Author Response to BlueInk Review


The BlueInk book review begins with the accepted definition of “amen” which was presented in AMEN. After offering the same definition, the BlueInk Reviewer indicates the author argues that “amen” refers to an Egyptian god, Amen. The Reviewer accuses the author of arguing rather than presenting substantiated facts and findings. Upon giving the author credit for laying out his “arguments,” the Reviewer ends by stating most mainstream theologians and scholars would consider AMEN to be outlandish, presents fascinating theories, and is an exercise in speculation.


The BlueInk analyst shows no attempt to show why the author is in error about facts and findings that verify the god AMEN was worshipped more than 2,000 years before the birth of Jesus. Such avoidance reveals the reviewer may be biased with indoctrinated religious ideas, thereby rejecting new ideas even when backed up with verifiable data. This bias is to be expected but there are intelligent, discerning people who are capable of accepting the verifiable conclusions presented in AMEN.


The BlueInk reviewer failed to mention the main themes in the book: (1) The beliefs of Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religions developed from the Egyptian religion, (2) These religions must unify their belief in one God to prevent further bigotry, hatred, violence, and the killing of innocent people, and (3) Religious leaders must improve their scriptures and teach the Word of God. To do nothing, religious leaders will fail as representatives of God and may be responsible for causing a Third World War. There are many important themes the BlueInk Reviewer could have covered. Instead, the Reviewer refers to mainstream scholars and theologians to conclude that AMEN is outlandish, presents fascinating theories, and is an exercise in speculation.


Back to Amen Book Reviews