No, I'm Not Dispensationalist and Not The Run of the Mill Christian Zionist

Dispensationalism Didn't Come From Darby — It Started With A Lie
Wholehearted Ness Podcast | 8 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT4PRBUEYZQ

3:21 The literality of 1260 times 24 hours (rather than times 365 days) is actually not new to Catholicism.

The non-literality qualified as "prophetic days = actual years" is new to Protestantism a bit earlier, like in Newton (a Protestant and a Non-Trinitarian, as well as a Mechanicist who saw God in corporeal terms).

That Luther and Calvin saw papacy as the Antichrist (and Calvin saw St. Gregory I as one of the last Popes not to be the Antichrist) didn't necessarily reflect into that detailed views about the world wide rule of the Antichrist.

In Catholicism, both Patristic and Medieval, the Antichrist was seen as an individual, but as a specific one, not as the office held by an individual.

And 1260 days was seen as literal both in regards to Henoch and Elias and in regard to the Antichrist (usually, I think, not concurrently but consecutively).

3:35 That part, he is against Catholic tradition at least the majority version.

The chapter 20 of the Apocalypse is referencing a "first resurrection" which equals "from sin" and not "from corporeal death" and which therefore takes place in Baptism and in Confession, sometimes in Extreme Unction, in Communion, in Spiritual longing for the Sacraments.

I agree the saints reign in Heaven 1000 years .... on average.

St. Stephen Protomartyr has reigned 1992 and 1995 years in Heaven, supposing he was killed the calendar year after the Death and Resurrection and depending on whether that was AD 33 or 30.

Carlo Acutis and Clare Crockett, who are not yet validly canonised, but I presume are in Heaven, have been reigning respectively 20 and 10 years.

(1992 + 10) / 2 = 1001 years, but we know St. Stephen and Sister Crockett are not the only two, and the total number, therefore the actual medium time they have been in Heaven, is known to God alone.

So, the millennium already started by Pentecost AD 33, whether it was that year or three years earlier.

4:07 God's covenant with ethnic Israel is ongoing in each ethnically Israelite Catholic ... whether he be an individual convert baptised by Monsignor Ghica, a Marrano from the Baleares or a Palestinian from Bethlehem.

It is also broadened to ethnically non-Israelite Catholics.

I'm covered on both sides of my ancestry, insofar as I remain a good Catholic (or become one again).

4:22 A partial return of Jews to the Holy Land, in connection with their conversion seems to have been taught by Anne Catherine Emerick, independently of Lacunza.

A reading of Apocalypse 11 seems to indicate sth like that.

And the treading by the Gentiles may refer to some violence by Zionist Israelis, and against precisely Christian Palestinians.

4:28 Not even fragments ... well, a millennium after Armageddon was actually taught by Justin Martyr and a few more, before Lacunza.

To Justin it seemed to be the majority view.

5:33 The "Gentile Church" in Irving is a misnomer.

Catholics are Jews and Gentiles united, not one separate from the other. Note I'm including Marranos and Palestinians in the count, not just individual converts from Judaism.

8:27 Two tenets of Lacunza, sourced before him.

Both on Apoc. 13:1.

Ver. 1. I saw a beast coming out of the sea. By this first beast several understand antichrist, as St. Irenaeus, lib. v. chap. xxviii. and St. Gregory, lib. xxxi. Moral. chap. xli. But this is not certain. By the other beast[1] coming up out of the earth, (ver. 11) many understand antichrist's false prophet, some famous impostor and magician in antichrist's time, who will do great wonders and signs. The seven heads and ten horns, may again signify a great number of kings and princes, who shall be overcome by antichrist, and submit themselves to him. The dragon, or devil, gives that great power to antichrist, signified by the different parts of the beast, some like to a leopard, others to a bear, and others to a lion. The head wounded to death and cured, is either antichrist himself or some one of those heads or kings, cured by the devil and diabolical arts after a mortal wound. (Witham)

This first beast, with seven heads and ten horns, is probably the whole company of infidels, enemies and persecutors of the people of God, from the beginning to the end of the world. The seven heads are seven kings, that is, seven principal kingdoms or empires; which have exercised, or shall exercise, tyrannical power over the people of God: of these, five were then fallen, viz. the Egyptian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Persian, and Grecian monarchies: one was present, viz. the empire of Rome: and the seventh and the chiefest was to come, viz. the great antichrist and his empire. The ten horns may be understood of ten lesser persecutors. (Challoner)

So, Witham considered that the antichrist is a future tyrant.

Challoner that it's a system, but not futurist.

Witham is probably not George Witham (16 May 1655 – 16 April 1725), but Robert Witham (1667–1738), both dead before Lacunza came to manhood.

Challoner is Richard Challoner (29 September 1691 – 12 January 1781), whose life overlapped with Lacunzas.

Now, in favour of a "future" (or no longer so) Antichrist system, one can mention that A) Antichrist can't come to power in an absolute vacuum, he needs a power base, and B) St. Paul says the Great Apostasy must happen first.

However, I would not consider that a late Apostasy within the Catholic Church is this beast, I rather take that as Harlot ... I'm wary when I see clergy persecute the Latin Mass, Traditional Nuns or Young Earth Creationists. As to the Beast it's probably a much wider coalition than the Apostate parts of Catholicism, and apostasised much earlier and sometimes indirectly.

With four leopard heads as Judaism, Islam, Calvinism and (probably) Freemasonry. I could be wrong, the fourth leopard head could be Dispensationalist Free Churchers, and Freemasonry be entirely "mouth of a lion" ... which is otherwise where I would cast Liberal Anglicans and Liberal Lutherans, the majority over in Europe (the remaining faithful are a different matter, even if not actual Catholics).

Bear, mystical Persia and Russia (with passivity against power quasi required).

Fourth Beast, end times version = Communism (and might involve atheist versions of Freemasonry, like Grand Orient). Its "state religion" is DiaMat, which features Heliocentrism and Evolution. Its "Inquisition" is Psychiatry, when it isn't KGB or clerical KGB agents. Oh, FSB ...

Some Orthos May Think I'm Victim of Prelest for being into Fatima or Lourdes

Here is my response to them, under a video by one of their priests. By the way, if some of them pretend I'm myself pretending to such visions, no.

My writing is learning, not visions (not own or unapproved ones, perhaps except Garabandal, and that rarely), and also not my personal devotion, but learning I find useful in the general forum.

Why The Orthodox Church Hides Mary's Apparitions | An Orthodox Priest Responds
Orthodox Talks with Fr. Ivan Shandra | 7 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt46RiDVexc

10:43 Does this stop you from making an assessment of whether Fatima is closer to the revelation to Serafim of Sarov (as you see it) or to that of Nikitas?

Dito Lourdes.

12:21 Lourdes and Fatima were for the community. Healings are still validated in Lourdes.

Even if all healings from tuberculose peritonitis were explained retroactively after validation as blue cheese or goat cheese having a mold very similar to penicilline, that leaves half of the healings unexplained ... of the validated ones that are a minority of all reported.

I've just argued that the bigger War Our Lady warned of began in 1934 and ended in 1990, so it came under the pontificate of Pius XI. (WW-II was an episode in it).

12:45 Independent verification and fulfilled prophecy also mark Lourdes and Fatima.

12:56 Fatima and Lourdes are much less about St. Jacinta and St. Bernadette, than about praying the rosary.

Lourdes also about the Immaculate Conception.

13:05 I have argued that the last apparition of Fatima was the vigil of the last time the Czar celebrated the Feast of the Protection of the Theotokos.

Fr. Jason Charron has gone one further. He argues the time in Portugal which is further West coincides with First Vespers of the Feast in Kazan.

JD

@CaffeineBlast

Could this be seen as a call for unity?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

hglundahl

@CaffeineBlast I don't know, and I'm not the one authorised to reply for either body.

But could be.

JD

@hglundahl I think this occurrence could be seen as a message to us that it’s God’s will we reunite. We need to conform our will to His, if those authorised to reply don’t move to reunify then the lay people need to make it happen. Easier said than done, but it’s time in my opinion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CaffeineBlast Not sure how much lay can do on their own.

13:15 A secret about events to come is in fact no new doctrine.

Just as Jeremias foretelling the alliance with Egypt would fail was no new doctrine.

In Lourdes, there was no new doctrine, since the doctrine was already defined dogma just a year or two earlier. But it came as a confirmation after doubters.

theresejesu

@theresejesu4296

No a secret about events is not new doctrine. Doctrines are teachings of the Church in matters of faith and morals.

Lourdes did not confirm the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.. Bernadette being told by Mary that she is the Immaculate Conception helped to confirm that Bernadette was indeed receiving apparitions of Mary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@theresejesu4296 Obviously that too.

Helped to confirm, depends on "to whom" ...

If anyone in the Church was diffident in face of Döllinger, that person was helped by Lourdes.

The Church as such was already decided, obviously.

theresejesu

@hglundahl to whom - the competent authority to determine the authenticity of the apparition, the Bishop.

And I agree with you about those who are not well versed in Catholic doctrines being helped also.

There is a book that I have really appreciated by Father Groschel* titled A Still, Small Voice: A Practical Guide on Reported Revelations.

I think if more people read and understood what he shares about apparitions, messages, etc, there would be a lot less confusion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@theresejesu4296 Yes, to the bishop of Tarbes and the curate of Lourdes, the words confirmed the apparition was genuine.

They already knew that the dogma was dogma.

Father Groschel*, noted.

* footnote

Still Small Voice: Practical Guide on Reported Revelations
by Benedict J. Groeschel (Author)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0898704367/theotokoscath-21

15:14 I appreciate the caution, as practised by the Church of Old Rome.

B♥!

@beautardyartist

Yes except Orthodoxy comes from Constantinople, not Rome.

Владислав Круглов ConISuoiAmici

@vlakrunn

@beautardyartist but Rome was orthodox, sometimes even when Constantinople was not

B♥!

@vlakrunn please explain because I'm not following???

Greg Chrysostom

gregchrysostom2193

@beautardyartist Iconoclasm, for one thing. Rome put a stop to it, not the eastern bishops. And Arianism. Something like 90% of the Churches bishops were Arian for a time. Rome resolved that as well.

B♥!

@gregchrysostom2193 correct - and Orthodox clearly make icons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@beautardyartist As does Roman Catholicism.

Guadelupe, precautions and verifications are very clear:

The Hidden Miracle Behind Our Lady of Guadalupe
Messenger of God | 7 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igFIbna8OVo

Answering and Old Earther Who Took Up Tree Rings

Believers, Are We Thinking Clearly About the Age of the Earth?
A Few True Things | 14 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYlqeDZby7g

2:33 For around 1800, it's child's play to find a plethora of tree rings any given series (different species and locations, different series) that extend 50 rings on either side of 1800. Overlapping.

For around 1800 BC, the tree ring samples preserved to us are fewer and smaller. Meaning less overlap.

I would say that back in 1800 BC, the tree ring matches are picked partly for matching the carbon date 1800 BC.

Now, on my carbon 14 tables, a YEC recalibration, close to 1800 BC, we have this:

1574 BC*

97.392 pmC, dated as 1793 BC

Close to 1700 BC, we have this:

1543 BC*

98.108 pmC, dated as 1700 BC

In other words, the tree ring dates will be picked so that the series match a 93 year long distance, but that 93 year old distance would have been disproven by longer tree ring series in more samples, as the real time was just 41 years.

1793 to 1700 versus 1574 to 1543 BC.

2:42 "extending more than 10 000 years in some regions"

Except, no single series does this.

Different series are being matched to different other series, with, as mentioned, one kind of tree in one region being a series.

3:03 Let's quote CMI** on Ice Cores:

In other words, the counted annual layers can deviate a little from the first guess, but the first guess constrains the limits of variability. It is like numerical analysis in which a first guess is required to begin and then successive computer iterations change the first guess somewhat to arrive at hopefully the correct answer. For instance, if the first guess concludes that the annual layer thickness at the 2,500-metre depth is around 1 centimetre, annual layer counting will not allow an annual layer thickness of 5 centimetres, let alone about 3 metres as in the creationist model. The variability in the measured parameters and the impact of non-periodic events provide adequate scope to find a preferred fit to the data.

In contrast, in a creationist model, the annual layers in the middle and lower portion of the GISP2 ice core would be subannual layers due to sub-storm, storm or other cycles of weather lasting anywhere from days to months.

3:50 Volcanic markers would tend to be dated by methods either totally unreliable like Potassium Argon or the compressible one of C 14.

So, say there was a volcanic eruption on Thera in carbon dated 1609 BC, the ice core trace would be considered as 1609, whereas that eruption could have been used by God for some of the Plagues of Egypt (with miraculous configurations avoiding Goshen, like wood fires avoided burning a Crucifix) and have as real date 1511 BC, the date of the Exodus in the chronology I'm using.***

4:27 The sediments in Lake Suigetsu, the counting of the lower layers (most) presumes that mud and flower deposits have not been perturbed since the time they touched the lake bottom, otherwise mixing would have and on the Young Earth Creationist view obviously did perturb the number of layers, which obviously increases them.

Did you read a Gish Gallop by an anti-Duane Gish old earth apologist and not digest it?

On the method involving absorption into objects of surrounding elements, I frankly don't know the solution, I'm not really even sure what the method is. However "radiometric dating" I have at least two options, apart from carbon 14 already mentioned, which is my own speciality, namely more of the daughter isotope already present or in some cases, the decay was sped up.

A speeding up of Uranium becoming Lead in Zircons gives a heat problem ... which solves the mud problem on how the ground was dry so quickly after the Flood.

4:47 According to one set of assumptions, they converge on the conclusion the Earth is in the billions.

The meteorites from the beginning of the solar system would be a case of Uranium Lead, and either a meteorite from the Flood had lots of Uranium and heated up lots of the surrounding mud to make it solid ground, or the meteorite simply had more of the Lead isotope that's the result of that Uranium isotope decomposing.

Apart from the question how a half life that big can even be measured. For carbon 14, just take old historic objects. Impossible for the U-Pb method about meteorites "from the beginning of the solar system". C14 taking 5730 years to get to 50 % of original content, fine. U such and such taking millions or billions of years to get to Pb such and such (there are two isotopes and both involve Uranium and have different halflives and involve lead) ... not measured in real time, for sure.

4:58 And Young Earth Creationism, on the level of Creation Science, comes from examining many different lines of evidence, pointing in the opposite direction once you unpack some assumptions and ask if there are alternative Young Earth Creationist ones.

6:30 If scientists have been wrong, the question "what does the evidence say now" isn't answered by "what do the scientists say now" ... especially not in subjects which unlike medicine have no clinical testing (note, not saying all fields of medicine have valid such, psychiatry hasn't a valid one), and which unlike engineering don't involve bad guesses leading to bad results observable in real time and traceable to the engineering mistake.

Speaking of engineering mistakes, a bridge in Genua collapsed a few years ago, killing loads, was the engineering mistake not to replace it earlier, or was it to build that bridge in the first place to have that much car traffick going by?

6:39 For the chronology after Adam "no one was there to see it" is not one I'm using, at any rate.

The post-Flood Palaeolithic, I'm dating it to Noah's remaining lifespan after the Flood, because Noah and his sons precisely were there to see it.

And he called his name Noe, saying: This same shall comfort us from the works and labours of our hands on the earth, which the Lord hath cursed
[Genesis 5:29]

Indeed, after the Flood, there was very little agriculture before Noah died, and when Noah tried and included viticulture, he ended up ridiculed, so the project was postponed to after he died.

Again, when Noah had died and Nimrod built Babel, he eventually had to break off the building of the city. When Peleg was born or about to be born.

What city was abandoned, unbuilt, finally?

Göbekli Tepe.

From 350-ish after the Flood to 401-ish after the Flood, and it is in the right spot to have been reached from the landing place going westward into NW Mesopotamia:

And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it
[Genesis 11:2]

The people who saw it could count the number of years that Noah lived and the number of years that Arphaxad was born and his son Saleh and so on to Peleg. My point isn't "no one was there to see it" but on the contrary, someone was. And I rely more on observers back then than on reconstructors now.

The argument is good for creation of the Moon, that sort of thing.

7:33 A reliable inference from evidence available today excluding real or purported eye witness from the past is at least epistemically inferior to real or purported eye-witness from the past, including preserved in oral memory.

I need very strong evidence from today's material and non-verbal observations in order to overturn even a Pagan tradition.

In the 1970's someone had found out that the oldest parts of Rome dated to 550 BC. Two hundred years after the "supposed" date of Romulus founding the city.

However, since them I've heard of the Hallstatt plateau. EVERYTHING from 750 to 450 BC carbon dates to 550 BC.

So the carbon date 550 BC as found in the book by Raymond Bloch°, is, after all, perfectly compatible with an actual 750 BC date, like 753 BC, the traditional founding of Rome by its first king Romulus.

7:49 For loads of things, the CMI is providing a viable alternative explanation.

For carbon 14, I am doing so. Myself as I cited my tables.

For new functions like sight originating in "accumulated small changes" or if we go from genetics to linguistics, human language doing so, the Evolutionists are criticising Creationism or the Biblical account and they are the ones lacking a viable alternative explanation.

8:19 OK, since you are looking for an alternative explanation in those rejecting old earth, when it comes to carbon 14 have you looked at me?

On my youtube channel which has no own videos, you'll find links to my blogs and one of them (directly there or via a blog that is) is "Creation vs Evolution" ...

When it comes to Babel, have you looked at me?

When it comes to Neanderthals, have you looked at me?

When it comes to Distant Starlight Problem, have you looked at me?

When it comes to nearly any other topic than carbon 14, Babel, Neanderthals, Distant Starlight, have you looked at CMI? creation dot com.

9:02 "Just as willing to question our own assumptions."

Not necessarily, being willing to test them is enough.

But have you seen Creation Ministries International test the assumptions opposed to yours? Because you have been on youtube since 18 May 2025 (doing videos) and I have not found Creation Ministries International in the search bar, nor CMI, nor AiG, nor Answers in Genesis.

9:38 If Christianity is true, were there Amorrheans / Amorrhites in Asason Tamar at the event of Genesis 14?

And they returned, and came to the fountain of Misphat, the same is Cades: and they smote all the country of the Amalecites, and the Amorrhean that dwelt in Asasonthamar
[Genesis 14:7]

Because elsewhere Asason Thamar is identified with Ein Gedi. And the only (or at least most recent) layer of habitation in Ein Gedi that could figure is carbon dated to 3500 BC.

1565 years earlier than when I place the event based on Abraham born 2016 BC.

Is Genesis 14 myth? Or was the atmospheric carbon level behind the carbon dated reed mats actually as low as 82.753 pmC? Those are the options. As a firm believer in Melchisedec, I'm highly preferring the carbon 14 level in the atmosphere was lower.

If you were at NASA you may know some Catholics ... wish them a blessed feast!

---

* Creation vs. Evolution: Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy
Tuesday 24 Dec. 2024 | Hans Georg Lundahl
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-joseph-in-egypt-to-fall-of.html

** Ice cores vs the Flood
By Michael J. Oard | First appeared in Journal of Creation 18(2)
Pages 58 - 61, August 2004
https://creation.com/en/articles/ice-cores-vs-the-flood

*** Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: What Martyrology, by the way?
Saturday, November 21, 2020 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 5:40 AM
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2020/11/what-martyrology-by-way.html

° Les origines de Rome, Chapter V, Raymond Bloch, Que sais-je ? 1 Mai 1990 (updated edition after an earlier one in 1946)

Starting a Video by a "Catholic" Anti-Fundie

An Analysis of "Catholic Fundamentalism"
Splendour Project | 31 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaxyG3h2D_o

[good standing with the Pope]

2:13 Depends on who's Pope, right?

Leo XIV or Pope Michael II.

Clippy Clippy (Clippy奔走革命)

@Clippy奔走革命

😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Clippy奔走革命 Saw your site.

Believing Michael II is Pope is not an existential crisis. Thank you so kindly for the offer, even if it was indirect.

jmmvirta

@jmmvirta

Most people won't take Michael II seriously. The first "Pope" Michael was "elected" by schismatic laymen, not Cardinals.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jmmvirta Most people didn't take the original apostles seriously.

Being elected by laymen is against current Church law, it's not against divine law.

And the laymen were "schismatic" only to someone who pretends Karol Wojtyla was "Pope". See Assisi 1986 for one very blatant challenge to such a claim.

---

You referred to this:

“What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines.”
― St. Ignatius of Loyola

Note two things.

1) He's defining for those making the fourth promise of the Jesuit order what it means. A little like St. Francis would be precise about poverty. I don't need to wear one single habit and mend it until it can't be mended any more, because I have not made the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. I also haven't made the fourth promise of the Jesuits.
2) IN the quote, it doesn't say "what seems to me black, I will believe white" ... some laymen thought "not Theotokos" was black, even if it came from the mouth or their hierarch. And the Church, a k a Pope Coelestine I, Saint Coelestine I, told them they were right to count Nestorius as already deposed by his words, even before the Third Ecumenical council confirmed the verdict.

I was a Fundamentalist when I converted to Catholicism and thought I could obey "John Paul II" ... this was before CCC § 283.

---

3:56 impenetrable cognitive fortress

The word is heavy with psychological and psychiatric connotations about delusion.

Very heavy.

Does this language exist in traditional (small t, as in chronologically pre-Vatican II or pre-Fifties) Catholic language?

Viewing oneself as sth and being incapable of even taking in arguments contrary to one's position are two different things.

People who get refuted by me in argument, or from their pov rebuffed, will resort to pretending I didn't take in their argument, my "cognitive fortress" is impenetrable, and this is because of sth I view myself as.

It isn't. On each issue where one can consider me as closeminded, I have been openminded. I have landed in a position rejected as "radical", "fundamentalist" and so on, and I'm not the one bringing up my status time after time, my opponents are.

I give a syllogism and a countersyllogism involving God and Geocentrism (you can conclude from Geocentrism to God, from Atheism against Geocentrism) and get caught time after time with people who try to tell me, as if they knew me better than I know myself, the issue is who I think I am.

I think I am a man created in the image of God.

I think I am a man who can decode what St. Paul in Romans I says everyone can decode.

And if I calculate someone's gematria with ASCII, I consider knowing ASCII qualifies "knowledge". St. John didn't say I need wisdom. He only says I need knowledge, and that that is wisdom. Or, on another reading, this is a riddle (to be actually solved).

iwan yids0818

@iwansaputra1890

you smell like martin luther.
it's all about me

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@iwansaputra1890 Your comment is all about me.

I've complained about people insisting on bringing me up as if "so and so is Pope" always would trump "such and such is heresy".

The laymen who called Nestorius out were not about them, they were about defending the Theotokos.

I'm also about defending what has been held and what is presumably still held by the Catholic Church, whereever She be, if She is indefectible.

Luther had core positions, not just technical solutions, but real core doctrine, that didn't exist 50 years earlier.

I'm Not the One Who Cuts Himself Off From Arguments

I was certainly not willing to change my mind when hearing this, but I was willing to take debate coming back:

The Third Judgment: What Really Happened at Babel
BLK SHP Bible Talk | 31 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRGVe3iUyiQ

These are my comments and at the end we find BLK SHP Bible Talk doesn't share my disposition:

4:20 Shinar is Southern Mesopotamia?

Why Southern ... if they journeyed from the East, not from the North, and started in the Mountains of Armenia, Northern Mesopotamia is a much better fit.

I think I have miqqedem with all translations prior to a Swedish one in 1700 on my side.

[Bible of Charles XII translates "österut" instead of "från östern" or "österifrån".]

5:04 Before we even get to chapter 11?

As in, there is no chronological overlap between the two narratives?

8:43 Where does Genesis say idolatry happened at this point in history?

I mean, as normally understood, as a form of religion. Self idolatry is another matter.

9:48 "similar amount of space"

Well, no.

For instance, if the Hebrews preserved Hebrew because they refused to do Nimrod's work, that would mean they were somewhere in the margins, where they would not get the full story, but salient important detail ... the edges of the puzzle, if you like.

In the Ark the covenant was with all eight aboard, and so the ancestors of Moses had a very "first seat" view. Giving them much more detail.

10:54, ah, you mean Thera and Nachor as idolaters would point to the time of Babel?

No. Not in a LXX timeline. In the chronology of the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day (He was born so and so many years after such and such events before you come to "in the 42nd year of Augustus, in the sixth age, when the world was at peace"), Genesis 11 is LXX without the second Cainan. Peleg would have been born 2608 BC.

He died 2218 BC, and in 2165 BC, Nachor, Abram's grandpa, was born.

Babel happened when Peleg was born.

And nowhere does it say Nachor and Thera were born into idolatry, one can assume that Acts 7:4 doesn't refer to when Thera physically died, but when he died spiritually by becoming an idolater, when Abraham was 75 years old, so, 1941 BC.

Babel 2608, first named idolater 1941 BC.

12:55 Ah, OK, Genesis 11 rewinds the clock to before the different languages, OK, I'm good with that.

13:21 You are forgotting what you just said.

If Babel is a flashback, the disunion of languages in Genesis 10 is not something which already happened before. Or even started to happen before.

13:57 That clearly depends on when in archaeology you put Abraham leaving Ur.

I put Abraham banning Ishmael 50 years after Negev had a city near Beersheba that disappeared archaeologically in 3700 BC. I put Genesis 14 at archaeologically 3500 BC.

Why? Because Amorrhaeans were in En Geddi. They were attacked. Now, the only or latest possible archaeological population is the one that's dated 3500 BC based on reed mats used in the evacuation of temple treasures.

15:15 OK, by now you have an economic interest in disagreeing with me.

Not sure how much though.

15:46 My evidence for people spreading outward is, Babel, a k a Göbekli Tepe, launched the agricultural revolution.

A certain narrow path which functioned as a trap for wild beasts near Göbekli Tepe became a corral, allowing people to settle in the area, instead of hunting, as most of the economy was, barring Noah's farm and its débacle, and towards the end of Babel, wheat was being sown.

16:15 Yamnaya ...

Two huge problems for your reading.

1) Since Iberian was Basque, and Spain was settled from Yamnaya, Yamnaya isn't the probable origin of Indo-European languages, but of the single language Basque plus lots of substrate below Indo-European ones closer "home" ...

2) In my chronology, where I have given a good argument for Genesis 14, and at least some for placing Babel in Göbekli Tepe, Yamnaya 3300 to 2600 BC translates to after Genesis 14 to after Joseph died.

1881 BC

Terah died

1877 BC

83.97 pmC, dated as 3321 BC

1857 BC

84.371 pmC, dated as 3262 BC

1856 BC

Jacob and Esau born

...

1687

Joseph dies.

1678 BC

89.449 pmC, dated as 2600 BC

For full tables with some explanation of my method, go to the blog Creation vs. Evolution, crea vs evolu dot blogspot dot com, and look up December 2024.

[Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.]

16:33 You are misunderstanding the relation between archaeology and linguistics.

One cannot usually trace one language or its ancestry to one place thousands of years before it's written down.

The learned men are comparing spreads of populations and spreads of languages, but the earliest written Indo-European ones are Hittite, Mycenean Greek, and the Aryan vocabulary of the Mitanni.

All three in or near Turkey and at least the first two I mentioned West of Göbekli Tepe. BUT c. 1000 years after Babel.

18:22 How long after the Flood do you put this?

I find representatives of all mankind feasible between 350 and 401 after the Flood, i e Noah's death to Peleg's birth, with Göbekli Tepe built in 40 of the 51 years, and for that, there needs to have been sufficient people, and also for people staying home and not going there.

8 * 1.02^101 = 59 8 * 1.05^101 = 1105

101 years after the Flood, 5 % annual population growth would not suffice to more than little over 1000 people.

401 years after the Flood, we don't need that much:

8 * 1.02^401 = 22 478
More than twenty times more, just for 2 % annual population growth.
8 * 1.05^401 = 2 511 880 150
Two billion people with 5 % is way more than needed, and even more than probable.

531 years could also work:

8 * 1.02^531 = 294 972

Same blog, November 2024.

20:01 Actually, guess work.

Apart from a few divine names, like Juppiter having matches in Greek and Indian, or, without the Father part, in Germanic. But Tewes daeg doesn't translate Dies Jovis, it translates Dies Martis.

The idea of a "tripartite society and religion" isn't matched by all Indo-European cultures and is too common in itself to be a specifically Indo-European invention.

---

Tried to add this Josephus quote to a comment about Nimrod being more like Anthon La Vey and Vlad Tepec than the new high priest of an old false religion:

Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers!

And then I discovered, all my comments were gone. First the added comment below the other didn't get posted, then I renewed to post it as a separate one, then I saw a comment section with my comments gone.

Jimmy Akin is Misrepresenting the Question

DEBUNKING Geocentrist Bible Verses
Catholic Answers | 6 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB7b24UDOKA

0:07 Ideas proposed by sciences or ideas proposed by scientists?*

1:07 science has shown or scientists have pretended to show ... and how?*

1:29 Some scientists deny there is a privileged frame of reference in the universe.

Kantians.

It would be very correct if the universe were infinite. But if it's of finite extension, it has a periphery and therefore also a centre.

Infinity is an attribute of God and doesn't correctly even apply to extension.

1:57 If you take either the solar system as existing in the middle of nowhere, infinity on each side, and within it Heliocentrism to be true, the movements can be explained by masses acting in accordance with gravity and inertia. A very easy pick for an atheist.

If you take the universe to be finite and Earth to be its centre, the movements need explanations other than, perhaps in addition to, gravity and inertia of the involved masses.

Like, for the daily movement, God moving the visible universe (up to the fix stars) around us. Like, for other movements, angels moving individual non-Earth and non-stellar objects around the zodiac.

Like yesterday an angel moved Sun eastward and another one moved Moon eastward and they covered each other and God moved both so that Portugal saw a complete eclipse.

2:16 Based on how gravity works ... you mean in isolation from other factors?

Even for orbitting it has to interact with inertia.

Now, this orbitting of the barycentre, is it mightier than God, is it mightier even than an angel? No.

Ergo, the Geocentric and Theistic view is perfectly possible, unless you deny God and angels exist.

3:10 And you may notice that images of an athlete are very appropriate if an angel is moving the Sun.

For people who grew up with DC Comics, imagine Superman ... except the angel isn't overwhelmed by effort.

3:36 Would a mechanical account of how the world works be scientific if God as First Mover and angels as movers of celestial objects are correct observations?

"A scientific and mechanical account" as if they were synonyms sounds so DiaMat.

3:53 No, you have even missed C. S. Lewis and his observation on what poetry does.

It doesn't describe "our amazement" but the things that amaze us.

3:58 Praise is not necessarily non-literal.

If the thing you are praising is highly praiseworthy, its literal description may be praise.

4:12 Yes, look at its course ... not too closely into itself, obviously.

And note, the Geocentric view is exactly matching what you look, the Heliocentric takes some readaptation of it.

The readaptation isn't impossible. But is that enough to accept it?

4:37 I'm noting that King David is actually not praising God for having created the Sun in the past.

Verses 2 to 7 are all about what the heavens are doing right now ... precisely as Romans 1.

King David and St. Paul are both making the point that Sun and Moon to do this complex dance (as it is on Geocentric views) or if you prefer this violent dance, without dashing everything to pieces, have to be directed (in the present) by an intelligent mover. Whom everyone agrees to call God, to borrow a phrase from the Five Ways and most notably the First Way.

4:51 He is giving praise to God because he thinks ... rightly ... that his experience reflects how the universe really works.

You are pronouncing "based on his experience" as if it were at variance with how the universe really works or what he thought about it. Counterintuitive until proven ...

5:22 Phenomenological language is not merely about someone accurately describing what he sees.

If I do a car ride and find we pass 4 houses, but I actually missed 2 and there were really 6, "4 houses" would be phenomenological language.

But if I find we pass 4 houses and that is the actual number of houses, we don't call it phenomenological language.

In other words, the phrase implies some kind of inadequacy with things as we actually experience them.

5:44 A Geocentric would also say that "rises" is phenomenological.

The sun rises and sinks between two points of the year previously termed Solar Perigee and Apogee, and now mistermed Earth's Perihelium and Aphelium.

This doesn't change the view one has from each locality on earth that the Sun actually rises ... unless you are on a part of Earth where the Sun doesn't rise at a point of the year, which currently would be the case on the South Pole.

So, "rises" does not prove a box shaped universe. Or a Flat Earth. Either in itself or as intended by the inspired Psalmist.

6:53 No, the quote "the Bible doesn't teach us how the Heavens go, but how to go to Heaven" was either not said by Caesar Baronius** or not said during the Galileo controversy or neither.

The letter to the Grand Duchess Cristina was by Galileo and he quoted "a high church man" without specifying his identity.

Caesar Baronius had died in 30 June 1607.

Now, Caesar Baronius was close to St. Philip Neri (confirmation patron of Tolkien, by the way), just like Johannes Emmanuel Veith was close to St. Clemens Maria Hofbauer. So, the test proposed is, a close associate of a saint would not be totally off on a question like this, and while Caesar Baronius certainly did NOT utter these words during the Galileo controvery, J E Veith actually did write a book, properly signed and printed in his name, promoting literal six days continuous with the creation moment, in polemic against Day Age and Gap Theories, which were also held by Catholics in this time.

How is it fine for you to quote Baronius against the Galileo verdict of 1633, while that is not a true quote truly in this affair, and not for me to quote the canonisation of St. Clement Maria Hofbauer in 1909 in relation to the PBC of that year, as proof the judge, a Day Ager though he was, not having intended or having had the authority to intend excluding Young Earth Creationism? Is misinformation holier than true information or is "modern science" (which you have called "science") a kind of judge above the magisterium?

---

* He used the formulation "ideas proposed by science" and "science has shown" ... ** Fully Latin: Caesar Baronius. Fully Italian: Cesare Baronio.

Geocentric, Yes, Neither Flat Earther, Nor Sceptic About Everything I Need to Trust Someone Else On

Am I Actually Agreeing With Flat Earthers?
SciManDan | 23 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18t5ywLPkVo

7:36 You have forgotten a step.

Observations are a starting point.

What's the due process of stating one observation is misleading? Is it just to say this kind of observation could mislead? Or is it sufficient to say the model proposed instead would lead to the same observation?

No.

It's also to actually show why the prima facie interpretation cannot hold.

For globe Earth, we have Magellan. It corresponds to Aristotle's factually wrong but strongest 4th reason, "east of Ganges" (or whichever the river was) you have pillars of Hercules (Straits of Gibraltar). No, you don't. This was discovered a bit later, not least because of Eratosthenes giving the perimeter implication of the curvature. Then, more than 1500 years later, Magellan and Elcano made good for what the Indian adventure of Alexander didn't really provide.

For a moving Earth we have ... Lost in Space?

8:12 Indeed, I believe the process of triangulation to the Moon or the Sun (by the moon) is one which has been undertaken, because of people who told me so.

I do not believe the process of triangulating to alpha Centauri is correct because of people who told me so. Because, if there is an angel moving alpha Centauri and it's a proper movement (dito for aberration), that leaves 2AU outside a triangle of Earth to two positions of the star. With no length in the triangle, no triangulation.

There is a difference between accepting "someone else measured" and accepting "someone else concluded correctly" ... I cannot handle the apparatus to measure simultaneous angles from two places on Earth to the Moon at the same moment (like Brazil and Africa) and the calculations that add up to the Moon being ... looking up ... 362 600 km to 405 400 km up as the case may be that day. But I can validate the reasoning, like I know from geometry that if the angles had been 60° (to a line through bent earth) or 60° between them, the distance would have been .... also looking up ... sqrt(3)/2 times the distance. And I know simultaneous measures are taken and so have no reason to worry about what is moving.

And similarily, in a case where there is some doubt on what is moving, I can invalidate the reasoning used by the experts, unless they can prove to me that Earth is moving.