I Suppose CMI Accepts Second Coming as Physical

Here is a quote from Martin Luther King about it:

It is obvious that most twentieth century Christians must frankly and flatly reject any view of a physical return of .Christ. To hold such a view would mean denying a Copernican universe, for there can be no physical return unless there is a physical place from which to return. In its literal form this belief belongs to a pre-scientific world view which we cannot accept.' Where then do we find the Christian pertinence of this belief? We may find it in the words of one of the greatest Christians the world has ever known-St. Paul. "Nevertheless I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. Also we may turn to the words of the Fourth Gospel, "I will not leave you comfortless; I come to you. Because I live, ye shall live also." The most precious thought in Christianity is that Jesus is our daily friend, that he never did leave us comfortless or alone, and that we may know his transforming communion every day of our lives…Actually we are celebrating the Second Advent every time we open our hearts to Jesus, every time we turn our backs to the low road and accept the high road, every time we say no to self that we may say yes to Jesus Christ, every time a man or women turns from ugliness to beauty and is able to forgive even their enemies. Jesus stands at the door of our hearts if we are willing to admit him.

It was attributed to Martin Luther King by "Isidore Fitzroy, Professional lawyer, amateur Hellenophile," in an answer to the quoran question:

Martin Luther King denied the Virgin birth, his sinless life bodily resurrection from the grave and his second coming among other things. Why do people believe that Martin Luther King was a Christian? Why is he recognized as a Christian when he denies the essentials of Christianity?
[my emphasis]
https://www.quora.com/Martin-Luther-King-denied-the-Virgin-birth-his-sinless-life-bodily-resurrection-from-the-grave-and-his-second-coming-among-other-things-Why-do-people-believe-that-Martin-Luther-King-was-a-Christian-Why-is-he-recognized-as-a-Christian-when-he-denies-the-essentials-of-Christianity

So, while Isidore Fitzroy pretended he didn't, he actually gave a quote confirming it for Martin Luther King denying Second Coming.

Martin Luther King's rationale was Copernical world view, which CMI however accepts.

How does CMI conjugate second coming of Christ with Copernican (or very post-Copernican) world view in relation to his argument:

there can be no physical return unless there is a physical place from which to return

As I am a Geocentric holding that the visible fix stars are one light day up, I hold the physical place where Christ is now is just above one light day up.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St. Maur
St. Lucan of Paris
30.X.2019

Lutetiae Parisiorum sancti Lucani Martyris.

For Those who Do Take Vatican II as a Valid Council

Benno Zuiddam's View of Catholicism and Creationism · First World History · Is Dei Verbum a Young Earth Creationist Document? · Ambiguous Sentence Found · For Those who Do Take Vatican II as a Valid Council

If it was, Dei Verbum is dogma.

However, after what I saw, there is no central definition in it, to which the dogmatic character is tied, making all of the narration of it dogmatic.

But the narration includes paragraph 3, which is mentioned is Young Earth Creationist.

Previous to Vatican II some derogations from Young Earth Creationism had certainly been granted as options. However, these would have to be considered on your view as less authoritative than the dogma of Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Word of God.

Invoking the 1909 decision which allows taking creation days as longer periods, not just I have already explained how this is inadequate, one either must accept more or less of Uniformitarian timelines of Big History, but also, it would be like invoking St. Thomas Aquinas against Ineffabilis Deus to prove that the Blessed Virgin were saved from Original Sin only in the second moment of Her existance, after one moment with it. An opinion of one real doctor of the Church is however less authoritative than one bull of a real pope claiming to define dogma.

And a response in Pontifical Biblical Commission is also less authoritative than one dogmatic constitution of a real Council of the Church.

Only two documents are named "dogmatic constitution" in that council (which I hold to be invalid, as long as Pope Michael doesn't change his mind on that matter), it is Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. Only two other documents are at all considered constitutions, namely Sacrosanctum concilium being one on sacred liturgy and Gaudium et Spes being only a pastoral one. These four constitutions have all of them more weight than the three declarations and the nine decrees. But only two of them are considered as dogmatic, by those accepting the council, and Dei Verbum, with its Young Earth Creationist paragraph 3, is one of the two.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Torcy
St. Front of Perigueux
25.X.2019

Ambiguous Sentence Found

Benno Zuiddam's View of Catholicism and Creationism · First World History · Is Dei Verbum a Young Earth Creationist Document? · Ambiguous Sentence Found · For Those who Do Take Vatican II as a Valid Council

Lower down in Dei Verbum, chapter III, second half of §11 says:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

Cum ergo omne id, quod auctores inspirati seu hagiographi asserunt, retineri debeat assertum a Spiritu Sancto, inde Scripturae libri veritatem, quam Deus nostrae salutis causa Litteris Sacris consignari voluit, firmiter, fideliter et sine errore docere profitendi sunt (21). Itaque "omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata et utilis ad docendum, ad arguendum, ad corripiendum, ad erudiendum in iustitia: ut perfectus sit homo Dei, ad omne opus bonum instructus" (2 Tim 3,16-17, gr.).

I do not know what "Greek text" refers to, since the quote is the same that I find in the online Vulgate.

So, one interpretation could pretend "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation" (but not other truths with which only human authors were involved).

But this is an interpretation contradicted by "omnis Scriptura" / "all Scripture" which implies : also the parts that were not directly revealed to save us, but are there around the salvific content, like to give certifications on the circumstances of how it was revealed (we don't only need to assert the Bible is inerrant in saying "Jesus rose from the dead", we also need to assert it is inerrant in telling how the disciples of Emmaus walked with him etc.) or, for that matter, giving evidence to the divine omniscience of its ultimate author.

Therefore, the bad interpretation of the paragraph or the quote is even contradicted in immediate context. For those who can read.

However, this unfortunately doesn't mean it is not towted left and right ....

Or at least was, now it is more often heard that by "genre analysis" the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 weren't really meant as literal.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Theodore of Antioch
23.X.2019

Accessed links:

• II Tim. 3, Latin Vulgate
• Dei Verbum English
• Dei Verbum Latin

Is Dei Verbum a Young Earth Creationist Document?

Benno Zuiddam's View of Catholicism and Creationism · First World History · Is Dei Verbum a Young Earth Creationist Document? · Ambiguous Sentence Found · For Those who Do Take Vatican II as a Valid Council

I had heard more than once, that Vatican II document ("dogmatic constitution" according to those who consider it a valid council) Dei Verbum limited Biblical inerrancy to what's relevant for our salvation.

I had sometimes heard it in the version that it was stated so that such a limitation could be interpreted as being intended. Indeed, Robert Sungenis stated it is not clearly stated that such a limitation is intended.

I was looking at the site of CMI - benighted Protestants who think the Bible has only 66 books and a few more items on their demerit score, but at least they are Young Earth Creationists and this is the side they show most often - and just today found Lita Cosner or Robert Carter (not sure who of them wrote what paragraphs) quoting their "statement of faith":

“The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.”

Error 1 : "66 books" - Trent defines 72 or 73 if Baruch is counted separately from Jeremiah.
Error 2 : "the supreme authority" - make it part of a three stranded supreme authority of Holy Scriptures, Tradition and Magisterium.

Great benefit: "Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."

Here they are clear where I heard Dei Verbum was unclear.

So, I was looking it up. Since I knew "salvation" was in the quote I was finding inadequate (Trent, which is an undoubted Council as far as Catholics are concerned doesn't make that mistake), I tried to Ctrl+F for "salvation" which occurs 17 times in the English translation.

Here is one of them:

God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. 1:19-20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents. Then after their fall His promise of redemption aroused in them the hope of being saved (see Gen. 3:15) and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care, to give eternal life to those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation (see Rom. 2:6-7). Then, at the time He had appointed He called Abraham in order to make of him a great nation (see Gen. 12:2). Through the patriarchs, and after them through Moses and the prophets, He taught this people to acknowledge Himself the one living and true God, provident father and just judge, and to wait for the Savior promised by Him, and in this manner prepared the way for the Gospel down through the centuries.

Here is the Latin original for this paragraph three or second paragraph of chapter 1:

Deus, per Verbum omnia creans (cf. Io 1,3) et conservans, in rebus creatis perenne sui testimonium hominibus praebet (cf. Rom 1,19-20) et, viam salutis supernae aperire intendens, insuper protoparentibus inde ab initio Semetipsum manifestavit. Post eorum autem lapsum eos, redemptione promissa, in spem salutis erexit (cf. Gen 3,15) et sine intermissione generis humani curam egit, ut omnibus qui secundum patientiam boni operis salutem quaerunt, vitam aeternam daret (cf. Rom 2,6-7). Suo autem tempore Abraham vocavit, ut faceret eum in gentem magnam (cf. Gen 12,2-3), quam post Patriarchas per Moysen et Prophetas erudivit ad se solum Deum vivum et verum, providum Patrem et iudicem iustum agnoscendum, et ad promissum Salvatorem expectandum, atque ita per saecula viam Evangelio praeparavit.

So, it says God needs do no more than say a word to create, (unless you take "Verbum" / "the Word" as meaning the second person, in which case it may rise a question whether "Deus" / "God" could be meant to refer to the Father alone*) so God in fact is "a Demiurge or magician with an omnipotent wand" (to quote the polemic paraphrase given by Antipope Bergoglio) and what is more, the "first parents" cannot be Lucy or LUCA or Coelacanths, since God manifested Himself to them, a manifestation which brute animals cannot comprehend as such.

So, "first parents" (Latin, dative plural "protoparentibus") are clearly identified as Adam and Eve. And Adam and Eve are clearly also identified as our FIRST parents. Exit the scenario where they are universal ancestors, but neither unique in their generation nor the very earliest of our anatomy. No, whatever is "man" and whatever is shown to be "man" by having descendants today (for instance Neanderthals and Denisovans) either is or descends from them. No pre-Adamites, no other human population Cain met in Nod etc.

To make this even clearer, we have the adverb "from the start". This in English might be inadequate, that is why I looked up the Latin, and yes, it says "ab initio". The word "start" is translating the Latin concept tied to Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. The first parents are tied to the beginning as surely as in Mark 10:6.

While part of the Council Fathers (if truly such, confer doubts on validity of John XXIII's papacy or legality of convocation and continuation, which are detailed by Ralph Wiltgen, who nevertheless supported it) were bishops from "Rhine coalition" (France, Germany, BeNeLux, I think alas Austria too), and while at least some French bishops were supporting evolution to some degree, they knew the document had to pass through being signed by bishops from, for instance Spain (I think Franco had had the good sense to ban Evolution) and Spanish Americas, and Africa, and Poland and a few more.

What is more, salvation history doesn't start with first parents being promised a redeemer and then leave off to Abraham, so the inbetween times could be indefinitely extended (like Adam and Eve living 10 000 years before Abraham or more) and therefore presumed distorted by transmission and compressed, oh, no. It says "[from that time on] He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care" / "[in spem salutis erexit (cf. Gen 3,15) et] sine intermissione generis humani curam egit," - so, Genesis 3 to vocation of Abraham in Genesis 12 are uninterrupted salvation history, uninterrupted Church History if you like, and therefore also likeliest to be uninterrupted actual historic record too.

If real (and therefore Young Earth Creationist) Catholics have to confront Vatican II Sectarians who try to pretend Dei Verbum allows non-inerrancy outside salvation topics, including on Genesis 1 - 11, we can actually refer to §3 which precisely resumes Genesis 1-11 as actual history.

From a more general Catholic point of view, restricting inerrancy to salvation issues is anti-Thomistic.

The principal object of the faith is God and His message of salvation, but while we do not each and sundry be well versed in the secondary object, we cannot reject it and the secondary object is all the circumstances of history through which God revealed His salvation plan to us. Therefore, at least historic inerrancy is required already there. But the books as such are in this history accepted as inspired by God, and this extends inerrancy even further into also scientific matters.

And sociological ones, like Matthew 26:11 parallelled in Mark 14:7 and John 12:8. A friend of mine commented on the context as "Judas Ischariot was the first Communist". But so were Reformers when reducing beauty and precious treasures for Church Liturgy.

Note, Young Earth Creationism is primarily a historical position. It involves today quite a few scientific ones, when defending it, but this comes as a byproduct of its character as exact history. And Genesis is a historical book, as no one** doubts for chapters 12 to 50.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Torcy
Day after St. Luke
19.X.2019

Consulted links:

* John 1,3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. - After John 1,1 already says ... and the Word was God. Dei Verbum kind of makes a grammatical opposition between God and "The Word" which means taking it as "the word" (things God said during creation week) is safer in the sentence. This possible confusion is not there in John 1.

** Some Atheist might come by and say "My Name is Nobody", but I meant nobody among Christians.

• Lita Cosner, Robert Carter : The inspiration of Scripture comes in various forms
• Dei Verbum English
• Dei Verbum Latin

Young Nimrod = Hanuman? Reference Found

What would Hindus Think of YEC? · Young Nimrod = Hanuman? Reference Found

It was, alas, only in the Book of Jasher, namely chapter 7 : and I will stop where I think we have clear evidence of something being wrong:

23 And Cush the son of Ham, the son of Noah, took a wife in those days in his old age, and she bare a son, and they called his name Nimrod, saying, At that time the sons of men again began to rebel and transgress against God, and the child grew up, and his father loved him exceedingly, for he was the son of his old age.

24 And the garments of skin which God made for Adam and his wife, when they went out of the garden, were given to Cush.

25 For after the death of Adam and his wife, the garments were given to Enoch, the son of Jared, and when Enoch was taken up to God, he gave them to Methuselah, his son.

26 And at the death of Methuselah, Noah took them and brought them to the ark, and they were with him until he went out of the ark.

27 And in their going out, Ham stole those garments from Noah his father, and he took them and hid them from his brothers.

28 And when Ham begat his first born Cush, he gave him the garments in secret, and they were with Cush many days.

29 And Cush also concealed them from his sons and brothers, and when Cush had begotten Nimrod, he gave him those garments through his love for him, and Nimrod grew up, and when he was twenty years old he put on those garments.

30 And Nimrod became strong when he put on the garments, and God gave him might and strength, and he was a mighty hunter in the earth, yea, he was a mighty hunter in the field, and he hunted the animals and he built altars, and he offered upon them the animals before the Lord.

31 And Nimrod strengthened himself, and he rose up from amongst his brethren, and he fought the battles of his brethren against all their enemies round about.

32 And the Lord delivered all the enemies of his brethren in his hands, and God prospered him from time to time in his battles, and he reigned upon earth.

33 Therefore it became current in those days, when a man ushered forth those that he had trained up for battle, he would say to them, Like God did to Nimrod, who was a mighty hunter in the earth, and who succeeded in the battles that prevailed against his brethren, that he delivered them from the hands of their enemies, so may God strengthen us and deliver us this day.

34 And when Nimrod was forty years old, at that time there was a war between his brethren and the children of Japheth, so that they were in the power of their enemies.

35 And Nimrod went forth at that time, and he assembled all the sons of Cush and their families, about four hundred and sixty men, and he hired also from some of his friends and acquaintances about eighty men, and be gave them their hire, and he went with them to battle, and when he was on the road, Nimrod strengthened the hearts of the people that went with him.

36 And he said to them, Do not fear, neither be alarmed, for all our enemies will be delivered into our hands, and you may do with them as you please.

37 And all the men that went were about five hundred, and they fought against their enemies, and they destroyed them, and subdued them, and Nimrod placed standing officers over them in their respective places.

38 And he took some of their children as security, and they were all servants to Nimrod and to his brethren, and Nimrod and all the people that were with him turned homeward.

39 And when Nimrod had joyfully returned from battle, after having conquered his enemies, all his brethren, together with those who knew him before, assembled to make him king over them, and they placed the regal crown upon his head.

40 And he set over his subjects and people, princes, judges, and rulers, as is the custom amongst kings.

41 And he placed Terah the son of Nahor the prince of his host, and he dignified him and elevated him above all his princes.

This is supposed to have happened before Tower of Babel, that means, normally, before the birth of Peleg, and therefore well before the time of Nahor and Terah.

The source is bad, though not quite as bad as Pagan histories, when it comes to accuracy, so, the chances of this war being one in which Nimrod / Hanuman defended Regma / Rama are not quite secure.

It is still possible, though, despite garbling subsequent parts of the history. And despite this "book of Jasher" being clearly a less good source than Josephus' Antiquities, Historia Scholastica, CHurch Fathers.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Audoux
St. Hedwig*
16.X.2019

Cited : Jasher chapter 7
https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/7.htm

* 16 Octobris Sanctae Hedwigis Viduae, Polonorum Ducissae, quae pridie hujus diei obdormivit in Domino. / 15 Octobris Cracoviae, in Polonia, natalis sanctae Hedwigis Viduae, Polonorum Ducissse, quae, pauperum obsequio dedita, etiam miraculis claruit; et a Clemente Quarto, Pontifice Maximo, Sanctorum numero adscripta est. Ipsius autem festivitas sequenti die celebratur.

What would Hindus Think of YEC?

What would Hindus Think of YEC? · Young Nimrod = Hanuman? Reference Found

Let's check what their religion says about the timeline so far and up to end of the present "Mahā-Yuga".

Satya Yuga

1,728,000

Treta Yuga

1,278,000

Dvapara Yuga

864,000

Kali Yuga

432,000 (complete)

/ 3102 BC + 2019 AD = 5121 (so far)

1,728,000 + 1,278,000 + 864,000 + 432,000 = 4,302,000
1,728,000 + 1,278,000 + 864,000 + 5121 = 3,875,121

Obviously, Hinduism does not really give people any relish for Young Earth Creationism. Man present all time? Fine with them (as contrasted with evolutionists) but according to them, examples would be human metal tools dated 1 million years ago or 1/2 million years ago, accepted as actually being so old.

In other words, while Hindus have a sectarian bias against pure Evolutionism, they equally have one against Biblical Creationism.

The only time span I consider as any thing like valid in all this, is Kali Yuga, as being from death of a Cainite hero recalled by Hindus as Krishna. Krishna and Kush mean the same thing, swarty, but I think Ham's son was rather named after Krishna than identic to him.

3102 BC = 145 years before the Flood (in 2957 BC according to Roman Martyrology). Supposing the Hindus go by years of 360 days (not sure of details in Hindu calendar) or in some times went by it (the Yugas are multiples of 1200 "divine years" and each is 360 "human years"), this would make the 5121 years since then 5047 and a half Gregorian (mostly proleptic) years. And 3028 BC is still before the Flood.

This is my clue to Mahabharata being pre-Flood. As I am no Hindu, I have no reason to believe Ramayana is thousands of years or even one thousand years earlier than Mahabharata, nor that Rama and Krishna were Avatars of Vishnu.

My clue to Krishna's identity is Genesis 4:21 And his brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of them that play upon the harp and the organs.

My clue to Rama's identity is Genesis 10:7 And the sons of Chus: Saba, and Hevila, and Sabatha, and Regma, and Sabatacha. The sons of Regma: Saba and Dadan.

And Hanuman's?

I was looking for the passage in Josephus where Nimrod started out as a kind brother, helping his brothers against a Japhethite agressor. I didn't find it. Then I was looking in Historia Scholastica for the passage where Nimrod started out as a kind brother, helping his brothers against a Japhethite agressor. I didn't find it there either. I have not yet checked if it was in "Jasher" which is arguably not the real book of Jasher ... I sometimes do "mislay" references.

So, my hunch if there really is such a reference, as I hope this is not a fake memory, is, Rama / Regma was thankful for the help, but wanted to forget the drafting to Tower of Babel, and therefore remembered only the good parts of Nimrod (ok, if Nimrod tried to make himself a ape-chimera while becoming a giant, that was bad and if this happened, it may have contributed to the monkey shape of Hanuman). But this did not just mean forgetting about the tower (and about linguistic diversity, to a Hindu, any non-Sanskrit language is debased Sanskrit / any non-Dravidian etc, depending from where in India you come), but since Nimrod meant the tower as a new ark, they wanted to forget the Flood too, and therefore pretended to live straight in continuity with pre-Flood Nodian civilisation (my clue to Bharat's identity is double : And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and brought forth Henoch: and he built a city, and called the name thereof by the name of his son Henoch. Genesis 4:17. And Henoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Mathusala. And Henoch walked with God: and lived after he begot Mathusala, three hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. And all the days of Henoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. And he walked with God, and was seen no more: because God took him. Genesis 5:21-24. - Bharat is both city builder and raptured in Hinduism.*)

But one could not simply forget Rama being a coloniser (post-Flood), so Rama was placed before Bharat, and therefore misplaced into pre-Flood times.

I just checked that Hindu historiography has a gap of about 2500 years from death of Krishna to later known times. Perhaps my check-up is superficial, I'm awaiting possible correction on it, but this is what I have from one Soma Hanikeri on youtube, commenting under a video by Overly Sarcastic Productions on Ancient India. She's free to update me, if she finds out otherwise.

These are anyway my correlations between Indian semi-history and Genesis fully historic but very reduced in detail history.

And back to the beginning : as they believe the world has been around with shifts of "covenant" but no awaking and re-dreaming of Brahma since nearly 4 million years, I don't count on their religious sympathy for Young Earth Creationism. Their religious bias is in favour of some aspects of Evolutionism, especially Old Earth.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Marguérite Audoux
St. Theresa of Avila
15.X.2019

* For those unfamiliar with Genesis 4 and 5 - they are talking of two different Henoch, the son of Cain and the son of Jared.

Off the Bat

Human Language Revisited · Elves and Adam · Back to Picq · Off the Bat

Picq is in fact very honest on the reasons speaking for human speech being a divine gift, even if he does not mention this possibility.

Double articulation? "Rat" and (Fr) "Chat" (in Engl. obviously "Cat") differ arbitrarily by exchanging precisely one phoneme, hey presto, they are two very different words. He misses a bit on taking only conjugation with endings as example on how "monemes" (ones says morphemes in English) add up to changes in meaning. It is equally true for contraposition of words in phrases and sentences, "I eat" is as much second articulation as Spanish "com-o" (and more than spoekn version of French, unless you add subject pronouns). Recursivity, adding loops on loops in structural elaboration of a sentence, and its use, allowing great precision, is equally admitted as a purely human quality.

One problem : his interviewer Cécile Lestienne and he seemed to agree there was some kind of referential function in some very few observed instances : a parrot could pronounce forty nouns and say "no" when offered an object belonging to another one. Green monkeys have three different alarm cries. So the parrot can distinguish a carrot from a grain, the monkeys in flock can distinguish panthers, eagles, pythons.

I would not agree that these things are really referential function, while they involve recognition of objects, they are never talking about them, they always have a practical purpose : obtaining a treat or a fun game of looking at things in the case of the parrot, saying "no thanks", also the parrot, and imposing on the flock three different strategies for dealing with danger, for fleeing from danger. With a snake and a bird of prey, you don't flee to the same directions.

So, the two examples of referential function are in fact no examples of it at all.

Now, apart from this feeble attempt of pushing referential function on animals, confer Ghislaine Dehaene saying it appaers as a primary drive in human babies, Picq is very open on human speech being really and truly unique.

Now, what was his straw, the one he clung to? Comparing elephants' trunks. With Stephen Pinker, he says that we think language very marvellous because we are equipped with it, elephants arguably would think the trunk as marvellous - if they had human speech to speak about it! - but we still don't conclude, I am paraphrasing Picq's reasoning, that one day two hyraces had a little one with a trunk and the trunk then spread by survival of the fittest, all through their population, until a hyrax population had become a proto-proboscidean one.

We creationists admit that one mutation can't lead to a trunk. We still don't believe Proboscideans descended from Hyracoideans. Neither gradually, nor suddenly. We believe Proboscideans were created separately from Hyracoideans on day VI. And we believe God created Adam separately from both later on on day VI, and had the exhausting but probably still pleasureable work of giving them different names. And showing the good sense of not seeking a bride among either, so God created Eve even later on than that.

This "makes economy of" (excuse the Gallicism) both sudden one mutation radical change and slow and gradual change. I have never quite believed the latter, when I was an evolutionist age 6, I believed Crossopterygian coelacanths one day mutated fins to amphibian legs. Which brings me to age 12, From Nothing to Nature (not yet appeared under that title in English at the time, that title is for an edition later than Swedish translation) that gradual evolution from fins to legs is impossible.

Back to language. In fact, the elephant neither marvels at human speech or own trunk. Man, with speech, marvels at both. A bit like Tolkien's elves in Cuivienen marvelled at the stars.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris XI
St Denis of Paris
St Abraham
9.X.2019

Lutetiae Parisiorum natalis sanctorum Martyrum Dionysii Areopagitae Episcopi, Rustici Presbyteri, et Eleutherii Diaconi. Ex his Dionysius, ab Apostolo Paulo baptizatus, primus Atheniensium Episcopus ordinatus est; deinde Romam venit, atque inde a beato Clemente, Romano Pontifice, in Gallias praedicandi gratia directus est, et ad praefatam urbem devenit; ibique, cum per aliquot annos commissum sibi opus fideliter prosecutus esset, tandem, a Praefecto Fescennino, post gravissima tormentorum genera, una cum Sociis, gladio animadversus, martyrium complevit.

Eodem die memoria sancti Abrahae, Patriarchae et omnium credentium Patris.

Back to Picq

Human Language Revisited · Elves and Adam · Back to Picq · Off the Bat

I am now reading La Plus Belle Histoire du langage, where the journalist Cécile Lestienne inteverviews the experts Pascal Picq (palaeoanthropology), Laurent Sagart (linguistics - my "own" field from the university studies, though I am much into a transdisciplinary approach, an essayist rather than an academic), and Ghislaine Dehaene (paediatrics).

It is from 2008. I had previously read Les origines du langage in an edition from 2006.

In the part where Cécile Lestienne interviews Pascal Picq, he does seem to have sth to add to the previous work, meaning, I am very glad my guardian angels were preventing me from writing a post about how Picq doesn't answer challenges. I simply hadn't met his yet.

So, I am preparing a follow up by borrowing (done) the book from 2008 and intending to reread his contribution and the other ones as well.

As one preliminary, I can state already that lots of his conclusions are based on the long time spans. And overall evolutionary world view.

Homo Erectus / Homo Ergaster must have had some kind of language "500 000 years ago" (agreed), but as to a fully human one, he won't agree to that since, it is so long ago and the "species" known to have it - Homo sapiens sapiens and arguably (on his view too, which I welcome) Neanderthals - were not yet around. So, it may have on his view have been on the "me Tarzan, you Jane" stage. Supposing there was one.

(Checked, yes, he attributes 500 000 BP to Ergaster, and if I was unsure, it's because I had read somewhere Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals diverged around that time, which doesn't mean they were either of them already around).

I obviously do not agree language has to have had a development, nor on the time scale. Carbon dates of 70 000 BP - 40 000 BP (or 35 000 BP) are preflood, and carbon dates younger than that post-Flood. 500 000 BP is not a carbon date, and it is obtained by a method where even relative direction of compared dates is lacking, where anything from 4 million to 1/2 million, anything from 100 000 years to 100 000 000 years ago can point to diverse depth and coolnesses of the water quickly cooling lava during the Flood, which was 2957 BC whatever fancy date the Argon measures point to.

So, I will differ from him in saying, Ergaster had a fully human language. Descending as he did from Adam and a somewhat distant cousin to the Cro-Magnon race (with Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture) which was aboard the Ark in 8 persons, 4 men and 4 women.

Apart from this preliminary, I will write no more right now, but read the book and re-read his portion of it, before continuing.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St. Maur
Holy Guardian Angels
2.X.2019

First World History

Benno Zuiddam's View of Catholicism and Creationism · First World History · Is Dei Verbum a Young Earth Creationist Document? · Ambiguous Sentence Found · For Those who Do Take Vatican II as a Valid Council

While Genesis 12 to Genesis 50 concentrates on a family saga, Abraham to Joseph's children Ephraim and Manasse, it also gives some fairly broad brush strokes on what happened in Egypt, Mesopotamia and in between in Canaan during that time.

However, its scope is limited to the Middle East. If the Trichterbecher-Kultur or Funnel Beaker culture starts around the time of Abraham in Central, Northern and Western Europe, we are not told about it in Genesis - it's on my part, unless I misrecall my earlier work, which could be the case, a conclusion from carbon dating being used in dating Funnel Beaker culture and carbon dates for Chalcolithic of En Geddi and projecting the rise in carbon levels backword, so it's my work, not God's own word.

With Genesis 1 to 11, this is not so. It really is the history of mankind, even if Genesis 11 verses 10 to the end deal with Abraham's lineage, they also provide a timetable (in conflicting text versions) for the general time lapse between Babel and the dispersion of peoples and the Empires that Abraham knew. All previous to second half of Genesis 11 is dealing with mankind, including a description in Genesis 10 of the first Empire, which arguably goes beyond the time of Genesis 11:1-9. When Asshur founded Niniveh, it would have been the time of Sarug, with carbon dates 6000 BC (earliest settlements in Niniveh) corresponding to real dates between 2327 BC and 2288 BC, around the birth of Sarug in 2294 BC, as I mentioned in my French essay on Ninus and Semiramis:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Ninos et Sémiramis
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/01/ninos-et-semiramis.html

Note, I did not really get it, but since Ninus or Ninos is simply Sumerian Nin with Latin or Greek ending, and Nin simply means Lord or Lady, Assur theoretically could be Ninus.

So, a Babylonian and a competing Assyrian Empire, starting on my view in Northern Mesopotamia both of them, and the Babylonian one expanding South and getting its original territory swallowed by Assyrians, these are the first world Empires, after the Flood that is, and Egypt comes a bit later, around the time of Abraham. Before Babel, the Upper Palaeolithic was the immediate post-Flood world (in my view contested by some who prefer even Neanderthals being post-Babel, while I place them pre-Flood).

For pre-Flood world, we have found the savages (or presumable such), Neanderthals, as well as some traces of Denisovans and pre-Flood Cro-Magnon, as well as men who could show the morphology of Denisovans, namely Heidelbergians and Antecessors, as palaeoanthropologists like to call them, and Genesis 5 gives timeline, while Genesis 4 and 6 give some insight as to political circumstance ... and we have not found the cities of Nod.

But we could be looking at a non-Hebrew tradition on them kept in Ham's, Kush's, Regma's lineage, and distorted as to part of the facts by polytheistic and idolatrous interpretations, in Mahabharata.

And the Genesis history goes behind even that, to the time when Adam and Eve sinned and beyond to when they had not yet sinned.

And what makes it credible as world history apart from the confirmations which people holding to other, anti-Biblical, timelines will dispute, are the genealogies. Greek "myth" will have a story which is fairly complete around the Trojan War and previous generation (we are talking the period of the Judges here) and it has an account of man being created and of man surviving the Flood. But very little between. Indeed, kind of making a case that man was created more than once, that we do not descend genealogically from the first men. That our knowledge of spans of world history, of history of men, is known because a goatherd in Boeotia had a revelation by the Nine Muses.

Genesis makes the case, Genesis 2 and 3 are known to us because according to Genesis 5 to 8 we descend from Adam and Eve, and so it is simply family history. The one thing which would have needed revelation (to Adam or to Moses or to both) is Genesis 1.

Gilgamesh, by contrast, has no claim even on going back to the beginning of mankind.

Creation vs Evolution : What a Few Lines from Gilgamesh Epic Tell us of the Errors in Babylonian Theology
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/04/what-few-lines-from-gilgamesh-epic-tell.html

Christian and Atheist alike will feel sth is wrong when mankind doesn't exist before commercial ovens do. And the Eridu Creation story, also doesn't qualify, since it goes about creation and flood (partly agreeing with Genesis on general order of events, partly in theological conflict as to what causes the events, and obviously diverging in details), but has no claim to continue it all up to the times of Gilgamesh.

World histories are scarce in antiquity and Genesis 1 to 11 has a clear claim on being first in the field.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Remigius of Rheims
1.X.2019