Eating the Apple

Wasted or Sacrificed?

2007-03-15T14:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Merry Christmas, Osama

2006-12-22T10:35:00.000-08:00

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.

Kerry's Stupid Joke

2006-11-04T11:15:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-04T11:13:00.000-08:00

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.

Victory in Iraq

2006-10-31T12:45:00.000-08:00

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

2006-10-31T12:42:00.000-08:00

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.

Adolph Hitler versus Guess Who

2006-10-25T12:20:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-10-25T12:17:00.000-07:00

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

2006-10-25T12:13:00.000-07:00

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.

North Korean Ambitions -- Update

2006-10-18T13:22:00.000-07:00

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.

To a Fundamentalist

2006-10-17T11:25:00.000-07:00

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

Ten False Prophecies

2006-10-13T11:27:00.000-07:00

I have heard some people say that all of the prophecies in the Bible are true -- none have failed. I cannot agree. Although I am not a 'Bible expert' (an oxymoron?), I can list a few failed prophecies made by some of the most beloved prophets. How could people have read the Bible and still think that all prophecies are true?

Having said this, I must agree that many prophecies are true. There is a simple reason for this. In ancient there were as many prophets as political pundits today. Prophecies were all over the place. If, for example, a king was considering war, some prophets would predict victory, and others defeat. Jeremiah, for example, rails against false prophets. [Jer 14:14, 23:32] The successful prophecies were remembered and written down. The failed prophecies were forgotten -- except for a few object lessons.

Another reason for the apparent success of prophecies was that many were open-ended or vague predictions of disaster. One thing that you can always count on is disaster. For example, I prophecize that the last two years of Presdent Bush's reign, there will be hurricanes, earthquakes, wars, epidemics, airplane crashes, and hangnails. I am very confident that these vague prophecies will come true. But that would not make me much of a prophet. No one would consider me a prophet.

A third reason for successful prophecies is 'prophecy after the event'. I suspect that Genesis 15:13 is a case in point: "And he (God) said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall oppress them four hundred years." This part of Genesis was written down hundreds of years after Abraham (Abram) lived, probably during or after the time of King Solomon. The biblical scribes transcribed an oral tradition. Others copied the scrolls again and again. There was plenty of opportunity to add this so-called prophecy. The motive? To make it seem as thought the sojourn in Egypt was part of God's plan for Israel.

Here are the ten failed prophecies that I have found in the Bible:

1. At the burning bush, God instructs Moses:

Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt. And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey. [Genesis 3:16-17]

This command was carried out:

Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel: And Aaron spake all the words which the LORD had spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people. [Exodus 4:29-30]

In spite of this iron-clad promise from God, not one of the elders reached the land of milk and honey. Every one of them died in the wilderness. Of all the 600,000 adult men who left Egypt, only two, Joshua and Caleb, entered the promised land. They were young men, not elders.

2. In Exodus 17:14 God curses the Amalekites saying, "I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." The Amalekites are today an enigmatic people. There are no historical records and no artifacts which testify the existance of this people. All we know about the Amalekites is written in the Old Testament. Exodus 17:14 commits the Israelites to a genocidal war against the Amalekites. Saul and David fight the Amalekites. What God did is unknown. There is no mention of an act of God against the Amalekites. God simply left it to the Israelites to fight and die. The last recorded mention of the Amalekites comes in the Book of Esther. However, the remembrance of Amalek was never blotted out. Ironically, it is Exodus 17:14 which keeps the memory of Amalek alive.

3. The Old Testament contains several verses where God promises to drive out the inhabitants of Canaan. These are unconditional prophecies:

Exodus 23:28 And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee.

Exodus 33:2 And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite.

Exodus 34:11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.

Deuteronomy 4:38 To drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance, as it is this day.
Joshua 3:10 And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.

Joshua 13:6 All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon unto Misrephothmaim, and all the Sidonians, them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only divide thou it by lot unto the Israelites for an inheritance, as I have commanded thee.

However these five iron-clad prophesies were not fulfilled. Joshua 17:12 admits that "the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land." This was not the only failure of this prophecy. The Gibeonites were not driven out. They became slaves to the Israelites. The tribes of Reuben and Simeon could not conquer the territories allotted to them. They merged with other tribes. [William Friedman in "Who Wrote the Bible?"] Nor could the tribe of Dan conquer their allotted territory. They went north, conquered the city of Laish, and renamed it Dan. Finally, the city of Jebus was not conquered until King david took it and renamed it Jerusalem.

In a larger sense, God reneged on his promise to drive the inhabitants of the promised land. He never appeared on the battlefied, but just let the Israelites do all the fighting and dying.

4. Deuteronomy 32 contains the Song of Moses which prophecizes that God will save the righteous Israelites and destroy their enemies. But when the Israelites lived in the promised land they were surrounded by enemies. Then in 722 BC the Assyrians conquered Israel and exiled much of the population who formed the Lost Tribes of Israel. And in 587 BC Judah was conquered . The people were exiled to Babylon. From then on the Israelites had to live in the midst of their enemies. Even today, the modern state of Israel is surrounded by enemies. God has yet to destroy the enemies of the Jews -- the last time I looked.

5. In 2 Samuel 7 God appears to the prophet Nathan. Nathan is to tell King David, "Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee. Thy throne shall be established for ever." Implied by this prophecy was the promise that Jerusalem would never be conquered by a foreign power. Nevertheless, in 587 BC, Nebuchadnezzer conquered Jerusalem and deposed the last king of the Davidic line. David's kingdom became the possession of non-Jewish powers for the next 2500 years.

6. The Emmanuel prophecy in Isaiah 7 was intended to induce King Ahaz to change his foreign policy. In order to convince the king, Emmanuel had to be born within Ahaz' lifetime. However, in the Old Testament, there is no mention of any person named Emmanuel. In any case, the king was not convinced by Isaiah's sign. He persisted in the policy that Isaiah disapproved of. In Isaiah 8, this beloved Old Testament prophet seems to recognize the failure of his prophecy.

7. Between Isaiah and Jeremiah, there is an interesting clash of prophecies. Before and after Nubuchadnezzer conquered Jerusalem in 587 BC, many Jews fled to Egypt. Consider these two prophecies concerning the refugees:

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. [Isaiah 11:11-12]

And I will take the remnant of Judah, that have set their faces to go into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, and they shall all be consumed, and fall in the land of Egypt; they shall even be consumed by the sword and by the famine: they shall die, from the least even unto the greatest, by the sword and by the famine: and they shall be an execration, and an astonishment, and a curse, and a reproach. For I will punish them that dwell in the land of Egypt, as I have punished Jerusalem, by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence. So that none of the remnant of Judah, which are gone into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall escape or remain, that they should return into the land of Judah, to the which they have a desire to return to dwell there: for none shall return but such as shall escape. [Jeremiah 44:12-14]

Thus Isaiah predicts that the refugees in Egypt will return, Jeremiah says that they will be annihilated.

8. Jews are still waiting for the Messiah.

9. The Book of Revelations says that the number of the beast is 666. Jewish tradition had a method of converting words into numbers. And 666 was the number associated with the Roman Emperor Nero. That indicated that the end of the world was to occur during the reign of Nero. That did not happen -- the last time I looked.

10. Christians are still waiting for the second coming of Jesus Christ.

There they are, ten failed prophecies in the Bible.

The Light of Freedom

2006-10-12T12:20:00.000-07:00

On July, 1776, the Continental Congress lit the light of freedom for all mankind. Later, thirteen former colonies ratified a Constitution that promised an effective and democratic government based on democratic theory. That document left some major problems unresolved. So the first Congress of the United States approved twelve amendments and sen them to the states. Of these, ten were ratified and became the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution with the Bill of Rights sustained our nation through the early years of weakness when there were many threats from European powers. The Constitution sustained us through the Civil War and through the two great wars of the twentieth century.

We Americans have enjoyed and cherished the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Some of ancestors have fought and died or these freedoms -- freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to a fair trial. Later amendments added more rights such as the abolition of slavery.

To be true, there have been abuses from the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1801, through Jim Crow, the incarceration of Japanese-Americans during World War II, to the Smith Act of the 1950's. Although the Ship of State has been blown on her beams, she has always righted herself.

But now in the twenty-first century, the light of freedom is going out. We are told that we are facing a crisis, much worse than the two World Wars, much worse than the Civil War, that is forcing us to abandon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Today the president can declare anyone an 'illegal enemy combatant' for any reason, or for no reason at all, then we all have lost our right to a fair trial. When the president denies any role of the courts in these matters, we all have lost our right to 'due process', we all have lost our right to trial by jury, we all have lost our right to confront the evidence against us, we have all lost out right to legal representation. When the CIA or the armed forces can beat and torture anyone, we all have lost our right against self-incrimination. We all have lost our moral compass.

The president can nullify any law be writing a 'signing statement'. He has done so more than 700 times. Is Congress so bad that it has passed 700 unconstitutional laws? This is how Congress has been reduced to Bush's lap dog. It is the 'broken branch'.And when the president wants a law, he made one up. This is how we got military tribunals. This is how the president 'takes care that the laws be faithfully executed'.

The president insists that being 'commander in chief' gives him the unfettered authority to kidnap people all over the world, to engage in torture, and to set up military tribunals, and to ignore the Geneva conventions, all in violation of the 'supreme law of the land'. This is how the president acceeds to the Congressional power to 'make rules for the government of the land and naval forces'.

There is no Congress worthy of the name. Actually, the best Congress that money can buy has shown an amazing readiness to lay on its back in the missionary position. And when the courts take five years to act, justice is truly denied. There is no law but presidential fiat. Julius Caesar used his legions to overthrow the Roman Republic. George Bush doesn't have to use the army to overthrow the Constitution. He uses signing statements. He turns Congress into a rubber stamp with earmarks and money from lobbyists. He uses selective denials of the right to vote and fearmongering to create a supine electorate. This is how the president 'upholds and defends the constitution'.

The new litmus test is whether a person gives 'material aid go terrorism', whatever that means. Lawers and jurists will be spending countless hours and millions of dollars in trying to figure out what this means. 'Material aid' is like pornography. It means whatever you want it to mean. Years and years in the future it may be thrown out by the Supreme Court as 'unconstitutional vague'. But that will be scant comfort to those incarcerated this junk charge. How many grandmothers will be imprisioned for contributing money to an Islamic charity?

I hope to see a rebirth of Constitutional government. The nation needs to restore its faith in our founding principles -- freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Above all we need to restore the Bill of Rights -- so battered in the past five years. This is the better way to fight terrorism. We need to reaffirm the faith of our ancestors in constitutional government.

To the Constitution: It shall be preserved!

Where Did Moses Cross the Sea?

2006-10-10T14:26:00.000-07:00

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.

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 ...

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.

Isaiah's Failed Prophecy

2006-09-29T13:01:00.000-07:00

Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel. (Isaiah 7:14b)

The name 'Emmanuel' means 'God is with us'. This verse is understood by many Christians to be a prophecy of the birth of Jesus Christ. (Matthew 1:23) However, Isaiah did not say that a virgin would conceive. He used the Hebrew word almah which means 'young woman'.

The Jewish Study Bible (JSB) says, "... the Hebrew (almah) merely denotes a young woman of marriageable age whether married or unmarried, whether a virgin or not." The word almah does not convey a woman's sexual status. That, we do not know.

But what we do know was that Matthew did not read the Old Testament in Hebrew. Instead he quoted the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Old Testament. The Septuagint translates almah as parthenos which means virgin. (In Athens the Parthenon is dedicated to the virgin goddess, Athena.)

Could Isaiah have meant virgin? After all, the word almah does not exclude the possibility that the woman was a virgin. And the translators of the Septuagint might have had access to knowledge that has been lost.

However, I do not consider this idea to be credible. The idea of a virgin birth is completely foreign to ancient Jewish tradition. Consider Solomon, of whom God says, "I will be his father and he will be my son." (2 Samuel 7:14) Even this 'son of God' was to be conceived from the loins of David. (2 Samuel 7:12)

In ancient Israel the idea of a virgin birth would have been considered blasphemous and sinful. It was something that pagan gods did. In Egypt, Isis was the virgin mother of Horus.

The main problem is that Matthew ripped one sentence out of context and ignored everything else. Consequently, the meaning of the Emmanuel prophecy was completely distorted. Suppose that God wanted this prophecy to apply to Jesus. Then why didn't the angel instruct Mary to name her son Emmanuel? This prophecy had nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth. It had everything to do with the politics of the eighth century B.C. It is not possible to appreciate the Emmanuel prophecy unless on understands the events of the time.

The kings Saul,David, and Solomon ruled over all twelve of the Israelite tribes. But after the death of Solomon, the northern tribes rebelled and established the northern kingdom, Israel, with its capital at Samaria. The southern kingdom, Judah, continued to be ruled from Jerusalem by the descendants of David and Solomon. These two kingdoms were sometimes at war and sometimes at peace with each other. The Old Testament contains many bitter diatribes against the kings and people of Israel for their heathen practices. Some of the kings of Judah, including King Ahaz wee condemned for apostacy.

In the eighth century B.C., the nation of Assyria grew in power and threatened the smaller states in the Levant. Israel formed a defensive alliance with Syria (a.k.a. Aram) and demanded that Judah join. King Ahaz refused. Then Israel and Syria attempted to depose King Ahaz and force Judah to join the alliance. Thus:

It came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it. (Isaiah 7:1)

During this crisis, King Ahaz decided to seek help from Tiglathpileser, the king of Assyria. Isaiah learned of this decision and thought it was terrible. So Isaiah went to meet King Ahaz and to persuade him to change his mind.

Isaiah believed that King Ahaz should neither seek help from Assyria, nor join the anti-Assyrian alliance. Rather, Ahaz should trust in the Lord to protect Judah. Isaiah also believed in the divine promise that the House of David would rule in Jerusalem forever. He believed that God would send foreign armies to punish the Israelites for 'whoring' after foreign gods. But in the end, a purified remnant would repent and return to God. (That is the meaning of his son's name, Shearjashub.) This remnant would save the Davidic dynasty and save Jerusalem from being conquered by a foreign power. (JSB)

Ahaz' decision triggered the Emmanuel prophecy. That prophecy was given in a meeting between Isaiah and King Ahaz. In the complete verse Isaiah 7:14, the prophet Isaiah tells King Ahaz:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, an almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.

Since the sign is addressed to King Ahaz, and since the sign was intended to influence King Ahaz, it must be completed within the king's lifetime, not hundreds of years later. It is this historical context that many Christians are ignorant of. To understand the Emmanuel prophecy, it is important to read the prochecy in Isaiah 7:

1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.
2 And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. (i.e. Israel) And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.
3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;
4 And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah. (Isaiah 7:3-4)

In other words, King Ahaz should trust in God to save Judah from Israel and Syria.
King Ahaz is told, "Ask thee of a sign form the LORD." (Isaiah 7:11) Ahaz resists saying, "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD." (Isaiah 7:12) Now comes the prophecy.

13 And he (Isaiah) said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, an almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. (Isaiah 7:13-16)

In other words, both King Rezin and King Pekah will die when Emmanuel is young, and that threat to Judah will vanish. In any case, Isaiah did not convince King Ahaz. Later:

Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, saying, "I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me." (2 Kings 16:7)

Thus King Ahaz became a vassel to Assyria. This chain of events had a disastrous result. The infighting between Judah and Israel helped the Assyrians to gain the upper hand. During the reign of Ahaz' successor, Hezekiah, Assyria overran both Israel and Syria. Many of the people were deported and became the lost tribes of Israel. Later, Hezekiah rebelled against Assyria. The Assyrians retaliated by invading Judah, but they could not conquer Jerusalem.

One can only speculate what would have happened if Ahaz had followed Isaiah's advice.

There is a big mystery tha arises from Isaiah's prophecy. Exactly who was Emmanuel supposed to be? Why is there no mention in the Old Testament of anyone named Emmanuel? What did Isaiah mean? What did Ahaz think the prophecy meant?

No one knows the exact answers to these questions. But it is possible to speculate. And any speculation should be consistent with biblical tradition. Now consider on two questions. What is meant by 'a sign from God'? How would Ahaz have understood the prophecy, 'an almah will conceive'?

King Ahaz would have understood almah to mean 'a young woman', either married or unmarried. If she was pregnant, Ahaz would not have thought her a virgin. A sign from God must be beyond human power. Otherwise it will be doubted. But a pregnancy is a very ordinary human event. What would make a pregnancy into a sign from God? The Christian answer is the virgin birth of Jesus. But, as I have mentioned before, virgin birth is contrary to Jewish tradition. Thus Isaiah, an observant Jew, could not have meant virgin birth. Nor would have Ahaz accepted the idea, in spite of his pagan leanings. Nor would the name Emmanuel be a sign from God. Children were usually named by their mothers, a very human act. Nor would an ordinary pregnancy be considered a sign from God.

However, within the biblical tradition there are several births which were considered to be signs from God. Among these are the births of Isaac, Jacob, Esau, Joseph, Samson, and Samuel. In these cases, a woman unable to conceive is made pregnant after years of being barren. Centuries after Isaiah, a similar birth story is recorded -- John the Baptist. In these stories the child fulfills a divine promise. A child born to a 'barren' woman is a very special child that is called to perform a divine purpose.

Thus to be consistent with Jewish tradition, I conclude that the almah of Isaiah was a woman who was married, but had been barren for several years. But she would still be a young woman. Women of that time usually married at 13 or 14 years. If a woman married at 13 had no children by age 17 or 18, she could be considered to be both an almah and barren. Thus the statement that 'an almah will conceive' makes sense. It would be understood to mean that God would 'open the womb' of the woman as he did for Abram's wife Sarai.

Now who is the woman that Isaiah is referring to? How would this impress King Ahaz? It is not likely that Ahaz would impressed by any peasant woman becoming pregnant. Nor would he be impressed by any woman made pregnant by Isaiah. To convince Ahaz, the woman must be known to him. Very likely she was an important member of the royal family, someone of personal concern to King Ahaz. Isaih does not have to identify the woman -- Ahaz knows immediately who it is.

Furthermore, to be convincing, Ahaz must first hear of this pregnancy from Isaiah. If the pregnancy was common knowledge in the court, the words of Isaiah would mean nothing to Ahaz.

How would Isaiah know of this pregnancy? We do not have to suppose that Isaiah learned this from God. Very likely, Ahaz' court was divided over the Assyrian issue. Some would support Ahaz' desire to seek an alliance with Assyria. Others were bitterly opposed. The opponents would be divided those who shought an alliance with Israel and Syria, and those who rejected any alliance. Isaiah was in this latter camp. The rejectionists would eagerly seek help from a prophet who was sympathetic to their cause -- namely Isaiah. These opponents could give Isaiah secret information about the affairs of the court.

Eventually, Isaiah received a fortuitous piece of information, that a certain barren woman had become pregnant. Perhaps Isaiah told his informants to keep this news a secret. Perhaps Isaiah selected the name Emmanuel -- God is with us. The name Emmanuel is so symbolic of Isaiah's thinking that I think that Isaiah did choose it. This name would tell Ahaz to give up his pagan ways and trust in God, for God is with us.

It is noteworthy that Isaiah portrays Emmanuel as growing up and learning the difference between right and wrong. Ahaz is a king who "did not that which was right in the sight of the LORD his God, like David his father." (2 Kings 16:2) Ahaz is condemned as one who sinfully 'walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen." This means that Ahaz sacrificed his first son to the god Molech by having his son burnt alive. The story of the 'sacrifice' of Isaac condemns the practice of child sacrifice. Child sacrifice is specifically outlawed in Leviticus 18:21, 20:2-5, and Deuteronomy 18:10. In spite of this, there are numerous reports of child sacrifice. (2 Kings 3:27, 17:17, 21:6, 23:10, 2 Chronicles 33:6, Jeremiah 32:35, Ezekiel 16:21, 20:26, 23:37) The writers of these books condemn the practice.

Is there a hidden message when Isaiah says that Emmanuel will learn right from wrong? A child starts to learn right from wrong early when momma says, "Don't hit your brother!" But Jews have a special way of learning right from wrong -- the study of the Law of Moses in the Torah. A man studies the Torah all his life.

According to modern scholars, the Torah did not reach its current form until the Babylonian Exile some two hundred years after the time of Isaiah. However, Emmanuel could have studied several precursor documents which were written down some two hundred years earlier. Isaiah may have implied that Ahaz did not learn the Law of Moses and thus did not know right from wrong. Also, Isaiah may have been saying, "Don't sacrifice this child!"

Who was Emmanuel? What happened to the pregnancy? The Old Testament is silent on this point. No one in the Old Testament is named Emmanuel. Did the woman miscarry? Was the child stillborn? Was the child a girl, and not a boy? Was the child sacrificed to Molech? Was emmanuel real;ly a chold of divine promise. There is no answer to this mystery. All we know is that King Ahaz did not heed this prophecy. He offered himself as a vassal to Assyria. The results were disastrous.

Beginning in Isaiah 7:18, the tone changes from hope to bitter disappointment:

And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria. (Isaiah 8:3-4)

The name Mahershalalhashbaz literally means "pillage hastens, looting speeds." (JSB) Thus God will send the Assyrian armies not to purify Israel, but to destroy it. Here Isaiah recognizes that his prophecy intended to influence King Ahaz has failed.

The Culture of Death

2006-09-12T13:26:00.000-07:00

Today is September 11 -- plus five years. Last night I watched several documentaries probing different aspects of that terrible event. Time after time, the collapse of the World Trade Center as shown on television -- the moment when two thousand people died.

I grew up during the Second World War, before the age of television. The closest thing to television were newsreels that were shown in movie houses. These were censored and sanitized to avoid the horrors of war.

Nowadays the horrors of war come at us uncensored and unsanitized. Thanks to television, today's war is much more intimate, more intimate. Its horrors are palpable.

I wonder what the effect of on young children of seeing these tragic scenes of destruction. Will they be like young Jews who are constantly reminded of the Holocaust? Or will their psyches turn to something darker and deeper? An end-times mentality?

It is for us to learn how to live on in a future marked by September 11. How do we come to terms with a world where many people hate us. Much of our reaction to September has been harmful. The immediate reaction was to retreat into an Americanistic jingoism and chauvinism. We flew the American flag, forgetting that foreigners from sixty countries also died in the World Trade Center. Then we punished foreigners who overstayed their visas. We have done much to antagonize foreigners -- especially Muslims.

What we need to understand is that there is a struggle in Islam between the culture of life and the culture of death. The culture of life produces healers and builders. The culture of life moves toward freedom and secularism. It produces people whose greatest ambition is to raise families, to live well, and to help one's families and neighbors.

The culture of death glorifies 'martyrdom'. (This not the same as Christian martyrdom. Christian did not kill or commit suicide. The simply refused to renounce their beliefs in order to save the lives.) The Islamic culture of death sacrifices their children for the glory of Allah.

What complicates matters is that this cultural struggle is not just a struggle between two factions of Muslims -- between modern secularists and radical fundamentalists. It is that -- but it is much more. The culture of life battles the culture of death in the hearts of millions of Muslims. It is a battle for the soul of Islam.

For example, there is a video that shows a 9/11 hijacker attending a wedding and singing a song that glorifies martyrdom. The faces on this video show appreciation of this song. In this moment, the culture of life met the culture of death. The recent war in Lebanon proves how appealing the culture of death has become among the Shia of that country.

The biggest reason for the failure of the Iraq misadventure was that Bush and the Vulcans had no understanding of non-Western cultures -- and little patience or sympathy for anyone who disagreed with them. The worst part of this disaster was not that Iraq failed to become a beacon for freedom, democracy, and peace. The worst part was that our intervention reinforced the culture of death and spread it across the world, from North Africa to Indonesia. Now 'martyrs' are rising all over this world. For generations to come we will be paying a bloody price for 53 years of mistakes made by our government.

We Americans cannot defeat Islamic terrorism by ourselves. Nor can we defeat terrorists even if the British, the French, the Germans, and the Russians help us. What we need to do is to work with moderate Muslims. We need Muslim families to teach their children that suicide is immoral and suicide bombings are evil. We must help the culture of life overcome the culture of death.

The Adulterous Woman

2006-09-01T12:46:00.000-07:00

One of the most popular stories in the Gospels is about the woman "taken in adultery, in the very act." [John 8:4 KJV] Jesus saves her by challenging the accusers: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." [John 8:7 KJV]

One interesting fact about this story is that it does not appear in the early versions of the Gospel of John -- it doesn't appear in John until the twelfth century. The New International Version contains this disclaimer:

The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11.

Furthermore, the Harper Collins Study Bible states:

On the basis of the best manuscripts and other ancient evidence, scholars generally agree that this story was not part of the Gospel of John. it may, however, be based upon early oral traditions about Jesus.

This last sentence leads to a question: If this story was, in fact, based upon an authentic early oral tradition, then why does it not appear in any of the other gospels? I conclude that this story was a fiction created after the other gospels were written down.

There are other reasons, based on the text itself, that this story is fictional. Some of these are:

1. If the woman was caught in the act of adultery, where was the man? The Law of Moses is very clear on this point:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. [Lev. 20:10 KJV]

Why was the adulterer not brought before Jesus for judgement? Both adulterer and adulteress should have shared the same fate. Why doesn't Jesus refer to this deficiency?

2. The wonan had a husband. Under the Law of Moses, it matters not whether the man is married or single. If a married man seduces a woman who is neither married not betrothed, that is not adultery. To have adultery the woman must be either married or betrothed. So where is the husband. One might expect that the husband would be the one to make the accusation and to demand punishment. But the husband is not present in this story.

3. When Jesus is brought before Pontius Pilate, we are told:

Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: [John 18: 31 KJV]

In other words, the Jews had to have Pilate's permission to put a man to death. So how could they put a woman to death without Pilate's permission?

4. What authority did Jesus to pass judgement on the woman? Moses was a judge, until that responsibility became too burdensome for him. Then he appointed judges. [Ex. 18] If someone is accused of a crime he should be brought before a judge:

If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. [Deut. 25: 1 KJV]

Could Jesus have been a judge? Hardly. There is nothing in the gospels that indicates that we was a judge. The Jewish authorities would never have appointed a judge who, they thought, was undermining the law.

Thus there are four reasons for doubting the authenticity of the story; the adulterer was missing, the husband was missing, Jesus did not have the authority to judge the woman, and death sentences required the consent of the Roman authorities. I conclude that the author of the story was a Gentile, not familiar with Jewish law or customs.

Even so, the story is a brilliant piece of fiction. The author neatly solves the dilemma facing Jesus -- whether to uphold the Law of Moses or to preach forgiveness. The solution was to do both -- to say that the woman deserved to be punished but that no one had the moral right to punish her.

Joseph Campbell has said that the value of a myth is not whether it is literally true or not. The value of a myth is that it is a way for parents to pass their moral values on to their children. The author probably invented this story for two reasons. First, to celebrate the character of Jesus -- his forgiveness. And second, he hoped to inspire his audience to emulate the forgiveness of Jesus.

Jesus used parables to teach others his values. No one supposses that these parables were literally true. The author of the story of the adulteress created a parable about Jesus. We need not suppose that it is literally true in order to appreciate its value.

Ellington at Newport + 50 Years

2006-08-17T13:17:00.000-07:00

On Aug. 17 Chris Lydon, Radio Open Source did a show on Ellington at Newport. Here is an expanded version of my contribution:

I was there 50 years ago on a warm summer night when Duke Ellington and Paul Gonsalves set the jazz world on fire. I was an 18 year old white kid with an enormous appetite for jazz - it was my obsession. Elvis was too crude for me -- I loved Bird, Satchmo, the MJQ, and the the great swing bands.

I caught the jazz bug from a fan of Satchmo, my dad. But I went on to swing qand bebop. My dad and I went to Symphony Hall in Boston for a concert featuring Louis Armstrong and Benny Goodman. Unfortunately, he had a heart attack that day and was unable to appear.

My favorite radio station featu8red rythm and blues, gospel, ad a madern, progressive jazz DJ named Symphony Sid. I do recall Symphony Sid announcing the death of Charlie Parker.

In '55 and '56 I travelled to Newport for the jazz festival. The final night of the '56 festival took place in a baseball park. The infield and outfield were filled with a huge crowd.

That night I sat way out in deep right field 300 feet from the stage, digging the sounds from the master. After the Newport Festival Suite and the marvelous Jeep's Blues, Duke announced the Dimuendo in Blue and Crescendo in Blue separated by an interval by Paul Gonsalves. After a rocking Dimuendo, Paul Gonsalves started to blow crazy on his tenor sax and lit up the audience. Immediately, the crowd started to yell, to jump up and down waving their hands. The sound of the crowd drowned out the music except for Paul Gonsalves. He blew 27 choruses, with the crowd going wild.

When the Crescendo in Blue finished, the crowd was still wild, shouting more, more! I feared that this could turn into a riot. George Wein came out and talked to Duke. He looked scared. Duke pushed him aside and continued the concert. The band took an hour to cool down the crowd, finishing up with Skin Deep. I thought that Skin Deep would rile up the crowd, but no, Duke judged it correctly. After Skin Deep the crowd left and dispersed peacefully.

Later I got a copy of the album Ellington at Newport. I liked Jeep's Blues the best, but not the Paul Gonsalves solo. The crowd noise was muted, and I could actually hear the rythm section. It lacked the exuberant wildness of the actual concert.

Over the last fifty years my tastes have changed. I am more into folk music and new age. But Ellington, along with Satchmo and Bird, still represents the peak of musical excellance.

Noah's Dogs

2006-07-29T10:10:00.000-07:00

I have a question for those fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is the perfect, inerrant word of God who created all of the species of plants and animals during the first six days. It is a question for those who believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is a bogus fraud perpetrated by ungodly scientists. And DNA is fixed for all time by the Creator. And the Bible is truer than science.

Now here is a simple question: How many dogs did Noah take on the ark?

In case you need a hint:

And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. (Genesis 6:19 KJV)

I interpret the word 'sort' to mean 'species', i.e. a population of animals that can breed and produce fertile offspring. All of the dogs in the world, from the chihuahua to the great dane comprise a single species. Although I don't suppose that chihuahua's can mate with great dane's (such a possibility seems to be beyond imagining), I do suppose that chihuahua's can mate with toy poodles, which can mate wiith larger poodles, which can mate with cocker spaniels, and so forth up to the collie which can mate with a great dane. Such a chain of matings inform us that all of these dogs belong to a single species.

Now Noah must take two, and only two, dogs with him on the ark. Which two? Does he take two beagles? Or two airdales? Or two golden retrievers? Or two handsome huskies? Whatever two he picks will become the ancestors of every breed of dog known to man.

After the flood, these two dogs start to breed. So tell me please, how do these two dogs give rise to beagles and bassets, to pointers and setters, to cockers and spaniels? All of these different breeds arise from differences in DNA. So how did the differences in DNA arise? Does DNA change? DNA must change for all of these breeds to exist. And if it is possible for DNA to mutate (change) then evolution is possible -- not just possible, but inevitable.

So if you an evangelical fundamentalist who does not believe in evolution, please explain how all of these dogs can exist. There are large dogs and small dogs. There are long-haired dogs and short-haired dogs. There are black dogs and white dogs and yellow dogs. There are lap dogs and hunting dogs. Please explain how all of these can be descended from a single pair of dogs.

Evolution is the answer!

The Bomb and North Korean Objectives

2006-07-19T12:33:00.000-07:00

Soon North Korea will be testing a long range missle that may be capable of reaching cities in the United States. This coupled with North Korea's development of atomic weapons presents an ominous and dangerous situation. North Korea may become the first rogue state possessing intercontinental missles tipped with nuclear bombs.

The Bush administration cited this possibility as the reason for withdrawing from the anti-ballistic missle treaty and developing new anti-ballistic missile missiles.

I do not believe that North Korea now intends to vaporize American cities. Although that possibility presents a long term danger, I do not think that it serves the current strategic interests of the ruling clique in North Korea.

What are the strategic interests of the rulers of North Korea? Let me hazard a couple of guesses.

The first priority for any government is to maintain power. This applies to democracies as well as dictatorships. Thus I do not believe that North Korea would start a war that it could not possibly win. However they may make a serious miscalculation. When Kim Il Sung started the Korean War in 1950, he surely believed that he would win. And he nearly did. What he did not count on was that President Truman would respond forcefully to this aggression. He did not expect a United Nations force would be mobilized against him. He counted on the Soviet Union to veto any Security Council resolution. But the Soviet ambassador to the U.N. was boycotting Security Council meetings when the war started, and thus no veto was cast. Such miscalculations led to the failure of the North Korean invasion.

Kim Il Sung's son and successor has had many years to learn from the mistakes made in 1950. I doubt that he would start a war unless he had a plan for winning it. I don't imagine that he could win a war by nuking American cities. That would be like committing suicide.

This leads us to considering what strategic objectives North Korea has aside from simply staying in power. The most obvious objective is the re-unification of North and South Korea. Both North and South agree on this objective. The argument is about which government would control a united Korea.

I do not think that any combination of diplomacy, threats, or intimidation will induce South Korea to accede to an anschluss. Thus the only way that North Korea can unify the Koreas is through war.

Is there any hope that the rulers of North Korea can go to war and win? They might believe they can do it. They might believe that they have a window of opportunity while the United States Army is bogged down in Iraq and Afganistan. The window will open when the North Koreans have produced nuclear warheads small enough to fit on their medium range rockets. This window will likely extend to the end of the Bush presidency, and perhaps another year or two.

What might be the plan that the North Koreans use for a war against South Korea? Although I am no militay expert, I can imagine a plan that the North Koreans could use.

The border between North and South Korea is heavily fortified on both sides. North Korea could use atomic weapons to blast gaps in the fortifications. They could dig tunnels under the fortifications and place atomic weapons in the tunnels. This would not require the miniaturized warheads. Larger warheads would suffice.

I envision three armies invading South Korea through three or four holes in the border defences. The western offensive would be directed at Seoul, cvapturing that city as quickly as possible. The second offensive would bypass Seoul but proceed down the west coast of South Korea. The eastern offensive would run down the east coast to the port city of Pusan. A fourth offensive down the center would mop up military units in that sector.

The North Koreans could also use a nuclear weapon to destroy the port facilities at Pusan. During the Korean war, the United Nation forces brought enough troops and supplies through Pusan to stop the North Korean invasion. Destroying Pusan would make it virtually impossible for the United States to send troops to oppose an invasion of South Korea.

In addition, the North Koreans could use nuclear weapons to destroy military airfields in South Korea. The rulers or North Korea would expect that their armies, being numerically superior to the armies of South Korea, could prevail in spite of any inferiority in weaponry.

The likely response of the United States would be to use air strikes and cruise missles from its fleet. The North Koreans could counter by threatening the U.S. fleet with nuclear tipped missles. The North Koreans would have a major problem in locating the U.S. fleet. But the danger to the fleet would force it to operate hundreds of miles from the Korean shores, reducing its effectiveness.

The North Korean rulers might calculate that they could overrun South Korea before the United States could make an effective military response. In order to stop an invasion, the U.S. would have to put an army into South Korea. Without the port of Pusan, that would be extremely difficult.

In the Korean War, the U.S. mounted a large-scale landing at Inchon. Instantly, the tide of the war turned. But now, the North Koreans might destroy an invasion fleet with medium range nuclear missiles. They may not have to actually use such a weapon. The threat of a nuclear strike will imperil any U.S. fleet within the Sea of Japan. It will likely deter the U.S. from attempting such a landing.

It is likely that North Korea will soon develop an intercontinental ballistic missile that can hit American cities. It is fair to ask, how can such a weapon be used by the North Koreans? I doubt that Kim wants to destroy American cities with the United States. Instead, the threat of such destruction may keep the United States out of a new Korean war. And this threat may deter the president from any military action against North Korea. The president may have to decide between sacrificing the thousands of American troops in South Korea or sacrificing an American city.

For the North Koreans, the best use of nuclear weapons is not to make war against the United States, but to keep the United States out of a new Korean war.

In the Cold War, the threat of mutual destruction deterred both sides from starting a nuclear war. We must ask, will the threat of nuclear destruction deter the rulers of North Koprea from starting a nuclear war? They might view nuclear destruction as just another hardship that their people must endure for the sake of victory.

We should remember that Korea was once part of Imperial Japan. Even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan's military was opposed to surrender. Some military leaders attempted a coup to prevent the Emperor from broadcasting his message of surrender. That day many Japanese officers committed suicide. The North Korean leaders live in this imperial world, and may be impervious to western assumptions underlying the doctrine of 'mutual assured destruction'.

Whether the North Korean military can actually conquer South Korea may be a moot point. The important question is whether the leaders of North Korea believe that they can conquer the south. Given sufficient nuclear weapons and the willingness to use them, the North Koreans might actually try to invade the south while the U.S. is bogged down in Iraq. Then the U.S. would be forced to choose between sacrificing South Korea and sacrificing Iraq.

One thing that the United States military planners must do is think through the problem of conducting a war when faced with battlefield nuclear weapons.

One great problem with the Bush administration is its instinct to go-it-alone. It follows the anti-Dale Carnegie approach, "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People." After burning many of our allies abroad over Iraq, the Bush administration is not likely to get any help from the United Nations. In any case, either Russia or China may veto any U.N. Security Council resolution supporting South Korea. Is the United States ready to go it alone against North Korea?

While the United States is losing the war in Iraq, our ability to defend South Korea is seriously compromised. Only after analyzing the strategic aims of North Korea do we understand how dangerous the current situation is.

Hitler on Congress

2006-07-14T10:55:00.000-07:00

Do you know what Adolph Hitler said about democracies? In Mein Kampf, he wrote that one hundred fools do not make one wise man. Apparently, President Bush believes that five hundred and thirty five Congressmen do not make one wise person. And now Congress is proving them right.

A Children's Song

2006-04-18T05:48:00.000-07:00

This old man, he played one.
Cuttin' the poor is so much fun
With a knick-knack paddy-wack give your dog a bone
This bad man should go back home

This old man, he played two,
If you're not rich he won't help you
With a knick-knack paddy-wack give your dog a bone
This bad man should go back home

This old man, he played three,
We have lost our li-ber-ty
With a knick-knack paddy-wack give your dog a bone
This bad man should go back home

This old man, he played four,
Iran has nukes, let's start a war.
With a knick-knack paddy-wack give your dog a bone
This bad man should go back home

This old man, he played five,
New Orleans has lost it's jive.
With a knick-knack paddy-wack give your dog a bone
This bad man should go back home

This old man, he played six,
Iraq is in an awful fix.
With a knick-knack paddy-wack give your dog a bone
This bad man should go back home

This old man, he played seven,
He thinks he's goin' up to heaven.
With a knick-knack paddy-wack give your dog a bone
This bad man should go back home

This old man, he played eight,
Impeachment comes much too late
With a knick-knack paddy-wack give your dog a bone
This bad man should go back home

This old man, he played nine,
He says Iraq is doin' just fine
With a knick-knack paddy-wack give your dog a bone
This bad man should go back home

This old man, he played ten,
Two terms won't do, make it ten!
With a knick-knack paddy-wack give your dog a bone
This bad man should go back home.

Our Country Needs Better Patriotism

2006-04-17T06:11:00.000-07:00

This is a reply to the letter titled 'This Nation Needs More Patriotism,' that appeared in the April 17, 2006 edition of the Standard-Times of New Bedford.

I agree with Henry J. Nichols that our country needs patriotism -- love of one's country. But we need a better kind of patriotism. How can one who loves his country fail to criticize a president who has failed to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed'? How can one who loves his country support a president who has usurped the powers of Congress and the people? How can one sit by while the president dismantles our great gift to the world -- the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

The president has usupred to power of Congress 'to declare War ... and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water.' He has also usurped the power of Congress 'to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.'

Our forefathers fought for and demanded the Bill of Rights. But no longer do we have these rights: the right to a jury trial, the right to 'Habeus Corpus'. No longer are we free from 'unreasonable searches and seizures. No longer doe we have the right to 'due process of law.' The president claims the power designate anyone to be a 'illegal enemy combatant' and have him incarcerated indefinitely. This means that our rights have become mere priviledges that can be erased by presidential fiat.

George W. Bush did not storm the bastions of power like Caesar crossing the Rubicon. But Little King George is undermining our Constitution just as surely as Caesar overthrew the Roman Republic. If we truly loves our country, we should all strive to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against the dictatorship predicted by Sandra Day O'Connor. We should hold George W. Bush accountable for his 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors.'

Abraham and His Gods

2006-04-07T20:12:00.000-07:00

It is an article of faith among many Jews, Christians, and Muslims that Father Abraham (also named Abram) initiated the Hebrew/Jewish tradition of monotheism. And some, especially Muslims, believe that he was the world's first monotheist. The Koran insists that Abraham was never a polytheist.

A rabbinical tale from the second temple period that says that little Abram became the world's first iconoclast by smashing his father's idols. According to this story, his father, Terah, was an idol merchant in the Chaldean city of Ur. Little Abram came to believe that there was only one god, namely El. After Abram smashed his father's idols, Terah took him to King Nimrod (the mighty hunter) for judgement. Abram was thrown into a fiery furnace, but survived. His brother Haran, whose faith was not as strong, perished in that furnace.

Yet after reading the story of Abraham many times, nothing in the Scriptures tells me that Abraham was a monotheist. On the contrary, I find several reasons for believing that Abraham worshipped many gods.

This charming tale seems to be simply a piece of historical fiction that was composed almost two thousand years after the time of Abraham. The author of this piece was undoubtably trying to project onto a hero of the past his own theological ideology.

I shall rely primarily on the Book of Genesis and assume that the Abraham story is somewhat similar to epic poems of Homer. By this I mean that both stories were based on actual events, but dressed up with the appearances of gods.

Abram and his family lived in a time of polytheism. He was exposed to at least three different religious systems. Either in the southern city of Ur or in the northern city of Haran, Abram learned of the great Sumerian gods. He could have attended a public reading of the Enuma Elish, the seven tablets of creation. We know of the the Enuma Elish from a Babylonian copy. It tells of the coming of the Sumerian gods from the planet Nibiru and how they created from the primates that they found on earth.

The second great religious system was the polytheistic forerunner of the Israelite/Jewish monotheistic faith. The biblical Elohim is derived from the Canaanite god El. Worship of the god El probably originated near the sources of the Tigris and the Euphrates, but spread widely through the mideast. We know much about the god El from excavations of the city of Ugarit which was located on the Mediterrean of present day Syria. The people of Ugarit spoke a language closely related to ancient Hebrew. The god El was their supreme god. He and his consort Asherah were the parents of gods such as Ba'al, Dagon, and Anat. 'Bull El', as he was called, was worshipped as the father of mankind. The biblical priests and prophets worshipped El/Yahweh, but despised his wife and children.

When Abraham entered Canaan, he was only a short distance from Ugarit. It would have been very appropriate for him to visit this major cult center of his god. Yet there is no hint of such a visit in the Scriptures. Imagine a devout Catholic going to Italy, but not visiting Rome. If Abraham did visit Ugarit, he would have likely worshipped in many of the temples of the city. That would have been too embarassing for the biblical writers to mention.

The third great system was the Egyptian system. In the time of Abraham, Egypt was the superpower of the neart east. Even if the people of Mesopotamia did not worship the gods of Egypt, they must have been known about the major gods, such as Ra, Osiris, Isis, and Horus. In any case, when Abraham went to Egypt, he would have learned about these gods.

Genesis tells of three covenants between Abram and the god El/Yahweh. (A covenant is a sacred promise or contact) In Genesis 12, El instructs Abram to leave his father's house and go to Canaan. In return, Abram will become a great nation.

In Genesis 15 El promises that the childless Abram will have many descendents and they will have possession of the land of Canaan.

In Genesis 17 were that El (here called Yahweh) makes similar promises but requires Abram (now renamed Abraham) to circumcise himself and every male in his household as a sign of fidelity to the covenant.

These covenants signify a very special relationship between Abraham and El. But nothing in these covenants explicitly requires exclusive worship of El. The covenants simply establish El as Abraham's patron god. The idea of a patron god was common throughout the ancient world. Athena became the patron goddess of Athens when she gave the gift of the olive tree. Many cities had patron god. In the Egyptian city of Heliopolis, the patron god was the sun god Ra. Ra was also the patron god of the royal family. Osiris was the patron god of farmers, Ptah of craftsmen, and Bast of the home. A patron god offered special benefits, but required special devotion and worship. But exclusive worship was not required.

For example, Ra or Amun-Ra was the patron god of many Egyptian pharaohs. But pharaoh could not afford to worship one god exclusively. As high priest of the nation, his duty was to appease all of the gods. If any calamity or disaster happened, blame could be attached to Pharaoh for offending the gods in some way. Akenaten, the one pharaoh who worshipped one god exclusively, became so hated that his successors tried to blot out the memory of Akenaten from under heaven.

When Abram returns from defeating the kings of the east in Genesis 14, he is greeted by the king of Sodom and by Melchizedek, the priest/king of Salem. Melchizedek blesses Abram, saying:

Blessed be Abram of El Elyon,
creator of heaven and earth:
And blessed be El Elyon,
who has delivered your enemies into your hand.

The Hebrew phrase 'El Elyon' is usually translated as 'God Most High'. Grammatically speaking, this phrase acknowledges the existence of other gods. One god can't be the highest god unless there are lesser gods. According to the Jewish Study Bible, "The term God Most High is known from Ugaritic texts of the Late Bronze Age (Ugarit was a Canaanite city along the coast of what is now Syria.) There it is equated with the God El, with whom the LORD is often equated with in the Tanakh." (Tanakh = Old Testament)

The city of Ugarit fourished for about 3000 years before it was destroyed by the Philistines about the time of Moses. Excavations carried out in the late 1920's showed that the people of Ugarit spoke a language closely related to ancient Hebrew. Ugarit was a major cult center for the god El. He was worshipped as the creator of heaven and earth, the father of the gods and the father of mankind. He headed a pantheon that included his consort Asherah and sons and daughters including Ba'al, Anat, and Dagon. The Old Testament prophets and priests worshipped El but despised ther rest of his family. Some family values!

Since Melchizedek uses the epithat El Elyon, it seems obvious that he was aligned, culturally and theologically, with the polytheistic cult center of Ugarit. But was he a monotheist or was he a polytheist? There is very little information about Melchizedek in the Old Testament. Psalm 110, attributed to King David, is the only other place in the OT that mentions this enigmatic priest:

1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (KJV)

I don't think that this psalm was written by King David. Who could be David's Lord who sat at the right hand of God? Rather this seems to a psalm about King David, written to illustrate some aspect of King David's great stature. The psalmist would not have put King David in Melchizedek's priesthood unless he believed that Melchizedek was a very important religious figure -- and a monotheist. One curious thing about this psalm is that it says that the priesthood of Melchizedek was a legitimate and more ancient priesthood than the official priesthood based upon Aaron. This would seem to denigrate the Aaronite priesthood.

The early Christians picked up on this psalm. The New Testament book of Hebrews claims that Jesus Christ was (and is forever) a priest in the order of Melchizedek. The Christians could have hardly connected Jesus and Melchizedek in this was unless they believed that Melchizedek was a monotheist.

Now I shall go against this convential wisdom. I accept the conclusion that Melchizedek's primary god was the Ugaritic El. But I do not conclude that Melchizedek was a monotheist. In addition to being a priest, Melchizedek was the king of a city called Salem. (Nobody knows where that city was located. But it is commonly thought to be Jerusalem.) As king he had a duty to appease all of the gods of Salem. Suppose Melchizedek were to say that he would no longer worship any god but El. Then the followers of all of the other gods would feel insulted. They would say that Melchizedek was inviting retribution in the form of droughts, epidemics, bad storms, or invasions. One thing you sure of, in the ancient world, droughts, epidemics, bad storms, or invasions were regular occurances. The next time one of these disasters happened, Melchizedek would be blamed. The likely result would be that Melchizedek would be assassinated or overthrown. There was fierce opposition to the imposition of monotheism in the ancient world.

Genesis 12 tells of Abram's trip to Egypt at a time of famine:

10 And there was a famine in the land (of Canaan): and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land.
11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:
12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.
13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.
14 And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.
15 The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.
16 And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.
17 And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.
18 And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?
19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.
20 And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had. (KJV)

It is not clear whether the pharaoh was an Egyptian pharaoh or a Hyksos pharaoh from Canaan. I favor the latter since Abram and Pharaoh remain on speaking terms even after this deception. An Egyptian pharaoh might have executed Abram. Before this blow-up occurred, it is likely that Pharaoh or some of his courtiers would have invited Abram to worship with them. A Canaanite Pharaoh would have worshipped Ba'al, Asherah, and Dagon in addition to El. An Egyptian would have invited Abram to worship such gods as Ra, Osiris, Horus, and Isis. How could have Abram refused? Suppose Abram said "I will not worship your, I shall worship only the 'one true god'." Had Abram said that, his gracious hosts would have felt insulted and scandalized. They would have felt that Abram was blaspheming their gods. They would have thought that Abram was endangering the kingdom by inviting retribution from the gods. This would turn into an ugly incident with Abram in danger of losing his life. Had such an incident occurred in Egypt, had such an incident occurred with the other kings that Abram dealt with, the priests and prophets of ancient Israel would have seized upon this incident. The idea of Father Abraham risking his life for the 'one true god' would have given powerful support to their ideology of monotheism. Since there is no such incident reported in the Old Testament, one concludes that such an incident never occurred. Either Abraham was a polytheist, or he carefully concealed his true religious beliefs.

But how could have Abraham concealed a monotheistic belief? He was the head of a travelling household that numbered in the thousands. If Abraham was a monotheist, everyone in his household would have known. Some of Abraham's servants would have resented their master's devotion to only one god. When they went to visit a city, someone in Abrham's household would have spilled the beans. That would be a sensational story that would travel around like wildfire.

Genesis 20 tells a similar story with King Abimelech of Gerar. The result is similar. Abraham had cordial relations with the king of Sodom. That relationship

The Old Testament authors had many opportunities to tell a story that would prove that Abraham was a monotheist. But they never did. Such a story would have appealed to their obsessive hatred of the pagan gods. I can only conclude that no such scandalous story existed at the time that the biblical books were written. In all likelihood, Abraham was a man of his time. It would have been extraordinary for anyone in that time to become a monotheist. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No such evidence can be found in the pages of Genesis. The most reasonable conclusion is that Abraham worshipped the Canaanite gods, Asherah, Ba'al, Dagon, etc., and worshipped El as his patron god.

I conclude that the tradition about Abraham being a monotheist was a historical fiction invented almost two thousand years after he lived and died.

The Death of the Constitution

2006-04-05T08:48:00.000-07:00

The Death of the Constitution

I mourn the death of the United States Constitution. On September 11, it was only superficially wounded. It coud have recovered. But it was poisoned by Vulcan Cabal and condemned to die. The Supreme Court has just administered last rights to our beloved Constitution.

Our forefathers who fought for freedom and democracy would never have imagined how democracy and freedom would die in only two hundred and thirty years.

We no longer have a constitution. G.W. Bush has turned it into a scrap of paper. The Bill of Rights died in Guantanamo. Americans no longer have the right to a fair trial. Americans no longer have the right of Habeus Corpus. Americans are no longer protected from unreasonable search and seizure. Americans no longer have the right to due process. No! All of those constitutional rights are gone, perhaps forever. The rights that our ancestors fought and died for are now mere priviledges that can be erased any time by presidential fiat.

Does Lady Justice hide her eyes out of shame? Or does she wear that handkerchief to mop up her tears?

The constitution was designed the powers of those who govern the people. God's Anointed has transcended these limited powers and turned them into an unlimited grant of absolute and arbitrary authority. 'Commander in Chief' means that no official - no Congressman or Senator, no governor, no member of the cabinet -- can take command of a military unit away from the president. 'Commander in Chief' also means that no person can countermand a lawful military order of the president. But the president is still responsible to Congress for the raising of the army, for the maintainance of the navy and for the discipline that governs the armed forces. If that discipline does not apply to the president, then the Constitution is not worth the paper it was written on. G.W. Bush has turned 'Commander in Chief' into the engine of his dictatorship.

No longer does God's Anointed "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." He makes up his own laws as he goes along. No longer does the president "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution." He has abrogated the Geneva Conventions that are part "the supreme law of the land." He has committed the crime of starting an agressive war -- the same crime for which we hanged Nazi's at Nuremberg.

Congress has been turned into a feckless rubber stamp, corrupted by K Street money and earmarks. He who has the gold rules! Now we are ruled by the rich and greedy. Not even the Supreme Court is willing to uphold the law. With the Padilla decision, the Supreme Court has nailed the coffin shut. The legislative and judicial branches are empty facades -- Potemkin villages -- fig leaves over the erection of dictatorship.

George W. Bush did not storm the bastions of power at the head of legions like Caesar crossing the Rubicon. G.W. Bush and his cohorts subverted the constitution, like a nest of termites burrowing from within and weakening the timbers of the house of freedom. G.W. Bush works in secret, like the old Soviet Union, with a gulag spread out far beyond from our borders. After Caesar, Rome could never return to the republic, And now there is now no going back to the republic of Washington and Jefferson and Madison. After British royal rule and after the Constitution, we are now rushing headlong into America's Third Reich. Bush has paved the way for future Caligulas and future Neros.

And the worst part of this business is that we the people put this blithering idiot, this cockiminy cockup, this utter nincompoop into power. And we the people have let him get away with mendacity after mendacity and prevarication upon prevarication, He has dissembled so often that no longer knows how to tell the truth. He cannot level with the people. And his dissembling has cost the lives of many tens of thousands or more in Iraq. Every uncomfortable truth is deprecated and those who report the truth are demonized. Every agreeable falsity is extolled in the media. He dribbles out out secret information, Goebbels-like, to attack his critics and to justify his high crimes.

I call upon you, the people of America, those who love truth, those who love justice, those who love freedom, and those who love democracy to get rid of this beast in our midst. We need a revolution -- not of guns -- but of the spirit. It must be a revolution of truth! For when mendacity retigns, justice dies. When spin reigns, democracy dies. Let us renounce all allegiance to the lies of this administration!

And to the rest of you, who prize security more than liberty, I say that you should give this dictator a crown and sceptre. Then bow down and cry out:

Ecce Neo-Caesar! Ecce Imperator!
Long Live Little King George!

And government of the people, by the people, and for the people has just perished from the earth.

Moses: The Failed Prophet

2006-04-01T18:53:00.000-08:00

To many people, Moses was the first and the greatest of the biblical prophets. According to Deuteronomy 34:10, "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses." (KJV)

Skeptics have argued that Moses could not have written about his own death and burial (Deut 34:5-8). The traditional response is that Moses could write about future events because he was a prophet. Let us now consider Moses' record as a prophet.

There are two stories about quail, the first in the Book of Exodus, the second in Numbers. The first story couples the quail to the story of manna:

Exodus 16:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
12 I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God.
13 And it came to pass, that at even the quails came up, and covered the camp: and in the morning the dew lay round about the host.
14 And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing, as small as the hoar frost on the ground.
15 And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna: for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the LORD hath given you to eat.

Later on in the Book of Numbers a very different story is told:

Numbers 11:31 And there went forth a wind from the LORD, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day's journey on this side, and as it were a day's journey on the other side, round about the camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth.
32 And the people stood up all that day, and all that night, and all the next day, and they gathered the quails: he that gathered least gathered ten homers: and they spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp.
33 And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.
34 And he called the name of that place Kibrothhattaavah: because there they buried the people that lusted.

This passage portrays God as a mean-spirited tyrant. He sends food to a hungry people, then punishes them for eating it. The traditional explanation is that the people were to eat only manna while they were in the wilderness. They were punished because they didn't trust that God would provide them with enough manna.

Why are there two conflicting stories about quail? In the first the quail can be eaten, but in the second it is forbidden.

Now let us ask this question: What prophetic act did Moses perform in this crisis? The answer: He did nothing! An important function of the biblical prophets is to warn the people of impending danger. What warning did Moses give? No warning at all! The prophet Moses let his people down.

How could the people know that the quail were bad? They needed to be told. Otherwise they would easily conclude that the quail were a gift from a benevolent god to save them from starvation. But instead God entices the people with food, then punishes them. (In law enforcement that is called entrapment. The case is thrown out of court.) Then God kills the people before they even knew that they had offended this god. No wonder the people were terrified of God.

In this modern age we have a different explanation for this incident. The quail were sick and dying. Healthy quail would not let themselves be caught so easily. There are several bird diseases that can infect humans. In this year, 2006, the world is concerned with bird flu. This disease infects people who handle and eat diseased birds. Bird flu has killed over half of the people diagnosed with the disease. An ancient strain of bird flu could have been responsible for the plague described in Numbers 11. In that case, Moses was probably surprised by the tragic outcome. He had to concoct an explanation, for he could not afford to be seen as a false prophet.

Another prophetic failure of Moses comes in the story of the battle with the Amalekites:

Exodus 17:8 Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.
9 And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand.
10 So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill.

The attack of the Amalekites seems to have been a surprise attack. Why didn't the prophet Moses forsee the attack? Deuteronomy offers some details of the attack:

Deuteronomy 25:17 Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt;
18 How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.
19 Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.

Verse 19 comes out differently in Exodus.17:14;

And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

These two passages indicate that the Amalekites made a surprise attack on the stragglers. But the Israelites did not respond until the following day. Clearly, Moses did not forsee this attack. There is a clear failure to take precautions to protect the Israelites from attack. Thus Moses failed as a prophet and as a military leader.

The unique feature of these two passages is that a genocidal curse is pronounced only against the Amalekites. This may be the first historical record of an intent to commit genocide. The Israelites would go on to commit many acts of genocide against the people of Canaan. But the battle against the Amalekites seems to be the only situation where a curse is involved.

There are many ancient treaties that involved genocidal curses. One example is the treaty that King Esarhaddon of Assyria imposed upon nine of his vassals in 672 BC. The treaty required that after the king died the vassals would help put the king's son Ashurbanipal on his father's throne. The treaty is loaded with curses to be applied on any vassal who violated the treaty. The curses called upon the gods to inflict diseases on the people and their livestock, to withhold the rains and dry up springs and rivers, to make the women barren, to make water taste like sheep's urine, to make food taste like hot dry dust, and so forth. The curses culminate with the provision that one thousand tents be reduced to one tent and one thousand men be reduced to one man. In other words the curses provide that the vassal and his people be completely destroyed.

We now have two examples of genocidal curses. The difference between the two is that treaty curses are conditional. They are only applied if the treaty is violated. In the other case, when God says "I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven," it seems that God is enforcing a treaty curse.

The idea of a treaty between Moses and the Amalekites may sound cockeyed to most people, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility. The Israelites and the Amalekites were both descended from Abraham and Isaac. The Amalekites may have believed that they were heirs to promise of land given to Abraham. Then Moses spent many years tending sheep for his father-in-law, Jethro. He would have become acquainted with many of the tribes of the wilderness. Moses could have had close and friendly relations with the Amalekites. All of this, so far, seems very reasonable.

Now I shall go way out on a limb with pure speculation. Moses might have made an agreement with the king of the Amalekites before he went back to Egypt. At the very least, the king would agree to sell food and water to the Israelites after they left Egypt. He would allow free passage through his land into Canaan. Similar demands were made by Moses on other kings. Another possibility would be that Israelites and the Amalekites would join forces and jointly conquer Canaan.

Then perhaps some of the Canaanite kings got wind of the this plot and tried to put a stop to it. The easy way to stop it would be to assassinate Moses. That could account for the bizarre passage where God suppossedly tries to kill Moses. But when that fails, the kings of Canaan lean on the Amalekite king to break the treaty with Moses.

Noiw I note that there is no hint of any such agreement in the Scriptures. But that is not conclusive. Many things are not explained in the Scriptures. And future generations would have good reason for deleting any reference to a treaty between Moses and the Amalekites. It would prove that Moses was not just a lousy prophet, but a fool as well. But a treaty would explain a lot of things in the Scriptures that seem pouzzling. It would explain the angry curse leveled against the Amalekites -- Moses was betrayed. It would explain why the people complained about the lack of food and water -- they expected the Amalekites to provide that. It would explain why people complained about being brought into the wilderness to die -- they were promised quick passage through the land of the Amalekites into Canaan. It would explain why they had to go to the very barren and desolate region around Mount Sinai. It could explain the anger that many people had against Moses -- he had led them into a trap. It could explain why Moses had to resort to mass murder in order to maintain control of the people. (Ex.32:26-28, Nu. 16, Nu.25) It would explain the viscereal hatred that the Israelites had for the Amalekites -- they had been betrayed.

I believe that the battle with the Amalekites had a profound effect on the Exodus that is not described in the Scriptures. With the cooperation of the Amalekites, they could have been in Canaan in less than forty days. But after the battle with the Amalekites, it took them forty years.

Let's listen what Moses himself says about prophets. Actually, it is the deuteronomist who puts these words into Moses' mouth:

Deut. 18:17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

The acid test of a prophet is whether he can fortell the future accurately. He has to be correct every single time or he is a false prophets. And false prophets should be put to death. Now let us ask: How does Moses himself measure up to this standard? In Exodus 3 god commands Moses with these words:

Exodus 3:16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:
17 And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.

This command was carried out when Moses returned to Egypt.

Exodus 4:29 And Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel:
30 And Aaron spake all the words which the LORD had spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people.
31 And the people believed: and when they heard that the LORD had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped.

Thus the elders were told they were going to go to Canaan. But that is not what happened. Not one of the elders got to the promised land. They all died in the wilderness. Of all of the adults only two, Joshua and Caleb, made it to the promised land. And they were probably to young to be elders. Thus the last two passages quoted above make it clear that the Israelites were victims of false prophecy. Thus Moses was a false prophet and according to Deuteronomy 18:20 he should have been put to death.

Now the reader might think that my thesis here ia absurd. Wouldn't the plagues in Egypt prove that Moses was a true prophet. Not at all say I. Deuteronomy 8:20-22 tells us that a prophet is to be judged not by a hundred successes, but by a single failure. In two cases above, Moses failed to make a prophecy -- and these failures cost many lives. And in the third case, not only was Moses shown to be a false prophet -- but so was God!

Moussaoui Confesses

2006-03-29T19:11:00.000-08:00

Wow! On Sunday I expressed my misgivings over the Moussaoui trial. The very next day Moussaoui himself blew my blog out of the water.

Moussaoui took the stand and spilled his guts. He did what the prosecution failed to do, establish that he was a member of the 9/11 conspiracy. He confessed that he and Richard Reid were to hijack an airplane and crash it into the White House on September 11. For that crime he deserves the death penalty.

Ia am sure that Moussaoui planned this 'grand revelation' from the begiining. He didn't confess until he had the attention of the world focused upon him. He is asking for a 'glorious exit' from this world that will him a martyr, a hero, and an inspiration for future generations of radicalized Muslims. I wonder if he is thinking of the virgins that he will deflower in Paradise.

Moussaoui's confession leaves a number of questions unanswered:

1. Is Moussaoui telling the truth? He could be glorifying himself with a false confession. But assuming that he is telling the truth:

2. Moussaoui was thought to have been the 20th hijacker, the one that didn't make it on flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania. If Richard reid was part of the 9/11 conspiracy, why didn't Richard Reid get on flight 93?

3. If Moussaoui and Reid were to hijack another plane, then who was supposed to be on flight 93?.

4. Moussaoui and Reid would have needed three others to hijack a plane. Who would have been those three hijackers?

5. What was the target of flight 93? Early on we heard the absurd suggestion that flight 93 was to hit Air Force One. (Imagine, hijackers who could barely fly against two of the best pilots in the Air Force. No contest!) Generally it is thought that the target was the Capitol. However, there is another high value target near Washington -- CIA headquarters. Hitting the CIA would be payback for the many times that the CIA intervened abroad and incited anger. Muslims still resent the toppling of the Mossadegh government in Iran.

6. Was there going to be a sixth hijacking? Then both the Capitol and CIA headquarters could be hit. If so, who were going to be the hijackers?

It seems to me information from Moussaoui would be more important than his life. We need to know the full extent of the 9/11 conspiracy. We need to know all the people who were involved. So I propose to make Moussaoui suffer. Let's deny him his glorious martyrdom until he tells everything he knows about Al Qaeda and its terrorist activities. But let us be sure to verify his story before we send him to Paradise.

One thing that we Americans need to know is why and how do privledged Muslims from wealthy families become so radicalized that they commit suicide in order to strike at America's heart. Why are we so hated? We need to know how we can enlist moderate Muslims in the struggle to overcome radicalism. Moussaoui is perhaps one person who can help answer these questions.

Having said all this, I must still reiterate a point I made earlier. I simply do not understand the legal basis for the death penalty. Moussaoui has pled guilty to the crime of preparing to hijack an airplane -- a crime that calls for life imprisonment. But he has not been convicted of being part of the 9/11 conspiracy. So how can the government ask the court to punish Moussaoui for a crime that he has not been convicted of? It is crucially important that this trial be scruplously conducted according to the highest standards of jurisprudence.

The Moussaoui Trial : Two Fundamental Flaws

2006-03-26T12:48:00.000-08:00

I have to admit that I am confused by the Moussaoui case which is in progress as I write I have been following the news reports, i do not have transcripts of the proceedings. But it seems to me that there two fundamental problems with the case against Moussaoui.

Moussaoui has pled guilty to being a member of an Al Qaeda conspiracy to fly an airplane into the White House. To that end, he was taking flying lessons when he was arrested in August of 2001. However he has steadfastly denied prior knowledge of the September 11 plot.

The prosecution is demanding the death penalty on the theory that Moussaoui knew of the forthcoming attack. Yet, as far as I can determine, this is exactly what the prosecution has failed to prove. I do not think that the prosecution has even tried to prove this allegation. (Finding a telephone number in Moussaoui's notebook does not, in my mind, constitute proof. The accusation that Moussaoui knew of September 11, is just that, an accusation. It does not rise to the level of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. It doesn't come close. In my mind, the death penalty cannot be justified on the grounds that Moussaoui knew beforehand of September 11.

In addition, I sense a fundamental issue that has not been discussed in the media. The proceeding against Moussaoui is a sentencing hearing, not a trial of guilt or innocence. The purpose of a sentencing hearing is to determine punishment for the crime that a defendent has been found guilty of. But the prosecution in the Moussaoui case is asking that Moussaoui be punished for a crime that he has NOT been found guilty of. And that just violates the fundamental principles of justice.

Maybe Moussaoui did have prior knowledge of September 11. Maybe he was an accessory before the fact. Maybe he does deserve the death penalty under our laws. But we shall probably never know for sure. Most of the people who can tell us the truth died on September 11. And the few others who know are beyond the reach of our law enforcement.

The crime of September 11 does cry out for punishment. But this does not justify the shortcoming of our legal system. Justice for September 11 does not justify an injustice to Moussaoui.

Meriam: Bitter or Beloved

2006-01-08T17:42:00.000-08:00

Miriam, the older sister of Moses and Aaron is one of the most beloved figures in the Scriptures. She is the one who followed the basket carrying the infant Moses to Pharaoh's daughter, and 'found' a nursemaid for her brother. After the crossing of the Sea of Reeds (mistranslated as the Red Sea), Miriam led the the women in a victory song. She and Aaron criticized Moses' wife, but only she was punished by having her face turned snow-white.

Some people see her as a proto-feminist. Her name lives on with its many variants, such as Mary, Marie, Marilyn, Moire, and Marion. However few people realize that the traditional meaning of these names is 'bitter' or 'bitterness'.

I was surprised to learn that. I don't think that it makes good sense to give a child such a negative name. It inflicts on that child a psychic burden that can harm the person's self esteem. It may turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps the name Meriam was given to her because life in Egypt was harsh and bitter for her parents. I have not seen any explanation of why that name was given.

But missing from traditional commentaries is any discussion of the Egyptian Connection. Since the Israelites lived in Egypt for four hundred years, according to scripture, they would have adopted Egyptian culture, Egyptian religion, and used the Egyptian language. As slaves, the Israelites would have to use the Egyptian language to communicate with their masters. A good Egyptian would not lower himself to the level of these 'dirty Asiatics'. The Book of Exodus portrays Meriam as speaking directly to Pharaoh's daughter. This could only happen if Meriam, at a young age, was fluent in Egyptian.

Some slave masters may have also required the Israelites to adopt Egyptian names. This is what happened when African slaves were imported into the United States before the Civil War. They were forced to learn the English language, adopt English names, and convert to Christianity. The same was probably true for many of the the Israelites in ancient Egypt.

Some Israelites may have adopted Egyptian names voluntarily. Many immigrants from Eastern Europe 'anglified' their names when admitted to the United States. Many Jewish entertainers use English stage names. Some ancient Israelites may have done the same in order to fit in with the dominant Egyptian society.

Did the ancient Israelites use Egyptian names? The answer is an unqualified yes. The prime example is Moses. His name means 'child' in Egyptian. Many Egyptians bore similar names -- Ptah-mose meaning child of the god Ptah, Tu-tmose meaning child of the god Tut, and Ramesses for child of Ra. Almost universally, the syllable 'mose' is coupled with the name of an Egyptian god. The only exception I know of is Moses.

Question must be asked: Why is the name Moses not coupled with the name of an Egyptian god? I think it likely that Moses was given a name such as Sethmose. But after the Exodus this name was shortened because it became an embarassment.

What about the name Meriam? Many Egyptians had similar names:

Mery-ra -- beloved of the god Ra.

Meren-ptah -- beloved of the god Ptah.

Mery-netjeri -- beloved of the gods.

Mery-amun -- beloved of the sun god Amun.

In Egyptian, the 'Meri' of 'Meriam' means beloved. This is especially fitting for a woman who has been beloved for three thousand years. Now how about the last syllable of Meriam's name? In Joan Comay's excellent reference, "Who's Who in the Old Testament", look up Meriam's father, Amram. In Hebrew, 'Am' means 'uncle' and 'ram' means 'exalted'. Thus 'Amram' means 'uncle, i.e. God, is exalted'. This suggests that 'Meri-am' means 'beloved by uncle, i.e. God.'

I am not completely comfortable with this thesis. It would mean that the name 'Meriam' mixes Hebrew and Egyptian syllables. I would expect that the Israelites who adopted Egyptian names would use pure Egyptian names. Thus we should look again at these names.

Could Amram get away with a Hebrew name? Did he have an Egyptian name? There is a similar Egyptian name -- Amun-Ra. This name is formed by combining the names of two solar dieties, Amun and Ra. Could Amram's original name be Amunra? Then Miriam's original name would have been Mery-amun -- beloved of the god Amun.

How likely is it that the Israelites used names of Egyptian gods? Very likely. At the end of his life, Joshua tells the people to put away the gods that their ancestors worshiped in Egypt. [Joshua 24:14]. If one worships Osiris or Ptah or Amun, it is natural to use these names when naming children.

Possibly, the ancient Israelites had both an Egyptian and an Israelite name. There is a famous example of this from Persian times. A Jewish woman named Haddassah also used the name of the Persian goddess Ishtar. She is known to us as Esther. Even today, Jews in America may have both English and Jewish names. For example, a Jewish woman may use the English name Barbara and the Jewish name Bashaleah.

Is it possible that Meriam was originally named 'Meri-amun' -- beloved of Amun? I will be the first to admit that I cannot answer this question with any degree of certainty. Proof one way or another is probably impossible.

If Moses and Miriam were named for Egyptian gods. they may have changed their names after the Exodus out of a need to appear anti-Egyptian. Or the names could have been changed in the oral tradition or by early biblical writers and copyists. Biblical writers were not above changing names in the texts. For example, King Saul's fourth son was named Eshbaal, which meant 'man of Baal'. [1 Chron 8:33] Later biblical copyists of the Book of Samuel despised the god Baal and were embarassed that a king of Israel could name a son 'Eshbaal'. So they deliberately changed it to 'Ishbosheth', meaning 'man of shame'. [2 Sam 2:8 see note in the Jewish, Harper-Collins, or NIV Study Bible] If they encountered names like Sethmose and Meryamun in the Exodus story, they would have had no scruples against changing these names to Moses and Meriam. Nor did the bilblical scribes and copyists have scruples against rewriting passages in order to make them conform with their theological prejudices.

If it turns out that 'Meriam' does not mean beloved it will be a shame. All the Marys, Maries, Marilyns, and Maryannes in the world ought to be beloved.

What is Idolatry?

2005-12-31T12:50:00.000-08:00

What is idolatry? Idolatry is usually defined as the worship of man-made objects as if they were gods. This definition is proclaimed in the Scriptures:

Leviticus 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God. (KJV)

Isaiah 2:8 Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made: 2:9 And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not. (KJV)

Again and again the priest and prophets of the Primary Scriptures condemn the religious practices of foreign peoples. Even the greatest of kings is astigated for idolatry:

2 Kings 23:13 And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile. (KJV)

It seems to be generally assumed that all pagans are idol worshippers. It is said by commentators that Terah, the father of Abram (Abraham) was an idol worshipper. However, an important factor in a rabbinical story is that Terah recognizes that idols are not gods.

In any case, I am not willing to accept the idea that all ancient polytheists are idol worwshippers. The evidence is not convincing. The Scriptures exhibit a brutal hatred of non-Yahwist worship. The scribes and copyists were not above spinning the facts and rewriting passages in order to suit their theological purposes. The diatribes against non-Yahwist worship appear to be an expression of hatred, not historical facts.

I cannot imagine that a pagan with half a brain would mistake an image for a god. How could anyone believe that an object made by human hands could be a god that existed before mankind was created? In many cultures stars and planets were considered to be gods. How could an image be considered to be a star or planet? That doesn't make sense.

Instead, I think that pagans considered images of gods to be spiritual portals through which they communicated with their gods.

Of course, many people will continue to maintain that those ancient peoples who knelt and prayed before a statue of Aphrodite were worshipping an idol. And if I didn't know better, I would think that those who kneel and pray before a statue of the Virgin Mary were also idol worshippers.

The Imagined War

2005-12-27T20:22:00.000-08:00

I'm really puzzled over this alleged "war against Christmas". I never heard of such a thing until recently, when John Gibson's book "The war on Christmas" hit the news. What puzzles me is why should anyone this blathering seriously.

In the interests of full disclosure, I state that I have not read the book. Nor do I intend to. I didn't get past the subtitle, "How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought". It just sounds nuts!

In the first place, there is no one person or one organization who speaks for all liberals. There are many types of liberals and they have many opinions. It would virtually impossible organize liberals into a cohesive group with a focussed mission. For proof, look no further than the failures of the Democratic Party over the past decade.

In the second place, many liberals enjoy Christmas. One of the liberal groups in a religious sense are the Unitarian-Universalists. What do Unitarian-Universalists do on Christmas eve? They attend Christmas eve services. They sing the old Christmas carols and listen to the Christmas story. And what do Unitarian-Unifversalists do on Christmas day? They vist with their friends and family, open their presents, and enjoy a Christmas dinner together. No, liberals are not about to abolish Christmas. Even atheists enjoy Christmas.

In the third place, this so-called war is not about Christmas. It is about the use of public property. A public park does not belong just to evangelical Christians. It belongs to everybody. We all pay for parks and public buildings -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Zorastrians, mystics, pagans, humanists, non-believers, and even Unitarian-Universalists. Public property should not be used by one religious group to promote its creed or beliefs -- that is what the First Amendment is all about.

There are cases where a religious group meets in a public schoolroom for Sunday services. To me this is acceptable provided that the group pays a fair fee for the use of the facility and that all religious groups have the same priviledge, including agnostic and atheist groups. This means that if a Christian group is allowed to put a Christmas creche on a town common, then every religious group should be allowed celebrate their faith in a similar way. Either that, or allow no religious celebrations on public property.

In the fourth place, there are many mainstream and conservative Christians who can accept a ban on religious displays on public property. If one respects the religious beliefs of other people, if one respects the laws and constitution of our country, if one respects democratic principles, then one can understand the harm that is done by those, like John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly who are find every excuse to demonize 'liberals' and complain that this imagined 'War on Christmas' will lead to thre enactment of "secular progressive programs like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, [and] gay marriage."

Charlie Brown

2005-12-23T17:04:00.000-08:00

Christmas is nigh. This is the time to gather with family and friends, to feast on ham and yam and squash and beans, to open presents by the Christmas tree, to kiss under the mistletoe and to sing yuletide carols. (The ham, the tree and the mistletoe come from ancient pagan traditions.) And after the football games, we will watch the fourtieth repeat of Charlie Brown's Christmas. We love to watch that beloved blockhead try to figure out the true meaning of Christmas. Now we can purchase a DVD of that voice in the wilderness decrying the commercialization of Christmas, gift wrapped for a dollar extra.

Much of the Christmas story comes from the Gospel of Luke. The angel Gabriel appears to Zechariah and prophesizes the birth of John the Baptist. A few months later, Gabriel appears to Mary. Now here comes the best part, the Holy Spirit knocks up our virgin heroine.Nine months later, a choir of angels sing to shepherds.

Luke was a Greek who did not know Jesus personally. I imagine Luke reciting the Homeric epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey. Greek tradition is full of stories of gods intervening in human affairs. Zeus is notorious for begetting children of virgin women. Zeus was the father of the Greek people -- he fathered so many of them.

To Jews living in the time of Jesus, the idea of God having sexual intercourse with a mortal woman was not only blasphemous, but dangerous. The intercourse of gods and women was the kind of sinful behaviour that brought on the great flood that nearly destroyed the human race.

But we forget all this when we celebrate the spirit of Christmas. At its best, Christmas is the time for peace and kindness and generosity and love. The only thing wrong with Christmas is that it lasts only one day. The rest of the year we can be mean and nasty and miserly. That is the meaning of Christmas.

May we celebrate the Spirit of Christmas with a good bottle of Christmas spirits.

Scrooge 2005

2005-12-23T08:22:00.000-08:00

Some $40 billion of budget cuts were approved by the Senate after Vice President Cheney cut short a trip in order to break a tie vote. These cuts will affect student loans and people on Medicare and Medicaid. Meanwhile efforts were made advance tax cuts that benefit the rich.

Scrooge is alive and well and living in Washington D.C.

Have a Merry Christmas!

Radical Militant Librarians

2005-12-17T12:26:00.000-08:00

Three cheers for radical, militant librarians!

Big Brother at the University of Massachusetts

2005-12-17T05:53:00.000-08:00

To: Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry

I want to call your attention to a story that appeared today in the Standard Times of New Bedford. Under the headline: "Agents' visit chills UMass Dartmouth senior", the first paragraph reads:

A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book".

The story says that according to two professors the student requested the book because he was writing a research paper for a course in fascism and totalitarianism. The student was told by the federal agents that he was being investigated because the book was on a 'watch list' and that the student had spent significant time abroad. Another quote:

Although the Standard Times knows the name of the student, he is not coming forward because he fears repurcussions should his name become public.

If this story is true our government has committed an egregious violation of the student's civil rights. I urge you to investigate this matter. This incident smacks of the evils of McCarthyism.

Perhaps I could be investigated by the government because I bought a copy of "Mein Kampf" by Adolph Hitler. I wanted to know how a great nation, the country of poets and thinkers, could fall under the spell of that psychopath. Neville Chamberlain did not read "Mein Kampf". If he had, he would have known that Hitler would never be appeased. Stalin did not read "Mein Kampf". Or he would have known that 'lebensraum' meant the dismemberment of the Soviet Union. Unless we read "Mein Kampf", we can not truly understand how dangerous ethnic and religious hatred can be. No, the tragedies of Bosnia and Rwanda tell us that we have not learned the cruel lessons of "Mein Kampf."

In closing, I want to say that I agree with Senator Kennedy's remark that 'Big Brother' is running amok. I also support your efforts to bring this lawless president to account for his high crimes and misdemeanors.

Torture and terrorism

2005-12-15T21:33:00.000-08:00

Hats off to John McCain on making President Bush agree to a ban on the "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" of suspected terrorists. Bush caved after McCain obtained overwhelming support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Previously, Vice President Cheney demanded an exception for the CIA.

The big question is why, why, why was the McCain amendment deemed necessary? After all, the United States has ratified more than one treaty relating to torture.

Consider Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It says, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Why is it necessary to have a law which merely repeats what is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person ..." The convention also provides that "Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1." And, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." Not even terrorism!

Why, with all of these treaties is it necessary for John McCain to put forth an amendment that prohibits "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment"? Why, why?

According to our constitution treaties are part of the "supreme law of the land". Thus cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is already againt the law of the United States. So why?

The simple answer is that the Bush administration has shown nothing but contempt for any law that gets in its way. He has willfully violated not only treaties but our constitution and domestic law. He has failed miserably at one of the basic duties of a president, to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The fuss over torture is just another example of the moral bankruptcy of the current administration.

Proponents of torture argue that torture may be necessary to obtain information about future plans of terrorists. But John McCain knows better. He tells us that torture doesn't work because a tortured person may lie. In addition, the information obtained will not make up for the damage done to our image abroad.

George Bush has shamed us before the world.

Osama's Victory

2005-12-13T20:09:00.000-08:00

Today I received the latest issue of Vanity Fair. I hardly care about the latest fashions. But I look forward to its remarkable series of insider reports on politics. Vanity Fair was the one that broke the identity of 'Deep Throat', the FBI official who helped Woodward and Bernstein expose the Watergate scandal.

The latest issue of VF tells the history of Osama bin Laden. It starts with an account of Osama's youth, being one of fifty four children of Muhammed bin Laden, and tells of his early adherence to a strict Islamic lifestyle, his involvement in the Afgan resistance to the Soviet invasion, his hatred of Saddam Hussain, the formation of Al Qaeda, his responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, and his escape from Tora Bora.

Most of the information in this article comes from people who knew bin Laden personally. It is an effective antidote to the posturing and spin that comes out of Wasington.

The basic fact remains that Washington never did develop an effective strategy for dealing with bin Laden. The Clinton administration did fire a missle at a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and another missle at a camp in Afganistan. The bombing of the Cole did little to wake up America.

If the Clinton administration was feckless, the Bush administration did zilch before 9/11. Of the top people in the Bush White House, only Dick Clark tried to raise the alarm about bin Laden. But he was roundly criticized and ignored. Ohers would say, "Dick Clark's hair is on fire."

Even after 9/11 the Bush strategy was feckless. First, the lack of American troops allowed bin Laden to slip out of Tora Bora into Pakistan. Second, the Iraq war energized al Qaeda. The worst thing about the Iraq war is that we did Osama bin Laden's work for him. We got rid of one of his biggest enemies, namely Saddam Hussaain. Also the war opened up Iraq to infiltration by Al Qaeda.

Every day that Osama bin Laden remains free is a victory for Al Qaeda. Every day that Osama bin Laden is a defeat for the struggle against this terrorism. And the only one that George Bush can blame is himself.

'Democracy' in Iraq

2005-12-12T19:02:00.000-08:00

Now the great test of Iraqi democracy has begun. Today some people have voted by absentee ballot. This includes prisoners who have not been convicted. (I wonder who received the vote of Saddam Hussain.)

We will know soon whether this great experiment with democracy will work. Can the new government rule effectively? Will the new government gain the respect of the people? Can it cope with the insurgency? Will it be stable?

Our own history should have taught us many lessons.

Elections do not a democracy make. The Soviet Union had elections. And all of the citizens were required to vote. But no imagines that the Soviet Union was a democratic country. In the age of slavery and Jim Crow, the United States was not a democratic country. The U.S. did not become a democratic country until the 1960's when the Voring Rights Act was passed.

Constitutions do not a democracy make. A country's learders must be willing to abide by the constitution. Time and again, governments of the United States have used unconstitutional means to meet some crisis, real or pretend. This started in he early 1800's with the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts.

Political parties do not an democracy make. More than 100 political parties contested the first election in Iraq. That is too many. It is a recipe for political paralysis. In Germany's Weimar Republic some twenty five political parties contested the elections. No political party could rule effectively until 1933 when the Nazi Party took power.

The trouble in Iraq lies in the fact that the new constitution has not healed the country. Instead, the electoral process has laid bare the bitter divisions in that society. The new constitution, which favors the interests of the Shia over the Sunni, may become a bone of contention. Whatever the outcome of the election, the insurgency is not likely to abate.

The Shia have suffered severly from the insurgency. Policemen, parlimentarians, and government officials have been assassinated. Shite mosques have been attacked. Shia weddings have been attacked. Even funerals have been attacked. Not even the dead can rest in Iraq.

The Shia have shown remarkable forbearance up to now. But someday, those who have lost friends and loved ones will demand a bitter accounting. The insurgents are only inviting retribution for their atrocities. Ans it will be the Sunni who will suffer.

The likely response to entrenched disruption and disorder will be the emergence of a strongman. This strongman may, like Hitler, be elected under the aegis of a democratic process, but then impose dictatorial powers. The new rulers will not have to burn a Reichstag to justify extraordinary powers. Hitler waited three months before establishing the first concentration camp at Dachau. The new Iraqi strongman will not have to wait. We already know of two 'secret' prisons where suspected insurgents are tortured. That is the 'strange fruit' of Bush's ill-considered war.

All this can happen under a facade of democracy. George Bush can hardly complain about the excesses of a new Iraqi strongman. That would be admitting the failure of his adventure in Iraq. How can Bush complain after gutting the Bill or Rights?

An Iraqi strongman may unleash the Shiite militias against the Sunni. Since the Shia constitute sixty percent of the population of Iraq, the decision to crack down on the Sunni might be a democratic decision. Then American troops will be needed for years to come in order to protect the Sunni from the democratically-elected Shiite government. That would be a most ironic outcome.

Perhaps some day Amreicans will ask, "Why did we oust one strongman only to install another?"

The War Against Christmas

2005-12-11T10:49:00.000-08:00

Today I shall take a break from my blog postings. Instead, I have the honor of reprinting a speech of Herr Doktor Professor Meister Reverend Bom Bastis. He is the Professor of Obfuscatory Theology at Wellfall Bible College. Here is his speech:

My friends, it is a sad occasion that I come before you to speak today. Even as I speak, there are pernicious, evil forces bent upon destroying the very fabric of our civilization. Even as I speak, we are embroiled in a war that will determine the future of our Christian society. Should we lose this war, our nation will be engulfed by evil forces. Our children will be corrupted by evil. They will be seduced by sex. They will be addicted to drugs. They will fall under the satanic spell of rock and roll. Sadly, my friends, we have almost lost the battle against these triple evils.

But before we can truly understand our sad plight, we must identify the origin of the war of which I speak. This war againt our Christian society was started by abominable atheists, sadistic satanists, apostate agnostics, salacious secularists, and hubristic humanists. The war was started by Thomas Paine with his book "The Age of Reason". Let me tell you, reason has no place in a Christian society! The war was carried on by the "Humanist Manifesto".

Now the war has entered its most terrifying phase. The war of which I speak is the War Against Christmas! This battle will determine the future of our civilization.

Suppose you go to a store to buy Christmas presents. A store associate may greet you saying, "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings". You might think that the associate is simply trying to appeal to people of any faith, to put Jews, Muslims, and non-believers at ease. You may think that this is the policy of a neighborly and friendly business.

No! That associate is doing the devil's work! "Happy Holidays" is the slogan of those evil and pernicious forces working to undermine our Christian values. That is the very manifestation of the War Against Christmas! You must take a stand against this heretical and un-Christian attack upon our values. You must demand that the associate be fired. You must demand that the management of the store adhere to Christian values. Every banner saying "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" must be torn down.

You must also demand the abolition of anything that smacks of pagan idolatry. You must eliminate all yule logs -- the burning of yule logs is a pagan practice. You must destroy all mistletoe -- kissing under a mistletoe is an insidious and evil practice of paganistic prostitution. Above all, destroy all so-called Christmas Trees -- those Asherah poles were worshipped by those pernicious Teutonic pagans. And remember, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ never had a Christmas tree. Nor should you, lest you fall into sin!

My friends, I have not informed you of the devilish dangers facing us. I have told you of what you can do to restore the Christian meaning of Christmas. Now let me conclude by saying that if we eliminate "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings", and if we stop prostituting ourselves with yule logs and mistletoe and so-called Christmas trees and all of the pernicious trappings of paganism, then we can begin to win the War Against Christmas.

Keturah, continued

2005-12-10T11:49:00.000-08:00

In a previous post I pointed out a discrepancy between Genesis 25;1 and 1 Chronicles 1:32. The former says that Keturah was the second wife of Abraham; the latter says that she was a concubine. I did not try to resolve the issue. I left it for the reader to investigate the passage and draw his or her conclusions. Now it is time for me to state my conclusions.

First, what do we know for sure? Biblical tradition asserts that Moses wrote down the first five books of the Bible as dictated by God. Modern critical scholars take issue with that tradition. They believe, based upon the words of the text, that there were three source texts of Genesis (J, E, and P), and that these source texts were combined by a redactor, probably Ezra. The redaction occurred either during the Babylonian Exile or shortly thereafter. The author of Chronicles was either a contemporary of Ezra or lived shortly thereafter. Indeed, some authorities believe that the Chronicler was Ezra.

No matter what view you take concerning the possible Mosaic authorship of Genesis, one thing is clear -- Genesis has priority over Chronicles. It is clear that the chronicler relied upon the books from Genesis through Kings and some of the major prophets.

Thus, I conclude that 'wife' was changed to 'concubine' in Chronicles. I do not believe that the wording of Genesis was changed from 'concubine' to 'wife'. That would diminish the importance of Isaac.

The most interesting question is: why was this change made?

Some scholars have concluded that Keturah was not a wife, but a concubine. I do not accept such a conclusion. In the first place, such scholars would have to believe that Chronicles is more credible than Genesis. Second, if Keturah was a concubine, she was no ordinary concubine. She had a very high status in Abraham's household. She, and no other concubine after Hagar is named. Not only that, her sons and grandsons are named. This in a document that deprecates the importance of women.The attention paid to Keturah, in both Genesis and Chronicles, leads me to believe that she was truly a wife of Abraham.

Some scholars even suggest that Keturah was Hagar, the mother of Ishmael. I do not find this suggestion credible. In the first place, why would Genesis use a different name for Hagar? Second, Hagar and Ishmael had been expelled from Abraham's household as demanded by Sarah. Not only that, Sarah demanded that Ishmael be disinherited. [Genesis 21:8-10] Ishmael and Abraham were thus estanged. There is no indication that Ishmael ever returned to his father's house before his death. (Ishmael did return to bury his father.) Why then would Hagar leave her son's household and return to the man who cast her out and disinherited her son.

You might wonder, what is so important about this issue. What difference does it make whether Keturah was a wife or a concubine? My answer is that is does make an importance both theologically and politically. It was important the the Chronicler.

The main theological reason was to enhance the importance of Isaac and Jacob and diminish the importance of the other sons of Abraham.

A second theological issue applies to those who claim that the Scriptures are 'inerrant'. How can one defend the inerrancy of the Scriptures in the face of this discrepancy? What kind of verbal handstands are required to bridge this difference?

The political reason comes from the fact that Chronicles was written shortly after the Babylonian Exile. The Persian king Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem. But only a small of Jews left Babylon. As a result the new Jewish community in Jerusalem was weak and surrounded by enemies. Sometimes these Jews had to defend themselves against accusations of disloyalty to the Persian king.

Now let us recall the covenant between God and Abraham:

Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.

Even today, many Jews understand this passage to mean that they have title to the land of Israel. Many of the Jews who were recently removed from Gaza believe that their government is violating the 'will of the Almighty'. In the Scriptures, there are several passages that recall God's promise of land to Abraham. For example,

Deuteronomy 1:8 Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.

However the language of the covenant applies equally to ALL of Abraham's seed. There is nothing in the covenant that distinguishes between the sons of wives and the sons of concubines. Nevertheless, both Jewish and Christian traditions rejects the claims of Ishmaelites because Ishmael was the son of a concubine. Also the claims of Edomites are rejected because Esau despised his birthright for a bowl of soup.

Having said this, it is worth noting that Jewish tradition accepts the claims to the promised land from ALL of the sons of Jacob in spite of the fact that Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher were sons of concubines.

But in the post-exilic time, the Jews in Jerusalem may have had a particular problem. Suppose a band of foreigners should come to Jerusalem and say, "We are a Midianites." (maybe true, maybe not.) "Your holy books say that we, of Abraham's seed, own this land. We demand land!" Now the Jews of Jerusalem would not want to accept that claim. But what reason can they give for rejecting it?

During the time of King Solomon, when this passage of Genesis was probably written, the king could just say, "You have land east of the Gulf of Aqaba. Go there and leave us alone!" The land in question is part of the territory that God "gave" to Abraham.

But after the exile, these Midianites could have approached Persian officials and obtained an edict granting land in or near Jerusalem. The chronicler might have feared this possibility and might have rewritten the story of Abraham to forestall that possibility. If Keturah was a concubine, then the Midianite claim can be rejected on the same basis as the Ishmaelite claim. I suspect that this is the reason why the Chronicler says that Keturah was a concubine.

Like the author of Genesis 25, the Chronicler treats Keturah as a very special woman. He lists all of her sons and grandsons. I don't think that the Chronicler would pay that much attention to Keturah if she was just a concubine. This suggests to me that the Chronicler, in the back of his mind, really understood Keturah to be Abraham's second wife. Therefore, the Chronicler was 'economical with the truth'. Of course, I cannot know for sure what was going on in the mind of the Chronicler. Thus I cannot prove my thesis. I can only offer it as a plausible explanation for the inconsistancy between Genesis and Chronicles.

My final conclusion is that Keturah was the second wife of Abraham, and that the chronicler tried to rewrite history.

Note: Quotations are from the KJV. Theophilis 3 software was used in the research of this essay. (www.theophilis.sk)

Dirty Little Secrets

2005-12-09T20:46:00.000-08:00

Now the dirty little secrets are coming out. After many days of evasions, a government official has admitted that 'our' government is detaininging secret prisoners in secret locations.

Do you remember when our national leaders showed a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind"? Not President Bush. He has manifested a marked disdain, even contempt, for the opinions of the peoples of the world.

President Bush has shown an utter contempt for the constitution and laws of our country. He has usurped the powers of Congress and the courts. He has arrogated to himself the powers never authorized by law or constitution. He claims the power to designate any person in the world, for any reason, as an 'illegal enemy combatant' who can be abducted, held incommunicado, imprisoned for life in a secret location, and subjected to 'harsh treatments' short of organ failure and death. And this happened without democratic oversight or judicial review.

This is the foundation of tyranny!

He has undermined trial by jury. He has no regard for 'due process' or 'habeas corpus'. These rights are the foundations of our liberties and our greatest protecton against tyrannical government.

Within living memory, our country sponsored tyrannies in foreign lands. Once again, tyranny is upon our soil!

Comment on Intelligent Design

2005-12-08T14:32:00.000-08:00

Here is a comment that I received on my essay on 'intelligent design':

Your essay is quite interesting, but I believe it overextends the idea of ID, which is not to prove that a greater power exists, how it exists, and how it subsists. ID sets to prove the existence of a greater power by demonstrating in nature that certain relations are impossible without a guiding force behind it.

It's not relevant to the argument of ID to show how a creator exists in the infinity of the cosmos, but rather show its footprint on our world and thusly demonstrate its existence.

Because, you know, proof is such a messy thing to get. What with all that work and stuff...

This is a thoughtful reply and deserves the courtesy of a considered reply. First let us consider the question of a footprint.

Do you recall the first photograph of a face on Mars? The image is striking and, to many, convincing. But we just do not know whether it is the 'footprint' of an ancient Martian civilization or a "trick of light and shadow". Nor do we know whether the footprints of 'bigfoot' are the prints of an large unknown primate or the result of a hoax.

How can we know the truth? A scientist who discovers a possible footprint will want to know as much as possible about it. He asks, what kind of foot made that print? What kind of creature owned that foot? If the scientist cannot identify the creature that created the footprint, then the discovery is suspect. Thus the so-called bigfoot footprint will not be accepted as conclusive proof. Bigfoot will not be accepted by scientists unless and until a specimen is found, alive or dead.

Likewise, the theory of intelligent design will not be accepted as scientific unless the 'intelligent designer' is discovered.

A second issue in the comment is the question of proving that "certain relations are impossible without a guiding force behind it". How can we prove that something is impossible? Consider the conjecture that a bacterial flagellum cannot be produced by natural causes.

(The term 'conjecture' refers to a statement that the proponent believes true, but cannot prove. There are several famous conjectures in mathematics. The Goldbach Conjecture states that every even number greater than two is the sum of two primes. Even after 263 years, this conjecture has neither been proved nor disproved.)

Can this impossibility be proved? What kind of proof is needed? Let me offer a plan of a proof for proving that a flagellum cannot be produced by natural means:

1. Sequence the DNA of many bacteria that lack a flagellum.
2. Record the DNA genomes of these bacteria in a computer databsae.
3. Write a computer program which simulates bacterial change on the recorded genomes.

Specifically, this program:

4. Selects one of the bacteria and apply a natural genetic change upon the recorded DNA.
One process of genetic change is mutation. Also bacteria engage in direct transfer of DNA.

5. If the genetic change kills the new bacterium, eliminate it from further consideration. Also eliminate duplicates, if any.

6. Examine the genome for the signature of a flagellum. In that case, we have proof that the flagellum can be produced by natural means. That would be contrary to the expectation of the advocates of intelligent design. Print out the chain of changes that resulted in the flagellum and stop.

7. Add the new genome to the computer data base.

8. Apply another genetic change to the original bacterium and repeat the steps above starting with step 5. Continue until all of the possible genetic changes have been evaluated.

9. Repeat the process above for every one of the original set of genomes. This completes one cycle of evolution of bacterium.

10. Perform more cycles of evolution on the recorded genomes. Suppose the program performs a cycle without adding any new genomes. If no flagellum has been produced (in step 6 above), it may be concluded that a flagellum cannot be produced by natural means. Stop.

This is a simple sketch of a very complex computer program. Anyone who has even a modest amount of training in computer science should be able to spot immense problems with this plan. Among these problems are:

1. The process of mutation is not well understood. We do not know all the possible ways that a genome may mutatte. Therfore we cannot now write a computer program that models that behavior.

2. The same comment applies to direct gene transfer between bacteria.

3. What criteria should be used to determine whether a genome is viable? Until this is understood, one cannot write a computer program to model this part of the process.

4. Is the starting set of bacteria adequate?

5. This program will require a huge memory. Suppose the program begins with a starting set of one thousand different types of bacteria. After one cycle, there might be one million genomes in the data base. After two cycles, one billion. After three cycles, one trillion. The database will grow exponentially and might very well exceed the capacity of all of the hard disks on planet earth.

6 How long must the program run before a conclusion of impossibility can be reached? If a chain leading to a flagellum is found, then the program terminates in step 6. But if that doesn't happen, how long must the program run? One would probably want a result in a reasonable time, say a year. That might be enough for 100 cycles, probably not enough for a conclusion. Every time a cycle is completed, the next cycle will grind much more slowly. Suppose the program has to run for a thousand cycles or a million cycles to reach a result. That might exceed the lifetimes of our great great grandchildren.

7. There is a problem with the stopping criterium in step 10. Certain mutations may increase the size of a genome. Then every cycle will generate additional genomes, and the process will never end. Then we will be forced to put a limit on the size of a genome, and discard genomes that exceed that limit. What is a reasonable limit? It should be larger than the largest known genome. But how much larger?

8. The methods used by this program would have to be published and reviewed by all interested parties. And there would have to be general agreement that the program will work and produce the desired result. Otherwise the results will not be accepted.

9. By the time that this progam is designed, written, and debugged, scientists may have found a chain of genetic changes that produces a flagellum. This might come from the analysis of the genomes of certain key types of bacteria. That would obviate the need for this program.

I trust that the reader will understand the huge difficulties involved in attempting to prove an impossibility. In spite of our sophisticated science and technology, we simply do not have the capability creating a computer program that will prove that a flagellum cannot be produced by natural means. The proof that a flagellum is impossible is, for all practical purposes, impossible.

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that the proponents of intelligent design are too easily satisfied by insufficient proofs. While they magnify nit-picking flaws in a scientific theory, they put forward theories that have no scientific credibility.

What it comes down to is a matter of faith. Do you put your faith in a nebulous and unkown 'intelligent designer'? Or do you put your faith in the processes of scientific research --experimentation, theory building, logical deduction, and peer review?

I choose science.

Keturah:Wife or Concubine?

2005-12-06T14:22:00.000-08:00

I am intigued by a minor discrepancy in the Scriptures. Was Keturah a concubine? Or was she Abraham's second wife? Genesis says that she was Abraham's second wife. Chronicles says that she was a concubine. How can this discrepancy be resolved?

Let's start with the only two passages in the Scriptures that mention Keturah by name:

Genesis 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
3 And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.
4 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.

1 Chronicles 1:32 Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan.
33 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Henoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these are the sons of Keturah.

These two passages are almost identical. They both agree on the names of Keturah's sons and grandsons. The main point of difference is that Genesis calls Keturah a wife and Chronicles calls her a concubine. Which was she? What say you? What do you make of this discrepancy? The really interesting question is WHY does this discrepancy exist.

I shall give you my answer in a future blog.

Weasel Words

2005-12-05T09:48:00.000-08:00

Consider some recent statements from Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

New report:

Rice said the United States does not permit or tolerate torture under any circumstances.