Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: October 2022

Sunday, October 30, 2022

Right Person, Right Age, Rights on Marriage

Marrying the Right Person w/ Jackie Francois Angel
Pints With Aquinas, 28 Oct. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98ozGTvoo-c

NPC 37724: Married at 50? You're crazy lol might as well follow saint Paul and stay celibate at that point.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: For a woman you are right.

For a man no, he still has more than a decade he could get children. If he lives that long.
Xo Ho: [taken away]
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Xo Ho perhaps a thing to say to NPC 37724, but not to me
Xo Ho: @Hans-Georg Lundahl i did reply to that person
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Xo Ho OK, thanks!
NPC 37724: @Hans-Georg Lundahl that's disgusting, you'd have to marry a woman 20 to 30 years younger that you for a decent chance at children.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @NPC 37724 So, what is disgusting about that?

By your comment on saint Paul, I conclude you are Christian and not a Pagan Aztek?
NPC 37724: @Hans-Georg Lundahl if you don't think marrying someone 20 to 30 years younger than you is gross that's on you
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @NPC 37724 To make my point clear : in Aztek laws prior to Spanish Conquest, everyone had to marry between 18 and 20. With someone else also between 18 and 20.

The Catholic Church law has no maxima for age difference, only minima for age.

update: Obviously I take that on me.

If you think it is gross, that's on you and you have no backdrop in the Catholic faith or tradition for it.
NPC 37724: @Hans-Georg Lundahl you do you weirdo
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @NPC 37724 you like insulting historic people in Europe, including arguably your own ancestry a few centuries back?

I don't.

A couple ancestral to prince Albert (ancestor of Elizbeth II and Charles III, remember) was married in 1750, with the wife born in 1720 and the husband on 1687.

He had no heir from first marriage when widowed and obviously the second marriage didn't take an age peer into account, as much as a woman in fertile years.

Or look up the Bible. Ruth married a man who praised her (Ruth 3:10) for taking an older man: Blessed art thou of the Lord, my daughter, and thy latter kindness has surpassed the former: because thou hast not followed young men either poor or rich.
NPC 37724
[volontarily withdrawn or deleted]: @Hans-Georg Lundahl nigga give it a rest. You're old and wanna marry younger women, good for you nasty. I still say it's gross, but that's my opinion.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @NPC 37724 I would not have anything specifically against gentlemen of colour, but I am not one.

Your opinion is based on what principle?

Besides, one younger woman would suffice me.
Lord Honksworth: @Hans-Georg Lundahl For some reason, particularly in Traditionalist circles, there is an expectation that men "man up" and marry some barely reformed harlot their own age (regardless of how handsome and accomplished these men may be), even if she's unlikely to bear him children. Feminism is deeply entrenched even in Catholic circles
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Lord Honksworth Thank you for the explanation.

The one thing that is news, though I am not flabberghasted, is, "particularly in Traditionalist circles" and in particular the word "particularly"

I am not very handsome, not very accomplished, do not see reformed harlots as the only option my age (there are widows), but I still prefer children of my own over taking over those of a dead man and barely giving them even one younger sibling. Especially if one of the daughters of the dead man were to be the kind of teen face I fancy. I would not like risking to get involved incestuously with a stepdaughter.

I don't see changing that as "manning up" ... I am probably more traditional than some Traditionalists.

5:53 You are happy your sister waited to 32. Holiness is one thing.
But, there is also gynaecology.

Your sister may get issues at childbirth which she wouldn't have had if she had married 10 years earlier.

My mother - who had gynaecology as favourite speciality at med school, but settled for second favourite as assistant doctor, bc gyns in Sweden are required to participate in abortions - would not have advised it.

Xo Ho: My mom birthed me at 32, and my bro at 40. She's doing fine.
Joe McNeil: You can't refuse marriage just because you're in your 30's. God allows what he allows, & women can have babies through their 40's
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Joe McNeil I wasn't saying she should refuse marriage.

I said she was not wise to wait so long.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Xo Ho And not many more, I suppose?
Joe McNeil: @Hans-Georg Lundahl but not everyone can control their age when they marry. I think many wait too long for the "perfect" person out of selfish reasons, but there are a good amount who just can't find anyone worth marrying.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Joe McNeil true.

Or the ones they found were protected against them - my case, I am 54.

With women, this age would mean the near impossibility of children, as I am a man, no.

6:25 "if you are a miserable single person, you are going to be a miserable married person"

Even when the root of the misery is the prohibition on a certain urge outside marriage?

6:30 Marriage may not fix all problems, but it certainly is "in remedium concupiscentiae" - "remedium" is Latin for fixing a problem, right?

There is another kind of problem too, namely if you are up against certain actors who disrespect a person who is unmarried and respect him if he's married.

I have not chosen to get readers who lurk and never comment, who agree to highlight any post at a max of 20 views per day, unless the post is from last day, who agree to stay 3000 views in the world whereof 2000 in France per day and who agree to watch and rewatch the exact same posts that happen to annoy them.

Yes, I made a fault in French about gender in 2012, both "couilles" and "video" are feminine and it's a bit paradox to me, first bc where they are located and second bc no -e. Yes, I prefer CSL and JRRT over Isaac Asimov and not just the Bible but even GKC over both Quran and Talmud. No, pushing me to eat much and sleep little will not make me expert at flirting.

They could either accept things and interact or not accept them and ditch me, but they seem unable to do either.

And Catholics who listen to them are unable to stop:
1) being silent about me
2) even so replying to me.

If you chose to call such people Catholics.

"watch and rewatch" - or read and reread.

[My comment is about statistics seen and commented on here:
New blog on the kid : Stability of Readers and of Read Posts
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/10/stability-of-readers-and-of-read-posts.html ]

German, U S American, or What Else ...?

American vs. German Christianity: I HAD NO IDEA It was This Different
The Black Forest Family, 30 Oct. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qJTnq2DuPM

13:30* Reminds me of Heinrich Babenberg. Nicknamed "Jasomirgott" = "ja, so mir Gott [helfe]" (the usual explanation in schools when I was a child, but look up Heinrich II. (Österreich) for further discussion)

Final Q
I am in a sense disqualified, as neither German nor US American.

But in a sense I am qualified too. I am no complete stranger to either.

When my ma at last had a chance to start giving me a Christian education, she took me for a summer to the US. I don't know if you know a group that is called "The Walk" but we stayed a lot with them. Including in Anaheim itself.

When we got back, it wasn't to Sweden, but to Austria. Ma had to decide what confession I was to be given Religionsunterricht in. It seems Lutheran wasn't available, so between Calvinist and Catholic, she chose Catholic. Leaving exactly one Calvinist girl the sole person in the class to not have Religionsunterricht with us, but to go somewhere else outside school hours.

Now, my take, I am pretty much for the idea of Church Tax and of Religionsunterricht. I also think this could be extended to Science classes - you could chose Evolutionist or Creationist precisely as you chose Catholic or Calvinist.

I am also highly for the US degree of belief and Church going.

So, if I might describe my ideal, but in places and times a bit outside what I have actually called home, it would be more like Franco's Spain or DeValera's Ireland.

BOTH a high degree of religious practise and belief AND state funding for certain religious confessions.

* Scenes of US Presidents sworn in on Bibles with the words of "so help me God"

Friday, October 28, 2022

How do we know that the writers of Genesis didn't make it up?

Own answer to Q

How do we know that the writers of Genesis didn't make it up?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-know-that-the-writers-of-Genesis-didnt-make-it-up/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

28.X.2022

Sts Simon and Jude

For any given text, if it is a narrative, the alternative “made up” or “history” is best decided by the following question:

Did the earliest known audience (ideally the very first audience if it is still known to us) consider it as made up or history?

An author who made a story up would have trouble convincing people around him it was history that they all remembered. One shot would be “history that was lost and that NN” (the actual writer who made it up) “rediscovered” (miraculously or by archaeology). But that would leave the “scar” in the later memory of this author becoming very important as rediscovering it. Like Joseph Smith, to Mormons, “rediscovered” Book of Mormon.

This means, if the earliest known audience think of it as history and do not think of a particular man as having rediscovered it, chances are that it actually was not an invented story.

Does this by itself mean it is accurate? No, any historic text can contain some amount of error.

As a Christian, I do not accept Genesis could this, since God’s inspiration cancels out this possibility, but if I were to look on it from the perspective of the non-Christian I was my earliest years - Genesis bears more marks of accuracy than lots of other accounts.

1. It has full genealogies from the first man to the Flood and from then to times when continuous well documented history begins (in Genesis 12 - the rest of Genesis is at least as well documented as heroic generations up to Trojan War and nostoi in Greek legend);
2. Its Flood account has an Ark which is adequate for the logistics, and other accounts either lack the description or give descriptions of vessels inadequate for logistics (when the survivan wasn’t transferred from a vessel to a mountain, as in the Andes).

So, in sum, we have pretty good evidence, even before being Christians, that Genesis is history rather than fiction, and for the parts that concern the fate of mankind up to splitting up into nations, better preserved history than other nations’ histories about such times.

Darryl's Answer to Q

How do we know that the writers of Genesis didn't make it up?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-know-that-the-writers-of-Genesis-didnt-make-it-up/answer/Daryl-Hubber

Daryl Hubber

Mon 24.X.2022

St. Raphael's Day

Because in some instances they used identifiable sources, although there was certainly latitude for creativity in their reuse. We know that the Mesopotamian flood myth was the basis for the biblical deluge account, and the story of Eden is probably an amalgam of the tale of a wild man and a prostitute in the Gilgamesh epic and an older Canaanite myth about the punishment of one of the “Sons of God”. There may also be a faint literary echo of the Atrahasis plagues in the story of Moses and the plagues of Egypt. Similarly, it’s possible that the names of the patriarchs from the time of Abraham onward might depend on ancient genealogies, although there is no evidence that any of the patriarchal narratives are based on historical events.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26.X.2022

“We know that the Mesopotamian flood myth was the basis for the biblical deluge account,”

No, we definitely do not know that.

Both being based on the fact is clearly also an option, and given descriptions of the Ark, the one in Genesis is more adequate to take on one couple of each kind and adequate food for them.

Daryl Hubber

27.X.2022

The older dictum of Wilfred G Lambert is still true: the flood remains the clearest case of dependence of Genesis on Mesopotamian legend (Bill Arnold, prominent evangelical scholar, Genesis, 2009, p105)
Most scholars agree that the biblical versions [of the flood story] are descended from the Babylonian versions (Ron Hendel, high profile Jewish scholar, The Book of Genesis: a Biography, 2013, p26)
Because the flood episode in Gen 6–8 matches the older Babylonian myth so well in plot and, particularly, in details, few doubt that Noah’s story is descended from a Mesopotamian account (Andrew George, leading cuneiform scholar and expert on the Gilgamesh epic, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, Vol. 1, 2003, p70)
…the closest parallels to the biblical account are found in Mesopotamian flood traditions, especially the eleventh tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh and its earlier form in the Atrahasis story (Andrew Steinmann - a conservative Christian scholar, Genesis, 2019, p109)
Genesis 1–11 will show extensive interplay with ancient near eastern [mythological texts including the] flood story (especially tablet 11 of the Gilgamesh Epic)… (Tremper Longman III - another conservative-leaning biblical scholar, Genesis, 2016)
Since the time of George Smith [who was first to decipher parts of the Atrahasis flood story in the late 1800s] it has become increasingly clear that the biblical text is a relatively late Hebrew-language version of a literary mythic tradition of great antiquity. One of the earliest representatives of that tradition is the Sumerian flood tablet… The story is also told on the third tablet of Atrahasis and, in its most compete form, on the eleventh tablet of Gilgamesh… (Joseph Blenkinsopp - prominent Catholic scholar, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation, 2011, p132)

Answered twice

by me, A and B

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.X.2022

Bill Arnold, prominent evangelical scholar, - argumentum ex autoritate
Ron Hendel, high profile Jewish scholar, - argumentum ex autoritate
Andrew George, leading cuneiform scholar and expert on the Gilgamesh epic, - argumentum ex autoritate plus probably somewhat superficial such when it comes to Genesis plus there is no Mesopotamian parallel to Tower of Babel
Andrew Steinmann - a conservative Christian scholar, - argumentum ex autoritate plus he didn't deny (in the cited words) that the Hebrew version could be more faithful to actual events plus there is still no Mesopotamian parallel to Tower of Babel
Tremper Longman III - another conservative-leaning biblical scholar, - same as previous on all counts
Joseph Blenkinsopp - prominent Catholic scholar, - argumentum ex autoritate, plus he is unfaithful to Catholic teaching (Council of Trent Session IV and Biblical commission from 1905 under Pope St. Pius X).
Wilfred Lambert, George Smith, most scholars - also argumentum ex autoritate.

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.X.2022

You also gave no answer on the argument from Ark models.

Daryl Hubber

3.XI.2022

Hi Hans-Georg, that’s a lot of arguments from authority! If I cited just one scholar then perhaps your argument might be valid, but the weight of scholarly opinion suggests otherwise. The conventional spelling is auctoritate - not autoritate, by the way.

It may surprise you to know that an argument from authority is not automatically invalid, particularly if the authority represents a majority opinion of experts. I have deliberately chosen scholars from a wide variety of backgrounds to rule out the possibility of representing a narrow interest group, and perhaps you missed it but according to Hendel ‘most scholars’ believe that the Genesis flood story is dependent upon the older Mesopotamian ones. These sentiments are echoed by Arnold (‘the clearest case’), George (‘few doubt’) and Blenkinsopp (‘increasingly clear’). Rejecting a majority opinion of experts places you in the same camp as climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, Jesus mythicists and conspiracy theorists.

If you want to examine the evidence for this position, I refer you to the peer-reviewed works cited. However, there are multiple parallels between the two stories appearing in an almost identical order - thus meeting the normal scholarly criterion for literary borrowing. The highly anthropomorphic description of the deity/or deities enjoying the sweet savour of the post flood offerings rules out the notion of a tribal memory, since it describes the mind of the God/gods, thus indicating a literary rather than a historical relationship. The episode of the sending out of the birds is another striking parallel that makes literary dependence practically certain.

Since you seem to enjoy thinking in terms of logical fallacies, your suggestion that there can be no literary relationship between the Mesopotamian and Genesis flood stories because ‘there is no Mesopotamian parallel to the Tower of Babel’ is a non-sequitur. There is no reason why the authors of Genesis could not borrow from Babylonian mythology in their deluge story and draw on other sources completely for the remainer of the work.

In actual fact, the story of the city of Babel is steeped in Mesopotamian lore since it lampoons the founding of the city of Babylon (the Hebrew word translated “Babel” is the same word used for “Babylon” elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible) and its monumental architecture. The likely target is the Babylonian Creation Myth (Enuma Elish) that describes creation by violent conquest on the part of Babylon’s patron deity and ends with the establishment of a great ziggurat and the founding of Babylon as the gateway of the gods and head of the nations. Scholars almost invariably mention the building of the ziggurat Etemenanki in conjunction with this story since it was completed by Nebuchadnezzar II during the period of the Babylonian exile - the time when the early chapters of Genesis were probably composed. This would also explain the authors’ access to Mesopotamian lore and literature but would make little sense in earlier periods since Babylon was not a traditional enemy of Judah. Another work that is commonly cited here by commentators is the myth of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, a Sumerian story that describes the efforts of an ancient king of Uruk to build a temple for one of its patron deities and involves the unification of language as a tool of conquest and imperial control.

Tremper Longman, incidentally, does not believe in a global flood but submits that the Genesis account goes back to a local flood in the ancient near east that is ‘described by figurative language as a global flood in order to communicate an important theological message’. See this link: Genesis and the Flood: Understanding the Biblical Story - Article - BioLogos [not linked to here] This is very similar to the suggestion that the Mesopotamian flood myth goes back to a historical flood that wiped out the city of Shuruppak and some neighboring cities around 2900 BCE (since Shuruppak is the home of the flood hero in both Gilgamesh and Atrahasis), then was later exaggerated and mythologised in the Mesopotamian epics.

As for citing centuries-old Catholic pronouncements on the historicity of Genesis, you obviously haven’t kept up to date with current Catholic theology. In 1905 most Catholic theologians still believed that Daniel was composed in the sixth century BCE! The majority now, of course, accept a second century BCE date. Just a little later in the 20th century Pius XII states:

“In simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured,” the first eleven chapters of Genesis “both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people” (Humani Generis 38 - emphasis mine).

The general tenor of Catholic teaching these days seems to be that belief in historical and scientific reliability is permitted, but that the creation stories do not contradict scientific discoveries on human evolution and are theological rather than historical accounts. Similar leniency is applied to the flood account, with modern Catholic teaching leaning towards an ancient local flood rather than a global event.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3.XI.2022

"The conventional spelling is auctoritate - not autoritate, by the way."

Classic, I'm more into Medieval.

"If I cited just one scholar then perhaps your argument might be valid, but the weight of scholarly opinion suggests otherwise."

No. It is still called argumentum ex autoritate - or auctoritate if you prefer the Classic spelling.

"It may surprise you to know that an argument from authority is not automatically invalid,"

Some would say wikipedia is a good starting point, but one needs to see the authorities cited. I find that over the top, mostly wikipedian articles will cite correctly.

Expert opinion is like wikipedia. The important issue is not the outlet, but the arguments that outlet refers back to.

"I have deliberately chosen scholars from a wide variety of backgrounds to rule out the possibility of representing a narrow interest group,"

I fully admit that the group think you are referring to is from a numerically wider group by now.

It is still group think.

"and perhaps you missed it but according to Hendel ‘most scholars’ believe that the Genesis flood story is dependent upon the older Mesopotamian ones."

I didn't. "Most scholars" is definitely an argument from authority. And one should not ask, how many scholars believe this, but why they do so.

"Rejecting a majority opinion of experts places you in the same camp as climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, Jesus mythicists and conspiracy theorists."

I am a moderate antivaxxer. If the vaccine is against bacteria or if the viruses were cultivated on cells not from human feti, and if there is no coercion about the vaccine, then, and only then, is the vaccine morally licit. It is still a question of individual prudence.

"If you want to examine the evidence for this position, I refer you to the peer-reviewed works cited."

No. You don't. If you cite a work, you kind of pretend you have read it or read reasonable portions of it. At least you pretend to have a reasonable certainty what you cite is knowledge. If I cite a Latin grammar, "ludimagister" means school teacher in primary school years, I would have a decent view on where that came from, like all the poems and prose texts from such centuries, including Horace complaining of his own such, the plagosus Orbilius. If I cited a historian on Christophe de Thou living from 1508 to 1582 (I grabbed this from wikipedia), I would have a reasonable inference that a historian had seen documents calling him "barely 40" in early 1548, or the noble family had a family record citing him as born 28.X.1508. I'd be perfectly willing to debate the reliability of this kind of information. So, if you cite "most scholars" you need to be able to see what kind of arguments they use, not how many they are.

Otherwise you could be citing a Pope for Christ NOT rising from the dead (not even stated in such terms by recent anti-popes), which is nonsense, since Popes are just outlets for a particular kind of evidence called Bible and Tradition. Now, scholars and their publications are just an outlet for evidence and analyses of it.

"However, there are multiple parallels between the two stories appearing in an almost identical order - thus meeting the normal scholarly criterion for literary borrowing."

The criterium is being misused, if you forget that:

A may be borrowing from B
B may be borrowing from A
A and B may both be borriwing from a third source, including actual event.

So, Bible borrowing from Sumerian and Akkadian sources is one option.
Sumerian and Akkadian sources borrowing from Genesis is another one - and I add, it is certainly less likely.
Bible and Sumero-Akkadian sources both inheriting a factual account is the third option.

If all scholars alive today overlook the third option, or reject it on Hume's antimiraculous prejudice, that would invalidate the reasoning process of all scholars alive today and does invalidate the reasoning process of the scholars you are referring to.

"The highly anthropomorphic description of the deity/or deities enjoying the sweet savour of the post flood offerings rules out the notion of a tribal memory, since it describes the mind of the God/gods, thus indicating a literary rather than a historical relationship."

Ooh, what a blooper! Even if the theology were wrong (which is the case with one of the versions mentioned, the Sumero-Akkadian one), the historic memory is very certainly transmitted in literary ways and usually involves reference to God or to gods.

You reasoned as if:

all reports of God speaking to man were ruled out in advance from facthood
and all real tribal historic memories were automatically formulated like the ones of Atheistic modern Marxist historians.

The first is a blooper in philosophy, the second a blooper even in common sense. The Iliad contains Diomede wounding a goddess, not because Homer was writing a poem, but because Diomede misunderstood what had happened, involving his views on the theology of Greek gods and goddesses. Or someone misunderstood what Diomede had said.

"The episode of the sending out of the birds is another striking parallel that makes literary dependence practically certain."

Unless birds were in fact sent out, of course.

"Since you seem to enjoy thinking in terms of logical fallacies, your suggestion that there can be no literary relationship between the Mesopotamian and Genesis flood stories because ‘there is no Mesopotamian parallel to the Tower of Babel’ is a non-sequitur."

I did not say "there is no literary relationship" (directly or indirectly), I said the Hebrew account was not borrowed from the Sumero-Akkadian one.

"There is no reason why the authors of Genesis could not borrow from Babylonian mythology in their deluge story and draw on other sources completely for the remainer of the work."

There is no reason why they would need to borrow Babylonian mythology in their deluge story in the first place. Unless you start out with what you are trying to prove with "literary borrowing" namely that there was no such event.

"In actual fact, the story of the city of Babel is steeped in Mesopotamian lore since it lampoons the founding of the city of Babylon (the Hebrew word translated “Babel” is the same word used for “Babylon” elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible) and its monumental architecture. The likely target is the Babylonian Creation Myth (Enuma Elish) that describes creation by violent conquest on the part of Babylon’s patron deity and ends with the establishment of a great ziggurat and the founding of Babylon as the gateway of the gods and head of the nations."

If Moses, via Abraham and Peleg's father Heber, was heir to the real story, Enuma Elish is explainable as Amorrhaeans / Amorrhites wiping off the dishonour of the original Babel, by making a facsimile far from the original location (but about same distance in each case from Niniveh), and using this to obfuscate any memory Babylonians could have of abandoning the original Babel. In this context, Graham Hancock has referred to an object found in Ur, namely a model closely mirroring Göbekli Tepe. Babylonian pagans were suckers for Nimrod's project, which explains both the wiping out of this memory and the remake of the story in Enuma Elish.

"Scholars almost invariably mention the building of the ziggurat Etemenanki in conjunction with this story since it was completed by Nebuchadnezzar II during the period of the Babylonian exile - the time when the early chapters of Genesis were probably composed."

Or Nebuchadnezzar II peeped into a Hebrew scroll, and tried to wipe off the old dishonour.

"This would also explain the authors’ access to Mesopotamian lore and literature but would make little sense in earlier periods since Babylon was not a traditional enemy of Judah."

Traditionally, Judah had been kind of harrassed from both Egypt and Babylon. After King Solomon, and taking a mild side for Babylon in the time of Hezechia. This is obviously not in any way shape or form an argument against King Solomon already having a scroll of Genesis in the Temple.

The argument being made is in fact presuming, once again, what needs to be proven - that the lore doesn't go back to actual events.

I know sufficiently of modern academia to know this is a model actively pressured onto researchers these days.

"Another work that is commonly cited here by commentators is the myth of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, a Sumerian story that describes the efforts of an ancient king of Uruk to build a temple for one of its patron deities and involves the unification of language as a tool of conquest and imperial control."

Precisely - it does not involve any explanation of why there were different languages (unlike Babel of Genesis 11), it only involves a desire to unify language. So not a model.

"Tremper Longman, incidentally, does not believe in a global flood but submits that the Genesis account goes back to a local flood in the ancient near east that is ‘described by figurative language as a global flood in order to communicate an important theological message’."

Since you are referring to BioLogos, reminds me, it was a few weeks since I took on Richard Middleton, who is also one of their team.

There is a problem when you refer to a team which has as actual policy to presume Genesis as non-historical. And especially if it regularly reasons "text A has theological message I, and can be explained as expressing that theological message, therefore not historical, text B has theological message II, and can be explained as expressing that theological message, therefore not historical" - the underlying presumption that real history would not neatly fit a theological message is incompatible with Christianity. If they were at least atheists, openly.

"This is very similar to the suggestion that the Mesopotamian flood myth goes back to a historical flood that wiped out the city of Shuruppak and some neighboring cities around 2900 BCE (since Shuruppak is the home of the flood hero in both Gilgamesh and Atrahasis), then was later exaggerated and mythologised in the Mesopotamian epics."

Satan knew in advance how carbon dates would work out (having been told so by God) and was able to arrange both the destruction of Shuruppak and its inclusion into Sumero-Akkadian lore in what would carbon date as 2900 BC. The Sumero-Akkadians holding on to real chronology of the Flood in the written sources, since the Flood actually happened, world wide, in 2957 BC. But that’s carbon dated 39 000 BP.

However, all the sources we have for Atrahasis or Utnapishtim getting on an "ark" in Shuruppak also involve his landing c. 800 metres higher up above sea level, which would not happen in a local flood.

The reason for the exaggeration or how it would be even remotely believable in the face of populations not descending from Atrahasis, if just a local hero, is left in blanks.

"As for citing centuries-old Catholic pronouncements on the historicity of Genesis, you obviously haven’t kept up to date with current Catholic theology. In 1905 most Catholic theologians still believed that Daniel was composed in the sixth century BCE!"

I believe in Catholic theology. I do not believe in "current Catholic theology" that being a contradiction in terms. The theologians who were a majority in 1905 are still the ones who are truly Catholic now ...

"The majority now, of course, accept a second century BCE date."

... as I just mentioned under a video by The Crusader Pub, Evolutionists are not Catholics. The community accepting "Pope Francis" as its Pope may still contain Catholics - I consider The Crusader Pub as one - but it is a by now largely non-Catholic community and it is not identic to the Catholic Church.

"Just a little later in the 20th century Pius XII states"

Pope Michael considered that Pius XII had his problems, if I did not accept him as the last pope we had (he died Aug 2 this year), I would tend to consider Pius XII as a non-Pope. But not for what you quoted, which doesn't float your non-Ark boat.

Using metaphors doesn't mean telling a story which is non-literal as a story.

Let's take §38 bit by bit:

"Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies."

Note, wrongly. Perhaps they were prone to take the "metaphoric" part as meaning the story as a whole were metaphoric, for instance?

"This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes;"

I would not agree with it's being historic only in a vague sense needing further study, and I also would not consider Homer and Pliny as excluded from the best Greek and Latin writers.

"the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people."

The part you just quotemined. And probably the part quotemined by those wrongly citing it.

"If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents."

I'd go even further. Even without divine inspiration, trusting a popular narration because it is already that of one's people, would hit historic general factuality, if not necessarily accuracy of detail perhaps 90 % of the time. The remainder being fan fictions inserted into bigger pictures that weren't fictional.

"The general tenor of Catholic teaching these days seems to be that belief in historical and scientific reliability is permitted"

The problem is, the "Catholic teaching these days" you cite is not Catholic.

But thank you very much for "permitted" - though I am far from being treated that way in practise!

"but that the creation stories do not contradict scientific discoveries on human evolution and are theological rather than historical accounts."

I would say they are theological because they are historical. By the way, anything beyond Genesis 2 is after the creation account.

I would also say the "scientific discoveries" are not discoveries, and are not scientific. At least those that are on human evolution.

Discovering a Neanderthal or Denisovan doesn't contradict the creation stories any more than discovering Negros or Chinamen - meant Black Gentlemen or Gentlemen of Colour for the first, and not to exclude Japanese from the second - discredits all of us descending from Noah's three sons.

Daryl Hubber

Tue, 18.VII.2023

Well, Hans, it’s reassuring to know that leading experts on the Hebrew Bible and cuneiform literature are all wrong, that the origin myths of Genesis are all based on historical fact (suggesting that most of the world’s paleontologists, archaeologists, geologists, geneticists, anthropologists and physicists are also wrong - although this doesn’t really matter since citing any of them would simply amount an argument from authority), that the Catholic church is not really “Catholic”, that Christians who disbelieve in the creation and flood stories are not really Christian, and that Satan not only deliberately meddled with the carbon dating method but also - displaying God-like foreknowledge and power - sent the flood that destroyed the city of Shuruppak to undermine the Genesis flood story! I’ll leave you and your wild imagination to the judgement of others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue, 18.VII.2023

"reassuring to know that leading experts on the Hebrew Bible and cuneiform literature are all wrong"

I did not say all experts were wrong. While you seem to want to make it sound like that, I can however not pinpoint you to directly saying so.

If you had said "experts on x are all wrong" you would have attributed that to me. But you resumed my position as "leading experts on x are all wrong" ... sure. The ones who are leading in the direction you think of, they are wrong and misleading ...

"that the origin myths of Genesis are all based on historical fact"

Well, who says origin myths can't be historical facts? Isn't "Declaration of Independence" an origin myth about the USA?

"suggesting that most of the world’s paleontologists, archaeologists, geologists, geneticists, anthropologists and physicists are also wrong"

Most of people overall are wrong today, which means most of the experts will be so too.

It's a vicious circle involving schools as third party.

"that the Catholic church is not really “Catholic”,"

You mean that the Vatican II Sect is not really Catholic? Link to very relevant video at the end.

"and that Satan not only deliberately meddled with the carbon dating method but also - displaying God-like foreknowledge and power - sent the flood that destroyed the city of Shuruppak to undermine the Genesis flood story!"

No need for Satan to meddle with the carbon dating method. It's enough that he knew of it, and could meddle with a much smaller destruction in Shuruppak plus the bad record keeping of Babylonians in history (prior to Assyrians).

EDIT : “displaying God-like foreknowledge and power”

Causing a local Flood with God’s permission and being told things by God which he used for planning the end times deception do not add up to being godlike.

[very relevant video]

Sedevacantism Visualised
TVC, 30 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ArKXEuY_48

Same Question

Tuesday, October 25, 2022

Indo-European and General Linguistics

First Written Languages in Greece · Indo-European Revisited : Family or Sprachbund? · Indo-European and General Linguistics

Q I

What is the relation between Sanskrit and ancient Greek/Latin (Indo-European family of languages)?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relation-between-Sanskrit-and-ancient-Greek-Latin-Indo-European-family-of-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

24.X.2022

St. Raphael's Day

According to the theory Indo-European languages descend from Proto-Indo-European, all three of these are sister languages, descending from Proto-Inod-European.

According to the other theory that Indo-European is a Sprachbund, or a series of Sprachbünder, they descend from languages spoken by same sets of bilinguals and trilinguals or more, in areas where they were neighbouring to each other.

Either way, their common ground needs a place not noted in most known history and before it, in which the speakers of what became these three languages were living together. The only difference is whether they spoke the same or different languages, whether it’s the differences or the commonalities that came through change.

Q II

When linguists call a language "proto-language", do they believe that before it humans weren't able to communicate?
https://www.quora.com/When-linguists-call-a-language-proto-language-do-they-believe-that-before-it-humans-werent-able-to-communicate/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

James Green

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

25.X.2022

No, they believe that it is “proto” in relation to a specific group of languages.

Proto-Indo-European is a reconstructed language believed by some to be “proto” in relation to all Indo-European languages. Its daughter languages in this theory are also proto-languages, of smaller groups, where I don’t doubt they are families:

proto-Celtic (with daughter languages like Irish and Welsh)
proto-Italic (with Latin and Romance langs)
proto-Germanic (with English, Swedish, German, Gothic as some daughter languages)

and each of them is “proto” in relation to that group.

If you are a Creationist believing in PIE, you believe basically, that the first speakers of one IE language were previously speaking Hebrew up to Babel.

I think it more likely different groups were immediately formed at Babel and afterwords influenced each other (though above three could all be daughter languages to “proto-Gomeric” involving also Hittite, but excluding Greek or Sanskrit or Slavonic)

If you are an Evolutionist believing in PIE, you probably think this is one branch of an even older proto-language, for instance proto-Nostratic has been proposed as ancestor to PIE and Proto-Uralic.

So whatever level you accept theorised proto-languages on, and whatever your belief system, it doesn’t mean anything like Adamic or like Human-emerging-from-Beast.

Q III

Why do most languages write through a system of words meaning something, and those words coming together to form a sentence? It seems like all languages I know follow this pattern, but is there a language that didn't use this system?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-most-languages-write-through-a-system-of-words-meaning-something-and-those-words-coming-together-to-form-a-sentence-It-seems-like-all-languages-I-know-follow-this-pattern-but-is-there-a-language-that-didnt/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Mark Omega

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

25.X.2022

No, there is not.

Even Greenlandic, which has lots of one word sentences (one base with very many endings) actually has sentences where there are words coming together.

All human languages, and no beast communications, follow the pattern of:

sentences are articulated into more than one morpheme (different words in Chinese, often single word with many endings in Greenlandic, more equal between word limits and endings in Latin);
morphemes are divided into more than one phoneme (which unlike the morpheme doesn’t mean anything).

Q IV

Do we have any written records of proto Indo European languages?
https://www.quora.com/Do-we-have-any-written-records-of-proto-Indo-European-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

25.X.2022

We neither have any written record of Proto-Indo-European (one language, supposed to be ancestral to Slavonic and Germanic, Latin, Greek and Sanskrit …) nor of languages that could have merged with each other into the Indo-European commonalities, according to the alternative theory of Trubetskoy.

Q to Y

In the following, the post will follow the format of a youtube commented on.

Learning Finnish: My First Steps
Jackson Crawford
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imd_mqN98Kk

5:42 "Swedish is more like Hindi than it is like Finnish"

Well, Swedish and Hindi are both Indo-European, but Swedish and Finnish have a long contact.

Not sure how much this plays out in vocabulary.

Learning Hindi is certainly not like learning Dutch (after knowing Swedish and German and starting English), and learning Finnish is certainly not like learning Dutch either.

I tried and gave up.

But which of the two has greater lexical similarity is not a given. I'd like someone to make some kind of statistic on that one.

I suspect it may turn out Finnish has more words in common with Swedish than Hindi has.

To illustrate the lexical similarity and dissimilarity of different groups within IE, I am through the first 32 entries in Pokorny, and the results are:

II 2/32 words with two groups
II + IX 11/32 words with three groups
I + III 4/32 words with four groups
VI 6/32 words with five groups
I + IV 5/32 words with six groups
1/32 words each with seven, eight, nine and ten groups.

2 + 11 + 4 + 6 + 5 + 4 = 32

16:56 In Greek genitive takes care of all "from" type cases. Also the case with Lithuanian.
And in Slavonic, like Polish, the masculine singular nouns have genitive and accusative the same if real males (otherwise nominative and accusative).

17:36 Last time I checked, Slavonic was one of the Indo-European groups.

And I am not sure what extra functions genitive might have in Hindi, while Modern Persian, through influence of Arabic, has an English / French type of syntax.

I think Hindi also has post-positions in preference to prepositions.

18:29 In Latin a partitive genitive can't be a standalone replacement for accusative or nominative, but you do have the partitive function.

Tres virum non consentierunt - three of the men disagreed. Virum or virorum = genitive plural in the partitive function.

Partitive genitive is used in replacement of accusative in both Lithuanian and Polish, it's just that it isn't distinct from genitive.

kavy, proszę / kavos, prašau = (of) coffee, please.

Very reminiscent of the Finnish, except that in Finnish the definite accusative coincides with genitive, as you said, so there is another form for the partitive.

If someone were to say "I don't drink coffee" (it would not be me), in Lithuanian or Polish, the negative object automatically triggers partitive genitive. Kavy in Polish or kavos in Lithuanian.

19:54 "from an Indo-European language perspective"

Sorry, you are confusing Indo-European with Euroversals, that being the Sprachbund between Germanic and Romance in Western Europe.

20:19 Finnish verbs ...
1) personal endings match more than one IE group except for 3rd plural
2) one kind of past tense matches Germanic and Slavonic far better than Greek, Latin or Sanskrit (all of them IE) do.

23:35 You'd have to admit, a parent language common to IE and to Uralic would pose problems for YEC, with Hittite and Mycenaean Greek appearing within a millennium from Babel ...

So, from a YEC perspective, it would make more sense if "me tarkenemme" (we are able to go outside when it's freezing) and Lithuanians answering "mes sušalome" (we are freezing) go back to a Sprachbund - which opens the way for "mes sušalome" and "παγωνουμε" (same meaning, unlike the Finnish one) to also go back to a Sprachbund. I. e. the IE group being a Sprachbund, not a family.

24:04 Add another one between Finnish and IE : 3rd sg has (long) vowel (in present indicative at least) both in Greek and in Lithuanian.

hän tarkenee
jis šąla
παγώνει

25:14 You just took up a similarity between Finnish and Celtic passives.

jag blir slagen
du blir slagen
han blir slagen

Minua hakataan
sinut hakataan
hänet lyödään

Buailtear mé
beidh tú buailte
buailtear é

While Google translate changed verb for Finnish, it changed construction for Irish Gaelic. But both languages have an impersonal passive with what would be more or less accusative pronouns for conjugation.

31:53 A case of "great minds think alike"
"Very" is etymologically from Old French "verai" - meaning, like "tosi" - "true"

But when Baltic, Slavic and Finno-Ugrian all pour up coffee in the partitive, it is to me clearly a case of Sprachbund. Not just "GMTA"

35:50 If this is so, that means that "-oppinen" more means "of a doctrine/learning" than "of an opinion" (despite similarity of sound).

Oikieakielinen, oikeamielinen, varsinkin oikeaoppinen (remains of my attempt to learn that brother language).
(correct grammar, correct action, foremost, orthodoxy)

37:37 IE langs all have gender? No....

Farsi has the same look in Arabic letters for the translation of "han kommer" as well as "hon kommer" ...

[It's some time since I forgot the Arabic alphabet, so I couldn't read how it's pronounced.]

Brenda Has More Error Than Usually - I Still Think It Worthwhile Arguing

The Dangerous Example Of Harlot Christianity (Letters to 7 Churches)
Brenda Weltner | 24.X.2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8XBdiNVEQ4

0:34 The explanation is very much less symbolic.

A priest (or deacon) named Nicolaus had a wife, and was very tolerant when other guys slept with her. And those who slept with her called themselves his fanclub. Nicolaitans.

Obviously, being forgiven an adultery by the wronged party is not a good reason to continue in adultery.

Brenda Weltner: That's the common teaching...but 'Jezebel, Balaam and the Nicolaitans' are all symbolic...they're not intended to be taken literally...just as the 7 churches are not meant to be taken literally, as referring to the actual seven churches that existed in Asia Minor during John's lifetime.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Brenda Weltner But first and foremost they actually do refer to the seven actual churches.
Albert Williams: @Brenda Weltner why aren't the 7 churches to be taken literally?
Brenda Weltner: The whole book is symbolic. Even though Revelation is telling a real story about things that will happen before Christ's return, there is almost nothing in Revelation that isn't to be regarded as symbolic.
Albert Williams: @Brenda Weltner How do we know this is mostly symbolic ?
Brenda Weltner: Christ is represented as a Lamb who has 7 eyes and 7 horns. Satan has 7 heads and 10 horns. A woman rides a 7 headed Beast...but we are told she also sits on many waters. Christ has a sword coming out of His mouth. These are all things are symbolic. And I could list many, many more. All you have to do is read through the book and you'll recognize that it's not 'normal'! Fortunately, some of the symbols have been interpreted for us ("The 7 lamp stands are the 7 churches...the Dragon is Satan, etc) Other symbols are decoded by what their names mean ("Smyrna", "Nicolaitans", Philadelphia, etc), and some are stories or passages referenced in the Old Testament writings. We can apply what we read in the OT to what is being described in Revelation.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Brenda Weltner One of the symbols that has been interpreted for us is actually the seven angels - this means the bishops of these Churches in Asia Minor in AD 90.

That's the exact reason why I also know the Churches themselves are not symbolic.

Or one of them. Two more:

Jews persecuting Christians of Jewish origin would still have been ongoing then.

Pergamon has two candidates for the "seat of Satan" - the Zeus altar (which was taken to Berlin, and part time after WW-II to Leningrad) and the temple to Serapis, who is a syncretistic god.
Brenda Weltner: The 'angels' are bishops? Where do you find that in the Bible?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Brenda Weltner I find that in tradition.

You know, the tradition given by the context to the seven churches that received the text.

Where do you find in the Bible that all truth concerning the Bible is found in the Bible? You don't.

2:46 If you think the "teaching of the Nicolaitans" or "doctrine of the Nicolaites" is about clericalism, why not read previous verse?

[14] But I have against thee a few things: because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat, and to commit fornication: [15] So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaites.

The doctrine is the same.

Brenda Weltner: I'll be talking about the doctrine of Balaam in another video...
Jo Leggett: @Brenda Weltner - I love the fact that you kept replying to Hans-Georg, as I learned quite a bit from that dialogue. You have a lot of patience!!
Brenda Weltner: One of my goals is to help others who read the comments to understand opposing views from a biblical standpoint. I'm glad you benefited from the dialogue.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Brenda Weltner Noble goal.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Jo Leggett Yeah, right, in the presence of ladies I'll pass on who's the patient one.
Jeff Davis: I enjoy your teaching videos. I'm glad to have found your channel. I'm re reading pagan christianity and am re startled as to how nicky the church has grown. Wheat and tates for sure. My first decade following the Lord Jesus was first century communal style christianity. It worked by the grace of God but..
Of late my fellowship is small group house church. Best when the Lord leads . Ms. Brenda you and your group are a blessing so " Keep on keeping on" no matter what those creepy nicky's are saying. We here in western n.c. are praying for y'all in Idaho. God Bless. Jesus is still saving souls.
Brenda Weltner: God bless you, Jeff! And your brethren in NC!

Dialogue started by other's comment:

Deborah Howlett: Ephesians 4:11-13

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

These people are for ministering to and with the body, and edifying the body, NOT to be RULING OVER God’s people. We have the Holy Spirit who Jesus sent to lead us in ALL truth and righteousness. The pyramidical, Nicolaitan, Babylonian, system has taught God’s people to be slaves to it. They have taught the people of God to come under it’s authority and to abide by all their doctrines and precepts or they will be ostracized/excommunicated. Like what you said Brenda about how hitler used the word to cause the churches to comply with his insane doctrine/dictates.
Brenda Weltner: Thank you for sharing the biblical perspective of true, spiritual leadership. God bless you!
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "and to abide by all their doctrines and precepts or they will be ostracized/excommunicated."

If you mean ostracism for believing Christ performed miracles within Low Church Anglicanism, you have a point.

But I suspect you mean excommunication for heresy in the Catholic Church. It is actually based on something.
Matthew 18:17
1 Timothy 3:15
Deborah Howlett: @Hans-Georg Lundahl I believe those are offenses between brothers and sisters in the Lord. If you have an offense, you go directly to that person. If he will not hear you you are to get another witness or two, and if he will still not hear and there be no resolution , you are to take it before the whole body. Then if he will not hear, he is basically cast out as a heathen.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Deborah Howlett The casting out is excommunication.

Offenses between persons are an example, St. Paul told the bishop of Corinth to excommunicate one man for his bad choice of relations.

And in 1 Timothy 3:15 you see that the Church has power over more than just interpersonal relations, namely doctrine too.

5:11 You are forgetting that the Israelites in the time of Balaam and Balac had a pyramidal, top down, structure, with Moses and a few more at the head - and that this one was not from Balaam or Balac. On the contrary, it was from God.

In the Gospels, you see Jesus actually replicating this structure, with 72 among the rest and 12 among the 72 and Peter among the 12.

Brenda Weltner: Moses did not rule the way the world does. He was the meekest man on earth. He allowed God...who dwelt in the midst of the congregation...to decide and judge the Israelites. When Moses got a 'big head' and struck the rock 2 times, God did let him enter the promised land. Moses had a commission...a stewardship...from God. He was not 'king' and he was not the leader. Christ (as the Angel of the Lord in the Pillar of fire) was the Leader, who lived and moved in the midst of the camp.
Jesus never replicated the structure you are describing.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Brenda Weltner "Moses did not rule the way the world does"

Does Catholicism?

"He was the meekest man on earth."

Indeed. It seems to have shown in his disability to discern what Aaron and Miriam were saying behind his back, so God had to point it out for him.

There is another passage where Moses is called humble or meek, and there also it's a handicap : he tells God he's unable to speak up before the pharao.

But is there anything in your knowledge of Church history saying Popes would not have been personally humble and meek, barring this situation of social handicap? One of them actually was that - Pope St. Celestine V. That's why he abdicated.

Jesus replicated the structure of 12 princes of the 12 tribes, we find in Numbers. I recall we find 72 lower princes a bit further on.
Brenda Weltner: Catholicism rules exactly the way the world does, in fact, the Catholic church codified much of it! The power that the catholic Church holds over governments, society and its members is shocking. ALL members of the Body of Christ are priests, and no one person (Pope) should ever exercise control or spiritual authority over the rest of the members.
Emily Baird: @Brenda Weltner
“The truth doesn’t have to be defended.” “The truth stands on its own.”
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Brenda Weltner "Catholicism rules exactly the way the world does"

If the only test is having some kind of government, that's not a big deal.

"in fact, the Catholic church codified much of it!"

Sure, things like Magna Charta - which a Pope relieved John Lackland from as it was signed under duress. But no doubt some cleric penned it too.

Nevertheless, there is a big difference between codifying what a government can do as a Christian government (yes, Matthew 28:16-20 means those are on Christ's order) and to watch helplessly as governments do the opposite of what they were made for.

"The power that the catholic Church holds over governments, society and its members is shocking."

I don't think so. I think Christ wanted it - if you think about the fact that "all nations" needs to include their governments sooner or later.

"ALL members of the Body of Christ are priests,"

In some sense, yes, but that of the baptised and not ordained is a passive priesthood. That of the ordained is an active one.

"and no one person (Pope) should ever exercise control or spiritual authority over the rest of the members."

That's not what I read in John 21, cited verses.

5:52 I think you should revise Church history a bit.

Bishops in the first millennium were elected by the people. Among Latin Catholics and among those of the Eastern Rite, whether they later became Uniates or Orthodox.

The Orthodox elect bishops like that to this day.

For instance, St. Ambrose was elected, from not yet even baptised, to bishop of Milan, because a child said "Ambrose" and everyone started repeating that.

It was abolished in the Latin rite because secular rulers found laymen easier to influence than clergy, and therefore the electors of bishops first became restricted to clergy surviving the former bishop, and after that to Papal nomination. But while it was abolished, there is no actual doctrine in Catholicism against reviving it, and if I am right on who was last Pope, he got elected purely by laymen. Five votes against one were voting for him in 1990, and he died August 2nd, this year.

Brenda Weltner: The very act of 'electing' a leader/pope speaks volumes! Christ is Head of the church at all times, chosen by God and not 'elected' and never replaced.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Brenda Weltner He named Peter his vicar:

Mt 16:19 by giving him the keys (or promising to do so at a later date), confer here:
And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.
[Isaias (Isaiah) 22:22]

John 21:15-17 By naming him shepherd of His flock, confer here:
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.
[John 10:11]
Brenda Weltner: The 'rock' that Christ was going to build His church upon...was not the man Peter...but Peter's proclamation/confession that Jesus was/is the Christ, the Son of God. The 'keys of the Kingdom' are not the same as the 'Key of David' (Isaiah 22). Christ is the One who has the Key of David...who shuts and no one opens, and opens and no one shuts...not Peter. ("These are the words of the One who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What He opens no one can shut, and what He shuts no one can open." Revelation 3:7)
Emily Baird: I appreciate his questions because your answers, Brenda, comes from the Word.
Shari Partusch Owen: Sir I am a former Catholic your knowledge of Catholicism is notable. You seem to have taken on the role of defending the Catholic Church. Jesus died for the salvation of all that would believe on Him, not for the salvation of any domination. Depend on and defend Christ’s sacrifice.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Shari Partusch Owen "Jesus died for the salvation of all that would believe on Him,"

And - see Matthew 28:16-20 - believe in and obey all that he has ordained. That means Catholicism.

@Shari Partusch Owen "I am a former Catholic"

What made you leave?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Brenda Weltner "The 'rock' that Christ was going to build His church upon...was not the man Peter...but Peter's proclamation/confession that Jesus was/is the Christ, the Son of God."

I'm aware of this reading of verse 18, that's why I referred to verse 19.

"Christ is the One who has the Key of David...who shuts and no one opens, and opens and no one shuts"

And as the Kingdom of Heaven is around Heavenly Jerusalem, it is the Kingdom of David.

So Christ gave Peter His own key.

6:14 How much is Frank Viola dependent on Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons?

I think I'll have to check him out. Viola, that is, not Hislop.

Brenda Weltner: ...I doubt Viola references 'The Two Babylons' at all. But do check out his book!
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Brenda Weltner I actually checked out his site and found his email and asked him the question.

12:47 If someone believes he is "Christ's sword" on "Nicolaitan" or "Babylonian" Christianity, he may very well be the persecutor of Catholicism who is described in Apocalypse 13. Or the two persecutors of it.

23:12 Salvation of an individual believer actually can be lost, prior to death.

All texts that OSAS is based on mean something else.

Brenda Weltner

If a gift can be taken away...for whatever reason...it is no longer a gift, but a reward. The Inheritance, which is not salvation, CAN be taken away. Almost every passage people use to justify the idea that one can lose their salvation is actually referring to the loss of 'position' in the family of God...the loss of the right to rule (crown), loss of inheritance.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brenda Weltner If a gift can be taken away...for whatever reason...it is no longer a gift, but a reward.

What if a thing is both a gift (compared to preceding behaviour) and a reward (as to keeping it in relation to behaviour after receiving it)?

"Almost every passage people use to justify the idea that ..."

an individual cannot lose his salvation is actually referring to the Church as a whole.

Some exceptions:

"blessed is he whose sins are forgiven" doesn't mean one cannot lose one's blessedness for future sins;
"nothing can separate us from God's love" doesn't mean one cannot separate oneself from God's love due to temporal concerns (see the seed which is suffocated by thorns), it refers to those who make a real effort to stay faithful, or to the Church as a whole, which always contains such souls;
"the eternal life that is within you" being the life of God remains eternal even if taken away.

31:23 Before you go in on "what does this mean for believers right now?" here are my responses on previous, your four examples:

24:46 1 Top down "control" with a clergy class - well, if it were control and not just ruling, it arguably would be wrong. The two concepts differ. But clergy above laity, that being Nicolaitan or Babylonian is already refuted.

24:55 In fact in Catholicism we do not have a clergy that knows more than every layman does. We do have a clergy that knows more than a layman is required to know. The clergy needs to, laymen are allowed to know the whole Bible. Not always on a basis of self study, especially with bad translations, though.

So, a layman is allowed to know less than a clergyman, but it doesn't follow that he does so.

However, the reason clergy need to know the whole Bible is, they are set to rule the laity.

The knowledge of the clergy is very far from being secret.

25:22 Sounds like you are describing some liberal Protestant - laity. At least among the ones I met.

You are definitely not describing Catholic hierarchy.

26:26 Very apt description of Anglican or Lutheran clergy. The one reason St Ignatius was stopped by Catholic clergy in Manresa was, he was helping the women who were his fan club to discern between venial and mortal sin, and that is for the moral theologian to do, and especially in the sacrament of Confession (yes, it's Biblical - John 20:21-23 and James 5:16).

26:57 We very certainly do admit laymen can have truth charismatically (great examples, saints Bridget of Sweden and Catherine of Siena). Which Anglicans and Lutherans do not, insofar as they say the age or miracles or even of prophecy more specifically, is ended.

However, we have clergy to discern false from real claims of prophecy (and if anyone is abusing that on my essay writing, as still needing discernment, I didn't claim to be a prophet).

27:36 If the actual Church of Christ requires me to submit to an actual judgement, I am obliged to do that.

So far I have seen quite a lot of sham demands of sham submission to things not actual judgements.

Or to rules applicable to other types of people, who are not laity, when I am.

29:09 And they couldn't bring Catholicism in control. Why? Because Bishop Clemens Count von Galen (he was count, nobility, before being a bishop) actually knew Romans 13.

See these words:

For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

This means, for instance, that a Nazi telling a doctor to euthanatise or sterilise someone was not acting within God's requirements and definitions of authority.

Once when he argued against sterilisation, a Nazi told him, as celibate he should have no opinion - and he told him back "don't insult the Führer" (Hitler hadn't married Miss Braun yet).

Your observation is fairly spot on with Calvinists and Lutherans of Germany though, and especially of Evangelische Kirche in which it didn't matter whether you were Calvinist or Lutheran or somewhere between. A bit like United Church of Canada.

29:45 In fact, the priests were the spiritual leaders of Judaism, which by the Deicide of Kaiaphas had just separated from God's true Church which He rebooted as the Catholic Church.

But Tobias fearing God more than the king, carried off the bodies of them that were slain, and hid them in his house, and at midnight buried them.
[Tobias (Tobit) 2:9]

So, St. Peter and St. John were just comparing the priests to the king of the Assyrians, Sennacherib (if you read Tobit 1:18) and his successor.

30:14 It is not wrong to allow Constantine to obey the definition of Nicaea.

It would however be wrong to allow Constans to substitute his own preference for Nicaea (or demand disobedience to St. Athanasius and obedience to the intruder George).

30:50 Seems like some "Catholics" over here in Paris are already playing that game with me.

Like the ones obeying a document from 1994, which I consider as apostatic.

But it's not the government making a public pronouncement. It's police (or similarly powerful and discreet) acting as if I were some kind of dangerous terrorist who needed surveillance around the clock.

Brenda Weltner: Thank you for making my points for me.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Brenda Weltner Well, if they are really yours, it seems it is not Catholicism you are attacking.

And if you ask me if there was anything Babylonian about the Reformation, I'd say very emphatically yes.

Calvin ows more to Cicero than any Catholic does.
Brenda Weltner: Indeed...I'm not a fan of Calvin...
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Brenda Weltner Thank God for that!

Old English - Spoken!

Old English - Spoken! · Anglo-Saxon Again

Old English vs German | Can they understand spoken Old English? | Part 1
Ecolinguist | 25.X.2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFPBJRkFVTc

2:01 wulf?

[someone deleted my dictation from OE in the comment between the previous and the following]

bera ....4:44

3:47 Here is the setup - 1st and 2nd have cognates in German, 2nd and 3rd in English. 1st lacks cognate (for verb) in English, 3rd lacks cognate (for verb) in German.

6:52 Ribes ribes?
You just said it is black or red and that it is sweet and with many ...? ... ? ...

"with many berries gemaked"?

Other answer could be wine, if "sweart" = red and "reath" = white in this context - fits "gemacod" better.

"made with many balls!"

Yes, blackberries do have lots of small balls composing them ...

I heard "bearrum" (I guessed berries) for "beallum" - balls.

And blackberries are sweeter than ribes ribes, forgot what Ribisl / Johannisbeeren are in English.

12:05 I do not have a reference to an actual text, but if I had composed it (with sufficient knowledge in OE vacabulary and endings) I'd keep "beallum" in the dative plural, obviously, but ... wait, the instrumental for adjectives and pronouns is only for the singular, so in plural it would still be just dative?

Would a plural corresponding to a singular in instrumental rather be dative or mid + dative?

13:00 hie mahton seon, hie beoth twa, hie mahton brun, bleaw othe green beon - iegen (eyes).

16:17 Did I get "iegen" correctly as the plural of "eage"?

Комнатный лингвист: @Hans-Georg Lundahl it is eagan
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Комнатный лингвист Thank you.

And, just checking, Mt 9:29 þa æt-ran he heora eagen cweðende syo inc æfter yncre ge-leafen.

Monday, October 24, 2022

Fr. Pine Trying to Presume Sedevacantism is Heretical

Key word : presume. As opposed to argue or prove.

Can the Pope be a Heretic? w/ Fr. Gregory Pine, OP
Pints With Aquinas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLcKKS_4KHk

14:10 How come sedevacantism is treated as a heresy, when it is not condemned as such?

Conciliarism is condemned as such.

15:53 How if the capacity of the Church Herself is embodied precisely in the sequence of action known in the first step as sedevacantism and in the second step as conclavism?

16:33 Yeah, exactly.

1994 was not exactly consistent with 1633 judgement on Galileo.

Who - except sedes and conclavists, laity and clergy - have raised any voice against the abusive conflation of Fundamentalism with Protestantism and at the same time rejection of some Fundamentalist truth (like inerrancy of Biblical history or even cosmology)?

17:18 Are you calling sedevacantism an in itself heretical judgement?

When I call 1994 heretical or even apostatic, I have Trent Session IV to fall back on. When you call sedevacantism "in itself heretical" as a judgement, what do you fall back on? What document? When was it condemned?

At least by the time I became conclavist, there were bishops who were sedes - in case you intended to refer to Leo XII and his judgement on La Petite Église (which had claimed and still claims Popes from Pius VII on are invalid).

Sedes have gone the opposite curve from LPE. They lost the support of bishops and we gained it.

So, you cannot call the judgement heretical because it "leads to a communion without bishops" because that is not what it does. Any more at least.

17:22 Point me to one sede or one conclavist who will accept having his position painted as the gates of Hell having prevailed against the Church?

Just because Trent Horn or you posit this is what our position contains, it doesn't make that so.

Have you even tried proving as stringently your accusation, as I have proven mine against 1994?

Tanz: I don t think this is heretic anymore, because the Church is eclipsed. Only the return of the real church will make sedevacantists heretics in my very humble opinion.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Tanz If you want to see where the real Church is, take a look at Kansas.

Vatican in Exile.

Thursday, October 20, 2022

Can Mask- and Vax-Mandates be the Mark?

Father Spyridon Probably Mostly Right About the Antichrist · This is Not to Make Another or Stronger Indictment of Putin, It Involves Keeping Him as a Suspect · Can Mask- and Vax-Mandates be the Mark?

By 4:18 in the following video, Lisa Haven is worried that Biden's recent greenlight of a certain research will lead up to a technology finally making it as the mark of the beast. I say it won't work. I give an alternative. I then defend it as at least possible.

Biden Green Lights ‘Biblical End Times’ In Eerie Soul Stealing Executive Order!
Lisa Haven | 20.X.2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhinKgLBBSk

Hans-Georg Lundahl: 4:18 Arguably won't succeed.

Mark of the Beast will be something simpler - like a habit of wearing the mask and upgrading jabs.
L Kimberly: "The mark" cannot be forced, at all. No shot matches it, people can FORCED to get it: whether you mean one shot or a series of them- if before this you said the shot was the mark and you changed your meaning like evolutionists keep changing their views to keep evolution theory fresh, it means you either rejected your prior meaning or updated your "it is definitely ___!" meaning of the mark as if you can guess, be wrong; guess, be wrong over and over no value either way [if the guess is no value right or wrong than the mark you say it is or isn't is neither important nor of any worth]. Masks can be forced too, but too little can be forced in that way, so masks don't count either. Is the Bible about God's rule or men and their often petty pursuits? You clearly show you think it is just a political guidebook about men and their rule.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @L Kimberly While a shot can be forced, I suspect this one will not be.

It's non-acceptance will be punished, not generally pushed by brute force.

Same as with the mask.

The men and their rule once upon forced another kind of token, a grain of incense burned to the genius of Caesar.

In this older example, the idolatry was ultimately political rather than supernatural. In this case, the idol is called "medicine" or "medical expertise" - also not a supernatural thing.

It seems that the guy Apollo (with his daughters and his son Aesculapius) that medical practitioners swear by actually was a man. So the Greek gematria of Apollon would be a human number.

The nominative by itself would be 1061, on a quick check, I made a diagram with all five cases, adding up first the five A, then the five Π up to one column with omega and four omicron, after that five N, and in three cases even more letters.

Sum total : 2 666.
As said, a human number.
L Kimberly: Sorry, numerology, whether taking the Bible literally OR using numerology to use non-Bible numbers to lead to Bible like conclusions is the same as Saul using spiritism to "contact Samuel" after he was gone.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @L Kimberly I don't know what you mean by "non bible numbers" - if you meant 2666 being another number than 666, check how Jews were referring to year 5777 after creation as year 777, omitting the thousand numeral and mentioning only hundreds, tens and units.
L Kimberly: @Hans-Georg Lundahl ANY numerology is the same as the spiritism Saul used to "talk to" a dead Samuel. I don't care which numbers you use. In addition you claim it says *there's a secret code! The Bible says nobody knows when: they know the season but that's all. Through numerology and your "code" via numerology you say agree with the gnostics who thought NOBODY BUT 'US' [the secretive 'Christians'] understands the Bible. The Church long ago- even some (churches not just individual people) today believe that. In making the Bible a political guidebook you not only push God aside [You aren't needed God!] like Satan wants but also claim God revealed it all even to his enemy (Satan) because all he needs is a code like numerology to decode it to call Jesus, Paul, Peter, John among others liars because you use numerology.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @L Kimberly I am sorry, but it's not "nobody but us"

It's not Gnostic.

The letter values for Greek alphabet, Hebrew alphabet, and with Latin alphabet now ASCII are publically available. You can look them up on wikipedia.

Also, there is a kind of numerology which can really be called such, and which deals in "enneagrams" - have you heard of that? It means reducing data (perhaps including gematric, perhaps not, I don't know the details) for a person and then reducing them by sums across the Arabic numerals, until you land with a number from 1 to 9.

That is a kind of divination.

Using gematria to see if a person or institution connected to him can be a candidate for the Beast is not divination. It is using the plain words of the Bible. And information publically available.

So, if it is neither divination, nor Gnosticism, what's your next accusation?

@L Kimberly Oh, one more:

"In making the Bible a political guidebook"

Well, it arguably is, since Christ said to make all NATIONS - and that means collectively - His disciples.

I am not the least pushing God aside.

I am rather complaining vax and mask mandates are pushing God aside.

Bibles ‘Mark Of The Beast’ Becomes Real! $200 Million For an American Digital Gulag System!
Lisa Haven, 21 Oct. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLxSXFKsluw

2:39 The guy is not my type since the day when he in February 2009 turned off all of the MSN Groups - including my group Antimodernism.

I could not salvage all of the stuff to my blogger account, he took an opportunity to get my stuff off the internet, much of it, when I was not just homeless - still am - but based in a small town with little internet access and therefore little ability to attend to transferring material.

I had a smaller group as well, I tried his offer to transfer to "multiply" on that, it looked ugly and was incomplete in the very little time I had. So, I had no time to salvage all of my work.

8:43 Unlike changing people into robots by changing their genomes, this is actually here.

I have nearly been offered one.

And as you say it can be linked to vaccination status.

Wednesday, October 19, 2022

Adam Conover Promotes Some Bad Policies - But Reminds of Some Good Ones

Adam Conover Promotes Some Bad Policies - But Reminds of Some Good Ones · Anti-Malthusianism (Good) + Socialism (Bad) = Finally Disagreeing with the Video

If you find it scandalous I promote a guy who is against Barre Seid's activity, overturning Roe v Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, consider his number of views in 6 days : "699 893 vues"- extra views I give him are peanuts to what he already has.

Why There's No Such Thing as a Good Billionaire
Adam Conover | 13 Oct. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I

And also consider my giving the antidote when appropriate, in appropriate comments (also when not needed as antidote, he had some decent things to say), here:

8:56 It seems the "old scroll" actually does not ban rich people from using riches for political influence.

George Washington was not exactly a pauper ... and not Middle Class either.

9:34 I love Barre Seid, from what you told me.

"when Walmart comes to town" 12:44 "it correlates with increased obesity" 12:46 "higher crime rates and" 12:48 "lower overall employment in that area"

So, you are basically making the complaint against Walmart that Trump makes against immigration?

14:25 I am no fan of BG since he shut down the MSN Groups and encouraged users to transfer to Multiply instead, I tried that with my smaller MSN Group, result was ugly, and it would have been a lot more time to save the big one, lots more to transfer.

I lost what I couldn't transfer to blogs.

That was in February 2009.

It can be added ... I am also no fan of his narrative when it comes to having children ...

14:54 frugality is saintly when it is a means of surviving as poor, if one isn't poor, it's lack of generosity.

16:42 Why did Carnegie hate display?

"Carnegie and his family belonged to the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, also known informally as the Northern Presbyterian Church. In his early life Carnegie was skeptical of Calvinism, and religion as a whole, but reconciled with it later in his life. In his autobiography, Carnegie describes his family as moderate Presbyterian believers, writing that "there was not one orthodox Presbyterian" in his family; various members of his family having somewhat distanced themselves from Calvinism, some of them leaning more towards Swedenborgianism. While a child, his family led vigorous theological and political disputes. His mother avoided the topic of religion. His father left the Presbyterian church after a sermon on infant damnation, while, according to Carnegie, still remaining very religious on his own."

"Witnessing sectarianism and strife in 19th century Scotland regarding religion and philosophy, Carnegie kept his distance from organized religion and theism.[118] Carnegie instead preferred to see things through naturalistic and scientific terms stating, 'Not only had I got rid of the theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution.'[119]"

So, he hated display, because he was a Presbyterian. Not an orthodox Calvinist, mind you, but a Presbyterian.

Presbyterians are heirs of people hating Rome for Liturgic display, and of people cutting off King Charles I's head for courtly display. As well as encouraging the Liturgic one, as a more High Church Anglican.

Btw, he also used his influence as a billionnaire (or whatever was the limit in his time) to promote Evolution and dispromote Theism. And promote the idea that that philosophy is better at doing science than a few others.

So, do you believe in Evolution? Perhaps you have fallen a bit too much for Carnegie's and his pals' PR campaigns!

17:14 Btw, don't confuse those thugs in the US with the blackshirts of Italy.

Asking for a fair share is not the same thing as plotting a Communist takeover.

The thugs in the US didn't ask employers to make working hours and pays fair.

The blackshirts did.

17:45 FDR

Anti-Trust - there was already an earlier Anti-Trust, right? How did FDR improve it?
Minimum wage - with Bernie Sanders saying he'd like one, what happened in the meantime to the one of FDR?

If Bernie Sanders had been against abortion, and for homeschooling, I'd have recommended him on my blog. I'm for minimum wages, and maximum prices - as were a lot of Catholic Theologians (but a lot fewer Presbyterian ones), and if the Austrian school tells you otherwise, Thomas Stork has corrected them and what kind of mis-citation they are doing (it's like stamping St. Thomas as an Atheist because he begins one article "it would seem, there is no God, because ..." and not finishing the article).

18:28 Weren't there also new taxes burdening the Middle Class?

Inheritage taxation is peanuts to Patagonia, as you just demonstrated, but it can make sure some mom and pop shops don't become son and daughter shops after they die.

One can add that some parts of welfare have been bloated : more psychiatry, more child protective services, you know, where the money doesn't get to the pocket of a client, but of someone supposed to care for him better than he can do himself, or, if he's a minor, his parents can do for him.

Plus, obviously, longer schooling, I think certain schools' Atheist gym teachers are as big a threat to under age teens' chastities as certain parishes' Catholic or Neo-Catholic priests.

19:53 Anti-Walmart policies?

Like encouraging the ban of Walmart if there are small business doing the job?

Living areas that do include bakeries and small grocery stores you can buy groceries each day in small amounts, like in Germany, as opposed to some suburban living areas where in the US this is not allowed? That would make for the existence of small business doing the job.

Just a suggestion or two.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Pages

Sunday, October 30, 2022

Right Person, Right Age, Rights on Marriage

German, U S American, or What Else ...?

Friday, October 28, 2022

How do we know that the writers of Genesis didn't make it up?

Tuesday, October 25, 2022

Indo-European and General Linguistics

Brenda Has More Error Than Usually - I Still Think It Worthwhile Arguing

Old English - Spoken!

Monday, October 24, 2022

Fr. Pine Trying to Presume Sedevacantism is Heretical

Thursday, October 20, 2022

Can Mask- and Vax-Mandates be the Mark?

Wednesday, October 19, 2022

Adam Conover Promotes Some Bad Policies - But Reminds of Some Good Ones

About Me

Fighting Totalitarian Takeovers