Footnotes to
Preface

1. Perhaps your fellowship should also buy copies so you’ll all have the same source book to argue from. Please notice that each problem area is numbered for easy reference — chapter and verse. Alternatively, I suggest that you buy some extra copies to leave in your friends’ bathrooms, à la the Gideons. (No, for reading. The paper is too stiff.)

2. And, logically, one cannot prove a negative
(e.g. no one can prove that God doesn’t exist, especially if one uses a sufficiently flexible definition of God).
If "the Devil is in the details," then God is in the ambiguities and generalizations. Likewise, the Zen of ambiguous, ill-defined or puerile questions doesn't define God or enlightenment, it evinces flawed and undisciplined evidence-free thinking.

3. An example goes something like this:

a. There’s no independent evidence that Moses existed;

b. But if he did exist, there’s no independent evidence that Moses wrote Genesis,
and there is much evidence within the Bible that he did not (see Part VI);

c. But if he did write Genesis, Moses was not a witness to some of the events he described
(since he didn’t appear until Exodus 2);

d. So he either invented those stories, or someone else told the stories to him;
but there’s no independent evidence that the stories came from God;

e. But if God did give Moses the text of Genesis,
there’s no independent evidence that God told him the truth,
and there is much evidence in the Bible that God lied more than once (see Part IV),
and there is much evidence that the Genesis stories cannot be true (see Parts I&II);

f. But if God did tell Moses the truth,
there’s no independent evidence that that’s what Moses wrote;

g. But if Moses did write the truth that God told him,
there’s no independent evidence that what Moses meant is accurately reflected
in the translated, transcribed, and politicized text we now read;

h. Therefore, we are safe in asserting that
(1) Although some things in Genesis may well have been true,
their truth cannot be established solely because the Bible said they were true; and
(2) Without further evidence, it is reasonable for us to dismiss Genesis claims which are
contrary to the evidence of nature, self-contradictory or nonsensical.

4. The NIV prides itself in its quality of translation into colloquial English and in its correction of translation errors within the KJV. That means that Biblical scholars admit that the KJV has errors.
My point, exactly — writing is necessarily too undependable to be the literal word of God.

5. The 6th-century monk Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Short) decided that Jesus was born on December 25 (near the pagan holidays for the winter solstice and Saturnalia — a feast to the Roman god, Saturn) in 753 AUC (ab urbe condita — from the foundation of the city, Rome). Dionysius then decreed that year-one AD began about a week later on January 1st, 754 AUC, to conform with the Roman and Latin Christian New Years. Dionysius got it wrong, however. Herod the Great died in 750 AUC, but the Bible said that Herod was king when Jesus was born and that Herod had children up to two years old killed because of the messiah rumor. Therefore, Jesus can’t have been born later than 6-4 BCE.

6. In fairness, one should look into the context of everyone else’s Bible quotations, also, especially if they’re asking for your money.

7. Modern theological intercourse is like Liberal/Democrat/Socialist politics: they don't want solutions, they want issues — that's where the fundraising is — can't ask for donations unless there's some evil to fight, be it Satan or reactionaries.

8. The Federalist is an outstanding conservative, pro-religious publication full of great American wisdom and a wonderful exposer of modern liberal silliness and media bias. The Washington Times is another outstanding conservative, pro-religious publication without the liberal spin and liberal propaganda. One can always find pro-Bible or pro-faith comments of famous Americans in their pages, among others; but these comments are of little interest to us, here — this tome isn't a debate, it's a source book.

9. I am equally bored by revival meetings, socialist harangues, trekkie/UFO conventions, animal-rights wackos, and psychics. Besides, nature doesn’t care what you believe. It is what it is. (In this case, the fun is in discovering what the meaning of "is" is.)

10. Personally, I do support school vouchers for use even at parochial schools. Education is totally the parents' responsibility. I have no more right to tell you how to teach your kids than anyone else does: legislator, president, bureaucrat, teachers' union boss, political interest group, lobbyist, campaign donor, or otherwise.
a. The US Constitution doesn't give the federal government any responsibility for public education. However, I won't fight it — if the citizenry agree to pay taxes to assure that every kid has adequate funds for schooling, then the kids' families, themselves, should be given that education-related tax money to use on their kids' education as they see fit.
b. The US Constitution doesn't give the federal government any authority over what is to be taught, either. If the subject matter in private schools includes religion, so be it. What the heck business is it of ours? (Hey, government funds the Postal Service, too. Does that mean that one can't mail religious material?) When kids learn how to read and think, they'll eventually figure out for themselves what they believe. Now, if government schools were to try to teach religion, I would have the strongest possible objections. Besides, which religion are they going to teach? Man, there's a civil war waiting to happen.
c. I strongly suspect that the main objective of federal funding of schools is political and ideological: to control the subject matter. Vouchers threaten this propaganda monopoly. Frankly, I'd rather see those young skulls absorb a little harmless religion rather than even a tiny amount of socialist and totalitarian nonsense.

©2001 D.Morrris
Ver: 7/5/01