Earlier today, I was reading an article in which a philosopher discussed the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, creation out of nothing. As I read his treatment of (potentially) relevant biblical texts, I felt disturbed, and tweeted the following:

Reading an article by a philosopher. The exegetical part feels like a speech by a college debater. Willy-nilly quotations with … (1/2)

… minimal context and little attention to whether the larger works from which the quotations are pulled are mutually compatible. (2/2)

Later, I read another article that was itself as response to essentially the same article, though published as a chapter in a co-authored book. The responding author wrote:

They make no bones about the fact that they are not engaging in an attempt to provide a balanced exegesis of the scriptures and documents that they discuss. Rather, their article and book are like a lawyer’s defense brief for the view that the scriptures teach creatio ex nihilo. A careful reading reveals that they are presenting their case as if they were debaters with no interest in giving a balanced assessment of the evidence.

Sometimes, it’s nice to know you’re not alone.