Mainly Linguistics, on Quora

I

Given that Indo-European languages and the Asiatic languages are so distinctively different, could modern humanity have split up while they were still preverbal?
https://www.quora.com/Given-that-Indo-European-languages-and-the-Asiatic-languages-are-so-distinctively-different-could-modern-humanity-have-split-up-while-they-were-still-preverbal/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl, amateur linguist Answered Fri

Other possibility : Tower of Babel.

II

What are the linguistic differences between Old Norse and Proto-Norse, and how is a word from one of the languages converted to its equivalent?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-linguistic-differences-between-Old-Norse-and-Proto-Norse-and-how-is-a-word-from-one-of-the-languages-converted-to-its-equivalent/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl, amateur linguist Answered Fri

Old Norse is to Proto Norse about as Old French is to Latin : c. 1000 years younger.

Proto-Norse
Ek hlewagastiz holtingaz horna tawido

Old Norse / Old Icelandic
ég Hlégest Hölting horn-it gérthi

Change of word choice from tawido to gérthi, adding a final article to horn-it (modern Icelandic horn-ith) all other words (and basic word of horn) are the same, so you can study what 1000 years of language change did.

III

Given that the rate of language change varies greatly over time, is it possible that we have grossly under- or over-estimated the age of commonly accepted proto-languages?
https://www.quora.com/Given-that-the-rate-of-language-change-varies-greatly-over-time-is-it-possible-that-we-have-grossly-under-or-over-estimated-the-age-of-commonly-accepted-proto-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl, amateur linguist Answered Fri

Answer requested by Tim McCravy and Lamar Werner

This is indeed possible, but another possibility is, some proto-languages never existed and some groups are Sprachbund groups, like Balkanic (common features being areal).

This is what I think about Indo-European.

IV

Do any non-Indo-European languages have words for "crazy, insane" that trace to the Moon, like the Latin and French words that led to English words like "lunatic, lunacy"?
https://www.quora.com/Do-any-non-Indo-European-languages-have-words-for-crazy-insane-that-trace-to-the-Moon-like-the-Latin-and-French-words-that-led-to-English-words-like-lunatic-lunacy/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl, amateur linguist Answered Fri

Answer requested by David Minger

I do not know, but for cultures involving classical astrology such a development of sense is not improbable.

So, Sumerian, Akkadian, and even now Tamil arguably could, but I do not know if they did or do.

V

Since the Indo-European chief god was Dyeus Pater, then how come by the time of the Mycenaeans his Greek counterpart was replaced by Poseidon only for him to return by the classical era? Is it just a coincidence?
https://www.quora.com/Since-the-Indo-European-chief-god-was-Dyeus-Pater-then-how-come-by-the-time-of-the-Mycenaeans-his-Greek-counterpart-was-replaced-by-Poseidon-only-for-him-to-return-by-the-classical-era-Is-it-just-a-coincidence/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl Answered 16h ago

As far as I know, for one thing, Proto-Indo-European unity is a tenuous hypothesis in linguistics and a much less tenable than that one in comparative mythology.

For another, Greeks had contacts with Crete (before Crete became Greek) and with Philistines who came from Greek.

The chief god of the Philistines was Dagon.

The Mycenaean form of “Poseidon” was “Potei Daon” - so the Mycenaeans were worshipping the Philistine chief god.

VI

When the Franks first started their migration into Roman territory, they spoke a Germanic language. At what point did they adopt Latin as their main language? At what point in Latin turn into French?
https://www.quora.com/When-the-Franks-first-started-their-migration-into-Roman-territory-they-spoke-a-Germanic-language-At-what-point-did-they-adopt-Latin-as-their-main-language-At-what-point-in-Latin-turn-into-French/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl, knows Latin Answered 16h ago

Answer requested by Tony Puckett

Franks still speak Germanic languages in Trier, which was Roman Empire, and in BeNeLux which was so too.

The guys who had Latin as their main language were the conquered Gallo-Romans.

In areas with many conquerors and few conquered, they stuck to Germanic, and in areas with many conquered and few conquerors they stuck to Latin.

EDIT : forgot what point sub question, thing is, Provençal and French started out as Latin with changed pronunciation, and with a higher register full of Latin words and forms no longer found in Provençal and French, then Latin changed pronunciation for international ecclesiastic comprehension (Alcuin of York came to Tours in 800 or 799) and just after, as the people did not understand the new pronunciation, a sermon was added after gospel in 813 which needed to explain the gospel in the local vernacular. As a result, priests had to think of how to express things without Latinisms (or too many) and also came to prepare sermons in new spelling rules applied to old pronunciation = > new written language.

VII

What are some good resources for understanding morphology in Linguistics?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-resources-for-understanding-morphology-in-Linguistics/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl, amateur linguist Answered 16h ago

Answer requested by Alexandria Wasgatt

Shall I assume you are a native English speaker?

In that case, the best resource for understanding morphology as a general concept is a morphology of English.

You know English has 16 tenses, right?

Any finite verb can be present or past (2* …) which qualification is removed to the main auxiliary, and these further add potentials for distinguishing between non-future and future (2*2* …), non-perfect and perfect (2*2*2* …) and simple and progressive (2*2*2*2=16).

Furthermore the finite verb in present or past (auxiliary or main verb without auxiliaries) has persons (this is where “finite” as in “definite” or “defined” comes in : they are defined as to who is “doer” or “undergoer” etc). 1, 2, 3 sg, 1+2+3 pl.

In the case of 3 person, it is congruent with the singular or plural of the subject.

This a good start for understanding some linguistic concepts of morphology, like morphology is sometimes assymetric (3 different forms in singular, a single form for them in plural), a form depends on another form in congruence, and certain forms answer more questions than just one.

“When you come home, I shall have been writing for 2 or 3 hours and I shall have written 3 to 4 chapters.”

I shall have been writing = 1 sg present future perfect progressive
I shall have written = 1 sg present future perfect (simple).

The difference is, for English these questions about “write” are answered each by itself, in some languages they would narrow down to 2 or 3 morphemes.

European Royalty, Not Too Inbred (Quora)

Why did European royal houses intermarry?
Hans-Georg Lundahl Answered just now
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-European-royal-houses-intermarry/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Depending on century, but the main principle was:

• chosing a spouse on par in dignity (a royal could marry a total non-royal, but in that case the marriage was usually morganatic, at least in later centuries, that is, a juridical arrangement was made that the offspring could not inherit public functions like being in line to the throne);
• which one was often a question of diplomacy.

Next, the actual outcome was not very inbred as long as both Germany and Italy had very many different principalities, so that there were still very many royal or princely houses to chose from.

Holy Roman Empire was c. 400 states up to Napoleonic wars (1806) and Italy comprised several states as well up to Risorgimento (1870). The Gonzagas of Mantua are ancestry both to Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI. And let's not forget other small princely places which got centralised, the latter also descends from the Polish szlachta, in the Rzeczpospolica kingship was elective and in principle any person in the szlachta could be elected, and Louis XVI was Polish on two different lines, the paternal grandmother being daughter of Stanislas Leszczynski and the maternal grandfather being August III, son of the Frederick August II whom Charles XII replaced with Stanislas Leszczynski. But the Rzeczpospolica ended in 1795.

Lotharingia, Burgundy, Brittany were once more independent of France than later and the line from Mantua goes over Lotharingia.

With the ending of lots of independent states in 1795, 1806, 1870, as well as when Richelieu and Louis XIV centralised France, the situation changed and one would eventually have had inbreeding if it had continued for centuries. It didn't.

David Wolf gives Ben Shapiro an Excellent Lesson

Response To Ben Shapiro: Jesus Was A Revolutionary Against The Jewish Elites
David Wolf | 1.VII.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vivarQNCIM

Great video, some quibbles and addenda:

I

Roman Emperors were psychopaths? You can say that again, for some, but especially the guys between beginning of Tiberius' reign and end of Domitians.

Roman records of contemporary events peter out with Velleius Paterculus in 16th year of Tiberius saying things like "Tiberius was great, Tiberius' chosing Seianus was great, Tiberius had challenges but dealt with them in a great way, and, by the way, did I mention, Tiberius was great?" Last paragraph of the work illustrates what Our Lord meant in Matthew 6:7. Velleius was making a speech to the gods.

Then they begin again (apart from Gospellers and Josephus) when Tacitus says "back under Domitian and those guys, we didn't dare speak well of anyone except the Caesars, and now it's time to catch up, starting with my pa in law Agricola." The guy who really - under Claudius, perhaps the one Emperor that interval who wasn't what moderns like to call psychopaths - conquered Britain.

II

Speaking of entering the temple - He did so twice, first just at beginning of His public ministry, then once again in Holy Week.

III

"to the evening" - in Mark He leaves the city in the evening

In Matthew, also referring to the second cleansing, between driving out and leaving, he also healed people and had cries of Hosanna from the poor.

IV

"the Protestants don't burn incence"

High Church Anglicans and Lutherans do (that was my immediate background before converting by the way).

I was already converting when I stressed "pure offering" to a High Church Lutheran, and he admitted Malachi 1:11 is a hard one for Lutherans to explain.

Bc, while burning incence, they deny the Holy Mass is a sacrifice.

Some Prefer Taking on Flat Earth over Geocentrism

Who Started the Flat Earth Conspiracy Theory, How Many Believe This, and What Do They Believe?
Today I Found Out | 30.VI.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4l9Y5OHqpk

I

4:33 The Islamic world also concurred?

Where is the reference?

4:37 Jeffrey Burton Russell speaks of "Western Civilisation" and while Islam stretched into Westernmost Sahara, it's based in Middle East.

Arguably, Russell could have thought of Islamic Civilisation as "Oriental" as opposed to Western.

Other Oriental civilisation, which might also not be covered by Russell : Judaism as it was back then.

II

19:57 "to disprove pretty much everything on their website"

What modicum of effort disproves their Geocentrism?

Btw, what is the thing after The Principle (film feat. Lawrence Krauss et aL supposedly without their approval, which Rick DeLano disproved) mentioning Geocentric arguments chiefly in connection to Flat Earth Society or even to ask anyone who admits to Geocentrism "so you are a Flat Earther"?

Is there, for instance, some kind of conspiracy among psychologists about "monkey brain"?

III, Update

Forgot to comment on this one:

While his ideas were absurd for an incredible number of reasons, even given the technology and scientific knowledge of his era, what Rowbatham had going for him was he was reportedly incredibly quick on his feet in debates and an extremely charismatic speaker, able to twist the words of even the best academics. It didn’t matter if he was actually right or not, only that he was better at convincing laypeople than the academics he regularly debated, or at least good at creating reasonable doubt. As noted by a contemporary article published in the Leeds Times,

One thing he did demonstrate was that scientific dabblers unused to platform advocacy are unable to cope with a man, a charlatan if you will (but clever and thoroughly up in his theory), thoroughly alive to the weakness of his opponents.

Could it be, that Rowbatham actually got some points for free while discovering that opponents in academia had no good reasons for Heliocentrism? Plus were as willing as he, at least, to conflate geo vs helio with flat vs round?

And could it be, Daven Hiskey by "twist the words" of someone (especially someone as august as "the best academics") could be referring to turning the ideas around and looking at them from another angle they hadn't foreseen?

On Mariology, Rosary and the Five Month "Plague"

Revelation's Timelines of the End! Part 11
Brenda Weltner | 20.VI.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNynmyCnCmY

Hans-Georg Lundahl

150 days?

about the Hail Mary's in a full Rosary ... "a Hail Mary, per day, takes the sting away" (actually it's 153).

moca

really??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If we take 5 months as per Gregorian, not Babylonian, calendar, and starting from first of first month to last ot last month, starting any time from March 1st to September 1st, it's 153 days, exact same number as Hail Mary's in a full Rosary.

Any sequence involving a non-leap-year February, from October 1st to January 1st will have only 151 (152 if the Febrary is of a leap year) and if it starts February 1st, only 150 (or 151 in a leap year).

moca

@Hans-Georg Lundahl you pray the rosary?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The most usual way of "looking at the brazen serpent" is looking at Christ in the Eucharist.

But for 3 years and six months, the daily sacrifice - of the Mass - shall be unavailable, if not everywhere, at least to nearly all of the public.

Therefore, this may really be the time when the need for the Rosary sets in.

Most sequences of Gregorian calendar months have 153 days, which is the number of Hail Mary's in a full Rosary. 153 is also featured in the account of Genesareth fishing after Resurrection.

moca

@Hans-Georg Lundahl we are not to pray to anyone but God the Father through the Son

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"you pray the rosary?"

Not right now, a fifteen decade Rosary involves saying 16 times over "as we forgive those who trespass against us". That's irksome to me.

"we are not to pray to anyone but God the Father through the Son"

We adore the Blessed Trinity and praying to the Father, through the Son, in the unity of the Holy Spirit is one way.

However, we reach the Son, very typically, though His Blessed Mother. The phrase "pray to" is equivocal and does not always refer to adoration.

moca

@Hans-Georg Lundahl oh my....Jesus is our Advocate who prays for us continually..Mary was blessed bc she bore the Savior, but we are not to exalt or pray to her or anyone else other than Jesus!! In addition, there is never anywhere in scripture that tells us to do that. I will pray the Lord will reveal this truth to you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

First, you are wrong on what "pray to" means, if you think it is mentioned in first commandment, second, Scripture doesn't say all generations shall admit she "was" blessed, but all generations need to praise her as blessed - as still blessed. She is still the Mother of God. Third, if St. Elisabeth greeted Our Lady in words referring to King David's words about the Ark of the Covenant, how is that NOT exalting Her?

moca

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Jesus alone gets the praise! Am done debating. Only God can convict and lead into all truth

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@moca I'll give my reply too. Or St. Luke's.

"Jesus alone gets the praise!"

Luke 1:42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Luke 1:48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Peace To All

I have to say something .. My husband, mother, and I said a novena prayer (Hail Mary Rosary) prayer for 9 weeks at our church years ago .. praying for God's help to conceive a child. I know many people are dead set against the Rosary and Hail Mary's .. and personally, I understand their reasoning, and don't attend the Catholic Church anymore .. however, the prayers worked. I conceived a son, and it's a been a gorgeous, beautiful sunny day every single year on his birthday since .. 23 years so far.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Peace To All Well, sounds a good deal, and if you have reasons against Vatican II Sect, you might want to try with Pope Michael.

On Astronomic Theory of Knowledge

How do we know the Milky Way is a spiral? | The Story of the Milky Way
Dr. Becky | 12.VI.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq0zyA6Yr7o

I

1:34 Note very well, Galileo was never condemned for what he observed and said about the Milky Way. Clavius, though, after verifying (it was Clavius whom St Robert charged with verifying, wasn't it?) suggested stars might be only part of it, and there may be non-star matter as well.

Moderns, I think, have added gas clouds to stars as components, right?

What you said earlier about philosophers considering Milky Way "in the background" as early as 5th C BC must refer to Milky Way being part of Fix stars, since the only stars moving visibly to naked eye in relation to Milky Way are planets.

Oh, not just gas clouds, but dust as well, right?

Chris Baker

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You either don't understand anything about astronomy and astrophysics or you are deliberately obfuscating the issue for some unknown reason. (unknown to us.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Chris Baker I think I have read, though it was some years ago, that Galileo's observations were checked by Clavius, and that Clavius found some cloudy stuff besides stars in Milky Way.

As I recall it, between the stars in Milky Way, interstellar matter, which is now recognised to exist, consists not only of gas clouds but also dust clouds - am I wrong?

Or was the issue the other thing about how parallax is measured? In that case, first you ought to have said that, perhaps by quoting a salient part of relevant passage in my comment, and then be a bit more precise on what I am supposed to be obfuscating or not understanding.

Parallax and aberration are both so small they cannot be seen by the naked eye, and the only thing very ancient astronomers can have seen moving in relation to the Milky Way is therefore the "seven planets" - Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, and occasionally a comet.

II

2:11 Not only did Kant and the other guy have no proof, but their unproven speculation was arguably very instrumental in popularising Heliocentric or rather Acentric / Newtonian cosmography.

Obviously, appealing to Aliens was also very important:

New blog on the kid : Continuing with Carter to 24:01
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/06/continuing-with-carter-to-2401.html

If you want to skim fast to the reference, scroll down very low to "3) Idiocentric model as illustrated by Robert Carter" and then a few paragraphs lower start with "Between Kepler and Herschel, Carter omitted the real propagandists for Heliocentrism."

III

dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5:08 Neither Cepheid's nor stellar statistics by Herschel are apt to actually prove stellar distances, unless you presume some kind of uniformity.

The one presumed by Herschel is partially already seen as wrong, the one presumed by Leavitt could be wrong too, and either way, any absolute distance has to start in some other way, like using parallax for trigonometry - which is only valid in a Heliocentric view of the "Solar System".

Chris Baker

They measured the distances to the "local" Cepheid Variables with Parallax so they have true distances. It's perfectly accurate out to a distance that I forget but it's far enough to measure interstellar distances. But it is several hundred light years. Probably getting further all the time as the technology improves.

That gives them a light curve to pulse time relative to absolute brightness, that apparently holds true throughout. However, there's no proof that the laws of physics don't change minutely or at all over extreme distance. The actual gravity distance may be a teensy tiny fraction of a percent less than the strict inverse distance square law that we believe holds true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Chris Baker "They measured the distances to the "local" Cepheid Variables with Parallax so they have true distances."

You missed that Parallax only measures if we presume Heliocentrism (alternatively, even less intuitive, Geocentrism, but with stellar deplacements aligned in not only time but also distances with Sun).

Chris Baker

@Hans-Georg Lundahl It seems you don't understand how parallax is measured. Heliocentrism has nothing to do with it. The local star's apparent position against the more distant stars is the same function as watching fence posts next to a road go zooming behind your while the distant mountains stay the same for much longer. If you looked across the field to a fence post on the other side of the field and you measured the angles from 2 known points at right angles to the distant fence post and measured it's displacement against the mountains in the far distance behind you and used trigonometry to figure the distance you would be doing exactly the same thing the astronomers are doing to measure the distance to nearby stars. The only difference is the scale of the measurements. The distances are no more heliocentric than the distance to the fence post is Hans-centric. The distance would be the same whoever measured it if they do the math correctly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Chris Baker "Heliocentrism has nothing to do with it. The local star's apparent position against the more distant stars is the same function as watching fence posts next to a road go zooming behind your while the distant mountains stay the same for much longer. "

Which presupposes you are in a moving car.

Heliocentrism is also known - perhaps better in the context - as Geokinetism, "Earth moving".

So, my observation can be restated "what if Earth isn't moving".

IV

dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6:01 So, Shapley considered the Milky Way as 100 000 light years in radius.

Now, with a distance 100 000 light years, you have a Distant Starlight Problem for Young Earth Creationism.

However, suppose the real distance was only 316 or 317 light years ... exactly what would Cepheid's require in different positioning for "close stars" like alpha Centauri? Instead of 4 light years, what?

And how far away would Andromeda be, on Curtis' observation, if Milky Way were only 316 rather than 100 000 light years away?

If we continue using square roots, I get 707 light years ... also no Distant Starlight challenge to Young Earth Creationism ....

Chris Baker

It seems pretty obvious that God created the universe in pretty much it's current state, 13.8 billion years or so old at the time of creation.

Otherwise we wouldn't be able to see all the things out there that proclaim the glory of God because the light wouldn't have had time to arrive. This in no way conflicts with the evolutionary view of the universe because it was created looking as though it actually had been born that long ago. There's nothing wrong with scientists finding out how it works and even how old it is because it really is 13.8 billion years old. Here's a thought, Prove to me it was not created last week. You can't. The evidence is that it was created much longer ago but there's no way to prove it. Fortunately religion does not deal with "HOW?" and instead deals with "WHY?". Science deals with "How?" quite nicely. As we learn more, the "HOW?" changes to explain what we know.

So my faith in a created universe, about 6,000 years ago, in no way conflicts with my scientific knowledge that it is 13.8 or so, billion years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Chris Baker "Otherwise we wouldn't be able to see all the things out there that proclaim the glory of God because the light wouldn't have had time to arrive."

My question was precisely on how we are supposed to know A N Y T H I N G is as far away as 13.8 billion light years.

What if certain assumptions are flawed?

"Here's a thought, Prove to me it was not created last week."

I have memories from years ago. To account for them with a creation last week would require God including traces of things happening before creation.

My point is, with "distant starlight" the problem is the same, S U P P O S I N G we know the furthest away we see is 13.8 billion or anything exceeding 8000 light years and even some 500 less away.

B U T if instead the very distant stars are a bad conclusion on a bad supposition, we don't need God creating traces of what wasn't there to see what we see and 7200 - 7500 years being the age of Cosmos.

V

dialogue

Chris Baker

Everything in the universe seems to have a inverse relationship between the size and the number of objects. From the smallest sub atomic particles to the largest galaxies. The larger they are, the fewer they are. I haven't read anything about any studies on how many true wanderers (planets) are in interstellar space. It seems there should be a LOT of them. We have a few gigantic stars, lot's of medium sized stars, a multitude of red dwarf stars and it seems a logical progression that there would be a much larger mega multitude of failed stars and even more giant planets and again even more smaller rocky planets although small gas planets could exist if they'd never been near enough to a star to evaporate their ices. and on and on throughout interstellar space and even intergalactic space. There would be more moon sized wanderers in and around the galaxy than there are stars by a huge amount. Has anyone studied this possibility? I would think that they could easily account for the so called "missing mass" without resorting to the mysterious "dark matter".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And what if suppositions are flawed, and the sizes are wrong?

Chris Baker

@Hans-Georg Lundahl What suppositions and what sizes??? I asked questions about possibilities that seem to be logical. The whole point of my comment was to find out if anyone knows if any studies have been done or are being planned. So I really don't understand your question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Chris Baker Suppositions like "aberration and parallax" being derived in two different ways from movement of Earth, and therefore supposed Trigonometry by parallax and therefore the very first stellar distances and sizes ("local" or "our part of the galaxy" I think I have heard them called) and therefore the other distances and sizes as well.

I don't see any lack of logic in this question, and if you mean it is physically impossible in your world view, how about learning sufficient philosophy to understand difference between physically impossible (as miracles seem to an Atheist) and logically impossible (as 2=2=5).

VI

9:00 You said Hydrogen was the most abundant element in the Universe, right?

Some guys have been denying "waters above the firmament" .... and what would Hydrogen best be described as in Biblical terms?

If we term it "instant water" (add Oxygen and a spark, you get an explosion and water), we can see why Moses would have called Hydrogen water rather than air.

Plus, if I recall correctly, second most abundant interstellar matter molecule after H2 is H2O.

VII

16:00 Kapteyn ... seriously Cup Tine and not Cup Tayn?

I'm not that good on Dutch I can confidently correct you, though.

On Who's Holding Back

The Antichrist Didn't Reveal His Identity...BUT HE'S HERE! | Dr. Gene Kim
BBC International | 27.VIII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeztOsTICzo

I

13:57 Did you say "and his tabernacle"?

"And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven."
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 13:6]

Some blaspheme the Holy Trinity, the name under which we know God since Christ's speech in Matthew 28.

Some blaspheme the Tabernacle of the Sacrament.

Some blaspheme the honour given to saints - who are ... in Heaven, right?

So, it seems Apoc. 13:6 attributes to THE Antichrist some JW/Muslim and some Protestant tenets.

II

15:21 Why would Israel have been holding Antichrist back in 50's AD, when true Israelites were persecuted Christians, and when other Israelites were submissive to Rome and for that matter clearly anti-Christian, clearly persecuting Christians, to the point where Christians had enough of being identified with them and quit calling themselves Jews, in the time of St John who in his last work, the Gospel (unless Epistles are even more recent) uses "Jews" like Synoptics use "Pharisees" or "Scribes" or "Sadducees"... why?

And how could Israel hold him back in AD 70?

You are the first time I heard any give "Israel" as solution to who's holding back (one RC solution is Imperial Dignity in Rome or Roman Empire ... mystery of inquity could be a Babylonian or Egyptian infiltration of it, which was after Actium still at bay). I have heard Protestants say both "Church" and "Holy Spirit" but not yet Israel.

It has to be something with a presence both back then and up to end times.

And Roman Empire ceased in World War I, with the fall of Russian Czars in Revolution and the exile of Charles I (Charles the Last) from Vienna. Just then in comes Communism ... with so many evils. Guess why Roman Empire is still an option? Because everyone does not agree with Gibbon on when Roman Empire ended.

III

15:57 Someone unduly occupying a major Catholic Church will in fact do, since each Catholic Church is a temple of God, and its tabernacle usually contains the Temple which tore itself down and build itself up in three days - the Body of Our Lord.

18:29 And in fact, the Catholic Church has sacrifices, so, getting them to cease 3 and a half years at Tribulation's second half of week, that is one point more in common between Antichrist and Protestant Reformations.

IV

As you brought up Jews, I'm myself as "Jewish as Torquemada" if you get my drift (or, ok, somewhat more goy blood perhaps than he, who cares), so - Romans 11 means every Jew who is not a Catholic is a cut off branch, but every Jew has a place in the Catholic Church. God can make each grafted back whenever he choses.

This does not mean Catholicism should "rejudaise", that supposes it was in some important and bad sense dejudaised.

It was dejudaised as to halakha, as Christ's new covenant replaced the Old Temple. Never as to haggada, never as to what it believes. And there are still Catholics who are ethnically the same as those Jews in Jerusalem AD 33 on Pentecost day. They are called Palestinians.

V

It seems there were only two things you noticed about Rome - it's connection to Roman Catholicism (while missing there was a Church in Rome St. Paul called saints, or more precisely, "called to be saints"), and its empire.

You have not considered its Republic.

Modern ideologies start with a Liberalism which harkens back to the Roman Republic (very pronouncedly so in the days of American and French Revolutions), and Protestantism harkens back to Luther being a disciple of Erasmus who was a nostalgic of the Republican Cicero.

Aix was made part of Republic's Empire under one Calvinus. Sextus Calvinus, hence Aquae Sextiae.

Reminds of another Calvin ... and I don't mean Calvin and Hobbes. And, while Antiochus Epiphanes was a Seleucid, heir of the leopard power, he was also a vassal of the Roman Senate.

So, I agree fourth beast is probably Rome. But in a Republican, anti-monarchic and anti-Catholic sense.