But... a bit of common sense, first
It is almost impossible to find out what went on before without clearing the ground on what is CURRENTLY believed to have happened...and showing it full of its holes and downright silliness.
Let us start with rigorous logic, which we all know is what is used nowadays to explain...I mean...to FIND out [which is what should be happening but which, curiously DOES NOT happen since all that we do not KNOW has already been postulated and the theories are floating around already and one has to accept them and then try to find supporting arguments in favour of the "theories"]...eh, if I carry on NOW I may just lose somebody here, so I will rewrite the statement I wanted to make before I made the comment in brackets;-
Let us start with rigorous logic ( actually, I should say, "let ME start...", right?) So, I will begin again. "Let me... " Wrong, wrong, wrong, do you not see?
I have begun as though I am asking permission to start, and that is politeness, and in today's language courses would be the recommended "appropriate register", but it just puts the reader in the frame of being somehow the 'superior' who is bestowing largesse on the writer by granting the reader his time...or money. The writer has to 'be nice' in order not to offend potential customers, because we all know that one's stomach relies on one's money, which is one's sales if one is a writer, and so one has to be appropriately servile if one wants one's potential meal ticket to materialise in one's pocket, doesn't one?
So, one, not the "one who writes" one, but any other one, like the one-who-is-reading-this-now one, may see why THIS ONE, that is, ME, will not sell the books on HISTORY...
I am not inclined to ask for permission to deliver the truth;- it will be there free of charge for whoever wants to reach out and grasp it.
Which brings the story directly to the beginning: OK, THE BIG BANG is all a lot of horse manure, and that is well known, as is its counterpart the STEADY STATE hypothesis, so discount all that.
Imagine, however, that there is a GREAT, ALL-POWERFUL, BIG-THINKING, CREATIVE ONE...
He decides to go about creating something, and He decides that He will make a big announcement first. What do you think the first words of this Creator will be?
"LET ..."
I think not!!!
So, what went wrong there? Who played around with the Bible? For what reason?Was the person that was apparently "praised" for being "faithful in all MY house", by the Angel who stood in place of God, REALLY faithful to God, or to his own watered-down expectations of God?Whose house was it?
Did anyone ever stop to think why it is that God would be portrayed as "asking permission" to do something? Was the Angel really a self-less emissary for God, or does one get a sense of sinister motives from the stand-in for God?
After all, the angels were not there when Creation was Created by The Creator, but they only came later, after God's rest on the Sabbath, so what they heard, and The Angel later delivered to Moses, was also a reflection of how the angel thought God OUGHT to do things, or how they would do the things if it was them in charge. Of course, these same angels never saw the wrong they were committing by willing to stand in for God to begin with when He made the man for HIMSELF, and the woman for THE MAN, with no possibility for any other "medium".
So, expect a whole set of shocks when these other two books come up; The Age of the Earth and The Origins.
