ngiphuphe ngishaya izilwanyana ezine ezingathi amagundane kubuye kube sengathi imidlwane yenja esanda kuzalwa, ngiyibulalile. Kubuye kwavela inja emnyama efana nesiyifuyile ekhaya, nayo bengiyishaya ingigwavumela kodwa ngqonde kyona ngqo, ngiphaphame ngibhekene nayo. Lisho uk’thini leliphupho? “Wo-hhe! Lafa elikaMjokwane kaNdaba, we madoda. Uma ushaya umfazi noma ingane, ulala ubaliwe, dadewethu kababa! Amaphoyisa ayakubopha. Awasineki impela. Angithi agunyazwa yilo Hulumeni, ogibeza abafazi nezingane emakhanda ethu,” isho intshebe yakwabo ize inqekuzise ikhanda impela. We find this line of reasoning extremely hard to follow. Surely a book claiming to be the Word of God cannot be rejected as such because it shows up men - even the best of them - at their worst. All the stories Deedat refers to have to do with the wickedness of men and how the frank disclosure of the sins of men can affect the Bible's claim to be the Word of God is beyond comprehension. Throughout the Bible God is shown to be absolutely holy, perfectly righteous, and wonderfully loving. Very significantly Deedat nowhere suggests that the character of God in the Bible is worthy of reproach and surely this is all we really are concerned about when it comes to determining whether a book is the Word of God. If it unreservedly exposes the sins of men for what they are and refuses to cover up the excesses of even the best of them, it surely has a very fair claim to be God's Word - for it is concerned about his praise and not the praise of men. It is the glory of God that the Bible is concerned about - not the vainglory of men!