William Thomas
                         P.O. Box 27217
                     Washington, D.C. 20038

                          May 26, 1989

Dear Lee:

     It appears we may be talking past one another.  On the one
hand, as I understand it, there exists between Sunrise and yourself
some disputation as to which of two different books most perfectly
reflects "correct understanding" of the Creator's Will.  In my last
letter to you I did not enter into that disputation.

     Instead I addressed myself to legal principles and questions. 
Your most recent letter did not respond to those issues - at all -
hence, the impression that we are speaking past each other.

     Last time we spoke you put a riddle to me, asking what I would
do with an accountant who prepared a faulty list of figures for me. 
When I was slow in answering, you answered for me, saying that I
would surely cease to do business with such a careless accountant. 
Yet now you seem disturbed because I "have, on a number of times,
prompted (you) about ... Ezra and Nehemiah.  Which would appear to
discredit the bible."

     Actually, I never tried to "discredit the bible."  But, if the
discrepencies in Ezra and Nehemiah (see enclosure) are similar to
the list of your hypothetical accountant,  that fact would seem to
discredit any idea that the bible is "inerrant," "infallible,"  or
"without error," which, I thought, was the issue.  I don't mean to
disturb you, but if we are having an honest dialogue, and you
insist on a premise which I find questionable, it seems only fair
and logical that I should question your premise until you are able
to satisfy me that it is reasonable.

     You have stated no reason to explain how a book with errors
can be without errors.  Nor have you distinguished Ezra or Nehemiah
from the accountant in your riddle.  To be meaningful, I believe,
words must have some meaning.  Unless words are meaningless, unless
we were to pretend that Ezra and Nehemiah don't exist, or unless we
could offer a plausable explanation for the appearant error of one
or both lists, I must admit that it is very hard for me to
comprehend how we might insist that the bible is "inerrant,"
"infallibale," or "without error."

     Even if, as you suggest, Jehovah left the errors to "test the
genuine sincerity of the heart," I still cannot honestly understand
how a book can simultaniously contain "errors" and be "without
errors."   Jehovah may have intended that the errors exist, but
they would, unless I am mistaken, remain "errors" nonetheless.  For
me to pretend differently would require that I remove genuine
sincerity from my heart.
 
     I believe I have sincerely "search(ed) for the correct
understanding" in the bible, and have honestly tried to be a
faithful disciple of Jesus Christ.  If so then I have done
precisely as you suggest.  Perhaps I am lying.  If so you would do
my soul a great service in exposing my lies.  So far it does not
seem that you have supplied any factual evidence that I have done
anything more dishonest than to sincerely assign a different
interpretation to the bible than the interpretation which you have
chosen to apply.

     If I read your letter to me alone it seems not so much
condemnatory as it does a string (Amos 3:3; Galatians 5:9;
Revelation 1:1-2; 2 Peter 3:8; Genesis 1:5, 14-19; Genesis 2: 16,
17; Genesis 5:5; Genesis 3: 15; Genesis 1: 28-29; Isaiah 45: 18;
Revelation 21: 1-4; Genesis 2: 7-17; Genesis 3: 6; Luke 16: 10;
genesis 1: 28, 29; Jeremiah 10: 23; Psalms 25: 5; John 8: 31, 32;
John 17: 3; Genesis 3: 15; Acts 17: 31; Matthew 5: 45; Psalms 73:
1-28; John 8:31, 32; Zechariah 11: 12; Matthew 27: 9; Genesis 15:
13; Exodus 12: 20; Matthew 20: 29; Luke 18: 35; John 6: 56, 60, 68,
69; Matthew 26: 26-29; 1 Corinthinas 11: 23-26; Zephaniah 3: 89;
Genesis 3: 19; Habakkuk 2: 3; Genesis 2: 21-23; Matthew 8: 29;
Revelation 20: 7-10; 1 Thessalonians 5: 3; Psalms 46: 9, 72: 16;
Isaiah 65: 21-23; Ezekial 34: 25; Isiah 11: 6-9; Revelation 21:
1-5; Isaiah 2: 2-4; Genesis 1: 28, Psalms 37: 11; Revelation 21:
1-5) of quotations intended to 1) support a numerical theory of
time (compare the numerical theories of Ezra and Nehemiah) and 2)
indicate that, beyond Ezra and Nehemiah, there are both other
numerical (e.g. Genesis 15: 13, and Exodus 12: 20) as well as
literal (e.g. Matthew 20: 29 and Luke 18: 35) discrepencies in the
bible.

     Honestly, it just does not seem that you have made an airtight
case for an infallible chronological theory.  I don't have any
desire to rival you as a biblical scholar, but what we are talking
about concerns our immortal souls and is, therefore, of some
importance.  If I am to stake my immortal soul on a chronological
theory I hope you will not consider it impudent when I check the
figures carefully.

     On the other hand, if, as you ask, I consider your letter to
me as an addendum to your letter to Sunrise I then get the
impression that you are condemning me as a follower of Satan, but
am left to wonder why.  Because I "sleep on the sidewalk exposing
my body to the elements," while "Paul looked for ways to keep
warm?"   Or am I to be damned because I can't sincerely subscribe
to a numerical timetable based on numbers in a book which really
seems to contain numerical errors?

     Once you have given me some reason to believe that your
interpretation of the bible is mathamatically superior to my own,
I think I would still require some reason to understand why it is
more reasonable or compassionate to be concerned about "ways to
keep warm" than it is to discover ways to make peace.  See, Matthew
7:___.
      You did not acknowledge the fact that I personally have been
following the bible, and have never read Sunrise's book, but rather
you chose to note that Sunrise and I "are in agreement in venture." 
I wonder whether by "venture" you would mean "reality of actions." 
 I think, but perhaps you have deeper knowledge on the subject than
I, that Sunrise and I are not absolutely in agreement in the
reality of our actions or ventures.  But it is probably quite
correct to conclude that Sunrise and I - although we have each
approached reality from subjective theories rooted in two seperate
books - have arrived at relatively greater "agreement in venture"
than the agreement which you and I presently enjoy, even though you
and I approach reality from subjective theories rooted in the same
book.  However this fact might indicate nothing more than that
"agreements in venture" are relatively closer to reality than are
subjective theories.

     We can ignore, if you like, the legal principles and questions
which have arisen in a public park from the application of my
subjective biblical theories and personal experiences which have
lead me to the personal belief that it is more Godly to sleep on a
sidewalk than it is to render unto ceasar assistance in destroying
fellow human beings.  But I do hope that we can reach some
agreement on our positions concerning the meaning of "with error"
vs. "without error," and whether finding "ways to keep warm" is
more in keeping with Christ's teachings than finding ways to avert
nuclear war and other satanic creations of the human hand.

                       Respectfully yours,