Eating the Apple

Eve did it. Adam did it. Now it's my turn to take a bite. Why not? Hey! It's delicious.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Wasted or Sacrificed?

Two U.S. Senators have apologized recently for saying that the lives of three thousand American servicemen were 'wasted' in Iraq. That angered many people who thought that the term 'wasted' was demeaning to those who were killed. The Senators apologized saying that they should have used the word 'sacrificed'.

Let us examine the two words, 'wasted' and 'sacrificed'. Which of these terms is the better, the most appropriate word to use?

The ritual of sacrifice is so ancient that we do not know when or where the practice started. We do know that sacrifice was practiced throughout the ancient world. It is the first sacrament mentioned in the Bible. The author of Genesis testified to the antiquity of this tradition by ascribing it to the sons of Adam and Eve.

Sacrifice entails the deliberate and ritualistic killing of a living organism in order to appease the gods. Abel sacrificed animals. Cain attempted to sacrifice the fruit of the earth. Abraham nearly sacrificed his second son.

Is the term 'sacrifice' appropriate for the deaths in Iraq? I do condemn the cabal of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld for their ideological blindness, for their gross incompetance and mismanagement of this misbegotten war. Bush and Cheney deserve to be impeached for using bogus intelligence to sell the war and for putting Colin Powell up to that terrible speech at the United Nations.

As much as I despise George W. Bush, I am not about to accuse him of the deliberate and ritualistic killing of three thousand Americans in order to curry favor with his god. But I do accuse him of the responsibility for wasting America's reputation in the world, for wasting our moral authority at Abu Graib and Guantanamo, for wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, for wasting the Bill of Rights, for wasting the lives of three thousand dead Americans and the futures of twenty-five thousand badly wounded serviceman. And do not forget the wasting of the lives of coalition troops, of United Nations and NGO presonnel, and the uncounted number of Iraqi dead.

The Senators have nothing to apologize for. Better that Bush and Cheney apologize.

Friday, December 22, 2006

Merry Christmas, Osama

Osama Bin Laden is not important anymore. That opinion, coming from administration sources, comes after feckless efforts to apprehend the terrorist chief have failed. Do the familes of the September 11 dead agree that the master plotter is no longer worth the chase?

This makes me think of George Washington. After a string of defeats, Washington and the remnants of his army holed up at Valley Forge. The British thought that the insurgent army would soon dissolve. George Washington was a non-entity, a failing factor. The revolution was about to collapse. Suddenly, Washington's army attacked Trenton on Christmas Day. That was the turning point in the revolution.

Makes me wonder what kind of present Osama will deliver on Christmas Day.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Kerry's Stupid Joke

Yes it was a stupid joke. Kerry says he botched the joke. Even so, any joke about about being stuck in Iraq is pretty stupid. And Kerry got nailed.

Trouble is, the president expoited it in the worst possible way. In so doing he kicked sand in the faces of the voters. He used it in order to take our minds off his failures. Guess who wants us to forget that 105 American servicemen were killed in Iraq in October. Guess who wants us to forget that 3000 Americans have been killed in Iraq since the war started -- including service men and women, contractors from bechtel and Halliburton, and civilians doing reconstruction work. Guess who wants us to forget that we have lost more people in Iraq than we lost on September 11. That is an ironic result for on who claims that he is keeping Americans safe from terrorist attacks. Guess who wants us to forget that two or three thousand Iraqi's are killed every months. Iraq suffers ten September 11's every year.

Guess who wants us to forget who it was who sent the 3000 Americans to Iraq where they were killed.

Now the president claims that he has a plan for winning the war in Iraq. Reminds me of Nixon's secret plan for ending the war in Vietnam. America went down to defeat in Vietnam and Nixon resigned. Now the new Nixon is dragging us down to defeat in Iraq. If he had a decent bone left in his body, he would resign. Every time Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld says that the situation is improving, it just gets worse. There is no 'light at the end of the tunnel'.

When we go to the polls on Tuesday, do not forget the 105 American service men and women who were killed last month. Do not forget the 3000 Americans killed in Iraq. Do not forget how Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell sold us bogus intelligence to justify this fatally flawed misadventure.

The Vulcans had an exaggerated overconfidence in their ability to remake Muslim societies in their image and likeness. Now is the time to hold them accountable for the greatest foreign policy disaster ever suffered by the United States. We will spend the rest of this century trying to atone for this grievious sin.

Democracy and the Bible

I have heard some very religious people say that American democracy was based upon the Bible in general and the Ten Commandments in particular. I do no doubt their sincerity, but I do think that they are mistaken. I simply do not see any connection between the legacy of Moses and our democracy.

Democracy was unknown in the biblical world. It appeared first in Greece. Rome had a democratic institution, the Senate. But in Greece and Rome, only a small minority, free males, could vote. Most of the people were slaves. But when Greece and Rome conquered other peoples, they ruled autocratically. By the time the armies of Greece and Rome occupied the Jewish lands, democracy was dead or dying at home.

But we should not give up too easily. Let us look for signs of democracy in the Old and New Testaments. There are scattered clues.

If any institution of the Israelites can serve as a prototype of democracy, it is council of elders. The council met from time to time in order to make decisions and to guide the community. But the Bible does not explain how these councils operated. How many elders were there? How were they chosen? Were decisions made by consensus? Or did they rely on a strong leader to make decisions? To whom were they accountable? There are no explicit answers to these questions. But there hints scattered through the scriptures.

In the New Testament there are many verses refer to a council of elders. Matthew 26:59 says, "Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death." These councils were small cliques that operated in secret. They were neither representative nor accountable to the people. And since these councils plotted against Jesus, the fathers of our democracy would not have considered them as models to emulate.

The Old Testament gives a different perspective to these councils. Many times the elders met with the assembly (or congregation). (The assembly consisted of all adult male Israelites.) They met to debate important issues and to make decisions affecting the entire community.

Where does the idea of such a council come from? In Exodus 3:16-17, God instructs Moses, "Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them ... I will bring you ... unto a land flowing with milk and honey." Here God is portrayed as having respect for the elders. That respect will soon change. This is the first mention of a council of elders as having influence over the community. If Moses can convince the elders, the community will follow.

In order to understand Israelite institutions, it is worth looking at the traditional Canaanite culture. The culture and religion of the Israelites derived from the very ancient pagan culture of the northern Levant. The religion of the Israelites was derived from the worship of the supreme god El. The city of Ugarit in present-day Syria was a major cult center of El, his consort Asherah, and his seventy sons. Among these other gods were Baal and Dagon. These other gods and goddesses were demonized in the Old Testament.

The exploits of El and his family were described in tablets written in a language that was very close to ancient Hebrew. In Hebrew the word Elohim, which is the plural form of El, refers to the one god of the Israelites. In addition, the name El is incorporated in many personal names and in the epithets El Elyon and El Shaddai. The priests and prophets of ancient Judah transformed this pagan religion into a monotheistic faith. But this striking change did not affect many of the customs and traditions of the people. There were numerous similarities between the Canaanite and Israelite cultures.

The tablets of Ugarit portray El as a remote high god. That is, El did not participate in the day-to-day affairs of the other gods. He allows Baal to become the king of the gods. Occasionally, a dispute breaks out that Baal cannot resolve. Then the parties appeal to El for a decision. Now El is portrayed as presiding over a council of gods. The parties debate the issue and eventually El makes a decision.

Because of the close connections between the Ugaritic and Israelite cultures, it seems likely that Ugaritic council of gods became the model for their and the Israelite councils of elders. In this model, decisions are normally made at the family, clan, or tribal level, as appropriate. Decisions would be made be the senior elder at these levels. A few issues were so important that they had to be made at a national level. Then a delegation of elders from each tribe would gather to discuss and debate the issue. The senior elder would make the final decision.

The Egyptian authorities probably found it convenient to work through the council of elders. When the Egyptians wanted to start a building project, for example, they could inform the council that they needed a certain number of workers. Then the council would be held responsible for recruiting the required number of workers.

A council may work well or may work badly. When a decision making process is dominated be a strong personality, the results may be poor. In World War II, both Hitler and Stalin imposed their wills upon their subordinates. Neither listened to their generals. Both suffered defeats that could have been avoided had they been more flexible and open in their decision making. More recently, the failures in Vietnam and Iraq occurred because presidents ignored the advice of subordinates with expertise in these areas.

On the other hand, a deliberative body generally makes better decisions if there is a free and open debate about the issues. In a democratic organization, everyone has the right to speak. But the majority has the right to prevail.

One peril with democratic assemblies is that debate can degenerate into name calling and character assassination. All to often what passes for political debate in the United States consists of smear campaigns and deceptive attack ads. This does not bode well for the survival of democracy in America.

Where the councils of the Israelites fits in this spectrum between the scylla of suppressed debate and the charybdis of anarchy? That is dificult to say. But the Torah gives portrays the Israelites as being very open. They were accustomed to vociferous and strident debate. We see this in the criticisms levelled at Moses:

And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt? [Exodus 14:11]

And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. [Numbers 21:5]

Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men. And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown. And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD? [Numbers 16:1-3]

The last quote comes from the story known as the 'rebellion of Korah'. Here Korah along with 250 elders are arguing against the radical religious change that Moses was making. Previously, the elders were the priests of their families. They performed sacrifices and burned incense in their homes. Now Moses made Aaron the high priest of the Israelites, eclipsing this tradition of family priests. Naturally, many of the elders resented this diminution of their status.

A subtext of this dispute was over the idea of holiness. Korah and his associates had an egalitarian view of holiness, " ... all the congregation are holy, every one of them, ..." Moses had the opposite view. The Levites, the tribe of Moses, was more holy than all the other tribes. And most holy of all were Moses and Aaron. The less holy, the Levites, were given the 'honor' of carrying the tabernacle and the sacred objects. This so-called honor was in reality a heavy burden. Part of the burden consisted of two hundred talents of gold, silver, and copper -- seven and a half tons. Add to that three hundred square yards of fabric for the courtyard, plus wooden frames, plus the tabernacle, and the other sacred` objects. The total may have amounted to ten or twelve tons of material.

The people of the Exodus had to carry all of their possessions. But a man who is carrying a silver base weighing seventy five pounds cannot carry his own possessions. That burden falls on members of his family who have their own burdens to carry. But the worst thing was that the sacred objects had to be carefully wrapped. Otherwise the Levites who were carrying these objects actually saw them, they would be put to death. Some honor! Not even the Levites were trusted.

Korah and his supporters were intent on arguing their case with Moses. How did Moses react? Did he try to negotiate with Korah? Did Moses attempt to persuade Korah to change his mind? Did Moses accept a democratic resolution to this dispute? No! Moses enticed Korah and his followers to come to the tabernacle where they were killed. Over a two day period somne fifteen thousand people were murdered.

Here Moses displays his great character flaw -- the inability to deal with criticism. To Moses, dissent is blasphemy. Here Moses loses what remains of the confidence of the people. Never again do the people trust his leadership and follow him willingly. In Egypt Moses promised the people that they would go to a land of milk and honey. But in the end, Moses condemns the adults to die in the wilderness.

The essay began with a question. Was the Bible a basis for American democracy? My answer is absolutely not! Moses ruled like a king or dictator -- like a pharaoh. He destroyed the only institution in Israelite culture that could be called democratic. Had the ancient Israelites a democratic government, Moses and Aaron would have been impeached.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Victory in Iraq

President Bush has complained that his critics have no plan for winning the war in Iraq. So let me, in all modesty, propose a ten-point plan for victory in Iraq:

1. Have Congress declare that a 'state of war' exists.

2. Invoke war powers and pass laws making criticism of the war a crime.

3. Reinstate the draft and induct a million your American men and women into the armed forces.

4. Repeal all the tax cuts made in the last six years.

5. Impose new taxes as required to balance the budget.

6. Disband the parliament of Iraq.

7. Appoint an Iraqi puppet to be our strongman.

8. Restructure the army and security forces of Iraq, removing those responsible for sectarian killings.

9. Seal the borders of Iraq and destroy any arms dumps left over from the days of Saddam Hussain.

10. Perform house-to-house searches throughout Iraq and confiscate all arms and ammunition.

This is the only credible and comprehensive victory plan on the table. If President Bush is truly serious about victory, he should endorse this plan and sell it to the American people. He has two years to begin the implementation this victory plan.

To paraphrase the late Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, expect that the pacification of Iraq will take ten years, cost 50,000 American lives, and we still might lose. But this is the only available plan that envisions winning -- whatever that means!

Democracy and the Bible

I have heard some very religious people say that American democracy was based upon the Bible in general and the Ten Commandments in particular. I do no doubt their sincerity, but I do think that they are mistaken. I simply do not see any connection between the legacy of Moses and our democracy.

Democracy was unknown in the biblical world. It appeared first in Greece. Rome had a democratic institution, the Senate. But in Greece and Rome, only a small minority, free males, could vote. Most of the people were slaves. But when Greece and Rome conquered other peoples, they ruled autocratically. By the time the armies of Greece and Rome occupied the Jewish lands, democracy was dead or dying at home.

But we should not give up too easily. Let us look for signs of democracy in the Old and New Testaments. There are scattered clues.

If any institution of the Israelites can serve as a prototype of democracy, it is council of elders. The council met from time to time in order to make decisions and to guide the community. But the Bible does not explain how these councils operated. How many elders were there? How were they chosen? Were decisions made by consensus? Or did they rely on a strong leader to make decisions? To whom were they accountable? There are no explicit answers to these questions. But there hints scattered through the scriptures.

In the New Testament there are many verses refer to a council of elders. Matthew 26:59 says, "Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death." These councils were small cliques that operated in secret. They were neither representative nor accountable to the people. And since these councils plotted against Jesus, the fathers of our democracy would not have considered them as models to emulate.

The Old Testament gives a different perspective to these councils. Many times the elders met with the assembly (or congregation). (The assembly consisted of all adult male Israelites.) They met to debate important issues and to make decisions affecting the entire community.

Where does the idea of such a council come from? In Exodus 3:16-17, God instructs Moses, "Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them ... I will bring you ... unto a land flowing with milk and honey." Here God is portrayed as having respect for the elders. That respect will soon change. This is the first mention of a council of elders as having influence over the community. If Moses can convince the elders, the community will follow.

In order to understand Israelite institutions, it is worth looking at the traditional Canaanite culture. The culture and religion of the Israelites derived from the very ancient pagan culture of the northern Levant. The religion of the Israelites was derived from the worship of the supreme god El. The city of Ugarit in present-day Syria was a major cult center of El, his consort Asherah, and his seventy sons. Among these other gods were Baal and Dagon. These other gods and goddesses were demonized in the Old Testament.

The exploits of El and his family were described in tablets written in a language that was very close to ancient Hebrew. In Hebrew the word Elohim, which is the plural form of El, refers to the one god of the Israelites. In addition, the name El is incorporated in many personal names and in the epithets El Elyon and El Shaddai. The priests and prophets of ancient Judah transformed this pagan religion into a monotheistic faith. But this striking change did not affect many of the customs and traditions of the people. There were numerous similarities between the Canaanite and Israelite cultures.

The tablets of Ugarit portray El as a remote high god. That is, El did not participate in the day-to-day affairs of the other gods. He allows Baal to become the king of the gods. Occasionally, a dispute breaks out that Baal cannot resolve. Then the parties appeal to El for a decision. Now El is portrayed as presiding over a council of gods. The parties debate the issue and eventually El makes a decision.

Because of the close connections between the Ugaritic and Israelite cultures, it seems likely that Ugaritic council of gods became the model for their and the Israelite councils of elders. In this model, decisions are normally made at the family, clan, or tribal level, as appropriate. Decisions would be made be the senior elder at these levels. A few issues were so important that they had to be made at a national level. Then a delegation of elders from each tribe would gather to discuss and debate the issue. The senior elder would make the final decision.

The Egyptian authorities probably found it convenient to work through the council of elders. When the Egyptians wanted to start a building project, for example, they could inform the council that they needed a certain number of workers. Then the council would be held responsible for recruiting the required number of workers.

A council may work well or may work badly. When a decision making process is dominated be a strong personality, the results may be poor. In World War II, both Hitler and Stalin imposed their wills upon their subordinates. Neither listened to their generals. Both suffered defeats that could have been avoided had they been more flexible and open in their decision making. More recently, the failures in Vietnam and Iraq occurred because presidents ignored the advice of subordinates with expertise in these areas.

On the other hand, a deliberative body generally makes better decisions if there is a free and open debate about the issues. In a democratic organization, everyone has the right to speak. But the majority has the right to prevail.

One peril with democratic assemblies is that debate can degenerate into name calling and character assassination. All to often what passes for political debate in the United States consists of smear campaigns and deceptive attack ads. This does not bode well for the survival of democracy in America.

Where the councils of the Israelites fits in this spectrum between the scylla of suppressed debate and the charybdis of anarchy? That is dificult to say. But the Torah gives portrays the Israelites as being very open. They were accustomed to vociferous and strident debate. We see this in the criticisms levelled at Moses:

And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt? [Exodus 14:11]

And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. [Numbers 21:5]

Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men. And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown. And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD? [Numbers 16:1-3]

The last quote comes from the story known as the 'rebellion of Korah'. Here Korah along with 250 elders are arguing against the radical religious change that Moses was making. Previously, the elders were the priests of their families. They performed sacrifices and burned incense in their homes. Now Moses made Aaron the high priest of the Israelites, eclipsing this tradition of family priests. Naturally, many of the elders resented this diminution of their status.

A subtext of this dispute was over the idea of holiness. Korah and his associates had an egalitarian view of holiness, " ... all the congregation are holy, every one of them, ..." Moses had the opposite view. The Levites, the tribe of Moses, was more holy than all the other tribes. And most holy of all were Moses and Aaron. The less holy, the Levites, were given the 'honor' of carrying the tabernacle and the sacred objects. This so-called honor was in reality a heavy burden. Part of the burden consisted of two hundred talents of gold, silver, and copper -- seven and a half tons. Add to that four hundred and fifty square yards of fabric for the courtyard, plus wooden frames, plus the inner tent, and the other sacred` objects. The total may have amounted to nine or ten tons of material.

The people of the Exodus had to carry all of their possessions. But a man who is carrying a silver base weighing seventy five pounds cannot carry his own possessions. That burden falls on members of his family who have their own burdens to carry. But the worst thing was that the sacred objects had to be carefully wrapped. Otherwise the Levites who were carrying these objects actually saw them, they would be put to death. Some honor! Not even the Levites were trusted.

Korah and his supporters were intent on arguing their case with Moses. How did Moses react? Did he try to negotiate with Korah? Did Moses attempt to persuade Korah to change his mind? Did Moses accept a democratic resolution to this dispute? No! Moses enticed Korah and his followers to come to the tabernacle where they were killed. Over a two day period somne fifteen thousand people were murdered.

Here Moses displays his great character flaw -- the inability to deal with criticism. To Moses, dissent is blasphemy. Here Moses loses what remains of the confidence of the people. Never again do the people trust his leadership and follow him willingly. In Egypt Moses promised the people that they would go to a land of milk and honey. But in the end, Moses condemns the adults to die in the wilderness.

The essay began with a question. Was the Bible a basis for American democracy? My answer is absolutely not! Moses ruled like a king or dictator -- like a pharaoh. He destroyed the only institution in Israelite culture that could be called democratic. Had the ancient Israelites a democratic government, Moses and Aaron would have been impeached.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Adolph Hitler versus Guess Who

Adolph Hitler was infamous for the big lie. Guess who benefitted from smear campaigns against John McCain and John Kerry.

Adolph Hitler came to power thanks to a breakdown of the democratic process of Weimar Germany. Guess who came to power thanks to a breakdown in the electoral process in Florida, and again in Ohio.

Adolph Hitler burned down the Reichstag in order to justify the assumption of dictatorial powers. Guess who obtained extraordinary powers after September 11.

Adolph Hitler abolished the German parliment. Guess who has castrated Congress by the use of 700 signing statements.

Adolph Hitler destroyed any vestige of independence of Germany's courts. Guess who is trying to emasculate the American courts.

A few months after coming to power, Adolph established the Dachau concentration camp. Guess who established a concentration camp at Guantanamo and secret prisons abroad.

Adolph Hitler instituted laws that deprived Jews of their rights. Guess who had many Muslim aliens arrested, held incommunicado, and deprived of constitutional rights.

Adolph Hitler's Gestapo was infamous for its use of torture. Guess who uses torture.

Eventually Adolph Hitler abolished all civil rights in Germany. Guess who has abolished the Bill of Rights.

Adolph Hitler started agressive wars against his neighbors. Guess who started an unnecessary aggressive war against Iraq.

Many Germans have wondered how the 'land of poets and thinkers' could have been enslaved by Adolph Hitler. Someday Americans will wonder how the United States could have become ensnared by the hubris and megalomania of guess who.

In all fairness, it must be noted that there are important differences between these two. One of them served on active duty during wartime and earned his nation's highest decoration.

Where Was the Yam Suph?

Introduction:

Where did God part the waters for the Moses and the Israelites? How did they escape from Pharaoh and his his chariots? Practically every good Christian 'knows' that God parted the waters of the Red Sea. The Hebrew term for that location is 'Yam Suph', which means 'Sea (or Lake) of Reeds'. It is somewhere to the east of the Nile Delta. But where? That question has tied scholars in knots for centuries. Did it happen at the Red Sea, according to many Christian translations of the Book of Exodus, or did it happen, according to the Hebrew text, at the Sea of Reeds? And exactly where is the Sea of Reeds? It could be anywhere along a string of ancient lakes that have been incorporated into the Suez Canal.

The first Greek translation, the Septuagint, mistranslated Yam Suph as Red Sea. The Yam Suph cannot be the Red Sea because reeds do not grow in salt water. Unfortunately, that mistranslation has become entrenched in Christian bibles. Even the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which aims to be "as literal as possible," translates 'Yam Suph' as 'Red Sea'. The more conservative New International Version (NIV) also uses Red Sea in the traslation. But the NIV Study Bible places (the probable location of) Yam Suph at the southern end of Lake Menzalah. This lake receives fresh water from the eastern branch of the Nile River and empties into the Mediterranean.

In this paper I shall offer the ultimate chutzpah by presenting a comprehensive solution for the Yam Suph. I shall identify not only the place, but an exact date and time for the parting of the sea. And I shall support my thesis with reasonable and plausible arguments.

Many authorities have tried to chart the course of the Exodus. But one has succeeded in setting forth a scenario which satisfies the vast majority of scholars and commentators. Etham, Pihahiroth, Rephidim, Mount Sinai/Horeb -- no has positively identified these locations beyond a reaonable doubt. No one has offered an itinery that matches every point of the Exodus story in the Old Testament. Consequently, any one who proposes a solution must decide which verses to accept and which to doubt. Unfortunately all of the commentaries that I know of don't identify the verses they reject. I will discuss some verses that I reject and explain why I reject them.

Thesis:

Here is my thesis concerning the place, date, and time of the 'parting' of the sea:

The Israelites were encamped near the southern end of a fresh-water lake near the Mediterranean Sea, i.e. Lake Menzalah. East of the camp were mud flats. Pharaoh's chariots attacked the Israelites from the west at sunset on the sixteenth or seventeenth day of of the second month (Ziv). This was one or two nights after the full moon, and about thirty two days after the Israelites left Egypt. A 'land breeze' removed water from the mud flats, providing an avenue of escape for the Israelites.


The Location:

I cannot know for sure that this was the case. But I believe that this scenario best fits the main features of the Exodus story. In reaching these conclusions, I see an important clue in the first half of Exodus 14:21. This passage points to a specific location for the Yam Suph.

And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night ...

Since I am an atheist, I do not suppose that any god caused the strong wind that drove back the waters. Rather it was a natural event. The key factor, the strong wind, has not been fully appreciated by scholars. What is this strong east wind? What kind of wind rises up in the evening and abates in the morning? Sailors are familiar with such a wind. They call it a 'land breeze'. That is a wind that blows from the shore over the sea.

[Land and sea breezes arise because of temperature differences between land and a neaby sea. A land breeze rises as the land cools at night and becomes cooler than the nearby sea. The air above the land cools and descends, pushing the air near the ground toward the sea. When this air flows over the sea it warms and rises. Then it flows high over the land, cools and descends. This results in a circular flow of air. At ground level the air flows from land toward the sea.]

The Date and Time:

Another important clue is provided by Exodus 14:19-20. This passage helps establish the date and time of Pharaoh's attempted attack on the Israelites:

And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them. And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to the Egyptians, but it gave light by night to Israelites so that the one came not near the other all the night.


The Strong Wind:

The biblical writers lived in the Israelite kingdoms of Judah and Israel. And in western parts of the Levant near the Mediterranean, a nocturnal east wind is a 'land breeze' that blows from the land to the sea. The closer to the shore one is, the more intense is this wind. In Egypt, however, a land breeze is a wind from the south that blows northward over the Mediterranean.

During the daytime the land heats up. This produces the opposite wind, the sea breeze, flows toward land. At the Yam Suph, a daytime sea breeze blows the surface water toward the south end. What happens?

The Yam Suph:

What happens depends upon the exact configuration of the Yam Suph. I postulate a lake with mud flats at the southern end but deep elsewhere. The layer of mud was six to twelve inches on top of a base of sand. With no wind, the southern end was an inch or two above or below the surface of the lake. During the day, a sea breeze pushed water toward the southern end of the lake. The water covered the mud flats by a few inches or perhaps a foot.

The Attack:

Just before sunset the chariots were observed by the Israelites at some distance from the camp. At sunset it became too dark for the chariots to proceed safely. So the chariots stopped to wait for the rising of the moon. (See Exodus 14:19-20.) This gave Moses time to organize and prepare the Israelites for their retreat. He would most likely ringed the camp with a line of archers and spearmen.

Soon the sea breeze abated and stopped. The water started to drain off of the mud flats under the force of gravity. The moon rose in the east. Then Moses raised his staff over the waters. Soon the land breeze started to blow from the south in seeming obedience to the command of the prophet and the will of God. The south wind started to push the water off of the mud flats. Soon high spots in the mud flats were exposed. In a few minutes the moon rose in the east. The Israelites could look directly at the moon just over the mud flats. The moonlight shone from the remaining water. They saw exposed patches of mud emerging from the water. This gave them them the confidence that they could travel over the mud flats. Then the Israelites started to struggle across the mud flats. Their feet sank in mud, but were supported by the sand below. The herders pushed and pulled their herds and flocks through the mud toward safety.

Remember that the charioteers had stopped on account of darkness. Now with the moon barely above the horizon, there is enough light for the Israelites to retreat over the mud flats. But the moon is not high enough for the charioteers. The charioteers need to wait about an hour until the moon reached 10 to 15 above the horizon. thent obstacles or depressions in the ground can be identified by the shadows. This explains Exodus 14:19-20 which I quoted above.

While I thoroughly discount the action of angels, I can understand that centuries later a writer would use an angel to explain something he didn't understand -- why the charioteers had to stop.

During this time of poor light Pharaoh's infantry arrived. They can march safely in bad light. When the moon rose some 10-15 degrees above the horizon, Pharaoh's chariots could lead the attack on the Israelite camp.

By this time the women, the children, and the animals had fled across the mud flats to safety. At the same time the archers and spearmen formed a line along the shore of the Yam Suph. When the chariots appproached, the archers fired their arrows at the chariots, disabling some of them.

When the charging chariots reached the Israelite line, the defenders jumped aside and allowed the 600 chariots to pass through. The charioteers saw the mud flats ahead of them. In the moonlight, the charioteers might have thought that the mud flats were dry ground and safe for their chariots. When they charged onto the mud flats they came to grief. The horses' feet went down into the mud, causing the horses to stumble. The wheels of the chariots become mired and many chariots toppled. This threw the charioteers onto the ground. The Israelite spearmen followed and quickly dispatched the fallen charioteers. When the infantry saw what happened to their comrades, they became too terrified to follow. Only a few Egyptian survivors made it back to the shore.

The Israelite fighters disappeared across the mud flats, leaving Pharaoh and a remnant of his chariot force in possession of the Israelite camp and a few dead Israelites. Later a Pharaoh, maybe this one, erected a victory stela that proclaimed, "I destroyed Yisrael".

At daybreak, "Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea." (Ex. 14:27)

There is no mention of the wind in this verse. But, reading this along with Exodus 14:21, one can conclude that the strong night wind ceased. Then in a few minutes the sea breeze began to blow. That blew water over the mud flats, covering the scene of battle and completing the 'miracle' of Yam Suph.

Pharaoh thought that a surprise attack at night would give him an easy victory. But Moses, wise in the ways of the wilderness, turned the tables on Pharaoh.

Why Attack at Night?

And now we have to ask an important question. Why should Pharaoh choose to attack at night? Night battles are difficult, confusing, and dangerous for the attackers as well as the defenders. For chariots, a night battle are especially dangerous because the charioteers have dificulty seeing obstacles on the ground. This is why night battles are rare.

In the Old Testament there are two important examples of night battles. The first battle is where Abram/Abraham defeated the forces of Chedorlaomer. (Genesis 14) In the second battle, Gideon defeated the Midianites. (Judges 7) Both of these battles have much in common. A surprise attack at night allows a small force to panic and rout a much larger one. In both cases, the attackers were badly outnumbered. Abram commanded a force of 318 fighters. Gideon reduced his force to only three hundred, (possibly to emulate Abram). In both cases, the commanders picked the best fighters that they had. Abram certainly picked 318 of his best fighters from of a much larger force. He would not have left his women and children unprotected. In both cases the attackers panicked the defenders and made them flee.

Pharaoh might have had a similar plan, to use six hundred picked chariots to attack the Israelite camp at sunset. I do not know what specific plan Pharaoh had in mind, but let me use my imagination. Pharaoh attacked from the west, with his forces hidden in the glare of the setting sun. His chariots would be closing in on Israelite camp before the defenders knew what was happening. The Israelites would panic and flee north and south along the shore of the lake. The chariots would chase them, cut them off and corral them. Then Pharaoh's infantry would come up and help herd them back to Egypt. I cannot say whether Pharaoh had this plan in mind, but it is a reasonable plan when only six hundred chariots can be used against a much larger force.

How Many Chariots?

"Wait," you say, "Pharaoh took all the chariots of Egypt, a lot more than six hundred." Exodus 14:7 states that Pharaoh "took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt ..." This verse is problematic. It appears to be self-contradictory. The first part says that Pharaoh chose some chariots, and the second part says he didn't. Furthermore, it is not credible that he could call up all of the chariots of Egypt. Egypt is spread out along 1000 miles of the Nile River. And Pharaoh would have had to send orders to all of the cities of Egypt. To send a message to the distant cities on the Nile would take some 40 days, provided the messengers could travel 25 miles each day. Then it would take a few weeks for the chariots to travel to the Nile Delta. With anger burning in his heart, Pharaoh would not wait two or three months for chariots to arrive from southern Egypt.

It makes sense that Pharaoh would pick the best of his charioteers from nearby cities-- Ramesses, Pithom, Succoth, and perhaps Avaris. Six hundred picked chariots is a credible number -- all the chariots of Egypt is not.

We should ask the question, why would Exodus 14:7 say that all the chariots of Egypt were used, if indeed that was not true? I think that there is a simple explanation -- originally the Book of Exodus said that just six hundred chariots were used. At some point it became accepted that the Israelites had 603,550 armed men -- a highly inflated number. (Ex.38:26, Num. 1:46, Num. 2:32) Then some biblical scribe asked the question, how could 600 chariots prevail against six hundred thousand armed men? If each of the Israelite men had just one spear apiece, then each chariot would have to survive a rain of one thousand spears. The horses are especially vulnerable. Disable a horse, and the chariot is useless. At these odds, Pharaoh's chariots would have been wiped out very quickly.

Consider chapter 4 of Judges. It says that 10,000 infantry under Deborah and Barak defeated the 900 chariots of Sisera. By that standard, Moses should have been able to defeat 54,000 Egyptian chariots. Even if Pharaoh tried to bring all of the chariots of Egypt to the battlefield, I can't imagine that this would come to half that number.

Why then did the Israelites have to flee from Pharaoh? Was Moses a coward? That thought was unacceptable to the biblical writers. Admitting cowardice on the part of Moses would undermine their own power and authority. So the biblical writer added 'all of the chariots of Egypt' to make it seem as though the Israelites were in real danger.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of many scholars, the figure of 603,550 Israelite men is vastly inflated. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901 edition) calls this number 'fanciful'. A figure of 6,000 men seems much more likely -- but this is just my guess. There is a real chance that 600 chariots could defeat 6000 armed men. And the chance of a successful attack rises for a suprise attack at night.

When is the Best Time?

Also we must ask the question, would Pharaoh do better by attacking two or three nights before the full moon? The moon rises before the sun sets. There is no period of darkness in the early evening that is dangerous for chariots. At sunset the moon is between twenty and forty degrees above the horizon. Thus any dangerous obstacles or depressions in the ground cast shadows that can be seen by the charioteers. Two or three nights before the full moon seems like the ideal time for a night attack.

I do not know the answer. I can only suppose that either Pharaoh did not appreciate the importance of the moonlight or that The attack was delayed for some reason.

The Israelites left Egypt in the middle of the first month under a full moon. Very few Israelites were physically prepared for the rigors of a long march. The multitude included pregnant women, women carrying babies, and pregnant women carrying babies and herding toddlers. With many women, children, elderly people, and animals, they had to travel slowly. It is not likely that they could travel much more than five miles a day. I suppose that it would take them three weeks to travel from Ramesses to Pithom to Succoth to Etham and then to the Yam Suph. That would put the Israelites at Yam Suph a few days before the next full moon.

Some Difficulties:

Having presented my thesis, I must now admit that there are difficulties that must be addressed. I feel compelled to offer explanations for matters that might seeem yo contradict my thesis.

First, is there any hard evidence that a lake satisfying my conditions has ever existed? The problem is that the likely locations of the Yam Suph have been incorporated into the Suez Canal. However there may be old maps or old accounts that describe a suitable location. I have to leave this question open.

Second, in quoting verse 21 above, I omitted the last two clauses: " ... and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided". I did this because I do not consider this to be credible. The phrase 'dry land' contradicts verse 25 which indicates that the chariots became mired in this 'dry gound'. In the first place, when water is drained from mud flats, the result is mud. It may take days for the mud to dry. But if the lake bed were to become dry land all of a sudden, it would have supported horses and chariots. This would give the charioteers all night to overtake and slaughter the Israelites. That violates the main idea of the story, namely that the Israelites escaped unscathed.

Nor do I find credible the second half of verse 22: "the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left." I cannot imagine how a wind could divide the waters unless it blew in two directions at once. That idea is contradicted by verse 21which says that an 'east wind' was the agent that drove the waters back and produced dry land. But I am not a meteorologist. Is there any meteorological explanation for the two walls of water? I doubt it. I note that in the movie "The Ten Commandments", the waters were held back by artificial walls. Cecille B. DeMille did not achieve this effect with a wind machine. That would have been a miracle.

I believe that most of verse 21 is credible and represents an early account of the 'miracle' of Yam Suph. Now ancient peoples were storytellers. And a story like this grows in the telling. Storytellers know that they should not let the facts get in the way of a good story. So exaggerations were added to the story to make to seem all the more miraculous.

Other Locations?

Third, are there other suitable locations? No location fits the entire exodus story. But I do believe that the location I have described is the best fit. Here, near the Mediterranean Sea, the land and sea breezes have maximum effect. Here are likely locations for Migdol and Baalzephon. Migdol means tower -- most likely a lookout tower used by Egyptian border guards to watch for invasions from Gaza. The most likely route for Canaanite invaders would have come from Gaza along the Mediterranean coast. Baalzephon was probably the location of a shrine to Baal, a Canaanite god. There are several known shrines to Baal in the eastern part of the Nile delta.

However there is a second location that should be considered, namely the Bitter Lakes. This location is shown on a map in the Jewish Study Bible. That is a possible location provided that these lakes can generate a strong land breeze and provided reeds can grow in these waters. But this location is south of the Land of Goshen, and less likely to have a tower and a shrine to Baal-zephon. But there is another serious problem with identifying the Bitter Lakes as the Yam Suph. At the Yam Suph, the people do NOT complain of bitter water. And Moses does NOT show the people how to make the bitter water sweet. That happens at Marah, three days after the Israelites left the Yam Suph. The Bitter Lakes could be Marah, but probably not the Yam Suph.

Conclusion:

My conclusions will have to stand up to the scrutiny of experts in several fields -- ancient history, biblical interpretation, meteorology, and military tactics. My hope is that my efforts will, in some small measure, advance the understanding of the biblical texts.

Many scholars doubt that Moses actually existed. Such people may believe that the story of the Exodus is just pure fiction. I do not accept this position. I do suppose that there is a factual basis of the story of Moses. The great challenge is finding that kernel of truth.

I do suppose that long ago that Egyptian troops attacked a large group of escaping slaves, but the slaves escaped. Soon the story passed into the oral tradition. As the story was told and retold, people exaggerated some elements, glorifying the deeds their heroes. Eventually the story acquired mythic elements -- a charismatic leader and divine interventions. Some elements of the story were forgotten. Other elements were confused as the story was handed down from generation to generation. Hundreds of years later priests attempted to reconstruct the story as they wrote it down. Later scribes inserted 'clarifications' and 'explanations' when they copied the text. Theological disputes left their 'fingerpints' on the text. It is for modern scholars to try to separate the wheat from the chaff, to illuminate the lives of our ancient ancestors.

Biblical Evolution

Do you reject Darwin's theory of evolution. Do you believe that all species of plants and animals were fixed during the six days of creation? Do you believe that biological evolution is totally incompatible with the book of Genesis? Then take a look at this charming tale from the King James Version of Genesis:


Genesis 30:31 And he (Laban) said, What shall I give thee? And Jacob said, Thou shalt not give me any thing: if thou wilt do this thing for me, I will again feed and keep thy flock:
32 I will pass through all thy flock to day, removing from thence all the speckled and spotted cattle, and all the brown cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats: and of such shall be my hire.
33 So shall my righteousness answer for me in time to come, when it shall come for my hire before thy face: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and brown among the sheep, that shall be counted stolen with me.
34 And Laban said, Behold, I would it might be according to thy word
35 And he removed that day the he goats that were ringstraked and spotted, and all the she goats that were speckled and spotted, and every one that had some white in it, and all the brown among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.
36 And he set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob: and Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks.
37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.
41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.
42 But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.
43 And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels, and asses.
Exodus 31:1 And he heard the words of Laban's sons, saying, Jacob hath taken away all that was our father's; and of that which was our father's hath he gotten all this glory.
2 And Jacob beheld the countenance of Laban, and, behold, it was not toward him as before.
3 And the LORD said unto Jacob, Return unto the land of thy fathers, and to thy kindred; and I will be with thee.
4 And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field unto his flock,
5 And said unto them, I see your father's countenance, that it is not toward me as before; but the God of my father hath been with me.
6 And ye know that with all my power I have served your father.
7 And your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me.
8 If he said thus, The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the cattle bare speckled: and if he said thus, The ringstraked shall be thy hire; then bare all the cattle ringstraked.
9 Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me.
10 And it came to pass at the time that the cattle conceived, that I lifted up mine eyes, and saw in a dream, and, behold, the rams which leaped upon the cattle were ringstraked, speckled, and grisled.
11 And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I.
12 And he said, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the rams which leap upon the cattle are ringstraked, speckled, and grisled: for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee.
13 I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred.


What is going on here? Jacob starts with a flock of white sheep and a flock of dark goats. Then he 'evolves' them into flocks of spotted sheep and white-streaked goats. These are his wages for many years of service to Laban. Jacob takes the least desirable of the animals and leaves weak sheep and goats for Laban.

Jacob's spotted sheep are valuable, but less desirable than pure white sheep. The first reason is that white wool can be dyed many more colors than brownish wool. But the most important reason for the Israelites is that the spotted animals cannot be used for sacrifice. Only the best pure white unblemished animals can be offered to God. The ideal sacrifice is a perfect yearling male animal. However this means that the Israelites were poor breeders of animals. When the best yearling males are sacrificed, the quality of the herd will decline. The best yearling males are exactly the ones that should be preserved so that they can pass on their genes.

Jacob's method of breeding spotted sheep is based on the theory that what a female sees during mating determines the appearance of the offspring. If the female sees a white object during mating, the offspring will be white. If she sees something striped, the offspring will be spotted or striped.

Acccordingly, Jacob plants striped rods where the sheep mate in order to produce spotted lambs. This biblical theory of evolution contradicts everything that we know about DNA and genetics. There is absolutely no scientific foundation for this practice.

This sounds a lot like witchcraft. Is Jacob putting a hex on his sheep? Or something like the 'evil eye'. Witchcraft was banned under the Law of Moses. "You shall not allow a witch to live." [Ex. 22:18] Should Jacob be put to death for insulting God? It seems that God doesn't mind. Genesis 31:11-13 says that God put his seal of approval on this episode.

Since the biblical writers did not condemn this practice, they obviously considered it legitimate. So we must look beyond witchcraft for an explanation. The belief probably arises from the observation that children resemble their mothers, while others resemble their fathers. For example, I have the brown eyes of my mother, but my sister has the blue eyes of our father. So how can a brown-eyed mother give birth to a brown-eyed son and a blue-eyed daughter? The people of biblical times might have said that when my sister was conceived, mom was gazing into the blue eyes of her hubby. But in my case, my mom must have had her eyes closed.

Scientifically speaking, this is a lot of hooey. But people of ancient times knew nothing of modern science. It wasn't their fault that that it took thousands of years for genes and DNA to be discovered.

If this practice wasn't witchcraft, what was it? Most likely it was a folk belief, an 'old wives tale'. The ancients saw a cause-and-effect relationship here. They knew that mating caused pregnancies. They knew that drought caused crop failures.

But their understanding of cause and effect was very limited. They did not understand what causes rain. They did not understand that water vapor evaporated from large bodies of water formed clouds. And when these clouds are cooled, the water vapor condenses and falls as rain. They thought that when God wanted rain, he opened some of the 'windows of heaven'. [Genesis 7:11] Then the waters above the firmament [Genesis 1:7] gushed through these openings and fell on the earth as rain. However such a folk belief relies upon a primitive concept of natural causality.

The power of a scientific theory often arises from the ability to make predictions. For example, Newton's theory of gravitation made it possible to predict thatr a certain comet, called Shoemaker-Levy 9, would crash into Jupiter some 18 months later. Therefore, let's ask, can we make preditions from the biblical theory of evolution? Yes, indeed. We can make this prediction: If a lioness sees a man and eagle while mating, the offspring will have the body of a lion, the head of a man, and the wings of an eagle. Before you reject this as utter nonsense, consider the fact that statues of such creatures, called cherubim, have been found throughout Mesopotamia. The great sphinx of Egypt is a cherub without wings. (Did the sphinx have wings originally?) And since God posted cherubim to guard the Garden of Eden [Gen. 3:24] these creatures must truly exist, as any fundamentalist will tell you.

Anyone could perform some experiments to test the biblical theory that what a female sees during mating influences the appearance of her offspring. For example, place a pair of white mice in a cage. Line the cage with pictures of zebras so that the mice can see them while mating. Then the biblical theory of evolution predicts that the offspring of these mice will be striped like zebras. But I have never known anything like this to happen.

I know of no evidence that supports this theory. Through science we know that the union of sperm and egg determines the appearance of the progeny as well as its gender and many other characteristics. From the millions of sperm deposited by the male, one eventually fertilizes the egg. Today we know that fertilization does not occur at the moment of mating. Fertilization occurs hours or days later. One sperm out of millions is the lucky one. it is a matter of chance. One would think that if what a woman sees influences her offspring, it would be what she sees at the moment of fertilization, not the moment of mating. And what a female sees at the moment of fertilization is anyone's guess. There is no way that I can find any scientific credibility in Jacob's theory of evolution. But it is the 'word of God.'

Tradition has it that God dictated the first five books of the Old Testament to Moses. So why did God tell this hooey to Moses? And what did Moses think of it? Now Moses had experience with the breeding of sheep. For many years he shepherded the flocks of his father-in-law. Did Moses say that he never saw this happen? Did he learn something new?

It amazes me that God never told Moses about DNA. It is one of the most wondrous things that God hath wrought. God ought to be proud of his invention -- a proud poppa. But not a word is said about DNA. Why?

Darwin's theory of evolution depends upon two processes occuring at the same time. The first process is mutation -- spontaneous changes in the DNA of the egg or sperm that unite to form an embryo. The second process is selection -- the weeding out of plants or animals that are 'less fit' -- less capable of surviving and procreating. The "Origin of Species" is much more credible than any evolutionary theory based on Genesis.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

North Korean Ambitions -- Update

In all of the discussions about North Korea and its nuclear weaponry I have not heard anyone try to get inside the minds of the North Korean rulers. Two important questions must be asked. First, what are the strategic ambitions of Kim and company? And second, how do nuclear weapons and rockets serve these ambitions? We need to answer these questions in order to anticipate the moves of the North Koreans and avoid making blunders.

There is a crazy symmetry between the U.S. and North Korea. George W. Bush did what his father did not do -- topple Saddam Hussain. But Kim may do what his father failed to do in 1950 -- namely annex South Korea. The Kim's have imposed many hardships on their people in order to build up their military forces. The only credible reason for these hardships is the ambition to contol South Korea. Perhaps the present Kim believes that he is on the brink of success. Perhaps he believes he can win a new Korean war.

Kim has characterized the U.N. Sanctions as a declaration of war. This gives Kim all the justification that he needs to invade South Korea. A westerner may think that this ambition is hopelessly quixotic and doomed to failure. But this is looking through the wrong of a telescope. Kim and company just might think that they can win a new Korean War. Alternatively, if they sense that the regime is about to collapse, that may start a war in a desperate attempt to snatch victory. That is why the present situation is extremely dangerous.

However, I do not worry about nuclear rocket hitting California as much as I worry about one hitting the port of Pusan. The destruction of Pusan would make it virtually impossible for the U.S. to send troops and supplies to help South Korea. On the other hand, if the North Korean rulers should destroy an American city, they would be signing their own death warrants.

It is likely that North Korea will soon develop an intercontinental ballistic missile that can hit American cities. It is fair to ask, how does such a weapon serve the interests of the North Koreans? I doubt that Kim wants war with the United States. Instead, his goal is to keep the United States out of a new Korean war. And the threat of a nuclear strike against an American city may deter the president from intervening against North Korea.

The president may order the U.S. fleet to fire cruise missiles at the North Korean troops. With medium range nuclear missiles, Kim can make it dangerous for a U.S. fleet to enter the Sea of Japan, and impossible for the U.S. to perform an Inchon-style landing.

While the United States is losing the war in Iraq, our ability to defend South Korea is seriously compromised. We may have to abandon Iraq in order to defend South Korea. Surely Kim is counting on this.

Only after analyzing the strategic aims of North Korea do we appreciate how dangerous the current situation is.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

To a Fundamentalist

Dear Fundamentalist,

I understand that Christian fundamentalism is based on a belief in the inerrancy of the King James Version. I understand that American protestant fundamentalism was first expressed comprehensively by a series of pamphlets from 1910-15 titled “The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth.” Do these represent your views? If not, please explain where you differ.

As a fundamentalist, do you believe that the world is round? In ancient times, it was taken for granted that the earth was flat. After all, anyone can see for himself that the world is flat. The Old Testament has twenty-seven references the to the 'ends of the earth', and one in the Book of Acts. Let me remind you that a spherical body has no ends. There are also two references to the 'four corners of the earth,' namely Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1. Please explain to me where the four corners of the earth are located.

Let me call your attention to Genesis 1:7-8 which reads:

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. ...

The word firmament comes from the Latin firmamentum which means arch or dome. The ancient Israelites of Old Testament times understood that the firmament was like a transparent bowl of hammered metal that was placed upside-down over the world. Why was the sky blue? During the daytime one could see the blue waters above the firmament. Thus our world is a submarine world -- a bubble in a vast sea. Do you believe that there is a dome-like firmament that separates us from the waters above? How do airplanes keep from crashing into the firmament? Do you believe that our world is a submarine world?

The story of Noah says that God caused the flood by breaking the fountains of the great deep and opening the windows of heaven. Then it rained forty days and forty nights. [Genesis 7:11-12] Thus when God wants to produce rain he opens one of the windows in the firmament. The waters above stream through this window and fall upon the earth as rain. When God wants the rain to stop, he closes the window in the firmament. [Genesis 8:2]

Do you share that ancient belief that God produces rain by opening a window in the firmament? And where are the windows of heaven? And where are the waters above the firmament? Why don't they appear in any of the photographs from our telescopes?

The ancient world believed that our world is fixed in place in the center of creation. They also believed that the sun, the moon, and other celestial bodies were much smaller than the earth and they travelled only a short distance above the earth. The idea of a spherical earth would have been incomprehensible. The idea that the earth rotated on its axis, that it revolved around a huge sun would have seem blasphemous or idolatrous to the ancients.

Do you share this ancient cosmology? Or am I right in thinking that you do not accept it completely? Because if Genesis 1 is literally true, then everything we have learned since Erastophenes would be blasphemy. Magellan's circumnavigation of the world is a hoax. If ours is a flat world, a bubble under the waters above, then the space program is a hoax. It is impossible to orbit the earth. Our atlases and globes are thus the work of Satan.

I trust that you see the point that I am making. I don't know of any fundamentlist who truly believes what the priests and prophets of the Old Testament believed in. Fundamentalism is not a pure biblical theology. Many Old Testament beliefs have been replaced by scientific knowledge. Thus fundamentalism is, in part, a product of modern science.

I'd love to hear what you have to say on these matters. Do you stand with the cosmology of the Old Testament? Or Aristotle? Or Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton? Or the relativity of Albert Einstein? Do you accept the religious transformations produced by modern science?

Sincerely,

Tover