samedi 29 septembre 2018

Location of Eden and Four Rivers Revisited


Where Robert Carter was announcing the part 1 and under that part 2, of his and Lita Cosner's paper, I promised to take into account an exchange in comment section of this part 2 in my answer.

First, Isaias 19:19 In that day there shall be an altar of the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a monument of the Lord at the borders thereof:

Here is the Haydock comment:

Ver. 19. Altar. If the Jews were forbidden to have any other than the one at Jerusalem, how can the prophet announce this as a blessing? Onias being excluded from the high priesthood, retired into Egypt, and obtained leave to build the temple Onion, in the Nome, though not in the city of Helipolis, above Bubaste, on the Nile, alleging that Isaias had foretold this event, and that one was already built at Leontopolis. Jos. Ant. xii. 15. and xiii. 6.

But we must allow with the fathers and Jews in the days of S. Jerom, that this prediction regarded the Messias, when altars might be lawfully erected in every nation. See Misna, tr. Moneuth, xiii. 10.

Monument. The cross is set up wherever Christ is adored. C.

The Egyptians shall embrace Christianity, and Anthony, &c. shall live a holy (W.) and austere life. H.


In other words, a Catholic has no real reason to associate this verse to the Cheops pyramid.

That said, the commenter who wanted to associate Cheops pyramid with the pre-Flood world had a few things to say:

In case anyone was wondering, I was not implying that the Great Pyramid itself must be antedeluvian, nor that the global Flood of Noah may have been characteristically gentle. But does the global geologic average sediment and structure mean that every bit of the anteduvian land material or land structure is now (a) completely hidden under sediment, or (b) is, to the eyes of Noah and his seven, unrecognizably reworked?


Well, for one thing, there would need to be some places where this were not so for vegetation to survive.

1:08 - 1:54 on Noah's Ark and Global Flood Objections Answered - Kent Hovind & Atheist Nolan Fields
Standing For Truth | 28.IX.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoXVSdRm7Mg



- some plants survived the Flood just fine
- but how would they survive over a year underneath water?
- why do you think they're under water for a year?
- what it says
- oh, it doesn't, it says Noah was in the Ark for a year but - he laughs
- yeah, Noah is in the Ark for a year and the Flood was a year
- no, he was in the Ark for seven days before the Flood even started
...
- my bad, let's say it was 270 days ... but it took five more months for the water to subside
- yes, parts of the world may have only been covered for a few weeks


OK, and during those few weeks those parts necessarily were either abrased all top 10 meters or added 10 meters of sediment?

My point is, if you add ten meters of sediments to a place with plants, they are not likely to survive even if the time they were under water was only a few weeks - except the very highest trees having very tall tops sticking up above the ten meters.

But a huge river valley with its drainage basins would be a depth of perhaps 100s of meters between edges and the mid cleft for the actual main river.

Therefore, the four main rivers of the pre-Flood world are likely to have been identifiable in the post-Flood world. Not without possibility of mistake, but certainly with a possibility for correcting such.

However, we are not only dealing with the Flood, we are also dealing with tectonic movements after the Flood that create mountains. Some such ranges have no doubt divided river beds, created new drainage divides and any added sea (Black Sea Flood dated to 6000 BC is added in post-Babel times!) will also divide what was previously one river. Also, the slope can in such cases shift direction, my whole contention is, on this account, the guess that Frat was originally not running SE but NW. And continuing past what is now Black Sea into the Danube, and from there into the Rhine. Then come Alps, Black Sea and both Euphrates part and Danube part shift direction to SE, while Rhine continues (with Seine and Garonne) NW. Perhaps even Liffey and Thames were once part of the pre-Flood delta of Frat.

During such a breakup, the several parts would continue to be known and recalled as having been parts of a river of Eden, long enough for Hebrew tradition to catch up on it.

Now, I do not think lower Mesopotamia was Eden. Why? Lower Classic Mesopotamia is Mid Iraq. It is a pretty low country. Carter has argued that Eden or nearby had a mountain from whence the four rivers flowed, and this seems legitimate. The requirement of a mountain is not to be overlooked. What about higher or NW Mesopotamia, near Göbekli Tepe? Well, we are already in a mountain range, and there is a plain within it, but moreover we are in the mountains from which Euphrates and Tigris are both flowing SE.

If the other two rivers mean White and Blue Nile, and Frat and Hiddekel were flowing NW and N or even turning NE, we need a pre-Flood Eden in Persian Gulf, Arabian Peninsula or Red Sea or Holy Land. This latter has been suggested by one Damien Mackey.

On the other hand, if Frat and Hiddekel were originally flowing the now direction, we need other rivers flowing Northwards basically. And the mountains they come from or Black Sea or Caucasus could be the mountain in Eden from which the rivers divided into four rivers flowed.

Whichever is the case, Moses explicitly said one of the four rivers is flowing around all the land of Ethiopia, literally in the Hebrew of Kush, who is a post-Flood patriarch. He also said of one that it encompasses Hevilah alluding to things that are found there.

Claiming that Moses could identify the rivers by prophecy but let no one else in on their secret identitity is disingenious. We must claim that their at least partial identity was known in post-Flood days, which gives Euphrates and Tigris as at least parts of the rivers of Frat and Hiddekel.

Now, I'll give another reason why lower Mesopotamia, a k a Mid Iraq, a k a Babylonia was probably not the location of Eden.

Wait, this is not going where I was expecting ....?

A miospore assemblage from the Permian of Iraq - A dispersed miospore assemblage comprising 32 genera and 49 species is described from a shale core sample. Two miospore genera, Iraqispora and Mosulipollenites, and 27 species are new. The material is from Atshan well in the Chia Zairi formation near Mosul in northern Iraq. The miospore flora described here is compared with comparable spore floras of Permian age. On the basis of this study, it is suggested that this spore composition corresponds to an Upper Permian age.

Miospores are land plants, right? And Mosul - yes, OK, Mosul is just across ancient and deserted Nineveh, sorry. N Iraq.

Actually, they are shore plants:

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

A Palaeocene teredinid (Mollusca) from Iraq - The teredinid mollusc Bankia {Bankiella) kurdistanensis sp. nov. is described from an association of tubes, valves, and pallets in the Palaeocene of Iraq.

This is more what I was expecting, but "kurdistanensis" also suggests Northern part of Iraq. Of course, if the molluscs are small enough, they may have been transported intact over to what was land before the Flood. In fact, they seem to be a kind of shipworms ...?

Permian corals from northern Iraq

Again, the corals could have been transported during the Flood.

Malawania anachronus – New Ichthyosaur from Iraq was Living Fossil of its Time
http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/article01075-malawania-ichthyosaur-iraq.html


Here this is less likely.

Imagine an Ichthyosaur transported miles by the Flood? You get the idea, when arriving, it can no longer be identified as an Ichthyosaur. Therefore, if it can be so identified, while some fossil and mineral material was so transported, this Ichthyosaur is no candidate for such a process.

Bonus:

Remarkably, this kind of archaic ichthyosaur appears characterized by an evolutionary stasis: they seem not to have changed much between the Early Jurassic and the Cretaceous, a very rare feat in the evolution of marine reptiles.


So, part of N Iraq was land, because it had miospores, at least there was a coast, but part of N Iraq was sea - Kurdistan comes in this category.

On the other hand, Shanidar was clearly land, since we have a pre-Flood (with Flood's carbon date as 40 000 BP) Neanderthal from there:

Despite Deafness, Missing Forearm and Limp, This Neanderthal Lived into His Forties
http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/paleoanthropology/shanidar-1-neanderthal-05355.html


Now, this actually only proves that the immediate pre-Flood Iraq (at least Kurdistan) was water. Obviously, if Josephus is right, there was an earlier Flood before that of Noah, a regional one, leaving the Mediterranean - and I wonder how much else it may have covered before the Flood of Noah.

So, some possibility an Edenic river could have run through a pre-Flood flooded sea area.

I'd actually try to map these places in Iraq ... Mosul land or seashore, N Iraq spec Kurdistan sea, Shanidar land, at least island.



I haven't reconstructed very much for Iraq, but Shanidar and Mosul land, hence marked green, then Kurdistan or N Iraq sea either NW or SE or both sides of a line joining them, hence two question marks in blue, rest of Iraq, as far as these articles go, unknown, hence a bigger question mark in black. We do need sea in Kurdistan, since, not only do we have shipworms, we have corals, and we have an ichthyosaur. So, we have three indications there was sea, and one of them cannot have arrived during the mud slushes of the most turbulent parts of the Flood.

5. I would love to find an antediluvian landscape. I would love to think that there are antediluvian human artifacts still in existence. However, none of this is true. Does this bother me? Not in the least. [Carter]


Whether there are antediluvian artifacts, I do not know. As for landscapes, or maps, we do have fair indications, as said.

And as for antediluvian stories, apart from Genesis 4, 5, 6, which are certain beyond doubt, we probably have also elves and trolls as Japhetic memories of pre-Flood Neanderthals, and Mahabharata as a presumably Hamite memory of the cousin infight a generation after the children of Lamech.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Michaels-Mass
29.IX.2018

PS, the four images where three are mapping parts and fourth has my indications, are from Wikipedian articles on Mosul, Iraqi Kurdistan, Shanidar Cave and Iraq.

mercredi 26 septembre 2018

Article Geocentricity on Creation Wiki


Creation vs. Evolution: Article Geocentricity on Creation Wiki · New blog on the kid: First 19 Minutes with Carter

Here it is, btw:

CreationWiki : Geocentricity
https://creationwiki.org/Geocentricity


Contains a list of Anti-Geocentricity points:

  • Foucault's pendulum demonstrates the rotation of the earth; without such rotation there is no reason for the pendulum to rotate its plane of swing.
  • A non-rotating earth would require the outer planets and the stars to be moving at excessive (translight?) speeds. Measurements of relative motion between the earth and the nearer planets indicate that the other planets are not moving fast enough for the earth to be stationary.
  • Differences in escape velocity at the poles vs the equator wouldn't exist on a non-rotating planet. Similarly, satellites in geostationary orbit would be motionless over a non-rotating planet, and would simply fall down.
  • The Coriolis effect would not exist on a stationary earth.
  • Earthquakes, including those induced by placing explosives in geological fault-lines, can produce measurable changes in the earth's rotation. If the earth is in fact stationary, this would mean that events on earth can instantaneously affect the motions of stars many many light-years away.
  • The orbit of the earth around the sun is used as a baseline for measuring distance to stars using the parallax method - if the earth was stationary this ought not to be possible.
  • The relative frequency of shooting stars before/after midnight indicates that the earth is both rotating and moving through space.
  • The red shift measured in stars' spectra changes in an annual cycle; if the earth is not circling the sun, then stars must be constantly accelerating/decelerating in something akin to a 'Mexican wave'.


Now, let's tackle these one by one.

P 1)
Foucault's pendulum demonstrates the rotation of the earth; without such rotation there is no reason for the pendulum to rotate its plane of swing.

A
Except if instead of void, we are dealing with an aether, capable of going around Earth, if God so moves it.

P 2)
A non-rotating earth would require the outer planets and the stars to be moving at excessive (translight?) speeds. Measurements of relative motion between the earth and the nearer planets indicate that the other planets are not moving fast enough for the earth to be stationary.

A
The measurements are made with supposition that the relative motion in question involves earth rotating as explanation of the daily motion.

As for outer planets, and stars.

What is the exact distance at which the rotational speed would be translight?

First, we deal with 360° full rotation each stellar day:

Earth's rotation period relative to the fixed stars, called its stellar day by the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS), is 86,164.098 903 691 seconds of mean solar time (UT1) (23h 56m 4.098 903 691s, 0.997 269 663 237 16 mean solar days)


Second, we are dealing basically with a perfect circle. If a body were passing in and out of its limits, it would be passing in and out of translight speed.

Third, gracefully, distances can be counted in time-units, in "light" so and so time unit.

Fourth, this means we can use π fairly elementary calculations. If the circle is 23 light hours plus 56 light minutes plus 4.098 903 691 light seconds, we convert all to light seconds, to get perimeter of circle, then divide by π to get diameter, then divide by two to get instead radius. And then convert light seconds back again to readable units.

23 * 60 * 60 ls  82 800 ls
56 * 60 ls  03 360 ls
4.098 903 691 ls  00 004.098 903 691 ls
  86 164.098 903 691 ls


86 164.098 903 691 / π = 27 426.884 515 162 764 789 2 ls
27 426.884 515 162 764 789 2 ls / 2 = 13 713.442 257 581 382 394 6 ls

13 713.442 257 581 382 394 6 / 3600 = 3.8092895159948284429 lh
0.8092895159948284429 lh * 60 = 48.557370959689706574 lm
0.557370959689706574 lm * 60 = 33.44225758138239444 ls

So, the radius of the circle would be 3 light hours, 48 light minutes and 33 light seconds.

Pluto's perihelium was 29.658 AU in September 5, 1989. Pluto's next and first observed aphelium is calculated to be in February 2114, and at a height of 49.305 AU.

Now, one AU is 499.004 ls, so 499.004 * 49.305 = 24 603.392 22. Beyond the radius.

But 499.004 * 29.658 = 14 799.460 632. Just a little beyond the radius.

For any period in which the Sun coincides with the Earth, that is never. For any period when Pluto is straight behind the Sun you add the AU of the Sun. For any other period, you do some more complex trigonometry. Adding less than a full AU.

Solutions : 1) translight speeds do exist per se; 2) translight speeds at least exist when going with the aether, but not at translight when going through the aether; 3) distance to Pluto has been ill measured.

I'm finest, I think, with translight speeds existing on a local but not vectorial level, that is when going with the aether, but not when going through the aether.

P 3)
Differences in escape velocity at the poles vs the equator wouldn't exist on a non-rotating planet. Similarly, satellites in geostationary orbit would be motionless over a non-rotating planet, and would simply fall down.

A
Elementary case for the aether.

P 4)
The Coriolis effect would not exist on a stationary earth.

A
Elementary case for the aether.

P 5)
Earthquakes, including those induced by placing explosives in geological fault-lines, can produce measurable changes in the earth's rotation. If the earth is in fact stationary, this would mean that events on earth can instantaneously affect the motions of stars many many light-years away.

A
We don't know there is any even one light year away. Parallax is measured by a presupposition of heliocentrism. While there are mathematical shortcuts, the basic trigonometry for measuring a stellar parallax (I have heard of the short cuts from Sungenis and DeLano who have defended, somewhat carelessly "we could do parallax anyway") is, earth position A and earth position B and star, six months between positions and counting on star itself not moving.

I was the other day asking myself about Henoch's pre-Flood calendar again, with its 364 days, and wondering whether we have a very slow rotation of Earth, amounting to full circle in 293 days, and this makes days shorter and hence the pre-Flood year is intact in space, but gives an erratic number of days on Earth due to this slow rotation. It could have started with a meteor impact at the Flood.

An earthquake might affect that.

Other way, it is stars that affect the Earth, perhaps aether doing so.

P 6)
The orbit of the earth around the sun is used as a baseline for measuring distance to stars using the parallax method - if the earth was stationary this ought not to be possible.

A
Since we have no independent proof that alpha Centuari is 4 light years away, it is very possible that it is impossible.

That the distances gathered are in fact mathematical mirage, a bit like carbon dating sth which had 25 percent modern carbon when it was really alive, and giving an older than creation carbon date. Or argon trapped in lava inflating the potassium argon age.

I count on stars being about one light day away, either even now, or at least back in the 4th day of Creation, since so, not only could Adam and Eve admire starlight on eve of day 6, but birds who orient on starlight were not disoriented back on day 5.

If universe has expanded since then, well, perhaps we have by now a radius of 3 and a half light years, or nearly. So that Christ, a getting up from His throne and heading for Earth and B using light speed to do so, would take 3 and a half years of the Apocalypse tribulation period to reach us at battle of Armageddon.

But beyond 3 and a half light years, I don't think the universe is, and either way, we have measured no distance accurately beyond the furthest objects reflecting sunlight in such a manner as to show a shadow on one edge depending on angle of sun. Pluto or a little beyond?

Either way, the parallax as such would be done by stars being moved by angels, like Tychonian orbits of planets are done or regulated by planets being moved by angels.

P 7)
The relative frequency of shooting stars before/after midnight indicates that the earth is both rotating and moving through space.

A
Both - or neither. I don't know the details of the problem, but shooting stars, a k a comets, sorry, also known as meteorides would be non-random events directed by angels and by God's mercy or sometimes wrath.

P 8)
The red shift measured in stars' spectra changes in an annual cycle; if the earth is not circling the sun, then stars must be constantly accelerating/decelerating in something akin to a 'Mexican wave'.

A
Supposing that stars are at all moving outward and that is causing the red shift. And since they are moved by angels obeying God, arranging a deceleration and acceleration of Mexican wave would be no more of a problem than arranging the parallaxes as proper movements, or for that matter even the "aberration of starlight" movements in their positions.


[32] But he that knoweth all things, knoweth her, and hath found her out with his understanding: he that prepared the earth for evermore, and filled it with cattle and fourfooted beasts: [33] He that sendeth forth light, and it goeth: and hath called it, and it obeyeth him with trembling. [34] And the stars have given light in their watches, and rejoiced: [35] They were called, and they said: Here we are: and with cheerfulness they have shined forth to him that made them. [36] This is our God, and there shall no other be accounted of in comparison of him. [37] He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. [38] Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.

From Baruch 3 - last verse, of whom the angels of the stars (both fix stars and planets) are obeying, foretells the Incarnation.

Two more in this context: 1) why is the aether moving westward at 360° per 23h 56m 4.098 903 691s? God is moving it. This is the updated version of Aristotle-Aquinas Prima Via; 2) with no actual parallax (though a phenomenon so classified), to stars, no Distant Starlight problem either. This is how I came across Geocentrism more than a decade ago.

I was harrassed by admins at this place when doing this article, as seen in picture:



Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Cyprian and Justina, Martyrs
26.XI.2018

PS, I have started watching Robert Carter's speech against Flat Earth.

I am where he is speaking of SOHO - which is gravitationally more or less "anchored" at a Lagrange point.

My earlier take on angelic movers was, with them, really no need at all for gravitation to be playing any role at all.

However, partly bc of SOHO (unless it's held in "place" by an angel or demon), I do think gravitation does exist on those scales. And then, an angel conducting a planet (including Sol or Luna, Sun or Moon) would be fulfilling a role similar to the motors which keep pushing SOHO back to the exact Lagrange point.

Starting at 0:51 of a video:

"... we humans, we have sent a satellite into outer space and we got it between the Sun and the Earth at a place called a Lagrange [point] - it's a point where the gravity from the Sun and the Earth are balanced and so, just with a little bit of finagling of little teeny rocket engines, you can keep a satellite right in one place"


Well, if so, dito for planets in one orbit, except angels of each planet need to handle some more force, which is no problem for angelic beings, and as Sun has a gravitational pull and is moved backwards, West to East, through the "zodiac" or ecliptic as the scientists call it, the gravitational points of exact balance would be moving, and hence Tychonic orbits. Angels and not engineered rockets doing the finagling./HGL

Nicomediae natalis sanctorum Martyrum Cypriani, et Justinae Virginis. Haec, sub Diocletiano Imperatore et Eutolmio Praeside, cum multa pro Christo pertulisset, ipsum quoque Cyprianum, qui erat magus et suis magicis artibus eam dementare conabatur, ad Christianam fidem convertit; cum quo postea martyrium sumpsit. Eorum corpora, feris objecta, rapuerunt noctu quidam nautae Christiani, et Romam detulerunt; quae, postmodum in Basilicam Constantinianam translata, prope Baptisterium condita sunt.

Resp. to Carter / Cosner : In the Lifetime of Josephus


Your words:

When was the switch from the LXX to the MT made? Did it even happen?

Thus far, we have examined but a single sentence! Yet, in the very next sentences of his ARJ paper, Smith says,

“Most ancient Christian scholars argued for the originality of the LXX’s primeval chronology. This strong consensus lasted for over 14 centuries until the Reformation, when the MT supplanted the primacy of the LXX in the western church.”


One can refute this statement with a little bit of critical thought. The Latin Vulgate drew on the Hebrew rather than the Greek text, and clearly used the MT chronology. Smith conveniently chooses not to engage with it. But the Vulgate quickly became the predominant text in the Western church. Therefore, the MT became the ‘default’ chronological text over 1,000 years before Smith claims it did (4th century vs. 16th century). Bede was an early Anglo-Saxon scholar who was read widely over the next 1,000 years and is highly regarded even today. He preferred the MT over the LXX; in his Letter to Plegwin, he sided with Jerome over Eusebius on the issue.7 But Bar Hebraeus, a little-known scholar who lived 400 years later than Bede, is consequential?


CMI : Is the Septuagint a superior text for the Genesis genealogies?
by Lita Cosner, Robert Carter | Published: 25 September 2018
https://creation.com/lxx-mt-response


My response being in the lifetime of Josephus, here are his words:

Antiquities, book I, chapter6:5. I will now treat of the Hebrews. The son of Phaleg, whose father Was Heber, was Ragau; whose son was Serug, to whom was born Nahor; his son was Terah, who was the father of Abraham, who accordingly was the tenth from Noah, and was born in the two hundred and ninety-second year after the deluge; for Terah begat Abram in his seventieth year. Nahor begat Haran when he was one hundred and twenty years old; Nahor was born to Serug in his hundred and thirty-second year; Ragau had Serug at one hundred and thirty; at the same age also Phaleg had Ragau; Heber begat Phaleg in his hundred and thirty-fourth year; he himself being begotten by Sala when he was a hundred and thirty years old, whom Arphaxad had for his son at the hundred and thirty-fifth year of his age. Arphaxad was the son of Shem, and born twelve years after the deluge. Now Abram had two brethren, Nahor and Haran: of these Haran left a son, Lot; as also Sarai and Milcha his daughters; and died among the Chaldeans, in a city of the Chaldeans, called Ur; and his monument is shown to this day. These married their nieces. Nabor married Milcha, and Abram married Sarai. Now Terah hating Chaldea, on account of his mourning for Ilaran, they all removed to Haran of Mesopotamia, where Terah died, and was buried, when he had lived to be two hundred and five years old; for the life of man was already, by degrees, diminished, and became shorter than before, till the birth of Moses; after whom the term of human life was one hundred and twenty years, God determining it to the length that Moses happened to live. Now Nahor had eight sons by Milcha; Uz and Buz, Kemuel, Chesed, Azau, Pheldas, Jadelph, and Bethuel. These were all the genuine sons of Nahor; for Teba, and Gaam, and Tachas, and Maaca, were born of Reuma his concubine: but Bethuel had a daughter, Rebecca, and a son, Laban.


Remark first the sum total: "Abraham, who accordingly was the tenth from Noah, and was born in the two hundred and ninety-second year after the deluge" - Masoretic chronology, right?

However, the sum total is not verbatim given in the Bible. Now he will quote what is, and what is supposed to prove Abraham was born 292 after Deluge:

for Terah begat Abram in his seventieth year. Nahor begat Haran when he was one hundred and twenty years old; Nahor was born to Serug in his hundred and thirty-second year; Ragau had Serug at one hundred and thirty; at the same age also Phaleg had Ragau; Heber begat Phaleg in his hundred and thirty-fourth year; he himself being begotten by Sala when he was a hundred and thirty years old, whom Arphaxad had for his son at the hundred and thirty-fifth year of his age. Arphaxad was the son of Shem, and born twelve years after the deluge.


70 + 120 + 132 + 132 + 134 + 130 + 135 + 12 = 292? No = 865.

So, the Bible text, which Josephus learned by heart as a child, which he may be mangling in places by bad memory, definitely gives a total by far exceeding the Masoretic timeline.

Moreoever, if Abraham was born in 865 after Flood - Shem had already died in 500 after Flood (he was 600 years old when he died and he was 100 years by the Flood). So, no way that Shem could be Melchisedec.

But if Abraham was born 292 after Flood - presumably the new total for a changed text - Shem still had 208 years to live and he could be Melchisedec.

Now, check Hebrews:

Hebrews 7:[3] Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God, continueth a priest for ever.

While, Jewish commenters have gone out of their way to claim Melchisedech was Shem. Unfortunately, where I used to consult Haydock comment, on a trad site which is down, I recall a reference to Rabbi Kimchi making such a claim, but where I now need to consult Haydock - "ecatholic2000" - is a Novus Ordo site, and we only find that Melchisedech is not Shem:

Comment on Genesis 14 : Ver. 18. Melchisedech was not Sem: for his genealogy is given in Scripture. Hebrew xii. 6.; nor God the Son, for they are compared together; nor the Holy Ghost, as some have asserted; but a virtuous Gentile who adored the true God, and was king of Salem, or Jerusalem, and Priest of an order different from that of Aaron, offering in sacrifice bread and wine, a figure of Christ's sacrifice in the Mass; as the fathers constantly affirm. H. --- See Pererius. S. Jerom ep. ad Evagrium, says, "Melchisedech offered not bloody victims, but dedicated the sacrament of Christ in bread and wine...a pure sacrifice." See S. Cyp. ep. 63, ad Cæcil. S. Aug. de C. D. xvi. 22. &c. Many Protestants confess, that this renowned prince of Chanaan, was also a priest; but they will not allow that his sacrifice consisted of bread and wine. In what then? for a true priest must offer some real sacrifice. If Christ, therefore, be a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, whose sacrifice was not bloody, as those of Aaron were, what other sacrifice does he now offer, but that of his own body and blood in the holy Mass, by the ministry of his priests? for he was the priest: this is plainly referred to bringing forth, &c. which shews that word to be sacrificial, as in Judges vi. 18. The Hebrew may be ambiguous. But all know that vau means for as well as and. Thus the English Bible had it, 1552, "for he was the priest." W. --- If Josephus take notice only of Melchisedech, offering Abram and his men corporal refreshment, we need not wonder; he was a Jewish priest, to whom the order of Melchisedech might not be agreeable. It is not indeed improbable, but Abram might partake of the meat, which had been offered in thanksgiving by Melchisedech; and in this sense his words are true. But there would be no need of observing, that he was a priest on this account; as this was a piece of civility expected from princes on similar occasions. Deut. xxiii. 4. 2 K. xvii. 27. H.


So, I believe that the Jews changed the ages of post-Flood patriarchs principally to make Shem a candidate for Melchisedech, to not have Melchisedech a Gentile.

The Latin Vulgate you mentioned ... first of all, it replaced Vetus Latina, which was straight from LXX. Second, it was an Apologetic tool against Judaism. This is why Liturgic Psalms are NOT St. Jerome's translations from Hebrew, which were only for apologetic usage (Jews had been complaining in such situations that Christians had a fake text), and this is why the chronology now used at Chritstmas in the Roman Martyrology, credited to St Jerome, is not based on his Vulgate text. And obviously, 400 AD is after the switch from LXX or similar to Masoretic timeline which I credit to the lifetime of Josephus. Whether St Jerome went himself to Hebrew text, or used Aquila of Sinope, he accessed a Hebrew text posterior to the youth of Josephus. Aquila "fl. 130" - flourished / was active in 130 AD.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy
Sts Cyprian and Justina, Martyrs
26.IX.2018

PS, Masoretic chronology was indeed the "default" in the Latin West for instance when St Thomas Aquinas was swearing to uphold the Decretum Gratiani canon law, the Sentences of Lombardus and, note well, the Historia Scholastica by Petrus Comestor. This changed in Roman Liturgy in the late 15th C. as I just found out by my friend, liturgic near expert Stephan Borgehammar. He teaches Church History of some sort at Theological faculty of Lund. More thereon later, another article./HGL

PPS, I was tired and forgot to mention the Greek East is to this day using not just LXX text but LXX based chronology of Syncellus./HGL

Nicomediae natalis sanctorum Martyrum Cypriani, et Justinae Virginis. Haec, sub Diocletiano Imperatore et Eutolmio Praeside, cum multa pro Christo pertulisset, ipsum quoque Cyprianum, qui erat magus et suis magicis artibus eam dementare conabatur, ad Christianam fidem convertit; cum quo postea martyrium sumpsit. Eorum corpora, feris objecta, rapuerunt noctu quidam nautae Christiani, et Romam detulerunt; quae, postmodum in Basilicam Constantinianam translata, prope Baptisterium condita sunt.

mardi 25 septembre 2018

Dishonesty at St Nicolas du Chardonnet?


Today A while ago, I begged there. (I am reworking the article by the way). To those who don't know, it is the larger SSPX parish in Paris, one which they took over by some physical force and so to speak threat of violence from the Modernist establishment back in 1977, one of which they are very proud (the parish bulletin compared the triple consecration of the Church - recently a new one to make up for what was considered as desecration by modernists - with that of the Temple in Jerusalem). In other words, it is run by Catholics who think (correctly) that the Catholic bishop of Paris is not Catholic enough, indeed cannot be guaranteed to be considered as a Catholic (at least for Lustiger and then Vingt-Trois who was recently replaced by a new one). Theirs is a Church in which you do get Catechism of St Pius X in the bookstand, and not the apostatic or semi-apostatic Catechism of the Catholic Church, let alone the infamous Pierres vivantes ("Living stones") which had previously been used by French bishops. However, I am no longer with them, since accepting Pope Michael, but I have some old friends around there.

Two indications of some dishonest workings:

  • a man brought some wolfcubs before me, or rather they came to me anyway, and I explained that my sites were rather for their older siblings and parents.

    I consider nearly all readable for junior scouts and girl guides, except some of it would need intellectual precocity. Obviously, their parents would not directly direct them at that parish to the very few articles that support Pope Michael (who is, like me, rejecting "John Paul II", "Benedict XVI", "Francis", whom they accept as Popes, if not good ones).

    He specifically asked what was meant by the URL

    Latest on Antimodernism
    https://l-o-antimodernism.blogspot.com/


    and I answered that Pope St Pius X had condemned Modernism as synthesis of all heresies.

    He then said "don't you think that's inappropriate for them"?

    I suppose even at that age they have some kind of notion on why they never go to Notre Dame de Paris for Mass? And what about the fact that I had already told the wolfcubs that it was probably more interesting to their older siblings or parents.

    Most wolfcubs would indeed find an article on pmC levels a bit over their head, and for that reason would not be too bewildered by it, since leaving it to parents or older siblings. And if one actually did read such an article, he would probably be a precicious science geek, so, such an article would not be over his head.

    However, the man hurried to get the wolfcubs away from me.

  • I am, as said, reworking the draft after leaving it alone, so I forgot which was the "second" one, here is another one, not same day: I saw a man who had several times asked me if I was well over there. And I had been thinking he had this pre-occupation from the Jesuits in St Médard (another Church close by) or possibly the priests of St. Étienne du Mont (a third Church close by), while I hadn't thought of St. Séverin or St. Julien le Pauvre (a fourth and fifth Church, this last being run by Uniate Melkites). But he goes to St. Nicolas du Chardonnet?

  • This could have been the second indication for that day or it could have been from another day. One young man is curious about my blog. Another one tells him - while pulling him more or less away from me, over to Mass - "oh, he's known, I saw him over in Eleventh Town District" (Onzième Arrondissement in French, or simply Onzième for short) "where he was gluing posters" (no doubt with blog urls, if true).

    I had not seen that other guy.

    And I did not see either of the two after that Mass.


Now, here is perhaps part of the explanation:

Second, this book contends with Catholics, and anyone else, who have accepted the major teachings of modern science and thereby have rejected either biblical revelation, the traditional ecclesiastical consensus, or the official magisterial statements that disagree with modern science’s theories or conclusions. As one can see by the title, I have chosen to focus on the recent book by Fr. Paul Robinson, The Realist Guide to Religion and Science. He is a priest of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a very conservative but embattled branch of Roman Catholicism. The reason he was chosen is normally we don’t see many examples of staunchly conservative Catholic groups being unduly influenced by the theories of modern science to the point they either reject or neutralize the biblical, traditional and magisterial teachings. If there is any group of Catholics from whom we could expect a rigid traditional Catholic view of either the Bible or its interpretation, it is the SSPX, at least in its beginnings under its founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. But like many conservative groups today, the inevitable tendency is to judge scientific issues according to the world’s “status quo” and to avoid being dubbed “Fundamentalist.” Fr. Robinson’s book, insofar as he represents the SSPX, has proven to be no exception.


So, since these words were by Robert Sungenis, and he is known to be Geocentric, I suppose Father Paul Robinson is Heliocentric, perhaps even Evolution believing, very probably Deep Time believer (moyboy, as some Creationists like to dub it).

I have several times tried to reach out to Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet to verify this point, seems Father Paul Robinson is indirectly answering my question, and I only hear of this through by-ways, not being notified myself, when I see the ad for Robert Sungenis' answer to that book:

Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church provides a detailed and comprehensive rebuttal to the scientific, theological and exegetical views held by Fr. Paul Robinson, including his views on: The Big Bang; long-ages for the Universe and Earth; progressive creationism; heliocentrism; a local Noachic flood; and current views on radiometry and sedimentology.

575 pages.

More info on the book is in the description below.

This book was written for two purposes: First, to educate the public at large by a critical examination of science and history, especially in the areas of cosmogony and cosmology. Although modern science purports to know the origin and operation of the universe, in reality it comprehends very little and actually spreads more falsehood today than it does truth. On its face, modern science is the last formidable bastion of secular society. It is touted as impregnable and invincible. Indeed, today’s scientists have the education, the grants, the sophisticated equipment, the iconic image, the universities, the newspapers and the general media on their side. Opposing voices can barely form a whisper of contention. It is truly a Goliath if there ever was one in our modern age and it is as big as the universe itself.

[followed by already quoted paragraph]

Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church provides a detailed and comprehensive rebuttal to the scientific, theological and exegetical views held by Fr. Paul Robinson, including his views on: The Big Bang; long-ages for the Universe and Earth; progressive creationism; heliocentrism; a local Noachic flood; and current views on radiometry and sedimentology.

575 pages.


There was a time when SSPX wrote a pamphlet "Quo Vadis, Vallais" about apostatic rejection of Christ the King in the canton of Vallis, and another one "Pierre m'aimes-tu?" (Peter, do you love me?) about "John Paul II". It starts to seem one can write similar pamphlets about them, by now.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Cleophas*
25.IX.2018

PS, it is possible that FSSPX has as much an excuse as Leo XIII had for indirectly encouraging Heliocentrism (not stating any support, but knowing how Providentissimus Deus would be taken), but that Pope at least refrained from directly supporting the error. He was probably concerned to avoid persecution in for instance Liberal Italy or Third Republic France - and FSSPX is present in both France and Russia, where Creationism is not exactly very well received, and where there are Marxist ideas about what should be done to parents and children in families encouraging this. So, it could be a tactic to avoid persecution. However, these days we have already seen the bitter fruit of such tactics in the past, like encouraging persecutors ... it will be interesting if FSSPX will be criticising "Pope Francis" for his deal with Red** China./HGL

* Apud castellum Emmaus natalis beati Cleophae, qui fuit Christi discipulus, quem et in eadem domo in qua mensam Domino paraverat, pro confessione illius a Judaeis occisum tradunt, et gloriosa memoria sepultum. ** China is now Capitalist, and yet it is still Communist: interesting, isn't it?

Exodus in 1685 BC?


Syncellus has 1685 BC. The St Jerome Chronology, which seems to be part of Roman liturgy / Latin rite liturgy since late XVth C. has 1510 BC.

Now here is an interesting reading:

The standard dates for the Middle Kingdom are from about 2030 – 1650 BC, which includes the second half of the 11th Dynasty, along with dynasties 12 and 13.

From : 800 EGYPTIAN TOMBS DISCOVERED FROM EXODUS PERIOD
by Steve Law | Sep 21, 2018 | Evidence |
http://patternsofevidence.com/blog/2018/09/21/800-egyptian-tombs-discovered-from-exodus-period/


And a bit lower:

One clue from the 12th and 13th dynasties that fits the Bible’s Exodus account is the fact that pyramids during this time were made with mud bricks. The Bible does not say anything about the Israelites building pyramids, but it does emphasize the making of mud bricks during their time of enslavement. In the Old Kingdom, pyramids such as the Great Pyramid at Giza were built with stone blocks, not mud bricks. During the Middle Kingdom, pyramids were made with millions of mud bricks and then cased with stone on the outer faces.

Pyramid building ended at the close of the 13th Dynasty when Egypt fell into a dark period. Even after it recovered its power more than a century later, large pyramids were not built during the New Kingdom. The ongoing demand for bricks used in pyramid-construction during the Middle Kingdom matches the Bible’s account best.


Now, Exodus beginning Second Intermediate Period makes sense.

With Ussher, St Jerome, based respectively on Masoretic and not Vulgate but LXX, Exodus is more recent than 1650 BC.

In Syncellus - also based on LXX - Exodux is 1685 BC. Older than 1650.

I got 1602 BC by counting back from Syncellus date for King Solomon's unction after counting forward four years from that, by the 574 years I counted in Acts 13.

However, I counted 450 years of Judges (as given in Acts 13) as including both Joshua and Samuel, but if they are just the time between death of Joshua and beginning of Samuel's judging, you need to add 40 years on either end. 1682 BC.

Well, if so, the carbon date of 1650 BC can be matching a real date of 1685 BC. Dated 35 years too young would imply carbon level was at 100.424 pmC.

If then the taking of Jericho was in 1645 BC, dated as 1573 BC, carbon level was still rising, 72 years too young = 100.875 pmC.

This would mean that carbon levels have gone somewhat down since then, not sure how long they continued to go up ... I tried to see if carbon dates keep going too young to the Temple of Solomon, but found no carbon date for Temple of Solomon (not meaning there isn't one).

Now, other bit involved.

Syncellus gives no date for Joseph in Egypt.

I'll go to Birth of Isaac and Joseph in Egypt, receiving death of Joseph in Genesis 50 as probable real date for Djoser's coffin, supposing that Djoser was Joseph's Pharao and Joseph was Imhotep. I'll get Ussher Dates, take distance, and then apply that distance to Syncellus' date for birth of Isaac. Which is 2089 BC.

About 5300 Years Ago There was a World Wide Flood? Iffy ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/03/about-5300-years-ago-there-was-world.html


Actually, as the site where I can still access Haydock, unlike the previous Haydock site, leaves out the Ussher chronology (which is consistent with the Vulgate and therefore not automatically banned by Catholics), I go to AiG's and CMI's chart for Ussher.

Abraham born 1996 BC, Family enters Egypt in 1706 BC.

1996 BC
1706 BC
0290 years

2189 BC
0290
1899 BC

In Syncellus, Jacob's family would enter Egypt in 1899 BC. How long after that is last verse of Genesis 50?

Jacob died after 17 years in Egypt (Genesis 47:27), which would have been

1899
0017
1882

in 1882. But how long after that did Joseph die?

Well, let's take 1882 BC as a standin for Joseph's death, so much more as Djoser can have died before Joseph. Djoser's coffin has carbon date 2600 BC.

2600 BC carbon "date"
1882 BC real date
0728 extra years

This means, in Syncellus' chronology, there was a level of 91.57 pmC at death of Djoser, which would have risen to 100.424 pmC at Exodus.

1882
1685
0197

In 197 years, the normal decay is to 97.645 % of previous level (97.645 pmC if previous level is 100 pmC), and so the replacement is a production of 2.355 pmC points.

91.57 pmC * 97.645 % = 89.414 pmC (*)
100.424 pmC - 89.414 pmC = 11.01 pmC
11.01 pmC / 2.355 pmC = 4.675 times faster

So, from Djoser, if Joseph's Pharao, to Exodus, the Syncellus chronology implies a factor of carbon production of 4.675 times as fast.

From Exodus to Jericho?

1685 BC
100.424 pmC, 35 years off, "1650 BC"

1645 BC
100.875 pmC, 72 years off, "1573 BC"


100.424 pmC * 99.517 % = 99.939 pmC
100.875 pmC - 99.939 pmC = 0.936 pmC
100 pmC - 99.517 pmC = 0.483 pmC
0.936 pmC / 0.483 pmC = 1.938 times faster

So, from a carbon production 4.7 times as fast over 197 years, it slows down to 1.9 times as fast over next 40 years. Feasible, provided the 4.7 times as fast was not the changeless speed over all the time, but that in fact it was so around midway, and ended near 1.9 times as fast.

(1.938 + x)/2 = 4.675
1.938 + x = 2*4.675
x = 2*4.675 - 1.938 = 7.413

Meaning, in 1882 BC, the carbon 14 production would have been 7.413 times as fast. This is a theoretical value, since the distribution of speeds could have been uneven. What was the Syncellus factor between Genesis 14 and Djoser's coffin?

2109 BC
87.636 pmC, 1091 extra years, "3200 BC"

1882 BC
91.57 pmC, 730 extra years, "2612 BC"


227 years, normal decay 97.291 %, normal replacement 2.709 pmC points

87.636 pmC * 97.291 % = 85.262 pmC
91.57 pmC - 85.262 pmC = 6.308 pmC
6.308 pmC / 2.709 pmC = 2.329 times faster

Now, the worst quibble against Syncellus chronology, from carbon p o v, would be the speeding up between a) 2.329 times faster between Genesis 14 and Djoser and b) 4.675 times faster between Djoser and Exodus and starting at 7.413 times faster.

I think, Syncellus chronology is still feasible, as well as St Jerome chronology being so, in a way which Masoretic chronology is not.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Cleophas at Emmaus (**)
25.IX.2018

(*) Results and terms have been reduced to 3 decimals by rounding after the calculations from here on. (**) Apud castellum Emmaus natalis beati Cleophae, qui fuit Christi discipulus, quem et in eadem domo in qua mensam Domino paraverat, pro confessione illius a Judaeis occisum tradunt, et gloriosa memoria sepultum.

vendredi 21 septembre 2018

Masoretic and Carbon 14 NOT Counting Göbekli Tepe in Advance First Time


Quoting a paper by Brian Thomas:

Two date range options for Noah’s Flood
JOURNAL OF CREATION 31(1) 2017 ||PAPERS
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j31_1/J31_1_120-127.pdf


With the Flood-to-Abram Genesis 11 chrono-genealogy having no name gaps and more importantly no time gaps, the timespan between the Flood and Abram’s birth should equal very nearly 352 years. This follows by adding 292 years from Genesis 11 to 60 presumed years between Terah’s firstborn and Abram, as discussed above.


So, Flood to Genesis 14?

292 352
075 075
367 427

Carbon level at Flood?

Minimum, with Neanderthal extinction, Denisovan extinction and Flores extinction as carbon clue for Flood - "40 000 BP = 38 000 BC = 35 482 extra years"*, 1.367 pmC.

Maximum, with most recent dinosaur carbon dated by Mark Armitage to "22 000 BP = 20 000 BC = 17 428 extra years"*, 12.066 pmC.

Carbon level at Genesis 14? 2166 BC (as per paper) minus 75 = 2091 BC, carbon dated to 3400 - 2900 BC.

Minimum "3400 BC - 2091 BC = 1309 extra years"*, 85.355 pmC.

Maximum "2900 BC - 2091 BC = 809 extra years"*, 90.677 pmC.

% left after 367 or shorter count of years, 95.658 (things from 367 years ago have 95.658 pmC), % left after 427 or longer count of years, 94.966 (similar)

pmC points recovered in shorter count of years as per today's production, 4.342 pmC points, and for longer 5.034 pmC

Minimum to minimum, shorter count of years
95.658 * 1.367 = 1.308 **
85.355 - 1.308 = 84.047
84.047 / 4.342 = 19.357
Minimum to minimum, longer count of years
94.966 * 1.367 = 1.298
85.355 - 1.298 = 84.057
84.057 / 5.034 = 16.698
Minimum to maximum, shorter count of years
95.658 * 1.367 = 1.308
90.677 - 1.308 = 89.369
89.369 / 4.342 = 20.583
Minimum to maximum, longer count of years
94.966 * 1.367 = 1.298
90.677 - 1.298 = 89.379
89.379 / 5.034 = 17.755
Maximum to minimum, shorter count of years
95.658 * 12.066 = 11.542
85.355 - 11.542 = 73.813
73.813 / 4.342 = 17
Maximum to minimum, longer count of years
94.966 * 12.066 = 11.459
85.355 - 11.459 = 73.896
73.896 / 5.034 = 14.679
Maximum to maximum, shorter count of years
95.658 * 12.066 = 11.542
90.677 - 11.542 = 79.135
79.135 / 4.342 = 18.225
Maximum to maximum, longer count of years
94.966 * 12.066 = 11.459
90.677 - 11.459 = 79.218
79.218 / 5.034 = 15.737


Let's say we insert Babel like this: 101 after Flood Peleg is born while Noah is dividing the world, 106 after Flood the rebellion against this starts Babel, 146 Babel ends. (My own presumption is, this division happened when Noah was dying, and 40 years were between 350 and 401, Peleg born some years after Genesis 11:9).

This gives 106 and 146 as limit years for Babel. What would carbon levels have been? What would the carbon dates look like? Presuming unrealistically a linear graph of carbon rise.

106 / 367 = 0.289
40 / 367 = 0.109
221 / 367 = 0.602

106 / 427 = 0.248
40 / 427 = 0.094
281 / 427 = 0.658

Minimum to minimum, shorter count of years
85.355 - 1.308 = 84.047
0.289 * 84.047 = 24.275
0.109 * 84.047 = 9.16
0.602 * 84.047 = 50.612

Minimum to minimum, longer count of years
85.355 - 1.298 = 84.057
0.248 * 84.057 = 20.867
0.094 * 84.057 = 7.874
0.658 * 84.057 = 55.316

Minimum to maximum, shorter count of years
90.677 - 1.308 = 89.369
0.289 * 89.369 = 25.812
0.109 * 89.369 = 9.741
0.602 * 89.369 = 53.816

Minimum to maximum, longer count of years
90.677 - 1.298 = 89.379
0.248 * 89.379 = 22.188
0.0937 * 89.379 = 8.373
0.658 * 89.379 = 58.818

Maximum to minimum, shorter count of years
85.355 - 11.542 = 73.813
0.289 * 73.813 = 21.319
0.109 * 73.813 = 8.045
0.602 * 73.813 = 44.449

Maximum to minimum, longer count of years
85.355 - 11.459 = 73.896
0.248 * 73.896 = 18.344
0.094 * 73.896 = 6.922
0.658 * 73.896 = 48.63

Maximum to maximum, shorter count of years
90.677 - 11.542 = 79.135
0.289 * 79.135 = 22.856
0.109 * 79.135 = 8.625
0.602 * 79.135 = 47.653

Maximum to maximum, longer count of years
90.677 - 11.459 = 79.218
0.248 * 79.218 = 19.665
0.0937 * 79.218 = 7.421
0.658 * 79.218 = 52.132


Now we have broken down the percentages, let's do the additions. Before doing so, let's be precise, I was doing this in haste. Adding produced carbon during time x to the residual carbon after time x is of course legitimate. But here I am adding produced carbon for times x/a, x/b and x/c to the value of residual carbon from decay of content prior to time x after the whole of time x. I should of course have taken production for x/a onto decay after x/a, then decay from that sum during x/b onto production during x/b, then production of x/c onto the decay residue after x/c of previous sum.

Below, I will make a more realistic version. Here I do it simplified:

Minimum to minimum, shorter count of years
95.658 * 1.367 = 1.308
1.308 + 24.275 = 25.583
25.583 + 9.16 = 34.743
34.743 + 50.612 = 85.355

Minimum to minimum, longer count of years
94.966 * 1.367 = 1.298
1.298 + 20.867 = 22.165
22.165 + 7.874 = 30.039
30.039 + 55.316 = 85.355

Minimum to maximum, shorter count of years
95.658 * 1.367 = 1.308
1.308 + 25.812 = 27.12
27.12 + 9.741 = 36.861
36.861 + 53.816 = 90.677

Minimum to maximum, longer count of years
94.966 * 1.367 = 1.298
1.298 + 22.188 = 23.486
23.486 + 8.373 = 31.859
31.859 + 58.818 = 90.677

Maximum to minimum, shorter count of years
95.658 * 12.066 = 11.542
11.542 + 21.319 = 32.861
32.861 + 8.045 = 40.906
40.906 + 44.449 = 85.355

Maximum to minimum, longer count of years
94.966 * 12.066 = 11.459
11.459 + 18.344 = 29.803
29.803 + 6.922 = 36.725
36.725 + 48.63 = 85.355

Maximum to maximum, shorter count of years
95.658 * 12.066 = 11.542
11.542 + 22.856 = 34.398
34.398 + 8.625 = 43.024
43.024 + 47.653 = 90.677

Maximum to maximum, longer count of years
94.966 * 12.066 = 11.459
11.459 + 19.665 = 31.124
31.124 + 7.421 = 38.545
38.545 + 52.132 = 90.677


This gives us the successive values, very roughly, of pmC:

  min min min max max min max max
2458 1.367 1.367 12.066 12.066
2352 25.583 27.12 32.861 34.398
2312 34.743 36.861 40.906 43.024
2091 85.355 90.677 85.355 90.677
 
2518 1.367 1.367 12.066 12.066
2412 22.165 23.486 29.803 31.124
2372 30.039 31.859 36.725 38.545
2091 85.355 90.677 85.355 90.677


Which give us the successive numbers of extra years

 
  min min min max max min max max
2458 35500 35500 17500 17500
2352 11250 10800 9200 8800
2312 8750 8250 7400 6950
2091 1300 810 1300 810
2518 35500 35500 17500 17500
2412 12450 12000 10000 9650
2372 9950 9450 8300 7900
2091 1300 810 1300 810


Which give us the carbon dated years in BC:

  min min min max max min max max
2458 37 958 37 958 19 958 19 958
2352 13 602 13 152 11 552 11 152
2312 11 062 10 562 9712 9262
2091 3391 2901 3391 2901
 
2518 38 018 38 018 20 018 20 018
2412 14 862 14 412 12 412 12 062
2372 12 322 11 822 10 672 10 272
2091 3391 2901 3391 2901


So, the expected carbon dates for Babel would be, oldest 14862 to 12322 BC, youngest 11152 to 9262 BC. Remember, we want Mesopotamia.

South Iraq around Shatt el Arab is out. Mid Iraq = Babylonia, NW Iraq + N Syria + E Turkey = Assyria. Babylonia + Assyria = Mesopotamia.

A city and a tower. You could argue, the tower was a rocket, left no architectonic traces, leaves a city. I think you need to get a bit younger carbon dates and either take Göbekli Tepe as adequate or Göbekli Tepe as the city and nearby Harran (Turkish-Syrian border) as the tower.

And I think it is somewhat easier to get right pmC values for Babel = Göbekli Tepe in St Jerome's or George Syncellus' chronology than in Masoretic. Also, my latest table has as fastest production 11 times as fast as now, during Göbekli Tepe / Babel, while a Masoretic timeline gives an overall factor of 14.6 to 20.5 times as fast, all along the timeline, no efforts made to make provisions for separate factors before, during and after Babel.

Now, if we do count Babel as Göbekli Tepe, and if we do take it in from start this time, the short and long counts of years would go like this: 106 40 221, 106 40 281, as in previous. BUT now we will not make an overall average for all the time, but for each part separately.

Since the most important part is - from intensity of radiation - Flood to Babel, I will give just one value for carbon date of Genesis 14, namely 3200 BC, one which I think is probable. I have used it several times over in my own calculations.

Short count in BC
Real Carbon Extra pmC
2458 38000 35542 1.358
2352 9600 7248 41.612
2312 8600 6288 46.736
2091 3200 1109 87.446
 
Long count in BC
Real Carbon Extra pmC
2518 38000 35482 1.367
2412 9600 7188 41.915
2372 8600 6228 47.077
2091 3200 1109 87.446


After 106 years, you have a residue of 98.726 %

98.726 * 1.358 pmC = 1.341 pmC **
98.726 * 1.367 pmC = 1.35 pmC

After 106 the new total in each case exceeds this residue:

41.612 pmC - 1.341 pmC = 40.271 pmC
41.915 pmC - 1.35 pmC = 40.565 pmC

During 106 years, normal production is 1.274 pmC points. The excess over residue is the de facto production back then, which should be divided by this value to get how much faster carbon 14 was forming:

40.271 pmC / 1.274 pmC = 31.61
40.565 pmC / 1.274 pmC = 31.841

Let's average:

(31.841 + 31.61) / 2 = 31.726

31.726 * 0.34 = 10.787

Where do the 0.34 come in from? Well, they are the milliSivert per year you get at medium location from the cosmos. Supposing - which is intuitive but not factual - that the radiation dose from cosmos is exactly in linear proportion to the speed of carbon production, the cosmic radiation would be at 10.8 milliSieverts per year, which these days is a very high overall background radiation.

Suppoose instead radiation dose is proportional to square of carbon production factor, we get instead:

31.726 * 31.726 * 0.34 = 342.214

342 milliSievert per year is obviously impossible for 106 years without killing off all of mankind in radiation related diseases.

So, is radiation dose proportional to carbon production factor or to its square?

Neither. The fact is, no one knows, no one has made a proper model for what it takes to get a 32 times faster production of carbon 14.

One man has made models of the type, but he has refused to cooperate in extending them for the values I find interesting for this purpose. He's only into palaeoclimate. His name is Ilya Usoskin, and he is or was back then at the University of Oulu which we Swedes know as Uleåborg. I traced him through Peter Vajda and then got stuck with his refusal:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html


Next question, how much faster during Babel?

After 40 years we have a residue of 99.517 %.

99.517 % * 41.612 pmC = 41.411 pmC
99.517 % * 41.915 pmC = 41.713 pmC

The real production is what gives us the new value after 40 years, what is added above the residue.

46.736 pmC - 41.411 pmC = 5.325 pmC
47.077 pmC - 41.713 pmC = 5.364 pmC

During 40 years, the normal carbon production is 0.483 pmC. Divide by this to get the factor

5.325 pmC / 0.483 pmC = 11.025
5.364 pmC / 0.483 pmC = 11.107

(11.025 + 11.107)/ 2 = 11.066

For the carbon buildup during Babel event, the factor is comparable to my own proposal. Here are the very sketchy theoretic radiation doses based on not knowing how exactly they relate to the carbon buildup:

11.066 * 0.34 milliSievert = 3.762 milliSievert
11.066 * 11.066 * 0.34 milliSievert = 41.633 milliSievert

With linear proportion, 3.8 milliSieverts per year, a very normal total background dose.

With square proportion, 42 milliSieverts per year, and Japanese authorities think 20 is hazardous as a total background radiation. Since my own values for Babel event are also close to 11, you can realise why I would like an answer from Professor Usoskin ....

Now, Babel to Genesis 14.

After 221 years, you have a residue of 97.362 % and therefore during them, the normal production is 2.638 pmC points.

46.736 pmC * 97.362 % = 45.503 pmC
87.446 pmC - 45.503 pmC = 41.943 pmC
41.943 pmC / 2.638 pmC = 15.9

And after 281 years, the residue is 96.658 % and the normal production is 3.342 pmC points.

47.077 pmC * 96.658 % = 45.504 pmC
87.446 pmC - 45.504 pmC = 41.942 pmC
41.942 pmC / 3.342 pmC = 12.55

In this scenario, the time from Babel to Abraham at age 75 / 80 has a factor higher than during Babel, 13 to 16 times normal production speed.

In mine, LXX based (but with post-Flood coinciding with Samaritan), that is, it is not my chronology, but probably based on St Jerome's calculation, Babel to Abraham is just about 6 times normal.

While Brian Thomas has given fairly strong reasons to prefer LXX based over Masoretic, I think the carbon production and what it implies about radiation doses also adds an argument.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Matthew***
21.IX.2018

Footnotes :

* Counting with a Masoretic Flood date of 2518 BC (Genesis 14 calculations in parentheses):

38,000 20,000 (3400 2900)
02,518 02,518 (2091 2091)
35,482 17,428 (1309 0809)

** Systematically rounding off to nearest 3 decimals after calculations, up to just before carbon calculator:

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html


For instance, a multiplication like:

0.108991825613079 * 84.04735514 = 9.16047467465939894187606

is shown like

0.109 * 84.047 = 9.16

and this is not a mistake for "0.109 * 84.047 = 9.161123" or even for "0.109 * 84.047 = 9.161". 9.16 rounds a fraction where decimal after 6 is a zero and decimals after that are under 5.

*** In Aethiopia natalis sancti Matthaei, Apostoli et Evangelistae; qui, in ea regione praedicans, martyrium passus est. Hujus Evangelium, Hebraeo sermone conscriptum, ipso Matthaeo revelante, inventum est, una cum corpore beati Barnabae Apostoli, tempore Zenonis Imperatoris.

lundi 17 septembre 2018

A Partial Solution with More Difficulties


A Difficulty with the Chronology of St Jerome? · A Partial Solution with More Difficulties

When FB friends fail, I go to Haydock:

HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT
3 KINGS 6
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-328.shtml#navPoint_329


Ver. 1. Eightieth year. This chronology meets with the approbation of most people. See Usher. C. xii. Some, however, find a difficulty in reconciling it with Acts xiii. 20, which seems to attribute 450 years to the government of the judges. C. --- Sept. have 440; Josephus 592, though Ruffin neglects the 90 in his version; Petau 520; Severus 582; Clem.Alex. 566; Vossius 380; Cano 590; Serarius 680. --- Houbigant would read 350 in the Acts. But Capellus would add 200 here, &c. H. --- Second of the sacred year, corresponding with our April. Syr. Chaldee styles it "of the splendour of flowers." M. --- The Hurons, and other nations of America, call this "the moon of plants;" the Flemings, "the month for mowing," Grasmaand. Our Saxon ancestors gave descriptive names to the months. See Verstegan. H. --- At first, the Hebrews only described the months by their order; "first, second," &c. In Solomon's time we begin to find other names, taken from the Phenicians, (Scalig.) Chaldees, (Grot.) or Egyptians. Hardouin, A. 2993. --- After the captivity, at least, the Chaldee names were adopted; (H.) 1. Nisan; 2. Jar; 3. Sivan; 4. Tammus; 5. Ab; 6. Elul; 7. Tisri; 8. Marshevan; 9. Casleu; 10. Thebet; 11. Schebet; 12. Adar; (C.) 13. Veadar, the intercalary month, when requisite, according to the lunar system, which was not perhaps yet adopted. Each of these months generally corresponded with two of ours; Nisan with the end of March and the beginning of April, &c. Sept. here take no notice of Zio, though they do, v. 37. H. --- The temple was begun on Monday, May 21, A. 2992. Usher. --- It was finished A. 3000, or in the following year, when it was solemnly dedicated. Button.


HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT
ACTS 13
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment108.shtml


Ver. 20. Chronology only gives about 350 years from the entrance into the land of promise to the end of Samuel's judicial government, who was the last of the judges. V.


What is the full text of the passage in Acts 13?

Acts 13 - Douay-Rheims
http://drbo.org/chapter/51013.htm


Exodus:
[17] The God of the people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they were sojourners in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought them out from thence,

Desert walk, 40 years
[18] And for the space of forty years endured their manners in the desert.

Judges 450 years:
(presumably including Joshua and Samuel)
[19] And destroying seven nations in the land of Chanaan, divided their land among them, by lot, [20] As it were, after four hundred and fifty years: and after these things, he gave unto them judges, until Samuel the prophet.

(Samuel not counted?)
(since the verse ends on "until Samuel")

Saul 40 years:
[21] And after that they desired a king: and God gave them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, forty years.

David 40 years:
[22] And when he had removed him, he raised them up David to be king: to whom giving testimony, he said: I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man according to my own heart, who shall do all my wills.


040 040
450 490
040 530
040 570
004 574

0968 1028
0574 0574
1542 1602

David anointed 1032 -> temple begun 968 -> Exodus in 1542? Solomon anointed in 1032 -> temple begun 1028 -> Exodus in 1602?

Why then the St Jerome date for Exodus 1510? And the Syncellus date 1685?

However, this seems to indicate, while Biblical chronology is certainly in autographs inerrant, it is not "infallible" in so far as that one cannot go wrong in it. There are clear snags.

Before anyone hastily concludes there is a conflict between Act 13 and III Kings 6, I submit the possibility that III Kings 6 might be a "sundial chronology" - omitting dark years (when Israel was unfaithful) like a sundial omits to count hours that are cloudy or at night.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Stigmata of St. Francis*
17.IX.2018

* In monte Alverniae, in Etruria, commemoratio Impressionis sacrorum Stigmatum, quibus sanctus Franciscus, Ordinis Minorum Institutor, in suis manibus, pedibus et latere, mirabili Dei gratia, impressus fuit. - While it is also the heavenly birthday of St Robert Bellarmine, he has another feast day : Romae natalis sancti Roberti Bellarmino, Confessoris, e Societate Jesu, atque Cardinalis et Capuani olim Episcopi, sanctitate, doctrina, et plurimis ad catholicae fidei et Apostolicae Sedis defensionem susceptis laboribus clarissimi; quem Pius Undecimus, Pontifex Maximus, Sanctorum honoribus auxit et universalis Ecclesiae Doctorem declaravit, ejusque festum tertio Idus Maji recolendum indixit.

To any KJV optimist, that version has the same years as Douay Rheims in both places: 1 Kings 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord. Acts 13:20 And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.

Erratum : 968 BC for temple of Solomon's inception in St Jerome Chronology, should be 988. This has a consequence for the Exodus date too:

0988
0574
1562

samedi 15 septembre 2018

A Difficulty with the Chronology of St Jerome?


A Difficulty with the Chronology of St Jerome? · A Partial Solution with More Difficulties

Some attentive or even casual by now readers of this blog may know, my Biblical chronology is neither Ussher's, nor the one by George Syncellus (though I have used his for some tables), but the one by St Jerome ...

Now, you may think post-Flood patriachs would be the problem - no. I don't think so.

Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono; a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo; a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo; a Moyse et egressu populi Israel de Aegypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo; ab unctione David in Regem, anno millesimo trigesimo secundo; Hebdomada sexagesima quinta, juxta Danielis prophetiam; Olympiade centesima nonagesima quarta; ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo; anno Imperii Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo, toto Orbe in pace composito, sexta mundi aetate, Jesus Christus, aeternus Deus aeternique Patris Filius, mundum volens adventu suo piissimo consecrare, de Spiritu Sancto conceptus, novemque post conceptionem decursis mensibus (Hic vox elevatur, et omnes genua flectunt), in Bethlehem Judae nascitur ex Maria Virgine factus Homo.

From Creation
5199th year
From Flood
2957th year
From Abraham born
2015th year
From Moses and Exodus
1510th year
From Anointing of King David
1032nd year
In Daniel's prophecy
65th week of years
In Olympiads
194th Olympiad
From Rome's Founding
752nd year
From Accession of Octavian
42nd year


Anointing of King David would have been about 50 years before completion of the Temple. Or 44 years ...

Now, look at this:

III Kings 6:[1] And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of the reign of Solomon over Israel, in the month Zio (the same is the second month), he began to build a house to the Lord. This is Douay Rheims, translated from Vulgate. Here: [1] Factum est ergo quadringentesimo et octogesimo anno egressionis filiorum Israel de terra Aegypti, in anno quarto, mense Zio ( ipse est mensis secundus), regni Salomonis super Israel, aedificari coepit domus Domino.

(Some call the book I Kings, and they call I and II Kings I and II Samuel, Jews call both these "book of Samuel", and call III and IV Kings "book of Kings")

Since David reigned 40 years, since King Solomon took over after he died, this verse refers to 44 years after King David's anointing.

1032 BC
-044
=978 BC

But ....

1510 BC
-480
1030 BC

So, if there is a problem in the chronology of St Jerome, it would be whether 1032 BC was the Anointing of King David or the Beginning of the Temple. If 1032 BC was the beginning of the Temple, this matches fairly well with Exodus in 1510 BC. Here is the LXX with translation of same verse:

ΚΑΙ ἐγενήθη ἐν τῷ τεσσαρακοστῷ καὶ τετρακοσιοστῷ ἔτει τῆς ἐξόδου υἱῶν ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, τῷ ἔτει τῷ τετάρτῳ ἐν μηνὶ τῷ δευτέρῳ βασιλεύοντος τοῦ βασιλέως Σαλωμὼν ἐπὶ τὸν ᾿Ισραήλ, (Κεφ. Ε´ 31 ) 1α καὶ ἐνετείλατο ὁ βασιλεὺς ἵνα αἴρωσι λίθους μεγάλους τιμίους εἰς τὸν θεμέλιον τοῦ οἴκου, καὶ λίθους ἀπελεκήτους. (Κεφ. Ε´ 32 ) 1β καὶ ἐπελέκησαν οἱ υἱοὶ Σαλωμὼν καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ Χιρὰμ καὶ ἔβαλαν αὐτούς. 1γ ἐν τῷ ἔτει τῷ τετάρτῳ ἐθεμελίωσε τὸν οἶκον Κυρίου ἐν μηνὶ Νισώ, καὶ τῷ δευτέρῳ μηνὶ 1δ ἐν ἑνδεκάτῳ ἐνιαυτῷ, ἐν μηνὶ Βαὰλ (οὗτος ὁ μὴν ὁ ὄγδοος) συνετελέσθη ὁ οἶκος εἰς πάντα λόγον αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς πᾶσαν διάταξιν αὐτοῦ. - 1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and fortieth year after the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt, in the fourth year and second month of the reign of king Solomon over Israel, that the king commanded that they should take great [and] costly stones for the foundation of the house, and hewn stones. And the men of Solomon, and the men of Chiram hewed [the stones], and laid them [for a foundation]. In the fourth year he laid the foundation of the house of the Lord, in the month Ziu, even in the second month. In the eleventh year, in the month Baal, this [is] the eighth month, the house was completed according to all its plan, and according to all its arrangement.

Vulgate has quadringentesimo et octogesimo, translating as 480th, LXX has tessarakostô kai tetrakosistô, translating as 440th.

So, how is this important ... well, Syncellus has King David in 1072 BC and King Solomon in 1032 BC - and Exodus in 1685 BC

1685 BC
the Syncellus date for Exodus.
...
1189 BC
Agamemnon becomes king of Mycenae and of Argives
1172 BC
Syncellus' date for taking of Troy.
1166 BC
Orestes becomes king of Mycenae and of Argives
1161 BC
Aeneas becomes king of Latins
1158 BC
... and three years later Ascanius follows him
1151 BC
Eli is Judge
1128 BC
Samuel is Judge
1112 BC
Syncellus places the election of Saul
1072 BC
King David
1032 BC
King Solomon


Table extract cited from here:

About 5300 Years Ago There was a World Wide Flood? Iffy ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/03/about-5300-years-ago-there-was-world.html


Now, we have a similar problem for Syncellus since 4 years after 1032 is 1028:

1685 BC
-440
1245 BC

There is a discrepancy between 1245 and 1028 or is it just me? And Syncellus is supposed to base his chronology from normal LXX texts, since he has a II Cainan and has Peleg born 529 after the Flood. Now, Beatles had a song "with a little help of my friends" ... and I have some friends and acquaintances on FB.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy
Seven Dolours of the Blessed Virgin
15.IX.2018

Erratum in subtraction 1032 - 44 = 978, actually, = 988. 1032 - 40 = 992. 992 - 4 = 988.

English name of the feast is actually Seven Sorrows.

vendredi 14 septembre 2018

Lying for Darwin


I have met one or two Catholics (of the pro-Pope-Francis brigade) who accuse Creationists and (as in my case or that of Robert Sungenis) of "lying for Jesus".

Here is a link featuring lying for Darwin being the real base in the Scopes trial:

Given that John Scopes was a popular football coach in Dayton who never taught evolution and didn't feel strongly about the subject - how then did he get indicted for violating a Tennessee law which forbid teaching the evolution of man? The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in New York City and George Rappleyea, a local mine operator in Dayton Tennessee, were responsible for indicting John Scopes for teaching evolution. The ACLU was anxious to get a test case in Tennessee which they might be able to use to repeal or nullify the Butler act. This act forbid public school teachers in the state of Tennessee to deny the literal Biblical account of man's origin and to teach in its place the evolution of man from lower animals. The law, incidentally, didn't forbid teaching the evolution of any other species of plant or animal. George Rappleyea read a press release from the ACLU in a Chattanooga paper, The Daily Times, which said in part:

"We are looking for a Tennessee teacher who is willing to accept our services in testing this law in the courts."


The release promised legal services without cost and implied that the Ku-Klux Klan and "professional patriotic societies" were the "inspiration" for the law. Rappleyea apparently had reasons of his own for trying to embarrass the Fundamentalist Christians of Tennessee by challenging and perhaps overthrowing a law which favored teaching the Biblical account of man's creation. During the Scopes trial George Rappleyea told the press about his reason for setting the Scopes trial in motion. Rappleyea was apparently upset with a Fundamentalist preacher who he claimed declared that a dead boy would be cast into the "flames of hell" because he had neither "confessed Christ" nor was baptized. This apparently did not agree with Rappleyea's religious views and he vowed that he would "get even" with the "Fundamentalists" who he believed were responsible for the antievolution law (de Camp, pages 6-7). Rappleyea said "I made up my mind I'd show the world."

Rappleyea, who de Camp describes as an "intense, argumentative, garrulous man," lost no time in seeking out John Scopes and in pressuring him to accept the ACLU offer. Scopes was apparently reluctant to get involved and told Rappleyea that he had not actually taught evolution. Rappleyea insisted that since the biology text book taught evolution, that was close enough and with Scopes' permission he wrote out a telegram on the spot to the ACLU which read:

"Professor J.T. Scopes, teacher of science Rhea County high School, Dayton, Tenn, will be arrested and charged with teaching evolution. Consent of superintendent of education for test case to be defended by you. Wire me collect if you wish to cooperate and arrest will follow."


Apparently Rappleyea didn't even wait for the ACLU response as he went right out to a justice of the peace to get a warrant for Scopes' arrest. Sue Hicks, a local lawyer who went along with the plan, filled out a makeshift arrest warrant while Rappleyea swore to the truth of the statement and signed the warrant. He then found a sheriff and demanded the arrest of John Scopes. Scopes was arrested and immediately released on a bond of $1,000. It should be emphasized that, contrary to the film, Scopes was never jailed for teaching evolution. In portraying Scopes as a "prisoner", the film obviously tried to invoke sympathy for Scopes as a man who was persecuted for his beliefs by prying Fundamentalists. In his book, Sprague de Camp dispelled what he called "the widespread myth" of the dedicated school teacher who was persecuted for his courageous stand on behalf of evolution by "witch-burning" Fundamentalists:

"The trial wasn't a 'witch hunt' as it has been called, because the accused and his defenders - the 'witches' - were actually the hunters, stalking the law with the intent of overturning it or at least making it unenforceable." (de Camp, page 490)


Bible.ca : Inherit The Wind: Intellectual Pornography!
section : A Hollywood History of the 1925 Scopes 'Monkey' Trial
by David N. Menton, Ph.D., Copyright © 1987, 1994, 1997 Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-scopes-trial-inherit-wind.htm#detail


I can't say I am not reminded of Hochhuth's The Deputy, also Marxism, but this time attacking Catholicism, and it is somewhat significant that here back in 1925 a press release considered KKK as behind the Butler Act, and now there are people attacking Creationism as being racialist, this time over for literally believing in Genesis 9:20 - 27, as if Chanaan rather than Cush were the ancestor of the blacks .../HGL

Bonus, here is a link to Sprague de Camp's work which was cited more than once by Menton:

Amazon : The Great Monkey Trial
Hardcover – January, 1968, by L. Sprague De Camp (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Monkey-Trial-Sprague-Camp/dp/0385046251


See also : Great Bishop of Geneva! : Answering a Meme About Catholic and Orthodox
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2018/09/answering-meme-about-catholic-and.html

"Pope Francis" is Not a Creationist


The famous quote in which he said so has been analysed by Catholics who care about Catholic dogma:

The Denzinger-Bergoglio : 35 – God is not a magician, capable of making everything
https://en-denzingerbergoglio.com/we-risk-imagining-that-god-was-a-magician-complete-with-an-all-powerful-magic-wand/

jeudi 6 septembre 2018

To a Comment on the Article


To an Article on Ortho-Christian · Continuing Previous · To a Comment on the Article

A disagreeing commenter on the article said:

"Piepkorn cites the Oxford English Dictionary as pointing out that the first use of the English word inerrant was in 1834, and its first use in a religious context was in 1865 when describing the manner in which the Pope was preserved from error."


And Trinity (as a term) is not in the Bible, so Trinity was (as doctrine) invented by St Athanasius?

Charles Taze Russell's sectarians will laud that ... wait, they are less against inerrancy than you are ... well, I'd say that Laetare Sunday (mid Lent Sunday in Latin rite) of 1277 (except it was considered 1276 up to March 25 back then), bishop Tempier of Paris* condemned a series of propositions (numbers in parentheses) which then were systematised in an English copy, accepted by all bishops in England. Here are the condemned propositions on the Bible:

Capitulum XVII Errores de scriptura sacra
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/capitula-xv-xviii.html


  • 1 (150). Quod homo non debet esse contentus auctoritate ad habendum certitudinem alicuius questionis.
  • 2 (151). Quod ad hoc quod homo habeat certitudinem alicuius conclusionis, oportet quod sit fundatus super principia per se nota. - Error, quia generaliter tam de certitudine apprehensionis quam adhesionis loquitur.
  • 3 (152). Quod sermones theologi fundati sunt in fabulis.
  • 4 (153). Quod nichil plus scitur propter scire theologiam.
  • 5 (174). Quod fabule et falsa sunt in lege christiana, sicut in aliis.*
  • 6 (175). Quod lex christiana impedit addiscere.**
  • 7 (20). Quod lex naturalis prohibet interfectionem animalium irrationalium sicut rationalium, licet non tantum.***


Here are my footnotes to those theses:

* De uerbis: "lex christiana"=fides christiana, "in aliis"=in islamica, in judaica, in pagana etc. lege. De re: nota quod alie leges non sunt uacue de ueris, set christiana est que uacua est de falsis. Affirmatur inerrantia fidei christiane.
** Error iuliani apostate sicut error communistarum siue bolscheuicorum. Et adfuit illis diebus (nil nouum sub sole).
*** Did you get that, animal rights activists?


This page is part of:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html


Note :
5 (174). Quod fabule et falsa sunt in lege christiana, sicut in aliis.*
That there are fables and errors in the Christian law, as in other ones. (Condemned)

As other "laws" (Talmudic exposition of Torah, Hadithic or other exposition of Qoran) are not free from all truths, they are mixed of truth and error. So, if the Bible were also so, it would contain error "as the other ones". Hence, Bishop Tempier says the Christian faith and the Bible, are NOT mixed of truth and error, but free from error.

This was repeated at Trent:

Si quis autem libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus prout in Ecclesia Catholica legi consueverunt et in veteri vulgata latina editione habentur pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit et traditiones praedictas sciens et prudens contempserit: anathema sit. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.
 
... ...
 
Praeterea ad coercenda petulantia ingenia decernit ut nemo suae prudentiae innixus in rebus fidei et morum ad aedificationem doctrinae christianae pertinentium sacram scripturam ad suos sensus contorquens contra eum sensum quem tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia cuius est iudicare de vero sensu et interpretatione scripturarum sanctarum aut etiam contra unanimem consensum patrum ipsam scripturam sacram interpretari audeat etiamsi huiusmodi interpretationes nullo unquam tempore in lucem edendae forent. Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.


Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent The Fourth Session
English translation by James Waterworth (London, 1848)
http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html


This fourth session was celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546. Also some time earlier than 1834 appearance of the term "inerrancy" in English.

Since parts of what was being condemned was the Socinian Reformation, which denied inerrancy, and since the Orthodox were hardly Socinian, I would not be surprised if the councils of Iasi and Jerusalem also contained such anti-Socinian clauses for Biblical inerrancy.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Zacharias**
6.IX.2018

* Paris had bishops back then, they only became archbishops later, in 1622 Jean-François de Gondi became the first archbishop.

** In Palaestina sancti Zachariae Prophetae, qui, de Chaldaea senex in patriam reversus, ibique defunctus, juxta Aggaeum Prophetam conditus jacet. - It is also my fiftieth birthday./HGL

Continuing Previous


To an Article on Ortho-Christian · Continuing Previous · To a Comment on the Article

He changed his mind on what Creationists think, though:

I further discovered that problems with older creationist models were not true of newer creationist models. Take the issue of the entire fossil record being laid down by the Flood. Contemporary creationists no longer believe this. Instead, they argue that the Paleozoic layers were laid down before the Flood, largely on the third day of creation, that the Mesozoic layers were layed down in the Flood, and that the Cenozoic layers were laid down as the Earth rocked back from the geological upheaval of the Flood.


This still argues that Cenozoic fossils are above Mesozoic ones, that Mesozoic ones are above Palaeozoic ones.

In fact, as said, some Cenozoic could well be pre-Flood (like a woolly rhino found next to a Neanderthal), while some Mesozoic could well be post-Flood (if a dinosaur is dated to 22,000 BP or 20,000 BC, it is probably from before Noah died, but after the Flood). As said in previous and as neglected by lots of Creationists who still are looking for a border "in the layer series" for the Flood.

This is evidenced by the fact that many of the so-called transitional fossils are found in the Cenozoic. There is actually a good series of horse transitional fossils. However, creationist biologist Todd Wood has developed a model for extremely rapid diversification of animal and plant life after the Flood. According to Wood, God created all “kinds” (called a baramin in creationist literature) with natural potentialities for diversification. There are various “switches” in the animal which turn on and off certain features. God made life so that it could develop and change, but the mechanism of this change is not primarily mutation and natural selection. Wood’s argument accounts for much of what we see in the late fossil record, and this newer model of the Flood solves many of the older problems with Flood geology.


I'd not bet on the horse series being good, Creationists have actually debunked it.

Also, as said, a Cenozoic fossil need not be post-Flood. I would say the 60 cm long Deinogalerix from Gargano - a place where St Michael made a miracle - is a pre-Flood relative of modern Gymnures, and Amphechinus was a relative of todays Erinaceinae - that is Hedgehogs. Yes, Moonrats and Hedgehogs have diversified after the Flood, very rapidly. But not to a very great diversity of radically different forms, comparable to Eohippus diversifying to horse. My countryman Mats Molén has theorised the "horse series" is three diverse baramins:

The evolution of the horse
by Mats Molén
https://creation.com/the-evolution-of-the-horse


And this is a defense of his polemics against ... Todd Wood.*

This passage however is not "endemic" to Wood, but common ground between him and Molén:

According to Wood, God created all “kinds” (called a baramin in creationist literature) with natural potentialities for diversification


The notion of baramins, diversifying after the Flood to present degrees of diversity, also solves the problem of how there was room for all kinds on the Ark.

Creation vs. Evolution : Baraminological Note
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/04/baraminological-note.html


Reminds me, I should collect the posts dedicated to the Ark into a series./HGL

* The evolution of the horse (Letter to the Editor)
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_1/j24_1_54-55.pdf