Location of Babel

Issah Mohammed Challenged Me on Chronology · Location of Babel · Babel, Again ... and some more

Q I

Does the Bible mention the location of the Tower of Babel?
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Bible-mention-the-location-of-the-Tower-of-Babel/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

15.VII.2022

In fact, it is arguably West of something, which could be the landing place.

Or at least the city of Babel was.

It is also in or close to Mesopotamia:

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

Sennaar = Shinear = (probably all of) Mesopotamia;
from the East = to the West

It is also where you can find a plain that is smaller than the width of Mesopotamia, since the plain is “in the land of Sennaar” and not the land of Sennaar in the plain. At Classic Babylon, it would actually be more like the width of Mesopotamia being inside a plain that is larger on either side.

If the connexion to Nimrod in Genesis 10 holds, this might suggest Assyria.

And there is a place in Assyria that is in (or at the edge of) a plain inside Mesopotamia and is also nearly due West of at least one candidate for the landing place. Göbekli Tepe is on the northern edge of the Harran plain and the Harran plain is a smaller space East to West than from Euphrates to Tigris.

It is also c. 300 km nearly due West of Mount Judi, Cizre, which is one locally very accepted candidate for the landing place of Noah’s Ark.

Q II

Was the Tower of Babel really built?

Answer requested by

Issah Mohammed

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

28.VII.2022

• 1. As far as I can see, it does not say in the Bible. The city got started building and ended unfinished, but the tower, doesn’t say.
• 2. If I am right about what it was, namely a rocket project, no, it didn’t, the tower of Babel was only built and launched c. 4500 years later (from Cape Canaveral and Bajkonur). God made sure it couldn’t get built and launched back then in order to make it possible to build and launch it much later, when there was a sufficient technical knowhow.

Q III

Does the Tower of Babel have anything to do with Babylon?
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Tower-of-Babel-have-anything-to-do-with-Babylon/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Donald Turner

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

29.VII.2022

There are more than one views on this one, and I’ll give you mine.

The city of Babel and the project to eventually make a tower “the top of which shall reach into heaven” are something which happens between 350 and 401 after the Flood in a certain LXX timeline (without the second Cainan) that I use, since it is in the Roman martyrology.

It is geographically speaking set West of something (Genesis 11:2) and if that something is the landingplace, then Classic Babylon is not the geographic location of Nimrod’s Babel. I think Göbekli Tepe is so.

And this would mean that the two years 2607 and 2556 BC carbon date as 9600 and 8600 BC. This being the charcoal dates for lowest and highest charcoal layers in Göbekli Tepe.

Babylon is associated with archaeological dates (probably indirectly carbon based) in the range of 2300 or 1800 sth BC. If carbon dates are in this range, this would mean during the Israelite stay in Egypt. It was founded by Amorrhites, which in Abraham’s time (carbon dated to 3500 BC) had been forced to leave Asason-Tamar, later known as En-Geddi, in a Mesopotamian incursion. This means, the Amorrhite invasion into Mesopotamia and then founding (or vast enlarging) of Babylon could have been a retaliation for the Genesis 14 invasion into Palestine.

Now, the name very arguably was chosen in memory of Babel, and it is noteworthy that both places are on Euphrates and that the geographic coordinates form so to speak a diagonal between the places. It is possible some source had placed Babel (correctly) so and so far NW of a certain place and instead they went SE. And thought (incorrectly) they had hit the same spot.

I

Daryl Hubber

26.X.2022

The Hebrew for “from the east” can also be translated “eastward” or “to the east”. Modern bible translations appear to be divided on this point, and many provide a footnote highlighting the alternative translation. In the larger context of Genesis, “to the east” agrees with the expulsion of Adam and Eve to a place ‘eastward’ of the garden, Cain’s exile to a land ‘east of Eden’, and Lot’s choice to separate from Abraham and move ‘toward the east’.

Of course, the two key points here are that (i) the word translated “Babel” is exactly the same word used for Babylon elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, the story is about the founding of the city of Babylon, and (ii) we are dealing with a myth designed to mock and lampoon the establishment of the city (particularly as told in the Babylonian Creation Myth, Enuma Elish) by an author who had presumably be exiled to Babylon after his homeland had been destroyed by the Neo-Babylonian empire. This suggests that it is probably pointless to search for a historical kernel to the story in Genesis 11.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26.X.2022

“The Hebrew for “from the east” can also be translated “eastward” or “to the east”.”

I’d like to have that sourced, except in passages where “from” and “to” are anyway metaphorical, as dealing with borders.

“In the larger context of Genesis, “to the east” agrees with the expulsion of Adam and Eve to a place ‘eastward’ of the garden,”

Is the direction of expulsion mentioned?

If you meant the Paradise was planted “to the east” of where God had created Adam, that is “miqqedem” in Genesis 2:8, but the “to” is a metaphor in English and the “from” is a metaphor in Hebrew. God didn’t stand in the West and throw trees into the East. The trees didn’t go eastward, they were just growing east of where Adam was standing.

If the direction of expulsion is inferred from to till the earth from which he was taken this would imply Adam and Eve went West of Eden.

“Cain’s exile to a land ‘east of Eden’,”

No, Gen. 4:16 has “qidmat Eden” - no “miqqedem” there. Can be added I don’t know Hebrew, but still.

“Lot’s choice to separate from Abraham and move ‘toward the east’.”

Depends on where Abraham was going. Gen 13:11 certainly has “miqqedem” and this is “from the east” in Douay Rheims, so, if Abraham went anywhere West of Sodom directly, we would have a miqqedem translateable as “to the east” … but you’d first need to prove that the “Chanaan” where Abraham was immediately afterwards was indeed further West than Sodom.

But even if you put the landingplace on Greater Ararat, you would still have a journey mainly to the South.

“the word translated “Babel” is exactly the same word used for Babylon elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.”

Would mean that there is some kind of continuity, if only a broken and resumed one, between Nimrod’s Babel and the one that the exile went to. And it does not imply a geographically identical spot.

Rome is in a very real political sense Troy, since Aeneas was Trojan. Nevertheless Hissarlik is not on the Tiber.

Babylon is about as close South East of Nineve as Göbekli Tepe is North West of it. This suggests the location of Babylon can have been chosen with a past and lost Babel = GT in mind.

“In other words, the story is about the founding of the city of Babylon,”

No, it’s not, for the very simple reason that Babylon was founded at a time when different languages already existed, and also for the reason that “they ceased to build the city” would be perfectly correct about Göbekli Tepe and totally incorrect about Babylon, which was an ongoing building project.

“we are dealing with a myth designed to mock and lampoon the establishment of the city (particularly as told in the Babylonian Creation Myth, Enuma Elish) by an author who had presumably be exiled to Babylon after his homeland had been destroyed by the Neo-Babylonian empire.”

You think you are dealing with that, but that idea is reconstruction.

To the ancients, the furthest back we can go about reception, Genesis 11:1 - 9 was the history of a key event between the Flood and the birth of Abraham.

As a linguist, with c. 1000 years between Flood and birth of Abraham, without a supernatural language split, there is no way you could have both Egyptian and Sumerian in Abraham’s time. Language development just isn’t that fast.

“This suggests that it is probably pointless to search for a historical kernel to the story in Genesis 11.”

I am not searching for a “historic kernel” I am taking it as history - and finding the corresponding archaeology in Göbekli Tepe.

II

16.VIII.2025

Glenn White

I have thought that Gobleki Tepe or Karahan Tepe and that early Neolithic beginning is recalled by the stories of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel. The culture of Gobleki Tepe and Karahan Tepe appears to be one of hunter gatherers. Perhaps the reference to Nimrod as a mighty hunter rather than a mighty king points to a time of hunter gatherers. Also, the confusion of language might be a memory of the proto Indo European language that existed before the Indo European dispersion. It could be a memory of the time when the proto Indo European language was still a common language. The geographical location of Gobleki Tepe near the headwaters of the Euphrates and Tigris is where Eden supposedly was. Also, the mountains of Ararat are in the area. The flood, Eden and Tower of Babel myths may be memories of people whose beginnings were in the early Neolithic in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent.

17.VIII.2025

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“points to a time of hunter gatherers.”

I think he began his career as a mammoth hunter.

“Also, the confusion of language might be a memory of the proto Indo European language that existed before the Indo European dispersion”

The timeline doesn’t match.

“The geographical location of Gobleki Tepe near the headwaters of the Euphrates and Tigris is where Eden supposedly was.”

Unless they ran the other way before the Flood.

“Also, the mountains of Ararat are in the area.”

Just 300 + km East of GT, you have Mount Judi East of the Tigris. As Ararat geographically (but not ethnically) means Armenia and Mount Judi is in Turkish Armenia, this is pretty correct.

I would go further than just “memories” and say “exact recorded memory” … it’s the modern reconstruction that’s incorrect.

Glenn White

“The timeline doesn’t match.”

Actually, I think the time-line is broad enough to accommodate a lot. It extends from c. 9600 bce to c. 3500 bce in prehistoric times. Then perhaps written in various forms or even continuous oral traditions in historical times before finally put together in Genesis with the purpose to support the Hebrew beliefs and any necessary editing. A broad time-line like that allows for a lot.

18.VIII.2025

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“c. 9600 bce to c. 3500 bce”

That’s the carbon dates taken at face value.

I reduce 9600 BC to 2607 BC as = 350 after the Flood, Noah dies, Babel begins (Babel ends 401 after the Flood when Peleg is born).

As to 3500 BC, that’s 1935 BC based on Genesis 14.

In that chapter, the Amorrheans of Asason-Tamar are attacked, we know Asason-Tamar is En Geddi, and we know the archaeology of En Geddi as it’s latest possible match for them has a habitation ending in carbon dated 3500 BC.

2607 - 1935 = less than 600 years.

“Then perhaps written in various forms or even continuous oral traditions in historical times before finally put together in Genesis”

That part I support. But I think the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 were part of that oral tradition and kept track of the actual timelapse.

Q IV

Who was the king when the Tower of Babel was being built?
https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-king-when-the-Tower-of-Babel-was-being-built/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Lewis Button

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

31.VII.2022

Nimrod was more like “project leader” than king when the City of Babel was being built and the tower was being projected.

The Bible never calls him “king” and he is in fact applying more like a democratic or oligarchic decision than taking one himself.

When Did History Become History?

When Did History Become History? · Is Genesis Literal History or Something Else?

I propose, that at the most basic level, and some beyond that even, it always was. Fabio Paolo Barbieri, on quora, started a discussion by thinking otherwise.

Q

Does the Catholic church believe that great flood and Noah's ark were real?
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Catholic-church-believe-that-great-flood-and-Noahs-ark-were-real/answer/Fabio-Paolo-Barbieri-1

Answer requested by

Dan Parker

Fabio Paolo Barbieri

Catholic layman

3 years ago

Real as in “If I kick you very hard in the backside, you will yell and fall over”? No. Pope Pius XII said clearly that the early stories of the Bible were intended to teach metaphysical truths in terms suited for unsophisticated, early men. The Church has NEVER taken the early books of the Bible as sources of historical and scientific truth; for instance, it rejected very early any attempt to base the understanding of physics and geography on the Bible (Cosmas Indikopleustes, in the sixth century, tried to set up a Genesis-based geography, and his effort was rejected), instead accepting the results of Greek mathematics and astronomy. As a result, all Christians from the sixth century knew that the world was round, and that it was minuscule as compared with the size of the heavens. The attempt to turn the Bible into a source of factual truth is a modern disease, going back to the 1890s and to a set of books called Fundaments (hence “fundamentalism).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 11 2022

Cosmas tried to substitute Genesis for Geography.

The Church has very certainly used Genesis for history.

As you may know, even if you are a layman, St. Augustine is a highly respected Church Father.

Chapter 27.— Of the Ark and the Deluge, and that We Cannot Agree with Those Who Receive the Bare History, But Reject the Allegorical Interpretation, Nor with Those Who Maintain the Figurative and Not the Historical Meaning.

Which comes in Book 15 of City of God, to which I link here:

City of God, Book XV (St. Augustine)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm

Prior chapters in the same book, as you scroll down to 27, will clearly indicate to you that chapter 27 is not alone in considering Genesis as history. Including chapters 1 - 11.

Fabio Paolo Barbieri

15.VII.2022

To answer this kind of bitty intervention I should start a discussion about what was understood as history in antiquity, and why it was an entirely different thing from what it was from the seventeenth on. And I rather think I would be wasting my time. To sum up, NO writer of history before the late fifteen hundreds had any belief that they were stating solid fact. They regarded themselves as rhetors, literary artists, rather than scholars. As Seneca said in the Apocolocynthosis, who asks for an assay from a historian? Augustine said quite clearly that what matters was not whether creation was 6000 years ago, or 60000, or 600000, or getting to “numbers that have no name”, but that there was such a thing, creation out of nothing. As for the use of biblical stories as history, Paul had this to say about Scripture: “All scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” In other words, it matters not because of its presumable factual content, but because of its certain moral and philosophical significance. Augustine never intended, like Leopold von Ranke, only to show what actually happened (wie es eigentlich gewesen ist)".

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

15.VII.2022

“what was understood as history in antiquity, and why it was an entirely different thing from what it was from the seventeenth on.”

I don’t think this is the case.

Sure, in antiquity, exact words and scenes could be made up, but that’s the limit. You couldn’t make up a thing like Punic Wars and call that history.

Some would be inclined to reply that St. Augustine had referred to the Eneid. Yes, the point is, the Eneid was seen (by Pagan and Christian alike) as docufiction.

“To sum up, NO writer of history before the late fifteen hundreds had any belief that they were stating solid fact. They regarded themselves as rhetors, literary artists, rather than scholars.”

You are forgetting that a rhetor, apart from being a literary artists, is also a counsellor to the public - comparable to a politician and a lawyer (these men were rhetors too) - and these were supposed to state fact.

“As Seneca said in the Apocolocynthosis, who asks for an assay from a historian?”

It’s a comedy or a comic epyllion. As he lampooned the precisely scholarly (and meticulously so) historian and antiquarian Clo- Clo- Clo- Claudius it would be a normal way of dismissing his victim.

But yes, he was involved in rhetoric exercises like “write the speeches where Priam is counselled to accept / not to accept Helen of Sparta as refugee” … these were more typical of schools of rhetoric, and became so more when rhetoric tended to lose its practical importance in politics (due to the Empire) than of historians that are preserved.

“Augustine said quite clearly that what matters was not whether creation was 6000 years ago, or 60000, or 600000, or getting to “numbers that have no name”, but that there was such a thing, creation out of nothing.”

It is possible, when he was discussing creation as creation.

When he was discussing Genesis 5 and 11 in De Civitate Dei, he was very differently inclined, much more involved in strict literalism.

“In other words, it matters not because of its presumable factual content,”

You are forgetting the first word St. Paul used is “doctrine” = “factual content” if you know your ancient classics as much as you started out to pretend!

What exactly is your grounding in Classic letters? Mine is exams worth two years of Latin, two and a half terms of Greek (not meaning Modern or Byzantine). Plus some reading on the side.

“BA in Social Anthropology & Religious Studies (college major), School of Oriental & African Studies, University of London (SOAS)Graduated 1990”

You forgot to mention your credentials in Latin and Greek, didn’t you? Is either of them at least a college minor?

Was answered twice

C and D

C

Fabio Paolo Barbieri

15.VII.2022

I am a published historian. Access to a monograph that touches Virgil: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215502298_Gods_of_the_West_I_Indiges It’s actually quite old and needs revision, but it’s short (60,000 words or so), free, and gives you an idea of my knowledge of Latin and some related subjects.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

17.VII.2022

Now your profile states “Historian” and it didn’t before.

As to your monograph while it is free for those who have a researchgate account, I don’t have it, and I can’t read it.

Apart from the fact that this could be for the reason stated a bluff, if this is so, why did you not answer my distinction in response to Leopold von Ranke quote?

And as you state “historian” in the context, the title is “Gods of the West” and the issue could have been conducted mostly from your collage major’s perspective.

D

Fabio Paolo Barbieri

15.VII.2022

As for my Latin:

A monument I built hardier than bronze,
placed on a kingly seat above the pyramids,
that not devouring fire, arrogant winds
shall ever destroy, nor yet the uncounted
sequence of years, and the flight of time.
I shall not wholly die; a mighty part of me
shall avoid Hell, and memory increase
from age to age, so long as the holy hill
is watchèd by Pontiffs and silent virgins.
They shall recount that, where fierce Aufidus
Rages, and where Daunus, poor in waters, had the rule
Of rural nations, I, from humble estate,
First took Aeolian verse to the Italians.
Be proud of the deserts of your great art,
And grant my head the Delphian laurels, Melpomene.

I had to rewrite this from memory, because I could not find my old translation. If you read the monograph, you will find that all the Virgilian passages have my own translations. You are welcome to judge my Latin from that, rather than from pieces of paper. I also earned a part of my living, until recently, as a translator to and from Latin.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

17.VII.2022

OK, I will believe you you know Latin, but doing two years of Latin at a Swedish university involves more than just learning the language and some of the literature.

It involves learning some of the cultural history of the epochs involved (meaning both antiquity and middle ages with some early modern times added to it in my case).

A certain Quintilian defined - I will leave that out - as “vir bonus dicendi peritus” - now, what did he so define, and is that compatible with your assessment of historians in these pre-Ranke days?

Besides, given the dishonest take you gave on the subject matter, what stops you from having taken a translation into English (they do exist) and changing a few words, of Horace’s monumentum exegi aere perennius?

Fabio Paolo Barbieri

18.VII.2022

After that insult (and the lies involved), the only thing I can say is that you give Sweden a bad name. Blocked.

Fabio Paolo Barbieri

18.VII.2022

The person who tried to talk me down also insinuated that this translation from the third book of Horace’s Odes has been ripped off from someone else. YOU ARE ALL CHALLENGED TO LOOK FOR ANYTHING SIMILAR ANYWHERE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. It is my own work resulting from my Latin skills. End of story.

Since I was blocked

I cannot answer. But I can give you a translation to English that is available on the web, here:

https://lyricstranslate.com/en/ode-330.html

It is not highly similar. This translation is namely (unlike Fabio's) metric in English.

The google hit that I thought was one translation was actually just a fragment.

I have built a monument more lasting than bronze,
higher than the Pyramids’ regal structures,
that no consuming rain, nor wild north wind
can destroy…

A monument more lasting than bronze
March 8, 2016 | By Sarah Powell
https://collation.folger.edu/2016/03/more-lasting-than-bronze/

Here the first line has only "more lasting" instead of "hardier" ... but I did not even look at the second line, so I spoke in somewhat excessive haste, but what is that to his haste, when he blocked me so I could not excuse myself after finding out my error?

And was it haste or tactic that prevailed on him not to answer that "orator" = Gk "rhetor" is what Quintilian called a "vir bonus dicendi peritus"?

Because that definition excludes his assessment of "historians are rhetors" as meaning "historians make things up for ornation" ... they had some liberties with detail, they were not supposed to give all the versions, they could give a wiki of the versions they knew or give the main versions or give the version they liked best, like historians now, and they could, unlike historians now, fill in the blanks artistically. But they could not make up the whole story.

A "good man" even if "experienced in expressing himself" would not make up whole stories and then call it the truth, unless doing so in genres where this was sought, which was not the case with the ancient epic or tragedy (but by contrast the ancient idyll and comedy and novel, yes, it existed), and which was also not the case with prose histories.

Apart from the block being hasty and perhaps tactic, it is, along with the pronunciation of "shame on" a kind of cancel culture.

Doesn't show him as having the ancient or medieval take of debaters, either in Socratic dialogues or in Scholastic dsputationes.

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

15.VII.2022

// Augustine never intended, like Leopold von Ranke, only to show what actually happened (wie es eigentlich gewesen ist)". //

Very banale when it comes to “only” and also very banale when it comes to “wie eigentlich” - minute details of fact.

St. Augustine differed from modern historians both by thinking the parts of history he spoke of had a very specific meaning, and by not wanting to know how a Roman helmet in the mid Republic differed from a Roman helmet in his own time. You know the kind of attitude that made Shakespear play historical plays (antiquity, early middle ages, hundred years’s war) in 16th C. costume, because minute details of the actual past didn’t matter.

But this only goes so far as it does. It doesn’t mean Shakespear didn’t think Lewis of Guyenne was a French Prince or did about the things he shows him as doing in Henry V, and it doesn’t mean that St Augustine didn’t think Aenaeas came from burning Troy.

Consequences of Creationism : AFB (+ Mike Sweeney)

Consequences of Creationism : Rik Elswit and Matthew Caine · Bob Trent · Marcelus Aurelius · AFB (+ Mike Sweeney) · Peter Tatford · Michael David Griffiths · Jo Wharrier · Paulo Oliveira · The Feasibilian Project

Q

What is the possible impact of the creationism theory to the world?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-possible-impact-of-the-creationism-theory-to-the-world/answer/AFB-12

AFB

Former Computer System Design (1963–2006)

10.VII.2022

That delusional thinking turns out to be a contagious virus and catching it destroys a person's capacity to think.

Creationism is not a theory. It's just the crap in the Bible. No one has formed an hypothesis, devised experiments to validate the hypothesis, determined the expected results of the experiments, done the experiments and determined if they match anticipated results and observations in the real world. NOT ONE.

It is pseudoscience based on belief in supernatural magical beings. The opposite of science. It's impact would set back science hundreds of years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10.VII.2022

“No one”

Have you heard of CMI?

AFB

10.VII.2022

Articles are opinion

Not scientific investigations

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.VII.2022

And if I turned the tables and tossed down all the Evolution believing researchers with exactly the same assessment?

Mike Sweeney

15.VII.2022

You and he are not deciding the point for the world. The argument has played out, multiple times, in multiple players. It has been hashed out in books, it has been hashed out in court.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

15.VII.2022

And may continue to be hashed out some more, up to Harmageddon even!

As to the court decision Kitzmiller vs Dover, the judge was not impartial, he was a very modernist type of Lutheran.

Mike Sweeney

15.VII.2022

For the point above, doesn’t matter which way the case went; the point was that if a courtroom full of intelligent motivated people with prepared material and visual aids were still working on it days later, nothing you, I, or anyone else writes in a short forum post is going to decide the issue!

In any case, Dover (no more than Scopes) wasn’t actually arguing evolution. They set out to determine of “Intelligent Design” was intended as an end-run around existing constitutional protections and…boy howdy was it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

17.VII.2022

Considering the nature of these “constitutional protections” I think they have a clear fake basis in the “lemon principle” which both is non-originalist (yes, you had bad supreme court judges at a certain time) and misapplied to creationism, as it is to intelligent design.

And the US has not seen any lemon principle applied to the Evolution belief or its promotion in science classes …

We have been discussing for days, I answered AFB on July 11 …

But thanks for the admission that neither was “actually discussing evolution” … this means these court cases are largely less than totally relevant to our discussion.

Consequences of Creationism : Marcelus Aurelius

Consequences of Creationism : Rik Elswit and Matthew Caine · Bob Trent · Marcelus Aurelius · AFB (+ Mike Sweeney) · Peter Tatford · Michael David Griffiths · Jo Wharrier · Paulo Oliveira · The Feasibilian Project

Q

What is the possible impact of the creationism theory to the world?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-possible-impact-of-the-creationism-theory-to-the-world/answer/Marcelus-Aurelius

Marcelus Aurelius

Raised by catholic, but free thinking. Questioning everything, lead to freedom.

10.VII.2022

What ‘creationism theory’. I can tell you without any lying, that no ‘creationism theory’ exists. So the question is false in any premise.

If there was A creationism theory we could talk. But there is none, so ‘THE’ doesn't fit.

A theory would have to concur with reality. Creationsim doesn't, so it wouldn't impact the world. It simply has no merit nor use. Creationism is a stance that can not be upheld anymore. Only in fantasy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10.VII.2022

Show me one conflict between creationism and observed reality, or one clear conclusion from observed realities in disfavour of it …

Marcelus Aurelius

10.VII.2022

I will keep it simple for you: do plants require sunlight? And what does your book on creation say which existed first?

What do we require as humans to determine a day? What does your story on creation say about how many ‘days’ that creating took?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.VII.2022

Plants require LIGHT.

LIGHT existed, and for one day after creation of plants the precise light from the SUN did as yet not exist.

“What do we require as humans to determine a day?”

I do not exactly see the point?

24 h? The timespan is obviously possible before there is a Sun.

The Sun circling Earth along with the universe?

It’s enough if light circles Earth along with the universe.

Besides, the fact there were days before day six is anyway not determined by human observation, it was given to some human who got this info as prophecy, Adam, Moses or both.

Answered twice

A and B

A

Marcelus Aurelius

11.VII.2022

Sigh…genesis clearly states there was no sun before plants were created and YES plants need EXACTLY sun light because of it UV light.

You require a sun to measure 24h, because without night and day cy le with a moment where the sun is at its Zenith, you can't determine the full cycle and cand determine a full Earth day. Did you know that a day on any other planet is different in length, due its rotation and size? Go figure.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.VII.2022

God’s first provided light could very well have provided the UV along with the visible light.

Problem solved.

When the original created light (a half canopy of it) centred zenith over Jerusalem TZ is the measure of the original days.

Problem solved.

This

he did not answer. But also did not delete.

B

Marcelus Aurelius

11.VII.2022

Oh and you know the funny part NOTHING in genesis has ever been observed by humans. Duh

Hans-Georg Lundahl

was deleted

11.VII.2022

Nothing up to day 6, reached in chapter 1 and detailed in more details (but I am repeating myself) in chapter 2.

Genesis has 50 chapters, so more than 49 of them have been observed by men.

Marcelus Aurelius

11.VII.2022

Wrong, literally NOTHING of what was described.

I have been blocked

from answering this. Care to guess why?

Issah Mohammed Challenged Me on Chronology

Issah Mohammed Challenged Me on Chronology · Location of Babel · Babel, Again ... and some more

Here is the guy : Issah Mohammed, Online Marketer

And here are my answers to three questions he posed:

Q I

What year was the flood?
https://www.quora.com/What-year-was-the-flood/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

Just now

Here is the Roman Martyrology for December:

Martyrologium Romanum - Decembris
http://www.liturgialatina.org/martyrologium/22.htm

It includes, obviously, december 25th, the birth of Christ.

The text for december 25th includes the words :

“a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo; a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo; a Moyse et egressu populi Israel de Aegypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo;”

which translate as, “but from the Flood, the year two thousand ninehundred fiftyseven; from the nativity of Abraham, the year two thousand fifteen, from Moses and the people of Israel leaving Egypt, the year one thousand five hundred and ten”

So, the answer is 2957 BC.

Q II

What year was the ark built?
https://www.quora.com/What-year-was-the-ark-built/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

Just now

It was ready by 2957 BC, see the post on the year of the Flood, and it is possible that Noah with associates started building it from around the birth of his three sons, namely from 3057 BC.

Q III

How long was the Tower of Babel?
https://www.quora.com/How-long-was-the-Tower-of-Babel/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

Just now

It would be better to ask how long the city of Babel was, if I am right in my guess, they never actually got around to start building the tower - until the century previous to ours, when workable models of that type of tower left Bajkonur and Cape Canaveral, and only the tops of three steps rockets actually reached into space.

Now, leaving aside the tower and attending to the city … as you know from my answer on the year of the Flood, between Flood and Abraham there are 942 years. This space corresponds to the Bible text with at least three or four variant versions, adding up to 292, 942, 1070 or perhaps also 1170 years, and this text is Genesis 11, after the account of Babel.

942 years first is not Masoretic (which would be 292 years), second means Nachor gave birth at 70, not 170, and that eliminates 1170 in favour of 1070 in a standard LXX, and third, 1070 - 128 = 942, which is what you get if “the second Cainan” - absent from all versions of the Masoretic - is not there in the LXX either.

This LXX minus second Cainan puts the birth of Peleg in 401 after the Flood, and Noah died in 350 after the Flood (all versions) which means that Babel was at least some of the years (like forty of the years) between 350 and 401 after the Flood.

Consequences of Creationism : Bob Trent

Consequences of Creationism : Rik Elswit and Matthew Caine · Bob Trent · Marcelus Aurelius · AFB (+ Mike Sweeney) · Peter Tatford · Michael David Griffiths · Jo Wharrier · Paulo Oliveira · The Feasibilian Project

Q

What is the possible impact of the creationism theory to the world?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-possible-impact-of-the-creationism-theory-to-the-world/answer/Bob-Trent-9

Bob Trent

10.VII.2022

Ir makes the genersl public more ignorant of science and closes off many young people from careers in science, medicine, tech..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10.VII.2022

It would be very much more honest to say, that the establishment closes off many to carreeres in science, medicine and even for some reason tech if they are known to be creationists.

This is not a fact about the impact of creationism, the more creationists we have, the less this can go on, it’s a fact about the establishments in certain areas of learning.

Bob Trent

10.VII.2022

Careers in math are closed to those who believe 2+2=13. This is, of course, an evil practice of the closed minded mathematical establishment. Ditto the astronomical establishment and flat earthers, NASA and moon landing deniers, ….

I had understood European YECs were rare, BTW.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.VII.2022

How Creationists and Geocentrics fit the descriptions “believe 2+2=13” or “flat earthers” remains to be explained on your part.

Bob Trent

11.VII.2022

So you’re a geocentrist? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Anti-vaxxer, too? I left that one out.

And a follower of “Pope Michael”? It only gets better. But that only disqualifies you as a Catholic, not for the sciences, medicine, tech, etc. But every pope since Pius XII has accepted evolution in some form and popes have been heliocentrist for more than 200 years. So I guess that’s consistent in a bizarre way.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

12.VII.2022

Pius VII and Gregory XVI, Leo XIII and Benedict XV have made acts taken as if heliocentrism were licit, but which, in each case, never actually stated that.

If Pius XII was no Pope or ceased to be Pope in 1950 or 1951, the sedevacancy is either way bridged. He actually very clearly did show himself Heliocentric in the allocution of 1951 as well, using a model by Hubble to prove the universe old.

Yes, I am Geocentric and Anti-vaxxer for the vaccines that use viruses cultivated on human fetal tissue.

Consequences of Creationism : Rik Elswit and Matthew Caine

Consequences of Creationism : Rik Elswit and Matthew Caine · Bob Trent · Marcelus Aurelius · AFB (+ Mike Sweeney) · Peter Tatford · Michael David Griffiths · Jo Wharrier · Paulo Oliveira · The Feasibilian Project

Q

What is the possible impact of the creationism theory to the world?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-possible-impact-of-the-creationism-theory-to-the-world/answer/Rik-Elswit

Rik Elswit

Musician for 60 years. Professional musician for 55.

10.VII.2022

Get this straight. There is no creationism theory. A theory is a formally structured argument that allows for falsification.

Creationism is simply an objection to the theory of evolution, which actually is a theory and has been proven out over the last century and a half to be the best explanation of the observed facts of speciation over time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10.VII.2022

No, creationism is not AN objection, it is several ones and quite a few of them are falsifiable theories - to the extent even that some have in the meantime got discarded (water canopy, for instance).

Matthew Caine

10.VII.2022

It's nothing but an unsubstantiated claim, and a pretty pathetic one at that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.VII.2022

If any claim is unsubstantiated, it’s …

• abiogenesis
• prokaryotes developing into eukaryotes
• developing sexual procreation
• developing new cell types
• ape from fish
• man from ape (with what that implies for gradualism - an impossible such - of human language getting into place)
• and a few more.

And as to our claims being unsubstantiated, how about looking at our material for the details, or asking me about things you consider unsubstantiated?

Matthew Caine

12.VII.2022

IIt is unsubstantiated, because all you have, as you just demonstrated, is s pretty pathetic form of negative evidence whereby all you attempt is to find flaws in the Evolutionary Theory of Modern Synthesis, likely without any knowledge off what it entails. Your only 'claim’ is that your ‘god’ did it, and your only evidence is your own incredulity, and an ancient text that without evidence for the existence of your preferred deity, lacks both credulity and authority.

Prove your claim without any reference to Evolution, which is itself an observed fact, or the associated Theory, since disproving them lends nothing to your own claim which needs to stand on its own two feet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

12.VII.2022

In each case, I think I have better understanding of what the thing entails, if not than every evolutionist researcher (except development of human language, Pascal Picq never bothered to try to refute my refutation of his claims), definitely than a “Bachelor in Economics & Accounting” or a Mainframe Developer (whatever that is).

Now, for each thing that seems to exist, there are four alternatives :

• it always was
• it was made with deliberation
• it emerged without deliberation
• it is only an illusion.

So, cutting out “it emerged without deliberation” actually comes fairly close to showing “it was made with deliberation” since there are other weighty alternatives against each of these either “always being” or “being just an illusion.”

The observed fact of genetic change over time is totally neutral between Evolutionists and Creationists and does nothing, absolutely nothing, to solve any of my cases for you.

Matthew Caine

12.VII.2022

Why do you discount ‘made without deliberation’ which is the most likely and rational explanation. To claim that such deliberation exists, you must first demonstrate that an entity exists that is capable of such. As usual, a Creationist is, as is pretty typical, attempting some form of circular reasoning. You have two unproven hypotheses, yet you try to prove each one by reference to the other.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

12.VII.2022

Why do I discount “emerged without deliberation” for …

• abiogenesis? - very simple cells need hundreds of genes and genes need very many base pairs in very correct order, besides, of the amino-acids that could be produced in Miller Urey conditions one or two lack for life and those that are there arrive without chirality
• prokaryotes developing into eukaryotes? - endosymbiosis is still not an option
• developing sexual procreation? - how would that even work for an organism thitherto just multiplying by division?
• developing new cell types? - has not been observed and each cell type needs definite specific genes to function and mutations are much better at destroying genes than at creating them
• ape from fish? - lots of new cell types, see previous
• man from ape (with what that implies for gradualism - an impossible such - of human language getting into place)? - to put it at its simplest : beast languages have typically up to 500 complete messages in which typically phoneme, morpheme and syntagm coincide, human languages have infinite messages, involving notionality and using a three tier system where the syntagm consists of mostly more than one morpheme and the morpheme of mostly more than one phoneme and where in return the phoneme itself, very far from being a complete message as with beasts, is meaningless.

“To claim that such deliberation exists, you must first demonstrate that an entity exists that is capable of such.”

Not really, there are too many “gaps” where God fits too perfectly for each of these to be dismissed with one needing “first” to demonstrate His existence. With visible explanations, you show the explanation at work in connexion with what is to be explained, but with unobervable explanations, the proof of an explanation is how many things it explains and how many of these have no good other explanation. Thanks for giving the opportunity to debunk that schmuck of yours!

“As usual, a Creationist is, as is pretty typical, attempting some form of circular reasoning.”

You have not pointed out any correctly identified circulus vitiosus in probando. You pretend to identify one by dismissing my actual words in favour of your own fancied structure of my reasoning …

Matthew Caine

13.VII.2022

Chock full of logical fallacies, and straightout ignorance. I won't waste my time. Bye!

I could not answer this,

I had been blocked, but my answer would have gone sth like "well, that's the safest course you can do to save your face in the face of my actual arguments!"