Hello Day,
-> HW>    I'm not sure how far your interest extends. ...
DB> Of course, I
-> am being disingenuous Hal.  But part of my point, is that some of the
-> ancient prophets were, in fact, raving nuts who happened to, like an
-> idiot savant, tap into the consciousness of the times, and get their
-> message recorded for posterity.
   Well I admit it appears as if Ezekiel had been into some pretty
powerful mushrooms.
-> God, or inspiration, had nothing
-> whatever to do with it.
->
-> Kinda like the idea that a million monkeys will write shakespeare if
-> given enough time, and that a thousand nut cases over hundreds of
-> years will say enough to collate into some coherent message.
   Much like the writings of "historians."
   I do suggest you give Amos a read for one half hr, and see if the
"monkey typing
Shakespeare"  seems to fit.
   Perhaps you are trying to say that for any given person,
claiming to be "tuned into" something beyond, there is
an admixture of personal stuff,  and culturally determined images--
from 1% to 99%.   Yes, time and the community tell if
something is a true "inspiration"; In the US, John Brown was said to
be mad;  up here, Louis Riel.   Yet, what made them seem "mad" to their
contemporaries, has made them enduringly important.
    Hal.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5
---------------