November 8, 2002
1. Shopping for Israeli goods
2. "Rusty": Jewish Relatives?
3. Creationism: The Final Notes (we hope)
1. Shopping for Israeli goods
From: Eric and Lori Swim
Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-140
Brit-Am ladies might be interested in the best place to shop for scarves and
hats from Israel is:
http://www.tznius.com or (mirror site) http://www.modestclothing.com
Miriam, owner of Tznius, is living in Jerusalem and helping out a friend
also by putting her hats on-line.
Shipping is free and prices are great. Scarves are beautiful.
I personally have placed several orders and have never been disappointed.
Lori in Kansas
2. "Rusty": Jewish Relatives?
Subject: English with Jewish descent I wonder how many and why so common
I have just found out from my Aunt this
week that my Grampa Burningham's
Mothers name was Ida Bouviere and she was a Jewish woman from France. What
is interesting to me or would be interesting to find out is how frequently
Anglo's married people of Jewish descent over history. It seems to be a
common occurrence at least from my families experience. It would seem
fitting that the two most dominant tribes of Israel Joseph and Judah would
at least in part stay together because these two tribes rely on each other
for support even if societies which include these two tribes living
together and as a whole might not be aware of each other at the present
they still seem to compliment each other and the world is blessed for it.
Look at the States there are more Jew's in the States then there are in
Israel this is a fine example of Joseph and Judah together. I think when
the dust settles we will be surprised at the amount of people that will
3. Creationism: The Final Notes (we
Our brief (and possibly superfluous) excursion into the field of how old
the earth is
aroused quite a lot of responses some of which were quite passionate but
all of which
I found worth reading. We however cannot allow ourselves to be diverted
from what are specific task
The following excerpted notes are posted here for the record. If you wish
to correspond with me further on the
subject I am always happy to hear from all of you but I will probably
refrain in future from publishing correspondence on this subject.
(1) From: "." <email@example.com>
Subject: 6000 years
There is scientific evidence supporting
a 6000 year universe, just as
there is scientific evidence supporting Geocentricity. Stick to it,
(2) Dear Yair:
Did Mr David Glen , Historian of Science,
ever consider the fact
"civilization" is only 5,763 years old as we know it now?
James Linduff, Ph.D., Historian and practitioner of Law
(3) From: CECIL CROW
In response to William Glen,Phd,and historian of science,
I would suggest that he obtain a copy of Genesis One,Israeli
nuclear physicist Mr. Gerald Schroeder( and Bible-believing),MIT professor,
presents a scientific reasoning of Creation. (www.LEVITT.COM)
As for myself I line up with the Bible, but this explanation does seem
to help with the more scientific minded among us.
(4) From: Robert Graves
Your reply to the Geologist was right on target! Excellent explanation.
Who cares how old the earth is and for that matter the universe in general?
While I am not an expert in that person's field I have read extensively in
history and your point about the length of man's existence on earth,
particularly as a civilized group does not extend beyond 6000 years or so!
What matters for all of us is mankind's ultimate destiny under the
rulership of Messiah and Israel..
May Adonai bless and prosper you and the work!
(5) Dear Mr. Davidiy,
With interest, I read your e-mail of 11/07 relating to your stand on
creation. Although you are leaving your options open, I sense you believe
strongly that the earth was created in 6 days. There are several
creationist scientists who have proved this to be true and are exposing the
fallacies of an earth that is "billions of years old". If you are
interested, check out Kent Hovind's web site: drdino.com
He not only advocates a 6 24 hr day creation, but also has significant
proof that there are some species of dinosaurs still existing on earth.
Although Mr. Hovind is a Christian, he has spent many years thoroughly
studying, and I think you will be impressed at his pofessional as well as
scientific approach to prove his points.
He also has a fascinating study on Noach's
ark and how he has found in
100's of world wide cultures, history of some of the facts surrounding this
Thank you for your web site, it is wonderful to have a well-rounded view
and news that affects us all. The way in which you present the truth of
what is happening in Jeruasalem and the historical facts of the settlement
of Israelites around the world in incredible! Keep up the good work!
May you be blessed continually in your work by the Holy One, blessed be He.
Ahava and Shalom,
(6) From: Charles
A point often set aside by creationists. Scripture, contrary to some
arguments, does not disallow the existence of a very old earth. Thus the
estimates offered by science are tolerable. If God made "all things" some
6,000 years ago, why then go on to take six full 24 hour days to do what was
done in Genesis? Clearly, during the six days of Genesis God worked with a
preexisting earth. Is there a scripture that says otherwise? The proposal
here is that what happened during the few days mentioned in Genesis, an
activity of possibly some 6,000 years ago, was the preparing of earth for a
special assignment ~man's habitation. Before the six days of Genesis, the
planet was not hospitable for man.
(7) From: MICHAEL ADOLPH
I am a surgeon and a scientist.
I believe there is excellent evidence for
a young earth, a recent origin of mankind, and
the intelligent design of a Creator.
These are concepts not taught at most
secular universities, because scientific careers
are destroyed if any investigation
conflicts with the 'old earth/evolution' dogma.
Let me say that Dr. Glen does not speak for all scientists.
His statement, "Your belief in a 6000 year-old Earth is
simply irrational and places you beyond the
realm of reason" reveals that he probably
has never seriously investigated scientific evidence
that conflicts with his own belief system.
His statement, "Every scientist I know (I
know hundreds from all over the world) understands that the earth is 3, 550,
000,000 years old--NOT 6000", is a religious statement
based upon his faith and the faith of his colleagues,
not necessarily upon reproducible science.
You can speak for me on this issue, Yair.
Michael Adolph, MD FACS
Comment by Yair Davidiy: I hope this
closes the issue for us here
and that nobody is offended.
Brit-Am does not agree with conventional academic doctrines on several issues
but we do study academic publications and encourage others to do so. Our
is that at the fringe levels of mainstream academic research informational
leads (mainly on historical matters)
pointed out by us were found useful. In other cases facts we emphasized and
possibilities we foresaw later became
"fashionable" in academic discussions.
In <"Brit-Am Now"-141: Geneva> I briefly mentioned slanders against us by a
For the sake of balance it is worth mentioning that we have quite a few
supporters who do all they
can to protect our good name, make sure that we are not misrepresented or
misquoted, and who promote
Brit-Am Truths in general. Also, even though we still are in financial need
we do receive contributions
and we are appreciative. Every little bit helps and is put to use. Some
very, very good people identify
with Brit-Am and do what they can for Brit-Am, each in their own way. Even
being a subscriber and taking
our message to heart is important. Everything has a reason. Divine
Providence has chosen the relative few
who are with us for a reason. Quality wise we are doing well, in my opinion.
May God bless all of you,