It happened the other day in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: A woman received a letter in the mail. After opening it, the woman set the letter down on the table in front of her. Suddenly, as she watched, the paper on which the letter was printed began to change color, from white to yellowish to dark brown.

The woman was horrified. Was the letter treated with something dangerous that was catalyzed by contact with the air? Could it be some kind of biological or chemical weapon? By opening it, had she exposed herself and perhaps others to an act of deadly terrorism?

Immediately, the woman dialed 911 (which, apparently, is the emergency response number in Canada as it is here). The Edmonton fire department dispatched its hazardous materials unit to the scene. The Haz-Mat team swiftly descended on the woman’s house and cordoned off the surrounding neighborhood. Chemical experts in protective suits and masks entered the house to examine the paper and determine the extent of the danger

Only there wasn’t any danger.

Without realizing it, the woman had spilled coffee on the table prior to opening her mail. When she rested the letter on the tabletop, she covered the coffee splatter, which quickly soaked into the paper. The color change she witnessed was nothing more than the innocent, harmless stain of an everyday beverage.

There is a principle of logic commonly known as “Occam’s razor,” after William of Occam (sometimes spelled Ockham), who first defined the principle. In its most basic form, Occam’s razor says, “The simplest solution that satisfies all of the facts is usually correct.”

Let’s apply Occam’s razor to the situation of this poor soul in Edmonton. If one opens a letter, sets the paper down on a table, and the paper begins to change color, what could this mean? The simplest answer is: there was something on the table, and it’s now on the paper.

Our Canadian friend, however, did not utilize this principle. Instead, her mind leapt to an extremely unlikely possibility — that evildoers had impregnated her mail with a deadly chemical or biological agent as a terrorist action. Could she have been right? Certainly it was possible. We know such things have happened in the recent past. But wouldn’t it make more sense to investigate the more obvious answer first, before summoning the Haz-Mat crew?

People often do with the Bible what this woman did with her coffee-soaked letter. Rather than accept the simplest understanding of its plain-spoken teachings, they jump to the most far-out, unreasonable conclusions. Here are a handful of random examples:

When John writes, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1), why would anyone try to argue that the Word (Jesus, per verse 14) was not God?

When Jesus says, “I am the vine, you are the branches” (John 15:5), why would anyone suppose He meant “branches” to describe an elaborate network of disparate denominations?

When Peter says, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), why would anyone think he really meant “be baptized because you already have remission of sins”?

When Jesus describes the fate of the disobedient as “everlasting punishment” (Matthew 25:46), why would anyone think He meant they would cease to exist, not be punished eternally?

When Paul writes to Christians, “You have fallen from grace” (Galatians 5:4), why would anyone then say, “But Christians can’t really fall from grace — once saved, always saved”?

On rare occasion, a letter that changes color might constitute a terrorist attack. Infinitely more often, though, it’s just been dropped in coffee. The simplest solution is usually correct. Especially when it comes to the plain truths of God’s revealed word.