Posted on 08/31/2002 5:30:20 AM PDT by vance
The exodus of the Israelites from Egypt occurred under catastrophic circumstances and not much will be found from the time. The Ipuwer papyrus is thought to describe the exodus, but there isn't much else.
I try to find a common theme with folks who may otherwise disagree with me. You on the other had appear only interested in driving a wedge between everyone you disagree with. I see no hope in finding any common theme with you.
The fact that you are writing nonsense doesn't help.
And that "nonsense" would be, what? I said the Bible was translated from the original language into English in one step. You call that nonsense. What do you have in support of your statement? I actually have supporting evidence to backup my statements:
The Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament was written in what language? Hint: one of the titles gives it away. Drum roll... That's right, Hebrew! What language are the manuscripts we used to translate the Bible into English written in? Hebrew again. Hey, whaddya know. Guess we translate the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament from the original language into English, just like I said. But wait! There's more! This is actually supported by Hebrew scholars Emanuel Tov and Ernst Wurthwein in their books Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible and The Text of the Old Testament, respectively. We have pictures of the manuscripts themselves, written in nothing other than... Hebrew. I'm really seeing a pattern here that the lurker should see as well.
Hebrew ceased to be spoken as the common language and was replaced by Aramaic. We also have the Septuagint - the Old Testament in Greek, which is the version quoted in most of the New Testament.
Now on to the New Testament.
According to the following books:
I own and have read each of the above books. The above books also have pictures of the manuscripts, which are written in... guess what language? Greek, no less! And we translate from Greek straight into English in one step. I think I've heard that somewhere before. Oh yeah, my first post on this thread, which you called "nonsense". The above books also have pictures of individual papyri showing the language as... Greek! Also, I believe the best critical Greek New Testament we have today is translated from UBS[3]/NA[26]. That's Greek -> English in one step. Those are the facts. If you choose to argue against the facts, your ignorance on the subject, which is rather profound, will be obvious to all. You need to learn to pick battles where the facts are on your side.
For a very good read on the subject (popular, not technical) I'd recommend John Romer's Testament.
Considering you obviously don't know what you're talking about, I won't take up that recommendation. I'm not saying anything about the book, just the one who made the recommendation.
Well, I guess we know where they'll be goin'. That is, unless you don't believe your Bible.
Mat 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Hank
Given standard theories wrt the history of our solar system and our own planet, nobody should be finding cities and villages on Mars, 2100 feet beneath the waves off Cuba, or buried under two miles of Antarctic ice.
Nonetheless, I have made the effort to do that in a few cases and, in every instance in which I have, the raw evidence unequivocably supports Velikovsky and damns Sagan and pretty much all of Velikovsky's later-day critics.
One such case is the question of thermal balance on Venus and the various infrared flux meters and measurements of Albedo which were taken around 1978 - 1980 by the Pioneer Venus probe.
There are two possible explainations for the 900 F surface temperature of Venus: Velikovsky's, which is that Venus is in a process of cooling either from a recent creation or from heat generated during recent catastrophic events (i.e. is natively hot), and Carl Sagan's "super greenhouse" theory, which is standard doctrine amongst astronomers, despite being ridiculous.
Sagan in fact is also noted for another super greenhouse theory, i.e. the one which says we should all be dead from the Kuwaiti oil fires in 91. Far as I know, I'm still here and Sagan is still dead. In fact, people living in Kuwait are still alive, and Sagan is still dead...
Sagan's theory would require that Venus' atmosphere be in thermal balance, i.e. since all the heat would be derived from the sun, heat taken in and given out should equal eachother.
I have noted that this is in sharp disagreement with with actual findings, and that astronomers have made a habit of doctoring the findings and have actually found themselves in the position of having to explain AWAY 100% of the raw data. All of the probes which carried infra-red flux (upward vs. downward readings) meters to the surface measured a sharp upward ir flux, which is in keeping with Velikovsky's version, but not that of Sagan.
Astronomers have posted oficial position papers (Revercomb/Suomi et. al) explaining the manner in which each and every such probe "failed", without bothering to try to explain why they should not all be summarily shitcanned for failing to oversee the proper manufacture of so simple an instrument in even one case out of at least four (instruments were not all the same).
In other words, they are claiming the instruments all failed because all instrument readings said Velikovsky was right.
And then there is the question of F.W. Taylor's description of massive thermal imbalance as measured from outside the atmosphere (from the article on thermal balance by F.W. Taylor in "VENUS", Hunton, Colin, Donahue, Moroz, Univ. of Ariz. Press, 1983, ISBN 0-8165-0788-0, pp 657-658).
"Measurements of albedo are more difficult to calibrate than those of thermal flux, because of the problem of obtaining an accurate reference source. Using earth-based measurements, Irvine (1968) calculated a value for A [albedo] of 0.77 ñ 0.07, which was later revised upward to 0.80 ñ 0.07 by Travis (1975). The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 m channel calibrated by a lamp from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained a preliminary albedo for Venus of 0.80 ñ 0.02.
"Another approach to determining the albedo is simply to assume that the atmosphere is in net radiative balance, whence the equation:
(1-A)E
4 0
sigma * theta = ---------
b a^2
should apply. Here E is the solar constant, and a the distance
0
from the sun. This expression allows the albedo to be calculated from thermal measurements alone."
"In this way, a value of 0.79 + 0.02 - 0.01 has been obtained from Venera radiometry (Ksanfomality, 1977, 1980b) and [a value] of 0.76 ñ 0.006 [has been obtained] from Pioneer Venus emission measurements (Schofield et al., 1982).
"Clearly the Pioneer measurements of emission and reflection are not consistent with each other if net radiative balance applies. A source inside Venus equal in magnitude to 20% of the solar input (i.e., accounting for the difference between A = 0.76 and A = 0.80) is very unlikely, since Venus is thought to have an Earth-like makeup, which would imply internal heat sources several orders of magnitude less than this. Also, even if such sources were postulated, it is difficult to construct a model in which these fairly large amounts of heat can be transported from the core to the atmosphere via a rocky crust without the latter becoming sufficiently plastic to collapse the observed surface relief. This could be avoided if the transport was very localized, i.e., via a relatively small number of giant volcanoes. Although large, fresh-looking volcanoes do appear to exist on Venus...and the composition of the atmosphere is consistent with vigorous output from these, a simple comparison with terrestrial volcanism shows that the volcanic activity on Venus would have to be on an awesome scale to account for the missing 5 X 1015 W [watts], or so, of power. A more acceptable alternative is that the preliminary estimate of 0.80 ñ 0.2 for the albedo from the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] measurements is too high, since the uncertainty limit is now known from further work to be too conservative. (J. V. Martonchik, personal communication.) A fuller analysis of the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] albedo data--still the best, in terms of wavelength, spacial and phase coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for the foreseeable future--is likely to resolve this puzzle. In conclusion, then, the best thermal measurements of Venus WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF GLOBAL ENERGY BALANCE yield a value for the albedo of 0.76 ñ 0.1; this is the most probable value."
Let's examine what Taylor is saying. The term "albedo", stripped of the four-syllable adjectives, is a measure of reflectivity, the percentage of light which bounces back from something.
Taylor is saying that there are two ways to measure this albedo, a direct method, and an indirect method involving a formula which relates albedo to thermal emissions, assuming thermal balance holds. The direct method:
"The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 m channel calibrated by a lamp from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained a preliminary albedo for Venus of 0.80 ñ 0.02."
doesn't go into detail, but makes it clear that they either did one of the following things, or something entirely like one of them:
a. Brought the satellite to the dark side of Venus, beamed a light towards Venus, and measured how much of that light returned.
b. Brought the satellite to the light side of Venus, and simply turned the instrument towards the sun, and then towards Venus, and computed a ratio of the light intensities.
Taylor also mentions the indirect method:
"Another approach to determining the albedo is simply to assume that the atmosphere is in net radiative balance, whence the equation:
(1-A)E
4 0
sigma * theta = ---------
b a^2
should apply. Here E-zero is the solar constant, and a the distance from the sun. This expression allows the albedo to be calculated from thermal measurements alone.
He notes that, if thermal balance does hold, the two techniques should produce the same number, but that they don't, and that the difference is so great, that a massive heat source on Venus would be needed to explain it, entirely in keeping with Velikovsky's version of the entire thing.
He notes that further study is needed, since he sees no way for Venus to have such a heat source given standard versions of solar-system history, and that the .76 value derived for albedo is therefore the "most probable" value.
He notes that the Pioneer Venus readings are the best we've had and the best we're likely to get for a long time:
A fuller analysis of the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] albedo data--still the best, in terms of wavelength, spacial and phase coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for the foreseeable future--is likely to resolve this puzzle.
Thus between the infra-red flux meters of the descender probes and the phenomena Taylor describes, all of the raw data flatly contradict Sagan and "super-greenhouse", and scientists are left having to explain away 100% of the raw data. That's no way to do science.
That's simply a statement coming from somebody who has not expended the energy to keep up with what's happening in the field. Sweeney's two books are a total cure for the problem.
There have been enough scholars and time. It seems it is only those ignorant of scripture and to lazy to search for the truth that keep making these claims.
This argument doesn't really depend on anything other than a basic understanding of the facts. I said the Bible was translated from the original language into English in one step and you called that "nonsense." Years of study you called "nonsense" without any supporting evidence whatsoever. And when I demonstrate just how wrong you are, you call it quits.
But since we seem destined to write nasty notes to each other I'll end it here.
Hey - you responded to a post I sent to someone else and said you didn't like my tone and also called what I wrote nonsense. You started being "nasty" for no reason other than to engage in self aggrandizement. I responded with facts. If you don't like the tone of my response you should not engage in battles on the wrong side of the facts nor sling mud at the outset. I *thought* I was using humor in my post. It's a good thing I wasn't trying to be nasty or you might have, um, really had a time with it. I meant what I said in regards to bringing folks together on a common theme.
One last book recommendation: The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman (link is listed above, way above) is a very good read by authors who are not minimalists.
If any of the books you recommend make statements that support what you've shared here, toss 'em. Seriously.
Here are the facts:
The Bible, both Old and New Testament were written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. From the original languages we have translations to English in one step. That is not nonsense - it's fact.
There's nothing anybody can say or do that will remove that fact. We have thousands of pictures of different manuscripts and groups of papyri and individual papyri demonstrating what I wrote is true. Reading another source will never change the truth of my statement.
You can start over with me anytime you want. But first, is there anything you want to retract?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.