All posts by tzofiya

How Peace Negotiator Martin Indyk Cashed a Big, Fat $14.8 Million Check From Qatar

What is worse than the massive Nazi-like ambition, gross brutality and corruption of Islam? Treason from within.

Lee Smith, Tablet Magazine
September 17, 2014

One Middle Eastern nation does indeed pay to influence U.S. foreign policy. Hint: It’s not Israel.

martin indyk and john kerry

The New York Times recently published a long investigative report by Eric Lipton, Brooke Williams, and Nicholas Confessore on how foreign countries buy political influence through Washington think tanks. Judging from Twitter and other leading journalistic indicators, the paper’s original reporting appears to have gone almost entirely unread by human beings anywhere on the planet. In part, that’s because the Times’ editors decided to gift their big investigative scoop with the dry-as-dust title “Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks,” which sounds like the headline for an article in a D.C. version of The Onion. There is also the fact that the first 10 paragraphs of the Times piece are devoted to that highly controversial global actor, Norway, and its attempts to purchase the favors of The Center for Global Development, which I confess I’d never heard of before, although I live in Washington and attend think-tank events once or twice a week.

Except, buried deep in the Times’ epic snoozer was a world-class scoop related to one of the world’s biggest and most controversial stories—something so startling, and frankly so grotesque, that I have to bring it up again here: Martin Indyk, the man who ran John Kerry’s Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, whose failure in turn set off this summer’s bloody Gaza War, cashed a $14.8 million check from Qatar. Yes, you heard that right: In his capacity as vice president and director of the Foreign Policy Program at the prestigious Brookings Institution, Martin Indyk took an enormous sum of money from a foreign government that, in addition to its well-documented role as a funder of Sunni terror outfits throughout the Middle East, is the main patron of Hamas—which happens to be the mortal enemy of both the State of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party.

But far from trumpeting its big scoop, the Times seems to have missed it entirely, even allowing Indyk to opine that the best way for foreign governments to shape policy is “scholarly, independent research, based on objective criteria.” Really? It is pretty hard to imagine what the words “independent” and “objective” mean coming from a man who while going from Brookings to public service and back to Brookings again pocketed $14.8 million in Qatari cash. At least the Times might have asked Indyk a few follow-up questions, like: Did he cash the check from Qatar before signing on to lead the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians? Did the check clear while he was in Jerusalem, or Ramallah? Or did the Qatari money land in the Brookings account only after Indyk gave interviews and speeches blaming the Israelis for his failure? We’ll never know now. But whichever way it happened looks pretty awful.

Or maybe the editors decided that it was all on the level, and the money influenced neither Indyk’s government work on the peace process nor Brookings’ analysis of the Middle East. Or maybe journalists just don’t think it’s worth making a big fuss out of obvious conflicts of interest that may affect American foreign policy. Maybe Qatar’s $14.8 million doesn’t affect Brookings’ research projects or what the think tank’s scholars tell the media, including the New York Times, about subjects like Qatar, Hamas, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other related areas in which Qatar has key interests at stake. Maybe the think tank’s vaunted objectivity, and Indyk’s personal integrity and his pride in his career as a public servant, trump the large piles of vulgar Qatari natural gas money that keep the lights on and furnish the offices of Brookings scholars and pay their cell-phone bills and foreign travel.

But people in the Middle East may be a little less blasé about this kind of behavior than we are. Officials in the Netanyahu government, likely including the prime minister himself, say they’ll never trust Indyk again, in part due to the article by Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea in which an unnamed U.S. official with intimate knowledge of the talks, believed to be Indyk, blamed Israel for the failure of the peace talks. Certainly Jerusalem has good reason to be wary of an American diplomat who is also, or intermittently, a highly paid employee of Qatar’s ruling family. Among other things, Qatar hosts Hamas’ political chief Khaled Meshaal, the man calling the shots in Hamas’ war against the Jewish state. Moreover, Doha is currently Hamas’ chief financial backer—which means that while Qatar isn’t itself launching missiles on Israeli towns, Hamas wouldn’t be able to do so without Qatari cash.

Of course, Hamas, which Qatar proudly sponsors, is a problem not just for Israel but also the Palestinian Authority. Which means that both sides in the negotiations that Indyk was supposed to oversee had good reason to distrust an American envoy who worked for the sponsor of their mutual enemy. In retrospect, it’s pretty hard to see how either side could have trusted Indyk at all—or why the administration imagined he would make a good go-between in the first place.

Indeed, the notion that Indyk himself was personally responsible for the failure of peace talks is hardly far-fetched in a Middle East wilderness of conspiracy theories. After all, who benefits with an Israeli-PA stalemate? Why, the Islamist movement funded by the Arab emirate whose name starts with the letter “Q” and, according to the New York Times, is Brookings’ biggest donor.

There are lots of other questions that also seem worth asking, in light of this smelly revelation—like why in the midst of Operation Protective Edge this summer did Kerry seek to broker a Qatari- (and Turkish-) sponsored truce that would necessarily come at the expense of U.S. allies, Israel, and the PA, as well as Egypt, while benefiting Hamas, Qatar, and Turkey? Maybe it was just Kerry looking to stay active. Or maybe Indyk whispered something in his former boss’ ear—from his office at Brookings, which is paid for by Qatar.

It’s not clear why Indyk and Brookings seem to be getting a free pass from journalists—or why Qatar does. Yes, as host of the 2022 World Cup and owner of two famous European soccer teams (Barcelona and Paris St. Germain), Doha projects a fair amount of soft power—in Europe, but not America. Sure, Doha hosts U.S. Central Command at Al Udeid air base, but it also hosts Al Jazeera, the world’s most famous anti-American satellite news network. The Saudis hate Doha, as does Egypt and virtually all of America’s Sunni Arab allies. That’s in part because Qataris back not only Hamas, but other Muslim Brotherhood chapters around the region and Islamist movements that threaten the rule of the U.S.’s traditional partners and pride themselves on vehement anti-Americanism.

Which is why, of course, Qatar wisely chose to go over the heads of the American public and appeal to the policy elite—a strategy that began in 2007, when Qatar and Brookings struck a deal to open a branch of the Washington-based organization in Doha. Since then, the relationship has obviously progressed, to the point where it can appear, to suspicious-minded people, like Qatar actually bought and paid for John Kerry’s point man in the Middle East, the same way they paid for the plane that flew U.N. Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-Moon around the region during this summer’s Gaza war.

Indeed, the Doha-Brookings love affair has gotten so hot that it may have pushed aside the previous major benefactor of Brookings’ Middle East program, Israeli-American businessman Haim Saban. The inventor of the Power Rangers will still fund the annual Saban forum, but in the spring Brookings took his name off of what was formerly the Haim Saban Center for Middle East Policy, so that now it’s just Center for Middle East Policy. Maybe the Qatari Center For Middle East Policy didn’t sound objective enough.

Another fact buried deep inside the Times piece is that Israel—the country usually portrayed as the octopus whose tentacles control all foreign policy debate in America—ranks exactly 56th in foreign donations to Washington think tanks. The Israeli government isn’t writing checks or buying dinner because—it doesn’t have to. The curious paradox is that a country that has the widespread support of rich and poor Americans alike—from big urban Jewish donors to tens of millions of heartland Christian voters—is accused of somehow improperly influencing American policy. While a country like Qatar, whose behavior is routinely so vile, and so openly anti-American, that it has no choice but to buy influence—and perhaps individual policymakers—gets off scot free among the opinion-shapers.

It turns out that, in a certain light, critics of U.S. foreign policy like Andrew Sullivan, John J. Mearsheimer, and Stephen Walt were correct: The national interest is vulnerable to the grubby machinations of D.C. insiders—lobbyists, think tank chiefs, and policymakers who cash in on their past and future government posts. But the culprits aren’t who the curator of “The Dish” and the authors of The Israel Lobby say they are. In fact, they got it backwards. And don’t expect others like Martin Indyk to correct the mistake, for they have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion that the problem with America’s Middle East policy is the pro-Israel lobby. In Indyk’s case, we now know exactly how big that interest is.

Lee Smith is a senior editor at the Weekly Standard and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He is also the author of the recently published The Consequences of Syria.

The Qualifications for Arab Leadership

Yasser Arafat: Chairman of the PLO, founder of Fatah, lifelong terrorist, murderer, liar, crook, hater of Jews. He was driven out of Jordan after a bloody attempt to take over that country, after gaining fame and experience as a mass murderer backed by Russia. He and his group then went to Lebanon, where they helped almost bring down that country in the Lebanese Civil war. Then he ran to several other Islamic countries until he was invited by Israel, under pressure from the US, to make his next terror base in Israel. This was called a peace process. In Israel he, his wife and family became rich through organized crime and embezzling, and killed many Arabs as well as Jews. His most famous relative was the Mufti of Jerusalem who was a close ally of Hitler during WWII, helping import Muslim troops to fight for Hitler and encouraging the Holocaust.

Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas):One of Arafat’s lieutenants in Fatah throughout his career, until Arafat finally died. Abu Mazen financed Yassir Arafat’s attack on the Israeli athletes at the Munich olympic games in 1972. He was educated in Syria as a lawyer and got a doctorate in Russia where he wrote a dissertation saying that Zionists helped cause and benefit from Hitler’s Holocaust, and that not as many people were killed as was claimed. Abu Mazen has taken the public stance of preferring to use law, agreements and publicity to end Israel rather than direct attacks. However, he also frequently incites and manipulates the Arab public to violence against Jews. He is considered a statesman by the US, EU an UN. He and his relatives and friends have also become wealthy in Yasser Arafat’s organized crime enterprise.

Marwan Barghouti: Convicted of 5 terrorist murders in Israel, and founder of the Al Aqsa Brigades, which is devoted to killing Jews. He was a major instigator of both the 1st and 2nd “intifadas” and called for the 3rd this year. He is very popular among Arabs with those high qualifications, and is also respected by Israeli leftists.

Muqata in the Jewish Press
Lahav and Lankari murdered by dead PA minister
Boaz Lahav (16) and David Lankri (14) – murdered by PA Minister Ziad abu Ein in 1979.

Who was this Minister of Rage, Ziad abu Ein, and what did he do to qualify for his position as a senior minister in the PA?

He didn’t do anything unusual for a Palestinian Authority Minister.

In 1979, Ziad abu Ein planted a bomb in a garbage pail in Tiberias, murdering two teenagers, Boaz Lahav (16) and David Lankri (14). 32 people were injured.

In 1982, he was sentenced to life in jail, after being extradited from the US.

But he only served 3 years.

He was released in the Jibril Rajoub prisoner swap in 1985.

Hence his qualifications to be a PA minister – he was a child killer.

His heart attack came 35 years too late, and it’s a shame this terrorist wasn’t actually beaten up by IDF soldiers.

Good riddance.

New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years, not CO2

H/T to Tom Tamarkin,
Hockey Schtick
Thursday, November 27, 2014

A paper published today in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds a “strong and stable correlation” between the millennial variations in sunspots and the temperature in Antarctica over the past 11,000 years. In stark contrast, the authors find no strong or stable correlation between temperature and CO2 over that same period.

The authors correlated reconstructed CO2 levels, sunspots, and temperatures from ice-core data from Vostok Antarctica and find

“We find that the variations of SSN [sunspot number] and T [temperature] have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable.”

Thus, the well known ~1000 year climate cycle responsible for the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000 to 4000 years ago, the Egyptian warm period ~4000 years ago, the Minoan warm period ~3000 years ago, the Roman warm period ~2000 years ago, the Medieval warm period ~1000 years ago, and the current warm period at present all roughly fall in this same 1000 year sequence of increased solar activity associated with warm periods.

a) sunspots, b) temperature, c) CO2, d-i show the amplitudes of the strongest cycle lengths (period in years) shown in the data for sunspots, temperature, and CO2
Wavelet analysis in graph a shows the most prominent solar periods in red and graph b for temperature. The most stable period for both is at ~1024 years, shown by the horizontal region in red/yellow/light blue.
The authors find a lag of 30-40 years between changes in solar activity driving temperature, likely due to the huge thermal capacity and inertia of the oceans. Lead time shown in bottom graph of 40 years shows the temperature response following an increase or decrease of solar activity lags by about 40 years. Top graph shows “the anti-phase relation between [solar activity and temperature] keeps them stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past.”

The authors find temperature changes lag solar activity changes by ~40 years, which is likely due to the huge heat capacity and inertia of the oceans. Warming proponents attempt to dismiss the Sun’s role in climate change by claiming 20th century solar activity peaked at around 1960 and somewhat declined from 1960 levels to the end of the 20th century (and have continued to decline in the 21st century right along with the 18+ year “pause” of global warming).

Firstly, the assumption that solar activity peaked in 1960 and declined since is false, since it is necessary to determine the accumulated solar energy over multiple solar cycles, which is the accumulated departure from the average number of sunspots over the entire period, which I call the “sunspot integral.” The sunspot integral is plotted in blue and shows remarkable correction with global temperatures plotted in red below. Correlating sunspot and temperature data with and without CO2, we find the sunspot integral explains 95% of temperature change over the past 400 years, and that CO2 had no significant influence (also here).

Secondly, this paper finds strong evidence of a 30-40 year lag between solar activity and temperature response. So what happened ~40 years after the 1960 peak in sunspot activity? Why that just so happens to be when satellite measurements of global temperature peaked with the 1998 El Nino [which is also driven by solar activity], followed by the “pause” and cooling since.

We have thus shown

  • Strong correlation between solar activity and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
  • Strong lack of correlation between CO2 and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
  • Solar activity explains all 6 well-known warming periods that have occurred during the Holocene, including the current warm period
  • The 20th century peak in sunspot activity is associated with a 40 year lag in the peak global temperature

What more proof do you need that it’s the Sun!

But wait, there’s more. Please see the two previous posts demonstrating that the alternate 33C greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure, not CO2 or water vapor, physical proof & observations that water vapor is a strong negative-feedback cooling agent, and physical proof that CO2 cannot cause any significant global warming. All of the above also strongly suggests the increase in CO2 levels is primarily due to ocean outgassing from warming oceans from the Sun, not from CO2 radiative forcing warming the oceans, and not primarily from man-made CO2 emissions.

Correlation between solar activity and the local temperature of Antarctica during the past 11,000 years
X.H. Zhao, X.S. Feng
•SSN [Sunspot Number] and Vostok temperature (T) had common periodicities in past 11,000 years.
•The millennial variations of SSN and T had a strong and stable correlation.
•The millennial variation of SSN led that of T by 30–40 years.
•Correlations between CO2 and T were neither strong nor stable.

The solar impact on the Earth’s climate change is a long topic with intense debates. Based on the reconstructed data of solar sunspot number (SSN), the local temperature in Vostok (T), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration data of Dome Concordia, we investigate the periodicities of solar activity, the atmospheric CO2 and local temperature in the inland Antarctica as well as their correlations during the past 11,000 years before AD 1895. We find that the variations of SSN and T have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable. These results indicate that solar activity might have potential influences on the long-term change of Vostok’s local climate during the past 11,000 years before modern industry.


Why Fusion is the Only Realistic Solution

By Tom Tamarkin – Fusion4Freedom

In 2013 the United States consumed 97.4 Quads of raw energy to produce 38.4 Quads of energy used by consumers and industry. The remaining 60% was lost as heat or thermal rejected energy. That is 1.028 X 1020 Joules or 9.74 X 1017 BTU of expended raw energy. To put that in perspective this equates to the amount of energy produced by 16.793 billion barrels of crude oil burned in one year. Today most of this energy consumed in the U.S. comes from fossil fuels.

Hydrocarbon fuels have an exceedingly high energy flux density meaning a small unit volume produces a large amount of energy. Nuclear is the only energy source of higher energy flux density than hydrocarbons but today’s nuclear fission processes may only be used for a few more decades because of nuclear waste issues coupled with public perception & policy. The energy flux density of solar, wind, geo-thermal, tidal, and the like is thousands of times lower per unit volume of collection apparatus than hydrocarbon fuels.

Fossil fuels are finite. The speed at which they are consumed is a factor of worldwide per capita energy use. Now, developed countries like the U.S., Canada, Europe, China, Russia, South Korea, Israel, and Australia are using 80% of world energy capacity. Demand is accelerating and can only continue to accelerate as the Internet and travel teaches people and countries of less developed means that they should aspire to greater means which takes more energy. Few professionals in the energy forecasting business have taken this into consideration but there is no denying this and no turning back. We must either increase energy levels for less developed countries and people or decrease it for developed societies to achieve a perceived “social equilibrium.” Needless to say, citizens of developed countries will not allow regression.

By mid-century fossil fuel reserves will no longer be economically and technically viable due the vast increase in international energy demand and the associated increases in extraction/production costs as more unconventional fossil fuel reserves must be taped coupled with environmental constraints and regulations.

Thus, an entirely new source of energy must be proven, demonstrated and commercialized over the next 2 decades or we risk destabilizing the security of all nations in the world and the health of their citizens. This energy must be extremely powerful in terms of energy flux density, abundant, clean, safe, and leave no long term waste products. The only realistic solution is fusion. There is no other scientifically conceivable energy source except the concept of matter anti-matter annihilation which is hundreds of year’s away, if ever, on Earth, as a means to produce energy.

And we must begin now because in 3 to 4 decades two significant events converge. As described above we deplete “proven reserves” which drives the cost of fossil fuels up enormously. And in the United States this is coincident with the retirement of the vast majority of our generation capacity due to their life cycle maturity or age.

power plant retirement

Short of this the only solution is a massive reduction in worldwide population to pre-industrialization 1700s level of 750,000,000 people worldwide. Today we project a 2050 population of 9 billion.


The Age of the Universe

An amazing article by
By Gerald Schroeder

One truth as seen from two vastly different perspectives and both true – literally.

October 2013

One of the most obvious perceived contradictions between Bible and science is the age of the universe. Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like biblical data? When we add up the generations of the Bible and then add the secular rulers that followed, we come to fewer than 6000 years. Whereas, data from the Hubbell space telescope or from the land based telescopes in Hawaii, indicate the number at 14 billion years. In trying to resolve this apparent conflict, I use only ancient biblical commentary because modern commentary already knows modern science, and so it is influenced by what science says.

That commentary includes the text of the Bible itself (3300 years ago), the translation of the into Aramaic by Onkelos (100 CE), the Talmud (redacted about the year 400 CE), and the three major biblical commentators on the Hebrew text. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who discusses philosophical concepts, and Nahmanides (13th century Spain), the most important of the commentators who deal with the spiritual physics of the universe, often referred to as Kabala.

These ancient commentaries were finalized hundreds or thousands of years ago, long before Hubbell was a gleam in his great-grandparent’s eye. So there’s no possibility of Hubbell or any other scientific data influencing these concepts. That’s a key component in keeping the following discussion objective.

Universe with a Beginning

In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, “What is your estimate of the age of the universe?” Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology – the deep physics of understanding the universe – was just developing. Several years ago, the response to that survey was republished in Scientific American – the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer. The answer that two-thirds – an overwhelming majority – of the scientists gave was, in essence, “Age?” There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal.”

That was 1959. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning. Science had made an enormous paradigm change in its understanding of the world. Understand the impact. Science has confirmed to the best of scientific ability that our universe had a beginning. I can’t overestimate the import of that scientific “discovery.” Evolution, cave men, these are all trivial problems compared to the fact that we now understand that our universe had a beginning. Exactly as the Bible had claimed for three millennia.

Of course, the fact that there was a beginning, a creation, does not prove that the Biblical God was the Creator. Whether that is true, that “God created the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis 1:1),” is still being debated. Physics allows for a beginning without a beginner. I’m not going to get into the physics of that here. “The Science of God,” my second book, examines this in great detail. In brief, in 1973 Professor Ed Tryon published in the prestigious peer reviewed journal Nature, a article demonstrating that as per the laws of physics, the universe could be created from absolute nothing via a quantum fluctuation. According to this understanding, there was only one physical creation. All the energy / matter and all space come into being as a minuscule speck from absolute nothing. The universe expanded out from that speck of space not by having new space added on, but by the original space stretching. In doing so, the huge concentration of energy of the Big Bang creation became more dilute within the ever stretching space, and so the temperature of space decreased.

It All Starts From Adam

The question we’re left with is, how long ago did the Big Bang creation occur? Was it, as the Bible might imply, fewer than 6,000 years, or was it the 14 billions of years that are accepted by the scientific community? The first thing we have to understand is the origin of the biblical calendar.

The biblical calendar age of the universe is calculated by adding up the generations since Adam. This reaches a number slightly under 6000 years. Additionally, there are six days (actually the biblical text gives 5 and a half days) from the creation of the universe to the creation of the first human, that is the first being with the soul of a human (not the first hominid, a being with human shape and intelligence, but lacking the soul of humanity, the neshama). We have a calendar that begins with Adam. The six pre-Adam days are separate from this. The Bible has two calendars, two clocks. This is no modern rationalization. The Talmud already discussed this 1600 years ago.

The reason the six pre-Adam days (Genesis 1:1 – 27) were taken out of the calendar is because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. There the passage of each day is described as “There was evening and morning” with no relationship to human time. Once we come to the progeny of Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having Seth. Seth lives 105 years before having Enosh, etc. (Genesis chapter 5). From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human-based, earth -based. But prior to that time, it’s an abstract concept: “Evening and morning.” It’s as if the Bible is looking at those events of Genesis One from a viewpoint other than the earth, a cosmic view of time. What might be the Biblical perception of the timing of those events prior to Adam relative to our earth-based measurements?

Looking Deeper into the Text

In trying to understand the flow of time here, you have to remember that the entire Six Days is described in 31 sentences. The Six Days of Genesis, which have given people so many headaches, are confined to 31 sentences! At MIT, in the Hayden library, we had about 50,000 books that deal with the development of the universe: cosmology, chemistry, thermodynamics, paleontology, archaeology, the high-energy physics of creation. Up the river at Harvard, at the Weidner library, they probably have 100,000 books on these same topics. The Bible gives us 31 sentences. Don’t expect that by a simple reading of those sentences, you’ll know every detail that is held within the text. It’s obvious that we have to dig deeper to get the information out.

What is a “day?”

The usual answer to that question is let the word ‘day’ in Genesis chapter one be any long period of time. Bend the Bible to match the science. Fortunately, the Talmud in Hagigah (12A), Rashi there and Nahmanides (Gen. 1:3) all tell us that the word day means 24 hours, not sunrise and sun set. The sun is not mentioned till day four and these commentaries all relate to all six days, starting from day one. But the commentary continues in Exodus and Leviticus, that the days are 24 hours each (again, not relating to sunrise and sunset, merely sets of 24 hours). There are six of them, and their duration is not longer than the six days of our work week, BUT, the commentary continues, they contain all the ages of the world. How can six 24 hour days contain all the ages of the world?

The Flexible flow of time and the stretching of space

When a scientist states that our universe is 14 billion years old, there is a second half of that sentence rarely articulated but known very well. The universe is 14 billon years old as measured from the time-space coordinates of the earth; that is, as measured from our view, our location, within universe. But there is an aspect of the universe that changes the perception of the timing of events when those events are viewed, not “on location,” but from afar, across a great galactic distance. That is the stretching of space. The universe started as a minuscule speck, and stretched out from there. Space actually stretches. The result of the stretching of space produces the effect that when observing a series of events that took place deep in space, far from our galaxy, as the light from those events travels through space, the timing of the sequence of events is actually stretched out. In estimating the true timing of a sequence of distance events, correction for this space stretch must be accounted for. This is standard astronomy. (In The Science of God I give the logic in detail in simple easy to understand terms.)

The Creation of Time

At the end of each day of the six creation days, the day is numbered. Yet Nahmanides points out that there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. At the end of the first day, the verse says: “There is evening and morning, Day One.” But the second day doesn’t say “evening and morning, Day Two.” Rather, it says “evening and morning, a second day.” And the Bible continues with this pattern: “Evening and morning, a third day… a fourth day… a fifth day… the sixth day.” Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not “first day,” but “Day One” (“Yom Echad”). Many English translations make the mistake of writing “a first day.” That’s because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! That message, as Nahmanides points out, is that there is a qualitative difference between “one” and “first.” One is absolute; first is comparative. The Bible, he tell us, could not write “a first day” on the first day because there had not yet been a second day relative to it. Had the perspective of the Bible for the first six days been from Sinai looking back, the Bible would have written a first day. By the time the Torah was given on Sinai there had been hundreds of thousands of “second days.” The perspective of the Bible for the six days of Genesis is from the only time in the history of time when there had not been a second day. And that is the first day. From the creation of the universe to the creation of the soul of Adam (Genesis 1:27), the Bible views time from near the beginning of the universe looking forward. At the creation of Adam and Eve, the soul of humanity, the Bible perspective switches from this cosmic view of time to earth based time. From that point on, all biblical descriptions of time are human-based, earth-based, the space-time coordinates by which we live.

How we perceive time

We look at the universe, and say, “How old is the universe? Looking back in time, the universe is approximately 14 billion years old.” That’s our view of time and those years went by. But what is the Bible’s view of those billions of years looking forward from the beginning? How does it see time?

Nahmanides taught that although the days of Genesis One are 24 hours each, they contain “kol yemot ha-olam” – all the ages and all the secrets of the world. Nahmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing… but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a description for the speck: something very tiny, smaller than a grain of mustard. And he says that this is the only physical creation. There was no other physical creation; all other creations mentioned in Genesis One were spiritual: the Nefesh (the soul of animal life, Genesis 1:21) and the Neshama (the soul of human life, Genesis 1:27) are spiritual creations.

There’s only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else. Nahmanides describes the essence of that first material as “dak me’od, ein bo mamash” – so very thin, no substance to it. And as this speck expanded out, this essence, so thin that it had no material substance, turned into matter as we know it.

Nahmanides further writes: “Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman” – from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Time is created at the beginning. But biblical time “grabs hold” when matter condenses from the substance-less substance of the big bang creation. When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no material substance, that’s when the biblical clock starts.

Science has shown that there’s only one “substance-less substance” that can change into matter. And that’s energy. Einstein’s famous equation, E=MC2, tells us that energy can change form and take on the form of matter. And once it changes into matter, biblical time grabs hold; the biblical clock begins. Energy – light beams, radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays – all travel at the speed of light, 300 million meters per second. At the speed of light, time does not pass. The universe was aging, time was passing, but until there was stable matter, nothing was present recording that passage of time. Time only grabs hold when stable matter is present. This moment of time before the clock of the Bible begins lasted less than 1/100,000 of a second. A miniscule time. But in that time, the universe expanded from a tiny speck, to about the size of the Solar System. From that moment on we have matter, and biblical time flows forward. The biblical clock begins here.

Day One and not a first day: seeing time from the beginning

Now the fact that the Bible tells us there is “evening and morning Day One”, comes to teach us that the biblical calendar begins from near the beginning looking forward.

We look back in time, and measure of the universe to be 14 billion years old. But as every scientist knows, when we say the universe is 14 billion years old, there’s another half of the sentence that we rarely bother to state. The universe is 14 billion years old as measured from the time-space coordinates of the earth, that is, from our current position in the universe.

The key is that from the creation of the universe to the creation of the soul of Adam, the Bible looks forward in time, from time-space coordinates when the universe was vastly smaller than it is today. Since then, the universe has expanded out. Space stretches, and that stretching of space totally changes the perception of time.

A brief example of what this means is useful to establish the effect of space stretching. Far off on some imaginary galaxy a person decides to send us information about his clock. Imagine going back billions of years, close the beginning of time. Now pretend way back then, when time grabs hold, there’s an intelligent community. (It’s totally fictitious.) Imagine that the intelligent community has a laser, and it’s going to shoot out a blast of light every second. Every second — pulse. Pulse. Pulse. And on each pulse of light the following formation is printed: “I’m sending you a pulse of light every second.” (Printing information on light, electro-magnetic radiation, is common practice. It’s what brings your phone messages and TV or radio to you.) Billions of years later, way far down the time line, we here on Earth have a big satellite dish antenna and we receive that pulse of light. And on that pulse of light we read “I’m sending you a pulse every second.”

Light travels 300 million meters per second. So at the beginning, when the light pulses are first released, the two light pulses are separated by a second of light travel time or 300 million meters. The pulses of light travel through space for billions of years until they reach the Earth. But wait. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. The universe expands by space stretching. So as these pulses travel through space for billions of years, the space between them is stretching. The pulses get further and further apart. Billions of years later, when the first pulse arrives, we read on it “I’m sending you a pulse every second.” A message from outer space! You wait for the next pulse to arrive. Does it arrive second later? No! A year later? Maybe not. Maybe billions of years later. Because the amount of time that these pulses of light have traveled through space will determine the amount that space stretched between them. That in turn will determine how much time there will be between the arrivals of the pulses. This is standard astronomy.

14 billion years or six days?

Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 14 billion years of history and those years went by. But how would they be perceived from the Bible’s perspective of time? Looking forward from when the universe was very small – billions of times smaller – the Bible teaches that six days passed. In truth, they both are correct. What’s exciting about the last few years is that we now have quantified the data to know the relationship between the perception of time from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons (their nucleosynthesis), looking forward and our measure of the history of the universe. It’s not science fiction any longer. A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same generalized number. The general relationship of the stretching of space between the era of proton anti-proton formation, that time near the beginning at the threshold energy of protons when the first stable matter formed, and time today is a million million. That’s a 1 with 12 zeros after it. Space has stretched by a million million. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says “I’m sending you a pulse every second,” would we see a pulse every second? No. We’d see one every million million seconds. That’s the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe on the perception of time.

The biblical text shows us (and the Talmud confirms) that the soul of Adam was created five and a half days after the big bang creation. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. How would we see those days stretched by a million million? Five and a half days times a million million, gives us five and a half million million days. Dividing that by 365 days in a year, comes out to be 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of just under 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is extraordinary. The universe is billions of years old but from the biblical perspective those billions of years compress into five and a half, 24 hour days.

The five and a half days of Genesis are not of equal duration. Each time the universe doubles in size, the perception of time halves as we project that time back toward the beginning of the universe. The rate of doubling, that is the fractional rate of change, is very rapid at the beginning and decreases with time simply because as the universe gets larger and larger, even though the actual expansion rate is approximately constant, it takes longer and longer for the overall size to double. Because of this, the earliest of the six days have most of the 15 billion years sequestered with them.


Following a talk I gave at AZUSA Pacific University, February 2011, a participant noted that when calculating the expansion ratio of space (that is, the fraction by which space had stretched) from the era of proton formation to our current time, I had neglected to correct for the fact that the rate of universal expansion is actually increasing. The million million expansion ratio is gotten by calculating the averaged ratio of the temperature of space now (2.76 K) relative to the threshold temperature of proton anti-proton pair production that marks the start of the biblical clock. The correction for this increase in the rate of universal expansion is in the order of 10%. Had the expansion been constant [and not super-linear resulting from the increased expansion rate], the temperature of space would be, not the currently observed 2.76 K, but 3.03 K. Introducing this correction reduces the expansion factor of the million million ( that is, a trillion) cited above, by 10% to 900 billion. As discussed above, the biblical time prior to the creation of the soul of Adam is 5 and half days. Expanding those biblical pre-Adam five and a half, 24 hour days by the expansion factor, 900,000,000,000, (i.e., 900 billion) results in age of the universe as viewed from our perspective of 13.6 billon years.

An exponential equation can be developed that details the number of years as measured from our perspective of time compressed within each of the five and half 24 hour days of Genesis Chapter One, taking each day as one “half life.” However rather than using the highly rounded off expansion factor of 900 billion, this equation uses the exact expansion factor (the ratio of the energy or temperature of space at the threshold energy of protons [10.9 x 1012 K ] to the “AZUSA” corrected current energy or temperature of space [3.03 K ]). The result gives an overall age of the universe of 13.9 billion years and also the number of those 13.9 billion years of cosmic history held compressed within each of the biblical five and a half, 24 hour days of Genesis prior to the creation of the human soul of Adam. Starting with Day One, the results are, approximately: 7; 3.5; 1.8; 0.9; 0.5; 0.2 billions of years compressed within each successive 24-hour biblical day. This is in close agreement with the NASA number of 13.7 billion years. Interestingly, several years ago an article in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal, Nature, used this identical approach to discuss the time from the beginning of the universe, but with a totally different agenda and so started its clock at the very creation which they projected as a singularity. The significance of this is that this respected science journal has given its stamp of approval for the methodology used here.


Einstein, in the laws of relativity, taught the world that time passes at different rates in different environments. Absolute time does not exist in our universe. The passage of time is relative. In regions of high velocity or high gravity time actually passes more slowly relative to regions of lower gravity or lower velocity. (One location relative to another, hence the name, the laws of relativity) This is now proven fact. Time actually stretches out. Where ever you are time is normal for you because your biology is part of that local system. Note that the above discussion does not relate to these laws of relativity. It relates to a very different phenomenon, the effect of the stretching of space on the perception of the passage of time.

God using nature’s forces

That God might have used the laws of nature to create the universe is fully consistent in relationship to the Biblical accounts of God’s actions. The only name for God in the creation chapter, Genesis chapter one, is Elokim, God as made manifest in nature. Maimonides in his monumental Guide for the Perplexed (1190; part 2, chapter 6)) wrote that God at times uses the forces of nature to accomplish God’s goal. An example of God using nature to accomplish a goal is in the Exodus account. After our leaving Egypt, God led us to the banks of the Sea of Reeds (or the Red Sea depending upon translations; see the First book of Kings chapter 9 verse 26 for the location of the Sea of Reeds.). There trapped by the sea, God saves us from the pursuing Egyptian army by splitting the sea with a strong east wind that blew all night (Exodus 14:21). That detailed description of the wind was given to let us realize that the wind may have seemed natural. How natural? After the Israelites pass through the opened sea, the pursuing Egyptian soldiers follow right on in. After all it is just a lucky wind. (See D. Nof and N. Paldor; Are there oceanographic explanations for the Israelites crossing of the Red Sea?; published in the esteemed, peer-reviewed scientific journal The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 73; no. 3; March 1992, for a peer-reviewed account of the possibility of the wind actually opening the sea.) If the wind had seemed super-natural, the army would have fled back home. So natural-seeming was the wind that the Bible had to tell us that it was God that made the wind blow at that time. So we see that the laws of nature instilled by God at the creation are a part of God’s tools in this world, and also for creating this magnificent world in which we dwell.