I can't thank you enough for your wonderfully informative and entertaining publication. As a recovering fundamentalist, I think that you are indeed a breath of fresh air! Keep up the good work. Enclosed is a check for my renewal.
(Jamie Smith, 3500 East Park Boulevard, Apt. 104, Plano, TX 75074.)
Your response to my letter; (Summer 1995, p. 12) seems to successfully address my objection to (and misunderstanding of) your article [concerning the raising of Jairus's daughter]. You are right to be confused by my distinction between necessary and sufficient. I misread your argument.
Thank you for your commendable publication. Although you may think this letter is superfluous, I do hope you print it. Admitting error is important.
(Richard Trott, 78-A Phelps Avenue, New Brunswick, NJ 08901.)
I received 3 copies of your publication and read the; winter of 95 issue. I hope Mr. Sierichs realizes that our Bible as it is published today is not in chronological order nor is it in its original order. See the book The Original Bible Restored by Ernest L. Martin. The numbers that he gives both ancient and modern are not the real concern in matters of faith, although I believe the Bible to be correct.
This is a very volatile subject and wars have been fought over less than his [Sierichs'] statement, "People who claim that the Bible is literally true from beginning to end are shameless liars, openly insulting the intelligence of all of us by defending these absurd numbers." Of course, Mr. Sierichs' statement is his statement and his right to think this way. The fact is he has no right to tell me what to believe or not to believe. I do not call people names with whom I disagree. Shame on him if he would cause anyone to lose faith because of his views.
In the article "What about Casualty Numbers" by Farrell Till, he states, "Bible fundamentalists sorely need to read the Bible with their heads and not their hearts." Mr. Till is wrong in telling me how to read the Bible. I'll read as I please... thank you! You people must truly feel threatened by what the Bible has to say and cannot understand it without God's help, so lashing out is your thing.
I am a believer in the Lord and his Son the Savior Jesus Christ. I have believed in and served the Lord most of my life, raising my son who now is a deacon in his church and preaches on occasion with his family in attendance. My life is full, pleasant, active and worthwhile. My church group is small and serves our home area.
Sorry to hear that you folks are so angry because there are believers in the world! Don't send any more of your papers. I got the gist of your message, and it's sour grapes to me! Bob Hypes says Christians are "incoherent babblers." I've heard that it takes one to know one.
A believer in Christ now and forever....
(Charlotte Doubravsky, 79 Maryhill Highway, Goldendale, WA 98620.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mrs. Doubravsky responded to the ad that we published in Bible Review last summer. Although we offered only a sample issue, we maintained our policy of giving a free first-year subscription; hence, we started her subscription with the beginning of the year and sent her three issues. What she found in the first one offended her, so we dropped her subscription as she requested. We have no desire to send The Skeptical Review to people who don't intend to read it. There are too many people who will to waste copies on those who have Mrs. Doubravsky's inflexible attitude.
We have published her letter in order to respond to accusations that indicate she is guilty of some of the very things she attributes to us. We have charitably corrected several spelling and grammatical mistakes in her letter.
In her comments about William Sierichs' article ;("Those Amazing Biblical Numbers...," Winter 1995, pp. 5-8), she informed Sierichs that the "Bible as it is published today is not in chronological order," a statement that is puzzling indeed, since nothing in Sierichs' article pertained to chronology. He simply showed, with ample documentation to support his case, that the sizes claimed for biblical armies were greatly exaggerated. Mrs. Doubravsky said nothing to prove that any of Sierichs' arguments were wrong. She simply said that the numbers given were "not the real concern in matters of faith." Oh? If the Bible reported incorrect information, that is not a "real concern in matters of faith"? Evidently, she has no use for the recognized rule of evidence called falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Simply stated, this rule recognizes that when a witness makes an error in one point, those judging his testimony are entitled to doubt anything else he says whose truth cannot be established independently of the witness's testimony. Perhaps, then, Mrs. Doubravsky would accept my invitation to publish any article that she will submit to explain why if biblical numbers (especially as they were applied to the size of armies) were obviously inflated, we can reasonably trust anything else that was reported by writers who used exaggerated numbers.
Mrs. Doubravsky contended that she still believes the Bible to be correct, even though she thinks that numbers are no "real concern in matters of faith." So she seems unable to see the forest for the trees. If numbers in the Bible have been consistently exaggerated, as I believe they have in other matters as well as in the issue that Sierichs and I discussed, then how can it possibly be "correct"? Mrs. Doubravsky would have made a much better impression on me and other readers, I'm sure, if she had tried to prove that the sizes of biblical armies were correctly reported. Instead, she was satisfied simply to declare arbitrarily that "the Bible is correct," and that is an all-too-familiar tactic of would-be biblical apologists. If she cannot show reasonable proof that Sierichs and I erred in our conclusions about biblical numbers, then how can she consider the Bible to be a reliable basis for faith? The apostle Paul said, "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17), but if a book that purports to be "the word of God" contains obvious exaggerations that insult my intelligence, how can I possibly acquire faith from reading it? Perhaps Mrs. Doubravsky has an answer to this question.
She informed us in no uncertain terms that she will read the Bible as she pleases, and by the time she said this, I had read far enough to know this without her directly saying it. She thinks that "(y)ou people must truly feel threatened by what the Bible has to say and cannot understand it without God's help, so lashing out is your thing." I suspect, however, she has the situation reversed. She is the one who feels that her precious Bible is being threatened in a way that she cannot effectively respond to, and so she lashes out at us.
This "believer in Christ now and forever" enclosed with her letter a church bulletin that explained her congregation was founded as a result of the Millerite movement of the past century, which predicted a specific date (October 22, 1844) for the second coming of Jesus. The bulletin shamelessly stated that the failed prophecy did not end the movement but instead gave rise to five different denominations, one of which is the church that Mrs. Doubravsky is a member of. I think that says quite enough about her rationality, so no further comment on her letter is necessary.
Concerning the historicity of Jesus, you commented that it was unlikely that a mob should first welcome Jesus, then kill him. If one mob liked him, and the other mob was controlled by the power establishment, this could have indeed been possible. Today we have mobs operating under less duress. In those days, everyone knew that if you disagreed with the champions too strenuously, then they would just kill you. Today we have mob behavior that is very similar, yet most of the mob (at least in the USA) do not realize this danger, and believe themselves to be free. Is the "progress" of civilization merely the craftsmanlike polishing of this illusion of freedom in a slave colony?
(David Briars, Route 1, Box 45, Craftsbury, VT 05826; e-mail dbriars@ world.std.com)
In "The Historicity of Jesus," you (presumably Farrell, though I didn't see a byline) write: "Such vast multitudes... welcomed Jesus into the city and then just a short time later crowds were screaming for Pilate to crucify him. Who can believe it?"
Actually, it's not at all hard to believe. Consider, for example, that George Bush's approval ratings exceeded 75% right after the Persian Gulf War, yet he pulled in less than 40% of the votes a year later in the Presidential election of 1992. People can change their minds. Furthermore, it's perfectly believable that the J-fans shouting hosannas on Palm Sunday represented an entirely different subset of the population of Jerusalem from those shouting, "Crucify him!" a few days later. This is no different from a modern-day demagogue speaking to the cheers, applause, and adulation of an auditorium full of the faithful, then having to run a gauntlet of placards, boos, and taunts while leaving the place.
In short, I wouldn't use this illustration in an effort to convince anyone that the Bible is illogical or doesn't have a handle on human nature
(Richard S. Russell, 2642 Kendall Avenue, Madison, WI 53705-3736; e- mail RSRMadison@aol.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The view expressed in the letters above would certainly be meritorius (1) if more time had passed between the "triumphal entry" of Jesus and (2) if his trial and crucifixion had occurred in a larger city than 1st-century Jerusalem. As it was, less than one week separated his entry into Jerusalem from his trial. If the New Testament record is correct, he was welcomed into the city on the first day by "multitudes" (Matt. 21:7-8) that threw branches into his pathway and went before him shouting, "Hosanna to the son of David! Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!" After he had "come into Jerusalem," all the city was moved and asked, "Who is this?" The multitudes answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee" (v:13).
On day two, Jesus went into the temple, overturned the tables of the money changers, and drove them out of the temple. The chief priests and the scribes were "moved with indignation" (Matt. 21:15) and "sought how they might destroy him," but "they feared him, because all the people were astonished at His teaching" (Mark 11:18). Luke claimed that the chief priests, scribes, and leaders of the people wanted to destroy him but "were unable to do anything, for all the people were very attentive to him" (19:47). So clearly the gospels teach that Jesus enjoyed the support of the general population during those first two days in Jerusalem before his trial and crucifixion.
Jesus spent the third day teaching in the temple. (This covers two and a half chapters in Mark and three and a half in Matthew.) After Jesus had finished all of these sayings, he said to his disciples, "You know that after two days is the Passover and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified" (Matt. 26:1). That night he was betrayed by Judas and arrested, "and when morning came, all the chief priests and elders of the people plotted against Jesus to put him to death" (Matt. 27:1). This would have put the trial of Jesus about five days after his triumphal entry, so we are supposed to believe that the enemies of Jesus, consistently described as the chief priests, scribes, and elders (leaders of the people), had spent four days wringing their hands over the activities of Jesus, unable to move against him because they feared the multitudes, but suddenly they were able to take him into custody and produce a screaming mob that demanded his crucifixion. What had happened to bring about the change? The gospels give no plausible explanation for it, just as they give no plausible explanations for a lot of things.
This, then, is an entirely different scenario from George Bush's loss of popularity over a period of more than a year, because the alleged change in public attitude toward Jesus occurred over a space of only four or five days. We are asked to believe that the chief priests and leaders of the Jews were afraid to move against Jesus because of his popularity with the people but that just 4 days later something had happened to remove that obstacle. To suggest that there were multitudes in Jerusalem who adjulated him but also multitudes that hated him is an explanation that doesn't take into consideration the size and population of Jerusalem. The Jerusalem of this time encompassed an area that was only 800 yards wide from east to west and 1200 yards from north to south, and its population was estimated at about 25,000. If the chief priests and scribes feared the reaction of the multitudes if they tried to take action against Jesus the day after his triumphal entry, we can hardly imagine how they could have kept their plot against Jesus from these multitudes in such a relatively small area, even if we can imagine their succeeding in stirring up another mob against Jesus in a city of only 25 or 30 thousand where "the people all hung upon him, listening" (Luke 19:48). It is more reasonable to believe that this is just another case of inconsistency in the gospel accounts of biased Christians overzealously exaggerating the exploits of their "Messiah."
Please send me all your back issues up to the spring of 95--at least 19 issues. I'm send $20 to cover them ($1 extra in case). I don't expect any credit, if there is any. That's okay; your publications are worth every penny and more for the truth and honest approach to your articles. It's time for us to come out of the dark ages.
(Barbara Knapp, 25527 Via Dolarita, Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2827.)
In reference to your article, "The Testimony of Mara Bar-Serapion," I have historical information that makes his letter even more inaccurate. You state that no historical record existed of a plague in Athens, but actually such a calamity did strike them, in 430 B. C., on the heels of the Peloponnesian War, as detailed by Thucydides. Unfortunately, Socrates was executed in 399 B. C., after the plague had irreparably decimated Athenian society. Bar-Serapion, in his ignorance, was confusing cause and effect. It has been argued that a major motivation for killing Socrates was the plague and its aftermath. The more superstitious could not abide his perceived impiety toward the traditional gods, and were fearful of what they might do next to their city if he were allowed to continue. Socrates was a sacrifice, then, who died for their "sins" of irrationality.
Moving to another matter, I have a problem with John Glue's letter in the same issue. He passes on some of the same bogus derivations found in questionable sources as Godfrey Higgins and Kersey Graves, when names like Christ and Jesus have no demonstrable linguistic connection to the exotic sources some attribute. Christ comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew meshiach (messiah), both meaning "the anointed one." Jesus is nothing more than a Greek transliteration of Yeshua (English mutation, Joshua), meaning savior, which may suggest the fictional nature of the character (among many others with symbolic names). Far from being the source of the term Christ, Krishna means "dark" and reveals the subtext of the Mahabharata: resistance of the Aryan invasion by the darker indigenous element of India. The fact that he is the second person of the Trimurti in human incarnation is what may be significant.
We do not aid our cause when we seize upon anything that appeals to us as damaging religion. We ought to utilize the most scrupulous standards lest they discredit us, and not worry that we're missing an opportunity. Our case is solid enough to be content with nothing less.
(Stephen Van Eck, Route 1, Box 62, Rushville, PA 18839.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: There was indeed a plague in Athens that (as Van Eck points out) occurred *before* Socrates was executed, which certainly would disqualify it for the plague that Bar-Serapion declared was punishment for the Athenians having "put Socrates to death." I have checked but have not found any plague that struck Athens after Socrates' death, so as Van Eck suggested, Bar-Serapion was probably confused in his chronology, which doesn't do much for the fundamentalist Christian claim that his letter was testimony to the historicity of Jesus. Let's notice also that Bar-Serapion said that plague *and* famine came upon the Athenians because of their execution of Socrates. Does anyone know of any such famine? I have not been able to find any record of it.
We also have to wonder what Bar-Serapion meant about the island of Samos having been "covered with sand" as punishment for their having "burned" Pythagoras. Of course, we know that Pythagoras wasn't burned by the "men of Samos"; he died in Italy. I wonder, though, if anyone has any idea what the allusion to the sand that covered Samos might be. I have not found any record of a calamity that meets that description.
As for the similarity in the names Christ and Krisha, my understanding is that Van Eck is right. They have different origins. However, isn't it true that the popular spelling of Krishna used to be Chrishna? Does anyone know if there was any Christian effort expended to change the spelling to its present form?
After 26 years of bondage to religious ideas (Pentecostalism, charisma, fire, end times, and circumcision), I'm free. Thank you for your free offer per the ad in Humanist.
(Bob Homac, 2808 Old St. Augustine Road, Tallahassee, FL 32301-5122.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the kind of letter we love to get.
Enclosed please find a disk that needs to be updated with the latest editions of The Skeptical Review. I am quite pleased with the publication, and have distributed the back issues not just around my office but also around California on various bulletin boards.
My own BBS, Dante's Inferno, now has thousands of freethought text files available to be downloaded free of charge, and your publication has been among the most popular. The phone number is 619-540-BURN, and anyone may log on quickly to access the files by using my GUEST account, which requires no password. I have a 28.8 USR V.everything, so anybody should be able to connect with no problems.
I have run across a few books that I feel would come in handy for those of your readers who enjoy debating or just reading up on the subject of reality rather than fantasy. The first one, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (ISBN 0-87975-926-7), is by C. Dennis McKinsey, editor of the fine monthly publication Biblical Errancy. I have found this to be very well organized and extremely useful when debating inerrantists. Also, Atheism: The Case Against God (ISBN 0-87975-124-X), by George Smith, while a little more technical from the philosophical standpoint, is well worth reading. Both of them are available from Prometheus Books (1- 800-421-0351). A third book is Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do (ISBN 0-931580-53-6) by Peter McWilliams, published by Prelude Press. This covers a much broader range of topics than the previous two but really looks at the social impact religion has had on our society.
On another subject, you mentioned in volume six, number two, that Jerry Moffitt would consider debating again if he can be guaranteed an audience of skeptics. I can pretty much guarantee you an audience of at least 30, probably as many as 50, atheists and skeptics anytime you wish. I would be most interested in helping arrange a debate if indeed Moffitt is willing to do so. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.I would also like to rent the Till-Dobbs Debate, the Hovind-Till Debate, and obtain a copy of the transcript of the Geisler-Till Debate.
(Dante Ridley, P. O. Box 2415, La Mesa, CA 91943- 2415, phone (619) 670-7062, e-mail dante@daffy.cgl.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Ridley's offer to arrange a debate that would attract an audience of skeptics has been passed along to Jerry Moffitt. Whether the debate occurs will now depend upon Moffitt's decision.
For those interested in the books Mr. Ridley recommended, the address of Prometheus is 59 John Glenn Drive, Buffalo, NY 14228-2197. They can also be obtained from H. H. Waldo, Bookseller, P. O. Box 350, Rockton, IL 61072.
It was by chance that I saw a notice in The Seattle Times newspaper regarding your debate on the resurrection at Seattle-Pacific University. While there, I signed up for a free one-year subscription to TSR. I have received the 3 issues of 1995 so far, thank you, and I feel they are so well done that I would like all the back issues. Enclosed is my check for the 20 back issues and Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled.
(Lando J. Derksen, 4030 Williams Avenue W, Seattle, WA 98199.)
Please send me a year's subscription. If possible, I'd also love to see whatever back issues are available. I have enclosed a check to cover costs.
I am 24 years old, and I was raised in the Assemblies of God. Several years ago, I debated Messianic prophecy with a Jewish friend (handle=Svee) whom I met over a computer network called Q-link (for Commodore users). It lasted months and drew quite an audience. Besides arguing for the fulfillment of prophecy, I also tried to demonstrate how the OT required the Messiah to be the divine son of God in a trinitarian sense.
Well, four years ago, I progressed to being a Unitarian in the classical sense--Bible believing but asserting Jesus was a man and did not preexist. I still believe this is the proper way to understand the NT.
Two years ago, I dropped Christianity entirely to become an atheist, secular-humanist, and libertarian. Every day that passes makes me more confident my decision was correct. Evolution is true; God is not necessary for the world to exist; the idea of God is absurd; religion is itself a sociological phenomenon; Genesis is a compilation of stories with divergent points to make; the gospels contain historical mistakes, scientific errors, and contradictions.
I won that Q-link debate, because I was willing to learn from my opponent and learn I was wrong. Through that debate, I got the foolish to realize the truth- -even if it took years to sink in. If I knew where Svee was now, I'd congratulate him too.
(Wayne VanWeerthuizen, P. O. Box 206, Centralia, WA 98531- 0206.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Need I say how much we enjoy receiving letters like this? The way that Mr. VanWeerthuizen learned the truth about the Bible points to what I have said many times in the past. The internet is bad news for Christianity. So much discussion is taking place on the various newsgroups that it is bound to have long-term effects on traditional religious beliefs, not just here but all over the world, and the nice thing about it is that the free exchange of information is something that the religious establishments can no longer suppress. Any government that keeps personal computers from its citizens will be plunged so far back into a dark-age mentality that it will not be able to survive in the modern world. So Christians who have computers will now have access to information that was kept from the sheep in the past.
When I was still a child, I believed in God simply because my parents told me so. As a soldier in WWII, I seriously began to doubt the existence of God. Later, after reading many books on the subject of God (including the Bible) and after much contemplation I came to the conclusion that the Judeo-Christian God is manmade. The fable of Jesus deserves to be included in the world's best fairy tales.
I enclose a two-year subscription to your excellent magazine. "Christianity" needs enlightenment more than ever.
(J. Jaschimow, R2, C-12B, Lansdowne, BC, Canada V0E 1B0.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Jaschimow's story is a familiar one. He started reading and.... Any Christians on the subscription list who may be interested in seeing what Jaschimow and others mean when they say that reading books about the Bible changed their lives, I offer an experiment that you can use to test whether reading about your religion will in any way change your attitude. First, you should read the Bible (many Christians don't) and develop at least a fair understanding of what is in it. Then take your time and read these books: The Seven Mighty Blows to Traditional Beliefs by A. J. Mattill, Jr., The Myth of the Resurrection and The Forgery of the Old Testament by Joseph McCabe, Is It God's Word and Forgery in Christianity by Joseph Wheless, Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman, The Story of Christian Origins by Martin A. Larsen, Out of the Desert by William H. Stiebing, Jr., Gospel Fictionsby Randel Helms, The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth by S. G. F. Brandon, The Case Against Christianity by Michael Martin, and Beyond Born Again by Robert Price. I could extend the list far beyond this, but these would be enough to keep you busy for a year if you read them as carefully as you should. Such books as these will give the serious biblical reseacher a perspective of the Bible that is very different from what people hear in churches. The reason why so many people still cling to old, discredited religious views is that (1) they don't even read the Bible, and (2) if they do other religious studies, they rely on books usually published in Grand Rapids, Michigan, or by their own churches.
Your publication is a gust of fresh air cleaning away the cobwebs of fundamentalism. I greatly appreciate your civility and humor comingling with sweet reason. A former Wisconsin Synod Lutheran, parochially educated from kindergarten through 12th grade, I've labored for the last 25 years to free myself from the "truths" of such indoctrination. It has often been a lonely struggle, but spiritually speaking, there's simply no going home again.
Please add my name to your subscription roster, and enclosed is a check for back issues. I relish the prospect of catching up on my reading as I continue to put away childish things.
(Kathi Houghton, 44 Peninsula Trail, Traverse City, MI 49686.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Ms. Houghton's allusion to Thomas Wolf's famous novel You Can't Go Home Again is an effective way to express the transformation that occurs when one abandons religious superstition. So many well meaning people have expressed hope that I will one day "come back"; many tell me, of course, that they are praying for me. What they don't understand is the simple truth that Ms. Houghton expressed in her letter. When one frees his mind from the silliness and absurdity of Bible belief, he simply cannot "go home again." It just isn't going to happen.
Thank you so much for the sample issue of The Skeptical Review, which I received and read today. It's excellent and "truth revealing." If my first year is free, then I'm sending you a check for the 2nd- and 3rd-year subscriptions. I recently read The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read and got your address from it.
I'm grateful to men like you and Dennis McKinsey for your dedication and service to enlighten mankind, for you're very much needed and appreciated. If it wasn't for freethinkers, we'd never learn anything to remove the shackles of bondage or slavery of the "mind polluters" or "mind corruptors." The older I become, the more I read, and the more I learn, the less I want to be called a "Christian" and the more proud I become of being called an atheist.
(Albert Monette, 60353 Latham Tr., Joshua Tree, CA 92252.)
I have always had a philosophical disagreement with the premise of a religion that has a reward system that is based on faith and not the true spirit of a person. Frankly, I find the whole notion to be so lacking in true justice that I'm appalled. Thanks to The Skeptical Review, I now have factual resources at my disposal to help me debate the many Christians who are a part of my everyday life. You have no idea how much this has benefited me psychologically.
I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home and was forced to endure unimaginable psychological abuse because of the extremely "hardline" Christianity that my parents enforced. I was constantly reminded that my rebellious nature was "as the sin of witchcraft." I was brought to endless numbers of "revival" meetings and "crusades." Even now, my parents dare to say that the blood of other people will be on my hands because I'm willing to share my skepticism.
I want to arm myself with as much knowledge as you can give me, so I am hereby sending you a check for Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled and also the Geisler-Till Debate and as many back issues as this money can go to. I believe skepticism to be the most humanitarian point of view. May our children live in a world free of superstitious nonsense.
(David Friesen, 902 South Loop 499, Apt. E-8, Harlingen, TX 78550.)
I just received the '94 issues, and I just want to thank you for responding so quickly after you found out I didn't receive my back issues. I really appreciate it. I have a lot of respect for your publication. It frees me from the myths and legends that create fear and guilt, which has haunted me from those insane "born-again-Christian" days. I wish I could express myself better in the written word. There is so much more I could say. Thank you for your ability to express yourself so well.
I was thinking that if God knows the future and wanted to spread the word, why didn't he wait for the technology we have today--with TV, faxes, etc.? Why do it in an age with limited means of communication? Now everyone would have a better chance to get all the facts-- like Thomas. Why did God sacrifice his son (himself) in a primitive age? What difference would it make, then or 2,000 years later, since time means little to "God"? One day to God is like 1,000 years to us; at least that's what I have heard.
I know you could do a debate on this. I'd love to hear what fundamentalists would say.
(Barbara Knapp, 25527 Via Dolarita, Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2827.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Ms. Knapp's first paragraph refers to an order of back issues that were mailed but not received. If this should ever happen to you, please let us know.
I too have often wondered why God would choose to reveal his "word" to a backward, barbaric people in primitive times. If he felt it was necessary to do this at the particular time he did, why doesn't he take advantage of the technology that Ms. Knapp referred to and re-reveal his word in a way that is unequivocal so that he could quell all of the controversy, for all times, about what was in "the original autographs" and how certain words in the original languages should have been translated. A simultaneous revelation direct from God, recorded instantly in all of the languages on earth that have computer technologies, would be so remarkable and unequivocal that it should end all of the controversy. No more disputes about which book is really his word, which sect is really his "true religion"--why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity, who doesn't want anyone to perish, not want to do this?
Who will be the first fundamentist to respond by telling us
that
God chooses to reveal himself in parables and "dark sayings" so
that he can test us and determine who have good and honest hearts
(as if an omniscient deity would have to perform such tests to
make this determination)?
