How the Diary was Discovered

It happened during excavations in the Grand Canyon, that hotbed of dispute between evolutionists and creationists.

Evolutionists insist it was carved by a river over millions of years. Creationists observe that it is so similar to the smaller canyon created in a single day by a mud flow from Mt. St. Helens March 19, 1982 (which had first erupted almost two years before) that a more likely scenario is its rapid creation by the swift drainage of an inland sea during or after Noah’s flood.

It was in that appropriately grand setting that a spectacular artifact was discovered which seemed from another age or another world.

The artifact was unearthed just before sunset, but as the light waned the artifact grew brighter, making it clear that it was, itself, a source of light.

As it grew brighter, it began to shimmer, as if it were becoming chemically unstable and might at any moment disintegrate or, worse, explode.

The scientists reasoned that it was reacting chemically to air, so a brave soul volunteered to try to put it into an airtight container. But when he attempted to pick it up with some padded tongs, the artifact burst into a thousand fragments like a white dandelion which a child attempts to pick up by its head.

The flat fragments scattered about like the pages of an ancient book, and glowed white like embers in a breeze. After a few moments they wholly disintegrated, like embers fully consumed. Their light wafted upwards like the smoke of a fire, slow and massive at first, then more concentrated and faster, until finally it shot skywards like a lightning bolt and disappeared.

Not since a Russian oil-drilling team dug a hole to hell and reported hearing the screams of the damned, an event carried in some of America’s most respectable Supermarket Tabloids, had there been such a stir in the scientific community!

When the video footage was examined, writing was discovered on the fragments.

It was in a language which appeared to be a precursor of Hebrew. Painstaking frame-by-frame reconstruction of the video footage of the writing has produced substantial excerpts of what must have been a lengthy document.

The author identifies himself as “Comunicius”. The scientists on the team won’t commit themselves to any of the bizarre theories about the nature of the document, or the background or identity of Comunicius. They will say only that they are unable to disprove a couple of the theories which are based on an analysis of the text, and which find support, in the view of the non-scientists employed by our team, in the mysterious nature of the artifact itself.

The two leading theories allege that the document was the diary of Comunicius, and that Comunicius was, or is, an angel.

TRANSLATOR’S NOTE: My guide in selecting excerpts has been my ability to construct complete stories from the fragments. Where information was missing I did my best to fill in details which seemed implied, but when too few fragments of a story were available to tell it without excessive guessing, I omitted it.

Another criteria was whether I myself could make sense of the record. Many items were of events and environments so unimaginable to me that my poor attempts to translate them would have resulted in gibberish. Fortunately several of the entries were of events also recorded in the Bible, so that I had the advantage of corroborating literature, sort of a spiritual Rosetta Stone, to flesh out some of the obscure terms and provide them a sensible translation.

To aid in this inquiry, I developed a computer program which searches text for any similarity to Scripture and lists the comparable references. This works fairly well with any text, but it was made more effective with the Diary of Comunicius by my discovery that the mathematical arrangement of Comunicius’ text can be programmed to select references with precision.

Specifically, I discovered that the total of the numerical values of each sentence, divided by the hypotenuse of the Factor of every third line, added to the number of light seconds from the sun to the moon, subtracted from the mean temperature of the mountain bearing Noah’s Ark, produces an arrangement of three numbers. When the first number is taken to refer to one of the 66 books of the Bible, the second number is taken to identify the chapter, and the third number is taken to identify the verse, a passage is selected which bears uncanny resemblance to the text under study.

The scientific community has dubbed my computer program The VerseScout. That is the banner under which, for the reader’s benefit, I will report, along with my translation, its findings.

Not always is the relevance of the VerseScout report, to the Diary passage in question, obvious, so I have designed a plugin to explain the relevance, called VerseScout Relevance Report.

I have published these VS and VSRR reports completely unedited. You are reading them precisely as they came out of the computer, so that you may be confident that I have kept all this VS as objective and scientific as possible.

My interest has not been to make any definitive inquiry whether the history recorded by Comunicius has been accurate. Its variance with scientifically established facts has impressed me that such an inquiry would not be profitable. Especially where his notes affirm the Bible, which is not where newspaper scientists turn for evidence.

Scholars interested in examining the complete reconstructed text of the Grand Canyon Artifact #34,778 may write to the Smithsonian Institute, which will be glad to tell you where you can find help.

As a personal note, I recommend you do NOT read the VerseScout and VerseScout Relevance Report entries. As any scientist knows, the Bible is boring. Only the words of men (well, in this case, an angel, though we do not have the writings of other angels to establish a general rule) are interesting.

VerseScout: John 5:43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Oh no. I thought I turned that thing off for the introduction! But see what I mean? That wasn’t interesting at all, was it, compared with my ideas? Well, use your own judgment. I feel obligated, in the interest of Science, to make available the results of these computer tests. But personally I think this will read a lot faster if you just skip what God has to say and go right to the good part.

Just look at the Bible! How many Christians read it even once through, in their whole lives, though it is only the length of five short books, or one Doctoral Thesis, or one half the IRS Code, or one third of a politician’s itemized deductions? Doesn’t that prove it is not worth reading? I’m just thinking of you.

The only reason I’m including these VerseScout reports is to satisfy a few scientists who want to see footnotes documenting the primary text. Not that they would actually read them.

You ask, “Well then why didn’t you bury them in small-print footnotes at the end of the book so they wouldn’t bother us while we’re trying to read?”

It’s my wife’s fault. She insisted. She said there may be an occasional reader who reads, not only for entertainment, but for accurate information on how to live, who will want to track what corroboration these Diaries have in the Bible, who will never find them at the end of the book. I tried to explain to her that I have never met such readers, but, well, I know you will understand guys, but I didn’t want to have to put up with my own cooking.

But the important thing is that this book’s scientific status be made clear, which I hope has been accomplished by seeing to it that the relevance of the Word of God has at least been protested.

My final reason for recommending you do not read the VS or VSRR reports, is that they are hard to read. You will notice the VerseScout entries are in the King James Version. I wanted to use a modern version, but the VerseScout program was not able to bridge the 6000 year gulf between the concepts at Creation and concepts today. My computer kept crashing. Had I not thought of using the KJV to shorten the gap by 400 years, I would not have been able to make the program work at all.

Likewise, date code errors plagued the computer’s VSRR reports, plunging its output back 150 years, when American grammar was far more complex, words were bigger, and sentences were longer – in short, when grammar approached the complexity employed by King James’ translators, who as faithfully as possible honored the grammatical complexity of the original Greek, I read somewhere.

I was able to keep Comunicius’ Diary notes simple enough to meet modern publishing standards (short sentences, easy grammar, little words) simply because I did the translation myself. It would have taken an extra few years to translate the VS and VSRR reports to meet modern publishing standards because first of all, I would have had to understand the reports. Literature of this sort is not within my area of expertise. I am a Scientist, after all.

But I couldn’t see the point. Why would anyone want to read them anyway? Just skip them. Who wants to read what God wrote, anyway? Just read what I wrote.

One other tiny detail, about something some people care about who do not care about God: grammar.

“Help,” screamed the drowning damsel.

Can you honesty tell me the damsel put a comma after the word “help”, rather than an exclamation point? I think not! I think, “putting, within quote marks, punctuation not belonging to the quote but to the sentence that contains it, is not very scientific!”

It is much more scientific to say:

“Help!” screamed the drowning damsel.

Or at the least:

“Help”, screamed the drowning damsel. A scientist should be precise. Why put punctuation inside quote marks that is not part of the quote? Who thought up that, anyway? When punctuation is not part of a quote it belongs outside. Duh. And yet the publishing world favors false attribution of punctuation to people quoted.

I would think at least Bible students would sympathize with this point, especially when it is the Bible being quoted, and the Chicago Manual of Style would have punctuation falsely associated with words of Scripture. I understand Bible readers can get pretty touchy about changing even the punctuation of Scripture.

However, it is not a great issue with me. I just write scientifically because, well, I am a “scientist”.

One other detail about the excavation that will interest some: we learned later that the padded tongs which destroyed the artifact were a giant version of a dental tool familiar to the woman manipulating the tongs, since she was a dental technician from Mexico who was in Arizona illegally.

After she destroyed the artifact we of course fired her. When we found out her background, we of course, reported her to ICE out of love (for our nation). In the photograph of the event on the book cover, you can see her waving from the window of the ICE helicopter.

She is now back at her old job pulling teeth at the Matamoros prison for $9 a day. They pay her that much so she can afford to buy anesthetic. She doesn’t have an x-ray machine. The last we heard she was begging missionaries for a bright light.

I relate this only to show that our team was not only scientific: it was responsible and patriotic.

CONTROVERSY ALERT: As a scientist, I feel it my duty to warn you that this project didn’t turn out the way our team had hoped. As scientists, we of course welcome “controversy” when it disproves God or the Bible. But unfortunately nothing in these pages quite rises to that level of scientific credibility.

Yet what it does do, I, and I would hope the public will, find even more distasteful. It undermines a point or two of traditional theology, yes indeed it does. But then does it leave us alone, armed with an argument against God? No ho! It then offers an alternative theology which leaves the credibility of both God and the Bible intact!

Examples abound in these pages of novel spins on familiar Bible stories. These spins are not quite controversial because they enter arenas upon which tradition has taken no stand. Such as, exactly what hung on the Tree of Knowledge? Or, what was it like for God when He was alone?

But the constant drumbeat of attacks on Evolutionary Science, along with the irrational, uncritical acceptance of the existence of God and the validity of religious Myths, gives me mixed feelings about the computer program I created.

As a scientist, I am pleased with the accuracy with which my VS and VSRR computer programs have functioned. However, on this subject, they have produced a diatribe which is annoyingly religious. Again, I personally urge the reader to pass over them and all their references to what God has said, and just read my brilliant translation of the words of Comunicius (printed in this font) which I did myself.

I doubt if any of this religiosity will be adequate to squelch the marketability of this book, however, since the last chapter does include some perspectives on losing weight.

Leave a Reply