Issue #169-Martin's Kingdom of the Cults (Part 1)/

Biblical Errancy Issue #169-Martin's Kingdom of the Cults (Part 1)/Makes 6 Points, Defraud Not & the Commandments, Reader States His Anti-biblicist Strategy & Favorite Points, My Tactics Changed, BE on the Web

Nov 10, '08 2:21 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #169 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


Jan. 1997

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A national periodical focusing on Biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies, while providing a hearing for apologists
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


COMMENTARY


Having devoted many of our prior issues to Dialogue and Debate and Letters to the Editor exclusively, we will now return to our original policy of biblical analysis through commentaries and book reviews
REVIEW
THE KINGDOM OF THE CULTS (Part 1)--One of the most famous critiques of groups pejoratively referred to by fundamentalists as cults is a 545 page book entitled The Kingdom of the Cults by Dr. Walter Martin. Known as the Bible Answer Man of Radio, Martin specialized in exposing the degree to which cult theology deviated from orthodox, fundamentalist Christianity. Although much of the book is credible from a fundamentalist perspective, many observations and conclusions contained therein need to be exposed as fallacious. Because our publication has no more empathy for the theology of cults, such as the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses, than it does for Martin and fundamentalism, we have no intention of carrying a torch for the former by defending it from assaults by the latter. However, we do have a great deal of interest in revealing the degree to which Martin comes up short while accusing others of propagating lies, distortions, half truths, and perversions. He himself is by no means free from a propensity to spread erroneous theological and biblical concepts, nor does he speak accurately with respect to a variety of comments on related religious material. So that people do not become ensnared by his biblical maneuverings, we thought some critical observations are well within the realm of propriety. Throughout the book Martin occasionally made statements proving he, too, could profit from several corrective observations. What follows are some randomly chosen prominent examples of errors that can be laid at his doorstep.
First, early on Martin attempts to define cults by saying the following pages 25-28,

"There is no doubt in my mind that the belief systems of the cults share much in common, and that some of these common factors are worth noting.

First and foremost, the belief systems of the cults are characterized by close-mindedness. They are not interested in a rational cognitive evaluation of the facts. The organizational structure interprets the facts to the cultist, generally invoking the Bible and/or its respective founder as the ultimate source of its pronouncements. Such belief systems are in isolation; they never shift to logical consistency. They exist in what we might describe as separate compartments in the cultist's mind, and are almost incapable of penetration or disruption if the individual cultist is completely committed to the authority pattern of his organization.

Secondly, cultic belief systems are characterized by genuine antagonism on a personal level since the cultist almost always identifies his dislike of the Christian message with the messenger who holds such opposing beliefs.

Thirdly, almost without exception, all cultic belief systems manifest a type of institutional dogmatism and a pronounced intolerance for any position but their own.

The fourth and final point in any analysis of the belief system of cults is the factor of isolation."
Notice anything interesting about this list? Does it conjure up any images with respect to pots, kettles and the color black? Once the word "Christian" in the second point is changed to the word "opponent," it should strike a chord to those within range, because every one
Page 169-2
of these traits is applicable to nearly every fundamentalist in the land. Although no doubt typical of cults in general, these characteristics are also applicable in large measure to fundamentalist Christians. Martin would do well to take inventory of his own entourage.
Second, on page 70 Martin states,
"God the Father rained fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, and God the Son spoke and ate with Abraham and Sarah."
Where does the OT say Abraham and Sarah ate with god the son, Jesus?
Third, on page 82 Martin attacks the contention of the Jehovah's Witnesses that Christ ascended as a spirit and would only return as an invisible spirit by saying,
"Paul, contrary to Jehovah's Witnesses, never believed in an invisible return, nor did any bona fide member of the Christian Church up until the fantasies of Charles Taze Russell
(one of the founders of the Jehovah's Witnesses--Ed.)
and his parousia nightmare, as a careful look at Paul's first epistle to the Thessalonians plainly reveals. Said the inspired Apostle,
'For this we say unto you but the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall prevent them which are asleep.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven [visible] with a shout [audible], with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.'

Here we see that in perfect accord with Matthew 26 and Revelation 1 Christ is pictured as coming visibly...."
Martin accuses the Jehovah's Witnesses of acting
"at their crafty best, as they desperately attempt to make Paul teach what in all his writings he most emphatically denied, namely that Christ would come invisibly for His saints,"
and yet, Martin behaves no better. He inserted the word [visible] into the 16th verse, when it's not to be be found in any version. Even his beloved NASB will not corroborate his textual revision. Where does 1 Thess. 4:15-16 say that Christ will be "visible" when he descends? If Martin insists upon attacking the Jehovah's Witnesses in regard to a visible versus an invisible descent, these are not the verses upon which he should have relied.
Fourth, probably the most prominent clash between orthodox Christianity and Martin on the one side and the Jehovah's Witnesses on the other concerns the nature of Jesus. Was he, or was he not, God in the flesh. The former say yes and the latter say no. In defense of a fleshly God Martin says,
"Throughout the entire content of inspired Scripture the fact of Christ's identity is clearly taught. He is revealed as Jehovah God in human form in Isa. 9:6, Micah 5:2, Isa. 7:14, John 1:1, 8:58, 17:5, Exodus 3:14, Hebrews 1:3, Philippians 2:11, Colossians 2:9, and Revelation 1:8, and 1:17-18. The Deity of Christ is one of the cornerstones of Christianity, and as such has been attacked more vigorously throughout the ages than any other single doctrine of the Christian faith. Adhering to the old Arian heresy, which Athanasius the great Church Father refuted in his famous essay 'On the Incarnation of the Word,' many individuals and all cults steadfastly deny the equality of Jesus Christ with God the Father and hence the Triune Deity. Jehovah's Witnesses, as has been observed, are no exception to this infamous rule. However, the testimony of the Scriptures stand sure and the above mentioned references alone put to silence forever this blasphemous heresy, which in the power of Satan himself deceives many with its 'deceitful handling of the Word of God.'

The Deity of Christ then is a prime answer to Jehovah's Witnesses, for if the Trinity is a reality, which it is, if Jesus and Jehovah are 'one' and the Same, then the whole frame-work of the cult collapses into a heap of shattered disconnected doctrines incapable of even a semblance of congruity. We will now consider the verses in question, and their bearing on the matter."
In order to prove Jesus is God, Martin relied on the verses listed previously. Unfortunately for him, most do not say that Jesus is God. In fact, one strongly implies the opposite. Hebrews 1:3 says ("Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high") . How could Jesus sit down next to God if he is God. More-over, being
"the express image"
of someone does not mean you are that someone. We often hear the expression that A is the "spittin image" of B, but that does not mean A is B. If anything, it implies the opposite. They are two separate and distinct entities.
Most of the other verses used by Martin to prove Jesus is God don't go so far as to prove the opposite, but they don't say Jesus is God either. Micah 5:2 (RSV) says, "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days." Isa. 7:14 says, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." John 8:58 says, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." And Ex. 3:14 says, "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." Where do any of these verses say that Jesus is God?
Martin also cites Isa. 9:6 ("For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace") to prove Jesus is God. We showed in issue #78 on messianic prophecy that this verse could not be referring to Jesus, because he was the son, not the father.
John 17:5 says, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." "Before the world was" does not imply eternity because the universe existed
Page 169-3
long before this planet. Second, if Jesus is God's equivalent, why would he need to be glorified by God? And third, by saying "the glory I have with thee," two separate entities are being referred to.
The remaining verses are too nebulous to make a decision either way. Rev. 1:8 says, "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Although the Lord is speaking, where does he equate himself with Jesus or say they are identical? On the other hand, by saying "which is to come" the parousia of Jesus does seem to be implied.
Rev. 1:17-18 says, "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death." Assuming Jesus is speaking as is alleged by biblicists, the question in this instance becomes one of determining what he means by "the first and the last." Does he mean he had no beginning and will have no ending, in which case his existence extends eternally in either direction and he is God. Or does it mean he was the first created of all those created and will be the last destroyed of all those created, in which case he is not equating himself with God, since God by definition has no beginning or end. His assertion "I am he that liveth and was dead" has no weight because of prior resurrections by others. And for him to say "I am alive for evermore" means almost nothing because that will be true of every human being who ever lives according to biblical theology. Whether you are headed toward heaven or hell, you are still immortal and alive forevermore.
Our third and final group of quotes from Martin is composed of those which can justifiably be used to argue that Jesus was God. They are among the most potent in the reservoir of orthodox fundamentalist Christianity. Prime examples are: John 1:1 ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God") in conjunction with verse 14, Col. 2:9 ("For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily"), and Phil. 2:11 ("And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord...").
Fifth, on page 109 Martin says,
"As I stated at the beginning of this point, it would be futile to refute all the errors of thought in Jehovah's Witnesses theology. Therefore, I have presented what I feel is sufficient evidence to show that man has an eternal soul and will abide somewhere either in conscious joy or sorrow eternally, and that those who believe and trust in Christ as their personal Savior will 'put on' that immortality when Jesus returns."
In his urge to recruit people to the cause of Jesus, Martin overstated the contribution of Jesus. He says,
"man has an eternal soul and will abide somewhere either in conscious joy or sorrow eternally."
Man is, therefore, immortal. But then he turned around and said,
"those who believe and trust in Christ as their personal Savior will 'put on' that immortality when Jesus returns."
How could they "obtain" or "put on" immortality by accepting Christ, when he just said they had an eternal soul and will abide somewhere, regardless. Even when you go to hell you are still immortal. He is really saying that you don't obtain immortality by accepting Jesus. You obtain immortality the moment you become a human being and, thus, obtain an immortal soul. He is trying to give more credit to Jesus than he is due, even under orthodox theology. According to the latter Jesus doesn't give you immortality; you have it whether you want it or not. It's not your choice to make. If you don't want it, then you should never have become a human being to start with.
Sixth, on page 207 Martin notes the conflict be-tween Ex. 33:20 ("And the Lord said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and live") and Ex. 33:11 ("And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face") by saying,
"Ex. 33:11 (face to face) in the Hebrew is rendered 'intimate' and in no sense is it opposed to verse 20."
Martin is just wishing that were true. I have many versions of these verses and not one of them has anything approximating the word "intimate." Apparently Martin views his comprehension of Hebrew to be superior to that of those Hebraic translators who created the most well-known versions available.
In an additional attempt to refute the Mormon contention that God became flesh and blood in the OT, Martin attacks the Mormon's reliance upon Gen. 32:30 by alleging
"it is the angel of the Lord...not Jehovah Himself"
who is speaking to Jacob. Unfortunately for Martin his argument is utterly without substance and exposes the lengths to which apologists will go to distort scripture for their own ends. The text clearly shows that Jacob wrestled with God, not an angel, and God was flesh and bone at the time. The most appropriate method by which to prove as much is to cite the relevant text. Gen. 32:24-30 says, "And Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him unto the breaking of the day. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and Jacob's thigh was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said, 'Let me go, for the day is breaking,' But Jacob said, 'I will not let you go, unless you bless me.' And he said to him, 'What is your name?' And he said, 'Jacob.' Then he said, 'Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed. Then Jacob asked him, 'Tell me, I pray, your name.' But he said, 'Why is it that you ask my name? And there he blessed him. So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, 'For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved."
Well there you have it in all its radiant detail. Martin was wrong in several respects. First, it specifically states that Jacob wrestled with God. The man with whom Jacob wrestled said "you have striven with God." Nowhere does the text say Jacob wrestled with an angel. Second, Jacob was blessed by the man with whom he fought. God certainly blessed people in the OT but where was this function performed by angels? And third, Jacob directly states that he saw God "face to face." He did not say he saw an angel or wrestled with an angel. So, for the text to be clearer would be difficult.
As part of his summary of this debate Martin erroneously states,
"To argue, as the Mormons do, that such occurrences indicate that God has a body of flesh and bone, as Prophet Smith taught, is on the face of the matter untenable and another strenuous attempt to force polytheism on a rigidly monotheistic religion."
Actually there is virtually no stress involved and the position is quite tenable. In fact, Martin would have done better to have avoided this issue entirely.
On top of everything else, this discussion returns us to the Trinitarian dilemma. If God can not be flesh and bone as Martin contends, then how could Jesus be God, since he was clearly flesh and bone?
(To be Concluded Next Month)
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #701 from Ken Bonnell of Los Angeles, California
Dear Dennis. In issue #164 your response to letter #684, Part i, should be reconsidered. Your writer (I think Ken means me--Ed.) was wrong in asserting that "Defraud not" is not a commandment. There are, especially in Leviticus, many commandments that are outside of "The Ten Commandments." Specifically, look at chapter 17 of Leviticus, which begins, "And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 'Speak to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel, and say to them: This is what Yahweh has commanded..." Then follow commandments pertaining to sacrifices, eating of blood, etc. on into chapter 19 where at verse 13 it says, "You shall not defraud your neighbor." It is therefore a commandment, statute, or ordinance, all words being synonymous, and lose their distinction by the command to obey the statutes and ordinances. If you use any of this letter, please use my name.

Editor's Response to Letter #701
Dear Ken. Three points.
First, we are talking about the Ten Commandments, not commandments in general. I fully realize that many instructions throughout the Pentateuch are referred to as commandments, but in Mark 10:19 and Matt. 19:18-19 Jesus lists the commands that were written on stone and are specifically referred to as the Ten Commandments in Ex. 34:28, Deut. 4:13, and Deut. 10:4. So we are only talking about THE Ten Commandments, not commandments in general.
Second, "Defraud not" was not in the list written on stone. So I was correct "in asserting that 'Defraud not' is not a commandment." At least it's not one of the Ten Commandments and that is all we and Jesus are discussing.
And finally, you say, "It is therefore a commandment, statute, or ordinance, all words being synonymous, and lose their distinction...." No, they are not synonymous. If that were true, then why does Gen. 26:5 say, "Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws"? Why the distinctions if they are all the same? Why does Deut. 4:40 say, "Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day.."? Why does Deut. 5:31 say, "I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them...?" And why does Deut. 6:1 say, "Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the Lord your God commanded to teach you..."? Why the distinctions? Why, because they are not synonymous. If they were, one word would be sufficient. Unfortunately the Bible is by no means clear as to how they are different. What is the difference between a commandment, an ordinance, a statute and a judgment? No clear answer is provided, although they are different.

Letter #702 from JS of Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan
In reaction to your July 1996 issue of Biblical Errancy, let me say the following. The other day I was "surfing" the internet, and decided to do a search on the phrase "Biblical Errancy." The search resulted in three, and only three, hits. Numbers two and three were simply lists that a couple of public libraries chose to post on the internet, giving newly acquired titles--on which your book was included.
Number one, however, was the web site of some guy who claims to defend the accuracy of the Bible. I scanned quickly, and, although I did not bother to read it all, I was impressed with the quantity of material, and the number of suckers who have been dialoguing with the guy. Credit, by the way, was given to three guys for the web site--at least one of whom seems to be a theology student. I think something ought to be done about this. Whenever anyone punches in "Biblical Errancy," your web site should be the first one to pop up.

Editor's Response to Letter #702
Dear JS. I couldn't agree more but when I checked the cost for a web site my conclusion was that my pocketbook would be caught in a web. More importantly, I don't think I would have time to keep it current, even with sufficient funds. Still, I certainly con-cur with your sentiments and thanks for the concern.


Page 169-5
Letter #703 from HB of Kettering, Ohio
Dennis. For those who are interested in entering into a dialogue or a debate with Christians or those who proselytize (try to convert) door to door I believe one of the most effective ways is to let them in (they usually come in pairs). Appear to be naive as this seems to make them feel you are vulnerable to their subject matter. Ask them if they will give you equal time to ask them questions. If they are willing, and if you have done your homework, your questions should be far superior to their answers.
The method I have found that works best is to use numbers that contradict each other and give chapter and
verse. The same is true in the Old and New Testament such as in the following examples: 2 Sam. 6:23 (Michal had no child), 2 Sam. 21:8 (Michal had five sons); First Kings 7:26 (2,000 baths) vs. 2 Chron. 4:5 (3,000 baths); Matt. 1:16 (Joseph's father was Jacob) vs. Luke 3:23 (Joseph's father was Heli). Then we have Bible absurdities: Gen. 3:1 (a talking serpent), Num. 22:27-28 (a talking ass), Gen. 19:26 (Lot's wife becoming a pillar of salt), Psalms 22:21, 29:6, Num 23:22, and Deut. 33:17 (Unicorns).
(HB inserts my video tapes into his VCR and asks guests like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons to view them--Ed.). If you know you are weak in some areas you can use some video tapes produced by Dennis McKinsey on just about every part of the Bible that could assist you. I like tapes 1 and 2 on biblical contradictions. Before viewing a tape I request them to take a pen and write chapter and verse where they disagree. When I ask them questions, they usually say, "I don't know, I don't know" and head for the door or they become quiet. I believe the contention that "you will know the truth and it will set you free."

Letter #704 from Anonymous in Ohio
Dear Dennis. If I recall, the last conversation I had with you was over the phone. We talked a bit about the pro's and con's of your disarmingly placid demeanor during your radio debates of earlier years. We were at variance at bit, you feeling that you had "sounded like a wimp" and I feeling that humility and patient tenacity was more in evidence.

Editor's Response to Letter #704
Dear Anonymous. I remember our conversation well, especially the support you gave for my radio appearances years ago. Perhaps I was too harsh on myself. After all I was basically a novice at the time and was quite reticent in both demeanor and speech. When I listen to my tapes of ten and fifteen years ago the first thought that comes to my mind in several instances is: Why was I so timid; why did I sit back and take it; why didn't I come down harder and respond more forcefully? Rest assured that policy has been changed dramatically. Not long ago I was asked to reappear on a Buffalo station on which I was a guest in the mid-1980's. After my appearance concluded the host immediately said something to the effect: Man have you changed. You sure come on strong now, don't you. How right he was. Unfortunately he did not send me a recording of the second program as I requested. I wonder why? I let stuff pass unchallenged in years gone by that wouldn't get more than a toe through the door nowadays. I also submitted to some patronizing Christian sermons that would be blown out of the water if they were again to rear their condescending heads and juvenile judgments. I can especially remember meekly submitting to a harangue I received during a private meeting with 5 Church of Christ members around 1984. The head minister, who had his own call-in radio program, dressed me down as if he were pontificating to the wayward. As kids say on the playground, I'd like to see him try that again. I would welcome an opportunity to rectify that miscarriage of justice.
When I began this journey of blazing new trails years ago, I was understandably uncertain and reticent. That entire attitude of reluctance is now history and a new philosophy prevails.

Letter #705 from RP of Roseburg, Oregon (Part a)
I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments in your Editor's Note of the Nov. 1996 issue. I finally got on the Internet a couple of months ago, and found it to be a treasure-trove of material on topics such as biblical errancy, atheism, creationism, and related topics. I usually spend half an hour down-loading files to my computer, and then spend the next day reading them and printing them out.
I was surprised, then, to be unable to find your e-mail address, either printed in BE or in any of the several internet directories I searched. I also read (I think it was in the Internet Infidels Newsletter) that you had declined an invitation to participate in the Secular Web site. If that report is correct, I hope you will reconsider, for the reasons that you stated in your Note.
In particular, I would love to see the back issues of BE on the Web. You often refer to them, and you cite them frequently in your Encyclopedia, but I am a fairly recent subscriber (I only learned about you last year) and I don't have those back issues. If I were wealthy I would order them all at a dollar apiece, but I'm not.

Editor's Response to Letter #705 (Part a)
Putting my literature on the Web sounds like an excellent idea to me. I hope those who can do so will proceed apace. They have my permission as long as people are apprised of the name and address of the source.
The overriding reason I originally declined an invitation to participate in the Internet of Infidels was that I had a real problem with belonging to a group calling itself "Infidels." Webster's Dictionary defines "infidelity" as unfaithfulness or disloyalty to another. I am neither. I am very loyal to reason, logic, science, and evidence. But even more importantly, "infidelity" implies I somehow stabbed someone in the back after I led them to trust me. That is the image Christians seek to portray of those who reject their theology and other superstitions. It is an ignominious term applied by religionists to their opponents and I saw no reason to corroborate accusations that are wholly inaccurate. However, I have since reconsidered and decided to join, despite this major reservation. As they say, you can't have everything
As far as our E-mail address is concerned it will henceforth appear correctly at the end of all issues.

Letter #705 Concludes (Part b)
By the way, let me thank you for The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, which I recently bought. It is a treasure, and you are to be complimented and praised for the work you put into it.
I was touched by the letter from FN (#697) from the Texas penitentiary. May I suggest that you tell him about Farrell Till's offer of a year's free subscription to his newsletter, The Skeptical Review. Please also tell him that I would be happy to send him materials I may download from the Internet. You may give him my address. Thanks again for all your efforts.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #705 (Part b)
Thank you for your compliment regarding The Encyclopedia.
Rather than sending your address to the Texas inmate, I will send his address to you and you can take it from there. Although I have no reason to question the sincerity of the Texas inmate, I wouldn't feel comfortable mailing the addresses of people to those who are incarcerated.
We are more than happy to publicize Farrell Till's address and have occasionally done so, since Farrell and I are on the same page in so far as Scripture is concerned. In no sense do we consider Farrell a competitor. When he gets subscribers I am delighted.
His address is: Skepticism, Inc., P.O. Box 717, Canton, Illinois 61520-0717 ---- jftill@midwest.net

Letter #706 from G. Noble, 13201 North 70th Place, Scottsdale, Arizona 85254 991-6714
Dear Dennis. Yes, I would really appreciate it if you could put my name, address, and phone number in your newsletter in hopes of finding someone here in Arizona who could help me with my computer and the Internet. I have the equipment, and I'm willing to pay the cost of the Internet hook up, and I can supply the Bible knowledge, but I need someone who knows the mechanics and can help me get the information out.

Editor's Response to Letter #706
Dear G. Noble. We are more than glad to be of assistance and hope that one of our fine subscribers can either assist you or recommend someone who can. Any of our supporters trying to counteract religion in general and the Bible in particular via the Net deserves whatever aid is feasible because we certainly need troops.

EDITOR'S NOTE: (a) We would like everyone to know that our voluminous book entitled THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL ERRANCY is still being sold by me and Prometheus Press in New York . It is as good a synopsis of our publication as is available.
(b) If you or your public access station have had technical problems with our video tapes pertaining to such things as color bars please send the tapes, along with a description of the problem, to our fine duplicator, Nancy Stanley, who will be glad to make whatever corrections are possible. Her address is: 5315 East National Road, #29, Richmond, Indiana 47374-2603. Phone (317) 935-2540