Polar Configuration

[SJR3t2]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Even WHEN God tells us directly we are trusting in a Man for the definition. 

God teaches us not to trusts in the arm of flesh, if you want I can get a verse for you.

[SJR3t2]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

For those who don't believe we can create our own doctrine- this is one of the best examples I have seen

Good for him

Interesting that his temple references seem to refer to the "preacher" who was ex'ed in 1990.

I have no argument with his paradigm, just that it is as right as any and he has shown no evidence that anything else is "wrong".   I studied temple symbolism for a long time also and have the same book he must have read on the outside of the salt lake temple. 

I just object to his idea that he is the only one who is "right". 

Harmless stuff.  

"Actually discover the meaning of the temple endowment"??

Like he HAS?  BIG problem with that.  What HUBRIS!!

God's words has multiple depths and angles to them. Have you heard of PaRDeS?

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

God's words has multiple depths and angles to them. Have you heard of PaRDeS?

Yes of course, thanks.  I am quite interested in hermeneutics.

Interesting ideas and welcome to the board

[SJR3t2]

Some may find this quote from the OT manual interesting.

"Immanuel Velikovsky, for example, wrote three books amassing evidence that worldwide catastrophic upheavals have occurred in recent history, and he argued against uniformitarianism, the idea that the natural processes in evidence now have always prevailed at the same approximate rate of uniformity. These books are Worlds in Collision, Ages in Chaos, and Earth in Upheaval. Two Latter-day Saint scientists, Melvin A. Cook and M. Garfield Cook, have also advocated this theory in their book Science and Mormonism. A short summary of the Cooks’ approach can be found in Paul Cracroft’s article “How Old Is the Earth?” (Improvement Era, Oct. 1964, pp. 827–30, 852)."

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng

[Calm]

Can't understand how that got through correlation myself.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There are exceptions that prove this belief of course.  But you seem to have a propensity for gravitating to the fringe writers on subjects.

 

Ah, but the fringe writers can often be a lot more fun than the staid, prosaic writers of the conventional!  Even if the latter are the ones in the right.

As one who has held fringe beliefs from time to time in the past, I definitely understand the pull of such things.

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, SJR3t2 said:

Some may find this quote from the OT manual interesting.

"Immanuel Velikovsky, for example, wrote three books amassing evidence that worldwide catastrophic upheavals have occurred in recent history, and he argued against uniformitarianism, the idea that the natural processes in evidence now have always prevailed at the same approximate rate of uniformity. These books are Worlds in Collision, Ages in Chaos, and Earth in Upheaval. Two Latter-day Saint scientists, Melvin A. Cook and M. Garfield Cook, have also advocated this theory in their book Science and Mormonism. A short summary of the Cooks’ approach can be found in Paul Cracroft’s article “How Old Is the Earth?” (Improvement Era, Oct. 1964, pp. 827–30, 852)."

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng

I have read that in a few instances (such as Jupiter's magnetic field) Velikovsky went back and edited his old writings to include newly discovered things that weren't originally in there, just so it looked like he had predicted them.  Not to be too disrespectful to him, as I used to be somewhat in awe of him and what he wrote, but I don't necessarily trust him in all cases.

I'm fairly familiar with the Cooks and their books (sorry, couldn't resist), having read "Science and Mormonism" a few times many years ago.  I can understand why the OT manual might contain a reference to their work, because at the time they were writing it might have seemed fairly plausible. However, since then the state of science has advanced, and I don't think the same plausibility is tenable in these days.

[SJR3t2]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Can't understand how that got through correlation myself.

Immanuel Velikovsky is one of the first modern people to show forth this theory and shows scientific evidence for it, and his predications keep coming true.

[SJR3t2]

49 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I have read that in a few instances (such as Jupiter's magnetic field) Velikovsky went back and edited his old writings to include newly discovered things that weren't originally in there, just so it looked like he had predicted them.  Not to be too disrespectful to him, as I used to be somewhat in awe of him and what he wrote, but I don't necessarily trust him in all cases.

I'm fairly familiar with the Cooks and their books (sorry, couldn't resist), having read "Science and Mormonism" a few times many years ago.  I can understand why the OT manual might contain a reference to their work, because at the time they were writing it might have seemed fairly plausible. However, since then the state of science has advanced, and I don't think the same plausibility is tenable in these days.

RFC Where is the evidance of that, that is quite a claim to make if you don't have evidence of that.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

Immanuel Velikovsky is one of the first modern people to show forth this theory and shows scientific evidence for it, and his predications keep coming true.

What predictions have been shown to be accurate?

Edited April 28, 2018 by Calm

[SJR3t2]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What predictions have been shown to be accurate?

Oh man you got me, I don't remember one of Immanuel Velikovsky off the top of my head, I do know that the Electronic Universe Model group has talked about it, I have a few friends I can ask that are more into the science side of it if you would like.

[Stargazer]

44 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

RFC Where is the evidance of that, that is quite a claim to make if you don't have evidence of that.

RFC? Perhaps you mean CFR.

I read it somewhere.  So sue me.  

No, seriously, I don't remember where I read it, but I definitely did.  Keeping in mind that I used to be a believer in Velikovsky's theories, I have become disillusioned about him.  Some of his ideas as presented in Worlds in Collision were fascinating to me, and even though I have "moved on", as it were, my mind is still open to alternative ideas.  But there are too many things wrong with his theories.  Although I'm quite capable of outputting paragraphs in support of my claims, I have better things to do than to try to debunk the marvelous theories of the inestimable Dr. V when so many others have covered this so well.  I think I shall restrict myself to providing links to some of these.  Here's a few:

• The Skeptic's Dictionary
• Top Ten Reasons Why Velikovsky is Wrong
• Sky and Telescope article on the subject

An interesting resource I just discovered is the Velikovsky Encyclopedia, which appears to be rather even-handed (pros vs cons) about Dr. V.

I will say that Velikovsky's idea that ancient mythology might contain clues to historical events does intrigue me, and he may be onto something with that.  

I am particularly interested in the theory that Venus emerged from Jupiter and took up residence as Sol II.  This of course harks back to the myth that the goddess Venus (or Aphrodite) was born from the head of the god Jupiter (Zeus).  Dr. V has it that Venus was part of Jupiter and that it was ejected from it -- but I know of no astrophysical mechanism that could support such an event.  I took the screen name Stargazer because of my great interest in astronomy and astrophysics (although I am a computer professional), and I can tell you with complete confidence that there is no freaking way Jupiter could have been harboring Venus in such as way as to eject it.  This is patent nonsense.  Jupiter's gravitation is far too great -- anything that could cause this would probably result in a major disruption of Jupiter, such that there would have been plenty of evidence available in these days. But there is none.

That being said, there is a man, Kenneth DIllon, who suggested that Venus only appeared to have come from Jupiter, and suggests that Venus may have originated in the Oort Cloud, and through some gravitational perturbation or other (he suggests Jupiter's own gravitation could have done this, but quite frankly that's poppycock, because if Jupiter could have done it, we'd have been sucked into Jupiter billions of years ago) the proto-Venus was drawn into the inner solar system, passing by Jupiter closely enough to only appear to have come from it.  That idea, at least, seems to pull the Jupiter/Venus thing into some slight realm of plausibility, but if you go to the web page where he describes this, you'll note some other associated claims which hold no water whatsoever.  In particular, he relates the cometary appearance of Venus passing by Earth with the "black drop" effect that Venus exhibits in its infrequent solar transits -- which might be confused with the tail of a comet.  This is nonsense, as there is no record that any ancient people noticed these transits (or even that they could have noticed it, since they didn't have the optical equipment needed to do it).  It wasn't until the time of Pythagoras that the morning and evening stars were determined to be the same object, so imagining that transits of Venus were mistaken for comets is an exercise in absurdity.

It's possible that Velikovsky could have gotten some things right.  But to take him (and his apologists) too seriously is to go off into never-never land.

[SJR3t2]

23 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

RFC? Perhaps you mean CFR.

I read it somewhere.  So sue me.  

No, seriously, I don't remember where I read it, but I definitely did.  

I'm new and prehaps I mean CFR, so I have learned on this thread that if you state things without willing to provide that quote it's a big no no. So I ask again do you have the quote, you can't just say I read it somewhere.

Edited April 28, 2018 by SJR3t2

[SJR3t2]

22 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I will say that Velikovsky's idea that ancient mythology might contain clues to historical events does intrigue me, and he may be onto something with that.  

I really like that idea from him and I see it, and believe it.

[SJR3t2]

23 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I am particularly interested in the theory that Venus emerged from Jupiter and took up residence as Sol II.  This of course harks back to the myth that the goddess Venus (or Aphrodite) was born from the head of the god Jupiter (Zeus).  Dr. V has it that Venus was part of Jupiter and that it was ejected from it -- but I know of no astrophysical mechanism that could support such an event.  I took the screen name Stargazer because of my great interest in astronomy and astrophysics (although I am a computer professional), and I can tell you with complete confidence that there is no freaking way Jupiter could have been harboring Venus in such as way as to eject it.  This is patent nonsense.  Jupiter's gravitation is far too great -- anything that could cause this would probably result in a major disruption of Jupiter, such that there would have been plenty of evidence available in these days. But there is none.

That being said, there is a man, Kenneth DIllon, who suggested that Venus only appeared to have come from Jupiter, and suggests that Venus may have originated in the Oort Cloud, and through some gravitational perturbation or other (he suggests Jupiter's own gravitation could have done this, but quite frankly that's poppycock, because if Jupiter could have done it, we'd have been sucked into Jupiter billions of years ago) the proto-Venus was drawn into the inner solar system, passing by Jupiter closely enough to only appear to have come from it.  That idea, at least, seems to pull the Jupiter/Venus thing into some slight realm of plausibility, but if you go to the web page where he describes this, you'll note some other associated claims which hold no water whatsoever.  In particular, he relates the cometary appearance of Venus passing by Earth with the "black drop" effect that Venus exhibits in its infrequent solar transits -- which might be confused with the tail of a comet.  This is nonsense, as there is no record that any ancient people noticed these transits (or even that they could have noticed it, since they didn't have the optical equipment needed to do it).  It wasn't until the time of Pythagoras that the morning and evening stars were determined to be the same object, so imagining that transits of Venus were mistaken for comets is an exercise in absurdity.

It's possible that Velikovsky could have gotten some things right.  But to take him (and his apologists) too seriously is to go off into never-never land.

I've come across that also. It makes some sense from some of the myths, but I'm not sure what I think about it. I also don't follow the scientific portion of it enough to say one way or the other.

I know Anthony Larson believes the quote from JS regarding the last grand sign before the second coming will likely happen because of another planet being born from Jupiter.

 

[SJR3t2]

 

[SJR3t2]

A free conference from Kipler on this subject on Sun 29 Apr 2018

Summary: A discussion about the grand vision of the gathering of Israel given to all prophets personally by Jesus Christ.

Details:

(515) 739-1424
Access code:491999
Online meeting ID: kipfarr

https://join.freeconferencecall.com/627-260-856 Online Meeting ID: 627-260-856 
Salt Lake City, Utah 84108

Do not use this board to advertise your personal sites. Do not start a thread with a link. Provide a discussion topic in writing. 

[Stargazer]

19 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

I'm new and prehaps I mean CFR, so I have learned on this thread that if you state things without willing to provide that quote it's a big no no. So I ask again do you have the quote, you can't just say I read it somewhere.

Of course I can say I read it somewhere.  That's the sum total of my understanding of the matter.  I admit I don't have the provenance of the matter.  So, you're free to assume I don't know my seater from a hole in the ground.  It's possible that what I read was in error, too.  

This means that your "Call for References" succeeds -- my sole reference is that it is something I remember reading a long time ago, which is what I said already.  It's not a no-no to not be able to provide a source -- it's a no-no not to respond to a request for it.  So, you got it already.  

[Stargazer]

21 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

I've come across that also. It makes some sense from some of the myths, but I'm not sure what I think about it. I also don't follow the scientific portion of it enough to say one way or the other.

I know Anthony Larson believes the quote from JS regarding the last grand sign before the second coming will likely happen because of another planet being born from Jupiter.

 

I don't know who Anthony Larson is.  It wouldn't be the MADB person "ALarson" here, would it?

I do know about the last great sign (some will say it's a comet or a planet, to paraphrase JS), but there's no reason at all to think that it might originate from Jupiter.  There's plenty of objects in the Kuiper Belt or the Oort Cloud that could serve the purpose.

You say that you don't follow the scientific portion enough to be able to say one way or the other.  I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, an astrophysicist or astronomer, though I am more knowledgeable than the average person.  But allow me to go out on a not-very-shaky limb to say: there is no way in God's heaven that makes it possible for a Venus-sized object to be ejected from Jupiter without destroying Jupiter in the process.  Another way of looking at it is this: Jupiter's escape velocity is 37 miles per second. That's the speed an object would have to have in order to escape Jupiter's gravity.  The escape velocity of the sun at Jupiter's orbit is 11.47 miles per second.  This means that an object which had enough velocity to escape Jupiter would, unless acted upon by a greater force, escape the solar system entirely****.  It would not take up a placid orbit between Mercury and Earth.  Or, for matter (if I remember my Worlds in Collision factoids correctly), kick Mars out of its original orbit between Mercury and Earth to take up its present orbit.  A two-time fly-by of Earth would also not feasibly produce the results Dr. V. suggested it did.  In short, Dr. V.'s claim of Venus being ejected from Jupiter, etc., does not hold water.  In my humble opinion.

There is more I can say about this.  In my earlier post I suggested it was possible that Venus could have been an outer solar system object that was gravitationally perturbed into the inner system, flying by Jupiter, thus appearing to come out of Jupiter.  However, Venus's composition is known, and it does not lend itself to Venus's being a trans-Uranian object -- because those objects are largely made of water-ice and lighter minerals, and Venus has more of a terrestrial composition.  Another, more feasible source for Venus, if Dr. V's theory is to be granted any plausibility, is that Venus was originally a wandering, orphan planet, and entered the solar system long after it formed.  Venus has some weird features that might be explainable if this were the case.  But not enough is known to make this a scientifically valid speculation.

**** And you can't invoke the sun as the greater force, because if Venus were ejected towards the sun, the sun's gravity would actually propel it even faster -- slingshot effect -- and send it out on a hyperbolic orbit into the galaxy.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, SJR3t2 said:

Oh man you got me, I don't remember one of Immanuel Velikovsky off the top of my head, I do know that the Electronic Universe Model group has talked about it, I have a few friends I can ask that are more into the science side of it if you would like.

Yes, please.

[Calm]

For the CFR:

http://www.velikovsky.info/Jerry_Pournelle

"

"Eventually I came to the conclusion that not only was Velikovsky wrong, but he would stoop to something close to fraud, although I may be the only person who noticed one of the instances of that: Velikovsky "predicted" in one of his books that Linear B would prove to be Achaean Greek, a startling prediction for the time. Now, I find, he didn't make that claim in the original manuscript of his book, but added it in galley proof: which is to say, he added it just after Michael Ventris, who proved that Linear B was in fact Mycenaean, had circulated his newsletter-formatted "Mid Century Report" -- and Velikovsky had seen a copy although he never acknowledged that in any way. Now it was astute of him to realize early on that Ventris was right, but that's not quite the same as reaching the conclusion from within his own premises, which in fact had to be mildly strained to let him derive that conclusion. [..]"

"There were other instances in which Velikovsky turned out to have apropriated the conclusions of others without acknowledging them; and some of his archeology turns out to be just plain dead wrong."[2]"