Hi Gary, I appreciate your welcome and your sharing your knowledge of Velikovsky's works. I have much to learn. I have read only Worlds in Collision, but have ordered several other of his books from ebay. These other books have not yet arrived because I did not want to pay for airmail from England... Now, whether I have fallen in love with his writings, I'm not sure. But, I surely don't want to discount his information. Carl Gary Shelton wrote: >Hello Carl, and welcome. > >I might be one of the few people who can say he totally fell into love with >Velikovsky's writings. I read every one of his books, I believe, and found >him thoroughly fascinating. That was about 10 years ago. I have learned >much since then, and, for one, no longer fall into the devoted Velikovsky >camp. For example, I no longer believe the Queen of Sheba was the same >person as the pharoah Hatshepsut. David Rohl in his book Pharaohs and Kings >pretty much knocked this out with his identification of Saul being Lebayu in >the Egyptian writings, though this doesn't discount V's thesis being a heck >of a read, in my opinion. That he didn't get all the details right has got >him a lot of bad press over the years. This is true. But its hardly fair. >Velikovsky was a free thinker who saw that the King Had No Clothes. He saw >that the standard Eyptian timeline was enormously out of whack. And it had >been that way since the decoding of the Rosetta Stone. Even to this day, >the truth of the screwed up Egyptian timeline still serves to anchor down >the truth with its wrong-headed thinking. > >So, the main benefit of Velikovsky's work, in my humble opinion, and one >that was never properly credited in my view, was his bringing back to the >Bible back some of its long lost credence. V showed how some of the stories >could have been true, timewise, and possibly were in reality, actually true. >For instance, where did the manna come from that fed the Children of Israel >in the desert? Velikovsky postulated that Venus' cometary tail (Venus had >been previously claimed to have been a comet expelled from the Great Red >Spot of Jupiter) near flyby could have accounted for that occurring at that >precise time. >And even more intriguingly, Velikovsky identified Egyptian monument writing >discussing a pharaoh who died in a mysterious "whirlpool" at a place called >Pi-ha-Khiroth...the same exact place the Israelites encamped on the Red Sea >in the book of Exodus. The pharaoh identified was not Ramses II. > >Nonetheless, the secular school of thought couldn't accept any of this. >They had to use an alternative to the Bible, so they chose the Egyptian >timeline, right or wrong, and have stuck with it despite all of the dogged >evidence of things like the fact that Ramses III (conventionally lived 1200 >BC or so) had Greek inscriptions on his mortuary monument in the Nile delta >dating from the days of Plato, or 400 BC, not 1200 BC. > >Carl, Cheryl here gave us a website to a Gordon Bane's site where he talks >about Fibonacci numbers. (That site is >http://www.geocentricbible.com/id25.htm if you care to check it out.) One >of the intriguing things is how they skip the earth and how the only >discrepancies of any note apply to Venus and Mars. The author, one Fred >Wilson, attributes this to the cataclysm at the time of the Biblical Flood. >Velikovsky, of course as you know, discussed Venus and Mars extensively in >his writings, and how they approached the earth, especially Venus in Worlds >in Collision. For those who haven't read it, V makes a good case for the >period of Venus in those days being the cause for the 50 year Jubilee (still >observed today) asking, of course, why it wasn't 49 years...a more Biblical >number. Also, the time of Hezekiah's extended life on earth was reputed, by >Velikovsky, to correspond the the 15 year period of Mars' close approach to >the earth. V claimed that this is what caused the Biblical shadow to move >backward and then forward the ten degrees. > >Despite his shortcomings, I always felt V's identification of the Greek's >"Oedipus" with the Egyptian "Akhnaton" to be powerfully compelling. His >side by side comparison of the family trees between the two characters, one >fictitious, one real, is nothing short of astounding. They are exact >copies. V's connection as to how Aknaton obliterated references to his >father throughout Egypt and how Queen Tuy, Akhnaton's mother, was always >around....fascinating. Read Oedipus and Akhnaton for the story. > >Velikovsky's third book, Earth in Upheaval, was an eye-opening look at >catastrophism, written in the mid 50's. With the notable and non-sequitur >exception of his advocacy of punctuated evolution in that book, he made a >superb case for creationism's young earth. The La Brea Tar Pits, the >mammoths in Siberia, the islands of the arctic ocean loaded with flood >debris, the cattle still frozen to this day in a Tibetan river as they >attempted to swim across it in the remote past...you all know the stories. >Velikovsky was where I first read about all of this. > >Was Velikovsky good or bad? He was, after all, a heliocentrist. Indeed, he >claimed that the earth had sometime in its past "flipped over", possibly >even turning into a drunk sailor with the Venuvian encounters. But though >he didn't hold to the Bible he equally disavowed convential sciences. So >the thing about Velikovsky one can indisputedly say was that he was a >fence-sitter. He made no friends on either side while doing a fabulous job >of raising the ire of all who despised, as Velikovsky (self-praising himself >in 'Worlds In Collision') described as his "turning a page in the book of >knowledge". > >Having been in this geocentric argument now for three years, I can >understand both the indifference of the Christians and the intolerance of >the scientists. Velikovsky was a genius. But geniuses aren't patronized in >either world, especially ones who are a little cantankerous. > >Was Velikovsky good or bad then? On balance, very good, I say. > >Sincerely, > >Gary Shelton > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Carl Felland" <cfelland@xxxxxxxxxxx> >To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 2:48 PM >Subject: [geocentrism] Ancient calendars > > > > >>Neville, Steven, and group, >>By way of introduction, I am trained as an Entomologist (Ph.D. >>Mississippi State University, 1989) and was employed by Pennsylvania >>State University for ten years before opting for a more Biblical >>lifestyle in Arkansas. I have espoused most of the viewpoints of >>Institute of Creation Research through graduate school and beyond. I >>feel that my contribution to creation understanding is a demonstration >>that the Hebrew alphabet is formed around the words 'Israel' and 'Zion.' >>'Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal' rejected the paper, but I have >>put it online (http://yahuah.org/IZCentral.html). >> >>My family and I began to observe a solar/lunar "Creation calendar" (Gen. >>1: 14) about a year ago in which the 6 working days, weekly Sabbaths, >>and New Moon Days are mutually exclusive (Eze. 46: 1, 3). Through >>others who are observing this calendar I was introduced to the geostatic >>world view. I have perused your web site, look forward to your new CD, >>and have been following the discussions on this list. >> >>I recently read Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision and noted his ancient >>calendar study pointing to a 360 day year in the past. This, plus the >>prophetic 360 day year of the Scriptures, leads me to wonder if the >>current length of the year is different from that at creation or whether >>the 360 day calendar is based on something else. Velikovsky argued that >>the Plagues and Joshua's long day were a result of brushes with comets >>and that the hail that fell in both was likely meteors. He argued that >>it was the earth's rotation that was altered. Does the geostatic >>position allow for "natural" explanations for the cataclysmic events in >>earth history? Does the geostatic position allow for a change in the >>length of the solar year? >> >>C. M. Felland >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 2/22/05 >> >> >> >> > > > > >