vendredi 27 novembre 2015

After Flood and Babel : Was There a PIE Unity?

1) Human population after Noah, racial and demographic pseudoproblems for creationism, 2) Have "Humans Interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans"?, 3) Sorry, Duursma, but all languages have the cases of Proto-Indoeuropean, there is no primitive language ... (which is on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica blog), 4) After Flood and Babel : Was There a PIE Unity?, 5) Chiara Bozzone on Caland System - Short Review, Trubetskoyan Comment (which is again on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica blog)

PIE = Proto-Indo-European = ancestral language from which ALL Indo-European languages are daughter languages, like Romance languages are from Latin.

Once again, polemics against the Proto-Indo-European "orthodoxy" on CMI, starting by a somewhat more complete version of the table in Towering Change by Carl Wieland.

German Danish English Latin Spanish
Hungarian Russian Mn Gk Italian French
Hungarian will often be the odd one out. Therefore it is in bold where others are normal, and here above normal, while others are in bold.

Ein En One Unus Uno
Eggy Odyin Ena Uno Un
Does the Russian combine the IE and the Hungarian form (ggy = dy)?

Zwei To Two Duo Dos
Kettö Dva Dhyo Due Deux

Drei Tre ThreeTres Tres
Három Tri Tris Tre Trois

Vier Fire Four Quattuor Cuatro
Négy Chyetirye Tessera Quattro Quatre

Fünf Fem Five Quinque Cinco
Öt Pyat Pente Cinque Cinq

Family members
Mutter Mor Mother Mater Madre
Anya Mat’ Metera Madre Mère

Vater Fa(de)r Father Pater Padre
Apa, Atya Otyetz Pateras Padre Père
Note that one of the Hungarian words = Russian (which adds an ending to it). If the Russian were akin to Pater word, I have not yet seen an explanation as to how. Also, Atya in Hungarian and Ata in Turkish are the same word as Gothic Atta (in Gothic Fadar means basically daddy, it is used to translate "abba" in a certain Biblical context).

Sohn Son Son Filius Hijo
Fiam Syn Iyos Figlio Fils
Hungarian and Latin, odd ones out (in Latin I here will include Romance, except when explicitly contrasting them).

Tochter Datter Daughter Filia Hija
Lánya Dot' Thighatera Figlia Fille
Hungarian and Latin, odd ones out

Bruder Bro(de)r Brother Frater Hermano
Testvér Brat' Adhelfos Fratello Frère
Hungarian, Greek, Spanish, three odd ones out

Schwester Syster Sister Soror Hermana
Nővére Syostr Adhelfi Sorella Sœur
Hungarian, Greek, Spanish, three odd ones out

To be honest, both for "filius/filia" gloss, and for the glosses "adelphos/adelphé" and "hermano/hermana" there are Indo-European etymologies, meaning the current explanation among linguists is that IE words originally used were disused and replaced by IE derivatives or compounds from other concepts.

Pronouns Personal
i a
Ich Jeg I Ego Yo
Én Ya Egho Io Je

i b
Mich Mig Me Me Me
Én Menya Me/Mou Mi Me

ij a
Du Du Thou Tu Tu
Te Si Tu Tu
Russian "î" = Roumanian î, Polish y

ij b
Dich Deg Thee Te Te
Ön Tebya SouTi Te

iij a
Wir Vi We Nos Nosotros
Mi Emís Noi Nous
Russian "î" = Roumanian î, Polish y
Germanic, Russo-Greek-Hungarian (!), Latin

iij b
Uns Oss Us Nos Nos
Nekünk Nas Mas Ci Nous
Germanic (=) Russo-Latin, Greek

iu a
Ihr I Ye Vos Vosotros
Neki Esís Voi Vous
Russian "î" = Roumanian î, Polish y
Germanic, Russo-Latin, Greek

iu b
Euch Je(de)r You Vos Os
Ön Vas Sas Vi Vous
Germanic, Russo-Latin, Greek

House and City
Haus Hus House Domus Casa
Ház Dom Spiti Casa Maison
Germanico-Hungarian, Russo-Latin, Italo-Spanish, Greek, French
Stadt By City Civitas/Urbs Ciudad
Város Gorod Poli Città Cité/Ville
German, Danish, Hungarian, Russian, Greek, Anglo-Latin, Latin, French
In this case we know the most common word is not original PIE for concept, but a derivative for the Latin word for citizen.

Hund Hund Dog Canis Perro
Kutya Sobaka Skilos Cane Chien
Germano-Latin, English, Spanish, Hungarian, Russian, Greek

Kater/Katze Kat Cat Feles Gato
Macska Koshka Gata Gatto Chat
Germano-Romance-Greek-Russian, Latin, Hungarian
Another case where the common word is probably not the original one.

Löwe Løve Lion Leo León
Oroszlán Lyev Leontari Leone Lion

Affe Abe Monkey/Ape Simius Mono
Majom Obiez’yana Maimouda Scimmia Singe
Germanic, Latin, English, Spanish, Hungaro-Greek (probably Turkish?), Russian

Bär Bjørn Bear Ursus Oso
Medve Myedvyed’ Arkoudha Orso Ours
Greco-Latin, Russo-Hungarian (probably Slavic), Germanic

Pferd Hest Horse Equus Caballo
Loshad’ Alogo Cavallo Cheval
Romance, German, Danish, English, Latin, Russo-Hungarian (probably Tatar), Greek

Note that Russian is the only Slavic language which has this word. Polish, Bielorussian and Ukrainean all have Kon'. A Slavic, but not obviously PIE word. (Yes, Croatian and Bulgarian also use the same word as Polish).

Kuh Ko Cow Vacca Vaca
Tehén Korova Vodi Vacca Vache
Germano-Latino-Greek, Hungarian, Russian

Vogel Fugl Foul/Bird Avis Pájaro
Madár Ptitsa Pouli Uccello Oiseau
Germano-Greek (plus other Greek word, possibly akin to Russian), Latin, Spanish, Hungarian, Russian

Fisch Fisk Fish Piscis Pez
Hal Rîba Psari/Ikhtís Pesce Poisson
Russian "î" = Roumanian î, Polish y
"IE", Hungarian, Russian, Greek, Greek

Schlange Slange Snake/Serpent Serpens Serpiente
Kigyó Zmyeya Fidhi Serpente Serpent
German (from whence Danish), English (with Swedish "snok" of other meaning), English with Latin, Hungarian, Russian, Greek

Spinne Edderkop Spider Aranea Araña
Pók Pauk Arakhni Ragno Araignée
Germanic, Greco-Latin, Danish, Russo-Hungarian

Skorpion Skorpion Scorpion Scorpio Escorpión
Skorpió Skorpion Skorpiós Scorpione Scorpion
"IE"+Hungarian? Actually Greco-Latin, borrowed into the non-Greek and non-Romance languages.

Now, no one is opposed to accepting that Scorpion was not an originally IE word. Why should "one" necessarily be from a mother language rather than loaned?

Now, you may reply, pronouns and numerals are among the least loanable words. Not necessarily so, if the language borrowings are very intelligent.

You see, in a far past, when languages were far more fragmented than now, but closer to the Flood, closer to the wisdom of Noah, very probably one realised, soon after Babel, that useful vocabulary in nouns and even verbs could be learnt very easily even between strangers - you point to a scorpion, one says "scorpion" and another says "nge" (swahili for scorpion) "dabaqallooc" (somali for scorpion) and you know what scorpion is in the other language - whereas pronouns and relatives and numerals are things you could too easily make a mistake about and one would try to construct a common vocabulary for those (extending to common verb conjugations, whereof the personal endings are largely common to Finnish as well, while preterite formations are not, and a common set of case endings. Function in phrase being also one of the categories where mistakes are easy.

This, and the fact that Indo-European languages are talked by peoples descending from different grandsons and greatgrandsons of Noah and therefore starting out with different languages after Babel makes at least the Proto-Indo-European Theory of Indo-European "by-and-large-unity" a clearly doubtful theory and mutual borrowings a clearly worthwhile pursuit of study.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Virgil of Salzburg

mardi 24 novembre 2015

The plain reading of Scripture clearly supports six day Creationism

1) Mike O'Neil Gets it All Wrong, 2) What can Sumerian King List Teach Us?, 3) Two Things You Might Be Asking Now?, 4) The plain reading of Scripture clearly supports six day Creationism

Sunday on youtube and yesterday on my blog copying my comments, I described this blog this way*:

"I nearly only mention the Bible when defining what I am defending."

And today I have to mention the Bible in it - because there are people who think they know I have misdefined what I should defend. So, here I must defend my reading of the Bible. I cite both Jim Stump** and his opponent on CMI Paul Price.***

If “plain reading” means “what the words clearly mean in my language and culture”,

My comment
Yes and no. As formulated it seems to narrow down the exegetic requirements so as to exclude using exact knowledge of earlier cultural contexts, even if applicable.

But that would not be the plain meaning of the definition, it would be an overly literalistic one. Not to say a simplistic one.

We have slightly varied languages (businessmen and people unilaterally engaged in sciences often think my English is bad in grammar, when it simply has a different style) and obviously my culture is much more different from theirs than my language.

I feel like Kent Hovind (I think it was) is "one of them" when he can utter such frogs as Grendel being the dragon of Beowulf poem (the poem has more than one monster, the dragon is not named and the sea monsters are not named either : only the humanoid monsters are identified as "Grendel" and "Grendel's mother", whether they be very ill shapen men or very huge apes, however such came to Denmark). He has not the kind of clture in which it makes sense to actually read the poem through or at least read a summary through instead of thinking that is too geeky stuff to check out for oneself, let's rely on hearsay.

So, "my" language and culture would indeed be an apt guide in someone having a broad human learning. But not in a reader who was ... well, either a scientist or a businessman. As they typically are.

then I suppose Exodus 20:11 could be used to support six day Creationism.

My comment
Oh, you only SUPPOSE so? And only COULD be used?

You suppose pretty right it CAN be and IS used to do so.

But if that is really how we’re supposed to read Scripture, then 1 Samuel 2:8 means the earth is set on pillars,

1 Samuel 2:8, a verse often cited by skeptics to attack the Bible, does not teach that the earth is suspended on pillars. An examination of the context shows that this passage is talking about people, not inanimate objects, and thus metaphorical language is clearly being used.

My comment
I checked the Catholic Bibles. Only second half of verse 8 deals with pillars or anything like it, but in the Vulgate and Douay Reims, it is not pillars exactly.

He raiseth up the needy from the dust, and lifteth up the poor from the dunghill: that he may sit with princes, and hold the throne of glory. For the poles of the earth are the Lord' s, and upon them he hath set the world.

Suscitat de pulvere egenum, et de stercore elevat pauperem: ut sedeat cum principibus, et solium gloriae teneat. Domini enim sunt cardines terrae, et posuit super eos orbem.

Note that the first part is echoed in the Magnificat of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Speaking of which, is either Stump or Price among those "praising" her as "blessed"? If not, do they belong to "every generation" of the Church?

Now, to the second part.

No, Price, it is not a metaphor. The second half is really about cosmology. The point being made is that since God rules the cosmos including its close part Earth, he ALSO rules human events.

Now, the Latin has cardines and the English has Poles. A cardo is the kind of pin below and above a door which are set in a door and which the door swings on. Ambiguous as to whether Earth is doorway and cosmos is swinging around it each day (the orthodox interpretation as per from other contexts) or whether instead cosmos is the doorway and Earth is swinging (the modern interpretation, and probably one found in Galileo and Zuñiga). But "cardo" does not mean pillar. Either way, the N and S poles make sense as translations, and there are two of them (plural of cardo, cardines) which is only possible with a round earth. That might be why Masoretic text by now and why KJV has "pillars".

However, let us suppose pillars are the right meaning.

Even so there is nothing absurd in it: continental plates are set on a kind of pikes going downward into the magma. Hence the world - as surface of the globe - is really set on pillars. That the whole of Earth - that is the globe or whatever total three dimensional shape - should be set on pillars can not be the meaning, since of the whole we read elsewhere Earth is hanged on Nothing. Which fits a round Earth quite as well as "Domini enim sunt cardines terrae".

So, no reason NOT to take a plain reading of 1 Kings 2:8.

and Deuteronomy 21:21 means we should stone our rebellious sons,

When it comes to Deuteronomy 21:21, Stump misses the point by confusing the meaning of a command with its applicability today. Various Christian denominations have different views of the latter. But most agree that since we are not signatories to the Sinaitic Covenant, the civil penalties don’t apply today. Similarly, most would agree that Christians are not bound by the Mosaic food (kosher) laws today. See Is eating shellfish still an abomination? and Are we allowed to eat all animals today?

My comment
The Catholic view is that the commands of civil justice given for Israel are not directly applicable per se under the new law.

They are not unjust, but they were a harsher justice.

However, Sweden under Charles IX (an usurper of Calvinist/Puritan bent, though Sweden was Lutheran, not Calvinist, and the father of Gustavus Adolphus - equally an usurper) did enact death penalty for rebellious children.

In Catholic justice, especially the Middle Ages, the punishment if the matter was grave enough for such, was milder, since taking into account the sweetness of the New Law replacing the harshness of the Old Law.

and John 15:5 means Jesus is a plant, and

John 15:5 begins, “I am the vine … ” Not much needs to be said here. Jesus often spoke in figures of speech. Taking that verse literally is not even possible, so we have no record of anyone thinking that He had stems and leaves. Therefore by process of elimination (and common sense) we can see it was a metaphor. Jesus also spoke in parables, but they were intentionally designed to hide the truth from the unbelieving masses, while He spoke plainly to His disciples. See discussion in Biblical creation impedes evangelism?

My comment
If Stump is really so uncultured that the plain meaning of this obvious metaphor (which has been missed by no generation in the Church as being that!) is a literal meaning ignoring the words are metaphoric ... sigh. Well, if he is that uncultured, he has no business educating other people on how to read the Bible.

As said above, a culture even in our day should mean things like knowing Grendel was the humanoid and not the dragon or like knowing older manners were more profuse in metaphor than modern ones.

Roman 16:16 means we should kiss everyone we meet.

Romans 16:16 asks believers to greet one another with a ‘holy kiss’. It’s true that most churches don’t abide by this, at least in my country. But why? Is it because Paul was being non-literal here? I see nothing in the context to suggest this was supposed to be poetic language. Paul wrote a lot of letters to people in the churches. Among those letters, there is much heavy doctrinal teaching, but there are also some side comments of a personal, non-doctrinal nature, like “bring me my cloak” (2 Timothy 4:13). I’d say most if not all interpreters would consider this statement about kissing to be in that latter category. In Paul’s time and place, kissing people as a greeting was a normal and acceptable thing to do, just as it remains to this day in parts of Europe—Paul wasn’t asking people to rebel against their cultural norms about personal space. For many modern-day Christians, a suitable equivalent would be a pat on the back or a handshake. That is, Paul was expressing the trans-cultural principle of greeting each other warmly with the cultural application of his day.

My comment
Both Stump and Price seem to take it this is not done now.

However, in each Holy Mass, a Kiss of Peace is usually given, though Latin rite has tended to omit that.

During the Middle Ages, in order to avoid Kiss of Peace giving anyone butterflies, a gold plate was circled around which everyone kissed, and all those who kissed it were deemed to have kissed each other. But the application was literal enough.

The “plain reading” of Scripture leads to picking and choosing which verses we like and which we ignore. That is not a responsible way to read the Bible.

My comment
No, the plain reading leads to singling out only very few and very obvious cases as metaphor.

There are reasons we don’t take the plain meaning of those other verses as the best interpretation of Scripture; that makes us at least ask whether there might be reasons not to take Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1 in their plain sense.

My comment
I have never deviated from the PLAIN meaning, though in one precise case from the literal one.

Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 should probably be taken in the plain and literal meanings.

However, St Augustine for Genesis 1 departed from both plain and literal reading in favour of a literal rather than plain reading of a verse in Genesis 2.

This other reading is however ALSO totally at odds with Old Earth any shape or form.

Nearly all other Church Fathers (of those who at all mentioned subject) take the plain and literal meaning of Genesis 1 and a plain rather than extremely literal meaning of the said verse in Genesis 2.

The one exception, if you will call him a Church Father (he is not canonised) being Origen. Possibly the Stromatist too. And Origen takes same view as St Augustine, the Stromatist (Clement of Alexandria, earlier considered a Saint, no longer so since Photius pointed out a formulation which he found heterodox about the Sonship of God the Son) a "chronological agnosticism".

But even that one is hardly strong enough to swallow Old Earth.

Now, the problem is, some people feel they are cultured, knowing that metaphors were used, and think they are more cultured than others if they feel the others, if having their culture should just understand that Genesis "was never meant to be taken literally" (well, it was taken literally and we have no record of an age before our own in which men claiming to believe it were not taking it literally or close enough (see St Augustine, the Stromatist and Origen). But it is they whose level of culture is like the one who had heard of Grendel - and who thought it was the name of the un-named dragon in the Beowulf poem. There is a Grendel, there is a dragon, they are not identical. There are verses meant and from start understood to be metaphorical. There is Genesis 1. They are ALSO not identical.

I get an uncanny feeling some will have me say this over and over again. Like some will abuse their powers of prayer, mixing iniquity in their chalice if celebrating Mass even, in order to avoid exposing their own authority by replying me and finding out how much I know, while praying that I should find out this or that or the other thing they think they know and is applicable.

And if cabbalists are involved, how come they got power over me? Some priest refusing to absolve me from sins, or deeming me excommunicate, while he is the one making the trouble by not being a Creationist of the Young Earth type.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St John of the Cross


* Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Several Matters, Including Carbon Dating, Canaaneans, and Ape DNA

** Biologos : 10 Misconceptions about Evolution
September 28, 2015 | By Jim Stump on Faith and Science Seeking Understanding

*** CMI : Stumped by biblical creation: BioLogos takes a cheap shot at biblical creation … and misses
by Paul Price | Published: 24 November 2015 (GMT+10)

vendredi 20 novembre 2015

Two Things You Might Be Asking Now?

1) Mike O'Neil Gets it All Wrong, 2) What can Sumerian King List Teach Us?, 3) Two Things You Might Be Asking Now?, 4) The plain reading of Scripture clearly supports six day Creationism

  • 1) Hasn't God [some of you may add "supposing he were behind the Bible", I do obviously not add that] used simplified and even misleading language if Earth is round but described as flat in the Bible?
  • 2) Hasn't the Sumerian King List first been invented and then mistaken for revelation? Sth I said that the six days could not have been?

Problem 1:
No where in all the Bible does God make it clear that Earth is flat. Not clear as in "clear, once you start asking the question".

Some of the things said are completely consistent with a flat earth, and indeed nothing or next to nothing is quite inconsistent with it.

But neither is anything inconsistent with a round earth.

  • Four corners passages imply sth rectangular-ish, not necessarily a real flat rectangle.

  • "Circle" of earth passage reads best as "circumference" and globes as well as flat circles have these. Also, any circumference of a globe is a circle, so even if the word is supposed to read "circle", it may refer to flat disc as well as to simply the circumference which it has on a globe.

  • Earth hanging on nothing and Earth standing on pillars contradict each other if taken about same thing, just as much as four corners and circular circumference contradict each other if taken about shape of same disc. But if we accept Earth is round:

    • Four corners as well as pillars refer to continental plates in their overall configuration on the globe and not sinking down into the sea;

    • while circular circumference and hanging on nothing refer to the globe as a whole and its place in space (note that "hung" seems to imply stability of its place, not quite easy to make it fit with orbits, but that is another question!).

I suggest as solution that God meant Israelites to be ignorant about shape of Earth, but ignorant in a very peculiar way, so that every word taken previously as "Earth is flat" must be able to be reinterpreted (on roughly the lines I suggested) as "we misunderstood". This gives two advantages for the Catholic Faith:

  • Its Hebrew beginnings stand out favourably from Near Eastern Ancient Religions among which they were set, since these other ones make a box shaped universe with Earth as a disc so much more clearly a prerequisite. Egyptians for instance worship Osiris and Horus as sun gods and say the Sun is, during the night, shining on the people in the Netherworld - a disc lower than that of Earth and between which two discs Sun is moving every night from West back to East;

  • The Round Earth solution however became known before the full unfolding of the Revelation in Christ. One can say that it is probably true that Hebrews were misunderstanding the OT passages (with Four Corners echoed in Apocalypse, in NT) during the OT times, certainly they were not teaching their neighbours about a Round Earth, but one cannot say that any of their prophets were actively promoting it, and once the Catholic Church was established, it has from the start included Hellenistic Jews who knew Earth was round and therefore the Tradition of the Church, as full and unadulterated revelation, has always been at least open to a Round Earth.

Problem 2:
The Sumerian King List was not first invented and accepted socially as an invention, like Tom Puss or Lord of the Rings and then later mistaken for Revelation. It was partly based on tradition - the eight preflood kings may have sth to do with the seven Cainite patriarchs before the Flood - and each invention was immediately added by some kind of bureaucratic decree to the transmission of tradition. One was deliberately careless and deliberately writing things one had not copied from something one had read, and one was deliberately bullying all relevant for transmitting tradition (writers being a privileged cast, but far below kings in social importance) to accept the changes - unless this caste in themselves, like certain teachers bent on teaching atheism back a century ago - initiated the changes.

I think that will round off what I had to say on this one, I will now refer to some essays or correspondences with more details (below my signature).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Felix of Valois
founder of Trinitarians

A series including the reference to Solar Worship and Flat Earth explicitation in this essay (but read all the series, links in top):

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Flat Earth theories - Common Sense or Solar Mythology?

A series dealing with diverse context of Church and Bible, this one (a correspondence rather than an essay) dealing with whether Church Fathers were unscriptural in accepting a Round Earth:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth

Read all of the series, there too! And finally the second of two (but read both) on literary genre of Homer's epics and its implications for historical truth claims:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Legendary Men vs Mythical Gods

jeudi 19 novembre 2015

What can Sumerian King List Teach Us?

1) Mike O'Neil Gets it All Wrong, 2) What can Sumerian King List Teach Us?, 3) Two Things You Might Be Asking Now?, 4) The plain reading of Scripture clearly supports six day Creationism

I will actually cite only the first ten Sumerian kings on it:

  • After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug (Eridu). In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28,800 years. (Beginning of year 1 to 28,800)
  • Alalngar was said to have reigned for 36,000 years. (28,800 - 64,800)
  • En-men-lu-ana was also the longest-reigning king on the list, which said he ruled for 43,200 years. (68,800 - 108,000)
  • En-men-gal-ana was said to have reigned for 28,800 years. (108,000 - 136,800)
  • Dumuzid the Shepherd ruled for 36,000 years. (136,800 - 172,800)
  • En-sipad-zid-ana was said to have reigned for 28,800 years. (172,800 - 201,600)
  • En-men-dur-ana was said to have reigned for 43,200 years (201,600 - 244,800)
  • Ubara-tutu (or Ubartutu) of Shuruppak was the last antediluvian king of Sumer. He was said to have reigned for 18,600 years. (244,800 - 263,400)

  • Deluge

  • Jushur of Kish (After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kish.) reigned in Sumer for 1,200 years as the first post-diluvian king. (263,400 - 264,600)
  • Kullassina-bel was the second king in the First Dynasty of Kish according to the Sumerian king list, which adds that he reigned for 960 years (or 900 in some copies). (264,600 - 265,560)

I came here by looking up Shuruppak, on wiki.

Now, some diverse lessons are intrinsically possible:

  • Sumerian Kinglist is the truth, and the pre-Flood time of Genesis is ridiculously short.

  • Or, Sumerian Kinglist is false, Genesis plagiarises it with some moderation for lifespans, but not nearly enough. The 930 years of Adam's overall life are as mythical as the 43 thousand 200 years of Enmerluana's reign alone.

These are not compatible. One of them at least is wrong. Could both be wrong?

Well, here is a third one:

  • The very inflated numerals in this list, dating back to very roughly same times as Genesis was written, if not true, were at least believed and conceived. In other words, the people whom God spoke to would have understood larger spans of time than "six days" or even "thousand years".

That is, if not very inferior intellectually to Babylonians, which I think was not the case.

Thus, of Biblical Timescale is not exactly right, it is certainly not either a reasonable simplification of the real one to make "very simple Hebrews" (comparable in Mike O'Neill's world to five year old boys) understand what happened without bringing on too much complexity.

The real alternatives for Genesis are:

  • revealed by a truthful and all knowing God, and thus true, including in timeline;
  • revealed by a being perhaps not all knowing and certainly not totally truthful, explaining a wrong timeline;
  • not revealed but somehow first invented and later treated as if not invented but revealed.

Those who know me know that I consider the last as being extremely unlikely.

And the first as the actual truth.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Elisabeth of Marburg

mercredi 18 novembre 2015

Mike O'Neil Gets it All Wrong

1) Mike O'Neil Gets it All Wrong, 2) What can Sumerian King List Teach Us?, 3) Two Things You Might Be Asking Now?, 4) The plain reading of Scripture clearly supports six day Creationism

I have already answered this point, but this one is stating it so ludicrously, I'll answer it again.

God’s perfection* and the truth of the Bible do not preclude statements that are not literally true. We must consider the facts of the time and place in which the Bible and its stories were being written.

Let us suppose that God communicated to his prophets and messengers “IN THE FIRST 29 BILLION, 369 MILLION, 859 THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND TWELVE YEARS, GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH”. Would this message have been understood?

We are talking about a time in history when the average person could not count far beyond the number of his fingers and toes. Counting into the hundreds or thousands would have been the province of intellectuals and scholars. The concept of Millions or Billions of years would have been incomprehensible. Could such a message have been comprehended, let alone accepted?

When my 5 year old asks how our television works, I do not attempt to explain radio waves, cathode ray tubes, transistors or satellites. I tell him that a machine at the TV station takes the pictures, sends them through the air and our TV catches them and turns them back into pictures.

Am I lying to my son? Am I misleading him? When he reaches college and learns the science behind semi-conductors, radio transmission and imaging technologies, should he accuse me of deceiving him. Should he dismiss everything that I’ve taught him as suspect? Of course not!

  • 1) Have you ever tried teaching your five year old son about radio waves? I started learning about this perhaps at six, seven, eight. At least before nine, when I became a Christian.

  • 2) "We are talking about a time in history when the average person could not count far beyond the number of his fingers and toes.

    No. We are not. Perhaps you were told this by some old earther when you were five years old, but since then you have grown up, and it's about time you start learning history for real.

    Moses who redacted Genesis, and on whose vision very probably the Six Days account is based (Adam was absent before day one and days one to beginning of day six, so it is not Adam's witness account), not only was himself a man with Egyptian élite education, well versed in geometry, but he had men who were able to count:

    Numbers 1:[20] Of Ruben the eldest son of Israel, by their generations and families and houses and names of every head, all that were of the male sex, from twenty years old and upward, that were able to go forth to war, [21] Were forty-six thousand five hundred.

    Some people of a purely "scientific" civilisation have this kind of preconception about "people in the past", but this is not due to their expertise in catodes and radio waves, it is due to their lack of expertise in history.

    • For one, in a century from which there is ABUNDANT evidence surviving, like 20th, you can decade by decade with very good confidence say what the average person either knew or thought he knew, depending on the subject matter and on your viewpoint of it. History cannot say whether Big Bang happened, but it can decade for decade tell you how probable it was for a 20th C. man to think he knew BB happened. If I had agreed with O'Neil, I would have said "who knew" etc, but I don't.

      We have very scarce evidence from the century of the Exodus.

    • For another, this science only oriented subculture has a great propensity to patronise Christianity, Philosophy, Creation account of Genesis, Long Day account in Joshua and so on, and therefore to tell tall tales of how "ignorant" people were in the past.

    • And, third, as I already mentioned, what we do know about this period and about humanity in general, very much suggests the opposite of what Mike O'Neil just stated.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Odo of Tours

* Taken from : Old Earth Creation Science
Discussion of Creation and Science
by Mike O'Neil
© Old Earth Ministries
First Published 15 July 2004

Henke has a Point on Sarfati - Who Has a Point on Henke

OldEarth : Creation Science Rebuttals
Sarfati's Inconsistent Views on Photon Transmissions between Stars and in the Sun's Interior
Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

Henke himself:
Because of their fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, young-Universe creationists (YUCs) believe that the Universe is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. However, since the 1840s, astronomers have known that interstellar distances easily exceed 10,000 light years (Brush, 1983, p. 305-306). If the Universe is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old as YUCs claim and if the speed of light has been constant over time, why do we see objects billions of light years away from Earth? ...

Gosse, referred to:
In the past, many YUCs (as examples: Morris, 1978, p. 61-62; Wysong, 1981, p. 156) have simply argued that God instantaneously created starlight (photons) between the Earth and stars. Therefore, "Adam" did not have to wait for the stars to appear "as signs" (Genesis 1:14-15) in the heavens (Morris, 1978, p. 61-62). YUCs that support this claim not only cite Genesis 1:14-15 as "evidence", but also argue that if "Adam" was miraculously created in a mature and complete state, so could starlight (for example, Wysong, 1981, p. 156). Of course, Morris' and Wysong's "response" is nothing more than the feeble and unscientific "Gosse" or Omphalos argument.

Sarfati referred to quoted as rejecting Gosse:
Some older creationist works [as examples: Morris, 1978; Wysong, 1981] proposed that God may have created the light in transit, and [old-Universe creationist Hugh] Ross harps on this as if it is still mainstream [young-Universe] creationist thinking... [Ross reference omitted]. But AiG [Answers in Genesis] long ago pointed out the problems with this idea. [new paragraph] It would entail that we would be seeing light from heavenly bodies that don't really exist; and even light that seems to indicate precise sequences of events predictable by the laws of physics, but which never actually happened. This, in effect, suggests that God is a deceiver.

My own comment:
Actually, the Distant Starlight Paradox can be very simply dealt with if we can in any way suppose that astronomers have been wrong on stellar distances since 1840's.

And since FIRST step of "cosmic distance ladder" is parallax measures, this poses the question whether the annual motion of 63 Cygni and α Centauri, by which their distances are "measured" to 11 and 4 lightyears (assuming a speed of light I am not here questioning), not the one they have in common as "aberration of starlight", really IS an apparent motion only and the body actually moving is Earth.

If not, if "aberration" movement and its "at the edge variation" known as "parallax" is for each star its own movement, then neither gives us any indication of how far away the stars are.

Let us suppose Voyager 1 is not a fraud, it is even so about 6 light hours away from being 1 light day away from Earth. So, Voyager 1 has not even yet disproven my now favourite hypothesis that stars are 1 light day away.

Stars could be seen not just first evening by Adam and Eve in their lives, starting on day six, which gives a max distance of 2 light days, but even the evening before by the birds, which started chirping on day five, so they should be maximum 1 light day away.

Geocentric Wikia

The not so huge distances also give a solution to a problem specific to Geocentrism:

G. W. : How Fast the Stars are Spinning Around Earth Each Day

And therefore to stellar sizes (supposing they were a problem) as well, this on New blog on the kid:

1) On Spirographs and Standard Candles - Cosmic Markers for Mark Shea, 2) How Big is Kepler 452? A Geocentric Minority Report, 3) - But Parallax Guarentees the Distance of Kepler 452, Right? Right? Don't Tell Me It Doesn't!

Henke gets technical with Sarfati:

Henke on Young Sun Problem
Like other stars, nuclear fusion in the Sun's core produces photons, neutrinos and other radiation. In the past, some YECs have erroneously proclaimed that solar energy comes from a "shrinking Sun" (also see: Van Till et al., 1988, Chapter 3). However, Sarfati (2004, p. 170, 341-342) and AiG properly reject this nonsense and embrace the reality of nuclear fusion in stars.

Physicists have determined that photons produced in the Sun's core take much more than 10,000 years to migrate through reradiation to the Sun's surface. The shortest time estimate in the literature for this migration is approximately 17,000 years, which was derived by Mitalas and Sills (1992). However, Stix (2003) argues that the estimate in Mitalas and Sills (1992) is erroneous and that the actual value is closer to 30,000,000 years. Other estimates in the literature also greatly exceed 17,000 years (for example: Harrison, 2000, p. 94). So YUCs face yet another example of a natural phenomenon that refuses to comply with their "young" Sun. If the Sun is less than 10,000 years old, why do we detect photons and other radiation that could only form from the extremely high pressures and temperatures in its core?

Sarfati quoted by Henke
Also, some argue for long ages on the basis that the calculated time for a photon to travel from the [solar] core to the surface (actually by absorption and reradiation) exceeds the biblical time scale. But this is explained if the main purpose of fusion is STABILITY - producing enough energy to balance that lost from the surface, that is, the sun was created in a STEADY STATE CONDITION, with the outward pressure generated by fusion matching the inward gravitational pressure, maintaining a constant temperature profile. This means that it could immediately fulfill its function as the 'greater light,' [Genesis 1:16] and keep shining at a constant rate. It is no different from believing that God created Adam with oxygen in his bloodstream in his extremities, even though it now takes some time for oxygen to diffuse through the alveoli in the lungs, then be transported by the blood. [Sarfati's emphasis]

Henke's comment:
Obviously, Sarfati (2004, p. 171) fails to see that he's invoking the same type of groundless Gosse miracles to "explain" how photons travel WITHIN stars as Morris, Wysong and other YUCs have used to "explain" how photons travel BETWEEN stars. Clearly, Sarfati's approach to the migration of photons within the Sun is not only anti-scientific, but it's also inconsistent and hypocritical.

My Comment on That One:
Well, no.

What Sarfati and I admit is not an absolute ban on any Gosse argument, for instance Adam and Eve were created adults, and were never toddlers.

What we admit is a ban on SUCH misapplied Gosse arguments which would make God a deceiver. Since sun as a sign is about its shining visibly, not about its photons having travalled from centre to surface, there is no deception in assuming there was sunlight from day four on, it would have been cruelty on His part for it not to, if He was going to create Adam and Eve two days later.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Dedication of the Basilicas
of Sts Peter and Paul*

* Romae Dedicatio Basilicarum sanctorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum. Earum primam, restitutam in ampliorem formam, Summus Pontifex Urbanus Octavus consecravit hac ipsa recurrente die; alteram vero, miserando incendio penitus consumptam, ac magnificentius reaedificatam, Pius, Nonus die decima Decembris solemni ritu consecravit, ejusque annuam commemorationem hodierna die agendam indixit.

A fitting day, since the dedication of St Peter's Basilica was made by same Pope whose Inquisitors also condemned Galileo in 1633.

mercredi 4 novembre 2015

Longevity Charts as per LXX

Note first:

I take the chronology of LXX from:

CMI : Some remarks preliminary to a biblical chronology
by Pete Williams

This includes the problem, according to his choice of LXX version, that Methuselah "dies after Flood".

Probably this is a faulty reading, but this is the one I access now. And probably it may be not identical to the reading before St Jerome, when he calculated the chronology we read at Christmas vigil in the Catholic Church.

However, it may serve as to indicate who knew whom. First is a chart for pre-Flood overlapping lifespans:

Adam 0 - 930=++++------
Seth 230 - 1142+=+++++----
Enosh 435 - 1340++=+++++---
Cainan 625 - 1535+++=+++++--
Mahalaleel 795 - 1690++++=+++++-
Jared 960 - 1922-++++=++++-
Enoch 1122 - 1487-+++++=++--
Methuselah 1287 - 2256--+++++=+++
Lamech 1454 - 2207---+++++=++
Noah 1642 - 2592 (after Flood)----++-++=+
S,H,J 2142 - after Flood-------+++=

Adam had opportunity to teach Seth, Enosh, Kenan (the first Cainan being really Kenan), and Mahalaleel about the sixth day of Creation in its details (Genesis 2), about Flood, and about the story of Cain and Abel. During these centuries he had ample opportunity to correct any misunderstandings that might have arisen. He also had ample opportunity to perfect his method of formulating the events in a short and easy to memorise way, supposing, for argument's sake, they did not yet write before the Flood.

Griots of Africa and Serbian Guslars have certainly memorised with perfect accuracy songs far longer than the relevant chapters of Genesis. Therefore, even if writing were a post-Flood invention, we can be sure that the transmission even orally has kept original content intact.

Here will be a chart for post-Flood co-longevity, up to Abraham:

Noah 600 B.F. - 350 A.F.=++(+)+-------
Shem 100 B.F. - 500 A.F.+=+(+)++------
Arphaxad 0 - 565++=(+)+++-----
Cainan 135 - 595+++(=)+++-----
Shelah 265 - 725+++(+)=+++----
Eber 395 - 899-++(+)+=+++---
Peleg 529 - 868--+(+)++=++---
Reu 659 - 998----+++=++--
Serug 791 - 1121-----+++=+++
Nahor 921 - 1129-------++=++
Terah 1000 - 1205--------++=+
Abraham 1070 – 1245--------+++=

Obviously, this is NOT the text St Jerome had, since in his text less than 1070 years pass between Flood and birth of Abraham.

This would rather be a text like those behind Byzantine chronologies where Christ is not born 5199 but 5500 after Creation. While speaking of this, I am not sure if St Jerome used LXX all way through or if he looked at his own translation or if he looked at Josephus, but mainly he used LXX.

Post-Flood Cainan (Cain-am, this time, not Kenan) has overlapping lifespans in parentheses, since he is not a trustworthy link of tradition, he was omitted from at least what is now Masoretic text, precisely because he was unjust, he coveted pre-Flood magic lore (I think the source for this is ultimately Book of Jasher, which I have not read myself, and immediately one of those researching in it).

The point remains, sufficient lifespans even just in the direct line (and here omitting uncles and granduncles and such) were there to guarantee a very thorough apprenticeship in Hebrew lore (or what became such) to ensure an even humanly speaking near certainty of good transmission.

Note that 1070 is 128 years more than the Chronology of Roman Martyrology for time between Flood and Birth of Abraham.

Here I have underlined the "time of Peleg", or "days of Peleg" in which it is presumed that Tower of Babel had the ending of its building in a confusion of tongues. It is obviously not there in Roman Martyrology, partly because Bible (in all versions) lacks a precise year, partly because even if there had been such, the Tower of Babel and Confusion of Tongues is hardly a very good epoch to start counting down to the Birth of Christ from. We are, you see, talking of the Roman Martyrology for December 25th, the first feast of which is of course Christmas, celebrating the Birth of Christ in Bethlehem.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard Library
(since earlier renamed)
St Charles Borromeo