Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Velikovsky, again? :o(

Expand Messages
  • w_w_c_l
    ... The author of this article repeatedly ignores that all of Newton s work that has held up has long been integrated into our knowledge base, and that nobody
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 26, 2005
      >
      > > However, outside academia he
      > > received considerable support. . .
      >
      > Haven't we been there and done that?

      The author of this article repeatedly ignores that all of Newton's
      work that has held up has long been integrated into our knowledge
      base, and that nobody paid any attention to Velikovsky in the first
      place. It was fantastical pulp-science for the masses,
      the "Dianetics" of its day. Referring to Newton and Velikovsky as
      colleagues borders on sacrilege.

      The author of this article also denies the validity of most of what
      actual archaeological investigation of the Holy Land has revealed,
      for example, that the city of Jericho is 11,000 years old and that
      there is no intervening "flood layer" from that time to the present,
      and that bitumen was used as mortar in the walls. Fascinating stuff,
      you would think, if you were a true biblical scholar trying to figure
      out true biblical timeframes.

      HINT: Biblical archaeology will proceed unimpeded by the writings of
      Newton, Velikovsky, Herodotus, Josephus, Keith or Moses. Carbon- and
      tree-ring dating will be invaluable tools in fixing dates with near
      precision. What will be will be.

      HINT 2: Bible literalists will ever be looking in the wrong place at
      the wrong time.


      I wish the Ark *would* be found. But I'm warning you, if we find it,
      you ain't gonna like it!


      Rick Hartzog

      Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.