Thank you for your comments, Francis. If I understand what you have written correctly, you contend that “all churches of any worth” take the Bible as “not dictated … (but) inspired,” and therefore devoid of any historical errors. I think that if you enrolled in a course on either the Tanach (“Old Testament”) or the New Testament at a seminary of, say, the United Church of Christ or the Episcopal Church—both ʻmainstreamʻ denominations—you would find their teaching to be far more nuanced than you may now suppose.

You also contend that ʻscienceʻ is confirming the accuracy of the Bible … and please accept my apology for taking aim at what is obviously a cherished belief for you, but you are simply wrong about that. Letʻs start where the Torah starts: in the beginning. Tracing the biblical records from creation to the present suggests that the universe is a little less than 6,000 years old—but there is an emerging consensus among astronomers and cosmologists that the universe is actually 13.8 billion years old. That is a considerable discrepancy.

According to the creation story in Genesis, Chapter 1, fish and other creatures of the sea were created on the same ʻdayʻ as birds … but scientists tell us that the earliest fish came into being about 530 million years ago (mya) whereas birds—now known to be the only surviving dinosaurs—can only trace their history back about 230 to 240 mya.

Furthermore, in a clear contradiction with the first chapter, the second chapter of Genesis portrays the creation of humanity before either birds or other land animals … science affirms the opposite. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. The notion that science is evolving to support a more-or-less literal interpretation of the Bible is little more than wishful thinking or evangelical propaganda. So, respectfully, I will stand by my original comments.

I would like to share a closing thought with you. Many Christians appear to believe that if the Bible isnʻt more than just a book—that is, if it isnʻt true and accurate—then there are no grounds for belief in God. Consequently they struggle to somehow reconcile science with their faith … a losing proposition if ever there was one.

But it is entirely possible to appreciate the Bible for what it is: poetry that ranges from the ordinary to the sublime; collections of folk wisdom; examples of early law codes; an eye witness account of a nationʻs evolution; etc. And while the anthropomorphic deity that plays a starring role in the scriptures almost certainly doesnʻt exist, there are other, more viable conceptions of God.

We may continue to reverence Ha-Boreʻ (the creator) by respecting that mysterious power that set the ʻBig Bangʻ into motion … a ʻgodʻ not subject to the mood swings (anger, jealousy, etc.) that plague the biblical deity. Or we may simply accept that we can experience a comforting and healing presence through faith and prayer, and call that presence ʻGod.’ And of course, many people may find it satisfying to see God in the All, that is, in nature or in the universe itself … which gives the biblical notion of stewardship more heft.

It is frightening and disorienting for individuals who have embraced traditional, anthropomorphic conceptions of the divine and of the scriptures to step away from what are ultimately unsustainable beliefs and look at reality and the human condition in a fresh way .. bit it can be very rewarding to do so.

Again, thank you for your comments.