Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Look kids, it's another Worldnutdaily exclusive. As always, that means that the article is so mind-numbingly idiotic that they're the only ones who would publish it. It's a report on a book by David Flynn called Temple at the Center of Time: Newton's Bible Codex Deciphered and the Year 2012, which is full of the kind of nonsense we're used to seeing from Van Daniken and the pyramidiots - lots of empty numerology and wide-eyed gollygeeism.
The book apparently makes a big deal about the distances between the Jerusalem temple and various other places on the earth, claiming that those distances relate to other measurements. The point? There doesn't seem to be one except "Ooh, what a coinkydink." But even to get there, the author has to distort things and change the standards of measurement. For instance, the number 539:
For instance, if a measurement is made from the point of the temple of Jerusalem's foundation stone to the palace of Balthazar - the political center of Babylon and the exact location where the writing on the wall occurred - the distance should relate to the period in which Babylon most influenced Jerusalem.Such a relationship exists and is the important distance of 539.86 statute miles.
What makes this measurement unusual is that Babylon, which played such a significant role in Hebrew antiquity, was measured and numbered in its relationship to Jewish history in Daniel chapter five during the famous handwriting on the wall. When the prophet interpreted the manifestation, he proclaimed in verses 25-28:
And this is the writing that was written: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE, God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it; TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting; PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.
That very night King Belshazzar was slain, and Darius the Mede became king.
Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians on the 16th day of Tishri of the Jewish calendar, which correlates to Oct. 12, 539 B.C. Curiously, the number 539 is also the distance in statute miles between the temple of Jerusalem's foundation stone to the palace of Balthazar, as confirmed by modern satellite measurement.
Does this give insight to the handwriting on the wall or the dating and measuring of Babylon's affairs in the history of Israel? Does this imply that Babylon's influence over Israel was supernaturally predated and measured, or foreknown? Or was this just a fascinating coincidence? As the first of such discoveries made by Flynn, he wondered the same thing.
Well no, it doesn't imply any such thing. And to show you just how dishonestly Flynn handles such measurements, compare this first coincidence to a second one:
London's original location at its founding is an important point in establishing the exact value of time and distance between it and Jerusalem's Temple.The Romans established Londinium in about A.D. 47. It was a civilian settlement built where the Thames became narrow enough for a bridge to be built across it but was still deep enough to admit large ocean vessels. In the 16th century, William Camden believed that the "London Stone" was a Roman milestone from which all distances were measured in the province. In the 17th century, Christopher Wren was able to observe the foundations of the London Stone underneath Cannon Street during the rebuilding of London after the Great Fire. With this information, it is possible to extend a measuring line from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to the exact center of ancient London, and by fixing a point on the site of the temple mount, a measuring line extended over Jerusalem to the center of London produces 1,948.40 nautical miles.
Therefore, incredibly, recorded in the earth between the Temple Mount of Jerusalem and the historic center of London is what Flynn sees as the fulfillment of Newton's own prediction: Israel became a nation again May 14th, 1948, corresponding perfectly to a distance between the temple and London of 1948 nautical miles.
But did you notice that the standard of measurement changed between those two examples? In the first example, the measurement was in statute miles; in the second example, the measurement was in nautical miles. Those measurements are not the same. In fact, a nautical mile is 1.150779 statute miles. If measured the same way, that amazing coincidence regarding 1948 disappears because the distance is actually 2241 miles.
It's obvious that the author is playing dishonest games with the measurements to get the results he wants. Not that the credulous ignorami at whom such a book is aimed will notice. Or care.
Politics
Comments
Ahh... the wonders of quackery that is the bible code. I wrote about a different one a while back.
http://umlud.blogspot.com/2008/06/thunderf00t-venomfangx-and-false.html
This stuff cracks me up.
Posted by: Umlud | August 19, 2008 9:21 AM
But does Flynn's book tell us how to find celebrity gossip hidden in the Bible codes?
Posted by: jpf | August 19, 2008 9:28 AM
Ignore the last link, here's slightly more current celebrity gossip.
Posted by: jpf | August 19, 2008 9:32 AM
Corsi, the liar that wrote "Obama Nation" and co-authored the swift boat book, "Unfit for Command", was debating Media Matters on CNN regarding the veracity of Obama Nation. Corsi repeatedly noted that he is a regular contributor at WorldNetDaily, implying that he is a legitimate journalist who writes from a point of view. The only reason to make that reference, besides sucking-up to the boss by getting some free shilling in, is if he believed WorldNetDaily was perceived by his target audience, social conservatives, as a legitimate media outlet.
Ed, a week or two ago you castigated WorldNetDaily for running a National Enquirer story. I gotta say, I perceive WorldNetDaily as way down the food chain from the National Enquirer given your repeated links to the craziness that's claimed by the people at WorldNetDaily.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 19, 2008 9:33 AM
Speaking of miles... why are we speaking of miles? Most of the world no longer uses that standard of measurement, kilometers being more common. The early English miles were different than the current American mile, and I'm sure that the 'Roman mile' would make more sense if you were trying to measure distance based on Roman times wouldn't it??
Posted by: kodiak | August 19, 2008 9:39 AM
But, Kodiak, didn't you know that miles - especially American miles are the Heavenly standard of measure? Kilometers are just some commie made-up units, and if we were to adopt their use, we would be giving in to the zionist/communist/illuminati/NWO scheme to place the entire world under their subjugation/control?
I mean, the metric system was invented by the FRENCH fer gossakes!
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 19, 2008 9:50 AM
When you look at the title
the article itself could be much shorter:
Posted by: ospalh | August 19, 2008 10:04 AM
I had some fun with this guy. There's more, much more.
Posted by: Bartholomew | August 19, 2008 10:21 AM
Re Blaidd Drwg
Don't forget the Masons, the Bilderbergers and members of Skull and Bones.
Posted by: SLC | August 19, 2008 10:34 AM
It will be interesting to read the Methods section of the book to see how the measurements of these historical objects were made to an accuracy of within 50 feet.
Posted by: Alan B. | August 19, 2008 10:35 AM
All the measurements should of course be in cubits* or some such measure mentioned in the wholly babble as contemporaneous with the temple.
And what's with all this (un)rounding? 539.86 = 539 (?)
*Of course there were so many ancient cubits that the book could probably still get whatever numbers it wanted out of any modern length measure converted to "cubits."
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | August 19, 2008 10:37 AM
Shouldn't he be measuring everything in cubits? If it was good enough to build an ark...
Posted by: James Hanley | August 19, 2008 10:39 AM
Kodiak: From my blog-post (linked above), "mile" can mean any of the following (these are based relative to 3476.28 km - the average diameter of the moon, which was the basis of my own posting):
* 2497.32 Spanish miles
* 2287.03 Ancient Roman miles
* 2160.52 Ancient British miles
* 2160.05 US survey miles
* 1916.36 Scottish miles
* 1875.84 UK nautical miles
* 1877.04 International nautical miles
* 1783.62 French miles
* 1697.40 Irish miles
* 1665.44 Portuguese miles
* 463.50 Danish miles
* 325.28 Ancient Swedish miles
James Hanley, Hebrew units of length were not standardized, and were based on relative measurements of each individual measuring the item. Therefore, a measurement in ells (a much longer distance unit than a cubit) would be different for each person making that measurement.
Posted by: Umlud | August 19, 2008 11:12 AM
There are major problems with just about every element of the "analysis."
1) As has been pointed out, the didn't use miles, whether statute or nautical, in ancient Israel or in Ancient Rome.
2) I don't have access to the source here at work, but I remember coming across a piece that disputed the entire Balshazzar dying, being king, etc. I don't remember the details, but basically the whole thing, as portrayed in the Bible, was wrong.
3) As already pointed out, the rounding down to get the figures one wants, in addition to shifting from one unit of measure not used at the time to another unit of measure not only not used at the time, but basically unknown to those who haven't dealt with navigation, etc.
Really a fine piece o' crap.
Posted by: dogmeatib | August 19, 2008 11:16 AM
Holy distances are measured in miles?
Clearly this proves that God is an English man!
I had always thought that a cosmic deity would use something like Planck distance, proton diameter... but NOOOOO, it had to be an English measurement (relative to a specific chronology).
Posted by: carey | August 19, 2008 12:09 PM
Did all this measurement-coincidence BS make anyone else think of the joke "if God didn't want us to masturbate, he would have given us shorter arms"?
Posted by: Matthew L. | August 19, 2008 12:22 PM
OMG! I can see the fnords!!!
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | August 19, 2008 12:53 PM
Regardless of the unit of measurement, 539.86 is not 539 miles. It's 540 miles.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | August 19, 2008 12:56 PM
"wide-eyed gollygeeism" made me laugh out loud. Consider it stolen for future use.
Posted by: Adrian | August 19, 2008 1:36 PM
His claim about the date on the calendar is also wrong for a variety of reasons: 1. 1 C.E. Has no significance; the historical Jesus if he existed could not have been born on that day 2. The Hebrew calendar prior to about 70 C.E. or so was observational, not fixed so calculating the exact date it corresponded to would be impossible without more detailed records. I haven't bothered working out whether it comes out correctly using the modern calendar nor bothered working out how much it changes when one uses the Julian or original Roman calendars rather than the Gregorian calendar which I presume he's using.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | August 19, 2008 3:05 PM
I am kind of proud of "wide-eyed gollygeeism." It applies in so many circumstances.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 19, 2008 3:37 PM
Wow, absolute proof... that David Flynn has waaaay too much time on his hands. Someone buy that man a Wii.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 19, 2008 3:46 PM
The British broadcaster, journalist and historian Andrew Marr has a maxim that may be useful in this situation: "When a tabloid headline ends in a question mark, the answer is invariably 'No.'"
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | August 19, 2008 5:03 PM
Further to postings by Matthew L and Abby Normal, this article simply proves beyond reasonable doubt that David Flynn desperately needs arm extensions, please donate generously, thank you DJ.
Posted by: DingoJack | August 20, 2008 12:34 AM
Did anyone else here notice that this guy seemed to imply that people in 539 BC knew that they were living in 539 BC...?
As in, "A Rabbi named Jesus is going to be born 539 years from now, and start a new religion, and then there'll be a new calendar. Let's build this thing right here to make the distance match the year!"
(and "heh heh heh, that'll keep people guessing, won't it?")
Right.
Posted by: g347 | August 20, 2008 1:25 AM
The rest of you may be blind, but I see the noodly appendage of my God in these so-called coincidences.
Posted by: libarbarian | August 20, 2008 11:37 AM
Regardless of the unit of measurement, 539.86 is not 539 miles. It's 540 miles.
Yes, but 539.86 is exactly 539 539/539.86-ths of a mile, which is apparently the unit of measurement God was using at that time.
Posted by: libarbarian | August 20, 2008 11:41 AM
Did anyone else here notice that this guy seemed to imply that people in 539 BC knew that they were living in 539 BC...?
Well, what date was on their newspapers then?
Posted by: libarbarian | August 20, 2008 2:25 PM
There's actually a good reason to use nautical miles.
1 nm is the distance of the leg on the surface of the earth, of a triangle extending from the center to the surface, with an angle of 1 minute at the vertex at the center of the earth.
ie, 1 minute of angle of latitude (or of longitude at the equator) is equal to 1 nm.
This is convenient when doing navigation on the earth's surface.
/geek
Posted by: Lee | August 20, 2008 4:51 PM
Come on folks, just 509 more comments and we'll prove... well I don't know. But I'm sure it will be really cool! Don't make me draw a picture of Mohamed on a communion wafer just to generate more posts!
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 21, 2008 5:08 PM