Prothero: “I am never opposed to correcting myself when I am wrong, but I wrote nothing incorrect here. To begin, I did not write, as you incorrectly state, that “Science and Health” was “intended to replace the Bible.” (Neither, for that matter, was the Book of Mormon “intended to replace the Bible.”) I simply said it was a “new Bible,” and I stand by that. The phrase is obviously colloquial rather than scientific. What it means, in my writing and in the writings of hundreds of others, is that it is a new scripture, like the other two texts I cite. In other words, it is used as scripture, read by Christian Scientists as authoritative and in fact read every Sunday in church.”
Scott: It might be semantics, but using the word “Bible” when referring to Mary Baker Eddy’s “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures” regrettably invites misunderstanding. It’s no stretch to assume many readers will believe a “new Bible” is meant to replace or revise the old one. With “Science and Health,” this is entirely untrue.
Thank you for visiting my blog and responding to my letter. You’ve impelled me to finish my post on your new book, “God is not one,” which I found very helpful.