presumably using words and phrases from human language, why can't this meaning just be made readily apparent in the text itself from the original hand of God without the need for apologetic interference? Does the story describe an event where Thomas was doubtful of the after-death appearance of Jesus and needed "to see the nail marks in his hands and put [his] finger where the nails were, and put [his] hand into his side" in order to believe these tales or doesn't it? And, does Jesus appear to fulfill Thomas's demands or doesn't he? If these things are true, then I have not mis-exegeted the text. If they are not true, then one cannot plainly read the text as God had inspired it and the skeptical observation that the Bible is not clear stands firm. Either way, Mr. Holding loses. [11]
Exegesis is the explanation or interpretation of a text. In Note 5 below I refer to Reason to Believe’s apologist Steve Sarigianis who said we need to apply the "rigorous rules of biblical exegesis" to properly understand the biblical story of Noah's flood. Using proper methods of biblical exegesis, according to Sarigianis, we can learn that the Bible did not refer to a worldwide deluge –as is exegeted by those friends and confidants of Mr. Holding at AiG and Creation.com—but that the cataclysm was a localized, regional flood of much smaller dimensions. So, when apologists engage in exegesis what they are admitting is the very thing skeptics have been critical about: the Bible is not clear in and of itself and requires explanation and interpretation! That's all fine and well with human-authored texts as they are stuck in the ruts of their writers' biases, prejudices, limited worldview, etc. However, that's exactly the point of the skeptical observation about the Bible's lack of clarity and need of explanation and interpretation. According to its advocates, the Bible is not the work solely of human production. Its authorship was specifically and intentionally directed by a supreme intelligence with (by definition) the foresight to know the requirements of those who would read the text. Of course, as Mr. Holding points out in his critical response to my essay, communication is a two-way street and we cannot expect the Bible to lay things out multiple times in multiple ways so that each culture/reader can understand it within their own cultural arenas. However, and this has been the point obviously lost on Mr. Holding, the Bible should be simple enough, and plain enough, as to not require the sort of detailed, convoluted and often highly subjective and contradictory exegesis that comes from the various apologetic camps. Regardless of where one resides culturally or temporally, one can understand plain narratives such as Thomas's refusal to believe in Jesus's post-death appearances until shown the proper evidence of such an occurrence. What needs to be interpreted there other than the words from one language to another? This is the point upon which Mr. Holding, and every other argumentative apologist on the subject, skewers himself. It's a point apologists cannot squirm off of easily.
When Mr. Holding gingerly tries to defend his mistake in assuming the copy of the Declaration of Independence he visited –amongst high security—was actually the original copy housed today in Washington, D.C. at the National Archives he sputters,
Who gives a crap? I sure don't. OK, so maybe it's one of the early copies -- so what?
So what? How can we expect Mr. Holding to give us any sort of trustworthy exegetical insight into the "true meaning" of the Bible when he cannot even wade his way through a skeptical essay written by a "dumbass," a "retard" and an "infant"? I clearly spelled out my reason why Mr. Holding's mistake in assuming the copy of the Declaration he saw was the original, signed by all the Founders of the United States, was such an egregious mistake. He doesn't, however, reproduce that reason in his treatment of his article, largely because he probably doesn't want it exposed to his readers. I had stated the mistake shows how sloppily he does his research. I will remind him that he has instructed others to be careful about what they read and write, based upon his supposed "expertise" as a "professional researcher" by virtue of his masters of library science degree. This title, and his pretense to lecture on the subject, is damaged by this sort of sloppy oversight. I also used this example to point out what Mr. Holding himself has cautioned others against: taking seriously authors who self-publish without benefit of editors or peer-review. As I stated in my article,
Mr. Holding's mistake in writing (and memory, probably) that he visited the (not a copy) Declaration of Independence ("that fragile, revered document") during a traveling exhibit would likely have been picked up by an editor had Mr. Holding used one before he self-published, or if Xulon, his publisher, employed them to read over manuscripts they receive prior to providing them for public purchase.
What does this tell you about 1.) Mr. Holding's memory, 2.) Mr. Holding's assumptions, 3.) the value of self-publishing and 4.) the value of Mr. Holding's exegetical work? Tells me quite a bit, actually. But, apparently, Mr. Holding sees it as no big deal. In fact, he's tried to use my discovery of his lapse to argue in favor of his position! He wrote regarding the copy of the Declaration of Independence which he visited years ago,
Visitors were still searched; it was still kept under tight security -- if anything, this makes my point about inerrant copies of the Bible even stronger!
But how can this treatment of a rare (only 25 are known to have survived since their creation) copy of the Declaration make his point about inerrant copies of the Bible even stronger? I suppose it could if there were only to be a handful of copies of the inerrant Bible produced over the centuries but that's not what is under discussion. Remember what we spoke of earlier regarding supply and demand? If there are only a few copies of something in existence, and the demand for them is high, then the likelihood of hording and protecting such an item is much greater. If there are multiple copies of an item, one for every household, then such measures as those given to the rare Dunlap copy of the Declaration of Independence that Mr. Holding viewed would be unnecessary. It would be as unnecessary as taking such measures with my own (inerrant) copy of the Declaration on display in my office.
But there's another humorous twist to this story of which version of the Declaration of Independence Mr. Holding visited that needs to be discussed. It is directly relevant to his point that the "prestige value" of the Bible is directly related to its having received a precious and rare "divine touch." In Mr. Holding's estimation, the reason why the "original, inerrant" Bible is so valuable is because God had a direct hand in its production. This, he claims, is the same reason crowds would go apocalyptic should copies of an inerrant Bible ever be reproduced. Each inerrant copy of the Bible would have had to involve the same "divine touch" as the original to assure inerrancy. He claims that the original Declaration of Independence shares a similar "prestige value" as do the Dunlap copies, one of which he viewed when it toured his region of the United States. The Declaration and these Dunlap imprints are "sacred," deserving of long security lines, whereas copies such as those available for sale from bookstores or online are not, Mr. Holding enthusiastically declares, because they were "the hands-on product of the Founders!" However, what we uncover when we actually care about the subject of our discussion is quite the opposite and again demonstrative of Mr. Holding's extremely poor research habits. There were thought to have originally been 200 Dunlap prints of the Declaration reproduced in 1776. Of those copies only one was actually signed by John Hancock and Charles Thomson (members of the Continental Congress). Of the 200 copies, only 25 are known to exist today and of those 25 none is the one signed by those two original Founders; that copy has been lost. In other words, the copy Mr. Holding saw under glass, amid such tight security, never was "divinely touched" by any of the Founders! It is merely a very old copy, one of the few still available from the actual era of the Revolution, and yet he had to stand in long security lines just to take a peek at it. It is revered not because it come into direct contact with one of the nation's original founders, but is revered because it is rare. Its rarity has nothing to do with how accurately it reproduces the original Declaration of Independence. It certainly is not rare because it came into contact with any of the original Founders and bears their signatures. It is rare because of who produced it, why, and when as well as its number.
What can we conclude about the Bible's lack of clarity and inerrancy absent any potential "law" to preserve the texts or some convincing theory from a sarcastic, sloppy apologist as to why there is an omniscient, omnipotent deity but for whom the best evidence of this deity's existence is a murky, culture-specific, errant document? We can conclude what skeptics have maintained all along: that the Bible is merely the work of man without any divine influence (or at least none that can be detected). Mr. Holding argues that to understand the Bible one needs to work at it. To understand the Bible it should be approached in its proper contexts, he claims. It may surprise him to learn that I completely agree with him! But I would encourage the same when approaching any piece of ancient literature precisely because it is not the product of omniscient inspiration. We must work hard to understand the poetry of Homer or the histories of Josephus, but this is to be expected of any mortal work produced not from omniscience but from culturally restrictive minds. The Bible, so it is claimed, however, is different. It is the product of a divine intelligence which not only intimately knows its audience but is the very creator of that audience! We can, and should, expect much more from a text which germinated in such a mind. Our expectations of such a text can, and should, be higher than those we would have for a text from even humankind's most brilliant writers. Ultimately, Mr. Holding's excuses fall short. There is no logical reason why a God interested in and devoted to the inspiration of an inerrant "original" text of the Bible would not also be interested in and devoted to the preservation and perfect reproduction of this inerrant text. Given the divine attribute of omnipotence there is no logical reason why this god would not have been able to ensure such preservation and reproduction. The lack of clarity in many of the biblical tales, the requirement of exegesis and the apologetic profession is indicative that the Bible likely doesn't have as its source a divine intelligence. Such an intelligence, it would seem, would not inspire clumsy texts. If the Bible fails to distinguish itself apart from other important works of ancient literature, because it is not any more clear (or any more murky) than other ancient documents, why do apologists consider it to nonetheless be the product of divine, inerrant inspiration? If we have to use the same literary and interpretative tools to work our way through the Bible as we would to work our way through other ancient works of literature why should we believe the claims of apologists that the Bible is actually the product of an omniscient mind when the other ancient works are merely the products of men?
Considering our alternatives, what is more likely, parsimonious and in keeping with everything we do know about text creation and reproduction? Does the Bible contain errors and often lack clarity (needing to be "interpreted" or placed within strict cultural "contexts") because such is the nature of all writing? Or does the Bible contain errors and often lack clarity (needing to be "interpreted" or placed within strict cultural "contexts") because it was inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity who apparently, like Mr. Holding, doesn't "give a crap"? As always, I leave it to the reader to decide.
1. I have articles dealing with Mr. Holding's apologetic efforts on Jericho, the exodus population figures, and his charges of hypocrisy against Richard Dawkins, etc. Return to Text
2. I’m fully aware of Mr. Holding’s laundry list of reasons why he would be ignoring my other articles on his apologetics. These could either be "outside his field of expertise" or I may be too stupid, infantile or retarded for him to deal with. Or he may feel I am not aware of some exegetical magic trick which solves all these problems. Whatever the reason, Mr. Holding has chosen to focus on this issue of biblical clarity instead of the others. Return to Text
3. According to his webpage's FAQ, Craig Johnson "is an Evangelical Protestant clergyman. He is the founder and Pastor of Bethel Christian Fellowship in Agoura Hills, California" and also the "Theologian in Residence" at Chalcedon Academy, an apologetics "institute," also in Agoura Hills. He is the "institute's" founder. Pastor Johnson "is currently the host of two weekly television programs: Another Cable Show about God and The Veritas Forum, and he has authored three books: Nehushtan: The Enemy of Revival; The Alexander Code: Alexander the Great and the Hidden Prophecies of the Bible; and Tardemah: The Deep Sleep that Awakens Your Dreams. He was a guest for ten years on KABC's Religion on the Line". Richard G. Howe is Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics and Director of the Ph.D. program at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC. He is also a contributing writer for the Christian Research Journal and has contributed to several apologetics books. He has lectured on philosophy and Christian apologetics in the US, Canada, Europe, and Africa. Lee Strobel bills himself as an "Atheist-turned-Christian," and "the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune… [He] is a New York Times best-selling author of nearly twenty books and has been interviewed on numerous national television programs, including ABC's 20/20, Fox News, and CNN…He also has won awards for his books The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, The Case for a Creator, and Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary." Return to Text
4. See, for example, the "Noah’s Flood Questions & Answers" on one of Mr. Holding’s favorite creationist websites, Creation.com. Return to Text
5. One may wish to follow the "rigorous rules of biblical exegesis" opposed to Mr. Holding's friends at Creation.com, or AiG, and read Steve Sarigianis's article, "Noah's Flood: A Bird’s-Eye View" at Reasons to Believe which argues for a regionally restrictive catastrophic event. Return to Text
Al-Sahhaf is known for his daily press briefings in Baghdad during the 2003 Iraq War. His colorful appearances caused him to be nicknamed Baghdad Bob (in the style of previous propagandists with alliterative aliases such as "Hanoi Hannah" and "Seoul City Sue" as well as other propagandists without alliterative nicknames like "Tokyo Rose") by commentators in the United States and Comical Ali (an allusion to Chemical Ali, the nickname of former Iraqi Defence Minister Ali Hassan al-Majid) by commentators in the United Kingdom; commentators in Italy similarly nicknamed him Alì il Comico.
On April 7, 2003, al-Sahhaf claimed that there were no American troops in Baghdad, and that the Americans were committing suicide by the hundreds at the city's gates. At that time, American tanks were patrolling the streets only a few hundred meters from the location where the press conference was held. His last public appearance as Information Minister was on April 8, 2003, when he said that the Americans "are going to surrender or be burned in their tanks. They will surrender, it is they who will surrender". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf)
7. Were his readers to question such an assertion, however, I've no doubt Mr. Holding would shame them by making them feel as though they were equally as obtuse as the skeptics for not understanding. Perhaps Mr. Holding would say their panties were too tight. So his readers dare not question Mr. Holding's sarcastic dismissals unless they, too, want to become the subject of his exasperated distain. Again, Mr. Holding works as a political despot, holding terror over his critics and readers alike by behaving as those who dare question his brand of apologetics are incompetent and contemptible. While such tactics may be transparent, they are effective with some people of weaker constitutions. Return to Text
8. And remember what Friedrich Nietzche said about people like Mr. Holding who believe they are on a divine mission to interpret the Lord's Word:
…they have determined what is true and not true! When a man feels that he has a divine mission, say to lift up, to save or to liberate mankind -- when a man feels the divine spark in his heart and believes that he is the mouthpiece of supernatural imperatives -- when such a mission inflames him, it is only natural that he should stand beyond all merely reasonable standards of judgment. He feels that he is himself sanctified by this mission, that he is himself a type of a higher order! . . . What has a priest to do with science! He stands far above it! -- And hitherto the priest has ruled! -- He has determined the meaning of "true" and "not true"! (The Antichrist)
9. AiG links to a number of his articles including "The Formation of the OT Canon," "On the Authorship of the Book of James," and "Is the raqiya' ('firmament') a solid dome?" Return to Text
10. Again, Mr. Holding has a very awkward vision of a deity who is apparently too lazy or inept to inspire inerrant copies but who is wise enough to architect a universe of physical laws which make it possible for humanity to exist. I simply cannot imagine a god as impotent and inept as the one that occupies space in Mr. Holding's barren imagination. Such a god as pin-headed and juvenile as the model in Mr. Holding's mind simply doesn't fit the definition of "god" as I've come to understand it. Mr. Holding's god is far too much like those of Greek mythology: human, petty, irritable and petulant. But, maybe, Mr. Holding's god is a reflection of his own self image whereas mine is more a reflection of my own. Return to Text
11. But rather than admit defeat in any future reply to my observation we'll likely be treated to another round of Mr. Holding's fixation on infants and tight panties. Return to Text
Archer, Gleason. (2001) New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Zondervan
Dever, William G. (2005) Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Eerdmans
Miller, Kenneth R. (2008) Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul. Penguin Books.
Site Contents © Brett Palmer