Ex-Vangelical Gone Atheist / Sceptic

How Christianity Warped My Thinking
Prophet of Zod | 17.VIII.2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeF2Ad7BHNA

So, a few resumés, after the video.

You used to believe all the Bible said (in blanco, as a Catholic I assure you there are things you didn't believe that the Bible says), now you don't believe what the Bible says at all (unless supported by other sources or unimportant, I presume).
You used to believe your then surrounding, that being that small insular community of very devout people, now you believe your present surrounding, a much bigger but still insular community of very sceptical people.
You used to believe supernatural explanations are evidently right, now you believe supernatural explanations are evidently wrong.

You used to believe Catholics, Mormons and JW's are all wrong. You still believe Catholics, Mormons and JW's are all wrong.

At that, you think that there is an objective standard valid for all communities large or small what is education and what is misinformation.

Any community will consider the education of any other community objectively involves disinformation. No sensible man will call it disinformation on purpose if a man hands on the outlook he believes himself to be true.

[a few highlights before that:]

1:28 As a Catholic (hardliner, the kind your friend met on campus) and ex-Vangelical, I am all ears so far ...

2:52 "totally detached from normal real world information"

You mean like Swedish education is very detached from any information on Creation science?

3:18 "and other activities"

You mean like Swedish school children regularly have extra-curricular activities organised by equally secularist actors to the school teachers?

4:21 You mean like Swedish Church is making sure people doing it weddings and funerals are getting in touch mainly with non-Christians?

On the Exodus

Why We Know The Exodus REALLY Happened! w/ Dr. John Bergsma
Pints With Aquinas | 17 Aug 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW-VB9HNnzg

1:06 Ramses II isn't even remotely a good candidate for the Pharao of the Exodus.

The best argument you could make for him is the city of Ramesses, and the non-Ramses reply to this is, Exodus was edited by copyists to keep the narrative à jour with what Egyptians were later currently calling the place. At least that is one possible non-Ramses reply.

Stephen Gray

The problem with this approach is that Pi-Ramses was a brand new city constructed during the 19th dynasty. If the Exodus was earlier than that, then the Bible gives a name that does not match the place. There are a number of other pieces of evidence that strongly suggest this era for the Exodus. The fact that Avaris (the city everyone seems to agree the Israelites came from) was abandoned during the reign of Rameses II. The way the Ark of the Covenant uses and subverts the meanings found in Egyptian ritual furniture only works somewhere between Amenhotep III and the end of the 20th Dynasty. The Merneptah Stela places Israel as a non-settled people group in Canaan during the reign of Ramses II's son. In an Exodus before Ramses II, this would have required the wandering in the desert to be far, far longer than the one generation/40 years mentioned in the text. An Exodus after Ramses II means Israel doesn't exist by the time they are recorded. The date of the altar complex at Mt Ebal is consistent with a Ramesside Exodus, but not an alternative one. The same goes for the destruction of Hazor where the idols were descrated. Jericho has only two relevant periods of occupation. One is too early for any plausible Exodus date. The other seems to fit a Ramesside Exodus, although it is from a layer where much of the evidence is missing due to later site levelling. FInally, in an Exodus date earlier than Ramesse II, you have to believe that the Israelites wire in Canaan for several generations before we start seeing any archaeological evidence of them.

I've yet to see any archaeological evidence given by advocates of earlier Exodus dates which isn't in the form of "we're going to re-date this find to a date that happens to fit the Exodus date we were already committed to".

Hans Georg Lundahl

@stephengray1344 "The fact that Avaris (the city everyone seems to agree the Israelites came from) was abandoned during the reign of Rameses II."

In fact, some think the Biblical Pithom and Rameses really reflect Avaris, well prior to his day.

"The way the Ark of the Covenant uses and subverts the meanings found in Egyptian ritual furniture only works somewhere between Amenhotep III and the end of the 20th Dynasty."

Because before Amenhotep III you find a radically different one? Or because before his day you don't find that much, until way earlier?

And in the former case, what if it was actually Egyptians that plagiarised "the Tabernacle and so on"?

I have seen a documentary which attributes war tents to as far back as Buto and Hierapolis - at the beginning of dynasty I, when the Falcon tribe took over.

"The Merneptah Stela places Israel as a non-settled people group in Canaan during the reign of Ramses II's son. In an Exodus before Ramses II, this would have required the wandering in the desert to be far, far longer than the one generation/40 years mentioned in the text."

Non-settled does not equate to still in the desert walk.

"Jericho has only two relevant periods of occupation. One is too early for any plausible Exodus date."

I suppose you mean the one with carbon dates 2200 - 2400 BC for the walls and 1550 for the abandonment?

That is the exact time I pose for the taking of Jericho. In 1470 (real date of the taking), the still rising and still somewhat low carbon 14 level caused a misdating to 1550. The walls incorporated rubble from earlier times, when the carbon 14 level was yet lower, and which therefore misdate even more.

"FInally, in an Exodus date earlier than Ramesse II, you have to believe that the Israelites wire in Canaan for several generations before we start seeing any archaeological evidence of them."

What are your criteria for identifying archaeological evidence for Israelites? Btw, what method was used to date the Mount Ebal curse tablet? I found no mention of carbon dating for the Mount Ebal site. I did find a mention of potsherds dated, doesn't say with what method and the potsherds could be from a different occasion than the Deuteronomy one.

"The same goes for the destruction of Hazor where the idols were descrated."

Going by date for Jericho, I'd expect the destruction to show up, if at all, in around 1550 BC. Upper city XVI and Lower City 3 span two centuries, so the question is, for how long was Asor destroyed in Joshua 11, when it becomes part of Naphthali in Joshua 19? And mind you, a reason to think modern archaeologists mismatch is this one:

"The archaeological remains suggest that after its destruction, the city of Hazor was rebuilt as a minor village within "the territory of Naphtali" (Joshua 19:36)."

Sourced "Negev," Avraham/Gibson, Shimon, Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, New York/London 2001, p.220, ISBN 978-0-8264-1316-1 (English)

However, Joshua 19 has 32 The sixth lot came out to the sons of Nephtali by their families: ... 35 And the strong cities are Assedim, Ser, and Emath, and Reccath and Cenereth, 36 And Edema and Arama, Asor, 37 And Cedes and Edri, Enhasor, 38 And Jeron and Magdalel, Herem, and Bethanath and Bethsames: nineteen cities, and their villages.

The text mentions the total of cities, and villages are to be added to that, as 19, but only names 16 cities, leading to the conclusion Asor was not the least strong of the 19, but one of the 16.

"which isn't in the form of "we're going to re-date this find to a date that happens to fit the Exodus date we were already committed to"."

I am certainly committed to redating. But the fact is, my redatings don't take the form of "this find" but form an overall arch of rising carbon 14 levels, from Flood to Fall of Troy. I used 8 nodes, starting with Flood and ending with Fall of Troy, where I could identify a Biblical or otherwise historical event, i e really absolutely dated, starting with Flood, atmospheric pmC back then at 1.625, ending with Fall of Troy at c. 100 pmC (archaeological date by carbon matching the date by Eratosthenes).

Fall of Jericho is node VII. So, in a sense, yes, I took this one as an independent redating enterprise. But on the other hand, 98.924 pmC fits as on the rise between 97.068 pmC for node VI (death of Sesostris III, birth of Moses, 1590 BC, dated as 1838 BC as per his coffin, 250 extra years), and 100 pmC for node VIII, Fall of Troy.

• Node VI, also fits on a rise from node V 87.575 pmC for Joseph in Egypt 1700 BC, with death of Djoser, and its raw carbon date 2800 BC, and the node VII given.
• Node V, 87.575 pmC, fits between node IV, Genesis 14 in 1935 BC (or very few years around), and its carbon date 3500 BC, at an original 82.73 pmC
• Node IV, 82.73 pmC in 1935 BC, fits between node V, 1700 BC with 87.575, and node III, 48.1415 pmC in 2556 BC, end of Babel carbon dated as 8600 BC, as per charcoal layer of Göbekli Tepe.

And, between nodes VI and VII, we could have an extra node, 1510 BC carbon dated as 1609, as per eruption of Santorini, if that eruption was used as a means for the Plagues of Egypt by God. The initial carbon level that would take differs by 0.5 pmC points from the one I could calculate between the nodes.

2:37 A claim about as credible as Apollonius of Rhodes* writing the Iliad and the Odyssey, as opposed to just writing Argonautica.

2:56 The Exodus was 1510 BC. Not 1300 or 1200's.

Stephen Gray

And where's your evidence for this? Please note that insisting that dates given in a temple dedication must be taken literally is not good evidence, since we have a number of examples where dates given in such dedications were numerologically significant but chronologically inaccurate.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I refer to St. Jerome for the evidence, @stephengray1344 .

I take 1510 BC or 1511 BC from the Roman Martyrology for Christmas day.

Christ is born Dec. 25 in the 1510th year from the Exodus. As He is born 1 BC, add one more year when counting backwards.

Note, the text in King Solomon's dedication, I'll take the number as a minimum lapse of years, probably calculated by taking the 300 years at face value, when Jephtha, I think it was, had missed several decades.

I have already done sums for years within the Judges period that don't match up.

As the Roman martyrology puts Anointing of King David in 1033 BC the Temple is in 982 BC, which doesn't match up with an Exodus in 1510, but rather would if so conflate Exodus with taking of Jericho.

8:28 Bergsma is for all I know right that the cultural parallels are attested for 1200's BC.

But this does not mean that the carbon dated period I think corresponds to the real date of the Exodus, 1609 corresponding to* 1510, attests a very different Egyptian culture which wouldn't match the culture of the books of Moses.

It is simply that 1609 for Egyptologists is so much less well attested.

* As I already previously commented on the "Ezra writing Pentateuch" fad:

Φιλολoγικά / Philologica : Imagine Someone Said: Apollonius Rhodus Wrote Iliad and Odyssey
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/08/imagine-someone-said-apollonius-rhodus.html

** For actual year 1510 to carbon date to 1609, see my New Tables:
Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

Node VI is birth of Moses, or death of Sesostris III some (here taken as two) years later.

Real date 1588 (Moses was born 1590). 97.0681 pmC for original sample content leads to 250 years instant age, 250 extra years = 1838 as to carbon date.

Node VII is for taking of Jericho, 160 years later. Real date, 1470 BC, since 40 years after 1510. The closest I got when manually calculating was 1476 BC, 98.924 pmC, 90 years extra age, so carbon date 1566. Matches Kenyon's 1550 BC pretty well.

Between these nodes, in the table VI to VII, I have these two points, not real nodes, but calculations from the nodes:

1521 B. Chr.

0.98184 pmC/100, so dated as 1671 B. Chr.

1498 B. Chr.

0.98555 pmC/100, so dated as 1618 B. Chr.

1510 would be between them. The pmC would be between. (98.184 + 98.555)/2 = 98.3695 pmC, leads to 140 extra years, 1650. In order for 1510 to carbon date as 1609 instead of 1650, I need to have 98.81 pmC instead of 98.3695 pmC at this point. En error of 98.81 - 98.3695 = 0.4405 pmC.

On Today's Feast

I agree with Trent Horn on the conclusion, but not on his epistemology:

Answering Arguments from Silence Against Mary's Assumption
The Counsel of Trent, 15 August 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD6SX6Gypv0

5:15 Indeed. The Orthodox call today's feast the Dormition. Meaning there was a death bed and something that somehow corresponds to normal dying, though not quite. Because the non-presence of original sin and the divine motherhood made a difference. Dito for the story told by St. Andrew of Crete, pre-schism. She was buried, and St. Thomas wanting to take a last farewell opened her tomb and found a veil and a belt.

Wen Shan

I believe another version in tradition records the Assumption as witnessed by all the Apostles except Thomas, who happened to be evangelising in India. Doubting, as Thomas was with the resurrection of Christ, he asked for a sign. The Blessed Mother appeared on a chariot in the sky and gave him her girdle. Thomas took the girdle to India. In 394 A.D., it was relocated to Urfa, Turkey, and subsequently to Homs, Syria.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Thank you, @wenshan9101 !

Could you tell me where you got that, I think my memory matches what St. Alfons of Liguori wrote from St. Andrew of Crete.

Wen Shan

@hglundahl this version is included in Blessed Jacobus' The Golden Legend (Readings on the Saints). The relocation of the cincture to Homs is from a Syriac Orthodox source.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Ah, thank you @wenshan9101 !

I have not read The Golden Legend all that much.

Wen Shan

@hglundahl Thank you, Hans! I have had the privilege of learning from you in more ways than one.
God bless, and may Our Lady keep you safe under her mantle!

Hans Georg Lundahl

Thank you @wenshan9101!

Yajun Yuan

@hglundahl Do you think Epiphanius taught the bodily assumption of Mary in his writings?

Hans Georg Lundahl

I do not recall, @YajunYuanSDA .

I have heard of him, but if he was an early witness or one of the exceptions early on, I do not recall.

I do note, since his time, unanimity is reached in all Churches with Apostolic Succession, Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians.

This could not have happened if it were an error.

Yajun Yuan

@hglundahl I made a definitive video of the interpretations of his Panarion 78 and 79, giving both the Protestant and Catholic interpretations of it.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Christ promised infallibility to His Church, not just up to the end of the life of Epiphanius, but up to the end of the world.

By now, not just Catholics, but also Orthodox, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians support this. IT having been in doubt in the time of Epiphanius doesn't make it doubtful any more.

Yajun Yuan

@hglundahl So you believe in the assumption of Jesus not because of the documentary evidence but only because several denominations accept it today?

Hans Georg Lundahl

@YajunYuanSDA
1) I am fine with the Roman Catholic one.
2) "several denominations" are the other realistic candidates for the Christian Church, those who took no root in a Reformation several centuries after Christianity began, which, while in fact condemned by the Church, could have some kind of claim to at least subjectively think it was they who were condemning and that they Church was what was being condemned.

Luther and Ellen Gould White had no such excuse.

Sry, @YajunYuanSDA .

"the assumption of Jesus"

It's called the ascension.

I believe in it because of Church tradition, as expressed in early documents.

But I believe the Church to be divine because of associated promises, and so the traditions of the Church to be correct even if they have way fewer such early documents, or documents from later on.

Yajun Yuan

@hglundahl @hglundahl "so the traditions of the Church to be correct even if they have way fewer such early documents, or documents from later on."

So you telling me even though Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians all accept that Mary died and even though there is more documentary evidence for death than her assumption.

You choose to be dogmatic that she was assumed and tolerant on her death because you think your denomination is divine?

Hans Georg Lundahl

@YajunYuanSDA "So you telling me even though Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians all accept that Mary died and even though there is more documentary evidence for death than her assumption"

All accept she rose and was assumed.

I checked.

Catholics traditionally accept:

• She died in a sense (but not as a punishment for Adam's sin)
• then She rose and was assumed.

Check The Glories of Mary, by Alfons Maria Liguori. He quotes St. Andrew of Crete on this.

Precisely as the other ones mentioned by you also do.

I am dogmatic both on Her dying and on Her being raised and assumed, as that is the Catholic tradition, also shared with these other Churches.

Yajun Yuan

@hglundahl Do you also accept that her soul was separated from her body? that her soul went to heaven first and her body came later?

Hans Georg Lundahl

I think @YajunYuanSDA , that Christ came down to hold His Mother's soul in His arms.

Early on at my Catholic conversion, I thought this was contrary to the Catholic dogma, but after reading Glories of Mary, not so.

9:16 I'd say at least the writing of the Apocalypse and of the Gospel of St. John, probably Epistles too, was after the Assumption, and this may have been the case for some Petrine Epistles too.

10:46 This fits in with Ortlund's claim that the earliest source is Coptic.

The "third century" assignation means it is from before the Monophysite heresy and schism after Chalcedon.

15:17 IT can be added, both the Protestants you are speaking of, and the Catholics in the time of Pope St. Pius X believed that the Exodus narrative we have was written by none other than Moses, one of the participants. IN other words, those "historians" are wrong.

15:25 An Evangelical would say we came from Adam and Eve, as would a Catholic.

C. S. Lewis was an Anglican who in his Problem of Pain, about a decade after his conversion (hope he changed his mind later) said Adam and Eve were not individual people and Genesis 3 is not history.

James Upton

A Catholic up on science would not.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@jamesupton4996 What you call a Catholic "up on science" I call a heretic as per Trent Session V.

I also call him a dupe of pseudo-science.

James Upton

@hglundahl Well you"re wrong then. Just check out Catholic teaching on Faith and reason , evolution and so on. And that the Big Bang Theory for example was formulated first by a Catholic Priest who had no problem also bring a theoretical physicist, and nor had the Church.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@jamesupton4996 "Well you"re wrong then."

Were you intending to give any arguments for it?

"Just check out Catholic teaching on Faith and reason,"

I don't consider Antipope Wojtyla for 1998 as "Catholic teaching" but the document you refer to has no anathema attached and is therefore of lower dignity than Trent Session V, and it also does not deny individuality of Adam. On the contrary:

“The truth is that only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a type of him who was to come, Christ the Lord. Christ, the new Adam, in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling”

Which is a quote from Redemptor Hominis.

"evolution and so on."

I don't think there is a document named "evolution and so on" ... but seriously, Humani Generis 1950 is not teaching on evolution, it's teaching on what rejections of the theory oblige, rejecting polygenism being one of these.

"And that the Big Bang Theory for example was formulated first by a Catholic Priest who had no problem also bring a theoretical physicist,"

Did he deny Adam was an individual?

"and nor had the Church."

If he didn't, perhaps that's part of the reason why the Church had no problem with it.

Now, one of the problems with a document called "Fides et Ratio" is, it gives the impression faith and reason are coordinated, like two attitudes man can take. In fact the first sentence seems to be an unacknowledged quote from Baha'ulla, the founder of the Baha'i heresy.

However, I cannot find it ... I just recall it from a high school class on Bahai from more than 10 years before "Fides et Ratio" ...

Reason is not an attitude of man, it is a faculty of all men. Faith is not an alternative attitude, it is one of the qualities reason can have. Therefore they cannot be coordinated. Just as "eyes and blue" is weird or "hair and blond" is weird, so also "reason and faith" is weird, for the exact same reason. Pun acknowledged.

Now, if you think Fides et Ratio authorises you to disbelieve in an individual Adam (unbelief, specifically heresy or apostasy, being alternative states of reason to faith), this means, at least some of the readers of Fides et Ratio have shipwrecked their faith.

Why didn't George Lemaître do so? First, it should be noted, I am not affirming he didn't - he could be an early bird for the modern apostasy, in a corner where the Church was less watchful. But as far as he knew, he was denying literality of creation days, like Sulpician Father Fulcran Vigouroux, and Vigouroux had believed the Biblical chronology from Adam on was fairly easy to save, even with modern geology. Note, he had also promoted a limited Flood, but from the Biblical Commission in Rome, he only had occasion to promote the extension of Creation days.

Libby received the Nobel prize 6 years before Lemaître died, and died in de facto communion with an antipope. It is very possible that Lemaître had never heard of a human - everyone would agree, anatomically fully human - skull in Peștera Muierilor carbon dated to 34 000 or 29 000 BP. It is very possible that he, like I, considered the skull Cro-Magnon 1 as posterior to Adam, rather than 27 680 BP.

It is very possible that he also had not heard of the definitive proofs that Neanderthals are human - the superglue used by some of them to attach a spearhead to a shaft, the man of Shanidar who was kept alive after losing an arm sufficiently long for the cut off bone to "heal" or the fact we have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in many human populations today.

It is therefore possible he either considered Neanderthals as a pre-human, non-human kind, or that he considered the Neanderthals as descending from Adam within the Biblical time scale (in the Roman Martyrology, there are 3259 years between creation of Adam and vocation of Abraham, just before he visited a pharao).

It is also possible that he strictly kept aloof from all things anthropology, so the only implications of what he took for science he ever needed to bother about were the creation days, before Adam was created. I have heard some scientists are good at specialisation, that is compartmentalisation.

Btw, @jamesupton4996 ... what is my hunch more precisely about Cro Magnon 1?

The carbon date would be 25 680 BC, close enough to 25 362 BC, for which the real date is 2912 BC, 45 years after the Flood.*

Anatomically, they have argued Cro Magnon 1 is just 40 years old. Probably none of Noah's sons died this soon after the Flood, even if chronological 140 years with their biology would anatomically probably match our 40. But no one said all of Noah's grandsons lived to their normal lifespan.

Could also be, in the calcium rich waters over there, someone dying later than 2912 BC was dated as older than he was for real, by reservoir effect. Like if he died 200 years later, 2711 BC, he would normally have carbon dated as 12 611 BC - but a two hundred year reservoir effect is not unheard of more recently.

15:31 Where is your genetic difficulty?

The presence of Neanderthal and Denisovan genes and the dating of latest purely N or D skeleta or skeletal parts to no more recent than 40 000 BP?

The solution is not all that difficult.

Neanderthals and Denisovans were pre-Flood races, perhaps one or the other more or less connected to Nephelim. But they were also post-Adam races. However, this depends on carbon date 40 000 BP being reducible to Flood date, 2957 BC in the Roman martyrology (in fact, 2957 BC would rather have the carbon date 39 000 BP, as per tephra from Campi Flegrei eruption - the one pre-historic supervolcano eruption so far carbon -dated).

15:42 The kind of "secular historic science" that denies historicity to Genesis 3 or Exodus is modernist pseudo-science. Here is Haydock on the historic epistemology for Genesis 3:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

You: "no solid history for Genesis 3 or even Exodus, but this is remedied by revelation"
Haydock: "pretty good solid history for Exodus and even Genesis 3 - and THEN the absolute veracity furthermore added by revelation"

Your position could at worst be taken as neither Genesis 3 nor Exodus were recorded while taking place, or the record was lost, and a later revelation as in apparition or audition repaired this loss or omission.
Haydock's is clearly that Genesis 3 events were recorded orally and revelation is a theological extra qualifier, like for the Gospel of Luke, based on interviews, just like a journalist would do a biography today.

Unlike electromagnetism, I don't think history has made any methodological breakthrough since the day of Haydock. The criteria taken from the Weibull school are fair enough for 19th C. history, if it's the 19th C. AD. They'd be atrocious for any criterium (contemporary, independent, multiple) and especially all together for 19th C. BC events.

15:57 "the Bible that revealed them to us"

You'd find it atrocious to say "the Bible told the Eleven that Jesus had risen and shown Himself to them, and they believed this because of the inerrancy of the Gospel of Luke" ... in fact, when it comes to defending tradition, this is one of the things you'd state, the Resurrection was preached before Gospels were written, and both the preaching and the Gospels simply record this fact, with no epistemological break in the memory.

Why would you be doing that exact same mistake with Exodus or Genesis 3 events?

17:00 I'd disagree. The Coptic sources being from before the Monophysite heresies, and from a region close enough to Palestine, they are a fairly believable source material for Mary's Assumption, even if Pius XII wasn't Pope.

Precisely as 3 versions of St. Helen finding the cross makes it believable that happened, with associated miracles.

To discount these, one would purportedly misapply Weibull criteria for a period which they cannot apply to, and in reality show one's prejudice against miracles.

To a Christian, furthermore, the consensus of liturgies adds a theological argument.

Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians all honour Our Lady's assumption into Heaven. To say this were not true would be to posit that error crept into universal tradition, which is contrary to the promises in Mt 28:16-20.

* For a real date 2912 carbon dating as 25 362, see this item:

2912 B. Chr.

0.066161 pmC/100, so dated as 25 362 B. Chr.

It's from table I to II on this post.

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

From a carbon date associated with the Flood for 2957 BC and a carbon date associated with beginning of Babel (= Göbekli Tepe) for 2607 BC, I have taken (for table I to II) an evenly curved increment of C14 over time periods of real time 22 ~ 23 years. The one for 2912 BC has 6.6161 pmC, as outset value of any sample not affected by reservoir effect, which gives an instant age of 22 450 years, which added to 2912 BC gives the carbon date 25 362 BC or 25 562 BP. Other tables have been similarily made.

More on language in general

No, "Language Divorce" is Not my Amateur Term for Divergent Evolution! · Proto-Languages - How Are they Reconstructed? · Sabellian and some more, but first Vulgar Latin · Indo-European and Romance are Very Different as to Diachronic Linguistics · More on Language : Latin to Romance · More on Latin to Romance and Middle English to English · More on language in general

Q

Is the notion that all languages are equally complex a proven fact or a politically correct shibboleth?
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-notion-that-all-languages-are-equally-complex-a-proven-fact-or-a-politically-correct-shibboleth/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Answer requested by

Edward Hubbard

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

11.VIII.2023

A language can be complex in two ways.

It can be complex in reflection of society and its complex norms. In that way, not all languages are equally complex. In Japanese, “I” is a full noun, but it’s a different one depending on your own status and the status of the one you are speaking to. Only some people are called “sensei” for you, and only by some people. That complexity may very well be lacking in a more egalitarian society or a society. On the other end of the spectrum, when all houses are made of snow and ice, all houses are termed igdlu in Greenlandic, and a derivative of igdlu by way of adding a verb ending meaning “to make X” and another noun ending meaning “material to accomplish Y” (referring to the verb), the long word meaning “material to build an igdlu” can only refer to specific types of snow and ice, and not to bricks or stones or wood, in this very elementary society of technological options.

It can also be complex in relation to doing what a language is supposed to do. In that way, not all languages have equally complex morphology, not all languages have equally complex syntax, not all languages have equally complex vocabulary, or derivations. BUT all languages have equally complex overall complexity. Greenlandic is as mentioned spoken in a very non-complex society, prior to arrival of Danes, but it has one of the most intricate systems of word derivation.

Turkish and Hebrew have very intricate morphology, but both have very simple syntax. Latin might seem to be the odd one out with complex both morphology and syntax, but has very simple vocabulary. Chinese has an utterly simple morphology (unless you count auxiliaries), nearly no endings at all, but a very heavily complex syntax. You cannot even say “three professors” you have to say “three person professor” …

Also, all languages have:

• three levels of expression, phrase, morpheme and phoneme (1. full meaning achieved by unique combination of morphemes, 2. partial meaning achieved by standard combination of phonemes, 3. no meaning in itself, just there to differentiate morphemes)
• infinite recursivity
• infinite productivity of morphemes by finite palette of phonemes
• possibilities to speak of negated or otherwise absent things.

This is obviously a feature even before the rival claims of morphology, syntax and vocabulary to solve the more intricate things of what the language can express.

Apart from vocabulary issues, all languages can express everything, they only differ in what they must express. In some languages, a student is expressed as either male or female (der Student, die Studentin). If it’s an unknown, he’s presumed to be male until proven female. In the plural of such languages, the masculine plural (die Studenten) is used for mixed groups even more than for purely male ones. But English gets away with saying student irrespectivly of gender. I e, English doesn’t need to express gender, but can (“those male students are harrassing this beautiful lady student”) …

While the person telling me these things was fairly PC, I don’t think there are any valid counterexamples. There is no such thing as a language midway between ape and human expression. The one imagined by Tarzan’s author Edgar Rice Burroughs (as “language of great apes”) wouldn’t function in real life. With Rahan, the authors seem to have imagined this Cro-Magnon lived before pronouns were invented, since Rahan never says “I” but only “Rahan” of himself, but this cannot be consistently kept up in all dialogues.

Edward Hubbard

11.VIII.2023

Thanks for the reply.

Can you explain what you mean by Latin having simple vocabulary? I can understand the concept of simple/complex morphology/syntax, but how can vocabulary be simple or complex?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.VIII.2023

Well, it can be small or big.

With the opportunities Latin morphology and syntax makes, words can be better utilised to different shades from context, so you need fewer different words.

Q

What is the general opinion among linguists: did several proto-languages arise independent of each other, or could all of the world's languages be in fact related, but all the evidence has been destroyed by time (such as irregular sound changes)?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-opinion-among-linguists-did-several-proto-languages-arise-independent-of-each-other-or-could-all-of-the-worlds-languages-be-in-fact-related-but-all-the-evidence-has-been-destroyed-by-time-such-as/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Aug 5 2023

Both opinions exist, and I mean within the community of people who accept Evolutionary origins of human language as a whole, which I do not.

Merrit Ruhlen claims to have reconstructed 32 words of Proto-World.

Some people would not even consider him or Greenberg as sound when it comes to Proto-Amerindian.

Q

Is enough of Proto-Indo-European reconstructed to theoretically communicate with the speakers of the original language using our reconstructed version if we could go back in time?
https://www.quora.com/Is-enough-of-Proto-Indo-European-reconstructed-to-theoretically-communicate-with-the-speakers-of-the-original-language-using-our-reconstructed-version-if-we-could-go-back-in-time/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Riley Miller

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

11.VIII.2023

No, it is not. Here is why

• words are lacking;
• a form for “if” is probably lacking;
• there are several alternative reconstructions around, plus any reconstruction may amalgamate by sheer bad luck the stage at one point for one feature with the stage at a point a thousand years or two thousand years later (conventional chronology) for another feature;
• which is one more reason why the reconstruction project is no proof there was a PIE, and so a fourth reason could be if one indo-european word came from one language another from another, one feature from one language, another from another. I e, if the Indo-European unity were one of a Sprachbund and not of a family.

Q

Do you think that Latin was derived from Sanskrit or did they both come from a common ancestor language?
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-that-Latin-was-derived-from-Sanskrit-or-did-they-both-come-from-a-common-ancestor-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

11.VIII.2023

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Latin and Sanskrit certainly did not come one from the other.

They are also not simply unrelated.

The two options are:

• they both came from a common ancestor (usually referred to as Proto-Indo-European)
• or they were at one time involved in same or related groups of languages influencing each other mutually.

What's an Apologist?

Q

What is an apologist in the Catholic Church?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-apologist-in-the-Catholic-Church

Two Answers

A and B - I commented under B and footnoted A

A

Stephen Arthur Noel DSouza*

Bible studies

Wed 9.VIII.2023

Originally Answered: What is a Catholic apologist?

A person who defends the Catholic faith by providing Biblical explanations of the Truth.

Here are my Apologetic writings:

A HEARTY WELCOME TO YOUNG CATHOLICS!
https://youngcatholics.quora.com/A-HEARTY-WELCOME-TO-YOUNG-CATHOLICS-People-are-leaving-the-Catholic-Church-because-they-are-getting-mislead-by-very-co

* Note

Stephen DSouza just spoke of his apologetic writings.

Stephen Arthur Noel DSouza
https://www.quora.com/profile/Stephen-Arthur-Noel-DSouza

gives the following credentials:

• Financial Consultant at Business 1975–present
• LL.B in Law & Criminal Law (paralegal), Indian Law Society's Law College Graduated 1976
• Lives in Pune, Maharashtra, India 1960–present
• 1.5M content views 41.8K this month
• Active in 3 Spaces
• Joined August 2020

None of the credentials make him clergy or necessitate a vow or an appointment with the Church.

B

Al Lundy

Practicing Catholic for 60 years, Deacon, servant of God

Thu 10.VIII.2023

St. Lawrence

A Catholic apologist is someone, who understands explains and defends our Catholic faith through reasoned discourse.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.VIII.2023

In other words, unlike:

• bishop
• priest
• deacon

it doesn’t take any ordination.

Unlike:

• ordinary
• abbot
• parish catechist
• doctor of theology at a Catholic university

it doesn’t take any appointment with the Church.

Unlike:

• monk
• nun
• religious

it doesn’t take religious vows.

While any of above may be an apologist, an apologist does not need to be any of above, and can very well be not just a layman but involved in a writing enterprise that is private profit (Gilbert Keith Chesterton) or a charity (Catholic Answers).

Al Lundy

11.VIII.2023

The Laity is any individual or group not ordained or committed to the Religious Life.

So yes, an apologist can be laity, ordained, or in the Religious Life. Because of that it was unnecessary to list them in the definition, it was sufficient to say that it is simply “someone”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.VIII.2023

Thank you very much.

I am sharing your answer and your comment, because, to some Evangelical sects, it seems to be standard to presume an apologist is a pastor or at least a youth pastor.

While I am Catholic, there are a lot of Evangelicals involved in my situation here in Paris, and they may bring in unwarranted presumptions about what being an Apologist means to me.

Al Lundy

11.VIII.2023

You might look at your terminologies as well because you have several redundancies and overlaps.

Church members fall into one of these groups

Laity, Religious Life, Ordained life. A person falls into.only one of these categories, you have duplicated some into more than one grouping.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.VIII.2023

I was not just looking at non-laity, I was also looking at appointments with the Church.

A sacristan is usually laity, a parish catechist is usually laity, but both depend for their position on an appointment.

The apologist doesn’t. Let me rephrase that. A parish catechist may be a good apologist, his occasion for work is parish catechesis, which he has by appointment with the Church. But an apologist qua apologist doesn’t depend on such an appointment.

In other words, if I tell someone I am sacristan of Ste Anne, I am lying, that position is already filled by a man holding it by appointment with the curate and perhaps also parish council.

If I tell someone I am an apologist (among other activities as a writer), that is different. You can claim I am a bad apologist, but not that I claim a position that isn’t mine. You can claim I am misleading anyone who would take my apologetics seriously, but you cannot claim I’m intruding, like if I were trying to set up a medical practise without authorisation from the medical faculty (MD or MLic).

That’s the reason why it is also on my list. The states in life were not the only concern.

Al Lundy

11.VIII.2023

I as just a couple of examples..in the Catholic church a pastor is always a priest. Sacristans can be someone in the clergy, religious life, or laity. You are jumbling the state of life someone has in the church with ministries and administrative positions.

Catholic apologetics is a form of theology that can be practiced by anyone in the church body either finally or informally.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.VIII.2023

“that can be practiced by anyone”

Thank you very much.

Btw, what do you mean by “finally”?

Just in Case

The question as such might have nothing to do with me, but my hunch is it had. I never pretended to have expertise on neurolinguistics.

Q

Can someone have trouble speaking their native language because of brain damage or something similar?
https://www.quora.com/Can-someone-have-trouble-speaking-their-native-language-because-of-brain-damage-or-something-similar/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

10.VIII.2023

St. Lawrence, deacon and martyr

Sure.

But before you go off a tangent asking someone if I have so, how about checking whether speach and spelling are the same thing, and whether the spelling I use is one previously used for Swedish speech (it is, it was in common use in 1850, and preferring it over the now common spelling is no different from preferring OED over Merriam when it comes to English spelling).

I make four distinct and understandable deviations from the modern standard of writing (demarcations 1. in early 19th C nationalism, spelling “kusin” for “cousin/e”, “boett” for “boîte”, probably “dubbel” for “double”, though we still prefer “juice” over “jos”, when the loan came in later, 2. 1870’s standardising the sound of è into ä, where previously that had been an exception and e the standard, 3. 1906 spelling reform affected more sounds than that, 4. 1950, plural forms were abolished for verbs).

ALSO check if some people tend to make long sentences with lots of asides (as in fact I do) and if long sentences with lots of asides tend to seem ungrammatical to some (who have a shorter attention span in reading).

ALSO check if the ones claiming I have trouble with Swedish are foreigners, who having learned Swedish spelling as adults who therefore are challenged at identifying Swedish spelled in other ways.

ALSO check if they are ideological modernists and nationalists who would tend to say “this is how we do things” or “this is how things are done now” - they are the very guys I am trying to show my dislike for by doing it. The former objection could be stated “but this is SWEDEN” (guess why I left it!) and the latter as “but this is the 21st C” (guess why I tend to hate it).

ALSO check as simple a thing as whether they associate an earlier Swedish spelling with a current Danish or Norwegian one, because they are identical (hvad, af) or comparable (rödt / rødt).

ALSO check as simple a thing as whether they are med or psych personnel rather than linguists who shouldn’t be trying to assess someone’s language capacity from his writing anyway. And if they reply “he shouldn’t be writing so only linguists understand” the fact is lots of non-linguists understand as well, including some who have pretended not to (proof : they have responded to the argument I made, not to a different one).

There is another case for not speaking one’s native language too, and that’s what happens when from childhood you are for decades no longer exposed to it. That happened to my sister, one of them. Not to me.

For my part, I have no trouble speaking Swedish, I have trouble to find Swedes I’d like to speak Swedish to. Those I correspond with over the internet have no difficulty in understanding what I say.

And before you make a disclaimer “the question was not about you” - why did you pose it to me? I never pretended to be a neurolinguist or an expert on medical conditions impairing language (or any other medical conditions that I haven’t had myself).

EDIT : one more. Check if they are under the superstition that a Google translate they use is giving a fair rendering of my Swedish grammar. Obviously, how I write Swedish makes it somewhat more difficult for google translate or bing or babelfish … and those are also useless even with standard forms when the grammar is too complicated with subsidiary clauses. I see it as an asset to discourage the use of online translators by people who do not know the language, when I do so myself, I tend to make double checks.

More on Latin to Romance and Middle English to English

No, "Language Divorce" is Not my Amateur Term for Divergent Evolution! · Proto-Languages - How Are they Reconstructed? · Sabellian and some more, but first Vulgar Latin · Indo-European and Romance are Very Different as to Diachronic Linguistics · More on Language : Latin to Romance · More on Latin to Romance and Middle English to English · More on language in general

Q

How did Latin become Castilian Spanish in Spain?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Latin-become-Castilian-Spanish-in-Spain/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

9.VIII.2023

Henry de la Cuesta said:

“Also, people “realise” that they are not really speaking Latin, and motivated by politics, not linguistics, name them after their identity:”

Now, this is actually a rather curious realisation. Most people in England don’t realise that they don’t speak the same English as Chaucer and as Shakespear. Especially as Shakespear. The spelling being identical hides the fact that the pronunciation, after the Great Vowel Shift, isn’t.

If the clergy in Mass had always pronounced Latin as the Romans did, the realisation would have come much sooner, wouldn’t it? In fact, in this[1] text

Nam et leonem et ursum interfeci ego servus tuus: erit igitur et Philisthaeus hic incircumcisus, quasi unus ex eis. Nunc vadam, et auferam opprobrium populi: quoniam quis est iste Philisthaeus incircumcisus, qui ausus est maledicere exercitui Dei viventis?

The spelling “ursum” would probably have been pronounced “oso”.

A little reconstitution of what it may have sounded like, before this realisation:

Na e león y oso interfece yo servos tuyos …

If you think this is exaggeration consider a Latin phrase from the Camino like “ultreya e suseya” and then try to spell this as Latin words. I get it to “ultrerior et surserior” or “ultrerius et surserius” - (su)RS as in sursum becomes the (su)S of suseya. RY as in the endings becomes Y.

So, the moment the Castilians realise that they are not speaking Latin, is the moment when they start to pronounce the letters ursum as ursum and not as oso.

This happens at the Council of Burgos. This took place in 1080.[2]

Footnotes

[1] Latin Vulgate Bible [I Kings, 17:9]
[2] Council of Burgos – Spanish Linguist

Q

When did the infinitive ending “-en” start going out of fashion in English?
https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-infinitive-ending-en-start-going-out-of-fashion-in-English/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Monsieur

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

7.VIII.2023

After Chaucer, but before Shakespear.

Geoffrey Chaucer[1] (/ˈtʃɔːsər/; c. 1340s – 25 October 1400) was an English poet, author, and civil servant best known for The Canterbury Tales.[1]

William Shakespeare[2] (Baptised 26[a] April 1564 – 23 April 1616)[b] was an English playwright, poet and actor.

So, between 1400 and 1564 = within pretty specific 164 years. One big author between them was Malory.

Thomas Malory[3]
Born c. 1393 or 1425 England
Died c.1470 or later

So, if you can find out whether the ending is consistently used in Morte d’Arthur or not, you have narrowed the span down to the first or second half of the mentioned span of 164 years.

This is supposed to be from Caxton’s original preface[4] to Le Morte d’Arthur:

Then to proceed forth in this said book, which I direct unto all noble princes, lords and ladies, gentlemen or gentlewomen, that desire to read or hear read of the noble and joyous history of the great conqueror and excellent king, King Arthur, sometime king of this noble realm, then called Britain. I, William Caxton, simple person, present this book following, which I have emprised to imprint; and treateth of the noble acts, feats of arms of chivalry, prowess, hardiness, humanity, love, courtesy and very gentleness, with many wonderful histories and adventures.

If the people on wikisource have not modernised the forms, the printer in 1485 was already no longer using -en. This narrows the timespan down to 85 years, from the death of Chaucer to the printing by Caxton of Malory, between 1400 and 1485.

It is possible that it started going out of fashion before Chaucer died, but that -en was at the time still used by the older generation. Caxton, like Mallory / Malory, was born in the 1420’s.[5]

Footnotes

[1] Geoffrey Chaucer - Wikipedia
[2] William Shakespeare - Wikipedia
[3] Thomas Malory - Wikipedia
[4] Le Morte d'Arthur/Preface - Wikisource, the free online library
[5] William Caxton - Wikipedia