Category Archives: Apologetics
Triablogue Launches E-book Response to The Christian Delusion
Several of the contributors to Triablogue have launched an e-book response to The Christian Delusion, titled The Infidel Delusion. It is available for download from CalvinDude, here. I haven’t read it yet, but when I get a chance, I’ll probably comment on it.
It is telling that none of the contributors to The Christian Delusion care to comment on the refutation. They are interested only in monologue, not dialogue.
Loftus’s reaction, very emotional and not even in the same zip code as rational, can be found here. Two comments from Neal refute Loftus’s rebuttal perfectly. Here are the comments, combined for clarity:
“this is such a nice version of Christianity developed by angry men for angry men, isn’t it?”
What is evident from this posting is that the only one who appears to be angry is you.
“Over and over we read where atheists have no right to make moral judgments if there are no absolute objective morals. This is simply false. They are ignorant to say otherwise. But this is true of most Christians.”
I see you are a graduate of the Dan Aykroyd school of argumentation.
“Then too, the authors are Calvinists which I think is a reprehensible theology, as I posted here.”
You’d think that someone who touts the importance of scholarly creds wouldn’t make such an amateurish mistake as engaging in ad hominem fallacies. Or maybe you are just giving us autobiographical information here on your psychological makeup? What is not clear is what if anything it has to do with the truth or falsity of Christianity. You seem to think any argument from a Calvinist can be dismissed at the outset by the mere fact that it came from a Calvinist. In fact, this whole posting is nothing more than one ad hominem attack after another. Epic FAIL.
“Over and over the authors contrast their brand of Christianity with atheism which is left undefined but understood by them to be equivalent to metaphysical naturalism. I don’t think they truly know what atheism is, as I explained right here, and again here.”
Most people understand atheism as the belief that there is no God. Metaphysical naturalism is a consequence of atheism as it is usually defined. Your links failed to make any distinctions between atheism and metaphysical naturalism. As Hays said, metaphysical naturalism is a euphemism for atheism. If you disagree, how does atheism not entail metaphysical naturalism? And does not metaphysical naturalism entail methodological naturalism? It seems that you are merely attempting to escape some criticisms here.
“Besides, the options before us are not between their brand of conservative Calvinism and non-belief. The options are myriad with everything in-between. There is Arminianism, moderate and liberal Christianities, as well as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, Orthodox Judaism, Islam, and many eastern religions to choose from.”
But you titled your book “The CHRISTIAN Delusion”. Why should they be concerned about all these other religions in a refutation of a book that purports to be a critique of Christianity? And why should they respond to it in terms of what they consider to be weaker and heretical forms of Christianity?
“So it really does not make a whit of difference who is making a particular argument against their brand of Christianity. The argument either stands on its own or not.”
Hypocrisy. This coming from someone who thinks he can dismiss Calvinists because he doesn’t like “their brand” of Christianity.
“They cannot assert, for instance, that an atheist cannot make this or that kind of argument because he has no standard for morality, since Process Theologians can make that same argument as can Arminians like Christian philosopher Victor Reppert (which they have repeatedly attacked) or liberals like James McGrath.”
I thought you just said the argument stands or falls on its own, regardless of who makes it? Why do you bring up irrelevancies? Do atheists have an objective standard of morality or not? What process theologians and liberals have to say about Calvinism has no bearing on that question.
“In areas where it’s obvious we should expect a perfectly good God to communicate his will better, he didn’t do so, which caused a great deal of harm done in his name by the church (think Inquisition, crusades, witch hunts, Christian attempts at genocide during the Thirty Years War directed at other Christian groups, Slavery, the treatment of women, and denial of the democratic ideals of the freedom of religion and of expression).”
This argument is incoherent until you can demonstrate that you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge all those things as evil. Until you can demonstrate that, your objection to those things amounts to little more than your personal preferences.
“On that same page Manata claims “the last two chapters have no bearing on whether Christianity is a delusion.” Really? Surely whether Christianity is beneficial to society bears some relationship to whether it’s true. I mean, you really wouldn’t want to hold to something as true from a perfectly good God if it wasn’t beneficial to society, or would you?”
Pragmatism is not a standard of truth. Something can be useful but be totally false. In order to determine whether something is “beneficial” or not, you have to have some objective criteria by which you can judge what is and is not beneficial. And atheism provides no objective criteria whatsoever. So even here Christianity is superior in that it provides objective foundations for society. The gulag was “useful” in Stalin’s Russia as were the gas chambers in Hitler’s Germany. Do you think these men did not have what they considered to be valid moral justifications? They each had a view of what would benefit their respective societies that I assume conflicts with yours. Why should yours prevail?
Object Lesson in Why Some Hate Calvinism, part II
Mike from the blog Finding Bliss has objected to Calvinism. He says, “I find it spiritually abusive,” calls it “reckless [sic] doctrine”
In my previous post, I showed that Mike isn’t objecting to Calvinism proper. In that vein, I will answer some of the objections he then comes up with in the latter section of his post, most of which can be defused by appealing to what Calvinism actually teaches, not what Mike thinks it teaches. First objection:
How many nights have people laid awake at night questioning whether or not God chose them first? Or if like me you first believed and then you fell then that could very well mean that I was never truly saved in the first place. Read the rest of this entry
Catholic Response to Atheism
I was wondering when I’d see a Catholic response to New Atheism. Most books I’ve seen have been by Protestant authors, though I know Dave Armstrong has done a continuing series on his blog addressing an atheist on YouTube, and recently detailed the Top 10 Atheist Arguments and exposed their fallacies.
Now, Patrick Madrid has released a new book, The Godless Delusion, with coauthor Ken Hensley. Madrid’s book tackles philosophical objections to atheism, and isn’t a defense of theism per se. Madrid took note of some atheists commenting on his book at RichardDawkins.net. Fascinatingly enough, none of them had actually read the book. User xwizbit seems the lone voice of reason:
I have to point out that when I was (an admittedly very wishy-washy and doubting) Christian I challenged myself to test my faith against a reading of The God Delusion, for various and sundry personal reasons. It hammered home what I was already secretly thinking about god, and turned me into the radical atheist I am today.
Nevertheless, had I merely mocked and jeered at the book, I’d still be wandering about in a fog of confusion instead of splashing in the waters of a clear-thinking oasis. Is it too much to ask that we might dare to challenge a book by reading it and then commenting?
After all, thankful as I am to Mr Dawkins, I at least read his book before wholeheartedly embracing it!
Which, of course, meets with invective of its own, despite the fact that xwizbt all but recanted this position in the very next comment (after having read the introduction). This one from user TrumpetPower!:
xwizbt, in this case the very description is more than ample to dismiss the whole thing as purest nonsense: “With remorseless logic, wit, skill, and boundless, joyful enthusiasm it lays waste that stronghold, routs the enemy, occupies the high ground for Christ their king, and dares anyone to retake it.”
Anybody who thinks it’s a good thing to occupy the high ground for an ancient zombie hero in a religious snuff porn anthology isn’t deserving of serious consideration.
Defending the indefensible: sharp critique of a book that one hasn’t read. And a statement that clearly shows this person doesn’t understand anything about the Christian faith.
And an anonymous commenter said this:
It’s astonishing. Believers come about their superstition via faith, which has nothing to do with reason. Then they pretend that they can defend their faith with reason. It just makes no sense to me. All they should do–all that they are entitled to do–is to stand there and say “I have faith”. That’s it.
While most atheists scream at us to defend our faith, this guy says that we aren’t even entitled to defend our faith. Obviously, he doesn’t actually understand what faith is. Actually, no atheist I know of knows what authentic faith is. Faith and reason are certainly not incompatible; where did this serious error in logical thought originate? That might make an interesting e-book some time in the future.
Atheists: There are No “Heavyweights” of Theology
I’ve seen an interesting claim several times recently by different atheist bloggers. It’s been stated a few different ways. Let me illustrate. First, John W. Loftus:
In my opinion there are no heavy weights for Christianity just as there are no heavy weights for Scientology or Islam or Orthodox Judaism or Hinduism. It’s all improbable to the core and I see no reason why one religious myth’s scholar is any better than another. (source)
I see it in this post from Ray Garton, as well:
I’ve got news for you. We’re all experts on religion to one degree or another, every last one of us. Religion is not like, say, heart surgery or entomology or aviation. Sure, there are people who spend years in school studying theology and the bible, years in seminaries becoming clergymen. But there are also people who wake up one morning and decide to start their very own religion, and then do it. You, if you so desired, could go online and, for a small fee (small compared to the tuition that would be required to get a degree in anything), become an ordained minister, start a church and – presto-chango! – become a tax-free religion (yes, it really is that easy).
In any field of endeavor in which you are free to make it up as you go along, the word “expert” has little or no meaning.
In this video, Angie Jackson (aka Angie the Anti-Theist) also makes the claim (2:02-3:13). When criticized for not taking on better theistic arguments, she responds by saying that theism is self-evident nonsense no matter who she takes on. Therefore, she doesn’t need to seek out any better arguments because she can defeat all of them easily.
The underlying idea is that all we, as theologians, are doing is making this stuff up as we go along. That presupposes many, many things. First, it presupposes that they are absolutely correct and there is no God. From that, it it goes on to posit that there is no revelation, since no one is beyond this world to reveal it. And finally, it concludes that rigorous and lifelong study of the Scriptures yields no useful knowledge, no matter whose mind takes on the task.
The first proposition shows an incredible arrogance. To suppose, from material investigation only, that the immaterial doesn’t (or can’t) exist isn’t being fair-minded at all.
The second proposition, building from the first, concludes that there is no divine revelation due to the fact that there is no divine. The Scriptures are nothing but the scribbling of ignorant Bronze Age herdsmen. This proposition is accepted based on the erroneous conclusion that there is no God. God can be deduced from science, but not proven by science. If there is no reason to accept the first proposition, then the second proposition is also nonsense because special revelation is the only way to understand God’s character. It’s impossible to know the full character of God from general revelation only.
A written Scripture, in that framework, makes sense.
The third proposition is a negative consequence of scientism, which is the philosophy that only science can yield truth, and therefore knowledge gleaned by science is the only valid knowledge we can possess. (This notion has been linked to positivism, and they both can be refuted by the simple fact that, while they both require empirical evidence to prove everything, there is no empirical evidence to prove either of these propositions.) This rules out almost all of classicism, and philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle–anything that isn’t science isn’t knowledge.
By that standard, what I do (philosophy with some theology) is bunk to these people. Philosophy can’t be proven by science, though I would argue that science can suggest the truth or falsity of certain philosophies. Some people who subscribe to scientism go so far as to say that nothing learned before the Age of Enlightenment is worthwhile anymore.
This just isn’t so. The classical philosophers have much to offer us.
But, here’s the real problem. Assuming that these guys are wrong, and there really is a God who sits in judgment, who do you want teaching you his Word? L. Ron Hubbard, who (by all accounts) wholesale made up Scientology, or a godly Christian pastor, who has studied the revealed Word of God his whole life?
Before you make your choice, think about this. The soul, the part of you that is you, that is your essence, your being, is eternal. The beginning of anything sets the trajectory for how that “anything” plays out. This life, the beginning of your eternal existence, is going to set the trajectory of your eternity.
Philosopher Peter Kreeft used geometry as an illustration. Planar geometry represents this life, while adding a third dimension represents eternity. A planar shape, such a square, magnified into eternity, can only ever be a cube. Same with your life. In eternity, your “shape” is determined by the foundation you laid in this life. You can’t get around that.
Eternity is a long time. I want the guy who studied his stuff to teach me about God.
Who Designed the Designer?
This video, from YouTube user AntitheistAtheist, has the critical praise of numerous atheists in the comments found below the video. Examples:
- I like your style kid, keep on thinking. Think bigger and further.
- we [sic] dont [sic] surely know how the universe gets here, nobody does and it has to be accepted. the [sic] mistake that theists do is to explain everything that cant be explained with god of somesort [sic]
- Maybe that’s it God created us who was created by a larger God and so on and so on in an ever expanding universe.
- [S]cience has answered all of the greatest questions up to date, coming up with the only reasonable answers. Religion has answered nor prooved [sic] anything. It is absolutely reliant on “faith”, that is an integral part of the deal “Just believe!”. It may never be answered, but if it ever is, zou [sic] can bet science will find the answer and not faith.
The last commenter, in typical atheist style, presents an alternate definition of faith that is not what faith really means. I’ve advocated the death penalty for this before, and I think the law is on my side.
Anyway, why is Who designed the designer? still so popular among atheists? There’s an easy answer to the question. Here it is, from philosopher William Lane Craig:
Notice that Craig laughs about the objection. Like me, he finds it absurd.
The Bible and History
Back in the day, when I used to follow the Rational Response Squad, user Badbark asked the Squad how they viewed the historicity of the Bible. A few answers, starting with Rook Hawkins:
Nothing in the Bible can be accepted as historical. We do not have evidence for very much, and what evidence we do have does not support the Biblical account. I suggest you read the introduction to my book for some bibliographical information, and skim through my blog for additional articles on this subject.
Hambydammit adds:
In a nutshell, the bible should be read like one of Homer’s epics. There are real names and places from time to time, but it is a work of fiction.
Even if some of the authors thought they were writing history, their accounts are not reliable unless they are backed up by corroborating evidence.
My favorite answer, from ronin-dog:
None of it. Even if a story is written in a historical setting, it is still fiction.
All this interests me. The Bible, contrary to what these atheists present, is at least attempting to present accurate history. It seems to stand up at least as well as other historical documents from the same eras, if not better. For example, the narratives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have many details confirmed by archeology. We find parallels to Jacob purchasing Esau’s birthright, for example, in other period literature. The blessing of Jacob rendered by Isaac also has historic precedence: such a blessing by a patriarch would have been irrevocable, which is why Isaac is so horrified that Jacob deceived him and received the blessing intended for Esau. Many, including me, have asked, “Why not just take it back?” He couldn’t. We now know that.
The names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as the names of the patriarchs of the twelve tribes, were all found to be in use in that time period. There are also some mentions of a person named Abraham external to the Bible that seem to correspond to the Abraham in the Bible, but no one is for certain. Read the rest of this entry
Seminary Decisions
I need to obtain my bachelor’s degree before I can even think about entering a seminary, so this entry pondering a future seminary is rather premature. I had been considering Winebrenner, which is local (Findlay, OH). Even thought it’s a forty-five minute drive, the information packet I had looked at said that I’d only need to attend class one night per week. So that would be doable.
Denver Seminary has a M.Div program with a concentration in philosophy of religion, which would be ideal considering that I want a bachelor’s in philosophy. However, they don’t have a 100% online program at this time, so they’re out. I’m not moving to Denver just to attend seminary.
I was, however, seriously considering Liberty Theological Seminary prior to the debacle with Ergun Caner. Once I started hearing about his dishonesty and misrepresentation regarding his past, I became much less enthusiastic about this option.
Today, I have finally decided that Liberty is not an option for me. A Liberty student’s blog had this to say:
We also discussed the various approaches to apologetics. I do not agree with the presuppositional view. This approach is often known as the Limited Atonement approach. Believes that Christ only died for the elect, and that only the elect can understand the evidence. They must first agree on certain presuppositions before the Gospel can be effectively presented. (source)
She’s in Dr. Caner’s Theology 101 class, and this information came from day one. Presuppositional apologetics has nothing to do with the Limited Atonement or who can understand evidence. An apologist utilizing this approach assumes that the Bible is the revealed Word of God as a matter of course, and argues from there. This is how the apostles witnessed (in every instance of their preaching, neither the existence of God nor the authority of Scripture are up for grabs).
Most apologetics today is evidential; that is, first we prove that a God can exist and that he would reveal himself to mankind in some way. Then we establish the authority of Scripture and go from there.
Dr. Caner’s remarks about presuppositional apologetics reveal his anti-Reformed stance. I refuse to believe that he is just that ignorant about apologetics.
The anti-Reformed bias has nothing to do with my elimination of Liberty as a potential candidate for a seminary. The dishonesty of its leader and the teaching of complete falsehoods to advance an agenda are the reasons I will not be attending Liberty University.
Answering HeHe on “Inherited Religion?”
My post titled “Inherited Religion?” has generated so much flame comments that it was necessary to break the comment section down into a few parts. Part three addresses comments left by HeHe. I actually like HeHe. He is much more thoughtful than my other objectors, and he certainly doesn’t disappoint this time:
Well, the thing about religion being inherited is that that property should necessarily motivate someone to compare it with the other possible beliefs (or lack of beliefs). It’s like multiple people having a map to get to say, Destiny town. None of the maps agree. For some reason, you’re only holding onto map M because you were first delivered it in the mail, the others either didn’t come or came after you had read it and been convinced by it. You read it entirely, and it made some sense, if you accepted some unverifiable a priories (maybe severely unverifiable).
Now, if you’re a logical person, and you suddenly realize that there are hundreds of other maps, that people tend to believe the one they were delivered first, you should draw yourself away from the belief you have inherited, PRETEND IT IS FALSE, and look at all the possible beliefs available(about Destiny town) OBJECTIVELY. You may go as far as realize that there is no evidence that Destiny town even exists.
This is interesting, assuming that it is actually possible to do. Most people are unable to look completely objectively at anything. I’m not saying that I’m any better.
Now, at the risk of sounding pragmatic, I’ve found that Christianity just works. I can’t think of any of God’s promises in the Bible that he’s ever broken when it comes down to it. I’ve always had food and clothing, as have my kids (Mt 6:25-24). I sometimes go without my wants, but everything I need has always been provided.
I haven’t considered every single religion out there, and neither have you. But I have found much truth in Christianity.
Then, HeHe immediately follows with this:
Well, as for the rest, it makes God not seem very nice, I think that is indeed Calvinism or something, as Stoo said. So God has pre-condemned most of the world? I’m not an expert, but doesn’t that go counter to Paul’s teachings about converting the Gentiles or something? Shouldn’t people attempt to convert the other religions to Christianity? Doesn’t the bible predict that they would find great success (100 to 1, the sower’s parable)?
Yes, HeHe, I’m a Calvinist. Sorry to burst your bubble of autonomous free will. But this whole concept of predestination alleviates neither the human responsibility to turn to God for redemption nor does it exempt the elect from the command to preach the Gospel. Why it should be this way is a little harder to work out in a brief post like this one. Romans 9:22-24, however, contains a clue. God is enduring the vessels of wrath for a little while in order to make known his grace to those vessels of mercy in a way that would otherwise not be possible if he redeemed all of his creation.
In conclusion, I would just like to say that it was very tempting to categorize these last three posts under my “Comment Spam” heading, but I resisted. That was meant for a laugh. I won’t answer anyone who tries to act otherwise in the comment section of this post.
Paul Allen on the Question of Christianity
Paul Allen of Hope Church Australia sums up the debate I’ve been having with Caleb and Bruce Gerencser on the definition of a Christian. Caleb and Bruce seem to think that anyone (e.g. Fred Phelps) who claims that he is a Christian is (the minimalist view), where I’ve been arguing (to a brick wall, it seems) that there are other factors in determining it (the maximal view). Allen says this:
If you were proposing marriage to someone, what would the one receiving the proposal say if you said, “I want you to know this proposal changes nothing about my allegiances, my behavior, and my daily life; however, I do want you to know that should you accept my proposal, we shall theoretically be considered married. There will be no other changes in me on your behalf.” In a strange way we have minimized every sacred commitment and made it the lowest common denominator. What does my new birth mean to me? That is a question we seldom ask. Who was I before God’s work in me, and who am I now?The immediate results of coming to know Jesus Christ are the new hungers and new pursuits that are planted within the human will. I well recall that dramatic change in my own way of thinking. There were new longings, new hopes, new dreams, new fulfillments, but most noticeably, there was a new will to do what was God’s will. (source)
Too often, in becoming a Christian, a person just wants the “lowest common denominator” Christianity. They want to go to church on Sunday and claim spirituality, but never really let it affect who they are or what they do. Jesus predicted this when he told the parable of the wheat and weeds (Mt 13:24-30, 36-43).
Despite what many skeptics say, including Bruce and Caleb, there is more in determining someone’s Christianity than merely a profession of faith. In addition to professing faith, the person in question will seek to do God’s will. They will listen to James when he wrote:
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. (Jms 1:22-25)
Answering Caleb on “Inherited Religion?”
In the previous post, I answered some of the comment flames on my post titled “Inherited Religion?” This post has generated so many flames that required more involved answers than I can give in the comments section, so I’ve had to answer them on the blog. This is part two of three. I’m leaving the last thread of comments to Mike the Geocreationist since it’s his thought experiment.
On to Caleb:
You tick me off. First off, your logic is so circular that you should be getting dizzy. You claim the bible as your source of all truth, yet the proof outside of its claims are few and vague. Even Paul’s testimonies of his experience on the road to Damascus don’t agree, so shall you chalk this up to the fact that he’s human? Wait… I thought the bible was inerrant? You “refute” our anti-biblical arguements but that by no means proves us wrong, it’s just your (per)version of the truth. You’re so arrogant in your belief that you’re obviously right that you fail to properly respond to MANY critiques and quesions of us skeptics other than nitpicking at semantics and using terminology that indicates that we must be morons.
I agree with Loftus that religion is largely a geographical/cultural phenominon. If you’re born in the middle east, you’re most likely Muslim, due to the theocratic rule of many countries. If you’re born in the southern and bible belt of the U.S., you’re probably some form of fundamentalist christian. If you’re born in India you’re most likely Hindu. If you’re born in the Philippines or South America then you’re most likely a die-hard Catholic.
I don’t know how you live with yourself. Your cognitive dissonance must be off the charts. Calvinism is crap. I can find any scripture in the bible to support my (per)version of my chosen faith. Humans were NOT meant live out of such fear of the unknown, which is ultimately what all most major religions use to continue spreading their cancer. It’s an abusive relationship. It says “believe in me and obey me and love me or else you will suffer unending eternal torment.” Heck, nobody can even get a straight answer to what this omnipotent and omniscient being desires, it’s all interpretation… and you need to be a historian, theologin, linguist, entymologist, philosopher and sadomasochist to have a good grasp on the bible and its message… which is kill everybody who is against Jehovah… no wait… it’s lovingly kill everybody… no wait… it’s love everybody but shun those who are against Jehovah… no wait… it’s just love everybody and have faith in jesus… no wait… it’s repent or you’ll be thrown into the lake of fire…
FEAR FEAR FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN!!!! RUN AWAY!!!! BE AFRAID!!!! This thing that we can’t see or hear (unless you’re insane) or touch or taste or smell is going to make you writhe in eternal pain and everlasting torment unlesss you worship it and follow its vague and confusing message!!!
Insanity. Total irrational insanity. My rant here is done.
First off, welcome back. I didn’t think you were still reading my blog. Hopefully you’ve noticed that I actually have been much nicer to people, even those who disagree with me. Yes, that’s your advice I took. My readership has been building ever since. So I owe you a major Thank You, even though I was reluctant to take the advice.
On to your post. Of course I tick you off. In order for many skeptical arguments against religion to work well, this religion-inherited-by-geography argument has to be true. Otherwise, there would be little reason to question the belief. Especially if there were one world religion.
Paul’s disagreeing testimonies of his conversion experience on the Damascus road are all in the same book, written by the same author. If he were making up what was said, then the testimonies would agree 100%. But since they don’t, that means Luke reported what was actually said.
When you tell a story, I highly doubt that you tell it the same way each time. You probably mix up details because your memory isn’t perfect. Same thing here. The Bible is infallible only insofar as what was said or what happened, whichever is being recorded. Look carefully at those stories again, and I think you’ll find that two of them are reporting what Paul said to a group of people, not a second or third redundant account of what actually happened.
I’ve already responded to your second paragraph, but obviously not to your satisfaction. Again, I’ll state the purpose of my previous post: geographically inherited religion is a mechanism by which God effects predestination. So we are seeing, with geographically inherited religion, exactly what we’d expect to see if the Bible were true.
Your third paragraph is a lot of empty rhetoric. Why is it so hard for many to believe that God will punish people for refusing him? He has offered an easy salvation–by the sacrifice of his Son, he will remit the sins of those who place their faith in the Cross. Yet most of mankind–including you–have rejected this simple truth. We are deserving of hell not just for unbelief, but for the numerous other sins we commit on a daily basis. Unbelief is really the icing on the cake of our own doom.
You have always had a difficult time dealing with progressive revelation, even when I first pointed it out to you in December of 2009, as I recall. But, the fact of it remains. God reveals a fuller picture of himself and of the entire conception of earth, humanity, and the ontology of sin as the Bible progresses. You have to look at the entirety of the Bible, not just a few verses, to get a picture of God and his relationship to humanity.
Twice in this comment you make a reference to the fact that this is my (per)version of the truth. Saying this presumes that there is a real truth. This, of course, is a central tenet of Christianity–that God is the ultimate reality, the ultimate truth, and apart from him there is no other. Jesus says that he is the “way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6).
If I’m perverting the truth, then what is the truth, and how do we know it?
Back Rome Again 