Francis Marsden Misrepresented Part of the Galileo Affair

Space on Quora

Catholic Apologetics

Francis Marsden

Mon

36 years a priest. Lived and studied six years in Rome.

What is the greatest scientific discovery that the church attempted to bury?
https://www.quora.com/q/catholicapologetics/What-is-the-greatest-scientific-discovery-that-the-church-attempted-to-bury?

This question gives the impression that the Catholic Church habitually tries to bury scientific discoveries, which is nonsense. [I can’t answer for the wilder and weirder extremes of American Protestantism and Fundamentalism]. Many great scientists have been Catholics or Christians of other denominations. The foundations of modern science and experimental method were laid in the cradle of medieval Christianity.

The Christian doctrine of One God who made all things in a rational manner, through His Logos or Word, provided the basis for a rational examination of nature. In the various forms of paganism, the sun, moon, stars, the sea and rivers, the plants and animals were all controlled by spirits. Investigating the sea might, for example, anger Triton or Neptune and have disastrous consequences - floods, tidal waves, shipwrecks. The gods had to be appeased or they could inflict disasters.

It is with churchmen like Roger Bacon, St Albert the Great, Jean Buridan, Nicolas Oresme, Nicolas de Cusa and others that basic ideas like motion and momentum and experimental method were worked out.

In 1543 a Polish Canon of Frombork cathedral, Nikolaus Kopernik, published his De revolutionibus ordium coelestium. The Pope and Cardinals of the time had previously shown interest in Copernicus’ theory, and encouraged him to develop his work on the heliocentric system.

It is not until 1616 that we come to Galileo Galilei and the clash between the Copernican theory and the Church authorities.

Galileo had started proclaiming the heliocentric theory as fact, and reinterpreting Scripture to fit these facts. However, he was a layman unqualified in theology, and certain currents within the church took exception to his trespassing into Scripture interpretation: principally certain Dominicans who were influential within the Office of the Inquisition. This was the 1616 confrontation.

Galileo did not have proof of the heliocentric theory. Because he thought wrongly that the planetary orbits around the sun were perfectly circular, his theory had serious discrepancies and wasn’t notably better than the Ptolemaic system in explaining the astronomical observations. It needed Johannes Kepler, a good Lutheran, to realize that planetary orbits were elliptical, and only then did the Copernican system reveal its advantages.

In 1634 Galileo ended up in trouble with the Inquisition again, because he had been doing what he promised not to, teaching his theory as fact rather than as speculation. Worse, he had written a satirical play in which he parodied Pope Urban VIII (who had in fact been sympathetic to him) as Simplicius, a dim defender of the Ptolemaic system.

This is really the only instance in 2000 years in which the Catholic Church has ended up opposed to a genuine scientific advance. It was not at all clear how certain passages of Scripture were to be reconciled with the heliocentric theory, and with the protestant confrontation tearing Europe apart, the Catholic Church wanted to keep close to the literal words of Scripture.

We now realize better that “The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”

Other than the Galileo case, the Catholic Church has only opposed scientific research in the rare cases where it is harmful to human beings e.g. unethical experimentation on human subjects, experimentation on human embryos, non-therapeutic genetic manipulation to create designer babies, human-animal hybrids etc.

Given that a considerable percentage of engineers and physicists, and some chemists, are engaged in military/defence work, researching how to kill their fellow human beings more efficiently and effectively, it is abundantly clear that science needs firm moral parameters if it is to benefit humanity.

Without moral rules, scientific progress is the advance from the caveman’s club to the hydrogen bomb.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

“Galileo had started proclaiming the heliocentric theory as fact, and reinterpreting Scripture to fit these facts. However, he was a layman unqualified in theology, and certain currents within the church took exception to his trespassing into Scripture interpretation: principally certain Dominicans who were influential within the Office of the Inquisition. This was the 1616 confrontation.”

Sorry, they couldn’t have cared less if he was “unqualified” (except as an excuse), they cared about him being wrong.

“In 1634 Galileo ended up in trouble with the Inquisition again, because he had been doing what he promised not to,”

As far as I know, it is highly dubious whether he made such a promise.

There is at least one version of St. Robert Bellarmine’s letter to him which says he did not suspect him of heresy or exact any promise.

Francis Marsden

Mon

It was illegal for an unqualified layman to teach theology. St Ignatius of Loyola was gaoled for 30 days by the Inquisition in Barcelona for doing just that. It’s why he left Spain for Paris and signed up for a theology degree at the University there, in his thirties. Only when qualified would he be able to lead people in his Spiritual Exercises.

OK, Galileo wasn’t giving people Spiritual Exercises, but re-interpreting Scripture was a no-no. You could interpret the Galileo affair as partly a clash between the Jesuits of the Collegio Romano, who supported Galileo, obtained telescopes from Holland, confirmed his observations and made more of their own (cf Christopher Clavius SJ) - and on the other side, the Dominicans, in charge of the Inquisition, heresy-hunters and appointed guardians of doctrinal orthodoxy.

Answered

twice, A and B

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3h ago

“St Ignatius of Loyola was gaoled for 30 days by the Inquisition in Barcelona for doing just that.”

Simply one point in exegesis?

No.

The exact thing he could no longer do until he had studied theology was : distinguish (in individual, so to speak pastoral, cases) between mortal and venial sin.

Plus 30 days gaol is a very far cry from a lifetime after a process in house arrest seeing no strangers (except one or two Protestants who were as foreigners outside the Inquisitor’s competence, Milton comes to mind).

“but re-interpreting Scripture was a no-no.”

Key thing : it’s about re-interpreting. Not about re-interpreting as an unqualified layman, but re-interpreting period.

The canon from session IV in Trent doesn’t say “unqualified laymen” cannot interpret unlike the Church Fathers did, it says one cannot - not even the Pope can, in principle - do so.

“You could interpret the Galileo affair as partly a clash between the Jesuits of the Collegio Romano, who supported Galileo, obtained telescopes from Holland, confirmed his observations and made more of their own”

The point about his observations is, they were never condemned. He never had to recant “the Milky Way is composed of very small stars, very tightly packed” or “Jupiter has 4 Moons”.

Update

next day, Maundy Thursday.

Francis Marsden

Wed

Galileo’s punishment was comparatively mild. He spent a few months in the care of a friend, Archbishop Piccolomini of Siena in 1633.

In 1634 he was allowed to return to his own home, his villa at Arcetri. He could write, he could receive guests. His penance of reciting the Seven Penitential Psalms once each week was transferred to his daughter Maria Celeste.

He was allowed to go down into Florence for medical treatment. He went blind in 1638, continued to receive visitors, and died aged 77 on 8 Jan 1642.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Wait, no ban on visitors?

Someone seems to have misrepresented that part of the story then.

OK, I was wrong on how he was treated, I suppose.

That said, the judgement is as clearly for “content” and not for “competence” questions.

If St. Ignatius had said “nocturnal pollution was no mortal sin unless you basically invited it the day before by lewd thoughts or overeating” he would not have been told to abjure that just because he was so far not qualified to say such things (taking the answer from St. Thomas).

Galileo was required to abjure “the sun is immobile” and “earth moves in the third heaven above the sun and also by a daily motion”.

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Noted one paragraph in your exposé:

"Galileo did not have proof of the heliocentric theory."

Still none.

"Because he thought wrongly that the planetary orbits around the sun were perfectly circular, his theory had serious discrepancies"

I don't think that fine ones were considered, his theory had discrepancies on tides.

"and wasn’t notably better than the Ptolemaic system in explaining the astronomical observations. It needed Johannes Kepler, a good Lutheran, to realize that planetary orbits were elliptical, and only then did the Copernican system reveal its advantages."

Except Riccioli accepted the ellipses and maintained the Geocentrism. "Advantages" is not enough. Kepler also gave no proof.

Metrical Observations

Why Shakespeare Could Never Have Been French
22nd March 2021 | Tom Scott
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUnGvH8fUUc

My comment:

I think you have a good, but historically superficial grasp of French prosody.

In Alexandrine verses, yes, the prosodic stress predominates so much that you do get half lines stressed at syllable six and no other rule applies hard and fast. However, lexical accent exists: "bon requin anodin" all have stress on the final syllable (and add up to six syllables, last of which is stressed), but "bonnes requines anodines" (supposing requin has a feminine form, which I think is false) all have stress on second to last syllable, and add up to nine syllables, with stress on the eighth, and so could not fit into an Alexandrine. Unlike modern pronunciation where they would be pronounced "bonn' requin' anodin' ".

There are two main ways of filling out the six syllables of a half line, namely iambic and anapaestic : six syllables is hard and fast, but you can either put lexical stresses on syllables 2, 4 and 6 or on syllables 3 and 6, all other versions being variants of these. This means that some writers of Alexandrines do in fact alternate quatrains, each having two rhymes masculine, two feminine, with one quatrain iambic (calmer) and one quatrain anapaestic (more lively). This type of placing of the "theoretical" word stresses would have no effect if the word stresses within the phrase didn't exist, at least as pronounced in scanned verses.

Plus sometimes, the natural phrasing would not recognise the two halflines without the word stress on the sixth syllable of the first one.

Now, you said "iambic pentameter" could not exist in French. It so happens, Chaucer introducing it had a model in Dante's meter, "endecasillabi" (eleven-syllabers), which ends in unaccented syllable, and so equals an iambic pentameter with feminine ending. In French you tend more to have masculine endings, and so speak of "décasyllabes". While both Italian and French have less prominent lexical stress than English, the meter works, because you divide it into half lines : 6 + 4(5) or 4 + 6(7). It sounds like Alexandrines, except either first or last halfline is two syllables shorter.

Shelley in fact did not observe strict iambic sequence in his pentameters, but you can more or less find any iamb in Prometheus Unbound (which I tried to read and failed to persist) exchanged for a troché, like:

x/ /xx/ /xx/
or
/xx/x/ /xx/

This makes Shelley's pentameter very like the original endecasillabi.

Narnian Reader Here

Q

For what age is the Chronicles of Narnia suitable?
https://www.quora.com/For-what-age-is-the-Chronicles-of-Narnia-suitable/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered just now

There are two answers.

• Where will libraries and book sellers put it? I have seen “age 9 to 12”.
• What did C. S. Lewis intend and what has experience shown? He meant the Chronicles to be accessible to children, and at the same time very rereadable for adults. Considering the number of adults who do continue to enjoy the Chronicles of Narnia, arguably, he got what he intended. In other words, the indication given by libraries only means, someone below 9 may not understand it.

Babel / Göbekli Tepe Revisited

Plus one on more general post-Flood population.

Q I

How long was the Tower of Babel built?
https://www.quora.com/How-long-was-the-Tower-of-Babel-built/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered just now

I have seen a note, I think it could have been from Historia scholastica, or St.Thomas (disputed authorship) Postilla in libros Geneseos, that it took 40 of the years after Noah died and before Peleg was born.

Peleg was born 51 years after Noah died in a Septuagint chronology without the second Cainan. In one with one, add another 128 years.

This fits well with Göbekli Tepe by carbon dates being given a span of 1000 years, between “9600 BC” and “8600 BC” if the C14 proportion to C12 was rising in the atmosphere by around 11 times faster production than now.

Note well,this is more like city than tower of Babel, the Hebrew text (with Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, KJ) does not say one ceased to build the tower, only one ceased to build the city. If the “tower” was a rocket project (which would have failed before very recently) it can well have been divided into several parts and transmitted culturally to our times (Chinamen inventing fireworks, Greeks speaking of a man ascending into the chariot of the Sun, Phaeton, and of Perseus and Andromeda with some others taken up to the stars, Babylonians, Egyptians, Stonehengians observing the stars and so on). If you take Babylon as 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E (c. 4°30′ both E and S of Göbekli Tepe), you have the inverse situation: the tower is stopped, but the city goes on.

Q II

Does the stupidity of the Tower of Babel story not disprove God? I mean you can’t build a tower past 7km.
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-stupidity-of-the-Tower-of-Babel-story-not-disprove-God-I-mean-you-can-t-build-a-tower-past-7km/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Samuel Igali

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered Sat

Who says the project could have succeeded?

By the way, what about launching a tower up, then discarding bottom floor while launching some more, then middle floor and launching even more, then the top floor reaches the Moon? I mean, it is called a rocket now?

That project too could not have succeeded in Nimrod’s day. God interrupting the project would have given us the necessary time for things like finding appropriate rocket fuel and so on.

Q III

If you accept the Noah and the ark story, are all of us descended from Noah and his family inbreeding?
https://www.quora.com/If-you-accept-the-Noah-and-the-ark-story-are-all-of-us-descended-from-Noah-and-his-family-inbreeding/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

L. Stewart Hearl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered Sat

Yes, we are. As very few genetic faults were as yet around, this was not very dramatic.

Perhaps most dramatic, the Neanderthal part of the heritage on the Ark included genes predisposing for diabetes.

Contra Ratzinger, For Catholicism and Pope Michael

How Ratzinger Led to My Resignation As a Protestant Pastor w/ Dr. Scott Hahn
19th March 2021 | Pints With Aquinas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzt_D8XociQ

Two comments near the beginning:

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1:51 "we can't just make the syllogism 'if it's Roman, it's wrong' " ...

You can't do that with anything. There can be, if you like "antipapacies" like pseudo-papal reigns, like that of the antipope from Barcelona in the Middle Ages (barcinonicum schisma in Malachy's prophecy), but there cannot be anything that is simply an "Antipapacy" as in opposite of the papacy.

You also can't make it like "if it's in Greek myth, it didn't happen" or "if it is in Norse Myth it didn't happen".

There are a lot of things this is done to, where it shouldn't. Protestantism taking the Papacy as an Antipapacy is however pretty emblematic of the attitude.

PM LM

"you can't do that with anything," but people do in fact do that as a way to dismiss Catholicism. Fact.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@PM LM I meant "can't" not about physical inability, but about obligation to good sense to do otherwise.

Satyan Nair

It's a lot like modern atheism. An atheist, traditionally, is expected to be a-theistic, or non-theistic, but today it's all about being anti-theistic, or anti-religion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Satyan Nair True too.

One more reason to count Atheism as a Protestant sect.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2:37 "Introduction to Christianity"

Nicknamed by some : introduction to apostasy ... I guess Scott Hahn's previous stance was fairly liberal.

But I'll admit, I haven't read the work, I only find the nickname credible because non-cardinal Ratzinger under Antipope Wojtyla in early nineties changed Catholic (or what passes for such) exegesis in basically banning the Fundamentalist approach.

A thing which had not happened back in 1984 - 1988 when I was converting. Perhaps because Siri was still alive, perhaps because Pope Michael was not yet elected ...

I'll admit I had gone somewhat hyper-ecumenical and was not myself reacting properly against the apostatic acts of Wojtyla in 1986. Hence I converted in a Novus Ordo parish, though a fairly conservative one.

Prasanth Thomas

Alright...shut up Sedevacantist

Israel Siqueira

"But I'll admit, I haven't read the work" LMAO

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Prasanth Thomas Does sedevacantism have bad press in Goa or Pondichéry?

In fact, I adher to Pope Michael, so I am not really sede per se.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Israel Siqueira Did you get it I had read other things about Ratzinger, from later on, when he was supposed to be less modernist?

Prasanth Thomas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I am from neither God nor Pondicherry(Puducherry now)- I am from Kerala.

Dude, you are calling "Pope" a random lunatic Priest- one David Badwin- who is neither ordained Bishop nor is known by a single Cardinal

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Heretic

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Prasanth Thomas I did not say Puducherry exclusively, I took Puducherry and Mumbai with Goa as examples.

He was ordained bishop in 2011, on Gaudete Sunday.

Being acquainted with cardinals and being bishop before papal election or conclave is not a requirement.

Being Catholic is.

Which brings me to what you are calling heresy in this context. What?

Besides, "lunatic" is a claim very convenient to make for some who want to stifle criticism against the Vatican II Sect.

Prasanth Thomas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "being....not a requirement"

Says who? You?

He lacks Apostolic Succession

"Being Catholic is"

For all Practical purposes- he's a Protestant- as Protestant as the Anglican "Church"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Prasanth Thomas Apostolic succession is from when one is consecrated bishop. He was that.

However, the Dominican position is, a bishop elect not yet consecreated, immediately has jurisdiction over the see.

Only sacramental acts have to wait till he's ontologically a bishop. They did from 1990 to 2011.

Here is a little list of Popes who were not bishops when elected:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Popes elected while not yet bishops :
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2015/08/popes-elected-while-not-yet-bishops.html

@Prasanth Thomas "For all Practical purposes- he's a Protestant"

He would have been if he had tried sacramental acts before ordination and consecration, which happened in 2011.

He isn't.

Prasanth Thomas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Well, he repelled against the Church and set up his own

That makes him a Protestant

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Prasanth Thomas When "John Paul II" had visited a synagogue and prayed along with Muslims, Jews, Amerindians and Hindoos for peace, 4 years earlier, said "John Paul II" cannot be considered to have at that point represented the Church.

Opposing him was not rebelling against the Church.

Furthermore, all Protestantisms are united by further characteristics over and above rebelling against the Church, such as denial of the Sacrifice of the Mass, denial of seven sacraments (with some modification on this point by Anglicans, later on shared by Lutherans too), denial of necessity of Confession after falling into mortal sin (though Angllicans and Lutherans offer it).

This is not comparable to someone simply disobeying correct authorities of the Church, if "John Paul II" had been such.

Prasanth Thomas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Popes can commit sins- that doesn't take away their status

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Prasanth Thomas Sin is one thing, sin against the faith (especially if never corrected) another.

A saint cannot be one who committed a huge sin and never repented.

This makes at least canonisation of "John Paul II" invalid and at least "Pope Francis" a non-Pope.

A man accessing papacy without being a Catholic is not accessing papacy. A pope falling into heresy (supposing that possible) immediately ceases to be Pope, but it is more probable he never was in the first place.

Prasanth Thomas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl We cannot simply judge it that way. And he prayed with them, not to any God of theirs. And, a man cannot be canonized without a miracle- and he did get miracles in his name. So, there is no excuse.

And, there is no way to remove a Pope, even for doing serious evil acts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Prasanth Thomas " And he prayed with them, not to any God of theirs."

That is still making himself culpable of prayers to their false gods, since he was approving of their prayers.

"And, a man cannot be canonized without a miracle- and he did get miracles in his name."

Two. One with partial reversals, one which was not sudden. Miracles of healing have to be sudden without reversals.

"And, there is no way to remove a Pope, even for doing serious evil acts."

Heard of the synod of Sutri?

Prasanth Thomas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl He had several miracles in his name. One healing from Coma- here near my place.

And, Sutri was never considered a legitimate Ecumenical Council by the Church- heard of Robber synods?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Prasanth Thomas Yes, but Sutri was also not considered a robber synod either.

It's result was upheld.

Now, when we come to robber synods, why not consider Vatican II.

"One healing from Coma"

How suddenly? What type of damage caused it?

Either way, miracles are not enough if the doctrine is not apostolic.

Papal Infallibility, What Is It?

Q

Is a pope infallible from birth or does he acquire infallibility when he ascends to Papacy? If a Pope resigns, does he still remain infallible or does he lose his infallibility?
https://www.quora.com/Is-a-pope-infallible-from-birth-or-does-he-acquire-infallibility-when-he-ascends-to-Papacy-If-a-Pope-resigns-does-he-still-remain-infallible-or-does-he-lose-his-infallibility/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Answered just now

Neither from birth nor from ascension, but from using his office in a certain way, from after ascending papacy.

Precisely as St. Luke was not inerrant from birth, nor from becoming a disciple, but only when writing Gospel and Acts.

Inerrant is more than infallible, an infallible authority can be wrong on details, but gets the teaching through, an inerrant authority - that of hagiographers and of prophets - gets no detail wrong.

Comment

under other question, to someone who stated only Christ is without sin:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7m ago

We don’t believe Popes are impeccable, like Christ, like Mary, like all those already in Heaven.

Infallible means something else, a bit like the writers of Bible books were inerrant - when they wrote them.

If God can make St. Luke inerrant while he writes Gospel and Acts, He can make the magisterium collectively and its highest representative infallible (which is less than inerrant) when making the most important statements that are marked out as that most important level.

Troy, Mycenae, Homer - History

Q

Is Homer’s Iliad a primary source for Mycenae?
https://www.quora.com/Is-Homer-s-Iliad-a-primary-source-for-Mycenae/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered just now

First of all, I do not accept the Weibull school’s definition of “primary sources” as only contemporary. If I did, it would not be one, since Homer lived c. 300 - 400 years after the events he described.

I accept sources as more or less reliable, and I consider Homer if fairly reliable, but with some caveats:

• not when he mixes later types of armour with those from Mycenaean times;
• probably his introduction of Corinth in Ship Catalogue is satire;
• probably some exploits are really not from Troy but from Kadesh, hence references to Egypt and to Ethiopia;
• Hittites would have been either recently or not yet ended as an Empire, and they are not mentioned;
• obviously, his theology is not the true one. But that is no criticism of his history as historic.

Now, you also said “for Mycenae”. In fact, the Iliad takes place mostly at Troy, but I do accept that Mycenae had a king called Agamemnon who led the armies before Troy. As his brother is king of Sparta, I take it Mycenaean Greece was more of one state and less of an accumulation of strictly independent city states. In fact, the idea in Ship Catalogue to rearrange men according to companies according to home origins may have been what started the trend towards the city states in Classic and Pre-Classic (Archaic) Greece.

Ravi Zacharias Died, I Learn it from Dimond Brothers

Ravi Zacharias Sex Scandal Shocks Protestant World (Catholic Analysis)
5 March 2021 | vaticancatholic.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FMJI0C37m8

My comments, along different parts of the video:

I

he died?

then I can forgive him ... I think it was he who, one day I begged, talked to me, and just before leaving, I had no time to protest, called me "son" ... as if he assumed some authority over me ...

whatever can go on with those intrigues, it's out of his hands now ...

II

4:12 "well, ravi zacharias got his promotion"

Santo subito ... it's kind of nostalgic to see this belief of OSAS translated into instant canonisations, like Salvation Army has "promoted into glory" in all obituaries on salvationists remaining with them.

Promoted to where? 1 light day up or 6300 km down?

III

7:10 "so many men in the Bible had more than one wife"

OT? He was not really aware of one thing about NT, restoration of paradisal monogamy, at least as long as both live?

IV

10:05 Is this also true for the period before the tsunami 2004/2005 (not sure which side of New Year)?

Bc that kind of could explain why some Protestants were so "no, no, can't be, God is not like that" when on Antimodernism (a site of the type MSNGroups, ended by Gates in 2009) I said that prostitution with children below puberty, with boys and lots of contraceptives when adults were involved could be why God sent his tsunami there - both on population and on tourists.

While that is one of the messages on my MSN-Group that was lost in 2009, I can't recover it, I never went back on that.

V

16:45 Wait ... while Wood has some valid points about Islam ... was he and Nabeel on Ravi Zacharias' team?

Obviously, again, santo subito.

A Church founded by Jesus, after scrutiny of life, teachings and miracles cannot canonise a man, that's nonsense, but anyone can canonise his favourite Christian friend as soon as he dies, that's just the Christian hope ...

St. Thomas More showed Christian hope when pointing to the sun with the words "I'll be above that fellow" before getting martyred. That the words came true was validated 29 December 1886 and 19 May 1935 ... about 400 years after this!

Validated for others, I mean, he got the answer same day.

VI

20:16 There are so many Protestants who think this, do you think some of them would try to prove it to a Catholic by

• both hindering his getting married (and therefore having licit sexual intercourse)
• and hindering his abstinence from meat, fasting, other things which he tries to use to stay chaste while not yet married?

Do you think this rather than Neo-Gnosticism would be the fulfilment of "the Spirit manifestly sayeth that in the last days" ...?

Because, while a Greek verb can apparently mean both "enjoin" and "forbid", it would perhaps be awkward stylistically to use it in a zeugma where it is the one to one verb infinitive and the other to the other one, as the Neo-Gnostic interpretation would imply.

CSL, I am glad to say, once said "no man in his senses now thinks he can be saved by pecca fortiter" (quotation of Luther's horrid advice).

VII

22:23 The man here shown obviously belongs to a "holiness Church".

This means, their actual concrete reformer was not Luther or Calvin, but someone who reinterpreted these into "works based salvation" meaning sacraments, pilgrimages, rituals rather than commandments.

Half the road back to Catholic, so to speak ... and their own founders got accused by Anglicans or Kirk of Scotland to go back to "Romanist" Works Justice.

VIII

27:42 Would you agree that, when it comes to Kent Hovind, CMI, IRC, AiG, we should

• 1) pray for their conversion,
• 2) listen to their contributions on creation science,
• 3) correct their straying from that subject into Protestant heresies or sometimes slander of Catholicism?

I mean, when Kent Hovind talks about Kings and Paralipomenon on chariots and chariot warriors, he is doing the same thing as Dom Augustin Calmet of blessed memory, but when he is repeating Alberto Rivera stuff, as is sometimes the case, or speaking on miracle of Cana implying grape juice ... * face palm ... * (He also, by now, has a family situation not in accordance with Mark 10:6)

IX

28:04 Have you done a video on the infamous "Katekism of a not Katolik Kirk" misleadingly called CCC?

Here is a post on its shortened version:

deretour : "You-Cat"? No-Cat-But-A-Weasel
https://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/you-cat-no-cat-but-weasel.html

deretour : "You-Cat" No-Cat-But-A-Weasel, Part-2
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/you-cat-no-cat-but-weasel-part-2.html

Freudian Marxism is Not Valid Analysis of Medieval Literature

Q

What are the religious anxieties of the Middle Ages as reflected in the letter of Abelard to Heloise?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-religious-anxieties-of-the-Middle-Ages-as-reflected-in-the-letter-of-Abelard-to-Heloise/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 33m ago

I have not read that letter, but as far as I know it, it was not an anxious letter, so, “the religious anxieties of the Middle Ages as reflected” in it would be some queer psychoanalytic nonsense on Freudian, culturally Marxist, lines.

I have read the poem O quanta qualia, which he also wrote Héloïse in her monastery, and it is definitely not anxious in any normal sense of the word.

Origin of Language Continued

On Origin of Human Language : Supernatural, Not Evolutionary · Origin of Language Continued

III

Costas Tsintavis

20h ago

Sorry to bother again, but explaining one word that one does not know with another equaly unknown does not clear things up.

“He = God”. What is God?
“Gave innate knowledge = didn’t teach but gave Adam the knowledge without a learning process at the moment of creating him” Please elaborate on the procedure
“Allowed Adam to make choices = about a limited part of the vocabulary, not included in the knowledge Adam already had” Allowing a limited part of the vocabulary = Why only a part? & which knowlege Adam had already & how?
Sincerely,

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

God, the one eternal being in three persons.
Procedure = God’s acts of will are ipso facto allmighty in God’s creation.
A being with no language cannot proceed to invent language. The part that Adam did not need to already know before getting to the task = all knowledge of Hebrew except nouns denoting animals as well as those manmade objects that would be named even later & by God’s almighty act of giving him that knowledge.

Costas Tsintavis

7m ago

Hello again,

I am trying to behave like a “scientist”, so examination of ALL data before accepting or rejecting them is sine qua non. Therefore when one is claiming the existence of X, one MUST provide evidence for the existence, otherwise anyone, person or group, will declare the existence of anything anytime without use.

Exception to the rule is of course one’s dialog with himself or people that just accept the statement, for any reason, without inquiry.

In all other cases as in a Public Forum, the initial rule prevails.

Therefore, you “must” provide evidence of the existence of this “eternal being” and then describe it precisely.

Looking forward to a reply with Evidence.

Sincerely

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

It so happens, unless you are willing to pretend men always existed from eternity, you have to accept there is a God who gave us language.

For very clear linguistic reasons it is impossible to have human language descending from animal sounds.

// phoneme (*repetitions) = sentence //

does not equal
// phoneme + phoneme + … = morpheme
morpheme + morpheme + … = sentence //

Purely practical messages like “don’t worry, I’m fine” or “help!” do not equal a communication spectrum that can define and discuss notions.

There is no possible transition from one to the other.

Your format for science is faulty, since you pretend an explanation cannot be accepted until existence or occurrence of explaining notion be a proven fact, while one of the things that can actually so prove is, that it is the sole possible explanation of something we cannot doubt.

Costas Tsintavis

16h ago

Hello again,

Phrase #1: It so happens, unless you are willing to pretend men always existed from eternity, you have to accept there is a God who gave us language.

Following your way of thinking: If something – men or object – exist, only two options are valid, according to your statement:

1) That “Something” either always existed

2) There Must be a “god”

I am confident that any logical thinking person would instantly disagree with your statement! Are you? Please remember 2 key sentences:

1) The discussion is about logical sentences & not about belief without logic. The later is of no interest to me and in this case I will prefer to start debating the existence past & the future of the Church of “Underground Kebab Goddess”

2) I am not trying to change your beliefs. After all “I totally disapprove your beliefs, but I will defend to the end your right to express it”

Phrase #2: For very clear linguistic reasons it is impossible to have human language descending from animal sounds.

As an amateur linguist, as stated in your title, I am also confident that they taught you the notion of language evolution, at the University you attended. English is very different from the language spoken 200 years ago and English did not exist 2000 years ago… So according to your line there is no other possibility…but a “god” gave innate knowledge to the first Britton!

Furthermore, if there was an innate gift of knowledge, from this thing called “god” to Adam, without a learning process, why did you & I had schooling? Why children need to be taught how to speak if this eternal “thing” referred as “god” gave it or induce it to Adam? Why not to his descendants? A very vindictive eternal being!

Phrase #3: Your format for science is faulty, since you pretend an explanation cannot be accepted until existence or occurrence of explaining notion be a proven fact, while one of the things that can actually so prove is, that it is the sole possible explanation of something we cannot doubt.

Last but not least the famous S-word in the discussion that adds weight to the user. Ok! We will be scientific! Beware … Extremely “Heavy” word on unaccustomed shoulders. It should not to be used lightly without, apparently, prior knowledge and/or use of scientific methodology.

1) “My Format of Science is faulty”? Why not! I am not the eternal being I am a mere mortal learning from my mistakes, so let us find the culprit. You provide the “sole explanation” rejecting all others on …belief! I am faulty & this is Iron Clad Science!

2) Stating the solution is “possible”? Sure, it is possible but I would rather go with Kebab & a Goddess rather than a vindictive racist “god”. It has a patriarchic sound? Do you agree? Why on Earth a he ‘god” and not a she “goddess”? Why not both at the top of the Universe? A racist eternal being! I am faulty & this is Iron Clad Science!

3) “We cannot doubt”. Why? Sounds like “I believe therefore it is the only way & any other suggestions are unacceptable”. I am faulty & this is Iron Clad Science!

4) Using 1 & 2, correct me if I am wrong, the words you are trying to describe, without spelling them are “Theory” & «LNC” in a clumsy – forgive me – way

Excuse me if I abused of your kind heart & your free time, I will end on a simple request. I will like to make amends, by following a University course on “Science” and/or “Scientific Method”, to correct my faulty approach, after off course you provide a valid link of a university level course that you studied. Preferably a Top 10 Institution on Earth.

Sincerely,

P.S: Answers without “hard data” & university courses links will remove all intellectual interest from the discussion & sound the bell for the next one

“the Day The Underground Kebab Goddess appeared searing in front of me“

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

_"Following your way of thinking: If something – men or object – exist, only two options are valid, according to your statement: 1) That 'Something' either always existed 2) There Must be a 'god' "_

I am referring to the kind of thing, that if once it didn't exist, it couldn't come into existence. Existing objects are one such class. Whether or not there ever was a time when no object existing today yet existed, there must at least have been other objects that did exist. I have long added spirit and epistemic consciousness to this - but it is simpler to point out qualities in language.

My point is language always existed and could not have come into existance. Not meaning any given language existing today, but language. There is no way in which it could emerge from non-linguistic factors.

_"1) The discussion is about logical sentences & not about belief without logic. The later is of no interest to me and in this case I will prefer to start debating the existence past & the future of the Church of “Underground Kebab Goddess”"_

How about you learn to identify logic in someone as culturally different from you as a believer. I was not referring to belief, I was referring to logic.

_"2) I am not trying to change your beliefs. After all “I totally disapprove your beliefs, but I will defend to the end your right to express it”"_

Exactly same observation applies.

Phrase #2: For very clear linguistic reasons it is impossible to have human language descending from animal sounds.

_"As an amateur linguist, as stated in your title, I am also confident that they taught you the notion of language evolution, at the University you attended. English is very different from the language spoken 200 years ago and English did not exist 2000 years ago… So according to your line there is no other possibility…but a “god” gave innate knowledge to the first Britton!"_

A side note, English is not the native language of the Brits, it was promoted by immigrants from 5th C. AD. Welsh is native British and so was Cornish. It is also not very different from 200 years ago, but it is very different from 1200 years ago.

Be clear on exactly what changed between "ealc thara tha gehierth thas min word ande tha gewyrcth" and "Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them,". I'll not go through all, just examplify.

1) two phoneme changes between "min" and "my" : dropping final n, great vowel shift, long i to aï. Phoneme changes to phoneme.

2) "ealc thara tha" to "each of them who" involves dropping genitive plural morpheme "-ra" in favour of "of" and the masculine plural "tha" of "that" in favour of either neutre singular or the alternative word "who". Morpheme changes to morpheme.

3) "tha gewyrcth" has subordinate clause word order "verb final" (also known from German), while "doth them" has subordinate clause word order "verb, then object". Syntagm changes to syntagm. One part of this is eliminating some morphemes that were endings, and replace them with prepositions or word order.

You do not find, not in English, not in Anglo-Saxon, not in Proto-Germanic if that existed, but I think it did, any case where one of the levels P+P=M, M+M=S is confounded into the animal version P=M=S.

You do not propose any process by which that could happen, that the latter gave rise to the former, animal to human. It's like claiming changes in dog anatomy between Chihuahuas and Great Danes is an argument for vertebrates descending from invertebrates.

"Furthermore, if there was an innate gift of knowledge, from this thing called “god” to Adam, without a learning process, why did you & I had schooling? Why children need to be taught how to speak if this eternal “thing” referred as “god” gave it or induce it to Adam? Why not to his descendants? A very vindictive eternal being!"

Not the least. Cain, Abel, Seth and all the rest of Adam's children had Eve and Adam teach them. Adam couldn't have. If he had had that, he would not have been Adam. And if he had learnt any animal communication with P=M=S, he could not have changed it to P+P=M, M+M=S. That's not how observed language changes work.

"Last but not least the famous S-word in the discussion that adds weight to the user. Ok! We will be scientific! Beware … Extremely “Heavy” word on unaccustomed shoulders. It should not to be used lightly without, apparently, prior knowledge and/or use of scientific methodology.""

University courses are very well placed for amateur linguists. Latin, 4 terms, Ancient Greek, 2 1/2 terms. German, 1 term. Polish, 1/2 term plus a week. Lithuanian 1 term. Plus 1/2 term each of Lithuanian and All Three Baltic Cultural history.

You did not answer as to how you prove anything not directly observed either than by its being the sole possible explanation for something observed.

As far as explanations are concerned, Kebab goddess is same explanation, in a very much less documented version.

Costas Tsintavis

19h ago

Hello,

At last! In the last paragraph of your statement, there is hope that you understand and must admit & welcome it as a positive point in this discussion!

“As far as explanations are concerned, Kebab goddess is same explanation, in a very much less documented version”

So the few thousand year old “god” and a moments invention “Kebab Goddess” have the same explanation but less documentation!

Finally, as promised the discussion ends, since I read about a “list” of - Unknown / No Name - University courses but - as always - I do not see any links. Good Luck in your journey!

Sincerely,

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

You are very free to limit your discussions to people with university degrees backing them up with links.

It’s a tactic to avoid people without such or with less than cordial links to their alma mater.

Or will these links do?

Latin | Lunds universitet (80 p = 4 terms back then)
Grekiska (antik och bysantinsk) (50 p = 2 1/2 terms back then)
Tyska (20 p = 1 term back then)
Lithuanian (20 p, no link since no longer given on university)
Ny professor i polska (not to actual course, but to a professor in the area, 11 p)
From where you can also ask about 10 p Lithuanian cultural history, 10 p Baltic countries cultural history.

I do not think you understand the meaning of my equation as to explanation.

Yes, any god or goddess pre-existing before mankind would do as far as this explanation is concerned, while on the other hand, evolution won’t.

However, your seems made up on the spot, while I refer to one given in Adam’s autobiographic account of day 6, in Genesis 2 and a few more theophanies along the story of Genesis.

Annunaki are less documented than that, since pre-Flood king list gives a succession of kings, not a genealogy from which one may glean early parts are autobiographical. But at least there is some kind of claim to cultural continuity from creation days, except that it is less well argued as to documentation, since not a genealogy.

Yours is definitely totally undocumented.

B U T even totally undocumented beats an explanation that simply cannot have any kind of chance to work.

Costas Tsintavis

4m ago

Have a Nice Day!

XIV

Domenico Altavilla

18h ago

1) If you had written “I argue ...”, “I believe ...”, “I think ….”, you would have had, since “personal opinion”, all rights not to “demonstrate” it. But you have written ... “He gave them innate knowledge of the initial spoken language, and he allowed Adam to make choices about vocaulary, namely name the beast kinds.” …, that is, you have expressed as a “fact” what you have “inferred” from some your “reasoning” (in other words, you have reversed the logical steps “fact → deduction” - “deduction → fact”). No, sir, that’s not how it works. It is a “dogmatic statement”, wich gives me the “rigth” to ask you to “prove” it. All of your answers are “abstractions” that don’t prove the fundamental claim.

2) … “I was answering your objection that you pretended to have proven evolution of language (of human language as such, not of a specific language).” … I never pretended to prove anything, on the contrary, that you prove your claims.

3) … “Prior to the Flood (and if we replace this wording which flaunts YEC with “carbon dated 45 000 BC” scientists will agree) Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis lived side by side. Same as with Denisovans.” … “Homo Neanderthalensis” and “Homo Sapiens sapiens” may well have lived partially in the same period, but that doesn’t mean they are separate biological branches, each with different ancestors from the other (animal, for the first, god for the second, if you don’t agree that they are the results of evolution; but what about the “written” language of neanderthal man you have asserted he had?).

4) … “32 is like 22 Hebrew consonants + 10 vowels ...”. It is also like 1+31, 2+30, 3+29, …. 33-1, 34-2, …. 16x2, ….128:4 ….(everyone can find the meanings he wants in anything, if the meaning is not defined a priori).

5) … “all shared a fully human language which cannot be shown to have evolved from bestial communications ...”, neither that it has been imprinted by a god into someone named “Adam” and “Eve”.

(NOTE: Your “theory” about the Y-chromosome is “exactly” what may have appened in evolution. Also, it means that “Homo Neanderthalensis” and “Homo Sapiens sapiens” were “inter-fertile”, therefore no separate biological branches; that is, god could have imprinted the “original structured language” into neanderthal man, while homo sapiens inherited it by evolution; or were “Adam” a neanderthal man and “Eve” a homo sapiens woman?)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

"no, sir, that’s not how it works. It is a “dogmatic statement”, wich gives me the “rigth” to ask you to “prove” it."

Bait and switch, you dishonest man - or are you just forgetful? I said "basic superiority" is not a dogmatic statement, but a very obvious descriptive statement. Just as stating a dolphin has superior senses to a coral is a very obvious descriptive sentence.

"All of your answers are “abstractions” that don’t prove the fundamental claim.""

Oh, they do. Because if they didn't, you could outline a way in which:

// phoneme*repetition = sentence //

becomes

// phoneme + phoneme + ... = morpheme

morpheme + morpheme + ... = sentence. //

You can't, because you didn't.

"I never pretended to prove anything, on the contrary, that you prove your claims."

Any objection saying any claim of your own would have to go from your previous words then. It was such a thing I answered. Not a mere question about my proofs.

"“Homo Neanderthalensis” and “Homo Sapiens sapiens” may well have lived partially in the same period, but that doesn’t mean they are separate biological branches, each with different ancestors from the other"

I did not claim they were, but I claim Neanderthals are not ancestral to sapiens sapiens. And that is commonplace opinion of modern evolution believers too.

"It is also like 1+31, 2+30, 3+29, …. 33-1, 34-2, …. 16x2, ….128:4 ….(everyone can find the meanings he wants in anything, if the meaning is not defined a priori)"

1 + 31, 2 + 30, 3 + 29 - all of them fit the idea of alphabetic writing, perhaps an alphabet plus some extra signs. The ones involving minus or division are irrelevant, and as for 16*2 I think 16 letters times upper and lower case is less likely.

The point is 32 signs is the right size of repertoir for alphabetic writing. Very exactly the right size. Not things a linguist could miss. Coincidence? Maybe. But a very funny one if so.

"neither that it has been imprinted by a god into someone named “Adam” and “Eve”."

You basically have only two options : man is from eternity and ten million years ago someone was transmitting language to us as he had received it from someone ten million years earlier (with appropriate numbers of intermediates) or man is not from eternity and mankind received language from someone Who is. God fits the bill.

"Also, it means that “Homo Neanderthalensis” and “Homo Sapiens sapiens” were “inter-fertile”, therefore no separate biological branches; "

How about checking what I actually contradicted you on? Our exchange is here:

On Origin of Human Language : Supernatural, Not Evolutionary
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2021/03/on-origin-of-human-language.html

Scroll down to XIV. Under that numeral, you get what you said March 6.

No to Calvinism

Q

Can a Catholic take communion from an Orthodox or Protestant Church if there is no Catholic Church in their region?
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-Catholic-take-communion-from-an-Orthodox-or-Protestant-Church-if-there-is-no-Catholic-Church-in-their-region/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

David S Ashirov

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Answered Fri

From a Protestant Church? No and noper.

From an Orthodox one, well at least some people back in the times of Pius XII said so. When I became Palmarian (I now adher to Pope Michael) and did no longer go to Mass in the Novus Ordo parish, the curate told me to approach the orthodox, and he was an old man who had been in seminary in those days.

Reason for distinction : Protestant communions are definitely invalid. Possible exception, some High Church Anglicans if they got orders from Antiochene Orthodox, but not sure they haven’t already converted to Orthodox.

David Chord

Fri

Hi Hans

That’s not true!

A Catholic definitely could take communion in a Protestant church but probably wouldn’t because they don’t believe the Protestant clergy have the voodoo to turn the emblems in the real body and blood of Christ!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat

I meant “can” in the sense of licitly or even illicitly but at least reasonably.

You definitely make my point.

A Catholic can neither licitly nor even with reasonable bypassing of laws take a communion from someone considering sacraments of Christ as voodoo.

David Chord

Sat

Actually what you meant was that according to CATHOLIC teaching …..

The reality is that some Catholics don’t hold to the very Catholic teaching that teaches they should not!

…or would you like to say that there are no Catholics who feel they able to fellowship and join Protestants in communion!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat

I would say, such people are either very misinformed about Protestantism or no longer real Catholics, even if they have not left the Church in the paperwork.

David Chord

Sat

You can say what you like, but the Catholic Church teaches they are still Catholic even if they are lapsed, in error or in sin!

Making up the doctrine of “real Catholics” isn’t even Catholic!

You might not like it but it’s the truth!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat

OK, document, please?

David Chord

Sat

What document do you require?

The one that says there is no doctrine of “real Catholic”?

or

The one that says Catholics are still Catholics even if they are lapsed, in error or in sin?

If the former, I suggest you dig out the document because the claim is yours and if you don’t have any Catholic documentation then the doctrine isn’t Catholic it’s yours!

If the later, I could dig out many different notable Catholics who have made this exact point over the years but you would dismiss them as non-doctrinal just comments from individuals… but it really doesn’t matter. You only need to read the whole Catechism to know that there is a strict mechanism by which a Catholic becomes a non-Catholic and in absence of that, they remain a Catholic… Do you not read the Catechism?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat

What Catechism do you refer to?

The one of Pope St. Pius X doesn’t seem to match this statement of content …

Yes, by accepting knowingly and pertinaceously either a heresy or a wholesale rejection of faith in Jesus Christ, you cease being a Catholic.

This would involve no longer believing Catholic sacramental theology. If it’s about “Lutherans accept the real presence” then it’s misinformation about Protestants, since this doesn’t mean they accept real sacrifice of the Mass.

I did state there were an alternative to not being real Catholics, right?

David Chord

Sat

You seem to be confusion Catholic opinion with official doctrine!

Was Pope St. Pius X speaking ex-cathedra? NO!

It’s funny how Catholics run to their “official” doctrine to deny many mistakes in their teachings and their behaviour through history, to make the claim these were just individual errors and in like manner skirt the problems of many popes, yet when it suits they’ll quote individuals to make claims that are just not born out by “official” doctrine!

So let’s be clear the doctrine of “real Catholics” isn’t “official” and, therefore, isn’t real!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun

It so happens, a not very katolik katekism of a not very katolik kirk is not an official document of the Church where St. Peter was the first pope.

Furthermore, the so called CCC is not even pretending to be speaking ex cathedra either.

It’s like comparing the orders of the Kommandatur in Paris 1941 to an order from the legitimate Préfecture in 1939.

Also, there are different levels of “official” and neither Catechism makes it to top level if both were unrealistically pretended to be Catholic, while they contradict each other so much.

The Catechism of St. Pius X was official enough not just for the diocese of Rome as well as all of Italy, it was also officially translated into French and in general use up to the infamous apostatic Pierres vivantes. That’s official enough for me while I am in France.

3 Q. Who is a true Christian?
A. A true Christian is he who is baptised, who believes and professes the Christian Doctrine, and obeys the lawful pastors of the Church.

Since the people you mention do not believe and profess the Christian doctrine of Transsubstantiation and Real and Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, they are not true Christians, even as per the preliminary lesson.

Catechism of St. Pius X | EWTN

The same applies for those who wrote “Catechism of the Catholic Church” very ill so named. As they are not Christians, they are not pastors of the Church, and as they are not pastors of the Church, they cannot issue any catechism that is binding on Catholics.

I haven’t read the “CCC” paragraph you refer to, but as you describe it, it sounds very self serving, since that procedure for calling someone non-Catholic is inapplicable to those intruders. Before that was written (and I was already out of Novus Ordo then!) Antipopes “Paul VI, John Paul II” had more than once been called non-Catholics and intruders.

And anyone who can type a sentence of the general form "the doctrine of x isn’t “official” and, therefore, isn’t real!" is very ill equipped to discuss Catholicism.

Same applies to your blasphemous comparisons to voodoo, by which you make yourself with Calvinism, a non-Christian sect and arguably one of the four heads of the leopard - get out of that beast, for my part I am already out of the slut that’s ecumenc with it!

David Chord

Sun

Only in the CCC….. that’s the Confused Catholic Church could there be levels of “official” doctrine. I have to assume that the CCC believers Christ was equally confused in teaching different levels of doctrine!

…and whilst you’re here arguing what is and is not “official” doctrine you might like to publicly accept that there is not universal acceptance of YOUR position within Catholic clergy never mind the laity ! I know you’ll perform some magnificent feat of mental gymnastics to deny this reality and whilst it will be amusing to see it, I think my point is made!

blasphemous comparisons to voodoo… you may not like the comparison but since you believe in a priests magical powers, gained only on confirmation and lost only when defrocked or resigned, I think it a perfectly fair comparison! What is highly amusing is that in your ignorance you seem to indicate that not believing the magic powers of a Catholic priest and comparing to voodoo must mean the person is a Calvinist! Frankly, that’s just ignorant!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

15 min. ago

You do not know what voodoo is.

A Novus Ordo priest (whom I do not without reservations consider as Catholic) was teaching, as Docent in Latin, Aeneid VI. There we see the sibyl of Cumae, and that is how a seance with a voodoo medium for the spirits they worship go too.

In US, there is a difference between federal law and state law. Those are different levels of official. There is also a difference between simple law and amendments to the constitution, again different levels of official.

In the Catholic Church, a catechism doesn’t make it to the highest level of official (that would be the declaration of a dogma and just above even that, the Bible, all 73 books), it is nevertheless official enough to be not taken as a merely private opinion.

And while Catechism of St. Pius X was not translated to every language and is therefore not “federal law” or “state law in all states” it is accessible in French and original Italian and therefore “state law” in dioceses of Italian and French language.

You prefer CCC because it’s federal? Fine, there is a real “federal” catechism too, Roman Catechism by order of the Council of Trent.

Tridentine Catechism of the Holy Catholic Church

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

[linked to this, omitting hisresponse which is a multitopics single link.]

continued:

David Chord

21h ago

Wonderful… take the term “voodoo” literally! I’ll make a note and from this point form call it “magic”

Also thank you so much for making it clear that there is federal law, state law, confused law, dogma, doctrine and catechism that varies around the world!

Now if you could only explain why Catholics claim to be united in faith whilst having so many differences and which of those interpretations has “apostolic succession”!! Any reply that does not require cognitive dissonance accepted!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

An interpretation does not have “apostolic succession” it has or has not “apostolic tradition”. It’s bishops who, if validly consecrated, have apostolic succession, as have the priests they validly ordain.

As your citations on doctrinal flip flops notes, or the first of them, here:

"Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)

This means, the one given in CCC and cited by you does not have apostolic tradition. This means, CCC was not issued by a legitimate papacy.

Magic as you here use it does not amount to the Biblical sin of sorcery.

On Origin of Human Language : Supernatural, Not Evolutionary

On Origin of Human Language : Supernatural, Not Evolutionary · Origin of Language Continued

Quora Space and Question:

The Nephilim and Bible : Would God have taught Adam and Eve and their children the initial language and writing system for humanity or would he have let them learn to create it themselves?
https://www.quora.com/q/thenephilimandthebibl/Would-God-have-taught-Adam-and-Eve-and-their-children-the-initial-language-and-writing-system-for-humanity-or-would-he-h-1

Submission accepted by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

February 25

Linguistics · amateur linguist

Would God have taught Adam and Eve and their children the initial language and writing system for humanity or would he have let them learn to create it themselves?

He gave them innate knowledge of the initial spoken language, and he allowed Adam to make choices about vocaulary, namely name the beast kinds.

Whether writing was given at the same time is not told, I would say not, I think rather that Adam may have invented it to keep records after the Fall. But that is perhaps not true.

Comments

in more than one thread.

I

Daniel Snyder

March 5

Did they speak French?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

No, that language descended from Latin.

An ancient form of Hebrew, perhaps more archaic than Biblical Hebrew is more like it.

II

Hagop Bahlaw

Thu

The Bible is a book of lies. There are no answers to those stupid questions Wake up.

Another one

in same vein by him omitted, since highly offensive. Then this one, which posed an intelligent question:

Hagop Bahlaw

Thu

How do you know Hans you were there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

No, but Adam was, Eve was from latter part of the day, they transmitted to their descendants.

III

Costas Tsintavis

Wed

Please be so kind to elaborate “He” … “gave” “innate knowledge of the initial spoken language” & “allowed” Adam “to make choices”.

Uninitiated people, like myself get confused.

Sincerely,

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

He = God. See words of the question.
Gave innate knowledge = didn’t teach but gave Adam the knowledge without a learning process at the moment of creating him.
Allowed Adam to make choices = about a limited part of the vocabulary, not included in the knowledge Adam already had.

Does this clear it up?

IV

Richard Peninger

February 26

Don’t know. The ancient first language is lost. The ancient Holy language is lost too, but will some day be restored.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

March 7

Possible, but hardly the question that was asked.

V

Matthew Cawsey

February 26

Which God? Zeus or one of the other made up ones?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

March 7

When we speak of Adam and Eve in the question, I think we can narrow the alternatives down to either Allah or Jewish or Christian versions of Adonai. I don’t think Zeus was made up, he was a king on Crete wrongly deified, as also happened to Julius Caesar …

VI

Jo Ann Ryan

February 28

Humans always make up a language. They have that innate ability. Twin studies show that they make up a language if left alone enough. This happened to my own twin children and I , of course, ended it quickly so that they would learn English easily and well. Jo Ann Ryan, Clinical Psychologist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

March 7

Their made up language was only possible because you were teaching them English. It could obviously have been any other human language. It would not have been possible if they had grown up among wolves.

Your ending it quickly has no bearing on their learning English, but some bearing on how they will feel about restrictions. Bilingualism is no impediment to correct learning of a language given in surroundings.

But your being able to stop it illustrates a point. If two twins born in a tribe inheriting ape like communications from ancestors prior to Australopithecus had tried to invent language, their tribe of parents and others would have been very well able to stop it. Meaning, we would still have no language today.

VII

Jo Ann Ryan

February 28

I think that Eve, being highly intelligent and the intellectual equal of Adam (and possibly more verbal) probably created much of the structure of the language and created the conjugations and grammatical structure . Then she would have taught her children and grandchildren. Adam probably was busy killing animals to feed his family. Jo Ann Ryan, English major, Clinical Psychologist, Chicago, IL USA

Hans-Georg Lundahl

March 1

No, Eve was created when Adam already had the structure of the language. Adam never killed animals for food. Just people killing animals for food came after the Flood, Genesis 9:2.

No matter how intelligent you are, you won’t create a language without having one. You won’t create vocabulary if you have grunts and if you have vocabulary but no conjugation, you may create conjugation as a by-product, if at all. Chinese are not very good at creating conjugations, for instance. And no one pretends they aren’t highly intelligent.

James Wester

to me

Sun

Somebody please connect adam n eve with what race. The first homo sapiens are to have be from africa was adam n eve black or werw they neanderthals from asia or europe

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Noah was tenth from Adam, mainly Cro-Magnon, and on the Ark we got some Neanderthal and Denisovan heritage as well, but less.

Tito Baca

to Jo Ann Ryan

Mon

Just because someone “may” have more verbal skills, this doesn’t necessarily mean they have higher intellect. It just means they may be able to easily demonstrate and express that intellect. It’s just like saying Adam was smarter because he came first and had “more experience.” Possibly but after the fall, they both were likely equally lost.

VIII

Heidi Hart

February 25

The genetic code was perfect then. Sometimes I try to imagine what that would be like.

Neil Horsley

February 26

I think that found mentioned in psalm 139:13–16 that sounds like it talking of dna

Heidi Hart

February 27

I think so too.

IX

John Bowen

February 27

WHAT WAS BEFORE THE TREE OF KNOWLEGE?

THE ABSOLUTE GENIUS STATUS, with no lies!

Man ate from the tree that gave them a case of the “dumb suckers"! It was not the inverse of going from idiots to smart; it actually was going from genius to COMPLETELY CONFUSED WITH NOW LIES!

THEREFORE, the curse brought forth work! Work included the tasks of “learning how to peel the lies off the genius banana!

Look at those who are LAZY at reading the Bible! They ask the simplest questions about God! They ask as if they don't even know him. Then the super educated ones ask difficult questions that have nothing more than “fancy carnal words or phrases with twisting to sound difficult"! It reminds me of the movie “My Cusion Vinny"!!

What does she say to that “COMPLICATED QUESTION"? SHE SAYS, “it is a trick question"! “Nobody can answer that! It is xxxxxxxxxx”. That “awyer sounded really, really “smart”! But, what is “LEARNING AFTER THE CURSE"? GOD SAYS that man must “work"-out what Ms. Vito recognized! Hebrews 5 explains this same principle! A Christian must pick up some wrenches to work out the “STUPID" in front of him. Ms. Vito did NOT have to “learn" the good stuff to be really, really smart. Ms. Vito has to go beyond and be able to recognize the xx (LIES) being told by the “supposedly smarter folks"!

X

Jim Miller

February 25

I dont know. I believe that before the fall Adam had a higher form. He may not have needed to write anything down with perfect recall. Who know how his mind and body functioned before he realized that he was naked?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

February 25

Exactly, not needing to write … but also no big disputes were looming before the fall …

XI

Neil Horsley

February 25

That may have been a bit of both so it came naturally as they he and the wife kept there innocence, they did learn to write as shown in Genesis 5 the book of Adam but some say that only happens with Enoch who may have taught older Adam to be able to write that chapter. We very likely may have learnt what we do know but minus any evil influence if they hadn't fallen so proving to be as intelligent as our present best scientists with innocence like a child's as example

i

Hans-Georg Lundahl

February 26

“Genesis 5 the book of Adam”

This is after the fall, since the fall happens in Genesis 3.

Btw, it is not quite sure that sepher does mean it was written down with letters.

5612. סֵ֫פֶר (sepher) -- a missive, document, writing, book
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5612.htm

The accounts are short enough to be oral documents, transmitted from father to son by learning by heart.

If Adam and Eve had stayed long enough in Eden before the fall, they could obviously have invented writing for pure fun, and also, I am not sure that writing is a post-fall invention.

ij

James Wester

Sun

They are a fable. Question was adam neanderthal.from europe and asia. A homo sapien from africa or a denisovian from east europe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

You have no reason to call tradition a fable in favour of reconstruction.

XII

Howard Brant

March 7

I don’t think it was any problem for God to give a language to Adam. Remember he confused the languages at Babel. He even made a donkey talk. And at Pentecost, the Apostles and others talked in languages they did not understand.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

March 7

My conjecture is, writing was invented at the latest after Abel died.

Once it was clear people who died could not speak up about what they had seen or heard, the problem on how not to lose their knowledge arose, and I think the solution was double.

Writing so they could transmit at indeterminate span of inattention whatever they liked to so transmit; Learning short texts by heart. Genesis 2 - 11 is in fact not much longer than one song of the Iliad, like first one, I compared LXX since we have same language and therefore same length of words. A pre-Flood patriarch could easily have learned all of Iliad A by heart if even post-Flood pagans with lots shorter lifespans could, and even more could they learn by heart texts that were a lot shorter than all of 2 - 11 taken together.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

March 7

I agree, obviously.

My point is, I am positive about language, but less positive about writing system.

Did Adam know 22 Hebrew letters on day 6 - or did he invent 32 symbols found in the palaeolithic after the Fall, and Moses later reinvent this in 22 symbols?

Howard Brant

March 7

The closest I can come up with is conjecture that Enoch, seventh from Adam may have been able to write. Lots of controversy here as the Book of Enoch itself (preserved in the Ethiopic Bible) seems a bit spurious. For the sake of argument, let’s say it was written by Enoch… who walked with God. His life was cut short by his “translation.” But, if you follow the Biblical chronology, Adam would have been alive most of Enoch’s life.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

March 7

Any version of Biblical chronology, Adam died Anno Mundi 930.

However, the lifespan of Henoch is …

Enoch 1122 - 1487
Longevity Charts as per LXX
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/11/longevity-charts-as-per-lxx.html

Howard Brant

Sun

I see why we come up with different dates. I had no idea why the LXX and the Hebrew texts are different. My observation came from the Hebrew. You can see a a chart below based on the Hebrew text. Here is what I am following:

[Chart based on Masoretic, Vulgate, King James chronology.]

Your chart says he was born when Adam was 230 years old but Genesis 5:3 in Hebrew says clearly that he was born when Adam was 130 years old. Something funny going on here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

Yes, and even funnier is, while Josephus for Genesis 11 gives a total for the new, he gives age at son’s birth for each adding up to old one, or close enough, presuming LXX is older.

XIII

Mark Mathews

Tue

I believe he did, Evidence is naming the Animals and so on. Adam was given that job by GOD. GOD created them he also could have given them Language to speak to each other and talk with GOD. Their names prove it is Hebrew the Language given them by GOD. Clearly i do believe yes GOD did give them it to speak.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue

Agreed, only problem - when do you place mankind’s knowledge of writing?

XIV

Domenico Altavilla

March 6

Why tell lies? No god has ever taught a language to any Adam or Eve. Can you prove otherwise?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

March 7

It so happens, I kind of can.

If evolution happened, it means human language was invented. Now, this is basically impossible.

Man is genetically predisposed to learn language if he has the oppurtunity, both social and involving the anatomic equipment.

However, the time at which man can learn a language is very narrow. Feral children who have been kept by for instance wolves past that moment never manage to learn language.

This means, for a man to learn a language, he needs to learn it (barring the miraculous infusion of language into Adam) before that age. Not an age in which you can invent things. Especially not an age in which you can invent things and then impose it on the tribe that’s raising you.

If men, inheriting the language of apes, namely gestures and shrieks and content moans and so on, had had a two year old child who had stumbled on nearly inventing language, it would have been stifled through socialisation in that group.

Now, you may plead graduality of change between ape language and human language. Also very impossible.

In “ape” you have sounds that mean complete, usually emotional, messages. You have single sounds that mean things like “wait a minute” or “come here” or “hello, are you content with me today?” or “hello, yes I am”.

In “human” you have sounds with no emotional meaning, so called phonemes, combining into morphemes with meanings more often notional than emotional, more often curious than practical, and yet not giving a complete message, because then you have these morphemes combining into sentences (which in some languages occasionally can be single words!) with complete conveyance of the message only at that level.

And before you say there has been observation of gradual change in human language and that that supports your case, between Latin and Spanish you ONLY have phonemes exchanged for phonemes (like final nasal u in ursum for final o in oso, like short u in ursum for initial o in oso, and sometimes two phonemes reduced to one, like in rs of ursum reduced to s in oso, or expanding to three, like ml in tremlare becoming mbl in temblar), morphemes exchanged for morphemes (alquil-ar for loc-are) sentence structures exchanged for sentence structure (like word order replacing certain phonemes - ursus Paddington vult locare domum becomes el oso Paddington quiere alquilar una casa with a single case for subject and for object, but these nevertheless distinguished by word order. In other words, you don’t see more basic levels, nor less basic levels, you only get shuffling within each basic level. No basic level, phoneme, morpheme, sentence can be reduced to another one.

Other point, Australopithecus and Paranthropus both have ape anatomy unfit for human language (in incus and stapes, verified for both, in hyoid bone verified for Australopithecus, plus no trace of Broca’s area found in neither), while Homo erectus, Homo rudolfensis, Homo antecessor, Homo neanderthalensis all have Broca’s area, when verified, as for Neanderthal, human hyoid, and all have human incus and stapes as well as external auditory tract and malleus. In genome, Homo denisovae and Homo neanderthalensis have the human version of the FOXP2 gene which has one necessary function in acquisition of language (a case of aphasia in a family was due to FOXP2 gene mutation).

There simply is no such thing as a gradual transition from “ape” to “human” and this leaves only two options, either mankind has been around since eternity past or got language from a creator having that.

Domenico Altavilla

March 7

Then, it is “basically impossible” that animals and even plants have an own “language” and that their “languages” haven’t been “invented” (so, if a dog wags its tail, god taught it). Very, very interesting! However, you haven’t proven that a “god” has taught a language to “someone”. Were you present when that happened? If yes, you can “prove” what you say, otherwise no.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

March 7

You forget that we are speaking with someone that unlike a wagging dog tail is not common to “ape” and “dog” but is common to English and Chinese.

That’s how radically different human language is from the rest.

That’s why we can’t pretend it was invented by a human inheriting sth like that.

Domenico Altavilla

Mon

Therefore, god must have taught English to the British and Chinese to the Chinese. Were Adam and Eve English or Chinese?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

You seem bent on misunderstanding on purpose.

A British child learns English by parents speaking English, a Chinese by parents speaking Chinese. Considering Biblical chronology, there is no way English and Chinese could have diverged from a common language by normal language change, so, yes, at Babel God changed language settings.

But that was not the point.

The point is, no brute animal has double articulation (phonemes + phonemes = morphemes, morphemes + morphemes = sentences), notional symbols, even if some seem to have names, ways to talk of strictly absent things (negatives, pasts, futures, far off things), and infinite recursivity.

Human language is not inventable by adult humans who don’t already have at least one such, and it is not inventable in the time span when children learn language either, because parents not having it would correct and shut down the first traces of human language before it even appeared.

And these traits are strictly common to all languages known, past present, civilised or jungle. They are lacking from all animal communication systems. That was the point. If cats and dogs had a common ancestor, the meeows and the woofs could be diverged dialects of a same ancestral system having none of these human traits, and neither has chimp language, and that’s where you’d put the ancestors of men.

Domenico Altavilla

Mon

In cave paintings and graphites the expression is exclusively graphic, non-verbal. Verbal expression arose long after man had learned to communicate by drawing. There is therefore certain proof of the evolution of human language from non-verbal to verbal forms: no “imprinting”exists, but “evolution”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

It so happens, this is not true.

Genevieve von Petzinger (who is an evolutionist) has found 32 symbols all over Upper Palaeolithic.

https://youtu.be/hJnEQCMA5Sg

This accounts for the period of cave paintings, which I place at post-Flood life of Noah. They had symbolic communication as well as paintings.

For earlier (what I consider pre-Flood), we have tool making of a type that has been tested, instructions cannot be successfully made by just manual showing without any verbal actual instruction at least for some moments.

https://youtu.be/1hVijQZLEeM

The one error he makes is pretending to imagine evolution into that story, he shows language already in existence.

Domenico Altavilla

Mon

Well, throughout the Upper Paleolithic (between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago, for about 30,000 years), 32 "symbols" were found. So you agree that originally there was no "structured written” language and that modern ones are the result of transformations (man-made, not pre-impressed), extended over 40,000 years, of some primitive forms. These “forms”, in your opinion, were born after the “Great Flood”, that is, Adam and Eve didn’t have a “structured written” language. If this isn’t “evolution”, what evolution is?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue

“So you agree that originally there was no "structured written” language”

Language does not have to be written to be structured.

Any language newly discovered in Amazonas or New Guinea is structured in the sense I mentioned :
phonemes + phoneme (+ phoneme …) = morpheme;
morpheme + morpheme (+ morpheme …) = sentence.

I do not agree writing was lacking in the pre-Flood times, for those times we have only found lifestyles outside the main civilisation, at the margins. For Henoch in Nod east of Eden, the 32 symbols may very well have existed before the Flood, for one of them, the hashtag, we do have Neanderthal evidence, so pre-Flood.

Adding writing to denote phonemes is very much not comparable to the structure of language as outlined as basic superiority of human over bestial. It is an invention at the service of spoken language, it is not an evolution of language.

In “ape” // phoneme (* rep ad lib) = sentence //, no double articulation there. This is very much NOT what we find in Amazonas or New Guinea when anthropologists find a new human language. It is also not compatible with transmitting notions, as opposed to immediate social practicality. When I say “immediate” I am obviously excluding tool making as the tool making is not an immediate utility and when it is a finished tool and becomes an utility, it is usually an individual such.

Domenico Altavilla

15h ago

1) “… Language does not have to be written to be structured … “

Nobody has saied that “oral languages” aren’t “structurated”. In any case, this don’t prove that a god has impressed an “oral structured language” into someone called “Adam” and “Eve”.

2) “… the 32 symbols may very well have existed before the Flood, for one of them, the hashtag, we do have Neanderthal evidence, so pre-Flood ...”

Then you agree that “Neanderthal man” had a “written language”, but he has been now replaced by “Homo Sapiens sapiens”, that is an “evolution” (so say scientists) of the previous one. Thus, has “the writer” evolved, not his ”language”?

3) “… basic superiority of human over bestial ...” … ”… It is an invention at the service of spoken language, it is not an evolution of language ...” . These are “dogmatic sentences”. May you prove that “humans” are “superior” to “beasts”? May you prove that “written language” is an “invention at the service of spoken langage”? Dogmatism works well with “believers”, not with “facts”. A virus can kill a man; is virus “superior” to man? An anchovy swims better than a man; is anchovy “superior” to man? A man can articulate the language better than a mosquito; is man “superior” to mosquito? Only human “presumption” (see “original sin”) supports his “superiority”. And symbols are “symbols”, not “written linguage at the service of spoken one”. This is a “symbol”: 

[image not copied]

It expresses an “idea”, but it isn’t “at service of speak”. This isn’t a “phrase”, althougth it may have a “sense”:

[image not copied]

Its “written” traduction is “The angry man desires to kill the screaming one”, but only because the author is saying so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4h ago

When I argue that man needed God to provide him with language, not everything I say is directly meant to prove that, some are in fact meant to answer your objections.

“Nobody has saied that “oral languages” aren’t “structurated”.”

If you didn’t, you lost your point, since you pretended language as we know it emerged with writing, which can only be upheld on that ground.

“In any case, this don’t prove that a god has impressed an “oral structured language” into someone called “Adam” and “Eve”.”

As said, I was not proving, I was answering your objection that you pretended to have proven evolution of language (of human language as such, not of a specific language).

The point is, no you haven’t proven any pre-language humanity existed, so you haven’t proven language could have been slowly developed by humans starting out with something more like monkey communications.

“Then you agree that “Neanderthal man” had a “written language”,”

Yes, I do.

“but he has been now replaced by “Homo Sapiens sapiens”, that is an “evolution” (so say scientists) of the previous one.”

No, they do not say that. Neanderthals are lost cousins, not lost grandparents.

Prior to the Flood (and if we replace this wording which flaunts YEC with “carbon dated 45 000 BC” scientists will agree) Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis lived side by side. Same as with Denisovans.

One did not replace the other by evolving from them, but pureblooded Neanderthals and Denisovans have disappeared. As Neanderthal genome survives in many alleles, but conspicuously not in Y-chromosomes and mitochondriae, I have theorised a woman on the Ark with a Neanderthal father gave us what we have of it. As a woman, she was not transmitting any Y-chromosomes, and as her mother was sapiens sapiens, she was transmitting mitochondriae of those.

“These are “dogmatic sentences”.”

Not the least. They are descriptive sentences of the communication system.

Bestial (monkey, dog, cat, owl):
phoneme = message
Human (all languages ever observed by us):
phoneme+phoneme (+….) = morpheme
morpheme+morpheme (+…) = message.

There is a purely quantitative superiority here, as the human version allows an infinity of different messages and the bestial one doesn’t.

“A virus can kill a man; is virus “superior” to man? An anchovy swims better than a man; is anchovy “superior” to man?”

Viruses are perhaps superior killers, anchovies are clearly superior water dwellers and man is a superior language user.

And this starts at this very basic level. Double articulation.

“It expresses an “idea”, but it isn’t “at service of speak”. This isn’t a “phrase”, althougth it may have a “sense””

Well, those examples aren’t writing.

Writing still remains, whether alphabetic or Chinese or syllabaries of the Japanese kana, at the service of the spoken language.

My point about the 32 symbols being like that is, they are exactly 32. Symbols with entire messages would very likely be far more diverse.

“Did you know there are over 500 Federally approved traffic signs in use today?”
[from: ] USA Traffic Signs.
https://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/Test_s/50.htm#%3A~%3Atext%3DDid%20you%20know%20there%20are%2Cmake%20you%20a%20safer%20driver

But 32 is like 22 Hebrew consonants + 10 vowels, or like the number of letters in the Russian alphabet.

I tried to contact Genevieve von Petzinger on either trying combinations to see if any Hebrew words emerge or trying to see if there are any Hebrew genealogies by initials, like N, J, J, D for Noah, Japheth, Javan, Dodanim, but I haven’t managed to get any contact with her. The name of her university appears in more than one country, since in English speaking world universities are not always named for cities.

So, I think the 32 symbols are at the service of speech, and not directly non-verbal symbols.

“Thus, has “the writer” evolved, not his ”language”?”

Evolved or not evolved, Homo erectus soloensis, Homo rudolphensis, Homo Antecessor (from Atapuerca), Denisovans, Neanderthals, and our own lineage on the main Cro-Magnon side all shared a fully human language which cannot be shown to have evolved from bestial communications. Australopithecus and Paranthropus lacked human language and cannot be shown to have been evolving in that direction.

Francis Marsden Very Opposed to my Take

Quora Space and Question:

Catholic Apologetics : What do I do? I still have doubts even though ive seen the documentary of "Church of the Holy Sepulchre tomb of Jesus" I wanted to believe so bad but I feel like something pull me out or blocks me not to believe.
https://www.quora.com/q/catholicapologetics/What-do-I-do-I-still-have-doubts-even-though-ive-seen-the-documentary-of-Church-of-the-Holy-Sepulchre-tomb-of-Jesus-I-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21h ago

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

Are you doing anything against the faith?

Are you using anything that could be the mark of the beast, like a mask or a vaccine?

Or are you in some kind of relation where the significant other would drop you if you dropped your doubts?

If you are clear on all these items, check out what exactly your doubts are and what the objections add up to and who is trying to answer them.

Francis Marsden

20h ago

What is this nonsense about wearing a mask or receiving a vaccination being the mark of the beast? That is not Catholic teaching.

A mask is to prevent you getting infected (and using up scarce medical resources) and to prevent you spreading infection to others.

A vaccination has the same purposes. Please read the Vatican statement about the moral liceity of vaccines before writing nonsense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19h ago

When exactly did you get it that we would know beforehand how the mark of the beast would look by that being the teaching of the magisterium?

And it so happens, the statement you refer to is from what I consider as the Anti-Church.

Now, the purpose of two things taken on face (prosopon in Homer refers to the part of the helmet covering most of the face, not just to the forehead) or arm (cheir is not just hand but also lower arm) may be perfectly licit - this does not mean that all the rest of the modalities surrounding them are so.

• making things meant for private wellfare of the health type mandatory in public for buying and selling (see the very words of Apocalypse);
• inciting to hysteria;
• inciting to hypocrisy;
• using dangerous vaccines where human fetal cells were used only in research;
• using normal vaccines where fetal cells were used to cultivate the pathogen which when disactivated constitutes the vaccine.

Plus, this is kind of wearing the mark of medical corps, and that corps could be one manifestation of the beast, given that it swears by Apollo and the five cases of the name in Greek add up to 2666.

"This comment

has been deleted 14h ago"

(but it was by Francis Marsden, a Novus Ordo kind of "priest" by the way. And it was an ad hominem, with no argument to defend anything I had attacked. It also shows some high regard of Novus Ordo establishment for psychiatry, in a manner reminiscent of Soviet psychiatry, which was politicised, used to deal with people disagreeing with establishment.)