Creationism and "Adultism"

Q

What purpose does it serve to believe the world is 6,000 years old?
https://www.quora.com/What-purpose-does-it-serve-to-believe-the-world-is-6-000-years-old/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2h ago

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

• 1) If you believe that reflects the correct Biblical chronology of OT + 2020 years, it serves believing God’s word. I prefer believing the world is 7219 years. But that serves the same purpose.
• 2) Since Christ came “in the fulness of time” we can’t expect AD to go on to 4000 if 6000 is correct, nor to 5200 if 7219 is correct. It helps to remind of the end of times.
• 3) Not to be fooled by false science claiming that 40 000 BP or 65 million BP are real dates.

Randy Hamilton

2h ago

HGL, No proof that your JC ever lived. Only stories written 100 to 300 years later. Try reality. Try science. pi does not equal 3. Earth not flat. re read your book. Think.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

• 1) Gospel of St. Matthew was written by that disciple in the decade or decades following events.
• 2) Nothing in the Bible says pi equals 3. One circle certainly has pi as relation between circumference and diameter. But two concentric circles, which would be the case with some circular objects, can have diameter of larger circle reflected in triple precisely in the circumference of the smaller one. Reread the passage. What circle would the one measure refer to, what would the other refer to.
• 3) Nothing in the Bible says earth is flat. And that includes the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, because it was a dream and is not supposed to physically reflect reality and it includes four corners, since the continents do have four (main) corners against the Pacific.
• 4) The tone is actually deplorable as to manners. If my granny used the words “read, learn, think” when giving me a book on human origins (evolutionist), she was my granny. You are not. I am 52, and do not enjoy being talked to as if 1/5 or 1/10 that age.

Brian Barker

52m ago

“ I am 52, and do not enjoy being talked to as if 1/5 or 1/10 that age.”

Then you should stop thinking like a child of that age.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8m ago

I got an answer from Brian Barker … which I cannot answer, meaning he has shown some childish reluctance to face rational contradiction.

More on Babel (and generally from Flood to Abraham)

Q I a

Is it possible that the pyramids were built shortly after the Tower of Babel?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-the-pyramids-were-built-shortly-after-the-Tower-of-Babel/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

just now

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

I would say there were a few centuries, the oldest pyramids coming in the time of Joseph, Sakkarah, 1700 sth BC (misdated c. 2600 BC), while Babel was a few centuries before the birth of Abraham.

So, with my recalibration of the carbon dates, it is not possible. It’s about 1000 years between these.

Citing own work here:

II - III, Babel

2607 B. Chr.
0.428224 pmC/100, so dated as 9607 B. Chr.
2585 B. Chr.
0.45483 pmC/100, so dated as 9085 B. Chr.
2562 B. Chr.
0.48134 pmC/100, so dated as 8612 B. Chr.

V - VI, Joseph to birth of Moses

1700 B. Chr.
0.87575 pmC/100, so dated as 2800 B. Chr.

New Tables (on Creation vs Evolution).
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

2562 BC to 1700 BC is 862 years, more than “shortly after”.

Q I b

Is it possible that the ancient Mayan pyramids may actually be older than the ancient Egyptian pyramids?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-the-ancient-Mayan-pyramids-may-actually-be-older-than-the-ancient-Egyptian-pyramids/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

I would say not. They have carbon dates of associated material and these are definitely less old than the Ancient Egyptian carbon dates associated with pyramids.

Mesoamerican pyramids - Wikipedia

Q II

How come the civilization break period after Noah's flood was not recorded in History. They were all dead and the recovery would take thousand years or so. So why wasn't this huge disruption recorded. I am sure it wasn't missed by history recorders?
https://www.quora.com/How-come-the-civilization-break-period-after-Noahs-flood-was-not-recorded-in-History-They-were-all-dead-and-the-recovery-would-take-thousand-years-or-so-So-why-wasnt-this-huge-disruption-recorded-I-am-sure-it-wasnt/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

just now

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Whole question: "How come the civilization break period after Noah's flood was not recorded in History. They were all dead and the recovery would take thousand years or so. So why wasn't this huge disruption recorded. I am sure it wasn't missed by history recorders?"

Now, let's break this down a bit:

"How come the civilization break period after Noah's flood was not recorded in History."

It partly was : Genesis 9:2 kind of says all mankind for a while would be hunter-gatherers.

And while Genesis 10:9 primarily refers to Nimrod's slave hunting talents of recruiting for projects, it probably also refers to his hunting a lot of mammuths before starting that.

"They were all dead and the recovery would take thousand years or so."

Actually, the recovery, if not of metallurgy, at least of agriculture and larger architecture was happening at "Tower of Babel" - 350 - 401 years after the Flood, to recent archaeology known as Göbekli Tepe. Metallurgy took a little longer.

"So why wasn't this huge disruption recorded. I am sure it wasn't missed by history recorders?"

It was recorded orally about the things that mattered. This fairly small collection of fairly short oral tales in Genesis 2 to 11 ...

6078 Words (or 5337 if we exclude Genesis 1 as added by Moses)

... was transmitted through fairly few generations (see Genesis 11 for those up to Abraham, then add Isaac, Jacob, Joseph) before one can count on it being very definitely already available in writing too.

Meanwhile, non-Hebrews were not history recorders prior to Joseph.

Hint : Joseph came to Egypt some time before 1700 BC, but the coffin of his pharao Djoser is carbon dated to 2800 / 2600 BC.

We have no narrative texts with that age in carbon dated chronology.

Q III

Noah's flood which took place 5,000 years ago according to the Bible must have removed all civilizations on the Earth. Does that explain why the written history of any place over the world is not older than 5,000 years?
https://www.quora.com/Noahs-flood-which-took-place-5-000-years-ago-according-to-the-Bible-must-have-removed-all-civilizations-on-the-Earth-Does-that-explain-why-the-written-history-of-any-place-over-the-world-is-not-older-than-5-000/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Actually, no writings are, on written materials found and deciphered, even that old.

Proto-literary (in Sumerian, Egyptian, Akkadian) became literary around carbon dated 2600 BC or after - which corresponds to real date c. 1700 BC (Joseph in Egypt).

Q IV

Is there any plausible explanation for the absurdly long lifespans of the biblical patriarchs such as Shem and Methuselah?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-plausible-explanation-for-the-absurdly-long-lifespans-of-the-biblical-patriarchs-such-as-Shem-and-Methuselah/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

That by now we have absurdly short lifespans compared to the first men.

In Genesis 11, after the Babel account, the genealogy of Shem, which on LXX readings without or with “second Cainan” span 942 or 1070 years up to Abraham’s birth, we see lifespans dwindling.

It so happens, this exact period is when carbon 14 levels on my view went up so much, that 2957 BC (without second Cainan) or Flood is misdated to c. 40 000 or 35 000 BP, while 80 year old Abraham in 1935 BC was contemporary (Genesis 14) to an evacuation of En Gedi which is misdated to 3500 BC.

This means, carbon 14 was being produced 9.66 times faster than now.

At the same time, the same cosmic radiation, would also give a higher level of radiation on ground level, (milliSieverts per year), than now, which would have contributed to making human genes less suitable for a long life and therefore radically changed our lifespan to the shorter.

Q V

Catholic Apologetics : How did someone know to write down everything in the Garden Of Eden regarding Adam and Eve?
https://www.quora.com/q/catholicapologetics/How-did-someone-know-to-write-down-everything-in-the-Garden-Of-Eden-regarding-Adam-and-Eve?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

How did someone know to write down everything in the Garden Of Eden regarding Adam and Eve?

What is there to know of Adam and Eve in Eden?

Genesis 2[1] and Genesis 3[2]

How long are these texts? I think they are sufficiently short for learning by heart to be very plausible:

6078 Words (and that’s from ch 1 to ch 11).

I also think systems of writing may have existed and then been lost:

... on Genevieve von Petzinger's 32 late palaeolithic signs

Footnotes

[1] Douay-Rheims Bible
[2] Douay-Rheims Bible

Scott Johnson

53m ago

What are you actually saying? Why is a text’s brevity an indicator of plausibility? An unknown system of writing lost when? Around Adam and Eve’s frolic? Please include your reasoning, not links that I and probably most rational people won’t want to be bothered with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

48m ago

Brevity or verse are two ways in which oral texts are faithfully transmitted.

Unknown is false and I give links I think rational people WOULD rationally want to look up if interested in the question - look them up, then come back.

Q VI

own answer

How much of the Bible actually happened?
https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-Bible-actually-happened/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Quora Question Details Bot

August 8, 2017

The answerers will probably be religious themselves, and so am I, but please give an objective explanation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Out of 1184 chapters, 680 are history, other genres, for remaining 504 chapters, are prophecy, instruction, law etc.

Note, I have given five books of Moses as “history” rather than law in this context.

So 680 chapters (or somewhat fewer in Moses, but some more in Isaiah) claim something happened and it did happen.

504 chapters (or somewhat fewer in Isaiah, but somewhat more in Moses) don’t deal with claims about what happened.

Q VI

other answer

How much of the Bible actually happened?
https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-Bible-actually-happened/answer/James-Hough-1

This question previously had details. They are now in a comment. (see above)

Answer requested by

Max Barnett

James Hough

September 6, 2015

Catholic who teaches Catechism, RCIA, and Prayer classes.

Originally Answered: How much of the bible actually happened?
I'm making an assumption here that you actually meant: "How much of the Bible actually happened as is presented?" Catholicism teaches the the entire Bible is inerrant, that it is all true, but what you are asking depends a lot on how you understand it.

Let's take a really obvious example: In the parables, Our Blessed Lord is telling stories to make a point. For instance, the story about the wedding feast thrown by the King: none of his invited guests show up, so he sends his servants out into the streets to round people up for the wedding feast, and then throws some poor slob out because he doesn't have a wedding garment. This is a parable, it tells a story to make a point, did the story actually happen? Of course not. The King is god, the invited guests were the Jews, those he rounds up and invites in are the gentiles. The slob without a wedding garment is a man with no good works.

In the first couple chapters of Genesis, there are two different accounts of creation, which actually vary a great deal. How can there be two different accounts of the same happening and that differ in what happened? Easy: the point of the both stories is that God created everything out of nothing. The point is exactly the same in both stories.

Some things are matters of faith, in other words, the Church has said that they actually happened, and we must believe that they happened this way: God created a man and a woman out of nothing and they are the ancestors of every single human being living on the planet earth - that is the point of the story as they sinned, and no longer could hand on original justice to us. I.E. we are in need of a savior, and we are God's creations, made to know Him, love Him, and serve Him.

The Bible says (in the first account) that everything was created in six days. Does this mean that everything happened in six twenty-four hour periods and that the earth is only 5,000 years old? Of course not, first of all, the sun and the earth were not created in the first few "days" so they could hardly be twenty-four hour periods of the sun revolving around the earth. Is the earth only 5,000 years old? Of course not, we know from geology and such that the earth is much older, but 1) the Bible is not trying to teach us the history of geometry, and 2) the terms used are indefinite, a thousand years means (to the ancient Hebrew mind) a really long time, NOT 1000 units of 365 days.

All of the Bible actually happened, but you must interpret each story according to the mind of the Church, in the genre in which it was written.

I commented twice

I and II

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thu

“The Bible says (in the first account) that everything was created in six days. Does this mean that everything happened in six twenty-four hour periods and that the earth is only 5,000 years old?”

Blooper, it was 5199 years old and some when Christ was born.

Yes, it means that.

“Of course not, …” confer “according to the mind of the Church,”

There is no sense whatsoever in doing anything according to the mind of the Church, unless it’s according to the mind of God. That means, you are obliged to what a credible bishop tells you was revealed before St. John ceased to live his earthly life, you are not obliged to what happens to be a personal opinion which he might happen to share with an entire bishops’ conference or most of it.

“first of all, the sun and the earth were not created in the first few "days" so they could hardly be twenty-four hour periods of the sun revolving around the earth.”

They could be 24 hour periods of hemispheres of light and darkness revolving around earth. That’s what St. Augustine taught in first book of De Genesi ad Litteram libri XII (while he proposes a one moment creation theory later on in books V and VI).

“Is the earth only 5,000 years old? Of course not, we know from geology and such that the earth is much older”

We know? Do you?

“from geology and such”

In other words, you are referring to someone else who is supposed to know.

“ 1) the Bible is not trying to teach us the history of geometry,”

I don’t see what history of geometry has to do with it. 680 chapters of Douay Rheims (with a rough and ready division, counting all of Moses and David, none if Isaiah as history) and that includes Genesis 5 and 11, are teaching history.

“2) the terms used are indefinite, a thousand years means (to the ancient Hebrew mind) a really long time, NOT 1000 units of 365 days.”

No single item of those adding up to 5199 years BC according to St. Jerome’s calculation, based on Julius the African is set in that indefinite term “a thousand years”. Adam was 130 or 230 (230 for 5199 in Roman martyrology) when Seth was born. 130 years means 130 * 365 or 130 * 365.2425 days, and 230 years means 230 times 365 or 365.2425 days. Unless the pre-Flood years were 364 days long …

James Hough

Fri

Hi Mr. Lundahl,

We are not to approach the Bible like some kind of Calculus text! We are to look for the spiritual truths which it imparts. To try and parse out time like this is to mutilate the Bible into something it was never intended to be.

Pax,
James

Hans-Georg Lundahl

13m ago

You have just accused St. Jerome of Stridon of mutilating the Bible.

It’s his (partly based on Julius the African’s) calculus, which via the Historia Scholastica made its way into the Martyrology used at Rome, 15th C printed version, while it was still Usuard and not yet Pope Gregory XIII’s Roman Martyrology.

Similarily, while Georgios Synkellos or George Syncellus is not a canonised saint, his Biblical chronology has not the least been condemned and saw a Latin translation in 19th C. Paris, with Imprimatur.

Your kind of daintiness just is not Catholic.

“We are to look for the spiritual truths which it imparts.”

The Bible has four senses - literal, allegoric, moral and anagogic.

The latter three are called spiritual senses, but we get them by being attentive to the first, the literal, sense. Including its mathematical aspects.

Update:

James Hough

10h ago

I rest my case.

Update II

This comment

has been deleted

18h ago

[It included my link to this post. Previous comments in the dialogue were also deleted.]

James Hough

18h ago

Hi Mr. Lundahl,

You have just gone one step too far.

Pax,
James

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thu

“In the first couple chapters of Genesis, there are two different accounts of creation, which actually vary a great deal. How can there be two different accounts of the same happening and that differ in what happened?”

One account of Adam’s and Eve’s creation is given in an overall panorama of the six days.

One is given as a story as it was experienced by them (plus immediate prequels to Adam being conscious).

For “animals created after Adam” the options are:

• no, LXX says, “God, having created … brought them fourth”
• God made an extra example of each so Adam could watch Him create.

James Hough

Fri

Hi Mr. Lundahl,

Unfortunately, I am not an Old Testament scholar and truly do not want to get bogged down in the minutiae of the differing accounts of creation.

Pax,
James

Hans-Georg Lundahl

17m ago

I think “chapter 1 gives an overview and chapter 2 gives the details of man’s creation” is far more useful than tiny minutiae, it’s obvious common sense.

Pretending the accounts differ as to giving a contradiction rather than just a variation in view point is obviously an attack on Biblical inerrancy, as it has always been seen by the Church.

Why don’t you check what Haydock has to say, since his comments were meant for all faithful, and not just for OT scholars? You know, George Leo, Catholic priest, made the most used English Bible comment in a Bible featuring both texts and his comments (mostly taken from earlier commenters, but he added some himself).

Q VII

Could Mesopotamia have been settled directly after the events at the Tower of Babel?
https://www.quora.com/q/catholicapologetics/Could-Mesopotamia-have-been-settled-directly-after-the-events-at-the-Tower-of-Babel-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20h ago

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Could Mesopotamia have been settled directly after the events at the Tower of Babel?

If you mean classic Sumerian and Akkadian Babylonia with Akkadian Assyria, and you ask me as per my calibrations, no.

Tower of Babel is Göbekli Tepe, its end is carbon dated to 8600 BC in the real year around the birth of Peleg 401 years after the Flood that happened in 2957.

Carbon dates for classic Ur in pre-fully-literate form or proto-literate form are c. 4000 BC, meaning the real dates would be around birth or youth of an Abraham born in 2015 BC.

Then, of course, I could be lining up carbon dates and Biblical real dates wrong, but this is not exactly the point in asking me, if you want that argued, you ask someone else.

If however you mean Mesopotamia in general, Göbekli Tepe being in North West Mesopotamia (aka Assyria), Mesopotamia was settled during, not after the events in Genesis 11:1–9.

For matches with Genesis 10, here is a tentative line up: Lining up Cities.

Q VIII

Are the descendants of Cain largely a forgotten race?
https://www.quora.com/Are-the-descendants-of-Cain-largely-a-forgotten-race/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20h ago

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

I think they are remembered in the Mahabharata. In more detail than in Genesis 4 and partly Genesis 6, that is.

I think “Bharat” is a conflation of Cainite Henoch (city founder) and of Sethite Henoch (raptured up). I think Pandu could be based on Jabel, and the exile of Pandavas in the forest based on an exile into a pastoral nomadic existence “who was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of herdsmen.”

I think Krishna could be based on Jubal “he was the father of them that play upon the harp and the organs.” The latter word meaning basically pan flutes and Krishna is considered a flute player.

I think the Kauravas could be based on sons of Tubal-Cain.

I think Regma, soon after the Flood, settled closer and closer to modern India (which is clearly East of Eden, as is probably Persia) and also carried with him the Cainite stories from before the Flood.

Q IX

Did the Nephilim help create Stonehenge and its designs?
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Nephilim-help-create-Stonehenge-and-its-designs/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19m ago

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Not the pre-Flood nephelim, since Stonehenge, if my identification is correct, is after Babel (I take this as Göbekli Tepe).

Whether one should call the post-Flood giants nephelim or not and whether such were involved in Stonehenge, I don’t know, and I think Stonehenge is inferior to the previous Göbekli Tepe, so as to design, it was very well within human possibilities.

Q X

Let's say Adam and his descendants were real and live for hundred years, why is there no great civilization contributed to them?
https://www.quora.com/Lets-say-Adam-and-his-descendants-were-real-and-live-for-hundred-years-why-is-there-no-great-civilization-contributed-to-them/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8m ago

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

As to Cain’s kin, it seems to be the real life background - with cultural updates to post-Flood India - of Mahabharata.

People at the same time living basically as Amerindians would have been very typical of Neanderthals and Denisovans, and also some Cro-Magnon who hanged around them. Let’s say this wasn’t Noah’s basic ancestral culture any more than Natty Bumppo’s, but he knew his way around there.

That’s how the early post-Flood centuries before recovery of big civilisation at Babel / Göbekli Tepe became the Late Palaeolithic.

Types of Inquisition and Reasons for a Conversion

Q I

Wasn’t the Protestant inquisition worse than the Catholic, and cruelest?
https://www.quora.com/Wasn-t-the-Protestant-inquisition-worse-than-the-Catholic-and-cruelest/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Carlos Lopez

Hans-Georg Lundahl

just now

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

The English Inquisition, both Catholic and Protestant, was worse than the one in Spain, the one in France after Albigensian Crusade, the one run from Rome.

Earlier inquisition had been in the hands of bishops, but they had not condemned anyone to death, even indirectly. After Albigensian crusade, inquisitors could condemn (indirectly!) to death, but were usually specialists, not taking Inquisition as one of their duties, and these specialists were also bound by certain rules for how to try suspects.

The English Inquisition from 1401 was giving back the powers to the normal diocesan bishop and giving him free hands in an act of parliament called “de comburendo heretico”. This was the system under which St. Joan of Arc was tried.

It lasted to after Reformation, including Anglican Inquisition against Baptists or Anabaptists. Last heretics burned were so in 1612.

If by Protestant Inquisition you mean persecution of Catholics, it was arguably even crueller, but I would not call it Inquisition, since Catholics were not charged with a religious crime, but with the crime of disobeying the Christian ruler of the country and therefore committing acts of rebellion or treason. This system - the Penal laws - was crueller than the English Inquisition, whether Catholic or Protestant.

Q II

What prompted your decision to convert to Roman Catholicism?
https://www.quora.com/What-prompted-your-decision-to-convert-to-Roman-Catholicism/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Jessica Foley

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thu

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

I already hated the Russian Revolution and its ensuing persecution of Christians.

I learned how Swedish and English Reformations were so very like the Russian Revolution, setting up totalitarian régimes that persecuted Catholics.

Subsidiary : I reflected once more on Luther’s attitude in Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen.

Moses' Sources

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1m ago

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

How did Moses gain the knowledge to write the first five books of the Bible with no previous biblical history written down before? Did God himself inspire the words that the ancient patriarch wrote down?
https://www.quora.com/q/catholicapologetics/How-did-Moses-gain-the-knowledge-to-write-the-first-five-books-of-the-Bible-with-no-previous-biblical-history-written-do-2/

• 1 Exodus 1 to Deuteronomy 30 to 32 is within his experience, including augmented about his childhood.
• 2 End of Deuteronomy is written by his successor Joshua (it features his death).
• 3 Genesis was inspired through a vision of the creation days for chapter 1 (roughly), while chapters 2 to 50 were witnessed by contemporaries from Adam on to Joseph’s children.

Linguistics and Babel : Origin of Language and of Languages

Q I

Why don’t creationists and Bible literalists take on linguists who refute the Tower of Babel story by showing how language has evolved?
https://www.quora.com/Why-don-t-creationists-and-Bible-literalists-take-on-linguists-who-refute-the-Tower-of-Babel-story-by-showing-how-language-has-evolved/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

just now

amateur linguist

How English and Braid Scots evolved from Anglo-Saxon is a question clearly posterior to Babel. Same as with Spanish and French from Latin.

THAT Chinese and Sumerian similarily evolved from a common proto-language is not a proposal that linguists show. Merrit Ruhlen is an exception, but even he would admit Na Dene Caucasian is a language group more like as loose as Nostratic than as Indo-European. With language groups even as loose as Indo-European (between the ten branches!) you cannot quite conclusively show the languages studied from evidence evolved from a common proto-language.

In other words, the linguists you’d like to cite against me don’t really show anything to refute the story. Common knowledge of vinification doesn’t refute the story of Cana. Common knowledge of curing Hansen’s disease with 6 months of antibiotics doesn’t refute Jesus curing lepers by a single word or two. The God almighty who is behind certain natural processes is also able to shortcut them. Or sidestep them.

The process of language change is natural to human society, I think the best description of its nature can be found in Jean Aitchison, and I think it was totally sidestepped at Babel.

Attila Csanyi

26.II.2022

It is an obvious myth, a fantasy about YHWH getting scared of the builders so he comes down from his heaven and “confuses” (Hebrew BALAL-”confusion”) their language. This comes from the Hebrew misunderstanding of the word BABEL (“Gate of God),

““If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” Genesis 22:6–7

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.II.2022

What makes an account to your judgement “obvious myth”?

Q II

What are the arguments for and against a technology explanation of the origins of human language?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-a-technology-explanation-of-the-origins-of-human-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Usman Rashid

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

amateur linguist

I don’t know any arguments for a technological explanation of the origin of human language.

I know one major argument against it : technology doesn’t understand linguistics, has no grip on what texts actually mean.

Q III

own answer

What exactly happened at Babel, and why is it used in the explanation of language origin?
https://www.quora.com/What-exactly-happened-at-Babel-and-why-is-it-used-in-the-explanation-of-language-origin/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Usman Rashid

Hans-Georg Lundahl

38m ago

amateur linguist

It has nothing to do with originating human language as a phenomenon, since Adam had language around 2643 years before the confusion.

It is definitely one major theory about the language differences. When Babel started, there was one language. Now we have languages which cannot be reconstructed as daughter languages of a single proto-language, like English and Chinese, like Spanish and Basque, like Arabic and Japanese.

The story is in Genesis 11, and it is the first half of the chapter, while the second half has the genealogy between Shem and Abraham:

Douay-Rheims Bible (Genesis 11)

Wendy D. Beard

11h ago

The Bible doesn’t give us much detail as to exactly what the Tower of Babel consisted of, how it was constructed, and what it was made of… We do know that it was a huge building project of which the leaders of it wanted to make a name for themselves and be famous in all future generations for their superior project. It appears they wanted to reach heaven and God physically without doing any of the things that God requires.

God did not like this. God supernaturally scattered the people all over the world in their closest family groups and gave different locales different languages. By separating people geographically and linguistically, they could no longer all work together as one people but would become separate cultures, languages, and even races of people over time as each group only had part of the genetic pool and would only reflect its part of the genetic pool.

We know that this is a real historical event because there are independent historical records of this story in separate religions, cultures, and languages ALL OVER THE WORLD. They couldn’t all make up the same story with the same details in ancient times with no way to communicate with others on the other side of the world! The fact that stories of the Tower of Babel exist all over the world in different languages, cultures, and religions prove that is was a REAL HISTORICAL EVENT. Furthermore, the tower’s foundation still sits where it always was and no one has destroyed it or took it down. It remains to this day, complete with an accompanying ancient explanation of the event in which the tower is called the Tower of Babel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8m ago

"The Bible doesn’t give us much detail as to exactly what the Tower of Babel consisted of, how it was constructed, and what it was made of"

Correct.

"We do know that it was a huge building project"

If building is the word we would use ... I think Genesis 11:4 might describe the project of a rocket. Which would make hugeness somewhat less important.

"It appears they wanted to reach heaven and God physically without doing any of the things that God requires."

I don't think God had required or offered heaven to men as yet, apart from taking up Henoch. The just, prior to Jesus on Calvary, went down to Sheol, a bit above Hell. This was still the case when Lazarus went to the bosom of Abraham before Christ raised him.

"God supernaturally scattered the people all over the world in their closest family groups and gave different locales different languages."

He supernaturally gave people new and different languages. As to the scattering over the world, it would follow by freewilled and only sensible decision of going out to new or back to old separate homes.

"We know that this is a real historical event because there are independent historical records of this story in separate religions, cultures, and languages ALL OVER THE WORLD."

No. The story is singularily lacking all over the Near East, all over Greece and Rome, all over Egypt (well, that is still Near East), over Norse Myths, over Hindoo myths, as far as I know.

Perhaps some Amerindians preserved it, but that's about it.

We do know the Flood is historical, bc nearly all cultures (Egypt is the exception) record it. We do know that new languages would not naturally form very fast after a bottleneck reducing humanity to one family. But the one story which gives the needed supernatural explanation is in Genesis.

“Furthermore, the tower’s foundation still sits where it always was and no one has destroyed it or took it down. It remains to this day, complete with an accompanying ancient explanation of the event in which the tower is called the Tower of Babel.”

I think that is incorrect.

I think Babel was found again very recently … without the tower, as one would expect if it was a rocket (of which pieces would go with different “heirs” to the project who then forgot part of the technical details and only recalled wanting to go to heaven). It’s Göbekli Tepe.

Q III

other answer

What exactly happened at Babel, and why is it used in the explanation of language origin?
https://www.quora.com/What-exactly-happened-at-Babel-and-why-is-it-used-in-the-explanation-of-language-origin/answer/Adam-Reisman

Answer requested by

Usman Rashid

Adam Reisman

3h ago

B.A. in Linguistics, University of Southern California

What exactly happened at Babel, and why is it used in the explanation of language origin?

It’s an ancient origin story. It developed long before we understood the actual evolutionary process of language. I wouldn’t put any serious thought into it being history, but you use it to learn ethical lessons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

31m ago

Evolutionary process … you mean like English descending from Anglo-Saxon, German from Althochdeutsch and so on? And presumably Anglo-Saxon and Althochdeutsch from Proto-Germanic?

What is the common proto-language for Chinese and English? For Japanese and Arabic? For Spanish and Basque?

Adam Reisman

23m ago

There isn’t one that we know of. Most linguists, myself included, speculate that language emerged in multiple places and didn’t have a single origin.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

And some speculate that language had a single origin but so far back that Ruhlen can’t find more traces than 32 proto-words.

There is of course an alternative, namely that Adam got a single language from God, it was still spoken 10 generations later on the Ark, the language on the Ark was still spoken to just before 101, 401 or 529 years later when Peleg was born. Then God imposed a brutal change of language competence on most people. And a few centuries later, we see Sumerian and Egyptian unrelated, Egyptian and Akkadian so dissimilar that only a proto-language thousands of years earlier could explain commonalities … unless they were deliberately left in place by God.

Note, this scenario in no way precludes that languages have changed a lot since, and that the process is basically the one outlined by Grimm … with a few caveats from Jean Aitchison. It only means that one event of language differentiation was neither evolution from a proto-language nor independent acquisition of language.

Continued

eight hours later

Adam Reisman

6m ago

The Biblical scenario is entirely implausible and not compatible with science. You’re wasting your energy if that’s the point of your discussion here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Entirely implausible … except that apes slowly acquiring human language capacity over a million year long development into humans is even more implausible.

Not compatible with science … what actual scientific fact does it contradict?

I think I’m a better judge than you what I want to spend my energy on.

Adam Reisman

Just now

Okay. Spend all the energy you want. I’m done here ;-)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Dodging the two challenges …

Q IV

own answer

Is there proof that there was only 1 language in the beginning like the story of Babel?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-proof-that-there-was-only-1-language-in-the-beginning-like-the-story-of-Babel/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Althea Alabanzas

Hans-Georg Lundahl

February 12

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

The story is proof of it.

The fact that the human population had come out of an ark, which held only 8 human persons, 401 years earlier, is presumable proof of it.

Depending on how reliable you consider this tradition.

Obviously, world wide Flood and Ark with a privileged survivor and family is a very well spread tradition, and once you add the present diversity of languages, Babel would be a very logical corrolary - only one very seldom actually told. Neither Greeks nor Muslims have such a story, nor do the Hindoos, as far as I know.

By Greeks, I mean the Homeric religion.

Q IV

other answer

Is there proof that there was only 1 language in the beginning like the story of Babel?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-proof-that-there-was-only-1-language-in-the-beginning-like-the-story-of-Babel/answer/Jan-Gröndahl-1

Answer requested by

Althea Alabanzas

Jan Gröndahl

lives in Sweden

Answered February 11

No, there is no proof of that.

The Tower of Babel is a building mentioned in the Old Testament, Genesis. 11: 1-9, possibly a Babylonian ziqqurat dedicated to Marduk. Ziqqurats is temple towers built in Mesopotamia, today Iraq, around 2100 BC-550 BC.

Perhaps at that time there was only one language spoken in Mesopotamia. But as time went on, the language changed with increasing population spreading over ever larger areas. Nothing strange about it and languages still changes over time.

But that a God would be responsible for the language divisions is of course pure nonsense. And our Earth is much bigger than Mesopotamia with humans speaking a lot of different languages long before Mesopotamia even existed.

[omitting map]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

February 12

It so happens, a ziggurat from (carbon dated) 2200 BC will for the reason you mention NOT be a valid candidate for the Tower of Babel.

I mentioned this to Michael Heiser in these responses to his video:

To Heiser on Stele of Naram-Sin

Jan Gröndahl

February 12

How do you carbon date ziggurats that are made of clay? Maybe you can find some organic material from some wood structures together with the rubble of what perhaps is clay bricks that is all to be find today. That’s not really convincing.

Whatever. They made towers in Mesopotamia but the biblical story is a fabrication and fiction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

February 13

“How do you carbon date ziggurats that are made of clay?”

They would need to be very pure clay for carbon dating to be impossible.

The thing is, we also have texts about the ziggurat, and some tablets would be wound in cloth that’s datable. There are ways to verify contemporary things are contemporary, if written on or about, so on or around one of them, you presumably find organic material/

“Maybe you can find some organic material from some wood structures together with the rubble of what perhaps is clay bricks that is all to be find today.”

Wood structures, accidental organic débris under the foundations or between the bricks, or stones etc. Or from culturally associated material.

“but the biblical story is a fabrication and fiction.”

Where do you get that from, landsman? Swedish school system?

You know that “iurare in verba magistri” is a fault in arguing?

Jan Gröndahl

February 13

“iurare in verba magistri”? Are you sure you don’t mean “Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri”?

The long version “Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri, – quo me cumque rapit tempestas, deferor hospes.”

Meaning "(being) not obliged to swear in words (allegiance) to a master, wherever the storm drags me, I am turned in as a guest."

The Royal Society's motto ‘Nullius in verba’, which can be roughly translated as ‘Take nobody's word for it’, dates back to 1663. The motto was seen as an expression of the Fellows’ determination to withstand the domination of authority and verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment. There are parallels here in the emergence of the evidence-based approach to healthcare where treatment decisions are made on the best available evidence produced by robust scientific methods.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

February 14

Well, so whose word have you taken for the Bible story being a fabrication or a fiction?

Your teacher's?

If not, where is your evidence?

Jan Gröndahl

February 14

I’m old enough to know this without any teachers. And it’s up to those claiming something to show scientific evidences to prove a hypothesis to be right, not the persons who says that a hypothesis is wrong. In this case the Bible text is NOT scientific evidences.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

What kind of things do you count as HISTORIC evidence?

As far as I am concerned : narratives as close as possible and as far as needed from back when things happened (unless that’s clearly too far).

The text in Genesis 11 part 1 could very well have been orally transmitted a few centuries before Abraham wrote it down and it was kept with the caravans of the Beduin tribe in written form.

In the chronology of the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day, Abraham was born 541 years after Peleg, around whose birth human society was deglobalised. 541 years of oral tradition is fairly safe with so short texts.

And what exactly has “scientific” to do with anything? More over, Genesis 11 being fiction is a hypothesis and therefore needs support. It is counterintuitive insofar as we would in this case be dealing with fiction that was by all the earliest commenters dealt with as solid historic fact.

Q V

How much of a span of years would there have been at the end of Noah’s flood and the building of the Tower of Babel?
https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-a-span-of-years-would-there-have-been-at-the-end-of-Noah-s-flood-and-the-building-of-the-Tower-of-Babel/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

just now

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

I will suppose this means “between Noah’s Flood and Tower of Babel”.

• 1) Masoretic / Vulgate chronology makes Babel end 101 after the Flood.
• 2) LXX chronology in the standard form places it 529 after the Flood.
• 3) A version of LXX which lacks II Cainan would place it 401 after the Flood. Since 942 between Flood and Birth of Abraham is the standard of Roman martyrology for Christmas day, Babel (which is not mentioned in that Church text reading) would be presumably ending in 401 after the Flood.

With Masoretic / Vulgate, one must presume the building started little before, but with any version of LXX, it can have started earlier.

I take Babel as extending from year 350 or soon after to 401 or little before, perhaps exactly 40 years, after the Flood : these dates representing death of Noah and birth of Peleg.

Jonathan Beaumont

18h ago

Nice try; but if you read what experts in old texts have to say, it is clear that the story was never intended to be a literal account. No “tower” of anything ever existed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

The experts you talk of are in fact not speaking in the old texts, they are speaking on them. Since very recently.

Also, they do not agree even today on that point, you still find experts who very correctly say that the account was meant as accurate (or in cases of anti-christians : “inaccurate”) history.

Here is an example from some while ago, Fr. George Leo Haydock, commenting on Genesis 3:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H.

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-05.shtml#navPoint_6

He died in 1849, and I highly doubt the experts you think of are older than that.

George Leo Haydock - Wikipedia

Latin Cases and other Language Related on Quora

Creation of Last Language · Creation of Latin, Lithuanian, Italian · No, Welsh is NOT Slavic and "why is it said that?" hides who is saying it. (Quora) · A Coward Left the Debate · PIE Revisited on Quora · Latin Cases and other Language Related on Quora

Q I

The Italian and Latin word for “Rome” is “Roma”. In Latin, there’s the word “Romae” which is basically Roma+E. Did the Ancient Romans use Romae? And if so when did they use Romae in a sentence?
https://www.quora.com/The-Italian-and-Latin-word-for-Rome-is-Roma-In-Latin-there-s-the-word-Romae-which-is-basically-Roma-E-Did-the-Ancient-Romans-use-Romae-And-if-so-when-did-they-use-Romae-in-a-sentence/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Harry Mackenzie

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Roma urbs est (Rome is a [ceremonially founded] city).
Romae domus quondam ligneae, post autem marmoraeae erant (Rome’s houses were once of wood but later of marble).
Romae aspirant multi poetae et duces (many poets and generals aspire to Rome).
Romam fundaverunt Romulus et Remus (R’n’R founded Rome).
Roma, salve loce martyrii Petri! (Rome, hail place of martyrdom of Peter)!
Roma factum est imperium (with Rome, an empire was founded).

You have Roma with short a in 1st and 5th (Nominative and Vocative), you have Romae with ae in 2nd and 3rd (Genitive and Dative), you have Romam with am in 4th (Accusative) and you have Roma with long a in 6th (Ablative), and each is here exemplified with an appropriate sentence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1m ago

I omitted some facts.
When it comes to place names of cities and minor islands, there are three more cases.

Romae non sum, sed Lutetiae (I’m not in Rome, but in Paris).
Romam ii cum classi latinitatis (I went to Rome with the Latin class)
Gregorius misit Augustinum Roma in Britanniam inter Anglo-Saxones (Gregory sent Augustin from Rome to Britain among Anglo-Saxons).

Q II

Is there a quick way I can learn Latin?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-quick-way-I-can-learn-Latin/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Lewie Fei

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

I am not sure if it is quick or slow for you, but:

• learn Latin declinsions and uses of cases, conjugations and uses of tenses and moods;
• learn Latin words, with prepositions learn what cases they govern;
• learn how to use the former to use the latter to make Latin sentences.

Part of the process is reading texts in Latin and translating to your language, and also translating from your language to Latin.

Q III

Was Celtic substratum one of the causes of the loss of cases in Romance languages?
https://www.quora.com/Was-Celtic-substratum-one-of-the-causes-of-the-loss-of-cases-in-Romance-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Joaquín Galindo

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Probably not, since Continental Celtic seems to have had cases.

Like, texts have been found in Greek letters, not many, but sufficient to show Gaulish had a case system not very unlike that of Classic Latin and Greek.

Other reason : Latin had some tendencies in itself to eliminate cases. I Decl. had in the singular same endings for Genitive and Dative, -ae, and as for Nominative / Vocative, short a, Accusative, nasal a, spelled am, and Ablative, long a, they coincided phonetically before Rome lost the Imperial seat in 476. II Decl. tended to a two case system : -os for Nominative / Vocative singular, -o for other cases singular.

There is a Latin inscription for the “vicairie” Espagnac, which involves “Spaniaco” (Ablative) for Classic “Spaniaci” (Locative, coincides with Genitive). This means the process was ongoing.

Q IV

What's the most popular theory about a language's origin? Where do our (in general) languages come from?
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-popular-theory-about-a-languages-origin-Where-do-our-in-general-languages-come-from/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

amateur linguist

Let’s distinguish three questions:

• why do we speak at all?
• how do similar dialects become dissimilar languages?
• was there any other split among languages?

Let’s also distinguish what is popular in the general public right now and what has been so over Christian centuries.

The popular (and wrong on two out of three) right now theory is:

• apes developing into men developed a language capacity (wrong)
• when speakers in different places have no direct contact, they change subtly in each generation in different ways and not the same one, and over centuries this adds up to a language
• difference (right : Danish and Icelandic were same language in 900 and are very different ones in 1900 and now 120 years later); either men became able to speak in more than one place, or the original language having changed as per above can no longer be traced back to from daughter languages as different as Chinese and Indo-European (wrong again).

A man from Christian centuries would instead say, if updating with modern linguistic knowledge:

• God gave Adam speech (not just capacity, but developed into language competence in the same day or moment);
• when speakers in different places etc … (above was after all right);
• there was a very different type of split, when God confused languages at Babel (which is why Basque and Spanish, English and Chinese, cannot be traced back to any common proto-language).

PIE Revisited on Quora

Creation of Last Language · Creation of Latin, Lithuanian, Italian · No, Welsh is NOT Slavic and "why is it said that?" hides who is saying it. (Quora) · A Coward Left the Debate · PIE Revisited on Quora · Latin Cases and other Language Related on Quora

Q I

Do Latvian, Greek, and Latin owe the "s" nominative ending to the same Proto-Indo-European origin? Have any other living languages preserved this ending?
https://www.quora.com/Do-Latvian-Greek-and-Latin-owe-the-s-nominative-ending-to-the-same-Proto-Indo-European-origin-Have-any-other-living-languages-preserved-this-ending/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Ilya Kogan

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

They most certainly owe it to same origin, whether a proto-language for all three, or one of the proto-languages.

Btw, it’s nominative singular for non-neuters, sometimes only masculines.

Like the accusative singular -m (nasal in Lithianian, n in Greek), which however is also there in some neutral nouns, in Latin and Greek.

Like the m- for first person singular, like the t- (d-, th-) for second person singular.

But early stages of one of these could have gotten it into others. Areal features or Sprachbund features are not limited to vocabulary. This is why this does not need to be from a single proto-language common to them all. Romanian and Modern Greek share features like conflating Genitive and Dative. Romanian and Bulgarian, of adding article at the end. All three are on Balkan.

Normally, this would affect grammatical use of already existing grammatic morphemes. But in certain situations, grammatical morphemes could be standardised to avoid confusion, like for pronoun system (if one language had Amerindian system with n for 1st person and m for 2nd, and another had Indo-European m for first, t for second, a compromise would be n and t, leaving out the ambiguous m … this was obviously not the case either in Amerindian or Indo-European language communities).

I don’t know any more living languages that preserve nominative singular s than Lithuanian, Latvian, Modern Greek, and if you call Classical languages living, Classical Greek and Latin, but I know Hittite has nominative singular in -š for animates, and accusative singular in -n:

Hittite language - Wikipedia

It is also generally thought among linguists that early Germanic had -z, hardened to -s in Gothic, vanished in West Germanic, became -r in North Germanic, and is preserved in Icelandic, as -ur.

Continental Celtic seems to have had -os, as well. Not preserved in Welsh or Gaelic.

Q II

Is it true that the closest language currently spoken language to Sanskrit is the Lithuanian language?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-closest-language-currently-spoken-language-to-Sanskrit-is-the-Lithuanian-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Saru Nas

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue

amateur linguist

Probably it’s more like Hindi or some other Indian language.

Q III

Why do many people say the traditional reconstruction of Indo-European phonology is unlikely because it has 'p' but no 'b', when there are many such languages world-wide (Finnish, some Spanish dialects…)?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-many-people-say-the-traditional-reconstruction-of-Indo-European-phonology-is-unlikely-because-it-has-p-but-no-b-when-there-are-many-such-languages-world-wide-Finnish-some-Spanish-dialects/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Teo Samarzija

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

amateur linguist

As Ivan Derzhanski mentioned, Finnish has no b, but also no g or (real) d.

Spanish also has no voiced stops, except as allophones for voiced fricatives.

The real problem is, can it be there was a language which had b, but all words with b are missing from the ten branches, or from more than 7 of them?

But this asks the question how likely it is a whole phoneme is missing from reconstructed words just by coincidence of its being in other words …

And this again, the question, how much is the supposed proto-language based on, if you can actually pose such a question?

There seem to be 500 words reconstructed, either overall, or with cognates in English, including by borrowing.

For a word to be reconstructed, it has to have cognates, not in all ten branches, but in at least 3 of them. Celtic inis and Latin insula are probably cognate with each other, but as long as no third branch, outside Italic and Celtic, has the word in non-borrowed form for island, you cannot reconstruct a PIE word for it.

Q IV

Why did the descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans (Yamnaya?) culturally diverge so quickly? What exactly happened?
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-descendants-of-the-Proto-Indo-Europeans-Yamnaya-culturally-diverge-so-quickly-What-exactly-happened/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26m ago

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

We do not know for a fact that the people of Yamnaya did speak Proto-Indo-European.

It is a current theory, accepted by very many of those who posit a common proto-language, but it is not a fact like “Latin diverged into French and Italian and Spanish” over one millennium, give or take a few centuries per language.”

Q V

Why is Greek classified as a centum language if its closest relatives (Armenian and Indo-Iranian) are satem languages?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Greek-classified-as-a-centum-language-if-its-closest-relatives-Armenian-and-Indo-Iranian-are-satem-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Dylan Daley

Hans-Georg Lundahl

just now

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

You can take it as two questions:

• 1) why is Greek classified as centum, why are Armenian and Indo-Iranian classified as satem?
• 2) why are they closest relatives of Greek?

Or you can take it as one question : why are the closest relatives of Greek on two sides of a phonetic split?

First, the phonetic split concerns words which are common to both sides of it. Just because a word is among those reconstructed as proto-indo-european words, it doesn’t mean that it occurs all over the indo-european “branches”, since 3 are enough. Theoretically, all three could be satem, all three could be centum (fish is in Germanic, where some languages do have sk, like Swedish fisk, in Latin piscis, in Irish iasc - three branches, all centum, I don’t know the words in Sanskrit or Persian, but Slavic has ryba, Baltic has zhuvis, which are other words).

The words where the split is relevant and where the word is on both sides would, with 500 PIE words reconstructed be fairly modest. Counting words which in Latin go octo, decem, centum, in Polish osiem, dziesięć, sto would be among them.

o C to vs o S iem
de C em vs dzie SI ęć
C entum vs S to.

So, Greek is centum because it has οκτώ, δέκα, εκατό pronounced as októ, déka, ekató and Armenian is satem because it has ութ, տասը, հարյուր pronounced as ut’, tasy, haryur. At least between déka and tasy, you see the split.

Armenian and Indo-Iranic are closest to Greek on an overall count of features involving Indo-European commonalities.

If there was a proto-language, it is simply so that this split was not sufficient to make the then different versions of IE unintelligible to each other. Other splits occurred, and they sometimes criss crossed with this one, as the case is supposed to be with respect to Greek, Armenian and Indo-Iranian.

Centum are West, plus, in the extreme East, extinct Tokharic. Satem is most of the East.

There is another split, and Greek and Indic are on the South side : the reconstructed bh, dh, gh’, gh(w) are ph, th, kh, ph/th/kh on Greek centum side, abd bh, dh, jh, gh on Indic satem side. Persian is North side, has b, d, j, g, as have Slavic, Baltic, or with b, d, g, gw Germanic, Celtic (only Germanic doesn’t merge them with original b, d, g’, g(w), as these become p, t, k, kw).

But speculating on how long mutual intelligibility survived phonetic splits presupposes there was one single proto-language, which already is moot. Trubetskoy doubted it.

A Coward Left the Debate

Creation of Last Language · Creation of Latin, Lithuanian, Italian · No, Welsh is NOT Slavic and "why is it said that?" hides who is saying it. (Quora) · A Coward Left the Debate · PIE Revisited on Quora · Latin Cases and other Language Related on Quora

Q

Within the Indo-European language family, are Germanic languages closer to the Balto-Slavic subgroup or to the Italo-Celtic subgroup?
https://www.quora.com/Within-the-Indo-European-language-family-are-Germanic-languages-closer-to-the-Balto-Slavic-subgroup-or-to-the-Italo-Celtic-subgroup/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Samuel Pelletier

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fri

amateur linguist

First, the premiss is, Indo-European languages are a family (like Romance languages) and not a Sprachbund (like Balkan languages).

Second, the question is actually moot. IE groups (subgroups in your terms) divide both Satem-Centum, with k’, g’, gh’ remaining velars in Centum, becoming sh / zh in Satem, but one could also consider a division South to North, where South has f, th, (b), (d) and dh for IE *dh, and North has d for IE *dh.

Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic are all “North” in this sense (and so it would seem is Persian). Italic is “South”.

On the other hand Italic, Celtic and Germanic are all Centum, while Baltic and Slavic are Satem.

Kristijan Vladimirovitsch Schmidt

Fri

Is this not an useless cathegorisation?

“Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic are all “North” in this sense (and so it would seem is Persian). Italic is “South”.”

Slavic and Roman dialects share way more vocabulary than Slavic and German (people get lost when they think about “national languages = dialects”.) It means they probably split later from each other than from German.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

45m ago

Did you catch “First, the premiss is, Indo-European languages are a family (like Romance languages) and not a Sprachbund (like Balkan languages).”

Trubetskoy …

Whether it is useful or useless, it is about as general as the Centum / Satem split, which according to some (of those accepting a Protolanguage) was the first one.

“Slavic and Roman dialects share way more vocabulary than Slavic and German”

I doubt that. Pflug, pliugas, pluk … aratrum.

Would you mind sharing the source of those stats?

Kristijan Vladimirovitsch Schmidt

14m ago

That is why I say “Is this not an useless cathegorisation?”, Sir!

you think you know languages and you obviously don't know about the vocabulary overlap between Slavic and Romanic languages🤷‍♀️

I ask again “ Is this not an useless cathegorisation?”

As I write this, he had taken the insulted attitude and blocked me from answering. He asked again, but - on quora - banned me from replying again.

Nevertheless, he might change, and his answers may resume below. I am answering the last one's two arguments and one personal taunt:

1) Classifications are considered useful (by what I take as normal linguists):

• for the ten or so "branches" of Indo-European, where in each case a common proto-language is very probable;
• for pairs of them where it is at least a somewhat more tenable hypothesis than not - Italo-Celtic, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian;
• for larger groups than that sharing certain traits and where at least one of them has geographic contiguity : commonly accepted : Satem / Centum, my own North / South.

2) I do not know whether the overlap between Slavic and Italic languages is greater or smaller than that between Slavic and Germanic.

Now for the taunt. He doubts my qualification as amateur linguist in these terms:

"you think you know languages"

Er, no. Whether I know a certain language or not is not up to thinking, it is up to test. Can I read a text in it? Yes? Partly? No? With a total no, I know I don't know the language. I know I know other languages in writing but not in speech, couldn't converse. But "knowing languages" was not my stated qualification. It was being some kind of - in my case "amateur" - linguist.

No linguist would consider the claim of "being a linguist" as tantamount to a claim of "knowing languages". Precisely as no linguist would take Romance rather than Italic as one subgroup of (presumed family) Indo-European. Romance are the surviving Italic languages, developed from Latin, which was the one surviving Italic one (when Oscic, Umbrian, Sabellic etc had gone down). I am inclined to think Mr. Schmidt is simply thinking of international words loaned from Latin to Slavic languages, and misses that even where German may have an indigenous word instead, English often has the same loan word./HGL

Amazing Coincidence - and Reaching out to Rabbi Cahn

The Amazing Coincidence, reported by him:

The Parasha - Rabbi Jonathan Cahn
The Jim Bakker Show | 20.VIII.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDks396RbsU

My comments:

I

Are you for the RC custom of Parashas?

A Missal has more than one part. One is the "ordo missae" which concerns the parts that come in every single mass. Then you have more than one part which can state the "proper" - Temporale, being Sundays, Several fast days, Easter, Pentecost, not on fixed dates, and also Christmas to Epiphany Octave, on fixed dates. Sanctorale, concerned with fixed dates for the saints' feasts. Communia - concerned with several masses where the sanctorale just says "see the commune for bishop martyrs with comrades in martyrdom" or things like that.

For each proper, whichever it comes from, it has:

• Epistle reading (often NT epistles, sometimes an OT text, like Stabunt iusti for commune martyrum)
• a praise between epistle and gospel
• Gospel reading
• three more prayers - all of them directed to God, including on saints' days - that also go with the proper.

So, unlike Pentecostals, Catholic faithful actually still do have parashas.

"every section has a name" - also the case with Catholic readings.
Stabunt iusti is the name of Wisdom 5:1-5.
I think Quasimodo (there is a Quasimodo Sunday, as you may know from "Notre Dame de Paris" by Victor Hugo) is the reading that now starts Sicut modo geniti infantes - 1 Peter 2:2)

II

Deuteronomy 28 ... you are aware that the salvation of Old Testament Israel is here a conditional salvation?
Matthew 28 - the salvation of the New Testament Church is unconditional and therefore also eternal or permanent (which also goes to show that most OSAS proof text prove the Church is collectively OSAS, not that individual real believers are so).

What does that suggest to you about the Church history of 1300 AD? 300 AD? 800 AD?

Catholic Medieval End Times Prophets

Q

Is there really a mark of the beast (Catholic)?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-really-a-mark-of-the-beast-Catholic/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

I take the question as meaning, do Catholics believe there is such a thing (present, past or future) as the mark of the beast.

I recall a remark of St. Thomas Aquinas which I do not find.

The thing is, God told the Jews to hold the commandments to their forehead and to their hand, and St. Thomas thinks this does not mean to tie phylacteries on oneself, but to meditate on the commandments so as to observe them and to keep them in one’s works.

So, the mark of the beast will be to meditate on the malice Antichrist requires so as to observe it, or to practise it (anyway).

But he adds, he cannot exclude that there will also be an external mark, by which the servants of the Antichrist recognise each other.

So far, St. Thomas, what I remembered. Now an observation:

The prophecy about no buying or selling except for those taking the mark in forehead (the word may refer to other parts of the face!) or hand, seems to require that salesmen can recognise those taking them. And, at least in theory, get punished for buying from or selling to others.

Here is another quote from St. Thomas, with comments:

Opening the Book of Revelation (XVII)

It - the quote - refers to

The other effect of the sacraments, which is a character (Tertia Pars, Q. 63) Article 3. Whether the sacramental character is the character of Christ? and in that to: Reply to Objection 3.

Patricia Woodbury

Thu

Have never heard a priest speak of the beast or his mark, in church or any other time. I am and have always been a practicing Catholic. In fact I have taken sufficient post graduate credits for a masters in religious studies. No, it is some protestants who make much of the beast not Catholics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21h ago

Have you studied Medieval Catholic writers?

Sts Thomas Aquinas and even more St. Bridget of Vadstena (also known as “of Sweden”) side with what you take as Protestants against your priests.

Read up on St. Thomas in this one:

The signs that will precede the judgment (Supplementum, Q. 73)

(and please don’t take “read up on” as lack of respect, but short for “you are able to read up on” etc).

This one is variously described as by St. Thomas Aquinas or by James of Benevent (a region where St. Thomas Aquinas is from):

Jacobus de Benevento, De adventu Antichristi

(If you try to object, St. Thomas was from Sicily, the region called "Benevent” and the region called “Two Sicilies” is by and large the same region, just that Benevent refers to Byzantines holding out against Lombard conquest, Two Sicilies is the historic time from Normans and Anjou reconquest from Arabs).

Now, admittedly, the majority of modern scholars prefer calling it by Jacobus de Benevento.

A change may have come due to:

We decree and ordain, with the approval of the sacred council, that nobody -whether a secular cleric or a member of any of the mendicant orders or someone with the right to preach by law or custom or privilege or otherwise — may be admitted to carry out this office unless he has first been examined with due care by his superior, which is a responsibility that we lay on the superior’s conscience, and unless he is found to be fit and suitable for the task by his upright behaviour, age, doctrine, honesty, prudence and exemplary life. Wherever he goes to preach, he must provide a guarantee to the bishop and other local ordinaries concerning his examination and competence, by means of the original or other letters from the person who examined and approved him. We command all who undertake this task of preaching, or will later undertake it, to preach and expound the gospel truth and holy scripture in accordance with the exposition, interpretation and commentaries that the church or long use has approved and has accepted for teaching until now, and will accept in the future, without any addition contrary to its true meaning or in conflict with it. They are always to insist on the meanings which are in harmony with the words of sacred scripture and with the interpretations, properly and wisely understood, of the doctors mentioned above. They are in no way to presume to preach or declare a fixed time for future evils, the coming of antichrist or the precise day of judgment; for Truth says, it is not for us to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. Let it be known that those who have hitherto dared to declare such things are liars, and that because of them not a little authority has been taken away from those who preach the truth .

Fifth Lateran Council 1512-17 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals

But declaring a fixed time (like Russell for 1917) and declaring the present times are probable is not the same.

I think these words have been applied sometimes with excessive rigour.

St. Hilary is supposed to - yes, he of Poitiers - have said “within one generation” - he was wrong, but he was not a heretic and had not fixed a date:

Anyone Read Patrologia Latina 10, p. / col. 611, Contra Arianos by Hilary of Poitiers?

Patricia Woodbury

13h ago

All I meant by some protestant do is because I have heard some go on and on about the beast and the mark etc. I did not mean to imply that no Catholic scholar had ever commented on these passages. But they are surely not commented on to the extant that …again …some Protestant churches do. I started to say no, but I have actually have somewhat. And some of what they said is surely still good. Just as I like some of what the early church fathers, the desert fathers and mothers said is still good. But for the most part my theology is of today. And absolutely the stuff about the mark of the beast belongs to my mind to the past and a very different way of thinking. I had three vol of Brigit of Sweden. I gave them to a religious order which follows her. So I’m sorry but I won’t read all about those lovely quotes you have above. I’m simply not interested in ideas I feel are out of date. They seem to me to be very like modern conspiracy theories. I also don’t follow the ideas about witches from that time. No et he ideas Thomas had about birth and men and women. Enjoy your reading. But no convert here, I’m afraid. Peace and all good from a medieval saint. Pace e bene. PS do you find these passages of great importance in your faith life?

[answered twice, I, II]

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3m ago

“belongs to my mind to the past and a very different way of thinking.”

“I’m simply not interested in ideas I feel are out of date.”

Another thing you might find slightly dated then : Chesterton’s dictum, that one of the perks of being a Catholic is that it frees a man “from the degrading slavery of being a child of his times”.

You are aware San Francesco Bernardone also made enunciations about the end times? Like lots of Franciscans in those times not really following his rule?

Patricia Woodbury

13h ago

I hardly feel a child of my times. Too few are my thoughts that coincide with popular notions. But I am a child of my times in regards to study of scripture and my faith I suppose. But not popular faith. Though I find some modern scripture scholars speak to me better than Chesterton or CS Lewis or Dorothy Sayers. On the other hand popular scripture related books aren’t my cup of tea. AMDG

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

With that attitude your previous words become somewhat obscure to me.

What Chesterton and CSL recommended was not getting hooked on last few generations, but going back in history, notably to the Middle Ages.

Which I have followed.

Patricia Woodbury

17m ago

Why to the Middle Ages? Why not back to the beginning? I think we have discovered so much more about the early church and the languages of the Bible and the times it was written in that sticking to the Middle Ages seems counter to a full inderstanding of our faith. And I admit to a failing in my imagination, I do not think well in metaphor and figurative language which it seems these writers and the Middle Ages reveled in.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

• 1) What did St. Hippolytus of Rome have to say about the Apocalypse (he’s early)?
• 2) “ I do not think well in metaphor and figurative language which it seems these writers and the Middle Ages reveled in.” - They revelled in noting when an OT historic reality was prophecy of a salvific NT reality. Which the faith requires us to believe in.
  Do We Need Unwritten Traditions?

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

PS, I am not very interested in ideas I find too modern like “of great importance in someone’s faith life”.

But apart from that, I have considered that real Catholics these days are EIGHTH day Adventists … (not White’s 7th Day, obviously!)

Patricia Woodbury

13h ago

To each his own. I pray my way. You do it your way. I believe God hears all prayers. Peace.

Creation of Latin, Lithuanian, Italian

Creation of Last Language · Creation of Latin, Lithuanian, Italian · No, Welsh is NOT Slavic and "why is it said that?" hides who is saying it. (Quora) · A Coward Left the Debate · PIE Revisited on Quora · Latin Cases and other Language Related on Quora

Q I

Is Lithuanian older than Latin?
https://www.quora.com/Is-Lithuanian-older-than-Latin/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1:37 pm

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

If we count all stages of a language from when it’s identifiable as itself, the reverse

First words in Lithuanian were probably from Quedlinburg Chronicle in 10th or 11th C. AD. Written, ones, that is.

First words in Latin might be Praenestine Fibula, but it is probably a forgery, oops, it seems a new analysis occurred in 2011 and confirmed it, this was after my university studies where we heard “no, it would not have been fhefhaked, it would have been fheked” … it is from 7th C BC. Carmen Saliare is redacted even earlier, around 700 BC, and is preserved in fragments, each of which is later, but supposed to preserve the original pronunciation, with a few mistakes, perhaps.

When we go to beyond its oldest identifiable stage in writing, we don’t know for how far before it had been a separate language. When did Lithuanian, Old Prussian, Latvian branch from each other? When did Latin cease to be same language as Oscan, by Oscan adopting the qu > p shift? Or for that matter, how long before that had Italic been really clearly differentiated from Celtic?

We know Latin became French some time between Caesar conquering Gaul in 50 BC and Sequence of St. Eulalia from c. 880 AD. I have quarrelled with someone else about how long before that sequence French had existed as a separate language from Latin: Creation of Last Language from quora Den Hollander's answer to When was the last new language created?

Silvestras Guoga

13m ago

The antiquity of language is defined also by stating how much ancient grammar constructions or words it retained from the theoretical Proto-language

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2:05 pm

Sorry, that is not “how old” but “how archaic”.

Plus, it also depends on how you reconstruct the theoretical Proto-language.

For instance, Lithuanian will be more archaic than Latin if PIE verbs were two main tenses like Hittite, but the reverse if there were many tenses and moods like Sanskrit.

Since we don’t have that PIE written down or recorded, so far - if it existed and commonalities are not Sprachbund phenomena - this is hard to decide.

With PIE lexicon, we fare even worse, since only c. 500 words are known, and some could as easily be local Sprachbund phenomena between neighbouring “branches of IE”.

Q II

How and when did we decide Latin and Italian were separate languages? Why isn't Italian just called Modern Vulgar Latin or something?
https://www.quora.com/How-and-when-did-we-decide-Latin-and-Italian-were-separate-languages-Why-isnt-Italian-just-called-Modern-Vulgar-Latin-or-something/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1:48 pm

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

You know the difference between Anglo-Saxon and English?

Sometimes you date Old vs Middle English to 1066. But Anglo-Saxon chronicle continued to be written to sth like, if I recall correctly, 1166, a century after the Conquest.

The key is spelling and continuity of writing tradition. Anglo-Saxon died out, plain and simple, after the last monastery in which it was cultivated dropped it (Tolkien may have another view of its continuity with West Midland’s Middle English of the Gawain poet, but even that takes on a lot of features from the new language), and then there came a new spelling with Chaucer (there had been other, experimental, spellings in between, like that of Orrmulum).

Now, the case is similar with Latin vs Italian. On one date, Italian as we understand the word is simply a local somewhat illitterate pronunciation of Latin, and on another one, you start doing written poetry in Italian. At that stage, Italian is a separate language from Latin, a man knowing both would write in one language things like “in medio itineris vite nostre” and in the other one “nel mezzo del cammin’ di nostra vita”. At that point, to him and many other people like him, these are two languages.

I took the text example for Medieval Italian from Dante, but I think it was perhaps a 100 years before him or so that this happened.

“The standard Italian language has a poetic and literary origin in the writings of Tuscan writers of the 12th century, and, even though the grammar and core lexicon are basically unchanged from those used in Florence in the 13th century,”

Italian language - Wikipedia

Note 17 refers to storia della lingua di Vittorio Coletti - Enciclopedia dell'Italiano (2011): storia della lingua in "Enciclopedia dell'Italiano"

“Of the 12th century” = the one before Dante.

Weibull School - Not Universal

Q I

How do historians evaluate sources?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-historians-evaluate-sources/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Efrayim Bulka

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1:42 pm

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Essentially, it is kind of subjective.

There are diverse schools of historians, and one very recent one is the 19th or even 20th C. emphasis on written only and primary only - from the Swedish Weibull family.

This is not a universal among historians and cannot be taken as “elementary” or “basics” except to the actuall Weibull school of history.

Q II

Is it true that historical sources that were not written should not be used in writing history? Why?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-historical-sources-that-were-not-written-should-not-be-used-in-writing-history-Why/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

just now

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

It is true that the Weibull school of history thinks they should not be used.

The rationale would be, an unwritten source could undergo changes.

Fine, it could, but a written source could include a fraud.

Obviously, once the written source is redacted later than the event, the stories can have changed since the first version - either via oral stories or via other stories or via deliberate changing of one’s sources.

While written sources from back when one is dealing with are a very precious thing, I think Weibullians are wrong to exclude all other types of source.