Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 2397 Images: 7 Location: Michigan
Thanks: 803 Thanked: 607 times in 438 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
It isnt actually very mysterious either.
Its made up. Just make believe. That explains how it doesnt make sense in the real world, or even within the bounds of its own explaination.
it doesnt make sense because it is non-sense. garbage taken down in written language.
I am fully on board with your investigation here Tat, you can and should hold his feet to the fire, but unfortunately you won't end up boiling answers to the top of his YEC stew. You'll just end up with burnt mess.
_________________ Have you tried that? Looking for answers? Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the truth would be revealed through logic and evidence. -James Williamson MD
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
In the absence of God, I found Man. -Guillermo Del Torro
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. -Derek Bok
You wouldn't like me when i'm angry... Because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources. -The Credible Hulk
Joined: Dec 2009 Posts: 1257
Thanks: 508 Thanked: 473 times in 361 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Thanks Johnson1010, I'm honestly truth seeking here. It seems that one of the two options - symbolic or literal - can be eliminated as invalid. I just eliminated the option of literal. So symbolic is left standing. Then the question is symbolic of what? It can't be symbolic of literal years going by for each day of creation, so that is eliminated. It is symbolic in terms of pairing environments with the celestial orbs and livings creatures set to the number 7 mythological theme (1/4, 2/5, 3/6, 7). But of course that doesn't establish the literal age of the earth in any way. One has to take the myth literally in order to do that. Man had to be literally created on the literal sixth day of creation just as the bible literally says it. And his literal descendants lives have to be calculated to the present day in order to give the earth a young age which then conflicts with science and observation.
So this house of cards seems to rest on the foundation of Genesis 1 being taken literally true. With the sand foundation exposed to the tide that has just come in, it would seem the entire house falls down as the sand foundation of [i]literalistic interpretation[/] is washed out. You'd think that a YEC proponent would do anything and everything to prevent that from happening rather than evade and attempt to divert the issue elsewhere. But, perhaps evading and diverting the issue elsewhere is a conscious or sub conscious mind strategy to draw attention away from the sand foundation of YEC so that no one will realize just how easily washed out it actually is when the torrent comes? It would be a good apologetic strategy for the most part, but it only works on those willing to take the diversion of course.
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
tat tvam asi wrote:
Stahrwe, I just hit a Roman Catholic with it recently, in person, and he immediately confessed that it isn't to be taken as literal. He just leaves it as the mystery that it actually is. We have no absolute answer as it's a work in progress. Why not be honest about it?
Well, I'm not a Roman Catholic, and it is not a work in progress.
Read Genesis Chapter 1 again.
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Last edited by stahrwe on Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Aug 2008 Posts: 1872 Images: 1 Location: NC
Thanks: 410 Thanked: 467 times in 348 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
tat tvam asi wrote:
There are those who believe that the world was created 4004 BC and in six days literally. That makes the world six thousand years and provides an insight into the millenium of Revelation as making for a 7 thousand year old earth - six thousand years followed by a thousand years of peace for a Sabbath rest before the Lake of Fire and so on...
Maybe Stahrwe can answer this question regarding Young Earth beliefs. Some Creationists say the earth is about 6,000 years old, but Stahrwe has said that it's actually about 8,000 years old. For the moment I won't comment on the absurdity of guessing the age of the earth based on texts that were written 2,000 years ago. But I do wonder what weird ideological permutation accounts for this discrepancy.
_________________ -Geo Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child Cicero, Orator 120
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
geo wrote:
tat tvam asi wrote:
There are those who believe that the world was created 4004 BC and in six days literally. That makes the world six thousand years and provides an insight into the millenium of Revelation as making for a 7 thousand year old earth - six thousand years followed by a thousand years of peace for a Sabbath rest before the Lake of Fire and so on...
Maybe Stahrwe can answer this question regarding Young Earth beliefs. Some Creationists say the earth is about 6,000 years old, but Stahrwe has said that it's actually about 8,000 years old. For the moment I won't comment on the absurdity of guessing the age of the earth based on texts that were written 2,000 years ago. But I do wonder what weird ideological permutation accounts for this discrepancy.
Take 8 billion and drop the last six zeros.
Sorry, feeling a bit giddy this afternoon with all the birthday wishes.
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
geo wrote:
tat tvam asi wrote:
There are those who believe that the world was created 4004 BC and in six days literally. That makes the world six thousand years and provides an insight into the millenium of Revelation as making for a 7 thousand year old earth - six thousand years followed by a thousand years of peace for a Sabbath rest before the Lake of Fire and so on...
Maybe Stahrwe can answer this question regarding Young Earth beliefs. Some Creationists say the earth is about 6,000 years old, but Stahrwe has said that it's actually about 8,000 years old. For the moment I won't comment on the absurdity of guessing the age of the earth based on texts that were written 2,000 years ago. But I do wonder what weird ideological permutation accounts for this discrepancy.
Take 8 billion and drop the last six zeros.
Sorry, feeling a bit giddy this afternoon with all the birthday wishes.
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Joined: Dec 2009 Posts: 1257
Thanks: 508 Thanked: 473 times in 361 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
I've read through a lot of horrible apologetic attempts at Genesis 1. None of them ever solve the contradiction.There's ton of twists and everyone seems to have one. But what they all have in common is that something other than the literal interpretation of the bible is required, so the literalism fails apart anyways. They have to try and twist around the words of the bible which comes becomes self defeating in the long run. One good example is saying that the sun was created on the first day when God made the heaven and the earth. These apologies suggest that the sun, moon, and stars existed on the first day when the heaven was created, but they remained invisible until the fourth day at which point they could be observed from the earth.
But, there was no life on the earth on day 4 in order to observe or not observe the sun. Now that's just plain horrible! Because the bible contradicts itself by having the heaven created at the beginning of the first day and then the sun created later on day four the sun has to be considered as "invisible from the earth until the fourth day". Invisible to what? There was no observers any ways. This twisted apology requires diverting away from what the bible literally says as the bible doesn't literally say anything about the sun existing as invisible and then later becoming visible from the earth on the fourth day.
The answer is obvious, day 1 and day 4 are being used for a mythological purpose. It's the environment of space (heavens) without any sun, moon, or stars to inhabit space yet, just the realm of space and the void formless earth. Later, after the three environments are created their matching inhabitants are created to dwell in the environments of inhabitation, all of this being fixed to the sacred mythological number 7 for mythological purposes - so creation is rendered as 7 days reflecting reverence for the 7 visible celestial orbs that our ancestors have been observing for countless eons of evolution on the planet. It's funny to see what happens when people try and divert away from the mythological origins of the creation story. It creates quite a mess.
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
tat tvam asi wrote:
I've read through a lot of horrible apologetic attempts at Genesis 1. There's ton of twists and everyone seems to have one. But what they all have in common is that something other than the literal interpretation of the bible is required, so the literalism fails.
One good example is saying that the sun was created on the first day when God made the heavens and the earth. The sun, moon, and stars existed on the first day when the heavens were created, but they remained invisible until the fourth day at which point they could be observed from the earth.
Would you please provide a link to that explanation? I would like to see who came up with the one.
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Many people believe that the text about day 4 says that God created the Sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. This is not what the text actually says, so let's read it again.
•Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; (Genesis 1:14) •and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:15) •And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. (Genesis 1:16) •And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, (Genesis 1:17) •and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:18) How can a day be longer than 24-hours? Even though the Genesis text clearly indicates that the days are longer than 24-hours, some Christians insist that any interpretation of Genesis 1 that deviates from 24-hour days is not literal. The problem is that the Hebrew word yom17 has three literal definitions - 12 hour daylight period, 24 period of time, or a long, but indefinite period of time. A careful reading of the Genesis creation account reveals that the 24-hour interpretation is ruled out by the actual Genesis text. The first definitive example of a day that is longer than 24-hours can be found in the beginning of the Genesis 2 creation account, which says that the entire six days of creation are one day.18
In verse 14 we have that unusual construction again of "let there be." It is not a statement of creation, but a statement of appearance. At this point, the clouds present at the initial creation of the earth were completely removed so that the bodies themselves appeared for the first time on the surface of the earth. The passage tells us that the lights were allowed "to be" so that they could be signs of the seasons, days, and years. It was necessary for the creatures of day 5 that the heavenly bodies be visible. We know that many of the migratory birds (created on day 5) require visible stars to navigate, hence the need to actually see these bodies. Verse 18 gives us another hint. The lights were placed in the sky to "separate the light from the darkness." Does this sound familiar? It is the exact Hebrew phrase used for God's work on the first day when, "God separated the light from the darkness" (Genesis 1:4) By using this phrase, the text is recounting the formation of the Sun, moon and stars from the first day. If we accept that God created the Sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, then He didn't really create the heavens in verse one. So, the 24-hour day interpretation suffers a contradiction between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:16.
So because the Bible contradicts itself, he feels the need to go back and try to make it not contradict itself. The heavens of day 1 are the environment of space. Each environment is laid out and then the inhabitants for each environments are created. He has no idea that day 1 corresponds to day 4 as the heavens and then that which inhabits the heavens. Just as day 2 establishes firmament from sea and day 5 brings that which inhabits the sea and firmament. and Just as day 3 establishes dry land and day 6 brings that which inhabits the dry the land. This is mythological pairing of environment and inhabitants and to neglect to see and understand this is to neglect to understand the writing style of Genesis 1. The above apologist has fallen into that trap and suffers for it.
He wants to assert that "let there be" isn't a statement of creation, rather the sun, moon, and stars already existed and simply became visible on day 4. So what of the living creatures? Elohim (Gods) said "let the waters teem with living creatures", and "let the earth bring forth living creatures" as well. So then we must conclude that he didn't create them on the 5th and 6th days if "Let there be" doesn't indicate the sun, moon, and stars, being created on the fourth day because it's not an act of creation. He's digging a deeper hole for himself. So yes, the sun was created on the fourth day as the bible states and so no amount of "years" could have gone by before time keeping was established on the fourth day when the sun was created. Because he fails to see the day 1 / day 4 mythological pairing of space (heavens) with the celestial orbs that inhabit space (heavens), and how this theme runs through each of the other days exactly the same way, he gets further and further away from the meaning of Genesis 1.
Finally he comes around to conclude:
Quote:
We are left with only one internally consistent interpretation for the days of Genesis one. The literal, clearly indicated, meaning of yom for Genesis one must be an unspecified, long period of time. Since the Genesis text says that the third day must be at least several years long, none of the other days would be expected to be limited to 24-hours. All or nearly all of the other creation days would seem to require long periods of time, although the text does not clearly indicate the specific amount of time required.
So he comes to an OEC theory in the end. This guy's all over the place! The root of the problem - which solves the whole thing - is that Genesis 1 is a mythological creation story that does not give any concrete information on either the age of the earth nor how life emerged on the earth. It's a mythological creation story, not live CCN coverage of the dawn of creation. Trying to present it as such only results in problems stacked upon more problems that require stacking ever more problems until the amount of pure bunk involved is so blindingly obvious that it reduces the proponent of such ideas to a deceptive force loose in society! Whether they realize it or not.
The blind leading the blind further along into the darkness (ignorance)...
Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 95 Location: New Hampshire
Thanks: 7 Thanked: 12 times in 12 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Just an observation born from my curiosity-- There are 16 or 17 intelligent posts in this thread, all intended to debunk the foolishness of YEC myth. My mind boggles at the amount of detail and research.
I wonder, would anyone put the same amount of effort into debunking: Flat Earthers? The efficacy of witchcraft, sorcery, fortune telling, or levitation? Alien Abduction stories? The creation stories of American Indians, Hindus, or any of hundreds/thousands of other such tales? Extra terrestial's having built Stone Henge or the pyramids? Any of the mythical monsters such as Nessy, Champy, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, Yeti? Demonic posession? Astral Projection? Transubstantiation?
If the answer is "no" then I can only wonder why this one particular myth, which owes to pre-scientific ancients' superstitions, is worthy of such attention. Science has demonstrated through multiple scientific diciplines' corroborative and cumulative evidence that big bang (or similar event) and evolutionary theory is the cause/ reality. If the deluded said disease was caused by satan, and hurricans were god's wrath would you put the same effort into that as well?
Just a thought.
(PS: just by calling YEC a "theory" you have already given it more credence than it is due. "Transubstantiation Theory" ? "Woman into pillar of Salt Theory"? ... )
_________________ "Reason is the enemy of faith." -- Martin Luther
Joined: Feb 2010 Posts: 1681
Thanks: 178 Thanked: 146 times in 131 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Bart wrote:
Just an observation born from my curiosity-- There are 16 or 17 intelligent posts in this thread, all intended to debunk the foolishness of YEC myth. My mind boggles at the amount of detail and research.
I wonder, would anyone put the same amount of effort into debunking: Flat Earthers? The efficacy of witchcraft, sorcery, fortune telling, or levitation? Alien Abduction stories? The creation stories of American Indians, Hindus, or any of hundreds/thousands of other such tales? Extra terrestial's having built Stone Henge or the pyramids? Any of the mythical monsters such as Nessy, Champy, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, Yeti? Demonic posession? Astral Projection? Transubstantiation?
If the answer is "no" then I can only wonder why this one particular myth, which owes to pre-scientific ancients' superstitions, is worthy of such attention. Science has demonstrated through multiple scientific diciplines' corroborative and cumulative evidence that big bang (or similar event) and evolutionary theory is the cause/ reality. If the deluded said disease was caused by satan, and hurricans were god's wrath would you put the same effort into that as well?
Just a thought.
I think (though I can't speak for everyone debating here) that it would come down to a question of evidence. What evidence is there that aliens built Stonehenge? None. Therefore, it's hardly even worth debating because there is nothing to debate once you get past the specific person arguing for it. Whereas the Bible is a physical written document that has survived for thousands of years and has most of the world believing in it or accepting it to some extent who are willing to do anything in their power to prove that it is true, and some have even contributed evidence that convinces some people but not all, and this is where the difference lies: While there are no historical documents citing alien involvement in the building of Stonehenge, there are historical documents, however accurate or inaccurate they may be, that surround the Bible. The argument here is between those who take it literally and those who believe it to be a moral guideline for earlier societies but not necessarily literal truth.
They're not discussing whether or not the Bible exists, but whether or not it is factual. That's the difference.
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3724 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 749 times in 564 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Quote:
If the answer is "no" then I can only wonder why this one particular myth, which owes to pre-scientific ancients' superstitions, is worthy of such attention. Science has demonstrated through multiple scientific diciplines' corroborative and cumulative evidence that big bang (or similar event) and evolutionary theory is the cause/ reality. If the deluded said disease was caused by satan, and hurricans were god's wrath would you put the same effort into that as well?
With replicators, the ones that are viral and harmful usually draw a lot of attention. Terrible diseases require powerful antigens, a powerful immune system perhaps. Immunity to viral memes is skepticism. With the more powerful viral memes, you see more skeptical attention in opposition.
Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 95 Location: New Hampshire
Thanks: 7 Thanked: 12 times in 12 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Bleach said:
Quote:
"What evidence is there that aliens built Stonehenge? None. "
Which is exactly the same evidence there exists for YEC.
If one attributes pre-scientific scripture as "evidence" , then the B Gita is evidence of the Hindu version of creation. Then the papyrus describing the Lower Egyptian creation story is "evidence"; and the Higher Egyptian Creation story...also evidence. Ad nauseum...
And yes, there is documentation, volumes of it, that present the "theory" of Aleins as the builders of stone henge and the pyramids. Does the fact that they are post scientific age discredit them? Only prescientific age documents are worthy "evidence"? Isn't that bass-ackwards?
Or does the number of people who foolishly believe in something make that thing a valid "theory" or worthy "belief". Millions believe in alien civilization contributions to earth's civilizations (Scientology); millions more that jesus was in the new world (LDS)... the list is endless, and without evidence or scientific merit , regardless of L Ron Hubbard's or Jos. Smith's books.
_________________ "Reason is the enemy of faith." -- Martin Luther
Joined: Oct 2005 Posts: 3223 Location: Canberra
Thanks: 819 Thanked: 817 times in 614 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
bleachededen wrote:
Bart wrote:
I can only wonder why this one particular myth, which owes to pre-scientific ancients' superstitions, is worthy of such attention.
it would come down to a question of evidence.
No, there is no evidence for YEC. The reason why YEC deserves attention is one of power, wealth and politics, that many powerful and wealthy Americans believe that the world was made in 4004 BC, that the world is due to end soon in a nuclear conflagration, that the "faithful" will then live with Jesus for ever in heaven, and that this deranged prediction is preordained and good. This YEC doctrine is entirely wrong, idolatrous, blasphemous, unbiblical and evil. Yet it provided the basis for the mass accumulation of nuclear weapons by the USA in an entirely delusory effort to gain "security". If the USA was really concerned about security, it would have prevented Hurricane Katrina from destroying New Orleans, it would have a just policy towards Israel and Palestine, it would not waste trillions of dollars on the military, and it would be taking real steps to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and address world poverty. However, the influence of the evil doctrine of creationism destroys the moral standing for the USA in world politics, presenting the main danger to the world. YEC is hostile to all evidence, and enables its adherents to live in a fantasy bubble that threatens the extinction of life on our planet. This foul YEC idea is believed by nearly half of all Americans. It is extremely scary.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.
Support BookTalk.org
BookTalk.org is being upgraded to a totally new design. This upgrade is expensive. Any support would be VERY helpful! See who supports us.
Make a donation
PEOPLE PAYING FOR OUR UPGRADE:
• afv - $10 May
• LevV - $50 March
• Dexter - $10 March
• supernova38 - $25 March
• Oblivion - $20 March
• jheimlich - $20 February
• Robert Tulip - $50 February
• giselle - $50 January
Children here need worming
regularly, and I think I
need to buy more worming
tablets, so while my friends
sit on the beach, I have to
catch bush taxis up to the… more
The children have a long way
to walk to the nearest primary
school. At the moment they are
in temporary accommodation,
with volunteer teachers. There
is community land available,
a… more
The price of The 12th Disciple
has been updated to $3.99 for
Kindle readers. The book is
still available for free to
borrow for Amazon Prime
members. To be
competitive, and s… more
The 12th Disciple has been
reviewed by two different
people on Amazon. They
purchased the Kindle edition;
one in the US, one in the
UK. One review was
5-stars (US) and the oth… more
I'd like to say I've
been reading Harry Potter
since the day the world renown
series appeared on the
scene. Unfortunately,
the truth is I began reading
Harry Potter… more
Easter teaches many of us the
importance of redemption and
resurrection. Regardless of
what faith people follow, the
story of Jesus Christ has been
told in many languages in many
c… more
Our Book Talk will begin on
Wednesday, May 2nd. I look
forward to hearing about your
learning and classroom
experiences with Number Talks
as it all unfolds...
NONOPPOSITIONAL NONVIOLENCE
The minute you conquer the
fear of death, at that moment
you are free. I submit to you
that if a man hasnt
discovered something that he
will die f… more
Yesterday, when I went to feed
Jeni the donkey, I noticed
swarms of bees entering
Ebrimas house through the
cracks in the door. We both
had a look, but he didnt
open his door… more
Whether you want to implement
number talks but are unsure of
how to begin or have
experience but want more
guidance in crafting
purposeful problems, this
dynamic multimedia resourc… more
Do you feel entitled? For
years I have listened to and,
in some instances, complained
that some people in America
feel entitled. For years I
have watched as these people
are portra… more
On Fat Tuesday and Ash
Wednesday of 2012, The 12th
Disciple was free to Kindle
users on both days. In all,
about 550 worldwide Kindle
users downloaded a copy of the
book.
Sacred Are the Brave a
collection of short stories
about the nonviolent
revolutions 1986-1989 is now
available in Kindle. Each of
the nine stories has
characters who are just
… more
The Weekend Trippers is the
true story of Rfn Ted Taylor
and his part in the heroic
last stand in Calais May 1940.
The Weekend Trippers is based
on Teds diaries written at
the… more
Tell your friends when to meet you in the BookTalk.org Chat Room.
If you enjoy business bestsellers and would like to expand your business knowledge check out the quality book summaries offered by the world's leading book summary company.
BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.
Tweet This Topic
