I have a hard time with this because the Book of Revelation, like Nostradamus' prophecies are vague and open to hugely varying interpretations. Certainly over the years many different prophets, ministers etc... have cited signs that have never come to pass. Her arguments do not seem to me any more believable than those. My problem with the author's presentation of Ebola as a sign of the Apocalypse is that it is all based on 1. the appearance (snake-like) of the filiovirus and 2. the possibility that it becomes airborne.
People are so terrified of Ebola because of the blood. It is a scary disease. I posted a lot on my blog at the time of the epidemic about facts vs. the fear misinformation at the time. I don't think the author is misinformed -- but I do think she is speculating a lot. The thing is, in terms of numbers, there are many communicable diseases that spread and sicken and kill many more per year than Ebola.
The reasons the Ebola epidemic took so many lives is lack of resources, education and supplies. The world was VERY slow to respond and the care was just not available until things got really bad. Plus there were a lot of superstition and lies going around that made the medical efforts harder. Fake News and paranoia.
The other thing that I did not like was how the author was too casual in chapter endings (for me) Things like: Come on and see.... which I felt was unnecessary and irritating.
Terri
Hmm. I definitely wouldn't want to be reading a book concerning the end times and have chapters sort of glibly saying "Come on and see..." Compelling counter-arguments on a disturbing premise. Thanks for sharing them.
ReplyDelete