Things Could Get a Bit Complicated with Carbon Question

Trying to Get a Carbon Related Question Answered · The Carbon Related Question, Update · Things Could Get a Bit Complicated with Carbon Question

A new update on my question does give kind of an answer.

A link was provided:

Kovaltsov, Gennady A.; Mishev, Alexander; Usoskin, Ilya G. (2012). "A new model of cosmogenic production of radiocarbon 14C in the atmosphere". Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 337–338: 114–120.
http://www.utc.fr/~tthomass/Themes/Unites/unites/infos/C14/Datation%20C14.pdf

See here:

Répliques Assorties : Production de Carbone 14 et Radiation Cosmique (quora), partie II
http://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2017/10/production-de-carbone-14-et-radiation_30.html

While I intend to do some reading myself, leave you the opportunity to do so, it seems there could have been other reasons than cold why people kept inside caves during palaeolithic. Radiation.

Meanwhile, I have also tried to contact authors of the paper./HGL

The Carbon Related Question, Update

Trying to Get a Carbon Related Question Answered · The Carbon Related Question, Update · Things Could Get a Bit Complicated with Carbon Question

As you can see on the previous post, which has been updated, I made three tries to get this question answered.

None of them got me any answer.

My own answer is, I suppose the relationship is linear, which means that with 11 times as fast carbon production you got 11 times as many milliSieverts from cosmic radiation.

3.9
0.39
4.29

And 4.29 per year is of course within the kind of total background radiations you find on Earth today.

I am of course biassed, since if I had had to multiply by eleven squared to get the milliSievers, during the buildup in Babel event, we would have been very bad off:

39
07.8
00.39
47.19

I think 47.19 milliSievert per year would have been too much for us. It is nearly five times one of the highest local total background radiations.

But then, at no time do I suppose the speed of new carbon was 121 times as fast, at Babel it was 11 times as fast, sometimes (before Babel) perhaps a bit faster than that. And, as I have, if not confirmed, at least not refuted when giving opportunity, the milliSievert per year go by linear proportion, not by squared in relation to carbon 14 production.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of Sts Simon and Jude
27.X.2017

Recorded History of China Too Old For Us?

I am not sure how many of you have heard a claim from RationalWiki or even read it there, but they do consider that human continuous historiography beginning about at Flood is seriously at risk, due to Martino Martini SJ writing that Emperor Fohius started ruling in China in 2952 BC, and due to Chinese history being so well buttressed by continuous and scientifically exact astronomical obseervations.

In fact, a Jesuit missionary, Martino Martini,Wikipedia's W.svg who was sent to China in the 1650s, was shocked to find that Chinese records chronicled the Imperial dynasty from the first emperor in 2952 BC. An emperor, of course, requires a large population to rule over, not a single individual. Even to a strict Jesuit the Chinese records appeared more reliable and detailed than those of the Jews, they contained no gaps, even the earliest entries were written by contemporary authors, they were strictly factual without any reference to myths or legends, and they could be cross-referenced to the dates of solar eclipses calculated by European astronomers.[91]

I don't know who their staff Latinist is, but it seems to be one who:

• diagnoses surprise at so well made history so early without the words actually being epxressed by the author;
• misses that while Martini sees this as absolutely irreconcilable with the newer Chronology (Ussher was becoming famous among Catholics too), had no problem reconciling this with the Flood with Septuagint based Chronologies.

In other words, while they are somewhat intermediate between a fullfledged site and a wiki with anonymous contributors, no staff of any kind at all, they seem they could use a staff Latinist. It won't be me.

Now, let us break down what Martino Martini actually writes, a bit!

• Fohius is neither the first man nor the first to be in China, MM has not missed the mythology surrounding Pang Guo, he does not consider it as historic, though.
• The pre-Fohian rulers could either be pre-Flood or coming to China after Flood but before Babel, in small groups living what we could call a palaeolithic lifestyle. Either way, their long added spans of rule are totally unrealistic.
• Fohius, Xinnungus and Hoangtius are three regnal spans together spanning 355 years. I am not sure RationalWiki would like to defend that the astronomical observations in China are such a great clue to Chinese accurate historiography that we can safely conclude Fohius ruled 115 years, Xinningus 140 and Hoangtius 100 years. If they do, I think you might have to cross check their treatment of pre-Flood and especially post-Flood but pre-Egypt patriarchs. On RationalWiki, special pleading wouldn't do, would it?
• Fohius begins writing, Xinnungus agriculture and medicine, Hoangtius administration and the cycle of years. 1 year of 1:st cycle is therefore year one of Hoangtius' reign - after Fohius and Xinnungus.
• In none of these have I as yet seen any clear outlining of astronomical observations of eclipses, so I must conclude this independent confirmation is of a somewhat later date.

This said, let's check how this fits my chronologies, Syncellus and St Jerome. In the latter case, I'd have to identify Fohius with someone not totally unique to China, with Ham.

A Just

Martino Martini's words:

2952 BC

Fohius begins to rule.

2837 BC

Xinnungus begins to rule.

2697 BC

Hoangtius begins to rule.

2597 BC

Hoangtius died.

B Syncellus

or rather Byzantine Liturgic (8 years longer):

3366 BC

Deluge

2952 BC

Fohius begins to rule.

2837 BC

Peleg born

= 2837 BC

Xinnungus begins to rule.

2792 BC

Dispersion of Tongues

2697 BC

Hoangtius begins to rule.

2597 BC

Hoangtius died.

C St Jerome

with some reconstruction for Peleg:

2957 BC

Deluge

2952 BC

Fohius begins to rule!

2837 BC

Xinnungus begins to rule.

2697 BC

Hoangtius begins to rule.

2597 BC

Hoangtius died.

2556 BC

Peleg born

2511 BC

Dispersion of Tongues.

With St Jerome this becomes problematic enough to be interesting : Fohius starts ruling 5 years after Flood, who is he? Noah himself? Ham? Shem? A grandson born that year and said to begin ruling then?

Ham seems to be not quite unreasonable, since Peter Comestor places one "Zoroaster" originator of magic later brought to our civilisation by Pythagoras as identic to Ham.

And if Hoangtius died before dispersion of tongues, we would assume that his local rule (if at all such) in Chine would have been subsumed under a more general command centralised at Babel.

I could even imagine considering this a possibility, these three were transferred to China, their real names are Ham, Kush and Nimrod. Obviously this last would grossly gloss over the less flattering aspects of Nimrod's carreer.

Let us now briefly recall some factors of which we are aware, though MM was not yet so.

We have carbon dates for grains in China, at least I think millet being "20 000 BP" which is compatible with a pre-Babel and post-Flood date.

The lifestyle of Fohius, or generally up to Xinnungus (Fohius and previous) is described in fairly palaeolithic terms. This kind of makes it a bit relative to use "emperor" as indicator of a large population.

The idea that Chinese history embodies a memory of pre-Flood ancestry could be confirmed if Denisovan man was pre-Flood, because, as with fairly certainly pre-Flood Neanderthal, only traces remain of the Denisovan genome - and these among other places in China and in Americas.

Rational Wiki might be interested in hearing that Fuxi - I think that is the Pinyin spelling of Fu Hsi or Fo Hi - is now commonly considered to be mythological.

Nice they are rational enough to take mythology and legend seriously, I'd like them to start doing so on a larger scale. Maybe softly with non-Christian legend first ...

Before actually going on, one could imagine that the account of Xinnungus (Shennong) subduing a province by his sheer goodness, if really about a province, could be later, and that diverse rulers followed the three in diverse parts, but they were serialised as all ruling in all parts of China, and the later conquest of that province was pushed back to the time of Xinnungus to fit this scenario of long unity. That would of course make dates like 2952 BC spurious, inflated by serialising parallel dynasties.

So, let's look at the three emperors, supposing that the years given by Father Martino Martino are correct and that China is already geographically (but not politically or linguistically, of course!) separate in the time of Fu Xi and also that - as the two together require - Syncellus has the better chronology:

Using Syncellus

From Continuing Interim III to Joseph in Egypt
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/06/continuing-interim-iii-to-joseph-in.html

X 2988 BC

15.616 pmc 18 338 BC

Eber *

2963 BC

Fu-Xi / Syncellus

2952 BC

XI 2947 BC

20.239 pmc 16 154 BC

XI 2947 BC

20.239 pmc 16 154 BC

XII 2906 BC

26.23 pmc 13 969 BC

XIII 2865 BC

33.994 pmc 11 785 BC

Shem +

2858 BC

Xinnungus / Syncellus

2837 BC

Peleg *

2829 BC

XIV 2824 BC

44.057 pmc 9600 BC

Arphaxad +

2791 BC

XV 2780 BC

49.459 pmc 8600 BC

Cainan +

2763 BC

XVI 2739 BC

51.476 pmc 8229 BC

Reu *

2699 BC

XVII 2698 BC

53.577 pmc 7857 BC

Hoangtius

begins to rule

2697 BC

XVIII 2657 BC

55.763 pmc 7486 BC

Shelah +

2633 BC

XIX 2617 BC

58.038 pmc 7114 BC

Hoangtius dies

2597 BC

XX 2576 BC

60.405 pmc 6743 BC

Serug *

2567 BC

Supposing on the other hand that St Jerome has the better chronology, either we must conclude that the three first emperors belong to the close family of Noah, or that their years are later than Martini got together.

Any of these solutions allows the CMI claim to remain correct and rebuts the RationalWiki rebuttal. And no, the words of Martino Martini SJ so far do not indicate that this very early history was already crossreferenced as said.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St John Capistrano*
St Theodore, Priest**
23.X.2017

Update, next day, Roger Pearlman, an observant Jew, told me:

under RCCF framework 5778 AM to date, Chinese year count calibrates statistically to birth year of Noach 1056 AM

Noah, a son and a grandson as Fohius and the rest? Possible, except that Noah would certainly have known of agriculture./HGL

* Apud Villackum, in Pannonia, natalis sancti Joannis de Capistrano, Sacerdotis ex Ordine Minorum et Confessoris, vitae sanctitate ac fidei catholicae propagandae zelo illustris; qui Taurunensem arcem, validissimo Turcarum exercitu profligato, suis precibus et miraculis ab obsidione liberavit. Ejus tamen festivitas quinto Kalendas Aprilis recolitur.

** Antiochiae item natalis sancti Theodori Presbyteri, qui, in persecutione impii Juliani comprehensus, et, post equulei poenam et multos ac durissimos cruciatus, lampadibus etiam circa latera appositis adustus, tandem, cum in confessione Christi persisteret, gladii occisione martyrium consummavit.

Trying to Get a Carbon Related Question Answered

Trying to Get a Carbon Related Question Answered · The Carbon Related Question, Update · Things Could Get a Bit Complicated with Carbon Question

In 100 years, a carbon level in any sample except atmosphere goes down from 100 % modern carbon to 98.798.

100 - 98.798 = 1.202 %.

In the atmosphere, it does not go down, because 1.202 % of the modern carbon is added every 100 years.*

If instead for some period 2.404 % or 3.606 % of the modern carbon level were added in hundred years ...

• would the cosmic radiation reaching the ground, as that above, be 2 or 3 times the normal one of 0.39 milliSievert per year?
• would it instead be 4 or 9 times the normal one?
• or would a square root suffice, would we deal with 1.414 * 0.39 or 1.732 * 0.39 milliSievert per year?**
• or would the total background radiation at ground level be importantly contributing to the new carbon 14?

In cases one or three, I have tackled the challenge I was given at Nanterre University Campus grounds about 2 years ago.

The most drastic carbon rise I am at all dealing with as even a theoretical possibility would have been giving us new carbon 29.9 times faster than now. 2.133 milliSievert per year (below normal total background radiation in the case of square root) or 11.661 milliSievert per year (above the highest total background radiation, in the case of direct relation).

If on the other hand the cosmic radiation is adding little beyond half if even that of total new carbon, or if it is adding new carbon in relation to its square root, so that the radiation is squared by the factors of how much quicker carbon is forming, we would have been fried. 29.9² = 894.01 times. That would give 348.6639 milliSievert per year, 35 times the highest total background radiations we have now.

20 milliSievert per year is considered a threshold dose in nuclear security. In Japan, after Fukushima.

However, I have so far been presuming that the relation between radioactive dose and rapidity of carbon 14 production is a one to one, that the total background radiation at ground is only negligibly contributing to it, which would mean that most possible and all necessary*** carbon productions I have been dealing with are clearly inferior to this safety limit.

For instance, identifying Joseph with Imhotep (in the time of Djoser) will, in St Jerome's chronology, give us a carbon 14 level in atmosphere of 87.636 pmc : 2800 = 1709 BC. Identifying Kenyon's 1550 BC date for Jericho with the Biblical date acc. to St Jerome's chronology, 1470 BC, will give a carbon level of 99.037 pmc. This means that in 1709 to 1470, in 239 years, carbon has to rise 11.401 pmc units, while a dead stop of new carbon would have been giving us 97.15 % * 87.636 pmc, a level of 85.138374 pmc. So, in 239 years, total production of new carbon would have been 13.898626 pmc units. °

In 239 years, the normal decay and compensation in atmosphere is 100 - 97.15 = 2.85 pmc units. We are therefore dealing with a production 4.877 times as fast as normal. And the cosmic radiation dose would be 1.902 milliSievert instead of 0.39 milliSievert.

"French regulations set at 1 mSv (milliSievert) per year maximum permissible effective dose resulting from human activities outside the natural radioactivity and doses of medicine."

But cosmic radiation is not resulting from human activity. However, back then, there were no doses of medicinal radioactivity either.

And until I get a good reference or a clear proof this is not the 1:1 ratio I have so far been imagining, that it is for instance squared radiation dose for each factor of rapidity of carbon production, I will persist in believing I have shown the viability of the carbon rise model.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Denis bishop of Paris
and companions, martyrs
9.X.2017

PS, actually trying to get answers to the question beyond my confidence it is 1:1, 2:2 and not 1:1, 2:4 from resulting C14 production to causing cosmic radiation. I sent one the day after, giving him to tomorrow, then going on./HGL (16.X)

* 100 - 97.61 = 2.39 % each 200 years.

** 0.55146 and 0.67548 milliSievert.

*** necessary for getting Carbon 14 from c. 1.45 pmc (percent modern carbon) at a Flood 2957 BC to 100 pmc at 500 BC or earlier.

° See Creation vs. Evolution : Comparing Three Roads from Seven Cows to Seven Trumpets
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/06/comparing-three-roads-from-seven-cows.html

Update(s) on check effort:

• First check on C14 question, no answer
• Second check on C14 question, no answer
• Troisième essai d'avoir une réponse, le prof ne savait pas
• Troisième essai continue, il y a une réponse, mais je ne sais pas encore totalement laquelle

A Pre-Flood Sea? Or More Than One?

Noting for several aquatic animals locations, and for any location any non-aquatic animals:

Cetotherium rathkii

Taman peninsula, Russia

Cetotherium priscum

Kertsch, Ukraine. Austria (Szentmargita, Leitha Limestone Formation, Langhian); Moldova (Chisinau, Serravalian); Romania (Madulari, Serravalian); Russia (Kutsay Mountain, Serravallian); Turkey (Kurtchu-Tchekmedje, Up. Miocene).

Cetotherium pusillum

Chisinau, Moldova

Cetotherium ambiguum

Nussdorf, Austria

Nussdorf also has:

Praepusa Vindobonensis, a seal

Cetotherium klinderi

Mykolayiv, Ukraine

Cetotherium maicopicum

River Belaia, Russia

Cetotherium mayeri

Russia (River Belaia, Derbent, Kuban) and Georgia

Titanocetus sammarinensis

near the top of Mount Titano, Republic of San Marino, northern Appennines, Italy

Cetotheriopsis lintianus

Near Linz, Austria

Micromysticetus tobieni

Lank Latum, Germany

Ichthyosaurus communis

(3) Belgian Lorraine (Belgium) (4)Canton Aargau Switzerland

Brachypterygius extremus

Volga region, Saratov region

Saratov also has:

Hesperornis rossicus Nessov & Yarkov, 1993 (Rybushka Fm, Up. Cret. [Camp.] Volgograd & Saratov, Russia & Sweden)

Volgograd also has:

Cerebavis cenomanica Kurochkin & Saveliev, 2006 (Melovatka Fm, Up. Cret. [Cenom.] Volgograd, Russia)

Oligolactoria bubiki

Bystrice/Olsi, Moravia

Acamptonectes densus

Cremlingen area, Lower Saxony, Germany

Lower Saxony

also has:

Haptodus baylei

Niederhäslich, Saxony, Germany

Europasaurus holgeri

Lower Saxony basin, Oker near Goslar

Dorygnathus banthensis

Flechtorf (Lower Saxony)

Stensioella heintzi

Hunsrück slates of Germany

Many thanks to Palaeocritti team!/HGL

An Evolutionist Blooper Revisited

I recently had the opportunity to hear someone say more recent things are in higher layers and older things in lower layers. As to geographical elevation over the sea, we can check with Palaeocritti:

• Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals : Austria
  
  
  • Austriadactylus
    
    Austriadactylus lived during the Late Triassic Period (Norian); the only known specimen was found in an abandoned mine in Austria. It was a relatively small pterosaur with a wingspan of 1 m (3.3 ft) and a skull length of 10 cm, the skull of which possessed an unusual bony crest that widened towards the snout.
    
    ...
    
    Abandoned mine near Ankerschlag, Tyrol, NW Austria; Seefelder Schichten, late Alaunian (middle Norian).
    
    Seefeld has two main mountain areas (for walking or skiing): one is the rounded hill, the Gschwandtkopf (1,495 m); the other is on the slopes of the mountains to the east and called the Rosshütte after the large mountain restaurant halfway up. These mountains dominate the Seefeld Plateau; from left/north to right/south, they are the Seefelder Joch, Seefelder Spitze (2,215 m), Härmelekopf (2,224 m) and Reither Spitze (2,374 m).
    
    
  • Gosau Formation, Austria, Upper Cretaceous (Campanian)
    
    
    • Doratodon carcharidens (Crocodylomorpha)
    • Mochlodon suessi (Ornithopoda Iguanodontia Rhabdodontidae)
    
    
    
  • Linzer Sanden Formation, Upper Oligocene (Chattian)
    
    
    • Cetotheriopsis lintianus (Mammalia Cetacea Mysticeti Cetotheriopsidae)
    
    
    
  • Leitha Limestone Formation, Middle Miocene (Serravallian)
    
    
    • Cetotherium priscum (Mammalia Cetacea Mysticeti Cetotheriidae)
      
      
    • Heterodelphis leiodontus (Mammalia Cetacea Odontoceti)
    
    
    
  • Nussdorf, Late Middle Miocene (Sarmatian, Serravallian)
    
    Nussdorf
    The Nussdorfer Brewery was erected in 1819 and the Franz Joseph railway to the Kahlenberg turned Nussdorf into a popular destination for daytrips for the Viennese in the 19th century.
    
    ...
    
    The Kahlenberg
    is a hill (484 m or 1,588 ft) located in the 19th District of Vienna, Austria (Döbling).
    
    
    • Praepusa vindobonensis (Mammalia Carnivora Phocidae)
    • Cetotherium ambiguum (Mammalia Cetacea Mysticeti Cetotheriidae)
      
      
    • Kentriodon fuchsii (Mammalia Cetacea Odontoceti Kentriodontidae)
    • Pachyacanthus suessii (Mammalia Cetacea)
    • Pachyacanthus letochae (Mammalia Cetacea)
  
  
  
• Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals : Switzerland
  
  
  • Ichthyosaurus communis (Ichthyopterygia IchthyosauriaThunnosauria)
    
    (4)Canton Aargau Switzerland
    
    Highest point 908 m (2,979 ft): Geissfluegrat
    Lowest point 260 m (853 ft): Rhine at Kaiseraugst
    
    
  • Monte San Giorno, Switzerland & Italy, Middle Triassic (Anisian)
    
    
    • Cyamodus muensteri (Placodontia Cyamodontidae) Osnabrueck, Bindlach, and lo. Meissner Fm
    
    
    Probably Monte San Giorgio
    Monte San Giorgio is a wooded mountain (1,097 m above sea level) of the Lugano Prealps, overlooking Lake Lugano in Switzerland.
    
    
  • Löwenstein Formation, Switzerland, Upper Triassic (Norian)
    
    
    • Plateosaurus engelhardti (Prosauropoda Plateosauridae)
    
    
    
  • Lower Kössen Formation, Switzerland, Upper Triassic (Late Norian-Early Rhaetian)
    
    
    • Caviramus schesaplanensis (Pterosauria Campylognathoidae)
      
      
    • Raeticodactylus filisurensis (Pterosauria Campylognathoidae)
    
    
    Löwenstein and Kössen are per se outside Switzerland. The parts of the formation getting into Switzerland would be close to Tyrol and Germany.
  
  
  
• Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals : Czech Republic
  
  
  • Acanthodes
    
    Acanthodes is a genus of plankton feeding spiny sharks which was ubiquitous from the Early Carboniferous to the Early Permian.
    
    
  • Nyrany, Czech Rep., Upper Carboniferous (Westphalian D, Moscovian)
    
    
    • Diplovertebron punctatum (Embolomeri Eogyrinidae)
      
      Upper Carboniferous (Westphalian D), Nýrany, Czech Republic, - elevation 345 m (1,132 ft)
      
      
    • Phlegethontia longissima (Lepospondyli Aistopoda Phlegethontidae)
    • Scincosaurus crassus (Lepospondyli Nectridea Scincosauridae)
    • Microbrachis pelikani (Lepospondyli Microsauria Microbrachidae)
    • Crinodon limnophyes (Lepospondyli Microsauria Tuditanidae)
    • Sparodus validus (Lepospondyli Microsauria Gymnarthidae)
    • Hyloplesion longicostatum (Lepospondyli Microsauria Hyloplesionidae)
    • Gephyrostegus bohemicus (Gephyrostegida Gephyrostegidae)
    
    
    
  • Czech Rep., Upper Carboniferous (Stephanian, Gzhelian)
    
    
    • Boii crassidens (Lepospondyli Microsauria Tuditanidae)
    
    
    
  • Czech Republic, Oligocene (Rupelian)
    
    
    • Oligolactoria bubiki (Actinopterygii, Tetraodontiformes, Ostracoidea, Ostracidae)
      
      Bystrice/Olsi, Moravia
      Bystřice (help·info) (Polish: About this sound Bystrzyca, German: Bistrzitz) is a large village in Frýdek-Místek District, Moravian-Silesian Region of the Czech Republic. It has a population of 5,173 (2006), Poles are 29.7% of the population.[1] It lies between the Silesian and Moravian-Silesian Beskids mountain ranges, in the historical region of Cieszyn Silesia. The Hluchová River flows to the Olza River in the village.
      
      Elevation 340 m (1,120 ft)
    
    
    
  • Czech Republic, Lower Miocene (Eggenburgian)
    
    
    • Lazarussuchus dvoraki (Choristodera)

So, Oligocene from Bistritz and Carboniferous from Nürschan are the lowest. The Pterosaurs "more recent than" the Diplovertebron punctatum and "older than" Oligolactoria bubiki are higher up in the geography than both.

You also get whales, a seal and an ichthyosaur in this region, probably because there was a pre-Flood sea here, Vienna and Nussdorf close to the shore.

Either way, the older things are also not deeper down in the ground whereever you look, rather what we find is what is close to the surface.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Dionysius bishop of Paris
with Companions, martyrs
9.X.2017

CMI Strays into Protestant Hagiography Today (part 1 of series)

It is funny that Russell Grigg takes an eminent occasion of Catholic hagiography - the Story of a Soul, by St Thérèse of the Child Jesus - to laud with partiality and dishonesty against Catholicism, the greatest "saint" of Protestants. And Orthodox are not giving even the three "defenders of Orthodoxy" (Photius, Palamas and Mark of Ephesus) a comparable prominence, though they serve a similar purpose.

I might link later, but this is just a one shot against one aspect. Luther is quoted as saying:

Luther also wrote an essay against monastic vows: that they were not instituted by Christ and had no scriptural basis, so were futile in attaining justification or assurance of salvation. They sanctified the monastic order instead of sanctifying God, and they portrayed Him as a severe taskmaster rather than as a loving father.

You know, St Therese and St Bridge of Sweden had a very different opinion on that one. If most monks and nuns remain faithful, and if you really want to know how monastic vows work out in practise, it might be an idea to go to those faithful to their vows, not to those rare ones who broke them, like Luther. Oh, he was absolved from vow of obedience, but not those of poverty and chastity.

Why doesn't he quote other writings by Luther in which he admits having faked translation at Luke 1:28 and Romans 3:28?

Here is Luther's Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen :

Mgr. Radim Sochorek : Martin Luther: Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen
http://www.sochorek.cz/archiv/werke/luther.htm

Here is St Therese' L'Histoire d'une âme:

" HISTOIRE PRINTANIERE D'UNE PETITE FLEUR BLANCHE "
( D'après les manuscrits originaux ) Janvier 1895
http://livres-mystiques.com/partieTEXTES/Lisieux/Histoire/table.html

("Histoire d'une Ame", La Vocation de l'Amour, La miséricorde, l'ascenseur Divin.)

It should be added, just because I am defending monastic vows doesn't mean I made any myself. This means, if any Protestant imagines to be helping me toward marriage by prompting me to "return to Protestantism" as to a home, as to a place of kindness, this is wrong, and attempts to delay my marriage as a Catholic, i e up to any return to Protestantism, are simply and up to now, part of what I presume has been delaying my marriage, has been costing me girl after girl I had hoped to marry, for so many years, and I am already 49.

I might have more to add later against this straying off the usual fare on an otherwise good creationist site, and will, if so, link to Russell there.

For now, I wish a happy feast of St Thérèse!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Therese, as mentioned
3.X.2017

Is now continued on Great Bishop of Geneva! : What Luther Got Wrong More (pt 2 of series)