Someone recently passed this article on to me, which I posted on another board. It was promptly removed. So sad . . .

Frightening News from France

Once again, the real news in France is conveniently

not being reported as it should. To give you an idea

of what's going on in France where there are now

between 5 and 6 million Muslims and about 600,000 Jews,

here is an email that came from a Jew living in

France. Please read! Will the world say nothing - again - as it did in Hitler's time?

"I AM A JEW -- therefore I am forwarding this to

everyone on all my e-mail lists. I will not sit back

and do nothing." Nowhere have the flames of

anti-Semitism burned more furiously than in France:

Lyon, a car was rammed into a synagogue and set

on fire. In Montpellier, the Jewish religious center

was firebombed; so were synagogues in Strasbourg and

Marseilles; so was a Jewish school in Creteil - all recently.

A Jewish sports club in Toulouse was attacked with

Molotov cocktails, and on the statue of Alfred

Dreyfus in Paris, the words "Dirty Jew" were

painted. In Bondy, 15 men beat up members of a

Jewish football team with sticks and metal bars. The

bus that takes Jewish children to school in

Aubervilliers has been attacked three times in the last 14 months.

According to the Police, metropolitan Paris has seen

10 to 12 anti-Jewish incidents PER DAY in the past

30 days. Walls in Jewish neighborhoods have been

defaced with slogans proclaiming "Jews to the gas

chambers" and "Death to the Jews."

A gunman opened fire on a Kosher butcher's shop

(and, of course, the butcher) in Toulouse , France;

a Jewish couple in their 20s were beaten up by five

men in Villeurbanne , France . The woman was

pregnant; a Jewish school was broken into and

vandalized in Sarcelles , France . This was just in

the past week.

So I call on you, whether you are a fellow Jew, a

friend, or merely a person with the capacity and

desire to distinguish decency from depravity, to do,

at least, these three simple things:

First, care enough to stay informed. Don't ever let

yourself become deluded into thinking that this is

no t your fight. I remind you of what Pastor

Neimoller said in World War II: "First they came for

the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I

wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and

I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they

came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up,

because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me,

and by that time there was no one left to speak up

for me".

Second, boycott France and French products. Only the

Arab countries are more toxically anti-Semitic and,

unlike them, France exports more than just oil and

hatred. So boycott their wines and their perfumes.

Boycott their clothes and their foodstuffs. Boycott

their movies. Definitely boycott their shores. If

we are resolved we can exert amazing pressure and,

whatever else we may know about the French, we most

certainly know that they are like a cobweb in a

hurricane in the face of well directed pressure.

Third, send this along to your family, your friends,

and your co-workers. Think of all of the people of

good conscience that you know and let them know

that you and the people that you care about need

their help. The number one best selling book in

France is "September 11: The Frightening Fraud,"

which argues that no plane ever hit the Pentagon."

No Ron, I don't have a problem with that. I just feel compelled from time to time (like so many others) to register my disgust.

Why in the world would I want to exchange private messages with you?

Wheet: Bravo. Well done.

laurend: Bravo for keeping your cool and just chipping away.

My purpose in posting those sites was not in an attempt to prove the flood, althought I believe there is a lot of good evidence toward that end. Wheetin said there was NO EVIDENCE to support the flood. I was pointing out there is. Weather you believe it or not is something else. There is a lot of argument on both sides of the fence.

Ron, go here. This is a list of creationists' claims and the rebuttals to them. I noted several instances of your so-called "evidence" being rebutted. The flood section is CH400-CH599. This is a nice page, too, that summarizes much of the problems noted with a world-wide flood.

I did not make it an us vs them engagement. I made comments and gave information based upon by beliefs and my knowledge that came fro many years of intense study and learning.

The problem is not that you have stated your beliefs, but that you have belittled the beliefs of other members.

I don't care if you do or don't. You and others have a problem that I am reluctant to publicly discuss the differences between Catholic dogma and Biblical teaching, so if you really care to know, I am willing to discuss it privately. That's all! How would YOU fee if I asked you questions about your faith? Would you be willing to discuss what YOU believe??

No Ron, I don't have a problem with that. I just feel compelled from time to time (like so many others) to register my disgust.

Why in the world would I want to exchange private messages with you?

My purpose in posting those sites was not in an attempt to prove the flood, althought I believe there is a lot of good evidence toward that end. Wheetin said there was NO EVIDENCE to support the flood. I was pointing out there is. Weather you believe it or not is something else. There is a lot of argument on both sides of the fence.

I think when they said "no evidence", they meant "no real evidence" or "no evidence that can be supported scientifically".

I could say that I was abducted by an alien last night and there would be evidence; my testimony. But, there would be "no real evidence" or "no evidence that can be supported scientifically".

I am not belittleing anyone's beliefs; I am disagreeing with them. You are taking my disagreement as belittleing, and it is not. At one time in my life, I believed the same as many of those with whom I am now disagreeing. Why would I belittle them? It is how you are taking it.

The problem is not that you have stated your beliefs, but that you have belittled the beliefs of other members.

The NIV is a good translation in most instances. The King James has always been the "gold standard" used in most seminaries. There is a new version called the New American Standard Version I believe, with is supposed to be the best literal translation into modern day english thus far.

In my personal studies I use several translations, and if there seems to a question of translation of a word, I go back the the Strongs Concordance, which is like a dictionary, that gives the literal translations of every single word in the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek. Every serious Bible student should have one.

A while back the following was posted:

From Reverend Mel White: I've spent more than 50 years reading, studying, memorizing, preaching, and teaching from the sacred texts. I earned my master's and doctoral degrees at a conservative biblical seminary to better equip myself to "rightly divide the word of truth." I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own.

"Even when we believe the scriptures are without error, it's a risk to think our understanding is without error."

How can you proclaim that scriptures translates scriptures if scriptures must be translated into English for you to read it?

The Reverend White has learned how to translate scriptures, while you depend on others to translate scriptures for you. Is it not possible that the people (who's translations you depend on) may have colored the context of scriptures with their personal agenda consciously or subconsciously?

If scriptures truly did translate scriptures, then anyone could look at them and read them in the language that he understood. Now that would be a miracle befitting of a divinely inspired book, a miracle befitting of a divinity. But who are we to question God's ways?

I am not belittleing anyone's beliefs; I am disagreeing with them. You are taking my disagreement as belittleing, and it is not. At one time in my life, I believed the same as many of those with whom I am now disagreeing. Why would I belittle them? It is how you are taking it.

Which implies that now you have moved on to a point beyond us or beyond our understanding.

You are so accustomed to belittling people that you do it subconsciously and (I will give you the benefit of the doubt) without malice.

I find it interesting that the links provided as proof of a flood mention the use of carbon dating as evidence but when the carbon dating isn't consistant with the suggested dates of the flood carbon dating is then refuted as unrelaible. Seems to me these folks also seem to talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Let me see if I have this straight.

There was a flood and carbon dating proves this. Carbon Dating places the flood much earlier than 4003 years ago. Carbon dating is wrong. There was a flood and it took place 4003 years ago.

The Bible is literal and it's words come from God.

God is omnipotant

The Bible says the world is a circle.

The world is actually a sphere

The omnipotant God doesn't know the difference between circles and spheres.

Circle, Sphere, who cares, at least he didn't say Square, I take the bible literally, just not so much when it applies to Geometry.

I never said that "scripture translates scripture"! What I said was, "scripture interprets scripture" Translating from one language to another, and intretpeting what the scripture say are two entirely different things.

A while back the following was posted:

From Reverend Mel White: I've spent more than 50 years reading, studying, memorizing, preaching, and teaching from the sacred texts. I earned my master's and doctoral degrees at a conservative biblical seminary to better equip myself to "rightly divide the word of truth." I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own.

"Even when we believe the scriptures are without error, it's a risk to think our understanding is without error."

How can you proclaim that scriptures translates scriptures if scriptures must be translated into English for you to read it?

The Reverend White has learned how to translate scriptures, while you depend on others to translate scriptures for you. Is it not possible that the people (who's translations you depend on) may have colored the context of scriptures with their personal agenda consciously or subconsciously? Unless Rev. White is an expert in the Hebrew and Greek languages and has spent decades doing word by word translations, then I doubt that he translated the scriptures for himself. I don't see him making that claim anywhere, do you?

If scriptures truly did translate scriptures, then anyone could look at them and read them in the language that he understood. Now that would be a miracle befitting of a divinely inspired book, a miracle befitting of a divinity. But who are we to question God's ways?

I never said that "scripture translates scripture"! What I said was, "scripture interprets scripture" Translating from one language to another, and intretpeting what the scripture say are two entirely different things.

But you left out totally the point of my whole post. You picked on one little point to refute and avoided the big picture, which is that you do not know how to read the scriptures in its original language and must depend on people who have previously translated it and transcribed it. You must depend on what the translators say was the meaning of any particular word and its context and connotative meaning back then.

You are too clever for your own good and it will not gain you any converts. Only the proverbial choir will fail to see through your methods and even some of them have started to see the light.

Wheetin said there was NO EVIDENCE to support the flood.

Why are you so intent on misquoting me? I ASKED why there are "no geological signs". I never SAID there was NO EVIDENCE. And after asking for resources, I later added that MY searches had been unsuccessful, not that ALL searches had been.

THis is the 2nd time I've had to explain to you the difference between what actually transpired, and what you're claiming transpired. It's like you read what's on the screen, and then let it mean whatever you want it to. But ironically enough, you're the first one to call foul if someone misquotes you, e.g. the most recent exchange between you and TOM. So why can you wantonly misquote others, but no one can do it to you?

And I'm still waiting to hear what qualifies you to make the statement to me that, "You just haven't looked." How could you possibly know? On what evidence do you base that claim?

...and a host of other questions still lingering out there.

You picked on one little point to refute and avoided the big picture

:clap2: :clap2:

Unless you happen to be a master of both Hebrew and English, they you have to rely on the translation of experts. Those who are not fluent in these two languages, which includes just about everyone, have a language dictionary called a Strongs Concordance that provides the literal translation of every word in the Bible from the original Hebrew or Greek. We rely on historial and archeological works to provide the background information on what life was life during biblical times. This is how all students of the Bible, from scolars to beginners learn scripture. So what is the problem that you have with this? Are you saying we should not study the Bible unless we are fluent in Hebrew and Greek"

That is like saying we shouldn't drive a Japanese made care becaue we don't speak Japanese and have to use a manuel translated by someone who speaks both English and Japanese. That makes no sense!

But you left out totally the point of my whole post. You picked on one little point to refute and avoided the big picture, which is that you do not know how to read the scriptures in its original language and must depend on people who have previously translated it and transcribed it. You must depend on what the translators say was the meaning of any particular word and its context and connotative meaning back then.

You are too clever for your own good and it will not gain you any converts. Only the proverbial choir will fail to see through your methods and even some of them have started to see the light.