Readers' Feedback


Page 1 of 3

Generated : 15th July 2024


Peter Patsis

I came across your web site while looking for information of alphabets. I must say that I was quite impressed with the breadth of the topics you cover.

Reading through your article on Christianity, I would like to raise the following questions, and it would be appreciated if you could let me know where you came across your information:

* You state that Christianity is a fusion of Judaism (which it is) and Gnosticism (which is questionable)

* You also state that Christianity is a brainchild of St Paul. (He actually took the name Paul, it's not that Christians call him that). St Paul constantly refers to Jesus Christ and his gospel as the source and inspiration of his mission. Apart from some fringe theologians, not many would say that Christianity is a brainchild of St Paul.

* There is not much evidence that Orthodoxy was the name of the original denomination and certainly early Christians would not have called themselves Orthodox. The terms Orthodox and Catholic became name of denominations after the Schism of 1054. And certainly the Creed refers to "One Holy and Catholic Apostolic Church)

* The Greek word for fish is ICHTHYS, not ICHTHOS, as noted on your web site.

* You seem to know a fair amount about Orthodox Christianity, but you omitted the fact that Constantinople is also considered a holy city by Orthodox Christians and is called "Second Rome". It is often referred to as "Vasilevoussa" meaning "the city which rules over others"

I hope you can let me know where you came across your sources. I also note you have a section on Biblical contradictions. I question why you don't have similar contradictions from the Quran, Buddhist texts , etc. I'm sure that one can find contradictions in any book if one wants to find them. But I would add that, in order to be fair, you should probably refer to theological articles explaining such "contradictions" before quoting them out of context. It would add credibility to your web site.


Vic Shelick

Let's break this down;

“This is the religion with the most adherents. Christianity is a fusion of Jewish Messianic ideas (the saviour who comes to Earth to save humanity) and Greek Gnostic rites (the God who dies, goes to hell and rises after three days). It appears to be the brainchild of Saul (known to Christians as Saint Paul) who combined the two threads and removed the strict dietary requirements and circumcision of Judaism.”

St. Paul did not remove anything. He received his teaching from the 12 Apostles, if anything you can accuse them, or Christ because he taught them. Also, strict dietary practices (fasting) were still done on a discipline level (not doctrine or Dogma). There’s something called Sacred Tradition, it’s the oral Tradition that the Bible talks about that is to be passed down verbally, not written. So when St. Paul writes something that can’t be found in Christ’s written teachings it was, of course, a verbal Tradition passed down to him.

Also, you can argue with the Greek Gnostic view, though some will tell you Christ did not go to hell but to a Prison (a purgatory perhaps, 1 Peter 3:19), to preach to souls there because heaven was not opened up until Christ died and rose for the sins of all.

“Christianity is first mentioned in historical documents at the end of the 1st century AD. The Christian Bible is made up of the Jewish parts (The Old Testament) and the newer part written originally in Greek and called The New Testament). A meeting of the Church during the early part of the second century AD finalised which books were to be included in the New Testament.”

Nope, the Catholic Church was the Authority that recognized and determined the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419).

“Christians believe in a single god that has appeared on Earth as a historical character called Jesus Christ in order to save the world after the first man, Adam (actually a Hebrew word meaning man), had condemned the world by disobeying God.

There is also an entity called the Holy Spirit. These three make up what is called the Holy Trinity. This is actually one of the most complex theological ideas in any religion. It is one of the reasons that the monotheistic Islam made so much progress during the 7th century.”

Nothing here to talk about..

“Christianity preaches love and forgiveness but its adherents have often fought against non-Christians and fellow Christians throughout history. There are hundreds of sects (or denominations as the faithful call them). The major ones are Orthodox (ritualistic but with no Pope - practised mainly in the Middle East and Eastern Europe), Catholic (controlled by the Pope, contains many saints and pilgrimage places - practised mainly in Southern Europe and Latin America), and the Protestants (less ritual orientated - practised in Northern Europe, Northern America and Oceana). The liturgical languages vary from Latin, Greek, Russian to the vernaculars of various countries). The Orthodox sect was the original. Catholics split around the 4th century and Protestants around the 1600s.”

Okay now, it was the Eastern Orthodox (which is mad up of around 40 some different rites) that split from the Catholic Church. Later some of these rites have come back in communion with Rome. The term Catholic was first used to describe the Church (in written form) at about 107 A.D

“Where the Bishop is present there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” – St. Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop, in his letter to the Smyrneans around 107 A.D.

St. Ignatius personally knew and was a disciple of St. John the Apostle. So, somehow the original Church from the Apostles split that early? Of course not. It was Catholic from the very beginning. Remember, the Bible is not the sole rule of faith for Orthodox Christians (Catholics, Eastern Rites) not everything about the Christian faith is written in the Bible.

Also, we can see from St. Irenaeus, in Against the Heresies, sometime between 180 and 199 AD that he lists the Popes back straight to Peter himself. Other Early Church Fathers adhere to this, declaring Peter’s Primacy and the Bishop of Rome’s Primacy.

And if the “Orthodox sect” was the original, would you mind telling me which one it is? Is it the Coptics, or the Byzantines, or the Greeks, perhaps the Armenians?

“The main rite of Christians is the symbolic one of drinking wine and eating bread. This is supposed to signify the blood and body of the Christ.”

Actually it IS Jesus Christ. This is demonstrated, yet again, by early Church writings. It wasn’t until the 1200s where the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was questioned and it wasn’t until the Protestant Reformation that it was turned into a symbol. However, the Orthodox Rites and the Roman Catholic Church still hold to the Tradition, from the Apostles, that it is (when it is consecrated) the actual body and blood of Christ.

“Baptism and the sign of the cross are also widely practised. The latter was a late addition since early Christians used the fish as their symbol. The Greek for fish (ICHTHOS) was the initials of the phrase Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour.”

Nothing here..

“Many of these rites were derived from the Essenes, the pre-Christian sect who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

Never hear of this, don’t know a thing about it.

"As with the Jews, Jerusalem is a holy city but Bethlehem, Nazareth and Rome come close behind. Christian festivals are either derived from their Jewish counterparts (Easter) or from Roman festivals taken over by the faith (Christmas). As Christianity moved into northern Europe many local rites were incorporated (Christmas trees, Santa Claus, hot cross buns).”

Nothing here..

“Many of the holiest shrines of Christianity are on sites previously occupied by Roman and Greek temples. The birthplace of Jesus is on the site of a temple to Adonis, for example.”

Well yes, that’s because Emperor Hadrian had it built in 135 A.D., I don’t see your point with that one.

“Many historians do not consider that Jesus Christ was a historical character.”

This is arguable, some non-Christian writers have written about Jesus from the time he was alive. I won’t go into this one.

“The name Jesus comes from the Aramaic Yeshu (which means saviour) and the Greek Christos (anointed), so the name actually means anointed saviour.”

Yeah, yeah.

KryssTal Reply: Thank you for writing.

I have published your comments on my feedback page. I think the main problem we have is that you are approaching Christianity from the view point of a believer whereas I look at it as a cultural and historical phenomenon.

When you write "So when St. Paul writes something that can’t be found in Christ’s written teachings it was, of course, a verbal Tradition passed down to him." what you are saying is "Paul says it, so it must be true". This lacks proof and is impossible to debate..


Steve Hill

I think you are being a little harsh on Hinduism, and slightly misleading. I am an American and I suppose Christian but have enourmus respect for oriental philosophies and Religions. Hinduism should rightly be called The Sanatan Dharma which loosely means "The right way to live" They as well as many Moslems appear to do a much better job of incorporating their Religion into their daily lives than most Christains I know. Hinduism is a way of life for them! Not simply a religion to pay homage to on Sundays. Most importantly you need to be aware that contrary to popular belief, Hinduism is not a polytheistic religion. The different deities that you refer to are simply different aspects of the one and only GOD!!!!!! Much in the same way that native American Indians visualized the God of the trees, wind, water, animals etc. as all being the one Great Spirit. This makes it easier for people to make sense out of the incomprehensible , omniciency and omnipresent glory of God. You can see God in everything if you adopt that attitude. Since all of everything comes from God. His power and majesty is unfathomable (not to mention mind boggling) so Hinduism has broken it down to a form that mere man can relate to. Again, they do not believe in multiple Gods!!!!!

I like your page very much but would hope that you would do some more extensive research and make necessary corrections.



I hope if you are any serious scholar you should re write the your take on Hinduism and it's history.

You separate religions into monotheistic vs. polytheistic --- and say that Hinduism is polytheistic! You are completely wrong! Monotheism to describe the Abrahamic religions itself is wrong as any good scholar would know that Elohim is plural meaning"Gods" and Yahweh too is a bedouin war god. Allah was actually an Arabic pagan moon God. That's three different Gods right there --- SO MUCH FOR MONOTHEISM! Plus the gods were changed into angels and demons. So ancient polythiesm was conveniently reclassified by changing all their many gods to angels.

Hinduism is and always will be MONISTIC. God is described as being ONE and everywhere! The various gods you describe are called "devis, devatas" in sanskrit they mean "shining ones" or what you people call angels and demons. The devis and devatas are shaktis or energies of that God. GOD IS ONE IN HINDUISM.

Yes Hinduism is THE OLDEST religion in the world, the Vedas mentions equinoxes that were 2500bce. Dravidian elements perhaps older than Sumer. Villages in India have been found that dated back to 7500 bce, making InDIAN CIVILIZATION THE OLDEST DOCUMENTED ONE IN THE WORLD! Indian texts have the oldest and longest lineage of ancient kings, far older than anything written in the Bible.

Hinduism contained monotheistic ideas, but really weren't stupid enough to think that was so important as the morons in the middle east!

KryssTal Reply: Thank you for writing. It's all very interesting. Do you have a reference web site I can study. I would be most grateful.



Any one can take different passages from the Bible and alone can make condridictions. The Bible is complicated and hard for us to understand unless you are saved and ask God to help you understand it. We also need to go to church and study. Could you learn Chemistry or Calculas without an instructor? I don't think so.I hope you will ask God to come into your life and help you learn and grow. The Scientist have proof that their evolution theories are a bunch of bull but because they are athiest they refuse to tell the world of their findings. This would mean that they would have to believe in God.

KryssTal Reply: Thank you for writing.

I'm afraid I'm an atheist also and I look at the Bible as a historical document.

You say "The Scientist have proof that their evolution theories are a bunch of bull" - I assume the "bunch of bull" is an American term for "complete rubbish" - but this is not true. In the United Kingdom many people accept evolution AND believe in God not seeing any problem with the idea of a deity guiding evolution.

Keep debating.

I do believe that evolution is a natural process of the world. I do not believe in the big bang theory. I believe that God created us just as the Bible says. I believe the evolution process is so slow that nothing could have evolved the way scientist try to make us believe. I did not evolve from monkeys. Carbon dating has been proven to be flawed. The earth is not billions of years old. I can hardly wait to get to heaven to ask God to explain all the things that christians and scientist have argued over for many years.

Bye for now

KryssTal Reply: Hello Wanda,

I'm a little confused. I thought you said you did not believe in evolution.

What do you have against the Big Bang? This idea has been developed over the last 80 years to explain observed astronomical phenomena. It is not an idea that has sprung from nothing. It is even predicted by Einstein's relativity before it was observed.

I have never heard of Carbon dating being flawed. Carbon dating only works for a few thousand years. For longer periods, Uranium and Thorium dating is used. As for the age of the Solar System, this is found from several different methods (age of rocks on Earth, age of meteorites and Moon rocks, the physics of the Sun and studies of stellar evolution.

But how does this affect morality? To be a good person or a bad person does not depend on the age of the Universe, does it?

Thank you for writing.

I do not believe in the evolution theory that we were evolved from monkeys. I so believe that some life forms do evolve, although very slowly. I would rather believe every word of the bible and not one word of a scientist. No scientist can save my soul and give me eternal life in heaven. Plus it seems that the scientist are always contridicting each other or changing their findings. They are mostly guessing in my opinion. I am not a college graduate or an intillectual but God doesn't care how smart I am, he only cares that I love him and have given myself to him to save me from my sin.



Dear Sir or Madame,

While I find your offers of proof exposing biblical fallacies compelling and mostly all accurate at first glance, I feel I must make a brief statement regarding the affairs of other cultures who make careers out of holding themselves out as being somehow more ethical and righteous than just plain average folk.

I too have burning rage for the hypocrisy of the churches, their felonious hierarchies and their patrons. In defense of the misguided patrons I am moved to remind you that most people (at sometime) feel somewhat helpless surrounded by a world that is hardly ethical or fair in any venue. More often than not, most people will tend to seek a saving GOD in times of trouble and despair. The majority of these people are harmless and if they should find a real or placebo solution to their distress, how wonderful for them. How wonderful for anyone who might come to feel secure in a world with such a destructive and cruel track record.

There are also unfortunately the dangerous zealots among them who will kill to defend "their sweet Jesus" (or preferred deity).

Far greater a threat to the inhabitants of earth I believe are the politico-zealots who have engaged in the deceptive practice of "civil service" only to find a nurturing community of others who subscribe to a "right by might" mob rule mentality employed to coerce and lord over the masses as human gods.

Our high ranking national officials appear to practice their precious civil law as devoutly as many Catholic priests have been revealed recently to practice among other things, their oaths of celibacy.

You have demonstrated a great talent for digging in and exposing the literary contradictions contained in the Bible. One who was severely challenged intellectually could not have produced what appears to be the concise, factual information you have presented.

I have often thought if one is wise, one is surely intelligent. But one who is intelligent is not necessarily wise.

Mind you, I am drawing no conclusion about your wisdom, but I would like to know if your intellect and power of reasoning has been carefully guarded and preserved intact, or if it has been tainted by your obvious contempt for "organized religion."

Do you believe that it is possible that a GOD, perhaps the GOD YHWH of Biblical fame might actually exist and that the Bible with all of it's very obvious shortcomings might serve a real and valid purpose.

I am no zealot but I find it difficult to rule out what so many have in good faith sacrificed life and limb for over an extended period of time. I need only look to the modern day "media dogs" to know how even a fresh story can be misrepresented and blown out of factual proportion. But the fact still remains in such cases, when the dust has settled and the truth has been revealed to the fullest extent it can be revealed, something truly newsworthy likely occurred.

I get the impression that there is something slightly more important happening in the Bible besides a Royal Scam with the sole intent to confuse and defraud the unsuspecting masses.

There is no doubt in my mind that more than a few powerful political minds bent on expanding their rule and fame did deliberately seek to incorporate and manipulate many of the documents eventually used to create a book that should have been devoid of the errors and contradictions it contains.

Can you assert with confidence and authority that just because people have either been careless or even devious while handling these ancient texts that it somehow precludes the greater underlying message that is the essence of the work in it's flawed entirety?

Your recommendations for better human relations seem to be centered on the exact same common denominator: Truth and honesty.

And you are correct. Without the truth, one is not afforded the opportunity to make the absolutely best qualified decision in any matter. Contrary to popular parroting of this old saying, money is not the root of all evil, the lie is, for it destroys and degrades the integrity of all that it touches.

Even The Ten Commandments seem to substantiate this assertion. (Although it is my personal opinion that The Commandment forbidding false witness against a neighbor was altered somewhere along the way to soften the tough standard set by the core message. Thou shalt not lie.)

It appears that virtually every other commandment hinges upon faithfully adhering to this essential rule for a satisfactory communal living environment. For example: Thou shalt not murder. One would really have to lie to ones self before being able to justify this act (killing as a last resort in justifiable self defense not withstanding).

Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, ox, possessions etc...... Somewhere deep down inside, with precious few exceptions, we all know when something just isn't appropriate to carry out in deed, but by self deceiving rationalizations AKA. lying to ourselves, time has proven again and again that one can generally justify any damn thing one cares to.

Anyway, I enjoyed reviewing the Biblical Contradictions portion of your site.

I just hope that you are fully aware that just because men have tainted the historical records of GOD'S interaction with men throughout time, it doesn't prove or even suggest that there is no GOD. It simply helps to illustrate what dopes we can be and for that matter what dopes we still are!

The churches are fully deserving of any scathing corrections they have earned for their mishandling of the records. They are still the more needing and deserving of public chastisement for the way many pastors have liberally interpreted the remaining integrity right out of the written word to serve their own "collection plate agendas."

As far as the churches proving themselves hopelessly misinformed by their pathetic divisionary policies, you are correct, but be fair across the board. Is this not the long standing way of the world? This is not a mental retardation exclusive to the participants of organized religion. Seems that the alleged "greatest of nations" throughout history have subscribed to this social (or more accurately) anti social behavior.

Maybe you might consider tackling the "subversive powers that really be."

Perhaps you already have.

In closing, just to let you know, I have some pretty compelling reasons to reasonably support the possibility of a real living GOD. But it has little or nothing to do with anything any man or book ever huffed and puffed about.

My reasons are my own and the nature of my ongoing (for lack of a better term) paranormal encounters with an amazing intelligent entity are decidedly personal. I am in constant telepathic contact with someone or something. It communicates in plain English yet the method of creating and transmitting thoughts and ideas are hardly similar to anything I have ever experienced with any human peer.

There has been much that has been revealed to me that suggests that no man we have known of has had all the answers to the age old questions that have plagued our human race for untold amounts of time.

All I can say about this with a reasonable amount of certainty is that there is something greater than just us among us.

If you desire to have such an encounter, I hope that it is granted to you.

One thing I have learned over the time I have spent "in contact", if He/She/They wish to contact you, it will have little to do with anything you have to say about it. It appears from all that I could diligently gather, that the decision is simply not ours to make. Yes it's true I may be having psychotic episodes, most Christians I have shared this with are convinced the devil is trying to posses me, but based on the general long term effects of semi long term exposure to the "unexplainable" I feel more spiritually and intellectually enriched rather than worse for the wear.

It's definitely weird, but you get used to it after a while.

I welcome any response you may wish to send.




Hello there,

I have just been viewing your bible contradictions page with interest. Raised as a Roman Catholic i became disenchanted with the church and it followers for a variety of reasons that are too lengthy to pursue at this moment. This is not an attack by a religious nut, rather some constuctive criticism.

KryssTal Reply: All debate is worhtwhile. I would not demonise you because your views are different from mine. I leave that to the Donald Rumsfeld's of the world.

I would like to say that it seems that you have expended a certain amount of energy on what i would consider a fruitless task.

Let me begin by pointing out that translation is at best difficult to accurately transfer direct meaning from one language to another. Even in this day and age, to translate a simple book from french to english will leave the translated version innacurate in parts. The gist of something, or the meaning behind words, analogies and allegories cannot always be succesfully translated. Remember with all our modern thinking and standards, inaccuracies still cannot be avoided.

KryssTal Reply: You are quite correct in this. If the list of contradictions were idiomatic nuances then your argument would be a valid one. However, the contradictions cannot be explained this easily. I have concentrated on contradictions that are factual.

I fail to understand why anybody would consider an inaccuracy within the bible any kind of proof of its falsity.

KryssTal Reply: Many people believe that The Bible (or Quran, or other religious books) are inspired by a deity and are the word of the deity. The Bible is used to justify policies and belief systems and, in some cases, to decide what can be taught in schools and what punishments people should receive. As such, a book like the Bible neds to be put under serious scrutiny.

With a book that was written so long ago, in a variety of languages, some of the stories handed down in oral tradition for many years before being recorded, you would expect there to be inaccuracies and contradictions. In fact, i would consider it to be more a proof of falsity if the bible did not contain contradiction, surely considering the history of the bible this much seems obvious.

KryssTal Reply: Reversing that argument, the contradictions and inaccuracies show it to be the work of fallable human beings rather than an infallable deity.

Having read many religious texts from many religions, it can be noted that there are contradictions with all.

KryssTal Reply: If all religions are human inventions, then that would make sense. You would find that the fewer people that have worked on a religious book and the smaller time scale of its writing, the less errors there would be. The Bible dates over a very long period and has many authors - hence it is full of errors and inaccuracies. Apart from the contradictions there are also scientific errors.

This can be partially expained thus. Religion is a code for life, a guide for those that require it. I am not the same as you, i have not the same experiences, upbringing etc. Advice that will be suitable for your life will not be suitable for me. It is dependant on the intelligence of the reader or believer that he might glean the necessary information relevant to his situation and life.

KryssTal Reply: This is like mathematics that gives a different answer each time. It would be of limited use. Also it is then subject to interpretation. The Dutch Reformed Church in apartheid South Africa used sections of the Bible to justify their policies of racism.

I write because i am puzzled by the nature of your page. I dont understand why people wish to bring any form of religion into disrepute. Allthough organised religion can be found at the cause of many a major negative issue, (though largely in the past now) i believe that it is due to the decline of religion, spurred by the scathing attacks of the media, that we find ourselves in such a state as we do today. So what is the purpose of this page on your site? It would seem that you are educated people, yet you do not declare your intention for this page of contradiction.

KryssTal Reply: We belong to the age of reason - superstition is dangerous and can lead to violence. Arguments should be decided by evidence rather than faith. That is our stand.

I can only guess that your intention is to disrepute the varacity of the bible, to what length your views go i am not sure. It has been several years since i last studied the any religious texts and associated works, and i cannot recall the name of the historian i wish to quote who lived in a neighbouring arab country. But around the time that jesus was said to live, a number of historians, some even atheist, recorded the fact that there was a man named jesus that was causing quite a stir. The historians recorded the fact that he had done things that seemed to defy natural law, and that the authorities were fearful of this man, and that he had a huge following and was believed to be the Son of God.

KryssTal Reply: This is probably from the historian Josephus. Most scholars now accept that these additions were later forgeries. Check out the book, The Jesus of the Early Christians by G Wells. The name Jesus Christ is not actually a real name. Jesus is from the Hebrew Yeshu ("saviour") while Christ is from the Greek Christos ("annointed"). It is a title rather than a name.

In my opinion a man named Jesus did exist, this much is fact. It is also fact that he performed certain acts that did not comply with that they considered to be natural law at the time. Naturally i understand that science is only fact until we find out otherwise, the laws of physics may not always be as they are today, and science fact will become falsity in time.

KryssTal Reply: No this is not right.

Science is a process. It is a self correcting process of converting observations into models of explanation. First, you make observations. You guess what the reason is for these observations. This is called a hypothesis. You then TEST the hypothesis (and others if they exist).

If the hypothesis fails the test, you drop it.

That last part is very important and is what makes science different to religion. A hypothesis that fails a single test can not be kept. A hypothesis that has passed lots of tests and made predictions that have been shown to be correct, then becomes a theory. A theory is not truth. Any theory can be disproved by a single negative observation. Religion is based on revelations and revealed truths. It is accepted on faith. The difference between science and religion are in the methods used not the details themselves.

It makes no difference if somebody said that the animals were created first, and somebody else said they were created second. If you dont believe in God, fine, trying to disrepute religious text of any form does not do that. If we stumbled upon the truth of creation today, it may seem to us so outlandish that we wouldnt believe it, it may also seem to us to be rife with contradiction. Trying to dismiss the almighty based upon the constraints of the human intellect is pure folly and only goes to show a distinct lack of thought.

KryssTal Reply: Observation - hypothesis - experiment - theory. This is the way science progresses. The Bible creation story fails these tests. In science a single observation could be made tomorrow that disporoves a theory. In religion, ideas are kept regardless of the observations. This is the difference.

I have gone on for long enough without knowing the basis of your page, i would greatly appreciate a response, and if you would like i would be happy to propose a different approach to the contradictions of religion.

KryssTal Reply: You have not "gone on for long enough" and I approve of your questioning everything. Being skeptical is the scientific approach.


Stewart Bryant (USA)


I was reading your language comment page and I must compliment you on how graciously you respond to all kinds of comments.

I was struck by the 'Billy' dialogue about Bible stories being literal and felt I should comment. I suspect all ancient related writings to have a some bases in real events, though heavily filtered. This comes from my faith that people back then were as curious as we are about origins and history ,and did the best with the means at hand.

The Biblical flood story actually goes back beyond the Bible's telling, and is part of the larger story of the first nations founded by the Mythical twin brothers who chased a great stag west into foreign lands after the great flood. It is part of a saga tradition that, in prehistoric times, comes from Siberia-Kazakistan-China region. In some form or another, it is found in about 17 traditions (Ural -Altai, Uygur (Yugor, Ugor) of eastern China version, Hungarian, Sumerian, Persian, - Egyptian, Greek, Scythian, Anatolian, Finnic, Ugrian, Northern Siberia, Japanese, even Maya, Germanic, Indian (the sub continent).

I've looked into this question for a long time (archeology, geology, myth, etc) and have found a very strange pattern that suggest the great deludge was in the west Siberian plain about 10,000BC, Following this, a european type people came from this area of Siberia to Xian China region, which is probably were the tower of Bable was constructed. From there and the Altai egion come the subsequent migrations west. Of course, this is bit of a weird scenario for my taste but that's the pattern I've found.

So, the journey of curiosity can lead to unanticipated but interesting places. Keep up the good work

KryssTal Reply: Interesting ideas.

Obviously I am not a believer in the Tower of Babel hypothesis because there are other mechanisms for explaining language change.

Thank you for writing.


William Brown

Your area on Judaism is somewhat flawed with a lot of misinformation, firstly, circumcision is done on males when 8 days old, secondly, you mention that Jews live predominantly in USA, Europe and Israel..this simply is not true, you have missed out on North America, South America, the Antipodeans and Africa.

It originated much earlier than 1200bce and furthermore, the dietry laws you state are, "they don't eat Pork" is partly true - they don't eat animals with cloven hooves nor those that don't chew the cud. Also you mention animals without legs....this is nonsense ! Animals that are scavengers such as pigs, dogs etc and fish without scales as well as all shell fish as they are scavengers. Meat may be eaten but no dairy products may be ingested after meat unless there is a 3 hour period after meat is eaten, basicall the meat of the calf may not be followed by the milk of the mother.

Synagogues, were previously "temples" and were long before the ancient Greeks.

Many jews do not wear scull caps (of course a lot do) the meaning for this is that God is always with you.

There are not many sects of Judaism, Chassidic Jews are a sect, and yes you are correct in thier garb, although they do not have long sideburns, this is hair that is grown from the head and worn in front of the ears, these are called Pious.

I hope you will use this information.

As mentioned in my previous email, your site is superb.


Sergio Sandoval

Dear Friend:

The Bab was the founder of BABI Religion. Baha'u'llah was founder of Baha'i Faith. The Bab was the forerunner of Baha'u'llah, as John the Baptist was to Christ. Greetings to you. We liked your web site.

© 2024, KryssTal