Worlds in Collision

e v e

Super Member
by Immanuel Velikovsky

I know many jeer at Velikovsky. But in fact, he was brilliant, a hebrew scholar recognized around the world, who tried to see how historical facts of various disciplines conformed to scripture (not inverse.) He posited planetary migration and was scoffed at, yet today it's normal science. And many other things.

"Not without reason was this book found open on Einstein's desk after his death."

e v e

Super Member
many of his ideas have proven true, for example, that Jupiter gives off radio waves
and is electromagnetic and that Venus’ surface is 800 degrees centigrade, etc.

e v e

Super Member
Velikovsky, criticized Darwin’s plain evolution theory,
because the theory did not allow for the possibility of catastrophes – massive change.
Being sensitive to scripture, he wanted to see if the events ancients described there,
related to observable cosmological events,
like comets and planetary migrations

The point is, is it possible for the celestial harmony to experience a change? Because the evolutionists
only believes in a very slow harmonious 'evolution'....

In a lecture given at a college before he died, Velikovsky notes that ancient Babylonians gave different numbers for lengths of days and orbits and their positions, than we do today, over and over again, and he asks, is it possible that they are so accurate in their calculations but on these particular measurements, over and over again, they were wrong ? These Babylonian who have given the most accurate trigonometry table in existence ? Can there be catastrophes that cause change of such magnitude in the heavens?

Velikovsky tries to reconstruct events, using both geological and documents from the ancient past, like the below quote about a disaster around 1500 BC.
“In the middle of the second millennium before the present era, as I intend to show, the earth underwent one of the greatest catastrophes in its history. A celestial body that only shortly before had become a member of the solar system—a new comet—came very close to the earth. The account of this catastrophe can be reconstructed from evidence supplied by a large number of documents. The comet was on its way from its perihelion and touched the earth first with its gaseous tail. Later in this book I shall show that it was about this comet that Servius wrote: "Non igneo sed sanguineo rubore fuisse" (It was not of a flaming but of a bloody redness). One of the first visible signs of this encounter was the reddening of the earth's surface by a fine dust of rusty pigment. In sea, lake, and river this pigment gave a bloody coloring to the water. Because of these particles of ferruginous or other soluble pigment, the world turned red. The Manuscript QuichS of the Mayas tells that in the Western Hemisphere, in the days of a great cataclysm, when the earth quaked.”
– Velikovsky, from Worlds in Collision

In reconstructing that catastrophe, Velikovsky found lines as “Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere”, and that “the sun's motion was interrupted, the water in the rivers turned to blood” per “Aipuwer, the Egyptian eyewitness of the catastrophe.” Very close to events described in the Old Testament:

The presence of the hematoid pigment in the rivers caused the death of fish followed by decomposition and smell. "And the river stank" (Exodus 7:21). “And all the Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river” (Exodus 7:24). The papyrus relates: “Men shrink from tasting; human beings thirst after water,” and "That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin.” The skin of men and of animals was irritated by the dust, which caused boils, sickness, and the death of cattle— "a very grievous murrain." Wild animals, frightened by the portents in the sky, came close to the villages and cities.

– Velikovsky, from Worlds In Collision

e v e

Super Member
In the same way he reconstructs the Younger Dryas ice age:
J. D. Dana, the leading American geologist of the second half of the last century, wrote: "The encasing in ice of huge elephants, and the perfect preservation of the flesh, shows that the cold finally became suddenly extreme, as of a single winter's night, and knew no relenting afterward." " In the stomachs and between the teeth of the mammoths were found plants and grasses that do not grow now in northern Siberia. "The contents of the stomachs have been carefully examined; they showed the undigested food, leaves of trees now found in Southern Siberia, but a long way from the existing deposits of ivory.
In 1829 the German scientist G. A. Erman went to the Liakhov and the New Siberian islands to measure there the magnetic field of the earth. He described the soil as full of the bones of elephants, rhinoceroses, and buffaloes. Of the piles of wood he wrote i "In New Siberia [Island], on the declivities facing the south, lie hills 250 or 300 feet high, formed of driftwood, the ancient origin of which, as well as of the fossil wood in the tundras, anterior to the history of the Earth in its present state, strikes at once even the most uneducated hunters. . . .
Of Monte Bolca, near Verona in northern Italy, Buckland wrote: "The circumstances under which the fossil fishes are found at Monte Bolca seem to indicate that they perished suddenly. . . . The skeletons of these fish lie parallel to the laminae of the strata of the calcareous slate; they are always entire, and closely packed on one another. . . . All these fishes must have died suddenly . . . and have been speedily buried in the calcareous sediment then in the course of deposition. From the fact that certain individuals have even preserved traces of colour upon their skin, we are certain that they were entombed before decomposition of their soft parts had taken place.

– Velikovsky, from Earth in Upheaval

Of course today, planets migrating, or E.L.E's are considered science...but then Velikovsky was considered to be mythologizing in order to connect events of OT scripture to biological, archeological, astronomical and other massive events.

e v e

Super Member
In trying to reconstruct and understand the YoungerDryas ice age, a problem with Darwin’s theory became apparent toi him!

“Darwin built his theory of evolution on Lyell’s principle of uniformity. A modern exponent of the theory of evolution, H. F. Osborn, wrote: "Present continuity implies the improbability of past catastrophism and violence of change, either in the lifeless or in the living world; moreover, we seek to interpret the changes and laws of past time through those which we observe at the present time.”

You see, Lyell’s view continues in Darwin and denies the possibility that “violent changes” could interrupt gradual evolution. By nowadays we DO understand that catastrophic change can happen, and Velikovsky’s ideas on that point no longer seem unreasonable….

“The uncompromising stand of the followers of uniformitarian dogma (whether called gradualists, evolutionists,
or Darwinists), maintaining that nothing of radical change in nature has taken place in the past because nothing like it is observable at present (a view without logic, imagination, or basis in fact), began to show signs of fracturing, presaging deeper cracks, and an ultimate collapse. The term "cataclysmic evolution" entered scientific literature; the term "new catastrophism" was offered to let it appear that the new tenets differ from Velikovsky’s views. And a minor key was struck repeatedly even in recognizing the interference of elementary forces in the course of history.”

– Velikovsky, from Earth in Upheaval

e v e

Super Member
In fact, in weird ways, Evolution was based upon some Hegelian notions. But that itself would be another thread, so I won't go there.
Suffice that it was not a unique thought to Darwin but that the form of it you may be familiar with is not even what Darwin posited really.

Some possibilities for us are that :

-- that either ‘evolution’ OR ‘sudden changes’ – are mindsets; which is what philosophy actually studies! ----
‘filters’ by which to interpret reality and consider ‘what is possible’ [a filter, similarly to how color-tinted glasses would affect how we see things.]

-- that we do not need to deny that ancient texts refer to real things, in order to rigidly stick with an opinion, simply when something ancient texts say don’t fit agreed upon modern ideas.

-- that it is an option to look at other sources, such as archeology, or geology, Hebrew scripture, and other ancient texts to see if we can get a fuller picture of what might have happened in the past.

Scripture tells of events too, many. If we take scripture and ancient writers seriously,
we find no matter where we look, the Greek, Sumerian, Hebrew texts –
all of them have in common that they tell of massive changes.

It is not hard to see that a major event must have happened when Eden fell.

All we need to do is compare the realm we live in now, the nature here,
to how very different scripture tells of Eden.

“Hebrew mythology assigns to the period preceding Adam’s expulsion different geophysical and biological conditions. The sun shone permanently on the Earth, and the Garden of Eden, placed in the East, was, it must be conceived, under perpetual rays of the Dawn. The earth was not watered by rain, but mist ascending from the ground condensed as dew upon the leaves.”

If we believe what scripture says, that Eden was nothing like this world we have now, then, is what Velikovsky writes about great changes so impossible ?

The question is, even though science tells how long the world has been here,
is it so that the world then is necessarily the one one we see now, in its current form?

Or can there be that ancients saw ‘great changes’ ?

e v e

Super Member
If the past is expected to fit into the way things are seen in the present, then, rather than admit we have forgotten these things, and they are now hidden from us, the past ends up as ‘myth’ when later people do not understand them.

If our sky is different now, how would we know that ? Can we simply dismiss the possibility reality was different simply because we see no evidence [it being buried in time] ?

The ancients also spoke of a time when the earth was Moonless, for example, something that even for them was a remote event in their memory.

Velikovsky researches in the Old Testament and Hebrew texts, and links that idea to scripture, writing that Eden went dark [moonless?] when Adam fell,

“a day came and the celestial illumination ceased…. The sky that man was used to see never appeared before him again: “The firmament is not the same as the heavens of the first day.” The “day” of Genesis, as I have already noted, is said to be equal to a thousand years. ”

Other ancients tell similar stories, of a time when there was no moon, example, Democritus, Anaxagoras, Plutarch, and Aristotle, who said that people in arcadia lived in Greece during a time before there was a moon. The many other changes, also recorded by Herodotus, the ancient Greek historian. Are all of them wrong ? Even earlier, ancient Sumerians texts say the moon was not always in that orbit around Earth, but that the moon arrived before the ‘gods’ came down. The point is not which of their versions is most accurate, [because by now, the references are veiled].

The point is that many ancient sources tell of similar events. And not to forget, that it is understood today as normal that planets do migrate.

e v e

Super Member
Many scoff at scripture, basing their view of scripture upon how things are now.

But it's not scripture that is wrong...
its that many events and realities are buried in the past
and that often, moderns read the past through the modern mindset,
and have no sensibility to what the ancients saw
and what they understood.