The Dating of Daniel...
I received a copy of the March/ April 1998 issue of The Skeptical Review courtesy of Mr. Everette Hatcher. Mr. Hatcher purchased a copy of my book, Beasts, Horns and the Antichrist: Daniel a Blueprint of the Last Days?
In this issue Mr. Hatcher wrote an article titled "The Critics' Admissions Concerning Daniel," and you wrote a rebuttal titled "The Inerrantist Way of Misrepresenting `Critics.'" Since I am the author of a critical commentary on the apocalyptic visions in Daniel, I was intrigued by this debate and subsequent articles in The Skeptical Review concerning biblical errancy.
My book is an attempt to combat the dogmatism of prophecy writers who chart the course of future events from the apocalyptic visions in Daniel. Prophecy writers claim that Daniel predicts future events such as a tribulation period, rise of Antichrist, Armageddon, etc. However, as I'm sure you'll agree, the book of Daniel is a product of the second century B.C. when the Jewish people were under the oppressive rule of one Antioch Epiphanes.
Falling on the side of biblical errancy, I can especially relate to your article titled "Who's Really Looking at the `Narrow View'?" I too have repeatedly faced the "catch-all explanation" that inerrantists put forth in their arguments that "God's ways are simply higher than our ways, and so he has a higher purpose that we just can't understand."
I'd like to add another catch-all phrase that I've encountered. Inerrantists often claim that errantists can't "believe" the Bible because they are approaching it with the wrong heart. In other words, inerrantists claim that we don't approach the Bible with the proper spirit and willingness to believe. Therefore, we are closing ourselves off to understanding this "higher purpose" and can't see what the Bible is really saying beyond the written words.
Getting back to Daniel, you stated that inerrantists often label critical interpreters "liberals" as if this is some type of "catch-all" argument also. I have noted that in John Walvoord's work on Daniel (Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation), he continually dismisses scholarly research as the conclusions of "unbelieving critics." His implication is that since the research came from "unbelieving critics" it should be ignored.
In conclusion, I am enclosing a review copy of Beasts, Horns and the Antichrist and would like to accept your invitation of a free first-year subscription to The Skeptical Review. I look forward to reading more informative articles in your fine publication. Keep up the good work.
Beasts, Horns and the Antichrist is available in its entirety on the internet at www.danielprophecy.com. Copies may be purchased by mail for $13.90 postpaid from Cliffside Publishing House, P. O. Box 230, West Jefferson, NC 28694.
(Broderick D. Shepherd, address same as above; e-mail, author@danielprophecy.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Since receiving Mr. Shepherd's complimentary copy of Beasts, Horns and the Antichrist, I have had the opportunity to read several chapters in it, and I have found it to be an informative work on the controversy surrounding both the dating of this book and its alleged prophecy of the "end times" and final "tribulation." It is a book that one can read without needing to understand Hebrew and Aramaic. The layman who wants to know why most scholars consider Daniel to be a product of the Maccabean period rather than the sixth-century B. C. will find the reasons explained in simple language.
Another Opinion of Daniel...
Enclosed is my subscription for another year. It is in advance of the required time, but I do not want to overlook this. Reading The Skeptical Review is one of my favorite occupations. Compared to the cost of other periodicals these days, I cannot understand how you can deliver TSR at the present subscription rate.
Like many of your other subscribers, I was taught the fundamentalist idea that the Bible came from God. Of course, my elders taught me to study the Bible, and I studied seriously, so seriously that, like so many other TSR fans, I began to see the contradictions, mistakes, and obvious fabrications. As I grew older, I began to see the Bible as it is, a collection of ancient texts, some profoundly beautiful and wise, such as Ecclesiastes, which reads almost like the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, or the message of love in 1 Corinthians 13. "Though I have faith to move a mountain and have not love, I am nothing." Such things are a nice part of our heritage but should be seen in the light of modern scholarship.
As to the recent TSR debates about the book of Daniel, I have long ago relegated Daniel to the category of childlike fables along with Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark, and the amusing stories of the tower of Babel and Jonah and the big fish. The exaggerations are so gross that they bring a smile to my face. It is sad to see people try to defend such things as historical.
The scholars of the highly acclaimed Jerusalem Bible indicated in their preface to Daniel that this book was written between 167 and 164 B. C. The second-century authorship of Daniel is widely accepted among serious students of Old Testament history, Catholic, Protestant, and Hebrew. It is not an idea conceived by atheists and agnostics to destroy religious faith. In the face of anachronisms and anomalies in the book of Daniel, the fundamentalists have an unenviable position to defend. I am glad I do not have that task. As an old joke says, "I thank God I'm an atheist."
(Clarence Sears, 11067 Scott Mill Road, Jacksonville, FL 32223; e-mail, pennyuno@aol.com)
Fundamentalists in New Zealand...
Congratulations on another excellent edition. Enclosed is a cheque for a year's subscription and disks of back issues.
It is interesting to note the thought patterns of fundamentalists. A short story should prove that they are the same all around the world. Recently, at Easter, a current affairs programme in New Zealand had a segment on a professor (I think) of religious studies, who was stating that Jesus did not in all probability rise from the dead and only about 10% of the Bible is actually true. In the short amount of time available to him, he provided an excellent account of his reasoning. Basically, the gospels and other books of the New Testament are not and were not meant to be true reports of events but rather a package of part fact, mostly stories that were designed to gain converts to whatever early Christian sect had written the books. An integral part of this was making the story appeal to whatever group was reading it, be they Hebrew, Greek, or Roman, and so stories were fashioned to appeal to those groups. The gospels are basically advertisements. In opposition to his view was shown an "Assemblies of God" minister who "refuted" the professor on the grounds of "it's all new liberal theology," and, "If Jesus didn't resurrect, then we have nothing to believe in." Neither of his arguments addressed the issues the professor was raising.
Martin Luther may very well have noted that the Devil was allowed to enter serpents, but then Martin Luther also believed that only humans have souls, a fact he demonstrated by nailing a dog to a wall and saying that "even though only we have souls and can feel pain, God is so merciful and gracious that he has allowed this dog without a soul to show the semblance of feeling pain, even though he is not. Isn't God wonderful?" I don't trust Martin Luther somehow.
Finally, I also disagree with Larry Laird's statement that Christians cannot be rational. The statement is too broad. Christians can certainly be rational on a lot of subjects, as I am sure they are, e. g., Reverend David Rice and also the professor whom I mentioned earlier. However, I certainly agree to the point that Christians lose rational thought by belief in God, which is untestable, unproven, and contradictory, and thus irrational.
(Hayden Wood, 14 Mays Street, Devonport, Auckland, New Zealand.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm not surprised that biblical fundamentalists in New Zealand would have the same disdain for biblical "liberals" as their cohorts in the United States. Through the internet, I have had contacts with biblicists in various countries, and I have noticed that they all use the same illogical approaches to defending the Bible. On the internet, one will even encounter Muslims using the same kind of arguments in support of Islam and the Qur'an. This, however, doesn't seem to bother biblical inerrantists. They continue on their merry way to attack "liberals" and "radical critics" and to propose ridiculous how-it-could-have-been scenarios to "explain" biblical discrepancies. In this respect, they are irrational, but that doesn't mean that they can't be rational in matters in which they have not been blinded by their religious beliefs.
Thanks from Another Ex-Preacher...
I would like to thank you and your publication for doing what Jesus couldn't do, namely, setting the captive free. I am a 26-year-old former ministerial student. I attended Trinity Bible College, of the Assemblies of God denomination, in North Dakota and interned as a youth pastor in Iowa, but I eventually left the Pentecostal ministry because of honest, painful doubt. My main goal in life was to kill off my own personality (natural emotions, thoughts, etc.) and try to be just like Jesus in obedience to "he must increase, I must decrease." I became addicted to this Jesus inspired moral masochism. This created in me a strong persecution/martyr complex, caused by the desire to be just like Jesus and the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Needless to say, after years of painful doubt and self-hatred, I realized enough is enough. This doesn't feel right. It no longer had the "ring of truth." Your publication confirmed my doubts and placed me on a new path of emotional recovery.
Thank you, Farrell. If you know any former Christians who are interested in corresponding with other former Christians, through letter writing, will you please give them my address?
(Allen Nielsen, 290 SW Court Street, Apt. 1, Dallas, OR 97338)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Needless to say, I am always happy to receive letters like this. I can understand the emotional turmoil that Mr. Nielsen has been through, and I wish him success in adapting to a way of life that puts reason and reality above blind faith and wishful thinking. I know from my own experience that the decision he made was not an easy one, but I also know that his life will be a more satisfying one without the crutches that he was previously leaning on.
The Hovind-Till Debate...
I recently watched a copy of a debate between you and Mr. Kent Hovind that took place a few years ago. My friends that loaned me the tape expected that this would impress me with how well Mr. Hovind could refute evolution. I have to admit, however, it had the opposite effect. While I did not come away believing in evolution, I certainly agree that you were right in stating that he did not scientifically prove the statement that he had agreed to debate. I do feel that much of what he offered by way of explanation is very possible, but that is a far cry from proving that it happened that way. I have a lot of doubts that evolution can be proved either and think that either side has to rely a great deal on faith. I do have to admit, though, which I hate doing, that you have shaken mine and I intend to investigate this issue further. I know that you consider the Bible to be full of errors and contradictions, but do you believe that there is a God and that we have any relationship with him? I hope I've not taken up too much space here, but I am the type who often displeases my friends because I question too much. As well as the free subscription offer, I would like very much for you, Mr. Till, to write to me personally to perhaps help me in my quest for the truth. Thank you for your time.
(Gladys Millett, RR 1 Box 1522, Lincoln, ME 04457; e-mail, 4743@telplus.net)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm often asked why I spend so much time on publishing TSR and working on related projects, and the answer is in letters like the ones above. Having been trapped by religious fundamentalism, I know the damage it can do to people's lives, so I get a great deal of satisfaction from knowing that I have helped people to see that there is more happiness to be gained from throwing away religious crutches and simply accepting reality as it is. Those who squander their lives on wishful thinking won't understand this, of course, but those who have abandoned religious superstition will. Ms. Millett had taken only the initial steps to examine her religious beliefs when she sent me this letter, but in subsequent messages, she has indicated that her search continues. I wish her luck and offer her any help that I can give.
The Good News Just Keeps Coming...
I have been reading The Skeptical Review on the internet and my opinion is that it is simply a fantastic and marvelous magazine! You are to be greatly commended for your work and the work of your contributors.
I was intrigued to discover that you were once associated with the Church of Christ (noninstrument, I assume). I left that organization in 1991 (in favor of atheism) after I could no longer honestly accept their dogmas of "verbal plenary inspiration" and "Biblical inerrancy." Hume, Paine, McDonald, Holyoke, Bessant, Ingersoll, and a great many other freethinkers and/or philosophers and scientists helped me along the path. In retrospect, I can honestly say that my experience in the Church of Christ was perhaps the worst mental experience of my life whereas atheism has been a most valuable and positive learning adventure.
I do have a question. How do inerrantists respond to the problems of reverse chronologies found in the Bible in parallel accounts? One example (of several) being that the book of Matthew has the devil setting Jesus on the pinnacle of the temple, then taking him to a high mountain (Mt. 4:5-8); whereas Luke 4:5-9 has the devil taking Jesus first to the high mountain and then to the pinnacle of the temple.
Also, how have they responded to the specific problem of the robe placed upon Jesus, which was colored scarlet in Matthew (Mt. 27:28) but turned purple in Mark and John (Mk. 15:17; Jn. 19:2)? Was it two toned?
I apologize if I have wasted any of your time, which I know is already strained. Is it possible for me to subscribe to TSR? At any rate, great job, Mr. Till. I appreciate you and your work.
(Donald Drye, 1523 Amberwood Circle, Murfreesboro, TN 37128; e-mail, sdrye@bellsouth.net)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm happy to hear when any religious fundamentalist abandons superstition, but I'm particularly happy to hear from members of the Church of Christ who take this step. Since that was the church that caught me in its grip, I'm more familiar with its brand of biblical fundamentalism, so I can certainly understand why Mr. Drye would say that his stint in this church was "the worst mental experience of his life." As others have so often done in this column, he too notes that atheism has been a positive learning experience in his life.
As for the sequential differences in Matthew's and Luke's accounts of the temptation of Jesus, Luke's order is more logical than Matthew's, because it has the first two temptations happening in the wilderness and then the third one in the city of Jerusalem, whereas Matthew's order would have required Satan to take Jesus into the city for the second temptation and then back into the wilderness for the third. Inerrantists, however, would never agree that this is a sequential mistake. They will simply argue that Matthew didn't intend to use a chronological order in relating the events. Literarily, this is a possibility, and so I personally don't see this story as a major problem for biblical inerrantists.
To explain the discrepancy in the color of Jesus's robe, inerrantists will say that purple and scarlet are tones or shades of the same color. In reality, purple and scarlet are distinct hues, but keep in mind that inerrantists intent on defending the infallibility of the Bible will think that the act of making a claim is the same as proving the claim.
Did Sierichs Quote Out of Context?
Overall, I enjoyed the copy of The Skeptical Review sent me. However, I noted that hypocrisy seems to know no boundaries. It's as flagrant in the fundamentalist camps as well as in the skeptical society camps. You pointed out in your article "The inerrantist way of Misrepresenting `Critics'" that it is easy to quote scholars to support any error. You noted that these scholars were often misquoted and taken out of context.
If you will read the article you posted in the same issue of your magazine entitled "How the Snake Slithered into Eden" by William Sierichs, Jr., the same charges you rightfully made against the fundamentalists could be used against this article. It cites "scholars" and doesn't even bother to give us the names of these scholars, or their works, no references, nothing. (See first page of article, second column, third paragraph, for example.)
I've been a humanist atheist and I've been a fundamentalist. I've found both groups quite irrational when it comes to really testing their beliefs. And I've seen both groups often do the very thing they accuse their opponents of doing.
(Gary Amirault, 118 Walnut, Herman, MO 65041; e-mail, gamirault@ktis. net; web site, http://www.tentmaker.org)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Amirault tried to leave the impression that he is an objective inquirer, who found both "humanist atheism" (whatever that is) and fundamentalist Christianity to be "quite irrational." However, I took the time to investigate his web site and found that rather than being an objective inquirer, he is just another Jesus peddler. In his introduction to this site, he said, "Tentmaker is Gary and Michelle Amirault and friends who have fallen in love with our Father, the Creator of the universe. We are concerned with growing up into the fullness of the stature of Christ and being about our Father's business. Knowing Who the King of the Universe is and discovering He actually loves you, not just with words but in reality, is something that is impossible to keep bottled up. It must be shared. That is what Tentmaker is all about." Yeah, right! It sounds so "rational" that really objective people will want to read more, won't they? The web page even has a picture of Michelle and Gary, standing with arms entwined, smiling in youthful, blissful satisfaction that they have discovered great truths that they feel compelled to share with the word. In other words, Gary and Michelle are just a young, idealistic couple who have a lot to learn. I've been where they are, and I would never trade it for where I am now.
Amirault accused me of hypocrisy for reprimanding Everette Hatcher's quoting sources out of context but not saying anything about the same offense that he thinks he has found in William Sierichs' article about Eden and the snake. In Hatcher's case, he was citing out of context in a way that left the impression that his sources believed in a 6th-century B. C. authorship of Daniel when in reality they are firm advocates of a 2nd-century B. C. dating of this book. Sierichs, on the other hand, was simply relating Sumerian and Babylonian creation myths that are generally known and can be found in various mythological reference works. Sierichs did cite Raphael Patai's The Hebrew Goddess as a source (p. 8) but could have been more specific in the column that Amirault cited, where twice "scholars say" was used without specifying which scholars. However, this is hardly parallel to citing fragmented quotations that leave impressions that are the opposite of what the quoted writers actually believed.
Was Jesus Born Twice?
One evening recently, having nothing better to do, I picked up the second volume of the annual Gulf Coast Lectures, held in Portland, Texas, under the aegis of Pastor Jerry Moffitt. In it, I found a paper given by a Church-of-Christ preacher entitled "Cleansing the Temple." The author's argument was that the account of the cleansing in the synoptics and in John must be different events and not a legendary account given two different treatments. John tells us that Jesus found in the temple "those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting" (John 2:14). The preacher explained that the Greek word for found is heurisko. "The grammatical construction found in John 2:14 (the verb heuren with the preposition en and the dative case) means to find, to come upon accidentally, without seeking." Mark, for instance, says, "And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple; and when He had looked round about upon all things, it being now eventide, He went out unto Bethany with the twelve" (Mark 11:11). The preacher explained that the Greek word periblepo means to look around. Thus, Jesus found this situation at the beginning of his ministry and sought to correct it immediately. At the end of his ministry, Jesus went into the temple, saw the same problem again, and returned the next day to correct it again.
Another difference in the two accounts is that in John the temple authorities asked Jesus by what authority he did what he did. In the synoptics, the authorities sought to kill Jesus.
Well, you can see how different the two accounts are, so he had me convinced. I just love irrefragable arguments!
I wondered if there were other accounts that might be explained in a similar way, so I turned to the beginning of Matthew that recorded the birth of Jesus. Matthew tells (1) Joseph dreamed an angel of the Lord appeared to him; (2) Jesus was born in the days of Herod the king; (3) wise men came from the east, bringing gifts; (4) Joseph, Mary, and Jesus fled to Egypt; and (5) they returned after Herod died, and "turned aside" to go to Nazareth in Galilee.
Luke's account tells us (1) the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to tell her she would be the mother of Jesus; (2) Mary visited her cousin Elisabeth; (3) Mary went to Bethlehem with Joseph; (4) forty-one days after Jesus's birth, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus went to Jerusalem for Mary's purification; (5) they returned to Nazareth from where they went every year to Jerusalem for Passover. This all happened after king Herod had died.
It is obvious that there are two events related in Matthew and Luke. There cannot be one legendary event told in two different ways; therefore, Jesus was born twice, which is proper for a leader who taught his followers to be born again.
Ain't Christian apologetics wonderful?
(Ernie Brennaman, 1601 Airline Road, Apt. 62, Corpus Christi, TX 78412-4434)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Brennaman assisted me as moderator and time keeper at my debates in Portland, Texas, so he may recall that during one of my speeches, as I was rebutting an argument Jerry Moffitt had based on an unsupported prophecy-fulfillment claim, Moffitt interrupted me to announce that he would like to conduct a written debate with me on the subject of prophecy fulfillment. When I reminded him that he was not even meeting his obligations in our written debate on biblical inerrancy that was supposed to be in progress at that time, he apologized for the delays that he had caused and promised that he would arrange his schedule so that the debate on inerrancy could be completed reasonably soon and allow us to begin one on prophecy fulfillment. That was four years ago, and the inerrancy debate is still not complete, because Moffitt has not yet responded to the last manuscript that I sent to him almost four years ago. The audience at this time was largely members of the Church of Christ, who were attending the lectureship that the debate was a part of. They went away probably thinking that "Brother Moffitt" had shown that atheist a thing or two by defying him to debate prophecy fulfillment. I'm sure that Moffitt has never bothered to inform them that the debate he challenged me to participate in has never materialized because he will not respond to the materials I have submitted to him in the other debate.
Fundamentalist Christians in Prison...
I received the first issue of your newsletter today. I think it is great that there are people that can be outspoken enough to voice the alternate views of this issue. I am in prison, and being here I am used to the dogmatic arguments of Christians. You know, I've heard it said that prison is one of the last places the devoutly religious are found. Well, all I can say is what better place for a person to be brainwashed into various beliefs.
Without people like you, this world would not have advanced as it has. Please take note of my prison ID number. Without it, I cannot receive your publication.
(Brent Berry #B40916, P. O. Box 300, Vienna, IL 62995-0300)
EDITOR'S NOTE: There are now around 60 subscribers to TSR who are prison inmates. Many of them write letters to me, which regrettably I rarely have time to answer, and Mr. Berry is not the first one to report that having to contend with evangelical Christian inmates is just a part of prison life.
Balaam...
In your article about Balaam in the November/December issue of The Skeptical Review, you did not consider Numbers 31:8, 15-16. There it is written: "Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba--the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.... "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people."
So the final verdict of the Old Testament on Balaam is quite negative.
(Thorbjorn Willoch, Landingsveien 24, N-0762 Oslo, Norway; e-mail, willoch@oslo.Geco-Prakla.slb.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Deuteronomy 23:4-5 states that the Moabites hired Balaam to curse the Israelites, but as the story is related in Numbers 22-24, Balaam consistently told Balak that he would not prophesy anything contrary to what Yahweh told him even if he were offered a houseful of silver and gold, so there is nothing in the "inspired" record to justify the NT claim that Balaam taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel (Rev. 2:14) or that he "loved the hire of wrong-doing" (2 Pet. 2:15). As for the charge that Balaam was responsible for the orgy at Peor (Num. 31:16), this is inconsistent with the story of Balaam as related in chapters 22-24. According to the account here, Balaam lived in Pethor, which was located on the Euphrates River in Northern Mesopotamia several miles from Moab, and when Balak sent emissaries with money to bribe him into coming to Moab to curse the Israelites, Balaam refused the offer and did not go to Moab until Balak had sent a second group of emissaries. Throughout his stay in Moab, however, he repeatedly told Balak that he would not prophesy anything about the Israelites that Yahweh did not specifically direct him to say (Num. 22:18, 38; 23:26; 24:12-13). Numbers 23 and 24 record only "blessings" that Balaam pronounced upon Israelites, and after the last of these blessings (24:15-24), which were spoken from a mountain where Balaam was able to see the encampment of the Israelites, the text claims that "Balaam rose up, and went and returned to his place" (v:25). In the next chapter, the orgy at Peor occurred, but by this time Balaam had returned to his "place." How then could he have been involved in counseling the Israelites to "commit trespass against Yahweh" (Num. 31:15)? The story gives no indication that Balaam had any contacts at all with the Israelites. To say the least, what the Bible says about Balaam is highly inconsistent, and that's a rather strange thing to find in a book that was presumably inspired in its entirety by an omniscient, omnipotent deity.
Did Jeremiah Just Get Lucky?
I was pleased to see the contribution from James D. Price in your May/June issue. Price's writing is articulate, well organized, and largely jargon free--a refreshing change of pace from some of the obtuse and convoluted material you get from other religionists.
Price cites the laws of thermodynamics. Your average reader may not be aware of what "law" means in science. A "proposition" is a statement about how the world may or may not work. A proposition is said to be "robust" if it's been tested many, many times and so far always found to be valid. It's said to be "fundamental"-- though not in the biblical sense, of course--if it's pretty basic to an understanding of how many other things work. Any proposition which is both fundamental and robust gets elevated to the status of a "law."
The key words here are "so far." In science, all knowledge is tentative. Even something which is as respectable as a "law" is subject to revision if better information comes along. Unlike religion, science holds facts to be paramount. For example, about a century ago, we had the law of conservation of matter, which said that matter may be neither created nor destroyed, although it could be changed from one form of matter to another. There was a similar law of conservation of energy. Most scientists would have bet the family jewels that these laws were so reliable they would never be overturned.
Then along came this Swiss postal clerk who speculated that, in fact, matter and energy were just 2 different versions of the same thing, and that they could be switched back and forth according to the relationship E=MC2. It turned out to work, too. So all of a sudden, it was possible to "destroy" matter while simultaneously "creating" energy, and vice versa.
So what did scientists do? Did they go into denial and say "No, that can't be right"? (Well, actually, some did, but that didn't last long.) Did they throw up their hands and say "Geez, we can't believe anything any more!"? Did they trash all references to their previously hallowed laws?
No, they calmly restated their principles into an even more comprehensive, fundamental law, the law of conservation of matter and energy. They built on knowledge already accumulated to give us an even clearer understanding of nature. But they did change the explanations to fit the facts.
I mention this because the 2nd law of thermodynamics, much beloved of fundamentalists, is certainly respectable and time-tested with regard to the universe we see around us today. It is not at all clear, however, that it applied to whatever may have existed prior to the Big Bang. (Indeed, it's not at all clear that the phrase "prior to the Big Bang" has any meaning, if the Big Bang was responsible for bringing time itself into existence.)
The short and only honest answer to the question "Where did everything come from?" is "We just don't know." But I guarantee you that, if we ever find out, it's going to be because of science, not religion.
Lastly, I'd like to cut through the page after page of clutter that accompanies your ongoing dialog with Price to get at the heart of the issue of prophecy fulfillment: divine intervention.
The odds against winning the PowerBall lottery are about a bazillion to 1 against. Yet, given enough people buying tickets and enough time, despite all the odds, sooner or later someone does win it. The following day, whose picture do you see on Page 1 of your local newspaper? Hint: it's not any of the millions of losers. We remember the people who beat the odds, who succeeded against all expectations. We forget the rest.
So here we have Jeremiah and his prophecy about the 70 years of Jewish captivity. Let us grant Price, arguendo, virtually everything he asked for. Let's admit the possibility of miracles or divine inspiration or whatever. Let's admit that Jeremiah was a real person who wrote whatever Price claims he did, well in advance of any of the events foretold, and that the text has been scrupulously preserved ever since. Let's say that the Jewish captivity did indeed last 70 years, or at least close enough for government work.
We now have 2 hypotheses to explain this set of circumstances: (A) God, who knows everything, whispered in Jeremiah's ear what was going to happen in the years to come, and Jeremiah wrote it down and passed it around. (B) Jeremiah, a more or less normal man, who may or may not have been hearing little voices in his head, took a guess about what was going to happen in the years to come, wrote it down, passed it around, and got lucky. We remember him because he got lucky, while forgetting about the scores of other prophets (common as dirt at the time, as Farrell has noted), because they were losers.
So, Dr. Price, why should we believe (A) rather than (B)?
(Richard S. Russell, Wisconsin Alumni Association, 650 N. Lake Street, Madison, WI, 53706; e-mail, RichardRussell@badger.alumni.wisc.edu)
Price Is No Scientist...
One thing is clear. Price is not a scientist. There are many problems with a multi-universe inflationary theory, but it is a genuine scientific theory.
I was also surprised by his claim that Andrei Linde was an atheist. According to Alan Guth's book The Inflationary Universe, Linde, one of the architects of inflationary, multi-universe theory, thought it was the simplest way for God to create a universe.
(Steven Carr, Flat C, 28 Keighley Road, Bradford BD8.
England; e-mail, steven@bowness.demon.co.uk; web page,
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/)
