Thursday, June 22, 2017

... in Reply to Joe's Reply to Lizzie

... on Misrepresenting Origins of Catholic Church · ... in Reply to Lizzie · ... in Reply to Joe's Reply to Lizzie

Reply to LizziesAnswers: 10 Lies Protestants Believe About Catholicism! (From a Protestant)
Joe Angelo

You know, while I first intended to see this, I thought the last parenthesis in the title of this video meant you are a Protestant too, not that you quoted her title in full.

I was even preparing to defend the Rosary against your attacks.

12:36 Suppose you believe 1962 - 1965 in the Vatican saw a genuine Church Council.

I think it was a robber council.

12:43 You might want to check this [unbelievers should not be forced to embrace the faith, i e under any circumstances] out with St Thomas Aquinas.

Question 10. Unbelief in general
Summa Theologiae > Second Part of the Second Part

[More than one article apt on question. Actually 7 to 12, all articles, more or less.]

14:27 I was just trying to investigate whether Fides et Ratio was heretical (against YEC, against Geocentrism, or against Five Ways of Proving God, for instance), but found it a bit long on a quick look.

What paragraph can you recommend on the Galileo issue, if any?

There is one Laudato Si which I refer, it is of course by the Saint from Assisi.

Would you agree there are points of agreement between it (or between song of the Three Young Men in the Furnace, which you know from the hours) and animism / shintoism, except there is a ONE God above the nature spirits?

16:09 Thank you very much for touching on the relationship between infallibility and Biblical inerrancy.

If God can do the one, He can do the other.

Hey Prots, if God can make St Luke's human investigation providentially free from all error, He can also make Pope St Leo's comment on among others it free from all doctrinal error!

Hey Modernists, if God can make Pope Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus free from all doctrinal error, He can also make Moses' research about Patriarchs back to Adam (stitching patriarchal text onto patriarchal text) free from all factual error!

17:20 sth "finally dogmatised at Trent"

Trent certainly finally included I and II Maccabees. But are you sure it as certainly finally excluded III and IV Maccabees?

Trent certainly finally included Baruch (calling it appendix to Jeremiah, since one could view the books defined as canonic either 72 "or 73 if Baruch counts separate from Jeremiah"). But are you sure it as certainly finally excluded Henoch (the book held as canonic by Ethiopians)?

22:43 The Catechism of Pope Pius X has the stamp of approval by an undoubted Pope and undoubted Saint.

22:48 I would not call CCC a sure norm for teaching the faith, therefore also not Wojtyla a Pope.

He was arguably validly ordained a priest, perhaps even validly consecrated bishop (not sure of the when), but he was arguably not eligible to papacy, since heretical. See decisions like Assisi and Assisi II.

24:48 Chemical means of contraception, now as then, are also abortive : if an ovulum is fertilised, it is prevented from nesting.

25:21 Lambeth Conference 1920 - as anti-Contraception as ever.

Lambeth Conference of 1930 - suddenly pro-Contraception.

Otherwise they would have had to condemn certain innovations in states of US and Canada (perhaps England too), which Pope Pius XI duly condemned in Casti Connubii.

Orthodox Modernists (who like to trace the common Christian view to St Augustine's Manichaean past!) were episcopates following suit about 40 years later.

25:35 Unlike Humanae Vitae, Casti Connubii is actually by a Pope:

Pius XI Encyclicals

I love it.

... in Reply to Lizzie

... on Misrepresenting Origins of Catholic Church · ... in Reply to Lizzie · ... in Reply to Joe's Reply to Lizzie

This series of comments might seem a bit disconnected if not compared to the video I am answering to, as often is the case with the video comment videos. Watch it along with my comment./HGL

10 Lies Protestants Believe About Catholicism! (From a Protestant)

From one convert about another.

Have you checked out Stephan Borgehammar? His father was a Lutheran clergyman. He is now a Catholic, but I think he wrote this book while still a Lutheran:

How the Holy Cross was found : from event to medieval legend : with an appendix of texts
Responsibility : Stephen Borgehammar.

5:05 What was Martin Luther's motive?

Well, II Maccabees endorses sacrifice for the dead, and Martin Luther was attacking Masses said for the dead.

6:55 When it comes to relics = bones, check out 4th Book Of Kings (2 Kings) : chapter 13.

9:31 Actually, council of Nicaea was not yet establishing what books were Scripture.

You find local councils doing that a bit later, and disagreeing (Laodicaea council has no Maccabees - but also no Apocalypse!). Canon of Trent agrees (or is meant to agree, some dispute the success) with the canons of councils of Rome and Carthage.

11:29 Actually, Jesus did give the basic training on certain things to do and on hiererarchy, He did make choices like "72, 12, Peter". Only hierarchic choice not explicitly attributed to Jesus was the deacons, Acts, seven deacons in Jerusalem.

BUT a lot of the things we see the Apostles doing must have been directly mentioned by Jesus, or they would not have dared to come up with it. That is what Haydock comment says about Extreme Unction mentioned in James.

Or said, I think the comment has changed, or I misrecalled where it was:

ST. JAMES - Chapter 5
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.

Epistle Of Saint James : Chapter 5
Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes

12:47 What is awful about the Crusades?

I don't mean this that or other war crime under crusades, but crusades as such : was it awful to deliver Mossul from ISIS? It cost some killing.

12:55 Thirty Years War was a war in which Protestants were one belligerent party. Including Gustavus Adolphus, king or better usurper of Sweden, who was executing two converts to Catholicism as traitors. Georg Bäär or Georgius Ursinus, and the mayor of Södertelge, Zacharias Anthelius.

Unlike some, Lutherans and Anglicans never made pacifism a test of their religion, and of those who did, some had just a generation earlier been violent and revolutionary. Hussites like Ziska were basically the back then version of Commies, at least comparable to Bela Kun and Rosa Luxemburg.

14:42 "together with us they adore the one merciful God"

Well, not all Catholics agree with that, some, including me, consider these words as an act of apostasy.

If it had been like

// like we, they believe there is one God //

that would have been OK, as Muslims have a philosophically correct concept of God.

But saying they are together with us adoring God would mean they are adressing their prayers to the right God. A generally correct philosophical description of God is not sufficient for a right identifification of Him.

Check out this catechism:


From the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore(1891 Version)

15:27 And there are some of us Catholics who believe the world is six or seven thousand years old, and who are geocentrics.

No, all creationists and even global manmade warming deniers are not Protestants, I am among the Catholic ones.

15:40 What exact statement are you speaking about and which Pope?

Certainly not Pope St Pius X!

16:00 Truth cannot contradict truth, sure.

Can you say even one YEC who would deny that?

A YEC by definition does not think millions of years is true. And a falsehood (like millions of years) can contradict truth (like Genesis).

16:16 First trial of Galileo in 1616 about his book and about Foscarini's letter:

In 1616 Bellarmine became involved in the Copernican controversy, which was brought to a head by the publication of Paolo Antonio Foscarini's book defending the Copernican system from the charge that it clashed with the Scriptures. It was he who administered the controversial admonition to Galileo not to hold or defend the Copernican theory.

Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (1542-1621)
The Galileo Project > Christianity > Robert Cardinal Bellarmine

The thing is, Bellarmine was not judging Galileo's personality, but the science and theology. And St Robert has remained the better scientist to this very day.

16:27 He made a dialogue in which the character Simplicio reflects the cardinal Barberini whom he had talked to as a personal friend before Barberini became Pope. Galileo did not mention the Pope by name, only his (the Pope's) private friends would have known how close he was to Simplicio.

Plus, making fun of the Pope is NOT a matter for lifelong house arrest or abjuration under threat of otherwise being burned as a heretic.

It most certainly WAS about Heliocentrism : Earth turning around Sun and also around itself in a daily motion were the two only things Galileo had to abjure.

The dialogue was put on the index because it argued for Heliocentrism.

Arguing otherwise, saying Galileo was punished for "an attitude problem" is as Satanic as boot camps, if you accept this.

16:33 In 1633 Galileo was not told to show Pope Urban VIII more respect, he was told to abjure what he had considered two major scientific discoveries or two aspects of one such.

"Disrespectful to the Pope" means very little in the Catholic Church. Dante and Walter von der Vogelweide had been disrespectful to Popes. Sts Bridget and Catherine of Siena had on behalf of God been disrespectful to Popes.

And Galileo had not even given clues except to very close friends of Pope Urban that Simplicio was reflecting his own acuaintance with the thitherto cardinal Barberini.

Pope Urban even was absent from the trial so his personal feelings should not interfere with the outcome.

What you are saying about the affair, and the Catholics you heard it from, is very disrespectful to his objectivity as a pastor.

16:49 "Have always interpreted Genesis 1 as an allegory"

Probably true, but more like true of Genesis 2, where creation of Eve when Adam slept is an allegory for Good Friday, Church born of the opened side of the Last Adam.

BUT "have never interpreted Genesis 1 and 2 as literally true" [not actual quote, but rendering what is often understood under the other]?

False. Check out the Church Fathers (canonised saints, not Origen or Philo Judaeus!) like St Basil, St Augustine, St John Chrysostom. They all take Genesis account as literally true, and so do the Scholastics of the Middle Ages.

You see, interpreting x as allegory does not mean interpreting x as not literally true in the first place. It is not synonymous to interpreting it as "an allegory" a literary genre only meant to give other truths through a false story. Check out Quadriga Cassiani.

Check out this reference:

[I was looking for another one, the Quadriga Cassiani which used to be an article on wikipedia]

Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture
on Wikipedia

It actually miscites:

the four-fold method of scriptural interpretation, i.e., allegory, typology, tropology, and anagogy.

Four senses are actually : Literal, Allegoric, Moral and Anagogic.

Not sure if Lubac got that, but you can (so far) look it up in Summa Theologica:

Article 10. Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?
Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 1

16:39 I agree our education system is very biassed.

Anti-Catholic. Anti-Monarchist. Anti-Middle Ages. Anti-Geocentric. Anti-Young Earth Creationist. Anti-Moral. Anti-Theist. Antichristian.

17:45 There was an indulgenced alms scandal in Germany involving Dominicans not handing all alms over to building of St Peters, but part of them to a debt they had to the Fuggers.

A bit as if the gifts had been just any kind of income.

Council of Trent looked into the office of alms collectors.

19:47 "not physically but metaphysically"

Better not visibly, but in actual fact. Apart from that, congratulations, you have got apostolic succession, absolution from sins, transsubstantiation fairly right.

20:45 God has NOT given us a way to reinterpret the Bible through the years to fit the culture!

Papal infallibility was defined by the Vatican Council of 1869, interrupted in 1870. This use of it was specifically excluded.


Session 4 : 18 July 1870
First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ

Chapter 4.
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren[60].

New issues that come up, that is another matter.

Yes, if an issue seems new, it may happen it really is and the pope has to come up with a new decision, but even so, it must be only a new aspect of an old decision.

Usually, the issues aren't even new, the Pope just comes up with finding what already has been decided.

24:06 Being anti-authority is not just any Protestant - it is Congregationalist.

Luther, Cranmer, Calvin all lowered authority and all changed structure but at the end of the day still had a fairly hierarchic and structured one.

Sometimes so much more oppressive than Catholicism could ever be (up to then, not counting modern deviations).

24:16 Why not check out what Jesus did about hierarchy Himself?

He made disciples. He chose 72 among the rest. He chose 12 among the 72. He chose Peter among the 12.

The 72 got privileges the others didn't have (and there were no women in the 72), the 12 privileges the rest of the 72 didn't have and Peter some the rest of the 12 didn't have (at least on Catholic understanding, some Orthodox would say "until later than he").

25:22 if it is in a good Catechism, one should not disagree with it.

Diverse points have diverse weight in the catechism. But if behind the catechism there is an infallible teaching (papal bull, decree of a council), you are bound to it.

26:09 Orthodox tend to have gone along very well with the points you mentioned from St Augustine.

Where they traditionally do disagree with him is on:

  • the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and from the Son (there are other Church Fathers, including St Athanasius, THE great hero of the Arian crisis for this);
  • the "Roma locuta est, causa finita est".

You seem to have come across some modernist Orthodox.

26:10 Why are you going to be on birth control?

If you don't want children, why marry?

If you marry, why avoid children?

27:08 Was Heaven closed to man or wasn't it, until Christ redeemed us?

St Thomas Aquinas and an Evangelical Swedish song both say Christ has opened the pearly gate. Are you saying it was never even closed because of Adam's sin? Are you saying Lazarus was so many million miles from the Rich Man he wasn't even down in the Netherworld?

28:09 Check out how St Clement of Rome (one of the early Popes) deals with Corinth.

A bit as if he had authority over it, right?

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

... on Misrepresenting Origins of Catholic Church

... on Misrepresenting Origins of Catholic Church · ... in Reply to Lizzie · ... in Reply to Joe's Reply to Lizzie

The Origin Of Roman Catholic Religion - with Peter Michael Martinez
Peter Martinez

4:17 "streamed into the NEW Christian Church"?

  • 1) The Edict of Milan was not founding any Church, just recognising as legal and as in certain ways privileged one already in existence;

  • 2) What do you consider then and there happened to the 280 years OLD one?

4:25 "And the NEW Polytheistic Christianity" ... There you go again!

  • 1) You have not pointed to any point which reasonably could have been then and there a founding act for a new counterfeit Christian Church, the edict if Milan was not one;

  • 2) You are still not explaining what happened to the original Christian Church.

4:46 "The wholesale conversion of the Roman people without any understanding of the original doctrine of the Apostles"

  • 1) The edict of Milan, unlike that of Theodosius, decades later, obliged no Pagans to desist even from public Paganism and was therefore not forcing people with a taste for public religion to become Christians;

  • 2) If the Christians in Rome and Empire in 312 had an understanding of the original Christian doctrine, why would the Church lose it in 313?

  • 3) And since Christian clergy had privileges, they could impose on the ones wanting to convert to study the faith for some time before getting to baptism : it was called being a Catechumen. In other words, your whole scenario breaks down as impossible.

4:54 "many pagan and polytheistic beliefs were incorporated into the New State Church"

  • 1) Except that the Edict of Milan didn't make Christianity a State Church.

  • 2) Except that the original Church, which would normally still have been extant and which would normally have been the first beneficiaries of the Edict (at least before Constantine supposedly meddled with it at Nicaea) were still around to prevent such paganism flowing in.

5:11 "Converted in mass to the all inclusive new religion"

Sorry, but the Catholic Church just after 313 was anything BUT "all inclusive"!

It is not exactly like the Vatican II Council "Catholicism", you know!

5:41 "it was decided to incorporate as many of the customs and beliefs"

When and where?

What decision?

What historical fact can you point to?

You are telling a just so story, not very different from the one given by Dan Brown, through his character Teabing!

5:51 "they thought they would increase the number of Pagan converts"

Again, when and where?

If you look at Pope St Gregory the Great, he is a fan of including customs from Pagans, as long as the remains of these customs include nothing in conflict with the Christian belief.

BUT Pope St Gregory I is Pope 590 to 604.

You are supposedly still talking about just after the Edict of Milan. 313. Nearly 300 years before Pope St Gregory I.

6:03 J. L. von Monsheim, Ecclesiastical History, vol. I.

Thank you for citing your authority, at least.

I can google it, and it gives exactly five hits on some korean page.

In other words, the book probably does not exist. You are probably a fraud.

And you are also not even giving page numbers, fair enough, since the page numbers cannot exist without the book.

What however does exist is a 4 vol. Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae libri IV, 1726, by one Johann Lorenz von Mosheim. Mosheim, not Monsheim.

As he was a Lutheran, his view of the Catholic Church can be suspected of being somewhat biassed. Especially back then in 1726.

6:41 "had found a way ... without confronting false religions"

Why was the Catholic Church then so very busy doing that, precisely confronting false religions?

Oh, it is perhaps not in von Monsheim, but it is in more real Ecclesiastical histories.

Take the Annals of Quedlinburg monastery. They tell of a monk and priest who went to Lithuania and who was nearly sacrificed to Lithuanian gods, only a horse gave a nudge interpreted as gods being against the sacrifice, and he survived and could tell of it.

Or take the men who came to Birka, Sts Ansgar and Rimbert and bishop Gauzbert - confronting Odinism near its headquarters in Sweden (Birka to Elder Uppsala is a fairly short distance, c. 92 km - using the municipalities they are part of, Ekerö and Uppsala).

If their Catholicism was so all inclusive as you claim, why take the trouble?

Speaking of Pope St Gregory, again : if his Catholicism was so all inclusive, why did he bother to tell bishops in Gaul (now France) they should NOT read in the Iliad, Odyssey and Aeneid, poems containing pagan names of false gods?

This last in R. R. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage and Its Beneficiaries.

7:21 Identifying Jesus with the sun god ... "Et orietur vobis timentibus nomen meum sol justitiae, et sanitas in pennis ejus: et egrediemini, et salietis sicut vituli de armento." [Malachias (Malachi) 4:2]

Catholics hardly did so more than Malachy did! You do consider Malachy a real prophet of the Old Testament, do you?

7:31 Imagery repackaged from sunworshippers?

Possible - but for another purpose.

IDOLS repackaged from sunworshippers?

You'd have to document that!

7:45 "Rather than convert the people to the Gospel, the new Church in Rome decided to convert their traditions and customs and simply call them Christian."

Funny, then, that you don't find solar looking monstrances until centuries after sun worship was gone.

Funny also, then, that you STILL have:

  • 1) not answered by what act of apostasy or new foundation the "New" Christian Church arose;

  • 2) NOR explained what happened to the old Christian Church, the one which Roman Pagans had persecuted along with Jews for 280 years.

8:28 OK, you are speaking of Constantine in 321 introducing Sunday rest.

Can you show that Sunworshippers before that had been resting on Sundays?

8:42 Tim Dowley, noted.

9:09 Sorry, but Christmas celebrated on december 25 is actually older than Constantine and arguably it could at least be older than Aurelian instituting Sol Invictus on Dec. 25 a few decades earlier than Constantine.

9:34 If one had only had one Church in Rome / Roman Empire ceasing to be purely Christian and becoming a new Church, this could have been possible. Actually it did happen too, they were called Arians, one of the times.

BUT you are not just saying this happened, you are also saying it happened after the Church had already become a new Church purely through the Edict of Milan, and also you are at least not giving any evidence of showing there was another Church surviving and resisting apostasy beside this. If Christianity had merely been human or demonic, no problem. But since Christianity is from God, you are contradicting Matthew 28.

Unless you claim sth other than the RC Church continued to be the Christian Church that Christ had founded.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

... on Misidentification of Tower of Babel

Some Very Compelling Evidence the Tower of Babel Was Real
Smithsonian Channel

3:35 Seriously? Tower of Babel from c. 600 BC = Biblical account?


In 600 BC all the world was no longer just one people and of one tongue. While Nebuchadnezzar II could have been inspired by Nimrod (at one time he tried to get divine honours for himself and commit Daniel to death penalty for refusing that), he is way too late for being the real Nimrod behind the real Tower of Babel.

Far from confirming the Genesis story, this would instead demote it from fact to a fiction set in prehistory which lampoons contemporary fact - all the while also setting composition of Genesis at way too late. A Christian cannot accept this.

The Sticky Clue That Links the Tower of Babel to the Bible
Smithsonian Channel

It seems here that people are saying Genesis is a product of the Babylonian captivity.

No. It is very much not. Friedrich Delitzsch was wrong in 1902 and he is still wrong.

"They utilised the tower of Babylon as inspiration for the Tower of Babel story in the Bible."

This means, far from being real old history preserved to Ezra et al. from way before Babylonian captivity, Genesis is a piece of "history fiction" written millennia after the events and in which he (or someone like him in his day) placed parodies of contemporary events and things.

I find it way more likely that Nebuchadnezzar II was inspired from traditions back to Nimrod in his country - or even in an early look at Judaism (well before Daniel converted him!) was inspired by real old history in the Genesis story - but inspired in the wrong way. Emulating the bad guys.

2:22 I have argued that baked bricks and bitumen were there in Göbekli Tepe but were later removed.

The tower of Nebuchadnezzar could be where it was removed to. He could have tried to get luck from his predecessor in Shinar plains (and Neo-Babylonian Empire included Göbekli Tepe / Edessa, or so it looks from the map) and tried to do so by reusing all of the bricks he could find in GT. Which was then covered with sand as to non-brick stone foundations.

Of course, stamps from the time of Nebuchadnezzar II could have been somewhat difficult to add two thousand years after they were originally made, so these stamps could refute this theory.

3:14 The Bible doesn't specifically say the Tower of Babel was never finished. It was the city that was ceased from being built.

I have argued that the Tower of Babel has lately been finished in Cape Canaveral and in Bajkonur, etc. The project was a rocket and good for us, we are using O2 and H2 for rocket fuel.

Nimrod would probably have known explosive qualities of Uranium from pre-Flood wars as reflected in Mahabharata and he would have tried that. Disastrously, especially with all men together around it.

Friday, June 16, 2017

... Pyramids, Flood, Babel, LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls

Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood?

Leningrad codex ... now, I am a fairly firm believer in LXX chronology - and in Vulgate except for chronology.

That is, I am not a believer in Leningrad codex. Btw, the part about chronology was wrong already where the Hebrew original for St Jerome's Vulgate was concerned. I have one idea of why this happened : Jews have a way of wanting to make Melchisedec = Shem. That way, Melchisedec would not have been a goy. The LXX chronology makes this impossible, but with Vulgate and Masoretic, it is possible.

[As we shall see, Nathan Hoffman thinks the same, see below]

11:22 Shall we take a non-Ussher, non-Masoretic timeline Ussher style?

You have St Jerome's whose chronology the Catholic Church, at least Latin Rite, uses every Christmas.

Christ born 5199 after Creation, 2957 after Flood, 2015 after Birth of Abraham.

Obviously, it is inspired by LXX, only LXX for Creation to Flood being 2242 years, LXX and Samaritan agreeing with Josephus on longer timespans between post-Flood patriarchs, and St Jerome's timeline agrees perhaps a bit better with Samaritan, by omitting Cainan. This omission is not shared by Syncellus, whose chronology + 8 more years is given each Christmas in Byzantine tradition Churches :

Christ born 5508 after Creation, 3366 after Flood ...

12:50 Now, are the step pyramids at Saqqara in any way carbon dated?

I think they are historically attested as Djoser's, he was probably Joseph's pharao.

And this means that they are reshuffleable like this:

2800 BC = carbon date of Djoser's coffin, contemporary to Saqqara pyramids = 1709 BC, when Joseph was in Egypt about surviving Djoser.

Here is an article where I dealt with that:

Creation vs. Evolution : This Morning I Read it's 77 and 68 Years of Radiocarbon

[short link :]

Djoser and Imhotep lived about a thousand years before Joseph was ever in Egypt. Yes, there are lots of similarities between Joseph and Imhotep. But you don't know for a fact that they are the same person. I know that the Step Pyramid was built as a smaller structure at first. But then later on it was expanded. When they found Imhotep's name in the pyramid, I don't necessarily see that as evidence that Imhotep was there are the original building. It could be that the original building was built a thousand years before Joseph, but then a thousand years later, Joseph expanded it. So they might have dated Imhotep incorrectly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Djoser and Imhotep lived about a thousand years before Joseph was ever in Egypt."

Imhotep is historically dated to Djoser.

Djoser is CARBON DATED to about 1000 years before Joseph was in Egypt.

If Imhotep is really Joseph, this means sth for carbon level in the atmosphere back then, just as I mentioned in article.

With Djoser being grossly misdated, this answers the rest of your points.

"But you don't know for a fact that they are the same person."

I think the Hunger Stele is a good clue. Or even a proof. I take it over carbon date of Djoser anytime!

15:41 - Here I must defend conventional creation scientists.

Even very fast growing populations these days have constraints of economy which were not there in the uncrowded days after the Flood. Citing one:

// From the Flood to the Tower of Babel

The date of the Tower of Babel event is unknown. From context, it appears the timing has something to do with a man named Peleg, whose name means ‘division’ (Gen 10:25).16 He was born c. 101 years after the Flood and lived until c. 340 years after the Flood (Gen 11).17

If the division of people occurred only 100 years after the Flood, there would not be many people in the world. However, the data behind the growth rates calculated in figure 4 indicate that under some scenarios it is possible to obtain a population size greater than 1,000 individuals in that much time. This occurred at all settings of minimum CBA with a minimum child spacing of 1 year, or with small minimum CBA and a minimum child spacing of 2 or 3 years. It is also possible to arrive at over 10,000 individuals with a minimum child spacing of 1 year and a minimum CBA <= 17, and up to 40,000 individuals with a minimum CBA of 14, although these are not likely scenarios.

After 340 years, it is trivial to have 1,000 individuals in the population and most parameter settings produce population sizes many orders of magnitude greater than that. How many people were in existence when the population was divided? Sadly, one cannot determine the number from numerical analyses like these. //

Modelling biblical human population growth
by Robert Carter and Chris Hardy

We also do not know how many were needed for the building. A "tower of which the top reaches into heaven" is constructed rather often at NASA or their furnishers. It is called a three step rocket. On Cape Canaveral it looks like a tower before takeoff, and after takeoff only the top reaches physically into heaven, the real heaven well above atmosphere.

So, even 1000 could have been enough, with someone searching for the rocket fuel (I think Nimrod had chosen Uranium for the task and God sent Ice Age to prevent his men from reaching Uranium mines in Canada) somewhere else.

However, I agree with you that LXX chronology is likelier, since at beginning of ice age we don't find anything looking like a rocket ramp, at end of it, Younger Dryas, yes, we do : Göbekli Tepe. I give Peleg a rather later birth, so that Palaeolithic from first Magdalenian cave painting can fit in between Flood and T of B = G T.

There's no possible way the Tower of Babel was only 100 years after the flood. Just to get 30,000 people you'd need a growth rate that is absurd beyond all reason. And surely the Tower of Babel had to be bigger than the Great Pyramid. Otherwise, if the Great Pyramid was bigger than the Tower, then why would God go through the trouble of thwarting the plans of the Tower of Babel, but then allow for the building of an even bigger structure? Why would God allow the bigger one, but not allow the smaller one?That makes no sense! The Tower of Babel was supposed to reach into the heavens. The pyramid is tall, but it's not really all that tall. Even the Eiffel tower is taller. I think the atheists have a really good point on this one. They're absolutely right that you'd need an absurdly high growth rate. It couldn't have happened in only 100 years. And there's no doubt that it occurred at the birth of Peleg. Even Josephus figured that one out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"There's no possible way the Tower of Babel was only 100 years after the flood."

We'll see.

"Just to get 30,000 people you'd need a growth rate that is absurd beyond all reason."

I probably agree, if only because grandchildren of Noah needed time to be born and grown into puberty.

"And surely the Tower of Babel had to be bigger than the Great Pyramid."

No. Genesis never mentions size.

"Otherwise, if the Great Pyramid was bigger than the Tower, then why would God go through the trouble of thwarting the plans of the Tower of Babel, but then allow for the building of an even bigger structure? Why would God allow the bigger one, but not allow the smaller one?That makes no sense!"

I have even heard like this : why would God thwart Babel but not rockets? It only makes sense of Tower of Babel was itself a rocket, God intended for rockets to succeed, but with a delay.

A salutary delay which allowed for a change of fuel from Uranium to H2 + O2. A much better rocket fuel, than the one I suspect Nimrod was going for!

"The Tower of Babel was supposed to reach into the heavens."

No, only its top was. In a three step rocket only the top reaches into Heaven.

"The pyramid is tall, but it's not really all that tall. Even the Eiffel tower is taller. I think the atheists have a really good point on this one."

Except that tall is not the point. The tops of pyramids, Eiffel tower, up to lately Twin Tower remain at same distance from ground. They are not moving into the heavens, like a three step rocket is.

Which is why I think T o B was meant to be sth like that.

"They're absolutely right that you'd need an absurdly high growth rate. It couldn't have happened in only 100 years."

No, they are not if ToB was a rocket which needed far fewer people than a pyramid, and I don't think even the pyramid needed 30 000 people working full time, I think that is a roll of how many were involved one time or other in the work. If it is at all a figure from back then documentation.

"And there's no doubt that it occurred at the birth of Peleg. Even Josephus figured that one out."

The Bible only says "And to Heber were born two sons: the name of the one was Phaleg, because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name Jectan."

In his days - not necessarily at his birth. And it also does not say whether the division was at the dispersion or an earlier event. Noah or someone dividing up earth juridically, before Babel project braved that. This would mean Peleg could have been born while the earth was being portioned out like Alexander VI did between Spain and Portugal for non-Christian countries.

AND both beginning and end of Babel story happening after Peleg was already named.

15:46 "to build a city with an enormous tower"?

First, city, even in 100 years, one could have had about 1000 people around. Fastest growing populations now are no indicator for back then, since these have economic constraints stopping some early marriages from getting along.

Second, the Bible nowhere says the tower was tall. In length of object. It says its top was meant to reach into heaven, and the tops of three step rockets do that, but we don't find these even with all three steps are extremely tall.

Of course the population grew faster back then. Their death rate wasn't as fast since they lived longer. But the growth rate you're suggesting that women be pregnant for only about 3 weeks. Sorry, but that's not realistic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I said "even in 100 years, one could have had about 1000 people around"

You interpret this as "the growth rate you're suggesting that women be pregnant for only about 3 weeks."


Have you accounted for LARGER families, making Duggars seem a cosy little family?

I'd like to see your calculations for "100 years = 8 - 1000 = 3 weeks pregnancies"!

17:09 Obviously, the population growth was actually slowing down as economic possibilities narrowed.

As said, 8.58 % a year is probably not needed, since I think 1000 people would have been enough for T of B project to start, but if there was such a growth, it would have slowed down after a bit, since after some growth some guys find it is not so ultra easy any more to marry and look for a new piece of land to farm or - just after Flood and well to nearly up to Babel, if Göbekli Tepe - hunt and gather on.

17:29 You cite 30,000 people involved in Cheops pyramid.

Are you sure so many people were actually needed full time, or can they have taken turns, so that 30,000 people were in fact involved at one time or other, but most of them NOT from beginning to end?

18:34 a fullfledged LXX chronology involves Christ being born in 5500 BC, it would seem from Byzantine liturgic or George Syncellus' chronology (5508 / 5500). St Jerome's chronology involves Christ being born 5199 after Creation.

18:40 So I say we are probably in year 7216 after Creation, perhaps even in year 7525.

no, the Greek is not right about everything. The Greek is wrong about the extra Cainan, and it's also wrong about the 5 generations from Adam down to Mahallalel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In extra Cainan, you have Byzantine Liturgy with Syncellus against you.

With Adam being 230 years at birth of Seth, and you denying this, you have against you even Roman Latin Liturgy and St Jerome, as well as above.

I cannot say you have nothing for you, since Vulgate supports your view on that.

19:32 "II Cainan" - for time between Flood and Abraham, the difference between Syncellus (LXX only) and St Jerome is about as if St Jerome omitted the years between Cainan's birth and his begetting Salah.

On the other hand, it could be a cultural thing to omit him from a Hebrew style genealogy, I think I read somewhere he was a bad sinner and was therefore omitted. In that case, I cannot just go for St Jerome and just diss Syncellus and Byzantine liturgic tradition.

20:21 There were Levites in each tribe and they intermarried with each tribe, including Judah.

The Jews come from the tribes Judah and Benjamin so today a Cohen or a Levi comes from Levites intermarried with tribes of Judah and Benjamin. A Samaritan levite or cohen would come from Levites intermarried with Ephraim and some other ingredients of Samaritan population.

AND the Blessed Virgin was about first cousin or sth to Elisabeth, the wife of the cohen Zachariah who was father to the prophet St John the Baptist.

That said, Christ is even so neither an Aaronite priest nor quite qualified to be so, neither was, as you are going to say, Melchisedec, fairly obviously a Jebusite, descended very probably from Canaan.

And yes, Masoretic and also Hebrew original for Vulgate allow Melchisedec = Shem, while LXX and Samaritan both exclude this.

23:33 Good detective work, sir!

24:45 Both a good detective work on why Jewish identification is wrong, and on why St Paul might be warning Titus!

And excellent detective work up to 28:16, I took a snap shot of that still for my blog!

30:07 The one place where I can't credit you with excellent detective work is accepting Saqqara pyramids as centuries before 2000 BC.

Abraham lived around that time, and we should probably group him with Narmer in time. That is, Narmer, carbon dated raw date to 3400 BC or so, must have lived more like 2000 BC.

Abraham coincides with sth else which requires carbon date 3400 BC, namely chalcolithic of En-Geddi. I failed to properly credit Dr A.J.M. Osgood for his detective work, but it was because I trusted him so much I didn't read all of the article carefully. I didn't even look up whether En-Geddi was mentioned in Genesis 14. Its synonym is:

// As is often the case, the positive clue comes from the most insignificant portion of this passage. In Genesis 14:7 we are told that the kings of Mesapotamia attacked ‘the Amorites who dwelt in Hazezon-tamar’. Now 2 Chronicles 20:2 tells us that Hazezon-tamar is En-gedi, the oasis mentioned in Scripture a number of times on the western shore of the Dead Sea. //

The Times of Abraham
By Dr A.J.M. Osgood

Great detective work, Osgood, even if you missed this has an implication for carbon levels - or didn't like the implication it had! In c. 2000 BC, the carbon level was so low that things from back then, if organic then, carbon date to c. 1400 years older than they are, i e to 3400 BC.

A Masoretic reading making Abraham more recent would of course add even more extra years to make same apparent date. This means that Saqqara pyramids are too young to disprove the Masoretic text - but nice try!

(My rise of carbon curve could however be another try against Masoretic text : since the carbon years between 40 000 BC and 9600 BC must fit between Flood and beginning of Babel around birth of Peleg - this is another issue, it was around beginning of Babel, not at its dispersion 40 years later, that Peleg was born, at another division of the Earth - Syncellus does agree with this being made juridically by Noah and Babel project being in rebellion against it, even if in his chronology which I basically agree with, Noah would have been dead already, so it would have to have been someone else).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
For seeing all of my comments in order, see this review of your video:

Thanks! I checked out your blog. I'm glad this information is getting out there, because I think it's important for people to know.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are welcome!

Thursday, June 15, 2017

... on PIE

... on Tower of Babel - a Classic (quora) · ... on PIE

Why does reconstructed Proto-Indo-European seem so cumbersome to pronounce?

C on Q
It seems as if there are a lot of unusual phonemes and stranger and more consonant clusters than most modern IE languages have. Also, what do those subscript numbers mean?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.
Answered just now
H generally comes with subscript 1,2 or 3.

H1 is the H which becomes (a Continental) E and was probably (an English / German) H.

H2 becomes A and was presumably Ach-Laut.

H3 becomes O and also voices some consonants beside it, was probably a voiced counterpart of Ach-Laut a little further back perhaps and with lip rounding.

Then there are bh, dh, gh, gh(w). Basically taken over from Sanskrit bh, dh, jh, gh.

Now, the unusual part is this : bh, dh, gh, gh(w) exist, which is rare outside India (Sanskrit + some Dravidic languages + some Indic languages later than Sanskrit) AND the three H sounds can form the core of a syllable, which is usually reserved for vowels which are voiced sounds.

Also, m and n, l and r exist in syllabic version, but this you can find, at least for r and l in Czech too : vlk meaning wolf and Brno being a city both have this. This means they are not really consonant clusters, since m, n, l, r in this context are functioning as vowels.

But I have only DEFINED the unusual traits of Proto-Indo-European. This is sth other than to EXPLAIN them as you asked me to do.

Now, PIE is reconstructed and this is how linguists finally agreed to reconstruct it. I just saw a version with only one laryngal (or two, counting voiceless and voiced), which was much closer to Hittite - by another linguist, proposing his reconstruction.

And one possible explanation why the reconstruction of a proto-language seems so odd (laryngals, bh, dh, gh, gh(w), m and n, l and r in syllabic version, all at the same time) may be in my view because the premiss behind the reconstruction, namely existence of a proto-language (like Latin is to the Romance languages) is the wrong explanation for Indo-European communalities. As it happens, that is my view.

pH2tH1r = pronounce pkht-hr … would you call your dad such a sound?

Sunday, June 11, 2017

... on St. Basil

HGL's F.B. writings : What St Basil Was and What he Was Not Against · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on St. Basil


Who was Basil?
Reasons to Believe


Dr. Zweerink, while giving lip service to the credentials of St Basil, how about accepting with him that the six days were calendar days?

"Not so fast, he's just a doctor of the Church, that is just a RC title ..."

Lip service, as said ... not sure you will even admit it as candidly as I just put it for you!



1) The language in this video sounds supportive of Catholicism. Is this a Catholic channel? Let us know, so the knowledgeable ones can move along and not waste our time on the heretical Catholic Church. Besides, the mother church is above scripture, right? Who needs to follow scripture with that kind of logic?

2) Saints are not people "The Church" elects to be special people. There is no Bible for this practice.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Ephesians 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Here, we see contextual evidence that "saints" are not a specially elected people, but another name for "believers".

If one does a search of all instances where "saints" appears in the N.T., the overwhelming context points to this. Saint is another term for believer.

3) There is no Bible for the concept of "The Church":

Acts 9:31 Then had the CHURCHES rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria

Romans 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the CHURCHES of the Gentiles.

1 Corinthians 7:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all CHURCHES.

Galatians 1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the CHURCHES of Galatia:

1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the CHURCHES of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus

And on, and on...

Noble LaRocco Masi

+COMB0RICO Hey dude, here are some answers
1. This is not a Catholic Channel actually protestant, but dealing with pre-15th century church = Catholic Church

2. Of Course, but some were named Saints officially by the Catholic Church in the old days. When talking about history you inevitably have to talk about the Catholic Church

3. Actually, The Church is the Bride of Christ, look at Revelations!!! R

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic answers:

"Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"

Indeed, saint is not a title you can have while you live on earth, unlike above list (some of them you can no longer have, evangelist refers to four people who are all in Heaven now). One can say the above list has mainly been simplified to the Catholic title "bishop". All or most of above had episcopal consecration, and the diversifications like being an original disciple for "apostle" or writing a Gospel for "evangelist" are gone.

Or if evangelist was one who brought the Gospel to any people who had not yet received it, that means an overlap with apostles (which you have in the other option too) and the modern term is "missionary bishop".

"Ephesians 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:"

The saints refer to all of the Church collectively.

But on earth, we don't know who is going to persevere. Therefore we don't refer to people alive as saints, since they may not be among the finally elect. In theory, someone in Purgatory would be as much as saint as someone in Heaven, but in practise not all particulars who are either placed are down here known as saints, and those who are are basically those who made it to Heaven immediately - one exception of a saint who prayed to be in Purgatory and was there three days - because those are the people God singles out as models for us, by working miracles in connection with their names, asked for intercessions, relics.

This means a declaration of the Church someone is a saint is very different from an ordination of a living person to an office. The office can be abused, the office can be lost. What God guarantees by miracles cannot be either. And, yes, this means the Catholic Church is able to discern true miracles from God from the false miracles worked with the power of Satan.

"Here, we see contextual evidence that "saints" are not a specially elected people, but another name for "believers". If one does a search of all instances where "saints" appears in the N.T., the overwhelming context points to this. Saint is another term for believer."

Rather, the saintS (plural) is another term for the Church - believers and sanctified such as to the living members.

The one usage does not prove the other usage wrong.

"There is no Bible for the concept of "The Church":"

Matthew 16.

It is also a synonym for "Kingdom of God" or "Kingdom of Heaven".

Christ said "on this rock, I will build my Church" - not "my Churches".

"Acts 9:31 Then had the CHURCHES rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria"

Refers to sees, each with its bishop (except Jerusalem where the Apostles were a college of bishops).

They are parts of the Church as well as images of Her.

"Romans 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the CHURCHES of the Gentiles."

Same here.

" 1 Corinthians 7:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all CHURCHES."

So, both Peter and Paul commanded in all sees - not just one or two. And guess where both died? Rome.

"Galatians 1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the CHURCHES of Galatia: 1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the CHURCHES of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus"


"When talking about history you inevitably have to talk about the Catholic Church"

Yep. "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant" John Henry Cardinal Newman. Forgot exact reference.


The Writings of Basil
Reasons to Believe


Yes, as a Catholic I cannot consider original carnivorousness outright heretical, I can just consider it less probable.

However, not sure if St Basil can be cited as authority for original carnivorousness, unlike St Augustine and St Bede, who may have misundestood him.

The context in which he says those teeth he doesn't deem were created for nothing ... I recall he may have been doing an excursion mentally to some post-Fall conditions, but let's see.

Note, there are other Church Fathers more clearly against original carnivorousness : Sts Justin and Irenee.

Looking at text now : it seems he is taking modern zoological observations as proof that original creation was very good - which it was and which those denying original carnivorousness agree on.

So, while you can cite Sts Ausgustine and Bede more directly for your purpose, you cannot do so with St Basil.

NOW, if you go to St Augustine, his view on original carnivorousness clearly excludes any unnecessary suffering before Adam fell. Adam would order a rabbit to go to the mouth of a wolf who would thankfully to Adam and mercifully to the rabbit go about and kill it swiftly (while its vain struggle to preserve life remains a good thing) and then eat all, letting nothing go to waste.

NOT exactly what you find if you go to rock records of carnivorous dinos, do you?

So, even on the view of St Augustine, who believed in original carnivorousness, you can't say the fossil record is older than Adam's sin - even theologically, ignoring the chronological implications for Biblical history.


"To carnivorous animals He has given pointed teeth which their nature requires for their support. Those that are only half furnished with teeth have received several distinct receptacles for their food."

Actually a vegetarian lion (yes, there are examples) had another digestion than a ruminant. So, the observation remains essentially true if in transposing it back to Eden we take away the element of carnivorousness.


2:20 "designed to be carnivores in the first place"

It is not a mere chance which animal is a carnivore after the fall and which isn't. Certain ones were at least designed to become carnivores quicker than others.

There is a deer somewhere in Asia which is a carnivore, even if deers in general aren't. Modern city conditions push doves to eat chicken meat and pork - more often at least than earlier conditions where the near exclusive diet would be bread crumbs and worms.

Or one could say, God had already designed the processes by which carnivorousness would begin, when and if it did.

I actually did look further down, and here is what I find:

"And let nobody accuse the Creator of having produced venomous animals, destroyers and enemies of our life. Else let them consider it a crime in the schoolmaster when he disciplines the restlessness of youth by the use of the rod and whip to maintain order."

In other words, like St Augustine's view of thorns and certain insects, certain things would have remained dormant if God had had no sin to punish.

They were there as potentialities in the original creation, but would not have come to fruition.


Psalm 103:21 is even a parallel to 144:15, which is part of monastic saying grace before meals.

Yes, after the fall, when carnivorousness is condition of many animals, God earns glory for giving them their prey. But any way, God earns glory for giving anyone the food they need when they need it.

Btw, Ps 103 contradicts the idea of "survival of the fittest", since it teaches "survival by Providence".

It also contradicts a few other modern scientific ideas. Like rejection of "animism". Like rejection of geostationary cosmology - both of which are taught here:

[4] qui facis angelos tuos spiritus, et ministros tuos ignem urentem.
[5] Qui fundasti terram super stabilitatem suam, non inclinabitur in saeculum saeculi.

Saturday, June 10, 2017

... on Carbon dating

Creation v. Evolution: How Carbon Dating Works

1:02 Creationists, including Ken Ham, are not carbon dating denialists, or not all of us.

Ken Ham is in ICR which also involves RATE project in which people are involved looking for creationist calibrations of the carbon dating.

I'm outside that project, but heavily implied in that part, sir!

Now, Libby won a Nobel prize is not a scientific argument, precisely as Carducci won a Nobel prize is not a literary argument.

His half life is no longer used today. This means that half life estimates as such have changed due to a calibration undertaken from considerations other than Libby's discovery.

My calibration is also undertaken from considerations other than Libby's discovery.

I am using the now commonly accepted half life, the Cambridge halflife.

I am using a Biblical chronology based on LXX, shifting between St Jerome's and George Syncellus' Ussher type calculations, from one of my tables to the next. 50 000 or 51 000 BP sounds like pre-Flood. C. 3400 BC.

What gets dated as 3400 BC (like crude dating of Narmer) is more like 2000 BC. This means the carbon 14 level back then was low enough to correspond to the decay from 100 percent modern carbon that is to be expected for c 1400 years - in Abraham's day (yes, Abraham was contemporary with Narmer and probably his successor too) the pmc in atmosphere would have been c. 83.5 - 86.5 (depending on which chronology I use for Abraham).

3400 BC for real, the level would be at c. 1 pmc or somewhat lower. Which accounts for the 46 000 extra years. Actually as low as 0.383 pmc, according to this calculator:

By Flood, the level was roughly 1.5 pmc, corresponding to 40 000 BP, chosen for European end of Neanderthals and beginning of Noah's family a k a Cro Magnon.

1:36 "it's a constant" - only as constant as the carbon 14 levels in the atmosphere.

Which is where Creationists at a somewhat finer level of argumentation than in oral debate with Bill Nye get our wedge from.

Btw, you said 5730 years, which means you disagree with Libby on the exact halflife.

And the discoveries of the calibration which leads to this new one were obviously not made by JUST carbon dating things, but by taking into account things outside carbon dating.

Major difference : we take the Bible into account too, as reliable history.

2:08 tree rings, ice cores, corals - subject to so much variation as to be unreliable. Tree rings are not always annual. Ice cores need not be annual at all.

2:40 Libby measured even half life of C14 a bit wrong. How do you accurately measure a halflife like that of Uranium? Unlike C14, you cannot calibrate after historically dated objects.

A piece of coin with the image of KAICAP TIBHPIOC or CAESAR TIBERIUS can have blood sweat or tears on it and be carbon datable - and we know (probably) how along ago Tiberius ruled.

But you cannot calibrate any Uranium Lead half life in that precise way, because the halflife is too long.

Unlike and like the problem with a rising C14-level - you have a problem with knowing if all the lead (even of a particular isotope) was originally Uranium. In Potassium Argon you have a problem with "excessive argon" - an explanation invoked by people yourself about lava from Mount St Helen's explosion 37 years (and not half a million or two million years) ago. We just take excessive argon a bit further than you do.

3:43 Since 800 000 or 1.5 million years were, as you say, dated by a method we find disproven by Mount St Helen's, the data need not even be taken into account. I suppose your set never tried to make a parallel carbon dating ...

Thursday, June 8, 2017

... on Old Earth Creationist Takes on Age of Humanity

Age of Humanity
Reasons to Believe

0:46 Fossil and archaeology are two techniques which both depend on the further technique (mainly) of radiocarbon dating and, even worse in some cases, K-Ar (Potassium-Argon, does "excess argon" ring a bell?).

The technique using genealogy is for one thing a fuzzy one, it is parallel to a similar one in sound changes which leads to results that a linguist could easily discredit.

Radiocarbon is actually the least unreliable of the two or three and it can be explained from the view of Biblical chronology by a very low carbon 14 level back at Flood and a slow rise since then.

I did some mathematical models on this topic, here is my last one:

Creation vs. Evolution : Interim III, Flood to Abraham with Syncellus

Notice, that the percent modern carbon (14) as compared to present level was at most 86.572 is basically a given for Abraham in En Geddi. Genesis 14.

Here we have a fairly long Biblical chronology, not just LXX based, but a longer calculation in it, for instance than the Roman Martyrology which is also LXX based but would give a date more recent than 2000 BC for Abraham in En Geddi.

A shorter Biblical chronology means that carbon dated objects to 3200 - 3400 BC need even lower carbon 14 levels back when this happened. And you do need this dating, if En Geddi was inhabited then - and also because Elam is mentioned as a power. An alternative dating for En Geddi could be the neolithic instead of the chalcolithic, and this yields an even lower pmc level in the then atmosphere.

So, if you insist, as I hope you do, that Abraham in En Geddi and facing Elamites is historical, and insist the generations from Abraham to Christ are correct, not including any random gaps, you need between then and now, probably between then and Babylonian captivity, a rise in carbon 14 levels at least from 86.572 pmc to around 100 pmc.

With this need for a rise, which would not be cautioned by secular users of C-14, by secular archaeologists, why are you so eager to avoid the rise in C-14 levels which make other aspects of carbon dated archaeology and fossils fit into the Biblical chronology?

0:56 100,000 - 200,000 years ago ... not even carbon dated, at best K-Ar.

You know, how NOT to date a NZ volcano, if you catch the CMI reference ...

1:01 "at least 50,000 years ago"

That would be a bit before the Flood.

I take Europe's population was mainly replaced from Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon (with some Neanderthal admixture) at the Flood, Neanderthals being a separate line from Adam as compared to Noah's.

This replacement is dated to 40,000 BP, or 38,000 BC, so that would be the carbon date for the Flood year. The Biblical one.

I explain the admixture by Japheth's wife, saved on board Ark, having some Neanderthal ancestry, though her mother probably wasn't : Neanderthals have another form of mitochondrial DNA not found in modern humanity, which we are seeing after the Flood, so I presume there is no undue rashness in guessing she had no Neanderthal mother and the last pure Neanderthals were killed in the Flood.

1:21 symbolism : 70 - 80,000 years? That would be pre-Flood. If carbon dated.

And unlike the "100 - 200,000 years" this may be a dating with some relative value, as to sequence, even if its absolute one as to dates is off.

Where would you have this presumably pre-Flood symbolism? ... ah yes, coming.

1:29 caves in South Africa ... OK.

2:26 swiftness or slowness of change in markers is for one thing a fuzzy technique, but for another it has its basic calibration based on other false dates of how long ago certain populations emerged separate from each other and common ancestry.

So, clearly NOT a reliable argument against the Biblical timescale.

3:09 You can't talk of DNA "clock" as converging unless you have evidence it is clearly independent all the way through from for instance C-14.

On the contrary, its speeds are calibrated partly precisely from C-14 dates of past archaeological events. Like, say, landbridge of Siberia to Americas or earliest American human remains after that.

You presumably date that to 20,000 BP, that would be, in my table:

X 2988 BC
15.616 pmc 18 338 BC

3:54 giving data for Adam's like his being 230 when Seth was born and his living 700 years after that seems very superfluous if the genealogies are just theological constructs.

Fuzz, you need to ditch THOSE Biblical scholars, quicker than fast!

.... on Demographics of tektontv (Life expenctancy, marital age, retirement)

Screwy Moments in Scriptural Interpretation 14: Is Retirement Biblical?

"1) Most people died before they reached age 35."

Where do you get that stats from? Not as in "what scholar", but what is his raw material for that conclusion?

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : "in a time when most people died at an average age of 35"

Since that article, I have been backing it up as to ages in which we know sufficient numbers of people to make stats. I linked to the other English articles in top below title of post. I made a French series too:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Les âges des ancêtres DU Robespierre - et d'autres!

+ the sequence.

B U T those Biblical times, where exactly do you get that many stats? Fewer people remain documented to our day, at least as far as I know. This goes for both times of United Kingdom, Judah and Israel, Exile and thereon, and for Gospel times.

So, where is the raw material for that conclusion?

"2) If you got to be as old as 65, you were normally unable to work for other reasons."


News Bulletin on Numbers and Deuteronomy

4:29 12 was the minimum age for marriage, based on:

while Talmud allows marriage to girls under 12 down to 3 (or 3.5?) marriages contracted below 12 can be revoked by the wife, however the Yemenite rabbis disapprove of that.

(reference to Jewish Encyclopedia article may be added later, when I have walked away, looked it up and come back to computer, OK!)

I had said : "while Talmud allows marriage to girls under 12 down to 3 (or 3.5?) marriages contracted below 12 can be revoked by the wife, however the Yemenite rabbis disapprove of that."

Either the editions have been changed or I am mixing up two diverse works of reference. I can also have been of sloppy memory about the implications of a me'un.

A marriage from 12 and a day to 12 and a half can be contracted by the father or inhibited by the father, unless the na'arah becomes orphan (or is so already) or she becomes fully major, bogereth.

A marriage up to 12, while she is ketannah, can only be contracted by the father, but can be repudiated by her as long as she is not older than 12.

But from 12 and a day on, if she has not pronounced a me'un, this is considered as a form of consent as an adult.

Ref. article Child Marriages, Macmillan Encyclopedia Judaica, 1971 ed. vol. 5 and col. 424, 425. Too long to actually copy the full text here by hand, having no copy paste!

Back to context:

THIS is fairly easy to reconstruct as : 12 is a remaining OT limit, valid since the times of King David if not before, while "down to the age of 3" is a later and in fact Babylonic addition.

Now, there is a case for fathers marrying girls off as soon as they can be married - and the Pauline verse about "better not to marry his daughter" is actually not against this, but about parents respecting a choice of virginity.

But whether this case meant the custom of marrying daughters off at 12 was prevalent as early as in times of Moses or not is another question.

The case has so much to do with generally being very aware of issues concerning chastity, which can have come by as a result either of living among Canaaneans or as a result of living in Babylon in exile.

So in Moses' time it is possible some girls were not married until 17 or even 19 while they technically could have married as soon as 12.

Talmudic traditions on this subject are subject to caution, if that is where yours scholarship has them from.

5:09 So, if Pagans did it a certain way ... you have VERY extensive sources of when Pagan girls in the time of Moses married?

I think not!

First, you may be thinking of the wrong Pharao, second, I doubt you have good statistics even from the times of the one you are thinking of.

5:21 Age 12 was and is a normal minimal age for a girl marrying. Based on Menarche. Look up the french article, and you will find why 12 / 13 is a fair age:

Says nothing about how long some girls can wait past that.

5:29 While Pagans are on the subject ... they sometimes differ.

Babylonians were flat earth, Chanaaneans / Phoenicians round earth - what were the Hebrews who lived between them?

6:51 "because the typical human lifespan of the day was as low as 25"

(If it was 35, sorry, watching this without headphones).

What exact old pair of shoes did you pull that (either of the two) figure out of?

[6 days after older comment which has not been answered either!]

6:59 Sure "adolescence" as "developmental period" is either modern or Pagan (associated mainly with male population having a longer and in Athens even compulsory eductaion).

Puberty and you could marry. But how soon you married after that would depend.

7:08 It used to be even 12 in some states.

In 1995 I read of a girl who quit school by marrying at 12 instead of continuing to 16. Clinton was menacing to stop that.

7:16 The maturity for marriage is organic, not "psychological".

A development of brain which stops at 12. And puberty.

The mean age for puberty is just after this development of the brain. Directly just after for girls, 2 years delay for boys (adding up to 14).

The NEXT change in the brain is after puberty is well past - and too late to be relevant for marriage (it happens 18-25 and is actually a shrinking, a weeding out of neuronic pathways not necessary during puberty).

11:22 Actual bottom line : a Pagan girl from Midianites would probably have not chosen her husband (Midianites were slave traders, see Genesis, which makes me suspect they treated daughters as property too - care to guess where I get the comparison from?) so a Midianite girl of 12 would probably not try any resistance but rather go "oh, you mean it's actually marriage? I can chose my husband among the other slaves? your son actually has to ask me, even if I am your captive?"

11:45 All marriages were arranged in that area?

Heavy extrapolation from some that were.

I'd like to know what scholar made that blooper.

10:35 I think your problem with that fundy atheist is partly that you are too bashful about what he is saying.

A Hebrew wedding involved a ritual defloration, see Genesis account of how Jacob was tricked into deflowering Lia instead of Rachel. So, if marital age was a minimum 12, sexual activity was a minimum 12 as well.

Since puberty usually happens around this age (and this independently of lowered puberty) and since a certain brain development ends here, I don't see much point about being bashful about it.

OK, girls' hips are less extended at 12 than at 17 (one reason for which certain girls would wait even if they could marry at 12 legally), but on the other hand, some first marriages occur at 30 and a first childbirth at 30 is due to non-birth-extended plus more rigid hips even riskier per se at 30 than at 13.

While ma has told me not to quote her, I still do. She was a med student while telling me, and I am not pretending this is medical advice. It is however an argument based on medical facts.

... on European Origins

With some disagreements from the Pagan who did this video:

Where do the Slavs come from?

Scythians = we cannot know for sure whether they spoke Slavic, Iranian, Fenno-Ugric or further East Altaic (a k a Turkish), if you ask me, and it is probable they took turns speaking all of these.

Would you consider they come from Magog?

Germanic = I had even heard 80 % of vocabulary is non-IE.

Sword, shield, good, bad, as to raven, it exists in other IE groups too, but only western ones, a bit into Satem area, Lithuanian and Serbocroatian words for magpie. Örn has been given a proto-indo-european recosntructed root, but I saw no non-Germanic examples. As to dove, the PIE reconstruction is tenuously connected : From Proto-Indo-European *dʰewbʰ- (“to whisk; smoke; make obscure”). - In Germanic always a bird. There is of course another bird:

From Middle English hauk, hauke, hawke, havek, from Old English hafoc, heafoc, from Proto-Germanic *habukaz (compare West Frisian hauk, German Low German Haavke, Dutch havik, German Habicht, Norwegian hauk, Faroese heykur, Icelandic haukur), from Proto-Indo-European *kopuǵos (compare Latin capys, capus (“bird of prey”), Albanian gabonjë, shkabë (“eagle”), Russian ко́бец (kóbec, “falcon”), Polish kobuz (“Eurasian Hobby”)), perhaps ultimately derived from *keh₂p- (“seize”).

While a Latinist, I haven't seen either capys* or capus. So, we are left with Germanic, Albanian and Slavonic. Polish was probably another word, and while searching for "kobuc" I found "kobac" = Croation for hawk. Fits. But the word lacks in most branches, though three are considered enough.

* According to Roman sources,[5] in the Etruscan language the word capys meant "hawk" or "falcon" (or possibly "eagle" or "vulture").

But Etruscan is not an IE lang, more likely Fenno-Ugrian, probably close to Hungarian! So, outside Germanic, Albanian and Slavic, the word exists in a kind of Hungarian and only from there in Latin!

Celts = Barry Cunliffe will tell you they had diverse origins, because starting out as a language area (like Balkans) along Atlantic.

And archaeologists will probably not tell you trade is a uniquely modern thing.

I'm giving you an interpretation which won't hurt the pride of Europeans.

Most scholars disagree with you on Neanderthals, and I think Pääbo has given an argument from Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA. So, Neanderthals were replaced. I identify this event with Flood of Noah.

Cro-Magnon = Sethite line.

BUT, there are some Neanderthal genes left, mostly in Europe. I figure Japheth's wife was at least 1/4 Neanderthal. And Japheth's sons and grandsons were given mainly Europe because of her, when Noah (or someone later) divided the countries between the grandsons.

But it is probable Japheth's wife was a blonde or red head.

African DNA = could as well be ... Middle East. But this you will hear lots less often, because it fits the Bible much better.

The thing is DNA of non-Africans and non-Middle Easterners points back to a point of greatest diversity either in Africa or in Middle East. On a Biblical view, Middle East is more likely, that is why Evolutionists go for Africa.

France = land of Gomer. Or one of them - with Cappadocia / Hittite region and ... Germanic tribes. I have heard both Ascenez and Thogorma named as ancestors of Germanic tribes, and both were sons of Gomer. Since I guess you like cave art:

Same root race? Sounds like a quote from Blawatskaja Jelena ...

10:00 I must disappoint you, I have not spoken to Mr Máni any more than to Dame Sól lately. I haven't been very close either. 363 104 km seems to have been the closest I have been to him and 147 098 074 km the closest I have been to her.

On the origin of Slavs as such, I think it may be mixed. That is why I commented only on the side issues of the video, not on it main point./HGL

... on Bible Access in the Middle Ages (quora)

Considering the last of the 4 answers is by one Dennis Gardner who was pastor for 43 years and it is so ignorant of history, they are the kind of problem now that they pretend and for some priests perhaps rightly so there was of ignorant priests.

Two of the answers illustrated a blatantly protestant ignorance about Medieval conditions, and I commented under them, but the first, Alec Cawley, at least is not supposed to be a pastor!/HGL

Did all churches have a Bible in Middle Ages?

C on Q
I’m not sure if even smaller churches in small villages had one. Books were expensive at that time , before Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1450.

What (do you/do we) know about this ?


Alec Cawley
Read a bit, learned a bit. Much more to read, much more to learn.
Answered 15h ago
Yes, it is true that not all churches had Bibles, and doctrine said they didn’t need them - studying the Bible was the province of professional clerics and ordinary folk should not read them lest they get mistaken ideas. And also, the Bible could only be distributed in Latin, which the common folk could not understand but was spoken by clerics.

The teaching medium for the common people was essentially the equivalent of comic books - stained glass, and simple representations of favorite Bible stories. The rest would have been passed on by the village priest, who might, or might not, have had some sort of Book of Hours or compendium of prayers.

The more or less simultaneous arrival of native language translations and of a printed Bible which could be distributed to all churches (and of printing generally, which sharply increased literacy and general inquiry) was an earthquake which shook the Church and, among other things, split off the Protestant churches.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
14h ago
“doctrine said they didn’t need them - studying the Bible was the province of professional clerics and ordinary folk should not read them lest they get mistaken ideas.”

This is a bit summary about doctrine.

ALSO, every Church HAD one professional cleric at least, the Parish priest.

“And also, the Bible could only be distributed in Latin, which the common folk could not understand but was spoken by clerics.”

There were approved Bible editions in some languages, though this is correct for England between roughly 1401 and Reformation.

Understanding of Latin was not strictly limited to clercics, but varied among diverse commoners.

“The teaching medium for teh common people was essentially the equivalent of comic books - stained glass, and simple representations of favourite Bible stories.”

Comic books are however a great medium for teaching Biblical history.

Genesis flows fine as it is, but try getting the rest of Pentateuch as history directly from Bible without being distracted by all the laws … I am thankful for Bible comics.

“The rest would have been passed on by the village priest”

Even that would have been passed on by the village priest who was after all a professional cleric. Assume you had a stained glass window, it was he who explained what was happening.

Assume you had a Rhymed Bible - translated from Historia Scholastica - in the parish, you can’t read, he can, guess who reads what to whom?

“who might, or might not, have had some sort of Book of Hours or compendium of prayers.”

He needed a book of hours, a book for Mass and also a Bible, in order to fulfil the duty of studying all of the Bible.

“The more or less simultaneous arrival of native language translations and of a printed Bible which could be distributed to all churches (and of printing generally, which sharply increased literacy and general inquiry) was an earthquake which shook the Church”

It was the Church who did it.

“and, among other things, split off the Protestant churches.”

Not by itself.

Benjamin Peterson
I've read C. S. Lewis
Answered 15h ago
In England, all churches had a bible (barring accidents). The scriptoria of major monasteries constantly produced new bibles, often with specific quirks and stardards unique to that monastery. Many of these centers of production were in France, and bibles were often shipped a long distance if a church required one; on the other hand, even relatively small centers sometimes produced their own bibles. Over time, bible production was refined; the earlier middle ages tended to have massive, multi-volume bibles but by the mid-1200s, portable single volume bibles were common. The vast majority of bibles were based on the Vulgate, St. Jerome’s Latin translation — not because it was the only permitted text but because the effort of duplicating St. Jerome’s effort was too huge. The middle ages being as they were, scholars were often busy enough just trying to keep faithful to the original Vulgate.

These bibles were indeed very expensive, and they tended to be extremely durable and to be chained to the church as a result!

Pedantry: I should point out that Gutenberg only invented printing *in the West*.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
History buff since childhood. CSL & Eco added to Medieval lore. + Classics.
Answered 15h ago
I think all Churches had one Bible, as well as one Missal and one Breviary.

The priest was obliged to read the Bible continuously.

As to expensive books before Gutenberg, there was an activity invented a bit earlier, at the start of the High Middle Ages, which made books a bit cheaper.

The book from which a copy was made was divided into peciae, these were then distributed among several copyists (12 peciae = > 12 copyists) who would take turns copying each the same peciae.

But before that, in the Dark Ages? I don’t know.

Dennis Gardner
Master's in Biblical Studies, 43 years as a pastor and student of the Bible
Answered 7h ago

No. Very few churches had even a part of the Bible. The Pope made sure that only the priests would have control of the Bible so they could tell people what it said. The people had little choice but to believe their words. It’s also true that many people didn’t know how to read or write.

Yes, Gutenberg’s press made a very tremendous difference in the world. There were also churches other than RC churches that had a portion of the Bible. Some of these were heretical in their teachings, and many were truly Christian orthodox in their teachings. Gradually when the world came out of the Dark Ages, more copies of the Bible were available and more people were beginning to learn to read and write.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
“The Pope made sure that only the priests would have control of the Bible so they could tell people what it said.”

But there was a priest in each Church, for starters!

Also, it is not quite true.

A priest was obliged to read the Bible and obliged to be able to explain it to laymen. But laymen were not strictly speaking obliged to not read the Bible.

Under certain circumstances, “pirate translations” had been abused by heretics, and so there was a requirement for a layman to get permission before reading the Bible.

If you have seen “Sceptics’ Annotated Bible” you may realise why this is a good idea.

“The people had little choice but to believe their words.”

This is even Biblical, since they are successors of Apostles Luke 10:16.

“There were also churches other than RC churches that had a portion of the Bible.”

Can you enumerate?

“ Some of these were heretical in their teachings,”

I say amen to that, except for calling them Churches …

“and many were truly Christian orthodox in their teachings.”


“Gradually when the world came out of the Dark Ages”

What Dark Ages? The militarily dark ones for Christendom which ended with beginning Reconquest of Sicily and Spain and First Crusade in 1033 and 1089? Or did you mean sth else?

“more copies of the Bible were available and more people were beginning to learn to read and write.”

Much thanks to the efforts of the RC Church.

Sunday, June 4, 2017

... on CMI mixing Flat Earth and Geocentrism (on second half of video too)

... on CMI Mixing Flat Earth and Geocentrism (first half of video) · ... on CMI mixing Flat Earth and Geocentrism (on second half of video too)

Not repeating link to video right now, see previous.

14:54 Back to Flat Earth, the other subject where you are not wrong.

Yes, four corners could be a figure of speech taken over from Babylonian terminology and never taken literally at all in Bible while Babylonians had taken Earth to be a flat rhombic shape (as seen on ordinary map directions), with a corner at each cardinal direction.

But in Revelation we have an angel standing in each of the four corners and holding in the winds.

This implies that angels have power to hold in winds (or conversely to make it blow), but it also pinpoints "four corners" as actual places.

You can get that better with a round earth than with a flat earth, unless you want to count all South corners and on top of that give Oz two of them.

Earth seems to be a word which can also mean "land" - both eretz and "terra" have such a double meaning.

And land can have corners outside which you fall into the sea.

If it refers to the four corners of the "main land" of mankind, namely Old World, we would have a NW corner at Greenland, Iceland, British Isles or Scandinavia, a SW corner at Cape of Good Hope, a SE corner at Singapore, New Guinea or even Oz, and a NE corner at Sakhalin or Japan.

Which would imply that Americas, outside these corners, would have lost in importance, before this happens.

15:21 Earth not on back of some animal - good.

But most mythologies which had a flat earth were not really into backs of animals anyway.

Norse has a tree trunk, also excluded.

Many would have agreed with this word in Job, Greek would. Despite Flat Earth (as witnessed by Hercules meeting Atlas near where Heaven would have touched Earth without the service.

As to Isaiah, if khûg means circle or globe, either way it is at least open for a round Earth.

And if khûg on top of that actually must mean sth globe shaped, well, too bad that some Talmudists missed that.

Many of the Christians involved in Flat Earth are bona fide and simply too much into "Jewish roots". Willing to take anything Talmudic which does not positively directly contradict Christianity.

15:42 Other example of misinformation in public school systems and these days most private schools too : they teach Heliocentrism as if it were a solid and proven fact. It is not.

16:06 "The American Pageant" by Thomas Bailey .... would it perhaps include some endorsement of Heliocentrism too?

16:56 As to full sphere, there was no total proof before Magellan.

Aristotle's fourth and best proof was a mistake about already having a Magellan type proof : if Ganges would have been on the immediate West of Pillars of Hercules, a k a Gibraltar.

Sailors passing equator were not much done by pre-Columbian sailors, except perhaps Portuguese ones - and Columbus had a Spanish crew.

18:22 Lunar eclipses are a fairly good argument for a round earth, but not a fool proof one.

Hindoos who deny round earth attribute lunar eclipses to Rahoo - a planet usually not seen, since it is hidden below the rim of Earth, but which comes up every once in a while to produce eclipses (both lunar and solar, I think).

And a Hindoo would answer that Rahoo is a globe?

Sure always casting a circular shadow proves sth is a globe, but not necessarily the Earth.

Works of Aristotle I: p. 389 is a bad reference, since given in relation to a modern edition.

You ought to have given either the work with its separate title and the book and chapter and paragraph or the pagination of a Renaissance edition, with all works paginated ... sorry, it was a Prussian edition:

"Bekker numbers, the standard form of reference to works in the Corpus Aristotelicum, are based on the page numbers used in the Prussian Academy of Sciences edition of the complete works of Aristotle (Aristotelis Opera edidit Academia Regia Borussica, Berlin, 1831–1870). They take their name from the editor of that edition, the classical philologist August Immanuel Bekker (1785–1871)."

I would like to have known how Aristotle argued against Rahoo, if he even had come across such an idea of a body other than Earth causing lunar eclipses.

[They give a list from 9 to 1 on why Earth is a sphere:]

Number 9 : all "other" celestial bodies are round - but is Earth a celestial body?

Number 8 : day and night happen at different times.

Which is easy to verify by internet, and sometimes when I wake up at night thinking about sth, I am sure someone opposite side of the Earth was praying for me to consider x, but was not considering my timezone being sleeping time. Usually it is also an argument where they would be wiser to try to verify my answer by arguing over the internet with me, than to pray for me to immediately consider the argument when it is perhaps bright day in LA or Sydney, but middle of the night in the area of Paris.

This one has however mostly not been verifiable through out history. Chronometres used to verify latitude ... sorry longitude ... by comparing time on chronometre to astronomic noon or midnight are a fairly recent invention.

Number 7 : note that Coriolis might have a bearing on shape of Earth, but would be the same whichever of Earth and Universe were moving.

So, cannot be used against Geostationary or Geocentric world view.

Number 6 : two quibbles.

  • a) if it has three straight angles but curved lines between them, I think triangle is a somewhat misplaced word (it has a bearing on two dimensional geometry);
  • b) while I consider this as true, I consider this as a conclusion of Round Earth,, not as a proof of it, since it cannot be well tested.

Or would you like to start walking South from the North Pole to the Equator and then back North to the Pole after some march along equator?

I'd consider it uncomfy.

Number 5 : the curvature of Earth can be measured.

Without Magellan, this might not prove more than Earth being shaped like a chapati pan.

Number 4 : the constellations and the moon appear upside down if seen from other hemisphere than the one you are used to (an Aussie would be saying it is here they appear upside down) : good point, but it is also just recently this is testable.

Number 3 : the Magellan proof!

Yes. But there is such a thing as trusting the Portuguese on this one!

Precisely as there is on trusting Latin Americans on the seasons and day lengths at Tierra del Fuego.

You bet there are Protestants around still who say "na, that is a Jesuit plot". Just as there are such who claim Baptist continuity theory in Church History. To these, the normal givens of history through the centuries as applied to Church are results of a Jesuit plot to deny the "one Protestant faith which was older than Catholicism" as they would have it.

There is also such a thing as trusting sailors - and some land crabs will consider sailors as impure, just as Pharisees did with fishermen.

You can perhaps see now why Jews and Judaising Christians are prominent among Flat Earthers?

Number 2 : good point.

However, some are bungling the mathematical implications on this one.

I have seen people argue as if seeing buildings at all at a certain distance disproved Earth's known diameter. Their argument is equivalent to what you would have if the one watching always had his eyes at ground level.

Number 1 : the Moon landing is perhaps real, I am not DENYING it, but it would have been much easier to fake than the Magellan proof, considering the number of times it has been repeated (mostly by sailors, or Latinos or people who were both).

Admittedly, Deep Space Climate Observatory is a bit better documented, seeing the photo was not from Moon but from EPIC.

24:49 The photoshopping you refer to is indeed a technical possibility which is a weakness in the proof you put as number 1. 24:54 And CGI might have been secretly invented but not yet on market before the opening date of the invention.

I still think you number 3, Magellan, is much better.

25:03 NASA is apart from Round Earth promoting things like Heliocentrism - including Earth turning on its axis - and Climate Science. Not quite traditional things, perhaps NASA could have a skeleton in the cupboard.

By the way Magellan could have had motives like promoting Catholic exegesis. If you are into that kind of thing.

And now, the thing about footages taken from Moon. You believe them to be genuine, I have no quarrel with that, but a footage from Moon taken in timelapse showing Earth turns around itself is like a footage from ISS showing same : in both cases (and for ISS you know it) the stance of observer is moving around the observed object.

26:16 There you have a mighty motive for a Protestant. All Medieval scholars ... think of what that means to a Protestant.

Orbis cruciger is also appealing to Catholics.

27:06I actually saw an evolutionist or old earther appeal to King James.