Here are some other obvious things: Parallel lines seem to converge in the distance, but they really don't converge. Spoons seem to be bent in water, but they're really not. The earth is round. Without air we die.
These are so obvious that I usually don't think it worth my while to assert them. Let alone to discuss them for two weeks and fourteen pages.
Part of the problem in conversations like this is history - I've seen apologists deny the obvious many times. Look at your codefender, LoaP, right on this thread - doing his best to deny my tobacco examples shows clear - and potentially troubling - conflict of interest.
I also think it's obvious that church leaders who have expressly stated that historians who share true information that could damage the faith of believers are at risk of losing their eternal salvation would not approve of allowing information proving BY ordered the attack be included in the text. But you have rigorously denied that.
I repeat: It's weird to be so interested in the book without lifting a finger to pick it up.
It's not weird at all. If I had not just spent my book allowance the week before, I would have ordered the book the same day it came out. As it is, since I'm doing my best to discipline my book spending, I have to weigh whether or not to buy it at all.
I think it's weird not to be interested in a book one is contemplating purchasing.
I've also never denied it.
I've said that the only valid way of assessing the book is by carefully reading the book.
The rest, given that the book exists and is easily accessible, is essentially obfuscation.
I have deliberately and repeated asserted that I am *not* making commentary of the accuracy of the text.
Now you're back to insinuating that noting the conflict on interest is "obfuscation". See the problem?