OnlineBookClub.org

I have a strong belief that the author has no hidden agenda.He tries to bridge the gap between science and religion.

I think the author just wanted people to open their minds to all possibilities whether they be science based with facts or biblically based with faith. A lot of people today just ask why people believe what they do and they never fully try to understand it. This is a good way to share that understanding.

I think his true intention was to show that the Biblical account can coincide with scientific evidence. So often people think of the Bible as made-up myths. The author shows that our current scientific understanding does not have to be seen as discounting the Bible.

I think the author's intentions were exactly what he said. He intended to reconcile science and scripture. However, I think his biases did play a big part in the book, and it led to a more religious-based perspective.

What the author did was try to reconcile both perspectives. Religious beliefs must not necessarily be in direct conflict with scientific beliefs. They could co-exist.

I'm sure that Friedman just want to make the spiritual things logically understandable to the people of this generation whose reasoning and rationale of making decision is affected by education and their experiences. So, science actually always present physical proof right from inception. But religion has not been presenting its claim like science which made most people lackadaisical about spiritual things and religiosity. So I think this is what Friedman has came in to do with his book.

The author seems more glued to religion more than his claims to reconcile the Bible and science. I just do not see that coming through in this book.

I agree with you, I believe the authors swerve more to the scientific acceptance of Biblical lessons. I think that is their intention and they achieve it. Moreso, there are many facts and lessons to learn from their point of view.

I couldn't discern any hidden agendas regarding the author's intention with this book. He drew fair parallels between his religious beliefs, as well as scientific facts. This was achieved, in my opinion, and I can see how the author reconciled the two, which have been constantly placed on opposite ends.

I agree in the sense that I feel he is heavier on the religious angle, but he has still clearly dedicated an extreme amount of his life and mind to the sciences and I think both have clearly been huge pillars in his life, I definitely wouldn't say either of them had been neglected or represented as less significant

I think the answer to the question can vary depending upon the knowledge of a person. If I consider the book, then yes human future can be based on scriptures prophecies. But maybe in the future reading more on this timeline idea can change a person's perception. I believe the author has just done a decent job of connecting two timelines, with no intention to hurt anyone feeling.

There is definitely a strong bias shown towards the religious texts at hand being factual. I do wonder if the conclusions drawn from the author's research were influenced by the fact that he saw what he wanted to see. If you look hard enough for patterns, you are sure to find them...

After reading "The Biblical Clock", I do see the author's stated intention pretty clearly through the book. Also, he stated his religious background as Jewish and his science credentials for comparing the two are clearly stated in the beginning. Thus, he rightly sets forth his personal conclusions for reconciling science and religion. His book is based on facts that can be looked up, except for chapter 10 which is clearly stated as fiction.

I feel that the author's intention was to try to bridge the gap between the conflicts that have been for decades. Whether the author is successful or not depends entirely on the readers.

we have to know the author is only trying to make people see where religion's of the universe can be scientifically proven. And any other thing that you think the author didn't add, is just that it is not within the scope I the book.