Holy Koolaid Made an Appeal To Some Anti-Trump — My Answer as Pro-Trump

How to Save Democracy
Holy Koolaid | 30 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RewZdki2UT4

3:20 The one item that really doesn't chime with me is deportation.

I saw a study, it is not feasible logistically. He may attempt it, but hardly go through with it.

Some things he can do is like give abortion less place and homeschooling and religious free schools more place in the USA. And those items, I like.

17:24 An actually fundamentally ignorant view of what abortion is, is more like yours.

Killed in abortion 2022, 73 million.
Died, all (other) causes of death 2022, 67.1 million.

20:27 Of the ones you named, Alex O'Connor is better than you, the other ones you named are worse.

I have been fighting longer than you and on an opposite team.

I cannot be both Christian and Nationalist as a Swede, but I'm close to those who are both in Poland or generally the Vysehrad countries.

And I have been fighting with less resources.

One thing you have above Forrest Valkai is, he isn't doing deep dives into demographics before Babel or Sodom, so, you inspired me.

Here is part of that, and for my part, God bless Trump:

Creation vs. Evolution: Flood to End of Babel, Demographics
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/11/flood-to-end-of-babel-demographics.html

(But perhaps not all of his policies).

Thomas Westbrook Considers Faith Healers as Scammers and Compared Jesus to Them (How Many Heal Hansen's Disease?)

This Verse Secretly Undermines All of Christianity
Holy Koolaid | 22 June 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTnQydJ4O4k

3:15 Leprosy is Hansen's disease, can heal in antibiotics cures that take six months.

Any of those scammers did any attempt at instantaneous healing of leprosy?

3:48 The paralysed man was a Jew and the Old Testament included the death and resurrection in symbolic terms.

This means that the man was already in symbolic terms believing Jesus' death and resurrection.

(The position of Judaism once it explicitly rejects Jesus, His death and resurrection is different).

He was forgiven in view of the merits of Jesus on the Cross, precisely as King David was forgiven when he had sinned, after making the psalm miserere. The God to Whom the sacrifice was directed was watching Calvary from all Eternity into all Eternity. That's why the paralytic man could be forgiven before Calvary happened in Time.

4:11 Catholicism doesn't say God is powerless to forgive sins without a sacrifice, but that that sacrifice was the most fitting means of providing forgiveness.

Druid Riley

@druidriley3163

Why is it fitting at all?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@druidriley3163 If God had forgiven sins with no one paying for them at all, the forgiveness would not have shown the seriousness of the sin.

Just as if the seriousness were shown only by people paying themselves, there would be no forgiveness.

Druid Riley

@hglundahl with no one paying for them at all, the forgiveness would not have shown the seriousness of the sin Are you joking? How did Jesus' death on the cross do that? They were living at a time where Romans were crucifying people regularly. Jesus being strung up was just Tuesday to them. How would that "show" them anything?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 The Romans weren't the first to believe.

Except one Centurion. Blood and water coming from a side he pierced was not Tuesday to St. Longinus.

Druid Riley

@hglundahl Except .. Except that's just a story. The name Longinus wasn't even attached to this story for centuries.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 Your TOK / Epistemology is as faulty as your logic.

A story believed by its first audience to be true and about events in the recent past of their group (or even not so recent past), while it may contain error or fraud, it's not likely to be fiction.

4:43 You have totally missed the point that the cause of forgiveness both for the paralytic and for the good robber, St. Dismas, was the sacrifice on the cross.

And that God was watching Calvary even before He created Adam and Eve, so He was always able to forgive in view of that.

But that's a very different thing from there being no Calvary to watch, I am not saying God was making a probable prognosis about it. I say He was watching it. A k a God is outside time and watches all of time at once.

Druid Riley

I say He was watching it If he can watch it before it happened, then there is no free will.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 Yes, there is.

Your argument is as bad as if I said "if I see you do sth, it's impossible that you aren't doing it, so, my seeing you do it deprives you of free will" ....

Druid Riley

@hglundahl is as bad as if I said "if I see you do sth, it's impossible that you aren't doing it Except that isn't my argument. My argument is if god can SEE your actions before they happen, then to god, they've already happened and he knows what you're going to do, that's the "omniscient" part of being god. So, no, you don't have free will if god can see what you're going to do. If we truly had free will, god couldn't see what we're going to do because he wouldn't know what we're going to do.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 "to god, they've already happened"

To God they are happening, as you chose them within the parameters of choice.

God is never in a state of "I didn't know that before, but have learned it now" ...

Therefore, God's omniscience is no annulment of our freedom. Got it this time?

Druid Riley

@hglundahl God is never ... Agree that is how god is written. That means he's omniscient. Look up the definition of that word, you don't seem to know what it means. Catching on yet?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 I know well what it means.

You are dense about how it works ... namely in a way which does not take away freedom.

Druid Riley

@hglundahl You are dense about how it works Oh OK, so YOU explain to me how omniscience works for a supernatural being. I'll wait.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 Here.

If God experienced time in our timeline, then his knowing beforehand would be like us knowing beforehand: we can only really know beforehand if it's a necessity (or revealed by God, quod vide, other story).

God does NOT experience time in our timeline, rather in all of His eternity He has all of our timeline spread before Him. This means God watching me tomorrow, God watching me yesterday, God watching me right now are all not just the same God, but in the same eternal divine moment, meaning, to Him it is simply knowledge by simultaneous observation. It leaves us as free as simultaneous observation by fellow human beings does.

Druid Riley

@hglundahl You just reiterated that the future is already laid out as god can see it. IOW, no free will. We just THINK we have free will, we don't really have it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 No, I didn't.

Learn to read.

"already" would refer to our timeline, it's only in God's that it's laid out, but that doesn't change the nature of the choices within it, it's only laid out to Him, because He's outside it.

Druid Riley

@hglundahl Yes, I can read. Here is your quote from your post He has all of our timeline spread before Him So, like i said, you just reiterated that the future is already laid out and god can see it. So, no free will. If there WAS free will, there would be NO timeline God could see because we haven't made any decisions yet. Period.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 There isn't in our timeline.

5:08 Oh, it did. Converting the Romans to Christians freed Israelites from their oppressors, and the kingdom called the Catholic Church was the spiritual home to Jewish and Samarian Christians, dare I say Jewish and Samarian men of Galilee, even before Constantine, and in it, like in the prophecy, Israelites of both ancient kingdoms were not having standing armies.

So to this day, confer how Zionists claim that Palestinians never had statehood, i e never had an army for the last 2000 years, that being identical for their cousins of Jewish confession, Mitsrahi Jews.

5:21 W a i t .... you pretend Christianity began after the Destruction of the Temple?

By that time, Christians in Rome looked back on the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, and they had already provided the Christian story.

You suggesting they hadn't is equivalent to pretending the story of George Washington was just invented at last years Fourth of July party.

Druid Riley

you pretend Christianity began after the Destruction of the Temple Scholars theorize that's why the gospels were written. To provide Temple centered Jews another way to worship. The only documents we have preceding the destruction of the Temple are Paul's letters. And his Jesus was strictly visionary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 No, his Jesus was not strictly visionary.

No, it doesn't make sense just because scholars theorise that.

Druid Riley

@hglundahl No, his Jesus was not strictly visionary In his letters, Paul repeatedly says he gets his teachings directly through visions from Jesus and not from any living person

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 Yes, but once he also states to knowledge of a crucifixion and a resurrection ... and how many of His former disciples, who had known him physically, saw Him risen.

Once Jesus is physically in heaven, visions are how some of us get more recent personal acquaintance, but that doesn't cancel the one prior to Ascension.

Druid Riley

@hglundahl and how many of His former ... he didn't meet any, as far as I read. He met someone called Peter (Jesus' apostle was Simon) and a "brother" he calls James. If these were the handpicked apostles of a living Jesus who was the son of god, why does Paul dismiss them, say they are "so-called" and tells his followers that their teachings are not going to affect his? Paul is treating them like they're street preachers like himself.

visions are how some of us ... Visions can also be hallucinations and mental illness.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 "he didn't meet any, as far as I read."

He briefly met St. Peter in Jerusalem.

He also met his disciples in Antioch (if St. Peter was Simon Niger, St. Paul was probably not aware of it).

As for dismissing and so called, you conflate the above with the episode of Galatian 2. Likely solution, the guys he on that occasion were frauds.

"Visions can also be"

1) Doesn't annul my point that pre-Pauline visions appearances of a strictly physical Jesus are not annulled by later Pauline visions.
2) Visions technically are hallucinations, so are dreams and very intense visualisations in hypnosis. Using this as a criterium for mental illness is very overdone, like the concept of mental illness overall, by enemies of Christianity. It would be very quaint if pathegenic hallucinations falsely taken for messages from a Risen and Ascended Jesus operably coincided with what His previous disciples had known Him to teach.

6:34 Oh, you are pro-death ... and pro-infertility ...

That seems to be a very common value system shared by lots of Atheists, meaning that the idea of you having only one answer in the negative to one single question is very moot ... apart from showing that your objections, if you think through what you just said (hope you didn't) or were involved in some (dito) come from a jerk.

6:37 Young Earth Creationist here ... what was your point again?

6:39 Flat Earth most often doesn't come from Biblical inerrantists and is also not what Biblical inerrantism lends itself to, mostly.

I don't share your disdain for the late Rob Skiba II, btw. He was both a Biblical inerrantist and a Flat Earther.

6:54 The structure of televangelist fortunes (Copeland is Old Earther, more specifically Gap Theory) owes more to the idea of the Reformation in writings like those of Luther and Kings applying them, like Gustav Wasa and somewhat later Henry VIII.

The theory was, fewer preachers with larger congregations could earn more, even if each in the congregation gives less. At the beginning of the Covid epidemic in Alsatia, there was a cluster in a Pentecostal meeting involving c. 5000 people in one single place. In Catholic Europe 500 years before that, each of them would have gone to his Church on a Sunday, often one Church taking as big an area as three or four bakeries, and each Church often offering more than one Mass on Sunday, so each of the priests could celebrate.

Those priests were somewhat poorer. They were heavily regulated by superiors in the Church. That's what some of the guys doing the Reformation (arrived in Strassburg in 1523 btw) found irksome.

Please note, the Catholic Church believed in Biblical inerrancy, and in univocity in the sense given by Dan McClellan. It was Young Earth Creationist. And it didn't allow Copeland type fortunes below the level of a bishop. Most clergy weren't bishops.

7:39 You are perfectly free to use televangelist tactics, like appealing for donations, but don't expect those ones from me.

Non-Catholic Christianity's Fatal Error

Also known as Protestantism's fatal error. The communication problem. But Koolaid considers it's that of Christianity as such, hence the title of his video:

Christianity's Fatal Error
25th Febr. 2022 | Holy Koolaid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5aZXXx3E6U

I will give you the solution after hearing it stated, even before the rest of the video.

St. Paul was pretty upfront on this matter in Romans 10:

[11] For the scripture saith: Whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded. [12] For there is no distinction of the Jew and the Greek: for the same is Lord over all, rich unto all that call upon him. [13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. [14] How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? [15] And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

Now, Luther, back in 1507 when he was ordained was sent. He was sent by his bishop, who was sent by the Pope (back then Julius II, an enemy of Luther's countrymen in Italy, but even so their superior in Church matters), who as Pope had no sending from a superior on earth, but was chosen to carry on after Sts Peter and Linus through diverse types of election. Early days, clergy and laymen of Rome, later on, cardinals, meaning clergy of "hinge" Churches, in and around Rome. Julius II had previously been a cardinal himself, a cardinal priest of the Church that commemorates St. Peter in chains. And the cardinals, as chosen by living Popes, have a sending as cardinals before they elect Popes.

This "series pastorum" in Rome (mirrored in hundreds if not thousands of other Churches since the Apostles' time, which are now Catholic, Orthodox or Coptic, within the Empire) is doubled for security by the "succession apostolica" properly speaking : you have a sending at priest ordination and at episcopal consecration, and while only bishops can ordain priests, the order of bishops started with the twelve apostles, and continued as today since back then.

Both the several churches (main one Rome) having a mostly continual series of bishops and the episcopal order getting renewed by men getting consecrated by those already bishops, are a guarantee for the "traditio apostolica" - if a thing is held by all churches, since times immemorial, it is considered as proven to be by apostolic tradition. In cases where traditions differ, you try to detect who invented a novelty and oust that one, and if it isn't settled peacefully, the judgement rests with General Council or with Pope.

This eliminates any grave doubts about what the Bible means.

I don't think there is one universal tradition on what kind of artefact the tower of Babel was, if there was, I would not be in my rights to guess Nimrod was trying to make a rocket with inadequate means of both knowledge and technology and God stopped him to make sure rocketry started in a safer way 4500 years later. There certainly isn't one universal tradition either that says each language now existing was created from scratch at Babel and never changed since then, or not dramatically. But the takeaway is, we don't really need to know for our salvation what artefact it was meant to be. We do need to know it's a bad idea not to trust God's promises (Josephus - and St. Augustine, both? - considered Nimrod wanted the Tower as a kind of Ark in advance of next Deluge) or not to obey God's commands (a recent fad in exegesis says the fault was in clustering rather than spreading out).

There is a need to know from what age you can get baptised for your salvation, and if someone else's faith can substitute if you are a small child. The Church said yes, on this one, so you can get baptised as soon as you exit the womb, and it's normal to get baptised on day 8 (like circumcision in the OT).

2:23 The Bible isn't a newspaper for the Christians.

It is there to instruct people like St. Timothy, and extracts - like Gospel stories - are portioned out to normal people as within their understanding and the priest is required to:

• Western Church, since 813, when the Latin pronunciation changed, to hold an explanatory discourse
• Eastern Church (current practise among Orthodox, perhaps Uniates as well) to give time for questions about the text read to the people.

But the ones the Bible is meant directly to instruct are what one could in modern words term an "expert" - a Theologian. Bishops and priests are required to be Theologians, laymen are allowed to be it. So, the question is not if the Bible can be understood by everyman, the question is if it can be understood by a Theologian who makes his thought process about a text start within and more importantly end within the tradition of the Catholic Church.

2:41 God also very clearly knows one thing about language.

It changes.

In Greek the word "epi-skopos" means "on-seer" or more idiomatically "overseer". Up to when the Church starts to call the people who rule local churches and who can ordain priests "episkopoi" as well. The word is then in this latter meaning borrowed into other languages, and so we have Latin "episcopus" and English "bishop". Meanwhile, these languages also have words for what "episkopos" meant in the first place. FF to 1500 - some people start to translate the Greek "episkopos" with "overseer" instead of "bishop". It's as if contemporary Latin came to use "carrus" for "car" and someone came up with translating a text featuring cars as featuring "carts" - no doubt drawn by horses or oxen!

Inextricably linked to the changing quality of language. Which in turn is linked to our freewill.

So, what is God's solution? Make the communication depend on men with learning in Latin and Greek. And over and above learning, the grounding in the correct tradition.

See my initial comment.

3:10 Obviously, if plaques changed, there would be no guarantee they came from God who had given a message once and for all.

Some of your examples are things men can figure out for themselves, with due caution and patience. Like plague being an infection of Yersinia pestis which spreads with fleas that infest not just men but also rats, and also spreads with the exhalation of men sick with it.

3:33 There is a proper way of showing updates from God.

God choses a prophet or several prophets (I today got a page from America Needs Fatima, which refers to 1917, Fatima in the diocese of Ourem, where Our Lady came down, chosing three children for her message).

God authentifies the prophet or the prophecy by miracles. In Fatima, there was the Sun dancing over a gathering, and after that there have been healings.

But above all, the prophecy is publically authentified after inspection of the miracles, by the Church. See my comment one, no time signature.

4:03 Your solution was arguably the one applicable to Adam and Eve before they sinned.

The fact that they sinned shows it did not take away there free will (nor should it have), but it also means this spontaneous connexion to God is broken.

Cain and Abel (and later Seth) did not experience God as Adam and Eve had done in Paradise, they had to rely on tradition from their parents, and Cain's son Henoch and Seth's son Enosh had to rely on tradition from Adam and Eve as well, both through Cain and Seth and their wives, and directly.

Once Adam and Eve had died, 930 years into the human history (an Irish poem says Eve died mourning over Adam, within an hour), Jared would have to rely on people who had heard Adam and Eve, without hearing them himself (LXX chronology, with Masoretic, one would go on three generations more, making Mathusalem rather than Mahalaleel the last patrilinear ancestor of Noah to know Adam).

This exact same procedure is what apostolic tradition is about, when it comes to the turning point that reverses the sin of Genesis 3.

4:11 The chosen ones were not self-proclaimed, they were called by Christ, and Catholics up to a modern apostasy are very far from just a handfull.

4:15 Inconsistencies and contradictions with real history known from elsewhere are there in the imagination of a handfull of selfproclaimed prophets of atheism - and in their following.

That has been dealt with elsewhere, after I commented on your Babel video, did you make a part two as promised?

4:25 "Psychopaths" with a total defiance of the conscience they once had are there because of sin.

Cultures having a different view of right and wrong - than the one Catholicism has - are in existence because of a psychopathy usually more limited than that of Hannibal Lecter (but not always, see Azteks). Some came around before Christ came, or before their people heard of Him, they are called paganisms, some came from within the Catholic Church and are called heresies or apostasy.

6:37 A Cohen is hardly a goatherder and also not illiterate.

The first Bible author was brother of the first Cohen of the last OT covenant, Aaron.

He had literacy in hieroglyphics from his adoptive family.

6:44 Centuries between the events described and when they were actually written down ... not according to tradition, except for Genesis.

Now, the extant chronicles of Alexander the Great are also centuries after the events, unless you count two cuneiform tablets with info on just a smaller part of his carreer as "chronicles" and these are so recently discovered, they did not matter for our knowledge of Alexander.

6:47 Are you aware that "game of telephone" need not be played to "prove" tradition unreliable, it can be used to train children to become reliable reporters of what they heard just once?

And obviously, there is a huge difference between the situation in a game of telephone and in several generations traditing a tradition. It can get distorted but doesn't automatically get so, and the things that get distorted tend to stay in the same genre. Miracles don't turn to military battles, and miolitary battles don't get garbled into miracles. Much likelier, two battles may get garbled into a single one - like two battles of Ravenna, mirrored as a single one in German legend, and the winners of each presented as loser and winner of a single one.

6:53 And again, no scholar doubts Caesar just because our oldest surviving manuscript is from after the Church changed Latin pronunciation.

Since the work of Karl Nipperdey in 1847, the existing manuscripts have been divided into two classes. The first (α) encompasses manuscripts containing only De Bello Gallico and characterized by colophons with allusions to late antique correctores. The oldest manuscript in this class is MS. Amsterdam 73, written at Fleury Abbey in the later ninth century. The second (β) encompasses manuscripts containing all of the related works—not only De Bello Gallico, but De Bello Civili, De Bello Alexandrino, De Bello Africo, and De Bello Hispaniensi, always in that order. The oldest manuscript in this class is MS Paris lat. 3864, written at Corbie in the last quarter of the ninth century. For De Bello Gallico, the readings of α are considered better than β.

Silvee

@SilveeYT

Gimmie proof boi 👀

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

Look here, @SilveeYT !

In the half minute or so from 6:37 to 6:53 I was pointing out faults in the supposed proofs against Gospels being genuine.

Can you agree that giving the positive proof for a thing and answering bogus proofs against it are two different operations in logic, and you are not exactly being fair when you simply ignore the one and just ask someone to switch gear?

The positive proof for Gospels being genuine is that the Church to which they belong as Her (at least purported and believed) history has collectively recalled it as the 3 first being from exactly one candidate each, for the 4th there seem to be two candidates if you take very early tradition into account, but they are both called John, and both direct disciples of Jesus.

Zachary Chavez-levins

@zacharychavez-levins4287

Write me an essay

Hans Georg Lundahl

I'll be adding this exchange to an essay that's already here:

https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/03/non-catholic-christianitys-fatal-error.html

7:11 "compiled between 6th and 4th C"

Es ist unglaublich, wie viel mann glaube muss, um ungläubig zu sein.
Unbelievably much you have to believe to be an unbeliever.

Michael von Faulhaber.

Prophets of God have no respect, but prophets of unknowable reconstructions have it all, with you, just because they are most scholars in a time when scholarship is or recently has been pushing toward unbelief.

According to tradition, Moses wrote the Pentateuch. According to the Catholic martyrology for Cristmas day, the Exodus occurred in 1510 BC. Qumran : Year Written: between 2nd century BCE – 2nd century CE.

So, oldest possible is c 1350 years after the events and authorship. Comparable to Caesar between 50 BC and 850 AD. When the Caesar manuscripts start appearing.

More has been lost between 1510 and 160 BC than between 50 BC and 850 AD - but nevertheless some have more patience with losses in the latter time than others with losses in the former.

Oh, 250 BC => reduces the waiting time to 1260 years. Clearly even more comparable to the 900 years between Gaulic War and its manuscript!

Matthew 18
[10] See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. [11] For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. [12] What think you? If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them should go astray: doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the mountains, and go to seek that which is gone astray?

Matthew 17
[20] But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting. [21] And when they abode together in Galilee, Jesus said to them: The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: [22] And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall rise again. And they were troubled exceedingly.

Verses are a subdivision added in the Renaissance, and have some differences between Catholic and Protestant Bibles, OK. So, not weird. That's what you can expect from scholarship.

7:56 "weren't in our earliest manuscripts but were added later"

One theory. Another is, they weren't in our earliest surviving manuscripts, like Sinaiticus, and they survived by not being used, arguably bc of Arian bias in the copy versions, which already then was seen as undesirable.

8:26 Yeah, we get it, you are heavily overrelying on Sinaiticus ...

8:47 Yeah, you already mentioned your in-depth videos to which I have in some cases given in-depth commentary refuting you ...

9:28 Pope Pius IX who was friends with Jefferson Davies said, there are some just titles to slavery.

This means, there are some situations in which it is just to regard and treat someone as a slave.

The normal trio would be:

• born slave;
• sold himself as slave to get supported;
• committed a crime that merited reduction to slave status.

If you have heard of people condemned to penal work, this is what it refers to.

Now, there are obviously things to be said for reducing the first two categories, and they were in fact reduced.

The latter already as in OT times, namely, an Israelite who sold himself for slavery had to get released after seven years, unless he enjoyed it so much he preferred to stay (obvious example: fell in love with someone to marry among the female slaves).

However, there are also things that are not just titles to slavery, like slave traders waylaying a freeman to get slaves to sell.

This is a great reason why slavery in the commercial sense (prison labour is not private enterprise everywhere) has been abolished in Christian countries.

For starters, Queen St. Bathilde abolished slavery all over the Frankish Kingdom. This has as successor states today: France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg. England got rid of slavery (first time, before colonial slavery) at the Norman Conquest. Sweden when we get for the first time a law for all of the country except the cities, like Stockholm had a different law (which already before, as Hanseatic city, didn't involve slavery). So, Christian states in Catholic Europe kept abolishing slavery, until Portugal right at the end of the Middle Ages got an exception, meant for Muslims in Africa, in retaliation for their slave hunt against Europeans. And even that exception ended 1888 when the Emperor of Brazil abolished slavery and paid former slave owners compensation - like England had done in 1830.

So, yes, I think God did communicate tolerably well, and your aversion to slavery shows you owe something to Christianity.

9:39 "as millions of people are enslaved"

Exodus 21:16 He that shall steal a man, and sell him, being convicted of guilt, shall be put to death.

11:14 The things voted on weren't so much the "stories" - Biblical history - as the meaning of life, the universe and everything according to these stories.

The votes sometimes leading to splits and these sometimes to wars was prophecied.

Samaria was offered Cohen's from Jerusalem to help interpret the Torah, and they refused. Protestants also refused, and take a look at what "major branch of Christianity" has by far more than 99 % of the different denominations (but not of the people)!

A n d who fought most religious wars against Catholics (who have mostly been the majority, sometimes perhaps surpassed by Nestorians in China, but these didn't die out or dwindle bc of Catholic attacks). Between 1200's and 1900's it was mostly a steady rise of warfare death tolls in Europe as percentages of death. Two centuries stand out as exceptions. 19th C. was a dip. But 17th C. with the Thirty Years' War and the Eighty Years' War ending and the English Revolutionary Wars in fact went so high that all before the 20th C. was lower.

11:25 In Catholicism, there were up to 382 and 397 some discrepancy as to including all and only the 27 books into the NT, but the OT had a fairly clear consensus for including books like Tobit or Maccabees already then, and the other authorities back then were often excluding Esther as well - and sometimes missing an NT book or two too.

"prayer of Manasseh" is not a book, it's a book part in Catholic but not Jewish and Protestant versions of II Chronicles 33.
Suzanna, Bel and the Dragon, the prayer of the three young men are chapters 13 and 14 and a part of chapter 3 of Daniel.

11:38 So, how come you show only Protestant contemporaries?

In Catholicism, prayer of Manasseh is basically taken for granted.

12:04 It so happens, back when Medieval paintings of Hell were a thing, what you got scared of doing wasn't going Atheist - nearly no one got tempted - but joining an illegal gang of slave hunters, treating your serfs badly, making a woman pregnant and not marrying her, making another woman than your wife pregnant and not giving her compensation, using diverse forms of contraceptive practises (see what's happening to old age pensions in Europe, if you think contraceptives are OK!) and being greedy, horny and overeating, and for that matter getting drunk and gambling too.

These "emotional trauma" didn't substantially contribute to either converting people to Christianity or keeping them from apostasy. Except in an indirect way, when a sinner, who had money and didn't see all of it as needed by his children, gave lots to the Church, so She could finance preachers, missionaries and catechists.

12:11 "spread at the tip of the sword"

I think the painting depicts Saxons submitting to Charlemagne.

Saxons were robbers, committed pillage and slave hunt on Christian neighbours the 100 years preceding this, and also were so much into slavery that their introduction momentarily reversed the anti-slavery trend of the Frankish Empire.

Most European nations, starting with all the successor states of Roman Empire that still are Christian and all that were so before the Muslim invasion of North Africa and Middle East, but that's not Europe, became Christian by voluntarily agreeing within the state. Iceland, Sweden, Norway around AD 1000, Denmark had joined a century earlier, Lithuania became Christian when their Grand Duke became Polish King, but it already had Christian possessions reaching down to Kyiv, which had become Christian in 988.

Only in modern colonial times did spread by the sword for some time become more standard. And not even that. The Portuguese certainly did punish Suttee and Kali worshipping Thuggees, and certainly did introduce Christian missionaries to India, but they didn't attempt to wipe out Hinduism by force.

12:17 It is a fairly normal procedure that parents educate their children in their own beliefs.

You are using Soviet style demonisation of parental education, when it has one specific type of content, an ideology which was used in the East block but also Sweden, West Germany, even England, to rob away children of their parents.

This is a modern type of slave hunt, and you pretend you are superior to Biblical very partial and conditional endorsements of slavery?

12:31 Denmark before Christianity was already a very religious country.

All pre-Christian societies, with very few exceptions, were so.

Georgia, whose flag was shown before the Danish one, became Christian around the time when the Roman Empire and Armenia became so.

There is nothing to suggest that any of the pre-Christian rulers of either Scandinavia or Romans, Armenians, Georgians would have been easily swayed by terror propaganda, they were arguably as good as all cases looking for a more rational religion than they had.

Christianity becoming a part of the cultural identity of a land is not a fault at all, the Old Covenant had been cultural identity of Ancient Israel, of Jews and partially also Samaritans and Galilaeans, and Christ had clearly requested this should be done, see the terms of Matthew 28:19 f. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Were you formerly a JW? It's some time since I saw your deconversion video, but the New World translation is pretty unique and faulty in "men from among all nations" - Christ didn't ask for the founding of small clubs of select individuals who just stood by when the majority of their countrymen went to Hell.

12:52 Your painting of the situation of "unbelievers" or "non-believers" as "for centuries" is simply egregiously false about historic facts.

Probably you did hear a few things like that from JW's.

When Catholics by inquisition did persecute some non-Catholics, these weren't non-believers, in the modern sense, these were people believing a different version of what Christianity meant.

Most of them would have had very little room for your points of view, except this one, for an obvious reason.

Spain and Portugal weren't flooded with atheists who wanted less slavery, the guys who went against the Church in 18th C. expulsion of Jesuits actually wanted more slavery - like, they wanted to treat Guaranis as slaves, rather than as subjects with a different type of Christian culture.

13:29 It was never meant to be instruction for "most believers" - see my initial comment.

13:46 No, I don't find your ideas very novel, I have been fighting against them since probably before you were born.

I came back to Sweden from Vienna in 1980 and within two years I had got myself (in my early teens) into a vendetta with the newer religious identity of sweden, that being secularism.

I am glad you can't threaten Hell to those who are stingy to you ...

Answering HolyKoolaid on Babel, part I

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering HolyKoolaid on Babel, part I · Creation vs. Evolution : "the consensus, based on tree ring and coral calibration" - Means What? · What Would Carbon Buildup, from Scratch, Normal Speed, Look Like? · How Long is a Halflife, Then?

Nothing Fails Like Bible History 7
Holy Koolaid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_BVi5HV4w0

0:13 Origin of languageS.

The people who argue that languagE (singular) started at Babel are not just very fringe within Christendom, they also lack direct support in the text and even contradict the 1st verse of Genesis 11, which is here:

And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech.

This was previous to the confusion of tongues, as that happened in verse 7 to 9.

0:42 "Everybody gets a language myth"

For some reason, my knowledge of Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse myth, as well as my somewhat less deep one of Babylonian myth disagrees.

Theogony does not deal with why Greek, Trojan / Luwic, Kadmean / Theban / Canaanean are different languages.

Metamorphoses do not deal with why Latin and Etruscan are two more.

Gylfaginning as well as rest of Snorre Edda as well as Codex Regius sometimes nicknamed Poetic Edda does not explain why sons of Heimdall differ in Germanic and Romance languages, only why they differ in classes.

And if you can show me any passage in Upanishads or Mahabharata or Ramayana or Vedic hymns that explains why Sanskrit and Dravidic differ, congratulations!

Shouting out a claim doesn't substantiate it by examples.

0:52 "In one Aztec tradition" ... sure it was not in polemic against the Spanish tradition of Tower of Babel? You are aware Aztecs didn't die out and Nahuatl still has quite a few speakers?

Btw, the magical dove sounds a bit like a reference to the Holy Ghost, giving miraculous language knowledge on Pentecost day.

0:56 One Salishan tradition ... that's another New World first nations, right?

1:24 As to trickster god, I'd like to see your reference to Loki (which I visually recognise from the Marvel film) in Old Norse sources, not just in modern fan fic!

Or did trickster god refer to another Amerindian culture?

2:50 "eastward"?

The Bible in Hebrew says "miqqedem" and I checked elsewhere it means from the East. I don't know Hebrew, but I can see miqqedem in that verse and confer

"And Lot chose to himself the country about the Jordan, and he departed from the east: and they were separated one brother from the other."
[Genesis 13:11]

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/13-11.htm

It says "miqqedem" and as Lot went to Sodom, today under Dead Sea, this is from east to west.

Or :

"The Syrians from the east, and the Philistines from the west: and they shall devour Israel with open mouth, For all this his indignation is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 9:12]

Syria was partly north, partly east of Holy Land.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/9-12.htm

Here miqqedem and meahowr are not translated from east and from west, but before and behind. But earlier translators had from the east and from the west.

Confer "to the east".

"And it passeth along from thence to the east side of Gethhepher and Thacasin: and goeth out to Remmon, Amthar and Noa."
[Josue (Joshua) 19:13]

https://www.studylight.org/interlinear-bible/joshua/19-13.html

To the east is here qedemah.

3:05 You can perhaps argue why we know it is "this little spot" rather than all of Mesopotamia?

Valkea Kirahvi

Isn't he saying that it's there, between the rivers, which basically means it's the whole Mesopotamia, sinse Mesopotamia is 'between the rivers'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Valkea Kirahvi If he is, he's agreeing with me.

I say Babel was Göbekli Tepe, northwest Mesopotamia, in modern Turkey.

Valkea Kirahvi

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ok..? Except the Bible clearly says it was in Babylon. Anyway, there were a ton of high buildings in all places and languages were never confused.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Valkea Kirahvi The Bible says:

• it was in Shinar
• they ceased building the city

Not that it was clearly same spot as later Babylon.

"and languages were never confused."

You cannot say that for Göbekli Tepe, as it is pre-deciphered-writings.

Valkea Kirahvi

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Genesis 11:
8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel because there the Lord confused the language

Babel, Bab-el is literally the same as Akkadian name of the city bab-ilum 'the gate of god'. You might recognise 'el' as hebrew for god. The Greek version Babylon is based on the Akkadian word.

What we have from Göbekli Tepe is not writing. They are carved pictures that might have had some symbolic meaning, but it doesn't seem to have any language parts coded in, thus it's not language and it can't be deciphered.

Also, having some writing we can't read doesn't mean the language has been confused. After the conquest the tradition of Maya hieroglyphic writing was killed, and we couldn't read it. When we deciphered it, it turned out that the local Maya were still speaking almost the same language as their ancestors.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Valkea Kirahvi
"Babel, Bab-el is literally the same as Akkadian name of the city bab-ilum 'the gate of god'. You might recognise 'el' as hebrew for god. The Greek version Babylon is based on the Akkadian word."

I do not deny Babel and Bab-Ilu are same word. By the way, Moses arguably considered the claim to be "gate of God" a very confused claim and give a lampooning comment on it.

This doesn't mean they are necessarily same place.

Boston isn't the same place as Boston. Boston with the tea party is named after another Boston which was exorcised by a German monk gone to England, whose name was Botulf.

Paris in Texas isn't Paris the capital of France. There is a Rome in US as well, or more than one. Philadelphia in Pennsylvania is not Philadelphia in Asia Minor.

So, Babylon being literally named "Babel" doesn't mean it is the same place. The Douay Rheims and Vulgate versions use "Babel" only in Genesis 11.

"Also, having some writing we can't read doesn't mean the language has been confused."

Certainly not. But it means we cannot exclude it. It means we cannot prove whether one or many languages were spoken in what is now known as Göbekli Tepe. Which leaves room for language confusion being after its building period.

Valkea Kirahvi

@Hans-Georg Lundahl But is there any actual evidence of other places called Bab-ilum existing in the Ancient Middle-East, other than the famous one we are familiar with? I've been studying Akkadian, and I haven't heard of any. Regardless of what's being written in the Bible, there is a literal mountain of cuneiform texts written about the city.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Babilon in the Bible is actually refering to this site in Turkey? To my knowledge, no.

There is also no evidence that suggests that languages have ever been confused of even can be confused in the way Bible tells us. So the fact that we don't know what language the people were speaking doesn't make it reasonable to think that their languages might have been confused.

To me it seems that you just have this site in mind that you happen to like, and then you are attaching this story into it, without having any evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Valkea Kirahvi "But is there any actual evidence of other places called Bab-ilum existing in the Ancient Middle-East, other than the famous one we are familiar with?"

There is evidence - in Genesis 11 - for a place called Babel, and at least some for its being distinct from Akkadian / Amorrhaean Bab-ilu at 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E.

The classic times of ANE, GT would already be abandoned, and neighbouring city would be called variously Ur, Urfa or Edessa.

"I've been studying Akkadian, and I haven't heard of any."

When it was outside Classic Babylonia, why should you have heard of it? It would have been very marginal to Assyrians or even to Hittites.

"Regardless of what's being written in the Bible, there is a literal mountain of cuneiform texts written about the city."

The one which they interrupted the building of? I don't think so.

"Is there any evidence to suggest that the Babilon in the Bible is actually refering to this site in Turkey? To my knowledge, no."

While Hebrew text has Babel for both Babel and Babylon, Latin and Latin based English have Babel for Genesis 11 city (but Babylon in Genesis 10) and Babylon for the rest.

"There is also no evidence that suggests that languages have ever been confused of even can be confused in the way Bible tells us."

With the Biblical timescale, there is plenty, considering Sumerian, Akkadian, Elamite don't seem to go back to a proto-language.

The way they were confused is a miracle, and the Bible neither says that men could work that miracle, nor that languages never changed in any other, non-miraculous, way.

"So the fact that we don't know what language the people were speaking doesn't make it reasonable to think that their languages might have been confused."

If it was within centuries after a world wide Flood, it is reasonable the building phase was with one language and the abandoning (Klaus Schmitt considered GT had been deliberately covered with sand) was a result of the Genesis 11:9 confusion.

"To me it seems that you just have this site in mind that you happen to like, and then you are attaching this story into it, without having any evidence."

My primary evidence is the Bible.

My next chain of evidence is, GT does not directly contradict any word in the Bible.

My third chain of evidence is, other proposed sites kind of do.

Babylon is way too late. Eridu would seem to be too late due to carbon dates of the site:

Creation vs. Evolution : Babel in Eridu?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/07/babel-in-eridu.html

Creation vs. Evolution : "On the Evolutionary Timescale" is NOT in my vocabulary
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/11/on-evolutionary-timescale-is-not-in-my.html

"Not found" and "prior to palaeolithic" (positions mainly proposed hitherto by CMI) is contrary to place being in Shinar - it's kind of hard to miss it, if we have already found GT in Mesopotamia.

Valkea Kirahvi

"While Hebrew text has Babel for both Babel and Babylon, Latin and Latin based English have Babel for Genesis 11 city (but Babylon in Genesis 10) and Babylon for the rest."
Latin, the version translated hundreds of years after the original, used both the Hebrew and Greek name of the same city. Ok?

"If it was within centuries after a world wide Flood, it is reasonable the building phase was with one language and the abandoning (Klaus Schmitt considered GT had been deliberately covered with sand) was a result of the Genesis 11:9 confusion."

It's not resonable, because there is no good evidence to suggest that a world wide flood ever happened or even could happen, and no reason to suggest that their language was confused.

There a hundreds of cites that were abandoned by that time, and probably all of them has some things that were left uncompleted. Just look at any city today, there is always some construction going on.

"My next chain of evidence is, GT does not directly contradict any word in the Bible.
Yeah except it's name is not Babylon, and it's not in Šinar.

Can't really discuss dating before you tell me what date your version gives to the flood. The source you link makes the flood about 20 000 years older than what the universe is according to most flood believers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Valkea Kirahvi "Latin, the version translated hundreds of years after the original, used both the Hebrew and Greek name of the same city. Ok?"

That is one option, but I don't agree with it.

"It's not resonable, because there is no good evidence to suggest that a world wide flood ever happened or even could happen, and no reason to suggest that their language was confused."

Yes, there is. The Bible.

There is also evidence for linguistic unity in travels and transports of stone good during stone ages (both pre-Flood with Neanderthals and Denisovans, and post-Flood without them). Now, check out this one:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Rahan Linguistics Revisited
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2020/10/rahan-linguistics-revisited.html

"There a hundreds of cites that were abandoned by that time, and probably all of them has some things that were left uncompleted."

How many of them were in Shinar and how many were deliberately covered in sand?

And how many of the "hundreds" are carbon dated to before any deciphered language?

"Just look at any city today, there is always some construction going on."

That's another matter.

"Yeah except it's name is not Babylon, and it's not in Šinar."

It is not directly called Babylon in Akkadian sources. That does not mean it is not the original Babel. How many people writing about Boston even take note of the town that used to be called Iccanhoe?

"Can't really discuss dating before you tell me what date your version gives to the flood. The source you link makes the flood about 20 000 years older than what the universe is according to most flood believers."

Ah, now we are getting interesting.

I consider the Neanderthals and the Denisovans as pre-Flood races (I also consider Denisovan as synonymous with both Heidelbergian and Antecessor). This means, latest carbon dated body parts of either is a terminus post quem for the Flood. However, caves with paint would hardly have survived in shape during the Flood, so oldest cave painting would be post-Flood. This means, I give the Flood the carbon date of 40 000 BP, a k a 38 000 BC.

However, I do not give the Flood that actual date, I give it the date 2957 BC, as per Roman Martyrology for Christmas day, as it has been since oldest printed edition by Bellini. Same source also gives Abraham's birthyear as 2015 BC. In Genesis 14, Abraham needs to have been between 76 (vocation at 75, stay in Egypt = at least one year before he's back in Canaan) and 86 (birth of Ishmael). I say 80, making Genesis 14 the year 1935 BC. Do we have a carbon date for Genesis 14? Yes, due to end of chalcolithic En-Gedi (Asason-Tamar is En-Gedi). The reed mats used to evacuate treasures from En-Gedi before it was abandoned for rest of the bronze age are carbon dated to 3500 BC.

3	8 000		3500
-	2 957	-	1935
3	5 043		1565

So Flood has an excess of 35 043 carbon years and Genesis 14 of 1565.

I'll now use this online software:
Carbon 14 Dating Calculator (University of Pennsylvania)
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

Carbon level rises - atmospherically - from 1.442 pmC to 82.753.

Now, medium of the years is (2957+1935)/2 = 2446 BC.

Medium for carbon 14 levels is (1.442+82.753)/2 = 42.0975 pmC. But 42.0975 pmC gives 7150 years (either carbon years overall if you date an object today with that level in sample, or carbon extra years back then with atmosphere that level).

7150 + 2446 = 9596 BC = lowest level of Göbekli Tepe.

Now, Babel would have actually started earlier. 350 after the Flood, or not far. 2607 BC. To me that would be the real year for that carbon date. 2607 - 2446 = 161 years earlier than the midpoint. This means, the rise from 1.442 to c. 42.0975 pmC was 161 years quicker than predicted by mere mediums, and from 42.0975 to 82.753 pmC 161 years slower. If carbon 14 was produced faster before Babel began, than after, this means there was more cosmic radiation. This also explains why there was an ice age between Flood and Babel.

Valkea Kirahvi

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Latin, the version translated hundreds of years after the original, used both the Hebrew and Greek name of the same city. Ok?"
"That is one option, but I don't agree with it."

You don't agree with what? That the Latin version is a translation?

"If carbon 14 was produced faster before Babel began, than after, this means there was more cosmic radiation."

Ok, interesting claim. Do you have any evidence for your assumption that the radio carbon dates are too old, or are you just starting from your conclusion of how old the things should be, and trying to force the evidence to support that? Are you aware that the consensus, based on tree ring and coral calibration, is, that the radiocarbon dates measured are a bit too young, not ten times too old.

"This also explains why there was an ice age between Flood and Babel."
I don't see the connection, care to elaborate the bit on that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Valkea Kirahvi "You don't agree with what? That the Latin version is a translation?"

It certainly is a translation, but the different use of words reflects something beyond just same translation of same word.

It could of course be as simple as using Hebrew version exactly once where an etymology is concerned, but I don't think that is all.

Carbon dated 2300 BC (start of your Akkadian language Bab-ilu) would be between real time 1725 and 1510 BC, that is when Israelites were in Egypt. Way after Babel. I think that's the exact issue : not same place at all, definitely not same history of habitation.

When we come to dating, you claim to have read 100's of Akkadian tablets, if it isn't 1000's. Could you for any decade except end of Neo-Babylonian empire (or even that) give a year by year chronology (floating in absolute time, no doubt, but at least fixed in relative time lapses) from Akkadian sources only, ignoring Persian, Greek and Hebrew ones? Could you even for any century give a decade by decade chronology?

I don't think you could. But you tell me, if I'm wrong. Oh, I would of course also be implying they are contemporary tablets, not centuries later like Berosus.

"Ok, interesting claim. Do you have any evidence for your assumption that the radio carbon dates are too old, or are you just starting from your conclusion of how old the things should be, and trying to force the evidence to support that?"

It so happens any calibration at all involves an assumption on how old things are. How old things are is not "my conclusion" but my starting point, never claimed otherwise. Or, rather, it is a conclusion, but in a field differing from carbon dating, namely how Julius Africanus and St. Jerome dated Biblical events.

"Are you aware that the consensus, based on tree ring and coral calibration, is, that the radiocarbon dates measured are a bit too young, not ten times too old."

I am also aware how frail tree ring and coral calibrations are (in detail for tree ring) and that (at least definitely tree ring) involves circularity of using carbon dating to support age of certain series.

"I don't see the connection, care to elaborate the bit on that?"

From "Little Ice Age" we have a C14 production that is too high. 1720 is marked as being 100 carbon years back from 1950. This is because 1720 comes at the end of Little Ice Age (Charles X had led an army with cavalry - riders walking beside horses - over frozen ice in 6.II.1658) where part of the reasons for that cold would have been the higher ionising radiation which also led to 1720 dating as 1850 in C14 terms.

Source for calibration by Cambridge:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/highprecision-decadal-calibration-of-the-radiocarbon-time-scale-ad-19506000-bc/F1AB60097B0184501418D3EAEAD2EA90

Valkea Kirahvi

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
I'm not sure if I get what you are asking for, but I don't claim to be an Assyriologogist either. If you mean do we have a certain chronology for years in modern calendar dates, then no. That doesn't mean that you can just pretend we don't have any idea and pull a random number out of your ass.

"How old things are is not "my conclusion" but my starting point, never claimed otherwise. "
Exactly what I said, you are starting from the result that you are supposed to be proving, and working backwards.

Can't find anything with the combination of C14, Little Ice Age and cosmic radiation, and no idea what that has to do with Charles X and horses. You are just hard to follow at this point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Valkea Kirahvi "I'm not sure if I get what you are asking for,"

What I said.

"but I don't claim to be an Assyriologogist either."

In that case, the "we" in the following is inappropriate.

"If you mean do we have a certain chronology for years in modern calendar dates, then no."

I am also claiming that you don't even have a decent internal chronology. You have "long chronology" and "short chronology" and I think both ultra-long and ultra-short. Why? Bc Babylonians and Assyrians were not as avid record keepers of years in the past as the Hebrews at least claimed to be.

"That doesn't mean that you can just pretend we don't have any idea and pull a random number out of your ass."

• 1) I do claim you do have some idea, like Naram-Lin, sorry, Naram-Sin, sorry again, Aram-Sin coming before Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Akkad coming before Hammurapi and Hammurapi coming before Nebuchadnezzar, with the Assyrian invasion of Assurbanipal and whoever the other guy was in between.
• 2) My numbers are most definitely not random, they are based on a Biblical chronology as elaborated by for instance Julius Africanus and St. Jerome.

"Exactly what I said, you are starting from the result that you are supposed to be proving, and working backwards."

Sorry, you are wrong. If carbon dates are the only thing you can start from, you can never get a calibration for them. But you do get calibrations, that is you do start with dates as given (and proven) independently of the carbon 14 method.

"Can't find anything with the combination of C14, Little Ice Age and cosmic radiation, and no idea what that has to do with Charles X and horses. You are just hard to follow at this point."

Or you are (deliberately?) obtuse. Sorry, there is no other word for it.

I gave you a link to a paper by Minze Stuiver (a1) and Bernd Becker (a2) from 1993 and from Cambridge.

In it you have diagrams. If you look in the pdf on diagram uppermost on page 41, you will see a steep fall in carbon years, vertical axis going from 360 BP to just above 100 BP where horizontal axis goes from c. 1620 to 1720 AD. 1620 is dated as 360 years before 1950 = 1590. 30 years too old. This means 1620 had an atmosphere with 99.638 pmC. 1720 is dated as 105 years (I think) before 1950. That is, as 1845, that is 125 years too young. That means the carbon 14 level in 1720 was 101.524 pmC.

Now, 1620 to 1720 is 100 years. In 100 years, 100 pmC goes down to 98.798 pmC. But in 100 years the 100 pmC in the atmosphere usually on average are constant, meaning you replace 1.202 pmC. Now, 1620 atmosphere did not have 100, but 99.638 pmC. Should leave 98.44 pmC. But you have not 98.44 + 1.202 = 99.642, but rather instead 98.44 + 3.084 pmC to land on 101.524 pmC.

3.08364876 / 1.202 = 2.5654315807 times normal production of carbon 14.

This means, as presumable cause of the faster than normal production of carbon 14, you had more radiation from the cosmos.

Now, was it cold in 1620 - 1720? Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Across_the_Belts

"The March Across the Belts (Swedish: Tåget över Bält) was a military campaign waged by the Swedish Empire across the ice between the Danish islands. It lasted between 30 January and 15 February 1658,[a] ending with a decisive victory for Swedish King Charles X Gustav during his first Danish war."

Note [a] states:

"The dates in this article are according to the Julian calendar, which was used in Sweden until the year 1700 when it was changed to the Swedish calendar. According to the Gregorian calendar, the campaign lasted from 9 February to 25 February 1658, and the Treaty of Roskilde was signed on 8 March 1658."

The Greater Belt is the one between Zealand (Sjælland) and Funen (Fyn) in Denmark. It was crossed 6 February Julian, that is 19 February astronomic and Gregorian. It was not crossed on foot but by riders walking on ice beside their horses. On a 19 February, the weather these days would normally have open water on Greater Belt. I e 1658 (which is between 1620 and 1720) is in a colder climate than now.

Now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

"It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries, but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300 to about 1850."

In other words, the decline in carbon years and the march in 19.II.1658 are in what is normally known as "little ice age".

In other words, the years with lower temperature are identic to years with higher solar activity and therefore faster production of carbon 14.

If you look at next diagram (back to Minze Stuiver (a1) and Bernd Becker (a2) p. 41 of pdf), there is another steep decline in carbon years, which corresponds to a larger definition of Little Ice Age.

What exactly is not clear now?

3:43 Noah's son Shem lived 600 years.
Noah's grandson Arphaxad lived 338 years.
Noah's great-grandson (if such) Shela lived 433 years.

So, we need not count on Nimrod same generation of avuncular generation to Shela being only with those of his generation.

If the begat son when numbers in LXX are correct (totals would agree both versions), Babel would have ended in 401 after Flood, because that is when Peleg was born, grandson of Shela.

Generation 1 after Noah did consist of only six. We don't know how many subsequent generations consisted of, as only males are mentioned in Genesis 10 and only those who nations are from.

warpedweirdo

I take it cancer wasn't a thing back then...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@warpedweirdo I take it, some thing did shorten human lives, like cancer could have contributed.

But pre-Flood man was hardier on that one.

However, at the end of a process, lifespans of 600 (already shorter than pre-Flood ones) have shrunk to 100 - 200. Abraham, born c. 1000 years after the Flood (942 or 1070 without or with second Cainan) lived to 175.

Babel ended 401 or 529 after Flood (without or with second Cainan).

4:44 It would be fair to mention : if we go by Josephus or if it was Yasher, Nimrod would have been involved in some war before the Tower. This means these deaths and similar ones would account for the upper Palaeolithic deaths (after Neanderthals and Denisovans and Homo Erectus races had died in the Flood).

5:40 Place Babel as Göbekli Tepe.

Carbon date 8600 BC for real date 2556 (401 years after Flood).

Nineveh's oldest habitations are from carbon date 6000 BC ...

2287 B. Chr.

0.63387 pmC/100, so dated as 6037 B. Chr.

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

B U T if it is Qermez Dere ...

Radiocarbon dating has estimated that Qermez Dere was built between c. 8500 BC and 7900 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qermez_Dere

8500 BC = less than ten years after 2556 BC.

7900 BC = 2489 B. Chr.

0.519918 pmC/100, so dated as 7889 B. Chr.

(same source)

67 years after Babel.

And I have another clue on identity of Erech:

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

Babylon 2300 BC =/= NOT equal to Babel of Genesis 11.

It was founded by Amorrheans, and this after the Genesis 14 war and even after Joseph's time.

2300 BC = approx 1644 BC.

1655 B. Chr.

0.914498 pmC/100, so dated as 2395 B. Chr.

1633 B. Chr.

0.933283 pmC/100, so dated as 2203 B. Chr.

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

6:17 Your argument about Nimrod living for 3000 years is based both on inflated carbon dates and in some cases on wrong identification of cities.

Keyboard runner

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Care to elaborate how you think carbon dates are inflated?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Keyboard runner I think I linked to my article "new tables" on my blog "Creation vs Evolution" to do just that. So did my excerpt from it.

If 1655 BC atmosphere had a carbon 14 level of 91.45 pmC, it had an instant carbon age of 740, and all real age of an object from 1655 BC will after that have a carbon age inflated by 740 years. With 1633 and 93.33, the instant carbon age is 570 years. This means, 1655 gets carbon dated 2395, 1633 as 2203. This means 2300 is a carbon age from between 1655 and 1633, so probably 1644.

Carbon 14 levels were rising.

Keyboard runner

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Great, just give me the link.

I hope you can fully explain why seemingly absolutely no scientist can detect that "carbon inflation", but creationists can.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Keyboard runner Explanation is calibration difference.

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html [same link again!]

6:35 "weren't abandoned"

Doug Petrovich argues Ziggurat of Eridu was left unfinished between carbon date 5400 BC and the very much later times of ... Amar-Sin.

In the case of Göbekli Tepe, the project whatever it was, was abandoned.

HolyKoolaid Tries to Back Up his Attack Against Exodus

Debate with Paul Myers · Paulogia also doesn't get what is reasonable evidence for 1st C events · Holy Koolaid attacked Bible History with HolyKoolaid Tries to Back Up his Attack Against Exodus · Paulogia took on the Tower

Nothing Fails Like Bible History 4
2.III.2020 | HolyKoolaid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHLWo7sGyh0

I

2:25 He's already wrong on "spreads over 3000 years" ... early dynastic, mis-dated to 3000 BC and some earlier would actually be from Abraham's time and he was born 2015 BC.

Just today I found confirmation for Genesis 12. Remember, reed mats from chalcolithic of En-Gedi supporting a story in Genesis 14, which would have happened c. whan Abraham was 80, i e c. 1935 BC, these reed mats have been carbon dated to 3500 BC.

Now, here is the thing, on wiki for Sahara, I found that desertification happened 5400 years ago - 5400 minus 2000 = 3400 BC, meaning carbon dated 3400 BC. A desertification of Sahara obviously fits drought conditions which could be behind Genesis 12:10 And there came a famine in the country; and Abram went down into Egypt, to sojourn there: for the famine was very grievous in the land.

• A) Both Holy Land and what is now Sahara has a drought;
• B) Egypt hasn't, because Egypt has the Nile.

II

3:01 It so happens, you seem to interpret "missing a piece of a papyrus" as we have most pieces of if not most papyri at least of papyri representing most important events. WRONG.

You interpret "missing a nose on a statue" as we still have statues of most important people. WRONG.

You seem to interpret "missing a tomb" as we still have tombs of half the vizeers and all the pharaos with very few exceptions.

I'll go back a bit and see the title of the book ... Chris Naunton, Searching for the Lost Tombs of Egypt

Now I'll go to Amazon ...
Chris Naunton, Searching for the Lost Tombs of Egypt
https://www.amazon.com/Searching-Tombs-Egypt-Chris-Naunton/dp/0500051992/

Product details
Hardcover: 224 pages

About the Author
Dr Chris Naunton is an Egyptologist, writer and broadcaster. An expert on Egypt in the first millennium BC and the history of Egyptology, he has published extensively on both subjects, and has presented numerous related television documentaries, including Tutankhamun: The Mystery of the Burnt Mummy (2013) and King Tut’s Tomb: The Hidden Chamber (2016). He worked for many years at the Egypt Exploration Society, London, acting as its Director between 2012 and 2016. In 2015 he was elected President of the International Association of Egyptologists and in 2016 he became Director of the Robert Anderson Trust, a charity that provides support for young scholars visiting London to further their studies and research.

Now I'll look into the preview:

3:rd dynasty - step pyramid
4:th dynasty - Khufu
pyramids default for pharaos, 4:th, 5:th, 6:th

"There seems to have been something of a hiatus during the succeeding 7th to 11th Dynasties, but the practise was revived in the 11th Dynasty, under Mentuhotep II Nebhepetre, and continued into the 13th."

So, 5 or 4 and a half dynasties are missing?

Even more, the dynasties where some Creationists including me would put Exodus are NOT missing?

Amenemhet IV has a tomb in a pyramid, but it's empty. Anne Habermehl considers he is Pharao of the Exodus (who drowned and whose body was never found). Someone cited on CMI, and I believe him, rather consider him as Moses - who quit the royal court at age 40, but could have been recognised as Pharao before that age.

But if you actually read "Searching for the Lost Tombs of Egypt" I think - despite some chapters being few and dedicated to just very famous tombs - that most tombs of most Pharaos are missing. Trent Horn understated his case.

III

4:15 Meticulous record keepers? Millions of artefacts that we have?

We have about 7 million artefacts in 56 museums, so, most of these are too well catalogued to give hope of lots of new Egyptian records.

Source, the numbers for the "Museum collections of over 1,000 Ancient Egyptian artifacts" on this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museums_of_Egyptian_antiquities

Plus eliminating everything except numerals, and adding plus signs and using online calculator and rounding.

IV

4:25 Ipuwer papyrus is conclusive both in giving a somewhat downscaled version of Ten Plagues and in admitting that after this, there was no Egyptian army resisting the Hyksos - which allows the interpretation at least there was no Egyptian army at all, since it had all drowned in the Red Sea.

V

5:48 Plenty of records about these towns? So we should expect to find evidence of the Jewish residence somewhere?

Or you making this up on the spot or do you have something specific in mind?

VI

7:42 Finkelstein's dictum about nomads wasn't restricted to small groups.

If 20 nomads leave 0 evidence, 20 000 or 2 000 000 can also leave precisely 0 evidence behind.

VII

7:49 Did the Israelites during the Exodus use pots? You basically claim there is Biblical evidence for it. So, let's investigate.

In the OT of Douay Rheims, the word "pots" is used 9 times.

"pots" - OT - 9 verses found, which contain this word.
http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=pots&b=drb&t=1

7 are after the books of Moses, and the two that are in, one refers to back in Egypt before the Exodus, one to a law, not to a fact during the wandering.

Singular, "pot":

Ah, ok, there is a definite point here:

Numbers 11:7-8 A Now the manna was like coriander seed, of the colour of bdellium. And the people went about, and gathering it, ground it in a mill, or beat it in a mortar, and boiled it in a pot, and made cakes thereof of the taste of bread tempered with oil.

Now, the argument I would give is, miraculously, the pots were not worn out and were therefore not discarded during the desert wandering.

And here is my support for that:

He hath brought you forty years through the desert: your garments are not worn out, neither are the shoes of your feet consumed with age.
Deuteronomy 29:5

Part of your evidence are also temple vessels, which would have been extra well taken care of and definitely not thrown away in the desert after less than 40 years' use. Numbers 4:7 for example.

VIII

7:51 4000 years old = 2000 BC
= carbon dated 2000 BC

During the Hebrew stay in Egypt, presumably.

IX

9:20 How many ox bones or sheep bones from 2000 years ago do you find in the desert?

9:36 - can last for thousands of years doesn't mean it usually does.

Btw, 10 700 years old = 8 700 BC = carbon dated 8 700 BC = real a bit before 2556 BC.

9:47 Yes, it is unrealistic.

X

9:52 "during the time of the Exodus" ....

"For three centuries, Egyptians ruled the land of Canaan. Armies of chariots and 10,000 foot soldiers under the pharaoh Thutmose III thundered through Gaza and defeated a coalition of Canaanite chiefdoms at Megiddo, in what is now northern Israel, in 1458 B.C."

Archaeology : Egypt’s Final Redoubt in Canaan
The fiery end of the last Egyptian colony
By ROGER ATWOOD July/August 2017
https://www.archaeology.org/issues/262-1707/features/5627-jaffa-egypt-canaan-colony

That would have been under the Judges' period (Joshua's conquest is in 1470 BC, and this would seem to be carbon date - as per Kenyon - 1550 BC), plus, one more, both Gaza and Megiddo are West of the West Bank, in the West of Israel ...

11:46 Battle of Kadesh 1274 BC ... arguably somewhat later, but still before Troy fell, which is before King David's Kingdom.

More to the point, Egyptians were strengthening Canaanites who were in fact much of the time ruling over Israelites during the period.

11:40 Walking distance away ... sure. But exactly how narrow is the walk and exactly how many army men can walk side by side the narrow parts both sides of Sinai?

XI

12:38 Trent Horn admits too much. He says he doesn't even know if modern Egypt has as many as 12 million.

2017 census cited on wiki : 94 798 827
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt

I would more like contest the rabbi who claimed 80 % of Israelites stayed behind ...

XII

14:43 Holy Koolaid gets it more correct than Trent Horn ... elep in context of Numbers 1, as given by arithmetic, should mean "1000" and not "clan".

Catholic Answers banned me from their forum for being YEC and Geocentric, well, looks like they need to start regretting it.

15:26 Where exactly does it say "even more stayed behind"?

While I caution against Got Questions? as per their Protestantism, they state:

"We have no reason to believe that any of the Israelites stayed behind in Egypt, so we can safely say that 2.4 million is the approximate number of Hebrews who left Egypt in the exodus."

Got Questions? How many Israelites left Egypt in the exodus?
https://www.gotquestions.org/Israelites-exodus.html

If the Bible had stated even more stayed behind, the site would have agreed with that.

XIII

15:58 In your parallel, there is not just absence of evidence, there is absence of very reasonably expected evidence, provided the thing happened.

What we do not agree is that your expectation of finding physical evidence for Israelites in Sinai is reasonable, for instance as reasonable as the insurance agent's expectation of finding the car in a smashed state after it had been crushed.

XIV

16:28 For ten plagues, we have Ipuwer papyrus.

For a drowned pharao we have either an Amenemhet IV with no body in the tomb (Anne Habermehl's theory) or an even later pharao with no tomb found at all (end of 13th dynasty).

For Israelites living in Egypt, we also do have some evidence:

CMI : Patterns of evidence: Exodus. A review
by Gary Bates | Published: 15 January 2015 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/patterns-of-evidence

Shame that a Catholic, or supposed such, like Trent Horn misses this and leaves this research for Protestants ...

Holy Koolaid attacked Bible History

Debate with Paul Myers · Paulogia also doesn't get what is reasonable evidence for 1st C events · Holy Koolaid attacked Bible History with HolyKoolaid Tries to Back Up his Attack Against Exodus · Paulogia took on the Tower

You know, I hope, the procedure, here is the video:

Nothing Fails Like Bible History
Holy Koolaid | 19.XII.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iep4gnmJeRE

Here are my comments, in this case with some dialogue:

I

0:40 Egyptians were meticulous record keepers?

No, not really - unless by "were" you mean their records are lost. But even then. The preserved king lists (Turin, Abydos) are in conflict.

0:55 Oh wait - statues and temple hierolyphs ... is that your view of "meticulous" record keeping?

unkindestcut

Hans-Georg Lundahl So are the two genealogical accounts given for Jesus. [In conflict, like Turin / Abydos, I presume, HGL]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@unkindestcut Not quite no, since they give two different lines of descent from King David.

St. Joseph's father in St. Matthew's Gospel is his father, his father in St. Luke's is his father in law.

There are earlier crossings of this type once or twice between King David and the parents in the Holy Family, and no one pretended Nathan (ancestor of the Blessed Virgin according to St. Luke) was in office as King after King David.

Being King of a country is a unique office, there is usually one at a time. Being someone's grandfather or greatgrandfather isn't, you usually have 2 grandfathers and 4 greatgrandfathers, and the only quirk which confuses this somewhat is that Hebrews mentioned husbands instead of the women concerned.

Citing the Haydock comment:

Remarks on the two Genealogies of Jesus Christ.

To make some attempt at an elucidation of the present very difficult subject of inquiry, we must carry in our minds, 1. That in the Scripture language the word begat, applies to the remote, as well as the immediate, descendant of the ancestor; so that if Marcus were the son, Titus the grandson, and Caius the great-grandson of Sempronius, it might, in the language of Scripture, be said, that Sempronius begat Caius. This accounts for the omission of several descents in S. Matthew. 2. The word begat, applies not only to the natural offspring, but to the offspring assigned to the ancestor by law. 3. If a man married the daughter and only child of another, he became in the view of the Hebrew law the son of that person, and thus was a son assigned to him by law. The two last positions shew in what sense Zorobabel was the son both of Neri and Salathiel, and Joseph the son both of Jacob and of Heli, or Joachim. — "S. Matthew, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed Virgin, speaks of a son properly so called, and by way of generation, Abraham begot Isaac, &c. But S. Luke in ascending from Jesus to God himself, speaks of a son properly or improperly so called. On this account he make use of an indeterminate expression, in saying, the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. That S. Luke does not always speak of a son properly called, and by way of generation, appears from the first and last he names; for Jesus was only the putative son of Joseph, because Joseph was the spouse of Mary, the mother of Christ; and Adam was only the son of God by creation. This being observed, we must acknowledge in the genealogy in S. Luke, two sons improperly so called, that is, two sons-in-law, instead of sons. As among the Hebrews, the women entered not into the genealogy, when a house finished by a daughter, instead of naming the daughter in the genealogy, they named the son-in-law, who had for father-in-law the father of his wife. The two sons-in-law mentioned in S. Luke are Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli, and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri. This remarks clears up the difficulty. Joseph, the son of Jacob, in S. Mat. was the son-in-law of Heli, in S. Luke; and Salathiel, the son of Jechonias, in S. Mat. was the son-in-law of Neri, in S. Luke. Mary was the daughter of Heli, Eliacim, or Joacim, or Joachim. Joseph, the son of Jacob, and Mary, the daughter of Heli, had a common origin; both descending from Zorobabel, Joseph by Abiud the eldest, and Mary by Resa, the younger brother. Joseph descended from the royal branch of David, of which Solomon was the chief; and Mary from the other branch, of which Nathan was the chief. By Salathiel, the father of Zorobabel, and son of Jechonias, Joseph and Mary descended from Solomon, the son and heir of David. And by the wife of Salathiel, the mother of Zorobabel, and daughter of Neri, of which Neri Salathiel was the son-in-law, Joseph and Mary descended from Nathan, the other son of David, so that Joseph and Mary re-united in themselves all the blood of David. S. Mat. carries up the genealogy of Jesus to Abraham; this was the promise of the Messias, made to the Jews; S. Luke carries it up to Adam, the promise of the Messias, made to all men."

Whatever the difficulties attending the genealogies may be, it is evident that they arise from our imperfect knowledge of the laws, usages, and idiom of the Jews, from our ignorance of the true method of reconciling the seeming inconsistencies, or from some corruptions that in process of time may possibly have crept into the text. The silence of the enemies of the gospel, both heathen and Jewish, during even the first century, is itself a sufficient proof, that neither inconsistency nor corruption could be then alleged against this part of the evangelical history. If the lineal descent of Jesus from David were not indisputable, he could not possess the character essential to the Messias, nor any right to the Jewish throne. We may confidently then assert, that his regular lineal descent from David could not be disproved, since it was not even disputed at a time when alone it could have been done so successfully; and by those persons who were so deeply interested in falsifying the first Christian authorities.

Source : Haydock Commentary, Luke chapter 3
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment51.shtml

II

"Papyri dating back 4500 years"?

You presumably mean they carbon date that way. They do not give a continuous historic narrative adding up to that.

"Genealogies" while showing not Egyptian but Cuneiform tablets?

Holy Koolaid

Actually, at 1:08, when I mention genealogies, I show a wall of hieroglyphics. That's the king's list in Abydos which lists the names of 76 pharaohs. Perhaps you should do your research before you criticize mine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Holy Koolaid The subtitles at least came when you showed cuneiform tablets.

Abydos Kinglist and Turin Kinglist show discrepancies between them. Also, a kinglist is not necessarily a genealogy, I don't know how many years and how many so and so was son of so and so either kinglist mentions.

You have one examplar for each, you don't know their Sitz im Leben, you don't know why they differ, you don't know why Manetho differs from both ...

@Holy Koolaid OK, I get it, the wall of hieroglyphics is the Abydos Kinglist and the cuneiform tablets you very quickly switch to are the diplomatic correspondence - with Mesopotamian powers.

Would all of that be Amarna correspondence?

III

1:57 We would expect to find ... very little after so much time.

Egyptian remain may be overwhelming, but they are very little of what was. Nearly all is gone.

How much remains of Roman war elephants?

"At least one elephantine skeleton with flint weapons that has been found in England was initially misidentified as these elephants, but later dating proved it to be a mammoth skeleton from the stone age."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_war_elephants

2:58 "that's just an excuse for they haven't found anything"

As, if so, with most of ancient history.

Holy Koolaid

"Nearly all is gone?" I literally mentioned 907,000 artifacts at just 50 museums, millions of mummies, towns, temples, palaces, etc. And that's your comeback? 🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Holy Koolaid Look, with 907,000 artefacts left, from such a long period in such a big country, that means nearly all is gone.

Do some maths!

IV

2:50 You are quoting partial sources - unbelievers who want to keep up their unbelief.

Israeli archaeologists would be the last to admit an evidence for the OT.

Doc Reasonable

WHY?? The OT is the JEWISH TORAH you slobbering idiot.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Because Israeli archaeologists are not believing Haredi Jews.

Expecting them to believe the Torah is like expecting Anglican liberal theologians to believe the miracles of the NT.

Doc Reasonable

@Hans-Georg Lundahl If they found convincing evidence, they'd believe it. But it's not going to happen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Like Bishop Robertson for resurrection of Christ, Israeli archaeologists are very definitely not looking for convincing evidence.

Such guys are unbelievers and they bias their research, perhaps consciously, much of the time perhaps by unconscious habit, so as not to find the evidence there is.

Doc Reasonable

@Hans-Georg Lundahl It's pretty obvious that nothing in the Bible is true. If anything ever turns up to prove any of it, it will not just be dismissed out of hand.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It's pretty obvious that nothing in the Bible is true."

That's your bias about the Bible.

"If anything ever turns up to prove any of it, it will not just be dismissed out of hand."

That's your bias about unbelievers of slightly Jewish or slightly Christian tradition, or your bias about the guys who get research funds. Plus, by people like you, it will.

Either way, it's your bias from your atheist religion, and I have a Christian religion with opposite bias, plus I have taken a close look at that kind of unbelievers (part of why I left Swedish state Church, even if the ones I met perhaps weren't as bad as Bishop Robertson I had known from CSL's description).

V

3:26 Egyptian conquest of Canaan ...

1460 BC to 1125 BC. Carbon dates, I presume?

Now, if the carbon dates are off, this mean that this could well be from the time of the Judges, during which era Israel had to fight and reconquer independence time after time.

In Roman martyrology, Exodus is 1510 BC. That means Moses was born 1590 BC. But Moses could have been born lose to the death of the pharao Sesostris III, whose coffin is carbon dated to c. 1839 BC. 250 years discrepancy.

While going up to times of King David, the discrepancy evens out, as carbon 14 rises to modern level.

Why from Egypt to other Egypt, 3:38?

Perhaps because Holy Land hadn't been Egyptianised yet and perhaps because effective control of Holy Land was going to be an armwrestle between Israelites and neighbours and very little left for Egyptians claiming suzerainty over these neighbours.

Plus, the Bible doesn't actually present it as fleeing ...

Except of course for the brief episode of an Egyptian army which drowned, presumably just before Hyksos conquest.

Yes, 3:50, you have fortresses which can have been manned Egyptian style but by Canaaneans and you have stelae precisely bragging which Orientals sometimes do with not much substance (like you accuse authors of Exodus of doing).

4:14 And Battle of Kadesh would have been during the Judges period, and this is why Israelites were not involved as major participants.

Unless, like King David was involved on either side of Kadesh in I Chronicles 19:

http://drbo.org/chapter/13019.htm

Speaking of which battle:

"As a result of discovery of multiple Kadesh inscriptions and the Egyptian–Hittite peace treaty, it is the best documented battle in all of ancient history."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kadesh

• 1) so, the best documented battle from then lacks chariots lying around for archaeology?
  
  Should tell you sth about your insistance on finding archaeological confirmation before believing historiographic narrative!
  
  
• 2) If I Chron 19 is involved, King David's time should carbon date to c. 200 years earlier than real time.
  
  In fact, one acquaintance of mine has the invasion in King Solomon's time, by "Shishak" = by Ramses II. Look up Damien Mackey, he'll be happy to give you details.

In the case of Amarna correspondence, David Rohl considers "Labeya" = King Saul ...

Jason Steinway

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Keep it simple. Where ARE the 2 million skeletons of the Israelites and their animals that were NEVER found, despite excavations since the 1800's and the use of ground penetrating radar ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Keep it simple : where are your similar requests for any other people that area?

With 99 % missing or more - ditch that request.

VI

7:05 On mt. Sinai, God delivered to Moses the essentials of Genesis chapter 1 - the rest from 2 verse 5 on, Moses had from tradition which, inspired by God, he considered as reliable.

7:23 So, Moses wrote about himself in third person .... Julius Caesar imitated the procedure.

7:32 If "humble" simply translates as "bad self confidence" and therefore "socially handicapped", yes, a person who was humble in that sense would write it about himself.

Never mind that Jews later discovered this is a virtue ...

7:39 Last chapter of Deuteronomy was written by Joshua and last chapter of Joshua was written by a scribe who was starting the recording of Judges as well. Judges being, like 2 books of Samuel and 2 books of kings and like parallel work 2 books of chronicles, cumulative work, much like Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

8:05 Moses can have given heirs of Aaron the right to update place names.

This could also explain why Exodus features "Phithom and Ramesses" of which at least the latter could be a name from later times.

Or Dan could have been a parallel name older than Laish.

Paul Gross

Do you have any substantive evidence for your claims ... ?

I will wait patiently ....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• 1) "claims" - most of what I said was possibilities countering HolyKoolaid's claims.
• 2) substansive evidence for Moses seeing precisely creation days on Mt Sinai is tradition.
  
  And that's as substansive as it gets for most of ancient history.

Paul Gross

Hans-Georg Lundahl - then you are not just wrong, but very dishonest too.

Until now, you have never called your claims mere 'possibilities', and you must explain exactly that if you are discussing mere possibilities. Not to qualify your claims as mere possibilities is dishonest.

And, of course, unlike the claims about Moses, much of ancient history is backed up by archeological discoveries, and this substantive evidence far exceeds the zero archeological evidence for Moses - so you are plainly wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Moses can have given heirs of Aaron the right to update place names."

Note the word "can"?

"unlike the claims about Moses, much of ancient history is backed up by archeological discoveries"

No, it is not if by history you mean the sequence of events.

If you mean existence of such and such a culture, at such and such a time in such and such an area, yes, much is backed up, but much is lost. But when it comes to single events or men living, nearly all is lost.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

after some more thought

In the case of updates of place names, I mentioned this as a possibility, since if so it was done too discretely to leave traces in Hebrew tradition. I also mentioned another possibility.

But in the case of Moses writing in third person (like Caesar), using "humble" as we would use "socially awkward", last chapter of Deuteronomy (like last book of Caesar's Gallic Wars) being by someone else despite general rule of Moses being the author, while I don't take them for mere possibilities, to my opponents, these are possibilities they need to exclude before using the arguments Holy Koolaid just used against Moses being (with exception for updates in geographic terminology or last chapter) the author of all of the Torah. In the case of Genesis, final compiler.

Paul Gross

Hans-Georg Lundahl - you wrote: "Last chapter of Deuteronomy was written by Joshua ...".

Note the word 'was', because you are being dishonest.

And regardless of whatever is lost of ancient history, there is still plenty of archeological evidence as backup, so when compared to the zero for Mouses, is necessarily ahead. ... so, again, you are wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As I just mentioned, I am giving the response from my perspective as a fact, however, the point is, even the possibility is enough to dismiss HolyKoolaid's argument.

"regardless of whatever is lost of ancient history, there is still plenty of archeological evidence as backup"

No, not for most events, not for most known persons, unless they had faces on coins or statues, not for even very important events and very important persons.

You can back up Caesar by statues - but you can't back up Vercingetorix that way, nor that he was beaten by Caesar, nor that he came to Rome as a prisoner, was led in triumph, was strangled. Same for Baodicaea. Same for Orgetorix and Ambiorix. Every opponent of Caesar is gone. Except for his texts.

Conjuration of Catiline? Find me archaeological back up for that one, and I'll be impressed. Sextus Calvinus conquering Provence and founding Aix? You do get first Roman remnants at Aix at the right period, but that's it. Equally, if you can archaeologically prove Alexander the Great was born in Pella in Macedon ... have your go.

These are the kind of things that actually make up history in the usual sense of the word. You know, like not just knowing 20th C. commodities, but knowing who Hitler, Churchill and Stalin were. For 20th C. AD you can back up those things archaeologically, for 20th C. BC, you usually can't.

The one who's wrong is you.

Paul Gross

@Hans-Georg Lundahl - a 'response from your perspective' is not an established fact - and you know this as well as anyone else.

So you have just added stupidity to your dishonesty. Well done!

And both Vercingetorix and Caesar are better attested than both Moses and Joshua - because at least Vercingetorix had a well-attested contemporary - Caesar - who wrote about him.

No purported contemporary of either Joshua or Moses ever wrote a word about them.

Which only emphasizes how wrong you are.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Paul Gross Moses wrote about himself and Joshua wrote about his death.

We know this because of tradition.

We know tradition because people remembering a book was written jesterday won't jump and conclude it was written hundreds of years ago.

And people recalling a book was written by Moses won't recall it was written by Aaron.

Exactly the same way we know Caesar wrote Bellum Gallicum.

Sorry to have to schoolmaster you about ancient history, but that's part of my subject at university - Latin.

In case you say we have no manuscripts of Moses from his time, neither do we have any of Caesar from his time. Tradition, not surviving contemporary manuscripts, is the key to establishing authorship in ancient texts.

"a 'response from your perspective' is not an established fact"

It is an established fact in my school of thought if not in yours.

"So you have just added stupidity to your dishonesty."

And it so happens, if we were working at the same place, I'd consider quitting it or suing you over harrassment.

How about learning to use some manners in debate?

VII

9:06 Yeah, misinformation and pseudo-science ... that's what I face when watching this.

Holy Koolaid

Says the guy who was accusing me if showing cuneiform writing when I showed the hieroglyphic Kings list at Abydos. 😆😆

Jason Steinway

When you find the 2 million skeletons of the Israelites AND their animals that were NEVER found, despite excavations since the 1800's, and the use of ground penetrating radar, I might believe you.

All major Universities and the Israeli gov't gave up looking many decades ago.

Jewish theologians no longer accept the Exodus as fact

https://medium.com/@mattsamberg/what-if-we-weren-t-slaves-8f92dd6eac01

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You know, there are lots more than just 2 million Egyptians missing.

In Egypt you have found over one million animal mummies, most of which were cats.

The human mummies are lots less numerous in finding, despite an estimate 70 millions were mummified. Not to speak of the rest of Egyptians who weren't.

The criterium is flawed. Most of Ancient history is found only in texts. Battle of Kadesh is found in more than one text, from the time, but not in battle field archaeology - and it's more recent than the Exodus.

"Jewish theologians"

Jewish apostate "theologians" ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

added (to video)

9:18 "Promoting science and critical thinking."

Biassed science and one sided criticism ... a little earlier you mentioned "regligious dogma" : in fact you are promoting an anti-religious dogma to counter tradition universal among Jews, Samarians and Christians (and to some extent Muslims).

It's anti-religious dogma [that] traditions of a religious type need to be challenged on historic claims.

It's biassed science to exact more archaeological evidence for Exodus than you would for nearly any other event in Ancient History.