Tara Smith posted Entry 2152 on March 29, 2006 03:15 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2147

For once, I’m not the one writing the microbiology/evolution convergence stuff. Over at Mike the Mad Biologist, check out his post discussing Viruses, phylogeny, and Venezuela, discussing how phylogenetic analysis is used to track the evolution of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus. As Mike notes, “This study is a really good example of how biologists use evolution to understand structure and function.”

On Aetiology, I have a discussion running about certainty, and the “I know what I know; do not confuse me with the facts” mentality that many of you accustomed to dealing with IDers/creationists will recognize.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #90456

Posted by j-Dog on March 29, 2006 3:39 PM (e)

Yeah… I read your post and also read the a**wipe that refers to you as “gal”…
SOMEBODY needs to be reminded that unlike in the bible, women are not second-class people / chattel anymore!
I am “certain” that that he does NOT want my daughter or wife (or me!) to run into him!

Comment #90457

Posted by Tara Smith on March 29, 2006 3:41 PM (e)

Yeah, that’s Hank…he’s my own little DaveScot.

Comment #90467

Posted by Steviepinhead on March 29, 2006 4:18 PM (e)

I’ll believe someone can be even more “little” than DaveScot (smaller minded?) when I scrape their miniature and thoroughly-squished self off my shoe-bottom.

But you’re the one having to deal with this teensy afflicted personality, so I’ll take your word for it!

Comment #90471

Posted by Steviepinhead on March 29, 2006 4:24 PM (e)

OK, I’ve read Hank’s stuff now.

I’ll settle for equally small and squishy.

Comment #90473

Posted by Corkscrew on March 29, 2006 4:35 PM (e)

I particularly loved the way Hank was implying that failure to instantly dissect one of his ludicrous points constituted acceptance of that point. It reads like he’s about to pull an Argument from Exhaustion on you or something (proof #73 on this list).

Comment #90500

Posted by AD on March 29, 2006 6:15 PM (e)

Yeah, that’s Hank…he’s my own little DaveScot.

You haven’t made it in the world of Biology until you have a close-minded fundamentalist lunatic who personally hates you.

Congratulations, Tara.

Comment #90503

Posted by Lenny's Pizza Guy on March 29, 2006 6:19 PM (e)

Anyway, Hank, she’s not a “gal,” she’s a babe.

If you’re going to pretend to lucidity, at least get your scientific jargon straight.

Sheesh!

Comment #90506

Posted by Stephen Elliott on March 29, 2006 6:23 PM (e)

Posted by Lenny’s Pizza Guy on March 29, 2006 06:19 PM (e)

Anyway, Hank, she’s not a “gal,” she’s a babe.

If you’re going to pretend to lucidity, at least get your scientific jargon straight.

Sheesh!

LOL!
Hank’s comments bugged me. Your’s made me laugh.

Comment #90509

Posted by Lenny's Pizza Guy on March 29, 2006 6:34 PM (e)

Mine is not to reason,
why mine is but to get that pizza to your door,
hot and on time,
but not necessarily politically correct…

(But, darn, I’ve gotta learn to keep my mouth shut until after I’ve tucked away the tip!)

Comment #90513

Posted by Stephen Elliott on March 29, 2006 6:38 PM (e)

Posted by Lenny’s Pizza Guy on March 29, 2006 06:34 PM (e)

Mine is not to reason,
why mine is but to get that pizza to your door,
hot and on time,
but not necessarily politically correct…

(But, darn, I’ve gotta learn to keep my mouth shut until after I’ve tucked away the tip!)

My emphasis

That would be a good slogan for an escort sevice.

Sorry for going way off-topic. Just could not resist.

Comment #90519

Posted by Steviepinhead on March 29, 2006 6:50 PM (e)

I don’t wanta think about this comment and your seven-year-old at the same time…!

Yikes!

Comment #90531

Posted by Lenny's Pizza Guy on March 29, 2006 7:26 PM (e)

OK, OK. Enough already.

I’ve now been directed to Tara’s photo,
(upper left corner at http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/,
and I’m forced to admit that she does not look very much like a Blue Ox.

(Now leave me alone, pandas, the phones are ringing off the hook!)

Comment #90533

Posted by Carol Clouser on March 29, 2006 7:34 PM (e)

j-Dog wrote:

“SOMEBODY needs to be reminded that unlike in the bible, women are not second-class people / chattel anymore!”

What Bible have you been reading? Obviously not the original Hebrew version, which is the only version that should matter. In the REAL bible women occupy a very lofty place indeed, at least as respected as that of men. You must be totally ignorant of the roles played by Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah, of the great indignation that overtook Dinah’s brothers when they heard of the indignity she was subjected to, of the roles of Miriam, Deborah and on and on.

Comment #90539

Posted by Steviepinhead on March 29, 2006 7:40 PM (e)

Don’t tell me that it’s already the season for re-runs?

Did somebody sit on the remote and accidentally activate the button for the Oh Carol show?

I thought that one had been cancelled by the network, but maybe it was just temporarily displaced by the Oh Lympics and the February sweeps week…

Comment #90540

Posted by Stephen Elliott on March 29, 2006 7:40 PM (e)

Posted by Steviepinhead on March 29, 2006 06:50 PM (e)

I don’t wanta think about this comment and your seven-year-old at the same time…!

Yikes!

He aint 7 anymore. He is now a 14 year old with a deeper voice than me. Frightening how time just whizzes by.

Comment #90542

Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 29, 2006 7:45 PM (e)

Yeah, that’s Hank…he’s my own little DaveScot.

Yikes, he’s really infecting your site. A regular little Ebola virus, he is…

Comment #90544

Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 29, 2006 7:47 PM (e)

What Bible have you been reading? Obviously not the original Hebrew version, which is the only version that should matter.

Carol, don’t you ever get tired of this shtick?

Comment #90547

Posted by Lenny's Pizza Guy on March 29, 2006 7:53 PM (e)

And here I thought the phone was ringing because somebody actually wanted a pizza!

Or at least an order of garlic bread

Instead I get some dingy gal, er, woman. And she’s singing, at the top of her voice:
“This Landa is my Landa!
This Landa is your Landa!”

(I dunno. It’s days like this one here that get me thinkin’ that maybe I need to go back to school and get educated for a different line of work. Not just any community college or vocational school, but a really good school. Yeah, some place like Pensacola Christian College, as personally recommended by Panda’s own PZ Myers:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/godle…!)

Comment #90624

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 29, 2006 11:24 PM (e)

which is the only version that should matter.

Says who.

Comment #90675

Posted by Carol Clouser on March 30, 2006 1:38 AM (e)

Lenny,

I would argue that it is self evident that things can only get lost (or created or altered) in any translation. Are you disputing this?

Comment #90742

Posted by Stephen Elliott on March 30, 2006 4:07 AM (e)

Posted by Carol Clouser on March 30, 2006 01:38 AM (e)

Lenny,

I would argue that it is self evident that things can only get lost (or created or altered) in any translation. Are you disputing this?

Carol.
What are you saying here?

That logic would only apply if God was dead or otherwise incapable of communicating to humans anymore.

Comment #90878

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 30, 2006 7:56 AM (e)

I would argue that it is self evident that things can only get lost (or created or altered) in any translation. Are you disputing this?

Nope. Things can also only get lost (or created or altered) in any copying, too.

Since not a single one of the original manuscripts of any part of the Bible exist and none of them can be examined, and since ALL we have are copies and translations, what does this mean …. ?

Of course, for those of us who do NOT worship a book, it doesn’t make all that much of a difference. (shrug)

Comment #90904

Posted by Carol Clouser on March 30, 2006 8:31 AM (e)

Lenny,

First, copying MAY or may not lead to errors, depending on the care taken by the transcribers. Translating, under the best of circumstances, does DEFINITELY lead to changes in meaning and nuance.

Second, you are ignoring the strong evidence indicating that the Israelites took great care in doing their transcribing. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls established that more than 1500 years of copying by hand (before printing) have produced virtually no divergences in the text (of the pentateuch). No more than a mere handful of (Hebrew) words, out of hundreds of thousands, are in dispute and even those are minor in scope.

Stephen,

Not at all. Nobody of any repute claims that the scholars hired by King James were divinely inspired. The question is not if God is capable of communicating, but whether He has chosen to communicate.

Arden,

I comment when I see an error in need of correcting, if I feel I know something about the topic. As a result I have, over the course of six months, commented on the Bible, religion, history, physics, philosophy and others. If you are tired of seeing these, I invite you to skip over my comments and go on to the next one. Whenever you see “carol” in the upper left corner, just make the leap by the click of a mouse!

Comment #90925

Posted by Flint on March 30, 2006 9:05 AM (e)

I still don’t understand why the HIV->AIDS hypothesis generates such heated resistance. Hank suggested it’s because misguided treatment based on misunderstood mechanisms harms people otherwise in no danger. But this sort of thing happens all the time. I know someone with an impaired immune system (not HIV) and the doctors reflexively gave him one dose of antibiotics after another, probably the worst possible thing you can do to your immune system. But I don’t see anywhere near the fanatical rejection of using antibiotics as panaceas.

So why do Johnson et. al. reject the HIV->AIDS relationship, really? Do they also reject the germ theory? I’m baffled.

Comment #91038

Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 30, 2006 11:43 AM (e)

I comment when I see an error in need of correcting, if I feel I know something about the topic. As a result I have, over the course of six months, commented on the Bible, religion, history, physics, philosophy and others. If you are tired of seeing these, I invite you to skip over my comments and go on to the next one. Whenever you see “carol” in the upper left corner, just make the leap by the click of a mouse!

That’s not my point, Carol. My point is you’ve had abundant opportunity to see that no one here is interested in hearing anything at all about Landa’s literalist interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, and yet month after month you insist on shoehorning mentions of it into every thread where you find the slightest excuse. In fact, it’s pretty much the only thing you talk about. But no one here is interested, and no one here wants to buy Landa’s book. I wouldn’t keep posting at a blog if all I could talk about was one thing that no one was interested in. Don’t you have some other site to go to of like-minded people who might conceivably care about this?

Comment #91042

Posted by Greg Peterson on March 30, 2006 11:51 AM (e)

Carol:

So you’re Jewish, and not a Christian? Because the translation that New Testament, especially Gospel, writers quoted the most was the Greek TRANSLATION of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint. One need look no farther than the botched translation of the Hebrew word for “young maiden” into the Greek word for “virgin” int he alleged Christ prophecy to see that, as an example.

Comment #91043

Posted by AC on March 30, 2006 11:53 AM (e)

Carol wrote:

What Bible have you been reading? Obviously not the original Hebrew version, which is the only version that should matter. In the REAL bible women occupy a very lofty place indeed, at least as respected as that of men. You must be totally ignorant of the roles played by Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah, of the great indignation that overtook Dinah’s brothers when they heard of the indignity she was subjected to, of the roles of Miriam, Deborah and on and on.

I find it hard to believe that the “real” bible is that different from the familiar Christian translations. “PromiseKeepers” are happy to tell you how lofty a place women hold for them, and how much respect they have for women. Indeed, they cite those things as their motivation for their patronizing treatment of women.

Did women in any ancient Semitic society have equal legal standing, equal property rights, etc.? You know, real equality instead of just patronization?

Comment #91046

Posted by Stephen Elliott on March 30, 2006 11:56 AM (e)

Posted by Carol Clouser on March 30, 2006 08:31 AM (e)

Stephen,

Not at all. Nobody of any repute claims that the scholars hired by King James were divinely inspired. The question is not if God is capable of communicating, but whether He has chosen to communicate…

OK, I concede that the interpreters for the King James (version of the) Bible were not divinely inspired. Let us also assume that the bible (in it’s entirety) is the literal word of God.

But has God communicated with any human being at-all since the 1st bible was written?

Comment #91050

Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 30, 2006 12:00 PM (e)

So you’re Jewish, and not a Christian? Because the translation that New Testament, especially Gospel, writers quoted the most was the Greek TRANSLATION of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint. One need look no farther than the botched translation of the Hebrew word for “young maiden” into the Greek word for “virgin” int he alleged Christ prophecy to see that, as an example.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Yes, Carol is Jewish. From what I can tell the New Testament doesn’t interest her. And yes, Carol can tell you ALL ABOUT (what Judah Landa says about) the importance of the original Hebrew version of the Bible. And she can ‘prove’ that the ancient Hebrews were the most noble, enlightened people who ever lived, that they suffered more than anyone else ever suffered, and that every statement in the original Hebrew bible is completely scientifically accurate, except for the parts that are mystically beyond the reach of science, and even those parts are scientifically accurate.

You’ll be sorry you asked this. :-(

Comment #91053

Posted by Tara Smith on March 30, 2006 12:03 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'a'

Comment #91067

Posted by Greg Peterson on March 30, 2006 12:32 PM (e)

Oh. Sorry I wasn’t familiar enough with Carol’s oeuvre. Being Jewish is just great and all, and it’s fine to feel pride in one’s heritage (however fictionalized), though it does demonstrate a rather radical ignorance of the probable origin of the Hebrew myths (hint: not Hebrew god), a distortion of their history (accomplished mostly via the one thing they were excellent at–making up fun stories with little to no basis), and a whitewashing of their exploits. Further, the scholars who translated wonderful Hebrew into nasty old Greek were in fact Hebrew scholars, so apparently they did not share Carol’s view that only the original Hebrew would do. Even arguing about the veracity of a document that features talking serpents and donkeys, ghosts and giants, flaming swords and fortune-telling dice seems so beneath anyone born after the Enlightenment that I seriously apologize for even engaging the issue.

Comment #91073

Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 30, 2006 12:42 PM (e)

Even arguing about the veracity of a document that features talking serpents and donkeys, ghosts and giants, flaming swords and fortune-telling dice seems so beneath anyone born after the Enlightenment that I seriously apologize for even engaging the issue.

So you would think. But it still won’t get you off the hook.

Comment #91076

Posted by k.e. on March 30, 2006 12:46 PM (e)

SE wrote

But has God communicated with any human being at-all since the 1st bible was written?

Of course not silly after her plastic surgery when she became a he and he took a long rest because he wasn’t sure if he was a she or whatever not to mention people calling him all different names like Baal, Osiris, Ra, Jesus and countless other names he got pretty ticked off and left the country, in fact if he ever came back he would be an athiest, I know because he gave me his phone number.

Comment #91089

Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 30, 2006 12:57 PM (e)

Of course not silly after her plastic surgery when she became a he and he took a long rest because he wasn’t sure if he was a she or whatever not to mention people calling him all different names like Baal, Osiris, Ra, Jesus and countless other names he got pretty ticked off and left the country, in fact if he ever came back he would be an athiest, I know because he gave me his phone number

“And what if we pick the wrong religion? Every week, we’re just making God madder and madder!”

Comment #91097

Posted by jonboy on March 30, 2006 1:06 PM (e)

Carol, One of the saddest and most perplexing dilemmas I have experienced in modern society is confronting women like yourself, who strongly believe and defend a book that so clearly assigns them a degrading and subservient status.In both the Old and New Testaments women are assigned a position not appreciably different from that of domestic servants. Their status is demeaning, debilitating, and wholly incompatible with self-respect and confidence,to use the vernacular, the Bible is sexist and permeated with male supremacy.
The following verses show only to well: Deut. 21:10-14, 24:1-4, Judges 5:30, Esther 1:20-22,Lev. 12:2, 5, Gen. 3:20. If these are not sufficient, there are more. The evidence is overwhelming. Apologists like Carol try to soft-pedal the entire matter, but facts are stubborn things,and it isn’t just one small part, but the entire Bible that’s guilty.
Is it any wonder that feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, once said: “The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling-blocks in the way of woman’s emancipation As long as woman like Carol regard the Bible as the charter of her rights, she will be the slave of man. The Bible was not written by a woman. Within its pages there is nothing but humiliation and shame for her.

Comment #91104

Posted by Glen Davidson on March 30, 2006 1:15 PM (e)

But has God communicated with any human being at-all since the 1st bible was written?

What real scholars learn is that for many ancient texts there is no “1st version”. In fact, texts like the Bible evolved until they were written as unchangeable “truths” (around the time of the Babylonian captivity seems right). The “1st Bible” is like the first human, first chicken, or first (chicken) egg–there is no actual first.

I apologize to the author of the quote above for going off on this subject, since I’m not following the author’s intentions. But it seems an important fact to bring up (though others have certainly done so in different ways) in this manner, as the Hebrew Bible shows all of the marks of an evolved document (if with a fairly “authoritative” redaction at some point), grabbing ideas, myths, and laws from various Canaanite factions (including Hebrews prominently) as well as from the wider Semitic world and even beyond. Carol writes ad nauseum of “originals” which never existed as such, and purports to know the “real meaning” within often contradictory materials.

I’m not going to go on about the evolution of the Bible. Suffice it to say that the sorts of evolution that we detect in Biblical manuscripts is the kind of evolution that most “literalists” also see in other ancient writings, using the same principles that we use to recognize the development of Biblical material. They concede the principle, just not in the case of their preferred ancient texts.

One other thing: I’m no theist, however I think that Kierkegaard had a logical answer to the question of whether or not God has communicated with humans “since the first Bible”. He claimed that God provides the condition of knowing God (arguably a kind of communication), and that all that needed to be written by NT writers was that Jesus existed and was believed by some to be God (IIRC). Change his Xian version to fit Islam or Judaism, if you wish. Kierkegaard knew that even a “true Bible” would not be able to communicate what we need to know to commune with God, and so he discarded such inadequate means to God knowledge as ancient texts appear to be.

To be sure, Kierkegaard’s “solution” has its own problems, but at least it side-steps numerous difficulties involved in making up a religion out of ancient texts like the Bible, which have been stripped of crucial context (why do people know that Homer is difficult to interpret, due in part to loss of context, while the less-well understood Hebrew of the Bible is knowable via Landa or some other primate?). I’m not recommending it, certainly, but it seems like a reasonable course for theists to take, while assuming that we understand the meaning of especially obscure texts like the Bible is not reasonable for “knowing God”.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #91112

Posted by Stephen Elliott on March 30, 2006 1:22 PM (e)

Posted by k.e. on March 30, 2006 12:46 PM (e)

I know because he gave me his phone number….

Do you still have the number? I have a few questions to ask.

Comment #91125

Posted by Carol Clouser on March 30, 2006 1:35 PM (e)

Arden Chatfield wrote:

“That’s not my point, Carol. My point is you’ve had abundant opportunity to see that no one here is interested in hearing anything at all about Landa’s literalist interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, and yet month after month you insist on shoehorning mentions of it into every thread where you find the slightest excuse. In fact, it’s pretty much the only thing you talk about. But no one here is interested, and no one here wants to buy Landa’s book. I wouldn’t keep posting at a blog if all I could talk about was one thing that no one was interested in. Don’t you have some other site to go to of like-minded people who might conceivably care about this?”

All a pack of lies. First, judging from the reaction, many folks here ARE VERY interested in the issues I raise, they just don’t agree with some of what I say. You know the difference between disinterest and disagreement, don’t you? Second, I have not said a word about Landa in this thread or in other threads recently. Third, I guess a key difference between you and me is that you seek the comfort of people who agree with you, while I seek the challenge of disagreement and probing. I am not surprised. It’s typical of atheists and theists in general.

Greg pterson,

For your info, the Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek did so for fear of their lives under Ptolemy the Greek ruler and by their own admission (to their fellow Jews) deliberately mistranslated in order to avoid nasty consequences.

Your other comments pertaining to Judaism and the Bible are so riddled with ignorance and distortions that I would not know where to begin to address them.

Stephen,

I don’t know the answer to your question other than that it seems there was no major post-prophetic era divine communication in the manner and style of the communications to Moses and a handful of others.

Comment #91131

Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 30, 2006 1:39 PM (e)

See, I warned you, Greg…

Now, PLEASE don’t ask Carol about the feasability of Noah’s flood. Just don’t.

Comment #91132

Posted by Jim Harrison on March 30, 2006 1:40 PM (e)

When I consult a table in a stat book to find the area under a distribution curve, information flows from the text to me. When I use scripture to verify something I already believe, information flows from me to the text as I figure out how to interpret it to support my existing notions. The Bible isn’t a source. It’s a sink.

In principle somebody could actually learn something from the Bible. In practice, this almost never happens except in the case of scholars who are excavating the text for evidence of ancient ideas and practices.

Comment #91145

Posted by Carol Clouser on March 30, 2006 1:50 PM (e)

Jonboy,

I cannot right now address the particular references you cite. I will just quickly note that (1) I know the Hebrew Bible VERY well and have never seen anything even remotely supporting your assertions, (2) I can cite ten verses for every one of yours contradicting your assertions, (3) If these citation are anything like your “God lied to Adam” argument, it is nothing but malarky.

Comment #91146

Posted by Stephen Elliott on March 30, 2006 1:50 PM (e)

Posted by Carol Clouser on March 30, 2006 01:35 PM (e)

Stephen,

I don’t know the answer to your question other than that it seems there was no major post-prophetic era divine communication in the manner and style of the communications to Moses and a handful of others.

Carol,
How am I (or anyone else) able to tell which parts of the Bible are Gods words, and which are missinterpretations?

BTW. I do not mean human misstakes in interpretation here. I mean the original writer not getting it quite correct.

Comment #91154

Posted by B. Spitzer on March 30, 2006 1:59 PM (e)

Flint wrote:
I still don’t understand why the HIV->AIDS hypothesis generates such heated resistance. Hank suggested it’s because misguided treatment based on misunderstood mechanisms harms people otherwise in no danger. But this sort of thing happens all the time. I know someone with an impaired immune system (not HIV) and the doctors reflexively gave him one dose of antibiotics after another, probably the worst possible thing you can do to your immune system. But I don’t see anywhere near the fanatical rejection of using antibiotics as panaceas.

So why do Johnson et. al. reject the HIV->AIDS relationship, really? Do they also reject the germ theory? I’m baffled.

I’ve been intrigued by HIV denialism for some time. There are all these odd little science-denialist movements (the movement that fought against fluorine in drinking water, the movement that insists that thimerosol in vaccines causes autism, HIV denialism) that are in some ways similar to creationism.

AFAICT, there were a handful of social conservatives who liked the idea that AIDS was caused directly by the use of illegal drugs and promiscuity– the idea that AIDS was a sort of “retribution” fit in well with their ideology. Phil Johnson is perhaps an extreme example of the neoconservative postmodernism that infected the current Administration in the run-up to the war in Iraq– the “we make our own reality” attitude. His stance seems to be that truth follows ideology, or that if you can convince people of something, that makes it “true”. A perspective that’s toxic to science, but it makes a certain twisted sense if you’ve been doing courtroom law for too long.

HIV denialism really only gathered steam because Peter Duesberg (who was really a top-notch scientist) insisted that AIDS wasn’t caused by a virus. So the idea gathered critical mass and became impervious to outside criticism, as conspiracy theories do. What makes it especially strange is that, while many HIV denialists were conservatives, the extreme liberal fringe glommed onto the conspiracy-theory angle too, insisting that HIV is some sort of sinister plot by Big Pharmaceuticals and the medical-industrial complex.

Science denialism is weird. IMO, our society is sort of schizophrenic in its attitude toward science. People love what science does for them, but at some deep level a lot of them hate science itself. Conservatives often feel threatened because science is indifferent to conservative values and traditional religion; liberals often feel threatened because science is indifferent to New Age aesthetics and it’s part of The Institution which they distrust. And everybody loves to be a rebel. My sense (which may be worth nothing) is that there’s this reservoir of anti-science uneasiness in society. Sometimes, when someone like Duesberg provides intellectual cover for people who dislike science anyway, that uneasiness blooms into a little denialist movement. I don’t think it has anything to do with the science– when and where denialism crops up is based partly on what issues people are invested in emotionally, and partly on historical happenstance. Once these little movements get going, they have their own momentum, no matter how good the science is.

Comment #91158

Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 30, 2006 2:04 PM (e)

How am I (or anyone else) able to tell which parts of the Bible are Gods words, and which are missinterpretations?

Well, funny you should ask, it just so happens that one Judah Landa has written a book on that very subject…

Comment #91167

Posted by Stephen Elliott on March 30, 2006 2:15 PM (e)

Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 30, 2006 02:04 PM (e)

Well, funny you should ask, it just so happens that one Judah Landa has written a book on that very subject…

So I have heard. Any idea why I should take him more serious than the people who translated the King James version?

Comment #91174

Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 30, 2006 2:21 PM (e)

So I have heard. Any idea why I should take him more serious than the people who translated the King James version?

Well, I dunno, it seems to get pretty good reviews on Amazon, especially the second one:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963971611/qid=…

Comment #91191

Posted by jonboy on March 30, 2006 2:43 PM (e)

Carol,I will quickly note (1)I also know the bible quite well.(2)You failed to offer any worth while rebuttal to my(God lied to Adam) argument,even after you asked David H for help. (3)you wrote” I can cite ten verses for every one of yours contradicting your assertions.”(so you admit the bible is full of contradictions) OK, here is your chance( 61 so you owe me 610)

Genesis
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. – 3:16

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, an do ye to them as is good in your eyes. – 19:8

Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father – 19:32

And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose – 19:33

Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father – 19:34

And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose – 19:35

Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. – 19:36

And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to night for thy son’s mandrakes. – 30:15

Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son’s mandrakes. And he lay with her that night. – 30:16
Exodus

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.–22:18
Leviticus

And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean.–15:19

And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.–15:24

Thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.–18:19

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged.–19:20

And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death.–20:12

If a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they.–20:14

If a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.–20:16

And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.–20:18

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.–20:27

And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.–.21:9
Numbers

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.–31:15-19
Deuteronomy

And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women … shalt thou take unto thyself.–20:13-14

And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her …. Thou shalt go in unto her.–21:11-13

If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated ….–21:15

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ….–22:13

I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid. Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city.–22:14-15

These are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity.–22:18-21

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.–22:20-21

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.–22:23-24

When two men strive together on with another, and the wife of the one … putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.–25:11-12

Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her.–28:30

The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter, and toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them.–28:56-57
Judges

Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be …. She put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workmen’s hammer; and with the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote off his head, when she had pierced and stricken through his temples.–5:24-26

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two?–5:30

Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you.–19:24

But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning.–19:25
1 Samuel

And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king’s enemies.–18:25

Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.–18:27
2 Samuel

Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.–12:11

Go in unto thy father’s concubines, which he hath left to keep the house …. So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.–16:21-22
1 Kings

And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines.–11:3
2 Kings

Therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.–15:16
2 Chronicles

And Rehoboam … took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.–11:21:

But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives.–13:21
Esther

All the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small–1:20
Isaiah

Therefore the LORD will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.–3:17

Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.–13:16

Thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth.–30:22
Lamentations

They have seen her nakedness: yea, she sigheth, and turneth backward. Her filthiness is in her skirts.–1:8-9

Jerusalem is as a menstruous woman.–1:17
Ezekiel

Let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark.–9:5-6

Thou hast … opened thy feet to every one that passed by, and multiplied thy whoredoms.–16:25

Thou hast played the whore also with the Assyrians, because hou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied.–16:28

But if a man be just … And hath not … come near to a menstruous woman ….–18:5-6

Thou shalt even drink it and suck it out, and thou shalt break the sherds thereof, and pluck off thine own breasts: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.–23:34

And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the LORD.–26:6
Hosea

So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley.–3:2

Therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery.–4:13

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.–9:14

Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.–9:16

Their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.–13:16

Comment #91194

Posted by Raging Bee on March 30, 2006 2:49 PM (e)

Carol dodged thusly:

Your other comments pertaining to Judaism and the Bible are so riddled with ignorance and distortions that I would not know where to begin to address them.

How about one point at a time? I’ve been following your posts on and off for several months now, Carol, and I have yet to see you address ANY of the substantive criticisms of your thesis that have been offered here. Evasions like the above don’t exactly help your credibility. (BTW, you haven’t cited those passages of the Original Bible that describe the “lofty” status of women. Care to elaborate?)

Let me ask you again: if the words of the OT’s original language are all so precise in their meaning, then why is it so hard to translate them to another language? If you, Landa, or some other expert translator knows what a Hebrew word means, and if the meaning of that word is really so unambiguous, then you shouldn’t have THAT much of a problem finding the right word in any other language to match, should you?

Comment #91255

Posted by AC on March 30, 2006 4:00 PM (e)

Carol wrote:

I can cite ten verses for every one of yours contradicting your assertions

While you’re trading bible blows with jonboy, please also address my question from comment #91043. I’m antagonistic, but it’s a serious question. My impression of the bible regarding the status and treatment of women can be described as “primitive patronizing”. The only exceptions I can think of involve Jesus (therefore New Testament), such as the alleged adulteress in John 8.

Comment #91270

Posted by Greg Peterson on March 30, 2006 4:14 PM (e)

AC–Interestingly enough, John 8 is precisely one of the passages in the New Testament on which there is very broad agreement that the story was not part of any original text and is a later interpolation (which doesn’t detract, in my mind, from the fact that it is one of the only truly worthy stories in Christian Bible). This is exactly the type of process–adding, redacting, excising–that no doubt occurred quite often with earlier versions of the scripture, which, as one poster correctly noted, is how the Hebrew Bible evolved over time. As for one the status of women in the Bible, one need look no further than the unjustly vaunted Ten Commandments to see that women are viewed primarily as property. Try reading “thou shall not covet they neighbor’s wife” with a feminist slant. Not so easy, really, is it?

Comment #91272

Posted by J-Dog on March 30, 2006 4:15 PM (e)

Jonboy - Outstanding work, thank you! Now I don’t have to re-read one of the most turgid, stinking books ever written, to dig out the relevant citations.

Whew!

BTW - Carol, just shut up. I am thinking that the Billy Madison quote from another thread definitely applies to the drivel that you spout:
To paraphrase,
“Carol what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this board is now dumber for having read it. May The Designer have mercy on your soul!

Comment #91283

Posted by Steviepinhead on March 30, 2006 4:33 PM (e)

What J-Dog said.

Comment #91284

Posted by Shenda on March 30, 2006 4:36 PM (e)

“But has God communicated with any human being at-all since the 1st bible was written?”

He communicates with me all of time. If you want to know what He is thinking, just send me $1,000 in small bills with a self addressed stamped envelope.

Satisfaction Guaranteed!

Comment #91285

Posted by Steviepinhead on March 30, 2006 4:37 PM (e)

Stephen Elliott:

He aint 7 anymore. He is now a 14 year old with a deeper voice than me. Frightening how time just whizzes by.

That time that whizzed by with such dispatch from seven to 14 will now slow to a painful and protracted crawl until he’s 21.

Then it’ll be back to whizzing…but at least you can turn any remaining job over to the, um, escort service.

Comment #91333

Posted by David B. Benson on March 30, 2006 5:20 PM (e)

Old bibles, etc. — The oldest existing bible is a copy of the Greek version from the library in Alexandria, written about 300 BC. The second oldest is in Hebrew, in central Europe and physically copied in the 12th or 13th century. These two agree, word for word, except for a very few places. Low transcription errors, it is called.

According to “The Book in the Bible”, the canonical old testament was written by 4 different people at different times. The oldest part is called the Q bible. By linguistic analysis the author pulls out just those parts which were written by Q. For example, the first account of creation was not written down by Q, but the second (mostly) was. Also, much of the Moses story is missing from the Q account. The author claims that Q wrote probably during Solomon’s reign, or maybe the king thereafter. Of course, Q wrote what was the oral tradition at the time.

A nearby professor of religion suggests “The Oxford Guide to the Bible” and “The Oxford Companion to the Bible” as useful if one wants to actually attempt to read the bible.

Comment #91368

Posted by Stephen Elliott on March 30, 2006 5:53 PM (e)

Posted by Steviepinhead on March 30, 2006 04:37 PM (e)

That time that whizzed by with such dispatch from seven to 14 will now slow to a painful and protracted crawl until he’s 21.

Then it’ll be back to whizzing…but at least you can turn any remaining job over to the, um, escort service.

What on Earth does that mean?

So far I have no experience of time slowing down over a protracted period. Each year seems to go a little faster.

It slows down for short periods of boredom, but they are few and far between. In general, time apears to be accelerating.

Comment #91375

Posted by Carol Clouser on March 30, 2006 6:06 PM (e)

JONBOY,

You do have extensive knowledge of the Bible and you are ready at a moment’s notice to launch 60 or more citations on any topic that comes up if it serves your polemical interests in spewing anti-bible venom. I have scanned your 60 citations and the number with merit is zero. So as not to be accused of cherry picking I will take the first ten items and address them, one by one. The rest of them are just as vacuous but I have time only for ten items right now. Hope you understand.

ONE.

“Carol,I will quickly note (1)I also know the bible quite well.(2)You failed to offer any worth while rebuttal to my(God lied to Adam) argument,even after you asked David H for help. (3)you wrote” I can cite ten verses for every one of yours contradicting your assertions.”(so you admit the bible is full of contradictions) OK, here is your chance( 61 so you owe me 610)”

I did not ask Heddle for help because I did not need any help. Your “God lied to Adam” argument is downright silly and you must know it. A threat removed due to mercy and forgiveness does not constitute a lie, period.

TWO.

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. — 3:16”

God is punishing an individual person, Eve, for her transgression by appointing another individual, her husband Adam, to “rule” over her. There is no implication here about the Bible’s view of the role of womankind in perpetuity. Since the previous verse, in discussing the punishment of NACHASH, specifically refers to its offspring and Eve’s offspring, and this verse makes no mention of offspring, the plain meaning of the words here is that it does not apply to offspring.

THREE.

“Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, an do ye to them as is good in your eyes. — 19:8”

The Bible is describing the actions of this unsavory character, Lot. It is meant as a narrative of events. It is not an endorsement by any stretch of the imagination.

FOUR.

“Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father — 19:32”

What is your point? Two women engaged in incest. So? Are you suggesting that the Bible is endorsing incest? What does this have to do with the role of women?

FIVE.

“And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose — 19:33”

See above.

SIX.

“Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father — 19:34”

Ibid.

SEVEN.

“And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose — 19:35”

Ibid.

EIGHT.

“Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. — 19:36”

Ibid.

NINE.

And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to night for thy son’s mandrakes. — 30:15

So? Two women married to the same man are competing for his attention. I see no Biblical endorsment of anything here. It’s a story. That’s the way it happened. Polygamy was prevalent those days.

TEN.

Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son’s mandrakes. And he lay with her that night. — 30:16
Exodus

Ibid.

Bottom line, jonboy, you have nothing. Ten times zero is zero, so I owe you nothing. But I will return later and send you some citations where the Bible actually endorses
a view or attitude pertaining to women. That’s what counts. And you will eat your words.

Comment #91378

Posted by Greg Peterson on March 30, 2006 6:09 PM (e)

Well, to borrow an ID paradigm, if time appears to be going faster to you, clearly time is going faster. One can only wonder how this will impact the spacetime.

David, are you sure about “Q” being in the Hebrew Bible? Perhaps you’re quoting from a source I am unfamiliar with, but I’m used to hearing “Q” (for the German “quelle,” meaning “source”) used for material appearing in Matthew and Luke, but never the Hebrew Bible, where I’m used to seeing “E” for “elohist” and “J” for “Yawhist” (not sure of the spellings exactly and don’t have time to look it up) for the two versions of creation in Genesis. There’s also “P” for the priestly redactors, and at least one more letter–but no “Q” that I’ve run across. Unless you’re thinking of “The Gospel of the Star Trek Nemesis” or the “Origin Myth of James Bond’s Gadget Buddy.”

Comment #91380

Posted by Stephen Elliott on March 30, 2006 6:17 PM (e)

Posted by Greg Peterson on March 30, 2006 06:09 PM (e)

Well, to borrow an ID paradigm, if time appears to be going faster to you, clearly time is going faster. One can only wonder how this will impact the spacetime.

It should not affect anyone elses space-time experience. These things are relative dont ya know.

Considering that I move through the 3 space dimensions slower as I age, the speeding up of time is probably normal.

Damn you Einstein!

Comment #91416

Posted by jonboy on March 30, 2006 6:57 PM (e)

Carol ,There is a old proverb:There are none so blind as those who cannot see” Your fanatical adherence to a book that to all rational thinking people is so derogatory to women, boarders on the insane.Your answer(“The Bible is describing the actions of this unsavory character, Lot. It is meant as a narrative of events. It is not an endorsement by any stretch of the imagination.”)shows you are an apologist of the highest order. Of course you may think buying a woman for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley,and God allowing your neighbor to rape your wife in full view of all,presents women in a good light,so be it.
Actually Carol I have discovered at least 250 derogatory statements against women in your wonder full book,and I’m sure you can find a excuse for all of them.
I will leave you a quote from WOMEN–“The religious superstitions of women perpetuate their bondage more than all other adverse influences.” Elizabeth Cady Stanton. It is you who have nothing Carol, nothing but your own self denial,and the only thing I Will be eating tonight is my steak dinner!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment #91425

Posted by David B. Benson on March 30, 2006 7:18 PM (e)

Greg Peterson – Yes, I recall Q being used by the author of “The Book in the Bible”. I enjoyed reading his literal translation of the Hebrew. Absolutely nothing flowery, unlike the King James translation — which, by the way, the nearby professor of religion claims is “dishonest.”

Comment #91447

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 30, 2006 7:54 PM (e)

So why do Johnson et. al. reject the HIV->AIDS relationship, really?

Well, Johnson thinks AIDS is caused by “an unhealthy lifestyle”.

I don’t think it’s much of a mystery what, uh, “lifestyle” he means by that.

Which answers your question, I think.

Comment #91491

Posted by Steviepinhead on March 30, 2006 9:31 PM (e)

Stephen Elliott, re the vagaries of time:

What on Earth does that mean?

Eh, I know our internal time seems to speed up as we encounter fewer truly novel situations.

But your external time–in terms of relationship time with your teenager–may be a different matter, as you are almost certain (however congenial a young feller he may turn out to be) to be encountering various novel teen-turbulence matters.

It is in this relational–I’m almost tempted to say relative–sense that you are about to discover how certain flows of time may slow down, while others may continue to whiz by.

In short, his internal teen-angst time will not likely flow quite so whizzingly as your internal mellow-adult time, and you may well occasionally get sucked out of your eddy and into his flow.

Or not.

This was not, unlike so many of my other indubitably profound comments, meant to withstand very intense scrutiny.

And I won’t attempt to defend the “escort service” remark much further, except to note that you initially inserted that meme into the discourse.

And to suggest that possible alternate constructions of “escort service” here–in the intended sense of some entity to which one might, in future, look with some relief to take over your harried parent-of-teen role once said teen transitions into adulthood–might include “baby [teen/young adult] sitting service (college? employer?)” and even (to not completely abandon your tongue-in-cheek sexual reference) “spouse.”

Was I reaching, stretching? Yes.

Did I snap?

Only at Carol, I trust…

Comment #91496

Posted by Carol Clouser on March 30, 2006 9:37 PM (e)

Jonboy,

Just as I expected, you have no response of substance at all to my points which utterly demolished your claims in the ten items selected. Enjoy your steak dinner. Hope the steak improves your eyesight.

Comment #91500

Posted by Steviepinhead on March 30, 2006 9:47 PM (e)

Whee hee!

Maybe that Carol should give up her dayjob. She does occasionally evince perfect comedic timing

Comment #91505

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 30, 2006 9:56 PM (e)

Carol, thanks for (once again) sharing your religious opinions with everyone.

Why, again, should anyone give a flying fig about them …?

Comment #91513

Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 30, 2006 10:14 PM (e)

You know, in her way, Carol is just as good at totally derailing threads as Larry…

Comment #91758

Posted by Raging Bee on March 31, 2006 8:28 AM (e)

Okay, Carol, you’ve dispensed with jonboy’s points, but you still haven’t addressed mine. I don’t have to repeat them, you know where to find them. It shouldn’t take you that long.