Friday, September 30, 2022

Continuing with J. Richard Middleton up to 31:14


Babel : Beginning My Answer to Middleton, up to 13:16 on the video · Continuing with Middleton to 22:33 · Continuing with J. Richard Middleton up to 31:14 · Richard Middleton Bungles OT "adumbrations" of the Trinity - part 1, "let us" passages 31 min to 41:35 min

Same video as previous two posts.

23:25 3000 BC? That's not ancient Sumerian, that's pre-Flood.

What is carbon dated as 3000 BC comes from times probably even after Abraham died, and he was born (Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day has a handy chronology of OT events relating to Christ's birth) as recently as 2015 BC. Genesis 14, when he was around 80 (76 - 86) would have been in around 1935 BC. And the Amorrhaeans evacuating En Geddi (called Asason Tamar in that chapter, En Geddi is a later name), evacuated a temple treasure on reed mats that are carbon dated to 3500 BC.

The real date 3000 BC, Noah would have been doing things finishing the Ark, or at least preparing it, the Flood was in 2957 BC (same source for my Biblical chronology). And the carbon dates from back then would be like 40 000 BP - fairly clearly not what you'd call Ancient Sumerian, more what you would call Late Neanderthals. Or Denisovans.

23:48 I definitely do think Genesis 11:1 - 9 is about one incident.

Why? Apart from the authority of the Bible and Church Fathers, because, after the Flood, even if you took 1000 years from then to Abraham, you'd not get languages as different as Egyptian and Sumerian. Not by the process that linguists study and call "language evolution" which is somewhat of a misnomer.

In 1000 years, we have gone from Icelandic and Danish being one language with very minor dialectal differences ("ring" would have been "ring" in Danish, "hring" in Icelandic, "wrath" - the adjective - would have been "vreither" in Danish and "reithr" in Icelandic, soft TH sound). Today they are incomprehensible, but if you learn both, they are very similar, more to each other than to English or to Dutch. Akkadian and Sumerian are like English to Chinese or like Dutch to Malay. Some incident was definitely not natural "language development" as linguists also call (or miss-call) the process.

However, this does not preclude that later Mesopotamian history is mirrored in this one incident. Like definite types of Church devotion are mirrored in seven local Churches of - the other end of Asia Minor, compared to its eastern neighbour Mesopotamia.

24:42 I think this one incident was before there was idolatry.

Historia scholastica dates idolatry to Ninus. Just because he founded Niniveh doesn't mean he's Nimrod. Nimrod was around in Qermez Dere, but the text of Genesis 10 takes into account that since then, Ninus founded Niniveh as a great city. Quoting the relevant wikis:

"Radiocarbon dating has estimated that Qermez Dere was built between c. 8500 BC and 7900 BC." Note, when Göbekli Tepe was covered in sand is carbon dated to 8600 BC. Real year, birth of Peleg 2556 BC.

Qermez Dere is from within a decade or even less from the end of Babel.

It's 36°31′0.01″N 42°49′59.99″E.

Now, let's go to Niniveh - it's 36°21′34″N 43°09′10″E. It's ten arc minutes further South, ten arc minutes further East. And it's later.

"Nineveh itself was founded as early as 6000 BC during the late Neolithic period."

That's in the life of Sarug. Around his birth. Like 2287 BC. That's when we look for Ninus. And that's where (later) we find the earliest image of Ishtar.

Nimrod's project was a secularist one, not an idolatrous in the sense of polytheistic one. No, the Bible is not "demythologising" the actual history of Mesopotamia, it is describing an event with a hero from the Neolithic who had made himself a myth in previous decades as an Upper Palaeolithic mammoth hunter, and cashed in on it as a man hunter.

25:20 In Exodus chapter one, there is no city named after any up to then Pharao.

Either the name Ramesses (which arguably is the same name as Ramses) is an anachronistic update by later scribes (something I think Moses authorised), or the later Ramessic Pharaos were named after that city.

I can only give Beverley as a name for persons that started out as a place name, right off the cuff, but yes, you do have this.

"Beverly or Beverley is a given name and surname. It is derived from an English surname, which was in turn taken from the place name Beverley. The place name derives from Old English, combining befer (beaver) and leah (clearing).

"It was at one time a common masculine given name, but is now almost exclusively a feminine name due to the popularity of a 1904 novel, Beverly of Graustark by George Barr McCutcheon."

So no, Exodus 1 features no Pharao naming a city after himself. Not that they weren't megalomanic enough, but that's not chronologically possible. Ramesses I founded the 19th Dynasty, and Moses was arguably born in the 12th, with himself surfacing as Amememhet IV (though I have heard the pharao of Exodus was Amenemhet IV too), and the Exodus event was 12th or 13th dynasty. The 19th dynasty started out with a pharao getting or taking his name from the city mentioned in Exodus 1, or he was megalomaniac enough to change the city's name or his successor did (St. Petersburg was renamed Leningrad in 1924, by Stalin, not by Lenin himself). And in that latter case, the priests in the ... Tabernacle ... would have ordered the next copy to replace (for instance Avaris) by "Pi-Ramesses" in the next scroll.

25:50 I agree that God was not afraid of Nimrod getting up.

B U T the Babylonic nation is very anachronistic to mention here. What was really not good then was trying to get up in a rocket.

Have you seen how da Vinci imagined one could do an airplane? Thing is, if you tried it out, you would arguably fall to your death, unless you were a good swimmer and the test was made over a lake. That's how bad Nimrod's rocket model was. The one he was planning to launch from Göbekli Tepe. With "three step rocket" as one correct principle, but nothing else correct.

4500 years later, God had no problem with Gagarin or Armstrong getting up, but by then the rocket technology was also much better than what Nimrod could have provided in the Neolithic.

27:12 In Nebuchadnezzar's time, not every single person was at the building, but every person within what he counted as the world (i e the Babylonian Empire - confer the language of Augustus as for the Census) was on some level mobilised. The taxes he was paying were supporting the building force. And both tax "money" (this was before minted money, I presume, if Babylonians were conservative) and building force were from all nations Nebuchadnezzar ruled over.

In Nimrod's time, there was no money yet. But people were mobilised from all ethnicities and localities over the entire globe. In Göbekli Tepe you do find symbols now used by Australian Aborigenes, and also (the bird man) one from Polynesia. That global élite was drafting people from all over the world, a bit like how Inca rulers were taxing by drafting people to constitute a work force at more central locations. A N D that global governance was overturned by the new and manyfold, very sudden, linguistic barriers. What's the point of Mungo woman in Australia's grandsons sending a delegation to Göbekli Tepe if they no longer speak Hebrew (or some kind of such) at either place and not have any other common language either?

28:18 Both "king of the four quarters of the earth" (or corners, I think you find them in the localities today named Kamtchatka, Hobart, Puerto Williams / Cape Horn, Anchorage / Alaska) is an extravagant claim. But so is the name "Sumer" if it is indeed the same word as Shinar, which I think likely. About as extravagant as calling US citizens with some exclusivity "Americans" when they do not comprise Americanos from Méjico or Perú or Américains from Québec ... since Sumeria was just one small part of South East Mesopotamia, not all of it.

29:17 I totally agree with that relation between Gen 10:25 and Gen 11:1-9.

That's why I put the birth of Peleg (401 years after the Flood) as the Biblical and correct date for when Göbekli Tepe ceased to be built and was instead covered in sand.

2556 BC is "8600 BC" which is the carbon date of the uppermost level of charcoal found in Göbekli Tepe under that sand.

29:29 But Genesis 10:8-10 is not "earlier" just because it is earlier in the text. Nimrod is in Ham's genealogy and Peleg is in Shem's. (Btw, you have a typo, Genesis 20 is summarised as "Abraham sojourned in Gerara: Sara is taken into king Abimelech's house, but by God's commandment is restored untouched.").

Yes, Nimrod started out in Babel a k a Göbekli Tepe. When he had to bury that in sand, the ones he could speak to helped him build Arach ... I identity the five city lineup "Arach, Achad, Chalanne, Chale, Resen" with "Çayönü, Nevali Çori, Jerf el Ahmar, Müreybet, Abu Hureyra" and the single city Ninveh with Qermez Dere, starting out just after he had buried Göbekli Tepe.

What is the distance from Göbekli Tepe to Qermez Dere?

We can take Venerable Urfa and Mosul as modern standins. Distance between Sanliurfa and Mosul is 396 kilometers (246 miles) in Turkey, Iraq.

How long is it from Ur or Babylon to Nineveh? We can take Baghdad and Mosul as standins. It's 355.00 km.

Niniveh is about equidistant between Babel of Nimrod and Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar.

Btw, it is possible Arach = Ur of Chaldees = Nevali Çori in Nimrod's time. Nevali Çori is in Sanliurfa province, just as Qermez Dere is in Niniveh Governate.

29:39 It is not said that all of the cities are "on the plain of Shinaar" ... Niniveh is notably outside the Harran plain which is the one I analyse as found in Genesis 11:2. Göbekli Tepe is right on the edge of it, and the asset of this identification is, geographically and textually, the plain is really inside Shinaar, doesn't extend all the way to either Euphrates or Tigris.

29:44 Considering "in the time of Peleg" as a fabrication is having a fairly low view on the historic reliability of the Bible.

Creation vs. Evolution : Lining up Cities
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/03/lining-up-cities.html


jsbrads1
@Hans-Georg Lundahl if one is sure that Peleg isn’t the same period, if he predates the Babel story, that is no problem.

The families of Noah may have spread out in the land.

The tower could have been an ingathering of separate peoples. The ultimate failure of that new society would have been baked 😅into it origin.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@jsbrads1 "if one is sure that Peleg isn’t the same period, if he predates the Babel story, that is no problem."

Why would ANYONE be sure, contrary to basically universal Christian tradition, with Jewish at the side, that Peleg and Babel are NOT in the same period?

jsbrads1
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Jewish tradition does predate Peleg to the Tower. There is no problem with that interpretation.

One can maintain more than one assumption without knowing which is true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@jsbrads1 One can.

But I can rule out Babel being from the time if ziggurats, by the fact of these being from the time of different nations already existing.

I wonder what Jewish tradition you are talking about, I think Josephus at least disagrees with you, though it was some time since I looked at him.

Oh, did you mean the "Abraham meets Nimrod" story? The one merit of that anachronistic story is, Abraham is put in Ur Kasdim = Urfa, not far from the site of Babel, Göbekli Tepe.

It makes more sense of languages if the confusion of languages came midway between the Flood and Abraham. I e, in the time of Peleg, of his birth.


31:14 Basically all older commentators consider Javan as ancestor of the Greeks.

"Athens has been inhabited from Neolithic times, possibly from the end of the fourth millennium BC, or over 5,000 years."

That would be carbon dated "3000 BC" or a bit earlier. In other words, just after Abraham's life time

But now look at the carbon dates for Franchthi Cave:

"Humans first occupied the cave during the Upper Paleolithic, appearing around 38,000 BC (and possibly earlier.)[1] Groups continued to live in or seasonally visit the cave throughout the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras, with occasional short episodes of apparent abandonment.[2] Last occupied around 3,000 BC (Final Neolithic), Franchthi was used as a shelter for around 35,000 years and is one of the most thoroughly studied sites from the stone age in Southeast Europe."

So, Javanites were moving from Franchthi Cave, to Athens, in the time of Abraham. How did Franchthi Cave start?

"The Aurignacian, traditionally regarded as marking the beginnings of Sapiens in Europe,is notoriously hard to date, being almost out of reach of radiocarbon. Here the authors return to the stratified sequence in the Franchthi Cave, chronicle its lithic and shell ornament industries and, by dating humanly-modified material, show that Franchthi was occupied either side of the Campagnian Ignimbrite super-eruption around 40000 years ago. Along with other results, this means that groups of Early Upper Palaeolithic people were active outside the Danube corridor and Western Europe,and probably in contact with each other over long distances."

This is the abstract of a paper on Academia, by K. Douka, C. Perlès, H. Valladas, M. Vanhaeren & R.E.M. Hedges, which is called Franchthi Cave revisited: the age of the Aurignacian in south-eastern Europe.

If we had had one consistent series of human skeleta from these times, it would have refuted my theory of the correct date for the Flood.

As it is, it was probably used already in pre-Flood times, later on in post-Flood times, first Noah's close family when they passed by, later on more usually (and including the time of Babel) by Javanites. We do not have skeleta at all from the cave, it would seem. We cannot rule out that some pre-Flood user was a second cousin of Noah or even a Neanderthal (which he had some in inlaws, but was not probably himself descended from), and then later on, the last users before they founded very nearby Athens had a very distinct from that Javanite genome. Which is what I would consider a still viable working hypothesis.

Tuesday, September 27, 2022

Cassman / Dimond, First Hour


The debate is actually two hours long. I am a little less than halfway through.

Sedevacantism Debate: Are John XXIII Through Francis True Popes? Jeff Cassman Vs Br. Peter Dimond
20th of Sept. 2022 | Pints With Aquinas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIauJB2_y1c


Hans-Georg Lundahl
To or Against Cassman
10:02 "the Church has thought" - "the consensus is"
1 = sounds like an official decision
2 = sounds there actually isn't one, at best an impression of the ordinary magisterium

YP Poe
It is not a matter of consensus; the Church is not a Democracy. It is a matter of faith, docility, and obedience. "Consensus-based science" would be a less absurd proposition.

If the Learning Church cannot infallibly hear, then, effectively to actually, the Teaching Church cannot teach, infallibly or otherwise.

If one cannot know, then one cannot learn.

Also, "infallibility" has become a #redHerring masking a monkey trap.

The question should not be "What is infallible?", i.e., what is binding under pain of #heresy, but "What is binding?" People tend to act and think as if they will not be just as damned if they "merely" disregard something that "only" binds the under pain of mortal sin.

Additionally, the very impulse of doing the minimum, the reflexive, immediate seeking of loopholes, is a function of concupiscence. Love binds. We should feel the shame of falling under pain of a hangnail.

There is another ubiquitous, false, tacit assumption set:

if it is not "infallible" (irreformable), it is debatable;
if it is debatable, it is possibly false;
if it is possibly false, it is untrustworthy;
if it is untrustworthy, it is fearsome;
if it is fearsome, it is evil;
if it is evil, we are to avoid it. "Conveniently", we seem to miraculously recall and understand this principle, at least in such instances.

That means not following it, and the "obligation" to act contrary to it. (See "conveniently," prev.)

If it is evil, it cannot be of Holy Mother Church.

If it is of Her, then we have an epidemic, systemic plague of heresy in praxis because we profess via in/action that Holy Mother Church is poisoning Her Children. This praxis necessarily also involves a complexus of other intricated, grave sins.

Lizard brain #Theology.

Yet another wicked thought habit is in play: papal power, prerogatives, and privileges not only are not immediate but are necessarily mediate, which is likewise #heresy in #praxis at the very least.

YP Poe
PS,

I realise I am probably only expanding on your "consensus" notion/"preaching to the choir," but regardless, you raise a good point, at least indeliberately and obliquely.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@YP Poe If you had seen what Cassman had said at the time signature 10:02 you would have seen that I was first of all quoting two of his phrases and then stating for each what they sound like in same terms, that is, I was saying he was probably contradicting himself. Unless he has a better explanation.

The fact is, when there is neither Pope or Cardinal, he stated as only option "clergy of Rome" chosing next pope, giving one of the introductions to this as "the Church has thought about this" (and perhaps also pronounced Herself) and the next "the consensus is" (meaning he has the impression that this is what all bishops - or even all canonists? - think and say, he has no definite document for it).

How about seeing from my indications (under a youtube, a time signature is an indication) what I am talking about, and not second guessing that, and then from that second guessing my dispositions about certain matters?

YP Poe
@Hans-Georg Lundahl ,

Never mind.

Take care, sir.

Bye.

To or Against some cross-examination
40:34 Bro. Peter Dimond has cited Billouart, Petrus Vidal and a few more.

He has cited them in the wording "we have" - are they all not yet in the public domain, so it is impossible to actually produce the quotes linking to their sources in the contexts they have in these sources?

I mean, on one of them it seems pretty clear that Bro. Peter Dimond and Jeff Cassman interpret the same person differently.

Wouldn't it be fine for those hearing this if they were available?

40:57 Eric McKensey (spelling) on page 44 of his work, The Delict of Heresy, says ... here we get at least a reference to the author in question.

41:31 Canon 91? 81?

No, canon 21:97!

No, 2197!

Here it is:


Canon 2197[1]
(NA)
Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 1747, 2191
A delict is:
1.° Public, if it is already known or is in such circumstances that it can be and must be prudently judged that it will easily become known;
2.° Notorious by notoriety of law, [if it is] after a sentence by a competent judge that renders the matter an adjudicated thing, or after confession by the offender made in court in accord with Canon 1750;
3.° Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circumstances that no clever evasion is possible and no legal opinion could excuse [the act];
4.° Occult, if it is not public; materially occult, if the delict is hidden; formally occult, if imputability [is not known].

IT comes under the heading of Delicts. Like this one:


Canon 2205[6]
(1983 CIC 1323–24)
§ 1. Physical force that prevents all faculty of action entirely excludes a delict.
§ 2. Additionally, grave fear, even if it is only relative, necessity, and even grave inconvenience for the most part thoroughly toll a delict, if it concerned a merely ecclesiastical law.
§ 3. But if the act was intrinsically evil or verged on contempt for the faith or ecclesiastical authority or harm to souls, the causes that [were outlined] in § 2 indeed diminish imputability, but do not eliminate it.
§ 4. [Force] for the sake of legitimate protection against unjust aggression, if due moderation is observed, eliminates a delict completely; otherwise it only diminishes imputability according to the cause of the provocation.

To or Against some cross-examination
57:33 It may be noted that as Martin Luther was in fact a priest, he was in a sense successor of the Apostles, at least of the 72 Apostles.

There is a very big qui pro quo, a very big bait and switch, when laity shouting out against clergy in at least subjective support of the faith, and that one acknowledged by the other party as Catholic on other issues, is compared to a priest who as clergy made a shoutout against what people had been taking as the faith for centuries. He was shouting out very directly against Peter Lombard. I just checked that from Tetzel's replies.

Luther was excommunicated over many things, and rightly, but saying laymen can shout out against clergy wasn't one of them. What he actually meant was, however, laymen with power can remove clergy from their churches if they are too Catholic for his taste, and the laymen who did that at Danish and Swedish Reformations (Gustav Wasa, Frederik I) were incurring penalties for that removal.

Jeff Cassman is either making an uncanonic point, or misjudging past heresies over their actual condemned content. What a Lutheran means by Lutheranism and what a Catholic means by Lutheranism are not the same. They refer to the same Denomination, at its historic beginnings at least, but the Lutheran means all of the doctrine that Denomination had in Wittenberg and Augsburg, the Catholic means such parts of that doctrine which the Church condemned. He may have a pet peeve with Pentecostals saying laymen can prophecy, which the Church has not (there is another question whether Pentecostal ones can), but he cannot deduce from this and from a quote from Martin Luther, that the idea of a layman speaking up against clergy is what Pope Leo X or the Council of Trent condemned in Luther.

When a layman gets around past councils, the operative thing that makes this false is not the layman considering himself to have understanding, but the contradiction between his understanding and legitimate, undisputed, councils of the Church.

Historically, the ones most allergic to laymen preaching without at least some approval from bishops and some exam in theology have been caesareopapist Protestant communities like Lutherans or Anglicans. January 12th 1726, there was a crackdown on Pietism in Lutheran Sweden. Prayer meetings outside Church buildings, notably in homes, apart from the family praying together, were forbidden. The penalties were heavy monetary ones for the one arranging such a thing (probably a layman also preaching) and if he did it again the third time, instead of fines it was two years of exile from Sweden - with Finland. Poor people could be going 2 weeks, first time, 3 weeks second time, to a prison on bread and water. Participants were similarily fined. I think the history of Methodism shows they had similar trouble in Anglican England.

So, you have no authority is not the issue.

To or Against some cross-examination
59:05 "does not extend to a dubious pope in time of a schism"

Who was Pope on the midnight usshering in August 2nd this year? Pope Francis, as some call him? Or Pope Michael, as I call him and who died that day.

According to St. Alfonsus, Pope Michael just became an asset and perhaps an indispensable one for Sedevacantism!

To or Against some cross-examination
1:00:28 1) Occult heretics are not what we are discussing, at all, if St. Robert meant "materially occult" as per canon 2197.
The material fact of real or supposed heresy is very clearly "public" or "notorious as to notoriety of fact."

So, Jeff Cassman can only appeal to St. Robert by assuming we deal with "formally occult" as to hidden whether the fact is imputable. In the case of bishops and popes (or presumed such) any act on the faith that was not just said off the cuff in an interview, or even one that is repeated over more than one interview is also imputable. The SSPX would not be right in pretending this could extend to hidden imputability. But that would be their only way of bringing "occult heretics" into play.

2) Let's presume that they try to bring "occult heresy" into play anyway. At some point, they could reason, Jorge Mario appeared to be a perfectly normal Catholic. Then he became heretic in foro interno after becoming so in foro externo. Sorry, on their view before becoming so in foro externo. Therefore, what St. Robert says would mean that they (Jorge Mario and similar high placed clergy in the Vatican II sect, similarily heretical) only would become public heretics if fulfilling either the criterium of becoming judged as heretics or the criterium of getting out of communion with the Church. But the salient point is, here a Sede could reply that St. Robert also (whatever later canon law might say on the matter) here meant separating oneself from the Church as per new doctrine contradicting earlier, clearly Church taught, doctrine. Not just writing a letter to the bishop and saying "I am no longer Catholic" and not just stating in St. Peter's Square "I am no longer a Catholic Pope, I am a Buddhist." But before replying that, one could ask if certain people did not become public heretics in foro externo before doing so in foro interno. 1) They repeated heresy, so far material heresy, when it was fashionable; 2) made it formal heresy when refusing to step back from it when discreet reality checks nudged them to. So, if they became heretics in the external forum before being so in the internal, one cannot any more use that quote to circumscribe "public heresy" or "apostasy" to actually joining a heresy like Lutheranism or an Apostasy like a Masonic Lodge or a declaration of adhering to Second Humanist manifesto.

To or Against some cross-examination
1:02:23 Was Savonarola a heretic? Cardinal Billot opined he was. But cardinal Billot is not the supreme magisterium, he is just a commenter on it.

Now, what Billot seems to leave out when speaking of those "defending his schism" is that one of those defenders is St. Philip Neri.

I have also seen a historic fact or presumed by the writer fact some place that the joining of the last prayer "Holy Mary, Mother of God" to the "Hail Mary" was initiated by precisely Savonarola. The end of Hail Mary in St. Thomas' time was "and Blessed is the Fruit of Thy Womb, Jesus. Amen."

The second way of praying the rosary presumes basically as if the name Jesus was the last word in a regular Hail Mary, because the mysteries are added in relative clauses "Whom Thou" for the joyful ones and "Who" for the sorrowful and glorious ones after this name.

So, the fact is, the Hail Mary was extended late, and it could have been by Savonarola.

But, he was at least convicted of heresy? Yes and - significantly - no. It seems there was in fact no heretical doctrine mentioned in the condemnation. He was condemned for being "heretic and malefactor" - confer the first process against St. Joan were the false charge of heresy was at least kind of backed in the sentence by 1) "crossdressing" and by 2) "hearing voices from God" (without formal approval from the there present clergy that they were from God). Both are insufficient for a serious condemnation for heresy, unless there is much more clarity of a will to imitate the clothing of the opposite sex as a coquetterie (which was certainly not St. Joan's intention, when trying to avoid rape), or the voices saying things much more clearly against the faith than "the King of England is not the King of France" or - should such a prophet exist, I do not claim that for me - "Jorge Mario is not Pope of the Catholic Church." But the judges acting according to orders by Pope Alexander VI did not even have that, as far as I have been able to read up on it.

I like being upfront on things...


... where Allie Beth Stuckey either isn't or is somewhat ignorant. Unless the deletion of the comment happened by someone abusing admin status at the cyber.

Giorgia Meloni vs. The Globalists | Ep 684
26.IX.2022 | Allie Beth Stuckey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6O9ScD-lIM


0:16 I am sorry, but if the one raided was a pro-lifer, the FBI were not acting like Fascists. More like Bolsheviks.

One of the things I like about Il Duce was, provoked abortion was a criminal offense. A mother doing it on her own : 1 to 4 years. With medical assistance : 2 to 5 years. If she was either forced, or could (being under 14) be presumed to be so forced : up to 12 years for the one forcing her. Dito for the one misguiding her, if she was for instance a case of Down's (I knew one over Silverplanet, a Swedish site, who had had sex with someone in the hospital or whatever, and had been pushed to abortion and to accepting this as only getting rid of a lump of cells, besides she wasn't worth being a mother - in Italy that personnel would theoretically have gone to 12 years of prison under Mussolini).

[could post below above]

"With medical assistance : 2 to 5 years." - Both for herself and for the doctors.

2:02 Accentuation was fairly OK, but GI before vowel in Italian is like English DJ, not like French J.

7:24 He was a Catholic commenter. A content provider like you and I. The level of Catholic Theology that G.K.C. had was:
  • 1) enough to make his conversion;
  • 2) amateur curiosity.


He left university without a degree. He did provide good insights into St. Thomas' proof for God, and like most contemporary Catholics, unlike St. Thomas, he takes as most evident approach "being" (third way) rather than "movement" (first way, and the most evident one, to quote St. Thomas). In his book about St. Thomas he also provided very valuable insights into who St. Thomas was and why his theology should concern us - among others as a defense against thoughtless non-logic from experts in Science. But he did not take a degree in Catholic Theology at Steubenville. By profession he was a journalist, and he left the Yellow Press when it didn't allow him to take Jewish Networking into consideration in the Marconi Case. That day he had enough of being censored by his editor and he founded his own paper.

[could post below above]

Not saying he founded the own paper same day, it took some paperwork, like getting fired over an insult in a novel.

7:53 Or astronomy. I defend Geocentrism because:
  • 1) it is obvious to our eyes;
  • 2) any rational objection to taking the eyewitness of our eyes at face value, ultimately starts out with a denial of God and angels.


8:22 Chesterton, C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien on the situation in Spain.

  • 1) Chesterton was for the election of Gil Robles and against the Red Fascism (he actually uses the word, somewhat indelicate to Il Duce, but perhaps not any longer by then ...) of Caballero;
  • 2) C. S. Lewis was unduly worried that Franco would persecute non-Catholics
  • 3) J. R. R. Tolkien, usually a fairly close friend to previous, was annoyed at his friend buying that kind of Leftist Propaganda.


[Below was deleted]

18:57 Marine Le Pen somehow wasn't a win for feminism either. Go figure ... she didn't get elected in the highly feminist country I am living in.

What are "post-Fascist roots"? Well, the word isn't meaningless. It can be tested.

You have people calling themselves Fascist now, namely in Casa Pound. But as they call themselves "Fascist" they cannot really be labelled "post-Fascist" - but at a certain point, MSI can:

// Il Movimento Sociale Italiano (MSI), dopo il 1972 Movimento Sociale Italiano - Destra Nazionale (MSI-DN), è stato un partito politico italiano, d'ispirazione neofascista[10][11][12][16][17]. Successivamente si è dichiarato post-fascista, fino ad assumere posizioni affini alla destra di stampo conservatore[18], sebbene sul piano economico resistessero delle tesi anti-globaliste[19] legate all'idea corporativa[20][21], scettiche verso il libero mercato, come dimostrato in occasione dell'adesione dell'Italia al trattato di Maastricht[22][23] e delle privatizzazioni di Amato[24]. //

// The Italian Social Movement (Italian: Movimento Sociale Italiano, MSI), renamed the Italian Social Movement – National Right (Italian: Movimento Sociale Italiano – Destra Nazionale, MSI–DN) in 1972, was a neo-fascist,[6][7][8][9] nationalist and later national-conservative[10] political party in Italy. //


The English version leaves out a sentence saying (to my very imperfect Italian) "successively, it has declared itself post-Fascist, until assuming positions to the right of the conservative lable, and also on the economic level having resisted from anti-globalist theses to the corporative idea, sceptic against the free market, as shown on occasion of Italy's adhesion to Maastricht and that of privatisation of Amato"

[could not post below above]

It seems, she was actually member of MSI in (1992-1995).

Monday, September 26, 2022

My Ancient Greek May Be Rusty, But Not Inextant


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: My Ancient Greek May Be Rusty, But Not Inextant · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Stephan Borgehammar Brushing Up My Greek a Bit

However, I am very much doing what polýMATHY refers to as "vertere" rather than "legere" ... translating instead of reading. Much less of that in Latin, at least simpler Medieval texts.

Can Modern Greeks Understand Ancient Greek?
11th of Sept. 2022 | Bahador Alast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVc_-kexUus




1:25 For as on the much/many (=for most often) similar (are) the upcoming things to those that have come to pass.

4:47 "gar" is obviously "for" or even "because" to a previous phrase that is not quoted. All of the given is the reason for something else that is not mentioned.

Nicomachean Ethics (Ἠθικὰ Νικομάχεια) - By Aristotle

Speaking of a debate whether Nicomachus was father or son of Aristotle - both existed, according to a disambiguation page by wiki:
Nicomachus (father of Aristotle) (c. 375 BC), father of the philosopher Aristotle
Nicomachus (son of Aristotle) (c. 325 BC), son of the philosopher Aristotle

The usual position seems to be that the Nicomachaean Ethics were dedicated to the latter. The article offers a brief discussion.


7:08 For the most, that which is to be made is not to live, but to live well.

Wait - I have to reanalyse.
Ou to zên ... poieteon
Being alive should not be made
peri pleistou
for more
alla to eu zên
but living well.

No, I think "peri pleistou" does not refer to "to gain more things" - it is still "for the most" since it is not "peri pleistou" but "to zên" which is contrasted with "to eu zên" ...

Or, if she is right,
Ou ... poieteon
One should not make
to zên peri pleistou
the living for more
alla (poieteon)
but (one should make)
to eu zên
the living well.

Actually, it still doesn't work, since "pleistou" is superlative ... I still think "for the most, it is not about survival, but about living well"

Critias (Κριτίας): An ancient Athenian political figure and author



9:22 Of many men he saw the cities and the mind ... I am not sure of egnon.
It would be from Odyssey alpha, the first lines, the ones starting with
"Andra moi ennepe mousa, polutropon" ... I had to look up, "hos mala polla"
But in line three, I find καὶ νόον ἔγνω - not egnon.
Of many men he saw the cities and came to know (ἔγνω) the mind (νόον)

Odyssey (Ὀδύσσεια) - By Homer

13:09 If then such is death, I for one pluck heard (kerdos) For also nothing seems all of the time as (well) being more than one night.

I mistook the Latin "lego" for the Greek one! Plus mistook kerdos for heart.

If then such is death, I for one say "advantage" (kerdos). For also nothing seems all of the time as (well) being more than one night.

The Apology of Socrates (Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους) - By Plato

Sunday, September 25, 2022

A Video by polýMATHY on Old Egyptian


Ancient Egyptian Chronology | What is Ancient Egyptian?
19th Sept. 2022 | polýMATHY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbQbZ4_axDg


I

1:51 3300 - 2600 BC (according to uniformitarian chronology, highly dependent on carbon dates).

If I go to my post "New Tables" (to which I link back from very recent post "Near Prague"), on my blog "Creation vs. Evolution" - I can look these carbon dates up.

In 1868 BC, the carbon 14 level was just above 84 pmC, so the carbon date 3318 BC.
In 1678 BC, the carbon 14 level was c. 89.5 pmC, so the carbon date has less extra years, and lands at 2598.

The latter is of course if by "2600 BC" you speak of uncalibrated carbon dates, if you meant the calibrated one for Djoser's burial, that's dealt with as 1700 BC = raw date (with Cambridge half life) 2800 BC. I am aware the uniformitarian calibration takes this raw 2800 BC and puts it at calibrated 2600 BC.

I put it at 1700 BC, a few decades after the end of Genesis' main action on the Joseph-in-Egypt plane.

Identifying Djoser as Joseph's pharao is based on identifying Joseph as the reality behind Imhotep, based on the Hunger Stele parallelling the real story of Genesis.

2:05 2000 - 1350 BC.
Carbon 14 levels are rising, I put the place where they reach 100 pmC (carbon dates start coinciding with real dates) at Fall of Troy. Unsurprisingly, the latter limit will be only some decades younger.
1610 BC (100 years before the Exodus event, 20 years before Moses was born) = "2020 BC" as carbon 14 level is at 95.2 pmC
1319 BC = "1359 BC" with carbon 14 level now at 99.5 pmC.

For more exact values, see the actual post.

[Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html
]

II

We associate spellings with words 4:50 and that's not actually how language works. 4:54

Hear, hear!

When I use mid-19th C. spellings for Swedish (still - in a butchery context "hvem vill ha halfvan af en kalf" - now "vem vill ha halvan av en kalv;" and still "hesten hjelper gerna" for "hästen hjälper gärna") I am sometimes asked how I pronounce this.

Nothing weird at all - if I were challenged to motivate the 4 spellings of the V sound, I would pronounce the F-free spellings as W, and it wouldn't sound weird, just dialectal. The TJE-sound (in Finland Swedish basically like CH) also had four spellings, and the SJE-sound (in Finland Swedish but not in Sweden like SH) I think 7 or 8, perhaps even 9, also true of the yod-sound.
And in short syllables or after a yod sound or both, Swedish has only the open E sound which in long vowels is spelled Ä, hence no reason to spell it Ä rather than E, since by default E in those positions must be pronounced Ä, and E is easier to write. Ä is used for etymology (båta-bättre) or distinction (en vs än = Danish en vs end).

III

8:50 My reaction, in terms of similarities, is a bit to the Waste Land insertions of Sanskrit by TSE. Probably the very first word strikes that Sanskrit vibe, and the rest being "same language" doesn't break it.
I think I have heard reconstructed Hittite pronounced a bit like this too.

However, obviously, in more grammatical terms (vocabulary and morphology and syntax) it's very different from either, as not classifiable as IE.

IV

13:41 You might enjoy some Assyriologists from Finland.
Not only were Nuntii Latini made by Latinists from the same University, but "blue suede shoes" were translated into ... Sumerian.

Saturday, September 24, 2022

What About the SSPX?


Reason & Theology Reviews a Debate · Who Erased My Comment? · What About the SSPX?

The SSPX Debate is Over: Tradition is Rising
22nd of Sept. 2022 | The Kennedy Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Tk6N6_vYwk


Hans-Georg Lundahl
6:13 Scenario 2, "the pope giving sacraments to schismatics" ... what about the real answer to the emergency being Pope Michael?

The Kennedy Report
Lolololol

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@The Kennedy Report 1988. Consecration of bishops without an actual canonically regular Apostolic Mandate.

1990. Conclave convoked without a Camerlengo. Or Papal election of not strictly conclave type.

The analysis David Bawden, later known as Pope Michael, gave was : when the virtue of epikeia allows going beyond what is foreseen by the legislator, it should be done in such a way as to end the emergency.


8:13 Pope Michael assessed both SSPX and Sedes content to remain such as schismatics.

Staying with a Pope you can't obey is not Catholic.

Staying without a Pope is not Catholic.

By the way, settled issue.

On that logic "Masses in Novus Ordo are invalid" would also go against a "settled issue" - insofar as those settling it were real Popes.

10:15 Would you agree, if Cristina Pedotti or Christine Pedotti is correct (not sure whether she's Italian or French of Italian heritage) that Ottaviani planned dogmatising the Biblical creation account, that, if so, this would have been one change in the right direction?

Btw, §3 of Dei Verbum kind of still follows the programme of what according to this journalist was the discarded schema.

13:20 If Pope Michael was (up to his death on Aug. 2) the true Pope, if he was right that "Paul VI" was an Antipope, then the Catholic Church never did promulgate the New Mass.

14:44 One of the items pointed to when it comes to precedents for Marcel Lefebvre (I ceased to attend Holy Mass at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet only one year or so before recognising Pope Michael, I have in Sweden been a "living martyr" if that's no oxymoron for upholding "Lefebvrian theology" and been treated like an outcast, one could say like dirt, by quite a few Lefebvrians since that led me to homelessness in exile) is the case of St. Paschalis something (not Baylon, he was later) and Pope John XXII.

The latter for a time said no one (except the Blessed Virgin who's resurrected) even of the canonised saints as yet enjoys the beatific vision, they are in a kind of soul sleep (also the position of Mark of Ephesus). The saint said hereto the equivalent of "take it back or I'll withdraw my obedience" ...

The salient question, for or against SSPX is what exactly does withdrawing one's obedience mean?

Continuing to consider him Pope, but saying one has no longer to obey the Pope?
Or, significant other alternative:
ceasing to consider John XXII as Pope?

As John XXII actually changed his mind, the actions of the saint won't tell us.

But I think the latter is sounder theology.

Friday, September 23, 2022

Who Erased My Comment?


Reason & Theology Reviews a Debate · Who Erased My Comment? · What About the SSPX?

Someone in the cyber? Or Michael, on his channel? Or was it spam marked automatically because it included links?

Does Pope Francis Deny the Existence of HELL?
23.IX.2022 | Reason & Theology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgk48qnWPv4


Here is the comment:

First of all, for the moment you seem to have a point, see here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3PDfBoyrSY

Second, while I was willing to concede a point on the Pachamama case, after hearing you, I now see this:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/42636/pope-francis-apologizes-that-amazon-synod-pachamama-was-thrown-into-tiber-river

// Buon pomeriggio, vi vorrei dire una parola sulle statue della pachamama che sono state tolte dalla chiesa nella Traspontina, che erano lì senza intenzioni idolatriche e sono state buttate al Tevere. ... //

That he denies idolatrous intentions does not nullify that he refers to the statues as "le statue della pachamama"

Third, he seems pretty obviously to be into Old Earth and Human Evolution, not in the sense that we have family connexions to Neanderthals, but that we have such ultimately to brute beasts, on the physical side.

By now, I don't see any scientifically viable option of reconciling this with the Catholic dogma.

Pius XII may have been absentminded or never have heard of the argument when in 1950 leaving the issue in a kind of moratorium, but if Adam had been born of two non-human beings, they could not have had language and could not have taught him human language, and he would have been a feral child. The idea that he only became human after becoming physically adult is if possible even worse. Plus other objections I'd add to other scenarii, if you like to defend that.

Plus, clearly there is no sense in pretending, while accepting all the dates as given by scientists, that all real humans, all descendants of Adam, come only within the last 7000 years. This being so, Genesis 3 would be demoted from history, and God telling the serpent "I'll place enmities between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed" would not be known for a fact. Therefore Mary would not be properly speaking known as a fulfilment either.

Here is another that couldn't be posted:

2:58 Please to note, when it came to the infamous "magic wand" quote, I first saw a rumour of it, tried to get it verified or falsified by a Catholic newsoutlet.

I have not defitely argued from that one against him being Pope until I could verify it.

For another heresy, concerning at least the last two men known as Popes in the Vatican ("PF" supporting "B16"):

The Secret Intentions of Benedict XVI's new book: "The Infancy Narratives"
5th Dec. 2012 | vaticancatholic.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jCHEL6CSCc


Wednesday, September 21, 2022

Reason & Theology Reviews a Debate


Reason & Theology Reviews a Debate · Who Erased My Comment? · What About the SSPX?

When I started seeing the video, it was one with Cassman starting a debate when it was viewed directly. That was after midnight Paris time, and probably after First Vespers of St Matthew where it was held.

When I see the video again, that is not how it starts, but the channel owner is serving that debate in bits and pieces after very careful introduction and with comments.

I need to take back above, I saw below video and had forgot that the debate between Cassman and Dimond a) was on another channel + b) I had not seen it still is on another channel. Sorry, Michael! Added after below signature.

REVIEW: Sedevacantism Debate (Cassman vs. Dimond)
St. Matthew's Feast 2022 | Reason & Theology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F02dlyCDMSE


1:46 Actually, Pope Michael agreed with you.

Dimond = right on J-XXIII to F
Dimond = wrong on the status of the Holy See

SSPX = right on the theologemes of J-XXIII to F
SSPX = wrong on the nature of jurisdiction in the Catholic Church

Against both : there will probably be a Pope when Christ returns, he will not be even as a private person, without dogmatising, guilty of certain theologemes that are not Catholic theology.

So, Exsurge Domine prop 33 or Dignitatis Humanae?

5:10 For your view on JP-II, B-XVI and F supporting old age in a way that by now implies human evolution (Adam having bodily ancestors), were on the playlists do I go? [were = where, sry]

Obviously, for me this is a guarantee these three are / were not Popes, since not Catholic.

10:10 As an X-SSPX-er, a momentary rejection of what a Pope is saying right now, as being heresy could work insofar as a Pope may have spoken hastily.

You may know that RC by now I think dogma (Lateran V?) and EO men like Mark of Ephesus (third "defender of Orthodoxy") disagree on what is happening to the saints now. Are they fully enjoying the Beatific Vision (RC position)? Or are they in a Soul Sleep up to Judgement Day (MoE's position)?

John XXII for a while taught the soul sleep position, which makes it somewhat egregious when an EO uses the "heresy of John XXII" as a reason against papacy.

Now, one or two saints (the one or one of them named Pascalis) rejected this position very publically. He said "if you don't revoke that, I will withdraw my obedience."

There is no doubt that at that point in time this saint was still accepting John XXII, and definitely no longer simply obeying him. He was at that pretty short point in time doing what the SSPX have been doing (most dioceses) since priests of Écône got suspensi a divinis in the early 70's up to the present day, 50 years later, within the "fourth papacy" from when the situation began.

The one salient point is, what did the saint mean by "withdraw obedience"?

If he meant "I will feel justified in not actually disobeying, but not-obeying the actual Pope until we get a good one who is not teaching this heresy" - SSPX is OK.
If he meant "I will no longer recognise John XXII as Pope, but I will also not try to get someone else elected" - Bro Dimond is OK.
If he meant "I will no longer recognise John XXII as Pope, so I will incite cardinals or whatever to get someone else elected" - there is a case for David Allen Bawden being OK in 1990.

Pope Michael (who got elected in 1990, same person as David Allen) died in this year on the 2nd of August.

11:31 Do you know of a recently deceased Fr. Cekada?

He was a former Seminarian in Écône, and he basically said in a very good video entitled "Lefebvre the Sedevacantist" or synonymous, that Mgr. was not consistent. He was arguing sedevacancy one day and next day saying one could for such and such a canonical or practical reason not proclaim one. The video is basically a collection of the sede things Mgr. was saying, but ends on the note, he was inconsistent.

On Jan 2 2005, I left the hospitality of the SSPX parish St. Peter of Breitenbachplatz, Berlin. I had been asked to distribute a tract containing "auch heute ist Petrus in Banden, in Banden der Häresie und des Irrtums die er sich zum Teil selbst geschmiedet hat" - even today Peter is in chains, in chains of heresy and error, which, partly, he has forged himself.

To which I replied "then he is not Peter" - and as I did not physically help Rev. Bruno Scheible SSPX to distribute that tract I got out. But in the context, he did say "Father Schmidberger" (from whom the quote was) "is basically Sedevacantist" ...

This snapshots a kind of disunity, on the one hand very nearly Sede people like Schmidberger or Mgr. Williamson. On the other hand very non-Sede people, "let's make up with Rome as soon as possible" and "let's given in where this is theologically at least possible" - like Mgr. Fellay (at least he has this reputation).

Since the occasion when Mgr. Williamson got into mediatic and legal trouble for candidly on direct question stating his disbelief in gas chambers, he was excluded by Mgr. Fellay, and now has a "parallel SSPX" of which I am not sure of the name.

12:47 "except in the case of heresy"
"... a nemine judicatur nisi a fide devia deprehendatur"

Pope Innocent III.

Confer, I think it was St. Leo IX, who said the decisions of it are irreformable "nisi quid subreptum sit" (if not, though I think it was, it was one in the 11th C at least).

13:01 It doesn't say "unless a Pope is guilty of heresy" but "unless it" (the see) "is caught redhanded in deviation from the faith" in the quote from Pope Innocent III.
Deprehendi doesn't mean being guilty, but being caught redhanded.

14:33 Would you mind from what you deduce that narrow interpretation on the canon from 869?

15:03 I mean, there is of course an example to which you refer, Pope St. Leo II ratifying a judgement on Honorius (I?) insofar as it states him guilty of fomenting heresy by refusing to condemn it.

But that precedent, though it certainly played in in 869, was perhaps not directly cited? You know those canons better than I. And you should know the difference between their exact text and your other rationales for narrowing it in a certain way.

There are also other things that can be deduced from the affair. Honorius was a bad watchdog, not barking enough, but he was not directly promoting by stating as his own belief the heresy of Monotheletism. Had he done that, would Pope Leo II still have been able to consider him a past Pope?

Wait, it's available on PapalEncyclicals.

// We believe that the saying of the Lord that Christ addressed to his holy apostles and disciples, Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever despises you despises me, was also addressed to all who were likewise made supreme pontiffs and chief pastors in succession to them in the catholic church. Therefore we declare that no secular powers should treat with disrespect any of those who hold the office of patriarch or seek to move them from their high positions, but rather they should esteem them as worthy of all honour and reverence. This applies in the first place to the most holy pope of old Rome, secondly to the patriarch of Constantinople, and then to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Furthermore, nobody else should compose or edit writings or tracts against the most holy pope of old Rome, on the pretext of making incriminating charges, as Photius did recently and Dioscorus a long time ago. Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs.

If, then, any ruler or secular authority tries to expel the aforesaid pope of the apostolic see, or any of the other patriarchs, let him be anathema. Furthermore, if a universal synod is held and any question or controversy arises about the holy church of Rome, it should make inquiries with proper reverence and respect about the question raised and should find a profitable solution; it must on no account pronounce sentence rashly against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome. //

Well, the one way out for anyone criticising any of these guys on a more than just personal level, is the charge of papacy lost or never acquired, due to heresy.

However, it does not state that a holy synod is the one and sole conscience that can state "such and such is a heretic" about a presumed Pope.

Obviously, there is a thing called the Synod of Sutri after this.

17:10 While Dimond Brothers, as well as Sedes connected to the Right Wing paper Rivarol (which is not per se a Sede publication, but the Catholics in it are Sede, like those in Présent are SSPX or SSP) have stated that the end times are a probable prospect, next Pope being Jesus come back and not one of His vicars, the authors they cite from Vatican I theologians are more prone to talk of 40 years sedevacancy as a possibity, and they have mentioned 70 years on the parallel of Babylonian captivity.

1958 (if they think Pius XII kept papacy up to his death) + 70 = 2028.
1958 + 40 = 1998.

Election of Pope Michael was however before 1998, it was in 1990.

18:07 If you are foreseeing no miraculous change, why are you participating in what is not a Catholic type of gatekeeping (republishing statements of me condemning evolutionism and attaching an anathema or a warning against it) but a Jewish type of gatekeeping, consisting in a conspiracy of silence around me and the tactic of the burnt ground (apart from my physical survival)? And you are very far from being the only one.

19:15 At this point, I saw a delicious comment by The Byzantine Scotist:
"If it were true that the Popes are fake Popes, it would seem that someone like Pope Michael would have been the true Pope because he at least tried to continue the succession."

19:28 Dimond Brothers have referred to the Vatican as that Temple of God (II Thess) and to JP-II as that man of lawlessness, due to "in a sense united himself to every man" implying he's somehow enjoying a kind of hypostatic union (whether he is in the state of grace or not).

It can be added, this seems to have been said already by P-VI, a man who changed times and laws. Who took saints out of the martyrology readings.

19:40 It is not improbable that either "PF" or "PEB-XVI" is the False Prophet, but the man of lawlessness seems to have already died.

When Pope Michael said "the Antichrist has already come and gone again" he referred to "Paul VI"

19:48 No. Precisely not.

As a former Protestant, but one who never bought into that ideology, I know it.

The people like Calvin and Newton are not claiming that this specific Pope is the individual either Man of Lawlessness or Beast or False Prophet. They are not into an all that literal reading of the Apocalypse. If "Millenarianism" doesn't refer to (as it properly should) stating there will be a thousand years between certain just and all impious rising with less glorious just, and those risen first will enjoy a bodily reign, but simply an imminent expectation of the End Times, then those Protestants are not such.

They have taken (and it's official dogma within 7 Day Adventism) the 1260 days of Antichrist, not as 1260 times 24 hours, like the Apocalypse says, but as 1260 times anything between 360 and 365.25 times 24 hours. Sabbatarians have pretended to trace the beginning of those 1260 years to a council of Orange or Orléans (forget which) enforcing Sunday repose and the end of them to the captivity of Pius VI by a French Revolutionary general acting on behalf of Napoleon.

That ideology is therefore very far from being a twin to this type of claim from Dimond Brothers.

On the contrary, you can see Catholic Bibles from the Middle Ages, adorned in Apocalypse section, with an image of a bride, from which a beast head has been decapitated and on which Christ replaces a head like His own. In other words, the Church being in the end times for a certain time misdirected by the Beast - collectively, not without remnant, otherwise the promise would be broken - is part of a Catholic view on Biblical prophecy. Check with a Medievalist.

You could perhaps state that Catholic doctrine bans date setting. This is a "biggie" with Ratzinger, since he was "Cardinal" - but the fact is, the enjoinment in Apocalypse 13:18 is not empty, there must be persons for which the order to count the number of a name is not forbidden, but a duty. And the doctrine you refer to is from Lateran V, where it is a purely canonic one, it should not be treated as definite dogma.

And the non-authorisation spoken of by Leo X could have gone to its end in the First World War, because the Roman Emperor was taken out of the way then, both in Austria and in Russia. Confer II Thess. If Emperor Francis Joseph had not been griefstruck after a second of his sons was killed, a first having killed himself, if he had not been indignated over Serbia being ungrateful for the support given them against Bulgaria in one of the Balkan wars, if he had not seen himself as a kind of superior liberator from the Turks and Serbia just as a byproduct, in other words, if he had not acted like Bush Jr after Sept 11 against Afghanistan, but against a Christian country, a Christian sovereign, or if the Czar had offered to mediate in a way which would have left some better chances of hanging Gavril Princip than Serbia offered, we might still be in a state where "the one holding back" were still holding back and date setting were still forbidden. According to Lateran V.

20:22 As said, no, mainstream Protestants do not and Jesuits of the time did, enforce a literal reading of the Apocalypse as about a specific short period called the end times (except the chapters that are about all of the NT period).

You are misrepresenting Protestantism to accuse Dimond of it.

Plus, even if it had been the case, you do not find that view condemned in Trent. We cannot say "Protestantism is wrong, therefore all the things that Protestants say are wrong, therefore this man agreeing with a Protestant statement (a statement stated by Protestants and viewed by them as Protestant) is also wrong because he is a Protestant." What Protestants say is wrong whenever it is condemned by Trent (or Unigenitus or Exsurge Domine ...) and not simply each time it is approved by a lot of Protestants.

20:28 we do not state the Protestants were wrong for going that route, because I don't agree that is what the Protestants actually did.

Baronius even didn't.

He was saying "the Magdeburg Centuries are wrong in stating that the papacy" - over time, a very prolonged time - "represents Antichrist" ... so he was not attributing a short term, one generation, End Times vision to the Reformation. Pour cause, he was dealing with a non-literal and highly prolonged view of that prophecy.

"L'opera fu pubblicata la prima volta tra il 1588 e il 1607 come una risposta alla Historia Ecclesiae Christi (Storia della Chiesa di Cristo) luterana, in cui i teologi di Magdeburgo esaminavano la storia della chiesa al fine di dimostrare come la Chiesa cattolica rappresentasse l'Anticristo ed avesse deviato dalle credenze e dalle pratiche della chiesa primitiva."

In other words, he knew, as you do not know, the Classic Protestant charge of Papacy as Antichrist is really about Papacy not about one or two popes, not about a seven Pope series hinting at it (it would start from 1929, when Mussolini gave and Pius XI accepted a new entity in international diplomacy called the Vatican State).

Calvin considered Gregory the Great as great, but considered his first or second successor was "the first Pope to be Antichrist" meaning Calvinism classically states that there has been THE Antichrist continuously on Earth since early 7th C. A very different proposal from that of the Dimond Brothers!

20:45 If you challenge that view, are you supporting the view that a Temple of OT cultus will be rebuilt in Jerusalem?

Bc, that is against statements, I think dogmatic ones, that the OT cultus was voided of not just salvific content by being a proxy for Christian confession, but also even of lawfulness.

Here is the Haydock comment on that part of the verse:

And the man of sin[7] revealed, the son of perdition, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. He is called again, (v. 8.) that wicked one . . . whom the Lord Jesus Christ shall kill with the spirit of his mouth. By all these words is described to us the great antichrist, about the end of the world, according to the unexceptionable authority and consent of the ancient fathers. It is as ridiculous as malicious to pretend, with divers later reformers, that the pope, and all the popes since the destruction of the Roman empire, are the great antichrist, the man of sin, &c. Grotius, Dr. Hammond, and divers learned Protestants, have confuted and ridiculed this groundless fable, of which more on the Apocalypse. It may suffice to observe here that antichrist, the man of sin, the son of perdition, the wicked one, according to all the ancients, is to be one particular man, not so many different men. That he is to come a little while before the day of judgment. That he will make himself be adored, and pretend to be God. What pope did so? That he will pretend to be Christ, &c. Wi. — S. Aug. (de Civ. Dei. b. xx. c. 19.) says, that an attack would be made at one and the same time against the Roman empire and the Church. The Roman empire subsists as yet, in Germany, though much weakened and reduced. The Roman Catholic Church, notwithstanding all its losses, and the apostacy of many of its children, has always remained the same. Calmet. — The two special signs of the last day will be a general revolt, and the manifestation of antichrist, both of which are so dependent on each other, that S. Austin makes but one of both. What presumptive folly in Calvin and other modern reformers, to oppose the universal sentiments of the fathers both of the Latin and Greek Church! What inconsistency, to give such forced interpretations, not only widely different from the expositions of sound antiquity, but also widely different from each other! The Church of God, with her head, strong in the promises of Jesus Christ, will persevere to the end, frustra circumlatrantibus hæreticis. Aug. de util. cred. c. xvii. — In the temple. Either that of Jerusalem, which some think he will rebuild; or in some Christian Church, which he will pervert to his own worship; as Mahomet has done with the churches of the east. Ch.

Here I stop.

Was the "Pachamama statue" (nearly universally known as such) an Our Lady statue, even if "Pope Francis" had brought up Pachamama? Reason & Theology supports the former.

I think the "Demiurg with an omnipotent magic wand" speech in 2014 was sufficient even without Pachamama, and there it is a thing he has explained again and again, he does not believe Adam was created directly from God as to the body. Despite Pius XII making a kind of moratorium or sham moratorium on the issue in 1950, I don't think this can stand as acceptable from a Catholic believer.
/Hans Georg, signing out from that lengthy video.

Tuesday, September 20, 2022

Bodie Hodge on Babel, Me Commenting


Tower of Babel
1st of March 2019 | Answers VBS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSo7orJ6ijU


0:20 Mr Bodie Hodge!

I suppose you will mainly get into the effects of Babel. I would not expect too many differences between us there.

However, I'd like to ask (in case you don't adress it in the video, or if you'd like to include a time signature in a short answer) - where do you put Babel in time and space, archaeologically?

1) lost before the Upper or even all Palaeolithic?
2) found by Doug Petrovich in early stages of a ziggurat near Ur?
3) sometime in between, perhaps also found?

I'd go with three.

The Flood precedes the Upper Palaeolithic, it merges into Mesolithic around the death of Noah 350 years later, when it's at least in Göbekli Tepe with surroundings replaced by Neolithic, and when Göbekli Tepe is covered in sand, it's because the language split made cooperation impossible, near the birth of Peleg 401 after the Flood.

Göbekli Tepe fits the geographic direction, West of the landing place, the geographic locale, a plain found inside the space between Euphrates and Tigris, and the archaeologic time between Flood ("39 000 BP" for 2957 BC) and Abraham in defense of Sodom ("3500 BC" for 1938 BC), so, if there is something it doesn't fit, say. And before you bring up "Babel" = "Babylon" in Hebrew, have you noted that US has a Boston that has a similar name to a place in UK?

3:16 Ah, I hadn't thought of that when accepting the Bible (thanks to ma)! It means I am related to Mr. Hodge!

4:22 It would be one difference here.

I think people in general went different places directly after the Flood.

As for "they" who said to each other "before we be scattered abroad into all lands" - that "they" doesn't necessarily mean "all the earth" and here is a grammatical reason.

All the earth is feminine singular. They is for translating a verb in third person masculine plural, not third person feminine singular.

In English, if the subject had remained the same after "all the earth" we would expect somewhat "it" in the next sentence - but in English, that would not make sense, to refer to speakers in neutre.

However, Hebrew doesn't have neutre. At a limit, in order to get a meaning of "each other" rather than "itself, himself, herself" you'd need plural, so that blows the full on feminine singular congruence anyway, but you don't have that problem with the first verb in verse 2.

So, when all the earth has one language, that means the descendants of Noah already spread out.

But who then does not want to be scattered? I'd say a global élite. Like the kind of people who enjoy meeting up in New York or Paris these days. Or even City of London, unless they are too much against monarchy. If "they" refers to a subset of humanity, the different skin colours, nose shapes, hair textures, eye angles, lip thicknesses, and so on started diversifying already after the Flood and before Babel. Or perhaps it only started showing after Babel - I have seen somewhere that modern races emerge as recently as "6000 BC" which to my calibration means at more recent than 2556 BC. I look it up, that would be around 2287 B. Chr. - more than two, less than three centuries before Abraham was born in 2015 BC.

6:02 Lebensborn was also about supporting unborn mothers.

Pushing unwed teens and SS-officers into using that seems to have been an abuse fairly prevalent from time to time, but at least better than abortion (provided mother was "Aryan" and child not handicapped).

Btw, blonde and blue eyed are parts of the Nordic type, and the German race types were five different ones, including Dinaric. Nicolas Tezla doesn't strike me as blonde or blue eyed, but he was German (if he hadn't been Serbian) as far as race was concerned.

Unborn mothers, meant unwed, of course.

6:11 Forced sterilisation is a horrible evil whether the purpose is a "master race" or avoiding certain diseases, real or presumed such.

In Sweden Lapps and Gipsies were sterilised forcefully if living the ancestral lifestyles, since vagrancy was seen as a mental deficiency.

Unlike Hitler's version, it didn't end in 1945, but continued to the 70's.

The detail of married people being forced to participate in adultery is one I missed.

Either way, all of these evils, including the abuses of Lebensborn, were absent from Austrofascism. That's not revisionism, it's just a historic fact.

And they were also so for a long time in Italian Fascism.

28:12 "all of the features of Neanderthals are with the human population even today"

Actually only 33 % sth of their genome is preserved - and usually not adding up in any individual to more than c. 2 %

Their mitochondriae, their Y-Chromosomes and the phenotype of bell shaped thorax are missing.

32:17 I'd disagree here.

Nebuchadnezzar may have thought that old ziggurat was the one they tried to build back then, but it wasn't.

He may also have lost track of history when it comes to getting as far back as that.

THOUGH in Ur (Woolley's Ur, not Urfa in Turkey near Syrian border) they have found a small scale model which to Graham Hancock looks as if it was of Göbekli Tepe (which actually is near Urfa).

33:34 Arguably Heber and Peleg both kept the pre-Babel language, as they were shirkers from Nimrod's project.

That's how St. Augustine views it, anyway!

34:13 Just before you compliment (or tease) your wife, let me guess : you are from Tennessee?

[34:40] In modern Swedish spelling the Old English would be spelled:

Fädder ore dho dhe ärt ån hövånom (adding dh, which was disused in Swedish during the 17th C.)
Or a bit older pronunciation of same Old English spelling:
Fädder ore dho dhe äart ån heövånom.

To compare, the modern English would be spelled:
Auer fadher ho art in hävven.

I would say Old English looks far more Dutch than German.

34:19 Austrian is not classed as an own Germanic language, it is classed as a dialect of the Bavarian dialect group of German, which is a Germanic language.

35:01 High German is what is usually called German. Low German comes in two versions, namely Dutch and Plattdeutsch. In Amsterdam Low German is Dutch, in Berlin it is Plattdeutsch. Both differ from High German consonants basically the same way (with English alignining more or less on Low German, not quite, it keeps the thorn sound which is D in both Low and High German), but differ between them mainly in the vowels.

High German : das Haus
Berliner Platt : dat Haus
Dutch : het huis
English : the house, Old English had "that" where modern English has "the."

THEN Skandinavian languages are also Germanic:

Swedish, Danish, Norwegian Bokmål : huset (differences of pronunciation)
Icelandic, Faroese : húsið.

36:15 And obviously, the idea of language evolving from brute communications still is as mysterious and uncharted as abiogenesis.

One big reason to reject evolution right away, whether the human language be one, on the Ark, or many, from Babel to present.

36:34 In English, I'd go with Bad-bell, minus one d and one L.

In Swedish I say Bahbel.

I never say Beybel.

37:11 That said, Spanish theologians who defended the unity of the human kind against a first onset of racism when Conquistadors saw child sacrifice, were into this scenario:
  • Americas were peopled from Old World, via Atlantis.
  • then Atlantis sank, as Plato said. And crossing the AtlantiC now one wide Ocean, was suddenly harder.


Australia was arguably peopled when Sahul Sunda was very much less wide as a straight. Under the ice age.

38:42 Would you mind giving a link to the Olmec-West African connexion, and who discovered it?

51:09 By now, I can note, the diagram putting the tower in Iraq is wrong in that. Genesis 11:2 wants a Babel West of the landing place, not South of it.

52:23 One cause three effects.

More cosmic radiation.

1) The most physically traceable effect : the C14 levels went up by a 10 times quicker production of the isotope between Flood and end of Babel.
2) The most historically known one : ages went down because that radiation damaged the genome.
Other damage of genome is apparent when Fu Hsi in China (pre-Babel) and Kekrops in Athens (post-Babel) both seem born with the Siren syndrome.
3) And cosmic radiation is ionising radiation, means colder weather - this speeded up the Ice Age.

58:17 Not just a mild judgment, it was a judgement harsher on tyrants like Nimrod and indeed a boon for his erstwhile victims.

Think if you had had a harsh as Hell boss (I hadn't ever, but I have other bad experiences with Employers) and suddenly you don't have a common language anymore, he can't boss you about anymore.

Who Has Taunted the Stranger for Real?


Diversity is Not Martha's Vineyard’s Strength | Ep 680
19.IX.2022 | Allie Beth Stuckey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lpjWS1UH5U


24:14 Actually, the OT command doesn't say "welcome the foreigner" it says "do not make the foreigner sad" - a pretty big difference.

If you tell a foreigner "no, we can't take you, but perhaps Martha's Vineyard can" you are not making him sad.

But if you say "yeah, you can stay" and next day tell him "no, you can't have this job if you have a beard" and the day after "no, you can't decide how to raise your children" and the day after that "no, we need to lock you up for your own good" - you are definitely breaking it. There is no way that is not making him sad.

yabits
The Torah (OT) specifically says in Leviticus 19 that the "stranger" among us MUST be treated as the "native born." "You shall love him as you love yourself -- because you were once strangers in Egypt.. I AM THE LORD."

Not make them sad? ... Don't know why you'd corrupt G-D's word as you have, but you're a perfect addition to Stuckey's horde.

Put another way, if you cause them to FEEL UNWELCOME, how is that not making them sad?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@yabits [33] If a stranger dwell in your land, and abide among you, do not upbraid him: [34] But let him be among you as one of the same country: and you shall love him as yourselves: for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

What was the first phrase?

"If a stranger dwell in your land, and abide among you,"

Not "if a stranger has just recently crossed your border" - right?

My whole point is, btw, that there are other ways to feel someone unwelcome that are far worse than telling him to move on (after obviously giving him a decent meal, so he doesn't have to stagger on trembling from hunger).

yabits
@Hans-Georg Lundahl -- the Hebrew word that has been given as "upbraid" above is (לֹא תוֹנוּ) -- which means "torment" or "taunt."

"Hey, what are you doing here? When did you cross our border?"

For "I am the Lord YOUR G-D" -- the Hebrew for "Your" is plural (אלֹהֵיכֶם) -- meaning I AM both your G-d and the stranger's G-d too." Never forget that.

This world belongs entirely to HaShem.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@yabits There are other taunts and torments than "when did you cross our border."

At 35 years, in Copenhagen, I could not restart my studies in Copenhagen instead of Lund, when passing Osnabrück, I could not restart them there either. I had been homeless for a few months, and some guys deciding at universities thought of me as already pariah. After my 36th birthday, I found out the term had already started at the university of Santiago de Compostela, so absolutely there too.

That was "move on"

A few weeks ago, I was still 53. I have been in Paris for 13 years and a few months.

There is no "move on, you don't belong here" but there very clearly is a mafia who are taunting me for my beliefs, including obviously this one, that telling someone to move on is the worst taunt or torment you can do to him.

I am a writer, I am not homeless because I am unproductive, but because of a Leftist mafia who wants my writing not to count, because they want to "forgive me" when later on I change my mind, which is not happening.

That mafia has really saddened the stranger!

@yabits Or what about the Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Freemasons, Commies, Tolerant Anglicans, Clumsy Russian Orthodox who think I have to leave Catholicism behind before I can be a writer?

Note, I said "writer" - not scribe as defined by the Old Law.

Plus obviously a few "Catholics" who oblige them by inventing reasons to not treat me as a Catholic writer.


39:45 No, our illegal immigration crisis would be over the day after tomorrow.

You said 48 hours, not 24!

41:27 Do you really want to enforce all of the present immigration policy? Like the jab?

Monday, September 19, 2022

In memory of Edda Goering, daughter of Hermann and Emmy


Nazi Princesses - The Fates of Top Nazis' Wives & Mistresses
22nd Febr. 2021 | Mark Felton Productions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YONpJzybto


It may be noted, on the "last item" that the Goering couples saved pretty many Jews.

It may be noted, that at Emmy's trial, mutual acquaintances were allowed to testify, hence a fairly light sentence, while Hermann's trial involved no such implication of civilians, it was a military trial.

And it may be noted also that my grandfather, having some kind of right to Aliyah, perhaps, and certainly visiting the Holy Land met a couple who credited Hermann personally with them getting out of Germany in time and that safely.

So Far Confirming my Theories


Before you watch this video, and read the few comments I put under it (replicated under the link to it), some of you already know, some don't, that my theory of the Neanderthal and Denisovan extinction was, like Sapiens, they occurred as pre-Flood races, and the survivors on the Ark were mainly Sapiens, but one way to explain the Neanderthal admixture is, Noah's daughters in law or one of them, had a Neanderthal father but a Sapiens mother.

As she had her mitochondrial DNA from a Sapiens, we have no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA (there could be one counterexample from Italy). As she was a woman, she did not inherit her Neanderthal father's Y chromosome.

And the Flood arrived, when the atmosphere had 1.4 percent modern Carbon (pmC) giving 35 000 extra years beyond the actual age of organic things from then. The carbon date from Gorham cave on Gibraltar at 24 000 BP is charcoal, from a fire not made by Neanderthals, but by post-Flood surviving relatives : the Neanderthal half breed in Noah's daughters in law is showing her family the Mousterian technique.

Here is the video, and it makes mince meat of some ideas on he Neanderthals, enumerating one after another the ideas of Sapiens superiority, and then refuting them:

Neanderthal Apocalypse | Full Science Documentary - Part 1
12th Sept. 2022 | Get.factual
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1IV12E9DkI


[To new finds on Gibraltar:]

5:32 I am noting, the cave where Neanderthal bones might be getting unearthed as we watch, a campfire is carbon dated 47 000 BP.

[To Neanderthal "murder victim," though it could have been self defense or war, carbon date and cut by sharp and narrow weapon:]

18:59 Noting, a certain Neanderthal bone is carbon dated 40 - 50 000 BP.

20:00 Noting, as a YEC, iron is not off limits for the pre-Flood world ...

[To resumé leading up to next part:]

49:40 In the wrong place at the wrong time ... like not on the Ark that saved eight, mainly Sapiens with some slighter Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture?

Next video? May be upcoming. I am now subscribed to the channel, if it comes within a week from the first, this will be made more complete before publication.

GorillaGuerilla🇺🇦
No, because "the Ark" is a fairytale!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@GorillaGuerilla🇺🇦 Would you mind telling me what community of people are taking Rapunzel as history?

You are aware that the Ark was considered history by the earliest audience of which we know the assessments?


Ah, here it is, on time!

A Super Volcano Killed the Neanderthals | Full Science Documentary - Part 2
19th Sept. 2022 | Get.factual
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhW8ENiAvz4


18:23 "forty thousand years ago, the Neanderthal's world is rapidly disappearing"

In the radiocarbon dating. This is why I take radiocarbon date 40 000 BP / 38 000 BC as carbon date for the Flood.

zipper pillow
Dude, nobody cares.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@zipper pillow which is obviously why you care to answer, as well as two or three others doing so ... within less than a day since my comment - and posting them on my blog too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
sorry, and within less than a day from my posting the comment, and others like it on my blog too.


22:38 And the dating of Lake Toba, which I consider to be part of eruptions during the Flood, is not by radiocarbon, so the date does not need to be the same.

Kublaicarl
What flood?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Kublaicarl One described in the Bible in chapters 7 to 8, occurred in 2957 BC according to the Biblical Chronology of the Historia Scholastica, also incorporated into the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day (read during Midnight Mass), and for which I cast the appropriate carbon date as 39000 Before Present.

The Supervolcanos (mostly, not the Santorini or 1815 AD eruptions) erupted that year, the one which is carbon dated matches the carbon date I predicted : 40 000 BP - sorry, just 39 000 BP. I had to change my carbon 14 level in the atmosphere from 1.4 pmC to 1.628 pmC.


32:26 Aha ... I wonder how many super volcano calderas are simply from the Flood, the one mentioned in the Bible.

It could be all of them were. As far as I know.

Mount Tambora was obviously one of the calderas. And that eruption was in 1815 AD. That one's out.

33:11 Unlike Toba, this was carbon dated.

39 000 BP - like my carbon date for the Flood.

Except it's 1000 years off.

39 000 BP - 2000 AD = 37 000 BC
37 000 BC - 2957 BC = 34043 extra carbon years.

According to an Earth Science from Australia provided Carbon 14 Calculator, 34 043 years = 1.628 pmC.

I had put my level at 1.4 pmC.

tbitfiddler
So, you personally did carbon date "the Flood"? Citation? What peer-reviewed papers did you produce on the subject?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@tbitfiddler I did not personally carbon date anything.

When I speak about "my carbon date for the Flood" I mean this : Creationists tend to disagree on what kind of uniformitarian dating corresponds to the Flood and when the post-Flood era begins in palaeontology and archaeology. My take is: 1) geologic era assignments mean nothing per se, unless you can show Ice age and Younger Dryas both being post-Flood; 2) volcanic magma dated by K-Ar is often from the Flood, or even typically, even if the K-Ar dates vary quite a lot. Tautavel man under K-Ar dated lava "300 000 years old" = Flood; Lucy under K-Ar dated lava dated "1 or 2 million years old" = Flood ... exceptions would be historic eruptions (some of which do date to 1 mill in the parts where the lava got under sufficient cold water), and eruptions tied to Ice age or Younger Dryas; 3) carbon dates are the interesting lot, and quite a lot of carbon dates ending in 40 000 BP (notably carbon dated Neanderthals and Denisovans) seem to be remains of pre-Flood populations.

"Citation?"

From others? Well, this video for one and the part 1, no Neanderthal bones as yet shown from after 40 000 BP (carbon dated). Significantly (to me) the expert from Gibraltar dug up bones in a cave (not the very famous Gorham cave) and they were dated to sth a bit earlier than 40 000 BP (47 000 BP?) (unlike the charcoals in the Gorham cave).

"What peer-reviewed papers did you produce on the subject?"

As internet content producer I have produced a post based on my comments here and on part 1, which you, as a peer, also internet content producer, are right now reviewing.

I had however taken 40 000 BP (now corrected to 39 000 BP as per this video) as my carbon date for the Flood earlier, it can be seen in my latest update on my Biblical carbon 14 calibration, search "New Tables" + "creavsevolu" (with or without citation marks, whichever works best), and you get a post from 2020, after the confinement. This carbon date for real year 2957 BC (Flood year) is however also available on earlier calibration tables. Feel free to peer review that one too!

tbitfiddler
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah, some confusing choice of words then (the "my" part) - a suggestion is to be a bit more clear about that. In any case, I'm still in want of peer-reviewed papers about carbon-dated events related to "the Flood" - and by peer I don't mean people such as myself, I mean scientifically produced papers and research which have been re-tested and re-evaluated by other experts in the field.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@tbitfiddler "a suggestion is to be a bit more clear about that."

I don't have to explain and double-explain and triple-explain every term that just possibly could be misunderstood, thanks to your intervention the post with these comments now contains the kind of clarification that you are asking for.

"I'm still in want of peer-reviewed papers about carbon-dated events related to 'the Flood' "

Did you miss the video this is under?

The other video?

They are about "last Neanderthals" and it so happens that "last Neanderthals" are people which I associate with the Flood.

They are also about a supervolcano, as mentioned I think nearly all of them actually went off at the same time, namely precisely the Flood. Now, this supervolcano was through the volcanic ash carbon dated to 39000 BP The other ones aren't carbon dated, so give no contradicting carbon date for the Flood.

That the Neanderthals in La Ferrassie and El Sidrón have carbon dates 40 000 BP is also from what you call peer reviewed papers.

Is your point everyone outside those publishing such (as contributors, peer reviewers and editors of magazines) should stop thinking at this point, think no further, draw no own conclusions? If so, you have basically made it.


37:28 Not precluding the possibility, the blasts for Mount Samsari (not carbon dated, therefore could be contemporaneos, as far as carbon dates are concerned) or for for Štiavnica Mountains could have same chemical profile if also from the Flood (which I think they would be), the 4 feet of ash in Romania 700 miles from Campi Flegrei would show a power to the eruption, which if multiplied during the Flood would be one explanation of why "the fountains of the deep" gave up their water.

Nathan Barber
The Flood? You mean the one from the Bible for which there is no geologic evidence?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Nathan Barber For which there is geologic evidence sorted into categories like Jurassic (like the Pterosaur at Anckerschlag in Tyrol) or Miocene (like the whale at Lienz, Upper Austria).

That being geologic evidence for the effects. And I didn't even mention the sediments, just the fossils, so far.

We have a geologic evidence in regards to the causes in most Supervolcanos.

The ones outside Campi Flegrei are not carbon dated, we cannot preclude that if carbon dated they would also date 39 000 BP, and they make great sense during the Flood, which was my point in the original comment.

Nathan Barber
@Hans-Georg Lundahl “The Flood” never happened, which is the point of my reply. It is a myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Nathan Barber 1) prove your allegation; 2) define "myth" - it's a word with more than one meaning.

Nathan Barber
@Hans-Georg Lundahl you’re the one claiming there was a Biblical flood. I think the burden of proof is on you, chap. My proof is that there is no geologic evidence of such an event. If it supposedly happened a few thousand years ago, why didn’t it kill all the people living in the Americas, Africa, Europe, Asia, and Australia at that time? Why don’t the myths from other religions describe the same event at the same time? Why don’t they tell the story of Noah?

Because it’s a myth. Grow up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Nathan Barber "My proof is that there is no geologic evidence of such an event."

You skipped my answer to that one.

Evidence in fossils as effects, evidence in rock layers as effect, evidence in supervolcanos as causes, of which the only carbon dated one fits what's my carbon age for the Flood anyway.

"If it supposedly happened a few thousand years ago, why didn’t it kill all the people living in the Americas, Africa, Europe, Asia, and Australia at that time?"

It arguably did kill quite a lot of people living in Europe and Asia at the time : Neanderthals, Denisovans-Heidelbergians-Antecessors (the Denisovan and Neanderthal additions to our genome arguably came from Spain where both Antecessors in Atapuerca and Neanderthals in Gibraltar, but not Gorham cave have been found).

Australia and Americas had no people in carbon dated 39 000 BP.

"Why don’t the myths from other religions describe the same event at the same time? Why don’t they tell the story of Noah?"

They do with more or less variation in detail (Hindus have placed it 10 000 years before the death of Krishna which was actually a pre-Flood event, along with Rama's recovering his wife, which was an early post-Flood one, to give an illusion of continuity between their own society and Krishna's). And for the record, the one area where many variations are to be expected is chronology. German legend has one battle of Ravenna, with Theoderic of Verona against Ermaneric. There were two battles of Ravenna, and the one with Ermaneric was in the century previous to the one with Theoderic.

@Nathan Barber PS, once again you appealed to the word "myth" without duly defining it!

Danny Brown
@Hans-Georg Lundahl you DON'T Carbon date a volcanic rock...rockhead

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Danny Brown It appears, some Volcanic ash contains some kind of carbon datable material.

Not lava. Ash.

Danny Brown
@Hans-Georg Lundahl prove...a negative...come on

Danny Brown
@Nathan Barber you loose man...you can't reason with faith. It is not logical. If you show PROOF then you destroy foundation

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Danny Brown You are wrong on the definition of faith.

You are also wrong on the distinction between lava and volcanic ash, thinking there isn't any.

Lava is what came from when it was magma in the innards of the earth, or at least of the mantle, and it does not contain organic material and cannot be carbon dated.

Ash is what things - including organic things - burn down to when a lava flow burns them to ashes.


[Saving my comments under 42:11 and 43:29 for last, since they are part of my case, in proving my point, or allowing others to disprove it.]

45:39 Obviously, the eruption of Yellowstone at another date than carbon dated 39 000 BP (or historically dated 2957 BC) is potentially due to the dating method not being carbon dates.

LauraJane LuvsBeauty
Yes, that has bothered me in this series because they keep saying they carbon dated things that just can’t be carbon dated! Only things that were living can be carbon dated

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@LauraJane LuvsBeauty Volcanic ash and lava are two different things. When a lava flow burns up lots and lots of living things, that gives volcanic ash, and volcanic ash can be carbon dated.


42:11 Have any Neanderthal skeleta from the region (anything in Neanderthal country outside Pyrenees or Central Asia) been found with traces of fluorine poisoning?

Because, if I am right, and this was in the Flood, they would all drown well before having time to get fluorine into their system, even by the air they breathe.

43:29 As said - on Gibraltar, how many Neanderthal skeleta or parts of such or teeth have been:
a) found?
b) dated to more recent than 39 000 BP in carbon dates?

The carbon date for Goreham Cave 24 000 BP is from a fire. It is the carbon of firewood, not of human bones.

So, if a Neanderthal were found in a cave of Gibraltar and carbon dated to 25 000 BP, that would refute my theory - unless it were a fraud. But so far, I don't know of any that did so date.

Case in point. A skeleton dated to "31,000 BP" when found (before carbon dating) and now redated to "Aurignacian, part of the Upper Paleolithic period (roughly 43,000 to 26,000 years ago)" is qualified as "one of the oldest Homo sapiens found in Europe." - Story on LiveScience, here. And the wiki states: "Direct AMS dating of the human fossils from Mladeč yielded uncalibrated dates of around 31,190 BP for Mladeč 1, 31,320 BP for Mladeč 2, 30,680 BP for Mladeč 8 and 26,330 BP for Mladeč 25c." - The reference is: Wild, Eva M.; et al. (2006). "Chapter 7: 14C dating of early Upper Palaeolithic human and faunal remains from Mladecˇ". In Teschler-Nicola, Maria (ed.). Early Modern Humans at the Moravian Gate: The Mladecˇ Caves and their Remains. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-211-23588-1.