Bible 'messy'? Can one man write so much stupidness?

THE EDITOR Sir:

Keiran King's online column titled 'The Bible isn't a divine text - it's a messy history book', published March 12, 2014, presupposes two clear conclusions: First, that there exists a divine text; and second, that Mr King knows what a divine text is.

Since it is it not uncommon to know of the existence of something without knowing the thing experientially, I will not demand of Mr King to produce this divine text, but what he cannot be exonerated from is to tell the informed readers what constitutes a divine text. If the gentleman finds the request beyond his intellectual capacity, he should proceed to retire from writing!

In a March 28, 2014 response to the King column, Peter Espeut corrected King's error by informing him that the Bible is not a history book - in that it does not set out happenings and phenomena in chronological order. This is so because in the sight of God, it is not the order in which events take place that made them worthy of mention, but it is the quality of their content.

false claims

Thanks to especially Muslim fundamentalists, Espeut believes that by tagging those who accept the literal interpretation of the Bible as religious fundamentalists, his false claims would not be seen. Not only in Jamaica but globally, the vast majority of Christians believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.

On what basis can Espeut dismiss the turning of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? What is it that Espeut and company know about God more than the rest of us that allows him to conclude that God is not all that mighty to the point where He finds it challenging to literally destroy the walls of Jericho?

Yes, Mr Espeut, the vast majority of Christians globally believe that these events establish their legitimacy by their historicity.

CASHLEY BROWN

cashleybrown@yahoo.com