"James son of Joseph brother of Jesus""
The producer and Writer of the film is "An Israeli-born Canadian, Simcha Jacobovici is an award-winning documentary director and producer"
Another one of his documentaries was on the James ossuary
"An ossuary, or bone box, has come to light in the possession of a private collector. On its side is an inscription in Aramaic that reads, "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus""
"Upon examining the tomb, the filmmakers determined a space exists that would have fit the "James" ossuary. Given the patina match and this observation, Jacobovici theorizes the lost burial box could, in fact, be the "James" ossuary."
There is actually a court case in progress as the collector is charged with forging this particular box see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/823215.html
An interesting point is that evidence in the case is that the ossuary was photographed in 1976. Please note that the Talyipot tomb was unearthed in 1980.
I posted this on sci.archaeology see http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.archaeology/msg/c81983d262ed04e6
and went on to add from the Jerusalem Post A conversation with the archaeologist
"What of the assertion that the 10th ossuary disappeared from your care and may be none other than the "James" ossuary? "
"Nothing has disappeared. The 10th ossuary was on my list. The measurements were not the same (as the James ossuary). It was plain (without an inscription). We had no room under our roofs for all the ossuaries, so unmarked ones were sometimes kept in the courtyard (of the Rockefeller Museum). "
The film makers would love the ossuary to be from the tomb with wording like "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus" but it is not!
Have another look at BenW 26 Feb Eusebius recorded that there was a tomb of James in Jerusalem itself and it was not at Talipot. James the brother was buried elsewhere.
Hence if we just suppose the James ossuary was buried in this tomb and the inscription is authentic then he is not the brother of who the film thinks he is and so everyone else is not the person the film claims either.
But it really does not look like the ossuary is from the tomb so claiming it is in such suspicious circumstances really does not lead to a conclusion of integrity on the part of the film makers
Friday, March 02, 2007
Talpiyot Tomb - 1980 to 2007
This tomb was found in 1980 - the inscriptions were given out 10 years ago. Why did it take so long to put all this together if it is so clear cut.
Quotes from SMH
The Tutankhamen Deception by Gerald O'Farrell and that book thought King Tut was Jesus Christ
Quotes from SMH
"To a layman's eye it seems pretty darn compelling," executive producer James Cameron, the Canadian director of the movie Titanic, said at a press conference in New York.
(I Note: LAYMAN's EYE - so that whole thing is a fudge meant to confuse. Cameron wants to tell us he cannot assess the evidence himself - really so why promote it. )
and Cameron also said "This is the biggest archaeological story of the century."
Well possibly it could have been the biggest story of the last century but we are now 7 years into a new century - how come 20+ years before all these experts tell about something they say is so obvious.
The BBC actually beat them to the story and how "cute" it was back in 1996
The biggest archaeological story of the 20th century was the basis of
The Tutankhamen Deception by Gerald O'Farrell and that book thought King Tut was Jesus Christ
Talpiyot Tomb - Statistics
The film site has some number like 600 to 1 in favour.
A lot of talk about taking the large number of occurrences of the names and then statistical analysing down to the sons of Joseph with a mother Mary with a brother Yosa etc
see http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/527734/
Also some thoughts on numbers on James Tabor's blog - one of the film team
Talks about "population of Jerusalem being 50,000 and if they were all in a stadium......then there would be so many". One trouble with that is Jesus did not live in Jerusalem so if we are saying a family that did not live in Jerusalem then we need the whole population of the Jewish nation in that area and over several generations not just at one moment in the capital city.
All that depends on the relationships of the people in the tomb being the same as Mary's family but nothing confirms that those are the relationships so the statistical analysis falls
A senior Israeli archaeologist who thoroughly researched the tomb after its discovery, and at the time deciphered the inscriptions, cast serious doubt on the documentary's claim. "It's a beautiful story but without any proof whatsoever," Professor Amos Kloner, who published the findings of his research in the Israeli periodical Atiqot in 1996, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur on Friday.
"The names that are found on the tombs are names that are similar to the names of the family of Jesus," he said. "But those were the most common names found among Jews in the first centuries BCE and CE," he added. He dismissed the combination of names found in the cave as a "coincidence".
The newsgroup sci.archaeology has a Different view on the statistics - now its 12 to 1 against
And Cadre comments - Looking at the numbers
starts to consider the fact that several generations are involved so more than one lot of 50,000 are in the base numbers.
This one is on the track
as is this
The correct interpretation of 1:600 odds calculation
The Statistical Case for the Identity of the "Jesus Family Tomb"
A lot of talk about taking the large number of occurrences of the names and then statistical analysing down to the sons of Joseph with a mother Mary with a brother Yosa etc
see http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/527734/
Also some thoughts on numbers on James Tabor's blog - one of the film team
Talks about "population of Jerusalem being 50,000 and if they were all in a stadium......then there would be so many". One trouble with that is Jesus did not live in Jerusalem so if we are saying a family that did not live in Jerusalem then we need the whole population of the Jewish nation in that area and over several generations not just at one moment in the capital city.
All that depends on the relationships of the people in the tomb being the same as Mary's family but nothing confirms that those are the relationships so the statistical analysis falls
A senior Israeli archaeologist who thoroughly researched the tomb after its discovery, and at the time deciphered the inscriptions, cast serious doubt on the documentary's claim. "It's a beautiful story but without any proof whatsoever," Professor Amos Kloner, who published the findings of his research in the Israeli periodical Atiqot in 1996, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur on Friday.
"The names that are found on the tombs are names that are similar to the names of the family of Jesus," he said. "But those were the most common names found among Jews in the first centuries BCE and CE," he added. He dismissed the combination of names found in the cave as a "coincidence".
The newsgroup sci.archaeology has a Different view on the statistics - now its 12 to 1 against
And Cadre comments - Looking at the numbers
starts to consider the fact that several generations are involved so more than one lot of 50,000 are in the base numbers.
This one is on the track
http://josiahcm.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/statistical-analysis/
as is this
The correct interpretation of 1:600 odds calculation
The Statistical Case for the Identity of the "Jesus Family Tomb"
Talpiyot Tomb -Yose
Yose alternate form of 'Joseph' ( Matthew 13:54 lists 4 brothers of Jesus—James, Joses, Simon, Judas—and unnamed and unnumbered sisters)
Yose is said to be a unique or rare form of the name Joseph - the inference being it is only known as being used for the brother of Jesus Christ. No one is saying it is a rare form.
Yose is said to be a unique or rare form of the name Joseph - the inference being it is only known as being used for the brother of Jesus Christ. No one is saying it is a rare form.
Why does this have to be the brother of the Jesus in the tomb? He could just as easily be the father. Why label Jesus "son of" if the father is not in the tomb? And if Yose is the brother why was his box not label as Yose bar Yehosef.
And I suppose the unmarked boxes contain Simon and the sisters - after all we don't know their names so they must be the sisters
Talpiyot Tomb - DNA
DNA analysis by the film team identifies that tissues from the ossuaries of Jesua and Mariamene e Mara were not related, raising the possibility they may have been married and had a child.
Am I reading that only TWO remains were DNA tested? Surely they are joking! Strangely people who are related do get married - there are so many combinations of who these people are and what relationships if any they might have had to each other.
Using the words "DNA tested" implies links were found. BUT in this case no link was found - so nothing was proven - and using the words "DNA tested" is implying something was proven - that is most MISLEADING to use a polite word
Talpiyot Tomb - Matia.
Matthew
Matthew 24:23-25 At that time, someone might say to you, 'Look, there is the Christ!' Or another person might say, 'There he is!' But don't believe them. False Christs and false prophets will come and perform great wonders and miracles. They will try to fool even the people God has chosen, if that is possible. Now I have warned you about this before it happens.
Yes one of Jesus's disciple was Matthew also known as Levi. He is supposed to have been killed in Ethiopia - a long way from Jerusalem - just another name coincidence. Sounds good for the association with Jesus Christ as many people know Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Now I am hearing that they are saying that Matia must have been a relative of Maria and this proves this is her family tomb. Just another hypothesis.
A name found in a family tomb for which there is no known connection with Mary's family would imply that it is not Mary's family in the tomb.
In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus saysMatthew 24:23-25 At that time, someone might say to you, 'Look, there is the Christ!' Or another person might say, 'There he is!' But don't believe them. False Christs and false prophets will come and perform great wonders and miracles. They will try to fool even the people God has chosen, if that is possible. Now I have warned you about this before it happens.
Talpiyot Tomb - Maria
Latin for Mary.
So to the film obviously "Ave Maria" is meant so this must have been Mary the mother. Note the film's web site says Virgin Mary - the word virgin is not reported as found on the boxes
So to the film obviously "Ave Maria" is meant so this must have been Mary the mother. Note the film's web site says Virgin Mary - the word virgin is not reported as found on the boxes
How many Mary in Jerusalem in those days? The Bible itself has several. It was a very widely used female name.
I always understood Mary went to Ephesus with the disciple John and was buried there.
Some of the statistical imaginings are based on how many Jesus would have a Joseph as father and a mother Mary - but nothing in the tomb says that the Maria is the mother of this Jesus - she could also be the wife of the Jesus in the tomb or the wife of the Matia or even the Judah.
Talpiyot Tomb - Mariamene e Mara
Mariamene e Mara (written in Greek)
Note: MIGHT and PROBABLY - using those words sound like they don't really know but it fits their imaginings. The links below show that there is no evidence for Magdalene being Philip's sister.
In reality there seems to be a case that Mara means Martha rather than Master and could even mean two different people in this box. see Ben Witherington 28 Feb
See also Talpiyot Tomb - Recommended Sites for several sites discussing the Mariamene name.
More from Stephen Pfann on box being for two bodies and a site under his name with pictures of the writing
And I like the Comment on Wired
Some people say this tomb proves that Dan Brown was right in the DaVinci Code regarding a marriage between Jesus and Magdalene - actually the first book that brought that nonsense to my notice was "Holy Blood Holy Grail" published in early 1980s . However both books said that Magdalene migrated to South France - so who took her remains back to Jerusalem? come on! This nonsense gets sillier!
Talpiyot Tomb - Yehudah bar Yeshua
Yehudah bar Yeshua is Aramaic for Judah, son of Jesus (also Judas or Jude )
So the film finds that as this says "son of Jesus" this must prove that it was the Jesus in the tomb who married the woman in the tomb they call Mary Magdalene and hence this Judah must be their son. See the DNA test for their prove.
We have heard that Jesus married Mary Magadalene before this but this is the first time we have ever heard of this son. None of the writings over the centuries ever came up with this. In all that Dan Brown wrote this was not suggested. So how can this conclusion be reached.
So what is the story the film suggests? Jesus and Mary marry and have a child and name him Judas - I suppose after the wonderful treasurer who betrayed Jesus and caused his arrest.
To me it is evidence that the people in this tomb are nothing to do with Jesus Christ.
So the film finds that as this says "son of Jesus" this must prove that it was the Jesus in the tomb who married the woman in the tomb they call Mary Magdalene and hence this Judah must be their son. See the DNA test for their prove.
We have heard that Jesus married Mary Magadalene before this but this is the first time we have ever heard of this son. None of the writings over the centuries ever came up with this. In all that Dan Brown wrote this was not suggested. So how can this conclusion be reached.
So what is the story the film suggests? Jesus and Mary marry and have a child and name him Judas - I suppose after the wonderful treasurer who betrayed Jesus and caused his arrest.
To me it is evidence that the people in this tomb are nothing to do with Jesus Christ.
Talpiyot Tomb - Recommended Sites
These sites present sound arguments on the nonsense of the claim re finding the tomb of Jesus
from Nehemia Gordon the author of the book The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus - Nehemia discusses many matters including " So rather than being a Latinized form of Maria, the ossuary in the "Talpiot Tomb" was probably from that of a man named Merayah." And also where the tomb is actually located if you are in Jerusalem you could visit.
April 12 Experts back away from Jesus's tomb claims
This one is after the show and has lots of links to other sources The Lost Tomb of Jesus: Really?
Site with lots of Links still being updated and Another with links
The following were from when the show was about to go on TV
Christopher Rollston on the Talpiot Tomb
Scholar .......... I am angry." from Scientific American
James Snapp, Jr. ~ March 7, 2007 and March 2, 2007
from Nehemia Gordon the author of the book The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus - Nehemia discusses many matters including " So rather than being a Latinized form of Maria, the ossuary in the "Talpiot Tomb" was probably from that of a man named Merayah." And also where the tomb is actually located if you are in Jerusalem you could visit.
April 12 Experts back away from Jesus's tomb claims
This one is after the show and has lots of links to other sources The Lost Tomb of Jesus: Really?
Site with lots of Links still being updated and Another with links
The following were from when the show was about to go on TV
Christopher Rollston on the Talpiot Tomb
http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=92
Recliner CommentariesResources and Responses to the “Tomb of Jesus and His Family” Story
http://dev.bible.org/bock/node/106 with some more on statisticsJoe Zias
Scholar .......... I am angry." from Scientific American
James Snapp, Jr. ~ March 7, 2007 and March 2, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
Zulu: The True Story
Recently ABC TV in Sydney repeated "Zulu: The True Story"
The Battle of Isandlwana and Rorke's drift 1879
This is the BBC summary of the show
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/zulu_01.shtml
First part
"A dangerous mix of self-confidence and contempt for their foes infected many in the British Army during the Zulu War. This misjudgement led to thousands of deaths - and an unsavoury, high-level cover-up - "
I found the show interesting as it showed the places etc in which the battles happened but quite sad in its conclusions about the " high-level cover-up"
Let's look at the opening "thousands of deaths " - a later BBC page says
"The culmination of Chelmsford's incompetence was a blood-soaked field littered with thousands of corpses. Of the original 1,750 defenders - 1,000 British and 750 black auxiliaries - 1,350 had been killed." Now 1350 is not thousands its several hundreds yes but surely "thousands" implies at least 3000. Of course a lot of Zulus died also but that does not seem to be what the program was concerned about.
In the program part of the cover up was said to be the award of the V.C. to Lieutenants Melville and Coghill for their escape with the Queen's Colour of the 24th Foot. These officers were said to be cowards who deserted their men and perhaps so but the program was trying to make a point about spin doctoring in 1879. Let us see - these officers died and their VCs were awarded posthumously but not when the cover up was "needed" back in 1879. They were only awarded the medal in 1907 after the law was changed to allow this high honour to be awarded posthumously. Note: Chelmsford died in 1905 before the award was made which was supposedly done to draw attention from his failure.
Colours were highly important to British regiments - the 24th had lost colours in India and a further loss in Africa would have been bad for prestige - here is a good account of the battle http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/isandlwana.htm
down the page is a photo of the troop who retrieved the colours from the river - obviously a major event
What was amazing in the TV show was the big jump between the battle and Chelmsford arriving back in London and conspiring with Queen Victoria to stay in his job. Hang about what happened to the rest of the Zulu War leading up to the Battle of Ulundi when the Zulus were defeated outside their capital. Why were these events not covered in some detail. Except that I knew Chelmsford's role in the Zulu War I don't think I would have understood that from this program. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ulundi
"The day after the Battle of Ulundi, Lord Chelmsford received indication that Sir Wolseley was taking over command. Chelmsford replied to both the Secretary of State For War and Wolseley that he took his supersession as criticism of his conduct, and since he had now defeated the Zulus he requested permission to return home, which he did.". So what was the cover up - Garnet was sent to take over - did the program mention this. The program was not good history.
Now some other BBC statements on Chelmsford
"Even more significantly, he tried to push blame for the defeat onto Colonel Durnford, now dead, claiming that Durnford had disobeyed orders to defend the camp. 'Many generals blunder in war, but few go to such lengths to avoid responsibility.'The truth is that no orders were ever given to Durnford to take command."
Versus
http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/isandlwana.htm
"Colonel Pulleine was left in camp with the 1st Battalion of the 24th Foot. Orders were sent to Colonel Durnford to bring his column up to reinforce the camp." and later "At about 10am Colonel Durnford arrived at Isandlwana with a party of mounted men and a rocket troop.
Durnford promptly left the camp to follow up the reports of the imminence of the Zulus and Pulleine agreed to support him if he found himself in difficulties"
It seems that orders had been given to Durnford but he did not stay in the camp but moved out - perhaps his men and the rocket troop might have made a difference if they had been in the camp when the Battle took place
Wiki sums up the battle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana
But I don't see a lot of complaints about Chelmsford tactics etc.
In the film "Zulu Dawn" he got a serve but now the TV has forced me to re-think I am more inclined to see Pulleine at error in placing his firing line and Durnford in charging off with his men.
The spin doctoring of Rorke's drift
You could almost infer that Chelmsford organised the defence of the farm to take the heat off his "failure" at Isandlwana.
BBC - "Few, however, remember that it was fought on the same day that the British Army suffered its most humiliating defeat at nearby Isandlwana. Why? Because it suited those responsible for the disaster to exaggerate the importance of Rorke's Drift in the hope of reducing the impact of Isandlwana"
No I don't see that - are they saying the Press did not report the battle and loss of such a large number of men.
And of course the men of Rorke's drift deserve honours - they held the place against a very large force and stopped them advancing into Natal . Of course our modern understanding of the event is influenced by the 1964 film but the film was not organised by Queen Victoria.
From http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/rorkes-drift.htm
"Sir Garnet Wolseley, taking over as Commander-in-Chief from Lord Chelmsford, was unimpressed with the awards made to the defenders of Rorke’s Drift, saying “it is monstrous making heroes of those who shut up in buildings at Rorke’s Drift, could not bolt, and fought like rats for their lives which they could not otherwise save"
versus
"The medical consequences of the battle: It seems likely that a number of the defenders of Rorke’s Drift subsequently suffered from what is now classified as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: Corporal Schiess fell “on hard times” and died in 1884 aged 28 years; Pte John Fielding’s hair is said to have turned white shortly after the battle; William Jones in old age suffered from nightmares that the Zulus were about to attack; Robert Jones shot himself in 1896"
so was Wolseley right - I don't think so
The BBC program did not like that Bromhead and Chard were awarded VCs as they were officers and it was an upper crust award - what about the 5 other VCs were they upper crust - NO. The program then went on to say other people should have also got VCs - mainly a sergeant whose grandson was in the show - on one hand it was a cover up that VCs were awarded and then there were not enough.......
Other quotes from the show re the " Zulu" film - "they are using rifles captured at Isandlwana to shoot at us" - quote this could not be as the Zulu's were a reserve force who had not been at main battle - certainly the Zulu used such rifles in other battles http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/khambula.htm
and I think it is underestimating theZulu to say they would not have taken rifles to Rorke's drift
There was a complaint about the Zulu film regarding the Welsh bias - however to me in the film the men in the film seemed to be a mixture of Welsh and English as it also shown by lists of those taking part.
again from http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/ulundi.htm
The Zulu War was one of the last campaigns fought by the old numbered infantry regiments of the British Army. In 1882 the Cardwell Reforms brought in the system of two battalion regiments, by combining the single battalion regiments in pairs and assigning formal regional titles. The regiments up to the 25th Foot already had two battalions and simply took the new titles. The 24th Foot, which had both its battalions in the Zulu War, fighting at Isandlwana and Rorke’s Drift, from being the South Warwickshire Regiment became the South Wales Borderers; the shift in focus from the English West Midlands to Wales being a nod to the Welsh origins of the soldiers of B Company of the 2nd Battalion who had held Rorke’s Drift.
I am glad to get this off my chest - I was not happy with Zulu the True Story
The Battle of Isandlwana and Rorke's drift 1879
This is the BBC summary of the show
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/zulu_01.shtml
First part
"A dangerous mix of self-confidence and contempt for their foes infected many in the British Army during the Zulu War. This misjudgement led to thousands of deaths - and an unsavoury, high-level cover-up - "
I found the show interesting as it showed the places etc in which the battles happened but quite sad in its conclusions about the " high-level cover-up"
Let's look at the opening "thousands of deaths " - a later BBC page says
"The culmination of Chelmsford's incompetence was a blood-soaked field littered with thousands of corpses. Of the original 1,750 defenders - 1,000 British and 750 black auxiliaries - 1,350 had been killed." Now 1350 is not thousands its several hundreds yes but surely "thousands" implies at least 3000. Of course a lot of Zulus died also but that does not seem to be what the program was concerned about.
In the program part of the cover up was said to be the award of the V.C. to Lieutenants Melville and Coghill for their escape with the Queen's Colour of the 24th Foot. These officers were said to be cowards who deserted their men and perhaps so but the program was trying to make a point about spin doctoring in 1879. Let us see - these officers died and their VCs were awarded posthumously but not when the cover up was "needed" back in 1879. They were only awarded the medal in 1907 after the law was changed to allow this high honour to be awarded posthumously. Note: Chelmsford died in 1905 before the award was made which was supposedly done to draw attention from his failure.
Colours were highly important to British regiments - the 24th had lost colours in India and a further loss in Africa would have been bad for prestige - here is a good account of the battle http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/isandlwana.htm
down the page is a photo of the troop who retrieved the colours from the river - obviously a major event
What was amazing in the TV show was the big jump between the battle and Chelmsford arriving back in London and conspiring with Queen Victoria to stay in his job. Hang about what happened to the rest of the Zulu War leading up to the Battle of Ulundi when the Zulus were defeated outside their capital. Why were these events not covered in some detail. Except that I knew Chelmsford's role in the Zulu War I don't think I would have understood that from this program. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ulundi
"The day after the Battle of Ulundi, Lord Chelmsford received indication that Sir Wolseley was taking over command. Chelmsford replied to both the Secretary of State For War and Wolseley that he took his supersession as criticism of his conduct, and since he had now defeated the Zulus he requested permission to return home, which he did.". So what was the cover up - Garnet was sent to take over - did the program mention this. The program was not good history.
Now some other BBC statements on Chelmsford
"Even more significantly, he tried to push blame for the defeat onto Colonel Durnford, now dead, claiming that Durnford had disobeyed orders to defend the camp. 'Many generals blunder in war, but few go to such lengths to avoid responsibility.'The truth is that no orders were ever given to Durnford to take command."
Versus
http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/isandlwana.htm
"Colonel Pulleine was left in camp with the 1st Battalion of the 24th Foot. Orders were sent to Colonel Durnford to bring his column up to reinforce the camp." and later "At about 10am Colonel Durnford arrived at Isandlwana with a party of mounted men and a rocket troop.
Durnford promptly left the camp to follow up the reports of the imminence of the Zulus and Pulleine agreed to support him if he found himself in difficulties"
It seems that orders had been given to Durnford but he did not stay in the camp but moved out - perhaps his men and the rocket troop might have made a difference if they had been in the camp when the Battle took place
Wiki sums up the battle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana
But I don't see a lot of complaints about Chelmsford tactics etc.
In the film "Zulu Dawn" he got a serve but now the TV has forced me to re-think I am more inclined to see Pulleine at error in placing his firing line and Durnford in charging off with his men.
The spin doctoring of Rorke's drift
You could almost infer that Chelmsford organised the defence of the farm to take the heat off his "failure" at Isandlwana.
BBC - "Few, however, remember that it was fought on the same day that the British Army suffered its most humiliating defeat at nearby Isandlwana. Why? Because it suited those responsible for the disaster to exaggerate the importance of Rorke's Drift in the hope of reducing the impact of Isandlwana"
No I don't see that - are they saying the Press did not report the battle and loss of such a large number of men.
And of course the men of Rorke's drift deserve honours - they held the place against a very large force and stopped them advancing into Natal . Of course our modern understanding of the event is influenced by the 1964 film but the film was not organised by Queen Victoria.
From http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/rorkes-drift.htm
"Sir Garnet Wolseley, taking over as Commander-in-Chief from Lord Chelmsford, was unimpressed with the awards made to the defenders of Rorke’s Drift, saying “it is monstrous making heroes of those who shut up in buildings at Rorke’s Drift, could not bolt, and fought like rats for their lives which they could not otherwise save"
versus
"The medical consequences of the battle: It seems likely that a number of the defenders of Rorke’s Drift subsequently suffered from what is now classified as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: Corporal Schiess fell “on hard times” and died in 1884 aged 28 years; Pte John Fielding’s hair is said to have turned white shortly after the battle; William Jones in old age suffered from nightmares that the Zulus were about to attack; Robert Jones shot himself in 1896"
so was Wolseley right - I don't think so
The BBC program did not like that Bromhead and Chard were awarded VCs as they were officers and it was an upper crust award - what about the 5 other VCs were they upper crust - NO. The program then went on to say other people should have also got VCs - mainly a sergeant whose grandson was in the show - on one hand it was a cover up that VCs were awarded and then there were not enough.......
Other quotes from the show re the " Zulu" film - "they are using rifles captured at Isandlwana to shoot at us" - quote this could not be as the Zulu's were a reserve force who had not been at main battle - certainly the Zulu used such rifles in other battles http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/khambula.htm
and I think it is underestimating theZulu to say they would not have taken rifles to Rorke's drift
There was a complaint about the Zulu film regarding the Welsh bias - however to me in the film the men in the film seemed to be a mixture of Welsh and English as it also shown by lists of those taking part.
again from http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/ulundi.htm
The Zulu War was one of the last campaigns fought by the old numbered infantry regiments of the British Army. In 1882 the Cardwell Reforms brought in the system of two battalion regiments, by combining the single battalion regiments in pairs and assigning formal regional titles. The regiments up to the 25th Foot already had two battalions and simply took the new titles. The 24th Foot, which had both its battalions in the Zulu War, fighting at Isandlwana and Rorke’s Drift, from being the South Warwickshire Regiment became the South Wales Borderers; the shift in focus from the English West Midlands to Wales being a nod to the Welsh origins of the soldiers of B Company of the 2nd Battalion who had held Rorke’s Drift.
I am glad to get this off my chest - I was not happy with Zulu the True Story
Sunday, November 05, 2006
The Devil Wears Prada
We went to see The Devil Wears Prada at Gold Class at Macquarie for my birthday. I much enjoyed Gold Class and the movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458352/
Meryl is wonderful as always - Anne Hathaway is cute and puts over her role well as does Emily Blunt - Stanley Tucci is very funny as Nigel http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001804/
What he and the others have to say about the importance of the fashion industry is enlightening. Go and Enjoy.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458352/
Meryl is wonderful as always - Anne Hathaway is cute and puts over her role well as does Emily Blunt - Stanley Tucci is very funny as Nigel http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001804/
What he and the others have to say about the importance of the fashion industry is enlightening. Go and Enjoy.
The Wrong Man _ movie
5 Nov 2006 We went to seeThe Wrong Man at Reading Rhodes - as we had preview tickets
On imdb it is called Lucky Number Slevin
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425210/
This is a violent movie with some very nasty killings some the detail is really too much - the opening has explicit sex - the contrived plot becomes obvious - but the way they work it out is interesting - if you do see you will discuss the resolution of the plot. However this is not a feel good movie
Stanley Tucci impressed http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001804/ see my review also of "The Devil Wears Prada"
On imdb it is called Lucky Number Slevin
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425210/
This is a violent movie with some very nasty killings some the detail is really too much - the opening has explicit sex - the contrived plot becomes obvious - but the way they work it out is interesting - if you do see you will discuss the resolution of the plot. However this is not a feel good movie
Stanley Tucci impressed http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001804/ see my review also of "The Devil Wears Prada"
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Videos from Al-Jazeera
Many videos at this site www.memritv.org exploring the world of Islam.
Especially search for Wafa Sultan her discussions are most interesting
Especially search for Wafa Sultan her discussions are most interesting
Friday, August 04, 2006
David Rohl - books and websites on his NEW Chronology
David Rohl - books and websites on his NEW Chronology
His site is http://www.nunki.net/
I have always been interested in archaeology and many years ago read Immanuel Velikovsky and his views on the chronology of Egypt. Which did lead to me being concerned about the dates given to certain Pharaohs. Not that I accepted all of Velikovsky's ideas and the big problem was that he died before he wrote the book that tied up the loose ends. Rohl is not as extreme and I do admire the way he accepts that the Holy Bible may be correct and is a good source of historical evidence. Centuries of Darkness by Peter James see http://www.centuries.co.uk/ is I think a more orthodox discussion of the problems. The big questions for me are When was Exodus and to clarify the time frame of King David and King Solomon and which Pharaohs are meant when mentioned in the Bible
Some sites with more detail
New Chronology resource page – David’s books and other useful resources all in one place!
http://www.oldtestamentstudies.net/ncresource/
Highlights List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology2
Moderator Richard Abbott's Website:
http://www.oldtestamentstudies.net
David has a DVD on Exodus and Moses which I would like to know more about.
Please do not confuse that DVD with one being sold in Bookshops
The Exodus Revealed do read the reviews on Amazon as some mention some positive items in the DVD. However the focus of the film seems on the work of Ron Wyatt see http://s93614334.onlinehome.us/religion/Exodus_Revealed/index.html
I think this critique is sound and I am concerned that works like this DVD are around to confuse people about the truth as shown in the Bible itself.
Note: This DVD is nothing to do with David Rohl but fits into this discussion.
His site is http://www.nunki.net/
I have always been interested in archaeology and many years ago read Immanuel Velikovsky and his views on the chronology of Egypt. Which did lead to me being concerned about the dates given to certain Pharaohs. Not that I accepted all of Velikovsky's ideas and the big problem was that he died before he wrote the book that tied up the loose ends. Rohl is not as extreme and I do admire the way he accepts that the Holy Bible may be correct and is a good source of historical evidence. Centuries of Darkness by Peter James see http://www.centuries.co.uk/ is I think a more orthodox discussion of the problems. The big questions for me are When was Exodus and to clarify the time frame of King David and King Solomon and which Pharaohs are meant when mentioned in the Bible
Some sites with more detail
New Chronology resource page – David’s books and other useful resources all in one place!
http://www.oldtestamentstudies.net/ncresource/
Highlights List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology2
Moderator Richard Abbott's Website:
http://www.oldtestamentstudies.net
David has a DVD on Exodus and Moses which I would like to know more about.
Please do not confuse that DVD with one being sold in Bookshops
The Exodus Revealed do read the reviews on Amazon as some mention some positive items in the DVD. However the focus of the film seems on the work of Ron Wyatt see http://s93614334.onlinehome.us/religion/Exodus_Revealed/index.html
I think this critique is sound and I am concerned that works like this DVD are around to confuse people about the truth as shown in the Bible itself.
Note: This DVD is nothing to do with David Rohl but fits into this discussion.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
The Tutankhamen Deception by Gerald O'Farrell
The Tutankhamen Deception by Gerald O'Farrell
Absolute load of rubbish
I saw it on shelf in library and it purported to reveal how Howard Carter had really discovered King Tut's tomb years before he announced it publicly and had been stealing all the bullion from it. I thought interesting. Anyhow I got home read the preface and it acknowledged Ahmed Osman and real warning bells sounded - this guy writes books saying the Kings of Israel were really Egyptian Pharaohs. This book is just a collection of assumptions without any evidence. And finally he states that the papers found in the tomb would have revealed King Tut is really Jesus Christ - some 1500 years before His Ministry on Earth. How do these guys come up with stuff and why are they published. You can find a lot of this in www.google.com - here is one sound review http://www.secker.fsbusiness.co.uk/deception.htm
Absolute load of rubbish
I saw it on shelf in library and it purported to reveal how Howard Carter had really discovered King Tut's tomb years before he announced it publicly and had been stealing all the bullion from it. I thought interesting. Anyhow I got home read the preface and it acknowledged Ahmed Osman and real warning bells sounded - this guy writes books saying the Kings of Israel were really Egyptian Pharaohs. This book is just a collection of assumptions without any evidence. And finally he states that the papers found in the tomb would have revealed King Tut is really Jesus Christ - some 1500 years before His Ministry on Earth. How do these guys come up with stuff and why are they published. You can find a lot of this in www.google.com - here is one sound review http://www.secker.fsbusiness.co.uk/deception.htm
Thursday, March 09, 2006
The Da Vinci Code - a book soon to be motion picture.
The Da Vinci Code - a book soon to be motion picture.
In 2005 a friend lent me Dan Brown's book as "Christians should know what he is saying in case they are asked."
Well if any adult asks I will be surprised. I could not believe how badly written this book was - the events are in the realm of fantasy - an albino (yes albino) monk who goes around killing those who know the "secret"and a death in the Louvre and the man placing his own body in a special arrangement whilst he is dying!!!! French police shown as corrupt buffoons. A whole section on mind baffling mystery writing which is clearly mirror writing - just hold it up to a mirror. Oh come on. I think the Harry Potter books which I admit I have only glanced at are better written - as are even the Op Centre books from the Tom Clancy factory - no reflection on a real Tom Clancy book. This is published as a novel but Brown keeps telling us it is fact when obviously what is happening is fiction.....
Why do these people pick on Leonardo - he was also supposed to be responsible for forging the Shroud of Turin.
Here are articles on some of the errors in the book
http://www.challengingdavinci.com/
and
http://www.ignatius.com/books/davincihoax/thefacts/
By the way The Da Vinci Code ideas are clearly from "Holy Blood Holy Grail" by authors Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. Dan Brown uses their names in anagram etc format in Da Vinci. Early 2006 they sued Dan Brown's publishers over copyright issues but lost the case - something about no plagarism could be shown.
I read that book when it first came out in 1980s - it was obviously ridiculous - but it is reasonably good writing - I suppose it was one of those kind of books that got me thinking if they have to attack Jesus in such strange ways - perhaps he really is who he says He is ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Blood,_Holy_Grail
And then there were TV shows picking up on Mary Magdalene and saying how Christians had downplayed her importance over the years. Sorry just cannot see it - she is clearly the first person to see the Risen Christ so how is she "downplayed".
Anyhow I have not tried to write an exhaustive critique of these matters - just wanted to give you an opinion - do try some web searches to see what others have to say... Ron
In 2005 a friend lent me Dan Brown's book as "Christians should know what he is saying in case they are asked."
Well if any adult asks I will be surprised. I could not believe how badly written this book was - the events are in the realm of fantasy - an albino (yes albino) monk who goes around killing those who know the "secret"and a death in the Louvre and the man placing his own body in a special arrangement whilst he is dying!!!! French police shown as corrupt buffoons. A whole section on mind baffling mystery writing which is clearly mirror writing - just hold it up to a mirror. Oh come on. I think the Harry Potter books which I admit I have only glanced at are better written - as are even the Op Centre books from the Tom Clancy factory - no reflection on a real Tom Clancy book. This is published as a novel but Brown keeps telling us it is fact when obviously what is happening is fiction.....
Why do these people pick on Leonardo - he was also supposed to be responsible for forging the Shroud of Turin.
Here are articles on some of the errors in the book
http://www.challengingdavinci.com/
and
http://www.ignatius.com/books/davincihoax/thefacts/
By the way The Da Vinci Code ideas are clearly from "Holy Blood Holy Grail" by authors Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. Dan Brown uses their names in anagram etc format in Da Vinci. Early 2006 they sued Dan Brown's publishers over copyright issues but lost the case - something about no plagarism could be shown.
I read that book when it first came out in 1980s - it was obviously ridiculous - but it is reasonably good writing - I suppose it was one of those kind of books that got me thinking if they have to attack Jesus in such strange ways - perhaps he really is who he says He is ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Blood,_Holy_Grail
And then there were TV shows picking up on Mary Magdalene and saying how Christians had downplayed her importance over the years. Sorry just cannot see it - she is clearly the first person to see the Risen Christ so how is she "downplayed".
Anyhow I have not tried to write an exhaustive critique of these matters - just wanted to give you an opinion - do try some web searches to see what others have to say... Ron
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)