He couldn't do anything more interesting with that phrase?
Mohler gets to it about half way through a blog about Christians who are aruging for theistic evolution, and then likes it apparently, and uses it several more times.
Most of the argument and half of the substance, really, is hanging on his bus cliche.
Mohler misrepresents, I think, what the so-called BioLogos people believe about the Bible. There are numerous problems that I see with their logic and their argumentation, but Mohler picks differnt things entirely, some of which aren't acutally BioLogos people's positions. But then, Mohler has made a certain kind of creationism a necessary doctrine for Christianity and very much pushes this dichotomy where either one believes in this doctrine exactly or in none of the Bible at all, and so the post itself is pretty typical of the by-now very hashed arguments and very, very tired debate.
But really, "under the bus?"
We couldn't come up with anything more interesting than that? Play with it a little, maybe, do something a little more clever?
And really, if one did throw a Bible under a bus, wouldn't the Bible be fine? I mean literally. The bus would just pass over it, it sitting there like nothing happened. Even if on of the wheels hit the book, it'd maybe leave a mark, but you could still read it and the binding would probably be mostly OK.
If it was one of those big Bibles, of course, like a pulpit Bible or a big family one, the bus would be what you'd have to worry about.
From a bus or at a bus would probably be more damaging prepositional directions to throw a Bible, actually. Pages might be bent.
But a Bible could pretty well withstand under just fine.
But then maybe Mohler's Bible is just particularly fragile.