Some Prefer Taking on Flat Earth over Geocentrism

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

I

4:33 The Islamic world also concurred?

Where is the reference?

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

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

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

II

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

What modicum of effort disproves their Geocentrism?

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

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

III, Update

Forgot to comment on this one:

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

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

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

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

... on Vowels, Consonants, PIE (Reviewing Simon Whistler)

What Makes a Vowel a Vowel and a Consonant a Consonant
Today I Found Out | 16.VI.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT9f0iDb44s

I

W a i t ....

You are mixing two definitions of the distinction.

In definition given, (consonantal) y and w are in fact vowels.

However, they are not syllable kernels.

In the word "I" as you pronounce it, the syllable kernel is "ah" and then there is an off-glide "y".

In the word "how" as you pronounce it, the syllable kernel is also "ah" and then there is an offglide "w". This is not the reason why there is "w" in the spelling though, since "ou, ough, ow" are three alternative ways of spelling same archiphoneme, which in some connections (never spelled ow) is pronounced "oo" ("soup") which was the original prounciation of it, but not of "oo", and in others is pronounced "ah+w".

Now, glides (whether on or off, "yet, wet, I, how") are vocalic in how they are made (no obstruction) and consonantal in how they are used (not as syllable kernels). In Czech (which you have presumably heard) the sound "r" is (at least intermittently) made by obstruction, and yet it is sometimes a syllable kernel.

So, the most usual rule, phonetic consonants used phonematically as syllable onsets and offsets, phonetic vowels used phonematically as syllable kernels (essentially : loudest and most audible sound per syllable) has its exceptions.

Glides being "consonantically" used vowels, "vocalic" liquids (as in vlk, Vrba) being "vocallically" used consonants.

II

1:31 "You won't see a consonant that is a word by itself"

In Polish and presumably Czech, you at least find prepositions that are such "z" and "w" - attached syllabically to the first syllable of the next word.

III

1:48 "hmmm" phonetically has a consonantised vowel (h is a voiceless vowel, a glide, not quite unlike y and w) and then a vocalised consonant (m being used vocalically much like l and r in vlk and Vrba).

Phonetics and vowels and consonants don't care two pence whether sth is English or Czech, it just describes what is heard as sounds.

For those believing there was a Proto-Indo-European language, vocalic m was fairly common in it - in other languages actually documented, it doesn't appear, though.

In a word ending with feminine ending -a, adding -m just added a consonant.

In a word ending with a consonant, adding -m involved adding a vocalised -m (on the theory).

In Greek you have thalassan (consonantic m > n), and trikha (vocalic m > a).

In Latin you have togam (-a+m continues identically) and regem (vocalic m > em).

In Germanic the vocalic m would tend to become um. Presumed kmtom > hund (as in hundred, hundra, hundert). Appropriately for above observations, in Latin it is centum (mt > nt + vocalic n > en) and in Greek he-katon (vocalic m > a, as in accusative singular trikha).

But on the theory of common ancestry, before this, there were vocalised not only liquids but also nasals.

IV

2:35 "Fricatives are sounds you make by pushing air through a small gap"

Correct.

"in your teeth"

Correct only for dental fricatives. These include both thorn and eth sounds and the s and z.

For sh (and in some languages zh), between tongue tip turned back and hard palate. Tongue tip actually in same position as with r.

For ach-laut, between tongue back and uvula, right in the back of the mouth.

For f and v, actually between lips and teeth. Or in some languages, just between lips.

You were confusing "fricative" (the way s and z are produced) with "dental" (the place in the mouth where they are produced).

... also against Flat Earth, But he Partly Argued Badly

Five Reasons Why the Bible Does Not Teach a Flat Earth
Jordan Cooper | 6.IV.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lukEbqaikLE

I

1:45 First reason is not the best.

While the Bible is the text book for no human science at all, it can definitely correct each of them. Like thou shalt not murder can correct abortion promoting "medicine". Or the prophecy about forbidding to marry and to eat meat to correct "medicine" promoting eugenics.

Some pseudo-science can very well be damning and therefore it can be that the Bible warns against that pseudo-science.

And not in a secret way, since the pseudo-science is in that case actually much more secretive than the true scientific understanding which has Bible backing.

2:04 "I'm not saying that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate"

Thank you.

II

3:13 While the Bible does use figures of speech, and while this can be an approach against Flat Earth, I don't think it is the correct one.

3:43 I'd like to underline a thing. Poetic and figure of speech do not cover each other.

On the one hand, "flat earthers affect me as a pain in the arse" involves a figure of speech, but it is not poetic.

On the other hand, when Homer sung "menin aeide thea" while it is definitely poetic and while Christian readers can take it as a figure of speech, Homer was arguably actually invoking what he considered a goddess, a muse, for real. Not sure whether the nine appearing to Hesiod were witches or demons, but Hesiod also clearly believed muses to be persons, not personifications of his mind's diverse aspects or talents. Or other minds' etc.

3:59 God has a literal right hand, since 2019 / 2020 years ago. Not sure when in pregnancy right hands and left hands are formed.

And about God having body parts already in OT, that is prophetic, not purely poetic.

"God is a bird" - you mean "under the shadow of thy wings", right?

When a boy stretches out his arms and runs and says "look, I'm a bird, I am flying", referring to his wings refers to his arms.

In Latin, wing and shoulder pit come from the same root.

Wing ala with a long first a from axla [not sure if attested in very old texts or only inferred], and shoulder pit with an extra diminutive, axilla.

OK, so that passage really was literally fulfulled on Calvary. I suspect Christ when 12 or even some earlier visit to Jerusalem for Easter had played that game all boys play. So, Adam and Eve looked up from Sheol and knew exactly what King David had meant and how that would be fulfilled about 20 years later at the Crucifixion.

No, saying "God is a bird" or "God has feathers" does not follow from refusing to take that passage non-literally.

4:44 As for Revelation, I suspect we may be spared seeing a hydra like monster in this world, but St John could have (potential mood) been taken from Patmos physically to another world God created so that in it Antichrist may appear physically with what moral characteristics he has - like the Pevensies could have (modus irrealis) been taken to a world where Christ appeared as a lion.

In that way, yes, prophecy is sometimes using figures of speech.

However, I think we should be on the lookout literally for a gematria in 666, and not just for a Nero Caesar bis. I mean, in so far as we should have lookouts about what comes before the second coming.

4:52 Psalms may be poetic, but using figures of speech not literally true (some are, as parallelism is a figure of speach and it does not take away literal truth and it is paramount in psalms) is not really part of their poetic appeal.

Poetic and not literal are not coterminous.

5:07 I think every phrase the Scripture does use about Earth or Heaven can safely (if not must obligatorily) be taken as literal. I think we may come back to this later? Or are you treating four corners already here?

5:15 I was wrong.

When I talk about the four corners of the Earth, I wonder whether the NE one is Japan or Sakhalin and whether the SE one is Singapore or Sydney, I also wonder whether Atlantic counts as an inland sea or Americas as islands, and hence whether the SW one is Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn, while the NW could be Belgium, Jutland, Scandinavia, British Isles. Or, with Americas not counted as islands, Alaska.

Btw, this is a very good point against Flat Earth, since with "South Rim" as periphery and North Pole as centre of a flat circle, you kind of tend to get three corners rather than four.

See illustrations:

Promoting, with Illustration of Four Corners on Round Earth
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/01/promoting-with-illustration-of-four.html



[see lines between corners for angularity of them]

5:27 "it goes out everywhere"?

There is one precise Bible verse I think does not fit this interpretation.

"After these things, I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that they should not blow upon the earth, nor upon the sea, nor on any tree."
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 7:1]

Unlike men or kingdoms physically looking like hydras, angels do exist literally in our world and do control the weather, under God's guidance, as well as factors other than physical weather which could be meant.

So, I think there are exactly four different angels meant and they are engaged on this exact mission (or were or will be).

Which means, they are standing in four different places.

III

5:32 The cosmology of the Bible is not defined by that of other ancient cultures

No quotation marks, since I endorse this to the full and co-say it.

5:55 "When the Bible was written"

Between Babylonians, Egyptians and Phoenicians.

"it must have assumed"

That the Earth was round, bc Phoenicians knew that? Or that it was flat bc Egyptians certainly and Babylonians probably thought so?

Which one is it, it must have assumed?

A good thing to remind both Flat Earther and Flat Earth derailing atheists.

6:35 If all Israelites were in fact Flat Earthers, Flat Earth must have been at least anachronistically a truth believed after ceasing to be such.

If for instance Book of Henoch is teaching Flat Earth (though what I saw of it when I looked carefully at a passage actually doesn't) and Book of Henoch is genuine (though not canonic, due to doubts about genuinity), then Flat Earth would have been correct cosmology up to the Flood of Noah. You read Akallabêth, a very fine meditation on Apocalypse? Well, the scenario of Earth changing shape could account for that.

Also, while the Church at any time may not have known x (OT was before plenitude of truth), it cannot have all of it believed non-x, if x is true.

But chances are they didn't, for one thing priests and kings can have received a tradition about not taking earth as flat due to one verse and other verse seeming to give the supposed disc very different contours. Circles don't have four corners.

Living a long time ago and not having discovered x does not mean actively believing non-x.

If on the other hand a non-x was from the first of man's history available to "discover", and only recently x could be "discovered", than likely the non-x discovered first with less means is likelier to be true.

7 billions of pairs of eyes can watch the skies moving around earth, and the stars along with them.

11 pairs of eyes only could watch earth turn from the moon and not too many more from MIR.

The view of the 7 billions of pairs of eyes is likelier to be true. And it was available earlier.

6:51 But we do hold our faith in what all the ancient Israelites believed, just as we do hold our faith in what at any given century all Catholics believed, in the cases where a consensus is available.

This follows from infallibility of Church, as per this verse:

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
[1 Timothy 3:15]

Here St Paul is not talking just of a purely metaphysical or invisible body, he is talking of a visible body having a magisterium which can be consulted.

IV

7:19 Thank you very much.

Catholics have not always believed Earth was Flat. However, let's not overdo it the other way since it seems St Basil didn't care one way or the other, while Lactantius (if that was the guy) actually was Flat Earth, there is not a complete consensus against Flat Earth, meaning that Flat Earth while erroneous is not heretical. It's an adiaphoron.

7:50 As you mentioned Aristotle.

His reasons for Earth being round include shadow of Earth on Moon, and this asks the question (some Hindoos answer in the negative, as a mountain at the centre of the Earth's circle would also be a Hindoo / Jainist / Buddhist position) is that shadow Earth's?

They include ships disappearing and appearing at horizons of the sea and they include Eratosthenes (after his day, but E had less exacting precursors) measuring the curvature through sun's shadow on midday, midsummer. But this doesn't prove a full globe, though that is likelier.

The one argument he thought strongest is, past India, you have a sea strait or very broad river to which Alexander came and on the other shore, there are the pillars of Hercules.

In fact, his best argument was a pseudo-Magellan. Now between his day and Magellan's day, Eratosthenes proved that Ganges and Pillars of Hercules aren't far enough apart, others discovered beyond Pillars of Hercules you have a broad sea called the Atlantic, and beyond Ganges you have land.

Hence, Cosmas Indicopleustes was not a fool in considering Earth Flat. And when Photius in Vivliothiki cosidered him such, he also dumpted what was St Thomas' explanation of celestial bodies moving, other than that movement which turns the skies around the Earth each day. So Photius arguably was a cultural snob.

Before Magellan, we had good reasons to believe, but no exact uncontrovertible knowledge that Earth was a full globe rather than for instance a Chapati pan shape.

8:10 Yes, it would matter. What everyone in the Church has always (or always up to a point of controversy) believed, is part of the truth God has revealed or of the truths God has so to speak "co-revealed" with it.

You cannot have one day with the Church believing a lie, all of it. It is against Matthew 28:20 and against 1 Timothy 3:15.

8:36 No, there is no such thing as "people believed things because they lived a long time ago".

You can have lack of belief in a certain discovery before it is discovered, you cannot have uniform belief in its opposite everywhere up to then. The one example I suppose you would cite is Heliocentrism. And you are wrong on Heliocentrism not being taught by the Bible. I suppose like Lita Cosner and the "don't take the psalms literally" crew, you use "under the shadow of thy wings" to prove "the earth shall not be moved" must be taken non-literally. You are also wrong on Heliocentrism having been literally discovered since. It's no more a discovered truth than Big Bang is. Or cosmos beginning 13.5 billion years ago is.

Indeed, they are related issues, since so much of the cosmological distance scale depends on Heliocentrism in interpreting the 0.76 arc seconds alpha Centauri are different in December from June in relation to surrounding background of stars. And therefore so does the Distant Starlight paradox.

Owen Barfield, while he was part of a forbidden society and involved in erroneous doctrines, had an excellent view of what you just said.

A phrase like "people believed things because they lived a long time ago" is in his terms "chronological snobbery".

V

9:17 I believe in a Round Earth and while Church Fathers mostly agreeing certainly helps, so do the literal four corners.

Again, see where the corners are four:

Promoting, with Illustration of Four Corners on Round Earth
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/01/promoting-with-illustration-of-four.html

[illustration taken from there, see above]

Btw, there is no statement on Earth literally being a disc.

There are four corner's and if you step outside them you need a boat. Then there is a circle, from whichever angle God, angels and holy souls in Heaven look at Earth and it doesn't narrow down via ellipse to thin line, that circle is the contour of a globe and to get off that contour, you need a rocket.

As to disc, no literal such description in all of the Bible. (Btw, in case someone would cite Nebuchadnezzar's dream, it was a dream).

9:49 It's precisely by taking the phrases literally that Round Earth is, not indeed certainly discovered, we'll thank Magellan for that, nor probably discovered, we'll thank Eratosthenes and Aristotle for that, but confirmed.

VI

9:56 "imagine if you were having a conversation with somebody and every time they used a figurative phrase you'd point it out and say, well, you mean that literally"

I think this could be very useful in debates, when opponents argue in loose figures of speech instead of in correctly thought out categories.

Like you just did when saying "they believed that because they lived a long time ago". Do you literally believe everyone (not just the medical establishment, who were a minority anyway and had definitely less control over education of masses than now) believed there was air rather than blood in the veins?

Even the peasant who had never been in town? Even the Esquimeaux? Even the Aboriginees of Australia?

More precise than guessing : even the Viking? Snorre's detailing of how philosophy started to arise among Swedes just before Odin came along arguably reflects some philosophemes he got hold of even via Odinism, of which he was knowledgeable though no adherent. And in it, the parallel of veins to streams of water (not to winds) is noted. OK, was Snorre living after Harvey? No. Were pre-Odinist or Odinist Swedes or Norwegians (not including Neo-Odinist ones) living after Harvey? No.

They were not knowledgeable of Harvey's discovery precisely as they were not knowledgeable of the pre-Harvey consensus in Western medicine. BUT what they did believe coincided with what Western medicine teaches post-Harvey to this day.

Also, the intended argument on your side is that we know, that everyone knows, that four corners are a figure of speech. In many verses it could be, but in that verse from Apocalypse, translating "four quarters" as in four directions from any place you stand won't quite do the work. That is why it is the one place where Douay Rheims actually has "corners" (last time I verified, numeric edition could have changed) and not "quarters".

10:06 You are not accounting for how language works either.

With ancient languages, we must look under every nook and cranny to find out what a word actually means. That is why a hapax legomenon is a problem to the Lutheran exegete. He doesn't rely on tradition, hence he needs to rely on very erudite exegesis. With a hapax, that is difficult - unless it's only hapax within the Bible rather than overall. For certain words in LXX version and NT we actually do have lots of Classic Greek literature elucidating the word's general meaning.

That "we must look under every nook and cranny" is a figure of speach not involving physical turning of objects (other than pages in old books) we both know as living now and as sharing a present day English language culture. We cannot presume on same familiarity with ancient Hebrew meaning of "four corners of the Earth".

As to pillars, I'd take that as a schematic representation of tectonic plates being held up over magma and in place by going down deeper into the magma in the middle than at the edges. When it says "pillars of the Earth". As to "pillars of Heaven" I think those places might also translate as "lintels" and can be taken as poles. The axis of heaven turning around earth. The one that crosses the surface of the globe at N and S Poles.

The point is, if you take this as literal about Flat Earth, this will contradict, but if you take it as literal about Round Earth, it will stick together. Pillars are about tectonic plates holding up the surface we live on over interior, while hangeth the Earth on nothing in Job refers to the globe as a whole in space.

VII

10:46 "and I'm not going to get into the scientific evidence"

I have nothing against going into it.

The scientific evidence for a Round Earth and not just a curved one that is safest is a seafarer from Portugal. Checking wiki, yes, he was from Portugal:

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

Fernão de Magalhães, bom dia ...

11:27 I'd clearly like to know why NASA is a better authority for Round Earth than Magellan.

You know people giving them observed informations, fine, as they probably live in US, those would probably be real informations in US.

If they were conspirators and needed less information from "South Rim" as Rob Skiba et al. would have it, what is to stop NASA from sending billions of dollars to boomerang accounts, making up the information, and taking the money for their own wallet?

That other people are doing real observations near the South Pole independently? Well, that presupposes there is one (I believe there is) and this then needs to be taken from some surer source than potentially corrupt NASA. I'm taking Magellan.

No, while I think the accusation is at least in this case unfounded, it is not impossible. Or only becomes so through evidence prior to and exterior to NASA.

(Btw, Rob Skiba, like you, doesn't believe 1 Tim 3:15 means that much, he has taken it to extremes where he rejects Nicaea).

Sending money to people who will not do the work they are nominally paid for is alas NOT an absurd amount of secrecy.

Tax payers do that to medicine, when in many countries some doctors will nominally be paid to save lives and in actual fact abort babies. Not to mention what psychiatry is supposed to take care of and what it actually does to people.

VIII

12:12 No, the Flat Earth issue gives us occasion to show we are not stupid.

As I did, showing literal Scripture working better for Round than for Flat Earth.

12:17 "every Reputable Christian" ... you mean like canonised saints?

You mean like a Catholic hierarchy (not meaning the Vatican II pseudo-one)?

Oh, "organization" ... you know, I am not into World Council of Churches, and it would have been better for the Catholic apparent hierarchs post-Vatican II not to have approached it.

Besides, who says Rob Skibas Seed isn't a reputable Christian organisation about end times prophecy?

The Magisterium of Rome? What Rome? Your neighbour in Kansas (and the probable real pope, if he drops some Spurgeon type manners in pastoral)? Or the guy from Buenos Aires? Or the guy IN Buenos Aires ("Alexander IX")?

12:38 "all agree this idea has no merit"

So, Biologos and Reasons to Believe are in your view reputable despite flouting Biblical history?

And CMI and AiG are reputable in Astronomy, even when also rejecting Geocentrism, even when this means they bend themselves into pretzels over Distant Starlight (including arguing light travelled millions of years to arrive when Earth had day IV ... which on normal interpretations of "simultaneous" and of "before" and of "after" means that stars were created diverse numbers of millennia or megayears or gigayears before day I)?

Like Photius rejecting Indicopleustes, this is an appeal to social prestige. I think baptismal vows (even if your godfather pronounced them for you) would oblige you to a somewhat different view on the world.

Abrenuntio Satanam, et opera eius et praestigia eius.

Same with appeal to people with scientific degrees.

Excursus on Magellan

While he planned the expedition, he didn't complete it, but was killed "on the road." There is some dispute on who first completed it, since Magellan's slave Enrique from Sumatra could have been home soon after running away, which would be well before the Spaniards returned home, but there is no dispute we got the news from the Spaniards who were acting in Magellan's name (except on the item of freeing Enrique, as Magellan had written in his testament). For details on that other dispute, see here:

Who Really Was First to Travel Around the World?
Today I Found Out | 7.IX.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSBF41yRVqs

Excursus on God as Bird

Deuteronomy 32:[11] As the eagle enticing her young to fly, and hovering over them, he spread his wings, and hath taken him and carried him on his shoulders.

Here we have a figure of speech indeed, but one clearly detailed out as a simile, not the metaphor, where the signalling of "figure of speech on comparables" is omitted.

Also, we find in this verse literal prophetic reference to King David's carrying lambs (which is a prophetic metaphor for the Good Shepherd) and again, to Christ on the Cross.

In order for this one to imply God is taken to be a bird if this is taken literally, one would have to have a text omitting first part of the verse. Or something. Also, spreading wings and carrying of shoulders is, taken literally, quite a feat for a bird. Glimfeather?

... on Ulimaroa, Greenland and Madagascar as largest three islands after America(s)

There is no official (or for that matter scientific) definition of when land surrounded on all sides by water is "island" and when it's "continent". More on this on this video - and on one application earlier than the one described in video, in the below comment:

Why is Greenland an Island and Australia a Continent?
Today I Found Out | 18.III.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOWjsUVBXFo

2:21 It so happens, I read a geography book in which the continents or world parts are:

• 1) Asia
• 2) Africa
• 3) Europe
• 4) America (this was before Panama canal)
• 5) Oceania or Australia.

In the latter you find British colonies like Queensland or New Zealand.

The list of islands by size goes:

• 1) Ulimaroa
• 2) Greenland
• 3) Madagascar ... etc.

As you may have guessed, Queensland is on the island Ulimaroa within the continent Australia, van Diemen's land and Wellington are also within the continent Australia, but outside the island of Ulimaroa.

When this geography book was written:

• Swedish spelling was still the one found on one item in Helsinki's Hufvudstadsbladet (the title);
• Texas was an independent country
• Ashantis were independent, and according to reports believed by the editors or author engaged in both slave hunt and human sacrifice in Benin and Dahomey
• and Ulimaroa and van Diemen's land were not yet together forming the Commonwealth of Australia.

Now, if one considered Europe, Asia and Africa instead as one continent, obviously the largest islands back then would have been:

• 1) America
• 2) Ulimaroa
• 3) Greenland
• 4) Madagascar

and now

• 1 & 2) N and S America
• 3) Ulimaroa
• 4) Greenland
• 5) Madagascar.

If you take this view, the non-island continent actually does have four corners. NW to SW, clockwise:

• British Isles
• Sakhalin
• Singapore
• Cape of Good Hope.

And one could argue that Biblical term eretz means "continent". The continent has four corners, and if you step off them, you need to be able to swim ...

Two Videos on Teen Marriages

Video A

That Time a 26 Year Old Edgar Allan Poe Married His 13 Year Old Cousin
Today I Found Out | 24.X.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoYWn8nRCEA

I

0:31 One can see they lived in a Protestant country, since they were first cousins.

Banned by the Decretum Gratiani and its successors up to this day.

II

"take her in and have her educated in an attempt to prevent the girl's marriage at such a young age"

Something tells me, Neilson Poe was more ambitious than strictly lawobserving.

If laws had been against a girl of 13 marrying, such an arrangement would not have been necessary to prevent her marriage.

Later on 1:22 "Though the marriage certificate listed her as 21"

Age when she could marry without parental consent?

In Catholic canon law (and thus many countries of Middle Ages, not all) that would have been at 12.

III

3:54 "commonly" and "the mean" are not synonymous.

"The mean age for marriage for women between 1821 and 1830 (Virginia was born in 1822) was 22.6 years"

• 1) This does not mean ALL married at 22.6 years, obviously.
• 2) Since it does not say "first marriage" it may include subsequent marriages, which are often considerably later.
• 3) Either way, it certainly includes later marriages.
• 4) 22.6 still being the mean therefore implies earlier marriages as well.

Your data have NOT argued how far below 22.6 years, nor how common or uncommon marriages at 13 were.

They could have been rather rare in circles like that of the Clemm family, without being so in the population overall.

IV

4:08 "only 12.6 % were married by the time they were 19"

Contrary to the descandancy of St. Louis up to 1500's (mostly stopped with those born before), where the percentage was 75 %.

[see below under other video]

Now, will we get to how long these 12.6 % had been married?

I don't think we will, considering the statistics I found, since data prior to 1870 are usually not from scrutinising public records.

Below cites two stats:

Mountain and Pacific Census Regions

(1860 - 1850–1870 estimates based on imputed relationships)

1.8 - 32.4 men / women married between 15 and 19.

Now, the Poes and Clemms were not from there.

Virginia was born in Baltimore, Maryland.

I suppose that would have been New England Census region? No, Mid-Atlantic.

Corresponding numbers in Mid-Atlantic by 1860:

1.1 - 8.7

So, men married at between 15 and 19, consistently a low percentage, because men are bread winners.

Women .... definitely more often than men, and nearly four times as often in Mountain and Pacific than in Mid-Atlantic.

The Effect of the Civil War on Southern Marriage Patterns
J. David Hacker, Libra Hilde, and James Holland Jones
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002115/

Source: 1850–1880 IPUMS samples with qualification in footnote 10:

10. Only white marriage patterns can be ascertained in the prewar period; the 1850 and 1860 censuses enumerated slaves in a separate, more limited population schedule, and because the slave schedule did not group or identify family members, it is impossible to infer marital status and estimate age at marriage. These samples are part of the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) created at the Minnesota Population Center (University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus, Minneapolis). Ruggles Steven, et al. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0. Minneapolis: 2004. The samples are available for free public downloading at http://ipums.org. IPUMS samples have been used in diverse projects including studies of the onset of fertility control in the nineteenth century, long-term trends in interstate migration, long-term changes in American family structure, and the migration of Appalachian whites to the Midwest in the twentieth century. For example, see Hacker J. David. Rethinking the ‘Early’ Decline of Marital Fertility in the United States. Demography. 2003 November;40:605–20.; Hall Patricia Kelly, Ruggles Steven. ‘Restless in the Midst of Their Prosperity’: New Evidence on the Internal Migration of Americans, 1850–2000. Journal of American History. 2004 December;91:829–46.; Ruggles Steven. The Transformation of American Family Structure. American Historical Review. 1994 February;99:103–28.; and Alexander J. Trent. Defining the Diaspora: Appalachians in the Great Migration. Journal of Interdisciplinary History. 2006 Autumn37:219–47.

Video B

When Did Teen Girls Stop Commonly Getting Married?
Today I Found Out | 6.X.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSPsJ1LPw28

I

2:12 "that might not have been the norm"

Not sure what you mean by "the norm".

In most modern states outside UK and US, and since 2006 even in France, since recent revolutions, 18 has been minimum age.

This means that you could legally marry at 18.

Also, it is unlikely that marriage at 18 is now the "statistical norm" or better statistical medium.

But no one in his right mind would argue a girl marrying at 18 were abnormal.

Dito for marriage at 12 in the Middle Ages. It was not the statistical medium age, but it was as certainly not regarded as abnormal.

2:42 urban Yorkshire, mostly between 18 and 22, rural areas around late teens to early twenties.

Could this be due to the fact that affluence is conducive to marrying when it is legal and lack thereof, at least among people with certain ambitions, is conducive to delay?

Note, obviously urban Yorkshire was more affluent than rural Yorkshire, but at the same time, urban Yorkshire was also more ambitious.

II

Here is a little case study on Medieval North, very incomplete:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Medieval women married when?
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2017/05/medieval-women-married-when.html

Here is a less incomplete one:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Age at first marriage : a rough estimate
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2018/05/age-at-first-marriage-rough-estimate.html

Citing my conclusion on 58 or 57 ladies : Median 16, lower quartile 15, upper quartile 19. A shorter count with just 57 also gave same result: Median 16, lower quartile 15, upper quartile 19.

Your mean for first marriage all colonies previous to 1700 is ... when three quarters of the ladies in the Medieval descendancy (or the parts I came around to studying, no choices made in favour of younger ages) of King St. Louis IX of France were already married, since that is what "upper quartile 19" means.

Now, "colonies" were partly peopled by ambitious and prudent peoples ... this means that ambitions and lack of means postponed marriages beyond the legal limit.

That is perhaps a way to get a statistic medium, but that is not the definition of a norm.

So, 1750 - 1799 and 1800 - 1849, France, Germany and England either got its people less affluent (one possible early consequence of industrial revolution) or more ambitious (one possible consequence of Enlightenment).

Can I give you a tip?

One reason why Muslims are doing better demographically is, they are not as ambitious as the indigenous population about what kind of affluence to have prior to marriage. This is not a critique of them, it's a thing we did better on and more like them earlier.