182. Tough Texts

**Andrew Ollerton** (0:00)
But the troubling thing then about the Old Testament is when we read it back, we think, is this the God that we meet in Jesus? Is this the same God? You know, I think there's a few places in the Old Testament where people feel like there's a disconnect with Jesus saying, love your enemies, and then Joshua being commanded to wipe out their enemies.

**SPEAKER_2** (0:22)
We're introduced to Adam and Eve, who are told in no uncertain terms by God not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You may begin to wonder why knowledge of good and evil is such a bad thing, but the thought is interrupted by the introduction of the serpent who says to Eve, did God say that if you eat of the tree, then in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die? And Eve says yes, and the serpent says, well, that's not going to happen. God just knows that if you eat of it, you'll become like him knowing good and evil, and he doesn't want that at all. You're not going to die.
So Eve famously takes the fruit, eats some, gives some to Adam, and what happens? Do they die in the day thereof? Some people say in a metaphorical sense, yes. We'll get to that in a second, but at least on the surface of it, no. What does happen? God tells us himself, he says, now the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and eat from the tree of life, lest he inherit eternal life.
And with this, Adam and Eve are banished from the Garden of Eden. So who's telling the truth here? This story is quite mystifying to me, and I'm not the first to point this out.

**John Dickson** (1:26)
That's Alex O'Connor, the millennial champion of open-minded scepticism. He started out as an atheist, but now considers himself something like an agnostic. His criticism of the Bible, though, and of the Book of Genesis in particular, is scathing. O'Connor represents a lot of people out there who read the Bible and come away annoyed or angry, or at least confused. They have tough questions, and we're going to look at some of them in this episode. The impressive thing about Alex O'Connor is that, unlike some doubters, he seems to be seeking answers to questions. He's not just throwing hand grenades. Questions like, why is there so much violence in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament? Isn't the Bible's view of sex just outdated? And surely there can't be a literal heaven and hell? And a bunch more. I've always said that Christianity isn't, or at least shouldn't, be troubled by any of these questions. At its best, Christianity stands smiling in the ring of history, science, culture, ethics and all the rest, and invites anyone who wishes to come and take a swing.
And today we've got a guest who is a fantastic, thoughtful, happy punching bag for our tough questions about the Bible. I'm John Dickson and this is Undeceptions.
Each episode of Undeceptions, we explore some aspect of life, faith, history, science, culture or ethics that's either much misunderstood or mostly forgotten. And with the help of people who know what they're talking about, we're trying to undeceive ourselves. And let the truth out.
My guest today is Andrew Olyton. He's an author and pastor with degrees in geography, theology, history, and a PhD in historical theology. He's a fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and he specializes in making complex biblical ideas simple and relevant to believers and doubters alike. His most recent book is the one that really got my interest. God's Book, An Honest Look at the Bible's Seven Toughest Topics.
All right, mate. So my summary of your book is, hey, the Bible is not as dumb and mean as you think, so maybe pick it up and read it. I like that. Good approach. But let's start at the beginning where lots of people think the Bible is at least dumb, Genesis. And one of the things you say is that people get confused because both skeptics and some believers think that Genesis 1 was written with a scientific view in mind. You are not so sure about that. Talk us through it.

**Andrew Ollerton** (5:12)
Yeah, I don't buy the idea that it's unrelated to the findings of science. You know, ultimately, the Genesis is an attempt to describe, to tell the story of the origins of the natural world. And science is an attempt to investigate the workings, the inner workings, if you like, of the natural world. It's not that they're unrelated. I don't buy that. But I do think that the imposition of a scientific worldview onto Genesis is where we get into trouble, because we effectively try and force it to answer questions it's not trying to ask, and then we miss it for what it is trying to bring to the table. And I think that's, you know, without being simplistic, without being over simplistic, at least, I make the point, as others have, that to some degree, science is asking the how questions. How old are things?