Month: July 2017

ISBN-13: 978-0978539672

ISBN-10: 0978539672

Published by ALL EYES ON ME, Inc.

Copyright © 2010 by Sophia Stewart.

All rights reserved

From Sophia Stewart comes the next installment of one of the biggest franchises in Hollywood history, “Matrix 4 The Evolution: Cracking the Genetic Code.”

Wait; from who comes what? I thought that the Wachowski brothers wrote the Matrix, is this Sophia person trying to cut into their mythos?

Well, this is a book review and not an episode of everything you ever wanted to know about a sorted copyright infringement affair but were too busy watching the Matrix to research. Let us put it this way; Matrix 4 is a “book” which is actually a script (written in traditional script form) from which a movie can be produced. Within it, we finally get a big clue as to who John Connor is. Wait, what? This is getting stranger and weirder. John Connor is from another of the biggest franchises in Hollywood history namely, the Terminator franchise, is this Sophia person trying to cut into James Cameron and Gale Anne Hurd’s mythos as well?

Legal battles (about which you can read here) which have been ongoing for years have determined that to Sophia Stewart belong the rightful ownership of, both, the Matrix and Terminator franchises. You can read all about it at Truth About Matrix and Matrix Terminator. The long and short of it is that Sophia is “the oracle” within the Matrix mythos. She wrote a book titled The Third Eye from which, without credit nor financial compensation, the Matrix and Terminator franchises were birthed; thus, Sophia is also known as the mother of the Matrix.

It is from her context that one can discern what is the real “Matrix,” who is the person simply named “Neo,” who is “John Connor [J.C.],” what is the relation between the two mythos…and why on Earth was the Terminator naked?

Here is some background on Sophia from her website:

Writer of the Terminator and Matrix movies Child prodigy, prolific writer, poet and creative genius are just a few of the terms used to describe Sophia Stewart. Stewart enters the City University of New York and received her Bachelor of Arts Degree in journalism and minors in law and psychology. While attending the University, she studied under the guidance of many celebrated authors and writers…She, also, served as an intern for television at the Public Broadcasting Station WNET Thirteen, where she worked with Oscar winning film documentary producer, Perry Miller Adato.
Her graduating class was honored with a special letter/citation from President Jimmy Carter…she studied cinema at the University of Southern California (USC). It was there she had the opportunity to study film…By the early 80’s she had started writing professionally…It was at Columbia Pictures where [Columbia Pictures Vice President] Dick Berres supported her aspirations to write and gave Sophia five first draft scripts…She is an accomplished award-winning poet who has published over one hundred poems.
NAACP Award In December, 2005, Sophia Stewart was awarded the NAACP Rosa Parks Award for her contribution to the film industry…she also got the honor award for empowering the people from the Las Vegas Music Awards in September 2006. On June 2, 2007 she was nominated for the international award called: ‘Lifting Up the World with a Oneness Heart.’ An award offered to people who have made exceptional contributions to the human family…

The site noted that “In The Third Eye, she has transformed comprehensive metaphysical and spiritual concepts into the most revered science fiction films of the 20th century.” Indeed, she writes in terms that combine concepts of evolution with mysticism with a little J.C. thrown in to the mix. Now, I would say that what this means depends on how we define the terms evolution and mysticism (and J.C. for that matter but I do not want to cross the line into spoiler territory). Yet, Sophia would state, or so I think, that the definition is not as important as the vibration, the code, those terms evoke or produce.

One example of this is the following, “a baby in a woman’s womb showing its gills from living in water until he arrives to earth.” Now, this hearkens back to the long discredited claims of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny by Ernst Haeckel but just what is meant by “arrives to earth”? Hence, the above referenced combination of concepts.

Interestingly, since Matrix 4 The Evolution: Cracking the Genetic Code was copy written in 2010 it begins with “a monologue foreshadowing scenes of the 2012 prophecy” when “The evolution of the Earth was fulfilled in the realization of the prophecy” which means that the story will either be set in an alternate reality Earth or the date and result of the prophecy will have to be edited within the movie. One result from the fulfillment is, “Before the polar shift, man’s greatest life expectancy was one hundred twenty years, but now it has been extended to nine hundred years.” Well, in at least part of the script, we are catapulted to the year 2525 AD.

We also learn of “the machine’s planet” and that at one point, “We actually got this technology from the planet of the machines” so that there is some reverse engineering of sort occurring. We also learn about “free energy.”

Back on Earth we also travel to the Giza pyramids in Egypt where a hovercraft “passes over what looks like the eye of Osiris shaped by rocks and trees on the water.”

Within the script we encounter some of the traditional characters within the Matrix mythos and meet some new ones—along with a special guest appearance by the T-800 Terminator; this is going to be (or rather, continue being) epic!

The fact that we all have the Matrix movies in mind makes this book / script very user friendly as since it contains narration and direction, such as fade in, etc., we get a great set of visuals and the story comes to life within the mind of the reader.

For being such a complex and involved story, it is very easy and fun to read as the reader can very easily fit the mythos, both of them, thus far and take off from there well into the future.

Read it now and when the movie comes out you can sound cool saying, “The book was better” ;o)

You can visit Sophia at the following sites:

Truth About Matrix

Matrix Terminator

Youtube – MatrixOracleVision

Facebook – give-us-the-matrix-4

Twitter – matrix4movie

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

This article is meant to shows what some texts that reference the birth of Cain, etc. have to say in relation to the serpent seed of Satan theory. This is important to consider because serpent seed of Satan theorists must appeal to apocrypha and other such non-, un- and anti-biblical texts since the Bible does not promulgate the theory.

The text titled Pirke De (chapters of) Rabbi Eliezer is generally ascribed to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus shortly after 833 AD. The version translated and annotated by Gerald Friedlander (London; Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd., New York: The Bloch Publishing Company, 1916 AD) contains many interesting notes. One reference is to the Book of Adam and Eve IXXIV:

[Eve]…brought forth her first-born son, and with him a daughter. Then Adam rejoiced at Eve’s deliverance, and also over the children she had borne him. And Adam ministered unto Eve in the cave, until the end of eight days; when they named the son Cain, and the daughter Luluwa.

Within our context, of the serpent seed of Satan theory, this text has Cain being Adam’s son.

LXXV notes,

When the days of nursing the children were ended, Eve again conceived, and when her days were accomplished she brought forth another son and daughter; and they named the son Abel, and the daughter Aklia.

LXXVI notes

…as to hard-hearted Cain, Satan came to him by night, showed himself and said unto him, ‘Since Adam and Eve love thy brother Abel much more than they love thee, and wish to join him in marriage to thy beautiful sister, because they love him; but wish to join thee in marriage to his ill-favoured sister, because they hate thee; Now, therefore, I counsel thee, when they do that, to kill thy brother; then thy sister will be left for thee; and his sister will be cast, away.

LXXVIII states that indeed, eventually, Adam said “We will join Abel’s sister in marriage to Cain, and Cain’s sister to Abel.”

In LXXVIII, Eve states, “I do not like Cain because he is hard-hearted” and that “Satan came to Cain in the figure of a man of the field, and said to him…they have agreed to marry Abel’s sister to thee, and thy sister to him. But if it was not that I love thee, I would not have told thee this thing.”
Cain “went to Eve, his mother, and beat her, and cursed her, and said to her, ‘Why are ye about taking my sister to wed her to my brother? Am I dead?’”

After God accepts Abel’s offering but not Cain’s, Cain “opened his mouth and blasphemed God.” Then when “Cain came down from the altar, his colour changed and of a woeful countenance.”

LXXIX notes:

Then Cain, the hard-hearted, and cruel murderer, took a large stone, and smote his brother with it upon the head, until his brains oozed out, and he weltered in his blood, before him.

Cain loved his own twin and thus, did not want Abel to marry her as he wanted her for himself.

Gerald Friedlander also provides a note titled, “Cain and Abel 151”:

…as it is said, “And Adam knew Eve his wife” (Gen. iv. 1). What is the meaning of “knew”? (He knew) that she had conceived. And she saw his likeness that it was not of the earthly beings, but of the heavenly beings, and she prophesied and said: “I have gotten a man with the Lord” (ibid.)…[the] serpent was made to crawl on its belly “for having increased the pangs of child-bearing, through the seduction of Eve”

Vita Adae Et Evae / The Books Of Adam And Eve (see Why is it not in the Bible? The Books, or Life, of Adam and Eve) XXI:1-3,

And behold, there came twelve angels and two ‘virtues’, standing on the right and on the left of Eve; and Michael was standing on the right; and he stroked her on the face as far as to the breast and said to Eve: ‘Blessed art thou, Eve, for Adam’s sake. Since his prayers and intercessions are great, I have been sent that thou mayst receive our help. Rise up now, and prepare thee to bear. And she bore a son and he was shining; and at once the babe rose up and ran and bore a blade of grass in his hands, and gave it to his mother, and his name was called Cain.

Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain, “Kabbalistic Genetics of the Holy Seed & Reclaiming the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel,” Donmeh-West (originally published as “The Lost Sheep of Israel Monographs in Psychology and Religion,” Number 11, Institute for Noahite Studies, 1986 AD) quotes the Kabbalistic mystical text The Zohar 1:128a-b:

Alas for the stupidity and blindness of men who do not perceive the mysteries of the Torah and do not know that by ‘the beasts of the field’ are designated the unlearned [first creation] . . . The ‘beasts of the field’ were like [soul-less] animals among men.

Such utterly unfounded rewritings of the text of the Bible lead to further unfounded rewritings such as:

…the first “man” created in Genesis 1:26 who was “fruitful and multiplied” with his female counterpart (“Lilith”), thus creating the “beasts of the field”, or the “unlearned” and “soulless” mankind referred to in the Zohar. Moreover, the Zohar states…this Nachash was “the ideal form of . . . the Satan” (Zohar 1:35b).
Thus, Nachash was to the “first” creation what Adam was to the “second”…the second Adam received a “living soul”, but Nachash (the first Adam) did not.

In his book Against Heresies Book I, Chapter 30, Irenaeus (early 2nd century-c. 202 AD) refers to the doctrines of the Ophites and Sethians in regards to whom he notes (I.30.1):

Others, again, portentously declare that there exists, in the power of Bythus, a certain primary light, blessed, incorruptible, and infinite: this is the Father of all, and is styled the first man. They also maintain that his Ennœa, going forth from him, produced a son, and that this is the son of man— the second man. Below these, again, is the Holy Spirit, and under this superior spirit the elements were separated from each other, viz., water, darkness, the abyss, chaos, above which they declare the Spirit was borne, calling him the first woman.

He notes that they believe that “the power which proceeded from the woman by ebullition, being besprinkled with light, fell downward from the place occupied by its progenitors, yet possessing by its own will that besprinkling of light; and it they call Sinistra, Prunicus, and Sophia, as well as masculo-feminine” and also that Ialdabaoth was the first descendant of the mother. Of course there is much esotericism here but the point is that the names Prunicus and Ialdabaoth are referenced in the key text below.

Irenaeus notes (I.30.7):

But Ialdabaoth, feeling envious at this, was pleased to form the design of again emptying man by means of woman, and produced a woman from his own enthymesis, whom that Prunicus laying hold of, imperceptibly emptied her of power. But the others coming and admiring her beauty, named her Eve, and falling in love with her, begot sons by her, whom they also declare to be the angels. But their mother (Sophia) cunningly devised a scheme to seduce Eve and Adam, by means of the serpent, to transgress the command of Ialdabaoth. Eve listened to this as if it had proceeded from a son of God, and yielded an easy belief. She also persuaded Adam to eat of the tree regarding which God had said that they should not eat of it.

They then declare that, on their thus eating, they attained to the knowledge of that power which is above all, and departed from those who had created them. When Prunicus perceived that the powers were thus baffled by their own creature, she greatly rejoiced, and again cried out, that since the father was incorruptible, he (Ialdabaoth) who formerly called himself the father was a liar; and that, while Anthropos and the first woman (the Spirit) existed previously, this one (Eve) sinned by committing adultery.

Life of Adam and Eve aka The Apocalypse of Moses I:1-3 (Hebrew version dates from first century BC to first century AD, the Greek (Apocalypsis Mosis) and Latin (Vita Adae et Evae) between second and fourth centuries AD):

This is the story of Adam and Eve after they had gone out of Paradise. And Adam knew his wife Eve and went upwards to the sun-rising and abode there eighteen years and two months. And Eve conceived and bare two sons; Adiaphotos, who is called Cain and Amilabes who is called Abel (trans. R.H. Charles Oxford).

Thus, the text affirms that Adam is the father of Cain. For more info on this text, see: Why is it not in the Bible? The Books, or Life, of Adam and Eve

Flavius Josephus (37 AD-c. 100 AD) Antiquities of the Jews “Concerning the posterity of Adam, and the ten generations from him to the deluge”:

1. ADAM and Eve had two sons: the elder of them was named Cain; which name, when it is interpreted, signifies a possession: the younger was Abel, which signifies sorrow….Cain was not only very wicked in other respects, but was wholly intent upon getting; and he first contrived to plough the ground. He slew his brother on the occasion following: – They had resolved to sacrifice to God.

Thus, the text affirms that Adam is the father of Cain.

In The Cherubim, Philo of Alexandria aka Philo Judaeus (c. 25 BC-c. 50 AD) quotes Genesis 4:1 thusly in XII (40), “And Adam knew his wife, and she conceived and brought forth Cain; and she said I have gotten a man by means of the Lord; and he caused her also to bring forth Abel his Brother” (trans. Charles Duke Yonge).

Thus, the text quotes Genesis 4:1 unlike the serpent seed of Satan theorists’ favorite Targum, the The Targum of Palestine, Commonly Entitled the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, on the Book of Genesis aka Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (for why that is the case, see the article: Reply to Zen Garcia on the serpent seed of Satan theory) and just like any Bible.

Kerygmata Petrou (180-220 AD) known only from the Pseudo-Clementine literature (and distinguished from the Preaching of Peter quoted by Clement of Alexandria) has the following in Polemic Against Paul, H.II.16:

…from Adam, who was made after the image of God, there sprang first the unrighteous Cain, and then the righteous Abel.

Thus, the text affirms that Adam is the father of unrighteous Cain. This is important because serpent seed of Satan theorists claim that unrighteous Cain could not have been born to righteous Adam.

A text from Clement of Alexandria Stromata 3.13-14 refers to Julius Cassianus. This is the translation in J.E.L. Oulton’s Alexandrian Christianity as scanned by Jay Raskin. (160-180 AD)

Chap XIV:94:

He then does violence to Paul, making him hold that birth originated from deceit because he says: “I am afraid lest, as the serpent deceived Eve, your thoughts should be corrupted from the simplicity which is towards Christ.” But the Lord, as all agree, came to that which was astray, but it had not strayed from above into earthly birth…

Thus, the text affirms that birth, that of Cain, did not originate from deceit. Eve eating of the forbidden fruit did originate from deceit but not birth. This is important as because serpent seed of Satan theorists claim that the tree, the fruit and the eating are all symbolic of Eve having sex with Satan.

The Catholic encyclopedia New Advent has an interesting article about the Tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In 1950 AD—which is one thousand, nine hundred and fifty years after Mary lived—the Roman Catholic Church decided to make is official that Mary was assumed into heaven.

Official refers not merely to a doctrine but to an ex cathedra dogma. This means that they changed the gospel by adding to it as prior to 1950 AD a Catholic could be saved whilst disregarding whether or not Mary was assumed and yet, after 1950 AD (literally from one minute to the next) they could no longer be saved unless they believe it.

One of the problems with the dogma is that it did not specify whether or not Mary died before being assumed. Thus, this is a portion of the disputes which have ensued ever since.
On the one hand, it is frustrating that Pope Pius XII, supposedly being guided by God himself in this new revelation, did not bother being very specific.

Now, if Mary did not die then there would, historically, be no such thing as a tomb of Mary. On the other hand, if Mary did die then she would have demonstrated the she suffered from the stain of original sin which the Roman Catholic Church denies via their dogma of the immaculate conception (which dates to 1854 AD). Thus, perhaps Pius was attempting to walk the fine line as he was caught between a logical rock and a theological hard place—he got away with it by being vague, making room for both and letting lesser clergy and laypersons deal with the fallout.

New Advent notes that the most likely place for the tomb of Mary is Jerusalem. They reference apocryphal texts from 2nd-4th c. AD and Lencius’ Acts of St. John by Prochurus (160-170 AD) which relates that he visited Ephesus along with Prochurus, “after Mary’s death.”
They cite B. Inatii missa S. Joanni (370 AD) to the effect that “the Blessed Virgin passed the remainder of her days at Jerusalem.”
Also, Dionysius the Areopagite who wrote to the Bishop Titus (363 AD) and the Joannis liber de Dormitione Mariae (3rd-4th c. AD) as well as De transitu B.M. Virginis (4th c. AD) which “place her tomb at Gethsemane.”

The encyclopedia notes that these texts reflect, “the tradition of the early centuries” and that “At the beginning of the fifth century a pilgrim from Armenia visited ‘the tomb of the Virgin in the valley of Josaphat’, and about 431 the ‘Breviarius de Hierusalem’ mentions in that valley ‘the basilica of Holy Mary, which contains her sepulcher.’” Also, “pilgrims of various rites repaired thither to venerate the empty tomb of Mary.”

They also list those who “teach this same fact and bear witness that this tradition was accepted by all the Churches of East and West”:

St. Gregory of Tours, St. Modestus, St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Andrew, Bishop of Crete, John of Thessalonica, Hippolytus of Thebes, and Venerable Bede.

Moreover, a “Shroud of the Blessed Virgin” was kept at the Church of Our Lady of Blachernae in Gethsemane.

Where the Roman Catholic system really is unique and utterly fails is described as follows within the encyclopedia. Following another tradition; Sister Catherine Emmerich (d. 1824 AD) claimed, via her visions, that Mary did, indeed, die but that she was buried 3-4 leagues south of Ephesus. They add that “The revelations of Ven. Maria d’Agreda do not contradict those of Catherine Emmerich.”
On the other hand, St. Brigid claims that when she first visited the church of Gethsemane, Mary appeared and told her that “spoke to her of her stay of three days in that place and of her Assumption into Heaven.”

So you see the utter folly and yet, value of the Roman Catholic system; have a problem? No problem! Just claim that Mary appeared and gave you a quaint solution.

Did Mary die? Yes. Was she buried? Yes. Well then, what of her assumption? Well, she did that as well.

So, you can have your tomb and venerate it too…whilst also claiming that she was assumed into heaven to sit a queen, etc., etc., etc.

It is convenient so as to support Roman Catholicism’s false dogmas but utterly bankrupt theologically.
It demonstrates the follow of relying on the Bible plus traditions, plus visions, plus ghostly apparitions, plus the declarations of Popes, etc., etc., etc.

For much details on the issue of the assumption itself, see: Mary in Roman Catholicism, part 12 – Assumed Into Heaven?

The book that is worth killing people
and burning flags for is not the book that I wrote“
—Salmon Rushdie1

Cat’s Got Your Tongue? No, But He Wishes He Did

Cat Stevens a.k.a. Yusuf Islam received the “Man of Peace” award from Nobel Peace Prize laureates.

When Salman Rushdie’s novel was published this man of peace stated that instead of attending a demonstration where Rushdie’s effigy would be burned, “I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing.” And that If Rushdie came to his doorstep, “I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like.” “I’d try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is.”

A fellow lover of peace, author Fay Weldon, stated, “Burn the book today, kill the writer tomorrow.”

Another fellow flower child, Dr. Kalim Siddiqui (director of the Muslim Institute in London) stated, “We are not a pacifist religion. We don’t turn the other cheek. We hit back,” he also complained that a broadcast of A Satanic Scenario, courtroom-style program in which he participated, was cut and omitted the Muslim justification for punishment of blasphemy.

In 2000 Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam was deported from Israel due to allegations that he backed the militant Islamic group Hamas and was denied entry into the US. Although he has “consistently denounced the acts of terrorists as being directly contradictory to the peaceful teachings of Islam,” and has “never knowingly supported any terrorist group.”2

On the CBS’s Sunday Morning (12-03-06) Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam was interviewed and asked about the good old days. Footage was shown of him at the time of the Rushdie fiasco in which he said, “Any writer who abuses the prophet, or indeed any prophet, under Islamic Law the sentence for that is actually death.” Clear enough isn’t it? At a time when the issue was whether it was right to support the murder of Rushdie, Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam explains to the world that it is perfectly in keeping with Islamic Law.

Except that in the year 2006 he further explains, “I certainly never supported the Fatwa. But when I was asked about, you know, the actual principle of blasphemy and capital punishment, well, like the Bible, I said, yeah, its there in the Qur’an. I couldn’t deny that.”

Does this strike you as convolution? I did not support the call for Rushdie’s murder (the Fatwa) but I support the Qur’an and Islamic Law upon which the Fatwa is based?!? Moreover, what on Earth does the Bible have to do with it? Except, of course, the fact that its mention is a diversionary tactic.

The New Testament teaches:

“But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who despitefully use you. And to him who strikes you on the one cheek, also offer the other. And to him who takes away your garment, do not forbid your tunic also…

For if you love those who love you, what thanks do you have? For sinners also love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what thanks do you have? For sinners also do the same. And if you lend to those of whom you hope to receive, what thanks do you have?

For sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return. And your reward shall be great, and you shall be the sons of the Highest. For He is kind to the unthankful and to the evil” (Luke 6:27-29, 32-35).

Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam said that “Any writer who abuses…any prophet, under Islamic Law the sentence for that is actually death.”
But Jesus taught the following in referring to Himself as the Son of Man, “whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him” (Matthew 12:32).

Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam further stated, “I needed to go through a whole period of learning and to understand the politics of, you know, of life in the big world.”
Sure, there were murders, maiming, riots, bombings and Rushdie has to live his life in fear but it was a good lesson for Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam.

But what is the ultimate bottom line here, why was Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam on “Sunday Morning”? Well, the crazy Cat is back, he is recording a new album and, apparently, wants the filthy lucre of the great satan – America.

Comments by Charles Krauthammer
From The Washington Post Company, © 2006, 9-22-06, p. A17
Tolerance: A Two-Way Street

Excerpt:

“The pope makes a reference to a 14th-century Byzantine emperor’s remark about Islam imposing itself by the sword, and to protest this linking of Islam and violence…’How dare you say Islam is a violent religion? I’ll kill you for it’ is not exactly the best way to go about refuting the charge.

But of course, refuting is not the point here. The point is intimidation. First Salman Rushdie. Then the false Newsweek report about Koran-flushing at Guantanamo Bay. Then the Danish cartoons…And the intimidation succeeds: politicians bowing and scraping to the mob over the cartoons;

Saturday’s craven New York Times editorial telling the pope to apologize; the plague of self-censorship about anything remotely controversial about Islam – this in a culture in which a half-naked pop star blithely stages a mock crucifixion as the highlight of her latest concert tour.”

To those unaware, the “Origin-of-Life Prize” is the brainchild of “The Gene Emergence Project” which is, in turn, a project of The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation, Inc. which is a 501(c)3 science and education foundation headquartered near NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD.

The prize is, of course, based on the consideration of submissions, “Origin-of-life specialists drawn from many universities and institutes in over forty countries will review already published peer-reviewed papers on a tiered basis.” On their rules for judging page, they elucidate (emphasis added for emphasis):

Judges of The Origin-of-Life Prize Include:
Below is the original list of judges, each of whom agreed to judge the Prize in writing, at least via email, but usually by signed hard-copy form letters which are still on file. Some of these judges have passed away over the last 13 years. We deliberately leave them on the original list to honor their prominence in the life origin community during their long careers. New judges are welcome to participate as long as they have no affiliation of any kind with the Foundation.

So far, over the last dozen years of judging, no submission has been passed up to the second tier of judges by the first-tier of outside evaluators. This means that very few of the higher level judges have ever been asked to review a submission.

This is not the fault of the Foundation. We have no control over outside judges’ decisions. We regularly send submissions out to one or two higher level judges just to make sure that the lower-tier judges are not being too harsh. In some instances, we have sent what we felt were quality submissions out to 20 lower-tier judges rather than the required 10. Since the Prize was first announced in NATURE and SCIENCE, a total of only two thumbs-up votes have been received from outside judges.

The list of “Name . Country . Organizational Affiliation” include 189 personages.

Also, one could accept an Invitation to become an advisor:

The Gene Emergence Project welcomes qualified biochemists, molecular biologists, biophysicists, information theorists, artificial life and intelligence experts, philosophers of science, molecular evolutionists, astro/exobiologists, mathematicians, and many other researchers in origin-of-life related fields.

Yet, there is no use in providing their email anymore as after 12 years the experiment was a miserable failure as they note on their homepage under “Last updated November, 2013” (emphasis added for emphasis):

On October 26, 2013 the Governing Board of the Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc. voted to put on hold the Origin of Life Prize Program, and to temporarily suspend the Origin of Life Prize offer. Over the 13 years since The Origin of Life Prize was first announced in NATURE and SCIENCE, no submission has ever made it past the screening judges to higher-level judges. No submission has ever addressed, let alone answered, any of the questions below, for which the Prize offer was instituted. Most of these Prize-offer questions centered on: “How did inanimate, prebiotic nature prescribe or program the first genome?”
Life origin literature continues to circumvent and ignore this problem, if not deliberately sweep it under the rug. The Prize Program did much to raise consciousness and stimulate more consideration of the real problem of life origin – Prescription of future biofunction that was not yet selectable by the environment.

Here were the ignored and swept under the rug issues:

The Fundamental Questions for Life Origin Research – How did molecular evolution generate metabolic recipe and instructions using a representational symbol system? How did prebiotic nature set all of the many configurable switch-settings to integrate so many interdependent circuits? How did inanimate nature sequence nucleotides to spell instructions to the ribosomes on how to sequence amino acids into correctly folding proteins? How did nature then code these instructions into Hamming block codes to reduce noise pollution in the Shannon channel? What programmed the error-detection and error-correcting software that keeps life from quickly deteriorating into non-life? In short, which of the four known forces of physics organized and prescribed life into existence? Was it gravity? Was it the strong or weak nuclear force? Was it the electromagnetic force? How could any combination of these natural forces or force fields program decision nodes to prescribe future utility? Why and how would a prebiotic environment value, desire or seek to generate utility? Can chance and/or necessity program or prescribe sophisticated biofunction? Life is utterly dependent upon the steering of reaction sequences into biochemical pathways and cycles. Life pursues the goal of staying alive. All known life is cybernetic, meaning controlled. Life’s most prominent attribute is programming and tight regulation at every turn. Yet programming, prescription, control and regulation are all formalisms, not mere physicodynamic interactions. The programming of life is what makes life unique [1-3] Metabolism First models cannot sustain themselves as perpetual motion machines, even in open environments, without heritable formal instructions needed to circumvent locally and temporarily 2nd Law organizational and useful energy deterioration. Prescription and programming arise only out of Decision Theory, not Stochastic Theory. How did prebiotic nature program the first decision nodes? Only Choice-Contingent Causation and Control (CCCC) could possibly program a genome and epigenome. The peer-reviewed literature below provides valuable background information showing why life-origin theorists struggle to generate a model or theory that addresses any of the most important questions of life origin.

1. Abel, D.L., Is Life Unique? Life 2012, 2, 106-134 Open access at http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2072/2071/2106.

2. Johnson, D.E., Programming of Life. Big Mac Publishers: Sylacauga, Alabama, 2010; p 127.

3. Abel, D.L., The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control. LongView Press-Academic: New York, NY, 2011; p 389 pages

The issue is that this was not some wacky Bible thumping young Earth creationist ploy to make evolutionists look bad. This was evolutionists hoping to further research and get answers but alas; the Origin-of-Life Prize never acquired a life of its own but taught us something about some scientists circumvent, ignore and deliberately sweep bothersome problems.

This is all part of that which was noted within the Scientific Cenobites series that is that much which passes for science is, in reality, interpretations of evidence based on worldview philosophies, schools of thought, bias for preferred theories and seeking to protect them, professional rivalries, assuring grants/funding, etc.
Within the Atheist and Darwinian Science and Story Telling series evidence was provided of just that, narrative story telling being passed off as science.
Upon a premise of worldview-philosophy-mythology some, such as Richard Dawkins actually claim that “religion” and/or “faith” is a “science stopper”; see Question for atheists: is “God did it” a science stopper?

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

Note: I originally published this as a very long essay so as to make it easier for Zen to get my whole reply in one shot. However, I have now broken it up into sections so as to make it more manageable and thus more user/reader friendly.

To a comment I made to a video titled, “Sons of God Prerelease Interview with Professor Truth – 11/11/2012,” Zen Garcia replied with a thoughtful, well researched, lengthy and detailed description of why, how and upon what he holds to the serpent seed of Satan theory. This was very much appreciated and gave occasion for me to write the following not only as to why I do not hold to that theory but also as to why, or so it seems to me, Zen’s reasoning, sources and conclusions are faulty.
In certain cyber circles, Zen Garcia is a very popular expositor of the serpent seed of Satan theory and is active on his website, YouTube channel and has been interviewed numerous times. Beyond the cyber realm; he has also published various books.

The main point of my comment to him was that “Genesis 4:1 states, ‘Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain.’” This is key because the serpent seed of Satan theory claims that Cain was the result of a sexual encounter between Eve and Satan.

The loosely parsed sections below are subtitled thusly:

Hebrew Torah, Aramaic Targum And English KJV Eve’s Desire For The Angel Of The Lord The Original Sex Sin Cain’s Bloodline / Seedline The Curse And Bloodlines / Seedlines The Eating Fruit And Pain In Childbirth Correlation The Resolution Of The Mysterious Problems The Seedline/Bloodlines Jesus’ Parabolic Statements Who Are Children Of The Wicked One? The Serpent Seed Of Satan Bible Codes

Steve Quayle On Elite Bloodlines

For my whole Serpent Seed of Satan series including my discussions with Zen Garcia, see see here. In the next segment we will consider the Hebrew Torah, Aramaic Targum and English KJV.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia
Facebook: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia

Satanic Verses Versus Satanic Actions

This is a synopsis of the events surrounding the Salman Rushdie controversy.

In 1988 The Satanic Verses was published and banned in India and South Africa. There was an attempted ban in Britain.

In 1989 Muslims in Britain engaged in book burnings along with another attempt at a ban. In protests and riots in Pakistan and India 160 people were injured and 19 killed. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issues a fatwa and states, “I inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the author of the Satanic Verses book, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Qur’an, and all those involved in its publication who are aware of its content are sentenced to death.”

He also calls for the murder of any persons publishing the novel. A price reward is offered for the murder of Rushdie. The British government places Rushdie under its protection and he states that he regrets having caused any offence.

The Ayatollah responds thusly, “it is incumbent on every Muslim to employ everything he has, his life and his wealth, to send [Rushdie] to hell.” The novel is published in the US but is pulled from one third of the nation’s bookstores due to a threat that result in the firebombing of two bookstores in Berkeley, CA.

Diplomatic relations between Iran and Britain break down. The 46 member governments of The Organization of the Islamic Conference place penalties for possession of the novel-jail time and or monetary fines.

In 1990 five British bookstores are bombed.

In 1991 the Japanese translator of the novel, Hitoshi Igarashi, is stabbed to death, the Italian translator, Ettore Capriolo, was stabbed and seriously wounded.

In 1993 the Norwegian publisher, Wiliam Nygaard, is seriously injured by a shooting. Also in 1993 the price on Rushdie’s head was placed at $300,000.

In 2006 the price on Rushdie’s head was raised to $2.8 million. Also, The Martyrs Foundation, which is an Iranian government run body stated, “The fatwa by Imam Khomeini in regards to the apostate Salman Rushdie will be in effect forever.”1

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.