Manna Machine Debunked
Posted by Frank Johnson on Aug 30, 2013 in Blog | 0 comments
hahahha la manna dal cielo ???
fosse questa ???
Arthur C. Clarke è spesso citato con “Ogni tecnologia sufficientemente avanzata è indistinguibile dalla magia”.
Questo, naturalmente, è usato liberamente in storie di fantascienza ed è una citazione preferita di antiche teorici astronauti. Soprattutto coloro che cercano di interpretare la Bibbia come una cronaca di contatto alieno o spiegare eventi miracolosi.
Uno dei tanti esempi di interpretare gli eventi miracolosi e trovare gli alieni nella Bibbia è la cosiddetta “macchina manna”. In primo piano in stagione 1 di “Ancient Aliens” e un fuori del libro di stampa dal compianto George Sassoon e Rodney Dale, il teoria della “La macchina Manna” è che l’antico Israele è sopravvissuto 40 anni vagando la manna deserto mangiare. Manna che Sassoon e Dale credono è stato creato da una macchina.
Teoria Sassoon e Dale di postula che una macchina ha attirato l’umidità dall’aria e attraverso alcuni mezzi tecnologici è stato alimentato da un reattore nucleare (aka l’Arca dell’Alleanza, un argomento per un altro giorno). La macchina poi avrebbe creato una sorta di cibo a base di alghe. Ogni sette giorni la macchina doveva essere smontati e puliti, da qui il motivo per il sabato. Non importa che il sabato precedente alla Exodus con un ampio margine. Se il dispositivo è stato il risultato degli stranieri o di alta tecnologia in generale, non è elaborato su.
Quindi, ha fatto Israele sopravvivere l’Esodo e il loro tempo nel deserto con l’aiuto di un replicatore alghe a propulsione nucleare?
A prima vista, l’idea sembra romanzo, e diamine, persino possibile a chi cerca una spiegazione scientifica di questo miracolo biblico. E ‘l’ultimo momento in cui Arthur C. Clarke.
Questo blog dà molte citazioni circa la macchina manna e brani dal libro “La macchina Manna” che supportano l’ipotesi avanzata tecnologia. Dimostra anche alcune delle linguistica che hanno portato Sassoon e Dale alle loro conclusioni. Farò quello che posso poi per confutare le affermazioni importanti sul linguaggio, anche se alla fine è piuttosto un punto controverso.
Arthur C. Clarke is often quoted with “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” This of course is used liberally in sci-fi stories and is a favorite quote of ancient astronaut theorists. Especially those who seek to interpret the Bible as a chronicle of alien contact or explain away miraculous events.
One of many such examples of interpreting miraculous events and finding aliens in the Bible is the so-called “manna machine.” Featured in season 1 of “Ancient Aliens” and an out of print book by the late George Sassoon and Rodney Dale, the theory of “The Manna Machine” is that ancient Israel survived 40 years wandering the wilderness eating manna. Manna that Sassoon and Dale believe was created by a machine.
Sassoon and Dale’s theory posits that a machine drew in moisture from the air and through some technological means was powered by a nuclear reactor (aka the Ark of the Covenant, a topic for another day). The machine then allegedly created some sort of algae-based food. Every seven days the machine had to be taken apart and cleaned, hence the reason for the Sabbath. Never mind that the Sabbath predated the Exodus by a wide margin. Whether the device was the result of aliens or general high technology, is not elaborated upon.
So, did Israel survive the Exodus and their time in the wilderness with help from a nuclear powered algae replicator?
At first glance, the idea seems novel, and heck, even possible to someone looking for a scientific explanation of this Biblical miracle. It is the ultimate Arthur C. Clarke moment.
This blog gives many quotes about the manna machine as well as passages from the book “The Manna Machine” that support the advanced technology hypothesis. It also demonstrates some of the linguistics that led Sassoon and Dale to their conclusions. I will do what I can later to refute the important claims on language, though in the end it’s rather a moot point.
Without an actual copy of the book to work with and reference, that blog and the “Ancient Aliens” episode is where I’ll be looking at the evidence for the manna machine. (If you would like to donate a copy of “Manna Machine” or its companion book “The Kabbalah Decoded” or any other Ancient Astronaut book to Chris White Ministries, let us know!).
Decoding the Zohar
The first and most damning piece of evidence against the manna machine comes from the fact that Sassoon and Dale took all of their evidence from the Zohar. The Zohar is basically the main text of the Kabbalah, and it’s not without skeptics, disputed origins and criticism in Jewish circles. One of my conservative Jewish teachers in college half-jokingly said about Kabbalists “these are what I like to call the crazies”. The main thing to note about the Zohar in this case is that it is not an actual account of events like the Bible, rather it’s a commentary on the TORAH with an emphasis on the mystical/spiritual interpretation of the text of the actual TORAH/Bible.
The main problem with this is that the TORAH was written by Moses as dictated to him by God. Moses is believed to have lived anywhere from the1600’s BC to the 1200’s BC, and obviously he would have written the TORAH somewhere in there. The New Living Translation Study Bible, places the authorship of the TORAH (or at least Exodus) at 1450 – 1410 BC. More liberal estimates give the TORAH a much younger age, but if you believe the Bible is true, and what Jesus said, you’ll know that Moses is indeed the author. Thanks to Chuck Missler for teaching me the shortcut and this site for the verses. Jesus authenticates Moses’ authorship of the TORAH: Matthew 8:4, Mark 12:26, Luke 16:29; 24:27 & 44, John 5:46; 7:22, and quite frankly I believe Him. If you don’t, you’ve got bigger problems than the manna machine and who wrote the TORAH and when.
The Zohar, on the other hand, did not appear in written form until the 13th century (1200 AD), though some say it was written in the 2nd or 3rd century AD. Either way, it is didn’t show up until the 1200’s, and even if it were younger, that wouldn’t help matters any.
That would mean that the gap between the text of the Exodus and the Zohar is roughly 1600 – 2800 years depending on when the Zohar was written. Given this separation of time, how would the author(s) of the Zohar have had any knowledge of a manna machine in the time of the Exodus to discuss or encode in their writings? Would the author of the Zohar have been reading and commenting on the Exodus as described in TORAH, then just randomly insert or encode a description of a machine? Was there an (unlikely) oral tradition that no one else knew about? Again, how would the Zohar’s author have discerned this? The Zohar’s author would be writing long after the Exodus happened and was written, and any oral tradition, while useful for speculation, would be about as reliable as a game of telephone.
To give you an illustration, any proof of ancient astronauts taken from the Zohar referencing the events of the Exodus would be chronologically about as far removed from an eyewitness account as you can get. This would be akin to someone writing an esoteric commentary on the US Constitution and the Revolutionary war thousands of years later and someone a few hundred years after that using that commentary to prove that the Constitution was proof of alien intervention in the American Revolution.
Furthermore, using the Zohar as proof of aliens or technology in a Biblical event is an improper use of the text, not that I condone the “proper” use either. Not only are there thousands of years separating the two texts, the Zohar was never meant to be taken as an eyewitness account, but rather as a commentary on the TORAH with the specific purpose of finding hidden, spiritual (occult?) meanings in the text.
Why, in such a commentary, would the Zohar’s author(s) have described a physical machine? A motive is very difficult to discern here, and it’s not easy to see how knowing manna was algae from a machine would help fulfill the spiritual goals of those who follow the Kabbalah and Zohar.
Linguistic Analysis
“”The minute details of this procedure caused the two scientists to ‘look closely at the texts, uncluttered by peripheral verbiage, and to decide that there was a high probability that they describe not a god but a machine in anthropomorphic terms.’” – Brad Steiger, Worlds Before Our Own ” (source)
In other words, “uncluttered by peripheral verbiage” gives the impression that Sassoon and Dale took the words out of context to support the idea of an alien machine.
Here’s an example of Sassoon and Dale “decoding” the text. They reference Daniel 7:9 then “analyze” the meaning.
” “But what are these wheels? The word used in the Aramaic text of Daniel is GLGLVHI (galgalohi) – his wheels. However, in the Zohar, ‘his skulls’ is GVLGLVHI (golgalohi), and it sometimes appears without the first ‘V’, making it identical with the ‘wheels’ of Daniel. It seems fairly likely, then, that Daniel is taking about skulls not wheels; and in describing his ‘vision’, he is hinting to those in the know that he possesses the secret knowledge.” ” (source)
It’s not clear whether the authors are referring to the Bible version or the Zohar version. If it’s the Zohar version, Daniel didn’t write it, rather someone copied it into the Zohar. If the Bible version is being referred to, Sassoon and Dale are wrong. Certainly, the change in one letter drastically changed the meaning of the passage, but this creates a few problems. First, where in the Bible or elsewhere is the Aramaic word “wheels” written without the “V” making it interchangeable with skulls? It’s safe to assume the Bible does not contain this error, considering that no one outside of “The Manna Machine” has made this claim.
If it’s the Zohar, why did the Zohar’s author mess around with an added or subtracted letter? And so what if he did? Just because the Zohar’s author changed the meaning of the verse with one letter, does not mean he was correct in doing so, especially since every other OLDER copy of Daniel does not have the suggested “V”. Perhaps the Zohar’s author made a mistake, an ill-timed sneeze perhaps. It wouldn’t be a stretch, since in the Bible, the Aramaic word for wheel is the same as one of the Hebrew words for wheel (galgal Strong’s H1534 & H1535 used in Daniel), and that word is similar to the word for skull (gulgolet, Strong’s H1538) because they both share the same root word which is “galal” (Strong’s H1556) literally “to roll”.
But even if the Zohar’s author did it deliberately, he did it long after the original text was written and well known by mainstream Judaism. Again calling into question how he would have known of a manna machine to write about, and why he would have included it in the commentary.
The second big problem we have is that he’s using one verse from Daniel in an extrabiblical source to demonstrate a point about an extended period of time elsewhere in the actual Bible. Given the problems that one-verse theology causes us Christians, I’d advise against it. As Dr. Missler says “if you torture the text long enough, it’ll confess to anything.” Now certainly Sassoon and Dale pull other verses from the Zohar, but given how they’ve spun Daniel it’s not likely they are correct in their interpretation.
Their take on “Ancient of Days” confirms this, though it would be nice to have an expert opinion, you’ll have to make do with some armchair translation.
” “In Aramaic, the title [Ancient of Days] is attik yomin (OThIQ IVMIN), and in Hebrew attik yomim (OThIQ IMIM). The first word comes from the word attak (OThQ), to remove or transport; it is used several times in the Bible, mostly with that meaning. The form attik would then mean ‘transporting’ or possibly ‘ that which is transported’.” ” (source)
“Ancient of Days” is only seen in the Hebrew Scriptures in Daniel 7:9, 7:13, and 7:22. Here is a dissection of that usage. First the word “Ancient”. Sassoon and Dale do a little sleight of hand and say that Daniel used “attik” which is a word that comes from the word “attak” meaning “removed” or something akin to that. It is true that the word Daniel uses corresponds to a word that CAN mean removed, however they are plain wrong about the word choice of Daniel. In the Bible, Daniel uses “`attiyq” as opposed to the “`athaq” that “The Manna Machine” suggests. Since this is a little more subtle, see below for a breakdown.
“H6268 – Original: (see link for original Hebrew) Transliteration: `attiyq, – ancient, advanced, aged, old, taken away. Origin: corresponding to H6267.” This H6268 is an Aramaic word and it is the word that actually appears in Daniel 7.
The word that Sassoon and Dale presented (based on them connecting it to “`athaq“) instead of the one Daniel actually used is “H6267 – Original: (see link for original Hebrew) Transliteration: `attiyq – taken away, removed, weaned, old, ancient.” They seem to be essentially the same word, H6267 being the Hebrew and H6268 being the Aramaic. In any case, though the words may be related, the word appearing in the quoted section of Daniel is H6268.
Continuing on, here’s where Sassoon and Dale make the switch. H6267 (and H6268 by association) does seem to correspond to the primitive root:
“H6275 – Original: (see link for original Hebrew) Transliteration: `athaq – to move, proceed, advance, move on, become old, be removed
(Qal)
to move
to advance (in years), grow old and weak(Hiphil)
to move forward, proceed, move on to remove, to transcribe”
However, H6275 as used in the Bible makes use of the move or age connotations in different situations, and it does so clearly. Notice that Daniel does not use the H6275 as “The Manna Machine” claims, but rather H6268. The context of Daniel also indicates that he’s referring to a personality that comes in after his visions in the preceding verses. Based upon word choice and context, ancient is more appropriate. In short, if a highly educated man like Daniel had meant to use “`athaq” (H6275) or `attiyq (H6267) for a moveable object, he would have. But instead he used `attiyq (H6268) which more clearly presents the idea of “ancient”.
Now on to the second half of the phrase, days.
“The second word in the title is IVMIN or IMIM, supposed to mean ‘(of the) days’. Now the word IVM, pronounced ‘yom’, does mean ‘day’…But there is another word in Hebrew, IM, pronounced ‘yam’. This means ‘sea’. In the plural, both words are spelt the same, IMIM. If pronounced ‘yomim’, this means days, and if ‘yamim’, seas. From this, we discover that OThIQ IMIM can mean Ancient of Days, but is could also mean Transportable One of the Seas…”
“In the Bible, there are various seas, and the word is also used for what we could called lakes such as the Sea of Galilee. There is also the great Sea, yam rav in Hebrew, the name given to the Mediterranean, which was the largest body of water known to the ancient Israelites. Yam rav was also the ‘great sea’ of bronze which stood in front of Solomon’s Temple (2 Chronicles 4:2ff). This was a large vessel filled with water and used for purification rituals. It appears, therefore, that the word ‘sea’ in Hebrew can also mean ‘a large vessel for containing liquids’, or in modern terms, a tank.”
– George Sassoon and Rodney Dale, The Manna Machine ” (source)
This is completely arbitrary. Sassoon and Dale acknowledge that “yo?m” means day, but then out of nowhere brings up that the word “sea” is similar for no discernable reason. Perhaps in the actual book this is more clear, but this is like saying aunt is similar to ant, and therefore your aunt is an ant. There’s no real reason for it other than a vague similarity in spelling and possibly pronunciation. But here’s the breakdown. You’ll note that in the original language, the Hebrew/Aramaic letters are very different, and there is a difference in pronunciation. As such, there’s no logical way for Sassoon to have arrived at this conclusion other than a leap of faith and twisting the text.
Daniel uses:
“H3118 – Original: (see link for original Hebrew) Transliteration: yowm – day, day always refers to a twenty-four hour period when the word is modified by a definite or cardinal. It also corresponds to H3117”.
“H3117 – Original: (see link for original Hebrew) Transliteration: yowm – day, time, year, day (as opposed to night), day (24 hour period), as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1, as a division of time, a working day, a day’s journey, days, lifetime (plural), time, period (general) year. temporal references today, yesterday, tomorrow Origin: from an unused root meaning”
Sassoon and Dale’s choice of words:
Sea – H3220 – Original: (see link for original Hebrew) Transliteration: yam – sea
Given the linguistic gymnastics that Sasson and Dale perform, plus distance in time between the Exodus (as well as writing of TORAH) and the writing of the Zohar, any claims that the Zohar makes, encoded or otherwise, should be evaluated carefully, as should any claim made by “The Manna Machine”. Add to this, the fact that the Zohar is merely a commentary (opinion and interpretation of the original, OLDER texts) and the manna machine gets three strikes against it.
But just for kicks, let’s take a look at what the manna machine would have needed to accomplish if it were real, and lastly, what the Bible says about manna.
Logistics of the Manna Machine
For the claims about the manna machine to be true, it would had to have 1) taken moisture from the air. 2) used that moisture to cause a hypothetical algae culture to grow in conjunction with a hypothetical light/heat source. And 3) feed the Jews on their sojourn for 40 years.
Moisture
No one is in dispute on this first matter. The land from Egypt to Israel and much of the Middle East is this way now, and probably always has been desert. The Sinai Peninsula, the most likely location for the Exodus, is a desert.
Keyword: DESERT.
Now in Exodus 16 it does mention dew in relation to manna, but it’s not reasonable to assume that this dew would be enough moisture to grow enough algae to provide sustenance. Without knowing the particulars of algae growth and required water, etc. it’s difficult to say for sure, but it does not seem very likely.
The Sinai Peninsula presently receives less than 100 mm (4 inches) of rain per year and there’s no real reason to think that this would have changed much over the millenia.
“The annual rainfall in the southern region is significantly less than the northern one, where it reaches 20?mm in the coastal areas over the Gulfs of Aqaba and Suez. Its amount increases to 70 millimeters over the mountain regions.
The amount of rainfall in Sinai decreases from the northeast towards the southwest. The greatest amount of the annual rainfall was found at Rafah station (304?mm) in the northeast. The annual rainfall average is about 120?mm along the Mediterranean coast. It decreases in the uplands to the south to about 32?mm. The annual average of rainfall all over Sinai is about 40 millimeters, 27 millimeters from it is estimated to come from one storm that may provide 10 millimeters at a time.” (source)
As I write this, 8/28/2013, it is pretty dry in the Sinai area. It might grow more humid in wetter months, but the Exodus would have had to endure the dry spells too. At any rate, here is the humidity for today according to Yahoo weather.
North Sinai at Arish airport 89% humidity, which makes sense as they are at the coast, and in the north where it is more humid. Possibly Israel spent some time around here, but they were on the move. And if they were always by the sea, they maybe could have just done some fishing for food. At any rate, Israel did not spend 40 years in the coastal region.
South Sinai at St. Catherine airport 25% humidity. This location is quite near present day Mount Sinai, which is interesting and possibly fairly close to where Israel wandered. Depending upon who you ask.
The situation doesn’t get any better placing Mt. Sinai in Biblical “Arabia” either. Jebel Sin Bishar, another possible location for Sinai on the Sinai peninsula would have similar weather conditions as listed above, being that its part of Sinai.
One source for ancient Arabia puts Mt. Sinai at Mount Yeroham southwest of the Dead Sea. A nearby town, Mizpe Ramon lists a humidity of 22%.
While resilient, algae’s most important requirement would probably be water. Being that Sinai is a desert, it would take a miracle to use the moisture from the morning dew or in the air to make algae enough to feed people for 40 years. Perhaps there is and was enough humidity to make small amounts, but not large amounts. But that will come later.
Light/heat source
In the “Ancient Aliens” episode, it is suggested that heat and light from nuclear power (never clearly defined, though it seemed implied that the algae just snuggled up to the warm and cozy reactor) caused the algae to grow. Since algae is not Godzilla or the Incredible Hulk, and anything but those two will be killed by radiation, that idea can be cast aside.
The other theory though, posits that a laser (nuclear powered, of course) causes the algae to grow. As absurd as that sounds, it is actually scientifically viable. (source)
Assuming there’s enough water.
Other remarks on algae as a food source come to us in the form of people researching it for biofuel including algae that can grow in the dark and work being done by Solazyme. I guess we’ve bypassed the aliens…But the downside to growing algae in the dark is that it needs lots of sugar and of course, water. Two things in short supply during 40 years of wandering. Oh, and to grow algae in the dark, Solazyme uses proprietary algae, which probably means it’s a GMO, something that didn’t exist during Moses’ time.
And for the heck of it, proof algae can be eaten, because I was skeptical.
But keep in mind, although this part of the manna machine is plausible, the aforementioned lack of water and moisture in the air casts a large shadow of doubt. So too does the next item.
Feeding all those people
Probably one of the greatest arguments against the Exodus by those who doubt the account is “all those people”, because let’s face it; a whole nation is quite a few. The manna machine would had to have been capable of sustaining “all of those people” solely on algae. For four decades.
The model of the manna machine seen on “Ancient Aliens” is small enough that a man could carry it. Some theorize that the device was carried in the Ark of the Covenant. Still, it’s not clear in the resources I have how big the hypothetical “actual unit” was. Was it the size we’ve seen on TV? Was it bigger? Whatever the case, it had to be portable. It doesn’t seem likely that Israel had carts in their travels, so that rules out anything really large. And really the Bible doesn’t seem to mention anything on the point of carts. It’s unlikely since they certainly left Egypt in a hurry. So maybe something small enough that it could be carried in the Ark, or in a manner like the Ark.
Such an important piece of equipment as the manna machine would have likely had instructions for transport in the actual Bible. The tabernacle and Ark of the Covenant did, but nowhere in the Bible can the manna machine or instructions for carrying it be found. Perhaps Sassoon and Dale have exact measurements in their book.
At any rate, the manna machine had to be easily portable. Which means small enough for a person or several persons to carry. Even if it were large enough to need a cart to hold massive quantities of algae, its production capacity would need to be fast as well. Thinking about it logically, it’s difficult to see how enough algae could be made to feed more than 600,000 – 2 million Israelites enough manna for 3 meals a day for 40 years.
600,000 – 2,000,000?
The book of Numbers in the Bible gives a count of about 600,000 if you total up the people counted from each tribe. That excludes women, children and any gentiles who were lucky enough to tag along. The 2 million number comes when you add in women and children, though admittedly that’s probably a rough estimate.
Even being large enough for a cart and running continuously which is a stretch due to the traveling, making enough algae, especially in a dry climate for that many people to eat would take a lot of time. Never mind the fact that the day before the Sabbath they had to get a double amount.
A quick illustration. I have a 45 pint (maybe 5 + gallons) dehumidifier in my basement. It runs almost 24/7, and in the summer when it’s wetter, the humidity is anywhere from 75 – 90% and it takes maybe 8 – 12 hours to fill it up. Now knowing this, imagine trying to pull enough moisture to grow algae for 600K – 2 million people from desert air that at the moment is at about 20% humidity. Imagine also that this machine can fit in the Ark of the Covenant which is not especially large, suggesting that any storage tanks for algae and water would be smaller yet.
If you really sit and think about it, this just does not seem feasible.
Without more information such as the amount of algae produced and the amount of food needed by a traveling group of 2 million, it falls into absurdity to believe that a manna machine fed all of Israel for a single meal let alone 40 years.
Manna in the Bible
With moisture and production levels being the key evidence against the manna machine. And technical data gleaned from the tortured text of a commentary written probably thousands of years after the events happened and were recorded, it probably bears mentioning what the Bible says about the claims regarding the manna machine.
Or more specifically, what the Bible says about manna quite strongly refutes the need for and use of a manna machine.
First, manna is simply “what is it?”, so-called because they didn’t know what it was exactly. Presumably the Israelites would have seen algae in Egypt near the river Nile or another body of water. Microcoleus streenstrupii, an algae native to Egypt, is being eyed to clean up toxic spills. Someone who’s seen algae is not liable to say “what is it?”.
Second, manna never came out of a machine or phallic dispenser, rather they found it on the ground after the dew lifted. Exodus 16:13 – 14 describes the manna as “a small, round thing” found on the ground. Verses 16 – 18, the people are instructed to gather the manna in a certain quantity. Those who gathered more or gathered less, had just enough no matter how much they grabbed. If a machine had emitted it, it would not have left it all over the ground of the camp, rather Sassoon and Dale make a huge point that it came from some sort of phallic spigot. It would also have been impossible for the machine to have measured out the prescribed quantity of manna and have that be exactly the right amount for each person no matter how much they took. Even if a machine could provide it, this portion control would not be very believable.
Verse 21 indicates that the manna melted in the sun. Algae does not melt in the sun, in fact with enough water (there it is again) algae will grow in the sun, because it is a plant. Even if it was processed or roasted in some fashion, it would not dissolve in sunlight.
Back to verses 19 – 20, Moses warns not to store manna up, those who did found that it stank and had worms. Except on the Sabbath, verse 22 tells us the Israelites were to store up a double portion for the Sabbath. And when they did (v 24), no worms ate it and it didn’t stink. It’s doubtful the manna machine would have made two kinds of algae manna, one that would attract worms and one that would not. There’s no way around it. If a machine made manna, the manna would either attract worms or not. Manna from the machine wouldn’t attract worms one day, but not the next. Unless worms just don’t work on the Sabbath either.
The manna machine would presumably have produced a liquid algae or some sort of paste perhaps. Sassoon and Dale speculate that roasting it in the form of a wafer would have given it a honey flavor. That’s pure speculation. Seaweed, a form of algae, is delicious when roasted, but it does not taste like honey wafers. It’s doubtful other algae would either. The Bible describes manna further in verse 31 as like coriander seed and white, it also tasted like honey wafers. Numbers 11:6 – 7 corroborates the description, but adds the color was like bdellium, which Strong’s H916 describes as a gum resin or pearl-like. Quite a far from the green of algae.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, Arthur C. Clarke’s theory of technology being like magic just does not work with the manna in the Exodus of Israel. In putting the manna machine forth, Sassoon and Dale used a dubious source to start with. They then took some liberties with the translation of the text(s). To make matters worse, they suggested that the manna machine drew moisture in from dry desert air, and from that desert air grew enough algae to feed 600,000 to 2,000,000 thrice , with a double portion on Sabbath, for forty years. In short, the theory of the manna machine just doesn’t hold any water. Like every other “aliens in the Bible” claim, it takes more faith to believe the alien involvement than it does to believe what the Bible says.
But that’s the whole point of the ancient astronaut theory, to discredit the Bible and put aliens in the place of an infinite God who had no problem feeding all those people for 40 years.
FILE ORIGINALE : http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/manna-machine-debunked/
FILE TRADOTTO : https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=812075295533011&set=a.324072957666583.75822.100001916443683&type=3&theater
ARMANDO SPEDICATO NEWS 