Paraphrasing some points by PineCreek, when Talking to Southern Orthodox, Kyle - and Answering Him

I took a look at a long video, and only looked at a very short part of it. I will not attempt exact quotes. Here are the points as I would state them if I believed in Deep Time and Evolution, including explicitation of things PineCreek simply alluded to:

So many different people, of different religions, all except atheists believing in God, in so many countries believe Evolution.

It also involves so many different fields of study, independently of each other.

For it not to be true, you would need a huge conspiracy, how does it work?

You cannot say that it's because Evolution is already very popular and Deep Time is already very popular, since at one time it came to be popular after being very impopular.

You cannot say Scientists do it for the money, they aren't getting rich.

Basically, everyone was Biblical creationists and many independently found out this wasn't true.

Now, I will quote my own restatements and answer each. Because for all the goodwill of Kyle, and I didn't think he did bad, I think I have something to add.

So many different people, of different religions, all except atheists believing in God, in so many countries believe Evolution.

In 100 AD, a certain Ptolemy was born. Before he died, 70 years later, he was going to write Μαθηματικὴ Σύνταξις, which was later by Arabs nicknamed Almagest. It involved Geocentrism, and very many today believe he was wrong therein. But he could have said that Jews, Osiris worshippers, Baal worshippers, Greco-Romans Platonists, all believing in some kind of God, and also Lucrece who with his predecessors Epicure and Democritus who didn't independently believed Geocentrism.

He would not have used that as an argument, there are far stronger ones, like Geocentrism (of some sort) being what it looks like, and it's good methodology not to deviate from what it looks like before you have a good reason. Geocentrism is the default, Heliocentrism would be in need of specially good evidence in order to not be simply special pleading.

For the record, I believe this still stands.

But, suppose he had instead used "consensus" as an argument. By now there is also a consensus for the opposite side, and this means the two consensus' kind of cancel out. In fact, in history, geography and sociology combined, the one for Geocentrism would be broader. So, it would have been a bad idea. The one of economy in hypotheses is actually better. And by now, either Atheism proves Heliocentrism, or Geocentrism proves Theism, or both Theism and Heliocentrism stand on other grounds. So, Atheism doesn't make sense even as an economy in hypotheses, since it opposes another one, namely Geocentrism.

Now, to push what is being argued a bit further, one could add:

It also involves so many different fields of study, independently of each other.

So, the argument being made is not so much a consensus of opinion as a kind of untutored and not manipulated collusion of many types of evidence. This leading very many researchers independently in one specific direction and them finding unity from that independent arrival at the same conclusion.

What does PineCreek know of the history of ideas? Some, I suppose. He certainly knows the Middle Ages were Geocentric, Theocratic, Scholastic and Roman Catholic in Western Europe. He probably doesn't pretend they were Flat Earth. So, he would understand the history of ideas on the level of what successions of ideas were being made. That's on a level with my understanding of Evolution back when I believed it, before age 9 to 10. I could have given you the ancestry for a given clade, like land animals with birds from Crossopterygians, these leading to Amphibians, these leading to Reptiles and Reptiles budding off Birds and Mammals. But I could not have discussed fruitfully, I think, with either an Evolutionist who was also an expert in Biology or with a Creationist who was expert in biology, how mutations work.

I think the argument Pine Creek is making is about that naive when it comes to the history of ideas. It's like "mutations pop up at all times in all different directions, and always some are functional and even adding new function, so obviously natural selection only has to weed out the bad ones ..." - not counting on things I only found out after I entered the debate as an adult, some 20 years ago, like a certain fish in Mexican caves being blind because it needs ten functional genes for the retina to have both cones and taps that function, and two of the genes are damaged by not very many mutations - while each would probably have 100 + loci in its non-damaged form. It's easier to damage an eye than to repair one.

Now, to give you a more sophisticated idea of the history of ideas, paradigms on big topics actually precede small scientific detail observations. It may be set off by one such, like Siccar Point in this case, but before others come to its support, it already is a paradigm, which one is already trying to illustrate by more detail observations. Very precisely like Scholastics and up to Linnaeus were Christians before using detailed observations (like St. Albert's entomological ones) as support for it.

The thing is not that an establishment was biassed and that for Christianity and then became unbiassed, and then the evidence produced a new bias for evolution. The thing is that establishments changed bias. When doing so, they rearranged already existing observations into the new one, and then started arranging new evidence into the needed slots for supporting the new bias. On the individual level, such behaviour would be considered bad scientific practise. On the collective level, since collectives are only as smart as the smartness common to all or most constituents of them, this is inevitable. It may or may not have been inevitable to change the bias, but it was inevitable to have instututions mainly go on their bias, old or new.

But, paradigms have been successfully overturned, right?

From Maxwell's discovery of electro-magnetism, up to Mitchelson-Morley, light was considered as propagating through a medium called aether, a bit like sound propagates through gasses, liquids and solids. This was very quickly overturned at Mitchelson-Morley.

And this precise case should give a hint. Aether was not supported by a bias with emotional investment, it was supported solely because it was a good explanation. It was abandoned basically within a few years from when, by Michelson Morley, it collided with a stronger bias. Because, if aether were a fact (and perhaps it is, even a proven one, I refer here to Sungenis on the Sagnac effect), then earth has to stand still. If you swim through a river at same speed both upstreams and downstreams, with the same force used, it is because the water is not moving. And if the aether is not moving around earth, it is because earth itself is not moving.

What happened was not that you had value neutral evidence that on all possible hypotheses showed the old paradigm of light propagating through aether to be wrong. What did happen was, an experiment showed "either aether or heliocentrism is wrong" and everyone immediately concluding "aether is wrong" - which obviously happened because denial of geocentrism was already a dogma.

For it not to be true, you would need a huge conspiracy, how does it work?

No conspiracy at all. Just human good judgment of different persons in same collective not adding up, but subtracting. Knowledge adds up. The more people I get around me, the more probable it is I can finally find someone able to tell me exactly how many times over the course of the Julian calendar New Year's Day changed and exactly how many times given regions changed epoch between ab Urbe condita, Anno Mundi, Anno Domini, and therefore what years were leap years and what weren't.

You cannot say that it's because Evolution is already very popular and Deep Time is already very popular, since at one time it came to be popular after being very impopular.

I already suggested that at one time, for centuries, the paradigm was Christianity, specifically Catholic Christianity (but in fields related to this question, the Reformation had little change to add to the conversation, Steno was both sides of the Lutheran-Catholic divide, and he invented Geology in the shape of Flood Geology). I have also suggested to you that at one time, the paradigm was Heliocentrism. And I have already stated the principle, institutions don't cease to act on their bias, they may change bias, and then act on their new bias instead, but they are never without a bias.

In fact, when two paradigms are really competing, neither is the basic bias of the institution, it's something else. So, when Agassiz* and Darwin were debating, they were at least on some level sharing a bias. Which perhaps was and perhaps wasn't one a strict Fundie could share, but certainly was not limited to Fundies.

You cannot say Scientists do it for the money, they aren't getting rich.

Youtubers who get by through patreon are also not upper five % of the income of the US. They still don't want to offend their patrons.

Basically, everyone was Biblical creationists and many independently found out this wasn't true.

This is not how the shift happened. First, while many were still somewhat Christian, as Agassiz* shows, they weren't Biblical. Second, science and religion are not the only two fields involved here.

Let's speak of progressive politics and of freemasonry for a bit.

Once upon a time Luther and Calvin and Popes Leo X over St. Pius V were all of them Biblical Young Earth Creationists. Next century, Frederick V of the Palatinate and Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor, were also both of them Young Earth Creationists. So were (even closer on) the Duke of Alba and the Prince of Orange, William the Taciturn. So were also both William Cromwell and Charles I.

There was a specific century in which many people came to see Christian confessions (or confessional diversity) as the reason for wars they had suffered horribly in - pretty much like the 20 - 25 % ex-Catholics saw Catholic clericalism as the reason or at least occasion for, well, sexual predation. I think I have made it clear it started at the start of the 80 Years' War and ended not before another William of Orange (William III of England, William II in both Scotland and Netherlands).

This experience in and of itself would not necessarily have worked for the kind of shift we are now contemplating. Working on a Catholic bias, its natural tendency would have been rather to enforce the Anti-Protestant bias of that Catholic. And indeed, it is nearly as much due to my sides-taking in these wars, as due to my theological bent for ritual, that I was to convert to Catholicism. On a Protestant mind, it could simply lead to what it indubitably led to, a reinforced Anti-Catholic bias. It certainly did that before William III of England was basically ordering the massacre of Glencoe.

But there was a third party. I am not totally against third party, in the US, that could perhaps even be quite useful. But this time, the third party was in fact even less Catholic than the Protestants were.

They started out with fairly "good intentions" on one plane - and probably all intentions, including Ted Bundy's on a killing spree are good on some plane. The one-plane good intention was to get kings away from the Catholic-Protestant vendetta and bring them to cultivating peace and useful things and happiness. But the bad idea was to get them away from both "Orthodox" Protestantism and Orthodox Catholicism. And in order to get "past" the Catholic-Protestant theological problem, they had to deny original sin, and deny Genesis 3. Perhaps not immediately, but at the very least reinterpret - or demote.

We get to Lessing's (a freemason's) Ring Fable, in which he suggested God was equally interested in all of Christian, Jewish and Muslim piety. But before we get there, we get to the Galileo case. And the Giordano Bruno case. Freemasonry and at least part of its precursor Rosicrucianism have been Heliocentric since basically making Bruno and Galileo part of their martyrology. One things Protestants and Catholics had in common back then was studying and getting inspired by martyrs. Both parties and probably all rosicrucians and freemasons in the early years would have considered Sts Peter and Paul martyrs. But Catholics would consider Pierre de Castelnau and Thomas More (with John Fisher) as martyrs. Anglicans would consider Cranmer and Tyndale martyrs. Calvinists would consider Waldensians and Albigensians as martyrs. What kind of martyrs would the third party have? Well, obviously "martyrs for science" - enter Bruno and Galileo into the pantheon of secular Great Men**

This sets the stage for an anti-Biblical bias. And one of the earliest freemasons, Desaguyliers, started out as a pluriconfessional Protestant clergyman's son and and a Newton fan.

Whether you put or don't put the French Revolution down to Freemasonry, you cannot deny certain of its works, like Declaration of the Rights of Citizens and Men, are very directly inspired by Masonic ideology. By the way, as I think 4th of August to be a more decisive date than 14th of July, and 4th of August was precisely a drafting of Masonic inspired Documents, I do fall down on the "Masons' Fault" side of the controversy.

Now, I am not saying that at each institution of science in Lyell's or Darwin's days, a freemason was pulling the strings. I am also not saying there wasn't any Masonic pressure. I am saying the Masons had created a culture, which looked down on Confessional and therefore Christian Orthodoxy. It can be added lots of people in the British royal house were Masons, and lots of or some US Presidents were Masons ... again, not saying they gave any secret orders to bolster Evolution with any and every argument, including the worst and most dishonest. I am saying they had created a culture in the Century of Enlightenment where the Lyellian and Darwinian Revolutions had become as thinkable as the French and American ones had been.

And that this came before specific arguments on the skull shape of Engis 2 or the fossil layers in the Paris basin.

Because, that's how paradigm shifts usually work. And if certain wars end soon, let's not be too eager to hail the peacemaker as a kind of saviour ... if he's a child of God, God will reward him without our exaggerated adulation. That's a takeaway from Freemasons creating Enlightenment. A big one, and an Apocalyptic one.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Sabinus of Assisi with Companions
30.XII.2022

Spoleti item natalis sanctorum Martyrum Sabini, Assisiensis Episcopi, atque Exsuperantii et Marcelli Diaconorum, ac Venustiani Praesidis cum uxore et filiis, sub Maximiano Imperatore. Ex ipsis Marcellus et Exsuperantius, primum equuleo suspensi, deinde fustibus graviter mactati, postremnm, abrasi ungulis et laterum exustione assati, martyrium compleverunt; Venustianus autem non multo post, simul cum uxore et filiis, est gladio necatus; sanctus vero Sabinus, post detruncationem manuum et diutinam carceris macerationem, ad mortem usque caesus est. Horum martyrium, licet diverso exstiterit tempore, una tamen die recolitur.

* Who was a Creationist and confessionally a Christian, but very far from a Biblical or Young Earth Creationist, not really a Fundie by the standard of his times - be that noted in connexion with his racism! Both his not-quite-Biblical creationism and his racism may be put down to the fact he was son of the third generation of Swiss Protestant preachers ... And I suppose someone will try to blow bagpipes over this comment ... No True Sc...
** It would consider both Napoleon and Wellington as Great Men, no doubt too.

Wait, I Missed Something

Best evidence against Creationism · Wait, I Missed Something

First of the answers, by Pierre Vigoureux, he tucked some popular attacks into a very small sentence:

And that is the best evidence you can use AGAINST their “creation science” nonsense. It is just Babylonian mythology - and they WILL ask thousands of questions like “how do evolutionists explain …” and never listen to the answer until you remind them of that - that Genesis says the world is flat, the Garden of Eden is in Iraq, Noah transported all the millions of species we have today on a Bronze Age wooden boar, and Adam and Eve had children that commited incest.

I'll break each part down ...

It is just Babylonian mythology -

First, it is very anti-Babylonian. In Babylonian myths there was not any first couple, and mankind was created to work for the gods, in a collective.

Second, apart from that kind of thing, I don't see all that many reasons to denigrate Babylonians, and I don't denigrate mythology. While I don't believe Hercules was son of Jove, I believe he existed.

Third, the Babylonian "Ark" is not seaworthy, the Biblical one is. The Babylonian "Ark" is a mega version of small boats in Babylonian lands, the Biblical one is unlike the boats of the area, whether Galilaean fisherboats or Phenician things for the Mediterranean.

and they WILL ask thousands of questions like “how do evolutionists explain …” and never listen to the answer until you remind them of that -

I think "never listen to the answer" is about Science Believers (sometimes known as Atheists) not listening to the refutations of Creationists against those answers.

that Genesis says the world is flat,

W a i t ... no, Genesis two doesn't even directly mention four corners, but indirectly actually alludes to them. The rivers of paradise "water all the surface of the earth" ... four rivers flowing outwards from a single centre to the corners of the earth would indeed be impossible today, but was possible before the Atlantic and the Sahul-Sunda strait divided the more whole pre-Flood land mass.

the Garden of Eden is in Iraq,

Actually, Frat and Hiddekel are quadrifurcations of the river of paradise, it doesn't say that these ones also are in Mesopotamia - plus Iraq and Mesopotamia only partially coincide.

Noah transported all the millions of species we have today on a Bronze Age wooden boar,

Kinds. In my calculation from there being 17 species of hedgehog, this means a bit over 2000 couples, but the calculations on the Ark load would suggest this is somewhat inadequate, there were probably more, since most kinds don't have a ratio of own weight to the weight of a year's nutrition that ruminants have.

and Adam and Eve had children that commited incest.

With one couple, the only possibility was the next generation was able to and authorised to marry siblings and nieces.

So, no, those objections, safely tucked away into a part of a paragraph far down, until I unpacked that, are not very good either.

Hans Georg Lundahl

ut supra (vel infra in bloggo).

Best evidence against Creationism

Best evidence against Creationism · Wait, I Missed Something

Quora : What is the best evidence that atheists can use against creationists?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-evidence-that-atheists-can-use-against-creationists

So far, there are three answers. I will cite only the last and ultrabrief one integrally, since this is not Assorted Retorts where I take risks on copyright issues.

Pierre Vigoureux:

Not atheists.

Not even “scientists”.

The best “evidence” against “creationists” is that they are a religious belief, not a scientific belief.

Stars Collide

Let them prove their claim instead of worrying about disproving a nothing burger. When I turn on the news and scientists announce the Theory of Creationism then we can revisit this.

William Perkins

The fact there is zero good evidence for there mythical deity when one would expect to find plenty.

Takeaways.

• 1) The positive religion of atheists is not "one negative answer to one single question" as some like to define atheism, the positive religion of atheists is Science. And a near candid admission that "scientists" is not quite relevant to pitting "scientific belief" up above "religious belief" - like some Evangelicals, they like denying that their religion is a religion.
• 2) Atheists believe the news outlets are neutral and willing to allow scientists to announce the Theory of Creationism on their TV and radio stations and newspapers - this means that they miss that Morris already wrote The Genesis Flood and Dawkins admitted that Edgar Andrews had written From Nothing to Nature well.
• 3) Not only can one expect to find plenty of evidence for the God we believe in, one does - but one cannot expect Atheists, sorry, Science Believers, to know that.

I haven't seen any make a public reference to CMI or AiG or myself or Kent Hovind or Kolbe Center ...

• 1) proving language could not have evolved any more than reason or morality;
• 2) dismissing non-carbon radiometric dating (RATE project)
• 3) reinterpreting carbon dating with a creationist calibration (myself)
• 4) showing "the geologic column" exists in text books, when it comes to land biota (myself and Kent Hovind)

But, if nothing had leaked out, why would the answers be so lacking in specifics and so eager to shut down all and any debate?

A few years ago, I think appeals to anatomic and emotional-social similarities with apes or Lucy or millions and billions of years would have been more popular.

Today it's more like "for Science' sake, don't debate those guys!!!!"

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Thomas the Apostle
21.XII.2022

Calaminae natalis beati Thomae Apostoli, qui Parthis, Medis, Persis et Hyrcanis Evangelium praedicavit; ac demum in Indiam pervenit, ibique, cum eos populos in Christiana religione instituisset, Regis jussu lanceis transfixus occubuit. Ipsius reliquiae primo ad urbem Edessam, in Mesopotamia, deinde Ortonam, apud Frentanos, translatae sunt.

No Righteous People in Noah's Time?

In Genesis 6, Douay Rheims, the word "righteous" does not occur at all, but its synonym "just" occurs exactly once.

The chapter says Noe was righteous or (DR) just, not that no one else was.

What about

the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times

then?

First, the general society is described.

Second, Hebrew has, as apparent from interlinear, "every intent of the thoughts of his heart" the word "intent" ... meaning also mind.

Can a just person have a mind bent on evil? Well, I just saw a Catholic argue randonautica is demonic, and another that google translate had gone demonic when it came to Latin to English and a certain cut up and tweak on Balenciaga.

Were these two Catholics evil? No. Was their mind bent on evil, as on seeing evil? Yes.

The situation may not have been "no one was" (socially) "just" but more like "even those who were, had little time to praise God and express love for their fellow men, due to thinking on the evils of evil men so much" ... and apart from Keaton Halley giving a theologically wrong note in saying "no one is just before God," it is more like "no one" (except Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary) "was just before God all of his life," it is not the inner evil of people involved in mortal sin that is meant, it is social evil, by which sinners oppress others, both sinners and righteous.

The fact you live near a bully means, you have to take the bully into account in all that you do, even if you aren't a bully yourself. This, rather than non-existance, was the situation of the righteous before the Flood./HGL

Were Neanderthals Giants?

Look at this:

Neanderthal brain development
Neanderthal brains were similar in size to those of modern humans but differed in shape. What we cannot tell from fossils is how Neanderthal brains might have differed in function or organization of brain layers such as the neocortex. Pinson et al. have now analyzed the effect of a single amino acid change in the transketolase-like 1 (TKTL1) protein on production of basal radial glia, the workhorses that generate much of the neocortex (see the Perspective by Malgrange and Nguyen). Modern humans differ from apes and Neanderthals by this single amino acid change. When placed in organoids or overexpressed in nonhuman brains, the human variant of TKTL1 drove more generation of neuroprogenitors than did the archaic variant. The authors suggest that the modern human has more neocortex to work with than the ancient Neanderthal did. —PJH

Human TKTL1 implies greater neurogenesis in frontal neocortex of modern humans than Neanderthals
ANNELINE PINSON ID et al.| 9 Sep 2022, Vol 377, Issue 6611, DOI: 10.1126/science.abl6422
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl6422

And Pääbo stated that Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA (which is lacking in our post-Flood dates) was halfway between man and ape.

Two options.

• When angels mated with women, God punished them in their offspring by making their sons and daughters apelike.
• Deliberate abuse of some CRISPR (technic or demonic) to make some men have some apelike features.

For the second option, see:

Stalin’s ape-man Superwarriors
by Russell Grigg, First published: 20 August 2007, Re-featured on homepage: 4 April 2012
https://creation.com/stalins-ape-man-superwarriors

Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin wanted to rebuild the Red Army, in the mid-1920s, with Planet-of-the-Apes-style troops by crossing humans with apes. This was according to a report in The Scotsman newspaper on 20 December 2005.

Well, what Stalin failed by crossbreeding, some pre-Flood man or madman (dare one single out Tubal-Cain?) or falling angel (according to the view that some angels fell after Satan did, by lusting after the women whose guardian angels they were), succeeded by some kind of CRISPR. The idea would have been "with such soldiers to our disposal, no one will dare make war with us" ... and the result would have been everyone made war, and despite being dumbed down some Neanderthal tribes broke loose of the control.

Jonathan Sarfati* contests pre-Flood man having this kind of technical proficiency with the reference Genesis 6:11 And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. The KJV has instead: The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

Well, the thing is, Sarfati reasons like "since the earth was filled with violence, no one had the peace to invent things, to develop technologies" ... and my answer is, what if the violence was actually a result of such inventions already being made? Plus obviously, scientists on arms projects tend to get peace and comfort while developing means of violence. They too would be involved in an earth filled with violence, not because they were disturbed by violence, but because they were given physical peace and comfort in order to make their contribution to the violence.

Here are a few verses from Genesis 6 and from Baruch 3:

Genesis 6: [1] And after that men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, [2] The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose. [3] And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. [4] Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown. [5] And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, ... [11] And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. [12] And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth,)

Baruch 3: [26] There were the giants, those renowned men that were from the beginning, of great stature, expert in war. [27] The Lord chose not them, neither did they find the way of knowledge: therefore did they perish. [28] And because they had not wisdom, they perished through their folly.

It is also possible that this is not so much about Neanderthals as about even more debased races, and that Neanderthals were halfway out of this. Despite an inhibited neo-cortex. The reference to not finding knowledge does not rule out technical proficiency, since the previous verse specifies "expert in war" - everything about arms and survival skills, the Neanderthals would have been great and knowledgeable, it is the moral knowledge and perhaps the knowledge of Genesis 3 events and Genesis 4 events, right just a few centuries earlier, that they didn't find. You do find plenty of people today who are technologically proficient, but who believe Columbus discovered the earth wasn't flat or things like that. Even with a normal neo-cortex.

Actually, Sarfati gave another argument that I need to answer:

Another well-known creationist leader claimed Noah and his contemporaries could have had tools, machines and techniques not inferior to those of today.

This is obviously fallacious: if they had techniques just as good as ours, then why didn’t they use a lightweight and strong titanium alloy, attach an outboard motor, and for good measure, videotape the events for posterity?

Noah and his family could have been blocked out of certain techniques, for "refusing to take the mark" in the pre-Flood sense, and therefore being impeded from normal buying and selling.

And Noah could also have seen how the wickedness was increasing due to increased technologies and voluntarily have chosen to do without certain of them. Plus he knew many of them would be unworkable in post-Flood conditions. How do eight men start an electricity plant to make video tapes work? Hence the need to have a daughter in law with Neanderthal heritage who could share easily available techniques for survival. Magdalenian was how Noah's family adapted Mousterian. And Mousterian in the pre-Flood world coexisted with, not necessarily computers, but more things like CRISPR and atom bombs. Things which we have fortunately not dug up. My take on where to look for Henoch in the land of Nod? Like, the Himalayas are certainly East of Eden, and God could have used that much sediment to bury a city that had gone that bad.

Or a high tech war ended up eating up all the technology. Was it Einstein who said "I don't know how the third world war will be fought, but the fourth will be fought with clubs and sticks"?

Sarfati makes another argument:

Historically and logically, the rise of modern science depended strongly on certain assumptions, and these were derived from a biblical Christian worldview, including honesty, rationality, and a Lawgiving Creator and upholder of the universe.

Right ... Tubal-Cain invented metallurgy, as we know from the Bible, and he was just so pious, so just, no evils abounded in his family ... wait, did you mention Genesis 4:23? It seems Lamech made the remark after Tubal Cain had become an inventor.

And even during the wars, there was peace within the countries; e.g. even though the UK and US were on war footing, these nations maintained order. The Flood was different: a society full of violence.

I would state that "maintaining order" is perfectly compatible with "iniquity" and actually even with "violence" on a mental or institutional level - Strong's 2555 (chamas) is used of false witnesses in Exodus 23, and of cruelty of mocking comforts in Job 19:7. It's no longer a question of the Sabaeans, but of Baldad. KGB can "maintain order" for scientists to work in, but it's still violence if they are into developing Novichok. And violence if they are left alone from mobs who don't appreciate them developing Novichok.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ember Wednesday after St. Lucy
14.XII.2022

* Quote and link:

Furthermore, such claims overlook a vital factor: intelligence is not enough for scientific advance. ... But the pre-Flood world was far from a biblically-based civilization; rather, it rejected God and was full of violence (Genesis 6:11, Hebrew חָמָס hamas). These are hardly the conditions required for good scientific research, and this is the main thing overlooked by those who overstate Noah’s technology level.

https://creation.com/computers-on-the-ark

How Long Was Prehistory? Five Days

History begins on day 6, when Adam and at the end also Eve are present as human observers.

How do we best approach pre-history?

Reconstruction? Or prophecy?

Reconstruction appeals to presuppositions about the past, and in the case of pre-history, about a past observed by no man.

Prophecy appeals to God being present and knowing what He was doing. So, in an extended sense, that prophecy Moses had on Sinai about the six days' work is also history.

Here's Kennedy Hall:

As an aside, the idea that there is a “pre-history” is, to me, a bit nonsensical. As if there were a history before there were a history.

This is the one real quibble I had with an otherwise good article. Yes, there are five days of history recorded by God and angels and revealed later to man, before there is a history where man is present as an observer. Apart from this quibble, take a read:

Crisis Magazine : Confessions of a Creationist
Kennedy Hall, December 2, 2022
https://www.crisismagazine.com/opinion/confessions-of-a-creationist

Enjoy!/HGL

Minoan Culture is Older than the Mycenaean Copy

When?

c. 3500 – c. 1100 BC

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

This really boils down to 1935 to 1100 BC, since 1935, Genesis 14, by the reed mats from the evacuation of En-Geddi (mentioned as Asason Tamar in Genesis 14, thank you, Osgood) is carbon dated to 3500 BC (thanks to the archaeologists). 835 years is less than 2400 years, but still respectable.

Mycenaean Greece:

c. 1750 – c. 1050 BC

The real year close to 1700 BC is carbon dated to 2600 BC, or even 2800 BC by the uncalibrated date, since Joseph's pharao was Djoser. So, carbon dated 1750 BC = later, closer to the end of the Israelite's staying in Egypt. In fact, Moses was already born, if Sesostris III was the childkilling pharao. 1550 BC to 1050 BC is 500 years.

The chronology of Cycladic civilization is divided into three major sequences: Early, Middle and Late Cycladic. The early period, beginning c. 3000 BC, segued into the archaeologically murkier Middle Cycladic c. 2500 BC. By the end of the Late Cycladic sequence (c. 2000 BC), there was essential convergence between the Cycladic and Minoan civilizations.

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

There are actually four sites or cultures with their own probable dates:

The Grotta-Pelos culture ... is the period that marks the beginning of the so-called Cycladic culture and spans the Neolithic period in the late 4th millennium BC (ca. 3300 BC), continuing in the Bronze Age to about 2700 BC.

1868 BC to 1700 BC. Abraham 147 years old to Joseph in Egypt.

The Keros-Syros culture is named after two islands in the Cyclades: Keros and Syros. This culture flourished during the Early Cycladic II period (ca 2700-2300 BC) of the Cycladic civilization.

1700 BC to 1645 BC.

The Kastri culture (Greek: Καστρί) refers to a "cultural" dating system used for the Cycladic culture that flourished during the early Bronze Age in Greece.[1] It spans the period ca. 2500–2200 BC

1668 BC to 1633 BC.

The Phylakopi I culture ... spans the period ca. 2300-2000 BC

1645 BC to 1610 BC.

Back to Crete.

Although stone-tool evidence suggests that hominins may have reached Crete as early as 130,000 years ago, evidence for the first anatomically-modern human presence dates to 10,000–12,000 YBP.

8000 - 10,000 BC or 10,000 to 8000 BC = around Babel (2607 BC dated as 9600 BC, 2556 BC as 8600 BC).

The oldest evidence of modern human habitation on Crete is pre-ceramic Neolithic farming-community remains which date to about 7000 BC.

C. 2400 BC.

A comparative study of DNA haplogroups of modern Cretan men showed that a male founder group, from Anatolia or the Levant, is shared with the Greeks.

Does this mean, the Kaphthorim had alredy left Crete in 2400 BC, replaced by Javan's sons?

Eutresis culture of c. 3200 – c. 2650 BC (also called Early Helladic I)

1834 BC to 1685 BC.

Korakou culture or Early Helladic II (in some schemes Early Helladic IIA) was an early phase of Bronze Age Greece, in the Early Helladic period, lasting from around 2650 to c.2200 BC.

1685 BC to 1633 BC.

Tiryns culture (2,200–2,000 BC) or Early Helladic III.

1633 BC to c. 1610 BC.

We actually have a table of carbon dates, I'll use New Tables to recalibrate it, omitting the final part, the table VIII to IX:

1621 - 1599 BC (New Tables)

2100–1900 BC, MMIA (conventional dating)

1599 - 1577 BC

1900–1800 BC, MMIB, Protopalatial (Old Palace Period)

1577 - 1555 BC

1800–1750 BC, MMIIA

1555 - 1532 BC

1750–1700 BC, MMIIB, Neopalatial (New Palace Period)

1532 - 1510 BC

1700–1650 BC, MMIIIA

1510 - 1487 BC

1650–1600 BC, MMIIIB

1487 - 1424 BC

1600–1500 BC, LMIA

1424 - 1386 BC

1500–1450 BC, LMIB, Postpalatial (at Knossos; Final Palace Period)

1386 - 1348 BC

1450–1400 BC, LMII

1348 - 1313 BC

1400–1350 BC, LMIIIA

1313 - 1100 BC

1350–1100 BC, LMIIIB

My calibration is based on Biblical history. The conventional archaeological one is based, at best, on dendrochronology. It is not based on history from the Helladic cultures, since Linear B Mycenaean texts are tax receipts and Linear A Minoan texts are undeciphered./HGL

Michael Lofton's Middle Inerrancy

So Are There Errors in the Bible or Not?
MICHAEL LOFTON • 9/29/2022
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/so-are-there-errors-in-the-bible-or-not

I will presume that Seraphim is the more or less spokesperson for Michael Lofton. Michael being an Archangel and "Seraphim" (in the Hebrew) also being a class of Angels.

He very correctly states that § 11 of Dei Verbum, while it has lent itself to the interpretation "partial inerrancy" certainly does not teach that.

What does "partial inerrancy" mean? It means an inerrancy limited to truths necessary for our salvation. Bible being inerrant on the Trinity consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, on Christ rising for the dead and the things related to the "six things everyone has to know and believe in order to be saved" but not being inerrant on the rest.

The cue to this misinterpretation is:

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 for the sake of salvation

The correct meaning is, all of the Bible are without error, since all of it was put into sacred writings on some level for the sake of salvation. The number of generations between Noah and Abraham (second part of Genesis 11) may not be the most needed truth for the conversion of Cornelius, but it may for instance play some role in these endtimes by telling us that the story of the Flood is reliable history, there were so many overlaps in them that Abraham could hear the story without any significant distortion, even on the natural level.

However, Seraphim wants to exclude also "total inerrancy" (even if limited to original autograph of the hagiographer), preferring Ratzinger's "middle inerrancy" ...

Scripture is and remains inerrant and beyond doubt in everything that it properly intends to affirm, but this is not necessarily so in that which accompanies the affirmation and is not part of it. . . . The inerrancy of Scripture has to be limited to its vere enunciate.

As a Latinist, I correct "vere enunciate" to "vere enunciata" ... the things that are really enounced, affirmed, said, claimed etc. by the hagiographer.

There is in fact a Medieval writing that is called "Postilla in libros Geneseos" variously attributed or denied being of St. Thomas Aquinas* where the genealogy of the Vulgate is followed and the fact Luke (in all manuscripts the author - presumably St. Thomas - knew) has the Second Cainan is put down to St. Luke following the LXX. So, if you spell it out, the LXX has a scribal error, on this view, the thing St. Luke wanted to do was attach a genealogy Jesus back to Adam at "being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph,"** and not understanding Hebrew used a Greek translation of the OT, and therefore even the autograph of St. Luke transmits a scribal error from the LXX.

In this case, the reason St. Thomas was going against the Gospel of St. Luke is, he stuck to another Bible text as ... inerrant. I am thankful for the knowledge I owe to CMI that there are manuscripts of St. Luke without this person, so, if the standard LXX has an error, it is not necessary to presume the autograph of St. Luke contained it.

Ratzinger gives the example of Abiathar in Mark 2:26:

One can point out small matters, like the fact that Mark speaks of the High Priest Abiathar (Mark 2:26) instead of his father, Achimelech.

One can say Our Lord meant "under Achimelech the then high priest and Abiathar the future high priest" - or Our Lord had a slip of the mind. Or St. Peter had one when telling this to St. Mark. I would arguably prefer the first option. Here is Haydock's:

Ver. 26. Under Abiathar. The priest from whom David had these loaves, is called Achimelech, 1 K. xxi. The most probable answer to this difficulty is, that the priest had both these names of Achimelech and of Abiathar, as also his father had before him. For he that (1 K. xxii.) is called Abiathar, the son of Achimelech, is called 2 K. viii. 17, Achimelech, the son of Abiathar. See also 1 Par. xviii. 16. Wi. — Others say that Abiathar, son of Achimelech, was present, and sanctioned the deed of his father, thus making it his own. Dion. Carth.

Wi = Bishop Witham
Dion. Carth. = I can't find one Dionysius of Carthage. So, I don't know.

It is worth noting that biblical scholars have offered explanations to resolve this apparent error. Nevertheless, the above example should suffice to illustrate the position.

I am thankful Michael Lofton notes this about biblical scholars offering explanations. So, as you can see, do I.

So, the position is illustrated with smaller matters. Unfortunately, Seraphim goes beyond this, after Elijah (the interlocutor) asking if he admits Genesis is historical, then if he means everything in it is parabolical:

Seraphim: Not exactly. I’m not saying we should read everything in Genesis as a parable, and I’m also not denying that it could be communicating real history. I’m simply saying that it is possible for the sacred author to propose something as true without intending to propose that something happened historically. Perhaps the sacred author did propose some of the events in the book of Genesis as historically true, and perhaps he didn’t. We don’t have to dismiss the book of Genesis as merely a myth filled with errors, nor do we have to assume some crass form of scriptural fundamentalism. Just because Joshua 10:13 says the sun stood still, that doesn’t mean the Bible must be interpreted as meaning the sun revolves around the earth.

In fact - Cardinal Robert Bellarmine did that. Galileo's book was judged. Later on, by other judges, he was judged himself.

In fact, verse 12 is even more clear. The words "sun, stand thou still" are not part of the prayer, since Joshua wasn't praying to the sun. They are therefore something coming after the prayer. Here is for another Jesus (or Joshua) also praying before a miracle:

[41] They took therefore the stone away. And Jesus lifting up his eyes said: Father, I give thee thanks that thou hast heard me. [42] And I knew that thou hearest me always; but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. [43] When he had said these things, he cried with a loud voice: Lazarus, come forth.

Could the words "Lazarus, come forth" contain any error? Would it be possible that Jesus had been misled about the identity of the corpse and raised someone else, when thinking He was raising Lazarus? No, of course.

Well, that should give a hint about Joshua (or Jesus Nave) 10:12, as it says:

Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon.

The speaking to the Lord and the saying before the children of Israel are two distinct things. Even for this Joshua, the Lord did not allow the words coming after his public prayer to contain an error.

And what he definitely did not say is "earth, quit that rotation for some while" which would have been more correct if the daily motion is normally that of the earth around itself, rather than of the Sun around Earth.

So, what Michael Lofton wants to call "crass fundamentalism" is previsely the correct option for Christians, at least in big things.

And obviously, it is vapid guesswork, unsupported by the Church Fathers to say significant parts of Genesis (outside the 7 cows that actually are a parable and actually do get interpreted) are parable.

In Trent, Session IV, we are not just told to stay with the inerrancy of the Bible, but more specifically, when interpreting it, with whatever the Church hath held and holds*** and the consensus of the Church Fathers.

No Church Father said "genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 as well as their mirroring in Luke 3 are parables without factual relation to time." None. You can find words "not in time" applied to "the beginning" (Genesis 1:1) and - rarely - to the six days. Never ever to these genealogies. The precise same St. Augustine who nearly "denies" creation took place over as much time as six days also clearly upholds the historicity of these chapters.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Nahum
1.XII.2022

Sancti Nahum Prophetae, in Begabar quiescentis.

* If it was, it was arguably from his youth in the Naples region, and he got more classic and less Romance in his Latin when he came to Paris.
** Luke 3:23 reads in entirety And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat,
*** Not just what the Church holds, well remarked just in case one were to imagine the Church changing its mind - such changes of mind do not bind!

Some Thinks Lions Couldn't Have Eaten Fish after the Flood? Watch This Video!

Do BIG CATS Like Fish?
Collecte de fonds
Big Cat Rescue | 16 July 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTvC2HSfitE

I am Stopping their Video at 11:34

Here it is:

Chimp-Human DNA: Less similar than previously reported
CMI Video | 9 Nov. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlNLoEGu0po

They are saying 450 million nucleotides would have had to be produced, if evolution were true.

Here are the data they base it on. I'll give it in blockquote so as not to credit myself, even if it's not an exact quote, but a summary of what they had previously said:

3 billion base pairs in the human genome.

16 % dissimilarity between man and chimp by two more recent studies than the famous "1 %" or "99 %" study.

480 million? As the similarity was actually somewhat above 84 %, the dissimilarity is actually below 16 %. So, replacing 480 million with 450 million is not a big deal.

What about 240 million? If half the mutations are on the chimp side, only half need be on the human side. Or 225 million.

How much would that take?

6 million years since Ardi (most recent species cited as common ancestor of men and chimps).

20 years per generation.* 6 million years by 20 = 300 000 generations.

240 000 000 / 300 000 = 800 mutations per generation.
225 000 000 / 300 000 = 750 mutations per generation.

That meaning net actually getting into all of the gene pool mutations. Not like one generation making 750 mutations between all different parts of the ancestry, but one generation making so many that are in fact also preserved.

Let me explain a bit.

We have 23 chromosome pairs. Each in two examples.

We all have one example each from the father, one example each from the mother (Adam, Eve and Jesus being exceptions).

For the generation before that, we cannot for instance have 23 chromosomes from one grandparent unless we also lack any from the other one. So, each grandparent is ancestral to anything between 0 and 23 of our 46 chromosomes, but around 12 or 13. 46 / 4 = 12.5, but 12.5 is not an option, since chromosomes come only in wholes. Also, 0 or 23 from one grandparent is a highly unlikely option.

When the ancestors become more than 46, we certainly don't have one chromosome from each any more. Some of them are in our lineage, but not in our genetic makeup.

Greatgrandparents. 8 people, often enough 8 different ones. 46 / 8 = 5.75, but 5.75 is not an option. On average, we have 5 or more likely 6 chromosomes from each. Already here, there could be one or two we have nothing from.

Their parents are 16 people. 46 / 16 = 2.875, which is not an option. We have on average three chromosomes from each great-great-great-grandparent, unless one is so more than once.

They have parents that are 32 people (often enough NOT 32 different ones), 46 / 32 = 1.4375, which is not an option, so from each great-great-great-great-grandparent, one has in average one or two chromosomes.

As to their parents, 46 / 64 = 0.71875, which is not an option. On average, one would have one chromosome from each, but zero from 18 of them. If you have two chromosomes from one great-great-great-great-great-grandparent, or from one great-grandparent of a great-grandparent, and he's not such more than once, it means you have zero from 19 of them. If you have three from one or two from two of them, you have zero from 20 of them, except the times the one who gave you more than one chromosome was an ancestor more than once over (meaning, he has more than one Sosa-Stradonitz ancestry number).

From their parents, 128 people, you still get only 46 chromosomes. In other words, variants are being lost all of the time. Obviously, a variant of your ancestor 128 or 255 (these are the extremes known as father's father etc and mother's mother etc) which is lost to you can be preserved in someone else, whom they are also 128 or 255 to. But even so, mutations leading up to becoming man would have been competing with lots of other mutations not leading that direction.

In other words, inheriting about 750 to 800 locus mutations from each generation for 6 million years is pretty unlikely. Unless ...

"it's impossible that that many changes wouldn't have introduced serious genetic defects, which would have destroyed the evolving life forms"

This is said at 11:50 of the video. Get back to it, it is good. Well, so far. But I see no indications it's getting downward.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Andrew
30.XI.2022

Apud Patras, in Achaja, natalis sancti Andreae Apostoli, qui in Thracia et Scythia sacrum Christi Evangelium praedicavit. Is, ab Aegea Proconsule comprehensus, primum in carcere clausus est, deinde gravissime caesus, ad ultimum suspensus in cruce, in ea populum docens biduo supervixit; et, rogato Domino ne eum sineret de cruce deponi, circumdatus est magno splendore de caelo, et, abscedente postmodum lumine, emisit spiritum.

PS There are in some issues just before and just after 20 minutes. Post upcoming with my comments to those, tomorrow./HGL

Notes:
* Confirmed that a chimp generation is not radically shorter:

As they report today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, chimpanzee mothers ranged in age from 11.7 to 45.4 years at the birth of their offspring. The average age of reproduction was 25 years for females and 24 years for males, giving them an average generation time of about 25 years.

Generation Gaps Suggest Ancient Human-Ape Split
The ancestors of today's humans and chimpanzees may have diverged millions of years earlier than thought
13 AUG 2012 BY ANN GIBBONS
https://www.science.org/content/article/generation-gaps-suggest-ancient-human-ape-split

Also states:

When they applied the new rates to the history of all three species, they calculated that humans and chimps split earlier than expected—at least 7 million to 8 million years ago and possibly as early as 13 million years ago. They estimate the split between gorillas and the lineage leading to humans and chimpanzees to 8 million to 19 million years ago.

Revisiting Henke2022b, 5:3

This passage

Henke

Lundahl (2022b) raises additional objections to Hypothesis #2. He complains that advocates of Hypothesis #2 are going against a tradition that Moses had a vision of the six days of Creation and that they tend to be Old-Earth creationists:

Citation of Lundahl

“One more: proponents of #2 for Genesis 3 go against tradition, as the tradition says that Moses had a vision of the Six Days, and they are also likely to be Old Earthers, trying to motivate why an event purportedly 2500 - 3000 years before Moses could in fact have been known if Adam was rather 250 000 BP.”

Henke

However, whose tradition is this? Where did it come from? How do we know that this tradition is reliable? Why should the favored prejudices (traditions) of past generations be necessarily trusted? Even if Moses had a vision of the six days of Creation, how does that rule out Moses having additional visions that included Genesis 3? Also, why do advocates of Hypothesis #2 necessarily have to believe in Old-Earth creationism? Couldn’t advocates of Hypothesis #2 argue that God could have given Moses visions of any event in the past at any time? The arguments in Lundahl (2022b) and Lundahl (2022c) are worthless and would not convince any advocate of Hypothesis #2. Furthermore, advocates of Hypotheses #3 and/or #4 would identify any “traditions” about Moses seeing visions as probably nothing more than groundless made-up stories that became widely circulated and popular over the centuries.

For clarity, for those who have missed earlier parts. Henke's four hypotheses for the epistemic origin of Genesis 3 are:

• 1) tradition from Adam and Eve
• 2) revelation to Moses
• 3) campfire story
• 4) fraudulent claim to prophecy

He is obviously favouring 3 or 4 over both 1 and 2, and in context, he is challenging why I prefer 1 over 2. He already did so in Henke2022a.

My argument is cited, and I will analyse it as two arguments:

I) proponents of #2 for Genesis 3 go against tradition, as the tradition says that Moses had a vision of the Six Days,

My point being, perhaps stated somewhat elliptically (at least in this citation), there is no tradition at all of Moses having a vision of the rest of Genesis. If Exodus 6 makes Levi his greatgrandfather, it makes much more sense for Moses to know about Levi from family tradition than from a vision. And Abraham is Levi's greatgrandfather, and his story begins to be told in detail already in Genesis 12, starting in some final verses of Genesis 11. But previous parts of Genesis 11 purport at least to be a genealogy, and the usual way to get genealogies is for generations to remember who they are and transmit that to ensuing generations.

So, it would make in some way sense for all of the preceding to be tradition, but this is impossible insofar as Adam as observer of events was absent totally from "the beginning" and days 1 through 5 and even the beginning of day 6. The obvious options for (most of) the six days are prophecy or made up or faked prophecy - only hypotheses 2, 3 or 4 are possible for Day 4.

And we do have a tradition (at least in book of Jubilees) that Moses had a vision of the six days. My main point however is, this tradition does NOT cover anything beyond the six days account. Even chapter 2 involves Adam being present before some things happen before his eyes. And the verses from Genesis 2:5 to when Adam is a conscious human being and an adult male are such that God could have briefly revealed them to Adam himself.

The end of the six day account, God blessing Adam and Eve with fertility and God blessing the Sabbath, would also have been available to Adam as observer, but were arguably (if Moses had a vision of the six days) transferred to the end point of this vision.

From the Haydock comment to Genesis 1, verse 4:

Good; beautiful and convenient:---he divided light by giving it qualities incompatible with darkness, which is not any thing substantial, and therefore Moses does not say it was created. C.

In other words, Moses was given complete understanding of the process of creation - at minimum a vision. You can believe this tradition is false, and his info on creation is worthless, but you can hardly deny this is the tradition about it.

II) and they are also likely to be Old Earthers, trying to motivate why an event purportedly 2500 - 3000 years before Moses could in fact have been known if Adam was rather 250 000 BP

I say this from experience with Catholic Old Earthers. I have been saying "Genesis 3 is pretty important for Mariology, right?" - "Yes" - "So, if as you believe Adam lived 40 000 years ago or more, how was it recalled correctly?" - "It was revealed to Moses." - "Well, there is no tradition of it."

My point is, the people trying to pinpoint Genesis 3 to vision rather than tradition are inventing a vision that is NOT in the tradition.

However, whose tradition is this?

Arguably one Hebrew tradition that predates the split between Jews and Christians, and arguably even the split between Samaritans and Jews, though in this case I cannot point to a specific expression of this tradition among Samaritans.

Where did it come from?

The tradition by implication points to coming from Moses. As long as it cannot be traced to a later and complex fraud (which would need to be argued), I'll leave it at that.

How do we know that this tradition is reliable?

How do we "know" that any tradition is reliable? By trusting it. History is ultimately about what tradition you trust, in the case of there being conflicting ones.

I may not be able to articulate why I trust the Hebrew tradition above the Babylonian one or the Khemetic (Egyptian one), but I do.

I can say why I trust tradition above reconstruction. This brings us to the next point:

Why should the favored prejudices (traditions) of past generations be necessarily trusted?

I prefer the favoured prejudice of a past generation above that of the present one, when it comes to past events. I do so on a lot of other issues too, but when it comes to past events, it's pretty obvious why. They were closer to them. And what we get from "scientific" reconstruction is not a near mathematical certitude trumping any past prejudices, we just get a sophisticated expression of present prejudices (including, since Hume, too often "miracles don't happen").

So, I would not go as far as "necessarily" but I would definitely say "usually, unless there is a major argument to the contrary."

In the case of Flood stories, that of Babylon and that of the Bible cannot both be true. It cannot both be true that one god was annoyed people were making too much noise and decided to send a flood, and his twin, being a trixter, and having had the task of creating men, saved some by warning Utnapishtim (or Noah) AND at the same time one and the same just God (neither peevish, nor trixter) decided to send the Flood because society was turning too horrible on a world wide scale, and also to save one family which stood out against the horrors of their times. It cannot both be true that the vessel was a giant version of the coracle, and that it was a wood box of tanker proportions. One can argue that the wood box of tanker proportions was adequate to save all kinds of animals, while the coracle wouldn't have been. Or one can argue that the coracle is likelier in a local Flood, and good luck explaining how Shuruppak, some tens of metres above the Persian Gulf (34?) was flooded locally and the flood rose to a mount Nisir that is upstreams and is 2588 meters above the Persian Gulf! But the ultimate reason for my preference is kind of what world I feel we live in. The one God who is just is more credible than one peevish lord of gods and one devious second in command who sometimes saves us from the peevishness. And obviously, the adherents of this other theology also say the Flood was world wide.

Even if Moses had a vision of the six days of Creation, how does that rule out Moses having additional visions that included Genesis 3?

It's not the presence of the vision of the six days, but the total absence of a tradition of such a vision for Genesis 3 that rules this out.

Couldn’t advocates of Hypothesis #2 argue that God could have given Moses visions of any event in the past at any time?

That God could do it is no argument to assume He did so without there being any indication of it either in the Bible or in traditions around it.

Furthermore, advocates of Hypotheses #3 and/or #4 would identify any “traditions” about Moses seeing visions as probably nothing more than groundless made-up stories that became widely circulated and popular over the centuries.

Indeed. One extra reason not to add to the visions Moses had. Burning bush and subsequent commands leading Moses and through him Israel, check. Ten Commandments, twice, check. Six Days, perhaps in connection with Sabbath commandment, check. All legislation passages involving "God spoke to Moses and said," check. Revelations about what Israel was to do, about Miriam and Aaron, about what he could expect for himself (seeing God from the back), check. But a vision of Genesis 3 - it's neither in Exodus, nor in the traditions surrounding any of it.

Finally, one more:

The arguments in Lundahl (2022b) and Lundahl (2022c) are worthless and would not convince any advocate of Hypothesis #2.

I haven't seen any, except the Old Earther I met in a Catholic charity where he was volunteering and I was received. And even he didn't claim to have given the matter totally thorough thought.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Sosthenes
28.XI.2022

Apud Corinthum natalis sancti Sosthenis, ex beati Pauli Apostoli discipulis; cujus mentionem facit idem Apostolus Corinthiis scribens. Ipse autem Sosthenes, ex principe Synagogae conversus ad Christum, fidei suae primordia, ante Gallionem Proconsulem acriter verberatus, praeclaro initio consecravit.

PS, the Old Earther, even Evolutionist, though a Catholic, it was in 2019, it would seem, if you read French:

New blog on the kid : Quatre évolutionnistes rencontrés
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/06/quatre-evolutionnistes-rencontres.html

Enjoy!/HGL

"If the whole earth were one ball of carbon 14"

Let's first take the amount this means. Mass = volume * density.

Volume of earth 1.08321 × 10¹² km³
Density of graphite 2.09–2.23 g/cm

Let's translate the density a bit. 1000 g = 1 kg. 1000 (yes!) cm³ = 1 dm³.
1000 kg = 1 metric tonne, 1000 dm³ = 1m³

1 km = 10 * 1 hm
1 hm = 10 * 1 dkm (dekametre, not decimeter)
1 dkm = 10 * 1 m

For cubic versions, it' 1000 per transformation.

1 083 210 000 000 km³
1 083 210 000 000 000 000 000 m³

So, we are dealing with up to
1 083 210 000 000 000 000 000 m³ * 2.23 tonne/m³ = 2 415 558 300 000 000 000 000 tonnes

But this would be true if the tonnes were from Carbon 12. Carbon 12 has an atomic weight of 12, and Carbon 14 a bit above 14. This means the real weight of this would be 14/12 or 7/6 of above.

3 218 151 350 000 000 000 000 tonnes.

What does it take to get carbon 14 under 1 % of original amount? Let's check the halvings.

100.000 00 I
50.000 00 II
25.000 00 III
12.500 00 IV
6.250 00 V
3.125 00 VI
1.562 50 VII
0.781 25 VIII

That's 8 halvings, would take 8 halflives = 8 * 5730 = 45 840 years. Let's round the final result up to 0.8 % to make calculating a bit easier. And the Roman numerals from here on don't reer to halflives, but to "one of those" - that being the unit of 45 840 years.

25 745 210 800 000 000 000 tonnes after I
205 961 686 400 000 000 tonnes after II
1 647 693 491 200 000 tonnes after III
13 181 547 929 600 tonnes after IV
105 452 383 436.8 tonnes after V
843 619 067.494 4 tonnes after VI
6 748 952.539 955 2 tonnes after VII
53 991.620 319 641 6 tonnes after VIII
431.932 962 557 132 8 tonnes after IX
1.727 731 850 228 531 2 tonnes after X

From the graphite the volume of earth to less than 2 tonnes in 458 400 years.

1.727 731 850 228 531 2 tonnes =
1 727.731 850 228 531 2 kg =
1 727 731.850 228 531 2 g

I think we can ignore what's below 1 gram, let's round up

1 727 732 g for 1 727 731.850 228 531 2 g

13 821.856 g after XI
106.574 848 g after XII
0.852 598 784 g after XIII

So, graphite the volume of the earth is becoming less than one gramme in 13 * 45840, that is in 595 920 years.

Obviously, this weight refers to the weight of Carbon 14. As far as we know, it doesn't become nothing - but does it become carbon 12 or carbon 13 or nitrogen 14?

That's another question. At least after a bit more than half a million years, carbon 14 the volume of the earth would be reduced to less than one gramme. For purposes of carbon dating, the maximum actually used goes a few more halflives beyond 45840 years. I put in 70 000 years in a carbon 14 calculator, and I find "This date is too large and beyond the limits of present accuracy (55000 to 60000 years)" - and I also find, the actual value would be 0.021 pmC. If we then take 60 000 years as the limit, this means ones goes a bit beyond ten halvings, ten halflives. So, if something is carbon dated to younger than 60 000 years, it means there is measureable carbon 14 left. If there is measurable carbon 14 left, either it is in fact younger than 60 000 years, or it was contaminated. But contamination should be less omnipresent than to provide dates of 20 000 to 39 000 BP for dinosaurs when carbon dated consistently. It is more logical, they are in fact younger than 60 000 years, not older than 60 000 000 years. Especially as we do find human skeleta or associated material dated to earlier than that (like 50 000 years ago).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Catherine of Alexandria
25.XI.2022

Some Observations on How Creationism is Perceived

Look at these poly-syllogisms:

1) Evolution is Science and Creationism is Religion.
2) Therefore it is a fraud to speak of Creation Science,
3) since this makes Creationism usurp the honour of being Science, which rightly belongs to Evolution;
4) and if homeschooling parents are Creationist, they will teach homeschooling as science;
5) therefore homeschooling is dangerous.

That's the first and here's the second:

1) Evolution is Science and already proven.
2) But what's already proven doesn't need proof,
3) therefore the expert or believer in experts who believes evolution has no burden of proof
4) whereas the Creationist has the burden of proof along each step,
5) because he's the one making an extraordinary claim.

Some things are clear about people who reason like this (yes, I've come across them on the internet, I am just adding logical structure in my analysis of their process of thought):

• "Science" is their "Bible"
• not believing "Science" is their "heresy"
• the actual Bible is their "false prophet" since so often it involves people in "not believing Science"
• and this makes "Science" the positive religion of Atheists, notably this type.
• Meanwhile, logic and pertinent facts about what science and religion actually mean are thrown out of the window.

I'll give you one more. But unfortunately, it was not by an Atheist.

1) All nations have Founding Myths;
2) all Founding Myths are Myths;
3) all Myths are Made-Up Stories (because a dictionary says that is what the word means)
4) but the Torah is the Founding Myth of the Hebrew nation;
5) therefore the Torah (and on into books of Samuel at least) are made up stories.

But hey, they are still the word of God!

And the majority of Christian theologians support "some texts should be read literally and some metaphorically" ...

As the person in question was replying under the video of a Dominican and had a French name, I'll suppose he thinks of himself as a Catholic. I did that when informing him that St. Thomas Aquinas and most Catholic theologians historically would have disagreed with him. They would have said ALL texts need to be taken literally and ALL texts figuratively. Of the minorities who don't hold that, it seems the Literal Only with St. John Chrysostom is larger than the Figurative Only (if it ever existed) of Origen.

There is one more observation on all three syllogisms. The ones holding this kind of reasoning are in fact betting on things always being what they are labelled as, on there being no conflicts about labels and on there being no multiple meanings of words, like George Washington certainly being a "Founding Myth" and as certainly NOT a "made up story" for the US, and that the correct labels are those that are circulating most widely in formal and informal communictions right now.

As a linguist, I can say that Adam's language could not have developed from animal communications. But as a philologist, one concerned with old texts, I can also say that this is not how reality works. Several of these labels have shifted meaning over the centuries and all have been applied in ways that not just some lonely nut case, but large portions of the world would consider as mislabelling.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Présentation de la Sainte Vierge
dans le Temple
21.XI.2022

Hierosolymis Praesentatio beatae Dei Genitricis Virginis Mariae in Templo.

PS - the thread under the Dominican's (?) video is mirrored here, for readers of French:
Répliques Assorties : Quand un Dominicain fait du Stephen J. Gould
https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2021/07/quand-un-dominicain-fait-du-stephen-j.html

The post was posted in its original shape on Friday, 9 July 2021, has since been seen 1790 times and the updates with Roger Girard start last week./HGL

PPS, yes, I am tired. I think I am fulfilling the brag of Kent Hovind of beating them in a discussion, "even with half my brain tied to the back" - over tired counts as that, and I'm still beating his prestanda./HGL

PPPS, to illustrate my fatigue, I forgot first that the Feast was supposed to be given in English, then to point this oblivion out when writing previous PS./HGL

Are CMI Hearing Me?

Are CMI Hearing Me? · Does Sennaar mean Sumer? · Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White considered Judi, but not Göbekli Tepe · Ah, Griffith and White Provided the Source Too · Sumeria, Damien Mackey, Intellectual Honour · Damien Mackey Has His View on Shinar, Nimrod and Babel

An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel
by Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White | This article is from
Journal of Creation 35(2):69–79, August 2021
https://creation.com/babel-upper-mesopotamia

For starters, I am disagreeing with Abraham being there two centuries after the dispersion. On Biblical chronology, I am with the Historia Scholastica and the Christmas Proclamation of Martyrologium Romanum.

Next ....

Location. Not too bad.

37°47’48.84”N, 40°22’45.39”E "Babel, cand. C"
37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E Göbekli Tepe

The nearby Çınar, Diyarbakır is between Cizre (238,9 km) and Göbekli Tepe (183 km, distances by car, involve turns, and Çınar is a bit N of the line Cizre to Göbekli Tepe).

Time in archaeology ... could so far not find what "Babel candidate C" is carbon dated to.

Bricks? Well, the finding of bricks is being pushed backwards. They mention that bricks have been found at level XIII of Tepe Gawra. Now, they did not tell and I could not find what carbon date is associated with that level. The wikipedian article on Tepe Gawra says:

Tepe Gawra (Kurdish for "Great Mound")[1] is an ancient Mesopotamian settlement 15 miles NNE of Mosul in northwest Iraq that was occupied between 5000 and 1500 BC. It is roughly a mile from the site of Nineveh and 2 miles E of the site of Khorsabad. It contains remains from the Halaf period, the Ubaid period, and the Uruk period (4000–3100 BC). Tepe Gawra contains material relating to the Halaf-Ubaid Transitional period c. 5,500–5,000 BC.

So, oldest carbon dates are 5500 or 5000 BC. What years would this be on my tables?

2243 B. Chr.
0.657496 pmC/100, so dated as 5693 B. Chr.
2220 B. Chr.
0.680023 pmC/100, so dated as 5420 B. Chr.

or

2153 B. Chr.
0.706677 pmC/100, so dated as 5003 B. Chr.

If the meaning was, this was contemporary with 37°47’48.84”N, 40°22’45.39”E archaeology, I think this could still be too late. If the meaning however is "burned bricks are going back in archaeology" I agree this is good news.

What if I went back in (real/Biblical) time for 5000 BC carbon dates?

Peleg is born 401 after the Flood, 2556 BC.

5000 - 2556 = 2444 extra years, 74.405 pmC in 401 after Flood
5500 - 2556 = 2944 extra years, 70.038 pmC in 401 after Flood

A sample from 401 years ago, if original content were 100 pmC, would have 95.265 pmC. This means 95.265 is the percentage left of original sample - and 100 - 95.265 gives us the normal replacement in 401 years:

100 pmC - 95.265 pmC = 4.735 pmC.

Flood itself, 2.625 pmC (dated 39,000 BP).*

2.625 pmC * 95.265 %
2.625 pmC * 0.95265 = 2.5 pmC

74.405 pmC - 2.5 pmC = 71.905 pmC
71.905 pmC / 4.735 pmC = c. 15 times faster (my own work has 10 times faster)
70.038 pmC - 2.5 pmC = 67.538 pmC
67.538 pmC / 4.735 pmC = c. 14 times faster

What would the effect be in relation to Genesis 14?

2556 BC - 1935 BC (Genesis 14) = 621 years.

Percentage of original and normal replacement in 621 years. 92.763 % and 7.237 pmC.

Level at Genesis 14, 82.73 pmC** - sorry, just checked** - 82.753 pmC.

Let's compare normal replacement with actual replacement of C14, and we start by calculating the remainder from the 2556 level that's left in 1935 and deduce that from the total 1935 level.

74.405 pmC * 0.92763 = 69.02 pmC
82.753 pmC - 69.02 pmC = 13.733 pmC
70.038 pmC * 0.92763 = 64.969 pmC
82.753 pmC - 64.969 = 17.784 pmC

13.733 pmC / 7.237 pmC = 1.898 times faster
17.784 pmC / 7.237 pmC = 2.457 times faster

So, if Babel's end were in carbon dated 5000 or 5500 BC Flood to Babel would have seen 14 to 15 times faster replacement than normal, but in Babel to Genesis 14 it suddenly drops to around twice as fast - less than between Genesis 14 and the death of the childkilling pharao, if he was Sesostris III*** which is 3 times the present normal replacement.

But as said, they did not say that Tepe Gawra XIII and 37°47’48.84”N, 40°22’45.39”E were identical. They even said that Pre-Pottery Neolithic A is a good period to look:

The Bible states that Noah was the first farmer after the Flood (Genesis 9:20). In archaeology the ‘Neolithic’ are considered the first farmers, and the PPNA is the oldest known Neolithic culture. Therefore, we expect that the PPNA is a good place to look for the Tower of Babel.

While burnt bricks have so far neither been found in 37°47’48.84”N, 40°22’45.39”E, nor in Göbekli Tepe, the lower level of Tepe Gawra could go back to 5000 BC carbon dated, which is as mentioned 2153 BC.

2607 BC or begin of Babel - 2153 BC = 454 years

Perhaps not too long between the first actual bricks and the first so far found bricks.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Martin of Tours
11.XI.2022

Turonis, in Gallia, natalis beati Martini, Episcopi et Confessoris; cujus vita tantis exstitit niiraculis gloriosa, ut trium mortuorum suscitator esse meruerit.

PS, don't miss the delicious argument they made that Sargon first ruled in a city named Akkad (it hasn't been found separately from Babylon) and then conquered a place in modern Turkey called Babylon, and then renamed Akkad into Babylon. Their article really is worth reading./HGL

Notes:
* Checking. 39000 BP = 37000 BC - 2957 BC = 34043 extra years. A recent sample back then would have dated to "34043 years ago." Which gives 1.628 pmC. My bad.
** Checking. 3500 BC - 1935 BC = 1565 extra years, 82.753 pmC
*** If the childkilling pharao was later than Sesostris III, we need a higher pmC in 1590 BC, meaning the disproportion even further increases.

Catholic Devotion and Young Earth Creationism

The Jesse Tree
An Advent Devotion
by Eric Sammons, Suzan M. Sammons
https://www.sophiainstitute.com/products/item/the-jesse-tree

This Advent, lead your family closer to Christ as you prepare for the Lord’s coming at Christmas. Engage with the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets who are the branches in Jesus’ family tree and come to understand fully how, in Christ, this family history becomes the history of our salvation.

As you explore Jesus’ fascinating ancestry, you’ll see how God’s plan of salvation unfolds from Adam and Eve, through the Old Testament prophets, to the birth of Christ, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacraments of the Church. Marvel at the parallels between Adam and Christ, the New Adam; Eve and Mary, the New Eve; the patriarch Joseph and St. Joseph, guardian of the Redeemer; and others.

I have no beef with any of this obviously.

But perhaps the American Conference of Bishops has? You see, the Jesse Tree is based on Biblical genealogies, like Genesis 5 and 11 and the later generations over Genesis to the end, like Ruth, Paralipomena (or Chronicles), and obviously a resumé in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.

The people who started the devotion were, unlike American ... I'll look up the official name: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ... unlike these guys, the people who started the devotion were very obviously Young Earth Creationist. Oh, feel free to get this devotion!/HGL

Potato Fallacy in Percentage Math of Natural Processes - Are My Critics Guilty?

I was guilty myself, while starting to see a video on the Potato fallacy. Or, as Susanne Scherer calls it "hard core fallacy at the potato paradox" ...

Krasser DENKFEHLER beim Kartoffel Paradoxon! – Machst du ihn auch? 🤓
MathemaTrick, 1 Nov. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUV1zoJA9L8

The question:
A farmer got 100 kg of potatoes for a harvest. 99 % of these are water, before you dry them. After you dry them, 98 % are water. How much do the potatoes weigh now?

The wrong answer:
There is one % less of water, but each of the 99 % of water weighed 1 kg, therefore the new weight is 99 kg.

The right process:
Potatoes consist of water and the rest, let's call it dry substance. Only the water is affected by the drying out. A total is never 99 %, but a 100 %.
This means, the dry substance, which was 1 kg, was 1%.
The dry substance, which is still 1 kg, is now 2%. Not of the original weight, but of the new weight.
The potatoes weigh 50 kg after the drying.

I get inadequate feedback from people not agreeing with me. This means, I sometimes have to guess what is going through their heads. And the following, with my own correction, is an educated guess of why they keep reading and disagreeing and waiting "for me to see the light" ...

The atmosphere can be seen as one, big, sample of organic compounds involving carbon 14. In 5730 years, the carbon 14 content should halve. If it doesn't, it is because 50 "percent modern carbon" are added, net, in 5730 years. Let's use the phrase "percent modern carbon" as referring to percentages of "today's atmosphere" (corrected for pre-industrial values). If something halves or doubles, it will be in relation to what it was, but if I say pmC, this is like how 50 pmC are what you find in a sample supposed to be 5730 years old, or like how 70.7 pmC (square root of 50 % in pmC) is for a sample that is (and can be checked against Assyrian chronology to be) 2865 years old. Keep in mind, either way this is not absolute quantities, but proportions of the overall carbon content in the atmosphere or in samples. Counted in % of the modern proportion.

So, doubling the carbon content could also take 5730 years - from today's 100 pmC? Not really. From 50 pmC to 100 pmC? More like it. But never mind, the fallacy I have in mind would even have a doubling from 100 to 200 pmC take 5730 years, with the normal production of C14 in the atmosphere.

So, if the deluge atmosphere was one now dated (where preserved in samples from then) to 39 000 years, this means it had 1.625 pmC. How many times would you have to double this before arriving at 100 pmC?

1.625 pmC (1 doubling) 3.25 (2) 6.5 (3) 13 (4) 26 (5) 52 (6 doublings) 104 pmC, slightly in excess of 100 pmC.

You'd have to double this 6 times. Hence, the normal process would be 6 halflives.

6 * 5730 = 34 380 years.

Flood to Troy = 2957 BC - 1179 BC = 1778 years

34 380 / 1778 = 19.34 times faster.

But constantly going 19.34 times faster would totally be disruptive of everything, so ... I need to be wrong.

Wait a bit. Doubling the C14 content and adding 50 pmC points to it, that's two different types of operation, they coincide only between 50 and 100 pmC.

Where in my tables does this doubling fall?

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

1185 B. Chr.
1 pmC/100, so dated as 1185 B. Chr.

1 pmC / 100, multiply both sides with 100, 1 * 100 = 100, pmC / 100 * 100 = pmC, so 100 pmC. The reason I counted New Tables in "pmC / 100" being that I am more familiar with decimal fractions than percentage counting.

1185 BC is approximate, should have been 1179 BC as per both carbon date and historic date of Troy VIIa.

2534 B. Chr.
0.494539 pmC/100, so dated as 8334 B. Chr.
2511 B. Chr.
0.507242 pmC/100, so dated as 8111 B. Chr.

So, 50 pmC is reached between 2534 and 2511 BC. 2522 BC is medium or 2523 BC.

2523 - 1179 = 1344 years.

I am basically cramming a process that could take 5730 years into 1344 years. I will not go into the fact that 5730 years would actually not raise 50 pmC to 100 pmC, but just to 75 pmC, while it keeps 100 pmC at 100 pmC*

5730 / 1344 = 4.26 times as fast. Not quite true, but roughly.

Now, the previous doubling only involves adding 25 pmC net. When was 25 pmC reached?

2756 B. Chr.
0.250709 pmC/100, so dated as 14 206 B. Chr.

2756 - 2522 = 234 years - for a process that should take 2400 years. Where a sample goes down from 100 to 75 pmC and the atmosphere replaces 25 pmC, so stays at 100, is 2400 years** ...

2400 / 234 = 10.26 times as fast.

Previous to that, we need to go from 12.5 to 25 pmC. When did we have 12.5 pmC according to me?

2867 B. Chr.
0.119246 pmC/100, so dated as 20 467 B. Chr.
2845 B. Chr.
0.145681 pmC/100, so dated as 18 745 B. Chr.

Between 2867 and 2845 BC, medium of which is 2856 BC

2856 - 2756 = 100 years.

100 - 12.5 = 87.5, and the time to get a sample down to 87.5 pmC is tha of getting the atmosphere replacing 12.5 pmC. 1100 years.

1100 / 100 = 11 times as fast.

Previous doubling to that would be 6.25 to 12.5 pmC.

2912 B. Chr.
0.066161 pmC/100, so dated as 25 362 B. Chr.

2912 - 2856 = 56 years

100 - 6.25 = 93.75 pmC, which a sample starting with 100 pmC has after 530 years.

530 / 56 = 9.46 times faster.

6.25 / 2 = 3.125 pmC.

2935 B. Chr.
0.039541 pmC/100, so dated as 29 635 B. Chr.

3.95 is actually a bit too high to count with, so we use two doublings, getting down to

2957 B. Chr. 0.012788 pmC/100, so dated as 38 957 B. Chr.

3.125 / 2 = 1.5625


1.5625 + 3.125 = 4.6875 pmC
100 - 4.6875 = 95.3125 pmC, 400 years.

2957 - 2912 = 45

400 / 45 = 8.889 times faster.

Problem solved. Each doubling previous to 50 pmC backwards involved less and less pmC points net added and therefore involve less and less normal time for the process, which is sped up. We never get as fast as 19.34 times the normal speed.

Yeah, but having a C14 production between 8.889 and 11 times as fast from 2957 to 2523 BC would hardly have been healthy?

Precisely. Lifespans after the Flood were 500 years only after having lived 100 years before the Flood, and they were dwindling. This faster C14 production was a result of more radiation from the cosmos primarily meant to implement God's decision in Genesis 6:3 And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. Two concomitant results were the ice age and pushing up C14 levels to what has been since the Fall of Troy a fairly stable 100 pmC.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts Zachary and Elisabeth
parents of St. John the Baptist
5.XI.2022

Sancti Zachariae, Sacerdotis et Prophetae, qui pater exstitit beati Joannis Baptistae, Praecursoris Domini.

Item sanctae Elisabeth, ejusdem sanctissimi Praecursoris matris.

* 100 pmC * 50 % = 50 pmC + 50 pmC = 100 pmC BUT 50 pmC * 50 % = 25 pmC + 50 pmC = 75 pmC.
** I am using this:
Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
presented by Earth Science Australia through the kind permission of the author Mark Gregory
http://earthsci.org/space/space/geotime/C14/Carbon%2014%20Dating%20Calculator.html

New American Bible : Footnoted to Apostasy

Case study, Genesis 11.

The whole world spoke the same language, using the same words.

Footnote one:

[1-9] This story, based on traditions about the temple towers or ziggurats of Babylonia, is used by the sacred writer primarily to illustrate man's increasing wickedness, shown here in his presumptuous effort to create an urban culture apart from God. The secondary motive in the story is to present an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth, as well as an artificial explanation of the name "Babylon."

So, the origin of diversity of languages is "imaginative" ... it seems the footnoter was imagining, the process called by linguists "language evolution" or "language development" or - rarely but more correctly - language change (diverse in diverse populations) is responsible for the diversity of languages in Abraham's time.

Let's go to the Roman Martyrology, shall we, Christmas Day. Oh, not the modernist version from the nineties, the traditional one, still used, as I presume intactly, when Pope Michael and Father Francis Dominic last celebrated Christmas, so, we see traditional Catholic liturgy, reflecting traditional Catholic doctrine.

a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo; a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo;

So, Deluge happened 2957 BC, Abraham was born 2015 BC. This means, the time lapse from Flood to Abraham's birth is 942 years.

Abraham visited a pharao who was presumably speaking Old Egyptian of some sort. He had to do with an Amraphel from Mesopotamia who had probably Sumerian or Akkadian or Aramaic as mother language. He had left a city called Ur of the Chaldees which could in certain views have been speaking Sumerian (if it was Woolley's Ur) and on another view (which I prefer, so far) could have been speaking Akkadian or Aramaic, namely if it is Urfa.

This means, in Abraham's day, we have languages as diverse as Egyptian, Sumerian, Akkadian.

Now, in the Ark there was presumably one language, precisely as in the beginning of this account. Noah, his wife, their three sons, their three daughters in law, very arguably shared one language. But even supposing they had five, it is not probable the five would have developed separately for the following 942 years. And obviously, the ancestors of certain Indo-European languages, and of Chinese and so on, even if not mentioned in the text, would have been spoken in Abraham's day too. So, five mutually influenced languages are very inadequate as a purely natural explanation for the language diversity in Abraham's time.

Precisely as linguist - and no, I don't have to be able to decipher Cyrillic, even if I can* do so, to be a linguist. Precisely as a linguist, pretending Sumerian and Akkadian could have developed from the same language on the Ark or even Akkadian and Egyptian (closer, since both are Afro-Asiatic) is like stating my 75 year old mother could run the marathon in ten seconds.

In c. 1000 years, you get a difference like between Danish and Icelandic, which 1000 years ago were one and the same language. That's far less than between even Egyptian and Akkadian, let alone between either and Sumerian. Neither Sumerian nor Afro-Asiatic are by Evolution believing linguists (and yes, many in the field do believe Evolution) counted as even Nostratic, narrower sense. But Afro-Asiatic could count as at least pre-Nostratic, or mega-Nostratic, and Sumerian doesn't. It is mainly thought to be an isolate, those who disagree would group it with:

• Basque
• Sino-Tibetan
• some languages in North Kaukasia (not same group as Georgic!)
• Na-Dene in First Nations in some parts of North America
• Yeniseian - which is somewhat more commonly grouped with Na-Dene.

This mega-group is referred to as Dene-Kaukasian by those who believe it. Now, Dene-Kaukasian is kind of parallel to Nostratic.

And usual view of Nostratic, by those believing in it, is:

• Indo-European
• Uralic and Altaic (Finnish to Japanese over Turkic)
• Greenlandic.

The common ancestor for these would be 20 000 years ago. Afro-Asiatic falls just outside, perhaps on their view separated from Nostratic 25 000 years ago. Dene-Kaukasian is very different, so would have separated even earlier.

No, the explanation here given of language diversity given is not imaginative. It is on linguistic grounds necessary, unless you want to have in Abraham's time diverse populations that diverged with no common majority ancestry in the last 40 000 years. And once you state even the Flood, let alone Adam, was 40 000 years before Abraham, you have ruined the faith. You have also - for those believing Vatican II was a valid council - contradicted §3 of Dei Verbum.

But what are the alternatives to natural, normal, language change?

Miracle.
Con-Lang.

The small family groups after the Flood were so bored in hours after killing big game and roasting them before their caves, that they invented lots of new languages, like Tolkien invented Quenya or David Peterson invented High Vallyrian. And most of them forgot the language their ancestors had spoken on the Ark, despite there being evidence for far distance trade in the Upper Palaeolithic.

Doesn't sound realistic to you? Me neither. Leaves us with the miracle, right? So, the explanation in Genesis 11:1 - 9 is not imaginative, but strictly realistic. At least the main thing in it is proven fact, unless you want to place Adam as not the first mortal man (contradicting St. Paul) or as too far back to allow a faithful historic transmission of Genesis 3 (contradicting all Marian dogmas based on Genesis 3:15 and St. Paul on mortality too).

While men were migrating in the east, they came upon a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there.

Translation issue : all old translations translate miqqedem as from the east.

But there is a footnote 2.

[2] Shinar: see note on ⇒ Genesis 10:10.

I turn back a page, see:

The chief cities of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar.

Footnote 7 says:

[10] Shinar: ancient Sumer in southern Mesopotamia, mentioned also in ⇒ Genesis 11:2; ⇒ 14:1.

There is a problem here. In Southern Mesopotamia, the valley stretches outside Mesopotamia proper (namely the two rivers) and also outside Sumer (even where Sumer itself stretches outside the two rivers). You would not be finding a valley in Shinar either way you take it, you would find Shinar in a valley.

I take Shinar simply means Mesopotamia, and if you object LXX translating "land of Babylon" this translation is from a time where all of Mesopotamia, even the North West in what is now Turkey, was Babylon. Alexander ruled the area of Edessa and Seleucus who refounded it ruled the actual new-old city in both cases as kings of Babylon. Edessa being Urfa, not far from the Göbekli Tepe I identify with Babel in this chapter.

I mentioned Amraphel - and I am not aware of any Sumerian etymology for his name. I look up the word in Strong, from Hebrews interlinear of Genesis 14, and find:

569. Amraphel
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/569.htm

Strong's Concordance Amraphel: king of Shinar Original Word: אַמְרָפֶל Part of Speech: Proper Name Masculine Transliteration: Amraphel Phonetic Spelling: (am-raw-fel') Definition: king of Shinar

NAS Exhaustive Concordance Word Origin of uncertain derivation Definition king of Shinar NASB Translation Amraphel (2).

To me it doesn't really sound Sumerian. This is one clue Shinar was more of Mesopotamia, arguably all of it, than just Sumer.

Back to footnotes on chapter 11. Verse 3 has no footnote.

Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky, and so make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered all over the earth."

When you translate "with its top in the sky" you are basically tying the meaning down to the top statically being there, that is to it being a skyscraper project.

Hebrew has "and the top [is] in the heavens" according to the interlinear, but of the words (ū·miḡ·dāl) wə·rō·šōw ḇaš·šā·ma·yim contains no word with as static a meaning as "is" - in psalm 73:9 (presumably 72:9) ḇaš·šā·ma·yim is translated as against the heavens.

This leaves room for a dynamic meaning of it, which is the translation of the old versions in Greek and Latin :

turrim, cujus culmen pertingat ad caelum
πύργον, οὗ ἔσται ἡ κεφαλὴ ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

ἔσται Third-person singular future middle indicative of εἰμί (eimí).
Latin pertingat is subjunctive.

Pertingere is a dynamic verb, and even "to be" becomes dynamic like "to become" by being in the futur. Even on the skyscraper theory, we would not in the sentence be contemplating the completed and stable state of the top staying in heaven, we would be contemplating the moment it comes up there.

But the dynamic meaning leaves room for rocketry - and no, I do not the least imagine Nimrod could have pulled things off like at Cape Canaveral, I just think that is what he wanted to do, with inadequate grapsz on pre-Flood technologies he hadn't seen and which themselves would have been inadequate for the purpose - and God put the project on hold for 4500 years. Not to prevent man from doing the tower, but to allow us to finally do so in recent years (so we could see relative points and pointlessnesses of doing so).

Verses 5 to 8 have no footnote. Here is verse 9:

That is why it was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the speech of all the world. It was from that place that he scattered them all over the earth.

Here is footnote 4:

[9] Babel: the Hebrew form of the name "Babylon"; the native name, Bab-ili, means "gate of the gods." The Hebrew word balil, "he confused," has a similar sound. Apparently the name referred originally only to a certain part of the city, the district near the gate that led to the temple area.

With Nimrod planning to reach angels and the God they adore by rocketry, he would also have reason to call it "gate of the gods" or "of God" (bab-El?) and the punster would also have had reason to restate it as Babil from confusion being the "real name" (as in real essence) of the project. If you know what Graham Hancock states about Göbekli Tepe, he thinks it looks like a rocket ramp take off area. I think so too. He thinks it served aliens coming as astronauts. I think it was meant to serve a man alienating himself from God who was aspiring to be an astronaut. Nimrod.

He would not yet have been a believer in Babylonian mythology or in polytheism since idolatry arose after his time.

Verse 10.

This is the record of the descendants of Shem. When Shem was one hundred years old, he became the father of Arpachshad, two years after the flood.

[10-26] This section is a continuation of the genealogical record given in ⇒ Genesis 5:1-32; see note there. Although the ages of the patriarchs in this list are much lower than those of the antediluvian patriarchs, they are still artificial and devoid of historical value. The ages given here are from the current Hebrew text; the Samaritan and Greek texts have divergent sets of numbers in most cases.

The last sentence is correct. The Vulgate agrees with the current Hebrew or Masoretic text. The Roman martyrology agrees with a version of the Greek text (LXX, Septuagint) that lacks the second Kenan. This in turn agrees with the Samaritan text. For the Genesis 5, the Roman martyrology agrees with LXX and not with Masoretic text, nor with Samaritan text since posing 2242 years from Creation to Flood.

Now, devoid of historic value is absolutely NOT what the Catholic Church hath held and holds since 2000 years. The fact that The New American Bible can be found on the site of the Vatican, in and of itself shows that these guys are not promoting the faith of previous centuries.

But let's go to Genesis 5 ... verse 1 is:

This is the record of the descendants of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God;

Footnote 1 reads:

[1-32] Although this chapter, with its highly schematic form, belongs to the relatively late "Priestly document," it is based on very ancient traditions. Together with ⇒ Genesis 11:10-26, its primary purpose is to bridge the genealogical gap between Adam and Abraham. Adam's line is traced through Seth, but several names in the series are the same as, or similar to, certain names in Cain's line (⇒ Genesis 4:17-19). The long lifespans attributed to these ten antediluvian patriarchs have a symbolic rather than a historical value. Babylonian tradition also recorded ten kings with fantastically high ages who reigned successively before the flood.

So, a) there was a genealogical gap between Adam and Abraham - contrary to § 3 of Dei Verbum! - and b) the passages were invented to fill it. Or to bridge it. Total denial of even the possibility of historic accuracy - which is contrary to "qui locutus est per prophetas" and to Trent Session IV.

"The long lifespans attributed to these ten antediluvian patriarchs have a symbolic rather than a historical value."

That is definitely not what either St. Augustine or the Roman Martyrology consider, as we have City of God book 15 chapter 9 stating, yes, the lifespans were longer, and since we have before the part quoted above:

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;

Or, the world was created in 5199 BC and the Deluge was in 2957 BC = a distance of 2242 years, what the ages add up to if you use age of father at birth of son according to LXX text.

It can be added that the lifespans are so irregular that symbolic value seems very far fetched, except the one who lived 777 years.

Babylonian tradition also recorded ten kings with fantastically high ages who reigned successively before the flood.

And eight of them have lifespans which, if divided by 60, are very close to the sequence given in Genesis 5 - as if the thing happened, and Babylonians mixed up the numbers by misusing a position system without a zero. With 60 rather than 10 as the base.

Interestingly, at verse 24 we have:

Then Enoch walked with God, and he was no longer here, for God took him.

With footnote 2 saying:

[24] In place of the usual formula, Then he died, the change to Enoch walked with God clearly implies that he did not die, but like Elijah (⇒ 2 Kings 2:11, ⇒ 12) was taken alive to God's abode.

Oh, suddenly the thing is historic, after all? Let's check 2 Kings ...

As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

When Elisha saw it happen he cried out, "My father! my father! Israel's chariots and drivers!" But when he could no longer see him, Elisha gripped his own garment and tore it in two.

It can be noted, Elisha is contradicting the extreme Protestant exegesis of Matthew 23:9. But what does footnote 3 say?

[12] My father: a religious title accorded prophetic leaders; cf ⇒ 2 Kings 6:21; ⇒ 8:9. Israel's chariots and drivers: Elijah was worth more than a whole army in defending Israel and the true religion. King Joash of Israel uses the same phrase of Elisha himself (⇒ 2 Kings 13:14).

Nothing in relation to historicity. However, footnote 4:

[23-24] This story, like the one about Elijah and the captains (2 Kings 1), is preserved for us in Scripture to convey a popular understanding of the dignity of the prophet. Told in popular vein, it becomes a caricature, in which neither Elisha nor the bears behave in character. See note on ⇒ 2 Kings 1:12 and the contrasting narrative in 2 Kings 4.

In other words, the footnote authors do not rely on the full historicity of the Bible even as late as just after Elijah left Elisha. In 2 Kings.

So, back to footnotes in Genesis 11. Verse 12:

When Arpachshad was thirty-five years old, he became the father of Shelah.

[12] The Greek text has a certain Kenan (cf ⇒ Genesis 5:9-10) between Arpachshad and Shelah. This text is followed in ⇒ Luke 3:36.

A minority of manuscripts of Luke as well as of the LXX do not have this second Kenan here. Verse 16:

When Eber was thirty-four years old, he became the father of Peleg.

Footnote 7:

[16] Eber: the eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews, "descendants of Eber" (⇒ Genesis 10:21, ⇒ 24-30); see note on ⇒ Genesis 14:13.

No problem. Wait ... let's check Genesis 14 ... verse 13.

A fugitive came and brought the news to Abram the Hebrew, who was camping at the terebinth of Mamre the Amorite, a kinsman of Eshcol and Aner; these were in league with Abram.

Footnote 4

[13] Abram the Hebrew: elsewhere in the Old Testament, until the last pre-Christian centuries, the term "Hebrew" is used only by non-Israelites, or by Israelites in speaking to foreigners, since it evidently had a disparaging connotation - something like "immigrant." The account in this chapter may, therefore, have been taken originally from a non-Israelite source, in which Abraham, a warlike sheik of Palestine, appears as a truly historical figure of profane history.

Oh, it is only profane history that has truly historical figures? Again ... no, the footnoters are not Catholics. The responsible for the Libreria Editrice Vaticana and the Vatican website are not Catholics. But let's get on to verse 28:

Haran died before his father Terah, in his native land, in Ur of the Chaldeans.

Footnote 8:

[28] Ur of the Chaldeans: Ur was an extremely ancient city of the Sumerians (later, of the Babylonians) in southern Mesopotamia. The Greek text has "the land of the Chaldeans." In either case, the term Chaldeans is an anachronism, because the Chaldeans were not known to history until approximately a thousand years after Abraham's time.

Nevertheless, let's recall what it means - it means speakers of Aramaic, possibly also of Akkadian. This is a definitely different language to Sumerian, either of them. This means, Abraham is more likely to have come from Edessa, North-West Mesopotamia, than from Woolley's Ur in Sumeria, South-East Mesopotamia. In the time of the Chaldaeans, approx a thousand years after Abraham's time (approx in King David's time) ... Woolley's Ur was there (abandoned after 500 AD) ...

Wikipedia : Ur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur

... and as for Urfa or its part Balıklıgöl, "it appears to have been a venerated site long before the time of Abraham, as a statue was found there which dates to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period (roughly 8000 B.C.).[1] Like the city of Urfa itself, the subsequent history of the site is uncertain until the Hellenistic period, when the city was conquered by Macedonian forces under Alexander the Great, and it was renamed Edessa by the general Seleucus I."

Wikipedia : Balıklıgöl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal%C4%B1kl%C4%B1g%C3%B6l

... so, presumably Urfa was also there in the time of the Chaldees.

I don't think either city was mentioned all that much by Babylonians in the time of the captivity ...

Verses 31 and 32, with a footnote to each:

Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot, son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and brought them out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to go to the land of Canaan. But when they reached Haran, they settled there.

The lifetime of Terah was two hundred and five years; then Terah died in Haran.

Footnotes 9 and 10:

[31] The Samaritan and Greek texts include Nahor and his wife in Terah's migration to Haran. Although this is probably due to scribal harmonization, Nahor's family actually did migrate to Haran; cf ⇒ Genesis 24:10; ⇒ 27:43.

[32] Since Terah was seventy years old when his son Abraham was born (⇒ Genesis 11:26), and Abraham was seventy-five when he left Haran (⇒ Genesis 12:4), Terah lived in Haran for sixty years after Abraham's departure. According to the tradition in the Samaritan text, Terah died when he was one hundred and forty-five years old, therefore, in the same year in which Abraham left Haran. This is the tradition followed in St. Stephen's speech: Abraham left Haran "after his father's death" (⇒ Acts 7:4).

None of these two contradict historicity of the text, but neither do they strongly affirm it in face of footnote 5 to verse 10. They don't add to apostatic nature of certain other footnotes, but neither do they nullify it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Silvia of Rome
3.XI.2022

Romae sanctae Silviae, matris sancti Gregorii Papae.

PS - if there had been no miracle, but first conlanging and then forgetting of the common language, the most realistic moment for forgetting would be a decision to use conlangs instead of old mother tongue in precisely an attempt to shirk from global collaboration - the most probable provocation for that being in its turn precisely the kind of hairbrained project decided by an élite that Genesis 11:1 to 9 is describing./HGL

* Check my signature and see if it matches this spelling in Ukrainean Cyrillic : ГАНС ҐEOPҐ ЛУHДAЛ (the "h" in Lundahl is silent and only means the preceding "a" is long - the "H" in Hans is pronounced). German pronunciation however ГАНС ҐEOPK ЛУHДAЛ and Swedish pronunciation ГАНС ЙEOPЙ ЛУHДAЛ / ЛЮHДAЛ, with Swedish "u" between [u] and [ü], so either spelling could work.