Comments

Add a Comment
  1. And how many of the proponents of this fundamentalist boondoggle are the kind of folks who rant about wasteful government spending on stuff that isn’t constitutionally mandated?
    John 11:35.

  2. Come on Jose, its a theme park that has become competition for Ohio dollars spent on Kings Island. Its on the same level as gaming in Kentucky and Indiana, keeping that money in the state. Its a revenue generating bonanza for all parties involved.

  3. True, perplexed. I might even go myself just to see the spectacle.

    But Jose is ultimately right. There is no consistency to the whole right wing backlash against government spending. They want limited constitutionally mandated spending. That is, unless it’s for a Christmas manger scene, or a big monument to the Ten Commandments. Or now, tax abatements for Jurassic Park Kentucky.

    I guess Steve Beshear (the son of a Baptist minister, by the way) figures that it’s not already embarrassing enough to be a Kentuckian, what with our rankings at the bottom of the scale on everything from education to health care to income. Not to mention the fact that before Bro. Steve took the helm, the last two governors had ended their terms amid scandals which, in both cases, gave the national press all the fodder it needed for more Kentucky jokes.

    No, all that’s not enough: Now we get to be embarrassed about being the only place in the free world with a representation of Noah’s Ark with dinosaurs.

    If it weren’t for missing the pretty scenery, I’d move to Ohio, where at least they make money off scandals.

  4. I agree that government spending has longed been aimed a few benefiting, resulting in a dispersement of wealth that is very concentrated. If folks that are so bent on having the government to stop spending on the levels they are backing, it will have lead to people rioting in the streets. Fighting for food, medicine, and the right to live a decent life. It would lead to a domino effect that would put this country back at least a century.

  5. The more I learn, the more I understand my Dad’s stories about the complete lack of intellectual stamina within the culture where he grew up (close to Vanceburg, Kentucky).

    Dinosaurs on the ark? It’s not the fact that they want to build it, it’s that they actually think they will make money at it. Maybe they will. They certainly shouldn’t get a special tax break for it. Not on religious principles or any other. No one should get special tax breaks, period, regardless of “economic benefits.” That’s a slippery slope and both sides get into it. Who’s giving GM all the breaks, hmmm? Who bailed out the banks?

  6. Hi Alice,

    So they’re actually getting tax-payer funding, not just tax breaks? Well, that certainly stinks of state-sponsored religion! If they’re calling it a “mythological park” then maybe. Do they have a state-sponsored theme park based on the Greek pantheon? Or a park dedicated to Thor? If these guys want to make money based on their beliefs, more power to them. But the state should have nothing to do with it. It shouldn’t discourage it, maybe even encourage it (in the name of “diversity”) but not with our money.

  7. As much as Alice and I disagree, I have read her web site, and I appreciate her scholarship concerning Genesis. I will not attempt to summarize another’s scholarship, but it appears to be quite interesting.

  8. In this research, there are no peers. Sounds arrogant, but I’ve been doing this research for 33 years; coming at it from cultural anthropology, not the usual approach to the Bible.

    I’ve asked for peer review from people like Dr. Shaye Cohen at Harvard and some of the scholars who write for Biblical Archaeology Review, but they won’t touch it. Ultimately, the research stands on its own since I’ve verified every detail. I’ve no apologies to make for this ground-breaking work.

  9. No peers?! Forgive me for asking Alice, but are you mad? Nearly every university in this country has an anthropology department, or a religion department, or a history department. No matter what the topic, there are plenty of academics out there willing to offer their opinions. And did I read that correctly? You’ve been working on this for 33 years? That’s an entire lifetime! I’m really not trying to be rude. I read some of your blog, and it’s obvious that you’re a pretty learned individual, but 33 years and no peers?! Has none of that sent up any red flags?

  10. I know this sounds strange, but my analysis of the kinship pattern of Abraham’s ancestors is unique and copyrighted. I completed the analysis of the Lamech segment in 1979, but didn’t copyright it until I had confirmed the pattern of 2 wives: one a half-sister and the other a patrilineal cousin or niece (around 1982). The cousin/niece bride named her first-born son after her father, a pattern that makes it possible to trace ancestry from Genesis 4 and 5 forward to Mary and Joseph.

    Most scholars argued that Genesis 4 and 5 were the same line told from different traditions so they never diagrammed them to do the kinship analysis. Jewish scholars mostly ignore this material, placing more authority on the Talmud than on the Pentateuch.

  11. Cheese, buddy, I’m not sure where your hostility is coming from here. Alice, with whom I disagree on most issues, has done a creditable piece of research. I don’t know enough about it to comment on its merits, but she has added new ideas to the mix. Whether they will turn out to be accepted, or not accepted, by the theological or anthropological or historical establishments, I don’t know, but it deserves a serious hearing, which I fear it isn’t getting. And that might well be the fault of the peers, not the researcher.

  12. Caleb…buddy…I’m not being hostile here; I’m expressing incredulity. Like you, I don’t consider myself qualified enough to judge Alice’s thesis on its merits. She could be spot on for all I know. I’m challenging her about the way she portrays herself as a victim of institutional biases. Have you ever seen the Ben Stein movie Expelled? It’s about how creationists are not being given a fair hearing from the scientific community with regard to intelligent design. They pretend to be victims of institutional biases, when they are not. Their theories are simply crap. I want to know if Alice is a serious researcher or if she’s just making much ado about nothing. She is either seriously misunderstood or completely myopic. I find it hard to believe that a serious researcher would spend 33 years on a topic, only find two possible peers in that time, and also copyright the research before getting it peer-reviewed. It doesn’t make sense to me. If she submitted her work to a journal, they would handle the peer review themselves. She apparently hasn’t done that, so I have a hard time seeing her as a victim. That’s it. I’m not trying to be hostile or prejudiced. I just want to know, because it would be rare if it were true.

  13. “I don’t consider myself qualified enough to judge Alice’s thesis on its merits”

    I’m not saying that I’m qualified to judge Alice’s research. I’m just skeptical. If Alice is serious, she should be able to field questions about her research. If I had a thesis I thought was “ground-breaking,” I’d be happy to.

  14. Who do you think would be more educated on the subject, somebody that has spent a lifetime studying and documenting and copyrighting pertinent information regarding the subject or somebody with an opinion who’s basis is merely curiosity?

  15. Perp, I’m not arguing that I’m more educated than Alice is. That’s beside the point. Even Ph.D.’s make mistakes from time to time. I’m asking her about peer review. If a crowd of people who are as educated as she is on the subject can agree with her findings, then other people who are not as educated on the subject as she is (like you, me, and Caleb) can view her findings as authoritative. Without that, you have no reason to believe that she knows what she’s talking about. Peer review is an essential part of research methodology. Only on very rare occasions is it not reliable.

  16. I’m coming into this discussion way, way late, but I can’t resist suggesting an enhancement of Beshear’s whole idea: make Kentucky law conorm with that of Nevada and have a big garish hotel on site at the park and call it “Tamar’s Tent” (see Genesis Chapter 38). The personnel who work there could call themselves “Tamar,” “Rahab,” “Gomer” (after Hosea’s wife), “Ruth” (assuming she unovered more than Boaz’ feet), “Mary Magdalene,” “Mystery Babylon”…Hey, WHAT budget deficit? Merry Christmas, everybody.

  17. Perp, reading her posts wouldn’t change a thing. I’m not knowledgeable enough in biblical history to verify anything she says.

  18. I’d love to have my research reviewed by an authority in Biblical Anthropology. Susan Burns has done this at her blog Yam Suph: http://falashaleott.blogspot.com/ Her work is well worth reading.

    It is very difficult to review work at a blog, however. That will be easier when I finish the books.

    Peer Review is a good thing, but many anthropologists have never been peer reviewed. I think of the monographs of people like Claude Levi-Strass and Ruth Benedict. Their books have stood the test of time and I hope that mine will also, when I finally get them written and published!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Bible Belt Blogger © 2014 Frontier Theme