Product Review: Leica Trinovid BCA 8 x 20.

To establish ‘Limes.’

Back in the summer of 2019, I got the opportunity to test out a very high quality Swarovski EL Range 10 x 42 owned by a fellow villager named Ian. A keen hunter, he uses this binocular to seek out red deer and estimate their distance using the built-in laser telemetry in the instrument. A few weeks ago, I bumped into Ian in the swing park near my home, where he was looking after his young grandaughter, and we struck up another conversation about binoculars. I was returning from one of my walks,  carrying along my little Zeiss Terra 8 x 25 pocket. He was fascinated with this new instrument, being duly impressed with its razor sharp optics, generous wide field, light-weight ergonomics and decent market value. It was then that I discovered that Ian was also the proud owner of a little Leica Trinovid BCA 8 x 20, which he purchased about two years back for casual sightseeing during his summer vacations in the Scottish northwest. Keen to expand my portfoIio of tested instruments, I asked him if he would be kind enough to let me borrow it  for a wee while to evaluate its optical and mechanical performance. He agreed, but did say that he found the Terra to be very comfortable to use and was even considering acquiring one in the future! Fast forward a couple of weeks and Ian dropped by the Leica binocular at my home so that I could begin some tests, the results of which, I will divulge in this blog.

Leica is a German optical firm that has established itself as a world-leading manufacturer of high-end cameras, microscopes, camera lenses, binoculars and spotting ‘scopes for the burgeoning sports optics market. Founded in 1869 by Ernst Leitz, at Wetzlar, Germany, where the original factory remained until 1986, after which time production was moved to the town of Solms to the west of Wetzlar.  In 1973, Leitz set up another large factory in  Portugal, where it has remained to this day. With 1800 employees, Leica has an annual turnover of the order of 400 million Euro, and continues to produce state-of-the art optical equipment for private and public institutions(mostly universities and hospitals) the world over.

The Leica Trinovid line of binoculars has a long history. Leica first began to manufacture high-quality binoculars back in 1907, but the Trinovid line first appeared in 1953. Over the years, Leica has continued to develop their Trinovids, adding new optical technologies to their products where, today, they utilize some of the best glass and optical coatings available.

First Impressions

The quality of the device was immediately apparent to me as I prized the 8 x 20 from its somehwat oversized, soft carry case. Weighing in at just 235g, the Leica Trinovid BCA 8 x 20 measures just 9cm long, 6cm wide and 3.5cm deep when folded up. This makes it one of the smallest and most portable binoculars in continuous production today.

The binocular has a very traditional dual-hinge system but maintains a very classic look and feel, with an aluminium frame. Unlike their larger binoculars, the BCAs are described as ‘splashproof’, meaning that they will work fine in rainy conditions but are not hermetically sealed or dry nitrogen purged like the majority of roof prism binoculars today. The all-metal chassis is overlaid by a tough rubber armouring, which greatly improves its grip during field use and affords greater protection against accidental bumping or knocking about.

The strong and durable rubber armouring overlaying the aluminium chassis of the Leica Trinovid BCA 8 x 20.

The eyepieces are of exceptionally high quality, being made of metal overlaid by soft rubber cushions for comfortable viewing. They offer just two positions; fuly extended upwards for non-eyeglass wearers(including yours truly) or fully retracted when used with glasses. Eye relief is pretty tight though, at just 14mm, so some eyeglass wearers may struggle seeing the full field. The eyecups hold their position very well and can only be retracted by using considerable downward force. I must say that these are the finest eyepieces I have thus far experienced in my survey of the binocular market. Simply put, they are beautifully designed.

The beautifully designed eyepieces click rigidly into place.

Intriguingly, the dioptre setting(+/-3.5) is located on the right objective lens, which turns either clockwise or anti-clockwise. The focus wheel, which appears to be constructed of a hard plastic, is quite small but moves very smoothly with zero backlash. At first, it’s a bit fiddly to use but with a little practice becomes easier to negotiate, though it may present problems to those who wear gloves.  All in all, the binocular is a study in elegant design. Clearly it was created not only to look good but to feel good in active service.

The Trinovid BCA has a high-quality, somewhat elastic, neckstrap, which is affixed via clips, so can be disengaged from the binocular if so desired. It is comfortable to use. Yet again, an unusual but very nice touch.

The objective lenses are not very deeply recessed in this model, perhaps because its designers aimed to minimise the length of the instrument. Having more deeply recessed objectives serves a number of useful purposes though, including protection against rain and dust, and serving well as an effective barrier against peripheral glare.

The objective lenses on the Trinovid are not very deeply recessed.

Optical Testing

As is customary for me with the arrival of any new binocular for testing, I began by assessing its performance in suppressing stray artificial light, internal reflections and glare. This is easily done by sharply focusing on a bright internal light source – I use my iphone torch at its brightest setting – in a darkened room and sharply focus on the light. Such tests quickly revealed highly satisfactory results. Stray light was very well controlled and very clean, with only very minor internal reflections and no sign of diffused glare often encountered in lesser models. The main artefact was a reasonably pronounced diffraction spike. Indeed, using two small ‘control’ binoculars; my Zeiss Terra 8 x 25 pocket and my recently acquired Celestron Trailseeker 8 x 32 (both of which exhibit excellent performance in this regard), I judged the Leica 8 x 20 to be as good, if not a little better, than my controls. All of these binoculars employ full, broadband multi-coated optics on all glass surfaces, with prisms that are dielectrically coated for highly efficient light transmission. The results predict that the Leica will perform excellently when pointed at strongly backlit daylight scenes, bright street lights and bright terrestrial targets like the Moon. There is no such thing as absolute perfection though. Such a complex optical device will always betray some degree of imperfection under these very stringent tests. I guess, it just comes with the territory!

The high quality HDC coating makes for exceptional light transmission.

In good accord with my flashlight tests, pointing the little Trinovid at a bright sodium street light at night showed no internal reflections, glare and only a very faint diffraction spike that I didn’t find intrusive. These tests were followed up by daylight optical assessments. Looking at tree trunks and branches during bright afternoon conditions showed that this 8 x 20  has excellent optics with a good, wide field of view. The image is tack sharp with a very large sweet spot. There is only slight softening of the images in the outer 10 per cent of the field. Colours are true to form and I detected only the merest trace of chromatic aberration and then only by looking very hard for it(I honestly find this activity rather pointless) on difficult targets. Contrast is exceptional with excellent control of stray light, as judged by imaging targets nearby a setting Sun under hazy sky conditions. There is a normal level of veiling glare which can be removed by blocking the Sun with an outstretched hand. There is also some minor pincushion distortion at the edge of the field but I still judged this to be well above average.

Excellent coatings make the objectives almost disappear.

Some readers will be surprised to learn that Leica did not employ any ED elements in the objective lenses of their BCA binoculars, proving once again that such an addition is not at all necessary to create an excellent optic(the Swarovski CL pocket and larger sibling, the CL 8 x 30 Companion are yet other examples). What really matters are well figured glass elements with high-quality anti-reflection coatings. Looking up its specifications online showed that Leica has spared no expense applying their famous(patented) High Durable Coating (HDC). It purports to be abrasion-resistant with enhanced light transmission, and then there’s the solid P40 dielectric phase coating applied to the Schmidt-Pechan roof prisms. What results is a highly efficient light gathering optic; an especially important commodity for tiny binoculars like these.

The Trinovid certainly delivers optically when the light is good and strong. But it does have some issues which are important to address. Because of its very small size, it’s actually quite challenging to hold steady during field use. It’s small exit pupil (2.5mm) also makes it considerably more difficult to position one’s eyes correctly compared with slightly larger binoculars, such as a good 8 x 25( with a 3.125mm exit pupil). Comparing its ergonomics with my Zeiss Terra 8 x 25 pocket glass showed that the Terra was simply much easier to engage with even though it’s only about 30 per cent heavier(310g). It’s larger frame also gives it the edge in terms of acheiving a good, stable image. This could prove important if the owner intends to use the 8 x 20 BCA for prolonged glassing periods, as the extra effort incurred in accurately positioning one’s eyes over the small exit pupils may induce eye strain with some users, so I think it’s important that people seriously considering this tiny glass try the more popular 8 x 25 units out before making that all-important purchase. Indeed, I believe this point was not lost on Ian when he tried the Terra out in the swing park that afternoon.

In an ongoing blog on using my 8 x 25 binos, I gave mention to why I think good pocket binoculars are quite expensive in the scheme of things. I attributed this to the extra difficulty in accurately positioning the many optical components stably within a scaled-down structure. The Leica Trinovid BCA 8 x 20 seems to follow this rule of thumb. It is smaller than any 8 x 25 model but is also more expensive(about £350 to £400 UK as opposed to £270 for the Zeiss Terra 8 x 25, for example). But there is surely folly in pursuing this to its logical conclusion. For example, would it be sensible to create an even smaller, state-of-the-art 15mm model say, that can fit on two fingers and cost £500?

Of course not! That would be daft. It would be too small and fiddly to use and the amount of light it would bring to one’s eyes- even if it were 100 per cent efficient – would severely limit its use. That’s probably why the other premium binocular manufacturers – particularly Zeiss and Swarovski – have discontinued their 8 x 20 models in favour of 8x and 10 x 25mm units. Indeed, all of this has close parallels to the premium, small refractor market, where folk seem to pay exorbitant prices for tiny, albeit perfect, optics. Is that really sensible? Not in my mind – which is why I turned my back on it- but your mileage may vary!

Assorted notes:

The Leica Trinovid BCA 8 x 20 has ocular lenses just a little smaller than its objective lenses.

The instrument comes with a ten year warranty.

Each Leica binocular comes with a test certificate which claims that it was examined at various times during its manufacture prior to leaving the factory.

The Leica mini-binocular didn’t appear to come with caps, either for the objectives or eyepieces. It does just fit the small Opticron branded rainguard for compact binos however, which I use with my 8 x 25s.

It’s hard to find the ‘made in Portugal’ stamp on the Leica. But it is there, stealthily placed under the left barrel of the optic, and only accessed by fully extending the instrument’s IPD to its maximum where you’ll see: Made by Leica Portugal in good light.

The Opticron-branded rainguard I use for my 8x 25s just fits the smaller leica binocular.

More info on this package here.

Comparison with other Premium Pocket Binoculars

The Leica Trinovid BCA 8 x 20(left)versus with the Zeiss Terra 8 x 25(right). Note the latter’s larger frame and bigger focus wheel.

I spent a few hours comparing and contrasting the Zeiss Terra ED 8 x 25 and the Leica BCA 8 x 20 during bright sunny conditions(for January) and again under dull overcast conditions, as well as looking for performance differences at dusk, when the light rapidly fails afer sunset.

Under bright sunny conditions there was not much difference between both binoculars in terms of optical performance(both are excellent in this regard), except that the Zeiss has a noticeably wider field of view(119m compared with 110m@1000m). Because of its larger frame, larger focus wheel and larger exit pupil, the Zeiss proved easier to handle and  easily rendered the more comfortable, immersive view. The weight difference between these instruments is only 75g, so I don’t think many folk would quibble about the increase in bulk mass.

Under dull overcast conditions, the Zeiss produced a slightly brighter image, which became more and more pronounced as the light began to fade after sunset(around 5pm local time in the last week in January). This ought not surprise anyone, as both binoculars are highly efficient light gatherers and so simple physics dictates that the larger 25mm glass wins.

Close focus on the Leica was estimated to be about 1.8 metres, significantly longer than the Zeiss Terra at 1.4 metres.

Comparison under the Stars

The differences between the 25mm glass and its 20mm counterpart was most pronounced when aimed at the night sky. The larger exit pupil and aperture on the Zeiss Terra pocket allowed me to see significantly fainter stars around Orion’s belt and in the Hyades, compared with the Leica. At first I judged the contrast to be slightly better in the Leica than in the Zeiss but upon reflection, I attribute this to the smaller exit pupil in the former, which naturally generates a darker sky hinterland. The wider field of view in the Zeiss also helps frame objects that little bit better than the Leica. So, for casual stargazing the Zeiss proved noticeably superior to the Leica 8 x 20. I would not really recommend the 8 x 20 for such activities over a larger glass. But neither should anyone expect miracles here. The Leica is designed for daylight use in the main, although one can always enjoy the odd look at the Moon with the 8 x 20 when it is present in the sky.

Comparisons to a Celestron Trailseeker 8 x 32 Compact Binocular

How does the Leica Trinovid BCA 8 x 20 compare with a good 8 x 32 compact binocular?

Comparing a mid-sized, semi-compact binocular like the Celestron Trailseeker 8 x 32 with a diminutive 8 x 20 might seem a little out of place. But I think its inclusion is valid. The Trailseeker is very light; indeed, at just 453g, it ranks as one of the lightest 8 x 32s on the market, but still has many mechanical and optical features that only a few years ago were the preserve of premium binoculars; a magnesium alloy chassis, solid, well-designed metal-under rubberised adjustable eyecups, fully broadband multicoatings, dielectrically coated Bak-4 prisms et cetera.

Comparing the images served up by both the Celestron and the Leica in bright daylight in the open air, my wife and I both concluded that the Leica has slightly better contrast and sharpness across much of the field than the Celestron 8 x 32. With a small exit pupil of 2.5mm, the best part of your eye lens images the field. Edge of field performance is also significantly better in the Leica. But we also agreed that the Celestron was more comfortable to use, owing to its larger exit pupil (4mm). That said, we also reached the conclusion that the Celestron binocular rendered a slightly brighter image even in good light. But while there are perceptible differences between the two instruments, it must be stressed that these differences are small and subtle. Of course, that conclusion will likely upset a few of the more pestiferous premium bino junkies out there, but it is nonetheless true in our experience. The Celestron held its own very well indeed against the sensibly perfect Leica.

But there is considerably more to say about the economical Trailseeker. Move from the open air into a heavily canopied forest or copse and the advantages of the larger aperture binocular become much more apparent. Under these conditions, the Celestron fairs a lot better, delivering brighter images and more information to the eye. And as the light diminishes in the late afternoon, the Celestron clearly pulls ahead, as it ought to do, owing to its much greater light gathering power. At dusk, the differences between the two models are literally like night and day. Under these conditions, the 8 x 32 Trailseeker is vastly superior. It doesn’t matter if the optics in the Leica are sensibly perfect when you can’t see those details.

You see, the little Leica is like an elastic band – stretch it too far and it will break!

The same was true when pointing both binoculars at the night sky. After struggling to peer through the Leica, the Celestron was pure joy!  Its very efficient light transmission(~ 90 percent) and much wider field of view (7.8 degrees) brings so much more of the Universe to your eye!

These results helped us both to appreciate just how good the Chinese-made Celestron Trailseeker 8 x 32 really is. At roughly one third of the UK price(recently reduced to half its originanl market value(~£250) for clearance) of the Leica, we’d both say that it delivers 90 per cent of the bright, daytime performance of the Leica and vastly superior low light and night time performance. In many ways, this small and light-weight 8 x 32 is a more versatile performer than the 8 x 20 Leica Trinovid BCA, and those wishing to use their binoculars in more compromised lighting conditions would probably be better served with a good instrument in this size class.

And I have to ask this question again: is a weight of 453g really anathema to those who want to travel ultra-light?

nota bene: these comments regarding the Celestron Trailseeker 8 x 32 are also applicable to the previous discussion of my Zeiss Terra pocket glasss, in case you’re wondering.

These tests affirmed the excellent bang-for-buck the Celestron Trailseeker really represents. Veteran binocular enthusiast and fellow author, Gary Seronik, is dead right in highlighting these recent trends: mass produced, Chinese-derived optics are now coming so awfully close to premium performance-both optically and mechanically – that I would have reservations shelling out much more of my hard-earned cash just to get slightly better optical performance and the right to brag! For these reasons, I’m very pleased with and have no plans to upgrade the 8 x 32 Celestron; it will remain as part of my binocular stable.

Conclusions

The Leica Trinovid BCA 8 x 20: lean, mean optical machine.

The Leica Trinovid BCA 8 x 20 is a beautifully made pocket binocular that exudes elegance in both its solid mechanics and optics. It produces sensibly perfect images, rich in contrast and colour, whilst maintaining a very high degree of sharpness across the entire field. Perhaps uniquely, its advantages and disadvantages both pertain to its very small size.  Provided one knows its limitations though, it ought to provide its owners with many years of service as a high-quality, ultra-portable optical system that can be used for casual glassing at sports events, mountain climbing, hiking, birding, general sight-seeing and even some limited astronomical viewing.

I found my time with the little Leica binocular to be a particularly enriching experience. While it is expensive, it is certainly money well spent, especially if you plan to use it on a regular basis. Yet again, I know why Ian chose this little optical marvel. During the very long days of a Scottish summer, when the light is good and strong, I can imagine him enjoying this super light binocular for hours on end.

Highly recommended!

 

The author would like to extend his thanks to Ian for lending him the Leica Trinovid BCA 8 x 20 for this review.

Explore More:

Ken Rockwell’s Review of the Leica Trinovid BCA 8 x 20

Best Binocular Review of the Leica Trinovid BCA 10 x 25

Neil English is the author of seven books in amateur and professional astronomy. His 8th title, Choosing & Using Binoculars: a Guide for Stargazers, Birders and Outdoor Enthusiasts, will be published in late 2023.

 

De Fideli.

Old vs New.

How does a classic Zeiss binocular square up to a modern roof prism binocular?

Unlike telescopes, which are mainly used by dedicated amateur astronomers, binoculars, for obvious reasons, are owned and used by a much broader cross section of the general population. When my students get to know me, they will inevitably have to endure my unbridled enthusiasm for optical devices of all kinds lol, and that includes binoculars. One of my mathematics students, Sandy, expressed an unusual interest in some of my instruments, and he further informed me that his parents, who run a small ferrying business at Balmaha, on the shores of nearby Loch Lomond, used several binoculars in their everyday work. My interest was further piqued when Sandy told me that his grandfather owned a big Zeiss binocular, which was inherited by his father and would eventually be passed on to him in the goodness of time. I asked Sandy whether he would be willing to bring the Zeiss binocular by so that I could have a look at it. After checking with his parents, Sandy agreed and kindly allowed me to use it for a week in order that I could assess it and give it a good clean. Naturally enough, I jumped at the opportunity!

The instrument, a Carl Zeiss Jenoptem 10 x 50W porro prism binocular, came in a lovely leather case; a far cry form anything made in this era.

The Zeiss Jenoptem 10x 50W complete with original leather carry case.

The instrument had no lens caps and so had accumulated quite a bit of grime on both the ocular and objective lenses over the years. The Jenoptem, which was manufactured in East Germany(DDR), featured a Zeiss multi-coating, which helped me to date it to after 1978, when the company apparently began to apply their anti-reflection coatings to all the lenses and prisms in the optical train. So my guess is that it was probably acquired in the early 1980s. I believe Zeiss Jena offered a higher quality porro 10 x 50 in the Decarem line around the same period, but I have not had the pleasure of testing one of these units out.

The Zeiss Jenoptem is multi-coated.

The instrument has a very Spartan look and feel about it. Weighing in at about 1 kilogram, the Jenoptem is built like a proverbial tank, with a central focusing wheel and right eye dioptre.Turning the nicely machined metal focusing wheel first clockwise, and then anti-clockwise, all the way through its trave,l showed that it was still in excellent working condition, with zero backlash and bumping that one usually encounters with cheaper porro prism binoculars.

As expected from Zeiss, the Jenoptem has a very well made focuser that moves with silky smoothness and with zero backlash.

To begin the cleaning process, I unscrewed the objective housings from the front of the binocular in order to get at the inside surface of the objective lenses, which had a significant amount of grime as well as a small amount of fungal growth. Using a good quality lens brush, I carefully removed much of the dust before using a microfibre lens cleaning cloth soaked in a little Baader Optical Wonder fluid. In just a few minutes I was able to remove the remaining grime on both the outer and inner surfaces of the binocular objectives, as well as the surfaces of the prisms in the rear module of the instrument. The ocular lenses were also given a good cleaning.

The objectives of the Zeiss Jenoptem can be accessed by uncrewing the front of the binocular from the prism and ocular housing.

I was able to verify that the prisms were indeed coated in the same way as the objectives, although I also discovered that the steel clips holding the prisms in place had rusted significantly over time. I did not attempt to clean the clips, as I judged that doing so might throw the instrument out of collimation.

Note the rusted steel clip holding one of the prisms in place, as well as the anti-reflection coating of the second prism(after cleaning).

The objectives on the Jenoptem after cleaning. Note the anti-reflection coatings.

Seen in broad daylight, I was able to verify that the lens coatings had not suffered much in the way of wearing, looking smooth and evenly applied, giving a bluish or purple cast, depending on the angle of view.

The appearance of the objectives in broad daylight after cleaning.

 

And the ocular lenses.

Optical tests:

After screwing the objective modules back into place, I was now ready to begin my optical tests of this older Zeiss binocular. I compared the views served up by this instrument with those garnered by my Barr & Stroud 10 x 50 Sierra roof prism binocular that I use almost exclusively for astronomical viewing. After setting the right eye dioptre on the Zeiss to suit my own eyes, I started with an iphone torch test to assess how the instruments fared in suppressing glare and internal reflections.

The Zeiss 10x 50W Jenoptem(right) and my Barr & Stroud 10x 50 Sierra roof prism binocular(left).

Because the Zeiss does not have the same close focus (~2m) performance as my Barr & Stroud, I had to place my iphone torch several metres away in my hallway in order to get the Zeiss to focus on its light. As usual, the torch was adjusted to its highest (read brightest) setting. Comparing the two in-focus images, I could see that the Zeiss fared considerably worse than the Barr & Stroud. Specifically, it picked up two fairly bright internal reflections, as well as quite a lot of contrast-robbing diffused light, which rendered the Zeiss image considerably less clean and contrasted in comparison to my control binocular. The difference was quite striking!

After dark, I aimed the binoculars at a bright sodium street lamp and again compared the images served up in both instruments. As expected, the Zeiss showed much more in the way of internal reflections, with a lot of diffused light that produced a fog-like veil around the street lamp. The Sierra 10 x 50 in comparison served up a much more ‘punchy’ image with much better control of internal reflections and far less of the foggy, diffused light evidenced in the Zeiss.

Next, I compared the Zeiss and the Barr & Stroud Sierra on a daylight test, examining a tree trunk in the swing park about 80 yards from my front door. Again, the difference between both instruments was striking! Although the image was very sharp in the Zeiss at the centre of the field, it was noticeably dimmer than the Sierra. That diffused light I picked up in the iphone torch test created a foggy veil that significantly reduced its contrast in comparison to the control binocular. I was also able to discern many more low contrast details in the Sierra owing to its ability to gather significantly more light than the older Zeiss. The colour cast presented by both binoculars was also noteworthy. The Zeiss threw up quite a strong yellowish colour cast  to the Sierra, which showed a much more neutral cast in comparison.

Examining the periphery of the same field also showed that the Sierra was exhibiting a larger depth of focus than the Zeiss, which was quite unexpected, as I had been given to understand that porro prism binoculars in general show more depth of focus than their roof prism counterparts. In addition, the Zeiss showed more distortion at the edges of the field than the control binocular.

The Zeiss Jenoptem has very tight eye relief, which I estimated to be just 10mm. The Barr & Stroud Sierra, in contrast, has much more generous eye relief in comparison- 17mm – making it significantly more suitable for eye glass wearers. Indeed, I found it difficult to image the entire field in the Zeiss, having to move my eyeball around to see the field stops.

In summary, these daylight tests clearly showed that the venerable Zeiss was no match optically for the Barr & Stroud 10 x 50 roof prism I had tested it against. The latter was simply in a different league to the former, no question about it!

Handling in the Field:

The Zeiss is rather big and clunky in my small hands and is more difficult to find that optimal position while viewing for extended periods. Weighing more than 200g more than the Sierra, it is also harder to hold steady. The significantly smaller frame of the Sierra roof prism binocular is much easier to negotiate, and is simply more comfortable to use. In addition, the Zeiss has no provision to mount it on a lightweight tripod or monopod, but the Sierra, like most other modern binoculars, does.

Astronomical tests:

Though the weather proved quite unsettled during the week that I tested the Zeiss, I did get a few opportunities to test it out on the night sky. Once again, I used my Barr & Stroud Sierra 10x 50 roof prism as a suitable control. My first target was a bright, waxing gibbous Moon fairly low in the southern sky. The Zeiss threw up more in the way of internal reflections than the Sierra. The colour cast of the lunar surface appeared more yellow in  the Zeiss compared with the cleaner images of the Sierra. As I expected from my iphone torch tests, the sky immediately arround the Moon was also brighter in the Zeiss, with noticeably lower contrast than the Sierra. Moving the Moon to the edge of the field also showed that the Zeiss threw up more distortions than the Sierra control binocular.

Turning to Vega high in the northwest after sunset produced good on-axis images in both binoculars, but when moved to the edge of the field, the Zeiss threw up that little bit more distortion than the Barr & Stroud Sierra. The same was true when I examined the Pleaides and the Hyades in Taurus.

Conclusions and Implications:

The Zeiss Jenoptem was a good binocular in its day but is clearly inferior in almost every sense to the Barr & Stroud roof binocular used in comparison. 40 years ago, the Zenoptem would have set the average factory worker a whole month’s salary to acquire new. In contrast, the Barr & Stroud Sierra can be had for between £100 and £120 in today’s market.  The value of waterproofing was made manifest in the observation of rusting of some of the metal internal components of the Zeiss. The Sierra, in contrast, is fully waterproof, o-ring sealed and purged with dry nitrogen gas to inhibit internal fogging and corrosion of any metallic components used in its construction.

Enormous advances in optical technology over the last four decades, particularly full broadband multi-coatings applied to all lens and prism surfaces, higher quality optical glass, as well as phase coated prisms on the roof binocular, collectively allow very efficient light transmissions to the eye. This is all the more remarkable since roof prism designs usually have many more optical components than their porro prism counterparts.

Better eregonomics in modern roof prism binoculars as well the employment of strong, low mass polycarbonate housings in their design make them lighter and easier to use than their porro prism counterparts from a generation ago. All of these add to the comfort of using them either during the day or at night when looking at the heavens.

I had a look on ebay to see what these old Jenoptems were being offered for. I found quite a few of them selling for between £150 and £200, so not the high prices demanded by other classic binoculars.

Like with all optical firms, time has marched on, with modern binoculars offering much better performance than earlier models.

This comparison test must have implications for many people who already own or use older binoculars and who have not compared them to modern incarnations. And that’s as true for Zeiss as with any other manufacturer. Indeed, I was quite shocked at how much better my first quality roof prism 8 x 42 roof prism binocular fared compared to an old 7x 50 porro I was gifted back in the early 1990s. Technology has well and truly marched on! And while I like classic instruments just as much as the next guy, I see little point in using any when even modest instruments created in the modern age are likely to perform better than similar instruments made a generation ago. It’s just a hard fact of life.

The technology of the past is certainly interesting but it would be daft to neglect the advances offered in the modern era.

 

I would like to extend my thanks to Sandy and his parents for allowing me to test drive these old binoculars. I will be advising him to use lens caps on the optics when not in use and have also provided a sachet of silica gel desiccant to minimise moisture-induced corrosion of the optic.

 

Neil English discusses all manner of classic telescope technology in his 650+ page historical work, Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy(Springer-Nature).

 

De Fideli.

In Search of a Good 8 x 32 Binocular.

Two mid-priced 8 x 32 binoculars compared: the Celestron Trailseeker(left) and the Helios LightWing HR( right).

The march of technology continues apace and never ceases to amaze me. This is especially true when it comes to telescope and binocular optics. You can now buy very decent optics at budget prices that display a level of quality we could only dream of a couple of decades ago. And technologies that were only available on premium optics up to fairly recently are now being offered by companies offering much more economical packages to sate the requirements of the masses.

That’s exactly how I feel about my recent foray into binocular testing. Advances in coating technology, in particular, has allowed many new optical firms to offer products that are edging ever closer to the performance levels only available on premium models until recently. Even entry-level roof prism binoculars feature decent anti-reflection coatings on all optical surfaces(which can be as many as 30 in a good roof prism binocular), as well as phase correction technology that significantly increase contrast, accurate colour rendition and image brightness. These less expensive models used either aluminium or silver coatings to boost light transmissions to as high as 80 to 85 per cent, but one can now obtain very economically priced models that also feature super-high reflectivity, broadband dielectric coatings that have increased light transmission to above 90 per cent, in touching distance of the most expensive, premium binoculars money can buy.

Unfortunately, many amateurs who enjoy using quality binoculars mistakenly conflate high-level optical performance with the introduction of extra low dispersion (ED) glass, but the truth is that such an addition contributes little to the quality of the optical experience. Much more significant is the use of higher quality coatings that significantly increase both the brightness and contrast of the images, which in turn enables one to see those finer details, thereby boosting resolution(perhaps this is why the Helios has HR in its name?). Of course, many(but not all) premium binocular manufacturers use a combination of ED glass elements and the finest dielectric coatings, making it all the more difficult for the user to assess the relative importance of either component. But I was able to explore and confirm the dramatic effects of the latter by putting a couple of  mid-priced 8 x 32 compact roof prism binoculars through their paces; a Helios LightWing HR and a Celestron Trailseeker(both pictured above), both of which feature premium quality dielctric coatings on the prism surfaces as well as high-quality broadband anti-reflection coatings on the multiple lenses and prisms used in their construction. Neither instrument contains ED glass elements however. For more on this, check out this short youtube presentation by an experienced glasser and binocular salesman describing one of the models I will be evaluating in this blog(the Helios LightWing),  and who formed the same conclusions as this author.

Both instruments were acquired from the same source, Tring Astronomy Centre. Their friendly and knowledgeable staff have offered exceptional service with a number of past purchases and I had thus no hesitation approaching them again for the acquisition of these 8 x 32 compact binocular models.

The first model I acquired was the Helios LightWing HR 8 x 32, which set me back £127 plus £5 to ensure an expedited delivery of the package within 24 hours of ordering. As soon as it arrived, I inspected the contents, which included the binocular with a rain guard, soft carry case, a lens cloth and generic(read single page instruction sheet) and padded neck strap. Within minutes of its arrival, I had the binocular out of its case to perform my iphone torch test in my living room to see how well an intense beam of white light behaved as it passed through the instrument. As I outlined in a few previous blogs, such a test is extraordinarily sensitive, showing up even the slightest stray reflections in the field of view and revealing how well the optical components suppressed the tendency of the light to diffuse across the field, reducing contrast as it does. Well, to my great relief, the result was excellent! Despite the torch being set at its highest setting in a darkened room, the Helios LightWing HR showed only the feeblest level of ghosting on axis. What is more, there was no difraction spikes or diffused light in the field! The image was exceptionally clean. Indeed, comparing the result to my control binocular, a Barr & Stroud Savannah 8 x 42, which also exhibits exceptional stray light control, the Helios was providing even better results!

To put this in some additional context, the torchlight test result for the Helios 8 x 32 was better than my Zeiss Terra ED 8 x 25 pocket binocular and a Swarovski EL Range 10 x 42, as I recall from my notes!

I now had a new standard by which to measure all other binoculars!

The same was also true when I placed the light beam just outside the field of view. Only a very minimal amount of glare was seen in the field.

The Helios LightWing HR 8x 32 revealed exceptional control of stray light and annoying internal reflections.

Wow!

This told me that the binocular ought to produce very high contrast images in even the most demanding conditions, either by day, glassing in strongly backlit scenes, or at night, when looking at bright light sources, such as artificial street lighting or a bright Moon. No doubt, this is attributed to a variety of factors including excellent multi-layer coatings on all optical surfaces, as well as a sound knowledge of how to adequately baffle the instrument.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Note to the reader: My pet peeve is seeing excessive glare and strong ghosting from internal reflections in a binocular image. Indeed, I am quite intolerant of it! Moreover, I usually dismiss any reviews that do not test for this phenomenon. Unfortunately, that also entails taking the majority of user reviews I read online with a large dose of salt!

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Examining the Helios, I noted the unusual colour cast of the anti-reflection coatings on both the objective and ocular lenses. They seemed to be immaculately applied! I also noted how the objectives were recessed very deeply; with ~ 10mm of overhang. This is a very good(and often overlooked!) design feature, as it cuts down on peripheral glare during bright daylight observations and also affords considerable protection from dust and rain.

The unusual colour cast of the anti-reflection coatings of the Helios LightWing objective lenses.

Mechanical assessment: The Helios is very well constructed. The chassis is fabricated from a magnesium alloy which combines light weight(500g) with good mechanical strength. This is an unsual offering in such a low-cost instrument, with cheaper polycarbonate or even ABS plastic being the rule rather than the exception on models offered at this price point. The central hinge had enough tension to maintain my particular IPD but I would have liked it to be just a little bit stiffer(just like my wonderful Barr & Stroud Savannah 8 x 42). I found handling the binocular to be unusually tricky, as the rubber eyes needed to attach the neckstrap protrude from the barrels a little too much, making it rather more awkward to get the binocular comfortably placed in my hands while observing.

The focus wheel is very large in relation to the overall size of the instrument. Indeed, I thought it was a little too large! Although I could get a good grip, rotating it showed that it was somewhat clunky and offered unusual resistance to movement. In contrast, the dioptre ring moved with silky smoothness, and you can actually see the right ocular field lens moving as you rotate it!

The buttery smooth right-barrel dioptre ring is a joy to adjust.

The eyecups are rather stiff but do extend upwards with two clickstops. With an eye relief of 15.6mm, eyeglass wearers will find it difficult to image the entire field. Fortunately for me though, this wasn’t a problem, as I don’t wear eye glasses while glassing. The cups are made from quality metal covered by a soft rubber-like material. They are very firm and hold their positions securely even when undue pressure is applied to them. Overall, a very nice touch!

The chassis is covered by a rather thin rubberised skin, which was somewhat thinner than I’ve seen on a variety of other binoculars I’ve sampled. As a result, it has slightly less friction while man handling, which can prove important, especially if used for prolonged periods in the field. It also means that it would wear down that little bit faster after extended use.

The Helios can be attached to a tripod or monopod for increased stability via the built-in bush located between the barrels, toward the front of the instrument.

Optical daylight testing: Scanning some autumn leaves in my back garden confirmed what I had witnessed in the torchlight test. The image was very bright and tack sharp with wonderful contrast and colour fidelity. There was nary a trace of chromatic aberration( which continues to affirm my belief that ED glass is unnecessary: -a marketing gimmick? – for such small, low power binoculars). However, this was only true in the central 50 per cent of the field. The outer part of the field became progressively softer with the edge being out of focus. Examining a telephone pole about 25 yards in the distance unveiled very strong field curvature as it was moved from the centre to the edge of the field of view.

I hit another snag when I attempted to image the Fintry hills about a mile in the distance. The focus wheel was racked to the end of its natural focus travel but I still could not quite reach a sharp focus. Adjusting the dioptre ring on the right barrel allowed me to just get there but the left barrel was still not sharply focused. After dark, I did a test on the bright star Vega, which unfortunately confirmed my daylight tests. Although I could achieve pinpoint sharp images in the right barrel, the left barrel showed that the star was badly bloated. Another test on the Moon showed the same thing. The right barrel gave a razor sharp image with exceptional contrast and no internal reflections or diffused light around it, but the image at the edge was badly out of focus.

The whole experience left me somewhat bewildered. Why expend so much effort into applying state-of-the art coatings into a binocular with nice mechanical features, only to see excessive field curvature in the outer part of the field? It just didn’t make sense! I mean, Helios could have made the field a little smaller(it has a true field of 7.8 degrees) with sharper edge definition and I would have been happy.  In reallity you see, I had been spoiled by the nearly flat fields presented by my Barr & Stroud Savannah 8 x 42(and over a larger field to boot- 8.2 degrees), as well as those presented by my Zeiss Terra pocket and my other models with aspherical ocular lenses. Needless to say I was disappointed and decided to contact the staff at Tring the same evening, explaining my findings.

Next morning, they contacted me, apologising for the defective optic, as well as suggesting that I could have a replacement Helios LightWing, or try a Celestron Trailseeker 8 x 32, which apparently had very similar specifications to the former. Now, I had a bad experience with an 8 x 25 Celestron Nature DX(an entry-level roof prism binocular) which showed far too much glare and internal reflections for my liking. But I had a good look at the specifications on the Celestron Trailseeker models, which were recently discounted by 20 per cent and were now being offered at the same price as I had paid for the Helios LightWing. After some deliberation, I decided to accept their offer of trying the Trailseeker. And to their credit, Tring shipped out the binocular, together with a return label for the Helios, the same day, and I received it less than 24 hours later!

How about that for customer service!

The Celestron Trailseeker 8 x 32 package.

With some trepidation, I opened the package and inspected its contents. First impressions looked good. I received the binocular, a much higher quality carry case, a binocular harness, tethered rubber objective caps and rain guard, a decent quality padded neck strap, a lens cleaning cloth and a comprehensive instruction manual dedicated to the Trailseeker  line of binoculars( in five languages).

The Trailseeker binocular specifications looked very similar to the Helios, which included the application of premium-quality phase and dielectric coatings, a 7.8 degree field (136m @1000m), Bak-4 prisms, o-ring sealed, dry nitrogen purged, making it fog proof and water proof(though to what extent was not revealed). And just like the Helios, the Trailseeker can be mounted on a tripod or monopod.

As with the Helios, the Trailseeker has very deeply recessed objectives (again about 10mm) but the anti-reflection coatings looked different in daylight;

The Trailseeker also has deeply recessed objective lenses but the coatings appeared different.

Just like the Helios, the Celestron Trailseeker has a rugged magnesium alloy chassis but the focus wheel is significantly smaller. Weighing in at just 450g, it is 50g less bulky than the Helios. The Trailseeker build quality is excellent; rugged, much easier to handle than the Helios and overall having better ergonomics. The tough, rubberised covering has better grip than the Helios too, and small thumb indentations on the belly of the instrument makes it that little bit more comfortable to hold in the hand.

Nicely placed thumb indents on the underside of the Trailseeker make handling that little bit more intuitive.

Well, you can guess what I did next; yep, I set up my iphone torch, turned it up to its brightest setting and placed it in the corner of my living room with the curtains pulled to cut off much of the daylight. With a good close focus of about 6.5 feet, eagerly I aimed the Trailseeker binocular at the light and examined the image.

Drum roll……………………………………….

An excellent result! Internal reflections were minimal, diffused glare was all but absent and diffraction spikes were very subdued. Comparing the Trailseeker to my Barr & Stroud Savannah 8x 42 control binocular showed that it was on par with it. What a relief! To be honest, I had some reservations about the Celestron, owing to my unfavourable experience with the cheaper Nature DX model, and so I half expected that they might skimp on this important process. But no, they did a very good job! So far, so very good!

I was also impressed with the mechanical attributes of the Trailseeker, which is difficult to ascertain vicariously without man handling it. Though quite conservative in design, the eyecups are of high quality(metal over rubber) but have a nice feel about them. They twist up much more easily than those on the Helios and have two settings. Like the Helios, the eye relief is pretty tight(15.6mm) for eye glass wearers but is plenty good enough for those who observe without glasses.They do not budge even when considerable force is applied to them. I would rate their quality as very high, so much so that I don’t think I will have much in the way of problems with them going forward.

The metal-over rubber eyecups of the Celestron Trailseeker are a good step up from the Nature DX models and feel very secure while glassing.

The focus wheel has a ‘plasticky’ feel about it but unlike the Helios, infinity focus does not lie at the extreme end of the focus travel. This is actually useful for ‘focusing out’ some of the aberrations at the extreme edge of the field. Unlike other user reviews of the Trailseeker, the focus wheel on the unit I received was quite stiff to operate out of the box but this will surely loosen up with more use. Rotating the focuser both clockwise and anti-clockwise revealed little or no backlash or bumpy spots that you often encounter on cheaper binoculars. Some users balk at the idea of using a plastic focuser but I cannot for the life of me understand why it would make much difference. I mean, if it works, it works! What’s to give?

The focus wheel on the Trailseeker is nothing out of the ordinary but does work well in field use.

The dioptre ring is located under the right eyecup. It rotates smoothly with just the right amount of friction.

Optical daylight testing: As I’ve illustrated above, good mechanical design and great control of stray light don’t count for much if the images don’t deliver. So I was eager to see how the Celestron Trailseeker behaved when looking ’round the landscape. Accordingly, I examined the same autumn leaves in my back garden set a few tens of yards away. This time, the results were very much more encouraging! The leaves focused beautifully, throwing up excellent brightness, contrast and sharpness with a much wider sweet spot than in the Helios, which I estimated to be about 70 per cent of the field.  I could immediately tell that there was much less field curvature in this binocular than in the Helios, allowing me to sharpen up the edge of field definition with only minor tweaking of the focus. This much reduced field curvature was also apparent when I examined the same telephone poll I observed with the Helios. Instead of the strong off-axis distortions I encountered with that instrument, as the pole was moved from the centre to the periphery of the field, the Trailseeker proved much more forgiving.

What a relief!

Having said all of this, there was more off-axis field curvature in the Trailseeker than in my Barr & Stroud Savannah 8 x 42, which, in comparison, throws up a wider and flatter field nearly all the way to the edge. As I’ve said many times before, the Savannah is a phenomenal operator given its very modest price tag. Perhaps some of the drooling gayponauts reading this blog right now could get off their fat backsides and confirm it!

Nah, probably too much to ask!

The Barr & Stroud Savannah 8 x 42 wide-angle binocular; an existential threat to the hubris of thieving gayponauts.

Nightime testing:

After dark, the Trailseeker delivered excellent results on artificial street lights, just as my torchlight tests reliably anticipated. There was no annoying glare, internal reflections and the diffraction spikes were small and very subdued. Turning the instrument on a low Moon skirting the horizon showed wonderful sharpness on axis, with well above average contrast. And when I placed the Moon at the edge of the field, it remained quite sharp, though visibly softened by a small amount of field curvature. Needless to say, it was in a completely different league to the Helios in this regard!

Later in the night, with the Moon having set, I examined the appearance of the large and sprawling Alpha Persei Association located nearly overhead at the time. This provided an excellent test of how its many bright stellar members would behave from the centre of the binocular field to the field stop. To my relief, the stars remained acceptably small and sharp across the entire field, with the stars at the edge of the field requiring only a small tweak in focus to improve their definition. They did not balloon to stupidly large sizes like I observed in the Helios.

Turning the binocular on the Hyades in Taurus gave very pleasing results too. Contrast was excellent with its many colourful stellar components remaining acceptably small and crisp even at the edges of the field.

I considered these results to be very acceptable. This is one small binocular that can be used profitably for nightime observations!

A Walk in the Countryside with the Celestron Trailseeker 8 x 32

Although the Celestron Trailseeker 8 x 32 is a small, high-quality and lightweight instrument, it is not readily pocketable, unless you have a coat that has rather large and deep receptacles. Having tried a few 8 x 32 binoculars, I personally find them a little awkward to use in comparison to my two favourite pocket binoculars like my Opticron Aspheric LE and my Zeiss Terra(both of which are 8 x 25 formats) or a larger instrument such as my 8 x 42. I just find the 8 x 32 format a bit kludgy in my rather small hands. That said, the 8 x 32 seems to be a popular choice for birders and other nature enthusiasts, who tire of schlepping around a larger instrument for hours on end. In good light, there’s no real advantage in using a larger format binocular and so I tend to use my pocket binos most often. But if you are observing in low light conditions, such as a dull, overcast winter day, late in the evening or early in the morning, the 8 x 32 would definitely be a better choice. I have verified this wisdom by comparing the views through my  8 x 25 Terra and the 8 x 32 Trailseeker at dusk, where the brighter images served up by the latter are plainly in evidence. And because you have a relative abundance of good quality light to play with, you can see more details in the image. Shimples!

Choosing a small binocular is a deeply personal choice that you can only decide on after trying them in the field.

The consensus view is that larger binoculars are more comfortable to use since their larger ocular lenses make it easier to place your eyes in the correct position to see and immerse yourself in the field of view. I believe there is definitely some truth in this, but in the end it’s really about what you get used to. I personally have no trouble lining up my eyes with the smaller eye lenses on my pocket binos, so I never see this as being much of an issue.

Enjoying the rich colours of autumn on a hill walk overlooking Fintry.

All that having been said, the Trailseeker 8 x 32 is a very handy companion on my daily two-mile ramble ’round Culcreuch Castle Estate, which has some extensive wooded areas, a fast-flowing river, numerous small brooks, open fields which extend towards the surrounding hills and a small pond, where I enjoy watching the antics of a variety of water-loving avian species. The field of view is very generous at 7.8 degrees, which is quite large as most 8 x 32 binoculars go, though some models sport still larger fields in excess of 8( ~ >140m@1000m) angular degrees. The razor sharp optics on the Trailseeker has given me many wonderful views of golden autumn leaves glistening in weak November sunshine. I especially love to stand under a tree and glass the branches above me, focusing in on their wondrously complex contours. The low autumn Sun this time of year illumines the trunks of the trees in the wooded areas around the estate, highlighting the wonderful texture of the tree bark and the play of light upon the lichens and mosses that live symbiotically with it.

If time is not against me, sometimes I like to stop and focus in on a stretch of water flowing from the numerous small streams that feed into the Endrick, imaging the contours of rocks laden with fallen leaves and closing in on the foamy organic bubbles that swarm along the fast-flowing stretches. And when the Sun shines on the water, I can feast my eyes on the beautiful and intense reflections emanating from its surface. This is where glare control is paramount, as even a small amount of light leakage can ruin an otherwise compelling binocular scene.

Binoculars have come a very long way since their founding days. I find it amazing that one can acquire quality optics and durable mechanics like this at such keen prices. The Celestron Trailseeker 8 x 32 has been a very pleasant surprise, combining wonderful ergonomics with state-of-the-art optical science. I think a lot of people will enjoy it.  And now that its price has come down significantly, this is a good time to grab yourself a real bargain and enjoy the wonders of nature up close and deeply personal.

Just in case……………..

 

Thanks for reading!

 

Neil English has fallen in love with what binoculars have revealed to him, and is seriously thinking of compiling a larger portfolio of  binocular experiences for a future book-length treatise on their various applications.

 

De Fideli.

What I’m Reading.

“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.

 

Product Review: The Opticron Aspheric LE WP 8 x 25 Pocket Binocular.

Tiny little pocket binoculars have grown on me. They can be supremely useful to those who value or need ultra-portability, when larger binoculars simply are unworkable. Their tiny size ensures that they can be carried in a pocket or a small pouch, where they can accompnany hikers, hunters, sports enthusiasts, bird watchers and nature lovers who delight in seeing the full glory of God’s created order. Frustrated by a lack of any credible reviews of a variety of models, I began a ‘search out and test ‘ program that would teach me to select models that offered good optical and mechanical performance, as well as good value for money.  As you may appreciate, this was far easier said than done, but in the end, I did find a model that I could trust to deliver the readies; enter the Opticron Aspheric LE WP 8x 25 binocular.

Retailing for between £120 and £130 ( ~$175 US), the little Opticron pocket binocular didn’t come cheap. But good optics and mechanics are worth having, especially if the user intends to employ the instrument on a regular basis. As I explained, I chose this model based on the performance of a first generation Opticron Aspheric that I had purchased some time ago for my wife, possessing identical optical specifications to this newer model, but without having the additional advantage of being nitrogen purged, as well as being water and fog proof. In truth, I chose the original model without much in the way of research and with very little experience of what the market offered; Opticron is a good make, trusted by many enthusiasts for delivering good optical performance at a fair price.

Opticron began trading back in 1970, founded as a small British family firm, and offering binoculars, spotting scopes and other related sports optics for the nature enthusiast. Since those founding days, Opticron has continued to innovate, where it now is a major player in this competitive market, offering well made products catering for the budgets of both novices and discerning veterans alike. And while some of their less expensive models are made in China, many of their high-end products are still assembled in Japan.

What you get.

What your cash buys you: The Opticron was purchased from Tring Astronomy Centre. It arrived double-boxed and with no evidence of damage in transit. You get the binocular with both ocular and objective covers, a high quality neoprene padded case, a comprehensive instruction manual & warranty card. The details of that all-important warranty are shown below:

Details of the warranty.

After a few days of intensive testing I was satisfied that I had received a high quality instrument and so I elected to register my binocular on the Opticron website. Owners are not obligated to register the instrument in this way however, as all that is required is proof of purchase, should any issue arise with the instrument in normal use.

Binocular Mechanics: The Opticron Aspheric LE WP 8 x 25 is a classically designed pocket binocular with a double-hinge designed allowing the instrument to fold up into a very small size that can be held in the palm of your hand. The hinges have just the right amount of tension, opening up and holding their position even if held with one hand.

The focuser is slightly larger than the first-generation model, and has better grip, allowing you to use it even while wearing gloves. The barrels and bridge of the binocular are made from aluminium, overlaid with a tough, protective rubberised armouring. Compared to the first-generation model,  the new incarnation induces more friction with your fingers, an important feature if it is to be used for extended periods of time.

The New Opticron Aspheric LE is now water and fog proof.

Initially, I found that turning the focuser to be a bit on the stiff side, but after a few days of frequent use, I became used to it. Turning the focuser either clockwise or anticlockwise showed that there was no backlash, moving smoothly in either direction. The instrument has an integrated neoprene lanyard which can be wound up around the bridge while being stored in its case. I very much like this rather understated feature, as there is no need to fiddle about attaching a strap. Out of the box, it’s ready to use!

Using the Optricon Aspheric LE WP is child’s play; just twist up the eyecups and they click into place. There are no intermediate settings. If you wear glasses, leave the eyecups down.

The twist-up eyecups have a soft rubberised overcoat which are supremely comfortable on the eyes. There are just two positions; fully down or fully up. Once twisted up, the cups lock in place and rigidly stay in place with a click. Eye relief is very generous(16mm), allowing eye glass wearers to engage with the entire field. I don’t use glasses while observing through binoculars, so I always pop the eyecups up while viewing through them. Optimal eye placement is very easy to find quickly, thanks to the large field lens, with none of the annoying blackouts I experienced on a few lesser models.

The dioptre setting is located in a sensible place; right under the right eyecup. A small and very elegantly designed protruding lever on the dioptre ring makes it very easy to rotate either clockwise or anti-clockwise. It works well and stays in place even after repeatedly removing the instrument in and out of its small carry case.

An elegant design feature; a small protruding lever under the right eyecup makes it easy to adjust the dioptre setting.

I measured the IPD range to be between 32 and 75mm, ample enough to accommodate most any individual. Moreover, the well designed dual hinges on the bridge ensure that once deployed they stay in place with little or no need to micro-adjust while in use. The Opticron pocket binocular weighs in at just over 290 grams.

If the Opticron Aspheric pocket binocular were a car, it would surely be an Aston Martin.

Optical Assessment: Although this tiny binocular does not have a stalk to allow it to be mated to a monopod or tripod, I was able to assess how well collimated it was by resting the binocular on a high fence, and examining the images of a rooftop some 100 yards in the distance, checking to see that the images in the individual barrels were correlated both horizontally and vertically. This was sufficient to affirm that the binocular was indeed well collimated.

During daylight hours, the binocular delivers very bright and colour-pure images thanks to a well made optical system which includes properly applied multi-coatings on all optical surfaces, good baffling aginst stray light and silver coated prisms(boosting light transmission to 95-98 per cent). The binocular also has correctly executed phase coatings on the prisms to assure that as much light as possible reaches the eye. Sharpness is excellent across the vast majority of the field, with the aspherical optics minimising off-axis aberrations including pincushion distortion and field curvature. I wouldn’t be surprised if the overall light transmission is of the order of 80 to 85 per cent(revised in light of the tranmissitivity of the Zeiss Terra ED pocket glass with a light tranmsission of 88 per cent).

One of my pet peeves is seeing glare in the image when the binocular is pointed at a strongly backlit scene. I was delighted to see that apart from very slight crescent glare  when pointed near the Sun, the images generally remained stark and beautifully contrasted. These good impressions were also confirmed by more stringent tests conducted indoors by aiming the pocket binocular at my iphone torch set to its maximum  brightness. These tests showed that although there was some weak internal reflections  and flare, they were well within what I would consider acceptable. At night, I was able to see that when the binocular was aimed at some bright sodium street lamps, only very slight ghosting was evident. Finally, aiming the 8 x 25 at a bright full Moon revealed lovely clean images devoid of any on axis flaring and internal reflections. Placing the Moon just outside the field did show up some flaring however, but I deeemed the result perfectly acceptable. You can chalk it down that these results are excellent, especially considering the modest pricing of the instrument.

Colour correction was very well controlled in both daylight and night time tests on a bright Moon. On axis, it is very difficult to see any chromatic aberration but does become easier to see as the target is moved off axis. That said, secondary spectrum was minimal even in my most demanding tests, affirming my belief that a well-made achromatic binocular can deliver crisp, pristine images rich in contrast and resolution.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

An interesting aside: My former colleague at Astronomy Now, Ade Ashford, reviewed a larger Opticron binocular- the Oregon 20 x 80 – for the October 2019 issue of the magazine. In that review, featured on pages 90 through 94, he confirmed what I had previously stated about larger binoculars with powers up to 20x or so; there is no need to use ED glass if the binocular is properly made and this goes for both daylight viewing and nightime observations. Below is Ashford’s assessment of the 20 x 80’s daylight performance:

And here are his conclusions:

Moreover, Ashford offers this sterling advice to the binocular enthusiast:

” …..don’t get hung-up on ED glass instruments. A well-engineered achromatic model will perform well, particularly if it uses Bak-4 prisms and its optical surfaces are multi-coated throughout.”

pp 91

Having ED glass counts for nothing if the binocular is not properly made. I would much rather have a well made achromatic instrument than have a poorly constructed model with super duper objective lens elements.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

A fine quality pocket binocular in the palm of your hand.

My Little Aston Martin:

The little Opticron has already accompanied me on a few hill walks, a Partick Thistle FC( sad, I know!) testimonial and numerous rambles near my rural home, where it has delivered wonderful crisp images that never fail to delight. The field of view(5.2 degrees) is a little on the narrow side as pocket binoculars go, but its plenty wide enough for most applications and besides, the distortion free images nearly from edge to edge quickly override any perceived handicap of having a restricted viewing field.

Its tiny size and lack of garish colouring make it the ideal instrument to bring along to sports events, where it doesn’t attract attention from fellow crowd members. The Opticron is also a most excellent instrument to examine colourful flowers, butterflies and other marvels of nature near at hand, thanks to its excellent close focus; measured to be ~51 inches. And because its waterproof, it would also make an excellent companion while sailing or fishing.

The Opticron pocket binocular comes with a very high quality padded pouch to protect the instrument from any kind of rough handling.

Of course, the power of a small, high-quality pocket binocular quickly dwindles as the light begins to fade in the evening, or during the attenuated light before dawn, where a larger field glass really comes into its own. A little pocket binocular like this is far from the ideal instrument for viewing the night sky, but it can still be used for the odd look at the Moon, a starry skyscape or brightly lit cityscape.

I consider weatherproofing to be a sensible and worthwhile addition to any binocular and is certainly welcome on this second generation Opticron Aspheric. The instrument is purged with dry nitrogen gas at a pressure slightly higher than atmospheric pressure. This positive pressure helps to keep out dust and marauding fungi, and the sensibly inert nature of nitrogen ensures that internal components(including the silver coated prisms), will not tarnish or oxidise any time soon. This will only serve to increase the longevity and versatility of the binocular in adverse weather conditions, especially in my rather damp, humid climate. When not in use, I have taken to storing all my binoculars in a cool ( ~60 F) pantry with silica gel desiccant inside their cases. Yep, all my instruments are in it for the long haul.

Quality you can wear.

The Opticron Aspheric LE WP 8 x 25 is an excellent example of how a well made, achromatic binocular can deliver wonderful, sharp and high-contrast images. It is more expensive than many other pocket binoculars, but you most certainly get what you pay for.

 Thanks for reading!

Neil English’s new title, The ShortTube 80; A User’s Guide, will hit the bookshelves in early November 2019.

 

De Fideli.

Investigating the Jet Stream

but test everything; hold fast what is good.

                                                                           1 Thessalonians 5:21

 

My Local Weather

 

Jet Stream Data

Introduction:  One of the statements that is oft quoted by observers, particularly in the UK, is that the meteorological phenomenon known as the Jet Stream seriously affects the quality of high resolution telescopic targets. I have decided to investigate these claims to determine to what extent they are true or not, as the case may be. These data will also provide the reader with an idea of the frequency of nights that are available for this kind of testing over the time period the study is to be conducted.

Method: For simplicity, I shall confine my studies to just four double stars that have long been considered reasonably tricky targets for telescopists. To begin with, my targets will include systems of varying difficulty, ranging from 2.5″ to 1.5″ separation, and the aim is to establish whether or not I can resolve the components at high magnification. These systems include *:

Epsilon 1 & 2 Lyrae

Epsilon Bootis

Delta Cygni

Pi Aquilae

* These systems were chosen for their easy location in my current skies, but may be subject to change as the season(s) progress.

Viewers are warmy welcomed to conduct their own set of observations to compare and contrast results in due course.

Instrument Choice & Magnifications Employed:

The 130mm f/5 Newtonian telescope used in the present investigation.

 

A high-performance 130mm (5.1″) f/5 Newtonian reflector was employed to investigate the effects of this phenomenon, as this is an aperture regularly quoted as being sensitive to the vagaries of the atmosphere. Magnifications employed were 260x or 354x (they can however be resolved with less power). The instrument at all times was adequately acclimated to ambient temperatures and care was taken to ensure good collimation of the optical train. No cooling fans used on any of my instruments.

Results;

Date: August 17 2018

Time: 21:20 to 21:35 UT

Location of Jet Stream: Currently over Scotland

Conditions: Mild, 14C, very breezy, mostly cloudy with occasional clear spells, frequent light drizzle.

Observations: Power employed at the telescope 354x

Epsilon 1 & 2 Lyrae: all four components cleanly resolved.

Delta Cygni: Faint companion clearly observed during calmer moments

Epsilon Bootis: Both components clearly resolved during calmer moments.

Pi Aquilae: Slightly mushier view, but both components resolved momentarily during calmer spells.

Truth seeking.

 

Date: August 19 2018

Time: 20:30 – 21:50 UT

Location of Jet Stream: Currently over Scotland.

Conditions: Mild, 13C, mostly cloudy and damp all day but a clear spell occurred during the times stated above, no wind, heavy dew at end of vigil.

Observations: Seeing excellent this evening (Antoniadi I-II); textbook perfect images of all four test systems at 354x and 260x.

Nota bene: A 12″ f/5 Newtonian was also fielded to test collimation techniques and I was greeted with a magnificent split of Lambda Cygni (0.94″) at 663X. Little in the way of turbulence experienced even at these ultra-high powers. Did not test this system on the 130mm f/5.

Clouded up again shortly before 11pm local time, when the vigil was ended.

Date: August 22 2018

Time: 23:30-40 UT

Location of Jet Stream: Currently over Scotland

Conditions: Very mild (15C), breezy, predominantly cloudy with some heavy rain showers interspersed by some brief, patchy clearings.

Observations: Just two test systems examined tonight owing to extremely limited accessibility; Epsilon 1 & 2 Lyrae and Delta Cygni. Both resolved well at 260x.

 

Date: August 22 2018

Time: 21:00-21:25UT

Location of Jet Stream: Currently over Scotland

Conditions; partially cloudy, brisk southwesterly wind, bright Gibbous Moon culminating in the south, +10C, rather cool, transparency poor away from zenith.

Observations: The telescope was uncapped and aimed straight into the prevailing SW wind, as is my custom.

All four systems well resolved at 354x, although visibility of Pi Aql was poor owing to thin cloud covering.

 

Date: August 23 2018

Time: 20:30-45 UT

Location of Jet Stream: Moved well south of Scotland

Conditions: Mostly clear this evening, after enduring heavy showers all day; cool, 10C, fresh westerly breeze, good transparency.

Observations:  All four test systems beautifully resolved this evening (seeing Ant II) at 354x. Just slightly more turbulent than the excellent night of August 19 last.

 

Date: August 24 2018

Time: 20:30-45 UT

Location of Jet Stream: Just west of my observing site.

Conditions: Almost a carbon copy of last night, light westerly winds, cool (9C), good transparency and almost no cloud cover. Very low full Moon in south-southeast.

Observations: All four system resolved at 260x, but less well at 354x owing to slightly deteriorated seeing ( II-III). Delta Cygni seems especially sensitive to seeing.

Nota bene: Epsilon Bootis now sinking fast into the western sky. This test system will soon be replaced by a tougher target, located higher up in my skies; Mu Cygni.

A capital telescope.

 

Date: August 25 2018

Time: 20:20-21:00 UT

Location of Jet Stream: Right over Scotland.

Conditions: Very hazy, calm, poor transparency, cool (9C), seeing excellent (I-II)

Observations: Just three of the four systems examined tonight owing to very poor transparency. Only Pi Aquilae could not be examined. All three were beautifully resolved at 354x.

 

Date: August 26 2018

Time: 22:30-23:05 UT

Location of Jet Stream: Well south of Scotland.

Conditions: After a day of heavy rain, the skies cleared partially around 11pm local time. Fresh westerly breeze, fairly mild (12C), bright full Moon low in the south.

Observations: Mu Cygni observed instead of Epsilon Bootis owing to the latter’s sinking low into the western sky at the rather late time the observations were made.

Three systems well resolved ( Mu Cygni, Pi Aquliae and Epsilon 1 & 2 Lyrae) in only fair seeing, with Delta Cygni B only spotted sporadically in moments of better seeing. This system is very sensitive to atmospheric turbulence due to a large magnitude difference between components, as opposed to their angular separation. 260x used throughout.

Nota bene: Readers will take note of the frequency of observations thus far made.

Date: August 27 2018

Time: 20:30-21:05 UT

Location of Jet Stream: West of the Scottish mainland.

Conditions: Mostly cloudy, mild, 13C, light westerly breeze.

Observations: I took advantage of a few brief clear spells this evening to target my systems(including Epsilon Bootis). Seeing very good despite the cloud cover (II). All four systems easily resolved tonight at both 354x and 260x.

Date: August 29 2018

Time: 20:25-40UT

Location of Jet Stream: Not over Scotland.

Conditions: Mostly clear, occasional light shower, cool (11C), light westerly breeze, seeing and transparencyvery good (II).

Observations: Mu Cygni now replaces Epsilon Bootis.

All systems very cleanly resolved at 354x and 260x.

Nb. All systems also beautifully resolved in a 12″ f/5 Newtonian at 277x, set up alongside the 130mm f/5.

 

Date: August 30 2018

Time: 20:45- 21:00 UT

Location of the Jet Stream:  Not over Scotland.

Conditions: Partially cloudy with some good clear spells, cool (9C), very little breeze.

Observations: Seeing good tonight (II). All  four systems nicely resolved at 260x and 354x.

Note added in proof: Local seeing deteriorated (III-IV) somewhat between 21:00 and 22:00 UT, so much so that Delta Cygni B could no longer be seen.

 

Date: 31 August 2018

Time: 20:30-22:00UT

Location of Jet Stream: North of the British Isles

Conditions: Partly cloudy and becoming progressively more hazy as the vigil progressed. Mild, 12C, very light westerly breeze.

Observations: Seeing only fair this evning (II-III), all four systems resolved at 260x and 354x, though Delta Cygni B visibility was variable.

 

Date: September 1 2018

Time: 20:30-50UT

Location of Jet Stream: to the northwest of the Scottish Mainland.

Conditions: Partially clear, very mild (16C), light southerly breeze, good transparency.

Observations: Seeing quite good (II).  All four systems resolved at 260x and even better delineated at 354x under these clement conditions.

 

Date: September 4 2018

Time: 19:55-20:20UT

Location of Jet Stream: Not over Scotland.

Conditions: Cool (10C), mostly clear, light westerly breeze, good transparency.

Observations: Seeing very good (II).  All four test systems well resolved at 260x and 354x this evening.

 

Date: September 5 2018

Time: 20:35-20:55UT

Location of Jet Stream: Not over Scotland.

Conditions: Very unsettled with frequent squally rain showers driven in by fresh westerly winds. Good clear spells appearing between showers. Transparency very good. 12C

Observations: All four test systems resolved under good seeing conditions (II) at 260x and 354x.

 

Date: September 6 2018

Time: 20:00-25 UT

Location of Jet Stream: Not over Scotland.

Conditions: Cool (8C), little in the way of a breeze, mostly clear, excellent transparency.

Observations: Seeing good (II). All four test systems well resolved at 260x and 354x.

 

Date: September 7 2018

Time: 20:25-40UT

Location of Jet Stream: Not over Scotland.

Conditions: A capital evening in the glen; 11C, good clear sky, brisk westerly breeze, excellent transparency.

Observations: Seeing very good (I-II).  All four test systems beautifully resolved in the 130mm f/5 using powers of 260x and 354x

Nota bene:

Know thine history!

Any serious student of the history of astronomy will likely be acquainted with the early work of Sir William Herschel (Bath, southwest England), who employed extremely high powers (up to 2000x usually but actually he went as high as 6,000x on occasion) productively in his fine 6.3-inch Newtonian reflector with its speculum metal mirrors. The high powers employed by this author are thus fairly modest in comparison to those used by his great predecessor. Check out the author’s new book; Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy, due out in October/November 2018, for more details.

Note added in proof:

With the excellent conditions maintained well after midnight, I ventured out at about 00:00 UT,  September 8, and noted Andromeda had attained a decent altitude in the eastern sky. At 00:10UT I trained the 130mm f/5 Newtonian on 36 Andromedae for the first time this season and charged the instrument with a power of 406x. Carefully focusing, I was treated to a textbook-perfect split of the 6th magnitude Dawes classic pair that are ~1.0″ apart. It was very easy on this clement  night. The pair look decidely yellow in the little Newtonian reflector. I made a sketch of their orientation relative to the drift of the field; shown below.

36 Andromedae as seen in the wee small hours of September 8 2018 through the author’s 130mm f/5 Newtonian reflector, power 406x.

 

If you have a well collimated 130P kicking about why not give this system a try over the coming weeks?

 

Date: September 9 2018

Time: 21:10-25UT

Location of Jet Stream: Currently over Scotland

Conditions: Frequent heavy showers driven in from the Atlantic with strong gusts, 11C, some intermittent clear spells.

Observations: Seeing III. 3 systems fairly well resolved this evening. Delta Cygni B only seen intermittently. Magnification held at 260x owing to blustery conditions.

Date: September 12 2018

Time: 00:10-20UT

Location of Jet Stream: Currently over Scotland

Conditions: Very wet, windy with some sporadic clear spells, good transparency once the clouds move out of the way. 10C.

Observations: Seeing (II-III). Just three systems examined tonight; the exception being Pi Aquliae, which was not in a suitable position to observe. All three were well resolved at 260x. Did not attempt 354x owing to prevailing blustery conditions.

 

Date: September 12 2018

Time: 21:40-55 UT

Location of Jet Stream: Not over Scotland

Conditions: Still unsettled, blustery light drizzle and mostly cloudy with some clear spells. 10C.

Observations: Seeing (III), three systems resolved well, Delta Cygni B not seen cleanly at 260x under these conditions.

 

Date: September 14 2018

Time: 19:30-50UT

Location of Jet Stream: Currently over Scotland.

Conditions: Rather cool, (9C), very little breeze, rain cleared to give a calm, clear sky.

Observations: Seeing II. All four systems cleanly resolved at 260x and 354x

 

Date: September 16 2018

Time: 19:20-40UT

Location of Jet Stream: Currently over Scotland

Conditions: Mild (12C), fresh south-westerly breeze, some occasional clear spells.

Observations: Seeing very good (II), all four systems cleanly resolved at 260x and 354x.

 

Overall Results & Conclusions:

This study was conducted over the course of one month, from mid-August to mid-September 2018, a period covering 31 days.

The number of days where observations could be conducted was 21, or ~68% of the available nights.

No link was found between the presence of the Jet Stream and the inability to resolve four double star systems with angular separations ranging from ~2.5-1.5″. Indeed, many good nights of seeing were reported whilst the Jet Stream was over my observing location. In contrast, some of the worst conditions of seeing occurred on evenings when the Jet Stream was not situated over my observing site.

There is, however, a very strong correlation between the number of nights available for these observations and the efforts of the observer.

Many of the nights the Jet Stream was located over my observing site were windy, but this was not found to affect seeing. While the wind certainly makes observations more challenging, it is not an indicator of astronomical seeing per se. That said, no east or northeast airflows were experienced during the spell these observations were conducted. At my observing site, such airflows often bring poor seeing.

The archived data (from January 16 2014) on the Jet Sream site linked to above provide many more data points which affirm the above conclusions.

I have no reason to believe that my site is especially favoured to conduct such observations. What occurred here must be generally true at many other locations.

These results are wholly consistent with the available archives from keen observers observing from the UK in the historical past. This author knows of at least two (or possibly three) historically significant visual observers who enjoyed and documented a very high frequency of suitable observing evenings in the UK.

Contemporary observers are best advised to take Jet Stream data with a pinch of salt. It ought not deter a determined individual to carry out astronomical obervations. Perpetuating such myths does the hobby no good.

Post Scriptum:

June 18 2019: Irish imager, Kevin Breen, used his C11 to obtain decent images of Jupiter under a very active Jet Stream. Details here.

July 2 2019: Another testimony of “good seeing” under Jet Stream here

 

Neil English debunks many more observing myths using historical data in his new book, Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy.

 

De Fideli.

Book Review: “Improbable Planet” by Hugh Ross.

A Fresh Look at our World.

For He did not subject to angels the world to come, concerning which we are speaking. But one has testified somewhere, saying,

What is man, that You remember him?
Or the son of man, that You are concerned about him?
You have made him for a little while lower than the angels;
You have crowned him with glory and honor,
And have appointed him over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things in subjection under his feet.”

For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.

                                                                                                       Hebrews 2: 5-8

 

Title: Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home (2016)

Author: Hugh Ross

Publisher: Baker Books

ISBN: 9780801016899

Price: £12.99 (paperback) pp 283

I love my long summer vacations after another year of intense teaching, from mid-May to late August. I get to do lots of things around the house.

Recently I decided that it was high time to re-organize some of the books in my library. So I went ahead and removed all the titles by Carl Sagan, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Stephen J. Gould, Richard Fortey, Frank Drake, Seth Shostak, Richard Leakey, Jacob Bronowski and a few others, and re-shelved them in my newly enlarged fiction section.

“Heresy!” I hear you shout. Well, after reading this new book, Improbable Planet, by astronomer and Christian apologist, Hugh Ross, I was compelled to do so. Ross is no scientific shrinking violet. Holding a bachelors degree in physics from the University of British Columbia and a Ph.D in astronomy from the University of Toronto, Ross also carried out post-doctoral research on quasars at Caltech before his Christian faith led him to begin a ministry that seeks to show the harmony between science and faith; a worldview informed from the idea that the Creator provided not one, but two revelatory books; Scripture and Nature. In 1987, he founded his organisation, Reasons to Believe(RTB), in southern California, which has grown in size and influence, helping thousands of thoughtful people make the transition from unbelief to belief. Not only does RTB address astronomical topics, his team now includes PhD-trained scientists in molecular biology, chemistry and physics, as well as a number of highly trained philosophers and theologians. Ross has also built up a huge ‘extended family’ of like-minded people, not just from the sciences and medicine, but the wider community in general, which you can find in presentations of their testimonies on the RTB website.

The thesis of Dr. Ross’ book is this: far from being an ordinary planet orbiting an ordinary star in an undistinguished planetary system, lost in an obscure part of a typical galaxy adrift in a vast sea of other like galaxies, the Earth was the location of an extraordinary chain of events that took place over the aeons, where a super-intelligent agency (which he identifies as Jesus Christ), prepared our planet for its eventual seeding by human beings for the purposes of redeeming billions of souls – a sizeable minority of all the humans that have ever walked the face of the Earth. In support of these claims, Ross calls on an enormous body of scientific evidence from the fields of astronomy, cosmology, planetary science, paleontology, geology and biology to make his case.

Of course, for some, the fact that Ross identifies as a Christian is a complete showstopper. That’s unfortunate, as many will dismiss the book simply based on the man’s spiritual beliefs, but that’s a terrible argument from ignorance; no different in essence from any other kind of bigotry. But rest assured, if you enjoy science, once you settle into the work, you’ll soon appreciate how compelling his arguments are.

Ross can best be described as an Old Earth Creationist, by which I mean, he accepts the consensus view in the scientific community that the Earth and the Universe in which we find ourselves in is old. But not all OECs believe in all the same things. He defends hot big bang cosmology as the origin of space-time and all the matter and energy it contains. He believes that stars and planets evolve over time, citing a huge body of evidence in support of his beliefs. What you won’t find in this book however, is support for biological (read Darwinian) evolution. A long-time sceptic of the evolutionary paradigm, his highly trained team has expertly critiqued the ‘wooly’ scientific claims of its adherants. Now that Neo-Darwinian evolution is coming away at the seams, with an army of biologists now abandoning it by the droves, his long-held and deeply entrenched scepticism of this so-called ‘science’ has been fully vindicated.

Sadly, Ross has endured criticisms, not so much from secular scientists, who largerly respect his work, but from other Christians who hold to a Young Earth Creationist(YEC) perspective, that is, the Earth and the Universe around us are only 6,000 years old. And some YECs have acted very aggressively toward his apologetics. This is also unfortunate, since the age of the Earth is not an issue that Christians should divide over. In truth, both groups have much more in common than they have differences. Indeed, it matters not whether the Earth is 6,000 years old or billions of years old; nature alone will never produce something as complex as a living system in either scheme. Fortunately, his gentle demeanour has won over many YECs over the years and gained the admiration of still more.

That said, there will always be diehard YECs….and that’s OK.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

An interesting aside:

Dr. Ross presents some very intriguing facts about the demography of the human race over time. Consider this data found on page 229:

Date  (AD)                          # of Non-Christians per Christian

100                                            360

1000                                          220

1500                                            69

1900                                            27

1950                                             22

1980                                             11

1990                                               7

I suppose we could add a data point for today’s world as well; 3.57

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

A fresh interpretation of the facts:

The opening chapters of the book assesses the big scientific picture; we live on the outskirts of an unusually large and symmetric barred spiral galaxy, our solar system orbiting the Milky Way galaxy about 26,000 light years form the centre. But astronomers have discovered that the location of our solar system lies just inside the edge of the so-called co-rotation axis of the galaxy, where stars orbit at the same speed as the nearby spiral arms. This is highly fortuitous, Ross argues, as it largely prevents the solar system from entering and leaving spiral arms which would likely have severely disrupted any life that would have developed on the planet. But we know that the solar system very likely did not form where it is located today. The evidence suggests that the unsually high metallicity of the Earth and the solar system at large, points to a location of origin much closer to the galactic centre, where the abundance of such metals are much higher than at the co-rotation axis.

Nota bene: Astronomers refer to all elements heavier than hydogen, helium and lithium as ‘metals’. Such metals were forged inside ancient stars and released to the interstellar medium when they die, either as planetary nebulae or in cataclysmic supernovae events. The incidence of the latter was much higher nearer the galactic centre where the densities of stars was considerably higher than it is at our present location. Indeed stellar metallicty peaks about 50 per closer to the galactic centre than it does at our present orbital radius.

A detailed analysis of the solar system’s elemental abundance strongly suggests that it was enriched by a number of different supernovae explosions(including a very rare type) that enriched it with unsually high levels of heavy elements, particualrly long-lived radionuclides such as uranium and thorium but also short lived species like aluminium 26. This is clearly seen in the abundance of aluminium in the Earth’s crust which comes in at about 8.1 per cent as opposed to the 0.01 per cent for the Universe at large. The rapid decay of these relatively huge quantities of radioactive aluminium released a great deal of heat which helped purge our neonatal solar system of much of the volatile material it would have otherwise ended up with. Our Sun is also anamolous in its oscillatory motion above and below the mid-plane of the Milky Way. Stars in the solar neighbourhood oscillate at right angles to the galactic plane with an amplitude of about 400 light years. In contrast, the Sun exhibits an oscillatory amplitude about half of this value, protecting it from being excessively bathed in galactic radiation, which would have also destroyed the ozone layer, resulting with an increased UV irradiance upon the Earth, scuppering future land life.

The Moon-forming event is discussed in detail, where a Mars-sized object(nicknamed Theia) collided with the neonatal Earth sometime between 50 and 100 million years after our world formed by accretion of material from the solar nebula. Ross explains that this has caused quite a bit of ‘philosophic disquiet’ among some of leading researchers in the field:

The cover article for the December 5, 2013, issue of Nature reported Canup’s concern that “current theories on the formation of the Moon owe too much to cosmic coincidences.”

pp 54

In any event, the collision produced a Moon with sufficient mass to stablise the Earth’s rotation tilt axis, protecting our planet from rapid and extreme climatic variations. Over the aeons, our Moon has gradually recessed from the Earth, slowing its rotation rate to a life-sustaining level. The Moon-forming event further removed large quantities of volatiles from the primordial Earth, preventing it from outgassing enormous quantities of water vapour which would have caused our world to end up with a choking global ocean hundreds of kilometres deep, prevening the formation of continents required for efficient re-cycling of nutrients necessary for all life.

Chapter 6 describes the dynamical history of the planets in our solar system, particualrly the formation of the asteroid belt and the ‘grand tack’ migrations of Jupiter from its rapid formation beyond the snow line of the solar system, followed by its migration inward before moving back out from the Sun to its present stable position. Indeed, the Sun’s family of planets and their positioning is unlike any exoplanetary system thus far characterised.

Chapter 7 provides a fascinating overview of the concept of a habitable zone but takes it far beyond what most science writers are willing to consider. Most of us, for example, are familiar with the water habitable zone; that annulus around a star where temperatures allow a planet to maintain liquid water over geological timescales. Ross takes this concept to a whole new level though, describing not one, but a further seven other zones that must be set in place to allow life to flourish on Earth. These include:

  1. The Ultraviolet habitable zone
  2. Photosynthesis habitable zone
  3. Ozone habitable zone
  4. Rotation rate habitable zone
  5. Obliquity habitable zone
  6. Tidal habitable zone
  7. Astrospheric habitable zone

Without revealing too much in the way of details, Ross writes concerning the UV habitable zone:

The fact that the liquid water and UV habitable zones must overlap for the sake of life eliminates most planetary systems as possible candidates for hosting life. This requirement effectively rules out all M dwarf and most K dwarf stars, as well as O-, B- and A- stars. All that remain are F-type stars much younger than the Sun, G-type stars no older than the Sun, and a small fraction of the K dwarf stars. As  described in chapter 5, only stars at a certain distance from the galactic core can be considered candidates for life support. In the Milky Way Galaxy, some 75 per cent of all stars residing at this appropriate-for-life-distance are older than the Sun. Once these and other non-candidate stars are ruled out, only 3 per cent of all stars in our galaxy remain as possible hosts for planets on which primitive life could briefly survive.

pp 85

Chapter 8 is particularly meaty from a scientific perspective, as it is in this chapter that Ross lends his decades-long studies to the thorny issue of how life appeared on Earth. He writes:

More than a decade ago, evidence indicated that the origin of life occurred within an immeasurably brief time span. The late heavy bombardment (LHB) raised the temperature of the entire planetary surface so high as to evaporate all its water and melt all its rocks. Then, according to multiple isotopic studies, just as soon as the surface temperature cooled enough for the possibility of life’s existence, life appeared. This evidence prompted paleontologist Niles Eldredge to comment, “One of the most arresting facts that I have ever learned is that life goes back as far in Earth history as we can possibly trace it…..In the very oldest rocks that stand a chance of showing signs of life, we find those signs.”

pp 97

That the Earth had life as soon as conditions were cool enough to accommodate them  seems inescapable, and Ross quotes numerous studies recently(as in the last decade) conducted on ancient zircon minerals, graphitic carbon, and metamorphosed shale that clearly show that a complex biosphere was already established as early as 3.8 billion years ago. The ‘smoking gun’ to this complex origin of life may, according to Ross, come from the isotopic signature of photosynthetic life as early as 3.7 billion years ago. He writes:

Another research team found that the carbon isotope signature of planktonic oragnisms in metamorphosed shale dating to 3.7 bliion+ year ago. In the same shale they measured a high ratio of uranium to thorium. This finding indicated a sequence whereby organic debris produced by a local reducing environment that precipitated uranium deposited in the shale sediment by oxidized ocean water. The presence of this oxidised water implies that oxygenic photosynthetic life was abundant prior to 3.7 billion years ago. Given that the simplest oxygenic photosynthetic bacteria contain over 2,000 gene products, this finding suggests that highly complex unicellular life already existed sometime before that date.

pp 98-99

How this complex cellular biochemistry originated so early completely eludes an evolutionary mechanism. It is simply incredulous that such complex cellular life could could come into being by a blind(by necessity) Darwinian process in such a short a time window. Indeed, more and more studies are revealing the same pattern: life began complex.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Another curious  aside: What’s the status of prebiotic chemical research?

Even the first chemical steps towards life require an in-ordinate amount of human ingenuity(read intelligent design or foresight). That much was recently admitted by a high-ranking  German prebiotic chemist in a leading scientific journal. Other heavy weights in the field have also waded into this debate, including Professor James Tour (who favourably reviewed an earlier draft of Ross’ book), who has exposed the scale of ignorance exhibited by educators towards this intractable scientific problem. Furthermore a credible source(terrestrial or extraterrestrial)  of homochiral enantiomers of sugars and amino acids needed to build the first cells has not yet been identified. Indeed the origin of life is the oustanding scientific problem of our generation and will likely remain so for many decades, if not centuries to come.

Much of this is not reported in the popular science periodicals, so readers beware!

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

 

Many people think it reasonable to believe in some vague evolutionary sequence of events simply by noting that the first lifeforms were microbes with multi-cellular organisms following them before the most complex creatures of all appeared; vascular plants and animals. But Ross entertains an entirely novel idea; the reason why life started out with microbes before introducing more complex life has nothing to do with evolution; more specifically he notes that the environment of the early Earth was very hostile to life, with large swings in temperature and pH, very high concentrations of unprocessed vital poisons** and with radiation levels(from the decay of radioactive atoms) five times higher than exist today. The reason why life started with microbes is that they are much hardier than more complex life (eukaryotes and muti-cellular lifeforms). Indeed, Ross points out that these biochemically sophisticated microbial species removed large amounts of vital poisons from the environment turning many of them into ores (many of which are now used by humanity in high technology devices).

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

**

What are vital poisons?

Vital posons are elements that are toxic if ingested at too high concentrations but are needed at specified low concentrations in body tissues to enable life processes to be maintained. Such elements include boron, fluorine, iron, sodium, magnesium, phosphorus, sulphur, chromium, manganese, copper, zinc, iodine, molybdenum, cobalt and nickel etc.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Thus, in this scheme of events, the Creator put these microbes to work as early as possible to terraform (my own terminology) the Earth’s earliest environments, clearing it of solubilised toxins which was necessary before eukaryotic and multicellular life-forms could be introduced!

In chapter 9, Ross provides an excellent overview of how primitive life functioned in maintaining the large-scale geologic health of our planet, particularly in playing a starring role in stimulating long-lived plate tectonic activity:

In 2015, two geophysicists, Eugene Grosch and Robert Hazen, noted that the subsurface fluid-rock microbe interactions could result in more efficient hydration of the early Earth’s  oceanic crust. This hydration would promote bulk melting leading to the production of felsic crust( igneous rocks rich in feldspar and quartz), which, being lighter than basaltic crust, in turn would generate microcontinents. That is, Earth’s first microbes, by faciliating extensive hydrothermal alteration of ocean floors, yielded extensive mineral diversification that soon resulted in the formation of several microcontinents.

pp 111

 

What is more, as life began to gorge on the minerals formed in Earth’s early crust, it accelerated its weathering, which in turn fed the resulting sediments into subduction zones, thereby stimulating still greater tectonic activity. This was vitally important for Earth’s future history, as the decline in long-lived radioisotopes over time might not have generated the required levels of thermal energy needed to keep the crust in a pliable state needed to build the large continents our planet would end up having. In addition, the early introduction of global  oxygenic photosynthesis drew large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to compensate for a steadily brightening Sun. What Ross makes clear is that without the early introduction of life on Earth, this planet would most likely be sterile or nearly so, by now.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Yet another curious aside:

Our world is richly endowed with minerals. Indeed, compared with Mars and Venus, which have an estimated 500 and 1000 different types of minerals, respectively, Earth is lavished with over 4,600 known mineral varieties, many of which required the active presence of living systems to create them! See Robert Hazen’s 2013 book, The Story of Earth, for further details.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

As described in chapter 11, ongoing plate tectonic activity resulted in the formation of virtually all of Earth’s continental land mass by about 2.5 billion years ago, resulting in 29 per cent of our planet’s surface area being covered by dry land above sea level. To most onlookers, a value of 29 per cent seems somewhat arbitrary, but in fact, it may be highly fine-tuned. Greater land surface areas would induce too little precipitation in the interior of those ancient continents, preventing life from gaining a foothold in these places. On the other hand, land areas significantly less than 29 per cent would not be able to re-cycle enough valuable nutrients between the land, the sea and the atmosphere to maintain a healthy biosphere.

Chapter 13 & 14 of Improbable Planet discuss the significance of the many mass extinction events in Earth history with forensic detail. Again, at first glance, this might indicate that the cause of life on Earth has no author, but Ross begs to differ. Indeed, he suggests that the sporadic cycles of extirpation followed by rapid recovery of the biosphere with new forms of life achieved two aims;

1. The remains of these ancient life-forms yielded massive amounts of new biodeposits that would be used by humanity to launch a global civilization( think of how fossil fuels led to the Industrial Revolution, for example).

2. The lifeforms that replaced those that went extinct were more efficient collectively at drawing more greenhouse gases out of the Earth’s atmosphere, thereby compensating for the greater heating effects of an ever-brightening Sun.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

A Question for your consideration: If God designed life so that it could evolve from one kind into another, then why does Earth history reveal so many mass extinction events? Why would He bother?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 

Ross calls on the second revelatory book of Scripture to advance his claims. Consider the words of the Psalmist of old:

These all wait for You,
That You may give them their food in due season.
What You give them they gather in;
You open Your hand, they are filled with good.
You hide Your face, they are troubled;
You take away their breath, they die and return to their dust.
You send forth Your Spirit, they are created;
And You renew the face of the earth.

Psalm 104: 27-30

Intriguingly, the fossil record agrees with the creation and extinction events discussed in Psalm 104 but, significantly, does not support a gradualistic scheme long envisaged by evolutionists.  Accordingly Ross takes his trained scientific eye and applies this to the study of the most famous explosive events in the history of life on Earth; the Avalon (574 -543 Million years ago) and Cambrian Explosions (543-533 Million years ago), the latter of which led to the sudden emergence of some 80 per cent of all existing animal body plans without any credible evolutionary antecedents! Perectly formed eyes, brains, nervous systems, skeletal systems etc, appearing as if out of nowhere.

Ross discusses the sense of bewilderment expressed by paleontologists seeking to provide an evolutionary explanation for these quantum leaps in biology, which are outlined in pages 172 to 179, quoting some leading researchers in the field, and in particular the utter failure of molecular clocks to keep pace with all the innovations wrought by these  explosive events in the history of life.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Some further reading on the Cambrian Explosion: I would highly recommend readers  consult and study Stephen C. Meyer’s New York Times best-selling book Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design(2013). Concerning this book, paleontologist Dr. Mark McMenamin(Mt. Holyoke College) said:

It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer for the study of evolution and points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of amimals.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

In the final few chapters of the book, Ross outlines an extraordinary sequence of events involving continental breakup, mountain formation, ocean current changes, and ice ages that prepared our planet for the arrival of the pinnacle of God’s creation; humans. He notes that mankind’s appearance coincided with a time when solar activity flaring was at its lowest and solar luminosity (the Sudbury study) reached its greatest stability. Putting it all together he writes:

Is it mere coincidence that our one-of-a-kind long cool summer occurs simultaneously with the following unique events: (1) The Sun becomes exceptionally stable in luminosity, with minimal flaring and ultraviolet and X-ray radiation; (2) no nearby supernova eruptions occur: (3) maximization of the diversity and abundance of life on Earth; (4) various habitable zone windows align perfectly; and (5) many other coincidences described in these pages all come together? Not likely. These amazingly arranged features should give us pause to consider the meaning of our human existence.

pp 218-19

The final chapter reveals the spiritual reasons for human existence as outlined in the pages of the Bible. The enormous body of scientific ‘coincidences’ that Ross presents make it very clear that God deliberately and painstakingly prepared the Earth for humans and that our existence is truly a miracle. That said, these conditions cannot persist indefinitely. We are living in a very narrow window of time in which all these factors work optimally. The story Ross weaves makes it very unlikely that other lifeforms will exist elsewhere in the Universe, as many other scientific authorities in the field are now beginning to concede, and certainly nothing like human beings, but he does point out that we are not alone. The God of the Bible created a host of angelic creatures, the majority of which remained loyal to their Maker and have some capacity to interact with humans. It’s up to each and every one of us to accept Christ’s offer of redemption with exigency or suffer the eternal consequences.

I will leave you with the words of Professor James Tour concerning this wonderful book:

“In Improbable Planet, Ross holds the readers’ hand, leading them in a readable yet gently technical format through a compelling layer-upon-layer argument for the distinctiveness of the planet on which we live and of the preparation for inimitable life on Earth. The text is replete witth references from primary scientific articles in some of the most well-respected journals, underscoring the highest academic rigor taken in substantiating the factual claims. Only the shamefully flippant could dismiss this book as being a faith-filled presentation rather than the scholarly work it represents.”

I wholeheartedly agree!

 

Dr. Neil English is the author of a large(650+ pages) historical work, Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy, recently published by Springer-Nature.

 

 De Fideli.

Book Review: “Lucky Planet” by David Waltham.

A refreshing look at a thorny ‘scientific’ question.

Book Title: Lucky Planet

Author: David Waltham

Publisher: ICON Books

ISBN: 978-1-84831-832-8

Year of Publication: 2014

Price: £9.99(UK) Paperback(225 pages)

If you are a regular reader of the popular periodicals such as Sky & Telescope, Astronomy, Astronomy Now, BBC Sky at Night Magazine, Scientific American, etc you’re sure to notice that any articles discussing life on other worlds invariably paint a picture that life is commonplace in the Universe and will be found in many different exoplanetary environments. Very rarely(if ever), will they present articles arguing the opposite; that life in general, and intelligent life in particular, will be rare or even unique to the Earth. The reasons for this bias are many and varied but some of the most important reasons include; (1) the motivations of their authors to promote their own work in astrobiology,(2) to extend methodological naturalism to the Univese as a whole and (3) to dispell the notion that we might in any way be special.

The problem with this approach is that it is not presented in the true spirit of scientific enquiry, which seeks to find truthful answers to big questions. Thus, more often than not, the inability of these periodicals to publish scientific findings that challenge or counter their philosophic positions simply reflects the ingrained prejudice of its editorial.

I encountered this prejudice directly in a recent exchange with the editor of Astronomy Now, a magazine that I have faithfully written for for 25 years. When I wanted to write an article discussing the idea that extra-terrestrial life could be rare, citing many up-to-date scientific articles on the subject, the editor turned sour and refused to publish the work. The reason: nothing to do with science, he just didn’t like what I was reporting! A classic case of bigotry methinks. Anyway, we forgive and forget, then move on. So I decided to take my work elsewhere, no sweat. I suspect however, that my story is not unique. Many science writers before me must have experienced something similar and no doubt, it will happen to someone again in the future.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

A Related Aside: Check out the hostility I received here in a recent forum discussion entitled: How many Earths in our Galaxy?  I wonder if Waltham would experience the same hostility were he to post his ideas on that forum? Disgraceful? I’d say so!

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 

That’s why I was very excited about this recent book, Lucky Planet, written by one of the UK’s most respected geophysicists, David Waltham, who heads a large research team in the Department of Geosciences, Royal Holloway, University of London.

Waltham’s thesis is this; the Earth has enjoyed, more or less, 4 billion years of “good weather,” and that we owe our entire existence to an extraordinary sequence of “lucky” happenings that have come about to make and maintain a habitable planet.  Furthermore, this unmerited fortune is very unlikely to occur on the vast majority of worlds that inhabit the observable Universe. Being used to a world teeming over with life all around us, we suffer, Waltham argues, from a severe dose of “observational bias”, which leads many to naturally conclude that life must exist everywhere. He gives some very good examples of how observational bias can lead us to wrong conclusions. For example, Waltham notes that most of the stars visible to us in the night sky are actually larger and more luminous than the vast majority of stars that really exist. But with a telescope, this bias is transformed into something much closer to the truth; that the Universe is filled with innumerable red dawrf stars much fainter and less luminous than the Sun. Indeed, as Waltham reminds us, some 95 per cent of all stars that exist are smaller than the Sun! So looks can deceive!

The principle of mediocrity; the idea that our predicament should not be viewed as special is grounded in the Copernican principle, which Waltham discusses in chapter 2. I was especially impressed with his research on the life and works of Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), who is often cited by science popularisers as a “martyr for science,” and erroneously pedelled by science celebrities such as the late Carl Sagan, and more recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson, not to mention a great many introductory astronomy texts. Waltham convincingly argues that this is largely a scientific myth used to push a certain philosophic agenda(anti-Christian) on an unsuspecting public.

Calling on a great deal of new scientific evidence from astronomy, planetary science and paleoclimate studies, Waltham weaves a very sophisticated scientific picture of the key events in Earth’s deep history that have contributed to maintaining a viable biosphere ever since life took a hold on the young Earth near on 4 billion years ago. Some of the facts he presents are indeed profound: A warming trend as small as 1 degree C every 100 million years would have been enough to make our world uninhabitable by now, and it would not have been surprising had such a trend occurred.

pp 47

Much of the science in the book derives from Waltham’s own work in theoretical modelling of paleoclimates, as well as geology field work, with many amusing anecdotes along the way. When he was a boy, for example, he lived for a time on the west coast of Scotland, where his love of fossils and geology was nurtured. As a teenager, he became a keen amateur astronomer, with a particular love for the Moon, and even built a few reflecting telescopes, but like myself, drifted away from astronomy for a period to pursue his education in physics, only to return to important astronomical topics later in his career. And though he does not acknowledge the work of a Creator as the explanation for this extraordinary serendipity, he remains respectful of those who do hold religious beliefs.

The book continues with excellent, well-informed chapters on Big Bang cosmology, a spectacularly successful scientific model for the origin and evolution of the Universe, the stabilising effects of the Earth’s Moon, the role of James Lovelock’s Gaia theory in attempting to explain the many inter-related factors that maintain a complex biosphere, and how it fares in comparison to his own ‘Goldilocks’ view of Earth, where luck was the pre-eminent factor in our planet’s success. He appeals to the anthropic principle quite a bit in the book and its usefulness in explaining why the Universe as a whole appears fine-tuned for life.

That said, the book does display a few significant shortcomings. In a biological context, he uses the word “evolution” more like a magic wand than a proper scientific tool. Stars, planets and galaxies evolve because we can model their evolution with a fair degree of precision. But the same has not been demonstrated for the most complex things we know about; living systems. All we hear is ‘this evolved into that,’ with no explanation as to how it happened. And details are very important when trying to convey scientific truths. He rates Charles Darwin as a significant scientific figure, whereas I do not. There is little discussion on the details of how life arose except the usual handwaving about some mysterious ocean floor vent,  and a ‘just so’ story of how replicating RNA models were miraculously encapsulated into a fully viable lipid membrane and the like. I got the distinct impression that Waltham did so in a rather tongue in cheek manner, as if he were toying with his readers. Later in the book he alludes to this shortcoming in the context of computer modelling:

It may seem surprising that the Moon could provide the best evidence of the Earth’s life-friendliness when other factors, such as biological evolution, have had a much more direct and significant impact on our planet’s developing environment. There are several reasons why the Moon tells a more convincing story of our good fortune than many other, apparently more promising, facets of our world. For a start, the behaviour of the Earth-Moon system is reasonably well understood one, controlled by the relatively simple equations of celestial mechanics. I say ‘relatively simple,’ because the details are still a bit of a nightmare. Isaac Newton himself complained that thinking about the motions of the Moon made his head ache! Nevertheless, unlike climate evolution or the evolution of animals and plants, the changing behaviour of our satellite through time can be mathematically modelled with reasonable precision.

pp 184

I applaud the intellectual honesty of Waltham in an age where many inflated scientific egos assert that we have nearly everything figured out. Science itself is evolving; it never ceases so long as inquisitive minds keep seeking answers. What may be true today may not be true tomorrow. He writes;

I should in all honesty admit that experts would argue over almost every one of the details in the story I have just given…..

pp 61

I was also surprised by his avoidance of providing an in-depth discussion on the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred about 541 million years ago and which led to 80 per cent of extant animal body plans suddenly appearing within a short span of a few million years(some are now saying less than a half million years), and with no credible evolutionary antecedents. Indeed, we now know the fossil record as a whole does not support an evolutionary narrative, with vast periods of stasis interspersed with mass extinctions followed by equally rapid appearances of new species and ecosystems. Waltham would have also benefitted from the work of the world-renowned synthetic organic chemist, Professor James Tour, who has recently weighed in to expose the shocking degree to which human intervention is needed to reproduce even the very first steps toward the simplest of lifeforms. Suddenly, Waltham would have to thank his lucky stars many times over again for all the other convenient happenings in Earth history!

How I wish Waltham were as enthusiastic about the details of living systems as he clearly is about rocks!

Having said all that, Waltham does concede that the origin of life will be a very unlikely event anywhere;

I believe that the origin of life, like all the major steps leading to the emergence of intelligence, is a rare occurrence.

pp 208

I think that’s quite an understatement!

In addition, Waltham hopes that future robotic or human explorers will one day uncover evidence that Mars has (or had) microbial life but offers this very sensible qualification:

My hope is that we will soon find microscopic life living beneath the surface of Mars and my expectation is that its biochemistry will show it to be similar to Earth life. This will generate some interesting discussions as we debate whether the evidence that there is only one way to make life or evidence for cross-contamination between the worlds. I expect a consensus to eventually emerge that the similarities are too great to be explained by a separate origin…

pp 208

As you can see from the internet thread I linked to above, I got lampooned for asserting that the question of whether life is commonplace in the Universe is not really scientific in the sense that we should not expect it to be commonplace in the Cosmos. In other words, it is scientifically naive to assume so. Professor Waltham affirms the same general conclusion in stating that the scientific consensus will very likely fall on the side of extreme rarity rather than ubiquity. He writes;

The scientifically conservative position should be that life is rare and intelligence even more so.

pp 186.

He even advises that others should have a similar frame of mind about the Earth:

I certainly believe that the possibility that the Earth is special should be taken seriously by everyone and for all sorts of reasons, but in conclusion, I’d like to finish with the most important justification of all for considering this idea. It’s probably true.

pp 212

Waltham is a very engaging and likeable intellect; a deep thinker, who kicks back hard against the goads.

Clearly, our Dave put a lot of thought into this book. But I sense he is searching for something. He is deeply intrigued by the perfect solar eclipses we experience, whether it is merely a highly unlikely coincidence or whether it points to something far greater, and even describes his trip along with a few chums, to Germany to get a good view of the August 1999 apparition. He often gives thanks to the powers that be (let’s call it the goddess Fortuna) for how lucky he feels to have existed at all! He even ends with a surprising comment; and this from a man who cannot, by his own admission, believe in miracles:

I will not finish on a negative note. Earth and countless other inhabited worlds scattered thinly throughout an unimaginably immense multiverse has given rise to a fragile wonder of life. On Earth we have laughed, loved and wondered at the beauty of the world and the Universe around us. We are part of an extraordinary miracle and I, for one, feel very lucky.

pp 214.

So although Waltham’s goddess – Fortuna – allows for life bearing planets but only so rarely that one or two might exist in each galaxy at the most, or galaxy cluster, he also plays mind games with himself. I was particularly intrigued by these comments:

Acceptance that the Earth is a very odd planet, and that this was necessary for the emergence of humans, also has a very obvious impact on the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. Quite bluntly, if there is significant anthropic selection for Earth properties, then we are effectively alone in the Universe. As I discussed earlier, the nearest extra-terrestrial civilization could easily lie beyond the edge of the visible Universe and so be uncontactable. This is quite a disappointing conclusion for many. Indeed, one prominent, well-informed critic of the anthropic ideas has admitted that his views may be coloured by having grown up watching the original ‘Star Trek’ series. Maybe my own views have been coloured by slightly more recent films. I’ve thought for a long time that ‘Alien’ was more plausible than ‘Mr. Spock’, so it’s quite possible that my subconscious doesn’t want aliens to exist.

pp 211

I can empathise with the author here, as my own position is that we are alone.

And there’s a good reason for that!

On my sojourn through this extraordinary labryinth we call life, I have lost my faith in Fortuna; for she acts blindly, with no foresight and cannot create; always fumbling in the dark.

Neither does she care.

But, 20 centuries ago, an extraordinary human being walked the dirt roads of the Galilee, bringing Light to the world, a man-child born in a manger, who grew in wisdom and stature, healed the sick and the infirmed, fed the masses with little more than a morsel of food and even commanded the winds to die down. By turning water into choice wine at a wedding, He gladdened the human heart. He raised the dead, walked on water, and after suffering a horrific execution on a Roman cross; rose triumphantly from the dead and appeared to more than 500 believers before ascending on the clouds to Heaven. In the Holy books written concerning Him we read:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.  For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

Colossians 1:16-17

This Person chose to enter His own creation and cared Himself to death.

His name is Yeshua of Nazareth, and He promised to return to this Earth, which He created, to bring an end to all evil, suffering and death. The same Holy books say that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord.

I joyfully await His return, and would encourage Dr. Waltham to research His truth claims. He brings joy and meaning to my life; Yeshua; the eternally Living God, who will not share His glory with another.

So, to end this review, and despite the few reservations I have with it, I would heartily recommend this book to anyone wishing to get an up-to-date and scientifically accurate picture of how we got here. It is a very well written work, full of joy, wonder, humour and optimism; a book that will help you appreciate just how wonderful every human life is!

Errata:

pp 49 the author says the Orion Nebula is a few hundred light years away. It’s actually about 1,350 light years distant.

pp 54 The author says that Banded Iron Formations(BIFs) cannot form in the presence of oxygen.

BIFs are formed when aqueous iron ions combine with oxygen forming insoluble oxides which form precipitates known as BIFs.

 

 

Dr Neil English holds a BSc(Hons) in Astrophysics and a PhD in Biochemistry,  regularly kicks against the goads, and is author of a new historical work; Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy, published by Springer-Nature.

 

De Fideli.

A Brief Commentary on the Holy Scriptures; Tree of Life Version(TLV).

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.

A Brief Look at The New American Standard Bible (NASB).

Arguably the most technically precise Bible in existence today: the author’s copy of the NASB (1995  edition).

Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.  But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

Luke 10:32-33

Today we are most fortunate indeed to be the beneficiaries of wonderful Biblical scholarship that dates back five hundred years or more. Such diligence has produced a number of highly accurate translations of the Old and New Testaments in the English language, with the Authorized King James Verson(KJV), the New King James Version(NKJV) and the English Standard Version(ESV) representing just three of the best word for word renditions of the Holy Bible. As a keen reader of Scripture, I am always on the look out for new ways to improve my personal knowledge of the Bible, and, in this capacity, found yet another version to be particularly enlightening; enter the New American Standard Bible(NASB).

Like so many highly literal versions of the Bible, the NASB has an interesting history. Beginning in the 1880s, a team of American and British Bible scholars embarked on an ambitious project to update the archaic language of the KJV, producing the English Revised Version, which in turn formed the basis of the American Standard Version(ASV), first published in 1901. The ASV called upon a much larger number of manuscripts than the prestigious KJV, which were considerably older than any of the sources used to construct the KJV(mostly 10th and 11th centuries AD). And it was about this time that scholars began to notice a few small differences between the older and newer manuscripts. An example can be found in the Gospel of John chapter 5:

The KJV reads:

For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

John 5:4

Once manuscripts dating back to the 4th and fifth centuries AD began to be uncovered, it was noted that many of them did not contain this verse, suggesting that it was accidently inserted by scribes at some later time. That is why most modern Bibles have a footnote at John 5:4 which says, ” older manuscripts do not contain this verse.”

And yet, here’s how the NASB deals with it.

 

]for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.]

John 5:4

So the NASB committee decided to leave it in……with a bracket around it.

 

As Biblical archaeology unearthed more and more ancient manuscripts throughout the 20th century, culminating with the astonishing finds contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were unearthed in the Qumran Caves in the Judaean Desert between 1946 and 1956, many Bible scholars felt it was high time that a new translation of the original Hebrew and Greek tongues be constructed which benefited from these new insights. Thus, in 1959 work began on a new translation which honoured both the ASV and KJV under the aegis of the Lockman Foundation, which called upon an international team of Bible scholars and pastors from a broad cross-section of denominations to create the New American Standard Bible (NASB), which say first light as a complete work in 1971. Another revised NASB appeared in 1977(still with the old ‘thees’ and ‘thous’)  Still, as good as the original NASB was, an updated and improved version of the NASB appeared in 1995(with the ‘thees’ and ‘thous’ were modernised). This is the version I wish to discuss in this blog, though it is understood that the Lockman Foundation is currently at work producing yet another updated version of the NASB, which will appear in print in 2020.

Some Unique Attributes of the NASB

One of the first things you will notice when you start to read the New Testament in the NASB is that it highlights quotations or citations from the Old Testament in small caps. Consider 1 Peter 3:14-15

But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And Do Not Fear Their Intimidation, And Do Not Be Troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defence to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

1 Peter 3:14-15.

The small caps, ” Do Not Fear Their Intimidation……”  immediately informs the reader that this is a direct citation from the Old Testament, specifically Isaiah 8:12, but if you were reading the much more popular ESV  Bible, for example, you would never know this, since the same text is not presented in small caps. In line 3 of the above Scripture,  you also see the word, “being,” is presented in italics. This indicates that the same word is not found in the original Hebrew but was an educated guess(based on the context) by Biblical scholars to render the implied meaning as accurately as possible in modern English.This comes with the territory in any endeavour to translate one language into another.

In this way, I feel the NASB gives proper due respect to the words of Scripture, showing the reader where Biblical scholars have given their interpretation of the text in contrast to many more popular translations where such wording is not highlighted and so the student is left none the wiser.

In studying the NASB New Testament I have also come to appreciate Jesus’ own knowledge of the Old Testament. While many liberal scholars erroneously avoid prophetic texts such as Daniel and Ezekiel, the NASB reminds the reader that Jesus knew and believed on these writings, using them to assert His own position:

So He was saying, “What is the kingdom of God like, and to what shall I compare it? It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and threw into his own garden; and it grew and became a tree, And The Birds Of The Air Nested In Its Branches.”

Luke 13:18-19

The small caps indicate that our Lord was quoting directly from the Book of Ezekiel (see Ezekiel 17:23), the prophet and priest who was taken into captivity in 597 BC during the second deportation which was imposed on the Jewish leaders and aristocracy by their Babylonian overlords.

Or consider Matthew Chapter 24, when Jesus clearly identifies Himself as the returning Messiah;

And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man Coming On The Clouds Of The Sky with power and great glory.

Matthew 24:30

The small caps in this tract is a citation from Daniel (see Daniel 7:13).

The many Christian denominations that avoid such books are, in a very real sense, depriving their congregations of the importance Jesus placed in these writings. The words of St. Paul seem especially prescient here;

How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

Romans 10:14

Yet another feature of the NASB 1995 edition is the use of capitalised personal pronouns properly ascribed to deity;

God said to Moses,”I AM WHO I AM”: and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

Exodus 3:14.

Many Bible commentators have expressed the opinion that compared to other good word for word translations of Holy Scripture, the NASB reads and sounds a bit “wooden.” I understand this position, as the NASB can indeed come across as a bit awkward and hollow in places, but this was deliberately done so as to maintain the highest degree of one-to-one correspondence with the original tongues. And while no translation of the Bible in English can be said to be wholly word-for-word, since this would make the text essentially unreadable, I have personally appreciated the strident efforts the NASB translators made to anchor their choice of words in the original texts. On my own personal journey studying God’s word, I have come to admire the academic excellence that went into creating the NASB, as it was a thoroughly enriching experience, and look forward to seeing the new edition when it finally becomes available. It will not replace my personal favourite translation, the NKJV, for general use, but for serious study, the NASB will most certainly be top of my list.

A Few Examples of NASB Bibles

Good quality Bibles don’t need to cost the Earth. I personally avoid overly ornate Bibles as they are largely impractical to use on a regular basis and my rule of thumb is simple; if the Bible is too beautiful to soil, don’t use it.

That said, like many of the more popular translations, the NASB comes in a variety of convenient forms. For example, below is shown a compact large print edition of the NASB with the words of Christ in red. The cover is synthetic (leathertex) and has a lovely gold gilding as well as a smyth sewn binding:

My eldest son’s compact, red letter edition NASB.

My own personal NASB is also a 1995 edition, with a good, large font size, and wide side margins replete with copious cross-references for in-depth study;

It is not a red letter edition, but does have an 82-page concordance and a series of full-colour laminated maps of the Biblical world. The print quality is very good, with adequate line matching, although some ghosting is apparent. The 833W volume has a durable leathertex cover with a paste-down lining. It also has a good Smyth sewn binding and a beautiful gold gilding but only comes with one ribbon marker. It was not expensive.

I am also fortunate enough to own an excellent NASB study Bible which I actually acquired second-hand. It is published by Zondervan.

My personal Study Bible: the Zondervan NASB Study Bible.

The Importance of Remaining Anchored in the Word

The modern world is rapidly unlocking itself from Judeo-Christian values with disastrous consequences. Ironically, even outpsoken atheists are increasingly expressing the same concerns. Morals and values we held as ‘self-evident’ for centuries and millennia are no longer adhered to, and the consequences are all too easy to see; just look at the confused and depraved world we now live in. That is why remaining anchored in the inspired word of God is more important now than at any other time in history. Its wholesome words ground you in absolute truth and is an enduring source of comfort in a lost and dying world.

The prophet Isaiah writes;

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Isaiah 55:8-9

Ultimately it’s a choice everyone needs to make. I pray that those reading this will not end up on the wrong side of history!

Eternity is an awfully long time!

 

Neil English is the author of several books on amateur astronomy.

 

De Fideli.