If you are interested in critiquing it, offering editorial suggestions, arguing specific points, or simply condemning it – I would love to receive your comments. If you don’t want to waste your printer paper, but would like a printed copy for serious review, I may provide it.

To see what I have wrought, go to: http://www.SmilesWinks.com

Remember, if I ask you for your opinion about this book, you can always claim you never received this email.

It is much lighter reading than my first book. If you are not familiar with my first book, “The Why And The Way Of Our Witness” I would be happy to send you a copy.

Smile! Jesus loves you!

Gene Eggleston

However, while we cannot prove God’s existence (certainly not in the circular argument of “well the Bible says God exists and we know the Bible is true because God inspired it” kinda nonsense), we can employ logic and acquire information on the other historical issues at hand (which we shall do at The Grand Book (http://www.azotusbible.wordpress.com), as that is the blog on such issues).

I disagree, based on evidence that “There appears to be other original texts, and certainly other translations/interpretations that are not included. It’s not even internally consistent. Even it’s modern translation has evolved as scholars have further defined their understanding of the original languages.”

The “other original texts” are not within the First Century. Often they are dated hundreds of years later and do not present themselves as narratives (would you trust a book written today on George Washington that claimed to be a primary eyewitness account?) but as mythological.

As for the advances in modern scholarship…they have been helpful. But the variance of errors” from the King James Bible to today’s versions with the massive amounts of new manuscript data (almost overwhelming) is reported to be “one-tenth of one percent and does not change the meaning of any text in a significant way. (and yes, I will find that source when I do the article at TGB).

As for eyewitness accounting, that salso neglects the nature of Hebrew communities rooted deeply in oral tradition/memory, the multiplicity of witnesses still very much alive when these “books” where being shared (thus the problem owe would have if a book came out saying JFK was raised from the dead…um…too many witness and we still have his body in Arlington).

On my use of Amelia Earhart, Mr. X makes a valid point. It is not a good example for the reasons he cites. Not even close (hey, I was writing in a hurry).

Perhaps it would be more fair to compare the New Testament documents with other historical documents from the period and other histories (I think immediately of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, or Josephus history).

So new articles will be placed on The Grand Book on these issues (as SPOKE is supposed to be specifically about Jesus and more of a devotional, meaning probably most helpful to those who already believe…though I hope not limited to that.

Even if I am able to “prove” or give the strongest evidence for the faithful transmission of the biblical record we know have…Mr. X is correct that in no way does this proves that what the Bible SAYS is true. Onlythat what we are reading we can do so with some real confidence.

Thanks to Mr. X for taking the time and care to present his very intelligent and thoughtful view.

So it comes down to belief. Those of who don’t believe – in “the root (cause)” – have no need for everything that grew from that (except to recognize the effect that it has/had on the world).

As for the use of the Bible as a historical document, it was written by dozens of writers, over a couple thousand years, in a couple different languages, and some books tens or more years after the events took place. The original manuscripts are all lost, only various translations and interpretations exist, most from hundreds of years after the original was written. There appears to be other original texts, and certainly other translations/interpretations that are not included. It’s not even internally consistent. Even it’s modern translation has evolved as scholars have further defined their understanding of the original languages.

We know now that police eye witnesses can not be really trusted even weeks after an event in question. All the above factors put the bible as fact as highly questionable. To compare it’s validity with that of the various documents, video, and pictures of Emilia Earhart that exist exactly as were originally recorded is nonsensical. Of course, if one believes (and this can’t be proven/dis-proven either) that the bible is the word of God then none of that matters.

Which brings me to my final point: you can’t argue against belief – it’s inarguable, nor anything that stems from belief.

Mr. X out.