Re: Velikovsky, again? :o(
>The author of this article repeatedly ignores that all of Newton's
> > However, outside academia he
> > received considerable support. . .
> Haven't we been there and done that?
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!
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism