Historicity of Gospels and Consensus of Historians (quora)

Q

What is the general consensus of historians (not theologians) on Jesus' history? Is the message of the Bible true?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-consensus-of-historians-not-theologians-on-Jesus-history-Is-the-message-of-the-Bible-true/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Own answer

and an ensuing debate on it. To be clear in advance, when I started the comment/answer "There is no such thing as a general consensus of historians on the point," I was in "historians" not just meaning those within Academia, as will be clarified lower down. To specify even further, my own five years worth of exams were not at department of history, but more linguistic and ethnolinguistic ones. But Latin and Greek studies and the for each language compulsory or offered courses of Cultural History also do give an insight into at least history of ideas. That of politics can be checked ... on internet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

History buff since childhood. CSL & Eco added to Medieval lore. + Classics.

Written Fri

There is no such thing as a general consensus of historians on the point.

Hilaire Belloc was a Catholic historian, some other guy, say Richard Carrier, is a Sceptic historian.

They are not consenting between them on the truth of it.

Historians are often enough NOT like medical doctors all consenting measles can be harmless enough in childhood, and if once had gives you immunity against them as long as you don’t get AIDS.

Here is one subject on which they are more like doctors arguing on whether cholesterol is more bad for the heart or more good against brain diseases.

Joe Fessenden

1 upvote

The consensus that there was a man, Jesus, on whom the Christian religion would be based, lived and was crucified in Judea in the first half of the first century AD is so strong that the tiny handful who try to make claims against it are received with laughter (because the theories they propose and rules they apply are so absurd from the academic historian’s standpoint) rather than interest. Since you bring up Richard Carrier, you should realized he is not taken seriously in the academic world, just in the blogosphere. That should tell you something.

Now, I am not addressing at least part of the question because there is no “general consensus” of historians about “the message of the Bible” even as it relates to Jesus.*

As an aside, am I reading your assertion correctly that you are claiming that “medical doctors all consent” that measles is harmless enough in childhood that vaccines are counterproductive?

———————

* The possibility of such a consensus, I argue, is impossible because of the rules of the game as they currently stand. If a historian examines the evidence before him and draws the conclusion that he finds the documents recorded, there, compelling, his entire position is rejected by a not insignificant number who consider his opinion now tainted, as it were, by Christianity. In any case, we are in an area of history that, from the purest academic perspective, is murky beyond those basic facts (or probabilities high enough that they are accepted as factual until meaningful evidence and arguments can be provided otherwise) that are already accepted by nearly all the professionals in the field.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“Since you bring up Richard Carrier, you should realized he is not taken seriously in the academic world, just in the blogosphere.”

That means there is a lack of consensus between Academic world and blogosphere, at least.

As opposed to a consensus spanning both Academics in function and blogosphere.

“As an aside, am I reading your assertion correctly that you are claiming that “medical doctors all consent” that measles is harmless enough in childhood that vaccines are counterproductive?”

That I did not claim.

I think they all consent that measles in childhood are more harmless than measles later on, if in an environment where disease can be kept as best possible without complications, which is why getting measles used to be used as a vaccine.

If I am wrong even on that one, you tell me the real news.

“The possibility of such a consensus, I argue, is impossible because of the rules of the game as they currently stand. If a historian examines the evidence before him and draws the conclusion that he finds the documents recorded, there, compelling, his entire position is rejected by a not insignificant number who consider his opinion now tainted, as it were, by Christianity.”

That is why Hilaire Belloc was a Historian outside the Academic world, as much as Carrier.

Today Belloc would have been closer to being a blogger than a professor, as in his day he was also a writer, but no professor.

Joe Fessenden

There’s a reason the academy exists as distinct from the blogosphere. Anyone can write a blog on anything. If his claims were taken seriously as a scholar, Carrier would be able to get some sort of position. However, I must take your point as choosing to compare Belloc and Carrier as a good decision since you are comparing two non-scholars/non-academics. My challenge boils down to the fact that the basic existence of the man is well accepted by the scholars; it is unreasonable to put bloggers and scholars at the same level when addressing questions like this.

On the measles one, I’m not well versed enough to get into the comparative. That’s why I asked to clarify instead of just jumping. It doesn’t sound like you are promoting the anti-vaccine movement. Thank you for the clarification.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There’s a reason the academy exists as distinct from the blogosphere."

If you add "still" you may have a point. Academia did not develop as a distinction from the blogosphere.

But Academy and blogosphere overlap, so even so you are overdoing it.

"Anyone can write a blog on anything."

Like anyone can write a thesis on anything.

"If his claims were taken seriously as a scholar, Carrier would be able to get some sort of position."

So? He actually HAS a position. In the blogosphere.

"However, I must take your point as choosing to compare Belloc and Carrier as a good decision since you are comparing two non-scholars/non-academics."

Both have learned doing scholarship at university, both have gone on to do scholarship outside the universities of their countries and times.

While they can be termed "non-academics" in the sense of doing their work outside Academia, they cannot be termed "non-scholars" for that reason.

"My challenge boils down to the fact that the basic existence of the man is well accepted by the scholars;"

In Academia, who are a l s o tied down to not recognising Him as God, as far as department of History is concerned. As you just mentioned.

Which, to a Christian, devaluates the standard of contemporary Academia, just as the value of the then English Academia was similarily devaluated to Roman Catholics like Belloc or myself.

"it is unreasonable to put bloggers and scholars at the same level when addressing questions like this."

No, it is not if the bloggers are doing scholarship.

It is your Chinese "Belloc and Carrier are not Mandarins" which is in Christendom at least, as well as generally, unreasonable when adressing reasons.

Carrier shall be taken seriously, whether Academia wants it to or not, and I am taking him seriously as an opponent.

By the way, you are helping him out : after five years worth of exams and a bit more physical time at Academia, I have no PhD or even licence, and Carrier probably uses that as an excuse for ignoring my refutations.

"It doesn’t sound like you are promoting the anti-vaccine movement."

I am not attributing the stance of the anti-vaccine movement to a consensus of medical doctors. I might even so promote it as reasonable.

You see, academic consensus and reasonable are two diverse things. To a certain era, academic consensus was:

• horoscopes determine characters and fates of men;
  
  
• therefore the story of Jacob and Esau having same horoscope but different characters and fates is poppycock.

To a Christian, the reverse is reasonable:

• Jacob and Esau were born with same horoscope;
  
  
• nevertheless, their characters and fates are opposed;
  
  
• therefore, characters and fates are not determined by horoscopes.

So, we must as Christians (and so do most Academians today) regard horoscopes as either irrelevant or at best for astrology influencing only in non-determinastical ways. Therefore we must regard academic consensus of that day as irrelevant to truth.

It is not the same thing as episcopal consensus about Holy Tradition. Under that one, blogosphere and Academia are roughly equal.

Quorans on Conflict between Pope and Bible, Hypothetical Question

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Quorans on Conflict between Pope and Bible, Hypothetical Question · Great Bishop of Geneva! : Lita Cosner attacks Catholic doctrine, defending their "Bible alone" heresy

Q

If there is direct conflict between Bible and what pope said (Ex Cathedra), what is considered truth for Catholics?
https://www.quora.com/If-there-is-direct-conflict-between-Bible-and-what-pope-said-Ex-Cathedra-what-is-considered-truth-for-Catholics

Own answer

Hans-Georg Lundahl,

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Written Wed

If there is direct conflict about what the text certainly says (thus, not a question of his siding with one traditional text against another), that would prove him a heretic and a non-Pope.

I think for instance that the decision of “John Paul II” and “Cardinal Ratzinger” in early 1994 against the “fundamentalist” way of reading Scripture is enough to prove both of them heretics, to prove Wojtyla was not pope, and to prove that Ratzinger then and there prevented his election in 2005 from being a valid one, supposing (as adherents of e g Pope Michael do not) that the death of Wojtyla left the papacy vacant.

Heloise Campbell

Are you espousing fundamentalism ? That is a heresy in the Catholic Church as it should be. I cannot see how you could support it

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“ That is a heresy in the Catholic Church as it should be.”

OK, what Pope or Council condemned it in what exact number of Denzinger? Or you can omit the Denzinger number, as long as you specify for instance Trent Session IV … which is not exactly going YOUR way.

Heloise Campbell

You yourself accused 2 Popes of heresy for doing just that. I am simply pointing out that it is extraordinary to consider your interpretation of theology greater than theirs. In fact, Pope Francis has also done so, claiming that no Catholic should claim to have absolute access to the truth because of their religious beliefs. He says fundamentalism breeds rigidity and intolerance. I agree with him

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Supposing they are Popes.

I think Bergoglio proved he was not such when “canonising” Wojtyla and Roncalli.

He is also proving it again by nonsense like the things you just quoted.

As Argentinian, he also has even before “election” an ongoing conflict with Catholic Fundamentalists in same city, Buenos Aires.

While I don’t think Alexander IX as he calls himself is the true Pope, while I think he is too rigid as very rigid Feeneyist, I appreciate his being what is usually termed a Fundie.

Bergoglio certainly ran afoul of a man who would excommunicate Mother Theresa posthumously.

In other words, some Sedevacantists are actually praying for her soul, he said “don’t even pray for her, she’s damned”.

This can very well have decided what view Bergoglio took on Fundamentalism in general.

I was even before the pseudo-canonisation of 2014 asking what his exact view on Fundamentalism was, since I had heard worrying news even in 2013.

As to:

“no Catholic should claim to have absolute access to the truth because of their religious beliefs”

it is neither here nor there.

It is possible to take that as a Catholic not having absolute access to every aspect of every truth because he is Catholic, which is correct. And which has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of Fundamentalist Bible exegesis - unless it be one can start to wonder whether your type thinks you have so because of your non-Fundie and modern-Catholic beliefs.

It is also possible and actually grammatically preferrable to take it as a Catholic not having absolutely certain access to the truth which saves, which is clear heresy.

If that is what he meant, if he can confirm that is what he meant, that is one more indictment of Bergoglio.

Heloise Campbell

Perhaps our point of difference lies with different definitions of fundamentalism. I am referring to a literal interpretation of the bible and to a rigid adherence to certain religious doctrines to the exclusion of others. I am also referring to a mindset that values a personal interpretation of religious doctrine over a communion with a wider church and the acknowledgement of Church Magesterium

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“I am referring to a literal interpretation of the bible”

So do most people.

And in the Catholic Church, there is no actual condemnation of that, unless you count Bergoglio and Wojtyla/Ratzinger as Catholics AND also count the small talk of one and medium important documents of “Cardinal Ratzinger under Pope John Paul II” as actually canonically condemning anything as heresy which was not so before, and as trumping Trent, which referred to the consensus of Church Fathers in the Session IV I mentioned, since for certain aspects of Biblical history ALL Church Fathers were for a Literal Interpretation of the Bible.

Actually, for any sentence in the Bible, the Catholic Church is traditionally for a Literal one, not necessarily a straightforward one. But with historic books it will usually be a very straightforward one for most sentences.

It is only that the Tradition is also for three other senses of the same sentence.

The nature and extent of sacred doctrine (Prima Pars, Q. 1) (article 10).
http://newadvent.com/summa/1001.htm#article10

The rest of what you say is actually just bla bla compared to that.

Heloise Campbell

You are talking gobblegook and do not understand the theology of this matter and set yourself up as having more authority than the last 3 Popes. I am very disappointed as I thought you might have something to say of interest

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I note that you think 3 clearly uncatholic non-Popes have more authority on Catholic exegesis than St Thomas Aquinas, and that my saying so is to you somehow equivalent of my feeling superior to actual Popes.

Other answer

James Hough,

Catholic who teaches Catechism, RCIA, and Prayer classes.

Written Jan 18, 2014

There is never direct conflict between the Bible and what the Pope says, that is a logical impossibility. Truth for Catholics is considered to be a person: Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the Word of God. That Truth is proclaimed in the Bible which the Church wrote and the early popes approved, especially Pope Damascus at the Council of Rome in the late fourth century. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, as such, he can only infallibly proclaim the Truth as it has already been revealed. Catholics believe that revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, no further revelation can be made for the simple reason that in sending His Son, God has revealed Himself completely, and given to His Church all Truth. The fact that the pope cannot commit error means that he cannot disagree with the Bible, as both are led by the Holy Spirit. If there is a direct conflict between what you read in the Bible and what the Pope says, the answer is that you are reading the Bible incorrectly, as St. Peter said in 2 Peter 3:16: 16 when speaking of reading St. Paul's letters: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." The interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures is thus entrusted to the Magisterium (which means the Pope, and those Bishops in communion with him) of the Church, any other interpretation is, by definition, in error.

Could not add comment

I agree that "There is never direct conflict between the Bible and what the Pope says, that is a logical impossibility."

I just don't agree this means there is no conflict between Wojtyla's acts in 1986 and the Bible, specifically at Assisi, or Bergoglio's "canonising" him, specifically after his not having publically rep)ented of Assisi, after his having repeated it during the Balkan Wars (and worst massacres happened after that peace prayer) and having left the idea as legacy to his successor.

That is the exact reason why James Hough is blocking me.

His reference to II Peter 3:16 is perfectly valid - as long as we are dealing with real Popes.

Here are however some attacks on his answer, directed not against Antipope "Francis", but against Papacy in general, and he is doing well in defending the Catholic position:

Ray Newman

I thought this was Quora, not Right Wing Watch.

James Hough

And I thought that the person asking the question wanted the answer.

Verne Von Fuego

Is it not written "Call no man Father....."

James Hough

Yes, Our Blessed Lord often used hyperbole. But if everyone went around doing everything He said when He was using hyperbole, we would have a world full of one eyed Christians with only one hand as they all would have torn their offending eye out, and cut off their hand. You are supposed to read the Scriptures in context, and the context is always the teaching of Christ's Church.

When He sent the apostles and their successors out into the world to "teach all nations", the New Testament was one of those teaching tools. But you can not rip one verse out of context and use it to refute the Church that wrote it!

Verne Von Fuego

Actually it is written "And call no man your Father on the Earth: for one is your Father, which is in Heaven. " Pretty specific hyperbole.

James Hough

Yes, Our Blessed Lord was very specific when He spoke: I repeat, though, you are reading the Scriptures, read them in context and with the correct interpretation (the Church's interpretation) as it is She who wrote them.

... against First Twelve Minutes of "Hiding the Antichrist. Part 1"

Hiding The Antichrist - Part1
ChristmasIsALie.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxEKXtEPNdw

[Obviously, with a name of the channel like "ChristmasIsALie.com" you can expect some degree of fanaticism or of loose associations being presented as certain connections.]

9:25 "Roman-Catholic theologians, priests and intellectuals all identified the Papacy as 'the Antichrist'"

Yea, next thing you will be telling me that Protestant theologians, clergymen and intellectuals all identify Martin Luther as the False Prophet?

Or, are you referring to Roman Catholics such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and a few more, who were indeed born in Roman Catholic families and some at least trained in early ecclesiastic carreers as Roman Catholics, but who did not remain so?

My patron Saint John's words about Gnostics and Ebionites comes to mind. They were in the Roman Catholic Church, but not of it.

Counting them as Roman Catholics is like counting Father Ronald Knox or Cardinal Newman as Protestants.

9:31 Michael of Cesena seems to have accused one particular Pope of heresy.

Not papacy as such of being Antichrist.

[For more of the story, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_of_Cesena - which will no doubt fuel some comments about wiki being for idiots. Anyone writing a wiki article on Michael of Cesena has heard the name. Anyone who has heard the name and is not like the channel "ChristmasIsALie.com" relying on bad 19th C Evangelical scholarship is likely to be accurate about what he is saying on Michael of Cesena : his name is not one of the Dunning Kruger magnets.]

"the Pope is Antichrist" attributed Michael of Cesena.

There is a problem here. Not said in what of his writings.

Plus you give St Bernard of Clairvaux' portrait as if it were Michael of Cesena's.

Since Michael of Cesena was a Franciscan, he wore what is technically back then often known as grey, but we call it brown.

The portrait of St Bernard wears white - not unlike the order he belonged to, Cistercians.

10:03 Petrarca originated concept of Papal "Dark Ages"?

He originated concept of Dark Ages, in which one wrote ecclesie instead of ecclesiae - he was a grammar Nazi and proud of his good Latin!

"The Pope is the Antichrist" Attributed Francesco Petrarch.

ALSO not specifying which of his writings.

Dante, presented as [author of] Divine Comedy, Dolce Stil Novo.

This sounds as if he had written two works with those titles. And as if Italian spelled new with nov- + ending for m or f, sg or pl. It is actually nuov- with endings -o, -a in sg and -i, -e in plural.

He belonged to a movement called Dolce Stil Nuovo - both in Divine Comedy and especially in his earlier poetic work, La Vita Nuova.

He also wrote two Latin prose works (at least) which did not belong to Dolce Stil Nuovo. De Monarchia and De Vulgari Eloquentia.

"The Pope is the Antichrist" Attributed Dante.

But is it from De Monarchia or from De Vulgari Eloquentia?

I am very certain it is not from La Vita Nuova, which exclusively discusses his love at a distance for sn called Beatrice.

As for Divine Comedy, it is not in Inferno and it is not in Purgatorio either - I read them in Dorothy Sayers' translation. Would it be Paradiso?

Paradiso is best known for the kind of Mariology which people like you consider Mariolatry.

Or, did you perhaps dig up Dante as one co-source for the statement from some 19th C Protestant from Cambridge? Or Harvard?

Would you also want to dig up things like "Christians worship three gods" from Muslim sources?

Btw, congratulations for at least getting the right portrait THIS time, with Dante, unlike Michael of Cesena presented with portrait of St Bernhard of Clairvaux!

Girolamo Savonarola?

No, he wrote and said and did other things which were questionably Catholic, but he did not claim Popes as such are Antichrist.

11:14 Same statement attributed to William of Occam.

Again, not any reference to where in his writings.

I am reminded of sn who would say "The Bible says 'there is no god'" while not being precise about Psalm 13(14):1.

11:29 Matthew of Janow?

He did NOT condemn veneration of relics or of images as idolatry, he denounced some abuses, and after his proposal of removing them had been condemned by the synod of Prague, he submitted to the decision of the synod:

Matthew of Janow (d. 1394 in Prague) was a fourteenth-century Bohemian ecclesiastical writer.

He was the son of Václav of Janow, a Bohemian knight, and began his studies at the University of Prague, before leaving to complete them in Paris. He graduated nine years later. For this he is known as Magister Parisiensis ("Parisian Master").

In 1381, he was appointed canon and confessor in the Prague cathedral, offices he would hold until his death. Between 1388 and 1392, he wrote several essays, which were later collected and entitled Regulae Veteris et Novi Testamenti ("Principles of the Old and the New Testaments"). This work has never been published in its entirety, nor can it befound complete in any one manuscript. Some parts were falsely thought to be the work of Jan Huss and published with his writings.

Janow thought that the evils facing the church in his day were due to the contemporary Papal Schism, the large number of papal exemptions and reservations, and the excessive importance attached by some Christians to accidental external practices. He advocated the removal of saints and their relics from the churches, because of the abuses he witnessed involving their veneration. He also took the view that it was all but necessary for the laity to receive Communion every day. At the Synod of Prague in 1389 such encouragement of daily Communion was prohibited, and the veneration of images defended. Janow retracted his views and swore repeatedly that he had unfailing loyalty towards the Catholic Church; therefore, he was not punished. Still, because of his previous claims, there are some who considered him to be a forerunner of Jan Huss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_of_Janow

11:38 Same statement again attributed to sn, this time Matthew of Janow.

Check what the wiki has to say about his submission:

"At the Synod of Prague in 1389 such encouragement of daily Communion was prohibited, and the veneration of images defended. Janow retracted his views and swore repeatedly that he had unfailing loyalty towards the Catholic Church; therefore, he was not punished."

Note that all Popes since St Pius X have agreed with his encouragement of daily communion.

Or at least part of it.

They have not said that daily communion was strictly necessary for salvation.

11:59 Martin Bucer stating The Pope is the Antichrist.

Now, this is still not attributed, but it is at least credible, consider what we know of him.

He was joint disciple of Luther and Zwingli (that is disciple of neither but eclectic between both). He was teacher of John Calvin.

HERE we are speaking of people as "Roman Catholic" as Cardinal Newman was Protestant.

While he stated it, he was obviously no longer a Catholic.

With jpholding/tektontv on Inerrancy

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : With jpholding/tektontv on Inerrancy · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I Failed J P Holding's Test - But Let's Look at his Criteria · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Notification to Mike Licona (not answered)

Thread:

Sts Jerome and Ambrose to the rescue of Geisler?

02-02-2017, 03:26 PM #1

02-02-2017, 03:53 PM #2

_________________________

Yesterday, 01:58 PM #3

Yesterday, 02:01 PM #4

Yesterday, 02:03 PM #5

Yesterday, 02:08 PM #6

Yesterday, 02:17 PM #7

hansgeorg

Sts Jerome and Ambrose to the rescue of Geisler?

Geisler's Shootin' Gallery
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxoqKVaFM2k

At 3:34 we see a picture with St Jerome saying "It's symbolic!" [text] and St Ambrose saying "Yep, it sure is!" [text].

So far I see no problem, since all Church Father were looking for symbols or perhaps rather speaking up on already known symbols all over the Bible.

In OT the symbols can be "allegoric", like Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice allegorises Christ carrying the Cross.

In NT the symbols can be "anagogic", like this or that part of Christ's life telling us sth about the future glory.

In OT and NT the symbols may be moral, telling us how we should or should not behave.

And obviously, Christ's miracles are full of symbols for the sacraments he left to the Church.

BUT the wabbit had been saying ..."the Church Father Jerome says, it is not historical, but symbolic".

Where, exactly where (and not just a wiki, please!) does St Jerome actually say it is NOT historical?

Sites like CCEL (?) or Newadvent are trusted for patristic quotes with this guy!

And of course, if you know Latin, take a look here at how Church Fathers explained the Bethsaida miracle of the blind who was healed:

www.corpusthomisticum.org/cmc01.html#85666

I see St Jerome last, giving several hints about symbolism of the matter (notably such as give hints about why priests use spittle when administering baptism, I think right before the actual triple immersion (or triple pouring on head, a non-standard version which is used so often it is standard, but theologically it's an optional replacement for immersion).

But for my part I saw no hint whatsoever of St Jerome saying a single word to the effect "it did not happen".

Of course, perhaps the Library Science might have included Latin and your Latin could be better than mine ...

___________________________________

Three days and JP is not backing up what should have been his fact research?

3:43 saw it as a fitting symbol of washing away of sins in baptism...

Yes, but STILL no direct indication St Ambrose did not see it as historic too.

4:07 If Geisler really believed your stuff about Sts Jerome and Ambrose not taking the healing of the blind as historical, that would be gullible.

BUT the video shows your Geisler ... I'd like to see that from Geisler's own site.

I think Nick Peters was collaborating on the video, how about Apologiaphoenix stepping in, it seems jpholding is somewhat occupied ... or a bit unsure of his Latin, and less sure on where to find the relevant St Jerome passage in Newadvent or CCEL (or whatever the abbreviation might be ...)?

And since I just started hearing about Mark Licona* saying the rising saints were not literal "but apocalyptic", feel free to document that view of Matthew 27 from either St Thomas:

http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/cml26.html

in his own commentary on St Matthew, or the Church Fathers he cites in the Catena Aurea:

http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/cmt26.html

(not same link, one letter different in urls).

* Mike, my bad.

[Last edited by hansgeorg; Yesterday at 02:28 PM.]

Yesterday, 02:23 PM #8

Punkish

It's Mike, not Mark, Licona.

Yesterday, 06:20 PM #9

jpholding

Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

Three days and JP is not backing up what should have been his fact research?

I'm giving a nut the attention he deserves, which is NONE.

Today, 02:38 PM #10

Today, 03:03 PM #11

Today, 03:22 PM #12

hansgeorg

Quote Originally Posted by jpholding View Post

I'm giving a nut the attention he deserves, which is NONE.

Three things:

• 1) You might want to read all of my post which I quote this from:
  
  

  Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

  
  
  Jesus also said that if you call your brother a fool, you are in danger of hellfire, .

  
  
  
• 2) If you actually did answer, you failed to do so. Grammatical mistake at least "I was" et "and will resume that after this clarification". You were not at the moment of writing so.
  
  
• 3) A cheap copout for avoiding a debate, sth which you seem to consider Greider ridiculous for doing ....
  
  In other words, I'll have to give a little move on St Jerome's Latin, I presume ...

Aquinas in Catena Aurea for the passage (labelled chapter 8, lectio 3) cites St Jerome three times.

Hieronymus 1.

Et eduxit eum extra vicum, idest vicinitatem malorum.

And he brought him outside the village, that is outside vicinity of evil men.

Expuit autem in oculos eius, ut videat voluntatem domini per flatum spiritus sancti.

And he spit into his eyes, so he should see the will of the Lord by the blowing of the Holy Spirit.

[Here he certainly is saying the story is symbolic, but if he added it was not what happened, I have so far missed it.]

Impositis autem manibus interrogat eum si videret: quia per opera domini videtur maiestas eius.

And having imposed hands, he asks him if he sees : because by the works of the Lord His majesty is seen.

Hieronymus 2.

Vel videt homines velut arbores, quia omnes homines existimat se superiores.

And he sees men like trees, because he considers all men superior to himself.

Iterum autem manus posuit super oculos eius, ut videret clare omnia;

And again He poses the hands on his eyes, so he should clearly see all;

idest, per opera visibilia intelligeret et quae oculus non vidit,

that is, by visible works should understand also what eye hath not seen,

et clarum animae suae statum post rubiginem peccati, mundi cordis oculo contueretur.

and the clear status/state of his soul after the [rubigo, looking up ... rust] after the rust of sun, behold with the eye of a clean heart.

Misit eum in domum suam, idest in cor suum, ut videret in se quod ante non vidit.

And he sent him into his house, that is into his heart, so that he should see in himself what before he had not seen.

Non enim putat homo desperans de salute omnino posse quod illuminatus facile potest perficere.

For a man despairing of salvation does not consider he can do at all which illumined he easily can bring about.

[Again, a very close symbolic reading of the story, still not a single hint it never happened.]

Hieronymus 3.

Dicit autem ei et si in vicum introieris, nemini dixeris;

And He told him "and if you go back to the village, don't tell anyone"

idest, vicinis caecitatem tuam semper enarra, non virtutem.

that is, tell your village neighbours ever of thy blindness, not the miracle.

Here we see sth which does not make perfect sense if St Jerome had been considering the story as it is historic : or perhaps it does, Christ could have been telling the man he was risking sth if he went back to Bethsaida and witnessed on having been cured.

jpholding, Apologiaphoenix, anything to add?

Where exactly do YOU find St Jerome said "this is not historic"?

jpholding, Nick Peters / Apologiaphoenix, time for you to show you learned something too.

Here is the Latin on St Thomas own comment and on his collection of Patristic comments (previously linked to) where it is discussed of the resurrection of many saints and prophets, an event which Mike (?) Licona wanted to label as "apocalyptic, not historic":

Lectionis 2 excerptum, capitis 27

Supra positum est miraculum, quod factum est circa sacra templi; hic ponit miraculum quod factum est circa elementa. Et ista convenientia inveniuntur primo quantum ad virtutem passionis; secundo quantum ad effectum salutis; tertio quantum ad iudiciariam potestatem, quam Christus patiendo meruit. Convenit quod terra mota est etc., quia non potest praesentiam tantae maiestatis sine tremore sustinere; unde in Ps. CIII, 32: qui respicit terram et facit eam tremere. Et petrae scissae sunt, per quod signatum est quod nulla virtus potest ei resistere; III Reg. XIX, 11: transit dominus subvertens montes, et conterens petras. Et monumenta aperta sunt. Monumenta sunt claustra corporum mortuorum. Unde signatur quod vincula mortis disrumpit; Os. XIII, 14: ero mors tua, o mors, morsus tuus ero, Inferne. Item I Cor. XV, 54: absorpta est mors in victoria. Item convenit quantum ad effectum. Commovetur terra dum quidquid terrenum est abiicitur. Ps. LIX, 4: commovisti terram, et conturbasti eam, sana contritiones eius, quia commota est. Item petrae scinduntur, quando duritia cordium ad compassionem movetur; Ier. c. XXIII, 29: verba mea, scilicet passionis, quasi ignis, et quasi malleus conterens petras. Item quod monumenta aperta sunt, signat quod mortui in peccatis debent resurgere; Eph. c. V, 14: surge qui dormis, et exurge ex mortuis. Item convenit venienti ad iudicium, quia ipso veniente, terra movebitur; Agg. II, 7: adhuc unum modicum est, et ego movebo caelum et terram. Item petrae scinduntur, quia omnis altitudo virorum deprimetur. Item monumenta aperientur, quia mortui venient ad iudicium; Io. V, 28: venit hora in qua omnes, qui in monumentis sunt, audient vocem filii Dei. Consequenter tangitur miraculum in hominibus. Et primo tangit resurrectionem; secundo manifestationem. Dicit ergo et multa corpora sanctorum qui dormierant surrexerunt. De illis solet esse quaestio, utrum resurrexerint iterum morituri, vel non morituri. Constat aliquos resurrexisse, ut post morerentur, ut Lazarus. Sed de istis potest dici quod surrexerunt non iterum morituri, quia surrexerunt ad manifestationem resurrectionis Christi. Certum autem est quod Christus resurgens ex mortuis, iam non moritur. Item si surrexissent, non esset eis beneficium exhibitum, sed potius detrimentum; ideo surrexerunt tamquam intraturi cum Christo in caelum. Et exeuntes de monumentis post resurrectionem eius, venerunt in sanctam civitatem. Et notandum quod licet istud dictum sit in morte Christi, tamen intelligendum est per anticipationem esse dictum, quia post resurrectionem actum est; quia Christus primogenitus mortuorum, Apoc. I, 5. Et venerunt in sanctam civitatem, non quod modo esset sancta, sed quia ante fuerat; Is. c. I, 21: quomodo facta est meretrix civitas fidelis, plena iudicii? Vel dicitur sancta, quia sancta ibi tractabantur. Vel, secundum Hieronymum in sanctam civitatem, scilicet caelestem, quia cum Christo venerunt in gloriam. Et apparuerunt multis. Sicut enim Christus potestatem habet se manifestandi quibus vult, sic intelligendum de corporibus glorificatis.

Lectionis 10 excerptum, capitis 27.

Hilarius in Matth.

Movetur terra, quia capax huius mortui esse non poterat; petrae scissae sunt, omnia enim valida et fortia penetrans Dei verbum, et potestas aeternae virtutis irruperat; et monumenta aperta sunt: erant enim mortis claustra reserata. Sequitur et multa corpora sanctorum qui dormierant surrexerunt: illuminans enim mortis tenebras, et Infernorum obscura collustrans, mortis spolia detrahebat.

Chrysostomus in Matth.

Ipso quidem in cruce manente eum irridentes dicebant alios salvos fecit; seipsum non potest salvum facere. Sed quod in se facere noluit, in servorum corporibus, cum multa superabundantia demonstravit. Si enim quatriduanum Lazarum exurgere magnum fuit, multo magis eos repente qui olim dormierant, apparere viventes; quod futurae resurrectionis erat indicium. Ut autem non putaretur esse phantasma quod factum est, Evangelista subiungit et exeuntes de monumentis post resurrectionem eius, venerunt in sanctam civitatem, et apparuerunt multis.

Hieronymus.

Quomodo autem Lazarus mortuus resurrexit, sic et multa corpora sanctorum resurrexerunt, ut dominum ostenderent resurgentem; et tamen cum monumenta aperta sunt, non ante resurrexerunt quam resurgeret dominus, ut esset primogenitus resurrectionis ex mortuis. Sanctam autem civitatem in qua visi sunt resurgentes, aut Ierusalem caelestem intelligamus, aut hanc terrenam, quae ante sancta fuerat: sancta enim appellabatur civitas Ierusalem propter templum et sancta sanctorum, et ob distinctionem aliarum urbium, in quibus idola colebantur. Quando vero dicitur apparuerunt multis, ostenditur non generalis fuisse resurrectio quae omnibus appareret, sed specialis ad plurimos, ut hi viderent qui cernere merebantur.

Remigius.

Quaeret autem aliquis quid de illis factum sit qui resurgente domino surrexerunt. Credendum quippe est quoniam ideo surrexerunt ut testes essent dominicae resurrectionis. Quidam autem dixerunt, quod iterum mortui sunt, et in cinerem conversi, sicut et Lazarus, et ceteri quos dominus resuscitavit. Sed istorum dictis nullo modo est fides accommodanda: quoniam maius illis esset tormentum qui surrexerunt, si iterum mortui essent, quam si non resurgerent. Incunctanter ergo credere debemus quia qui resurgente domino a mortuis resurrexerunt, ascendente eo ad caelos, et ipsi pariter ascenderunt.

Origenes in Matth.

Semper autem haec eadem magna quotidie fiunt: velum enim templi ad relevandum quae intus habentur scinditur sanctis. Terra etiam movetur, idest omnis caro, novo verbo et novis rebus secundum novum testamentum. Petrae autem scinduntur, quae mysterium fuerunt prophetarum, ut in profundis eorum posita spiritualia mysteria videamus. Monumenta autem dicuntur corpora peccatricum animarum, idest mortuarum Deo; cum autem per gratiam Dei animae huiusmodi fuerint suscitatae, corpora eorum, quae prius fuerunt monumenta, fiunt corpora sanctorum, et videntur a seipsis exire, et sequuntur eum qui resurrexit, et in novitate vitae ambulant cum eo: et qui digni sunt habere conversationem in caelis, ingrediuntur in sanctam civitatem per singula tempora, et apparent multis videntibus opera bona ipsorum. Sequitur centurio autem, et qui cum eo erant custodientes Iesum, viso terraemotu et his quae fiebant, timuerunt valde, dicentes: vere filius Dei erat iste.

Returning next day:

Yesterday, 07:34 PM #13

jpholding

Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

Three things:

1) You might want to read all of my post which I quote this from:

I'd rather read The Joker's autobiography. Much saner. Go somewhere and speak in tongues, Hans.

Yesterday, 08:24 PM #14

TheWall

Wait a second. The words used for fool there in the original language translates to unbeliever. The passage refers to the idea of saying that another who may be a rather in faith should not be called an unbeliever. Also important is that the passage says danger of hell fire meaning reparations can be made if the one slandered does believe.

Yesterday, 08:38 PM #15

Cerebrum123

Quote Originally Posted by TheWall View Post

Wait a second. The words used for fool there in the original language translates to unbeliever. The passage refers to the idea of saying that another who may be a rather in faith should not be called an unbeliever. Also important is that the passage says danger of hell fire meaning reparations can be made if the one slandered does believe.

I don't think it translates to unbeliever, but references a passage in Proverbs which speaks about unbelievers.

Today, 12:32 AM #16

thewriteranon

Quote Originally Posted by Count Olaf

Can you name me a language that was spoken by ancient Romans and is still spoken by very irritating people today?

In loca parentheses

Poco de la rentis

Today, 11:24 AM #17

Today, 11:28 AM #18

Today, 11:29 AM #19

Today, 11:31 AM #20

hansgeorg

Quote Originally Posted by jpholding View Post

I'd rather read The Joker's autobiography. Much saner. Go somewhere and speak in tongues, Hans.

I don't have that gift.

My Latin is study knowledge and my Gaelic is so non-extant that after a comparison of Matthew 28:16-20 I am about like saying "an t‑aon deisceabal déag" would be equal to "undecim discipuli" or "the eleven disciples". If I had the gift of tongues, I would be reading the Gaelic bible as a running water, as it is this reminds me that Gaelic has a funny way of expressing eleven with a noun : "the one disciple [and] ten", my studies in Gaelic so far having failed to achieve anything close to fluency.

Quote Originally Posted by TheWall View Post

The words used for fool there in the original language translates to unbeliever.

Matthew in original Aramaic - not extant for us to discuss.

Matthew in relatively original Greek ὃς δ’ ἂν εἴπῃ· μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός.

As far as I know, moros means fool, not unbeliever.

Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

I don't think it translates to unbeliever, but references a passage in Proverbs which speaks about unbelievers.

Which passage?

Quote Originally Posted by thewriteranon View Post

In loca parentheses

Poco de la rentis

What language is that? Or what dialect of Latin is that? Not pure Classical, not pure Hispanic ... what does rentis mean?

And why was the message by "count olaf" earlier in the thread deleted?

As far as I recall

thereupon thewriteranon answered "It. Is. A. Joke." and I asked if that guy was related to Lemony Snicket. Someone else had mentioned the reference was to "the fool hath said in his heart" in psalms. I don't recall if I answered, but I can answer here : saying "in one's heart" that "there is no god" is not absolutely the same thing as intellectual atheism, though that is included as one instance : it is living one's life as if there were no God, any case, even those who intellectually believe He does exist.

Ah, let's not rely on

my memory just, when we can have copies from the thread itself:

02-07-2017, 02:33 PM #21

Cerebrum123

Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

Which passage?

Oops, it was Psalms, not Proverbs. Here you go.

Psalm 14:1 [ Folly and Wickedness of Men. ] [ For the choir director. A Psalm of David. ] The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.

02-07-2017, 02:33 PM #22

thewriteranon

Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

What language is that? Or what dialect of Latin is that? Not pure Classical, not pure Hispanic ... what does rentis mean?

And why was the message by "count olaf" earlier in the thread deleted?

It's. A. Joke.

02-08-2017, 12:01 PM #23

02-08-2017, 12:01 PM #24

hansgeorg

Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

Oops, it was Psalms, not Proverbs. Here you go.

Psalm 14:1 [ Folly and Wickedness of Men. ] [ For the choir director. A Psalm of David. ] The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.

Is it sure that the application of "fool" in Matthew 5 is tied to "fool" in Psalm 13:1?

That psalm in Latin is "dixit insipiens" and the word in Matthew is "fatue".

Also, one can ask whether the psalmist means that all people who actually are fools have said some atheistic thing in their hearts, or whether he means like "he is fool who hath said in his heart" etc.

Note that King David was not saying this TO a particular person whom he considered such (except if reciting third person statement and letting that person take a guess) and therefore King David was not running afoul of Matthew 5.

Quote Originally Posted by thewriteranon View Post

It's. A. Joke.

I don't know that guy ... is he related to Lemony Snicket?

I tried

to post a link to the post, but I am still not being published "until moderated". It can be added I started the thread as "tWebber" and now have statute "Caught in the Matrix".

However, there are other sayings of Geisler (beyond affirmation of literal inerrancy, of inerrancy in literal sense) to which the Church Fathers are not coming to the rescue.

"Geisler" :

Phooey, I say that no method is legitimate if it goes behind or beyond the text to find a meaning.

"tektontv's alter ego:"

Oh good heavens, that's exactly the kind of backwards attitude which got us in this mess.

From:

Geisler 2: The Rise of the Ehrmanator
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emGf9YAsN58

I agree

that that attitude got someone in a mess.

I do not agree

that it is backwards in the sense of being overall conservative or reactionary on a Christian scale.

On the contrary, it was a very progressive attitude with men like Calvin, Bucer, probably even Martin Luther already.

If J. P. Holding really wants to go beyond the text, so be it - if he does so along with the tradition of the Church, as opposed to based on dubious hypotheses on II Corinthians coinciding with the famine predicted by Agabus, or Dinippus service as corresponding to what is now social service provider proving it really affected Corinth (not to mention precisely in time for arrival of St Paul's Epistle).

Other pearl from video

"Ancient Israel was a high context society."

You don't say so!

You'll be telling me water is wet and sea water salt too? Don't shock me by saying obvious truths like that!

The problem with J. P. Holdings general attitude is about its correponding to this scenario:

• Israel was a high context society;
• the early Christians remained so;
• the Jews remain so to this day and can be relied on to provide the original context;
• the Christians didn't remain so, and the Catholic tradition cannot be relied on to provide the original correct context.

With such an attitude on who preserved tradition correctly (and yes, preserving correct original context is precisely what is meant by "tradition"), the logical consequence would be becoming a Jew rather than a non-Catholic Christian.

And, obviously, he is not logical, but instead says "therefore we are free to invent the correct original context as new discoveries".

While Geisler is incorrect, against the Catholic tradition (which has preserved the original context, including since Christ gave a course to his disciples the four meanings of Scripture), it is at least an understandable reaction when confronted with the Modernist one.

Collagen and C-14 in Dinosaur Bones

Videos commented on:

Decontaminated dinosaur bones Carbon-14 dated
TrueThatiz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvWdWbLcJvQ

"Les commentaires ont été désactivés pour cette vidéo."

Nevertheless, it was commented on here:

Carbon Dating of Dinosaurs? A Critique of Creationist Claims
NaturaLegion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrnhUZWTaWY

In the following I number the issues, and replace one time signature to have two comments on same issue together:

I "was it really collagen"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4:52 there was an antibodies test which confirmed the collagen

NaturaLegion

Hans-Georg Lundahl not interested in taking your (or their) word for it; where are the published results of that antibodies test? Citation please.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Seeing a later part of your video, it might be that they took Mary Schweitzer's results as typical and the test you ask for as unneeded.

I'll have to ask them.

NaturaLegion

"it might be that they took Mary Schweitzer's results as typical and the test you ask for as unneeded"

That's a very dismissive way of saying they have absolutely no evidence that what they found was real dinosaur collagen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Except the evidence it looks like collagen?

Except the evidence that on at least a Creationist view, collagen would be explainable, but even on an evolutionist one, biofilm is less so?

If anything, it is a way of saying I have not yet asked them about the full extent of their evidence.

NaturaLegion

"Except the evidence it looks like collagen?"

How do you know it looks like collagen? Please cite the source where I can find microscopy, immunochemistry, and mass spectrometry data from the creationists to confirm that the substance they carbon-dated was, in fact, collagen. You haven't done that yet; you've merely asserted that it "looks like" collagen. Do you expect me to take your word for it? Mary Schweitzer published the evidence that what she found was collagen. Why can't creationists do the same?

"Except the evidence that on at least a Creationist view, collagen would be explainable, but even on an evolutionist one, biofilm is less so?"

I refuted this in the video. Try paying attention next time.

NaturaLegion

Added

"If anything, it is a way of saying I have not yet asked them about the full extent of their evidence"

They haven't provided ANY evidence that what they found was collagen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

We can see about that when I have asked them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Added

Sorry, only saw last of your two comments, here is to first one.

"You haven't done that yet; you've merely asserted that it 'looks like' collagen. Do you expect me to take your word for it?"

I am taking their word as that of scientists.

And will be asking them for details.

"Try paying attention next time."

As I am now in a library with sound off, how about resuming your refutation? You did not have one which spontaneously struck me as solid, or I would perhaps have remembered it, but if you do, I might actually say "oh, how clumsy of me not to have responded to this". Might, not sure I will.

I also suspect you are in the process of imposing a change of routine due to these finds, and they were using an older but real one.

I also asked you and you have not answered, why is biofilm not an issue with so many other C14 datings, apparently?

I b "collagen could be biofilm"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6:20 If so, how is biofilm not an issue with about all regularly and acceptedly carbon dated samples?

I think biofilm was eliminated as a theoretical possibility by testing with antibodies.

NaturaLegion

Hans-Georg Lundahl What antibodies test? Where can the results of such testing be found? Citation please.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Didn't I already answer that they might have been using Mary Schweitzer's test result as typical?

And if they made a test of their own, I need to ask them about that first, didn't I say that, or was that on another time signature?

[It was on another time signature. See I "was it really collagen?".]

II "why was it not done in a sterile laboratory setting?"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5:27 why was it not done in a sterile laboratory setting?

Well, those sterile laboratory settings may have been blocking such tests of dinosaur bones.

Also, you show the bare hands of the sawing, but did you note the scalpels and aluminium foil used to collect the samples after that?

NaturaLegion

Hans-Georg Lundahl creationist organizations pull in millions of dollars in annual donations and book deals; it's not my problem that they choose to spend it on museums, theme parks, and lobbying instead of laboratories for doing research. And yes I noticed the scalpel and foil... doesn't address the issue I raised.

[Not even with a later footage given showing gloves used during actual extraction?]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think they might have been following current palaeontological routine. If not, I don't know.

As for millions of dollars, you evolutionists are probably sponsored by more like a billion of tax dollars, and have plenty to spare on both lobbying and labs.

Also, Creationists prefer getting lab tests from NOT their own labs, so your side can't say they asked the lab to fake results which wheren't there.

NaturaLegion

"As for millions of dollars, you evolutionists are probably sponsored by more like a billion of tax dollars, and have plenty to spare on both lobbying and labs"

We're also the ones who provide actual EVIDENCE for our findings. In the video, for example, I reference the publications where any other scientist can examine the evidence that Mary Schweitzer has provided in support of her findings. We can see the mass spectrometry readouts, the atomic force microscopy images, the images of the immunochemistry staining, as well as a detailed description of her experimental methods, and we can examine her evidence meticulously to determine whether anything appears to be falsified or fabricated.

Creationists are welcome to do the same thing; it doesn't matter WHERE they conduct their research; if they provide real evidence for their beliefs in a way that others are free to examine, it doesn't matter whether the evidence came from a creationist's own lab. It only matters whether they fully disclose their evidence and a detailed description of their experimental methods. But creationists don't do that... they spend their money on museums, theme parks, and lobbying instead of conducting research and disclosing their evidence to the public.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"We're also the ones who provide actual EVIDENCE for our findings."

Self promotion. Ignorance of what Creationists, both scientists and an amateur like I, are actually doing, at best.

"In the video, for example, I reference the publications where any other scientist can examine the evidence that Mary Schweitzer has provided in support of her findings."

Fine, I'll ask the creationist team about that.

"Creationists are welcome to do the same thing; it doesn't matter WHERE they conduct their research; if they provide real evidence for their beliefs in a way that others are free to examine, it doesn't matter whether the evidence came from a creationist's own lab."

If they did come with a result from their own labs, if not you, probably someone else, would cry wolf about mendacious results.

Papers are falsifiable. Cuts both ways.

Creationists may also be providing a lot of test papers from YOUR institutions in their museums, as far as I know.

III "Doesn't pre-Cambrian samples with pollen spores prove contamination?"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5:48 "Pollen spores have been founds far down as in pre-Cambrian rock layers. Btw, the fossil of a pollen producing plant is never found in pre-Cambrian rock layers."

You conclude contamination.

I conclude that pollen blew from some just pre-Flood plants to the biotope which became labelled as pre-Cambrian.

And obviously, "far down" is compared to the theoretical geological column, not about the depth in site of the findings.

NaturaLegion

Hans-Georg Lundahl "I conclude that pollen blew from some just pre-Flood plants to the biotope which became labeled as pre-Cambrian"

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Where did I say I had no evidence?

The pollen being there is equal evidence for either scenario.

This means your fear of contamination "can be dismissed without evidence", since the pollen "contaminating" pre-Cambrian are no evidence of "later contamination."

NaturaLegion

Show me an example of a fossil of a pollen-producing plant that was found in a pre-Cambrian layer. Until you do that, there is no justification for assuming that the pollen found in pre-Cambrian sediment layers came from plants that existed at the same time those layers formed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, there is, if it can be argued, as I do argue, that next pollen bearing tree went to a nearby layer which was labelled sth else than precambrian because of the presence of a pollen bearing tree.

In other words, your argument is virtually circular : pre-cambrian had no pollen bearing trees, so this layer with a pollen bearing tree can't be pre-cambrian. This layer with a pollen bearing tree is not pre-cambrian, so all to date found layers of pre-cambrian lack pollen bearing trees. "Ergo, pre-cambrian was a time before there were pollen bearing trees." (This last is the part of the circle you are at present arguing).

NaturaLegion

At no point did I infer or imply that the lack of pollen-producing plant fossils is the basis on which a layer is referred to as pre-Cambrian. I'm not making the circular argument that you accuse me of. There are sedimentary layers with fossils of pollen spores but no fossils of pollen-producing plants, ergo the pollen spores likely arrived in the layers after the layers were formed, and the layers were formed before the existence of pollen-producing plants.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"At no point did I infer or imply that the lack of pollen-producing plant fossils is the basis on which a layer is referred to as pre-Cambrian."

No, you didn't. It is know to me that others do in fact do so.

"I'm not making the circular argument that you accuse me of."

You are part of a group making it between you.

"There are sedimentary layers with fossils of pollen spores but no fossils of pollen-producing plants,"

Ergo the pollen producing plants arrived from the side just before the Flood and were if preserved classified as being of another layer, and a later one.

IV "the creationists have an a priori reason for their results"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9:37 considering how Mary Schweitzer has been attacked, I think she could have an a priori case for not giving Creationists too strong a support.

NaturaLegion

Hans-Georg Lundahl yeah the a priori reason is called the scientific method.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think that your ad hominem on creationists about their a priori could also be spelled out that way ...

NaturaLegion

What ad hominem? I'm more focused on attacking the arguments and claims that creationists make rather than attacking them personally.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In the video you claimed they had a priori reasons for their conclusions.

That is you were questioning their honesty.

That is as much and as little an ad hominem as mine, when questioning Mary Schweitzer's courage.

NaturaLegion

"In the video you claimed they had a priori reasons for their conclusions"

Actually THEY claimed that they had a priori reasons for their conclusions. Check out 9:28

In response to your comments about Mary Schweitzer, the difference between her and the creationists I'm talking about in the video is that when on her claims, she presented experimental data to confirm the discovery of dinosaur collagen--atomic force microscopy, immunochemistry, and mass spectrometry. Let me know when the creationists start providing any evidence for their claims.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Actually THEY claimed that they had a priori reasons for their conclusions. Check out 9:28"

Can't in this library, no sound here. Bbl on that one.

"Let me know ..."

I am sorry, I am behind schedual. As a homeless man I live a fairly harrassed life.

I'll try to ask them.

V "dinosaurs and bears not found together, while known to occupy same region"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11:11 "known to occupy the same region"

Perhaps not known to occupy the same biotope, though?

NaturaLegion

Hans-Georg Lundahl or the same time period. Find me one--just ONE--example of a dinosaur fossil confirmed to have been unearthed from a layer above the KT boundary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The problem is that if it is unearthed from a layer physically in the rock above an iridium layer, that iridium layer will be labelled Permian-Triassic boundary instead of KT boundary.

Find me one place on earth where you have fossils from both below and above such an iridium layer, labelled KT, with a dinosaur below and a non-recent mammal (including dino or smilodon, obviously) above it.

Same, V b

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11:16 "why are no dinosaurs ever found in same rock layers as lions, tigers and bears"

Well, if you were a lion, tiger or bear, would you go near an area where dinosaurs were around? A Triceratops is more daunting than Gnus, and a T Rex is a very daunting rival, I'd say.

NaturaLegion

Hans-Georg Lundahl the average dinosaur was considerably smaller than a t-Rex... smaller even than the average bear or modern crocodile.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nevertheless, they might have preferred the company of similar creatures to the company of bears or wolves.

[Meaning that a very small dinosaur, not daunting to a bear or wolf, would be in company of a bigger dinosaur which was so daunting to them.]

NaturaLegion

Ad hoc rationalization for the lack of evidence behind the creationist position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, dinosaurs had smaller brains, so moved slower.

To a big dinosaur, that is no problem.

To a small one, that would be a problem in a habitat with bears or tigers as predators present.

Therefore they went instinctively to habitats with triceratopes or tyranni reges.

NaturaLegion

"dinosaurs had smaller brains, so moved slower"

Having a smaller brain does not mean moving slower. Rabbits move faster than humans. There are lizards that move faster than some mammals, despite having smaller brains. You are reasoning like a five-year-old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Rabbits move faster than humans."

Their brain size is larger than a lizard's in comparison. Probably smaller than a man's in comparison to total body mass, but then man is not specialised on speed.

"There are lizards that move faster than some mammals, despite having smaller brains."

Than some mammals. Key word, some.

Also, lizards and dinosaurs are not exactly the same thing, any more than snakes and dinosaurs.

"You are reasoning like a five-year-old."

And you relish ad hominems.

Supposing you won, I could not conclusively prove small dinos had a securitarian reason for clinging to larger ones, even so they might have other ones.

And there are other factors than security which sift animals in different biotopes to this very day.

Same, V c

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11:21 if you find a Triceratops, the rock layer is labelled Cretaceous.

If you find a Dimetrodon, the rock layer is labelled Permian or possibly Triassic.

Why don't you ever find clearly non-recent bears or even mammoths in layers above Dinosaurs BUT these latter reached by digging down through bear or mammth layer?

NaturaLegion

Hans-Georg Lundahl not sure the point of your question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not sure that you are honest in saying that. I think after the previous remarks, the point of the question should be pretty clear.

YOU made a question why bears and dinosaurs are never found in same "layer".

I answer it with : they are never found in different ones in same location, unless bear is very recent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(added)

Did I really forget or differ to link to my research on this one?

This post includes an index to posts on the topic, and a fairly complete one:

Creation vs. Evolution : Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html

NaturaLegion

"they are never found in different ones in same location, unless bear is very recent."

Your question is a red herring. Two fossils don't have to be found in the same location to be found in the same layer, since sedimentary layers can stretch across hundreds of miles. But incidentally, there actually are examples of dinosaur and bear fossils being found in the same region. For example, bear and tyrannosaurus fossils have both been unearthed in the Shandong province of China, within about a hundred miles from one another, albeit layers of different depth (the bear was found in pliocene layers while the tyrannosaurus was unearthed in--you guessed it--layers below the KT-boundary). Your time would be better spent learning about paleontology than leaving ill-informed YouTube comments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I thank you for a very candid answer, it is at least a very dismissive way of admitting that you have NOT found a bear straight above a dinosaur, you have found both in Shandong (in Communist and Atheist-Evolutionist China!) and pretend to have traced the layers by all in between localities so that you are sure the dino layer is "geologically" lower, even when both were probably found about same depth, i e near surface.

You have not argued that you found a similar iridium layer labelled KT boundary below the bear, and if you do,I'd like to know what the bear was dated to, if it has been carbon dated.

It might be above the iridium layer simply because it is post-Flood.

If it is above anything like an iridium layer, you did not mention then KT boundary with the bear.

NaturaLegion

"it is at least a very dismissive way of admitting that you have NOT found a bear straight above a dinosaur"

Red herring.

"Communist and Atheist-Evolutionist China"

Hugh Miller's arguments are based on fossils discovered in Republican and Christian-Creationist Montana! See? I can make irrelevant points too.

"If it is above anything like an iridium layer, you did not mention then KT boundary with the bear"

I said it came from a pliocene layer; this means it's above the KT-boundary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Your "red herring" is not one. It is a key point to understanding the intellectual dishonesty (often no doubt unconscious to the person expressing it) of biostratigraphical dating.

Hugh Miller's discovery has not been previously discussed on this thread.

"I said it came from a pliocene layer; this means it's above the KT-boundary."

It means you suppose it is above it. It does not mean you found an iridium layer under it.

Updates

are being added on 16.II.2017 : done.

Update Pentecost 2017

I found collagen was not all there was to it:

Reasons To Believe embarrassing!!!
MarkHArmitage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RalYQA5BY_g

H/T to a guy on quora who showed me to Mark Armitage!

With Crawford on Nature of Language Groups

Old Norse, Its Relatives, and Runes: A Timeline and Introduction
Jackson Crawford
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6UbGLC7YWk

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I suppose skog and hult are PIE words?

Not?

A little comment : how do we tell if two languages have shared and diverging vocabulary whether this is because ancestral identity broke up and new languages were formed with new words (case of Romania in historic sense of Latin word), or whether diverse languages pushed towards a not achieved unity, as Balkan (Romania as a proper name belonging to both)?

Still on your video you linked to: Uralic not related? Take a good look at conjugation endings in Uralic, spec. Finnish ... I suppose you know Greek and Latin and perhaps some Lithuanian?

+ the word Attas in Anatolian and Ojciec in Slavonic can be the same as more even Turkic Ata than Finnish Isä.

Jackson Crawford

If I understand what you mean to ask, it can sometimes be hard to tell if the similarities between two languages are genetic or the result of borrowing or areal features. For instance, Armenian was long though to be an Iranian language because there is so much Iranian vocabulary incorporated into it. But examination of the core vocabulary (the words least likely to be borrowed, like basic verbs, family members’ names, numbers) revealed that these words had undergone sound changes that preceded any sound changes that had occurred in the language since the Iranian borrowings had come in.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, what exact features rule out that IE language community could be an areal feature (I suppose you mean Sprachbund, as in Balkan)?

Note, I am not necessarily saying an areal feature in the times we have IE texts from, could be earlier, but a Sprachbund feature nonetheless?

When it comes to Armenian and Indo-Iranian, that is a thing decided on the theory the proto-language really existed and both came from it. And of course the idea that certain sound laws preceded certain other sound laws.

Let's take a case from Swedish dialectology, since you know it and since vatterholm made me challenge my previous ideas on the subject.

It is commonplace that Scanian r>R spread north before r+dental could become retroflex of same mode as previous dental (r+s > Eng. sh) in Scania, but after they had gone that way in Småland or, I suppose at least, Halland too.

Reason : första rörande lifstecknet (first touching sign of life) would in Scania be föRsta RöRande and in Småland föSHta Rörande. Diagnosis as I hitherto took it :

Scanian r > R only (leaves no r+dental, since all become R+dental).
första rörande > föRsta RöRande

Småland:

1) r+dental becomes retroflex
första rörande > föSHta rörande

2) remaining r becomes R.
föSHta rörande > föSHta RöRande

Wait, we were supposed to have föSHta Rörande in Småland, right? The scenario is a splendid diagnosis of how one sound change follows another, but it leaves out facts.

Småland 2, once again: initial r becomes R.
föSHta rörande > föSHta Rörande

Which is what we have.

However, what we no longer have is a diagnoses of which order sound changes came in. Småland could equally well have had:

1) Initial r becomes R (in common with Scanian).*
första rörande > första Rörande

2) r+dental > retroflex (in common with Stockholm and I think the Götamål as well):
första Rörande > föSHta Rörande.

Could any such sequence error account for certain Armenian only soundchanges not really being before Iranian part of vocabulary?

But one more thing is, I was not asking whether community could be ruled out from having a common ancestor, by same procedure which rules out Armenian having one with Iranian but not with Italo-Celtic or Balto-Slavic (i e being Iranian), but rather whether a Sprachbund could be ruled out or remained an unproven, but still possibility.

As far as sound changes go. When it comes to vocabulary, there are so many diverging vocabulary which are nevertheless central enough to make it to a Swadesh list, head and hand being two of them**, that if Sprachbund is possible, it is on lexical grounds preferrable. On your own view that central vocabulary is least likely to be borrowed.

"family members’ names"

pHtehr, meHtehr, sunus, dhug@tehr, breHtehr, swesghwer / sweseghwr

Germanic - all.

Slavic - misses out on father and on -er endings.

Baltic / Lithuanian - misses out on father, mother means woman, same stem without er ending means mother (motine)

Greek - replaces brother and sister with adelphos/adelphe gloss. Retains brother only in fratria sense.

Latin/Romance (and perhaps some more Italic) - replaces son and daughter with the gloss filius, filia.

Celtic famously has tad for father in Welsh and maqqos gloss replacing son, another one replacing daughter, both Welsh and Irish.

Armenian, Sanskrit, Persian - I know too little to speak.

Gothic has fadar gloss meaning daddy (translation of "abba, father") and atta meaning father.

"basic verbs"

Sleep, dream and die would be basic enough.

Germanic has for sleep partly a not clearly IE gloss (the one just cited), partly, Norse, the one which in Latin means dream (sofva / somniari).

The common IE gloss for die is not die, and if there is one, it is absent from Germanic (mori seems common to Latin and Sanskrit and to Slavic too, and there is at least one derivative in Greek).

The Germanic gloss just might be related to the Greek one. But diverse stem suffix (-n, vs -w). [I must be referring to thnein and dawjan > die]

Slavic has san/sen for noun sleep/dream, but spac, spavati, for verb sleep. For dream, the verb seems related to somniari.

On the other hand, Greek has a seemingly unrelated word.

Numbers - teens are very unequal, thousand is stated diversely, though Germanic, Baltic and Slavic share a gloss (areal feature?) ... with Finnish.

If twenty is cognate with viginti and eikosi, it seems there was felt some need to clarify with tw- from two in English.

For Nordic, I heard that tjugu comes from tetugu, a dual of the gloss in -ty, which is not identic to the -ginta or -konta elements. Celtic is divided on twenty, fichead having and ugain lacking an obvious connection to viginti (I could be wrong on ugain).

The usual IE word for one - oinos - is lacking in Greek where oios means "ace" on a dice, but "one" is sth else, namely a cognate of "same" ...

A scenario : as you know doubt know James Mallory has theorised that nomads of the steppes, living in yurts or sth like that and burying in ... hear Gimbutas ... kurgans were the earliest IE language speakers.

What if they were instead the federating ones? Like Latin, French, English, locally for Scandinavian and Baltic regions also German have played the role of federating West European languages.

Why would numbers be international vocabulary? For trade passing through the nomads or whoever.

Why would family relations be that? Because agreements were not limited to goods but also involved marriages.

Result : Italo-Celtic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian all draw closer to each other and to federating language without having evolved from a proto.

Before that, there could have been some federation between Anatolian, Greek and Indo-Iranian, esp. if Crete when writing Linear A was writing in Indo-Iranian.***

Indo-European features in all languages due to mutual influence, either mediated through Aegean area, or through nomads, or through Danube-Balkan area.°

Difficulties in reconstructing a single coherent proto-religion or proto-mythology due to ecumenic and syncretistic nature of the mutual influence. What - if any - are the obstacles?°°

* Scanian 1 = equal to Småländska 1, Scanian 2 = generalisation from initial to all positions.

** Other examples being good and bad. Lithuanian blogas means bad, Slavonic blago- in compositions means good - and then there are all the cases in which there are no cognates at all, between branches.

*** And in the earlier stage, Nesili or Luvian can have been the federator. Note, Luvian might go back directly to the Semite Lud in table of Nations.

° + Atlantic coast for Celtic, as already noted by [Barry] Cunliffe.

°° So far, not answered.

How do we determine what languages are related?
Jackson Crawford
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgzkQ8oktD4

Picture on 0:02 sound correspondences.

Words borrowed between languages already in a social relation (as dialects of English) tend to do that without existing proto-forms.

For some of the morphemes, any word formed by them gets instant sound changes according to the phonemes.

Any word in -tion can be pronounced -sh@n (English), -syõ (French), -shoon (Finland Swedish, while regular Swedish gets sth between -shoon and -whoon, yes, our sj sound is terrible for foreigners), -tsyo:n (German), -çyoun (Danish), -syoon (Monegasque, unless that is -shoon like Finland Swedish).

What are the chances such borrowings can have been more wide across even phoneme correspondences if the writing system was a syllabary, like Hittite or Luvian Hieroglyphs?

6:43 In areas with lots of bilinguals and oral language culture, structures do tend to get borrowed too. Balkan languages tend to merge genitive and dative and tend to replace infinitive with subjunctive "I want that I go" instead of "I want to go".

In English, if English speakers of California were all there were and the written language were lost, you might get eventually structures like "thee lovoe" or "ye loveo" in imitation of Spanish.

You have gone to school and can read and are aware of lots of areas where the Spanish construction "te amo", "os amo" (or quiero?) are totally unknown and where therefore "thee lovoe" or "ye loveo" would be totally incomprehensible.

While you are at reluctance to borrow structure, take a look on Finnish personal endings, add the fact that Finnish like Germanic has present and preterite, while other IE groups usually have different preterites, Slavic being closest, since the two preterites are two different verbs with same preterite endings (these being participles).

And even so, Germanic is supposed to be closer to Italic than to Finnish [despite tense system], and Greek is supposed to be closer to Germanic than to Finnish [despite personal endings].

9:28 For most areas of Swedish you have an advantage while pronouncing wh- different from w-.

The sje-ljud is very close to your wh, closer than to English sh, which is fors-ljud (the sound resulting from r+s merging into sh).

I was looking at older Swedish spelling, trying to pronounce "hvit" (white) according to spelling. My granny passed by and overheard me, and thought I was saying "skit" = "shit". The dialects which still preserved the wh pronunciation of hv a hundred years ago (at least they pronounce v-/hv- as w rather than as v, which is reserved for f spellings) obviously used another word for shit, like "drit" (possibly related to Gmn "Dreck").

In order to make it quite right, there is a difference in the tongue tip between wh and sj. I am trying and think the tongue tip is lower in sj. Pushed down.

9:53 Swedish originally had a spelling reflecting distinctions wh, w, v, spelled respectively hv, v, f/fv. First wh and w merged in nearly all dialects, so hv spellings had to be learned as quirks (fortunately not that many), but if you know English, you will still know which ones. Then nearly all of the rest had w -> v. "I come from Visconsin, my name is Yon Yonson" reflects the pronunciation English got from inter alia Swedes. [During the first generation of immigration.]

10:31 Regular alternation ... German "falsch" and French "faux" go back to same original pronunciation. Either "falsk" or "falso", depending on which of the languages it came from : and you can't from these two say which one it is. Even Swedish actual "preserved" pronunciation "falsk" could be a backformation from German "falsch" (I don't know sufficient either Low German or Medieval Swedish to contradict it, at any rate). In German and French these common words are only a few ... but the commonalities between "different branches" are not all that many either. Of IE, that is.

10:44 Unlikely to arise by coincidence, yes. But unlikely to arise when languages share bilinguals and systematically exchange structures and obviously words, no.

See also Na-Dené-Caucasian possible unity.

Proto-Dené–Caucasian (PDC) /p/

Proto-Caucasian (PC) /p/ Proto–Sino-Tibetan (PST) /pʰ/, -/p/ Proto-Yeniseian (PY) /p/ Burushaski (B) /pʰ/-, /p/ (Proto-)Basque [proto-Vasconian] (PV) /p/ Proto–Na-Dené (PND) /w/

PDC /t/,

PC /t/, PST /tʰ/, -/t/, PY /d/, B /tʰ/, PV /t/, PND /t/.

PDC /k/,

PC /k/, PST /k/, PY /ɡ/, -/k/, B /k/, /kʰ/, PV /h/, 0¹, PND /k/.

PDC /q/,

PC /q/, PST /qʰ/, /ɢ/, /x/, /ɣ/, -/k/, -/ŋ/ PY /q/-, /q/, /ɢ/, B /q/, /qʰ/, /ʁ/, PV /k/, PND /q/.

... PDC /a/,

PC /a/, PST /e/, /a/, /ə/, PY /a/, /ɔ/, /e/, /æ/, /ə/, PV /a/

... PDC /u/,

PC /o/, /u/, PST /u/, PY /o/, /ɔ/, /u/, PV /u/

(For vowels B always ? and PND always left empty)

From: Dené–Caucasian languages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den%C3%A9%E2%80%93Caucasian_languages

See more : Materials for a Comparative Grammar of the Dene-Caucasian (Sino-Caucasian) Languages
John D. Bengtsson, Santa Fe Institute
http://starling.rinet.ru/Texts/dene_gr.pdf

Shall we conclude we can be certain that Apache and Basque had a common ancestor language?

13:27 disputing a unitary proto-language does not imply disputing a unitary word behind "pater" and "father."

Why would relatives words be borrowed between languages? If they were having royal marriages for instance (exactly as romance cousin has been borrowed later for reasons of the kinship tree in decretum gratiani :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretum_Gratiani#/media/File:Treegratian.jpg

By http://peregrinations.kenyon.edu/vol1-4/tree.jpg, Public Domain, Link

13:54 Piscis, Latin, eisc (?) Old Irish, fisk/fish Germanic. But going east of these neighbouring languages, do we find cognates? Ichthys? Ryba? What about žuvis? Or machhalee? Does fish at least have cognates in Sanskrit and Zend-Avestan which I can't check on google translate? On this one, Hungarian and Finnish are closer than different non-Western branches of IE. Finnish kala = Hungarian hal (Hungarian having a kind of Grimms' law).

14:04 why would number words be borrowed? Units up to ten, as well as hundred, can have liturgic implications, whatever the religion. It is also useful (though less so without systematic teen and decade correspondences) for trade.

With Kent Hovind, on Last Days

666 Mark of the Beast is the Rise of the Machines AI
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6pQuEfIeu8

2:26 Now you know what Go is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomoku

[At 2:26, he didn't, but the video is a bit old, he might have known before.]

3:41 I disagree on both time of Flood and location of Tower of Babel.

[Time : he had mentioned Ussher date for Flood, location, I think he referred to the Ziggurat of Woolley's Ur]

• 1) Roman Martyrology for Christmas day enumerates the dates for different epochs on which Christ was born. 5199 after The Beginning, 2957 after The Flood of Noah, 2015 after Birth of Abraham.
  
  
• 2) Shinar extends into Turkey, since a part of Turkey is east of Euphrates. There you find Edessa, a k a Shahnlee URfa (means venerable Urfa, was Ur Kasdim acc. to some) and close by Göbekli Tepe. If GT was location, it can have been meant as a launching ramp, and the tower might have been a rocket. Genesis 6:11 indicates the tower could be a later success. God was not stopping it from being built, God delayed it to Cape Canaveral. Genesis 11:[8] And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. Doesn't say they ceased to project the tower, though.

4:04 First hit on Nimrod and Chick : an attack on Catholic Mariology ... yeah, right, "good stuff", no, bad stuff in fact.

Like when Chick promotes the Jewish liar Avro Manhattan, whom I refuted on giving bad references in footnotes he hoped no one would look up (unless he hoped to be discovered as a fraud):

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Heard this one? Donation of Constantine a fraud to extort the Peter's Pence, like?
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.fr/2016/10/heard-this-one-donation-of-constantine.html

[He had mention Jack Chick as having good resources for Tower of Babel and what happened there.]

9:20 how about you distributing this one:

antimodernista : Can We Reasonably Trust the Gospels? – YES! P. 1-8
https://antimodernista.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/can-we-reasonably-trust-the-gospels-yes-p-1-8/

[He had said this thing about not just waiting around for the worst, but getting a job for the winning of souls.]

Conditions can be added Monday, now's Sunday Eve (Sunday tomorrow, started 18:00)

Yes, it is now monday ... conditions:

hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/a-little-note-on-further-use-conditions/

(also quoted in the booklet itself). A little hitch?

IBAN-IDENTIFIANT INTERNATIONAL DU COMPTE:
FR81...10011...00020...102...2192955Z...24 [no dots!]

The numbers are a bit changed in their arrangement with the spaces now.

New blog on the kid : On Donativo, a Practical Point
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2016/05/on-donativo-practical-point.html

From a message I got from post office bank, it would seem that the proper way to space the IBAN would now be:
FR81 1001 1000 2010 22192955Z 24

Need instructions about printing?

Here:

Recipes from Home and Abroad : Printing Books / Imprimer des Livres
http://recipesfromhomeandabroad.blogspot.fr/p/printing-books-imprimer-des-livres.html

And more recently here:

Recipes from Home and Abroad : From Blog Posts or Notebook to Book : Part I, up to reproducible originals
http://recipesfromhomeandabroad.blogspot.fr/2016/08/from-blog-posts-or-notebook-to-book.html

Recipes from Home and Abroad : From Blog Posts or Notebook to Book : Part II, from reproducible originals to books you can turn the pages of
http://recipesfromhomeandabroad.blogspot.fr/2016/09/from-blog-posts-or-notebook-to-book.html

Other little hitch about pages placed wrong in one of the scans? I'll try to fix that soon, but if on one double sided copy of the printouts you get exactly two pages displaced after folding correctly, you know there is sth wrong and might want to try to fix it too.

I'll have a look.

If four pages are displaced, you probably didn't match the two printouts correctly when making a double sided copy, turn one of them around and try again.

Other little thing, on p. 34 I am going to add "pp. 23-34 mostly based on wikipedia, links not copied to the print, sorry, here's the attribution" or sth like that. If I haven't by when you print it out, please add it!

Norse Myth, Commenting on Jackson Crawford

Video commented on:

Norse Myth: The Creation
Jackson Crawford
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvuOuxvb_NA

I

5:40 Genesis account of Flood (recall : "there were giants in those days") meets Sumerian account of Enlil killing Tiamat.

Odin was arguably more modest than Nimrod: the latter claimed having killed Tiamat himself before creating men and earth, while Odin said he needed the help of two brothers for similar task.

And Odin and Nimrod were believed for reasons close to those making Hercules believable when he said things like "you should have seen me and Iolaus help the gods against the giants" or "it was a tough scrape down in Hades, I was nearly caught" ...

II

7:37 Creation of man, Norse and Greek each have more in common with Sumerian than with each other.

Greek / Sumerian : Enki theme resumed as Prometheus (Greek taking more of an "Enlil pov" than Sumerian - btw, I just speculated Nimrod would have claimed the role of Enlil for himself, perhaps it was rather the role of Enki).

Norse / Sumerian : human vital characteristics are described as gifts of different gods.

III

8:20 All vowels alitterate with each other in Norse poetry.

So, can one take identic vowel as a kind of "rich allitteration" (I know that usually stands for consonant groups, like grasping for gr after group ...). First man and first woman have anyway alitteration of identic vowels with Biblical items.

A chance? Or had Odin read the Bible in Hebrew, at least OT? I am of course here referring to his human appearance, attested by Snorri, Saxo, and with subtle differences, but no basic contradiction, as a tale our narrator Paul the Deacon did not believe : Godan and Fricco overseeing the battle from which Vinniles emerged victorious - or declared victors - and with the new name of long beards.

IV

8:56 While Swedish translator Åke Ohlmarks translates Middle-Earth as Midgård (identic to Norse myth term), Tolkien was actually referring to Middle English Middel Erthe ... where the concept no longer carried any connotation of Norse myth, it was just a poetic reference to an earth between heaven and netherworld.

So, I would not quite agree that it is the Norse myth concept of Midgarth that Tolkien translates.

V

At end:

Yggdrasil in netherworld : confer Sumerian pillars of netherworld. Both had dragons or snakes crawling around them.

Sumerian was not a dead-dead but a Classic language up to 1:st C. BC. So, if Odin's stepgrandson Fjolner was contemporary with Augustus (scrapping Saxo's distinction between Frothi I and Frothi II as a doubling of persons to serialise what were instead parallel dynasties), Odin would have been alive when he had an opportunity of learning Sumerian.

And the idea of Ragnarok ... well, 19th C. scholars thought this and Baldur had been borrowed from Christian neighbours.

I think Hebrew or Old Persian / Zoroastrian apocalyptic literature as well as Osiris for model of Baldur would be as arguable an origin : especially as Norse myth is as dualist with gods related to and inimical to giants and of equal power (in Norse version even giants stronger) as Zoroastrianism, and so, Odin if a 1:st C. BC Oriental could have accessed Gathas, Book of Daniel, probably already Book of Henoch and, of course Egyptian Osiris worshippers.

If you want IE "etymologies" for Ragnarok and Baldur the way a Hindoo wind gods becomes so for Odin, or Zeus for Tyr, I think you will be looking longer, than if you accept Odin as a historic person with Oriental at least connections.

Other video commented on

Intro. to the Norse Gods and Goddesses
Jackson Crawford
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHS6xJpH0Qw

I

1:12 A little tu quoque.

The Eddas between them give us two basic alternatives as to how theogonical parts of Norse myth "theology" was so to speak "revealed" to the Pagans.

Snorri's work starts with a Gylfaginning which you dismiss straight off, while I doubt only the Trojan ancestry part of it (by the way, would Troy have been in Tyrkjaland in Snorri's day, or wasn't it still Byzantium?). I.e., a man taken by his adherents as a god (which he is not, Atheists and Christians would agreee on that one, whatever Hindoos say) reveals his "divine past" in what, on any non-Pagan view, is extreme and blasphemous bragging.

Voluspá on the other hand says someone committed necromancy to get the witness of what on Christian views must have been a demon from Hell. A medium invoked a former dead medium, a demon took the soul's place, and a deception ensued with more seriousness and less humour than that of the Nine Muses adressing Hesiod.

These versions do not contradict. Odin could have been the younger - male - medium or necromancer who invoked an older, dead female one, in reality the devil, to get a "supernatural"*, but not at all divine witness of his divine past.

Of course, the appearances and disappearances Odin makes before Gylfe could also be explained if Odin was a hypnotist and Gylfe in trance. Saxo (I think it was) gives some indication Odin mastered both hypnosis and self hypnosis as well as any Hindoo Fakeer.

* Preternatural is actually more like it.

II

Niorth : etymologically Nerthus, as nearly no modern scholar doubts.

Why would a goddess change gender to a god (of a different quality) like that?

On the other hand, if Niorth really lived, we can see another possibility.

A man named Nerthus in 1:st C. BC Scandinavia could possibly be ... an equivalent to what Demetrios was as male name when Demeter was worshipped by other Pagans, further south.

He might have been or not have been a priest of the goddess Nerthus. He might even have been the real man behind Gylfe, who looks a bit like a Norwegian "Sverige-vits". I e the indigenous man who received Odin as a god. Remember, if James Cook and Hernán Cortez hadn't been Christians, they would have had no problem starting some cults with themselves as worshipped divinities, had they made the right moves. What if Nerthus was a Nerthus priest involved in doubting the Nerthus religion, partly due to philosophy from South (i e via Romans) tipping him off that human sacrifice was a bad move? And Odin stepped in to fill his void of convictions.

His son and Odin's stepson Frey is also known as Yngwe and as ancestor of the Ynglings. These are at least in the latter generations up to Harald Hairfair and St Olaf not even doubted by contemporary scholars. For my own part, I am as little inclined to doubt them - back to these first generations now - as an Italian to doubt Julius Caesar and Augustus (also divinised) or an US American to doubt George Washington.

III a

5:28 Heimdall son of nine sisters?

If he was around as a person, one can imagine Odin tongue in cheek meaning he is heir to the nine muses who appeared to Hesiod.

I had actually forgotten this aspect, since I was (in my teens) a Norse Mythology geek!

III b

5:58 Heimdall blowing his horn obviously owes something to St Michael doing so on Judgement Day - is that already in Daniel or Henoch?

IV

8:54 My hobbyhorse : if Thorr was a Hebrew and repented of the charade, could he be Zebedee?

James and John are certainly saints who will "survive" = be counted among the "living" = after Judgement Day. And they were called for some reason "boanerges, that is sons of Thunder" ...

This has of course nothing to do with serious scholarship in myth studies, but is strictly interdisciplinary with theology.

[At 8:54 Jackson Crawford had been speaking about Thor's sons Modi and Magni who "will survive Ragnarok".]

Also a video commented on

The Poetic Edda and Snorri's Prose Edda
Jackson Crawford
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFIuuLz8Nzw

I

3:20 Trojan ancestry was very likely to be invented if absent in his time.

I differ from the idea of euhemerisation. While Pagans considered Aesir as gods, not as men, for some of them (for some of the gods, but by all of the Pagans) they were gods like Krishna and Romulus who had once appeared as men.

There was a time when Odin and Niorth were the obvious rulers in a part of Sweden, a little later when Niorth seems to have left and Odin ruled with his and Niorth's sons Thor and Frey, and later still, only Frey was left, he founded Uppsala and is also known as Yngve. How do we know this? Because Frey's descendants (via non-divinised Fjolner as immediate successor) are a dynasty reaching all the way up to St Olaf (via Harald Hairfair, where I suppose Ynglinga saga ends).

Obviously, if Nerthus was still worshipped in their time, Niorth can have been called Nerthus, and it would have sounded as "Demetrios" along the goddess "Demeter". I suppose he was a collaborator with immigrant scams Aesir and was "revealed" as "divine" by them.

II

9:11 I believe that either Thrymskvitha (what is IE cognate of verb qväda, qvida, noun qväde/qvida?) was composed when one pronounced Vreithr - or was borrowing the phrase from an earlier poem, as a set phrase.

We don't know if Homer pronounced digamma, he could have borrowed set phrases from earlier poetry. I mean where digamma makes an extra consonant making position or preventing elision.

Which brings me to the question : what if Havamal could be transposed to 100 C BC Proto-Nordic, would it be metric? Obviously, as more syllables were pronounced, the metre would be other if metric, but could one trace a stanza back to a metric reconstruction?

100 C BC - bad attention for "c. 100 BC" or 1:st C. BC, obviously!