I must confess that I have some difficulty with the
Bible-chocolate-Aspirin comparison. I can't quite put my finger on it,
but something bothers me. Maybe it's a case of preaching to the
converted; maybe because the analogy is a bit simplistic.
Let me elaborate:
Corrie ten Boom passed out chocolates to theologians and Moorad takes
Aspirin from a bottle. The theologians trusted Corrie ten Boom and, if
Moorad takes Aspirin instead of a generic ASA, the tablets have the
"Bayer cross" on them. Yet, we warn our children not to take candy from
strangers (certainly not chocolates) and we wouldn't think of taking
just any old pill.
To believers, the Bible falls in the same category as
chocolates-from-a-friend or Aspirin with a Bayer cross: it can be
trusted because it is the word of God.
But is it really that simple? It seems to me that it is easier to
believe in a resurrected Jesus than a six-day creation for the simple
reason that there is no physical evidence contrary to the resurrection
while there is ample evidence in nature that argues against a six-day
creation. That's one reason why we analyze the Bible: not to question
the resurrection, but to square the general with the special revelation.
Maybe a valid analogy between the apparent controversy between the
general and special revelation would be a warning on the box of
chocolates or on an Aspirin tablet along the lines of "warning: the
surgeon general has decided that the contents of this box or in this
pill are hazardous to your health." Not that the Bible is hazardous to
our health, of course, but that there are perceived mixed messages.
Geochemistry Research Branch
Pinawa, MB R0E 1L0
*(204) 753-2311 xt. 2592