|
Perhaps to comply with the universe dictum that providing us with unearned knowledge is forbidden, in both these cases the revelators quoted almost word for word from published papers. In the electron and proton radii case they made subtle alterations to the text of the quotes that vastly altered the answers obtained--but were not confirmable as correct until the 1990's period. In the neutrino case, the authors of the original paper betrayed the fact they did not believe their own speculation, and, in fact, favored a quite different outcome. But, after a lapse of many years, it was their highly speculative suggestion, the one chosen by the revelators, which turned out to be correct.
Wonderment also comes if we read the Book's account of the early parallel growth of the Earth and its Moon through an accretion process and, on checking the sums, we discover that the revelators' account has the Moon attain a mass 16 times its present size. Curiously it took almost fifty years before anyone even noticed this obvious error. Such was the faith of readers in the infallibility of heavenly sources--and this despite the authors' own denials:
"Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired." (P.1109)
[Note: In the 1930's, the word "cosmology" still retained its traditional connotation as a branch of metaphysics dealing with features of the world as a whole--including, for example, St Thomas Aquinas' famous cosmological argument--see Oxford University Press, Oxford Companion to Philosophy.]
|
|
