Strategic Book Marketing Official Blog

ARCHAEOELECTRICS AND THE ISRAELITES

Glow discharges of various kinds have long been of interest to man, no doubt evoking a great deal of wonder in times past. The forms of discharge are so varied that it was only during the twentieth century that they were shown to be different aspects of the same basic physical phenomenon: In every form, the glow discharge is a manifestation of the conduction of electricity through gases. One form occurring in nature is the faint glow known as St. Elmo’s fire, seen at the top of ships’ masts at night when thunderclouds are near, named corona after the Latin for crown.

In our generation, we all have grown up in the midst of electrical technology. We have no difficulty distinguishing luminous electrical phenomena from the chemical luminosity of fire. But suppose that electricity were unknown except through its natural manifestations. How would ancient man have described a corona discharge? Most certainly as fire—the process of combustion.

Atmospheric electric fields are commonplace; however, various ancient descriptions of strange fire suggest that in the past these fields achieved magnitudes far greater than is usual today. These and related natural electrical phenomena seem to explain a number of otherwise mysterious events recorded in the Old Testament.

In Exodus 3:2 & 4, we read that “. . . the angel of the Lord appeared to [Moses] in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush . . .”

Many mundane explanations have been offered for Moses’ experience. Moses wasn’t stupid. He wasn’t looking at some brightly colored plant. This was unusual enough to cause him to turn aside to examine it. Furthermore, a bush that burned without being consumed was not on fire. This was a naturally-occurring corona  discharge. (God’s presence was another matter.)

It seems that natural electrical activity was rampant during the time of the Israelite Exodus. The Shekinah Glory above the Israelite Tabernacle was a much more magnificent version of the same phenomenon. The Seventy Elders (Exodus 34:29-30) experienced this in a personal way. The coronas enshrouding each of them were believed to be the Spirit of God. There were also negative ramifications from some of this electrical activity, however, causing many deaths.

Holy Scriptures of antiquity often had their origins in the inexplicable. They contain records of events that could be perceived only as miraculous. Natural electrical phenomena, not to be comprehended for millennia, provided ample cause of both wonderment and fear. The developmental pattern of this literature was incomprehension, then transcription and veneration, and then exegesis. The sacred writings of the ancients generally had a basis in reality, and they tell us more than their authors knew themselves.

For a more comprehensive and detailed analysis of the Israelite experience, see my book MAN AND HIS PLANET – An Unauthorized History. Go to www.letthereberight.com

THE TOWER OF BABEL AND THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES

One of the most misunderstood passages in the Old Testament is the Genesis account of the Confusion of Tongues at the Tower of Babel. This is typically viewed as an effort to explain the origin of Earth’s many diverse languages, their having arisen from a single primal tongue.

Believers view this account (e.g., their interpretation of it) as a true historical record. Skeptics generally agree to the popular notion that the story describes the sudden creation of new languages, but they regard such a claim as being pure fantasy. As it turns out, the believers and skeptics are both wrong. And this begs the question, “Did something unusual actually occur as remembered in the account?” And if so, what was it?

There are, in fact, numerous records from around the world that attest to the reality of some kind of language-related disturbance in mankind’s ancient history. Moreover, these records are “geographically spotty enough” to suggest multiple near-simultaneous occurrences of whatever this was. So given this reality, what can be said of its nature?

An objective reading of the biblical account reveals no suggestion whatever that new languages were created. The text merely states that the tower-builders’ speech was “confounded.” Likewise, the oldest known extra-biblical record states that the victims’ speech was “made strange.”

The other records, transmitted orally for countless generations, are inconsistent. Some speak of “strange speech,” others of new languages.

Given the absence of a reference to new languages in what appear to be the most dependable records, those transcribed early on, another explanation is necessary. Modern clinical studies appear to suggest what actually happened.

It has been demonstrated that the electrical stimulation of certain parts of the brain can give rise to garbled vocalizations, not to be confused with speech. This can result from both direct stimulation and exposure to extremely low frequency radiation.

It is my opinion that this observed phenomenon is a contemporary example of what the Book of Genesis calls “confounded speech.” The Confusion of Tongues at the Tower of Babel can thus be demystified. It was a rather widespread natural disturbance.

The interested reader can find in my book MAN AND HIS PLANET – An Unauthorized History a complete analysis leading to a reconstruction of the ancient event along with the likely cause. Also included is a presentation of the relevant evidence, i.e., the legends. Go to www.letthereberight.com.

THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE

Man’s intellectual capability is different from anything else we know of in the universe. It puts a great chasm between us and the rest of the animal kingdom. One scholar has said that it is as if life evolved to a certain point and then in ourselves turned at a right angle and exploded in a different direction. And speech appears to be the best example of that.

Most modern theories of the origin of language are variations around a common theme: the gradual transformation of sounds into words. But at what point does nonlanguage ease across the threshold to become language? In the orthodox scheme, there is no clearly defined or definable threshold for humanness. So what about language? Its origin will never be determined within a framework of Darwinist dogma.

I have argued in my book, MAN AND HIS PLANET – An Unauthorized History, that Homo sapiens was born from another species, Homo erectus, and that this birth was not a gradual, evolutionary process but was a sudden one. At some point in the history of the genus Homo, a given generation of the elder species produced the first generation of the younger. A nonconscious (no self-awareness) being gave rise to a new creature with a conscious mind (that is, with latent consciousness).

That creature’s mind was every bit as developed and capable as the mind of man today. The difference in the beginning was the absence of culture to provide material for “programming” the newly created human. But the mind was there—a mind that would lead to the very first aspect of human culture: language.

When a human child learns the language of its parents, it is not somehow provided with the explicit definitions of words. Rather, through various means of input and feedback, it comes to associate sounds with objects, actions, and concepts. The sounds of speech are completely arbitrary insofar as their meaning is concerned. To be learned as a language, the only requirement is consistency. The sounds need not be recognized by their user as words, but as symbolic representations. They would come to be interpreted and conceptualized as such by a newly-born, learning, intelligent hearer possessing latent consciousness.

Thus, the first speech did not arise from random sounds that gradually developed meaning over the millennia to be finally recognized as words. Rather, consistent sounds were unconsciously transformed into abstract representations (words) by an infantile conscious mind. The young, first-generation H. sapiens heard the same sounds as his H. erectus parents, but for him the basis of meaning was of a totally different nature. The physiology and character of the enunciation would likewise have been different.

An interesting parallel to this conjecture exists. Languages called Creoles are created when established languages are useless.

Early on in the West, many slaves with various languages fled to form their own communities. In these communities they evolved pidgin speech, an improvised language that had a sparse vocabulary and no real grammar. Pidgin made communication possible among people who had no common tongue. Syntax is a natural development, so by spontaneously bringing grammar to their parents’ pidgin, children created a completely new language in one generation, a Creole.

Such must have been the case with the first languages—spoken by the first generation of Homo sapiens.

For more detail, go to www.letthereberight.com.

CREATIONISM AND DARWINISM PART II

Two Wrongs in Need of a Right

Today’s worldview and prevailing mind-set regarding the development of life is Charles Darwin’s notion of speciation by natural selection/adaptation.

One scholar has asserted that Darwin’s theory is supported by all the available relevant evidence, and that its truth is not doubted by any serious biologist. And it may be possible to show that, regardless of evidence, Darwinian natural selection is the only force we know that could explain the existence of organized and adaptive complexity.

“Regardless of evidence” is telling. Speciation by natural selection (Darwinism) cannot be refuted—because refutation is just not allowed. Evolutionary scientists Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin confess that conventional “science” ignores evidence not in accord with its fundamental precepts. In their discussion of biological adaptation, they provide the following rules underlying Darwinist methodology:

(1)   If one adaptive argument fails, try another.

(2)   If one adaptive argument fails, assume that another, as yet undiscovered one, exists.

(3)   In the absence of a good adaptive argument in the first place, attribute failure to the imperfect understanding of where an organism lives and what it does.

The rejection of one adaptive story always leads to its replacement by another, rather than to a suspicion that a different kind of explanation might be required. Also, the criteria for acceptance of a story are so loose that many pass without proper confirmation. Evolutionists often use consistency with natural selection as the sole criterion and consider their work done when they concoct a plausible story. (G & L)

There is no evidence that supports the notion of speciation by natural selection (gradualism). Breeding experiments have produced no new species. An organism’s line can undergo just so much change and then it dies out. The fossil record demonstrates change through time, but to suggest that it reflects gradualist evolution is ludicrous. Furthermore, what gradualist path could lead to the metamorphosis process experienced by so many insects? And what does gradualism have to do with asexual species?

Speciation by natural selection is not supported by any evidence, and it fails a logical analysis as well. “Support” comes only from meaningless extrapolations. The only species change ever observed was sudden, from one generation to the next.  And that’s the way it has worked through time.

Darwinism and evolution are not the same thing. Darwinism acts to preserve species, not change them. Species can change gradually, adapting to a changing environment, but only within limits. They do not gradually become a different species.

For a detailed elaboration of these claims and an alternative viewpoint, see my book MAN AND HIS PLANET – An Unauthorized History. Go to www.letthereberight.com.

CREATIONISM AND DARWINISM PART I

Two Wrongs in Need of a Right

Creationist beliefs rest for the most part on the most widely accepted English translation of the Hebrew record; this record is found in the Book of Genesis. Unfortunately, parts of it are significantly altered when correct translations of certain basic terms are used. But a more immediate problem is encountered in the understanding of the English rendering. Several crucial elements of Creationist beliefs are based on an erroneous reading of the English text. Three of these are considered here. If these beliefs are refuted, a corrected translation of the Hebrew text will surely not reinstate them.

A Young Earth? The accepted literalist time of the Creation, some 6,000 years ago, is based upon genealogies of the Hebrew patriarchs recorded in Genesis. Life spans are provided, with the number of years of father-son overlap. Descent is traced from the first man, Adam, to Abraham. Abraham can be roughly dated, and counting backwards from him puts Adam at around 4004 BC. Figures are different, however, in the Septuagint, an ancient Greek version of the Old Testament. Moreover, the Septuagint includes an additional patriarch by the name of Cainan, who also is found in a recapitulation of the genealogies in the Book of Luke (3:36). This leads to the more general debate as to the completeness (continuity) of the genealogies. Clearly, the genealogies are not a reliable basis for establishing dates. They offer no proof of a young earth.

The Genesis Kinds Explicit in the Creationist concept, and in opposition to evolution, is the fixity of species. “Species” is commonly alleged to be equivalent to the biblical “kind,” divulged in Genesis. The central pillar of creationist thought is that all plants and animals reproduce “after their kind”; one kind cannot produce another kind. This fundamental concept appears with varying emphasis throughout creationist literature.

But we read in Genesis 1:25 that “. . . God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind . . .” The creatures are said to have been made after their kinds. Nothing is said about subsequently propagating after their kinds. This seems to be analogous to Plato’s later concept of Forms—the Form being the ideal pre-existent model reflected in all individuals patterned upon it.

The Vapor Canopy Another integral part of creationist belief is the concept of a primordial vapor canopy. It is alleged that in the ancient past, a shell of water vapor surrounded the earth at some unknown distance from the surface. The basis for this canopy is found in Genesis 1:7: “And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament . . .”

The canopy allegedly provided a pleasant and healthful environment throughout the world by means of its shielding action against intense radiations from space. No such canopy exists now, of course, and its presumed catastrophic collapse provides another explanation readily accepted by creationists, a source for the waters of a universal flood. But a glance beyond the single verse on which the canopy notion is based exposes a fallacy.

This fallacy is exposed and all of these matters are treated more rigorously in my book MAN AND HIS PLANET – An Unauthorized History. This book also presents an alternative to the two predominant views of the development of life. Go to www.letthereberight.com.