Granted, mousethief, I was a bit fuzzy around the edges on the "trespasses" issue, but that word was something of a bone of contention in the putting together of the King James translation (various "Authorized Editions" put out from the early to mid-1600s—the very first in 1611). I'll try to find an authoritative source for that.

Brief overview of the King James Version.

The weatherman, by the way, was Ray Ramsey of KOMO-TV (CH 4). During the Sixties and into the Seventies as I recall.

I took the "Bible as Literature" class in the very early Fifties at the University of Washington. The teacher was Prof. Paul Trueblood. When Dr. Trueblood retired, the class was taken over by Prof. David C. Fowler, from whom I also took classes, particularly "The Popular Ballad" (the Child Ballads). I talked with Dr. Fowler some about his approach to the Bible class and it seemed to be essentially the same as Dr. Trueblood's.

But not all of my info about the Bible came from this source. At the church my wife and I attend (Central Lutheran Church on Capitol Hill in Seattle—CLICKY—where Pastor Shannon Anderson commented that the Bible contained, not answers, but questions), the adult forums have spent quite a bit of time on the early history and "genesis" (if you will) of the Bible, with considerable delving into, and discussion of, such things as the Q Gospel. Most fascinating!

And I have read rather widely of authors such as Karen Armstrong, Elaine Pagels, Barbara R. Rossing, Bishop John Shelby Spong, and others.

An interesting overview of the history of the Christian church can be found in The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason, by Charles Freeman. I am quite sure that much of it would get up the noses of a lot of religious folks, but Freeman is a very thorough historian and one would have great difficulty in attempting to fault his scholarship.

All of this may seem as if I am contradicting my stance in defending the Christian religion and religions in general from those who are hostile to religion and feel the world would be better off without it, but that simply isn't the case. My particular credo could not be adequately explained in the confines of these threads, but I am most definitely not opposed to Christianity or to religion in general.

But there are a number of "Christians," and adherents to other beliefs, that I think could use a good swift kick in the backside. Largely because of the pronouncements they insist on making, their hypocrisy, their lack of humility, and their refusal to acknowledge that the major component of religion—any religion—is mystery. Not the certainty of which they claim they are in sole possession.

Don Firth