Noted for his great contributions on eschatology, J. Stuart Russell lived a life (1816-1895) so richly implicated in the study of Realized Eschatology, or the ‘second coming,’ of Messiah. Even so, and though exposed to ample exegesis of then active evangelicals, never did he, an exegetical predecessor, or contemporary ever disclose one hint of the most important contribution to Realized Eschatology time-frame, that is: discovery of the Bible’s secret Ten Ages format. Author Ben Winter, as far as is known, is the first to propose such extraction and has demonstrated such in THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified.
     We elect here, to expound on the noted, J. Stuart Russell, as exemplary among pioneer eschatology exegetes and contributing much to this critique author’s own knowledge base. No reading assignment is more contributory to insight than Russell’s, The Parousia.
      Expounding on a unique viewpoint concerned with Parousia, or last days, we have J. Stuart Russell at his best. In fact, this renowned author did write a book with the very intriguing caption, The Parousia. In this greatly acclaimed work of interpretative science, Russell wrote extensively of Bible topics related to eschatology, the ‘study of end times’; his perception of eschaton evidence had great impact on modernist constituencies. Without undue praise or criticism to preface our critique, we investigate an example quote from The Parousia.
    “But we have seen that John the Baptist predicted a judgment which was then impending - a catastrophe so near that already the axe was lying at the root of the tree - in accordance with the prophecy of Malachi, that 'the great and dreadful day of the Lord' was to follow on the coming of the second Elijah. We are therefore brought to the conclusion, that this discrimination between the righteous and the wicked, this gathering of the wheat into the garner, and burning of the tares in the furnace of fire, refer to the same catastrophe, viz., the wrath which came upon that very generation, when Jerusalem became literally 'a furnace of fire,' and the aeon of Judaism came to a close in 'the great and dreadful day of the Lord.'“
     Ever mindful of Russell’s scholarly work in this respect, we take issue with his treatment of Judaism chronology. Here, the hermaneutics scion shows a remarkable unconsciousness of timeliness in the allowance of Age or aeon, as follows: “and the aeon of Judaism came to a close in ‘the great and dreadful day of the Lord.’”
     In THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, this author, Ben Winter, writes a considerably detailed exposé of Ten Ages or aeons, extant if not clearly elucidated, in the visions of both the Daniel Beast and John’s Revelation Beast. Daniel envisioned ten episodic intervals, Ten Horn Ages, as a directory of chronologies comprising the entire God covenant experience. Suffice to say, this work required some 965 pages to tie in major Bible topics to Daniel’s Ten Ages prophecy. One can imagine the complexity encountered in this major work; no previous pathway existed with definitive signposts to point the way, only a complexity never invaded or encountered in other works of greatly esteemed writers perceived in those numerous works produced from pens worthy of mention such as Farrar, King, Russell, and many other great theologians.
     Evidently, more than casual interest is required to intercept and digest the coded meanings resident in prophecy endeavors. Russell is no exception, for he misses the significance of aeon timeliness in his own statement of fact. Let us be clear, there was never, in any measure of covenant time frame, a portion of time designated ‘Aeon of Judaism.’ Judaism existed only as a form of worship from the death of Solomon in 975 B.C. until A.D. 30, but this chronological era was known time wise, successively, as the Divided Kingdom Age, followed by the Exilic Kingdom Age, and up to the Messianic Kingdom Age at A.D. 30. And, the great and dreadful day of the Lord was still yet a generation future to an A.D. 30 finish to Judaism!
     As exegetes can readily see, one must search much more deeply than casual survey to elicit ultimate truth. Only in THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified can one find an ultimate solution to the King James edition’s purposefully complex language. 
    To learn more about the Ten Ages, a Kindle version of various chapters can be found at the following Amazon link:

We attempt a critique of the most eminent eschatologist, Max King, and his surprising unawareness to an important facet of the eschaton, or last event. 
     Stalwart of Realized Eschatology, the noted author did much to create a progressive perception of the eschaton, or final event closing out a study of realized eschatology. But like many other theologians, this great thinker and writer was forced to tolerate or create a certain vagueness to allow viability for his perception of the eschaton notion. This author would not accuse the renowned scholar of purposely misleading his ecclesia following but rather to uncover the shallowness of breadth in the established time frames set as perimeters for those early displayed but modernly unacknowledged Ages so subtly announced in the visions of both Daniel and John (Revelation).
     We would be remiss should we not elucidate the discrepancy outstanding in King’s considerable exegetical endeavor entitled: The Spirit Of Prophesy plus The Cross And The Parousia Of Christ, (King, Ibid., p. 32), observed at    https://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/k/king-max.html. We quote his stated position: "This means that during the eschaton the believers lived in a tension of experienced and anticipated eschatology; between 'the already' and 'the not yet.' They were already in the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13), but still waiting for the coming of the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:24-28). But this waiting was not passive, as seen in Heb, 12:28 (sic) where the 'receiving of the kingdom' is presented as a present, active experience, as was also the case in their experiencing the powers of the age to come (6:5)."
     In this very revealing testimony, he mentions not only the Kingdom Of Christ but also the Kingdom of God as pertinent aorist incidence displaying “evidence of things not seen”  (Heb. 11:1). But Mr. King did not realize the prominent linkage binding these two distinct intervals. He was so close and yet so far away from the prophetic disclosure opening a gate between the two kingdom edifices.
     In Daniel’s revealing Ten Horn Ages (Dan.7:7), defined in THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, we make the connection between Daniel’s Beast with Eight Horn (Ages) (three plucked and another grown in their place) to an unlikely but remarkably similar Eight Head Ages on John’s Revelation 17:11 Beast. To the casual reader, beware: a careless reading will fail to intercept this pertinent but unlikely pairing of intents! The key rests in the two prophets’ dissimilar symbols and numbers choice.
     Not realizing the true significance of visionaries Daniel and John’s time frame, secretly posited in Horn and Head duplicity, Max could not discover their was, is, and is to come familiar format. As episodic intervals, the two work interrelated, in eschatological continuance, unto the end of all things (I Pet. 4:7), The Kingdom of Christ had obligation to evolve into Kingdom of God auspices; inasmuch as, the Kingdom of God must continue as Parousia, or ‘Second Coming,’ encompassing the eschaton, or final event, and per Mr. King’s own word choice. Kingdom of Christ and Parousia are nowhere to be found as separate chronologies, in any scripture, or as explanatory of Two Ages, separate, but held as aorist contingencies counted in the grand scheme. Repeatedly warned in scripture, they are set forth as ninth and tenth of the Daniel Ten Horn Ages, abbreviated in the Eight Head Ages of John’s testimony. King’s exegesis rested on the cusp of a great discovery but was hampered by traditions impressed upon his and succeeding generations. Expansion on the Ten Ages continues in The Great Deception: Symbols And Numbers Clarified.

​===w===

     In all of Daniel, the most difficult series of expressions rest in the unexpectedly non-sequenced and disjointed treatise by Gabriel in Chapter Eleven, and containing reference to past, present, and future events forthcoming for Children of Israel. We engage a portion of his rambling testimony.

BOOK OF DANIEL, Chapter Eleven, Correct (11) Sequence
 
       While Section Three, Chapter 1 through 12, contains a massive work, we quote only ½ page of Chapter Eleven’s most difficult 22 pages of symbols commentary. Gabriel translates testimony from Chapter Nine directly flowed into Chapter Eleven; he persists with an overshadowing Four Great Kingdoms theme.
      Daniel’s Eleventh Chapter contains seventeen, or more, scene changes; each scene change occurs endemic to different time or tenor and ambitions to modify principal description in episodic intervals. Two hundred and thirty principal characterizations repose in Chapter Eleven; though Gabriel explicitly identifies none: all represent forces working to bring an end to the theocratic principle destined to end in the last Hebrew Age.
     Exegetes will encounter multitudinous definitions enclosed in parenthesis; such ongoing parenthetic brevity seems the most expedient way to define principals and to avoid numerous and lengthy digressions explaining Gabriel’s rambling style.
     We begin Chapter Eleven word-by-word interpretation and commentary at verse one!
“. . . . ¶ Verse one: Daniel 11:1 depicts Gabriel’s continuing interpretive monologue from Daniel 9:27. Daniel 9:4 institutes a beginning to Daniel’s rib-todah supplication, which entreaty concludes with Gabriel’s arrival in 9:21.
     Discourse between Daniel and his God devolves into Gabriel’s monologue as he begins to instruct Daniel in 11:1, which discourse is almost a repeat from Daniel 9:1: Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.” Vision interpretation time is set at 521 B.C. . . .
. . . . ¶ Verse two through four, Gabriel informs Daniel about his own mission to bring vision truths Daniel had experienced thirty-two years previous in Belshazzar’s third year as Babylon king in 553 B.C. (Chapter Eight). In Daniel 8:16, Daniel asks Gabriel to cause understanding about He-goat and Ram vision particulars; where, the He-goat horn will also be broken but not before Four Kingdom’s essence rises up in an inheritance sense comparable to the Four Kings destined to rise in Persia (11:2). . . .
. . . . In restrictions prescribed via Hebrew linguistics, Can we expect cryptic though legitimized Grecia invaders to qualify as achariyth, ‘the last or end, remnant, or residue’? It is not possible! We must stretch interpretation the utmost to escape this semantic limitation. We cannot pass definition on as an ethnic incongruity when language pointedly refers to Hebrew ethnicity. The buck stops here, and Grecia definition must rest in Hellenized Hebrews. . . . 
. . . . Three Kings shall yet stand up in Persia, not three kings of Persia shall yet stand up (:2). Proper rendering allows an entirely different semantic. Stand up has special metaphysical resurrection connotations and cannot indicate physical manifestation. Here we confront spiritual essence, in a heritage concept, and to basic imagery encountered in other vision linguistics. . . .
. . . . Frequent mid-sentence parenthetical notations are necessary for comprehension. . . .
. . . . ¶ Verse five: And the king (Beast) of the South (Judah) will be strong (Rev. 13:11, Second Revelation Beast) and one of his (Judah’s) princes (Israel-First Beast, Rev. 13:1; Fourth Beast, Dan. 7:7 [this Beast receives power from the Second Beast {Judah, Rev. 13:12}]) will be strong above him (Judah-Second Beast, Rev. 13:11), and his (Israel-Fourth Beast, Dan. 7:7) dominion shall be a great kingdom (11:5, Israel Beast). Seeing the difficulty insisted by Ten Ages dominated by a Fourth Great Kingdom on Earth (Daniel 7:7 and :23), an Age also, interest must realize a dominance in the orderly progression of Ten Ages in the Hebrew schedule. See more of the Ten Ages schedule at www.winterbriar.com.

===w===

Deepak Chopra, M.D., draws upon deep-seated Indian culture and God conviction as means to perpetuate physical life and mental competence into a beneficial spiritual mystique. He probes life force and recommends ideal habits as means to quality longevity.
 
The author’s 130,000-word dissertation probes into life-force instigation and suggests ideal habits as the means to quality longevity. Such asceticism, according to Chopra, can be affected by minimizing stress through meditation and abstaining from insalubrious ingestion -- where stressful association is discouraged and to be supplanted with harmonious affiliation as the catalyst to protect and renew cellular development. Body-Mind capability, to circumscribe debilitation, is demonstrated to have its own positive complement, by formulating anti-ageing medicine, promoting self-healing, and insuring healthy continuance free from pathological catastrophe.
 
Dr. Chopra presents the entire body as a living mind, with neurosensory responses abundant throughout the physical synecdoche. As an example, and to prove neurosensory capability, he cites real life situations, where transplant recipients experience untypical yearnings in postoperative aberrations, manifested in unfamiliar cravings and appetites, and unexpectedly resulted from donor organ sentience. More individualistic and lending some credence to Deepak's observations of interior body intelligence, this critique author can attest to rapid finger and bow elicitation from the violin without conscious thought or effort; therefore, we can experience neurosensory perception in cellular patterns.
 
This critique author observes: certain body components as ageless in their natural, molecular specificity. However, holistically, naturalness might be ideal; but entropy lurks in the shadow of all order. Chaos then, not order, overshadows the universal design. Our physical world reflects an unfriendliness to life; at first glance, mammalian habitat appears designed for species development. Nonetheless, Murphy’s Law predominates for all creatures -- anything possible to go wrong will go wrong and persists reasonable to the entropy hypothesis. Such liveliness is conducive to evolvement, to new life forms, and to speciation; however, entropy waits, patiently. Life is a reflection of unseen quantum energy -- a force mediating all forms whether perceptible or imperceptible. Constantly in motion, even when objects appear physically inert, all elements are qualitatively subject to quantum invisibility. Entropy, then, conforms to ratiocinative conclusion and is predictable and inescapable -- contrary to Chopra’s managed-debility philosophy.
 
Physiologists assign stress as the foremost ageing contributor; yet, DNA is thought to inhere a biological time clock, and its chronological inevitability is set to unwind in prescribed order. Again, order must succumb to entropy in time. But Einstein proved time to be relative; true, relative to effect, premature ageing can be mediated by a less stressful lifestyle. Therefore, agreeing with Chopra, a peaceful existence can be seen to effect maximum longevity and defy apparent time parameters.
 
Chopra visualized his present awareness as spare time, even within an eternal continuum -- immortal in the cognizance of past, present, and future anticipation -- and where chaos cannot be a threat, inasmuch as omnipotent power is infinitely organized and considered controller of existence. Despite Chopra's intellectual advancement, he is remiss in his perception of ‘eternal continuum’; in definition reality, the fundamental character of ‘eternal continuum’ inheres perfect order and design; but logic predicts an eventual capitulation to entropy, for design exhibits many flaws in nature and life reproduction. Every physical science aspect attests to this determination.
 
Philosophic positivists, searching for truth in the ethical and spiritual continuum, quest holistic truth as an abstraction to define spiritual perfection beyond definitive assignment. Within such extensions to perceived truth, spiritual love is tendered as a quantitative measure, rather than qualitative, and conclusively defined as a repeated ideal. Actually, such is an empty expression, for the ‘spirit’ giving rise to holistic extension takes its modern definition from a mistaken desideratum -- the desired spirit expression failing to share even a remote kinship to its original Greek ‘pneuma’ definition. Love, then, is only a physical emotion and inheres absolutely no relation to modernly perceived spirituality. Incertitude toward the spatiotemporal dimension, as it relates to spiritual occupancy, precludes intellect from dimensional insight and from any science to explain the anaclisis proclivity producing effect.
 
Contrary to Chopra’s eternity sans beginning or end, physicists prove time to be relative to dimension -- dimension to perception -- and perception to indoctrination. In quantum mechanics continuum of programmed life force, DNA continues to direct biological rhythm: extracting, contributing, and discarding an endless relativistic evolvement to hereditary, environment, and physiological continuity, after a fashion. But entropy ensues as quantum specifications deteriorate from quantum exchanges, and such compromises man’s DNA adherence to procedural order. Evolution, then, determines not only species development and extinction but individual physiology as well. In the maelstrom, human development has been and continues to be left to its own devices.
 
Intellectual advancement remains to be developed whereby man can recognize and qualify theorem to substantiate the time-space illusion impressionable to cognizance -- to understand those metaphysical subscriptions dangerous to man’s space odyssey -- to find our destiny. We are only human; and in life consciousness, we find only actuality; for in reality, always realized, there cannot exist present or future cognizance.
 
When put to the sentience test, philosophic wisdom, mediated by superstition, allows immortality to be seen as a continuance to life through metaphysical morphology. But such death benefit is an illusion, having no relation to physical cognizance; for only the quantum synecdoche reflects actuality in the quantum measurement; in no instance can spiritual existence be quantified or qualified by sentient response, DNA, or relativistic mechanics -- the only stimuli able to evoke human reaction. Immortal expectations, rhetoric and meaningless phrases cannot sustain immortality’s impoverished proposition. The Indian philosopher, deviates from scientific expertise to philosophical extravagance in his last Chapter, and his deviation from theory to hypothesis becomes apparent to serious perusal.
 
Chopra must be described as a metaphysical ingénue after all; for he ponders conceptual truths only, as does any philosopher attempting to define Happiness, Ontology, Truth, and Chimerical destiny for the indefinable, the untouchable, and the imperceptible. But in the end, we recognize stress-free existence as a bona fide recommendation to idealized longevity; however, entropy lurks as the inevitable; and its persistence cannot be mediated by philosophic grandiosity, metaphysical innovations, or physical desideratum. 

When the question arose as how best to celebrate Einstein’s centenary, Calder answered: ‘Let’s make relativity plain.’ Forthwith, the celebrated author further responded by writing this very entertaining book -- requiring the direct consultation of some seventy physicists and astronomers in thirty institutions on both sides of the Atlantic.
 
Calder credits Albert Einstein as one who revolutionized concepts of space, time and motion, and who rewrote the theory of gravity: Calder also notes the landmarks of Einstein’s work to be Special Relativity (1905), dealing with high-speed motion, and General Relativity (1915), dealing with gravity. Subsequent investigation has shown we actually live in a universe very much like the one Einstein described, and investigators have confirmed and developed many of the ideas latent in his equations. Thus, Calder embarks on a journey through the mind, theory, and written evidence of one who could envision the relation between mass, energy, and light.
 
In 1932, two scientists split a Lithium atom by firing a Hydrogen proton at almost the speed of light; they proved Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity. In the Cambridge atom-splitting experiment, flying helium fragments together possessed, for a moment at least, exactly the same mass as the combined mass of the particles producing them. But while an infinitesimal mass was lost in the translation of measurable mass, such was changed into an energy essence. Thus, Calder honors the genius in Einstein ruminations. Intuitively, Einstein’s braininess visualized mass to possess energy, and therefore energy must have equivalence in mass. His all-encompassing E = mc2 formula permitted no loss of matter. He proposed ‘nature to keep strict accounts of energy and the total energy in the universe never changes; it can only be shuffled about.
 
In a masterstroke, Einstein deduced light to have mass; he estimated the solar fallout on earth to be about 160 tons of sunlight every day. Though this tonnage constitutes only a minute loss of Sun mass when compared with the whole, these light particles absorb into Earth mass. With this realization, we can understand fundamental energy sources to be those associated with cosmic forces: electromagnetism manifested in light, chemical reactions, living processes, sub-atomic forces responsible for nuclear reactions, and gravity.
 
From the foregoing, we can deduce 3.504 x 1014 tons or 350.4 trillion tons added to Earth’s mass since the latest estimate of primitive man’s presence at 6,000,000 B.C.
 
General Relativity deals with concepts of gravity. According to Calder’s definition of Einstein’s theory, mankind is gravitationally attracted in a more complex manner than is generally perceived, much like water climbing the sides of its container in a centrifuge: therefore, the experienced pressure on the sole of man’s feet due to Earth’s momentum. As an example, whether free-falling from a tall building or speeding in a space ship, we attain weightlessness; therein, one cannot feel gravity, but only its effect when in contact with mass motion. Too, the great one predicted ‘gravity slows down time.’ Clocks at Sun or Earth surface run less energetically than clocks further out in space, in successive shells of influence like the electron shells around an atom core. Thus, he envisioned light speed to furnish a fundamental connection between time and space: ‘as a massive body distorts time and space around it, those distortions guide movement of other objects in its vicinity. He perceived gravity to be a peculiarity of space, not of individual items in it.”
 
Surely, mass gravity is evidenced in the proclivity of electrons circling the atom core, of the Moon circling Earth, of Earth and component circling the Sun, and the Solar system traveling an invisible track -- hurtling along at 175 miles per second (630,000 m.p.h.) -- thus is it captured by a galaxy whose entire body also travels an invisible track through the Universe -- all subject to the law of particle behavior. Gravity is said to rule the universe; subject to this observation, solar bodies are greatly defined in convenient tracks through space and time.
 
Inherent in Einstein’s law of gravity is the ‘black hole’ existence now popular in astrophysics discussion. We can only briefly touch on the far-reaching influence of Einsteinian ruminations and his impact on physical science: his comparison of ‘g’ forces in a rushing space vehicle with objects responding to a rushing Earth; the relation between time and speed; bending of space and light; presence of mass in light.
 
Calder encapsulates the genius of Einstein with: “For him it was a matter of intuition; for modern physics and astronomy it is bedrock.”

​Suspended between fantasy and realism in real life and steeped in Qur’anic teachings,  protagonists in Rushdie’s book live a life of misadventure, faith, disavowal, dissipation, and tragedy. Caught in the gossamer of three cultures, Gibreel Farishta and Salahuddin Chamcha become enmeshed in a web not yielding to reason or logic, nor to entreaty, nor to pressure from those cultures at odds with conscience, nor to the rebellion instilled at pubescence.
 
The author suspends readers between idealist illusion and tangibility, a universe of nightmares, hung between secular ethos and religious ethics, both intertwined with Western sophistication; where, Islamic faith is contested by skepticism aroused in an awakening to tenet banality.
           
Successful thespians, both steeped in Indian culture and invested with Islamic religiosity, our protagonist duo board a flight in India, destined for England, eagerly anticipating the life promised in protean dissolution; notwithstanding, character dissipation entailed only a translation from brown-skinned to white-skinned perversions. Inopportunely redirected in mid-flight, their England destination is postponed by plane hijackers who take the passengers on a harrowing adventure, culminated when hijackers explode a body-bomb at high altitude. The plane disintegrates and dumps survivors into the English Channel; which Channel water miraculously coughs the actors ashore, the only survivors and never to be the same. Thereafter parted, except for brief interludes, Gibreel and Salahuddin pursue an existence half in actuality and half in fantasy. The reader is often taxed to discover which quintessence the protagonists perceive themselves: certainty or delusion.
 
Gibreel assumes angel-Gabriel identity; thusly spiritualized, he can recall Mahound’s unwholesome enterprise, along with fearsome ambience in Jahilia (Mecca): Hagar and Ishmael at the spring, Mohammed’s cave, scribes editing Mohammed utterances, the dust, richness, poverty, Kaa’ba, brothels, fairs, cruelty; it is all there in suffocating repression, exhilaration, subservience, fear, destitution, prostitution, polygamy, lust, Idolatry, monotheism, and devotion to the different god and goddess creations. Half in and half out of materiality, we intercept Gibreel’s nemesis: “<I>. . . his archangelic other self began to seem as tangible as the shifting realities he inhabits while he’s awake . . . . that he truly was nothing less than an archangel in human form, and not just any archangel, but the Angel of the Recitation, the most exalted (now that Shaitan had fallen) of them all</i>.” And Rushdie’s tribute to Mohammed’s intercourse with Gabriel, thus the bounty on his head, evolving into a quotidian reference to Mohammed’s personal habits and business expertise – this, then, the idea that destroyed his faith. Here, he refers to Mohammed’s materialistic disposition and preoccupation with profit and pleasure.
 
Dichotomous to Gibreel characterization, Saladin metamorphoses into a Satyr-like creature, hairy of limb, pseudo-hoofed, erotically disposed, and embarrassingly horned. Which metamorphosed monstrosity encapsulated United States lifestyle in prosaic disapproval, with the observation: ‘O Proper London! Truly, dull would be the soul who did not prefer the faded splendors and hot certainties of a transatlantic New Rome, with its Nazified architectural gigantism, and which employs sizable oppressions to make its human occupants feel like worms.  Reunited with Gibreel, after misadventures in their respective worlds of schizophrenic transposition, Saladin is dragged into the night; he feels the return of hatred as it fills him bottom-to-top with fresh green bile.’ Thus, diametrically opposed in psychological impression, the two become differentiated in developed existentialisms. And at last, in the window of childhood, looking out to the Arabian Sea, they contemplate the complexities of life and attraction of death.
 
Tragically, life reaps its due harvest from the emptiness accumulated, from vocation permissiveness, from Islam induced schizophrenia and cultural disenfranchisement; the duo, who left India with such high hopes, find themselves reunited in genesis roots, to entropy, to a confrontation with life and death, and to a shrunken universe.
 
Idealism and reality butt heads as Rushdie’s protagonists escape a world of poverty and metaphysical dependency and compromise lifelong indoctrination with the realities of capitalism and indifference to their former draconian existentialism.

​===w===

​According to Rosalind Franklin’s great-grandfather, she was descended from David, King of Israel, 945 B.C. Born in 1920, Franklin ascended to renown on the mid-twentieth century world scene. Biographically accredited by noted writer Brenda Maddox, Rosalind Franklin was the real brain behind DNA structure discovery.
 
A foremost crystallographer, Rosalind originally photographed a strand of DNA, after many attempts, leading to the prestigious Nobel Prize awarded to Crick and Watson. Needless to say, they could not have succeeded without her contribution; and needless to say, they neglected to mention her contribution in their paper submission and physical model of deoxyribonucleic acid.
 
A precocious child, Rosalind never relented in the quest for knowledge and advancement beyond her peers. Always, she strived to excel in academia, in science, and in industry, and received top marks in all academic courses and scientific enterprises. Though a very handsome woman, her quest for excellence left little time for romantic bonds with the many men associated in scientific circles. While she met an impressive array of intellectuals and those with scientific (and romantic) bent, she did not marry and died alone at a young, aged 37. Many men wept at her demise, recognizing the hardships endured, the lack of recognition, and the short-lived life of an attractive and exceedingly brilliant Hebrew woman, mathematician, crystallographer, and biochemist. She advanced to excellence despite open anti-Semitism and opposition to authoritative women: growing up in a time when women were not allowed to vote, to occupy assertive positions, or to do little but brood children and housekeep.
 
Fluent in French as well as her native English, she developed intense interest in an end to the British Mandate and Israel reinstatement to sovereignty in Palestine and was incensed by French news coverage of the transition. In correspondence with her father about an article contained in <u>The Economist</u>, she demanded, “<i>Who is responsible for the article: There can now be no settlement of Palestine of any kind but force</i>.” Despite her loyalty, she was out of touch with the Middle Eastern mindset and Arab resentment to anything non-Islam; prophetically, the French article was entirely correct. Sixty years later, the Arab world continues its jihad against infidels.
 
Notwithstanding her optimism, Rosalind’s interest and expertise lay not so much in metaphysics as in physics. Well she might direct interest to the tangible; for, the intangible monotheism, as subsequently proven, cannot concurrently harmonize within the disciplines advanced among its three constituent branches. For, Judaism must condemn the Christian-Islam adoption; Christianity must condemn the Judaism-Islamic neglect to Messianic recognition; and Islam must condemn the Judeo-Christian ethics and ethos. But Rosalind was more interested in Atomic propensity and not in warring Gnostic proclivities.
 
When Rosalind Franklin arrived to King’s College in 1951, at age 31, she arrived on the heels of Schrodinger’s (prevailing enquiry at the time) question about: What Is Life? And his answer was: ‘life is animation of the inanimate.’ Not especially profound but a touchstone of the times.
 
In particle physics’ developing years, Einstein, Bohr, (and many others) lent their expertise via relativity and quantum mechanics, lending advancement to molecular science and the biochemistry industry. Forthwith, geneticists discovered twenty different protein molecules present in living things. Further, they found four proteins only to occur in DNA sequences, in varying combinations called nucleotides: two purines (adenine and guanine) and two pyrimidines (thymine and cytosine). We might produce a more clear composite should we say each of the four nucleotides contain a sugar, phosphate, and base; and we might add, these nucleotides direct every aspect of DNA (bodily) function. We give cytosine’s atomic structure as an example of constituent simplicity: C4H5N3O (the other three have C5 and variant other elements).
 
Great advances were known when Rosalind Franklin arrived to King’s College. In the 40’s, ‘atomic fission’ and ‘hydrogen fusion’ had already been perfected. In 1944, Avery wrote a paper proving the genetic message carrier was DNA and not merely protein; in 1949, Chargaff determined the frequency and propensity of nucleotide repetition. On the heels of first-half century advancements, Rosalind spent long hours perfecting x-ray diffraction techniques -- exposing her body to inordinate amounts of radiation in the process. Thus, we know in retrospect, crystallography was her life and probable cause of her death. But through unequalled spectrographic technique, she extracted DNA imagery and enabled others to race against the clock and claim the coveted Nobel Prize. Among many of her scientific advances, Rosalind’s greatest single success was DNA imagery.
 
Brenda Maddox writes a tragic but deserving story of extraordinary intelligence, unflagging dedication, and perseverance. Rosalind Franklin was one in a million. I read this book almost straight through. I could not lay it aside. 

​===w===

           Seeking to define art form in its most encompassing essence, Hans-Georg Gadamer invokes the considerable bestowal from many great minds as he explores the motivation for philosophy, literature, music, and visual arts. Gadamer leans heavily on Plato, Kant, Goethe, Hegel, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Bach—to name only a few greats contributing to a work concerned with creative-interpretation, symbology, and interpreter-creativity. In Foreword, Robert Bernasconi forewarns: ‘This book contains a selection of previously untranslated essays . . . . The main item in the collection is the lecture series “The Relevance of the Beautiful,” Gadamer’s most sustained work devoted specifically to the question of art.’ And in Editor Introduction: ‘We can find in Kant another route which avoids making either taste or genius the ultimate standpoint. This alternative route is by way of Hegel’s lectures on art, whose proper significance has, Gadamer believes, suffered in consequence of its neo-Kantian interpretation. For it is Hegel whom Gadamer has in mind when he writes here of an art where “humanity encounters itself” . . . ‘
            On ancient claims to truth, Gadamer asserts: “. . . this ancient and serious problem always arises when a new claim to truth sets itself up against the tradition that continues to express itself through poetic invention or in the language of art.” Truly, the relevance of beauty construes itself on individual perception; and we have to look no further than modern religion to discern the language of art and artful innovation.
               As Hans-Georg contemplates Christian art contribution, he draws from Hegelian philosophy claims: “. . . to have comprehended the truth of the Christian message in conceptual form . . . . even the deepest mystery of Christian doctrine . . . . and . . . has constantly stimulated the course of thought in the West as a challenge and invitation to try and think that which continually transcends the limits of human understanding. In this ambiance was the content of understanding developed through Middle Ages Christian art, Greek and Roman art and literature revival, and the great social transformations and religious changes with which the nineteenth century began. But only a superstitious egocentricity would allow Gadamer’s primitive reserve to state insolvability in the biblical Symbols and Numbers. For, by the late Twentieth Century, THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified had penetrated and exposed the Symbols barrier, which had long held the Scriptures hostage.
          Art is described as a “religion of culture” on the one hand and ’modern artist’ provocation on the other. Gadamer further describes art as an experience; wherein, its spirit enlivens us. The Relevance of the Beautiful is summarized: “The work of art transforms our fleeting experience into the stable and lasting form of an independent and internally coherent creation.”
             In The Festive Character Of Theatre, Gadamer compares festival and festive and the community constituted ‘immediacy’ displayed by players and onlookers. Here, at the festival, one “can still act for himself and succeed in rising up and letting what presents itself to him exist in the elevated form that crowns the festive moment.”
          Pursuing Composition And Interpretation, we encounter tensions between the artist’s practice and the interpreter. Where: From the artist’s point of view, interpretation appears arbitrary and capricious, if not actually superfluous. And while an artist might ad-lib much of his composition, seeking merely to create a moment pleasing to the eye and flowing into his developed perspective, only the non-artist seeks a hidden meaning in inert expression. For, art plays with a balance of color and objective reference to the form most appealing to artist imagination.
          Carried over into an extended essay, The Play Of Art compares: “Play is an elementary phenomenon that pervades the whole of the animal world and, as is obvious, it determines man as a natural being as well . . . . and in whose formative lay we see an excess over and above what is strictly necessary and purposive.”  Gadamer summarizes the essence of motivation with: “We must not lose sight of the ontological significance of mimicry and mimesis if we are to understand the essential sense in which art possesses the character of play, . . .” And in addressing the finer points of language, we should note the reproduction in mimicry and the imitation in mimesis.
             Further wisdom is injected from the pen of Thomas Mann, on the motivation to art form: “The myth is the foundation of life, the timeless schema, the pious formula into which life flows when it reproduces its traits out of the unconscious.” Joseph Campbell adds: ‘. . . those mythologies themselves will be known to be but the masks of a larger—all their shining pantheons but the flickering modes of a “timeless schema” that is no schema.’ Marett would contribute, ‘. . . in The Threshold of Religion: certain elements of “make believe” are operative in all primitive religions.’ Even here, in the metaphysical, we encounter the art form.
           The artist is a thespian at heart and not unlike the most primitive role-player, painter, or story-teller, is like a child at play’; where the primitive’s evolution to mythos-religiosity can be ascribed to the play-sphere, to the replacement of primitive circumstance with modernism’s supernatural conducts role. Thus, we should reiterate Rene Descartes profoundness, “I think, therefore I am.”  After, Descartes’ example, Jean-Paul Sartes defined mankind’s role-playing to ‘existentialism,’ ‘choosing freedom of choice and responsibility as a decisive factor in deciding the character of fate.’ 
               We can consolidate these ideations into consensus. Thus, in the ‘existentialism’ sphere, mankind plays a role as creative artist: unmindful of psychological repercussions, philosophic debate, or even the pleasure afforded by his endeavor. Gadamer understands the subject and intellectualizes his philosophy. But in the end, these detailed motivations exposes one to excessive banality and require copious refreshment; for the topic is dehydrated, over-stated, and written in vacuous expressionisms.

In, Is The Bible True? introduction, page 1, author Jeffrey Sheler notes: “Those who had hoped that modern science and archaeology would discover some incontestable proof of the Bible’s veracity have been disappointed. Yet have those who once arrogantly anticipated the Bible’s collapse under the weight of post-Enlightenment rationalism.”  While post-Enlightenment rationalism might be envisioned, one cannot detect rationalism in Sheler’s bibliographic assembly.
             Employing an impressive 622 bibliographic testimonials to represent opposing viewpoint, Sheler fairly and logically defended the status quo; yet was there a propensity to exalt the faith cause beyond its evolutionary effect.  A rich assortment of acclaimed academicians and archaeologists, perhaps Bible scholars in the accepted definition, all find the gospels and other New Testament insertions devoid of concrete assertions and some even of complete agreement, thus, they turn to extraneous sources in an endless quest for etiological acclamation. 
             In this critique, Ben Winter suggests: They need not have gone to such extremes; the Bible is its own best witness. All monotheism evidence possible to be discovered resides between its covers. And to investigate its credence is to question the seed line’s God existence. Yet, such enquiry continues and though it can never successfully establish or deny deity existence. More specifically, however, Immanuel Kant did deduce the ultimate generic observation: “No man has the intellect to deny another man’s god.”  In this regard, we can add: “Neither can any intellect prove omnipotent existence.”
            Though impressively arrayed with academe credentials, Sheler’s bibliography is filled with differing viewpoint; and those empowered voices discredit academe’s duty to semantic integrity: that is, one would expect academe to develop a probative reasoning toward unison; but, above all other disciplines, in the metaphysical area, academe’s bulwark of linguistic skills, knowledge, and inescapable amour-propre, must be ultimately reduced to novitiate speculation, unable to transcend personal desideratum. The tendency is not to their discredit, but merely reflects a certainty in Homo sapiens susceptibility. And concerning absolute certainty, Genghis Khan or Columbus existence is no more confirmed than Abraham or Jesus Christ; all must rely on historical records for their immortal place in cognizance. (In reality, Genghis Khan is said to be a nom de guerre; his real name is reported to be Temujin.)
             There remains to be discovered, any pertinent document, substance, or objet d’art, with sufficient integrity to completely remove itself from applicative doubt and thus be elevated to metaphysical surety.  Mostly, consensus or diverging criticism in the metaphysical arena, from any quarter, can be accredited to opinion only and thereby merit its just due. Today’s truth represents tomorrow’s relative laughing-stock.
            In Sheler and other author’s reference to Bible principals, always there exists a consensus of extended utility, generously and generically assigned to reinforce Christian and Jewish utilization. But in this generous accommodation, scholarship is questioned when exegetes ignore multiple nominations sharing the spotlight as Bible principals: i.e., Gentiles, Israelites, Jews, and Christians. Problematically, indistinct New Testament time frames, hidden in difficult language, direct intellect in different directions and confuse the overriding consanguinity in pure blood and exogamous degree, the fulfillment schedule, brevity in the cause espoused, and in principal characterization.
Principal consideration is not propounded in Scheler’s bibliography crying for such particularity. His and bibliographic source do not acknowledge “Ten Ages” in the entire Hebrew God experience; additionally, they invent extensions to the consanguinity restricted to an ethnic few.
            On page 38, and many other pages, the reference to Jewish Christians is a misnomer. If Christianity is a valid nominative, then Jewish cannot be applicative in late first century environs, in succeeding time frames, and in today’s messianism climate; that is, if Christianity is valid and should scholarship address the clear limitation imposed by Ezekiel 37:11-:28. Prior to Jewish underpinnings destruction, the name was proper, but not after.
            Page 40 offers an unacceptable date for John’s Revelation, there assigned to Domitian’s reign closure in early or mid-A.D. 90s. In no reasonable interpretation could John’s cryptic vision be construed as having occurred after A.D. 60 (Ben Winter computation); otherwise, John’s Revelation will have recorded experience and not visionary expectation, however close at hand.
            Disputing the clear language in Luke 8:10 (Mt. 13:11) which withholds awareness from the masses, and in Mark 8:21 where the disciples did not understand, we find the Bible described as a timeless book on page 42 and one speaking an eternal truth to every age and to every generation and written: “for people in antiquity in a language and culture and with literary conventions that they understood.”  Surely, the most naive would question these conventional ideations; when, they are so clearly negated in the only document available to prove or disprove such opinion. That document, the Bible, is cryptic throughout; the words were not intended for the masses to understand. For this reason, symbols, numbers, and parables were used to confuse true meaning and time frames—not impossible to decipher, but made so difficult as to furnish the multiple viewpoints posited in Sheler’s bibliography and to create irresponsible religious disciplines.
            The many errors faulted to bibliographic indiscretion and contributing to Is The Bible True? analysis, can be epitomized in the quote on page 184, from Robert Funk, a new age religionist who would aspire to bridge the gap between biblical academia and real-world religious practice; he would also debunk Jesus as a myth and substantiate a liberalized Christianity, “. . . to raise the literacy level of the public.”  Question: How could such liberality raise the public’s literacy level?
            Continuously, in bibliographic eminence, expert after expert defies Bible semantics in favor of more comfortable definition.  Case in point, page 249, in the John Weldon quote, “. . . the Bible strictly opposes divination. . . .”  I wonder if Mr. Weldon has read II Kings 13:18? In the II Kings instant, (divination was used because the Israel house did not enjoy a God covenant [for about 1000 years]) belomancy was as clear as language could describe its incidence, in no less than Elisha’s instructions to Jehoash.
            As for Bible Codes credibility, we agree with Sheler concerning Bible Code acrostics; random access is said to produce comparable ‘codes’ from any decent sized publication.
     In conclusion, Sheler observed, “It is as a witness to that sacred history, to the mighty acts of Israel’s God in the affairs of nations and in the lives of people of faith, that the Bible most resoundingly sets itself apart from other ancient texts.”  Moreover, Sheler pronounced a precision in the Bible’s historicity, power in its inspired testimony, resonance in its timeless message, and earning trust and fidelity from countless millions. In the above direct quote, in summation, Sheler correctly named the monotheistic eminence as Israel’s God.  In this small measure of truth, he offset a constant procession of opposing viewpoints, illogical emendations to semantics, and unanswered questions lying in the wake of reckless hypothesis.
     Sheler is a good writer; but outside journalistic fervor and the semantic disharmony in a copious bibliography, a new insight awaits Scheler and his bibliographic resource. Viewpoints honored in Is The Bible True? would do well to consult THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified. Here, the least consequence would be a broadened base to comprehend the traditionally neglected “Ten Ages” and to finally understand the Bible symbols, numbers, and parables intent—before attempting so great a title as: Is The Bible True?.

===w===

In attempting to critique The Grand Design, this author must confess to more than just a casual interest in ‘the nature of things’; in my own small way, in the history from now, there resides in my intellect the reasonable assumption of a beginning to matter, whatever its dimensions, and the product of force. Outside of reasoned debate arises the claim of ‘something from nothing.’ The authors state: “. . . the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing . . . that our known universe is only one among uncounted billions of universes.”  Such multitude might be possible, but we cannot even determine the dimensions of this one huge expanse dwarfing the smallness of earth, much less the existence of other dimensions.
     Here, Hawking and Mlodinow debate Universe beginnings through spontaneity by Physics or creation by Intelligent design. They unquestionably accept the givens in physics observation and theory from experience or experiment; simultaneously, they acknowledge the finiteness of Special and General Relativity and quantum mechanics; yet, they neglect to consider the experience and experiment of established theism and its time-critical application of omnipotence. Rightfully, they cite religion’s lack of mathematical precision; wrongly, they succumb to impreciseness in their own speculative consensus of multiple universes and unproven theory—discounting inspired creation and thus the God belief in favor of something from nothingness. Ben Winter would question the ubiquitous application of E=mc2. It cannot effectively prescribe more energy than is contained in the Ultimate Particle mass. God existence is evaluated following.
     Emanuel Kant, without any apologetic for the advent of omnipotence, stated: “No man has the intellect to deny another man’s god.”  Such reasoning must be accepted as truth in the absence of extrasensory abilities to evaluate another’s inherent gnosis.
     Ben Winter would add to the observation: “A god can be instantaneously created by anyone at any instant and without need for verification.”  While such god cannot be confirmed or denied, such acceptance can be positively impressed into the mind. Not too inclined to metaphysics neither Hawking, Mlodinow, nor Kant attempted to establish the veracity in application from the sole legal-historicism giving rise to humanity’s age-old question of god-perpetuation. Not intellectuality but symbols interpretation is the key opening this question to understanding. This study is carried to irrefutable conclusion in: THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified.
     Physics, like metaphysics, is a profound proposition; here, Hawking and Mlodinow review the contributions of other greats who paved the way with physics describing the essence if not quintessence of quantum mechanics. This ground floor recognition fills the book’s first half. Predictably, Feynman and Conway abstractionisms occupy several pages: advocating the theory of dualism and discreteness of perpetuation, or Game of Life. The first is an unsustainable argument and the latter a taxing subject.
     Many theories and near theories propose configurations challenging the reality of particles cause and effect: String theory and M-theory (Theory of Everything) are among those proposals most difficult to assimilate into a workable thesis.
     In The Christian Chronicle, noted PhD Rubel Shelly, longtime minister, author, and president of Rochester College in Michigan, also critiqued The Grand Design and made the following observation: “If there had ever been a time when absolutely nothing existed, nothing could exist now. Since something clearly has existed forever, you make the more intuitive, reasonable, and consistent-with-experience choice . . . Creative God or quantum mechanics?” Respectfully, we should question whether the good Doctor’s definition of ‘forever’ came from the traditional misconception of Bible semantics or Webster’s modern usage. In either event, Dr. Shelly is also in error. For, the word defines as ‘until the set time’ in biblical frame of reference. (explained at www.winterbriar.com)
     So much for challenging everyone’s perspective of everything!
     The Grand Design is a great medium to refresh the mind on evolutionary physics and prophetic theory; however, in summation, this book is more dedicated to speculation than substance.

===w===​

   Daniel posits Ten Ages as the total time frame for Hebrew theology. A historical romance, the Bible story evolves through stormy relations between a jealous God-husband and his self-willed Tribal-wife. Abiding ‘ten covenant intervals’ in an on again off again union, the marriage was finally dissolved: a totally adulterous wife’s discretions are avenged in the last of ‘Ten Kingdom-Ages.’
     Detecting the Covenanted Kingdoms’ (Ages) symbolism will reconcile Daniel, Jesus, and Paul reference to aions (worlds, kingdoms, ‘Ages’) numerous in Bible narrative. Kingdom-Ages are an absolute! Acknowledging reality, we investigate religion’s adoption and innovative extension beyond the finite space-time allotted for chosen benefit. Frozen in time and space, the God-plan for Ages, after ‘last days’ closure, was arrogated into new time frames and rhetorical cleverness.
     Bible books do not instruct for modern desires; they conceal a troubled history and destiny for an ethnic people, secreted in symbols, numbers, and parables. Ezekiel haziness, Daniel enigma, John mystery, and Jesus parables, all substitute clarity for anecdotal cabal. Bible intent hides in symbolic imagery; yet, First Century scripture predicts an imminent conclusion to ‘Ten Ages’ in their aorist, ‘generation’ limits. No ‘inspired’ text has emerged since A.D. 68 and for good reason: Peter’s end to all things encompassed ALL Ages. In Bible exposition, Ages’ context defies modern usage.
     THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified dares to expose interpretive error and reveal true Bible intent. Contrary to traditional hyperbole, John’s Heaven and Earth measure contained the entire theological land and heaven grant.
     Original Bible principals, Adam and Eve first transgressed with the self-determined principle. Throughout definition limits, ‘Mankind’ sought relief from his ‘self-willed’ ethos and God fidelity obligation, awaiting Messianic respite. Adam and Eve, in seed line propensity, evolved to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel), and Israel’s twelve sons, the chosen. Isaac only was privy to the righteousness promise: not Ishmael, Mohammed’s ancestor, nor any other Hebrew sibling! This second absolute requires much exegesis to overcome the traditional rote.
     Correlated with Jesus and Paul’s reference to ‘Ages,’ THE TEMPLE destruction and grace expiration at ‘AGES END’ disallows innovative futurisms. Now, denying reality, Judaism’s ‘true inheritance’ accuses Christian-Islam imposters; Christianity castigates Judeo-Islam rejection of Messiah; and Islam’s ‘true religion’ condemns Judeo-Christian ethics. All three ignore limits in the Ages space-time reality!
Mankind’s greatest dilemma fades in THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified! This book describes true God utility, and a ‘Ten Ages’ exposé denigrates any post-Messiah monotheism. Witnessing testimony will refute all modern monotheist existentialisms.

           Sir William Bragg, Nobel prize-winning physicist, developed the Law of Diffraction. With this formula, scientists can measure an atom’s diameter. The measure is so minute as to defy comprehension, but x-rays diffracted from a crystal’s discretely aligned atom surface can be measured with a consistency beyond disputation; therefore, we can know the dimensions of any atom, measured in increments of one-hundred millionth centimeter (10-8 cm), expressed as one Angstrom. Bragg describes a Universe entirely consisting of atoms, in both gaseous and compound state, and where: “. . . combination does take place, and there is something in the atoms themselves which maintains it when the conditions are satisfied. The whole of chemistry is concerned with the nature of these conditions and their results . . . . however, the atoms are never perfectly still; at the least they vibrate and quiver about average positions, just as the parts of an iron bridge quiver when a train goes over it.”
            In this book, Bragg reduces the complexities of science to the most common language; indeed, the book is a physical science primer; yet, it contains considerable information not familiar to the majority. Bragg’s dissertation requires no scientific background of readers, even while investigating the complex nature, dimension, energy incentives, and attraction between particular atoms—especially the propensity of molecules to grow into more complex conglomerates and in a predictable fashion.
            First, as ancient Alchemist, now in learned physical science and advanced biochemistry, mankind endeavors to harness atoms to his own specification and thus to special needs. Hydrocarbon fuels are a prime example; for here, in the world of atom bonding, crude oil can be refined into ethylene, hexahydrobenzene, naphthalene, etc., simply by addition or removal of carbon-hydrogen attachments. Therefore, we can understand how the simplest molecule (bonding between two or more atoms) can be transformed into more complex forms in the presence of light, temperature, and pressure.
              Ben Winter would suggest the presence of ‘atom intellectuality,’ in the propensity of molecular development to inhere attraction to its benefit; for, without question, each human body cell (through atom covalence and molecular interaction) communicates with its neighbor cells for mutual survival and programs its own cellular existence independent of any contribution from sentient cognizance in its host. However, this observation is beyond Bragg’s intent; for he would address laboratory procedures to determine the mass and number of different elements and therefore the element’s basic properties—not neglecting atom propensity to seek beneficial bonding with other atoms. Bragg continues: “For, of course, it is in their combinations that their importance lies. The atoms may be compared to the letters of the alphabet, which can be put together into innumerable ways to form words. So the atoms are combined in equal variety to form what are called molecules.”
            From radioactive measurement of the different elements, Sir William posits the atoms to be so minute as to require measurement in the 1/100,000,000th cm. To further elucidate atom smallness, the electron size is posited to be approximately 1/10,000th of the nucleus. If the reader has some interest “Concerning The Nature Of Things,” then Sir William Bragg’s book is recommended as a primary introduction to physical science; here, those with interest can investigate the most fundamental nature of atoms in gases, liquids, crystals, and metals. This book is recommended for novitiate and scholar alike.
            We, as humans, are but a mass of atomic compounds; our body cells and substrates contain intelligence able to propagate their own survival; and surely, we, intellectually endowed by atomic interaction, would be curious about the intelligence independently committed to sustain our composite intellectuality.

===w===

 Clark, Wesley, Scofield, and other ‘great’ Bible scholars ascribe Jonah’s story in a literal sense; thereby, they miss the entire application. Jonah was not a man but a principle! No, I do not mean principal; he was a ‘she’ besides!

We all know the Jonah story and how its ‘principal’ perception suffered transport from Jerusalem into a far city, Nineveh, an ancient Assyrian city on the Tigris River and near present-day Mosul in North-Central Iraq. Nineveh, the Assyrian Empire’s Capital City, enjoyed great influence and prosperity, especially under Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal (seventh century B.C.); but in the south, in 612 B.C., Babylonian allies revolted and destroyed Nineveh. If this historical rendition is acceptable, then traditional conceptions of Jonah purpose are not truly focused, devoid of any chronological assigns or connection between story purpose and prophetic parallelisms. Thereof, awareness to chronological reality or time frame for Jonah’s trials, tenure in the whale belly, and cause for transport motivation, magnifies events transpired several years prior to 612 B.C. In fact, Jonah’s interaction limits the adventure to sometime after 721 B.C. but before 612 B.C. Conventionally dated at 846 to 825 B.C., we know, in exegetical retrospect, tradition erroneously assigns Jonah’s missionary journey to the II Kings 14:25 account—indeed, at the time of Jonah’s prophecy during Jeroboam’s reign over Israel. These chronologically diverse accounts are about the same man, to be sure; however, one account describes a young man and the other represents a very old man.

Jonah considered Gathhepher his domicile. Yet, he began his analogous journey at Jerusalem and traveled about 35 miles northwestward to Joppa, from the ‘presence of the Lord’ (who resided in the Temple). In Joppa, he found a ship embarking to Tarshish. Popular commentary differs on the Tarshish location: perhaps Spain, or perhaps near the Red Sea next to Egypt. But, again, traditional commentary errs; for Tarshish, by Jonah’s interaction and destination, lay upon the central Assyrian coast. In any event, Jonah’s mission was to discover a particular people’s status in Nineveh. Question: What people were important to the Hebrew God? (Ez. 37:21; Hosea 1:6-10)

Were Jonah’s investigative targets Assyrian Nationals? Definitely not! His mission was to observe the sixscore thousand persons, within the city, that cannot discern their right hand and left hand; these were those many previously promised to be destroyed (Israel autonomy) by the Hebrew God, now taken captive, and yet awaiting release from captivity, but not to former autonomy: via Isaiah 14:25 prophecy (725 B.C.) and Daniel 9:1 (historical moment of release, following Cyrus’ edict in his first year as Persian Intercessor over Babylonian affairs at 536 B.C.(third year was contemporaneous with Belshazzar’s third year). In fact, much the same language exists in Isaiah 14:25 prophecy as in the Jonah whole. The Hebrew God promised Israel house destruction to include self-determining lifestyle and rampant idolatry; yet, subtly, the Hebrew God rescinded his destruction decree and caused much anger in Jonah (Jonah 4:1). And why would Jonah become angry and desire to die? “. . . O Lord, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live.” (4:8) To understand Jonah’s willingness to die, we must first ascertain meaning for the subjective death contemplated.

But let us begin at Jonah beginning, define characters, and utilize a few entirely legal words from the choice in Strong’s Lexical Thesaurus. As we read Jonah, we should be entirely cognizant of biblical theme: to restore Israel to theocratic conformity, to restore the non-Covenanted Ten Tribes back into fellowship with the Covenanted Two Tribes. This was the messianic mission, to restore the righteousness lost in Adam. This was the great promise; this was the great restoration to righteousness, but occupying an infinitesimal portion of the whole Ten Ages. We begin and attempt to extract reason from Jonah’s mission to Assyria.

1:16     The boatmen should be recognized as Judah house constituents; for, at the time, only Judah house constituents participated in the vows and sacrifice mentioned in 1:16. Remember, the Judah house was responsible for Israel house resort to idolatry and disfavor in 975 B.C.; thereby, they brought Israel house destruction in 721 B.C. (for ever, Jonah 2:6); such unending definition contradicts traditional perpetuity notions extemporized in ‘for ever,’ ‘eternal’ and ‘ever and ever.’ Time frame exegesis reinforces this determination.
1:12     Jonah was a Judah house member. Prior to 721 B.C and before captivity, both Israel and Judah house members were engaged in idolatry. To forestall Judah house covenant collapse, Israel house and idolatrous practices (outside God marriage benefit [encompassing belomancy at II Kings 13:18 and Jonah 1:7]) were ‘cast’ away in punishment from God presence and continuing into Jonah’s time. Jonah 2:7 intimates true God domicile, and proves Ben Winter deductions in THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified; wherein, the Hebrew God residence receives notice as one domiciled in the Holy Temple! In Jonah 6:8-:16, an entreaty for calm and peace seeks Judah’s exoneration for Israel downfall and destruction into anonymity.
2:4       Clearly, referencing Israel house in captivity, Jonah expects to look upon the Holy Temple (God residence) again, at some future date. The Temple had obligation to remain standing until such sentience could be realized. For modern religionists, blinded by tradition, the Temple can no longer exist as Hebrew God residence, nor as the Hebrew ‘Heaven’ concept; therefore, such fellowship could never exist in a futurist sense: not for Jonah benefit nor for any modern Jehovah, Messiah, or Allah based existentialism.
2:5       Deep in the abyss (depth), ‘grave,’ the (God) ‘symbolic order deserters’ (weeds) firmly bound the ‘promised inheritance’ to Jonah’s ‘easily shaken’ head.
2:6       He was cut off from the ‘mount.’ “The world cast me out as a ‘fugitive’ ‘for ever.’” (Again, proven in THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, ‘for ever’ defines not a time existing in perpetuity but an uninterrupted time interval persisting until ‘end to a designated time frame.’)
2:7       ‘My (Israel) vitality was shrouded in the midst of captivity; yet, my prayer came into thee (God, in the Temple Sanctum) and delivered me from my grave (pit), spiritual death.’ [Such was not operational until after Pentecost, A.D. 30. (Ez. 37:19)]
2:8       ‘Those engaged in vain idolatry relinquish ‘acceptable piety.’ (forgetting ‘mercy’ availability, no longer sought in Jonah’s time.)
2:9       Futuristically, Jonah proposed to once again submit to ‘works’ efficacy: ‘But I will sacrifice unto thee . . . I will pay that that I have vowed.’ Jonah admitted: Salvation, that is, escape from Law and punishment, must reside in Messianic righteousness, affected only through ‘works and grace’ differentiation defined at Romans 11:6; yet depending on Temple worship during the Messianic Age.
2:10     And Jonah’s three days and nights ended with his ejection onto dry land and with attention focused on the Israel house (parallel with Messianic Kingdom attention after Pentecost at A.D. 30 [Matt. 15:24. “. . . I am not sent but into the children of Israel.”]) How many, I wonder, in today’s monotheism diversity, can claim children of Israel descendency?
3:4       Jonah entered Nineveh and discovered the City (Israel Captives), who would be allowed forty days (‘forty years,’ in the Messianic Kingdom) to advantage the ‘grace’ utility (defined at Romans 11:6 and not applicable prior to A.D. 30 beginning of the forty year period); only then could converts acquire the salvation envisioned at Jonah 2:9.
3:10     And the Hebrew God relented, for Israel house constituents received freedom in all the places they had been sold into captivity (Acts 2:7-:11 gives their National heritage and birthplaces).
4:1       Jonah was displeased with the forty-year ‘grace’ schedule and became ‘envious’ or very angry.
 
We have to ask: Why was Jonah displeased, envious, or angry? For, Jonah wanted to die. Because of what, from what, or to what? You cannot understand Jonah language unless you know why the principal requested death of the Hebrew God. To be sure, Jonah did not request to die a physical death but to die from the metaphysical affliction then causing conscience angst. Jonah wanted to die much as Paul died daily (I Cor. 15:31). And ‘she,’ who wanted to die, was not a singular entity but a plural entity. It was an analogous reference to children of Israel constituents who needed to die, to die not in a physical cessation of life but of death in a metaphysical sense.

Another requisite for understanding Jonah’s story is to determine identity for the ‘gourd,’ ‘hovered over’ (as a remembrance?), and which overshadowed Jonah’s humble abode. The implication is both surprising and shocking. The special college assigned to produce the King James Version translation made every effort to prepare “a book easy to be understood.” Therefore, they did their best; but in their fealty to futurist expectation, they often erred toward their own futurist desire side, on what ‘might have been desired’ rather than ‘what might have been better stated in original prose’ and harmonic agreement.

If any have read and studied THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, they must be convinced of Daniel and John’s enumerated timetables whereby both envisioned an abbreviated Eight Ages (different symbols in paradigm declension) to illustrate Hebrew history, separated into several original and episodic monotheistic existentialisms: i.e., prophetic theory utilizing Ten Ages as the total Ages allocation, condensed by both Daniel and John to Eight: in Daniel, three plucked up by the roots  from the Ten total and another grown forth to replace the three (Dan. 7:8). Three were plucked up in turn, each making contribution to ‘chosen’ debilitation; thus, Daniel’s three lived on in the fourth (Dan. 7:12), and all Eight were doomed to be likewise plucked in future greater realization and no more remembered. This is the Bible theme; it illustrates completion for a set number of monotheism Ages, characterized by inherited ethos from the Four Great Kingdoms On Earth (Dan.7:17 and :23), themselves one of the coded Ages. Thus, we perceive a consistent biblical theme and one conforming to prophetic intent. Sad to say, mankind reluctantly pursues difficult thinking. To quote one, Einstein, who did engage in difficult thinking, we submit his observation of people in general: “People do not think well.” Moreover, from any realized or anticipated viewpoint, be it well-thought or un-thought, Old Testament dictates are obsolete to and inapplicable for any but Hebrews descended from Jacob (Israel): a people who’s heritage (8th Beast) was destroyed along with the Temple—and to be no more remembered! (Ez. 21:32) None other has authority to extend the Hebrew God existentialism beyond set time frames associated with The Temple destruction (Mt. 24:2-:3) and Kingdom relinquishment with death of spiritual death (I Cor. 15:26), from the death desired by our subject (Jonah 4:3).

If Ten Ages completion is correct, according to Ben Winter, and condensed to Eight Ages in biblical premise and symbolic reference, then, we might expect such evidence to be everywhere hidden in prophetic paronomasia (word play). Thusly alert, we must spend considerable company with the likes of Clarke, Wesley, Scofield and other thinking exegetes. For, though they did not intercept the ‘Ten Ages format,’ they did come very close to individualizing most of the dispensational increments. By studying and learning from their dedicated commitment and from occasional pure brilliance exhibited in other exegesis, we can begin to fathom the almost unintelligible Jonah exposition.

In familiarizing ourselves with Bible timetable isolations, Jonah’s true ‘gourds’ classification is discovered. Strong’s interpretation for the ‘King James gourd’ is not of gourd at all but the deadliest plant occurring in nature; it is the Castor, or Ricinus communis, the source of ricin. One ricin particle, no larger than a salt grain, can destroy human ribosomes (cell workhorses) and cause death. Its deadly reticulated leaves, hovering over Jonah, are clues to their symbolic substitution and connection to Jonah. The leaves, habitually appointed with serrated notches forming eight points, comfort Jonah; for they are a reminder of Judah influence and the shortness in ‘Ages’ time, of Messianic advent, of Ages completion, and of end to ‘tears and sorrows.’ Jonah tells a story of impending time frame, of a people destroyed (already autonomously destroyed for all time) but to be futuristically reinstated to Covenant status in the Seventh Age; and who, in the end, will be judged again, along with the Judah house, realizing their monotheist existentialism conclusion and end to the Eighth Age inheritance anomaly.

The ‘gourd’ was not a ‘gourd’! Ostentatiously, the ‘gourd’ is synonymous with a four ‘prepared’ insertions epitome in Jonah text—perhaps connected to the Eight point leves and four seed pod content. Whatever the writers intent, the gourd is representative of Daniel’s Four Great Kingdoms, inheritable into the last and terrible Beast.

Closely read! Jonah was angry before gourd existence! (Jon. 4:1). Jonah was angry because particular people were to be spared! Thus, angriness for the gourd (Jon. 4:9 referenced back to 4:1) caused anxiety to come up over Jonah (4:6), and must be paralleled with the sixscore thousand (4:11) who have come to their senses (3:10), and who suffer from inheritance features found in the Four (Beasts) Great Kingdoms On Earth (Dan. 7:17 and :23), representative of Daniel’s Fourth Beast (Dan. 7:7). This Fourth Beast of the Four Beasts in Daniel is the Eighth Beast in Ten Ages declension to Eight in Daniel 7:7 and in the Revelation 17:11 symbolical whole.

Eight-point leaves, ‘hovering’ over Jonah, represent the condensed Eight Ages envisioned by both Daniel and John; consistently, Castor Plant pods average about Four seeds, commensurate with the ‘Four Great Kingdoms On Earth,’ declared in Daniel 7:17 and :23. No other explanation for the ‘gourd’ plant is reasonable: to hover over Jonah’s mission, to be scorched by ‘vehement’ East winds (accusatory spirit voices), all Hebrew God provided and Hebrew God withered.

This author offers an alternative to conventional rendering; for in its King James translation, one would be hard put to make any Assyrian salvation mission sense, to endure three days and nights in a whale’s stomach, or to connect the Jonah story with known chronologies. Here, word substitutions from Strong’s Hebrew Thesaurus are applicative to time, space, and biblical theme. Is this author correct? Exegetes will have to study long and hard to prove or disprove the notions here exposited. I think these deductions are very near to correct. For the first time, Jonah’s story parallels the prophetic theme (fulfillment of Ten Ages): that is, to fulfill the Bible story, to restore Israel house constituents to Covenant status, to effect Twelve Tribes reunion, to bring righteousness restoration (lost in Adam), to accomplish judgment and resurrection, and to conclude Messianic rule. (I Cor. 15:24-:26)

​         At the beginning, Michael J. Behe defines Darwinian evolution as “a process whereby life arose from nonliving matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means.” But he tempers evolution viability with questions raised from a self-limiting and ‘irreducible complexity’ limiting the biochemical processes. Assailing unanswered questions arising in DARWIN’S BLACK BOX, as an evolution denial, Behe contends: “At the tiniest levels of biology—the chemical life of the cell—we have discovered a complex world that radically changes the grounds on which Darwinian debates must be contested.”
            Behe admits to Catholic heritage in a Biochemistry ambiance; as such, from the very first, he writes with one hand tied behind his back. The biological metaphysician in Behe is the Creationist in evidential critique of Darwin’s evolutionary theory.
            Science conceived the idea of cellular existence about the same time as Darwin’s evolutionary concept. Darwin could not have had access to Behe’s considerable library on cellular structure, to advanced molecular knowledge, nor even to have been fully cognizant of contemporaneous theoreticians Matthias Schleiden and Theodor Schwann, who concluded: “cells compose the entire bodies of animals and plants, and that in some way the cells are individual units with a life of their own.” Behe continues: “Schleiden and Schwann worked in the early to middle 1800s—the time of Darwin’s travels and writing of The Origin of Species.”
               Behe assigns Darwin’s theory to a ‘Black Box’ of unanswered questions. Hastily denigrating Darwin’s broadly based theory, Behe created a few ‘Black Boxes’ of his own: to wit, the perception of ‘irreducible complexity’ in cellular development, even when such complexity can be reduced further, to the very least atomic particle and to atomic affinity toward symbiosis. He posits: “The last remaining box was the cell, which was opened to reveal molecules—the bedrock of nature.” But this writer, Ben Winter, disagrees; for the bedrock of nature rests not in molecules but in the existence of single atoms—and these are somehow composed of, or effected by, subatomic particles, and these by unknown energy incentives. Basic biochemistry understanding must perceive the assembly of two or more atoms to constitute molecular creation. ‘Hydrogen atoms’ are the most abundant element in the universe, used in synthetic ammonia and methanol production, in petroleum refining, and in organic materials hydrogenation. ‘Oxygen atoms’ constitute 21 percent of the atmosphere by volume and occur as a diatomic gas in many compounds such as water and iron ore. It combines with many elements and is essential for plant and animal respiration--needed for most combustion types. Within hydrogen and oxygen qualities rests the propensity to create water; all it takes is two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom to create a molecule of water—even so, a catalyst is necessary to instigate condensation into appreciable perception. Thus we gain insight into molecular development; notwithstanding, all other molecules result from different atom combinations.
            Admitted by Behe: “Black Boxes sometimes occur within Black boxes:. . . sometimes the new boxes demand that we revise all of our theories.” Thus, Darwin cannot be the only theorist creating Black Boxes without detailed resolution. Gathering postulates from eminent theorists over the years, as witness to his opinion of how he envisions life to have unfolded, Behe quotes the Santa Fe Institute’s Stuart Kauffman; who champions: “the tendency of complex systems to arrange themselves in patterns—and not natural selection: Darwin and evolution stand astride us, whatever the mutterings of creation scientists. But is the view right? Better, is it adequate? I believe it is not. It is not that Darwin is wrong, but that he got hold of only part of the truth.” Thus, grudgingly, quasi-evolution intrudes in Behe-Kauffman word manipulation as they supplant evolution theory and accredit molecular transformation to composite workings from ‘intelligent design.’ We quote further: “Yet, for the Darwinian theory of evolution to be true, it has to account for the molecular structure of life. It is the purpose of this book to show that it does not.”
Of course, Darwin could not explain molecular structure; of course, the knowledge and biochemistry tools available today were not present in Darwin’s day!
            A fault is found in Behe’s consensus that ‘Natural Selection’ is unworthy to account for the ‘irreducible complexity’ common to cellular development. But, contrary to Behe’s narrow view, the ‘irreducible complexity’ found in cellular development does not obviate a chance for change brought about by the ‘Natural Selection’ processes. Behe strains at a gnat and swallows a camel. Realistically, cells contain many thousands of atoms, residue from the combinations furnished by many other 10,000s of atoms, in a quantum transformation processes to ultimate workability via inherent attraction.
Behe questions: “What type of biological system could not be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications”? He answers with ‘irreducibly complexity’ as definition: “a system . . . wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” In Darwin’s Black Box accusation, Behe uses mechanical devices (mousetrap, bicycle, etc.) to demonstrate the malfunction of objects minus a component part. And to be sure, the cell in intermediate stages is dysfunctional to its ultimate workability. The mousetrap without spring and bicycle without pedals compares with a cell minus its last stage of development. But the former are manmade, without the inherent propensity essence. Hydrogen and Oxygen have the inherent propensity to produce water—without creature influence. By repeatable experiment, we know this to be Hydrogen and Oxygen properties an essence. Might we not conclude, the same propensity exists in other atomic essence? Gold ore does not appear as an initial occurrence, but gold atoms have the propensity to assimilate under the right conditions—into grains, nuggets, and threads of metal. The B cell antibody mimics atomic attraction, its ‘Y’ extension from cell body construction, on its split extension, is so configured as to fit the shape of encountered objects (bacteria), and thus bond—which B cell then replicates its antibody properties. And does the human brain not resemble polypeptide evolvement folded into quaternary structure? We find much resemblance in visible assemblies and microbiology. Does not a polypeptide endure the same fold around its backbone as a developing fetus?
           Behe demonstrates the cell to be a molecular machine, mostly composed of interacting proteins. On page-144, Figure 7-1, we find molecular steps in the production of AMP, a mononucleotide found in cells. First, a composite molecule begins the processes with a conglomerate assembly of carbon, oxygen, and phosphorus (properly bonded in number to host atoms). Thus we begin an incredibly complex system of atom substrates addition and subsequent discard of no longer needed atom components. Evolvement, from one stage to another, where named energizers motivate yet other atom composition; it is from this composition whereby additional atoms install and prepare for the next stage, notwithstanding discard of those previously added but no longer needed atoms in the nucleate. A dozen sequenced diagrams illustrate Behe’s ‘irreducible complexity.’  Whoa!  Irreducible?
                Behe defines Darwin’s evolution as “a process whereby life arose from nonliving matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means.” In premise, Behe posits a propositional truism: ‘an absence of journalistic evidence constitutes an absence of scientific viability.’ Surely, the anomaly only means discovery has not been forthcoming.
Contrary to Behe bias, the AMP production, similar in complexity to other molecular designs, cannot be separated from Darwin’s larger scale hypotheses; for, molecular development also derives from nonliving matter and is subsequently developed entirely by natural means!
               Creationism appeals to majority intellect; and often, Evolution paints its own evil contrast to Creation purity. But such represents mere exercise to placate metaphysical convictions and thus a confederation relish enjoyed by majority consensus. After all, Michael J. Behe was a Catholic first, a Biologist second, and an Apologist third. It makes little sense for Behe to bash Darwin’s evolution theory, in light of his own AMP molecular development living side by side with Darwin’s evolutionary processes, and without contradiction. In THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, author Ben Winter, detailed agreement is shown in time-sequenced amelioration of Biblical, Astrophysical, Geological, Biological, and Evolutional measurements. Further, a biblical Ten Ages existence, as metaphysical Covenant measure, incorporates the entire physical and metaphysical measure in a scripture correlation with mass, time, and space.
In the interest of science, Behe devised an understandable biochemistry lesson, involving ‘irreducible complexity,’ and contributing much to my own enlightenment. Ben Winter recommends this book as means for the modest intellect to understand how living creatures derive from quantum incentives. Evolution, or ‘Intelligent Design,’ then, remains unresolved and left to individual determination.

===w===

Ira M. Freeman assists understanding (at the least, stirs curiosity) about intelligence created in a single molecule and explains the atoms’ propensity to selectively join or bond into mutually beneficial substrates. The author relates a most fundamental attempt to explain the atom and its particles to those who might know least about the very start of life and recognizable phenomena. For those desiring an easy introduction into the substance and workability of atoms and about the intelligence created in a single molecule; this is the book for the curious, for both young and old, and for those with abiding interest in physics or metaphysics. Without the atom, physicality and religion could not exist.
 
As we stretch hypotheses, so might atom intelligence stretch imagination to its utmost; in the grasp of speculation, we consider the possibility of intelligence for anything having predilection to improvement acting upon this compulsion, the elements can manifest change by either attraction, decision, or benefit intent.  To gather some perception of size and substance in the free-wheeling, single atom, Freeman suggests, “<i>. . . it would take about 3 million billion carbon atoms to create the period ink at this sentence end (when printed) -- and this entire molecule complement, regardless its perceived state, is never still -- continuously moved -- never at rest -- average speed about 1700 feet per second. A molecule in the air bumps into other molecules about five billion times each second</i>.”
 
In a chemical and biological review of matter, Freeman explains how atoms create energy and energy causes element atoms to behave in different ways. About 100 elements, give or take a few, have been discovered; importantly, each element is composed of its own peculiar atom construction, with specific proton, neutron, and electron components -- plus even more elusive to define components. Regardless atom appearance, albeit in water, trees, humans, or copper wire, the atom comprises mostly space. Its nucleus constitutes only about 1/10000th total atom volume. Swinging around the atom’s outer circumference (energy shell [sic]) are electron orbitals (a quantum concept encompassing the potential track whole around each atom. [We might also consider: an electron, speeding around the Hydrogen single proton core, weighs only 1/1836th as much as the core it orbits.
 
Freeman, rather simply, explains the appearance of perceivable atom masses. In our world, element atoms comprise all forms of solids, liquids, and gas (Iron becomes gas at 10000°). Mixtures of elements (matter) are called compounds. And, compound mixtures create energy! Light furnishes energy. Energy changes matter! Matter creates energy! E = mc2 proves in experiment and the following statement, in essence: the relativity theory adds something new; wherewith, matter can be changed into energy, and energy into matter. Electrons, by leaping to other orbitals, directly or indirectly create every conceivable convenience, tool, or device from the quantum within and outside its proton or proton-neutron nuclei’s induced energy shell [sic].
 
How wonderful to simplify life itself! Without directing our propensity to evolve, we might still be chipping flint tools and arrowheads, striking sparks in the processes but never realizing the great potential in particles flying from abraded rocks; for these are energy particles—which might just as easily have fueled a human cell. An unwritten law governs atom combination into compounds, evolved to substrates, into advanced substrates, into super-substrates, on and on, and finally into ADP and ATP workhorses in cellular construction and maintenance. But this is advanced and not a part of Freeman’s simplistic presentation. We include cellular propensity merely to illustrate the atom’s importance to human welfare and development. Computer programs and memory, too, are only atom particles potentially awaiting instigation. Absolutely amazing!
 
In Freeman’s simplistic account, he remarks how Man first learned to use fire, cultivate superstition, make tools, then utilize the power of steam, and later electricity. Today he stands at the door of a new age—the Age of Atoms. The things to come we can only imagine.
 
In addition to the this brief study on physics, you are invited to further study, into more physics, and into metaphysics, another fascinating study and as full of surprises as the physics world. Discover how we invented traditional soteriologies: why ‘Ten Ages’ are the least understood but most important contribution to Bible eschatology. Physics and metaphysics are related, inasmuch as both investigate our relation to invisible worlds. Further studies are available on the legitimacy of modern religions, but Freeman’s book is recommended as an introduction to the transparent, the invisible.

The authors write a very compelling story, stretching from the crucifixion to our present time. Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln set themselves on a very daunting course while attempting to research and articulate coherent threads unraveled from the time of Messiah’s crucifixion as King of the Jews, ostensibly, or perhaps as verisimilitude posits, to Prieuré de Sion, Ordre de Sion, or King of Jerusalem perpetual installations. The authors offer a rich bibliographic assortment as source for their intriguing, investigative exposition.

HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL contains a twisted and secretly contrived stratagem to reclaim the throne of David, through Jesus Christ and ‘progeny,’ in perpetuity. To grasp the authors’ book title significance, early on, we should realize Holy Grail and Holy Blood are indistinguishable in definition. And while we are conditioned to think of the Holy Grail as a cup used by Jesus and disciples, here the concept is used in a consanguineous inheritance belonging to Jesus the Christ.

Very difficult to read, and ascribed to constant protagonist change over two millennia of history, this documentary begins in the Middle Ages, with Godfroi de Bouillon’s installation as King of Jerusalem. This appointment, of course, results from victories in the Crusade’s very beginning, when Jerusalem falls from Saracen (Moslem-Arab) control to European conquest in A.D. 1099. But the story very often regresses to more ancient times for pertinent events and writings in support of the story thesis.

Before and after A.D. 1099, intrigue and conspiracy settle in and around the Rennes le Chateâu in Southern France; considerable treasure was reportedly entombed in the area. According to the authors, this treasure backed Holy Land conquest by the mostly christianized Jewish contingents. In fact, almost the whole of Southern France and Northern Spain was populated by Twelve Tribes pure bloods or exogamous mixes, or as the authors so designated, Jewish migrants. But the authors err in ethnic terminology. Without question, and as conclusively proven by Ben Winter in THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, to designate all Twelve Tribes as Jewish is gross error; never were the Ten Tribes (Israel House) ever answerable as Two Tribe Jews (Judah House), not before the First Century nor after, except through exegetical ignorance. Therefore, understanding this anomaly, we can detect error in any writing not entirely familiar with Tribal history and ‘last days’ circumstance.

Woven into HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL fabric are threads spun from origination and organization not only in Prieuré de Sion but under Knights Templar and Freemasonry auspices. All prominently furthered the Holy Grail incentive to King of Jerusalem enthronement. Prieuré de Sion, Knights Templar Grand Masters, and Freemasonry were prominently figured as powers behind the throne, or indeed, as powers on the throne. And as we discover, toward book conclusion, Grand Masters exist in perpetuity and claim certain secrets to be still extant and resting in a France bank vault.

In critique brevity, HOLY GRAIL incentives rest in a purported transport of Jesus’ ‘wife,’ Mary Magdalene, and son into Southern France, and finally evolved to Merovée as a thaumaterge conception in the Fifth Century A.D., thus creating the Merovingian dynasty—prerequisite in Grand Master qualification. Merovingian derives from Merovée (A.D. 400) and progeny, or progenitors devolved from Jesus the Christ, as paternal, and Mary Magdalene as maternal origination. Repulsive to modern faith, such reasoning is educed from events surrounding pre-cross, cross, and after-cross exposition. Details can be read in the book; here, we touch only on the bare essentials. Overall, this documentary is about bloodline and ascendance to the Messianic Kingdom throne. In these authors’ considerable research, resourcefulness, and intuitiveness, the deduced conspiracy continues into modern times. Particularly, the Grand Master title devolves to a titled and wealthy Plantard de Saint-Clair, as of 1979. The treasure, or its remnants, mentioned in this critique beginning, is under control of the above-mentioned Grand Master.

Ben Winter would add: Truly, the authors did not understand applicative limits imposed by the particularly finite definitions in ‘eternal,’ ‘gentile,’ ‘grace,’ and ‘Ten Ages’ scope of Messianic rule. At odds with the crusading Tribal-Christian ambition to enthrone Holy Blood, an ambitious and devious Islamic movement opposes any Qur’anic denigration and any opposition to Qur’an incentives advocating Islam’s inventive, ‘true religion.’ But this is not the only deterrent to peace in the Middle East! Consider: another movement is underway; in Israel, so-called Jewish zealots busily fashion Temple artifacts and worship tools for installation when the Temple Mound (Sion) is once again under Jewish control (not Twelve Tribes but Jewish [two tribes]). On the sidelines, adoptive-Christian devotees, taking the course of least resistance and blasé to reality, continue as if nothing important is happening. ‘All’ labor under a delusion! There can be no return (Jews to Heaven and Earth [the other Ten Tribes to who-knows-where], Christians to Heaven, and Muslims to Paradise) to something no longer in existence. The end of all things has already occurred--with destruction of the then existing TEMPLE. To be sure, any attempt to reclaim the Temple mound will result in a worldwide war, unlike any before, and lasting until the last fool is dead. The one survivor presumed to be an only non-fool. Already, Islam has infiltrated the world’s major universities and many seats of government, aided and abetted by other misguided or uninformed ethnic heretics. Does anyone care to consider: Islam represents one billion and two-hundred million strong--ALL governed by Qur’an contents—which guide advocates death for Jew and Christian, Infidels, Islam unbelievers? It does not really say that or mean that? Only one unread and susceptible to Muslim propaganda can believe the Islamic apologist?

According to THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, Daniel, Revelation, and Recorded History predicts, correlates, and records end to all things ‘imminence’ in the mid-first century, ending the ‘Ten Ages’ allocated for Monotheism Kingships. If one can surpass desideratum and superstition, and if one can grasp ‘Episodic Ages,’ ‘this generation,’ and ‘imminence’ significance, then he can begin to see the cruel hoax perpetrated on mankind’s weakest ethos, his desire for immortality. In man’s blindness capacity, books will continue to be written, sermons preached, and political ambitions exercised for the individual benefit, not for mankind benefit.

Whatever might be perceived as truth in the reader’s own metaphysically compromised intellect, he cannot escape the requirement to think while perusing the information mass contained in HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL exposition; at the same time, he will encounter truly great wealth and men of stature in the persons of Richard Wagner, Isaac Newton, and Victor Hugo, themselves involved in the perpetuation of a cause real or imagined; Grand Masters, geniuses all, they believed in the two thousand year old crusade.

While Ben Winter cannot challenge the supercharged enthusiasm behind two thousand years of ambitious endeavor, he can challenge metaphysical innovation, mistaken definition, chronological misguidance, and shortsighted Bible interpretative skills motivating the two thousand year fruitless conquest.

And the beat goes on; as long as people exist, they will seek immortality in those things unseen, unheard, and intangible within their very least sentient attribute. They cannot help themselves, for the survival sense is stronger than reason.

​This complex, controversial, possible, impossible, and unconventional book, entitled HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL, was enjoyed, immensely.

When first recommended, this 600-page book was thought to be a documentary; however, the book turned out to be semi-fiction. Even so, rather than disappoint the recommending party, I determined to read the book if it killed me. I was soon absorbed in the authors’ considerable metaphysics erudition and story-telling expertise. Rather pointedly, this book’s underlying theme is to expose the Muslim incentive to terror and to reveal their penchant for theocratic enslavement. Aside from occasional grammatical blunders, the nemesis of all writers, Tea With Terrorists is not only an exposé of Muslim philosophy and Qur’an incitements but also a romance reflecting fealty, decorum, and circumspection.

As the story unwinds to climax, authors Craig Winn and Ken Power weave a philosophic accountability for the incentive warned in my own Qur’an Critique and as it concerns Islam’s world conquest. You can see a condensed Qur’an indictment in Ben Winter’s Qur’an Critique at:  < www.winterbriar.com >. Every American should read Tea With Terrorists and the Ben Winter Qur’an Critique, not only for an awakened awareness to terrorist presence in our very midst, but to a refreshingly idealized courtship between protagonists in the Tea With Terrorists’ romance element.

Captain Thor Adams and a multinational Special Forces Group, composed of four each Israeli, British, and American components, embark on a mission into Afghanistan, planned by attractive CIA operative Sarah Nottingly. Mission plans are compromised by a leak to Muslim forces; forthwith, most of the Special Forces unit are captured and submitted to gruesome tortures, including crucifixion, and amidst gleeful taunts from an inhuman enemy—observed by two of the escaped Special Forces Group. In this ambiance, a lesbian President and her female Defense Secretary consort pursue a corrupt political agenda advantageous to the Islamic cause.

Lest we give away too much story line, suffice to say: Thor and the beauteous CIA operative, Sarah, become romantically involved. As a united force of two, they undertake to discover what makes the Muslim dedication tick, seeking cause for the heinous savagery condoned under Qur’anic legal-historical auspices. Coincident with their private investigation, Sarah provides Thor with insight into Qur’an verses along with evangelizing dictates from Bible scripture, and bringing their (at the first) dichotomous viewpoints into unilateral focus. “Man is a religious animal. He will always find something to worship . . . . To Sarah, it (soteriology) meant that in matters of faith, you could demonstrate truth by testing scriptures ‘mathematically.’ If it could be shown statistically that it was true, then it probably was. The best solution was the one it took the ‘least’ amount of faith to accept.” Which, to Ben Winter, is a monotheism cop-out.

We remind ourselves, it is only a novel; however, the evangelistic tenor is obvious as is the overt warning about terrorist ethos. Sarah is exposited as a true-blue Christian devotee. Looking down the commitment road, she equips Thor with alternatives to his agnostic incertitude; however, Sarah’s prejudice prohibits a true logic application for the legal-historicism entirely frozen in ancient semantics; therefore, from this critique author’s Bible exegesis, her attempt to intertwine traditional values, word usage, and desiderated myopia, casts her in an expected mold and prohibits a rational and indisputable apologetic.

Suffering a bloody encounter in their search for effect and cause, protagonists are led into a no-mans-land of Qur-anic excess, to a ‘tea with terrorists,’ and to a startling revelation.

Catapulted into national prominence, amidst dire events effectuated by terrorist cells in the United States, and concurrent with an enviously financed honeymoon, Thor vows to right the wrongs and miscalculations made by previous advisors, staff, and Administration heads.

Winn and Power, you did our country a service by writing this book; however, gentlemen, I would challenge the ‘Jew’ nomination from bottom-page 506: Moses was not a ‘Jew.’ The usage was not applicative until some 400 years after Moses’ death. But I would give the devil his due; most so-called Jews (and other monotheists) probably do not know the difference either. Again I must call the Winn-Power combine to task for their exegetical expertise concerning “Palestina” origination. It was not Romans who coined the name ‘Palestina’; I refer the authors to 660 years earlier to Roman presence in Judea, when Isaiah 14:31 let the cat out of the bag in 725 B.C. These are minor errors, and most traditionalists could care less; however, a good critique should find error—notwithstanding, I would dread for Winn and Power to critique my own work.

And gentlemen, while Thor Adams and Sarah did correctly elicit source for Muslim terror incentives, they failed to resolve the metaphysical equation. Profound in another author’s observation, Ann Tyler’s: “The world was full of equations . . . there must be an answer for everything, if only you knew how to set forth the questions.” This question has been set forth, in contextual surety; and the answer has been posited to the present Administration policymaker corp. Surprise! They think thinkers are resident only in the Washington bureaucracy.

All present initiatives by US think tanks will be proven ineffective in the long haul, for they redesign traditional failures only. A metaphysical solution to the Middle Eastern madness can be found in the signature representation below.

If any on my e-mail list appreciate eminent and imminent danger warnings, plus lively fiction adventure and a smattering of metaphysical ideations woven into narrative flow, then, Tea With Terrorists might be your cup of tea.

​===w===

Fred Alan Wolf takes readers on a fascinating journey: from fundamental concepts of Quantum Physics to the utmost limits of science and imagination. Once Professor of Physics at San Diego State University, Wolf has published numerous scientific articles and lectured extensively around the world.
            Very insightful of the unorthodoxy emanating from eminent physicists, and setting forth the many thoughts and equations intended to resolve the fundamental motivation for universal action and reaction, Doctor Wolf introduces nonscientists to the many blind alleys encountered as physicists struggle with Quantum Mechanics. When first apprised of Wolf’s ambition to explain advanced theory in a simplistic exposition, his colleagues warned: “No one could understand quantum physics without a firm mathematical background.” For scientists, the underlying nature of Quantum Mechanics makes the quantum leap an uncertain affair; for: “There is no way to know with absolute certainty the movements of such tiny particles of matter.”  Thus, eighty years after the quantum nature of matter was first posited, the quantum world still holds surprises. Nonetheless, Professor Wolf ventures to take the uninitiated into a world of imagined ether, wave principle, electromagnetism, determinism (omnipotent cause), indeterminism (natural order), discontinuity (motion abrogated through observance), and continuity (motion seen as continuous when undisturbed).
            We should begin to understand “Taking The Quantum Leap” by first arriving to a firm definition for the Quantum Theory: which concept is concerned with structure and behavior of atoms and molecules, how radiant energy transmits in the form of discrete units, how energy is effected by abrupt change or steps in quantum frequency and momentum, and especially as the theory translates into numerical progression. In an atomic sense, the electron makes a ‘Quantum Leap’ as it negotiates abrupt changes from one energy level to another in orbital shells around an atom nucleus and thus exciting quantum energy gain. Quantum theoreticians would seek to discover its motivation and to isolate the smallest physical quantity independently existing particles, especially discrete electromagnetic radiation quality and quantity.
            In an effort to cover the entire physicist theory gamut, Wolf introduces theory and argumentation advanced by Newton, Planck (E = hf), Einstein (E = mc2), Bohr (quantum leap theorist), De Broglie (p = h/L); and this is not to belittle the eminence and contribution of Heisenberg, Born, Schroedinger and many others who have joined in the search to establish matter origins, light particle composition, and energy production. In a discussion of Schroedinger’s wave theory at the 1927 Solvay Congress, attended by about 30 of the world’s most eminent physicists, a discussion of electron motivation, as it relates to frequency and momentum, was explored and whether reaction resulted from a pulse wave or via excitation from other particles of matter. There the incongruous was proposed: “The wave is not the ultimate reality. The particle is not the ultimate reality. Reality is not the ultimate reality. There is, instead, one unbroken wholeness that appears paradoxical as soon as we observers attempt to analyze it.”
            From the mind and reasoning of Ben Winter, the above quoted statement suffers from definition insolvency. A perceived particle cannot be proven in Reality, for particles constantly change and conform to attraction and repulsion incentives. Reality is that which is unchangeable! Reality is historical; actuality should have been used instead, to communicate a state of implied presence, to correctly modify the particular language of particle perception and behavior. Obviously, despite the intellectuality assembled, the august group could not grasp reality’s definition finiteness. If intercepted reflection or other phenomenon conveys a concept to sentience, then reality must be sensed as historic. For, regardless the distance light travels, or sense intercepts, via radiation, wave, or reflection (such as an aged 14 Billion years reflection from distant Galaxies), or other belated communication, it requires a particular length of time to reach cognizance, and such being relative to light-speed of those things reflected from close at hand; therefore, we live in the presence (actuality) but we perceive all things in reality (historical recall). According to Wolf, addressing the world of atomic reality as observed by physicists:
“. . . reality depends upon our choices of what and how we choose to observe. These choices, in turn, depend upon our minds or, more specifically, the content of our thoughts. And our thoughts, in turn, depend upon our expectations, our desire for continuity.”  He continues, ‘When a physicist talks about reality, he or she means the “out there.”’ Would it not have been better stated: “back there.’
            Einstein proposed an orderly universe, and he suggested light to be composed of matter. To his death, Einstein opposed Bohr’s discontinuous viewpoint. And Wolf continues: “The resistance that each view offered the other resulted in a great deal of new thinking. Scientists would construct exciting parallels between many avenues of life that were previously thought of as very different. However, the debate between Bohr and Einstein has still not ended, though both are now dead. Indeed, the battle of continuity versus discontinuity may never end.”
            Wolf, in an effort to maximize the importance of particle behavior, quotes from the EPR Paradox (an article by Einstein and colleagues) as evidence of Einstein’s continued resistance to Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity: “A sufficient condition for the reality of a physical quantity is the possibility of predicting it with certainty, without disturbing [it].”  Thus, according to EPR, “ . . it is possible to predict either the position or the momentum of an object without disturbing the object . . . all the observer does is choose which quantity to predict.”
            Visualizing a quantum wave fundamentalism expressed in expanding qwiffs, and which qwiffs can be popped into collapse and cognizance, Wolf postulates a world of gnostic awareness, indeed Schroedinger’s quantum solipsism, wherein individuals create the whole of universe and thus live in philosophical relativity; thus, it leaves the scientist poised in actuality-reality hiatus. ‘The world of the quantum solipsist bears some resemblance to Descartes; “I think, therefore I am.”’ Thus, uncertainty and diverse theory imposes the Schroedinger observation: “A quantum solipsist says, I am the only reality. Everything out there is in my mind. To change reality—that is, to change objects into different objects—I need to change my mind.” Again, reality definition is slighted.
            Quantum theories, briefly outlined in Wolf’s book, are too many and too diverse to include all in this critique: i.e., parallel universes, paradoxical particle existence, conscious and unconscious duration. Even so, we, each of us, are all the above: “Your electrons are observed by your atoms, who are, in turn, observed by your molecules, which are watched by your cells, which are seen by your organs, which are monitored by your nervous system . . .”  Everett adds, “There is only one observer in the entire universe, and each reader may rejoice because—you are it! All other people follow the laws of quantum flow. They remain in a state of suspended animation, or however you wish to think of them, until you come along.”  Did Ben Winter, author of THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, not suggest, in a previous observation: “individuals create the whole of universe and thus live in philosophical relativity, poised in actuality-reality hiatus”? THE GREAT DECEPTION uniquely justifies the indeterminism theory. In no other publication can scientist or nonscientist find absolute truth to quantify monotheism finiteness and thus limit the determinism hypothesis.
            Wolf encapsulates his philosophical approach to the physics of atomic attraction: “I find it reassuring that reality as a whole is completely deterministic, all of it flowing while my little piece of the Big Qwiff appears to suffer from indeterminism and the uncertainty principle. What is remarkable about this interpretation is that it shows that the mathematical formalism is capable of determining its own interpretation.”  Such philosophy is acceptable only in lieu of THE GREAT DECEPTION hypothesis.
            Noting the keen insight of Physicist Bass, Wolf quotes the following concerned with atomic predisposition: ‘At the atomic level, consciousness is primitive, but necessarily so. Neurons contain possibly several billion atomic “consciousnesses.” We might call each such consciousness a mind. All together they are the agents that make up your intelligence agency.’  These observations corroborate Ben Winter’s own theory of atomic convergence as stated in previous writings: “Atoms are infused with their own intellectual inclination; thereby, they gain propensity with beneficially attracted electrons and atomic substrates and thus propitiate molecular-cellular sustenance and longevity.”
            In modern scientific investigation, we discover a growing Quantum Theory understanding and a dearth of indecision surrounding Quantum Theory application. But the mystery is not so mysterious! The Hebrew God was communicated as “I Am that I Am.” Over 3000 years later, René Descartes wrote, “I think, therefore I am.” And now, in the age of discovery, we find Quantum Mechanics to support basis for the two positions, for the advent of energy, and therefore for our very existence. I am is only a quantum consciousness—but a quantum leap into cognizance.

​To grasp The Abrahamic Incentive enormity and thus Middle East mindset, we must review the origins and initiatives bringing monotheism to its present crisis.

About 4000 years ago, Abraham designated two sons as recipients of two very unlike kingdoms—to the neglect of six other sons. At odds in genesis, the two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, produced progeny still at odds in present monotheism ambiance, nearly 4000 years later. In the interim, over an 1800-year period, beginning some 900 years subsequent to Abraham, Judaism, and Christianity evolved and ran its course—in no way influenced by the outcast Ishmael until about 600 years following Temple destruction.

The Abrahamic Incentive was initiated circa 1900 B.C., evolved to Abrahamic Messianism circa A.D. 30, and finally to Abrahamic Mohammedanism circa A.D. 600. As Islam encroached on the two former concepts, resistance produced bitter enemies; each imagined God favoritism. With an imaginative idealism, each enabled further division, to Jewish Moderates/Liberals, Christian Catholics/Protestants, and Islamic Shiite/Sunni diversity. Multiple sects, divisions, and interpretative cells proliferated through the years, each ambitioned to transcend opposing viewpoints. Antagonisms grew over millennia, and inestimable millions have died to uphold particular faith disciplines; where cause became secondary to the underlying commercial crusade.

In truth, the metaphysical feeds on immortality hungers only; where, immortal extension would compensate for life’s continual hardship and a failing Deity beneficence. In this spiritual contrariety, primitive desire overwhelms intellectual/plebeian reason and sweeps rich and poor alike into fanatical devotion. Thus, we intercept the deep-seated commitment resisting cause alleviation or factional amelioration.

Short of total Islam disintegration, which extreme is not likely nor possible to contemplate, police action remains for the present mindset; yet, military, diplomatic, and humanitarian means are proven to be stop-gap only; policymaker intellectuality cannot penetrate much less resolve the fanaticisms present in Judeo-Christian-Islamic legalities. Deeply involved in the melee and sans civilized World support, U.S. means must physically prosecute crimes against our country, beyond the scope of military, and in a metaphysical realm unresponsive to bullets or diplomacy; notwithstanding, we continue to buy time via diplomatic means, even while recognizing the enterprise to be lastingly ineffectual.

The Abrahamic Incentive provides a force to be reckoned with, though not without an inherent weakness; for a new remediation tool is available to broaden civilized concepts and to affect multi-millions steeped in psychological dependency. Addressing Middle Eastern legal-historicity, the Abraham prerogative weakness is documented, published, and available to alleviate present ignorance and discourage theocratic opportunism. Pedagogic alternatives to traditional teachings are now extracted from the very documents giving rise to extremist dedication. Only by redirecting theological energies by way of educational reform can we ameliorate the terrorist cause, which cause ignores bloodline exception and drinks a toast to its elitist narcissism--to quench inflamed passions of an age-old animosity.

In a religious ambiance, scholarly exegesis has always deferred to majority desire; then, following an exegesis vacuum, eisegesis becomes the norm; thereof, egregious renderings are introduced to the susceptible. Thus, reverse evangelism is indicated; where a propagandized Israeli and Islamic evolvement from The Abrahamic Incentive is extended into our present circumstance. Now, unyielding truths emerge to illuminate The Abrahamic Initative in a new light! Semantically, the Bible and Qu’ran proviso does not lend itself to an Abraham incentive past the time frame proscription set forth in its legal-historical framework; adopted cause is hindered by Ten Ages finiteness and the Abraham prerogatives inhered in theocratic rule. Outside this given, peace can be brought only by cessation of Ordinances, Obeisance, and Blind Devotion to an obsolete ideation.

Recently published, a new study highlights critical ignorance of legal-historical limits set in the Judeo-Christian-Islam disciplines—presently legalized in an inopportune time-space adoption. In THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, a 13-year work, Abraham’s devotion to theocratic autonomy is exposed as a lure to fulfill Ten Ages in the whole Covenant processes, now realized. Ishmael, Islam’s progenitor, was clearly disinherited of the salvation expedient. If The Abrahamic Incentive was closed to Ishmael, not only via disinheritance but by Ten Ages expiration, then, the Incentive must be closed to all by the legal-historical mandate. Symbols scholar, Ben Winter extracted this unique interpretive conclusion by discovery of Ten Ages fullness in time.

Widespread dissemination of this new hermeneutics would expose combatants to the fallacy in imagined cause and drastically shorten the monotheism war. Distribution would quiet Israeli and Islamic activists, calm Christian revolutionaries, and correctly define monotheism as an adopted anaclisis. Though the effort might require ten or more years, educating a metaphysically mad world could save trillions of dollars and numerous lives. This book strikes at the very heart of extremist motivation; it is the only agency possible to discourage our intangible enemy, and metaphysical enlightenment will make the world a less dangerous place to live.

Solution to the world’s terrorist problem is not insurmountable; we need only to shed our metaphysical skin and crawl out of a self-imposed, primitive darkness.

​===w===