samedi 27 mai 2017


Is ICR Making a Case for Geocentrism? · Setterfield

I think that Setterfield is doing a mistake, much like Habermehl, in taking all of the timeline of Uniformitarian Prehistory as a timeline to telescope onto the Biblical one.

While Carbon 14 is definitely telescopable, I think K-Ar (Potassium 40 - Argon 40) is more depending in how long lava was exposed to fresh air between flowing and solidifying, than on how far back it happened, since the factor I mention can be relevant for "excess carbon".

This means K-Ar timeline should not telescope to a prolongation behind the Carbon 14 one, but simply collapse to a non-timeline, and same with Geological time as Biostratigraphy.

Setterfield does not think so, if you want to take a look at his results, here they are:

© Barry Setterfield, September 1999

Short link:

Time, Life and Man

Short link:

© Barry Setterfield, September 1999

Short link:

His take is that excess dating years come from a decreased speed of light, meaning that all radioactive processes were much quicker before and that distant starlight problem is no problem.

My takes are, with same speed of light:

  • Geological biostrata : diverse biotopes at Flood.
  • Geocentrism takes care of Distant Starlight (see previous)
  • K-Ar : excess argon.
  • U-Pb / Th-Pb : excess lead.
  • Other radiometric : I don't know.
  • Except :
  • Carbon 14 : rising carbon level.
  • Possibly thermoluminiscence : calibrated by C14 erroneous due to rising carbon level.

The ones I specialise in are in bold, the non-astronomical ones in several posts on this blog and the astronomical one on several posts on main blogs (successive such), occasionally here too.

So, for Babel, this means I am placing Babel at Göbekli Tepe, Setterfield at Permian extinction event.

For my part, I think Permian fossils are from Flood, from certain biotopes. As readers of the blog will know, if long time such.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
First Saturday in Pentecost Novena

PS : also like Habermehl, he is very correct in using LXX, not Masoretic./HGL

vendredi 26 mai 2017

Is ICR Making a Case for Geocentrism?

Is ICR Making a Case for Geocentrism? · Setterfield

On FB, I just came across this link:

ICR : Starlight and the Age of the Universe
by Richard Niessen

So far the answers I gave in the group have not yet generated a debate, here they are:

From opening of ICR's article, I am citing and answering point by point:

"Distances in space cannot be accurately measured. Obviously we cannot stretch a string into outer space or measure these distances with a yardstick, and so distances are calculated, rather than measured. This is accomplished by a technique known as triangulation, or parallax."

Technically, triangulation is the mathematical technique, parallax or stellar parallax the name given by Heliocentrics to the 1838 sighted and measured Bessel phenomenon according to its place in their reckoning as fulfilling a prediction of Heliocentric paradigm.

"Short distances of a few hundred thousand miles can be measured by triangulating the simultaneous observations of observatories on opposite sides of the earth, but as the ratio of the unknown to the known distance increases, the baseline angles become greater and greater, so that beyond an altitude-to-baseline ratio of 28.5 to 1, the angle becomes greater than 89º and must be further divided into minutes and seconds of arc. The limitations of this method are evident even within our own solar system, as the apex angle to our sun would be only 10 seconds of arc (1/360 of a degree). The distances to even the nearest stars are so great that a greater triangulational baseline is needed, and so the earth's orbit around our sun is used,"

But what if Earth does NOT orbit the Sun?

"allowing a baseline of about 186 million miles."

In Geocentrism we don't have that baseline. We have that line in solar distances relative to stars, but not in any way involved in the angles of stars as sighted in the Bessel phenomenon.

"Sightings are taken 6 months apart,"

Which in Geocentric cosmology doesn't change the position of Earth a bit.

"the angles are compared,"

Giving you an angle of probably star's proper movement.

"and the distance is computed with trigonometry."

The supposed distance is commputed with misapplied trigonometry.

In this way I avoid:

  • exotic Geometry of "Light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through space."
  • sheer speculation as to "It is possible that the speed of light was considerably faster in the past."
  • and false theological analysis of "There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age."

I avoid of course also any chronology contradicting the Biblical one!

So, if this gets noticed and there comes some debate, I will make another post on my "FB blog" about the debate on FB. As to now, I will try to contact Richard Niessen.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Day after Ascension

What was the Sunday Letter for the Year of Creation? V

What was the Sunday Letter for the Year of Creation?

Part I · Part II · Part III · Part IV · Part V

So far, the chronology of St Jerome is ailing.

In Patristics, man need to be created not just any Friday, but Friday 25 of March, or as Roman Calendars was not used, at a point of the year astronomically corresponding to it.

I think I have a solution - very tentative, since involving material which at least scrupulous minds would consider heterodox.

It involves, on the one hand a canonicity or quasi-such at least being possible of Book of Henoch and on the other hand also a somewhat rotating Earth - after the Flood. But first of all, the Sunday letter paradigm : it only applies if years are not even multiples of seven days. With a year of 364 days, all years have the same Sunday letter.

This brings us to the book of Henoch. According to it, not just is it so that the Sun moves around its circuit up and down in 364 days, but also it is said that this will always be so.

This cannot be true (and book of Henoch cannot therefore be canonic) if the Sun has slowed down its orbit around the Zodiak (not mentioned in Book of Henoch, as I recall it, but implicit, probably). But it could still be true if since then Earth has started to move slightly eastward, so that 364 pre-Flood days now come out as 365.2425 sth post-Flood days, each day now about 5 pre-Flood minutes shorter than the pre-Flood day, which disrupts our circadian rythm and helped to shorten human lives just after the Flood.

So, if all pre-Flood years up to or including Year of Flood (2242 Anno Mundi to both St Jerome and Syncellus) were same Sunday letter, that would mean we find the Sunday letter of 2242 AM or possibly 2241 AM and we project it back to all previous years.

We are, as we know, now a A after a leap year CB, and we also know the periodicity of Gregorian calendar in short terms not crossing centurial years without leap years is 28, but in somewhat longer terms is 400 years. Now, the Flood was in 2957 BC, which makes us 4973 Anno Diluvii.

2016 cb
4973 cb
0973 cb
0173 cb
0117 cb
0116 d
0115 e
0114 f
0113 g !  113 ag
0112 a  112 b
0111 b  111 c
0110 c  110 d
0109 d ! 109 ed 109 fe
0108 e 108 f 108 g
0084 084 084
0024 e 024 f 024 g
0023 f 023 g 023 a
0022 g 022 a 022 b
0021 ba 021 cb 021 dc
0020 c 020 d 020 e
0019 d 019 e 019 f
0018 e 018f 018 g
0017 gf 017 ag 017 ba
0016 a 016 b 016 c
0015 b 015 c 015 d
0014 c 014 d 014 e
0013 ed 013 fe 013 gf
0012 f 012 g 012 a
0011 g 011 a 011 b
0010 a 010 b 010 c
0009 cb 009 dc 009 ed
0008 d 008 e 008 f
0007 e 007 f 007 g
0006 f 006 g 006 a
0005 ag 005 ba 005 cb
0004 b 004 c 004 d
0003 c 003 d 003 e
0002 d 002 e 002 f
0001 fe 001 gf 001 ag
2242 g or a? or b.
2241 a? or b (or c).

It depends on how many leap years you omit, two because of centurial year and the one accumulated day in 3200 years (see previous, on this one left column), or one, because of only one of them (mid column), or none (right column), considering the year was perhaps a bit longer in terms of days (or days a bit shorter) just after the Flood.

But let us now a bit discuss both the implications, theological and otherwise, of the solution I propose.

Book of Henoch is by St Augustine explicitly considered as possibly really from Henoch, but even so not canonical. Because there could have been some alteration during the very long transmission (if it was inspired by God, perhaps God knew how to preserve it even so?).

In other words, we cannot consider all Church Fathers consider Henoch Apocryphal in the normal sense of the word. One good item in favour of Henoch I came across through Trey Smith (he is known to be a huge fan of that book) is a passage resembling the Stabunt Iusti passage in Wisdom. It goes on to say that the people who are saying "nos stulti" or "hemeis nepioi" are in fact saved due to the prayers of those they had persecuted, which salvation is however after some punishment - an indication of purgatory. I don't think Luther and Calvin would have liked it, but no Catholic from St Gregory the Great to St Robert Bellarmine could object to that aspect!

The relevant passage in astronomical book as part of book of Henoch:

1 The book of the courses of the luminaries of the heaven, the relations of each, according to their classes, their dominion and their seasons, according to their names and places of origin, and according to their months, which Uriel, the holy angel, who was with me, who is their guide, showed me; and he showed me all their laws exactly as they are, and how it is with regard to all the years of the world 2 and unto eternity, till the new creation is accomplished which dureth till eternity.

So, if the rest of the passage shows Sun to be making a full circle of its variation in height in 364 das before the Flood, this means it must still be doing so, if Henoch is canonic.

This implies that a year taking in average a bit more than 365 days rather than 364 must be due to some rotation of Earth. And that in turn means that sth would have started to rotate the Earth about the time of the Flood:

  • theologically it must not violate "non commovebitur in aeternum"; but comments by Heliocentrics considering there is a DAILY more then full rotation of Earth have shown a possibly orthodox way to get around that;
  • theologically it must also not violate the conditions of Joshua's long day, but if Earth was budging in a movement which takes 295 pre-Flood days to complete a turn, the relative movement of Sun and Moon (due to Earth's real movement) would have been 1° 13 ' 13" in 24 hours (if I counted right) and this means the Sun and Moon would still be on the spots where Joshua wanted them to be. The difference in angle would not have mattered. The stillness in the orbits was there, and the stillness in appearances was only disrupted so slightly that very fine instruments could have detected it. And:
  • theologically it must also not violate any possibly infallible decision against Galileo in 1616 or 1632 wherein Earth "also moving by a proper movement" is qualified as "at least erroneous". And then:
  • physically such a rotation could be accounted for by an impact of a meteor, like the one in Yucatan, possibly;
  • physically such a rotation, like the presumed daily rotation and yearly circuit, could be accounting for the wobbles.

But if this solution passes, we have what we were looking for a pre-Flood calendar in which all years were, at least for March, Sunday Letter B. And in which therefore also the year of Creation was so. And this with preserved integrity of the chronology of St Jerome, since the years had same length, it was only slightly longer days back then.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Day after Ascension
and in Pentecost Novena

mercredi 24 mai 2017

Pause Post

I am catching up with my reading of CMI articles. They are mostly good, some less interesting to me since far from my own concerns, but usually nearly never bad. When they are, I usually write an answer (I am behind two answers).

This article of theirs is from a nearly double countryman of mine, Carolus Linnaeus, ennobled Carl von Linné.

Carl Linnaeus: the scientist who saw evidence for God in everything in nature
by Russell Grigg

We are both Swedes. I just thought he could have been Scanian, and then he would have been doubly my canoutryman, since I am Scanian (that means Danish subjects up to 1658) on my maternal grandfather's side.

No, while he was a Lundensian student like me (sic, no, he was Uppsalensian! re-sic, no he was both in turns!), he was from Råshult, in Småland. The letter Å is pronounced like English "aw" or when short "o", and is used as alternative for "o" when etymology is an older A. That is a result of a vowel shift not quite identical to the English one.

So, his dad was a Lutheran "Komminister" while Catholic predecessors to him would have been termed Chaplains and usually have been celibate and not thus dads to anyone. He was a "priest" in the Lutheran sense, which is not recognised by the Catholic Church as valid.

Now, the Lutheran clergy (a term less tied to sacramental validity than "priest" so I will use it) usually had studied at university at a time when studies were conducted in Latin. They therefore took the Latin or Latinised version of certain names. The Wittenberg students culpable of our Reformation were in Swedish probably called Persson or Pettersson or Pedersson - which they latinised as Petri. The dad of our most famous botanist was slightly latinising sth as Linnaeus, I think his father had no clerical name. By the way, his mother's mother was Scanian, and even from the part of Scania where my family is originally from, the North-East.

When he was ennobled, Linnaeus was changed to von Linné - spelling of surname frenchified and adding a "von" like German nobility. Of course, his brother remained Linnaeus.

Clerical and nobility's surnames are usually older ones than the bourgeois or military names like Lundahl. The names in -son were back in these days not hereditary surnames but patronymics : his mother was born Anna Christina Samuelsdotter (patronymic still in feminine) Brodersonia (feminine version of her father's clerical name, Samuel Brodersonius, where everything in the Latin name is perfect Swedish except the ending).

Even Linnaeus itself is - except ending - perfect Swedish, since a more correct latinisation of same Swedish word came out as Tiliander. So, the spelling "lind" must have given Linnaeus rather than **Lindaeus because it was pronounced "linn" at the time (there are plenny of American dialects which have a simblar phenomenon).

Where was I going? Ah, yes. Lutherans tended during the "century of Orthodoxy" (1593 - 1718, a century plus some) to brag about being the "via media" between Catholicism and Calvinism. Linnaeus came in a time when Lutherans started to think less of theology and therefore loosen up certain things a bit.

While he is still a perfect example of Natural Theology, as in Creation reflects God, his generation in general (I cannot say quite certainly for himself) is one in which Revealed Theology is no longer requiring Orthodoxy, there is a certain latitude. One indeed in which it was at the end becoming more fashionable to be a Platonist sympathising with Catholicism than a perfectly Lutheran Lutheran. I am going a bit in advance, since Linnaeus died in 1778 and the fashion I speak of is that of P. D.A. Atterbom : sympathetic to Catholicism, but even more clearly a Platonist or Neoplatonist philosopher to whom thoughts mattered more than what was written in either Bible or let alone Konkordieformeln (the formula of Concord, a piece of Lutheran theology as derived after a quarrel between Martin Luther's disciples).

I think that the or one of the best chances to reconvert the Western world is to get back a bit to the language and thought modes of this period and to meet it with the thoughts of the 13th C. Scholastics, like St Albert or St Thomas Aquinas. To them also thoughts mattered - but not more than the Bible and Church Fathers.

Now, this means I consider this period as the time of birth of our own culture - of what is coherent in it. In English, no Englishman, Aussie or Kiwi would be the least ashamed of spelling words like Doctor Johnson did. But for some reason some Swedes are stuck in a few spelling reforms and have an American attitude about spelling : as if the fact that Webster recommended or a President endorsed a new spelling obliged people to change their ways. Such Swedes may tell you I am in Swedish showing signs of dyslexia (sth I can take with humour on a forum, not knowing how to spell is a charge Cohanim made against the Apostles!), or is put on or is a role play showing signs of mental breakdown, or means I imagine I am not really living now or things like that. In fact, my Swedish is probably more readable (at least since less dialectal) than that of Linné, when he wrote Swedish. And it reflects the spelling of my favourite authors, like Atterbom.

Can Carolus Linnaeus have contributed to the mess the world is in now? Well, he did use the word "species" and "genus" which in Latin Bibles is where you translate to "kind" in English in ways smaller than the probable created kinds. So, no problem for a botanist to see speciation occur, you just need a ccase of cross breeding or other polyploidy, and there you have it. But while cherries and plum trees may or may formerly have been able to cross breed, this is, if true, because they were the same kind of tree back in Eden. And as I read on in the article of Russell Grigg, I see he came to the same conclusion, or that Jonathan Sarfati did:

Also in the Latin (Vulgate) translation of the Bible, the Hebrew word for ‘kind’ (mîn) in Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24 & 25 was translated variously with the two Latin words species and genus (plural genera). The meanings of the Linnaean species and the biblical species diverged over time, which led to ambiguity. Jonathan Sarfati comments: “The Bible talks of fixity of kinds, which in the Latin translation became fixity of species, but then an unwarranted switch took place to fixity of Linnaean species.”

However, I am a little nonplussed at the beginning of same paragraph:

The idea of ‘fixity of species’ came from ancient writers like the Greek philosopher Aristotle.

I have elsewhere seen Aristotle blamed for being an Evolutionist, so I wonder at the sentence ... I'd like to know where it comes from!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Joan the wife of Chusa*

* Item beatae Joannae, uxoris Chusae, procuratoris Herodis, quam Lucas Evangelista commemorat.

lundi 22 mai 2017

What Sunday Letter was the Year of Creation? IV

What was the Sunday Letter for the Year of Creation?

Part I · Part II · Part III · Part IV · Part V

When we take Gregorian calendar backwards, we get another problem.

You see, it only exists since 1583 and we have not yet here on the blog figured out how its periodicity is.

It differs from that of Julian calendar, insofar as we are certain that some leap years are 8 years apart. Note this was not the case around 1600, since 1600 was a Gregorian leap year.

So, years previous to 1583 are here reconstructed, as they would have been.

1672 CB
1532 CB
1504 CB

Remember that 1904 also was CB?

2016 CB
1932 CB
1904 CB

And 1904 is of course exactly 400 years after 1504. This means that the periodicity is 400 years, precisely as for leap days in general. As we will see, there will be quirks when approaching beginning of time, but this hardly changes the general picture - or does it?

Byz. Lit.  Sync.  St. Jer.  Ussher
1672 CB  1672 CB  1672 CB  1672 CB
5508  5500  5199  4004
7180 CB  7172 CB  6871 CB  5676 CB
5600   -  6800  5600
1580 CB  7180 CB  0071 CB  0076 CB
1200  7172 CB  0056  0056
0380 CB  0008  0015 CB  0020 CB
0056   -  0014 D  0019 D
0324 CB  0092 CB  0013 E  0018 E
0040  0008  0012 F  0017 F
0284 CB  0084 CB  0011 AG  0016 AG
0056  0056  0010 B  0015 B
0228 CB  0028 CB  0009 C  0014 C
0040 !  "0000" CB  0008 D  0013 D
0188 CB   0007 FE  0012 FE
0056   0006 G  0011 G
0132 CB   0005 A  0010 A
0040 !   0004 B  0009 B
0092 CB   0003 DC  0008 DC
0084   0002 E  0007 E
0008 CB   0001 F  0006 F
0007 D    0005 G
0006 E    0004 BA
0005 F    0003 C
0004 AG    0002 D
0003 B    0001 E
0002 C
0001 D

But what if we just missed out on omitting a secular leap day?

Here are remakes of lower parts of tables:

(5508)  (5199)  (4004)
0008 B !  0007 E !  0004 A !
0007 C  0006 F  0003 B
0006 D  0005 G  0002 C
0005 E  0004 A  0001 D
0004 GF  0003 CB
0003 A  0002 D
0002 B  0001 E
0001 C

Should one omit more leap years than Gregorian postulates? Check this:

31556952 seconds mean Gregorian year
31556925 seconds mean tropical year

3200 is how many years it takes for the 27 seconds to add up to a day which would need to be retracted.

In over 7000 years, this has happened twice. Would the above missed centurial day count in these?

(5508)  (5199)  (4004)
0008 B !  0007 E !  0008 C !
0007 C  0006 F  0007 D
0006 D  0005 G  0006 E
0005 E  0004 A  0005 F
0004 F !  0003 B !  0004 G !
0003 G  0002 C  0003 A
0002 A  0001 D  0002 B
0001 B    0001 C

Or would it not count, so we need one omitted leap day more? Giving both for Syncellus, below:

(5508)  (5500)  (5199)  (4004)
0092 CB  1672 CB  0015 B !  0016 G !
0056  5500  0014 C  0015 A
0036 CB  7172 CB  0013 D  0014 B
0035 D  6800  0012 E  0013 C
0034 E  0372 CB  0011 F !  0012 D !
0033 F  0140  0010 G  0011 E
0032 G !  0232 CB  0009 A  0010 F
0031 A  0028  0008 B  0009 G
0030 B  0208 CB  0007 C !  0008 A !
0029 C  0012  0006 D  0007 B
0028 D !  0196 CB  0005 E  0006 C
0027 E  0084  0004 F  0005 D
0026 F  0112 CB  0003 AG  0004 FE
0025 G  0040  0002 B  0003 G
0024 A !  0072 CB  0001 C  0002 A
0023 B  0071 D    0001 B
0022 C  0070 E
0021 D  0069 F
0020 FE  0068 G !
0019 G  0067 A
0018 A  0066 B
0017 B  0065 C
0016 DC  0064 D !
0015 E  0056
0014 F  0008 ED
0013 G  0007 F
0012 BA  0006 G
0011 C  0005 A
0010 D  0004 CB
0009 E  0003 D
0008 GF  0002 E
0007 A  0001 F
0006 B   -
0005 C  0008 D !
0004 ED  0007 E
0003 F  0006 F
0002 G  0005 G
0001 A  0004 BA
 0003 C
 0002 D
 0001 E

We are seeing how St. Jerome's chronology is in some trouble, none of above versions will give a B for year 1, not even a CB (a CB for "0000" or "years zero" or "year before God created" would of course give an A for the year in which God created).

Can we get around this somehow? See next part.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra
uel, sicut in bloggo legitur
ut infra.

What Sunday Letter was the Year of Creation? III

What was the Sunday Letter for the Year of Creation?

Part I · Part II · Part III · Part IV · Part V

So, we got back to 1672 for both Gregorian year with CB and Julian year with GF.

Now, going back to Creation is a bit delicate, in the sense that Gregorian years were introduced less than a C before 1672, and Julian years only half a century before AD.

And, I suspect I will in the following be missing a few things about transitional matters about leap years when going from counting Ab Urbe Condita to two versions of Anno Mundi (Byzantine and St Jerome) and from then on to AD.

But, let's pretend, for arguments sake, for a first approximation, that these transitions had not happened, that the series of leap years go straight back to AD 4 without any break in Julian and with the one break 1583 (later in some countries) for Gregorian.

What would the consequence be?

Another thing I will ignore is of course - for a better and systematic reason - that "365 days + 1 leap years every four years (except 3 secular years out of 4)" was never in any kind of calendar most of the time we are talking about.

Whether Church Fathers knew it or not, and I think some did, Adam would not literally have been calling the day of his Creation "March 25" or celebrating it literally on "March 25" of all subsequent years.

He certainly had a calendar, he certainly knew sufficient from God (or if making it after Eden, from the talents God gave him and observation) to have one. We know for a fact, since Flood story is an eye-witness account (unlike the Sumerian versions, where poet admits from the first lines he is writing about things happened very long ago), and since in that eye-witness account, years and months and dates on months are named.

But it is far more likely it was a Hebrew than a Roman one.

And St Jerome would certainly have known that when calculating Roman dates for this or that event (like Friday March 25 for Crucifixion, for Good Friday, for Our Salvation) he was dealing with sources who, themselves, had ultimately been using a Hebrew calendar. I am saying this lest anyone accuse me of contradicting all the Church Fathers by saying this without having explicitly found it in any one of them, yet.

That said, March 25 is an earthly convention, but in the best astronomically correct calendars, it corresponds to a rather precise alignment between Sun and Zodiac, different from other alignments like March 23 or March 27 (there is some leeway to neighbouring days, insofar as the cycle of alignments - known as years - and the cycle of day and night - known as successive calendar days have a glitch : a certain exact alignment may be a few hours into March 25 one year and a few hours back in March 24 next or previous year, depending on how this glitch works out).

And we will now proceed to studying the proleptic Julian and Gregorian calendars, from that point of view.

In the time of the Church Fathers, the Julian was thought to be astronomically exact, meaning, they would have used that one proleptically. This does not amount to an unanimous statement from all Church Fathers that Julian calendar is in fact astronomically perfect and cannot be improved, as Gregorian was an imrovement of it.

Now, shall we begin our studies of proleptic calendars, using the Anno Mundi dates as per two Byzantine, one Roman, one Anglican (but used by Catholics) and one Jewish chronology?

We begin with Julian Calendar, as this one will give us cycle repeat every 28 years.

For Jewish 5777, we will for Julian have to check what date was the first Sunday which in Julian calendar fell on this year. Remember that any letter will be the same for the 1, 8, 15 of each month? This means Sundays in our January were 1, 8, 15. But our January 14 = Russian January 1. So, Julian Dominical letter for this year is B.

Byz Lit Sync.  St. Jer.  Ussh.  Jew.
1672 GF  1672 GF  1672 GF  1672 GF  5777 B
5508  5500  5199  4004  5600
7180 GF  7172 GF  6871 GF  5676 GF  0177 B
5600   -  5600  5600  0140
1580 GF  7180 GF  1271 GF  0076 GF  0037 B
1400  7172 GF  0560  0056  0036 DC
0180 GF  0008  0711 GF  0020 GF  0028
0140   -  0560  0019 A  0008 DC
0040 GF  0009 C  0151 GF  0018 B  0007 E
0028  0008  0140  0017 C  0006 F
0012 GF  0001 C  0011 GF  0016 ED  0005 G
0011 A   0010 A  0015 F  0004 BA
0010 B   0009 B  0014 G  0003 C
0009 C   0008 C  0013 A  0002 D
0008 ED   0007 ED  0012 CB  0001 E
0007 F   0006 F  0011 D  
0006 G   0005 G  0010 E  
0005 A   0004 A  0009 F  
0004 CB   0003 CB  0008 AG  
0003 D   0002 D  0007 B  
0002 E   0001 E  0006 C  
0001 F    0005 D  
   0004 FE  
   0003 G  
   0002 A  
   0001 B !

In the Julian Calendar, thus, the Palm goes to the Ussher chronology.

We'll be back later (yes, tables take time) with Gregorian and a few other considerations. For now, man created March 25 on a Friday implies March 25 fell on a Friday, which as previously seen implies Dominical Letter B. In Julian calendar projected back to Creation, it is Ussher who takes the palm of accuracy.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Rita of Cascia

vendredi 19 mai 2017

What Sunday Letter was Year of Creation? II

What was the Sunday Letter for the Year of Creation?

Part I · Part II · Part III · Part IV · Part V

We will be starting from the present year, and we will be counting backwards, so, here is how we go when counting backwards in time:

2017 a
2016 c, b
2015 d
2014 e
2013 f
2012 a, g
2011 b
2010 c
2009 d
2008 f, e
2007 g
2006 a
2005 b
2004 d, c
2003 e
2002 f
2001 g
2000 b, a
1999 c
1998 d
1997 e
1996 g, f
1995 a
1994 b
1993 c
1992 e, d
1991 f
1990 g
1989 a
1988 c, b

0100 (20-19, but move over)
0030 (11-8, but move over 1, remain 20)
0028 (16-8)

So, the periodicity is once every 28 years - and in the Julian calendar that is always so.

In the Gregorian calendar, there are times, three per four centuries, when leap years are 8 years apart, which of course changes things.

56 (2*28)
84 (adding both, 3*28)

1988 c, b
1904 c, b

Here we will be getting our first centurial year back which was not divisible by 400:

1904 c, b
1903 d
1902 e
1901 f
1900 g !
1899 a
1898 b
1897 c
1896 e, d
1895 f
1894 g
1893 a
1892 c, b

0100 (19-18, but move over)
0010 (10-9)
0012 (4-2)

1892 c, b
1808 c, b
1800 (18-0, but move over one)
1790 (10-9)
1796 (8-2) c, b
1712 c, b

We are in trouble, we cannot use c, b for 1700 by 1712-12, since 1700 was not in Gregorian a leap year.

1712 c, b
1711 d
1710 e
1709 f
1708 a, g
1707 b
1706 c
1705 d
1704 f, e
1703 g
1702 a
1701 b
1700 c !
1699 d
1698 e
1697 f
1696 a, g
1695 b
1694 c
1693 d
1692 f, e
1691 g
1690 a
1689 b
1688 d, c
1687 e
1686 f
1685 g
1684 b, a
1683 c
1682 d
1681 e
1680 g, f
1679 a
1678 b
1677 c
1676 e, d
1675 f
1674 g
1673 a
1672 c, b

And let's check wikipedia on the matter:

1672 (MDCLXXII) was a leap year starting on Friday (dominical letter CB [ - yes!]) of the Gregorian calendar and a leap year starting on Monday (dominical letter GF) of the Julian calendar.

Of course, week days were the same in countries with Gregorian and Julian calendars, what was different was the dates. In countries with Julian calendar, January 1 had been 10 days later, as in 16th C. since the year in which Gregorian calendar was introduced (1600 was a leap year and did not change the glitch between the calendars, 10 days after as before).

Does 10 days glitch match up with CB corresponding to GF?

1672, first Sunday of Gregorian year was January 3. So, January 3 (C) being ten days later in Julian style, it fell on January 13. An N+5, with January 3 being an N+2. 5-2=3.


Seems to me, Julian year should have had Sunday letter or Dominical letters FE rather than GF, in 1672? Is that just me? If so, what did I do wrong?

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra
uel in bloggo
ut infra

PS, found the problem! If Gregorian January 3 was a Sunday, obviously Julian January 3 would be on Gregorian January 13, but 10 days is not a week, so that was not a Sunday. Here we get the table:

Jan 1672
Greg.  Jul.
A 1 F
B 2 Sa
C 3 Su
D 4 M
E 5 Tu
F 6 W
G 7 Th
A 8 F
B 9 Sa
C 10 Su
D 11 M A 1
E 12 Tu B 2
F 13 W C 3
G 14 Th D 4
A 15 F E 5
B 16 Sa F 6
C 17 Su G 7

So, yes, it was GF after all./HGL

PPS Julian GF, that is./HGL

What Sunday Letter was the Year of Creation? I

What was the Sunday Letter for the Year of Creation?

Part I · Part II · Part III · Part IV · Part V

In Gregorian and Julian Calendars, every date on a whole year or on the two parts of a leap year gets a weekday connected to other dates that year / part of leap year.

This is possible because lunar months are eliminated, all months have standardised day numbers. When lunar months really are lunar, you don't know the weekdays of the dates until the month arrives, but this is not our case. February some years gets a day extra, we know which years, and it is the only month which varies in length. So, it os possible.

It is also interesting because the Sunday letter shifts from year to year, and at leap day in leap years. In a year with 364 days, the Sunday letter would be the same every year. 350 = 7*50, 14 = 7*2, 350+14=364.

But Julian and Gregorian calendars are about a year with 365.25 or 365.2425 days, not 364. So, some years have 365 days and the last day, December 31, has same Sunday letter and Week day as the first, January 1 had had. But this December 31 is also followed by January 1 of next year, which therefore has on each Sunday letter (starting with A on January 1) one weekday later than the year before. In leap years, when the similar shift occors on leap day too, December 31 is however 366th day, and will have its A already one weekday later than January 1, so the ensuing January 1 will be two weekdays later than the one at beginning of the leap year.

One can also put it this way : which Sunday letter will Sunday be on?

A - January 1, like years beginning on Sunday?
B - January 2, like years beginning on Saturday?
C - January 3, like years beginning on Friday?
D - January 4, like years beginning on Thursday?
E - January 5, like years beginning on Wednesday?
F - January 6, like years beginning on Tuesday?
G - January 7, like years beginning on Monday?

Obviously, if Sunday letters went forward each year, January 1 would next year be falling on previous weekday, it is not the case, it would be the case with a year of 363 days.

This means, Sunday letters are instead going backwards.

And since this year is Sunday letter A, previous leap year was Sunday letters C and B. 2015 was Sunday letter D.

And after I tell you how I checked, I will tell you why this is relevant for Creationism.

It is already some way into the year. You can't recall what weekday New Year's Day was on. How do you check the Sunday letter?

Well, you pick up the latest newspaper, ideally daily, you can lay hands on. I am not doing it, but if I were, I guess from computer I would be getting May 19 as a Friday. The above means, every year (or second part of leap year) when May 19 is a Friday should be Sunday letter A. Is this true?

Well, first of all, we look at Sunday letters within a month, how they relate. Not specifically "A", but since the months start on different Sunday letters (some repeating), "n" and then n+1 - n+6.

N  1 8 15 22 29
N+1  2 9 16 23 30
N+2  3 10 17 24 31
N+3  4 11 18 25
N+4  5 12 19 26
N+5  6 13 20 27
N+6  7 14 21 28

In the case of February 29th on a leap year, it is actually same Sunday letter as February 28th a normal year. But all other 11 29ths of the month have same Sunday letter as 1st of same month.

Now, how do we know which Sunday letter the first of a month is? January is A, obviously, but then?

January 29 - A
January 30 - B
January 31 - C
February 1 - D

So February is D, shall we go on? No, it would be tedious. The result is already known, you can check it for yourself with some patience. But the already known fact has already been set in memory verse. In Swedish it is:

Alla De Dagar Gud Böd Eder Gå, Christeligen Fram Att Dem Fullborda

If I can goof around with English a bit, as with "go" instead of "walk", and "dem" instead of both "the" and "them", and especially radically replacing "ye" with "ee" here we have a translation:

All Dem Days God Bade Ee Go Christianly Forth As Dem Fulfilling.

Is it true that December 1 is Sunday letter F? Well, December 31 is supposed to be A, it is supposed to be N+2, and FGA means this is F.

May is 5th month, take 5 words:

All Dem Days God Bade ...

So, May 1 is Sunday letter B, and May 19 like May 5 is B+4, BCDEF, it's an F today. But B+6 is not "H" - a Sunday letter not existing, but A. So, the Sunday letter for 2017 is A.

Now you will want to know how this relates to Creationism?

Well, we know the weekdays of the days of Creation : Sunday to Friday were the six days of new creatures being made, Sabbath was the seventh day, on which God was only blessing the types already made.

What if we also knew the year and the date?

Well, Patristics both East and West of 1054 do claim man was created on March 25, so Friday March 25 in Creation year corresponds perfectly to Good Friday March 25 on which Christ died for us.

What does March 25 as a Friday imply? 25 of a month is N+3. March 1 = D. D+3 = DEFG. Friday G. And that means Sunday is B, since G+2 = GAB = B.

And this brings us to the years calculated in diverse chronologies!

Here we have been discussing the carbonic implications of Syncellus (differing 8 years from normal Byzantine liturgic chronology, Christ born 5500 AM instead of 5508 AM), of St Jerome even more often (Christ born 5199 AM) and I was testing carbonc implications of Ussher (Christ born 4004 AM) and of Jewish calendar (in which 5777 overlaps with 2017).

So, how about testing the Sunday letter implications of them?

I'll be back.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Celestine V*

* Natalis sancti Petri de Morono Confessoris, qui, ex Anachoreta Summus Pontifex creatus, dictus est Caelestinus Quintus. Sed Pontificatu se postmodum abdicavit, et in solitudine religiosam vitam agens, virtutibus et miraculis clarus, migravit ad Dominum.

jeudi 18 mai 2017

Answering Koukl & Keaton Halley and Gary Bates

Two paragraphs from CMI:

Avoiding the obvious

According to Koukl, “There is nothing in the language of those passages that requires something like a global or universal Flood,” and he has offered arguments in defense of a local Flood on his radio program.2 For example, Koukl noted that in Genesis 8:9 Noah’s dove returned because “the waters were still on the face of the whole earth” (emphasis added), but earlier in verse 5 the text says that the waters had already receded enough so that “the tops of the mountains were seen”. So, Koukl reasoned, if “the whole earth” was still under water after some dry land had already been exposed, then “the whole earth” cannot refer to the globe.

However, this argument is flawed. If the planet was surrounded by water with some peaks poking up here and there, one would still be accurate in saying that the globe as a whole was covered. It wouldn’t mean every square inch of land, but rather that the land, broadly speaking, was submerged.3 The words are perfectly consistent with a global Flood, which the wider context demands.

Faltering on the Flood
by Keaton Halley and Gary Bates
Published: 18 May 2017 (GMT+10)

I disagree on the solution. As to "with some peaks poking up here and there", one could pretend tribes of mankind had survived at Andes and Himalayah's independently of Noah's Ark.

And I think this is wrong, even if an Inca Flood myth speaks of a sibling couples using Andes as Ark.

I think this is not what “the tops of the mountains were seen” really means.

In clear weather, you can see mountain tops down in the water some depth (say at least 1 to 2 yeards, depending on clearness of waters).

If you object that a raven (sent out before the dove) must have been surviving on one peak poking up somewhere, it could have survived on a mat of vegetation which included some carcasses as well. I take it that in verse 5, as yet no piece of land was both visible above waves sometimes and not at other times submerged by water. Or raven can have survived in a tree, hacking down on carcasses floating around it, while a dove needs to pick its food on the ground.

And whether raven survived or not is also moot on whether ravens were a pure bird, with seven individuals or couples, or an impure one, with only one couple. Only in the latter case need the raven have survived. But I think that is the case.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Venantius the Martyr

samedi 13 mai 2017

I am Not Generally Against Armstrong

Dave Armstrong, Creationist*, says Creationists must not be divisive · Answering Armstrong on Vast Majority of Experts Argument and Flood Geology · I am Not Generally Against Armstrong

Let no one think I am generally against Dave Armstrong on all issues, just because I took issue with his non-inerrantism (de facto, if not intended) on Age of Earth.

I think he shows he has some fair Fundamentalist credentials in this one:

Catholics & the Historicity of Jonah the Prophet
February 16, 2017 by Dave Armstrong

And I have nothing against his clearly Catholic credentials in his debate with Geisler, here:

“Armstrong vs. Geisler”

#1: Purgatory (Mt 12:32)
#2: Purgatory (Lk 23:43)
#3: Merit & Penitential Suffering
#4: Prayer for the Dead
#5: Prayer to Creatures
#6: Sinless Mary
#7: Mary’s Assumption

Meaning, if he were just only Young Earth Creationist as well and Geocentric, he would be a Catholic after my heart.

It is just that, to me, as I suppose to His Holiness Pope Michael, a Fundamentalist credential is just as Catholic as a Catholics vs Protestants credential when it comes to somes faith, whether in heart or in statements.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Robert Bellarmine

vendredi 12 mai 2017

Tas Walker and Myself on C14 : Glacial Maximum and End

You know the remark how Schubert said about Beethoven, it is like hearing and feeling a giant breathing behind your neck, well, that is how I feel at times about Tasman Bruce Walker.

Today he gave a preliminary for his view of how uniformitarian dates recalibrate to Biblical ones, and I feel somewhat challenged.

Here is my response, linking to his post and giving first his results before mine in the table which follows:

A preliminary age calibration for the post-glacial-maximum period
by Tas Walker

While he is concerned with all uniformitarian dates, I am specifically concerned with carbon dates - and the other ones only insofar as they can be presumed to coincide with these, since my hobby horse is "carbon 14 levels have been rising"./HGL


Secular / Carbon?
Point Secular / Carbon BP Biblical Date BP Calibration factor
Secular Dates
Present time 0 0 1
End of Ice Age 7000 3800 0.5429
Ice Age Maximum 22000 4000 0.1818
Carbon Dates
Present time 0 0 1
500 BC 2500 2500 1
"End of Ice Age"* 7000 4293 BP - 4562 BP 0.6133 - 0.6517
"End of Ice Age"** 7000 (3648 BP - 3675 BP) (0.5211 - 0.525)
"Ice Age Maximum"* 22000 4885 BP - 5234 BP 0.222 - 0.2379
"Ice Age Maximum"** 22000 (4068 BP - 4354 BP) (0.1849 - 0.1979)
Flood CMI*** 20 - 50 000 4400 - 4500 BP 0.088 - 0.225
Flood me/St. Jer. 37 000 4974 BP 0.1344
Flood me/Syncel. 37 000 5275 BP 0.1426


* Note, I have never myself tried to figure out Biblical dates corresponding to End of Ice Age or Ice Age Maximum per se. That is Tas Walker's terminology and that of the Evolutionists.

I have however tried curves in order to correspond such and such years via presumable pmc level rise - with several tables differing among them. This means I can give my own view of Biblical timeline for those years, I will even include views not my own, such as Ussher timeline or Jewish chronology timeline. The latter however not for 500 BC, where I suppose they have too short a time of the Second Temple, as I suppose most other Christians agree with.

I have for this post gone through my tables and taken extremes for both own and parenthetic values, and if seeing an older or more recent value only than previous, replacing it for the orevious extreme.

** The Ussher / Jewish chronologies which I do not subscribe to are given here in parentheses.

*** Not specifically Tas Walker, but someone else commenting on where Flood fossils date in C14 - Oard?

jeudi 11 mai 2017

Answering Armstrong on Vast Majority of Experts Argument and Flood Geology

Dave Armstrong, Creationist*, says Creationists must not be divisive · Answering Armstrong on Vast Majority of Experts Argument and Flood Geology · I am Not Generally Against Armstrong

I just saw this from Armstrong:*

I am not deciding truth based on majority vote. And if you have read my papers on evolution, you would (or should) certainly know that. The two following propositions are distinct:

1. Truth is determined by a head count.

2. If the vast majority of experts and scholars in a given field believe something to be false, chances are that it is. It may still be true, but that is exceedingly unlikely.

Part of my reasoning for rejecting flood geology is #2, but it is not #1 at all, because that is clearly a falsehood.

Armstrong, is it so sure your #2 which you reason from is very distinct from #1 which you call clearly a falsehood?

The vast majority of experts in astrology believe it is false to say our characters are totally independent of our horoscopes (even if they consider the dependence as being only a common one on a temporal coincidence between otherwise unrelated periods).

So, should you now therefore try to study my character from the known fact I am born in astrological zodiac sign of Virgo and with Pisces in the Ascendant? If you were to say, that has nothing to do with my character, at all, you are disagreeing with the vast majority of experts in the field of astrology!

If only because most who reject astrology don't bother to become experts in it (I try to catch on to some expertise in everything, including things I don't believe in, but that is being a geek, not being a very typical person in my relation to astrology).

But you can argue, of course, you are taking your cues from people who have very legitimate expertise about for instance how the Earth looks now, stone- and soilwise?

While most people who now study the stars are on the contrary not astrologers.

Well, at least that used to be generally assumed in the 1970's, not sure if it is still true. And in the Middle Ages, it was not true. Expert astronomers, who could tell you exactly how many days after Venus had passed the Sun it would do so again, typically would also consider that Sun and Venus had influence on - not directly our immortal souls, perhaps, but at least material things on Earth, including our bodies.

They would perhaps cautiously agree your horoscope can't tell whether you go to Heaven or Hell in the end, but they would insist it shows something of what kind of damned sinner or what kind of great saint you are normally tending to. Soldiers in both categories belong to Mars ... lovers in both categories (conjugal, extra-conjugal, celestial love like St Thérèse) to Venus, and so on.

And in their day, they were the majority of all astronomers, whose expertise in certain data, like periods of movements in celestial bodies, was a clearly good and scientifically legitimate one - and still is, except when they were overrelying on Ptolemy who, just as Copernicus, was less accurate than Tycho Brahe, Kepler and Riccioli.

So, perhaps you are instead of your pretended #2 "If the vast majority of experts and scholars in a given field believe something to be false, chances are that it is. It may still be true, but that is exceedingly unlikely."

... really saying #2 b "If the vast majority of experts and scholars in a given field in a given moment believe something to be false, chances are in that moment that it is. It may still be true, in that moment, but that is exceedingly unlikely." Is that the deal?

Well, that would mean truth is changing, wouldn't it?

The vast majority of Geologists in Steno's day (like Steno himself), as back in the days of St Albert OP (the teacher of St Thomas Aquinas) were believers in Flood Geology, so Flood Geology was true then.

The vast majority of Geologists in our own day (unlike Tas Walker who agrees with Steno, as does Emil Silvestru), are dissers of Flood Geology, now, so now Flood Geology is not true any more.

And if the vast majority of Geologists in a future will be Flood Geologists, well, then Flood Geology will be true again, of course.

Or, you could, a bit more simply, say that a Medieval Astronomer was roughly right about movements of celestial bodies, but grossly wrong about how horoscopes interact with your character.

But, in that case, I can equally make a distinction, as do Tas Walker and Emil Silvestru, between what Geologists right now have in legitimate expertise on how things regularly look now, and what they are projecting back into "whenever the rocks were formed".

I noticed that you did not yourself try to argue the Geological point about Grand Canyon which was in a caption under a picture of it. I suppose then that these words are not really yours, but those of someone you trusted, as being in majority of Geological expertise:

"Was the Grand Canyon formed from one deposit after Noah’s Flood?"

I can frankly tell you, this is a strawman argument against Flood Geology. Tas and Emil, both of whom** are Geologists, will tell you that from the Geological Point of View, the Flood Layers are Se. Ve. Ral. Deposits.

However, they will tell you all of them were still soft right after the Flood, which is why the Canyon could form.

I wonder whether your #2 is very able to remain standing in a situation where it is really #2 c:

"2. If the vast majority of experts and scholars in a given field believe something to be false, and regularly strawman it, with a cultural avoidance of seriously discussing it, chances are that it is. It may still be true, those few who discuss it seriously and find no fault with it may be right, but that is exceedingly unlikely."

And I wonder how your view of expertise would have looked in face of race biologists and eugenicists in the thirties ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Philip and James, Apostles***

PS 1. Was sent him, here is his response [Armstrong's]:

It was polite, but I'm not interested in arguing it. Out of courtesy, I'll link to your piece on my Facebook cross-post.

How nice he does that, at least!/HGL

PS 2. Regiomontanus is a case in point. His tables for eclipses saved Columbus in a stitch. See this link:

The Eclipse That Saved Columbus
By Ivars Peterson 11:12am, October 4, 2006, Science News

And he designed the House System for Astrology which became one of the most commonly used. See:

Regiomantanus on Wickipeejuh

which in turn footnotes to:

Lewis, James R. (1 March 2003). The Astrology Book: The Encyclopedia of Heavenly Influences. Visible Ink Press. p. 574.

Real expertise in astronomy & superstition of astrology (at least I presume so), though not mortally sinful, I hope, in the very same person, a top Medieval astronomer./HGL

* Here is his post, by the way:

Old Earth, Flood Geology, Local Flood, & Uniformitarianism
May 10, 2017 by Dave Armstrong

** Here are their profiles on CMI, btw:

Emil Silvestru I and ES II

Tas Walker I and TW II

*** Natalis beatorum Philippi et Jacobi Apostolorum. Ex his Philippus, cum omnem fere Scythiam ad Christi fidem convertisset, tandem apud Hierapolim, Asiae civitatem, cruci affixus et lapidibus obrutus, glorioso fine quievit; Jacobus vero, qui et frater Domini legitur et primus Hierosolymorum Episcopus, e pinna Templi praecipitatus, confractis inde cruribus, ac fullonis fuste in cerebro percussus, interiit, ibique, non longe a Templo sepultus est.

jeudi 4 mai 2017

On Request : If we were 5777 Anno Mundi

Quoting informations from the requester, one Robert Pearlman:

years in AM

1656 Global Mabul Year
1996 dispersion from Bavel approx. end of The Ice Age
2448 Exodus then 480 years until
Holy Temple I 410 years than 70 year Exile Bavel until
Holy Temple II 420 years until 70 CE

if you need more detailed reference points such as Bithy year of Abraham 1948 AM, or when the first great pyramid by Joseph just over 210 years before the end of the old kingdom Exodus year 2448 AM..

2248 = Joseph's Great Pyramid? S'pose so (didn't ask).

Update: it appears it was the Pyramid of Sakkara, a stepped pyramid.

Anno Mundi dates:

2928 Holy Temple I
3338 Off to Bavel
3408 Back from Bavel, Holy Temple II
3828 70 AD ?


5777 AM
3828 AM
1949 Years

2017 AD
0070 AD
1947 Years (negligible)

Now to the BP dates:

4121 BP, Flood

3829 BP, Abraham born!

Note that Abraham is here born before dispersion at Babel!

3781 BP, Babel!

3529 BP, Joseph's Great Pyramid

3329 BP, Exodus

2849 BP, Holy Temple I

2439 BP, Babylon

2369 BP, Holy Temple II

1949 BP, AD 70

1682 years between Flood and Captivity


4121.000, 4015.875, 3910.75, 3805.625, 3700.5, 3595.375, 3490.25, 3385.125, 3280, 3174.875, 3069.75, 2964.625, 2859.5, 2754.375, 2649.25, 2544.125, and 2439.

I requested supplementary info:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have made a draft today, but before I publish, I would like one more date: when was Eli judge of Israel?

Roger M Pearlman
2832-2871 right after Samson until Samuel.
reference Legacy of Sinai by R' Z. Fendel

Syncellus table:

1172 BC
Syncellus' date for taking of Troy.

1151 BC
Eli is Judge (21 years after taking of Troy)


2966 BP

AND, here is the resulting table:

I 4121 BP, Flood
2.142 pmc, + 31 800 years = 35921 BP

II 4016 BP
25.609 pmc, + 11 250 years = 15266 BP

III 3911 BP
40.195 pmc, + 7550 years = 11461 BP

3829 BP
Abraham born!

IV 3806 BP
54.721 pmc, + 5000 years = 8806 BP

3781 BP
Dispersion of tongues and nations at Babel!

V 3701 BP
63.751 pmc, + 3700 years = 7401 BP

VI 3595 BP
72.689 pmc, + 2650 years = 6245 BP

3529 BP
Joseph's Great Pyramid (the one usually called that of Cheops? If so, this predicts that a carbon date for Cheops' building time would be predynastic. Correction as per update: for Sakkara pyramid, a stepped pyramid.)

VII 3490 BP
78.256 pmc, + 2050 years = 5540 BP (3523 BC, still predynastic!)

VIII 3385 BP
83.844 pmc, + 1450 years = 4835 BP

3329 BP
Exodus of Israelites from Egypt

IX 3280 BP
87.316 pmc, + 1100 years = 4380 BP

X 3175 BP
90.665 pmc, + 810 years = 3985 BP

XI 3070 BP
92.752 pmc, + 620 years = 3690 BP

XII 2965 BP = c. 2966 BP, Taking of Troy
94.992 pmc, + 430 years = 3395 BP

2986 BP
Eli is judge. Philistine remnants predicted for sometimes between 3395 BP and 3170 BP, carbon dated.

XIII 2860 BP
96.376 pmc, + 310 years = 3170 BP

2849 BP
Holy Temple I

XIV 2754 BP
97.486 pmc, + 210 years = 2964 BP

XV 2649 BP
98.188 pmc, + 150 years = 2799 BP

XVI 2544 BP
99.298 pmc, + 60 years = 2604 BP

XVII 2439 BP, Babylonic Captivity
100 pmc, no extra years = 2439 BP

So, let's see how this matches up ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Marguerite Audoux
Day after Finding of the Holy Cross

samedi 29 avril 2017

What a Few Lines from Gilgamesh Epic Tell us of the Errors in Babylonian Theology

I just listened to what I take to be opening lines of Gilgamesh, in Sumerian, with English subtitles:

The Epic Of Gilgamesh In Sumerian
Peter Pringle

While it is magnificent poetry, it is also a tell tale of how these people, Gentiles recently sundered from Hebrews, like other Gentiles and geographically not far off, saw things.

The very opening psalmody actually did not even involve any hit it was about creation:

In those days · in those ancient days
In those nights · in those ancient nights
In those years · in those far off years

And it came as a shock that the next words were: "when the world had been established". I thought it was only about looking back toward the time of Gilgamesh, but not quite, no.

And the next words give a theological shock "when bread had been baken in the ovens" and "when mankind had been established".

To a Christian, it is obvious that Adam and Eve had been established as mother and father of all mankind, and mankind through them, in Eden, before the fall, when they were living off fruit from the trees (to try that diet now might involve a risk of diabetes and even more immediately of digestive troubles). Bread, like the Redeemer who becomes Man in the House of Bread and Whose Body is accessible in the shape of Bread to faithful Catholics, only comes after the fall.

And mankind seems here to be established only in collectives big enough to have bread ovens.

This is a forgetfulness or denial of Original Sin, as much as it is Collectivism. I don't know if you have read Nippur from Lagash, a comic book from Argentina (where two Antipopes used to live, the more known one before his "election" in 2013, the less known one lives on there), and one of his "creators"* went on to write a comic book version of Gilgamesh - which is obviously very collectivist.

In fact, the Stalinist régime was in some ways a repeat of ancient near east giant empires of collectivist built, and Marxism as such also denies ... Original Sin and therefore also an original more idyllic and individualistic existence of mankind, and therefore also is collectivist. Man lives off bread alone and fruit is an extra, it was always so.

I would say that the opening lines of the Gilgamesh epic are more honest than the Marxist version of proto-history : it states the days were far off even when the redaction was made - discarding or simply missing obviously the orally transmitted redactions by Adam and Noah contemporary to events - and thus part of what the poet is telling us is historically speaking guess work. Marxism is less honest, it presents this vision as "science".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Mouffetard
St Peter Martyr

* Not "Robin Wood" but Lucho Olivera.

jeudi 27 avril 2017

A difference of style

I suppose some guys have heard Evolutionists say things like "if we didn't evolve from monkeys, why do we have a tail bone?"

Now, there is one answer, but Kent Hovind and Keaton Halley handle it in stylistically different ways.

Kent Hovind
(from memory):
If you think you don't need your tail bone, I'll pay for you to have it removed.

[+ a few hints about what can happen if you do, involving, I think "I don't advise you to do so"]

Keaton Halley
(citing copypaste-wise)
Some evolutionists have pointed out that there are cases in which a damaged or diseased coccyx has been surgically removed, proving that the coccyx is not essential. But so what? Having a purpose and being essential are not the same thing. The fact that one can live with the loss of a pinky toe, for example, does not demonstrate that it has no function. For that matter, one can live without arms, legs, hair, teeth, and half of a brain—yet all of these parts are clearly operative in a normal, healthy body. If they are missing, either other body parts must compensate, or the body will suffer from the loss.

The same is true regarding the coccyx. This is obvious from the fact that removal of the coccyx means severing those muscles, tendons, and ligaments to which it is attached (and perhaps re-attaching them elsewhere). But personal testimonies are also available online that indicate recovery from a coccygectomy can be difficult—including pain when sitting or moving, not to mention bathroom complications.

[The last point was included in Kent Hovind's hints.]

Keaton Halley's article can be enjoyed in extenso, it is very informative as the sample can make you see, on todays blog post of CMI:

Tailbone “serves no purpose”?
by Keaton Halley Published: 27 April 2017 (GMT+10)

Caption : New York Museum of Natural History misleads the public

I am glad that ma, as med student and back then part time "intern" (if that is the term for a Medicinae Candidatus or Candidata who is working as physician under others at a hospital, before getting Legitimation or even Med. Dr.), was also a creationist, aware that tonsils and appendix are not useless junk.

This, the article linked to, at least for appendix:

Appendix shrieks ‘Creation’ (at least 18 times!)
by David Catchpoole Published: 2 April 2013 (GMT+10)

Since not a physician myself, what about CMI getting one to write about tonsils?/HGL

PS, here is another goodie for those enjoying biological hard science and finding too little of that over here (except the repeated item of Chromosome Numbers, a k a Karyotypes):

The good, the bad and the evolutionary
Evolutionists designing (their arguments) badly
by Shaun Doyle, Published: 29 August 2007(GMT+10)

If you do a video on this one, how about getting a licence from Ennio Morricone for good sound track?/HGL

mardi 25 avril 2017

An Argument Not to Use and Why

"If all men come from apes, why are there still apes?"

Now, one reason why this is wrong is this:

"All men come from apes" does not equal "all apes turned to men".

And one simply way of illustrating this by parallel is these two parallels, one an objection to evolutionary view of much more recent (in their timescale) origins and one an objection to the Biblical and correct view:

"If all men come from Africa, why are there still black people?"


"If all men come from Mounts of Ararat after the Flood, why are there still Caucasians?"

Bad logic is bad logic, even for a good cause./HGL

vendredi 14 avril 2017

Baraminological Note

Hedgehogs come in 5 genera and 16 species. Erinaceus, Atelerix, Mesechinus, Hemiechinus, Paraechinus. Together these are known as the "subfamily" Erinaceinae.

These are considered as belonging to the family Erinaceidae together with the subfamily Galericinae a k a Hylomyinae.

Echinosorex gymnura, Neotetracus sinensis, Neohylomys hainanensis, three species of Hylomys and two species of Podogymnura.

At least the 5 genera of hedgehogs, on my view would be from a single couple on Noah's Ark.

The 5 genera of Hylomyinae? Same couple, with loss of spines? One other couple? A separate one for Neotetracus sinensis too?

So, Erinaceinae would on my strictly amateur estimate be 1 to 3 couples of fairly small animals on the ark. Deinogalerix might be a relative of Hylomyinae which did not get on the Ark, because Noah wanted a smaller one (or got a smaller one from God).

If someone were to consider each species separately as a candidate for the Ark, we would get 24 species, 24 couples, not counting the extinct Deinogalerix, which is also another species, clearly, which would bring us to 25 couples, one of which is rather large.

When however Evolutionists say that these are part of Order Eulipotyphla together with "non-African" shrews, Soricidae*, with Talpidae, that is Desmans and Moles ... I feel like drawing a line.

On the other hand, Nesophontes being extinct is not a parallel to Deinogalerix, since Nesophontes went extinct in early 20th or perhaps 16th C. This means we cannot point to this as a separate pre-Flood entity, as far as I could gather about their fossils. Also, solenodons, considered to be relatives of them ("diverged 40 million years ago" said about a Nesophontes species in relation to solenodons sounds like evolutionary ideology, but take a look at the features) have a face clearly reminiscent of hedgehogs.

So, if all Eulipotyphla come from one couple on the Ark, that makes it real spacy. It is still spacy enough if for instance moles and shrews are all from one couple each.

Another Ark was not too crowded on Good Friday : the Church. Christ, the Blessed Virgin, St John, St Dismas, some women, it seems people weren't quite crowding up for salvation that day on Calvary.** However, Heaven is much spacier than Noah's Ark, so don't fear it will be too crowded up there if you make your eternal salvation. If visible universe is two light days across and the Heaven where blessed souls and angels are adoring God is outside that, this means it has really very much space. While a Hell which is about 6000 km below our feet, or less than 4000 miles down, risks getting very much more crowded than Scoffers consider that the Ark would have been. And it seems secular scientists agree it is very hot down there too.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Good Friday

PS, CMI (one of authors Jonathan Sarfati, as yesterday, other Lita Cosner) did a better job today!

* One of Soricidae is African, but here I use "non-African" to distinguish from Afrosoricida. Considered an order on its own. ** Those who came uninvited by Romans were probably however crowded before arriving to the "one holier hill than Rome".

jeudi 13 avril 2017

CMI Does This Too, Time and Again

Attack Geocentrism.

Today - Maundy Thursday - is not an exception, for some reason. Perhaps because the people who do believe Christ meant what He said on the Last Supper we shall commemorate this evening like to express this belief in the ten categories of Aristotle and the attack on Geocentrism (not very well carried through in detail) allowed writers Robert Carter & Jonathan Sarfati to write a line like:

Similarly, many of Galileo’s opponents in the church read the cosmology of Aristotle and Ptolemy into poetic passages of Scripture and used those interpretations against him, just as many long-age compromisers read today’s long-age ideas into the Bible and then try to argue against biblical creation.

That is exactly all the couple are doing to support Heliocentrism. But it does involve confirming a Protestant culture of attacking the Scholastics or Aristotelians, one which has been on stage since the bad old days of Luther and Calvin. That just possibly MIGHT be the reason why attacking Geocentrism is here done on precisely Maundy Thursday.

Also, Joshua 10 is NOT a "poetic passage".

Now, for the details.

Before we get into this, however, let us be perfectly clear that government-based conspiracy (e.g. JFK assassination, 9-11 terrorist attack) are not part of our mission, while some science-based ones like flat earth or geocentrism are, hence the focus on these two below.

I don't see why "geocentrism" could equal a "science based one" i e conspiracy theory.

Like Evolution from amoeba to man, Heliocentrism and Acentrism and Modern Cosmography are usually at least on some level presented as being conclusions. Hence they can be wrong conclusions. Unless the one concluding reasoned right, of course. And not actively conspiring is not a guarantee of reasoning right. There is sth between conspiring to keep the public in dark and being as clearheaded as one is truthful in public discourse : namely reasoning wrong and doing so routinely because one wrong reason - or one wrong mode of reasoning even - is part of one's culture.

That is all I claim to denigrate either Evolutionists in general or Heliocentrics in general with. No need to say they are all conspiring.

The moon landings are also fair game for us, but only because they are part of (and clearly refute) the flat earth and geocentrism debates and also touch on the ‘how do we know what we know’ aspect of teaching biblical creation, basic science, and important ideas in the Bible. Our desire is not to isolate anyone so much as to encourage them to put on their thinking caps.

I am fairly neutral on Moon landing issue and curious. If I already have "the thinking cap" on, how about treating me accordingly?

I do not think it touches on geocentrism. For a certain Chaberlot, Frédéric, Swiss astronomer and science writer, of course moon landers have given the final positive proof of earth turning, since observing it to do so from Moon. I already answered that the observations from Moon can as easily be explained by "Earth's observed rotation" being parallactic and the real movement being that of Moon around Earth once every 25 hours. In other words, as to strict proof, this observation proves no more than our daily one of seeing Earth non-moving and celestial bodies moving. Indeed, as to probably argument, it proves less, since our daily observations are from where God put all of us, while those observations (if they happened) are from where some rich men put a few of us for a few days of their lives.

Hence, Moon landing is, observationally speaking, irrelevant for Geocentrism versus Heliocentrism. It would obviously be otherwise for Flat Earth, but as I am not into Flat Earth, that is another matter. Also, against Flat Earth there are observations less conspiracy prone, like polar days and polar nights on both poles. Or distant objects partly vanishing under the sea level and binoculars or telescopes allowing us to observe that (a favourite pastime of mine with ferry boats leaving Dragør back to Malmö before me and granny, back when I had binoculars).

How is it with kinetically speaking? In fact, the compound speed through space coordinates of solar system (not counting if that one is further moving fast through galaxy or galaxy through universe or multiverse), the speed you experience according to a Heliocentric standing on equator of a rotating Earth which is also spinning around the Sun, is about equal to the speed a Geocentric has to attribute in local movement to Armstrong on the Moon, if he came there.

In other words, I am not saying he had to endure any faster speed than you are saying we all endure. And this counting local movement.

If Newtonian gravitation is true, Armstrong experienced six times less gravity while on Moon. (If, etc ...). This means that the same speed would have been easier for him to bear.

Even more, on second considerations, I consider Moon is mainly moving with the aether. It is only movement in relation to aether which has vectorial physical properties (this comes in handy when explaining geostationary satellites, if you are geocentric). So, Moon is doing a full circle around Earth in 24 h 50 minutes. Aether, with and in which Moon moves, is doing so in 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. What is the difference in local angular speed?

Let's count minutes per minutes, angular per temporal.

360°/(23*60 + 56) = 60*360 ' / (23*60 + 56) = 15.0417827298050139 min / min.

60*360 ' / (24*60 + 50) = 14.4966442953020134 min / min

So Armstrong was not experiencing a rotational movement of 14.4966442953020134 min / min vectorially, but only:

15.0417827298050139 - 14.4966442953020134 = 0.5451384345030005

Only this difference, what moon is lagging behind the general movement of the aether, would be vectorially relevant for his wellbeing.

In other words, Armstrong would on my view (if he came there) have had to deal with far less physical commotion than we all have to deal with if Heliocentrism is true. Hence, his possible moonlanding if genuine cannot be used to argue Heliocentrism from the fact he survived the speed of the Moon either.

This cannot be returned in equal measure by a Heliocentric, since as Michelson-Morley proves, an aether is only possible if Earth is not moving through space.

The atheopaths want to paint you into a corner. They often claim that the Bible teaches X (flat earth, geocentrism, etc.) and, since you believe the Bible, you must believe X, too. In response, many people then say, “Why yes, I do believe the Bible. Therefore X must be true and I will defend it.” But this is incredibly wrong! First, who made the skeptic an expert in Bible?

When it comes to Flat Earth, neither Sceptics nor certain Haredim Jews are experts in Bible. Both (and therefore also Hebrew Root Christians like Rob Skiba II) say the Bible teaches Flat Earth.

When it comes to Geocentrism, St Robert Bellarmine is and was in his time an expert in the Bible, who took on King James VI & I, the not author but authoriser of your version, who piqued himself on being well read. Please note that in his debate with Galileo, while judging his first book, he did not appeal exclusively or even mainly to what you would call "poetic passages", he appealed to Joshua's long day. As Sungenis has gone through in great detail. And as CMI has time after time avoided to enter on, when it comes to Geocentric implications.

There is a danger in rejecting evolution. By this we do not mean to indicate that evolution is right, but that if one does reject it they need to do so for the right reasons. Once someone comes to the conclusion that the majority of the scientists in the world are wrong about something, the next obvious question is, “What else are they wrong about?” But this is not the right question! Instead, they should be asking, “Why are they wrong?” Here the answer is plain to see. The majority of modern scientists have accepted a certain philosophy called naturalism.

The two questions are connected. If you are correct - as you are - to say they are wrong about Evolution due to a certain philosophy called naturalism, you should ask as follow up "what else are they wrong about due to naturalism".

My early experience of debating Heliocentrics, before more and more tried to stamp me as a "sociopath with an internet account", which stopped the debate, was that one after another rejected my Geocentric view, not because there were observations I couldn't account for, but because my accounting for them by God turning the aether around Earth (all the way up to the fixed stars) and by angels moving celestial bodies in relation to the aether, did not really seem a big hit with these, precisely, naturalists.

I have seen a purported Geocentric (at least he is friends with Sungenis and is on a Geocentric group on FB) take a stance like "Well, that's. Not. Really. Necessary." Naturalistic bias.

Some purport not to be naturalists, and say that angels moving the misnamed so called parallax and stellar aberration and Chandler wobble of celestial bodies would be deceptive. Neither less or more than allowing the C14 content or the K / Ar ratio in a bone or a piece of lava to spell out ages which contradict the Bible. And, as we come to age, I came to Geocentrism this time (I had flirted with it in my teens) over a debate on age of universe in which - as you may be aware - Distant Starlight is one of the arguments used by opposing side.

Now, for Moon Landing:

Several alternate theories unfairly and inaccurately pick on government bodies like NASA or the UN. But NASA is not a person. It is a government institution that employs thousands of people. It would be impossible to create a conspiracy of this scale and nature, and it would be impossible to maintain it in the face of so many contrary witnesses. ... Indeed, the weakness of any conspiracy is one of the main things to have convinced former corrupt Nixon staffer Chuck Colson of the fact of the Resurrection:

I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world—and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.

So belief in conspiracy theories inadvertently undermines a powerful apologetic for the Resurrection.

Well, actually Watergate is anecdotal, and its spill might have been programmed to undermine conspiracy theories - if there was a conspiracy behind the openly revealed one.

But my take is this : on Moon Landings a conspiracy is still possible. Most employees of NASA at all involved would be so as bona fide observers of what looked like them to a genuine entering and not leaving before take off.

You ask a stage magician how these witnesses could have been fooled. And then ask them how St John could have been fooled about crucifixion or St Thomas the Twin about the Resurrection. It is easier to make a conspiracy faking a moon landing than to make one faking Death and Resurrection of Christ.

And this fact, which I have pointed out, is an asset for Apologetics - especially as long as one can be open to even Moon Landing being genuine, which I am.

Also, there is a little difference between "no spill" and "no spill believed by the common public or admitted by authorities". With Armstrong, there is a footage of a man who confronted him and called him a liar. A cook? Perhaps. That is certainly what conspirators would like us to believe if it was a conspiracy. Other possibility (not sure if true and not sure there are no other ones) : he could have been a NASA employee who wanted to spill the beans, got eliminated socially by being stamped as a cook, then got out recently and said his story. Both possibilities are possible. As is the theory he was a doctrinaire, having concluded that Armstrong had to be lying, of course. To some this would be equivalent to "a cook", not to me.

I also see some problem with words like:

Several alternate theories unfairly and inaccurately pick on government bodies like NASA or the UN.

In Holy Land, Herod the Great is a national hero (he built the Masada fort after all), which may be one reason why my grandfather did not opt for Aliyah. Is St Matthew "unfairly and inaccurately" picking on him when describing the slaughter of the innocents?

In fact, keeping that slaughter unmentioned outside Christian "conspiracy theorists" as we may have been termed with slight anachronism of wording by those not accepting the true Messiah would have been harder than keeping Moon conspiracy mostly unmentioned and when mentioned those mentioning it decredibilised.

This feeling of ‘specialness’ can be attractive, and it is a psychological trap into which many have fallen lately.

So is the feeling of "specialness" in analysing feelings of others and denouncing psychological traps into which they have fallen. Hey, we didn't fall into that trap, but we can point to those who did!

In other words, the phrase is unwarranted speculation into other people's motivations, when secret, rather than actually dealing fairly and squarely with their arguments.

As to my own experience of debating above or other points I brought up but did not fully here support, I'll link below to the places where I did or debates where I experienced such attitudes.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Maundy Thursday