I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

                                                                                              Psalm 139:14

Preamble

Oculus Historiae 1

Oculus Historiae 2

In this series of lectures, world-leading synthetic organic chemist, Professor James Tour, takes on an internet troll who claims that scientists have discovered how life got started from simple chemicals on the primordial Earth. In this series of presentations, Dr. Tour explains, in exquisite technical detail, why scientists are really clueless about how life got started.

Indeed, abiogenesis is actually impossible!

So buckle up and enjoy the ride!

Aims of the Lecture Series

An Introduction to Abiogenesis

The Primordial Soup

 Hype

Homochirality

Carbohydrates

The Building Blocks of Building Blocks

Peptides

Nucleotides

Intermediate Summary

Lipids

Chiral-Induced Spin Selectivity

Cell Construction & Assembly Problem Part 1

Cell Construction & Assembly Problem Part 2

Summary & Projections

The Pentax Papilio II 8.5 x 21.

A work began July 9 2020

Preamble

Binocular: Pentax Papilio II 8.5 x 21mm

Cost: £85.99 delivered

Optics: Reverse Porro /patented converging objectives for ultra-close focus

Coatings: Fully Multi-coated

Exit Pupil: 2.47mm

Field of View: 6.0 degrees (105m @1000m/ 315ft@1000yards)

Focus Range: 18 inches to infinity

Eye Relief: 15mm

Weight: 295g

Tripod Mountable: Yes

Dimensions: 11.6 x 11.0cm(L/H)

Nitrogen Purging: No

Waterproof: No

Accessories: High quality neck strap, rain guard, carry case, instruction manual and warranty card.

In a previous review, I expressed my astonishment at the quality of the views served up by the Pentax Papilio II 6.5 x 21. Not only did it deliver extraordinary, ultra-close up views of the creation quite unreachable by any conventional binocular, but it also impressed when functioning in its normal way, when imaging objects at a distance. The little Papilio also has a higher power sibling, delivering a power of 8.5x with the same size objective(21mm). In this blog I would like to offer my opinions on how it performs on its own terms but also in comparison to the 6.5x model as well as a very high quality control instrument; the Leica Trinovid BCA 8 x 20, which I reviewed some time ago.

Now, you’ll appreciate that these kinds of tests are hardly ever done by other glassing enthusiasts, partly because it will almost always be assumed that a binocular costing £85 could never compete with a glass retailing for nearly £400. Furthermore, when you are in possession of one of the most elegantly designed pocket glasses in the world, you don’t want to be told that something a lot cheaper could even compete with it. It’s only human nature to take pride in an expensive glass from a world-class optics firm, but this kind of pride, when taken too far, can blind you to greater and more important truths.

Having said that, these two compact binoculars are very different beasts; the little Leica is a roof prism binocular and is optically more complex than the Pentax Papilio II 8.5 x 21, which has a much simpler, reverse porro prism design. And because the latter is simpler, it’s easier to make well, so the rather enormous price differential between the two instruments doesn’t really tell the whole story, as I was to find out.

Let’s first take a few moments to compare the specifications on both the Leica and the 8.5x Papilio II. The Pentax delivers a power of 8.5x with a 21mm aperture objective giving an exit pupil of 2.47mm. The Leica delivers a slightly lower power of 8x with an objective aperture of 20mm and so yields a very similar exit pupil size of 2.50mm. The Leica weighs in at 235g whilst the Papilio tips the scales at 295g, So both can be carried pretty much anywhere with ease, based on weight considerations alone. There is a considerable size difference though, as you can clearly see from the photo below; the Leica is a true pocket-sized glass, capable of being folded up in such a way that it fits easily in the palm of your hand. The Papilio, while still very compact, cannot achieve this level of compactness. So, if storage size is set at an absolute premium, the Leica would be the obvious choice. That said, are there really that many circumstances where the storage size difference really matters that much? I would argue that in most realistic situations, this difference isn’t that important.

Stray light and Internal Reflection Tests

Managing stray light inside a binocular is an important parameter in delivering contrast in a binocular image. Thankfully this is easily assessed by aiming the glass at an intense source of bright light like your iphone torch set to its maximum brightness setting and examining the images garnered through the test instrument. As I explained in my review of the lower power 6.5x Papilio II, I was quite impressed with the results I got. There were some internal reflections but they were quite feeble in comparison to many other models I have tested. The Papilio II 8.5x was not as good in comparison. It showed noticeably brighter internal reflections than the 6.5x instrument but the image was still quite clean, with very little diffused light around the light beam and no diffraction spikes. In comparison, the Leica Trinovid 8 x 20 was much better. The internal reflections were much more aggressively suppressed(but still there!) and the image was cleaner and had practically zero diffused light around the light beam. It did however, show a pronounced diffraction spike in comparison to both Papilio binoculars.

Predictably, these internal reflections were also more apparent in the 8.5x Papilio II than in its 6.5x counterpart when pointed at a bright sodium street lamp. That said, I didn’t consider this a serious flaw, as I have tested many binoculars showing considerably worse performance that still delivered good daytime views.I would however expect that the 8.5x model might show up more in the way of internal reflections when pointed at bright astronomical sources like the full Moon.

The difference in performance between the 6.5x and 8.5x in regard to controlling stray light is likely attributed to less rigorous quality control in the manufacture of these binoculars. This is probably par for the course for these low cost instruments. It is wholly realistic to expect significant inter-individual performance differences with these mass produced binos, where one sample delivers excellent stray light suppression and another delivering not so good performance in the same tests.

Veiling Glare Tests

As I explained in much more detail in a previous blog, veiling glare is a phenomenon that manifests itself in all binoculars, no matter how well designed they are. It can be seen when glassing in the open air on an overcast day while imaging a deeply shaded target, such as the edge of a wooded area. The most likely cause of this is due to reflections off the bottom lens spacers between the objective lenses, which manifests as a ‘cloudiness’ that covers much of the field reducing contrast in the binocular image. I tested the two Papilio binoculars as well as the Leica Trinovid in this regard and the results were interesting but not entirely surprising!

Both Papilios showed considerably less veiling glare compared with the little Leica. Imaging a shaded copse under a bright overcast July sky showed that the little butterfly binoculars were controlling this rather annoying glare much better than the far more expensive Leica glass. The reason for this is probably due to the fact that the Leica objectives are almost completely exposed to the overhead light as they are not recessed as deeply as the Papilios, which house their objective lenses well behind an optically flat glass window and so are much better protected from the ambient light. I found the differences between them to be quite striking, so much so that it could make all the difference between seeing something clearly and not seeing it at all! Thankfully, veiling glare is easy to remove from the image by simply shading the objectives with your hand, but it was interesting to see how differences in design can manifest quite striking differences in performance in this regard.

Daylight Optical Performance 

After adjusting the click-stop dioptre ring under the right eye ocular lens, I began to test the Papilio II 8.5 x 21 on a variety of targets and compared it to the Leica Trinovid BCA 8 x 20. I found this higher power Papilio to a very good optically. The images were clean and sharp and high in contrast. Indeed, they were very similar to those served up by the Leica glass. Looking critically at some tree trunks illuminated by bright sunlight showed that both glasses served up the same amount of fine detail. Contrast was a shade better in the Leica glass. Edge of field correction was also very similar in both glasses too, with both showing very mild pincushion distortion near the field stop. I did however detect slightly more lateral colour in the Papilio II than in the Leica but I felt that it did not detract much from the quality of the image.

However, I found some significant differences in depth of focus when comparing both binoculars though. The Pentax Papilio had a noticeably shallower field depth compared with the Leica, which surprised me, and, as a result, renders it that little bit harder to focus accurately. I found myself slightly under or over shooting the focus wheel on the Papilio II before I got the precise focus required while glassing a variety of targets in the open air. This might have been expected knowing that depth of field seems to decrease with increasing binocular magnification, although in this case the difference was small (8.5x for the Papilio and 8.0x for the Leica), so the discrepancies I noted might well be due attributed to differences in design of the binoculars than anything else.

I didn’t think a difference of 0.5x increase on the Papilio II would give a noticeable increase in image scale, but I was wrong about that. This represents a 6 per cent increase in image scale and that’s large enough to notice! What this means is that the 8.5x Papilio II will give you slightly more reach with small or distant targets while glassing under good seeing conditions.

I must also report that my eyes were experiencing more in the way of blackouts in the Papilio II 8.5 x 21 compared with the Leica Trinovid though. I attribute this to my lack of practice centring my eyeball properly inside the large eyepiece cups on the Papilio. In comparison, the smaller eyecups on the Leica make centring that little bit easier to accomplish since I have had far more practice with the latter than the former glass. But I would expect these blackouts to reduce in frequency with more practice. The reader will note however that the eye relief is slightly more generous in the Papilio than on the Leica(15mm in comparison to 14mm, respectively). And since the Papilio II 8.5 x 21 has a smaller field of view than the Leica (6.0 and 6.5 degrees, respectively), it will be easier to image the entire field with it compared with the Leica glass.

Of course, one of the key ways in which the Papilio II 8.5 x 21 trumps the Leica is in close focus. The former, which has a patented converging objective lens design, enables its users to obtain stunning ultra-close views of flowers, insects, rocks, gemstones  etc, which simply cannot be achieved with the cute little Leica glass. Indeed, the close focus of the Leica Trinovid (~3 metres) is rather lacklustre in comparison with other pocket glasses I have used in the past, so if butterfly or insect viewing is your thing, the Papilio IIs will serve you much better.

Low Light Performance

Though such small aperture binoculars have limited use in low light situations, such as those encountered during dusk or dawn, I wanted to establish whether there was much of a difference, if any, between both glasses when imaging the same target under twilight conditions that we encounter here in central Scotland during the middle months of the year.  Venturing out about 10pm in the second week of July, I compared the brightness of the images served up by both the Pentax Papilio II 8.5 x 21 and the Leica Trinovid 8 x 20, by examining tree branches situated about 40 yards distant. My results were very encouraging; both glasses seemed to be delivering equally bright images under these conditions, with the nod going to the Leica. I expected this result owing to the similar exit pupil size of both instruments as well as the application of good anti-reflection coatings to the optical components. This indicated that the Papilio IIs have very good light transmission, which is an important commodity in any binocular.

Some Astronomical Tests

With all the churches shut down, I was able to carry out some tests on both the Pentax Papilio II 8.5 x 21 and the Leica Trinovid 8 x 20 in the wee small hours of Sunday July 12. Starting about 2.20am local time, I ventured out to witness a bright, last quarter Moon rising in the east, and just a few degrees above it and slightly off to the west, fiery red Mars.The sky was not fully dark but still bathed in twilight. Comparing the views in both the Papilio and the Leica, I noticed some very weak internal reflections in the Papilio which were not present in the Leica. Moving the Moon laterally from the centre to the edge, I observed that the Papilio showed some significant darkening  towards the edges but thanks to its aspherical eyepieces, the image of the Moon stayed sharp. In comparison, the Leica showed much less drop off in illumination at the edge of its field.

But things were noticeably different when I repeated the same test in the vertical direction. Again, placing the Moon in the centre of the field, and then gradually moving it to either the top or bottom field stops in both binoculars, the little Leica proved to be the clear winner. The Moon was much more strongly de-focused in the Papilio than in the Leica at the edges of the field. Keeping the Moon at the bottom edge of the field, I could compensate a bit by refocusing the Papilio to make the image of the Moon more presentable, but  alas, ruddy Mars had ballooned in size at the opposite side of the field. In comparison, the Leica image was much more together, indicating that its field of view was flatter overall and better corrected.

In addition, I judged the contrast to be significantly better in the Leica than in the Papilio. Indeed, of all the roof prism binoculars I have tested(with the possible exception of a Swarovski 10 x 42 EL Range), the Leica consistently produces the best contrast when viewing the Moon. Time and time again, the lunar vistas served up by this tiny binocular are quite simply breathtaking and have to be seen to be believed!

So, once again, the Leica pulled ahead in this rather severe test. Leica engineers have designed good field flattening lenses for the Trinovids which guarantee better edge of field correction than that exhibited in many other models. Indeed, truth be told, the Leica has edge of field performance up there with the best roof prism binoculars I have so far tested.

Ergonomics

One of the issues some binocular enthusiasts have with the Leica Trinovid 8 x 20 pertains to its small size. It is true that this glass can be quite fiddly to set the correct IPD and exact pupil position when glassing. This is much easier to achieve with the Papilios. That said, since I tend to keep the Leica eyecups in the extended position, it increases its overall physical size and so makes it easier to handle when taking out of and placing it back into its case for storage. The Leica has a very fine focusing wheel but it’s rather on the small side so could prove tricky to operate, especially in winter, when using gloves. The Pentax Papilio II, in comparison, is much easier to handle owing to its larger size which fits my hands better. What’s more, the larger focus wheel is considerably easier to negotiate even with gloves on. Indeed, one of the greatest virtues of the Pentax Papilio binoculars is the large, silky smooth focusing wheel on both models which is essential for bringing objects into focus rapidly from extreme close-up right out to infinity.

The dioptre setting on the Leica is located on the right objective. It cannot be locked in place but does hold its position firmly for many months if not disturbed. Indeed, I have never needed to adjust it since I first acquired the instrument earlier this year. In contrast, the dioptre setting on the Pentax Papilio II is located in a ring under the right ocular. It too can be adjusted by twisting the ring but it has neat little click stops that keep it firmly in place without you ever having to worry about. As I said when reviewing the 6.5x Papilio II, this is a very clever engineering solution applied to great effect on this low-cost binocular!

The Leica glass is better suited to changes in the weather however. Unlike the Papilio IIs, which are neither fog nor water proof, the Leica is filled with dry nitrogen to prevent fogging of the internal optical components in cold weather, which are therefore sealed off from the outside environment. The Leica is splash proof rather than fully waterproof, which means that it can be used in light rain or humid environments without worrying about the build up of internal moisture and, in the long term, fungal infestations. Indeed I have heard of glassers who have used the little Leica in the high humidity of tropical rain forests for weeks and months on end, where they have reported flawless performance from this tiny glass.

Additionally, the Leica binocular has special ‘Aquadura’ -like coatings applied to the outside lens elements to repel water droplets and dust, as well as dissipating fog accidentally built up on the lenses should the user breathe on the oculars or objectives during cold weather applications. The Papilio IIs do not have these coating technologies.

Another notable difference between both glasses pertains to their ability to be mounted to a tripod. The Leica has no such facility but the Papilio II can easily be mated to such stabilising devices.

Implications

A few weeks experience with both Papilios has proven to be very instructive. Indeed, it has forced me to radically re-think the pocket binoculars I now wish to use going forward. In my opinion, the Pentax Papilio II 6.5 x 21 is the gem of the pair. While I would rate the 8.5x as good, the 6.5x is excellent! Indeed my tests have convinced me that I could do without my Zeiss Terra 8 x 25 ED. The Pentax Papilio II 6.5 x 21 has taken its place because it offers me the same comfortable viewing experience, an even wider field of view (7.5 degrees vs 6.8 degrees) and also doubles up as an excellent field microscope when I need it, with its incredible close focus(0.5m). In fact, the entire episode triggered a selling off of a whole string of models I had recently acquired, as I don’t like hoarding equipment. The Zeiss was a very sweet instrument, and everything I have said about it still holds true, but I simply couldn’t justify holding onto two premium models in the pocket size range after my experiences with the Papilio 6.5 x 21. The latter has turned out to be a more versatile than any 8 x 25! The Zeiss went for a good price( it has excellent re-sale value) and to a good home!

My younger son, Douglas, has expressed a particular interest in the 6.5 x Papilio and has been caught hogging it and showing it off to his pals, so I decided to let him have it on the proviso that he look after it properly and I can borrow it from time to time. Now everyone in the family has a pocket or compact binocular!

The Leica Trinovid 8 x 20 has now become my instrument of choice as a general purpose pocket glass for travel and leisure. At first I treated it as somewhat of an ‘expensive toy’ that was more a curiosity than anything else, but after a while that preyed on my conscience. The Leica was designed to be used and used hard in the field. It was not designed to be an ornament or to be pampered inside a glass case.  By using it extensively in the field for hours on end, I have finally come to grips with its small exit pupil and I no longer experience any blackouts with it as I had experienced when I first used it some months back. And though the Trinovid is an expensive piece of kit as pocket glasses go, it will serve me well for decades. How do I know this? Well, check out this recent youtube review from a chap who owned and used a Leitz (the older name for Leica)10 x 25 Trinovid since the 1970s, but who recently treated himself to the newer Leica Ultravid 8 x 20.  If it served him well over all those decades since the 1970s, I figured mine would as well!

OK, time to wrap this blog up.  Thanks for reading!

Writers also need to eat, so if you like these reviews please consider making a purchase of one of my books. Thank you!

De Fideli.

“Escaping the Beginning? Confronting Challenges to the Universe’s Origin.

Did the universe have a beginning—or has it existed forever?

If the universe began to exist, then the implications are profound. Perhaps that’s why some insist it has existed forever.

In Escaping the Beginning?, astrophysicist and Christian apologist Jeff Zweerink thoughtfully examines the most prevalent eternal-universe theories—quantum gravity, the steady state model, the oscillating universe, and the increasingly popular multiverse. Using a clear and concise approach informed by the latest discoveries, Zweerink investigates the scientific viability of each theory, addresses common questions about them, and then focuses on perhaps the most pressing question for believers and skeptics alike: If the evidence continues to affirm the beginning, what does that imply about the existence of a Beginner?

About the Author: Jeff Zweerink (PhD, Iowa State University) is an astrophysicist specializing in gamma-ray astrophysics. He serves as a senior research scholar at Reasons to Believe and as a part-time project scientist at UCLA. He has coauthored more than 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals and numerous conference proceedings.

Some Reviews Thus Far Garnered:

“In Escaping the Beginning? Jeff Zweerink leads the reader through a fascinating tour of the scientific development of the big bang theory as well as the theological and philosophical implications of the beginning of our universe. More importantly, he addresses some of the recent speculations by scientists that attempt to circumvent both a beginning and a Beginner and shows that the best current scientific evidence continues to point to an actual beginning of our universe. The hypothesis that the universe came into existence through the actions of a transcendent intelligent Creator is still arguably the explanation that best fits the scientific data.”

—Michael G. Strauss, PhD
David Ross Boyd Professor of Physics
University of Oklahoma

“As an atheist detective investigating the existence of God, I hoped the evidence would reveal an eternal universe without a beginning because I knew the alternative would be hard to explain from my atheistic worldview. . . . Escaping the Beginning? examines the evidence for the universe’s beginning and the many ways scientists have tried to understand and explain the data. I wish I had his important book when I first examined the evidence. If I had, I would probably have become a believer much sooner.”

—J. Warner Wallace
Dateline-featured Cold-Case Detective
Author of God’s Crime Scene

“There are few books I read twice. but this is one of them. Although understanding this book will take effort  for anyone untrained in the sceinces, the effort is well worth it. Dr. Zweerink answered many of my questions about the existence of the multiverse, evidence for the beginning of the universe, and problems for common challenges to divine creation. . . . Escaping the Beginning? deserves wide readership by believers and skeptics alike.”

–Sean McDowell, PhD, Author of Evidence that Demands a Verdict

“Jeff Zweerink has done something I might have thought to be impossible. He has made cosmology accessible to scientific laypersons like me. Whether it’s quantum fluctuations, inflation theory, or the various models of the multiverse, Zweerink explains things clearly and with good humor. Even more importantly, he shows that the findings of modern cosmology give Christians even more reason to worship and adore our great God who created all things.”

-Kenneth Keathley

Senior Professor of Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

“Does the universe have a beginning, or has the physical realm existed forever? This is an ancient question and still hotly debated today. The interest in the subject is not just from its obvious scientific significance, but also from its religious implications. Since the first cosmological and theoretical evidence for a universe with a distinct beginning was discovered a century ago, some of the most intense opposition among scientists to the notion of a beginning has been primarily on religious grounds. In this engaging book, Jeff Zweerink reviews the state of the theory and experiment, and argues that far from having been escaped, a bginning to the universe is the likely outcome of the current lines of research.”

-Bijan Nemati

Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.

“Did the universe have a beginning? If so, what would that imply? Does the origin require an Originator? Does a creation imply a Creator? What would that mean for our lives?

Paul Valery once said, “What is simple is wrong, and what is complex cannot be understood.” Dr. Zweerink splits the horns of this dilemma by raising many of the issues surrounding a cosmological beginning in an enjoyable  and accessible format for a general audience. yet this is done without sacrificing the critical details that attend the state-of-the-art.

He draws on his training and expereince as an astrophysicist to unpack the history of the big bang, its blossoming into the universe around us, and otther topics of fascination, interest, and wonder. Dr. Zweerink then goes to the heart of contemporary cosmology to find out what today’s cosmologists – our secular priests -are saying about cosmic origins.

While I might believe the scientific case for a beginning and a Creator is a bit stronger than Jeff does, his grasp of the issues and presentation style will serve his audience well.”

-James Sinclair

Senior Physicist, United States Navy.

“I had the privilege of debating Jeff Zweerink on two occasions. As an atheist, I was surprised to see how much common ground there was between us. And that is because Jeff is an incredibly honest and thoughtful person and his writing reflects that. Escaping the Beginning? is a well-written and carefully researched work that doesn’t shy away from challenges to cherished belief and deserves to be widely read by the community. It does what a good book should do—educate and (I hope) stimulate thoughtful debate.”

—Skydivephil
Popular YouTuber and Producer of the Before the Big Bang Series
Featuring Exclusive Interviews with Stephen Hawking, Sir Roger Penrose,
Alan Guth, and Other Leading Cosmologists

De Fideli.

Seeing Scripture through Jewish eyes.

A song: a psalm of Asaph.
God, do not keep silent.
Do not hold Your peace, O God.
Do not be still.
For look, Your enemies make an uproar.
Those who hate You lift up their head.
They make a shrewd plot against Your people,
conspiring against Your treasured ones.
“Come,” they say, “let’s wipe them out as a nation!
Let Israel’s name be remembered no more!”
For with one mind they plot together.
Against You do they make a covenant.

                                                                                  Psalm 83: 1-5

Are you looking for a brand-new Bible experience? Are you searching for a translation of the Bible that restores some of the Hebrew names and terminology found in the original manuscripts? Perhaps you are looking for a Bible that will help you rekindle an interest in the sacred words of Scripture seen from a Messianic Jewish perspective? If so, I have just the recommendation for you; enter the Tree of Life Vesion(TLV).

The brain child of this ambitious project was Daniah Greenberg and her Rabbi husband, Mark Greenberg, who assembled a cadre of Messianic Jewish Bible scholars to create an all-new translation of the Holy Scriptures that gives the reader a solid flavour of the original Hebraic overtones of the Bible, with a decidely Jewish accent. But it was no small feat, given the proliferation of English Bible versions flooding the global market. Daniah had the courage and conviction to raise the funds to pay for soild scholarship within the Jewish cultural tradition, which culminated with the first edition of the TLV Bible in 2011. Daniah Greenberg now serves as President of the Messianic Jewish Family Bible Society. Greenberg is also CEO of the newly established TLV Bible Society.

It pays to remember that all the Biblical writers, with the possible exception of the author of the Book of Job, were Jews. Jesus Christ was Jewish. The earliest Christian meetings took place in synagogues and despite the attendant evils of anti-semitism throughout history, and its giving rise to unbiblical ideas such as replacement theology,  it is undoubtedly the case that unique insights into much of the Biblical narrative has come from the Jewish mindset. Seen in this light, it is not at all surprising that a new Bible translation made by the original people to which the Lord of all Creation first appeared should find a place on the bookshelves of many Christians in the 21st century.

The first thing you will notice about the TLV is the unfamiliar ordering of the books of the Bible, which have been re-presented in the order rendered in the Jewish tradition, which Christians refer to as the Old Testament. In Jewish parlance, these are the books of the Tanakh.

As you can see from the table of contents below, the Tanakh is further divided into three sections; the Torah (Law of Moses or Pentateuch), the Neviim (The Prophets) and the Ketuvim (The Writings).

The unique ordering of the books of the Old Testament(Tanakh), as experienced by Orthodox Jews.

The books of the New Testament(Good News) are presented in their traditional order. The reader will note that the Book of James is titled ‘Jacob,’ and Jude is titled ‘Judah, which  represent their transliterated Jewish names.

The New testament books are presented in their traditional order, with two transliterated names, Jacob(James) and Judah(Jude).

A sizeable number of words are presented in the original Hebrew. For example, YHWH God’s covenant name, is often referred to as Adonai,  but also as Elohim (Creator). Jesus is denoted as Yeshua, Mary(the mother of Jesus) is given her original name, Miriam; Spirit is presented as Ruach, the Levitical priests, Kohanim, the children of Israel, B’nei-Israel and Sabbath is translated as Shabbat. All Hebrew terminology can be referenced at the back of the Bible in the form of a tidy glossary. There is even a section which helps the reader pronounce these Hebrew words correctly. That said, once you get into the TLV, most of the terms sink in very easily and naturally and so provide the reader with an education in basic Hebrew religious terminology. The addition of original Hebrew words also adds to the poetic beauty of the language of the Scriptures, which are readily appreciated while reading through.

Each book of the Holy Scriptures is accompanied by a short introduction written by Messianic Jewish scholars, which provides a concise overview of the most important ideas developed in the texts. The translators intentionally chose to produce a translation that is at once respectful to more traditional translations of the Bible such as the Authorized King James Version (KJV), and more modern translations such as the English Standard Version (ESV) and New American Standard Bible (NASB), retaining some classic Biblical terminology such as “Behold“, “lovingkindness” and “Chaldeans.” For example, in the opening verses of the Book of Esther, the TLV refers to the Babylonian King as Ahasuerus and not Xerxes ,as you will find in looser translations such as the NIV and NLT.

This is what happened in the days of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who reigned over 127 provinces from India to Ethiopia.

Esther 1:1

In keeping with the original customs of the first Christians, the word ‘baptism‘ does not appear in the TLV, being replaced by the more appropriate term, ‘immersion.’ This is entirely justified as infant baptism was not practiced by the earliest followers of Yeshua. Consider this passage from Acts 2;

Peter said to them, “Repent, and let each of you be immersed in the name of Messiah Yeshua for the removal of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Ruach ha-Kodesh.

Acts 2:38

John the Baptist is likewise referred to as “John the Immerser”

Unlike virtually all other Bibles in the English language, the Adversary’s name is presented in lower case, ‘the satan‘; a most appropriate demotion to honour the ‘father of lies.’ Consider, for example, the opening passages of the Book of Job:

One day the sons of God came to present themselves before Adonai, and the satan also came with them.  Adonai said to the satan, “Where have you come from?”

The satan responded to Adonai and said, “From roaming the earth and from walking on it.

Adonai said to the satan, “Did you notice my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth—a blameless and upright man, who fears God and spurns evil.”

Job: 1:6-8

Another interesting aspect of the TLV is that it quite often departs from the usual preterite, or imperfect tense one normally experiences in traditional translations. Consider this passage from the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 4 in the NASB:

Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and *showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory;

Matthew 4:8

Now consider the same passage in the TLV:

Again, the devil takes Him to a very high mountain and shows Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

Matthew 4:8

These occasional departures add to the immediacy of the situation as if it were happening right now! This is a powerful linguistic tool that the TLV scholars used to evince the poignancy of certain passages of Holy Scripture.

The poetic books of the Holy Scriptures, such as the Psalms, are most beautifully rendered and retain traditional  terms like Selah (an uncertain word thought to refer to an interlude in a musical performance). Consider, for example, Psalm 24 in the TLV:

A psalm of David.
The earth is Adonai’s and all that fills it—
the world, and those dwelling on it.
For He founded it upon the seas,
and established it upon the rivers.
Who may go up on the mountain of Adonai?
Who may stand in His holy place?
One with clean hands and a pure heart,
who has not lifted his soul in vain,
nor sworn deceitfully.
He will receive a blessing from Adonai,
righteousness from God his salvation.
Such is the generation seeking Him,
seeking Your face, even Jacob! Selah
Lift up your heads, O gates,
and be lifted up, you everlasting doors:
that the King of glory may come in.
“Who is this King of glory?”
Adonai strong and mighty,
Adonai mighty in battle!
Lift up your heads, O gates,
and lift them up, you everlasting doors:
that the King of glory may come in.
“Who is this King of glory?”
Adonai-Tzva’ot—He is the King of glory! Selah

Psalm 24

The reader of the TLV Holy Scriptures will note that the word “church” does not appear in this translation. Instead, the scholars chose to use the words “Messiah’s community.” This is an acceptable change, as the word they were probably translating was the Greek term ecclesia, which appears in the New Testament 115 times and was often associated with a civil body or council summoned for a particular purpose. The nearest the Greek language gets to “church” is kuriakos, which is best understood as “pertaining to the Lord,” which probably morphed into the Germanic “Kirche” or “Kirk,” which is still used in northern England and Scotland to this day.

An amusing aside: Has anyone ever referred to Kirk Douglas as ‘Church Douglas’, who just happens to be an orthodox Jew?

These translative nuances matter little in the scheme of things however. Acts 11 provides a good illustration of these translation choices:

Then Barnabas left for Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met together with Messiah’s community and taught a large number. Now it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called “Christianoi.”

Acts 11:25-26

Note also that the TLV translation team used the Greek term for Christians, ‘Christianoi‘. This is also perfectly acceptable, as there was no Hebrew word for ‘Christian’ in those early days.

The scholars who created the TLV chose to use the latest manuscript evidence, which included much older texts found in the modern era compared with the King James or New King James, for example(which are based on the Textus Receptus). It thus follows a similar translation ethos to other popular Bibles in the English language such as the NIV and ESV.  On the spectrum of modern English Bible translations, which vary from the highly literal, so-called ‘word for word’ renderings, through the less literal ‘thought to thought’ translations, I would categorise the TLV as adopting a ‘middle of the road’ approach. Perhaps the best way to illustrate this is to look at the same passage of Scripture in a few translations. Consider, for example, the highly literal NASB rendition of Matthew 9, verses 1 through 8:

Getting into a boat, Jesus crossed over the sea and came to His own city. And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, “Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven.” And some of the scribes said to themselves, “This fellow blasphemes.” And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.” And he got up and went home. But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Matthew 9:1-8(NASB)

Next consider the TLV equivalent:

After getting into a boat, Yeshua crossed over and came to His own town. Just then, some people brought to Him a paralyzed man lying on a cot. And seeing their faith, Yeshua said to the paralyzed man, “Take courage, son! Your sins are forgiven.” Then some of the Torah scholars said among themselves, “This fellow blasphemes!” And knowing their thoughts, Yeshua said, “Why are you entertaining evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But so you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to pardon sins…” Then He tells the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your cot and go home.” And he got up and went home. When the crowd saw it, they were afraid and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Matthew 9:1-8(TLV)

Finally, consider the same passage from a thought for thought translation like the NIV:

Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!” Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?  But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” Then the man got up and went home.  When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.

Matthew 9:1-8(NIV)

I think it is reasonable to conclude that the TLV is a good compromise between both translation philosophies, distinguishing itself by means of introducing some Hebrew words and names but also in the way that the translators have chosen to alter the tense of some passages, as discussed previosuly.

The TLV  also follows many of the newer Bible versions in adopting a more gender neutral approach to terms such as ‘Brethern’ or ‘Brothers’. For example, the TLV renders Galatians 1:11 thus:

Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the Good News proclaimed by me is not man-made.

Galatians 1:11 (TLV)

Compare this to the more conservative ESV:

For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel.

Galatians 1:11 (ESV)

And the NIV:

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.

Galatians 1:11(NIV)

Some commentators have expressed concern that the Bible should never be altered so as to express political correctness, as in this case, where ‘brothers’ is altered for the sake of inclusiveness to read, ‘brothers and sisters.’ I understand their concerns but I have no strong opinion either way on this issue, so long as the context of the particular verse is not altered.

The TLV does have a couple of errors which I picked up while reading through the translation. The first appears in Jeremiah 34:14

At the end of seven years you are to set free every man his brother that is a Hebrew who has been sold to you and has served you six years; you are [to] let him go free from you.’ But your fathers did not obey Me, nor inclined their ear.

I have inserted the missing word in bold brackets that makes the sentence comprehensible.

In addition there is a printing error in my Large Print Personal Size TLV on page 902 and 903, the heading of which reads “Obadiah 9” and “Obadiah 1,” respectively. Since these headings are meant to illustrate the chapter numbers, they are clearly unecessary as the Book of Obadiah only has a single chapter.

The typographical error niggled me at first (as an avid reader, I’m very tolerant of typos in general but view Holy Scripture in a more exalted light), but I understand that these things happen. I have written to the TLV Bible Society informing them of these issues which I hope they will be able to resolve in due course.

Some comments on the physical presentation of the TLV Holy Scriptures

The author’s TLV large print copy of the Holy Scriptures.

I was very impressed with the quality of the giant print personal size TLV that I acquired back in January 2018. It has a beautiful leathertex cover, which is soft and durable. Indeed, the current selection of faux leather Bibles(in many translations)are amazing value for money, and are superior to the cheap, bonded leather found on premium Bibles just a decade ago. The TLV also has a Smyth-sewn binding for greater durability even with prolonged use.

The Personal Size Giant Print TLV is about 9 inches long and 2 inches thick.

It has a paste-down liner, a highly readable 12.5 font size, beautiful gold gilded pages and comes with a single ribbon marker. I especially like the paper used by Baker Books(the publisher of the TLV), which is a more creamy white than the usual white pages seen n many other of my Bibles. As seen below, the text is presented in a double column format and has a generous number of cross-references. The text is line matched and shows minimal ghosting, which annoys some people more than others.

The paper in the TLV is an off white(creamy), the text is double columned, shows little bleed-through, with clear 12.5 sized font.

The back of the TLV has an extensive concordance, a short glossary explaining the Hebrew terms used in the translation, as well as a short section of prayers (including the Aaronic benediction and the Lord’s Prayer) and other  blessings for those who wish to learn a little more Hebrew. A couple of maps show Yeshua’s travels in the 1st century AD as well as a modern map of Israel. Best of all, you can acquire all of this for a very modest price: I paid about £25 for my copy but you can also get it at discounted prices from smaller retailers. See here for just one example.

I would highly recommend the TLV to avid readers of the Bible. It will come in especially handy when witnessing to Jews but can be enjoyed by anyone who appreciates the deep Hebrew roots of the Christian faith.

Dr Neil English shows how the Christain faith has inspired visual astronomers over the centuries in his new historical work; Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy.

Post Scriptum: You can also read the TLV(or indeed any other Bible translation) online by visiting BibleGateway.com

De Fideli.

Some life scientists believe they can present a truly naturalistic scheme of events for the origin of life from simple chemical substrates, without any appeal to an intelligent agency.

Here is one such scenario, presented by Harvard professor, Jack Szostak.

I invite you to study the video at your leisure.

In this work, I wish to critically appraise each of the steps Dr. Szostak presents in light of the latest research findings that show that any such scheme of events is physio-chemically untenable from a purely naturalistic perspective.

Video Clock Time 00.00 -10.00 min

Here Dr. Szostak sets the scene for this thesis, exploring the varied landscapes and environments under which we find life on Earth. Dr. Szostak reasonably suggests that when life first appeared on Earth, it must have done so in an extreme environment with higher temperatures and in aqueous environments with extreme pH values and high salinity. What Dr. Szostak does not acknowledge is that life was already complex when the Hadean environment first cooled enough to permit life to gain a footing. For example, there is solid isotopic evidence that the complex biochemical process of nitrogen fixation was already in place at least 3.2 Gyr ago and possibly earlier still.

References

Eva E. Stüeken et al., “Isotopic Evidence for Biological Nitrogen Fixation by Molybdenum-Nitrogenase from 3.2 Gyr,” Nature, published online February 16, 2015, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14180.html.
“Ancient Rocks Show Life Could Have Flourished on Earth 3.2 Billion Years Ago,” ScienceDaily, published online February 16, 2015, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150216131121.htm.

In a more recent study conducted by a team of scientists headed by Professor Von Karnkendonk, based at the University of South Wales, solid evidence for complex microbial ecosystems in the form of stromatolite colonies were established some 500 million years earlier at 3.7 Gyr ago.

Reference

M..J Van Krankendonk et al, Rapid Emergence of Life shown by the Discovery of 3,700 Million Year Old Microbial Structures, Nature Vol 537, pp 535 to 537, (2016).

Dr. Szostak claims the origin of life must have occurred via a Darwinian evolutionary mechanism, but the self-evident complexity of the first life forms strongly argues against this assertion, as there would not have been enough time to have done so. In other words, the window of time available for the emergence of the first forms of life on Earth is too narrow to entertain any viable Darwinian mechanism.

Dr Szostak continues by considering the vast real estate available for potential extraterrestrial life forms. Szostak presents the emerging picture; the principle of plenitude – that of a Universe teeming with planets. That is undoubtedly the case; there are likely countless trillions of terrestrial planets in the Universe.  However, new research on the frequency of gamma ray bursts (GRB) in galaxies suggests that such violent events would greatly hamper any hypothetical chemical evolutionary scenario. In December 2014, a paper in Physical Review Letters, a group of scientists estimated that only 10 per cent of galaxies could harbour life and that there would be a 95 per cent chance of a lethal GRB occurring within 4 kiloparsecs of the Galactic centre, and the likelihood would only drop below 50 per cent at 10 kiloparsecs from a typical spiral galaxy. What is more, since the frequency of GRBs increases rapidly as we look back into cosmic time, the same team estimated that all galaxies with redshifts >0.5 would very likely be sterilised. These data greatly reduce the probability that a planet could engage in prebiotic chemistry for long enough to produce anything viable.

Reference
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.231102#abstract

In addition to GRB induced sterilization events, Dr Szostak completely ignores the remarkable fine tuning that is required to produce a planetary system that could sustain life for any length of time.

References

http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tuning-for-life-on-earth-june-2004

http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tuning-the-ratio-of-small-to-large-stars

Dr. Szostak entertains the possibility that lifeforms with fundamentally different chemistry may evolve and that our type of life might be the exception rather than the rule. This reasoning is flawed however, as the latest research suggests that carbon-based chemistry in a water-based solvent is overwhelmingly more likely to sustain any biochemical system throughout the Universe. Ammonia has been suggested as an alternative solvent to water but there are some(possibly insurmountable) issues with it.

References
http://www.reasons.org/articles/water-designed-for-life-part-1-of-7

http://www.reasons.org/articles/weird-life-is-ammonia-based-life-possible

Summary: Dr Szostak’s introduction presents a gross oversimplification of the true likelihood of prebiotic chemistry becoming established on Earth and other planets. Szostak does concede that our planet could be unique but is unlikely to be. The emerging scientific data however supports the view that life will be rare or unique to the Earth.

Video Clock Time; 10:00 – 32:00 min
The RNA World
In this section, Dr. Szostak presents the central dogma of molecular biology: DNA begat RNA and RNA begat proteins. Origin of life researchers were completely in the dark about how this scheme of events came into being, but in the mid-1980s, Thomas Cech et al discovered that RNA molecules could act catalytically.
Reference:
Zaug, A. J & Cech, T. The Intervening Sequence of RNA of Tetrahymena is an Enzyme, Science, 231, (1986).

This immediately suggested a way forward; perhaps RNA was the first genetic material and over the aeons, it gradually gave up these activities to its more stable cousin, DNA. Szostak gives some examples of how this ‘fossil RNA’ has been incorporated into structures like ribosomes, the molecular machines that carry out the synthesis of polypeptide chains. His interpretation of these examples as ‘fossils’ is entirely speculative, however.

Szostak then explores hypothetical loci where prebiotic synthesis of biomolecules could have taken place, including the atmosphere, at hydrothermal vents and on mineral surfaces. For the sake of clarity, let’s take a closer look at RNA nucleotides, and in particular, the pentose sugar, ribose. Dr. Szostak mentions the Urey-Miller experiments where supposed prebiotic molecules were produced when an electric discharge was passed through a reducing atmosphere including water vapour. Though widely cited in college textbooks, its validity has in fact, long been discounted by serious researchers in the field. Urey and Miller assumed the atmosphere to be reducing in nature, but it is now known that it was neutral, consisting of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and water vapour.

Reference:
The Early Setting of Prebiotic Evolution, Shang,.S
From Early Life on Earth, Nobel Symposium No. 84, Bengtson, S. (ed.), pp 10-23, Columbia University Press (1994).

Even in the complete absence of molecular oxygen, this atmosphere could not have sustained the production of prebiotic molecules, including ribose. Only in the presence of significant quantities of molecular hydrogen has some synthesis been demonstrated.

Reference:
Schlesinger, G, & Miller, S. Prebiotic synthesis in Atmospheres containing methane, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 19, 376-82 (1983).

The problem with this scenario though is that molecular hydrogen would rapidly escape from the Earth’s gravitational field and thus is entirely irrelevant to the question of prebiotic synthesis.

An Aside:

Video Clock Time: 20:00 min: The Narrow Time Window:  Reconciling Dr. Szostak’s timeline for prebiotic chemical evolution with impactor bombardment history.

At 20.00min on his video, Professor Szostak envisages the time during which prebiotic chemical evolution took place on the primitive Earth. He dates it to a period between 4.2 and 3.8Gyr ago (the supposed time of the beginning of the RNA world). Szostak presents a warm, aqueous environment during which all these reactions were taking place. But the planetary scientists modelling the impact history of the inner solar system have revealed a violent early history for the Earth. Extensive isotope analysis of terrestrial and lunar rocks, as well as cratering rate analysis indicate that the inner solar system was subjected to intense bombardment from the debris left over from the formation of the planets, which occurred between 4.5 and 3.9 Gyr ago. The cratering intensity declined exponentially throughout that era, except for a brief episode of increased bombardment between 4.1 and 3.8 Gyr ago. This is known as the Late Heavy Bombardment. One study has estimated that the total accumulation of extraterrestrial material on Earth’s surface during this epoch added a mean mass of 200 tons per square yard over all the surface of the Earth. Thus, Dr. Szostak’s relatively ‘gentle’ scenario is untenable. Realistically, the only oceans to speak of during this epoch are those of magma.

Reference:

Anbar A.D. et al, Extraterrestrial Iridium, Sediment Accumulation and the Habitability of the Earth’s Surface, Journal of Geophysical Research 106 ( 2001) 3219-36.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/no-primordial-soup-for-earths-early-atmosphere

Back to Ribose (a key component of RNA nucleotides discussed by Dr. Szostak). The only plausible mechanism for the synthesis of ribose is the so-called Butlerow reaction (also referred to as the formose reaction) which involves the coupling of the single carbon molecule, formaldehyde (methanal) in spark-ignited reactions, forming sugars of varying carbon numbers, including ribose. However, many side reactions dominate formose chemistry, with the result that the atom economy with respect to ribose is very low; up to 40 other chemical products being typically produced. This is the case in carefully controlled laboratory synthesis (read intelligently designed!), where the reaction is protected from contamination. Experimentally though, the presence of small amounts of ammonia and simple amines (which should be permissible in Szostak’s scheme) react with methanal to bring the formose reaction to a grinding halt.

Reference:
Chyba, C. & Sagan,C., Endogenous Production, Exogenous delivery and Impact Shock Synthesis of Organic Molecules: An Inventory for the Origins of Life, Nature 355(1992): 125-32.

The concentrations of ribose would have been far too low to sanction any RNA world envisaged by Dr. Szostak. Compounding this is the added problem that ribose and other simple sugars are subject to oxidation under alkaline and acidic conditions, and since Szostak presents both hot and cold scenarios on the primitive Earth, it is noteworthy that ribose has a half life of only 73 minutes at 100C (near hydrothermal vents) and just 44 years at 0C.

Reference:

Oro, J., Early Chemical Changes in Origin of Life, from Early Life on Earth, Nobel Symposium No. 84, Bengtson, S. (ed.), pp 49-50, Columbia University Press (1994).

But there are more serious reasons why Szostak’s scheme of events could ever have happened on the primitive Earth. This is encapsulated in the so-called Oxygen-Ultraviolet Paradox.
Szostak envisages prebiotic synthesis in warm aqueous environments, but on the primordial Earth, some 3-4 Gyr ago, the presence of much higher levels of radionuclides such as uranium, thorium and potassium-40 would have presented another proverbial spanner in the works. These would have been more or less evenly distributed over the primitive Earth and when the radiation they emit passes though water, it causes its breakdown into molecular oxygen, hydrogen peroxide and other reactive oxygen species. Oxygen and the associated reactive oxygen species easily and quickly destroy organic molecules; not just ribose and other sugars, but the other biomolecules mentioned by Dr. Szostak too, including fatty acids and purine & pyrimidine bases required for the production of micelles(see Part II) and nucleotides, respectively .

The other part of the paradox pertains to the produce of stratospheric ozone, which requires ultraviolet light. The ozone layer was not present during the epoch in which Szostak’s scheme of events would have occurred. The intense UV irradiance on the primitive Earth would have sundered any exposed prebiotics, further compounding the problem.

References:

Draganic, I.G., Oxygen and Oxidizing Free Radicals in the Hydrosphere of the Earth, Book of Abstracts, ISSOL , 34 (1999) .

Draganic, I, Negron-Mendoza & Vujosevis, S.I, Reduction Chemistry of Water in Chemical Evolution Exploration, Book of Abstracts ISSOL, 139 (2002).

Dr. Szostak appears to be completely unaware of Draganic’s work (though citing Hazen and Deamer’s hydrothermal synthesis work @ 31 minutes) and indeed, in and of itself, would preclude any further discussions of his scheme of events. But we shall nonetheless persevere with this analysis.

This work will be continued in a new post (Part II) here.