Geocentrism Defended

Warp Drive News. Seriously!
Sabine Hossenfelder | 21.XI.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VWLjhJBCp0

This limitation* applies to objects in space time, not space time itself. [echoed from 1:29]

Now, if we consider aether rather than space time the place of vectors, it would mean, applies to objects within the aether, not to the aether itself.

This is my exact solution for fix stars, at probable height of 1 light day above earth, doing 6.28 or 2pi light days in one day : they are not moved that way within the aether, but the aether itself is moved full circle around earth each day. From East to West. Sun, Moon, Venus, Mars are moving much slower than that through the aether from West to East, besides these are not even the height of one light day.

* "No object can accelerate from slower than light to faster than light, since that would take infinite energy." - Of which God disposed when He set the aether moving around earth on day 1, and still disposes.

Abbreviating with 7 and 9

Q

How did 7 come to be an abbreviation for 'and' in Old English?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-7-come-to-be-an-abbreviation-for-and-in-Old-English/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Praveen Upadhyay

Hans-Georg Lundahl

just now

amateur linguist

Jane Wickenden answered.

If you have trouble clicking her links, think of an E and a T attached into the middle bar, then omit a few bars, the top bar of the T is then longer to the left than the right and omit the shorter right, it looks like 7 (except it’s not diagonal in the hasta, the line going down).

This means, 7 will do as an approximation of Tironian et. Like 9 for another sign:

• A mark, resembling the Arabic numeral 9 or a mirrored C in Gothic texts, is one of the oldest signs and can be found in the texts of Marcus Valerius Probus and Tironian notes with the same meaning as con.
• Another mark, similar to a bold comma or a superscript 9, placed after the letter on the median line, represented us or os, generally at the end of the word, being the nominative case affix of the second declension, sometimes is or simply s. The apostrophe used today originated from various marks in sigla, which caused its current use in elision, such as in the Saxon genitive.

Scribal abbreviation - Wikipedia

Luther as Bible Forger, reply to Samuel Garcia

Q

Wikipedia claims that a number of Bible translations into German were printed prior to Martin Luther's birth, some nearly 60 years before the Protestant reformation. If this is true, then why was Luther's Bible so influential?
https://www.quora.com/Wikipedia-claims-that-a-number-of-Bible-translations-into-German-were-printed-prior-to-Martin-Luthers-birth-some-nearly-60-years-before-the-Protestant-reformation-If-this-is-true-then-why-was-Luthers-Bible-so/answer/Samuel-Garcia-4

Samuel Garcia

February 26

@baptistmemes on Instagram, High Street Baptist Church member/techie

Many English translations were made before the King James. Yet the King James is the most influential book of all time. Why? Don't assume that earlier means better. In fact, the Bible talks about the words of the LORD being purified seven times. That's a process, not a one time deal. (By sheer coincidence or supernatural working, the King James is the seventh English translation.)

So it does apply to Luther's translation. It's not always the first, but the latter. Latter translations done correctly can purify the text for their present populations. This quality is hard to quantify, but many instinctively and intuitively are attracted to the correct words of God for a language, even if they aren't dogmatically so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

February 26

Luther’s translation did NOT purify the text, on the contrary he made translation errors very notable and which he defended by appealing to idiomatic usage of German or meaning - not actual words.

Samuel Garcia

21h ago

You’re assuming what he did was wrong.
Purification is done by the furnace of the earth, that is, the context of its current time, not some past time.

People say translations make the Bible “lose the force of the original Greek!” yet never stop to think whether God wanted scripture to be force of its translated language, ie the full force of the English (or in Luther’s case, German). And since He is an Eternally Now God, actually, He does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

22m ago

Luther claimed - very dishonestly - that in the context of Luke 1:28 and Romans 3:28 by taking away and adding was simply making it more German.

He wasn’t.

In Romans 3:28, faith as justification is affirmed, works of the - old - law are denied, leaving the rest aside, but Luther’s translation limits justification to faith “alone” (his addition) and thereby making all the rest part of the denial, and “works of the law” just becomes and example.

With the Blessed Virgin, he claimed that “full of grace” is not German, but for some reason, he did not have this reticence with John 1:14 or Acts 6:8.

When the same phrase is spoken TO Her, it is just a greeting. When it is spoken OF either Jesus (above Her) or Stephen (below Her), it cannot be a greeting, and he doesn’t care a whit if it is good colloquial German or not.

In other words, he was a perfect hypocrite.

He was also a promoter of killing Anabaptists, if you read his work about Schwärmgeister (btw, since these were also violent Commies, he may have had a point, but he was not for clemency once they were caught and tried).

Creationism is not Lying, School Freedom is not Warping Minds and Carreers forever!

... on Bias of Alice Roberts · Creationism is not Lying, School Freedom is not Warping Minds and Carreers forever!

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

0:37 Being honest with children includes being so about the "overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution"?

Only from the side of adults who believe that!

Being against creationism in schools is privileging the honesty of certain adults over the honesty of other adults.

Specifically, being against creation science in Christian private schools denies certain parents and teachers to be honest and inform thoroughly (while parents still have the opportunity to be honest and inform less thoroughly at home), in favour of the honesty of other teachers, whom the said parents would often enough and reasonably enough, qualify as evolutionist fanatics.

Richard Ikin

How can anyone inform children honestly and thoroughly about something which is clearly nonsense and, to be truthful, a downright lie? There is NO evidence for any part of the creation myth, just as there is no evidence that any events described in the bible actually happened, and teaching children that it is fact, not myth, is dishonest and irresponsible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Richard Ikin History is based on narrative evidence.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5:20 "but if it does harm"

The presenter seems fairly sold out on Alice's bias on the matter. She showed no evidence creationism in general (outside Scaramanga's school or former such) is doing any harm.

andy moore

The earth is not flat, so teaching it causes harm.

Gedorfmi Barah

If a child emerges from a Faith school with an A-Level in Creationism, fails to get a good job where education is needed, (s)he has been harmed.

kirsten mills

Lying to children about science which creationism does is harmful. It creates ignorance and blind faith it is very harmful

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@kirsten mills I tend to agree with most what you said, except:

"which creationism does"

Did you mean, which evolutionism does, and that very massively? slender hope

@andy moore "The earth is not flat, so teaching it causes harm."

Not very serious harm, though.

Rob Skiba is doing fine ...

​@Gedorfmi Barah "If a child emerges from a Faith school"

Note, "child" ...

"with an A-Level in Creationism,"

What age do you usually get A-levels?

Why would Creationism be the onlysubject taught in a faithschool?

"fails to get a good job where education is needed,"

Do you mean, where Evolutionism is needed?

"(s)he has been harmed."

By those requiring Evolutionism, certainly ...!

andy moore

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes he is doing very well.

I learned so much about genocide and ethnic cleansing from the Old Testament (Joshua). All of it seemingly sponsored by 'god'.

Now that was serious harm!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@andy moore Have you looked into what Canaaneans were doing before that happened?

Like, you are aware, Phoenicians and Carthaginians are Canaaneans, and what Molochism is?

I mean some people are OK with bombing Dresden bc of Hitler or Nagasaki bc of Hirohito ... that's nothing compared to Molochism.

Besides, the Canaaneans got time to leave rather than get killed.

andy moore

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So you justify ethnic cleansing then?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@andy moore Not in general terms, but God can make exceptional forms of death penalty, using either Flood waters or men as executioners.

Has it occurred to you that this is not creationism, but a question of deflecting from the subject of historical truth to that of ethic acceptability?

andy moore

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The problem I have with all this is that God created man in his own image then decided that he had got it wrong then chose to start again more or less from scratch.

Is this an appropriate use of power for 'good'? Is God perfect, is God Love or is he just an all powerful entity messing about with his creations?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@andy moore You are seriously confusing the question of harm with the question of whether you think it is sensible.

No Creationist able to add 2+2 and get 4 was disabled after exposition to Creationism. No man able to be decent to you was first exposed to Creationism and then unable to remain so - unless hurt by non-Creationists (like you are, hoping it's not like you do).

This does not the least change bc parts of the Christian dogma seems strange to you.

Now, this one is not too hard to answer.

God is love.

This means, from us, God is asking love.

Asking love means giving the beloved a choice.

And that means, the one getting a choice may abuse it.

Sometimes God has had to protect those who responded in some way to His love by hurting those, including massively killing those, who didn't, but didn't even give normal responses to human love either.

Flood? If you see the reference to "eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage" in Matthew / Luke prophecies of end times, it would seem to mean cannibalism, vampyrism, gay marriage.

We have seen vampyrism and gay marriage in culture lately and we have seen cannibalism in the news.

We have also seen marks of cannibalism on a few men from Atapuerca or dental calculus of some Neanderthal men in Belgium. Like, imagine people as cannibal as New Guinea before the missionaries, and as armed to the teeth as US just before the Flood, what would God do? One option is, send a Flood. He did.

andy moore

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I was told that according to creationist thinking the Earth is only 8000 years old. So Neanderthals could not have existed and are just a hoax invented by evolutionists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@andy moore "I was told that according to creationist thinking the Earth is only 8000 years old."

Most creationists would say 6000, I'd say 7219.

"So Neanderthals could not have existed and are just a hoax invented by evolutionists."

Non sequitur. Neanderthals did exist. A Neanderthal carbon dated to 40 000 BP (38 000 BC) really is from around the Flood in 2957 BC. Meaning the carbon samples from then had a headstart of 35 000 carbon years, meaning the carbon 14 level was c. 1.4 pmC.

Your low ability of assessing Creationist thought seems to imply you were somewhat hurt in relation to it, somewhat pushed to disdain, about like Yanissaries were educated to disdain Christianity. Could it have been by your evolutionist school?

andy moore

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Why do creationists insist on questioning the validity of science? Is that what you were taught at school?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@andy moore Why do Evolutionists insist on questioning the validity of the Bible? Is that what you were taught at school?

Seriously - I think it is.

You are by citing these authorities elevating "science" and "taught at school" to religious levels.

Too bad for you.

andy moore

@Hans-Georg Lundahl If there is a creationist God there is no reason to assume that the Bible is in any way a valid document.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@andy moore Your logic is obscure.

Even if?

There are plenty of reasons to assume the Bible's historic books are more or less valid documents even without makng assumptions about God.

If I approached Genesis as an Agnostic (which is too late for me to do, I became Christian before reading Genesis either in Bible Pix or a bigger Bible), I'd find it one fairly good argument for the God of Genesis. Note, by Agnostic, I here use the word in its etymological meaning, not as synonym for "soft atheist".

If, then because of that?

That is a hard one, would you mind explaining what you mean?

andy moore

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Why should I believe the bible's version of creation rather than any other explanation. The bible does not seem particularity consistent anyway given only selected tracts made the final cut..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@andy moore Genesis is so much more than just the creation story.

Genesis 1 is what you can consider as revealed by God to some prophetic author, rather than observed (ok, God's behaviour at Babel, but the result was observable). Genesis 2 - 50 all depend on human observers, and mostly not acting alone with God or getting revealed what God does, but interacting with each other.

Genesis 12 - 50 concerns five generations of one large family. Obviously, the family members themselves observed their own and each other's behaviour.

Most of it would be very acceptable to atheists as a purely human story. Some would make an atheist ask "did Abraham go nuts?" or "did Jacob go nuts?" Or, "how did Lot hallucinating coincide with his getting out just before a volcanic eruption?"

There are some few obvious exceptions to this rule, this being the very obvious reason why atheists would want to stamp all of it as creation myth. Genesis 1. Flood. Babel. Next major supernatural events you can't explain is Exodus - crossing the Red Sea on dry sea floor, 2 million surviving in the desert on mannah. Being sceptic about those, is that really worth being so gullible about all human gullibility except your own?

See also this article on CMI:

Study: Biology professors are biased against Evangelicals
First published in a CMI newsletter, June 2020
by Jonathan Sarfati, CMI-US
Published: 22 December 2020 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/bias-against-evangelicals

And the Evolution Believing Near Atheist Before That? - Extra on Helio / Geo

Conciliar Church · Why Catholic at All, Then? · What About an Inkling Reading Protestant, which I was · And the Evolution Believing Near Atheist Before That? · Extra on Helio / Geo

5 Lies Theists Tell About Atheists
Genetically Modified Skeptic | 27.XII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuNOFH93GHA

One of my comments led to a dialogue:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Romans 1:[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: [19] Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Up to Heliocentrism, this actually makes atheism rather awkward.

Demokritos doesn't seem to have studied astronomy very much, and Lucrece (his spiritual grandson) certainly didn't, since he attributed the complex Geocentric movements of the universe and single bodies as a whirl-pool phenomenon.

St. Paul may have made the point, if you take your eyes and inner ears for Earth being immobile, and your eyes for what happens well above Earth, you have to conclude someone with some talent of organisation is responsible for these movements. As well as lots of power. Note the litothetic statements.

Another question is of course, whether accepting Heliocentrism is a real excuse ...

Heliocentrism is not directly born out by what we see, and when I have tried arguing with atheists on why Geocentrism couldn't (on their view) be true and a true proof of God, I get versions of:

they : given the mass of the Sun, and of Earth, Sun could never circle Earth
me : what if angels moved it (speaking of yearly cycle) within an aether that is moved by God (speaking of the daily one)
they : God / angels don't exist.

One version is accusing me of circularity, or saying "prove God exists" / "prove angels exist" - but with Geocentrism I just did that (remains to ask which God and what angels, that's a matter for history).

I reply that it is circular to assume Heliocentrism as the true explanation doesn't need a God, when you cannot prove it is the true one except by starting out to exclude God.

fireandcopper

@Hans-Georg Lundahl have you ever worked with horses? Sometimes they kick, and they change people.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@fireandcopper I have fallen off one, what is this to the context?

Olivier Gaudet-Lanoie

first, the flat earth community and now this guy. smh

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Olivier Gaudet-Lanoie yes, this guy who is not flat earther ...

Olivier Gaudet-Lanoie

@Hans-Georg Lundahl im not saying you are a flat earther, but you do seem to belive the sun is rotating around the earth. which is equally stupid

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Olivier Gaudet-Lanoie Yes, I believe the Sun is rotating around the earth.

Why would you say it is equally stupid?

I am from Europe and have been to US (one day in Mééééééxico too). I know if you go east from where I am, across Germany and Poland, Bielarus and Russia, you come to China. I know California, not least San Francisco, has a lot of immigrants from China, so I know between Chine and Europe we have a circle closed either way.

How much proof like that do you have for heliocentrism? Han Solo and Luke Skywalker from a very far galaxy observed Earth rotating third planet from Sun?

I think you might have some trouble getting their affidavit on it, bc George Lucas' imagination is not a credible affidavit.

Olivier Gaudet-Lanoie

@Hans-Georg Lundahl because we have way more then goerge’s imagination for proof. i am not an expert and i do not claim to be but saying the sun rotate around the earth is overlooking ton of evidence. if the sun was in fact rotating around the earth, that would mean thousands of scientists, astronomers, physicists, astronauts and other people have lied over countless years just so you could think heliocentrism is real. like i said, your claim is equally idiotic has the flat earth conspiracies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Olivier Gaudet-Lanoie " if the sun was in fact rotating around the earth, that would mean thousands of scientists, astronomers, physicists, astronauts and other people have lied over countless years just so you could think heliocentrism is real."

No. It would mean they have been incompetent. No conspiracy.

With Flat Earthers, there is of course a certain fringe who do think geographic information from Catholic countries is a conspiracy to hide their "flat earth" which doesn't have Biblical evidence (note, their most common Flat Earth map shows three corners!).

But when it comes to Heliocentrism, it just means, they are incompetent.

At least in a first round.

R E C E N T L Y, there is indeed a conspiracy to portray any objections to standard theories like Evolution and Heliocentrism as "conspiracy theories".

If they have no incompetence to hide, why do they hide from your likes that my likes think their likes plain simple incompetent?

Olivier Gaudet-Lanoie

@Hans-Georg Lundahl those people are experts in their domains. saying all of them made the same mistakes and none of them, even with today’s technology could figure out something so blatant is straight up comedic. do you know how many things we’ve sent in space? voyager1 has been sent to take photos of pluto and is now drifting away, soon to be leaving the solar system with the famous golden disk. one slight miscalculation (like, idk, the sun actually rotating the earth) and the device would have missed the used-to-be-planet by unimaginable length. surely, we would have figured it out if the sun was going around the earth.

are you going to argue with the color of the sky next? are you gonna say the sky is actually red but the government is trying to cover it up with holograms? im sorry if i sound rude but holy shit. even the most basic understanding of gravity is enough to disprove geocentrism.

just saying, thank you for being so polite (unlike some people on internet). it feels like we can actually debate without calling ourselves names. im sorry if i sound rude, it isnt my intentions. even if i find the subject of the debate kinda dumb (no offense)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Olivier Gaudet-Lanoie "Hans-Georg Lundahl those people are experts in their domains. saying all of them made the same mistakes"

If the mistake is a part of their basic training (which is uniform) ....

"and none of them, even with today’s technology could figure out something so blatant is straight up comedic. do you know how many things we’ve sent in space?"

Oh - your real argument is what we sent into space ... if Tychonic Geocentrism holds true, exactly how would the orbits differ on your view?

"voyager1 has been sent to take photos of pluto and is now drifting away, soon to be leaving the solar system with the famous golden disk. one slight miscalculation (like, idk, the sun actually rotating the earth) and the device would have missed the used-to-be-planet by unimaginable length."

Simple inversion of what's moving and what isn't is NOT the same thing as miscalculating smaller parameters within either framework.

"surely, we would have figured it out if the sun was going around the earth."

We did for thousands of years, at least some of us (including, but not limited to Biblical hagiographers).

"are you going to argue with the color of the sky next?"

You are the one arguing against what is seen, directly, not I.

With the naked eye we see earth standing still, and the heavenly bodies moving around it each day, plus Sun and Moon doing longer-periodic turns around the zodiac. I believe earth is standing still, the heavenly bodies move around us each day and Sun and Moon do longer-periodic turns around the zodiac.

But as you take such an enormous pride in technology, would you mind telling me if it was microscope of telescope you turned on earth to see it moving? There is a reason I mentioned a far off galaxy (as per G. Lucas) - from there it would have made sense to turn a telescope on Sun and Earth and see which was moving and if Earth was turning.

Oh, and by the way, before you say we have observed Earth turning from the Moon, you can observe a tower, stuck in earth, turning around itself, you only need to fly around it with a chopper.

Tower : Earth = Chopper : Moon in this analogy.

"are you gonna say the sky is actually red but the government is trying to cover it up with holograms?"

As mentioned, that is more like your analysis of what is moving than mine.

"even the most basic understanding of gravity is enough to disprove geocentrism."

Well, on an atheistic and anangelic view, I suppose you are stuck with Heliocentrism, however anti-empiric it may be. But if God and angels exist, there are beings able to move objects and even - for God - the whole Universe by acts of will, and therefore to trump gravity.

You have two choices:
Tychonic Geocentrism = > needs supernatural movers.
Deny supernatural movers => needs Heliocentrism.

"im sorry if i sound rude, it isnt my intentions"

Nice to know now, I already answered you a bit as if you had been so!

No, Welsh is NOT Slavic and "why is it said that?" hides who is saying it. (Quora)

Creation of Last Language · Creation of Latin, Lithuanian, Italian · No, Welsh is NOT Slavic and "why is it said that?" hides who is saying it. (Quora) · A Coward Left the Debate · PIE Revisited on Quora · Latin Cases and other Language Related on Quora

Q

Why is it said that Welsh is not at all a Celtic language but Slavic? What are some similar words in some Slavic languages and Welsh?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-said-that-Welsh-is-not-at-all-a-Celtic-language-but-Slavic-What-are-some-similar-words-in-some-Slavic-languages-and-Welsh/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10m ago

amateur linguist

My Latin teacher used to say, the main reason for using passive is, it makes the patient of an action subject and the main reason for doing that is avoiding to mention the agent of an action (bc you have already mentioned him and don’t want to get boring, bc you don’t know who, bc you want to hide it, etc).

“It is said that Welsh is Slavic”
= “[someone] is saying Welsh is Slavic”

Would you kindly tell WHO is saying “Welsh is not at all a Celtic language but Slavic”?

Bc, the reason that person is saying so or those persons are saying so is either ignorance as in being ignorant himself or themselves or hoping someone else is ignorant.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

In fact, finding a few words similar between Welsh and Slavic can’t hide you find lots more words similar between Welsh and Irish. Where Slavic languages have other words, also many more, similar between them.

Or that grammar is different : Welsh has no rule saying words ending in a hard consonant have to be masculine. Maiden is morwyn, and the n is not palatalised.

II

Axel Brosi

20h ago

Welsh belongs to the Brythonic Celtic language family and has very little in common with the Slavic language group. Although Welsh belongs to the Indo-European language branch - it was much more influenced by the non-Indo-European language which it eventually replaced.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Original Author

Just now

Very little indeed.

I think, while Welsh and Breton certainly have a common ancestor (Brythonic) and probably so with Continental P-Celtic and even with Q-Celtic, the Celto-Italic common ancestor is more tenuous and when it comes to PIE, credited with both Celtic and Slavic, among others, I think this may be a mirage of reconstruction, while commonalities come from Sprachbund phenomena, a k a areal phenomena.

What About Harry? As in Potter ...?

Harry Potter and the Catholic Church
12.IV.2016 | MayHeBePraised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygUQMgYqlHM

The following is not one long comment, it is, in usual way, a series of short ones in response to different parts of the video:

Magic school for fun?

Well, real just goofy magic school fun can be had outside HP. "L'école de magie Abrakadabra" involves fun about a neighbouring "Muggle" couple (to borrow HP terms) in which the wife always sees the spooky things and the hubby, nose over newspaper never does and tells her she is seeing things, spells gone wrong (with a vengeance) ... but not really serious.

For my own part, any school setting is very unfun to me since I went to a boarding school.

I think that comic is originally Italian, it rings a bell its author having an Italian name, not sure if there is an English translation.

zubren ostumbi

a***le f*** u

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@zubren ostumbi Like ... why?

I have heeded a warning against HP (worded by a fan of JRRT and CSL, otherwise I might not have cared), never read even one book, and started to get put off even more when reading this:

http://www.gurl.com/2014/10/23/horrifying-things-you-never-realized-were-wrong-with-harry-potter-ask-reddit/#1

Since you are a fan, what do you think of it?

Fun fact : VOLDEMORT in ASCII adds up to 700. Take away the T, which looks like a cross, you get 616 (a minority reading of Apocalypse 13:18, majority and probably best patristic support is for 666), and Voldemor sounds like a dialectal version of Valdemar = Vladimir ... Or perhaps that fact is not really fun ...

7:41 Totally acceptable for children of all ages?

Ron's solitary habits?

Excuse me, but society is understood as a human condition allowing people to reach their full human potential?

Catholic social teaching?

Any encyclical previous to Vatican II?

If you meant in St. Thomas Aquinas, he was not thinking about the "nearly equal to state and institutions" sense of "society", he was thinking of how for most people living around people is preferrable to being a hermit!

At 6:16 in the warning that I read against HP, I was actually reading that, on the contrary, some formulas are very realistic as to sorcery (it may have been sth stamped as evil in HP terms too, like Avada Kevadra, but still), and this was born out by the studies in real sorcery the author had as studying for exorcism. (I think it was an example from the first book).

6:42 Moses' miracles are comparable to those of the Egyptian sorcerers, but not identic in nature.

He did not go to a magic school to learn them (despite some Jewish claims one of the Pharao magicians he defeated was a "former Dumbledore" to him).

Moses is acting on direct instruction from God. Jacob when painting the ewes may have acted by curiosity, but a blessed one, not one informed by a set theory of sorcery. In Tobit, it is the angel who is dealing with the magic utensils.

In other words, the parts of the Bible where good people are closest to doing what HP, Ron and Hermione are learning, are parts where the setting is morally very different.

No one is allowed to read books or go to lessons on how to turn staffs into snakes and back. St Thomas thinks, the Pharao's magicians did that by demons very quickly shuffling pre-existing objects, but Moses' staff was transsubstantiated. By God's omnipotence. You are NOT supposed to learn how to make deals with demons, and you CAN'T count on God chosing you to turn staffs to snakes.

I think the next two guys who will be doing such things on God's behalf are Henoch and Elijah (second possibility : Moses and Elijah ending in Holy Land, Henoch and the other Henoch going to India) as described in Apocalypse 11. Not me and not you.

What I could do to contribute to identify them? I can just say, let linguists test them.

Henoch would know how the 32 palaeolithic symbols relate or don't relate to the Hebrew alphabet, Elijah could certainly correct a Hebraist or perhaps even an Egyptologist on linguistic guesses. Elijah would very certainly be able to give the real, if any, differences between 800 BC Hebrew and 800 BC Moabitic or Phoenician. Oh, some real ones are already known, but any further ones, not yet detected. And a good linguist, me not being that on this high level, would know for certain they were giving the right solution.

And this was forgetting how many old languages Henoch and Elijah could have learned WHILE in the heavens.

Is Etruscan a very old dialect of Hungarian? They would fairly certainly know that. What are the remaining guess-work or not even a qualified guess for Hittite, Hattic, Sumerian? They would perhaps know.

But of course, once people start opposing them, they will document their being who they are in a more tangible way.

"and you CAN'T count on God chosing you to turn staffs to snakes."

In fact, I wouldn't want to. I don't relish the idea of touching snakes. Remember how Moses took them by the tail when turning them back to the staff? (Or if it was a same snake rather than successive ones?)

7:04 is not Catholic or even Christian

Well, depends on how loosely you will use Christian:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling#Religion

By the way, in some cases, when I comment on a video, I go straight ahead and post my collected comments under the link to the video on a post, sometimes I more like wait till there is a debate and then repost that.

So, if you answer, my blog post will look like this format:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hell Fire (Yes, it Exists)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2014/03/on-hell-fire-yes-it-exists.html

If you don't, more like this:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Golding's Famous Novel and on Youth
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/04/on-goldings-famous-novel-and-on-youth.html

(No debate, since the Father what's his name behind Sensus Fidelium has not cared to answer - he is an EO rite, I am "Sede" (not technically) / Orthopapist, obedient (or loyally somewhat not too much disobedient, if he thinks so) to Pope Michael)

Babel Skyscraper, Portal or Rocket?

Creation vs. Evolution: Babel in Eridu? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Dispute with Douglas Petrovich · Babel or Exodus Myths? · Babel Skyscraper, Portal or Rocket? · Creation vs. Evolution: "On the Evolutionary Timescale" is NOT in my vocabulary

Also under Doug Petrovich's video.

Steve W

The Tower of Babel wasn't some ancient version of a multi-storied skyscraper as many have thought. It was an inter-dimensional portal in the form of a ziggurat which they were using to communicate with demons who had deceived them into believing that they were communicating with the gods. This became so dangerous in terms of a demonic union between man and satan, that God in His great mercy had to intervene and confuse their language to break up that unity. Had He not done so, it would have eventually led to the human race being wiped out because the gene pool would have been corrupted by a demonic union between satan and man. This is what leads me to believe that the mark of the beast will be just that - some type of implanted microchip that will fuse human DNA with demonic DNA under the false pretense of fusing humans with extra-terrestrials which they will claim are the ancient "gods". This would explain why anyone who receives that mark has no possibility of redemption.

Derek Kranz

Interesting, now how do you know all this?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It was an inter-dimensional portal in the form of a ziggurat which they were using to communicate with demons"

This is not Josephus' take, and he knew Genesis text as good as you do.

To him, there was a question of getting to higher, unfloodable, ground, before earth was destroyed again (mistrust of God's promise).

Steve W

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ummm...Josephus' writings are not inspired scripture. Some of what Josephus says is corroborated historical fact, some is not and some is speculation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Steve W Look here. Pretending the Tower of Babel was a portal to contact demons is most definitely also not inspired Scripture.

What about cutting the "two measures" approach?

Steve W

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The idea that it was a demonic portal fits better with the text. Nowhere in that text is the flood mentioned and in verse 4, it isn't describing the actual physical height of 62 miles up into the earth's atmosphere as a means to actually physically reach into the heavens. It's describing a massive structure as part of a city that would be to "make a name for themselves". The mention of "nothing they propose will be withheld from them" is the key. All kinds of great cities were built in the ancient world but there was something about this one that was dangerous beyond the natural realm. That's why it fits.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Steve W I think it fits, Josephus, that is, because Nimrod didn't count the cost. If he tried a skyscraper he had no idea of 62 miles, and if he wanted a rocket to the stars, he had no idea of Voyager 1 and 2 not yet being one light day up after 50 years.

For which of you having a mind to build a tower, doth not first sit down, and reckon the charges that are necessary, whether he have wherewithal to finish it:
[Luke 14:28]

Well, Nimrod was not present among the "of you".

Also, shall not be withheld, the getting into heaven has since been granted : above stars, when Christ opened Pearly Gates, but above atmosphere when Laika, Gagarin and Armstrong took off.

Some say some wanted to kill God - was granted to them (meaning Pharisees made themselves a synagogue of Nimrod!) at Crucifixion.

@Steve W "Nowhere in that text is the flood mentioned"

Neither is any portal or contacting demons.

Quit two measures!

Steve W

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Well now, seeing as they were centuries away from rocket technology, try again to explain what was meant by "nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them" in Genesis 11:6b. This IMHO is the key to an educated speculation as to just what וּמִגְדָּל וְרֹאשׁוֹ בַשָּׁמַיִם means.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Steve W They were about 45 centuries away from useful rocket technology. Leonardo da Vinci was also 4 to 5 centuries away from useful airplane technology.

God may have stopped the rocket project so they could make the discoveries needed for Cape Canaveral and Baikonoor not killing Laika, Gagarin, Armstrong and Aldrin with lots of bystanders as well.

A rocket take off gone wrong is far deadlier than an airplane flight gone wrong. You could even survive a "flight" in a Leonardo plane if you took the precaution to fly above a lake deep enough and calm enough to not kill someone falling into it.

Babel or Exodus Myths?

Creation vs. Evolution: Babel in Eridu? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Dispute with Douglas Petrovich · Babel or Exodus Myths? · Babel Skyscraper, Portal or Rocket? · Creation vs. Evolution: "On the Evolutionary Timescale" is NOT in my vocabulary

Under the Doug Petrovich video.

John Makovec

So the Bible reuses old Babylonian myths. And those myths have some part historical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Exactly what Babylonian myth features "tower of Babel" story?

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't know. But we know, that Mesopotamia build towers as structures of their religion. We know, that floodstory was used in Gilgamesh epos. We know, that people are able to create myth and legends.

So it's quite probable, that someone "explained" origin of different languages by "too high tower" in that region.

In case of flood, there are multiple different options based on local historical events - migration of people in relation to end of ice age... Connection of Black sea (and rising of waters there) and there was of course multiple local flood, because nature sometimes creates them.

And we know, that some legendary stories have a true information in it, but those supernatural parts are pure fiction.

It is a specualtion? Sure, but based on evidence we can observe in world around us. It's better explanation, than "god did it".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "So it's quite probable, that someone "explained" origin of different languages by "too high tower" in that region."

To my best knowledge, the one who did was Moses + his sources back to Heber and Peleg's time.

"migration of people in relation to end of ice age"

It so happens, the Flood story is not about migrating on land, primarily.

"And we know, that some legendary stories have a true information in it,"

Do we know any legendary story that hasn't?

"but those supernatural parts are pure fiction."

How are we supposed to "know" that?

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Even if Moses would be author, he was - by biblical story itself - born long after supposed Babel & Flood. So even if he included those stories, he also used - in case of flood - older stories from that region and changed them to fit Hebrew religion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec Or he preserved them.

Hebrew version is the one version that does include both Tower of Babel (not very flattering to "mankind") and Noah's drunkenness and nakedness (not very flattering to the main flood survivor).

One argument for it being original. Another one is, it has genealogies (farily boring ones to the general reader / listener) from Flood to "normal historic" times like Abraham and Early Dynastic Egypt.

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sure, preserved & edited to fit their religion. Imagine, that you are an ancient Hebrew priest. You hear a great story about flood. Why not to change it a little bit and use to it to help your narrative?

People were bad, there was flood, Noah was good, now there is rainbow.

And you include also the "clean" and "dirty" animals, what is concept known to you currently. And actually it seems, that original story was about pairs of animals and the increased number of clean animals were added later. (Otherwise, Noah would kill of sheeps after the flood by sacrifise, right?)

Do we have archeological evidence more supporting flood than non-flood? No, we don't. Do we have biological evidence and other verifiable evidence as support for flood than agains it? Yes, we do. But if you want to have Noah's flood as historical, you can have it, because no natural evidence can't be more, than all-powerfull being can't handle.

From this, it's more probable, that Hebrew used stories from nations around them. Especially, if those nations were occupied or enslaved by other nations around them. They knew their culture and when you wanted to be independent state, it's logical, that you also wanted an independent religion structures.

About geneaology... there is a lot of geneaology in the Lord of Rings. If you start with today, you can create whatever geneaology you want, if there is no other source of evidence available for other people to fact-check it.

And to question Bible or Torah.... I would be afraid, that it would be blasphemy. So would you risk your life?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "Sure, preserved & edited to fit their religion. Imagine, that you are an ancient Hebrew priest. You hear a great story about flood. Why not to change it a little bit and use to it to help your narrative?"

I note this is speculation.

"People were bad, there was flood, Noah was good, now there is rainbow."

Yes.

"And you include also the "clean" and "dirty" animals, what is concept known to you currently."

Wait a bit ... what about "and to question Bible or Torah.... I would be afraid, that it would be blasphemy. So would you risk your life?" - How is that priest not risking his life with the rest of the priests?

"And actually it seems, that original story was about pairs of animals and the increased number of clean animals were added later. (Otherwise, Noah would kill of sheeps after the flood by sacrifise, right?)"

God can well have given an extra instruction to that precise purpose after seeing Noah would sacrifice.

"Do we have archeological evidence more supporting flood than non-flood? No, we don't."

We have several biotopes all over the world labelled "Permian" (at least in Russia and in South Africa), "Triassic" and a few more (Permian and Triassic are fairly favourite biotopes with me, bc Permian critters are so ugly and bc I like Karroo).

We also have Neanderthals and Denisovans, purebred, up to the carbon date 40 000 BP and none after that.

With a carbon rise starting with a level of atmospheric 1.4 pmC in 2957 BC (year of Flood in Roman Martyrology for Christmas day), there is no real big problem for 2957 BC being carbon dated 38 000 BC. 1.4 pmC will give the needed 35 000 extra years as instant carbon mirage.

"Do we have biological evidence and other verifiable evidence as support for flood than agains it? Yes, we do."

Would you mind to clarify what you mean and also examplify what you mean by "yes we do".

"But if you want to have Noah's flood as historical, you can have it, because no natural evidence can't be more, than all-powerfull being can't handle."

Is your native language a Slavic one? Double negatives don't cancel out but reinforce?

"From this, it's more probable, that Hebrew used stories from nations around them. Especially, if those nations were occupied or enslaved by other nations around them. They knew their culture and when you wanted to be independent state, it's logical, that you also wanted an independent religion structures."

So precisely for reasons of independence - why copy so much from others?

"About geneaology... there is a lot of geneaology in the Lord of Rings."

There is no boring passage (outside appendices, and such ones put in them for certain reasons) that states "Aragorn, son of Arathorn, son of" etc back to "son of Elros who was son of Eärendil". If there had been, after ten rereads of LotR, I'd be at least half as good at Aragorn's as I am on Jesus' genealogy.

"If you start with today, you can create whatever geneaology you want, if there is no other source of evidence available for other people to fact-check it."

Which precisely there was. Whatever point of OT history you want to accept it starts being actually historic, you have genealogies starting out with those in Genesis 5 and 11 and leading up to people alive back then.

"And to question Bible or Torah.... I would be afraid, that it would be blasphemy. So would you risk your life?"

This is fairly good observation for a Torah already standing, but how do you explain it applies to a single priest adding stories to it and telling people to remember always having heard what they had never heard?

A question also arising for a people having no memory of having survived a Flood suddenly adopting such a "memory".

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Historically the priests were much more powerfull, especially in societies like Egypt. If you were a pharaon, it would not be wise to conduct acts against your priests.

Also, if you look at temples in Mesopotamia, it's is also very expensive building.

Do you consider Egyptians priests to be supported by "real" god? If this "tool" is functional and people are able to consider stories created by those priests to be true, why should be a religion created (supposedly) by ex-egyptian prince different?

Giordano Bruno was burned, because his opinions were against church. Questioning priests were often like questioning gods themselves. It was (and sometimes it still is) a powerfull tool.

There is more problems like population, biology, etc, etc, etc. That's why Noah's flood is considered non-historical by more than 99 % of scientific community. But if you use a wildcard "supernatural being not limited by natural laws", than evidence does not have any value, because "devil can give you false natural evidence", right?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec Egyptian priesthood had NOTHING to do with doctrines about the past, but ALL about, at best doctrines of the otherworldly, and at worst just the ceremonies you do in a temple.

"Giordano Bruno was burned, because his opinions were against church."

Yes, but that was 3000 years after I believe Hebrews accepted Genesis as history and 2000 years after you believe they did so.

You cannot project the sociology from 1600 AD to the times of Moses or Ezra!

Plus, you even get it wrong.

"Questioning priests were often like questioning gods themselves."

Giordano Bruno, who was a priest, and Galileo Galilei, who wasn't, had their chances to argue their cases relative to Bible and observable facts. The fact they questioned the opinion of the then (majority of more than 99% of) priests was fairly irrelevant. Giordano believed in one Son and one Holy Ghost per Solar System, and Galileo showed a decided lack of talent connecting Jupiter's four moons to rejecting Tychonic as well as Ptolemaic Geocentrism.

"There is more problems like population, biology, etc, etc, etc. That's why Noah's flood is considered non-historical by more than 99 % of scientific community."

Thank you for acknowledging:

• that there is at least a (less than) 1 % of the scientific community who are Creationist
• that it's the scientific community having, for some reason, an opinion about history.

If you'd be more specific, I'd love to give answers about "more problems like" ....

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The science is ongoing process. It would be a miracle, if 100 % from hundreds of people agreed on anything based on indirect observation and deduction. And existence of opposition is great, because it allows you to test the mainstream.

If 99 from 100 doctors would tell me, that this drug will kill me, but 1 is going to tell me, that he has a faith in God and he sees the drug as a good idea... you can call it "argumentum ad populum", but I will not take that drug. The same with 100 engineers about bridge going to fall. Again, they all could be mistaken, but this could be the case about the 1 engineer with another opinion.

Bruno was killed by Church. That was my point. If God had problem with him, He could call him himself. But as long as I know, we have a ton of prophecs claiming, that God is speaking through them and people killing other people, because God - via priests - told them.

The people are not so different from times of Egypt. In states, where church or religion has the power, it's still connected with power & politics.

People in Egypt build big tombs to help them go to the "other side". Christians today build Temples to help them go to the "other side".

Miracles, if you can't prove them possible, are great evidence of non-historicity. Many things in Old Testament are possible itself for small group, but not in the final story with 2 000 000 people living 40 years in desert. It's a story puzzled from many different stories to create a great narrative.

Of course you can find many archeological evidence, for different pieces. If I write a historical novel, it will be full of things you can confirm archeologically. You can prove Spiderman.... New York & Central Park. Do you know how we (also) know, that Spiderman is not historical? There are no radioactive spiders, who can give you superhuman powers. (But if God exists, he could be real, right?)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "The science is ongoing process. It would be a miracle, if 100 % from hundreds of people agreed on anything based on indirect observation and deduction. And existence of opposition is great, because it allows you to test the mainstream."

Only if you sufficiently heed the opposition.

"If 99 from 100 doctors would tell me, that this drug will kill me, but 1 is going to tell me, that he has a faith in God and he sees the drug as a good idea... you can call it "argumentum ad populum", but I will not take that drug."

This is like you are saying you are not going to heed the opposition, because you deal with all kinds of expertise as with medical cautionary advice. Bad parallel, since believing either on these questions will not kill you, and one which on top of that means, you are going to marginalise instead of heed the opposition.

You know, what drugs are likely to kill and what drugs are likely to cure is a bit more testable by direct experiment than what we are talking about.

"The same with 100 engineers about bridge going to fall. Again, they all could be mistaken, but this could be the case about the 1 engineer with another opinion."

What if 100 engeneers say a bridge will last and one says it will fall? Had an example of that in Italy a few years ago, Genua, as I recall.

"Bruno was killed by Church. That was my point. If God had problem with him, He could call him himself. But as long as I know, we have a ton of prophecs claiming, that God is speaking through them and people killing other people, because God - via priests - told them."

Your nightmare version of social history of religion and power is just that - a nightmare version. You cannot push Inquisition killing back further than them dealing with Albigensians (a sect who were against conception and family, promoted abortion and abandoning family and a few more horrible practises and had de facto taken power in South France or many parts of it).

As long as you know ... well, you are insufficiently knowledgeable about history.

"The people are not so different from times of Egypt."

That's a major howler. If you compare anything to Egyptian priesthood, it's more modern scientists.

"In states, where church or religion has the power, it's still connected with power & politics."

Yes, so? When science and medicine has the power, it will also be connected to power and politics.

"People in Egypt build big tombs to help them go to the "other side". Christians today build Temples to help them go to the "other side"."

That's (and absence of total atheism) is about as far as the similarity goes.

"Miracles, if you can't prove them possible, are great evidence of non-historicity."

It so happens, this is not in any way a discovery made by logic or observation. It's simply a metaphysical a priori postulate.

"Many things in Old Testament are possible itself for small group, but not in the final story with 2 000 000 people living 40 years in desert. It's a story puzzled from many different stories to create a great narrative."

How big was the desert ... Sinai peninsula? 60,000 sqkm. = 60,000,000,000 sqm.
This is 3000 sqm per person. Food and hydration = mannah (a miracle).

Now if you happen to believe miracles are impossible, you will have to conclude Exodus is impossible.

I do not believe miracles are impossible, and I believe Exodus narrative is one proof they have happened and therefore are possible. Because I believe faking that kind of origin would be impossible sociologically and psychologically.

If Israelites in 1000 BC emerged from Canaanites and had no background in anything like Exodus, they would be very hard set to accept that story as sth they had always remembered.

"Of course you can find many archeological evidence, for different pieces. If I write a historical novel, it will be full of things you can confirm archeologically. You can prove Spiderman.... New York & Central Park. Do you know how we (also) know, that Spiderman is not historical? There are no radioactive spiders, who can give you superhuman powers. (But if God exists, he could be real, right?)"

Spiderman is more about how evolution is impossible, and therefore why God is necessary. Radiooactivity withy or without spider bite will probably mutate you, but to cancer, not to superpowers.

We both know that Spiderman is not one text of history and was always received as an infinitely updatable corpus of fiction texts. We also know this is not how ancient people saw Exodus - within the audience, that is.

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, you would need God for Spiderman to exists. Radioactive spiders can't change your genetical code, especially in a way described in the comics.

Bridge in Genoa... I don't know, how many relevant studies there were. But from wiki page it seems, that there was a series of problems with that bridge.

If Israelites in 1000 BC emerged from Canaanites and had no background in anything like Exodus, they would be very hard set to accept that story as sth they had always remembered.

Mormons believe, that their prophet communicate with an angel... And they take it as real history.

If I compare two scenarios:

• a) a new kingdom created in power vacuum created its religion to legitimise itself and unify it's people to cut-off foreigh priests created it's own history book in age, where there was no available history books. And they used already existing stories (edited to fit their narrative), they also used other stories from desert...
  
  
• b) there were a set of impossible events (enabled by God's support) percisely recorded in Old Testament....

I must go with - maybe improbable a), because b) is impossible (and also does not make me sense).

a) is quite natural. Propaganda is nothing new in the world. Nazi germany worked with semi-truth quite skillfully.

And a) is possible also if God exists. Because if God can cause impossible (naturalistically) impossible events, than God can cause improbable scenarious - as forming new nation from tribes with help of new religion).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "Bridge in Genoa... I don't know, how many relevant studies there were. But from wiki page it seems, that there was a series of problems with that bridge."

Very possible, but it still seems the majority of experts were not shouting to authorities in Genoa to shut the bridge down for car traffic.

"Mormons believe, that their prophet communicate with an angel... And they take it as real history."

I take it as real history he claimed it. They take it as real history his communications were without witnesses other than Joseph Smith, precisely as Muslims take it as real history Mohammed claimed revelations, and yet none of them except he ever saw Jibreel.

"created it's own history book in age, where there was no available history books."

What about memory?

Like, even if no one had a history book which said sth else than Moses, if he hadn't existed, how did he get accepted as not just having existed, but even having been remembered all of the time?

"And they used already existing stories (edited to fit their narrative), they also used other stories from desert..."

That leaves you to explain what was in these already existing stories - and how they came about.

If we suppose Flood is as described in Genesis and that post-Flood events concerned with all mankind up to Babel happened as described in Genesis, lots of neighbouring peoples' stories are easily explained by that story pre-existing, and someone saying "no, you tell it wrong, Utnapishtim didn't get drunk!" or "no, there was not just one God both sending and warning about the Flood : Enlil sent it, Enki warned Utnapishtim". So, what exact previous stories do you propose to explain the Exodus story? What exact changes do you propose?

"because b) is impossible (and also does not make me sense)."

As to "impossible" that is materialistic metaphysical prejudice. You have no observation to back "impossible" up.

"a) is quite natural."

Only if you can show an easily obtained story which could be changed with a few strokes to give the Exodus one - or the Babel one, or the Flood one.

"Nazi germany worked with semi-truth quite skillfully."

Communist Russia and East Block even more skilfully.

"And a) is possible also if God exists."

It seems impossible if human memory exists.

"Yes, you would need God for Spiderman to exists"

No, I would need the impossible views on how mutations can improve organisms accepted by earlier Evolutionists for Spiderman to at least approximate sth existing. God being a God of order wouldn't do it.

"than God can cause improbable scenarious - as forming new nation from tribes with help of new religion"

The problem is not with a religion being new, it is with a religion imposing, while new, on people to remember a past they never had.

Update(s)

John Makovec

[several comments]

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sure, aliens do exists, Elvis Presley is alive and we are controlled by Lizard people....

Because how would otherwise be possible for such stories to be created.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Mutations can have positive, neutral, negative effect. We have natural selection to discard negative.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Human memory is just particles in the brain. So it's easier to give someone false memories of resurrection, then ressurect someone.

If resurrection of 3 day old dead body is possible, than gave few people false memories is easier. And I skipped all ways how stories are enhanced when told from people to people.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl And as long as you can't demonstrate, that God taking through bush is possible (this can be explained by mental disorder), we have many people with mental disorders, but no bush with taking God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "Sure, aliens do exists, Elvis Presley is alive and we are controlled by Lizard people.... Because how would otherwise be possible for such stories to be created."

I am sorry, but this is not to the point.

"Mutations can have positive, neutral, negative effect. We have natural selection to discard negative."

If by "positive" you mean "good", OK. In some situations changing or losing a function is good. If by "positive" you mean "adding new functions" - no, that has never been observed.

"Human memory is just particles in the brain. So it's easier to give someone false memories of resurrection, then ressurect someone."

There is a limit to how many people can be manipulated to false memories at a time. Or as to how fast you can do it.

No, it is not easier to give someone false memories. You don't control someone else's memories any more than you control dead bodies.

God can control both (by the way, changing linguistic side of memories isn't exactly false memories, but it does change the language competence and therefore does change the language he speaks, this is about Tower of Babel).

"And I skipped all ways how stories are enhanced when told from people to people."

Yeah, you skipped, because going into detail on this one doesn't serve your purpose.

Name one way and show how it could apply.

[new comment]

A man with a mental disorder won't be able to divide the Red Sea for his people. Missed your last one.

[new comment]

Wait, I think I saw your point ...

"aliens do exists,"

Demons pose as aliens.

"Elvis Presley is alive"

Or has lookalikes.

"and we are controlled by Lizard people...."

Or the people known to have more or less control have struck Icke as horrible enough to be such. Satire.

In other words, how stories originate is not as haphazard or anything goes as you pretend.

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Stories enhanced when told from people to people... legends... literaryterms(dot)net/legend/

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Also, if you are a story teller, you can use a first-person narrative. "A first-person narrative is a mode of storytelling or a peripheral narrator in which a storyteller recounts events from their own point of view using the first person i.e. "I" or "we", etc."

If one story teller takes a story from another person, then he can change it to fit his way of story telling. He can take the core story, but enhance it. Make it more funny, etc.

Sometimes we can call it "The size of your fish getting bigger every time you tell the story. TFM."

Also, there is an effect, where by repeating the same story without paper, you actually change it in your mind...

"We change our memories each time we recall them, but that doesn’t mean we’re lying"

@Hans-Georg Lundahl If you want an example of positive mutation, google "Neofunctionalization".

Also, you have new strains of viruses. Those mutations are definitely benefitial for the viruses, because it helps it to spread better. Because those are simple organisms (or even non-living), the mutation rate is greater and you can observe it in the nature in real-time.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl For omnipotent being able to resurrect people, there is no limit how that being can change someone's brain.

So if there is an omnipotent being, it's possible, that this being added false memories.

If we presume an omnipotent being able to interact with us and reorganize brain after 3 days of decay, we actually can't reject this possibility.

Actually, if this being has only one power (or use only one power) - to change memory of people - we can better explain the Bible. And it explains, why model of history created by observing nature accepted by 99 % of people who study relevant fields does not fit Biblical story.

2 000 000 people living 40 years in the desert? Easy... it's just 2 000 and someone change their memory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "there is no limit how that being can change someone's brain."

Except his truthfulness.

Changing the linguistic aspect of every one's every single memory at Babel was no lie : He didn't change what they remembered, just in what language they remembered it.

You do not have an omnipotent being at your disposal and you cannot claim brains could change indefinitely.

Your view about legends is less useful than mine, you are not anyway near as expert in the field as I.

Neofunctionalisation has not been observed to create new cell types or new organs.

Virus strains don't get new functions, just new traits that once again help to elude immune systems.

You haven't observed any virus getting the equipment to actually reproduce itself.

You haven't observed any virus getting DNA (or sth else superior to just RNA, which is their common fare).

"Actually, if this being has only one power (or use only one power) - to change memory of people - we can better explain the Bible."

I get it, you prefer a near omnipotent (in one field) deceiver, a k a an omnipotent devil, over an omnipotent actually benevolent GOd.

"And it explains, why model of history created by observing nature accepted by 99 % of people who study relevant fields does not fit Biblical story."

Observing nature does not give rise to any model of history ever.

That they accept a wrong model based on Hume diminishes their credibility on "relevant fields".

"2 000 000 people living 40 years in the desert? Easy... it's just 2 000 and someone change their memory."

And "just 2000" conquer Canaan just how after the desert?

John Makovec didn't answer the last one. I'll refer to Lycodichthys dearborni for neofunctionalisation : it seems a new proteine with antifreeze function came by gene duplication and one gene assuming a new role, but there is only one other Lycodichthys species, I don't know if it has the same antifreeze function, but it is also in the antarctic, so one can ask if dearborni gained or antarcticus lost or if it is common to both. As to general reliability of witnesses, CMI had an excellent article: Countering the Assault on Eyewitnesses, by Paul Price.

https://creation.com/eyewitness-testimony

Answering HolyKoolaid on Babel, part I

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

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

0:13 Origin of languageS.

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

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

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

0:42 "Everybody gets a language myth"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or did trickster god refer to another Amerindian culture?

2:50 "eastward"?

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

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

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

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

Or :

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

Syria was partly north, partly east of Holy Land.

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

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

Confer "to the east".

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

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

To the east is here qedemah.

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

Valkea Kirahvi

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

Valkea Kirahvi

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Valkea Kirahvi The Bible says:

• it was in Shinar
• they ceased building the city

Not that it was clearly same spot as later Babylon.

"and languages were never confused."

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

Valkea Kirahvi

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

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

This doesn't mean they are necessarily same place.

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

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

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

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

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

Valkea Kirahvi

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

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My primary evidence is the Bible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Valkea Kirahvi

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

Yes, there is. The Bible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's another matter.

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

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

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

Ah, now we are getting interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Valkea Kirahvi

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

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

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Valkea Kirahvi

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

What I said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note [a] states:

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

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

Now:

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

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

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

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

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

What exactly is not clear now?

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

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

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

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

warpedweirdo

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

But pre-Flood man was hardier on that one.

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

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

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

5:40 Place Babel as Göbekli Tepe.

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

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

2287 B. Chr.

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

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

B U T if it is Qermez Dere ...

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

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

8500 BC = less than ten years after 2556 BC.

7900 BC = 2489 B. Chr.

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

(same source)

67 years after Babel.

And I have another clue on identity of Erech:

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

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

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

2300 BC = approx 1644 BC.

1655 B. Chr.

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

1633 B. Chr.

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

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

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

Keyboard runner

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

Carbon 14 levels were rising.

Keyboard runner

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Keyboard runner Explanation is calibration difference.

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

6:35 "weren't abandoned"

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

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