... on Astronomy and a Geocentric answer on the Wobble, or Supposed Dance of Stars Problem & debate

1) ... on Astronomy and a Geocentric answer on the Wobble, or Supposed Dance of Stars Problem & debate, 2) ... on Tower of Babel, Limited Universe, Geocentrism and Seasons

My original article

The problem is described like this one Liberapedia:

There's yet another reason why modern geocentrism goes against science. There is a slight wobble in the earth's rotation. The earth speeds up and slows down its rotation a little and the point of the earth's axis changes just a bit too.

• 1) Heliocentrists have no difficulty explaining this wobble, the earth moves.
  
  
• 2)Geocentrists have to imagine that the stars and galaxies all wobble together while the earth stays still. Each wobble started at a different time so the light from these different objects reaches us at the same time giving the appearance of synchrony.
  
  
  • 1) A star 9 Light years away wobbled 9 years ago,
  • 2) Stars 600 Light years away wobbled 600 years ago,
  • 3) Galaxies 6 billion Light years away wobbled 6 billion years ago. Galaxies that are very far away wobbled before the Solar system formed.
  • 4) The light from all these wobbles that really happened at different times reaches us at exactly the same time so there's the illusion that the whole universe wobbles in synchrony.

Is all the wobbling in the whole universe centred round earth plausible? Consider Occam's razor. Isn't the simpler assumption that the earth wobbles?

http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Geocentric_theory

But there are two solutions possible.

• Wobble being actually observed is an urban legend. The quote gave no reference for its observation. Predicting it is no problem for a Newtonian Heliocentric.
  
  
• Wobble is a dance in the stars, but this dance is actually less complex than assumed here, since stars are at a common, little varied distance, and much closer than light years. Its "mechanics" are due to Angelic Movers.

Anonymous

For references, see the Wikipedia article on Chandler wobble.

The variation, as interpretated as a motion of the stars, is coordinated by stars in different directions from the Earth, for example stars near the North Pole and those near the South Pole change their dances simultaneously. The northern stars are at great distances from the southern stars, even if all stars are at the same distance from Earth. We have space probes which are known to be, by the time it takes radio transmission to reach Earth at significant fraction of a light-day, and thus we know that the stars must be quite a bit farther than that. Thus northern stars are significant distances from southern stars, and the coordination of their "dances" is something requiring explanation.

Aside from that, to expect that all the stars are at about the same distance from Earth requires that we totally misunderstand their nature. Sirius, for example, being about the same distance as stars which are so dim that they cannot be seen without powerful telescopes is to demand that they are totally different things, producing light by who knows what different mechanisms.

Me

No, not quite.

Only that they have a totally different origin.

Creation.

And coming in very different sizes.

However, you suppose they produce light and heat by fusion.

Saying a star is only a few miles across does not make fusion impossible (if it did you are wasting money at CERN), it only means the fusion cannot have started by self ignition after reaching a critical mass which OF COURSE must be greater than that of Jupiter.

Since, if the fusion started by self ignition, if a certain required mass of a body produces self ignition, either Jupiter is smaller than that mass, which is basically what you are saying, and that is why it didn't self ignite, or Jupiter is larger than it and would in such a case have self ignited.

My saying there are stars smaller than Jupiter simply means self ignition was not how stars started to shine. It does not rule out fusion as an angoing process.

Also, there is a question of time here, the smaller a body in fusion, the faster it must burn out. Well, 7200 years is a very much shorter time than millions or billions of years. Plus hydrogen can have been thicker between the stars at the beginning. Plus in a small universe, the redding that is due to interstellar matter (not redshift, which shifts all spectrum, but a cutting off of the bluest parts of it, a distinct thing) would need to be from a denser interstellar matter.

To produce the redding as observed, you either need light passing through a longer distance of less dense or a shorter distance through denser matter.

Coordinating the dance is no problem. I think angels are good dancers (if I may say so) with a very good choreographer, called God.

Anonymous

You claim that "the smaller a body in fusion, the faster it must burn it". That claim is in disagreement with mainstream astrophysics - bigger (more massive) stars burn their fuel faster.

You also claim that fusion can be maintained in a body smaller than a star (as understood by mainstream astrophysics). But if the centre of such of a body was hot and dense enough for fusion the pressure would be too great for gravitational confinement to word, so it would expand and become cooler and less dense and the fusion reaction would cease.

Me

By "faster" I did not refer to speed, but to absolute time frame. And I was referring to stars a few miles across having much less matter than modern models about Sirius. Beyond a certain difference of size, this matters more than speed.

As to fusion, I was not saying the confinement was gravitational, as in the case of CERN we know it is not.

As a Creationist, I am nowise bound to limiting the structures of stars to only what could arise from lifeless and mindless physical processes.

Also, I am not absolutely bound to accept the current theories about what stars are are correct. It's not as if we'd been inside one and looked (the space probes looking closest at sun are obviously outside it).

[I am not so much referring to Hadron colliders and attempts of modelling Big Bang like conditions, I am referring to experiments in nuclear fusion.]

Anonymous

We agree, then, that to accept the fixity of Earth, that one must find practically everything in astronomy is wrong, and that there are spiritual beings which are up to doing practically everything to make things look as if the Earth is moving, in such a way that we poor mortals cannot tell the difference.

The angels could be forming images in telescopes, could be intercepting radio transmissions from space probes, and ... well, you tell us, what more to they do to make us think that Earth is in motion?

Me

I agreed one had to accept some things in astrophysics are wrong.

I certainly agree there are angels and I do certainly NOT agree all they are doing is make it "look as if the earth is moving".

Not to common mortals without a telescope. And to those that have good such, they have done some counter indications - like negative parallax.

See Tycho Main catalogue, which has negative parallaxes to the range of -900 micro-arch seconds and beyond.

Not surprisingly Heliocentrics have disqualified the observations as not correct parallaxes.

Well these *not* correct parallaxes have been "measured" as much as any parallaxes by very good equipment very well placed.

"The angels could be forming images in telescopes"

Could, but I don't think God would usually let them. And the devils are not allowed that high up.

"could be intercepting radio transmissions from space probes"

Actually the radio transmissions from space probes seem to be very well hidden by Heliocentrics. See the article on zig zag.

"what more to they do to make us think that Earth is in motion"

Nothing. It's astronomers who do INTERPRETING to make THEMSELVES (not all of us common mortals, they cannot reach all of us) think that. At the limit, allowing "aberration" and "parallax" to be observed through telescopes could have been a practical joke on astronomers. BUT, with negative parallax, they have alreade signalled "April fools" to that community, which however is not getting it.

Oh, the Heliocentric majority of astronomers, of course. Who are a very tiny minority of mankind, and the angels are doing nothing to make ordinary mankind (except those trusting Heliocentric astronomers) conclude anything about Earth moving.

See articles on Parallactic zig zag of space missions? and Negative Parallax - a Problem for Heliocentrism

Anonymous

To try to keep this focussed on the topic of the wobble of the apparent motions of the stars.

We can agree that stars, even if they are all at the same distance from Earth, are at substantial distance (at least light-days) from each other. Their apparent motions are coordinated in such a way that astronomers can interpret them as being the result of changes in the rotation of Earth. Remember that we are talking about appearances of thousands of naked-eye stars (and millions or billions of telescopic objects). And the coordination of these observations is predictable - we predict that if the apparent change in star A changes, so will the same will happen at the same time to star B, star C, ... according to the heliocentric model. To borrow language from the "Intelligent Design" folks, this is complex and specified ("specified" in the sense that it is predictable), and therefore is either (1) random or (2) due to a regularity of nature or (3) the result of a design beyond nature.

You seem to suggest that angels are doing this. To me, that suggests that angels are designing things that imitate rotation of Earth. It is a "design inference". You say that it does not indicate that it is by design, but just a massive ongoing coincidence, needing no explanation.

Me

To try to keep this focussed on the topic of the wobble of the apparent motions of the stars.

I refuse to focus out other "apparent" motions. Like such as would render Heliocentric model dubious, if taken seriously (negative parallax).

We can agree that stars, even if they are all at the same distance from Earth, are at substantial distance (at least light-days) from each other.

If my guess is right that stars are one or two light days away from us, they are of course much closer than that to each other. One light day away = Adam and Eve could see the light created on day four on the first evening of their life. Two light days away, sorry reverse, two light days away it's just Adam and Eve, but one light day away the birds created on day five could also enjoy them from start.

Their apparent motions are coordinated in such a way that astronomers can interpret them as being the result of changes in the rotation of Earth. Remember that we are talking about appearances of thousands of naked-eye stars (and millions or billions of telescopic objects).

Operative word : can. Before this was predicted and sighted, astronomers had already decided they were going to. They had basically "grown out of" even considering Geocentrism with angelic movers, which was standard in the days of Riccioli (for it) and Newton (who was against it).

And the coordination of these observations is predictable - we predict that if the apparent change in star A changes, so will the same will happen at the same time to star B, star C, ... according to the heliocentric model. To borrow language from the "Intelligent Design" folks, this is complex and specified ("specified" in the sense that it is predictable), and therefore is either (1) random or (2) due to a regularity of nature or (3) the result of a design beyond nature.

If you know the dances of European folklore, dance moves tend to be predictable. Very good dancers seen at a distance (not so close you could see their faces or fingers, of course) would look very similar to robots programmed for the dance.

At enough distance, indistinguishable.

I opt for option 3, a design - choreographic such - beyond the nature of stars and angels, and through the will of these, obedient to their maker and chroreographer.

You seem to suggest that angels are doing this.

Not only "seem to suggest" - if you click at category celestial mechanics, you will find Angelic movers. I am saying it very explicitly.

To me, that suggests that angels are designing things that imitate rotation of Earth.

Are following a design of things, that in fact can be seen as imitating it.

It is a "design inference". You say that it does not indicate that it is by design, but just a massive ongoing coincidence, needing no explanation.

Not so.

My explanation is double. Remember now, the times when planets (including sun and moon) block some object of the zodiak are ALSO designed. But they are not designed FOR the convenience of astrologers making horoscopes, at least not generally for every man. Of course, once over Bethlehem they were strictly designed to guide mages, i e astrologers (at least for this occasion) to Our Lord.

If an astrologer chooses to see a pattern he was not meant to interpret as a horoscope and interprets it as a horoscope, it is his fault.

And if a heliocentric astronomer chooses to see a pattern he was not meant to interpret as a wobble of earth, it is his fault.

In the one case for ignoring how Jacob and Esau (and so many others born same day and even hour same maternity) had same horoscope but very different fates and and characters. In the other case for taking one of two attitudes to angelic movers:

• "they don't exist"
• "if they do it and Earth isn't moving, it's their fault".

They have given a corrective by showing negative parallax in the best measurements yet, and astronomers react by calling these "incorrect parallaxes".

One could just as well say, they are trying to tell astronomers they are alive and intelligent by different dance moves and failing all the time, because astronomers always have a newq mechanistic aspect to discover.

"The International Latitude Observatories were established in 1899 to measure the wobble; incidentally, the wobble is also called the variation of latitude. These provided data on the Chandler and annual wobble for most of the 20th century, though they were eventually superseded by other methods of measurement. Monitoring of the polar motion is now done by the International Earth Rotation Service.

The wobble's amplitude has varied since its discovery, reaching its largest size in 1910 and fluctuating noticeably from one decade to another."

In other words, the wobble has not any more than the other things exactly lived up to mechanistic explanations, but given astronomers surprises.

And when we speak about celestial mechanics. How about looking at the page here:

Is Newtonian Physics a Sufficient Explanation for Celestial Mechanics?

The wobble seems to accentuate the problem.

Anonymous

I am replying to your request for what we heliocentrists are talking about with regards to the coordination of the wobble of the stars.

Once again, what we are saying is that the apparent motions of the stars (and this includes Solar System bodies and interplanetary rockets and, for that matter, GPS satellites) vary in such a way that the light reaches Earth in a coordinated way. For example, the light from Polaris and the light from Sirius and the light from Neptune and the light from Voyager 1 varies in their direction at the time that they are observed on Earth just as if the Earth were varying in rotation. Even though the various bodies are at great distances from one another, and at great distances from Earth. You seem to think that the distances are "only" a matter of light-days when we are speaking of stars. I'm not going to get sidetracked on that, but only note that that is still far enough to make the effect striking: Polaris makes a wobble at least a day or so earlier than Voyager 1 makes its coordinated wobble. The same is true of Sirius and Voyager 1. Polaris and Sirius are at least a day or so distant from one another and they make the coordinated wobble at the same time (assuming that they are equal distance from Earth). This happens for thousands of stars and Solar System objects. So much so, that astronomers point their telescopes according to the effect. The coordination is a predicable effect, for thousands of objects as an everyday observation.

You say that the angels are capable of doing anything with the stars. I'm not going to bother asking you why angels would be concerned with such behavior, because, of course, angels are beyond our comprehension. But angels should know that humans will see what is going on and be led to suspect that it is the result of the Earth's motion. These angels are behaving like Puck, playing games with these fools which we mortals be. But I am not to question their motives. These angels who are up to making dances with stars, are surely able to - oh, say, making it look like there are people who are typing stuff on the net.

But if you thiink that the wobble is something worth explaining, then invoking angels who are capable of dancing with the stars without limitations - well, then what are they not going to do next?

To return to the question to which I was responding, I think that I have made it clear what we heliocentrists are saying. The wobble of the stars has the appearance of the motion of the Earth. And no other explanation is known, short of "anthing is possible".

Me

"I am replying to your request for what we heliocentrists are talking about with regards to the coordination of the wobble of the stars."

No, I was NOT requesting you what Heliocentrics are talking about.

I was requesting you when and where this has been observed.

I actually found the answer myself. [After his indicating the wiki article.]

I also replied to the argument.

As for angels acting like Puck, that is NOT the case with normal mortals, who have no telescopes. It is NOT the case with astronomers or philosophers who, aware of wobble can imagine it is caused by them. It is ONLY the case with heliocentric and an-angelic astronomers, who decided for error even before looking.

God (and therefore His angels) have a perfect right to "act like Puck" towards these.

The question what they will do next is a bit moot. A bit before the world ends, "stars will fall from Heaven" - whether this is literal or refers to UFOs (literally about how it looks) or allegorical about bishops, I don't know. But apart from that event, they can normally be reckoned on as continuing their dance as usual, with the usual steps.

Unless you count things like a rumour of Moon turning 90° during one particular night (the end times researchers were not able to contact the observatories) or things like the Smiley caught in Hubble as them crying out "April fools" to you.

Like the not so bright idea of using very abstruse observations in flouting of very open and commonplacce observations, like Earth being still below our feet while Heavens turn each day and night around us.

Your point of objects at very different distances was also nearly answered.

The "wobble" is longer than a year.

The distances that I must admit are different are within lighthours or less, except for stars which I consider to be one light day away. Now, if stars had been distant at very different light years from us, like 4 for alpha Centauri or 800 for Rigel, you would have had a point.

For how I reason about this, see this article: Whether Parallax be Valid as a Distance Measure

Anonymous

It is obvious that your only reply is that whatever anyone sees is irrelevant, for supernatural agencies can do whatever they want. It is pointless to discuss this, for whatever you want to believe can be done by supernatural agencies and there is no questioning about what they do, when or where, how or why.

The only remaining puzzle for me is why you pretend to be interested in what anyone has to say, for you know that you have constructed a view of the world which is immune to any discussion.

Me

It is of course obvious I count on supernatural agencies being able to do what I think they are able to do.

It is equally obvious, you are more like allergic than just immune to that kind of explanation.

However, I was genuinely interested in what you would have had to say on "light from Voyager 1".

I am especially interested in whether it has really been observed.

Or for that matter, whether stars seen from Voyager 1 are observed with sufficient accuracy to detect a wobble, if it is really in the stars.

I actually think neither is the case, but if you had given a good source, I would have had to reconsider wobble as being a dance in individual stars performed by their angels, I would have had to consider it a part of the movement of the aether, like the daily rotation.

This is not "immune to any discussion", it is only immune to atheistic and anangelic limitations on what explanations I can accept. Just as a discussion of history is immune to arguments like "resurrection can't have happened, because it would be a miracle, and miracles don't happen".

But if your ONLY argument is contesting for various reasons the angelic explanation of stellar movements, well, my world view is certainly immune to THAT. And I am happy to have shown that you had nothing more than that to offer.

But if you have ANY really good source about Voyager 1 in this context, welcome back, and I'll reconsider wobble as possibly rather made by God's moving the aether.

Anonymous

As far as "light from Voyager 1", I was referring to the observed delay of radio transmissions from interplanetary probes. You can read about an example of that in the recent news stories about New Horizons. This is only one of several signs that you need to read a bit about astronomy before attempting to discuss geocentrism. The available literature is vast, and maybe you should ask your local librarian about some books which are appropriate to your level.

If you care to "explain" whatever happens by saying that agency which is apt to do anything could do it, feel free. Angels could be making messages which you see on your computer screen, and there is no human who is sending them. Maybe I don't exist, but this is just a way of testing your faith by angels.

Me

"I was referring to the observed delay of radio transmissions from interplanetary probes. You can read about an example of that in the recent news stories about New Horizons."

Link to those stories, please?

"This is only one of several signs that you need to read a bit about astronomy before attempting to discuss geocentrism."

I did. That is how I became a Geocentric.

The greatest proper movement exceeds the greatest parallax, and therefore parallax is NOT sth about fixed stars being really and truly fixed, and therefore NOT necessarily about observer moving.

And DO please click reply button so discussion can be read from top to bottom instead of just highlighting your latest idea!

" Angels could be making messages which you see on your computer screen, and there is no human who is sending them."

It is correct this is within their capability. But in what situation could they morally do so?

Let's suppose a blogger had died, and God asked angels to publish his last post with the news of his death, they could do it.

Demons could do other things than moral ones, but are for now not allowed to.

"Maybe I don't exist, but this is just a way of testing your faith by angels"

I never said ANYTHING about ANY deception being worked by angels or by God or otherwise to test our faith, except at a very low level.

During Flood, God may have allowed devils to pile microfossils along with the larger fossils and in layers the larger fossils don't come in, so as to test our faith. But before resorting to that, I would like to be sure the microfossils were so unanimously assorted along with vertebrate fossils assigned to diverse periods as he claimed they were.

Sorry for not answering that before, but I made the previous answer tonight in a cyber.

... on Russian Revolution

Video quote:

50:15 "in their totalitarian aspirations, Sauron and Saruman bear a startling resemblance to Hitler and Mussolini"

Hans Georg Lundahl

Well, what about Lenin, Trotski, Stalin?

Or even more, the Pharaos or Sennacherib III?

THAT is totalitarian. Even Lenin and Stalin tried to give some resemblance to freedoms, though very unequally between Christians and Jews, in disfavour or Christians in the one case and in disfavour of both (except briefly Christians) in the other.

But to call Mussolini totalitarian, while he started off rescuing Italy from a Lenin-like totalitarianism and only slowly degenerated into a very shadowy resemblance of what he had started fighting - he's more comparable to Denethor. And to Denethor's failure, when he fails.

Tripserpentine

+Hans-Georg Lundahl No, stop your capitalistic propaganda, Stalin yes, Trotski and Lenin were not dictators or totalitarian. I think you'd could set any US president as Saruman, started of with the right ideas but in the end corrupted by power and busy destroying the world.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Trotski not totalitarian?

Massive killings of priests not totalitarian?

Lenin not totalitarian? Forcing ALL to school among chioldren and populace, but forcing away ALL monks and priests from teaching positions, somehow that is not totalitarrian?

Stealing land and forcing all (both landless and former land owners) to collective farms (and Stalin for some time ameliorated this by NEP) is in your book NOT totalitarian?

Well, I think it is.

That said, I am not a fan of most US Presidents, Ronald Reagan excepted.

Tripserpentine

+Hans-Georg Lundahl the clergy and nobility were the totalitarians in those days Lenin and Trotsky freed the people from the serfdom they were in, saved the poor farmers (as 90 percent of the populace was) from dying from hunger and extortion by their rulers.

the land they stole, was land from nobility who were keeping the populace enslaved.

Eastern Europe never really came out of feudalism until Lenin and Trotsky toppled the Czars, Clergy and Nobility.

The Priest and monks you talk about are mostly from Nobel and Rich Blood, Divine Rulers with power and force.

Ever heard of absolutism, the ultimate way of totalitarianism but with a medieval flavor. because that is the system Lenin saved the people from.

so you could say Lenin is Like Gandalf in freeing Edoras from Sarumans influence. and deposing/breaking the power of Saruman from Isengard and returning it to the people (in this case the Ents and the Forrest).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"the clergy and nobility were the totalitarians in those days"

Not agreed.

They were the rulers, but less totalitarian, i e interfering less with the lives of people, than Communism has done after them.

"Lenin and Trotsky freed the people from the serfdom they were in"

Not agreed, Czar Nicolas had abolished serfdom.

"saved the poor farmers (as 90 percent of the populace was) from dying from hunger and extortion by their rulers."

Not likely that was the situation all over Russia prior to revolution, it is possible it was so inn localities, in East Ukraine (back then Russian) Makhnov may have had some such excuse.

The Green Army - i e the farmer's army - in practise divided by joining three different armies. White = Czarist. Red = Trotski. Black = Makhnov.

Then Makhnov (black) helped Trotski (red) to eliminate the army of Denikin (white, Czarist). As thanks for that help, Trotski then eliminated Makhnov.

"In the aftermath of the defeat of the White Army (Volunteer Army) in the region in November 1920, the Bolsheviks initiated a military campaign against Makhno, which concluded with his escape across the Romanian border in August 1921."

Wickipeejuh : Nestor Makhno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno

Note, not just reds, but ALL FOUR were eliminating starvation among farmers.

Denikin was a Czarist, but one who knew what had malfunctioned and put people off under the late Czar.

So Red Army beats the White Army that was helping farmers, and the parts of Green Army who had gone White Army, then beats the Black Army that was helping farmers, and the parts of Green Army that had joined Black Army, then takes sole credit for helping farmers. No, Lenin was not a Gandalf. Edoras was as much of a monarchy as Denikinchinska (the territories under Denikin).

"the land they stole, was land from nobility who were keeping the populace enslaved."

No longer serfs, no, Czar Nicolas had abolished that.

They ALSO stole land from free individual enterprise farmers (Kulaks), which there were since the Czar had abolished serfdom.

"Eastern Europe never really came out of feudalism until Lenin and Trotsky toppled the Czars, Clergy and Nobility."

Never came out of feudalism - what do you mean by feudalism?

Gondor was feudalist.

Perhaps you mean manorial, as in large landowners keeping most as serfs. Well, the manorial system was varied, and I think most of Eastern Europe it was tolerable. West Ukraine never took Makhnov's stance against landowners - probably because West Ukraine was freer than East Ukraine, or better off materially or both.

"The Priest and monks you talk about are mostly from Nobel and Rich Blood, Divine Rulers with power and force."

Mostly?

So you mean young Stalin was very atypical:

"His father was Besarion Jughashvili, a cobbler, while his mother was Ketevan Geladze, a housemaid. As a child, Ioseb was plagued with numerous health issues. He was born with two adjoined toes on his left foot.[13] His face was permanently scarred by smallpox at the age of 7. At age 12, he injured his left arm in an accident involving a horse-drawn carriage, rendering it shorter and stiffer than its counterpart."

"Ioseb's father slid into alcoholism, which made him abusive to his family and caused his business to fail. When Ioseb's mother enrolled him into a Greek Orthodox priesthood school against her husband's wishes, Ioseb's enraged father went on a drunken rampage. He was banished from Gori after assaulting the police chief. Besarion moved to Tiflis, leaving his wife and son behind in Gori."

"When Ioseb was sixteen, he received a scholarship to attend the Tiflis Spiritual Seminary, the leading Russian Orthodox seminary in Tiflis; the language of instruction was Russian. Despite being trained as a priest, he became an atheist in his first year."

Wickipeejuh : Joseph Stalin : Early life
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Early_life

Giuseppe Sarto was also from modest background, his father a postman and his mother a seamstress. He became Pope of Rome and a Saint (not necessarily in that order) and was beatified and canonised as a saint too.

Pius X is his Papal name, and now we speak of Saint Pius X.

Noble? No.

"Ever heard of absolutism, the ultimate way of totalitarianism but with a medieval flavor. because that is the system Lenin saved the people from."

Absolute monarchy, for one thing is not Medieval, but Early Modern (late 15th to 17th C., though first stages were in fact still Middle Ages), for another thing is not same thing as totalitarianism.

Absolutism is against "freedom of vote" and participation by vote in central power.

There was more voting in the Middle Ages than under Louis XIV.

Totalitarianism is against personal and religious and family freedoms.

And that is what Lenin foisted on people.

No, the old élites were not so Modernist as Saruman in his speech to Gandalf, the one related at start of The Two Towers, if I recall correctly. The new élites are, the ones that in Russia Lenin put into power.

Tripserpentine

+Hans-Georg Lundahl It was not the will of Lenin that Stalin and such took power and control.

and yes a large portion of the Czardom lived under bad circumstances and it is true the Communists improved the living standard, something people tend to disregard.

And of course for a revolution or change of system their are going to be victims, no revolution ever has gone without.

It is speculated that the reason why socialism became and is still very popular in Eastern Europe because of the fact western Europe in the 17th and 18th century became far more mercantile and thus creating a middle income group outgrowing the nobility and creating a new individualistic way of thinking. In West Europe suddenly the common farmer who struck gold could get governmental positions, Church positions and the same rights as some nobles.

In eastern Europe (Polish-Lithuania, ((east) Prussia and Russia) were no major law changes and a lot less to no rights for the common man, power stayed in control of the divine few by bloodline. (same goes for the Russian Orthodox Church)

and then back to the Russian revolution with influences of freedom in the west of Europe and loads of other revolution and after years of being extorted by most of the landlords the Russian people together with the marines went to get ''bread'' and a talk with the Czar, the Czar send in the military to gun down the civilians. Thus giving the people all they needed to grab the flag of freedom for the people (as communism in essence wants to be).

For Russians Lenin was a savior from the Evil Czars and dukes and bishops owning everything and not giving enough.

Without this man everything would've fallen into chaos and despair. Someone needs to rule the masses.

Stalin is sadly seen as hero for some, i consider him a fool who raped communism.

only good thing about him is he kept Capitalism from taking over all the world.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It was not the will of Lenin that Stalin and such took power and control."

That does not change the facts about the Czarist Russia in which Stalin grew up.

Being a priest or a monk did NOT depend on being a noble.

Also, it does NOT change the fact that Stalin's brief experiment in NEP was momentarily better than what Lenin had done. I regret that Stalin reverted to the Lenin model, which Tito did not. Yugoslavian Communism, was economically speaking NEP, not Leninism, and that was what was good about it.

Also, it does NOT change the fact that Lenin took control of matters that needed none, like introducing compulsory school. And that one, on top of it, with monks and priests and nuns expelled from teaching positions.

"and yes a large portion of the Czardom lived under bad circumstances and it is true the Communists improved the living standard, something people tend to disregard."

Partly by doing what was already done under Czars. Partly by robbing Ukraine of the food it produced and killing off millions of Ukraineans. And this was because part of the better living standard was due to spoils immediately on revolution, when these were spent, they were poorer again, which happened under Stalin.

"And of course for a revolution or change of system their are going to be victims, no revolution ever has gone without."

The problem is first of all, if so, why revolutionise? And second, the number of innocent victims. I can live with a revolt making victims among the guilty, as Franco's did, making victims among Communist anticlericals.

"It is speculated that the reason why socialism became and is still very popular in Eastern Europe because of the fact western Europe in the 17th and 18th century became far more mercantile and thus creating a middle income group outgrowing the nobility and creating a new individualistic way of thinking. In West Europe suddenly the common farmer who struck gold could get governmental positions, Church positions and the same rights as some nobles."

Actually false, commoners could climb into both high clergy and nobility very much earlier than 17th and 18th Centuries. Or perhaps you refer to doing so without leaving bourgeoisie, there you have a point, but the bourgeoisie was well off in Western European countries like France, England, at least North Germanies (while South Germanies might have been more of a farmers' and miners' paradise).

Though the higher Church positions were reserved for men showing certain virtues and these being akin to the military ones of nobility, a commoner who had the same could get upwards in the Church. Not denying most Popes before St Pius X and after year 900 or earlier were nobles, but it was not a theoretical requirement.

"In eastern Europe (Polish-Lithuania, ((east) Prussia and Russia) were no major law changes and a lot less to no rights for the common man, power stayed in control of the divine few by bloodline. (same goes for the Russian Orthodox Church)"

[I found his blunder about East Prussia too unimportant for subject of Russian Revolution, perhaps I was wrong. East Prussia, West Prussia, Brandenburg, other possessions of Prussian kingdom had same laws and same law changes. These being in the general way "progressive" as one thought was one reason Prussia became a popular - in certain circles - alternative to traditional Bavarian or Austrian laws and powers within the German "Bund". Very possibly, what upset peasants in Russia was not only, perhaps not even as much, their actual situation, but comparison to those in Prussia. Especially as the situation of those driven off the land by its modernisation was left out of the picture among Prussophiles.]

False, as for Church I gave you example of Stalin's background.

There were law changes, and in Lithuania the system that was used in Medieval Manors in Western Europe, the open field system, which was dividing each field into strips, was INTRODUCED during the 18th C. by an Enlightenment Reformer.

In Russia, but not Ukraine, freedoms were being curbed extremely due to the Tatar influence. In Medieval Russia a farmer was relatively freer than in Medieval France. By 1800 or even 1700 the roles were very much reversed. Law changes HAVE turned things to the worse, and Lenin was doing so again.

"and then back to the Russian revolution with influences of freedom in the west of Europe and loads of other revolution and after years of being extorted by most of the landlords the Russian people together with the marines went to get ''bread'' and a talk with the Czar, the Czar send in the military to gun down the civilians."

You are speaking about the Black Sunday. As far as I have heard, it was not the Czar who gave orders to shoot. [Or, if he did, he had been misinformed.]

"For Russians Lenin was a savior from the Evil Czars and dukes and bishops owning everything and not giving enough."

Or good or half decent Czars and Bishops giving enough, while some of the Boyars were indeed bad - but these came to control the Revolution and the Cheka. Okhrana, you know.

"Without this man everything would've fallen into chaos and despair. Someone needs to rule the masses."

Well, that is the general argument for any monarchy, including monarchy by Divine Right. Without Czar Nicolas II, everything FELL into chaos and despair, and Lenin and Trotski made it worse.

Tripserpentine

+Hans-Georg Lundahl dude, history is not a simple process as the 10 years before the revolution. i was talking about a process that takes hundreds of years for a system and mindset to develop.

Besides the fact did you know the Czars were the wealthiest of monarchies in Europe at their fall. And the people were the poorest.

Lenin and Trotsky made it better for the common man. The Czars were terrible for the masses(except Catherina and Pjotr the great). on average the masses got better living standards after the revolution.

(it was a revolution from the people, not from anyone else, the people took down their leaders and replaced them with people they chose themselves)

Stalin made it worse no arguments there mate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not your mate, since you're a Commie.

Czars were wealthiest, perhaps, unless British Crown was, because vastness of Empire.

People were poorest especially in the Russian parts of Russia (not in West Ukraine, Poland, not in the Baltic or in Finland), because of an attitude of forced collaboration and getting ruled, which Lenin and Trotski made worse, which Nicolas II and for a brief moment Stalin were making better. By introducing Kulaks.

Now, killing Kulaks may or may not have improved conditions for those farm workers who never were Kulaks, but it did not improve living conditions for the Kulaks. Same thing with forcing them off their land or with keeping them on it only if they agree to be team members of a Sovkhos or Kolkhos.

Whether it improved living conditions for the rest or not, it was not morally right to do it that way.

Former Kulaks, as well as devout Christians, were simply being persecuted, sometimes singled out for worse treatment than everyone else, while the pretence was "all are equal".

This is NOT what I call improving living conditions. And for the record, not even for those agreeing to become Atheists, since they were loosing the very meaning of human life, the chance of getting to Paradise. Also, they were giving in to bullies, which is NOT my definition of improved living conditions, whatever the material gains.

Tripserpentine

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Romanov's were the Richest.

[Was I disuputing that?]

Second I'm not Communist I am a western schooled Historian.

You are being subjective and focused only on the negatives. For an objective view you must look at the bigger picture in an objective way.

Fact remains living standards for all the population grew after the chaos of the revolution. But remained in the hand of a small group of powerful/influential persons, this is so because the eastern European culture is like this because of their long history of peoples serving under a few nobles.

About your religious squabbling[sic!], officially it was illegal to practice but many in the USSR remained religious and still are. ever been there? I have.

Learn your broader History and stop being subjective and look at the facts.

(and who are Westerners to talk about freedom anyway, we've got an oligarchic system with rich corporations making law not the people, Indirect democracy is not a direct democracy).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A Western schooled historian?

My History and English teacher in IB Preparatory year, a Welshman, was that too, and he was a Marxist.

Not a far cry from Communist.

"About your religious squabbling, officially it was illegal to practice but many in the USSR remained religious and still are."

Yes, persecutions are not always successful.

Also, posing as an Atheist, while being Christian at heart, is not legal in Heaven. [Matthew 10:32,33]

It was most active in open bloodshed during Lenin and Trotski era. The persecution, that is.

"But remained in the hand of a small group of powerful/influential persons, this is so because the eastern European culture is like this because of their long history of peoples serving under a few nobles."

You are still missing out that exactly Enlightenment Period TIGHTENED the grip of nobles on commoners.

Swedish Baltic Provinces hardly ever had its peasantry as impoverished as East Ukraine, after Petr I took over, BUT, the Balt German nobility shifted sides in the war between him and Charles XII, precisely because Russia gave them MORE power over commoners than Sweden had done.

I studied in Lund, last full term halftime Polish and halftime Baltic History. My teacher (professor or whatever degree) was Estonian.

If this surprises you, think of how Voltaire thought of commoners.

Tripserpentine

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Karl Marx has as much to do with the Soviets as Jesus was the inspiration for the inquisition.

True under Peter thing became better, bet the later Czars were not as friendly and social. Ask yourself why would an entire people depose their ruler?

The big difference between east and west was always that in the west a random trader could become richer then the duke or king, and even could get the same governmental positions as the blue blooded lot. (this already as early as the 16th century.

This did not happen and was not possible in eastern Europe under the Czars, the power remained with the nobility and foremost the Czar.

and after a period of social revolutions the Russians were the last to follow.

It's called a social revolution because it was a revolution from the people for the people.

the people chose to follow Lenin and Trotsky. You know Stalin deposed of Trotsky because he was popular among the people because he did good. Why else was Stalin afraid of him. with Trotsky, Stalin could never have been the Dictator he became Or the Fallen Elf who became Sauron. (we must stay semi on topic).

But ask yourself why would Historians chose socialism as a viable option. The persons educated in historical facts tend to choose social democracy as the way to go why?

And nowadays much of our image of the Soviet Union is being adjusted, the negative way of portraying is being adjusted because of objective facts, no longer subjective to economical and political influences as countries like Cuba and Vietnam prove that communism most certainly is a viable and practical way to govern a country.

The debt crisis and many wars in the Western world is showing that Capitalism is not the good system as always thought it was.

My friend, always keep your eyes open to other opinions, it broadens your Horizon and Life. ( I am adjusting my opinion everyday)

On thing is for sure Tolkien was a great writer,

And i Think if we'd lived in Middle Earth we'd be fighting together to destroy the forces of Sauron. and later drink some pints of brandywine and smoke some Pipes.

A Elbereth Gilthoniel

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"True under Peter thing became better, bet the later Czars were not as friendly and social."

I never said it did.

The peasants in Estonia, Livonia and Curonia had been better off under Charles XII than under Peter.

That is why their overlords, the Balt German nobles, shifted loyalty to Peter and betrayed Charles XII.

"Ask yourself why would an entire people depose their ruler?"

• 1) Czar Nicolas was the social and friendly one;
  
  
• 2) he had been misrepresented by his palace guards in 1905, Black Sunday, who had shot at people without informing him or after misinforming him about event;
  
  
• 3) he was NOT deposed by all of his people, but by the Bolshevik tyrants, Lenin and Trotski.

"It's called a social revolution because it was a revolution from the people for the people. the people chose to follow Lenin and Trotsky. You know Stalin deposed of Trotsky because he was popular among the people because he did good. Why else was Stalin afraid of him. with Trotsky, Stalin could never have been the Dictator he became Or the Fallen Elf who became Sauron. (we must stay semi on topic)."

Stalin was as afraid of Lenin's abnd Trotski's poularity, as Lenin and Trotski had been of that of the Czar, Nicolas II.

With Czar Nicolas II, Lenin and Trotski could never have been the tyrants they became.

And Sauron was not "a fallen elf", but a fallen maia. Your Tolkien lore needs refreshing, if you are interested.

"My friend, always keep your eyes open to other opinions, it broadens your Horizon and Life. ( I am adjusting my opinion everyday)"

You have not been adjusting your opinions in this case.

I suppose Tolkien had got the same advice.

He did not follow it, fortunately.

"You couldn't influence Tolkien, you might as well try to influence a bandersnatch."

CSL on his friend.

"But ask yourself why would Historians chose socialism as a viable option. The persons educated in historical facts tend to choose social democracy as the way to go why?"

Because they have been trained by History Professors who were also Marxist.

Plus, it depends on what Historians.

The good things of S[ocial] D[emocracy] were there in Franco and Mussolini and Perón too.

You seem NOT so very well trained in Historic facts, as far as Eastern Europe is concerned.

At least I got a fresher more recent training in them than you, since I have been able to correct you more than once.

Historians, "in professorial sense" are also trained in other things than historic facts. ome of which are bad attitudes about how to ascertain them. Like the guys who deny historic existence of Arthur or Odin.

"And nowadays much of our image of the Soviet Union is being adjusted, the negative way of portraying is being adjusted because of objective facts, no longer subjective to economical and political influences as countries like Cuba and Vietnam prove that communism most certainly is a viable and practical way to govern a country."

Except that Cuba and Vietnam are like Mordor or at least Isengard in tyranny.

"The debt crisis and many wars in the Western world is showing that Capitalism is not the good system as always thought it was."

I am not pro-Capitalist.

Denikin was no Capitalist.

Franco was not the one [or not purely one, or always as much of one as his later years], and governements after him, not least S D were the ones i[n]curring the public debt which has put Spain in a crisis.

"some pints of brandywine"

Some pints of brandy?

Some pints of Cognac or Armagnac?

I don't drink pints of those!

[OK, not pints at a time.]

Updates

may follow.

Debate on LXX vs Masoretic

Video commented on

Was The Bible Written Or Changed By The Illuminati?!?!
Andood James
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc7kxvsNq5I

Hans-Georg Lundahl (on video)

2:48 Does the agreeing passage corpus include the genealogy of Adam to Noah?

Because there, Masoretics disagree with LXX. Not on total age of each patriarch, but on what age he had the relevant son.

conor henderson

1656 years from creation to flood. And 292 years from flood to Abrahams birth. Bible is myth fiction book anyways.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, LXX disagrees, and Holy Writte is not fiction.

conor henderson

It is fiction unfortunately. Sorry to speak the truth and reality it's not God given or endorsed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sorry to contradict your prejudices, but it is truth

Genealogy was a good work of human historians, many of whom were Saints, and when Moses used it, he also knew it was endorsed by God.

Between Adam and Moses overlaps of lifetimes were such that only eight tradition bearers were needed, while more were available overlapping with those eight.

A pretty good reason to believe it's accurate.

However, six days before creation of Adam, that was revelation, not under direct human observation.

Creation		-		5199 before Christ
Flood		-		2957 b. C.
Birth of Abraham		-		2015 b. C.

5199
2957
________
2242 years from Creation to Flood

2957
2015
_________
0942 years from Flood to Birth of Abraham

(Probably the eight person necessary overlaps are more acc to other chronology, with 292 years : Haydock uses Ussher over St Jerome).

conor henderson

Masoretic is true over the false septugint and the septugint has that fake cainan that doesnt exist arphaxad and shealah are direct father son in relationship just like all the other characters in genesis 5 and 11 geneologies. Correction creation 400o bce flood 2300 bce and abraham 2000bce so the true dates are no earlier than this the septugint is false when it come to chronology and other things. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Cainan was probably not counted in Masoretic or even Hebrew original, since he was a sinner, according to a Jewish story.

Then LXX was for Greeks who did not have this convention, and Cainan was added as per fact and as per Greek convention of genealogy. St Matthew omits three in a row for a similar reason, whom St Luke does not omit.

LXX being false is not just a "Jewish" story, it's a "Jewish anti-Christian story" or factoid.

conor henderson

No most were wicked in jewish mytho tradition only noah shem and eber were righteous besides abraham cainan is a fake. There were 70 nations not 72. Arphaxad and shelah are direct like the rest luke has an error either originally or forgery. The jewish texts are right not the christian version being genesis is jewish holy text. Also noah numeric value in herbrew is 58 and the masoretic shows that abraham was 58 when noah died isnt that interesting. This and many others show that the masoretic is true over the septugint in translation. When it comes to chronology.

Methuselah in the greek dies after the flood when in fact he dies before the flood in fact in the original hebrew he dies the year of the flood and his name means when he dies judgement (Flood) will come. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, Methuselah in Greek does NOT die after the Flood, rather I think 17 years before the flood. Judgements may have been coming before the Flood for some time.

conor henderson

No that is complete nonsense and false obviously you dont know hebrew or the myths in genesis Enoch when he had his Methuselah he named him that to signify a coming judgement that was to be put on man for his sins and the name means a prophecy of a flood only one judgement on the predevillum world (flood) Methuselah lived 969 years in truth and this from the original hebrew displayed in the masoretic showing its superior validity over the flawed edited septugint. The flood happens in the year 1656 after creation which is the year methuselah dies. This the 600th year of Noah's life and 98th year of Shem's life. Also the tower of Babel took place 340 years after the flood which in Abraham's life time when he was 48 years. This in the life time of his ancestor Peleg who lived 239 years. This was at the end of pelegs the tower happens and his father Eber when he was 34 years old had him and named him in a prophecy of earth divison (Read Genesis 10) also his other son (Eber's son/Peleg's brother) Joktan (name means to split in half or lessen) he is named for the same purpose with lil differenbt result to lessen the ages of people in the hebrew myth of origins. Its interesting to note that pelegs lifespan is half of his ebers lifespan 239 years compared to 464 years. As well as 175 years with Abraham. Another point is that Eber which is root of hebrews was 400 years old when abraham died in which fulfills and coincides with the prophecy promise of genesis 15 where for 400 years abrahams descendants will be mistreated who are hebrews. Eber 400 years old at abrahams death doesnt seem like it was just coincidence. Finally Noah was a contemporary of Abraham as you know he was 950 years old when he died and was 600 when the flood, well according to the original hebrew displayed by the masoretic Noah was 502 when shem was born and when you add up all the ages of father begating the named son youll get that noah was 892 years old when abraham was born and abraham was 58 years old when he (Noah) died. Also noah in hebrew the original language of the Bible and jewish myth shows us that noah like many words has numeric value and his value in hebrew is 58 just like the abraham at noahs death. Once again this is not just a coincedence that these two of the same number cross they must be united as the same. So there you go proof that the masoretic is true over the septugint translation when it comes to things like chronology. There abraham was born 1948 years after creation. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Josephus:

"Now Mathusela, the son of Enoch, who was born to him when he was one hundred and sixty-five years old, had Lamech for his son when he was one hundred and eighty-seven years of age; to whom he delivered the government, when he had retained it nine hundred and sixty-nine years. Now Lamech, when he had governed seven hundred and seventy-seven years, appointed Noah, his son, to be ruler of the people, who was born to Lamech when he was one hundred and eighty-two years old, and retained the government nine hundred and fifty years. These years collected together make up the sum before set down. But let no one inquire into the deaths of these men; for they extended their lives along together with their children and grandchildren; but let him have regard to their births only."

I will have to look at LXX somewhere else.

conor henderson

LXX is false

Hans-Georg Lundahl

English LXX:

"25 And Mathusala lived an hundred and sixty and seven years, and begot Lamech. 26 And Mathusala lived after his begetting Lamech eight hundred and two years, and begot sons and daughters. 27 And all the days of Mathusala which he lived, were nine hundred and sixty and nine years, and he died. 28 And Lamech lived an hundred and eighty and eight years, and begot a son. 29 And he called his name Noe, saying, This one will cause us to cease from our works, and from the toils of our hands, and from the earth, which the Lord God has cursed. 30 And Lamech lived after his begetting Noe, five hundred and sixty and five years, and begot sons and daughters. 31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and fifty-three years, and he died. 32 And Noe was five hundred years old, and he begot three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth."

Mathusala		0
Mathusala		167		Lamech		0
Mathusala		255		Lamech		188		Noe		0
Mathusala		755		Lamech		688		Noe		500

We have a possible problem ... Mathusala 855 is too young.

188		255
167		500
____________
255		755

I do not know if perhaps the solution of Josephus might be best.

Or this chronology gives date of Methusala's death as Anno Mundi 2256, and of Flood as 2262 - thus after his death:

Bible Chronology
of the Biblical Patriarchs
(on Bible Prophecy)
http://www.1260-1290-days-bible-prophecy.org/bible-chronology_3.html

conor henderson

false and flawed invalid still wrong

Hans-Georg Lundahl

take the time to point out the counting error if there is one in the columns for Septuagint!

[Note I said "counting error" and by saying "columns for Septuagint" I was referring to that page.]

conor henderson

Cainan character, methuselah dies 14 vyears after the flood the obvious forgery of 100 year extras in the age of each fater begaters ect.

These are the errors so you are wrong.

[Note that whether erroneous or not, the arithmetic error if any was not pointed out and the page was simply ignored. In it, Methuselah does not die after Flood.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, you gave "textual errors", I was asking for the counting error. In the link I gave you, where Methusala does not die 14 years after the Flood.

What you consider textual errors is because of your preference for another text tradition. That of the infidel Jewry.

conor henderson

You are a fool tradition genesis and hebrew myths which all are the same show that Abraham was born 1948 after Creation (Genesis 1.1)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I agree Genesis 1:1 is about Creation.

As to tradition, the tradition kept by Greek Orthodox as well as that incorporated by St Jerome in Christmas proclamation, or rather its Roman chronology, do not corroborate the Jewish post-Christian one.

"Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono (5199); a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo (2957); a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo (2015); a Moyse et egressu populi Israel de Aegypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo (1510); ab unctione David in Regem, anno millesimo trigesimo secundo (1032); Hebdomada sexagesima quinta, juxta Danielis prophetiam (65th week); Olympiade centesima nonagesima quarta (194th Olympiad); ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo (752); anno Imperii Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo (42), toto Orbe in pace composito, sexta mundi aetate, Jesus Christus, aeternus Deus aeternique Patris Filius, mundum volens adventu suo piissimo consecrare, de Spiritu Sancto conceptus, novemque post conceptionem decursis mensibus (Hic vox elevatur, et omnes genua flectunt), in Bethlehem Judae nascitur ex Maria Virgine factus Homo."

conor henderson

Masoretic is still the correct one

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Christian Bible is correct.

For OT that means Septuagint and Vulgate among the languages I know sth of.

conor henderson

It is not correct that is the problem especially when it comes to chronology Shem and Eber and Noah etc all Knew Abraham. Abraham was 292 years after flood and 1948 years after your creation myth began making the creation date 4000bce. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Let me get your point straight:

• a) it never happened
• b) when it was invented (how much of it was invented by the way, where do you cut the line?) the chronology back then was same as masoretic right now
• c) so LXX tradition is faulty for telling a story that never happened (according to you of course) other than those who first told the story?

According to what exact moral principle?

Copyright issues?

Wasn't invented!

conor henderson

Inconsistencies errors and clear forgery and alteration of the texts of the original hebrew go look up the comment feeds and you ll see where the points are with the errors of the septuagint. So you are just wrong again quit trying and adamit your position is incorrect. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I saw the POINTS WHERE you consider Septuagint erroneous and forged.

I was asking about WHERE IN CHRONOLOGY - the one I linked to - there was a counting error, an error of arithmetic. So far you haven't answered.

This is not a small point, since Mathusala dying 14 years after flood might be an inconsistency. But if a LXX based chronology can fix that, no problem on this account for LXX.

How about trying to be honest about how debate has gone hitherto? How about trying to look up how answers have been met or not met with answers?

Ah, here we have it.

Methuselah
(father of Lamech at)		187
(died at)		969
(born AM)		1287
(died AM)		2256
Flood
		2262 (AM)

Footnote:

Methuselah: Other LXX texts give F [ather of next patriarch at] = 167, but if this were correct, he would have died 14 years after the Flood.

Unfortunately, few early copies of the Septuagint survive, and even they differ a little. The Alexandrine text is followed here, with differences noted in footnotes.

And according to same chronology, Abraham being born in AM 3334 had overlapping lifespan with previous patriarchs from Serug on

Serug :
130		father of Nahor
330		died
3055		(born, AM)
3385		(died, AM)

Still the Alexandrine text of LXX.

conor henderson

But the problem is in the original hebrew all of them noah to nahor including terah all knew abraham and noah dies when abraham was 58 years old and noah hebrew numerics is 58 so there you go those two of the same number are meant to unite as one so youre not right again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"in the original hebrew"

Well, Masoretic is certainly Hebrew, but much later than Septuagint.

I think you might exaggerate the importance of gematria.

Noah may have died when someone else than Abraham was 58. Or Noah having 58 as numeric value may have to do with something else than anyone's age, or even with time at all. Or, it may have no meaning we have found as yet. I will not deny it might have no meaning at all, but it might be a meaning we don't know.

Do you recall Bible code Messiah, Pesach, the Hebrew year corresponding to 2012, of course in Masoretic chronology, and Capricorn?

There was a Capricorn that set itself above the Messiah at Christian Easter that year (and that year Catholic and Protestant dates coincided with Hebrew dates partially). By going to ski instead. Not what Glazerson thought it meant, but a meaning he had not foreseen.

conor henderson

He didnt though none he died when abraham was 58 and no one elseMasoretic is superior over septuagint.

Not an exageration your opinion is deluded and has a false conclusion and misunderstanding. You are wrong 

The original hebrew reflects the masoretic in terms of chronology.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No. You got that backwards. We don't have the original. We have as indications there was one, LXX, Vulgate, Masoretic and a few more (I don't know how far back you go to get Samaritan version testified - it branched off from original Hebrew 930's - 931 I think - BC).

So, the question is which of the preserved versions reflects the original Hebrew.

According to the tradition I believe in, both Septuagint and Vulgate do so better than Masoretic : however these differ in chronology, Vulgate agreeing with Masoretic for pre-Flood Patriarchs, but probably not for post-Flood. And LXX disagrees with Masoretic on both time frames.

However, when Vulgate was first translated, it was not received as a more accurate text than LXX, but as a text more apt to use when arguing with Jews. In other words, St Jerome's translation work was not received as being more authoritative in matters of historic fact, nor does Trentine Council make it so. St Jerome based his chronology for Christmas proclamation on ... LXX.

conor henderson

It is still more accurate than the Septuagint in terms of chronology 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you are Jew, I can see why you think so.

Does not make it so.

conor henderson

It is so jew gentile or other whatever Masoretic is the right translation Fact.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No.

Fact is:

• Hebrew O - > LXX
• Hebrew O - > Peschitta
• Hebrew O - > Vulgate
• Hebrew O - > Masoretic

In that chronological order.

[But not necessarily with equal correctitude or directitude for all derivatives.]

This leaves the question open which of these versions (Masoretic is not a translation, but contains a vocalisation not there in Hebrew O) is closest to original one.

• Greek Orthodox would say LXX.
• Syriac Christians would say Peschitta.
• Latin Rite Roman Catholics would say either LXX or Vulgate.
• Jews (and Protestants) have considered Masoretic the closest.

There is no secular, non-religious, religiously non-biassed way to decide with absolute certitude.

conor henderson

Yes masoretic despite being after septugint is still correct over the greek in chronology of the story. In genesis youre not gonna the fact that you position is invalid and mine is valid.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"In genesis [...] valid."

Not in Genesis, and not anywhere else either.

conor henderson

Really youre wrong again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you for bringing nothing new to the issue. Saves me the trouble of actually thinking.

conor henderson

hahahahahahahahahaah actually you arent thinking at all I still debunked you

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No. Not except to a prejudiced public of Jews and similar Masoretic partisans.

conor henderson

No the facts and now i criticize and expose.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, your only exposure of LXX was that it would make Methusala die 14 years after Flood - which changes if you look at Alexandrine Manuscript.

Stating "LXX inflates ages" can be turned around to "Samaritan and post-Christian Jewish deflate ages" (at which a patriarch got his relevant son). Stating "Masoretic has these numerologically significant relationships" can be turned around to "Masoretic was gently faked in the edges to include numerologically significant relationships".

You have stated nothing that cannot be turned around, so far.

conor henderson

There is much more look them all up. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look here, if you only saw three lines, you should click the blue text on the bottom of my comment.

conor henderson

It's irrelevant still.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, your arguments have been erroneous or irrelevant to the question so far.

For instance "LXX added" is irrelevant because one can just as easily say "Masoretic and Samaritan subtracted". Indeed, if you uphold Masoretic, you must say "Samaritan subtracted".

Also, if you are truly an atheist and truly think all of this is just made up stuff where nothing even near it ever happened anywhere, why do you care so much about which version a Christian uses?

conor henderson

Ugh no they are not erroneous they are right on they the money.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You did not read the rest of my comment did you?

conor henderson

I did and youre still wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Youre still wrong" is not a very specific argument to counter mine, is it?

conor henderson

Do you have too counter you're wrong still and you didn't change it so it's valid now move on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Might do so, but not by admitting you were right. And you have still NOT answered the Q why an atheist is so sectarian about which version of the Bible. One can hardly add "is correct" on your view.

conor henderson

I am correct

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I heard you say so. I didn't see you prove it. And you are STILL not replying why you have such a stake on this. Wouldn't it be great to add "Methusela died 14 years after Flood" vs "Only Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives survived" to "Bible contradictions"?

Except of course, you'd have to admit it doesn't work according to Alexandrine manuscript, which gives a more normal sequence of events.

conor henderson

i did prove you cant accept it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And you can't accept I find your bias suspicious, since you call yourself an atheist or sth like that.

Are you Jew? Protestant? Or apostate Catholic?

conor henderson

I'm not an atheist dummy I never gave that impression and you're a heretic to your beliefs. I don't accept it because it's false unfortunately and it is demonstratively.

I'm neither of those

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, "not atheist" - which precise religion would call Genesis either version "made up"?

As to me being a heretic to my own beliefs, no I am not.

If I were inconsistent with my own principles, you could perhaps prove that by a logical reasoning. But when it comes to being a heretic to my beliefs, you must know what my tradition of belief says.

Now, Catholic Church has both Latin rite and Eastern Rites. In Greek Eastern Rites, the OT is LXX. In Slavonic Eastern Rites, the OT is a translation of LXX, not of Vulgate, as far as I know, though the selection of canon might agree with Vulgate more than with Schismatic Churches. Only Latin Church has a non-LXX OT - within European cultural sphere. Possibly some Syrians have a Peschitta OT.

But the point is, when Vulgate was defended in Trent, it was not defended with exactly the same adherence as some Prots give KJV. It was defined as having all that is necessary in salvific terms in creed and morals unblemished, but it was not defined as being historically accurate whereever it differs from LXX.

And the traditional Christmas proclamation goes by the chronology of St Jerome, which he made on LXX basis, not on basis of his own Vulgate translation. It places Birth of God as Man in Anno Mundi 5199, not anywhere near 4004. That means, St Jerome used some LXX version of how old Adam was when Seth was born etc.

"Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono; a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo ..."

5199 AM
2957 ADiluvii
_________
2242 AM for Diluvium

Not the Alexandrine version of LXX cited, but certainly one version of LXX and NOT one of Masoretic or Vulgate (Masoretic didn't exist yet, btw).

conor henderson

You're still a heretic and wrong masoretic is still the correct chronology.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A "heretic" according to what "faith"?

Not according to the Catholic one.

And if you think Genesis is made up, you have no business caring about whether I am a heretic or not.

By the way, you have not answered which your religion is.

And don't say "agnostic" as if that were sth really different from atheism, pretty please!

I looked up

conor henderson's Google profile, read some other comments and added:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wait, you are an Osiris worshipper?

How sad!

You will probably be joining Nimrod in the pit of fire, for your dismal choice of religion.

conor henderson

Nimrod is fictional you blasphemer nimrod came long after Osiris he is Almighty God. Masoretic text is the correct chronology. You worship jesus and yahweh the lake of fire have you for your false god choice. Theres nothing sad about what i choose but have a bad sad choice. Whoever told you these this lied to you. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

There is a neat way of figuring out who is right between us.

Osiris hasn't been worshipped in public for near two millennia.

The world still stands.

Either he is not God, or he doesn't care.

So either way we have a right to be Christians.

Since you are so into Egypt, how come you are so despising of Copts and of the Alexandrine manuscript of the LXX, in which Methuselah dies before the Flood? I mean when you add up.

Plus, wouldn't an Osiris worshipper also worship Maath?

Metis, measure?

What is measured about telling a son his mother lied to him when he became a Christian? Especially since it is extremely certain that even if we were mistaken, she was in perfect good faith.

But even if I found out she had, from her viewpoint, been lying, which I don't think I will, I have learned so much that confirms it, I will not take it as objective lies anyway. That extra includes Catholic Church and thus also Deuterocanonic Books and thus also Septuagint.

You roll off your accusations and vituperations totally without measure. Sorry, without noticeable measure. And it is a bit unmeasured to take such violent part in an affair that doesn't concern you. It's as if I were to try to decide whether Osiris worship or Marduk worship was the most correct form of Nimrod worship. And yes, LXX or Masoretic, Nimrod is in the book.

conor henderson

Osiris Worship is not nimrod worship you liar blasphemer and fool and marduk is not nimrod either they both came before nimrod by hundreds to thousands of years earlier. So thats completely false and plus from the correct masoretic which you deny wrongly shows that nimrod lived around 2100 bce and no earlier since the bible doesnt allow for push backs. So tell how can their be a connection when they are completely different characters as well as different beings and different origins ? Yahweh is agamemnon with that same false logic. Who ever told you this lie about LORD God Osiris lied to you and have no facts or evidence or truth for their ungodly claim. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"masoretic which you deny wrongly shows that nimrod lived around 2100 bce and no earlier since the bible doesnt allow for push backs."

LXX allows for some "push back".

Different beings does not absolutely mean "not same person".

According to us Christians, Jesus is God and Man. According to Jews, a man.

Now, wicked men have sometimes wanted to be worshipped as gods, like two- three thousand years later Odin among the Swedes.

So, Osiris could be a false god and a real man.

And, if it has anything to do with Asur, Nimrod is a suspect.

As to Nimrod being Marduk, well, let's put it like this, he was a giant, he sometimes killed monsters, and he could easily have bragged sth like "you should have seen me when I was younger, I killed Tiamat and made the earth we walk on, from her carcass, yessirs, we are walking on a monster I killed" a little before trying the next move, Tower of Babel.

However, once people saw he was mortal, they could instead of saying "there was no Marduk" have said sth like "Enmerker was not Marduk". Unless of course, he died a bit further off, like in Egypt.

And written the Gilgamesh epic about him instead of worshipping him as the king they had.

Swedes were even more gullible, they did see Odin reign, they did even see him on a bonfire, I guess, but they still thought of him as a supreme god and Marduk style creator having lived among them. Like Hindoos did with Krishna despite recording he died and was put on a bonfire for cremation.

Either way, both Egypt and Babylon were under his pre-Tower of Babel superpower.

"Yahweh is agamemnon with that same false logic."

C'mon, Christ hardly behaved like Agamemnon, did He?

Hereafter

henderson comes with a long speech, I am not sure I am answering all of it.

conor henderson

Nimrod is not a giant he was an average sized man, and he was not marduk. Most of these Gods predate Nimrod by hundreds to thousands of years earlier. Septugint does not allow for push backs it has forgeries like an extra 100 years to each patriarchs age of begating the next generation and fake generation (Cainan) in the geneology of genesis 11 they did that to extend the timeline of the torah with outsude sources that are true. They did not realize the error of doing that by distorting the messages in their scriptures also the masoretic is superior because its original compared to the dead sea scrolls meaning that they are reflecting the original text and they have textual consistency and flow in the chronology something the septugint doesnt have. So nimrod was around 2100 bce and no earlier bible does not allow for any push backs in the accurate text chronology. Enmerkar is not nimrod there is several difference between them and there is no evidence nimrod ever existed and enmerkar existed before nimrod and noah and the flood so there is a problem with your claim. Osiris is a true God and you all have turned away from his glory and you need to turn back. Odin is also a True God the swedes were not gullible only when they turned away from him were they fools. Nimrod did not die in egypt according to jewish legend he died in mesopotamia or the middle east you dummy. Different being dont prove the same it means different no connection absolutely. "Either way, both Egypt and Babylon were under his pre-Tower of Babel superpower." There is no proof of that and again no evidence nimrod ever existed and its obvious he is based off enermerkar and Sargon the Great. Osiris exist long before nimrod and so did marduk and Gilgamesh too (nimrod in the correct chronology lived around 2100 bce) so that connection is falsified now. A God living among people is not proof he is not a Deity didnt your false god jesus live among people yes well then you are stupid and contradict yourself. There you go i refuted every point you made and once again proved you wrong. The Gods are Gods not humans or any other lesser beings but Deities.

Asur is Ausar not the same but different deities ive debunked that connection myself and isnt ashur the son of shem the founder of assyria according to bible/hebrew myth even its obvious that he is based off the God assur of Assyria so you are wrong on your points.

Jesus and yahweh are worse than agamemnon and in fact yahweh could be a man and seen as a king and agamemnon a king so they could be the same see your false logic.

You need to repent of your beliefs before it's too late. What you said and believe unfortunately are lies.

The bibles stories of our origins consistently proven to be not true so there goes another of your arguments blown up as invalid.

Someone obviously told you this lie you would not have come to this on your own was it Alexander hislop or Rob skiba they are as I've seen the main sources of this claim about nimrod and his so called non existent connections to other religions and gods when in truth and reality there is no connection just false claims that are impossible thus false.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"isnt ashur the son of shem the founder of assyria"

That is a fair comment.

There are two Asur in the genealogy, the son of Shem and Nimrod, if that is the grammatically correct reading.

I am indeed indepted to Rob Skiba, but I do not consider him a liar.

I know very little about Hislop.

However, Catholic views of history, indepted to Josephus, say idolatry was started by Ninus and Belus - and one of them could be Nimrod.

As to Nimrod not being a giant, well, "he began to be a giant" or "he began to be mighty" - Hebrew has gebôr, it would seem (indepted to Skiba).

Lion crunching rulers have been shown on Babylonian steles.

"Asur is Ausar not the same but different deities ive debunked that connection myself"

Where?

Link will be read if given.

"Jesus and yahweh are worse than agamemnon and in fact yahweh could be a man and seen as a king and agamemnon a king so they could be the same see your false logic."

Neither is "worse than" or as bad as Agamemnon. And Agamemnon never made any claims of being a god himself, as far as we know.

On the contrary, when he tried to emulate Joshua, he prayed to Helios. Joshua had in fact ordered Sun and Moon to obey what with the approval of God he told them, but Agamemnon tried to pray to Helios. He failed.

That is when Greeks decided to not recall Joshua's long day as it happened, but afterwards they mixed it with the other solar miracle of the Sun going backward ten or twenty lines and made it "Helios went up in the West and set in the East over horror over Thyestes' children."

"The bibles stories of our origins consistently proven to be not true"

Proven - by what?

By Egyptian inflated datings that gave king scorpion sth like 10.000 years? Or by pseudo-scientific uses of radiometric dating?

"so there goes another of your arguments blown up as invalid."

I wasn't arguing so far about these - to you that is.

I was arguing about priority of LXX over Masoretic.

Dead Sea scrolls are younger than LXX translation and by then there could have come to a divergence over texts between Greek and Hebrew.

Indeed, Dead Sea scrolls include Wisdom of Jeshua Ben Sirach, which is canonic in LXX but lacking in Masoretic.

Apocalypse of Lamech or Genesis Apocryphon would not be a text of Genesis, and so far I have not seen one listed.

Ah, now I see a list of Genesis fragments [in the list of the scrolls]:

Cave 1:

Genesis 12:18-15:4 (but this is only KJV association, it is really Genesis Apocryphon and in Aramaic).

Genesis 1:18-21; 3:11-14; 22:13-15; 23:17-19; 24:22-24

It is chapter 5 (missing) which contains contested genealogies.

Cave 2:

Book of Genesis 19:27–28; 36:6, 35–37

Like Genesis Apocryphon too late in Genesis for our purpose.

Genesis 25:7-9; Book of Jubilees

Cave 4:

Genesis 8:20-21; Exodus 1–4; 5:3-17; 6:4-21,25; 7:5-13,15-20; 8:20-22; 9:8; 22:14; 27:38-39,42-43; 34:17-21

Genesis 1:1–27; 2:14–19; 4:2–4; 5:13

5:13 might be relevant.

No, wasn't:

[13] And Cainan lived after he begot Malaleel, eight hundred and forty years, and begot sons and daughters.

It was 5:12 that was relevant. No wait, 5:13 does cite the second part [of his lifespan], there that might be relevant.

Genesis 40-41

Genesis 1:18-27

Genesis 36–37; 40–43; 49

Genesis 48:1–11

Genesis 1:1-11,13-22; 2:6-7

May be relevant for coordination of "two creation stories", but not for our purpose.

Genesis 1:8-10; 2:17-18; 12:4–5

Genesis 41–43; 45

Genesis 1:9,14-16,27-28; 2:1-3; 3:1-2

Genesis 50:26; Exodus 1:1–5; 2:10,22–25; 3:1–4,17–21; 8:13–15, 19–21; 9:25–29, 33–35; 10:1–5; 11:4–10; 12:1–11, 42–46; 14:15–24; 16:2–7, 13–14,18–20,23–25,26–31,33–35; 17:1–3,5–11; 18:17–24; 19:24–25; 20:1–2; 22:23–24; 23:5–16; 25:7–20; 26:29–37; 27:1, 6–14; 28:33–35,40–42; 36:34–36

Genesis 26:21-28 Exodus 6:25–30; 7:1–19,29; 8:1,5,12–26; 9:5–16,19–21,35; 10:1–12,19–28; 11:8–10; 12:1–2,6–8,13–15,17–22,31–32,34–39; 13:3–7,12–13; 14:3–5,8–9,25–26; 15:23–27; 16:1,4–5,7–8,31–35; 17:1–16; 18:1–27; 19:1,7–17,23–25; 20:1,18–19; 21:5–6, 13–14,22–32; 22:3–4,6–7,11–13,16–30; 23:15–16,19–31; 24:1–4,6–11; 25:11–12,20–29,31–34; 26:8,15,21–30; 27:1–3,9–14,18–19; 28:3–4,8–12,22–24,26–28,30–43; 29:1–5,20,22–25,31–41; 30:10,12–18,29–31,34–38; 31:1–8,13–15; 32:2–19,25–30; 33:12–23; 34:1–3,10–13,15–18,20–24,27–28; 35:1; 36:21–24; 37:9–16

After that, it is pure Exodus in Cave 4. No more Genesis. Except at end, commentaries:

Genesis 7:11; 8:5,13; 9:24; 22:10

Genesis 9:24-25

Genesis 6:15

Reworked Pentateuch:

Genesis 32:25-30; 32:31 ?; Exodus 3:12; 4:27-28; 19:17-23; 24:4-6; 20:12-17,19-21 (Samaritan), 22-26; 21:15-25, 32-37; 22:1-13; 30:32.34; Deuteronomy 5:30-31; 21:1-10

Genesis 25:18-21; 26:7-8; 28:6; 29:32-33; 30:8-14,26-36; 31:47-53; 32:18-20,26-30; 34:2

And two more:

Genesis 1:28-29, or Book of Jubilees

Genesis 34:7-10; 50:3

Cave 6:

Genesis 6:13-21

Cave 8:

Genesis 17:12-19; 18:20-25

Wadi Murabba'at Cave 1:

Genesis 32:4-5,30,33-33:1; 34:5-7,30-35:1,4-7

It would even seem the Essenes might have been avoiding to cite the ages.

One single fragment of one verse supports the Masoretic and presumably also Samaritan version. Yes, checked. Both these non LXX versions have support there.

A little lean to support Masoretic as certainly more genuine than LXX - especially since the Masoretic could be taking over an error from Dead Sea scrolls.

"The Gods are Gods not humans or any other lesser beings but Deities."

God is God and became Man. Several false gods are false concepts of the true one or of His angels, several are demonic, and even more were once human.

"ashur the son of shem the founder of assyria according to bible/hebrew myth even its obvious that he is based off the God assur of Assyria so you are wrong on your points. "

Unless it's the other way round of course.

Ha, I came to note sth. One of the readings in Dead Sea disagrees with Masoretic and is Samaritan.

... on Death Before Sin and Angelic Appearances Not to be Always Trusted

Initial comment by HGL on a video

04:32 in a Christian perspective, God is not just involved in Genesis chapter 1 as Creator, but also as revealer of truth, behind the text. A God who existed but not done it that way, would not be the God who revealed Genesis, or, if He were, would be a liar in doing so (like the Nine Muses who told Hesiod another story, or the Jibreel who revealed to Mohammed a story about Jesus quite incompatible with the Gospel, see Sourate V). And either way He would not have been the God Christians believe in. I am a Christian, I say He is, and challenge you to prove me wrong, IF YOU CAN ... (wrong about this, mind you, not about my personal behaviour, which it may be easier to do sth about, like relying on calumny or concentrating on me stumbling).

04:08 Would not be involved in "natural processes culminating in our species" ... indeed, death before Adam and death and lust as prime "editors" of the "blind monkey" typing our genome are not compatible with the Christian view of God's goodness and wisdom. What atheists like Democritus, Lucrece and ... what's his name ... first and foremost ... Epicurus apply to all existance we are involved in, we do apply to the existance before Adam sinned. If God had allowed evil before Adam sinned because he would not have wanted to prevent it, or because he would have needed it to make Adam, he would not be God.

[first wrote "editors or the blind monkey" but meant either "for" or "of" the same]

Soren G

you claim that there is a sky daddy,proof it! Or otherwise,you are just like reinhold messner,who claims to have seen the Yeti.We don't belief shit without evidence....cause if we would,we would have to KNOW that there are aliens....cause some people claim that they are here....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If Reinhold Messner claims to have seen the Yeti, I think it is likely he did. If very many people claim to have been abduccted by aliens, I think they were, and that aliens are demons. If you want proof of God, one part is the discrediting of Evolutionary pseudo-explanations, like of morality, which is given here courtesy of AronRa (probably as coherent as anyone holding his view).

Paul Wurr

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Then you'll believe that I am an angel, and God wants you to be more skeptical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am already too sceptical to believe in you even if you are an angel.

I would not want to end up like Hesiod or Mohammed or Joseph Smith.

Soren G

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

You have no scepticism at all...you are gullible and naive,believing claims without proof and without any scepticism.....and the fact that your are xtain is nothing but coincidence.....born in the Middle East,you would be Muslim,in India a hindu etc....the system is always the same: belief bullshit without proof,cause your parents raised you with that lie.....sad....very sad

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"believing claims without proof"

No, not quite.

Not even exact about pagan religions, there is some proof for them too, but insufficient to conclude its about the really divine.

Greeks believed Hercules was a god, because Hercules was a strong man and killed monsters.

Christians believe Christ was and is and eternally remains God, because he raised dead and rose from the dead.

In both cases the direct proof of facts was that they were witnessed and the direct proof of that, thus a little less than direct about facts, is that there is a tradition about such witnessing of such miracles. Or, in the case of Hercules, simply marvels.

Soren G

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don't even need to reply to the whole text you've written.... just ONE example:

"Greeks believed Hercules was a god, because Hercules was a strong man and killed monsters."

See what you've done here? you take for granted that Hercules EXISTED....FAIL! there is no proof nor evidence of any kind,except written stories,thyat he ever existed,let alone being a demigod or even a strong man....

Your way of thinking is faulty and you can't even grasp that.....

Eyewitness acounts are the least reliable ones....

We have EVIDENCE,which disproves your god or any other for that matter and THAT counts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"you take for granted that Hercules EXISTED....FAIL!"

No, the fail is yours, since you take it for granted he didn't.

"We have EVIDENCE,which disproves your god or any other for that matter and THAT counts."

Such as?

Soren G

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

First and for all:

THAT is the big fallacy,which you clink on to.... to assume that something exists without any proof...to call it a fail on my part,to not assume that is just plain dumb.

If you have no proof,it simply doesn't exist.

plain and simple

well,first and for all do we have a ton of biological evidence,which disproves any design of nature by a god....we have wisdom teeth,due to our ape ancestry or an appendix and a ton more of vestigal organs

we even know,that all human embryos are female and that they develope only male sexual characteristics after a certain stage of the pregnancy....your scrotal sac is formed from the labia... so,"Eva" was first,not "Adam"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If you have no proof,it simply doesn't exist."

No, not quite. If there is no proof available to anyone, it means we do not know if it exists.

However traditional history is proof.

Eyewitness accounts may be the weakest proof overall in your book, but it is the strongest in history. Second strongest is tradition of such.

Hercules existed.

We do not have eyewitness accounts beyond his own (and he did kill wife and children i madness) that he went down to the netherworld. Perhaps Cerberus was seen, perhaps not, around Tiryns, but the descent to the netherworld was unseen.

We do have a tradition which presumably originated as eyewitness accounts that he cleared such a terrain of the hydra and such another terrain of a lion, invulnerable to ordinary arms. Lernea and Nemea, I think.

So, I believe he did. Does not make him God, does not make him "a god". Thank God that Beowulf's memory is untainted by such false claims.

But when we have similar proof that:

• Jesus Christ spent three years doing miracles and preaching and making the then experts of theology look dumb;
• had miraculous powers over food matter and over light and "gravity";
• healed thousands of sick, raised a few dead;
• was crucified and rose from the dead without anyone raising Him:

THEN we have a case He was not just a great man but actually God. Especially as He claimed so (God would not have either made or permitted false miracles of that dignity to cling to a false claim).

'so,"Eva" was first,not "Adam"'

From my moment of conception, I had a Y chromosome along the X.

From the moment of conception, a woman has two X.

Adam and Eve were created adult, so the embryonal development you speak of is not applicable to their august persons.

I sense

that discussing Hercules and Gospel is somehow not Soren G's strong ground. Look how the discussion continues:

Soren G

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh c'mon....you really belief that bs??

and eve was created from a rip of adam.....BULLSHIT!!

and how do you explain all the vestigal organs in the human body?

how come we have so many transitional fossils?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, with "rip" you may have a point about bs. Holy Writte says "rib".

"how come we have so many transitional fossils?"

How come we have so few transitional series of fossils, if it comes to that.

Human and Horse series are those flaunted again and again, and both have been debunked as contructs without a real base.

Unlike Gospel and Greek Heroic legend, there is not even eyewitness account available even by tradition for your view of the past. And your view about the fossils - as available in the present - depends on eyewitness accounts of palaeontologists, among other things.

Is it just me, or

is he trying to shift discussion from history and tradition to evolution? Anyway, I sense that is what he is trying to do, so I try to shift it back.

Soren G

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well,I see that you have no understanding of science at all....

the bible is roughly as credible as Mickey Mouse.

Science,which analyses evidence as fossils or biological evidence as observed in living animals/organsim is a peer reviewed process....claims are being evaluated by other scientists and that process is going on and on and on.

In the case of Evolution for 150 years....and nothing has disproven Evolution so far,but research came up with ever new discoveries,which added to the theory...and don't give me tha "it's just a theory" BS....gravity is a theory..germology is one etc...scientific theories consist of facts but are always open to new discoveries and realizations cause we advance technology and knowledge (just in case you haven't noticed).

Religion comes up with fairytales to "explain" things....not convinced....

and we have seen religion falter more and more to answer new questions as human knowledge expanded

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I will take Mickey Mouse over Darwin ... at least as far as logic is concerned.

Mickey Mouse now and then does act the detective and his logic is about as great as that of Sherlock Holmes, even if both are fictional. Perhaps because they draw on non-fictional logic of Walt Disney and of Arthur Conan Doyle.

You have shifted the subject thoroughly, we were talking about eyewitness account and tradition when it came to Gospels or even Greek Heroic Legend.

But that is perhaps not your favourite terrain?

"and we have seen religion falter more and more to answer new questions as human knowledge expanded"

You mean like official faltering about Galileo case or sth?

I am not faltering, I am Geocentric.

Btw, are you trying to tell me you believe Peer Review makes science kind of objective and superlogical? Well, post-publishing review has that tendency, but the problem is it is hampered too much by pre-publishing review and by simple name calling on some parts.

Soren G

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look dude...you've told me aready,that you belief [sic] Messner,when he says that he has seen the Yeti....

Sure,bellief [sic] in Mickey Mouse....but don't try to sell it as truth.

Yes,the scientific method is trough scrutiny.

A sientist [sic] has to answer to other scientists....not just in his time period but for decades to come.

That is the very definition of objectiveness and logic.Sad that someone has to point that out to you.

Darwin observed his environment and came up through carefull [sic] reasearch the theory of Evolution.

This has been researched,questioned and varyfied [sic] by generations of scientists.

Nothing wrong has so far been found wrong with it.

Only things,which Darwin couldn't have known,due to the limited technological abilities of his time,were added.

Or do you belief DNA was known back in his days?

Dinosaurs have been researched extensevly and specially during the past 20 years (specially after Jurassic Park,with public intrest),has our knowledge about them expanded immensely.

This is how science works.

You take talking snkaes [sic] over that?

You are a poor fellow

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You are a poor fellow"

How did you know I have less than 10€ on my bank account?

"you've told me aready,that you belief Messner,when he says that he has seen the Yeti...."

What would you believe about his statement? That he was lying or that he was hallucinating?

Those reproaches should not be thrown about lightly.

"Sure,bellief in Mickey Mouse....but don't try to sell it as truth."

You seem to have some problem with English.

Belief is a noun, the verb is believe. Or are you trying to imitate a Tcherman Acktsent?

Is that why you did not get:

• I believe in the LOGIC of Mickey Mouse, as I believe in the LOGIC of Sherlock Holmes
• while I do not believe either Mickey Mouse or Sherlock Holmes existed

or is it because getting it did not suit your scheme of ridiculing me?

"A s[c]ientist has to answer to other scientists....not just in his time period but for decades to come."

If he gets it published.

Yes, that is called POST-publishing peer review and I pointed out that this has the effect, when it happens, to make the scientific community a bit more objective.

However, there is also PRE-publishing review. Some papers are not published and then the scientist cannot spend years answering questions.

How sad for you I had to point that difference out to you again.

Now, it is interesting that you think POST-publication peer review is, not just essential to but even "the very definition of" objectivity and logic (and that perhaps not just among scientists but overall?).

Some guys have trouble standing up to post-publishing review.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Apparent Annual Zig Zag Question about Geo/Helio and Space Crafts
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/06/apparent-annual-zig-zag-question-about.html

Note the last comment:

Not answering as far as I have seen since: John D. Anderson, Philip A. Laing, Eunice L. Lau, Anthony S. Liu, Michael Martin Nieto, and Slava G. Turyshev

6 people who are NOT taking the duty seriously to spend years answering questions.

Meanwhile, plenty of faults have been found in Darwin, like the ones pointed out by Kent Hovind and his comrades at CMI http://creation.com - oh, by Darwin I am also referring to his successors.

I have also done my part of refutation at my creationist blog:

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com

Plus, you are still avoiding the issue about a tradition from things that happened long ago.

You seem to think that people in the past would just lie about something and noone would notice anything. Fathers would lie to their sons - everyone in a whole generation, just like that.

Once it must have happened : both the Christian and the Jewish views of the 1st C cannot both be true.

Soren G

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

You have the guts to come up with Kent Hovind?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Is he already out of jail?

Besides: English is not my mother tongue so,yes,I do have some issues with it.

Tell me,oh knowing one:

If you or that clown Hovind would have ANY merrit to your claims about problems with Evolution...how come you have been defeated 10 times so far in court?

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism
February 14th, 2001
http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism

How come that none of your idiotic ID crusaders have ever been able to defeat Evolution and claim a Nobel price in doing so?

You slime around with picking words here and there but as every religious loon so far,you fail to come up aith any evidence for the claims you have.

You fail and your wishful thinking is all that you have to your religious idiocracy

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Court cases may say sth about masonic bias.

"You slime around with picking words here and there but as every religious loon so far,you fail to come up aith any evidence for the claims you have."

Except tradition.

Mickey Mouse existing and Sherlock Holmes existing is not tradition. Tradition says Walt Disney and Conan Doyle made them up.

Hercules being strong and Jesus rising from the dead is tradition. And being strong does not make one God.

"In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution."

OK, balanced treatment statute violates Establishment clause of the US Constitution?

It's like a wolf telling a lamb "you killed and ate my father".

It's the other way round which really violates Constitution.

As to Nobel price, I think one winner is by now a creationist, but I might be wrong. However, you also qulified "in doing so" - in defeating Evolution. Price Committee is in Sweden, a heavily secularised country. And I know, Swedish is my mother tongue.

Soren G

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Hercules being strong and Jesus rising from the dead is tradition"

There you've got it in a nutshell....Christianity is a tradition just as Islam is a tradition in those countries.....

As for the Nobel price: proving Evolution wrong would grant the person,who achieved that a Nobel price for sure....yet,no one has been able to do that and far as the evidence goes,it will not be done. Sweden is a highly secularized country THANK GOD ;)

But that has nothing to do with the Nobel comitty.....they look for evidence and claims,which can be backed up by facts.

That is how science works

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There you've got it in a nutshell....Christianity is a tradition just as Islam is a tradition in those countries....."

I respect the tradition that Mohammed and Joseph Smith were religiously confused.

I respect the tradition that they saw apparitions.

I do NOT respect their theological conclusions that the Jibreel of Mohammed and the Moroni of Joseph Smith were really sent by the true God.

That is why "angel X appears to man Y and says Z" is NOT to my mind a correct basis on which to form a religion.

And Christianity with its Old Testament preparation are very much better founded than that.

But I do not doubt very seriously that Mohammed and Joseph Smith had such apparitions, and even less that their early followers heard them claim these.

"As for the Nobel price: proving Evolution wrong would grant the person,who achieved that a Nobel price for sure..."

Earn - yes.

Grant - no.

To make the difference palpable, Astrid Lindgren, C S Lewis, J R R Tolkien, Graham Greene and Gilbert Keith Chesterton have all EARNED the Noble prize in literature, but none of them were granted it.

On the other hand, in 1906 the Nobel Prize in literature was granted to one Carducci who had written an Inno a Satana. A hymn to Satan.

No, you overtrust the Nobel committee.

"But that has nothing to do with the Nobel comitty.....they look for evidence and claims,which can be backed up by facts. That is how science works"

The Nobel Prize as such is not science.

It is a spectacular event promoting what is supposed to be spectacularly good science.

But it is above all a spectacular event of promotion - as with Peace Prize, as with Prize in Literature and so on.