Hi David.

You say that you hope I can accept that your trust in the Bible is not without supporting evidence. Well yes, it's possible to make a case, as you do. You mention confirmation bias. You seem to read mainly or exclusively scholars who agree with your beliefs. Currently your principal source is Latourette. You have also mentioned N. T. Wright. If these are who you read, it is unsurprising that you reach the conclusions that you do. I may have firm beliefs, which could be interpreted as confirmation bias, but at least these are based on a reading of a wide variety of sources, Christians of your type like N. T. Wright, and many others.

You say that you have studied the Bible for 40 years and your faith in it remains. This is in direct contrast, however, to someone like the scholar Bart Ehrman (whom I suggest you read), who had a born-again experience, went through periods of Fundamentalism and Evangelicism “based completely on a certain view of the Bible as the fully inspired, inerrant word of God”. Then “my study of the Greek New Testament, and my investigations into the manuscripts that contain it, led to a radical rethinking of my understanding of what the Bible is”. “The Bible began to appear to me as a very human book... Many of these authors no doubt felt they were inspired by God to say what they did, but they had their own perspectives, their own beliefs, their own views, their own needs, their own desires, their own understandings, their own theologies; (all this) informed everything they said”. (Misquoting Jesus, p11)

Also worth a read is John Shelby Spong, a Christian bishop who nevertheless writes books with provocative titles like Why Christianity Must Change or Die, and A New Christianity for a New World. In the preface to the former he mentions his mentors, some of whom are: John Hines, John Robinson (both bishops), Michael Goulder (a scholar who resigned his priesthood and membership in the church), and Don Cupitt (priest and Cambridge scholar). All these (highly intelligent Christians) have rejected the biblical Christianity you subscribe to for various reasons, have seen through it. This is not to say, of course, that you are not intelligent; it's just that there are obviously different ways of interpreting the Bible. Also, how far you are willing to go into how the Bible was put together. Spong says that to Cupitt and Goulder “I am a hopeless conservative for remaining committed to the church and the Christian Faith”, (although he does of course believe that Christianity must change or die).

Regarding Paul and Arabia, this seems to me an example of your refusing to take seriously what the Bible actually says. Unfortunately, all we can do is speculate about what happened there; Paul had his reasons for not revealing. But we can assume that, whatever it was, it was extremely important since he swears an oath that this is what is he did rather than go to Jerusalem to meet James and Cephas.

I disagree with you that there is nothing in Paul's own testimony that directly casts doubt on the conversion on the Damascus road. What you say is strictly speaking correct, that he only casts doubt on the events immediately afterwards, in fact swears an oath that they are not true. However, if he denies all that, why should we believe what immediately precedes that account? It would be reasonable to assume that that is also not true; that would be the simplest, and most obvious conclusion.

How else do I account for his conversion? I agree that there must have been a dramatic vision, but not necessarily the one recounted in Acts. Just like the episode in Arabia, Paul doesn't want to tell us, and he has own reasons for that.

I agree with you, of course, that whatever is the true explanation of his conversion and his visions is where his authority as an apostle comes from. But I won't be looking to Acts for the true explanation.

I certainly do feel that this particular discussion has run its course, as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. And in future I want to try to avoid these lengthy private discussions, and focus as much as possible on my own articles. I will of course read your article on the Garden of Eden and the Prodigal Son.

Good luck for your life and your search.