I wrote and submitted the following in response:
It was not published.
In “Defense of the Bible fails to add up,” (Viewpoint, Nov 29) Jern dismisses the Bible as an irrelevant and worthless “archaic book.” To his credit, Jern does summarize the opinion of a majority at UCLA. Unfortunately, this view is contradicted by many great men who strongly affirm the Bible’s relevancy and value.
George Washington disagrees with the notion that the Bible is irrelevant: “it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” Even Jefferson, a Deist, echoes this: “The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty.”
Francis Bacon, the man who developed the scientific method, valued the Bible to the point of comparing it to science. He said, “Let no man … think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works.” The founding father of science itself believed that it’s at least as valuable to study the Bible as science.
The first president and the author of our Declaration of Independence both believed that the Bible was relevant. Were Washington and Jefferson wrong about the Bible’s relevance to government? The inventor of science said that the Bible was at least as important as science. Did this man of reason grossly miscalculate the Bible’s value?
Or is it possible that they were at least partly right?
Even if you disagree with its Divine origin, it’s simply foolish to dismiss the Bible’s relevancy and value outright.