April 13, 2006 4:00 AM PDT
Newsmaker: Did the Sea of Galilee ice over 2,000 years ago?
See all Newsmakers- Related Stories
-
Audio: Did Jesus really walk on ice?
April 5, 2006
(continued from previous page)
Would a frozen patch floating on the water have been something that people back then would have noticed?
Nof: Well, it was not that common, and it was probably attached to the shore--very close to the shore. You know, it doesn't open and does not form in the middle of the lake. It will form next to the shore. I don't know if people noticed or not. I don't know how often it was. During this window of 100 or 200 years it was much colder. My guess is that it probably happened a few times.
Were you able to determine how long the cold spell would have lasted?
Nof: We calculated that: two or three days. That can very easily be calculated. It's not a big deal.
And how cold would the region have had to become for these formations?
Nof: I think that we decided that it needs to be minus 4 centigrade, so that will be in the 20s for three days or something like that--not that cold and not that long.
What piqued your interest in trying to examine the circumstances surrounding the story of Jesus walking on water?
Nof: Well, I did this work on the Red Sea 13 years ago about the parting of the Red Sea. We provided an explanation for that, and somehow since that time it was always in the back of my mind, well, maybe there is something that would explain that story behind Jesus.
You provided an oceanographic perspective about the parting of the Red Sea. What was your main thesis back then?
Nof: It's the wind, the effect of the wind in a very shallow part of the Red Sea that could expose a ridge that is normally covered with water. This is in the Gulf of Suez. The ridges are maybe 15 feet under the water today. Very strong wind if it blows in the right direction for a long enough time will expose this ridge. And, in fact, if you look at the biblical story there they speak about the very strong wind blowing the night before.
What has been the reaction to your most recent paper?
Nof: Well, it's very hard to tell because, you know, we don't get an average reaction of everybody. We only get the extremes--or at least I get e-mails. Most of the e-mails are negative e-mails from extremists.
See more CNET content tagged:
temperature, water, ice, lake, ocean
36 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
COMBINED ***** OFF.
a history of lying and changing the "facts" to try and woo more
followers, which equals more money.
Tool.
His brain is being affected by that flux capacitor helmet he's wearing.
Why not, you know, instead of complaining... Try to debunk his
information with your own facts?
agree or remain silent are normal folks. How handy for him.
Prof. Nof isn't getting negative emails because of his theory that
Springs Ice might have occasionionally formed near shore of the
Sea of Galilee 2000 years ago. The trouble is that he's using
that to "bust" the biblical account of Jesus walking on water.
That's where his science has been left behind, to be replaced
with a grade-schooler's skill-level of application. He's not
"miracle busting" as he boasted to a Washington Post reporter.
He's only busting a straw man of his own construction. That's
why he's not being taken seriously by those in serious science.
The miracle he claims to be explaining, as recorded in the the
gospels of Matthew 14, Mark 6 and John 6, all tell of high winds
and waves -- not conducive to his non-mixing plume. They also
place the action out in the middle of the lake, not near shore.
Those renaissance paintings of Jesus standing on a tranquil
ripply pond are not even close to accurate portrayls of the
recorded events.
How can someone be taken seriously for busting a miracle
account when it's clear that he's not at all well informed on the
event he's busting?
Nof is no victim of "extremists". He's just a science guy who is
publicly debunking his own flawed mental images. Perhaps his
collegues are quiet out of embarrassment for him.
extremists".
Have you been reading his e-mails? I'd think the guy reading the e-
mail would have a better opinion on if they are extremists or not
than someone chastising him for having an opinion based on
relative scientific evidence rather than a fantasy book.
It is sad that He did not take all the facts. and then proceed with his effort.
By the way I have heard that his Red Sea idea may have have better credibility. It was a strong wind and God brought them to the place he knew before had a good place to cross.
"When evening came, He was there alone, but the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it."
These conditions don't sound like the ones needed to form "spring ice" like Dr. Nof said.
and if you touch them you become unclean.
What REALLY doesn't add up is how people can pick and choose
what parts of the bible suit them best, and then discard everything
else.
I'm sure Jebus also said that drugs are bad.
or not. Why do you have to live the way somebody else decided
it? So, civil law was not enough to control the savages, so they
made this "God" the one who is in charge of your "after-life" "If
You don`t behave, You will die forever" in other words, the
powerfull thretens your trascendency, this way they don`t get
robbed, the keep the power and control of the mortals. The
prove is that all religions orders you not to kill, no to steal, no
to... the same thing (in different levels) but the scence is the
same. So there is only one god, and is the same for
everyreligion... "the all mighty power."
Wars because of god have being the fight for power, god is the
excuse that the popet master uses to justify its thirst for more
power. Even Bush included god in its war intinerary.
I do believe that everyone and each of us, have the right to
believe in whtever he or she chooses, and just the way I like to
have respect to my belief, I respect other peoples opinion, so the
autor has the right to think the way he does, now, if we believe
or not in what he says, that is our choice.
autor has the right to think the way he does, now, if we believe
or not in what he says, that is our choice."
Science claims to speak about objective facts, testable by all, not
personal opinions. Nof cites objective facts, such as temperature
and possible phenomena. He interjects those facts into an
historical event, recorded in objectively available texts. He's not
talking opinions, he's supposing an objective theory based on
facts.
The trouble is, his facts do not support his conclusion.
And, the evolution (ex nihlo) of religions from social pragmatism
is also just a theory, one which has many critics and troubles of
its own, but that's another topic.
Its a joke... speculation about Jesus is a non-starter at best, and at worst, shows anti-christian bias.
Maybe c|net would care to run some stories about the prophet Mohammed and all the reasons why he is fake... In the name of Atmospheric Science or Oceanography, of course!
I would like you to launch a new "scientific investigation" as to whether or not the prophet Mohammed is fake.
I'm sure you can get the required Climatologists, Topologists, Marine Biologists, etc.
Thanks!
How then can you even ask the Question "Is Mohammed fake?"?
We used to be Muslims, until we studied the origins and questioned the root of the faith, which I may admit, was afaith invain.
serves to fire up the lunatic fringe.
We need better from you than this.....
serves to fire up the lunatic fringe.
We need better from you than this.....
thing I have ever heard regarding the Jesus myth. Why this story
ever made it past any editor is beyond me.
I know that there is quite high mountainous regions with substantial snow in Southern Lebanon just North of the Sea of Galillee and I have been to Bethlehem and Jerusalem in January and February and I know from direct experience that it can get very cold. So I would imagine that it would be possible for the Sea of Galillee to freeze over.
I personally am interested to see any form of rational explanations offered for stories of Jesus lifetime, because essentially I see that worldwide religions are obviously related to this important historic period, but I have also learnt that the original history was a period plagued by a lot of conflict, particularly surrounding different religious beliefs.
Recently in fact I've just been reading about the Ebionite Christians, who were claimed to be Palestinian Jewish Christians who were strict adderents to the original Jewish law. They claimed to have been from the original family of Jesus, and that Jesus was a normal human being. They claimed that he was a 'perfect human and beloved of God' but they also claimed that Mary and Joseph were his natural parents and that Joseph was the true father of Jesus, and that Jesus claimed direct lineage from the Kings of Solomon and David, through the patrilineal blood line of Joseph. So therefore the claim of the Pauline Christians was instead a mythologisation, which was meant as a way to discredit the true family and blood line of Jesus, as opponents to the Herodian dynasty which had been installed by the Romans.
The Ebionites also claimed that the Pauline Christians were Greek Gentiles who were opposed to them because they wanted to change the original religion to make an adapted version that was more suitable for the Greek 'gentiles'. The Greek and Roman culture was very different to that of the locals of the region. For example the Ebionites proscribed circumcision as their forefathers had done, whereas the Greeks did not.
The Ebionites could be said to be the early Christians who were persecuted by the Greeks and Romans who then adapted the religion and claimed it for themselves. The Ebionites are said by some to have migrated East through Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, whereas other reports claim that they were said to have disappeared during the 4th century.
There is evidence that the Mandaiests, Sabians and other gnostic sects described as Jewish Christians may have gone on to influence the teachings of Mohamed through influence during his travels in Syria, where the Ebionites and other related sects are said to have migrated. Aramaic was still widely spoken in Syria and throughout the region, so therefore as Phoenica and Canaan was colonised by the Greeks and Romans, it was inevitable that anyone who was persecuted in the region would be most likely to migrate East.
Regarding the parting of the Red Sea in relation to earlier stories - I've seen another theory described to do with volcanic eruption of Vesuvius. The Italian volcano is on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea, and is quite close geographically to Egypt and Sinai. It may well have contributed to a potential tsunami, in a Northern part of Sinai, where the pre-tsunami conditions would cause the sea or marsh-land or water of any channels in the coastal area to be first sucked away by a vacuum - and then later followed by a tsunami.
How long these conditions would take to occur, I do not know.
The gospels as we know them today came from translations of the Greek and Roman versions.
The Greeks also deliberately mis-translated and editted the original Aramaic gospels, because they deliberately wanted to mythologise Jesus.
The original Greek and Roman mythologies are full of virgin births. The original Aramaic gospels of the Ebionites did not include the story of the virgin birth. It was a later edition by the Greeks.
The Greek orthodox still today retained supremacy within the Christian Churches of the Middle East.
The region was in the process of being occupied by the Greeks and Romans, so therefore they were the ones who were persecuting the original Jewish Christians.
There still retain today evidence among some of the traditional Palestinian Bedouins for example, remnants of ancient Jewish practice, that they buried as they continued to be persecuted.
The reason the modern Christian faith is so different to the original Jewish faith, is because it is essentially a Roman/Greek adaptation which was mythologised in order to fit in with the Greek and Roman mythology.
Regarding the story of walking on water, I don't know about whether or not it's part of the original Aramaic scripture. I would have to find out. It could be a later addition by the Greeks/Romans.