AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Carol Clouser

form_srcid: Carol Clouser

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 107.21.136.116

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Carol Clouser

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Carol Clouser%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/02/13 19:32:57, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Well Paul, here I am. Now what?

Date: 2006/02/14 18:01:22, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Flint,

Pray tell, what on earth are you talking about? Methusaleh through Jesus? Methusaleh was born in 3079 BCE and died in 2110 BCE. That is  more than TWO THOUSAND years before Jesus.

Noah was born in 2710 BCE and died in 1760 BCE, also almost two thousand years before Jesus.

Considering these time frames and the conditions pertaining to writing, recording and preserving records, particularly in ancient mesapotamia, perhaps it is us who failed to notice that these lifespans were noticed? Perhaps their contemporaries didn't believe these fellows who claimed such long lifespans and thought them to be insane. They certainly didn't produce any birth certificates to prove the point. There are people today who claim to be as old as 150 and nobody believes them (the Guiness book of world records, for example).

Date: 2006/02/15 05:58:46, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Russell,

I do have a finely honed sense of humor and a pretty thick skin. The cartoons were, however, intended as serious commentary which is partly why they elicited such a strong reaction. The reaction, I think, actually substantiates the message conveyed by the cartoons. What a shame. It gives serious religious conviction a bad name.


Flint and Renier,

The OT contains a web of times, names and places that can and has been used to form a tight and consistent chronology of events going from Adam to the first exile. The Hebrew calendar, currently in year 5766, is based on this chronolgy. I know this chronolgy to some extent and merely converted into BCE years.

I have no reason to assume that Methusaleh survived or did not survive the local flood described in Genesis. Its a close call, since partial years are sometimed rounded upward and sometimes downward, for various reasons, in the Bible. And the duration of the flood was about a year.

My understanding is that Adam, who is not claimed to be the first human in the OT, and his descendents, some of whom are described there, constitute the nucleus of a small family and it is events associated with this family that the OT describes in some detail. The OT was however written much later, so it was not by divulging forbidden secrets that the information was obtained but either by family tradition or divine inspirtation.

Date: 2006/02/15 07:42:12, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Why is it that since I just recently showed up here ten other characters deigned to make a sudden appearance?


Rilke,

Dummy - your ignorance is actually beginning to astound me. Either get an education first, then come here an argue, or shut up and you just might learn something.

Date: 2006/02/15 12:55:31, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Stephen,

Great question. The short answer is that God told him to.
The long answer is related to the lessons to be derived from the entire event, its causes and aftermath.

Just to tickle your imagination, for starters: A disaster is about to strike a particular area of some significant size, and you propose that the humans flee for their lives and leave the animals to their fate. God says, "no! You need to make every effort to save ALL the animals and creatures in the area to be stricken. They cannot be abandoned to their fate. I have given you dominion over the animals and with dominion comes responsibility."

Consruction of the ark provided Noah with 120 years of discussion time with his evil doing contemporaries, to get them to mend their ways. They would ask him what he was doing building an ark, and one thing led to another. Do you discern any lessons in that?

The Bible is referred to as "torah" in Hebrew. That word means "teaching". It is all there to teach us, if only we would harken.

Date: 2006/02/28 19:58:01, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
I am truly sorry to hear about Mark Perakh's difficulties. Despite disagreeing with him on some important issues, I admired his ability to distill complex material into an organized and coherent whole. Right now his UNINTELLIGENT DESIGN is paired up on Amazon with Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF. I wish him a speedy return to normalcy and many sales of both their books.

Date: 2006/03/21 19:20:23, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Renier wrote:

   "It just occured to me. Humans are actually fighting the so called "intelligent designer" when they make new drugs, are they not?"

In creating humankind in 'the creator's image', the creator invites and encourages humans to become partners in the act of creation. The creator took the universe only so far. It is unfinished and defective and was so intended to be. It is our assignment to employ our free will and superior intelligence to finish and improve upon the act of creation, thereby becoming partners with the creator. One of the most important aspects of this assignment is to improve upon the defective condition and nature of humankind itself.

Date: 2006/03/22 02:39:14, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
The partnership comes with lots of fringe benefits and shares in the business.

It is what makes science the great and noble undertaking that it is. Quite literally, scientists are doing God's work "on earth".

Judaism has recognized this for thousands of years. The Talmud states, "he who is able to study nature and does not do so, for him it is written (in the Bible), 'my (God's) work they do not see and the efforts of my arms they do not look at."

Sorry, but I cannot at the moment provide the precise references. I am doing this from memory right now, but you can depend on it. As a matter of fact, you can take it to the bank.

Date: 2006/03/22 06:03:55, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Renier,

What do you suppose "good" means? It means that it was just what He wanted.

I don't recall the garden (in Eden) being described as "perfect" (MITZOOYAN in Hebrew) in the Real Bible (as opposed to the hijacked mistranslations). It was a limited area with fertile soil, lots of trees and beauty.

What I wrote above is not my own invention. It comes from the ancient sages of Israel who are the only authoritative experts on that anceint Hebrew document and the oral tradition that came with it.

Date: 2006/04/28 10:00:30, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
If you think any aspect of your "hypothesis" above is based on the Bible, nothing could be further from the truth. The real, original Bible, namely the Hebrew Bible, says nothing of the sort, EVEN IF INTERPRETED LITERALLY. You must have been reading some of those sloppy, inaccurate translations of the Hebrew Bible out there, such as the KJV.

So your hypothesis has absolutely no leg whatsoever to stand on.

Get a thorough education, then you just might be in a position to hypothsize.

Date: 2006/04/29 16:52:42, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
What you really need to do, Afdave, is read some insightful literature on the Bible, such as Judah Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF, available on Amazon. You will find it to be an eye-openning enlightening experience.

Date: 2006/04/30 17:53:56, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Here I am Unmark.

Afdave's "explanation" of the Cain's wife issue is obviously incorrect, as anyone who knows the real (Hebrew) Bible will readily confirm. The Bible does not make the prohibition against incest contingent on deformed offspring. Incest is forbidden, period. And it makes no sense to postulate that God would organize his world in a manner that compelled violations of his own commandments.

The correct explanation is that the Hebrew Bible neither states nor implies that Adam was the first human being. During the sixth "era" (not day!;) the Bible tells us that God provided for the appearance of "humans" (Ha-adam, in Hebrew) not "Adams". When Adam appears, a sizeable population of human beings already existed. This also explains why Cain went about building a "city". There were enough folks around, just in his location, to populate a city!

Unmark, I don't comment on so called "new" testament issues, since it concerns me not in the least. I will leave that to Afdave.

One other important point here. Pay attention, Afdave. The so called "old" testament (OT) was created by Jews, for Jews, and is about Jews. We are flattered that, after many centuries of being the only people to cherish it, much of the world has fallen deeply in love with the document. But the text is OURS. We claim OWNERSHIP and EXPERTISE. We transmitted the oral tradition to go with it from generation to generation, until it was recorded (in the Talmud and Midrash). What Christians have done is hijack the text, mistranslate it, distort it, misunderstand it, add to it, and finally subtract from it. In the process they have made the OT look silly with a multitude of contradictions, none of which appear in the original. Unbelievable, but this is the historical truth, admitted to even by (knowledgeable) Christians.

So if you want real, honest and correct answers to issues pertaining to the OT, you need to consult the true experts and rightful owners. You know who they are. It is not Afdave and his ilk.

Date: 2006/04/30 17:53:56, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Here I am Unmark.

Afdave's "explanation" of the Cain's wife issue is obviously incorrect, as anyone who knows the real (Hebrew) Bible will readily confirm. The Bible does not make the prohibition against incest contingent on deformed offspring. Incest is forbidden, period. And it makes no sense to postulate that God would organize his world in a manner that compelled violations of his own commandments.

The correct explanation is that the Hebrew Bible neither states nor implies that Adam was the first human being. During the sixth "era" (not day!;) the Bible tells us that God provided for the appearance of "humans" (Ha-adam, in Hebrew) not "Adams". When Adam appears, a sizeable population of human beings already existed. This also explains why Cain went about building a "city". There were enough folks around, just in his location, to populate a city!

Unmark, I don't comment on so called "new" testament issues, since it concerns me not in the least. I will leave that to Afdave.

One other important point here. Pay attention, Afdave. The so called "old" testament (OT) was created by Jews, for Jews, and is about Jews. We are flattered that, after many centuries of being the only people to cherish it, much of the world has fallen deeply in love with the document. But the text is OURS. We claim OWNERSHIP and EXPERTISE. We transmitted the oral tradition to go with it from generation to generation, until it was recorded (in the Talmud and Midrash). What Christians have done is hijack the text, mistranslate it, distort it, misunderstand it, add to it, and finally subtract from it. In the process they have made the OT look silly with a multitude of contradictions, none of which appear in the original. Unbelievable, but this is the historical truth, admitted to even by (knowledgeable) Christians.

So if you want real, honest and correct answers to issues pertaining to the OT, you need to consult the true experts and rightful owners. You know who they are. It is not Afdave and his ilk.

Date: 2006/05/01 02:42:11, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Afdave,

We are friends and "ilk" is not a word that connotes otherwise.

As far as "yom" is concerned, you really need to read up on that and many other Hebrew-related issues. I think I have already recommended one great book to you (Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF) and there are others. I will not get into the whole analysis here. Suffice it to say that "yom" is used in three different ways in the Hebrew Bible, quite often in the sense of "a period of time characterized by some development or feature". This cannot be decided by vote, but by context. As an example of "yom" used as "era" even in the context of numerals consider Hosea 6:2 (I think, doing this from memory right now).

Hope this helps.

Date: 2006/05/01 02:42:11, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Afdave,

We are friends and "ilk" is not a word that connotes otherwise.

As far as "yom" is concerned, you really need to read up on that and many other Hebrew-related issues. I think I have already recommended one great book to you (Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF) and there are others. I will not get into the whole analysis here. Suffice it to say that "yom" is used in three different ways in the Hebrew Bible, quite often in the sense of "a period of time characterized by some development or feature". This cannot be decided by vote, but by context. As an example of "yom" used as "era" even in the context of numerals consider Hosea 6:2 (I think, doing this from memory right now).

Hope this helps.

Date: 2006/05/01 19:08:07, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
UnMark,

What Genesis does is take the history of the evolution of the universe and life on earth and divide it into seven overlapping periods of development (not presented in chronological order). A good argument can be made that these are not arbitrarily chosen just to get to the number seven, but that they are based on some sense of what is most important to human beings and their perception of their place and role in the universal scheme of things. Perhaps you and I, if asked to list what we thought was most important to us in the history of the universe, would come up with a different set of developments. Be that as it may, much scholarly and theological discussion has already been invested in shedding light on this matter but it is only tangentially related to your question.

The fourth commandment demands that we (that is the children of Israel), in symbolic recognition of this and to impress upon us the importance of emulating God, divide our work cycle in an analogous fashion, actively manipulating and redesigning our environment as needed during six "human eras" (days) and then ceasing and desisting for one human era, the seventh day, just as God has done.

Hope this makes sense to you.

I am not sure what to make of your comments re the rigor of my "past posts". Is that a backhanded insult or compliment? I am sometimes constrained by time considerations from writing at length, so some of my posts can sound cryptic and abrupt. I apologize for that.

Date: 2006/05/01 19:08:07, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
UnMark,

What Genesis does is take the history of the evolution of the universe and life on earth and divide it into seven overlapping periods of development (not presented in chronological order). A good argument can be made that these are not arbitrarily chosen just to get to the number seven, but that they are based on some sense of what is most important to human beings and their perception of their place and role in the universal scheme of things. Perhaps you and I, if asked to list what we thought was most important to us in the history of the universe, would come up with a different set of developments. Be that as it may, much scholarly and theological discussion has already been invested in shedding light on this matter but it is only tangentially related to your question.

The fourth commandment demands that we (that is the children of Israel), in symbolic recognition of this and to impress upon us the importance of emulating God, divide our work cycle in an analogous fashion, actively manipulating and redesigning our environment as needed during six "human eras" (days) and then ceasing and desisting for one human era, the seventh day, just as God has done.

Hope this makes sense to you.

I am not sure what to make of your comments re the rigor of my "past posts". Is that a backhanded insult or compliment? I am sometimes constrained by time considerations from writing at length, so some of my posts can sound cryptic and abrupt. I apologize for that.

Date: 2006/05/02 19:18:23, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Unmark,

Of course a better question would be, in what sense are we currently in an era of "rest" when we know that evolution is an ongoing process, just as it was during some of the other six eras.

It seems to me that God, via the Bible if it is divinely inspired, is telling us that henceforth evolution will not lead to anything as drastically new and overpowering (on earth) as the appearance of humankind some 20,000 years ago. If I am correct about this, we have here a specific prediction we can hold the Bible to. Only problem is you and I will not be around long enough to see it disproven. (It can never be firmly proven since one can always claim that in the future it may yet be disproven.)

Too bad.

Date: 2006/05/02 19:18:23, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Unmark,

Of course a better question would be, in what sense are we currently in an era of "rest" when we know that evolution is an ongoing process, just as it was during some of the other six eras.

It seems to me that God, via the Bible if it is divinely inspired, is telling us that henceforth evolution will not lead to anything as drastically new and overpowering (on earth) as the appearance of humankind some 20,000 years ago. If I am correct about this, we have here a specific prediction we can hold the Bible to. Only problem is you and I will not be around long enough to see it disproven. (It can never be firmly proven since one can always claim that in the future it may yet be disproven.)

Too bad.

Date: 2006/05/03 02:40:51, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Bystander,

I repeat what I have stated on other threads - there are no two creation stories in Genesis, nor is there a shred of evidence for more than one author. Anyone with a good grip on Biblical Hebrew should know this. The myth of two creation stories has been propagated by so called "scholars" with jobs to justify, most of whom have a tenuous grip on Hebrew at best.

The first chapter in Genesis provides a general overview of the history of creation, covering only highlights. The second chapter reviews these highlights with more elaboration and detail. The Bible itself makes this abundantly clear by beginning the second chapter with the comment, "These are the generations of... in the era when God created...." The widely established rule in all the Hebrew Bible is that it is not organized chronologically. You may not like this writing style, but the author did not ask nor care about your opinion.

So chapter one does not state that animals came before humans, not does chapter two state that humans came before animals.

The fact that God is referred to differently in places also does not imply two or more authors. That is like encountering a text about Queen Elizabeth and upon discovering that in chapter one she is referred to as "the queen" and in chapter two she is referred to "queen Elizabeth" and in chapter three she is referred to as "Elizabeth" and concluding on that basis that each chapter had a different author. Malarky!

It behooves scientists to approach Bible-related issues with the same dispassionate objectivity that they (supposedly) reserve for scientific work.

Date: 2006/05/03 02:40:51, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Bystander,

I repeat what I have stated on other threads - there are no two creation stories in Genesis, nor is there a shred of evidence for more than one author. Anyone with a good grip on Biblical Hebrew should know this. The myth of two creation stories has been propagated by so called "scholars" with jobs to justify, most of whom have a tenuous grip on Hebrew at best.

The first chapter in Genesis provides a general overview of the history of creation, covering only highlights. The second chapter reviews these highlights with more elaboration and detail. The Bible itself makes this abundantly clear by beginning the second chapter with the comment, "These are the generations of... in the era when God created...." The widely established rule in all the Hebrew Bible is that it is not organized chronologically. You may not like this writing style, but the author did not ask nor care about your opinion.

So chapter one does not state that animals came before humans, not does chapter two state that humans came before animals.

The fact that God is referred to differently in places also does not imply two or more authors. That is like encountering a text about Queen Elizabeth and upon discovering that in chapter one she is referred to as "the queen" and in chapter two she is referred to "queen Elizabeth" and in chapter three she is referred to as "Elizabeth" and concluding on that basis that each chapter had a different author. Malarky!

It behooves scientists to approach Bible-related issues with the same dispassionate objectivity that they (supposedly) reserve for scientific work.

Date: 2006/05/04 11:57:12, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Afdave,

You speculations regarding God's motives in prohibiting incest are nothing more than that, just speculation. The Bible offers no reason for the prohibition, so the ban is in effect whether or not your (or my) speculations are applicable. To assume otherwise, Afdave, is to open the door to anyone who wishes to find some excuse for not abiding by this or that commandment - all one needs to do is find some rationalization for God's commandment that would not be applicable under certain desired circumstances and, presto, the prohibition has evaporated.

Are you willing to shoulder this responsibility?

Since God expects His creatures to abide by his commandments, it makes no sense to propose that God's world would of necessity be based on violations of those commandments, such as Cain marrying his sister. So your theory has no merit. The correct explanation is as I described above.

Date: 2006/05/04 11:57:12, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Afdave,

You speculations regarding God's motives in prohibiting incest are nothing more than that, just speculation. The Bible offers no reason for the prohibition, so the ban is in effect whether or not your (or my) speculations are applicable. To assume otherwise, Afdave, is to open the door to anyone who wishes to find some excuse for not abiding by this or that commandment - all one needs to do is find some rationalization for God's commandment that would not be applicable under certain desired circumstances and, presto, the prohibition has evaporated.

Are you willing to shoulder this responsibility?

Since God expects His creatures to abide by his commandments, it makes no sense to propose that God's world would of necessity be based on violations of those commandments, such as Cain marrying his sister. So your theory has no merit. The correct explanation is as I described above.

Date: 2006/05/05 07:08:58, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
See folks, as I have maintained all along, creationists CAN be reasoned with. It just takes patience and perseverance.

Now, if we could only nail down their misguided reading of the Bible. That would obviate the need for Panda's Thumb and we could all go home.

Date: 2006/05/07 14:26:17, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Paul,

You are right on target there. That and the fact of better economic conditions in the USA vs Europe. Well fed folks have less of a propensity to look for scapegoats.

Date: 2006/05/07 15:42:03, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
And let us not overlook that pope, whatever his name was, who stood by the holocaust with nary a syllable uttered in protest.

Date: 2006/05/08 20:02:05, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Afdave,

If by "more evolved" you mean, as you say, more intelligent and more abilities, then on what basis might anyone, including the nazis, have concluded that Jews are less evolved? If anything, a strong case can be made, even before the recently discovered genetic evidence pertaining to Ashkenzic Jews, that the Jews are "most evolved". And the great irony is that one can further argue that the Germans have demonstrated, by their immoral ape-like behavior, that they are the "least evolved" homo sapiens on the planet. Even more, one can make a great case that Christians thru the last two millenia have demonstrated a similar degree of evolution.

You seem to miss the key aspect of nazi immorality and racist immorality in general. It is not that they thought highly of themselves despite an absence of justification for that attitude. It is that they ordined to kill or otherwise enslave and/or dehumanize other human beings. Period.

Date: 2006/05/18 07:52:08, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
The Biblical flood occured during the year 2110 BCE. This is firmly established by the entire narrative and the Jewish calendar based as it is on 5776 years since Adam,

Also, the Biblical flood was NOT global in scope but a local one as the original Authentic Hebrew Bible makes quite clear. The operative Hebrew term is ARETZ which means "the land", NOT "the earth (planet)", the overwhelming majority of the time.

The area effected most likely included ancient Sumeria and the Masapotamian plains.

Date: 2006/05/18 08:57:45, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Deadman,

The expression "all the heaven" (singular) is used in the Hebrew in context of "over all the land" spoken of previously, and that land is the one referred to previously in Genesis, the area where the story of Adam and Eve takes place. This is a rather common literary device in the Hebrew Bible to emphasize the completeness of the destruction in the effected area. Those of us who know the Hebrew Bible well recognize this device.  It is not any different than "and all the ARETZ came to Egypt" (for food) which clearly refers to the land described earlier as being effected by the famine, not the whole earth.

As to why Noah couldn't escape to a nearby mountain, first, that is none of your business, second, if you really need to know, God wanted to make a show of his extensive and lengthy building the ark in order that folks mend their ways. That is what Noah was told to do and he obeyed.

Date: 2006/05/18 09:03:40, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
And I could not care less about what Peter says. He wasn't there. He could be referring to that ancient cradle of civilazation there that was utterly destroyed.

And an area can certainly remain flooded for years after an inundation. New Orleans would probably still be uninhabitable had we not pumped out the water.

Date: 2006/05/18 12:29:51, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
TJM,

Thank you for the backhanded compliment but believe me when I tell you that you know me not at all.


Deadman,

I was not intending to be rude to you and if my remarks sounded that way I apologize. What I was hinting at with the "none of your business" remark was that Noah was following God's orders and you were questioning God's motives. You are entitled (and in Judaism even encouraged) to do so but you cannot ordain to be able to read God's mind and therefore cannot turn that into an argument for or against any particular proposition.

As to the "point" of the flood, I suggest it was to punish a local outbreak of terrible evil doing. It is far more likely that a particular and limited area went berserk than to postulate that the whole planet did so rather suddenly.

Noah needed a significantly sized ship because he was going to spend a year within it with some rather unpredictable (but indigenous) creatures.

You say the context of the flood is UNIVERSAL sinfulness, but that is nothing more than ignorant Christian apologetics based on the erroneously translated KJV. By the way, there were no Jews at the time in existence, so there could not have been Jewish sinfulness.

The notion that building the ark was a show for the local population is derived by the sages from verses in the Bible and from the fact that Noah took 120 years to build the ark. If you wish more information about this I will need to come back later, right now I am posting from memory. Since Noah did not go traveling around the planet with the ark, this further supports the idea that the flood was less than global. Otherwise the balance of humanity was not forwarned.

As for ARETZ, it is hardly ever used to refer to the planet. It sometimes refers to "what is below" and SHOMOYIM (heaven) to "what is above". When the Hebrew Bible wishes to refer to the whole planet it uses ADAMAH.

Date: 2006/05/19 08:19:29, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Reneir,

I am game for your challenge to debate AfDave or anyone else about the Biblical flood. And thank you for your vote of confidence.

I consider the flood issue to be one of the greatest difficulties faced by Bible admirers. The scientific evidence against a global flood a mere four thousand years ago (in 2110 BCE as I stated above) is overwhelming. If I am not mistaken, it is firmly established that a global flood reaching the altitude described in the Bible is impossible at any time, period, because there is not nearly enough water on earth for that to occur. (Perhaps some geologist wish to comment on this.) Since human beings are meant to use their God given intelligence (there is no clearer "message" from God that He wants us to reason than the fact that He provided, via the evolutionary process, for our soaring intelligence) we must either reject the Bible as divinely inspired or we close our minds to reason.

But this choice is not necessary. The Bible does NOT speak of a global flood.

Date: 2006/05/21 15:56:11, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Folks,

At the risk of sounding as if I am defending Afdave, which is NOT my purpose at all, I am animated to make (yet again) the following point:

The impression that the God of the Old testament (OT) is a mean, vengeful and vicious God could not be further from the truth. It is based on the grotesuely distorted Christian interpretation and translation of the original Hebrew, the real and authentic Bible.

I have already debated this matter with many posters here (such as Jonboy and BWE and others) and yet the same canard keeps surfacing again and again. The reality is that the God of the OT is a merciful, forgiving, indulgent and loving God.

All you need do is read what Afdave writes and you can readily see the massive nature of Christian distortions of the Hebrew text. For example, he says that many prophesies in the OT all lead to and were fulfilled by ("converge" in his terminology) none other than Jesus. Well, if there were a iota of truth to that would you not suppose that the Jews would gladly have accepted Jesus? After all, he was one of their own! The fact is that there is not a shred of support for that statement.

The drinking of the molten golden calf (mentioned above) was a God sanctioned technique to allow Moses to ascertain who was guilty and who was innocent of the murders, rapes and robberies that occured in the chaos of his disappearance. Those who were guilty were punished, those who were innocent were not only unharmed by the potion but came out ahead. Now you may not believe this Biblical story but then you don't know that any of it occured at all. Either way, God comes out just right.

Date: 2006/05/21 16:40:34, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
STJM,

Surely you don't mean to suggest that the value or merit or correctness of a book (or paper) is to be judged by its popularity in the mass market?

By that standard, are we to put evolution to a vote and decide its merit by whether it is popularly supported? The polls have already spoken then and evolution has lost (unfortunately).

By the way, the fortunes of Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF on Amazon rise and fall with ads that periodically appear, as to most products. Jay El's main sales are to schools and institutions, however, and the book is doing quite well. But thank you for your concern.

Date: 2006/05/29 22:02:03, Link
Author: Carol Clouser
Folks,

Why is it that it has yet to occur to anyone in this ridiculous debate that it all worked backwards. It is precisely because of the 5500 year span of recorded human history (not just any writing) that the ancients were encouraged to assume a roughly 6000 year old humanity (and earth) and they then proceeded to read this idea into the Bible.

But the original Hebrew Bible says no such thing. Sure, it speaks of an individual by the name of Adam and Jewish chronology places that individual at about 6000 years ago, but nowhere does the Bible state that this individual is the first human to appear on earth. Nor does it say anything about God teaching this individual writing. This is just another made up Christian distortion of the real Bible, a book most of them cannot understand properly in the original.

Genesis does not state that "God made Adam on the sixth day" but that "God made the human during the sixth era" referring to the evolution of humanity as a process guided by God. The Hebrew HA-ADAM can only mean "the human" because if it refers to the individual by the name of Adam it is referring to him as "the Adam". That is like referring to me as "the Carol".

So Afdave has neither science nor the Bible to support his off the top of his head ideas. He and his Christian friends are comitting the grave sin of willfully distorting the Bible. What else is new?

 

 

 

=====