Interesting Quote from Georges Declercq

I'm starting to read | Anno Domini |, by one Georges Declercq, with a subtitle The Origins of the Christian Era. It's on BREPOLS PUBLISHERS, Turnhout Belgium, 2000.

It turns out, the add-ups giving the actual span of the OT, as in Ussher, this was not the earliest origin of the totals.

Actually, there was speculation on "sixth day of creation" corresponding to sixth millennium after creation, and ending with Doomsday but having Our Lord's incarnation in the middle. So, the total 5500 Anno Mundi for either Birth or Death and Resurrection of God in the Flesh, of Jesus the Christ, was in place before Syncellus started to add up year items in Genesis 5 and 11 and the rest of the Bible.

This changed with Eusebius of Caesarea.

However, unlike other world chronicles, the text of the bishop of Caesarea does not begin with Adam and the creation of the world, but with Abraham, because prior to this patriarch the chronology of the Bible was in his opinion uncertain and inaccurate. He nevertheless indicated that according to the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, 2242 years passed between Adam and the flood, and 942 years from the latter event to Abraham. Each year in the chronicle was consecutively numbered from the birth of Abraham onwards. Interrelated with this era of Abraham, Eusebius also used a regnal chronology and, from the year 1240 since Abraham (776 BC), Greek Olympiads as well. In the version of Jerome, the birth of Christ is thus dated in the year 2015 since Abraham, the forty-second year of Augustus and the third year of the 194th olympiad (2 BC), while the Passion and Ressurrection are placed in the year 2047 from Abraham, the eighteenth year of Tiberius and the third year of the 202nd olympiad (AD 31).

And while the age of the world isn't mentioned, it can be calculated as 5199 when Our Lord was born, 5231 when He died. The quote spans parts of pages 42 and 43 in the book. In the following we learn that St. Jerome very much popularised this chronology. AND that Venerable Bede used Vulgate instead of LXX and had Our Lord born in Anno Mundi 3952 (4 BC).

Now, the span of 942 years from flood to Abraham indicates a LXX version of Genesis 11 without the Second Cainan. In fact, not from this book, but on a site, I found that the beginning of St. Jerome's chronology attributes the 2242 + 942 years to Julius Africanus, who, however also had a different version of chapter five and gave 2262 from Adam to flood.

So, the chronology I use is a collaborative work, but certainly not by noobs from today living in their mother's basement, but from pretty well known names from the First Millennium of the Christian Era (which is the topic of the book, one which touches very much on Easter calculus where I'm right now .../HGL

PS, iffy if one should use "Anno Mundi" for Western or Western popularised calculations like St. Jerome's or St. Bede's birth years of Our Lord, since Anno Mundi actually was a definite thing in the East, either Alexandrian or Byzantine Era, and then always was sth like 5500 AM when Our Lord was born./HGL

PPS, "a definite thing" = an actual system of dating current events. In Russia it was abolished in 1700 by Peter the Great./HGL

"A million steps are possible" — No, Not Always

Arithmetic is not Geometry. And Real Arithmetic makes "Real Numbers" unreal. However much you like apple pie, you can never have π apples. However much a tree is rooted, between 1 tree and 2 trees, there is no such thing as sqrt(2) trees.

This is a good refresher of remembering what we really know even in Number Theory. Someone brought up logarithms, and I finally, years later, came up with a model for logarithms, which was obviously not meant to replace the logarithms we have, but I used a different than usual way of expressing logarithms to prove I hadn't cheated by simply looking at a logarithm table, that my understanding of what logarithms actually are in number theory actually had allowed me to find some logarithms.

This time, I'll go with the known value 0.301 for the ten-logarithm for 2.

So, according to the usual theory, this means 10^0.301 = 2. I'll wager that this is, apart from geometry (natural logarithms come with certain curve shapes) actually an algebraic shortening of another statement.

10 ³⁰¹ = 2¹⁰⁰⁰

10 ³⁰¹ =
1 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

2¹⁰⁰⁰ =
1 0715086071862673200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Can't make out whether it's equal length or not? I combined 000 000 000 into "nine zeros" and than three of these into XXVII zeros, then three of those into LXXXI zeros. I then added back last zeros to the part before the abbreviations, and I dissolved parts to bring the number of abbreviations to the same.

10 ³⁰¹ =
10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
LXXXI zeros LXXXI zeros LXXXI zeros XXVII zeros

2¹⁰⁰⁰ =
10 715 086 071 862 673 200 000 000 000 000
LXXXI zeros LXXXI zeros LXXXI zeros XXVII zeros

But the difference is pretty great? over and above the 10 followed by 300 zeros, there is 715 followed by 297 digits (the calculator made most of the digits into zeros).

So, let's check, how different is 10^0.301 from 2?

10^0.301 = 1.999 861 869 632 744 1, off by 0.000 1 and some more.

What if we took 0.30103?

10^0.30103 = 2.000 000 019 968 104 6, off by 0.000 000 1 and some more.

Twice as accurate, in terms of how many digits, but inexact on the other side. No doubt, for

10 ^{30 103} = 2^{100 000}

the excess or deficit would be even more notable than 715 followed by 297 digits. However, that is because you need greater whole numbers in order to give finer fractions as whole number to whole number ratio, the finer the fraction, the more exact the logarithm, the greater the powers of 10 and 2, the greater the discrepancy. I expressed this fact as "the logarithm" (from the arithmetic standpoint) "is the make believe that pretends to an impossible equality between powers of ten and powers of two, the more exact the logarithm, the less the powers are actually close to equality" ... something for which I was taken for a raving fool who had no idea what he was talking about. A mixture of drug addict and intellectual hybris capable of spouting things out which it is a no-brainer to refute, and then being too intellectually arrogant to step down when refuted by people with no brain, or with no evidence of their brain being effectively used for the task.

There is of course, as I more recently found out, a more geometric approach to what a logarithm is, and it is used to get more exact values, and I have no problem with that. Geometry, unlike arithmetic, actually does have Real Numbers, that are actually real. I was answering the proposition that in arithmetic there is no such thing as a stark transition from one to two. Or in other words, that you can have pi apples or sqrt(2) trees.

This is important in the Creation to Evolution debate exactly how?

Well, bear with me, for the relevance is coming. Two of them.

A chromosome may have 10 000 genes. And it may (conceivably) gradually rise in number of genes until it has 20 000 genes. Invent a mechanism that allows a functioning gene to arise, and the 10 000 genes on the chromosome may be 10 001, and then 10 002 and so on. Eventually that may reach 20 000 genes. But they would still all be on that one single chromosome. How is this important?

Well, once upon a time Kent Hovind made a spoof argument about the tobacco plant being more developed than man, because it had more chromosomes. Man only has 46 chromosomes, the tobacco plant has 48.

The Solanaceae species Nicotiana tabacum, an economically important crop plant cultivated worldwide, is an allotetraploid species that appeared about 200,000 years ago as the result of the hybridization of diploid ancestors of Nicotiana sylvestris and Nicotiana tomentosiformis.

In other words, the tobacco plant has appeared before the Flood, and there was tobacco on the Ark. The 200,000 years ago date is just "lava cooled rapidly during the Flood and trapped excess argon" ...

Now, the spoof argument by Hovind reminded me of a real argument in Fr. Bryan Houghton, a non-order priest who was still not totally a diocesan priest, since "incardinated 'in propriam fortunam' " ... in the French translation of his Unwanted Priest, he inserted pieces of tracts, one of them against Evolution. And he mentioned that French scientists had for a long time hushed up the existence of chromosomes, because this poses a barrier to evolution. As mentioned, augmenting the number of genes on a single chromosome may be gradual, but the transition to two chromosomes, if it occurred at all, would be abrupt. There is no such thing as "one and a half chromosomes" for the same reason that there is no such thing as "half a chromosome" ...

There are also not one million intermediates between vocal communications having one level, the full message = one sound, and vocal communications having three levels, full message expressed with composition of morphemes (these being often, but not always, words), and morpheme being expressed in composition of phonemes, and phonemes holding no meaning of their own. There is exactly one possible intermediate, and that is having two levels.

However, there are two ways between the one and the three levels.

1) full message = sound, first divides into full message = many sounds

then this divides into full message = many words, word = many sounds. Or:

2) full message = sound, first divides into full message = many words, but each word = sound

then this divides into full message = many words, word = many sounds.

Note, we have two alternatives. Then again, adding notionality to pragmatism is another item. Did it happen during the first, the intermediate or after reaching the last stage?

We have six alternatives. Placements of three events. And, again, no hint of gradualism being even possible.

Again, the physiological underpinning of the human speach can be reduced to two items: "fully or at least adequately reached" and "not even adequately reached" ... While gradualism is possible, it can for this purpose be ignored. The question now becomes:

Did the apparatus exist before even first division and before notionality?

Or did it arise after first, second or third of the three events above outlined?

Again, the alternatives aren't bafflingly many, you can't say "any scenario we can't even think of is possible" ... and you also cannot pretend I'm crunching "a million gradients" into too few events.

Two scenarios:

Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds.

Six scenarios:

Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.

Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Words divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.

Twenty-four scenarios:

Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready. Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into sounds. Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Apparatus ready.

Apparatus ready. Full message divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into sounds. Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Apparatus ready.

Apparatus ready. Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into sounds. Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready.

Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words. Apparatus ready. Words divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds. Apparatus ready.

Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Words divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Words divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready. Words divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Words divided into sounds. Apparatus ready.

Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into words. Apparatus ready. Words divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds. Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready.

The apparatus is not all that useful unless you have notionality and speech. Speech is not possible without the apparatus. (Applies to production, but even more to hearing and learning).

Notionality is not possible before you have three levels. But three levels are not useful without notionality.

Tell me, if you can, which of the twenty-four scenarios isn't destroyed by one of these observations. Because, in evolution, a thing has to be both useful and possible. Thick fur is useful to keep warm. Keeping warm is possible on some levels even before acquiring thick fur. On the other hand, acquiring thick fur first isn't a too bad thing, before the climate change to the cold or the move to a colder clime strikes, it can be a neutral change, and then it becomes useful. This is a change which has happened in kind after kind. And the thickness of fur actually does really allow for several intermediate gradients. It's a geometric question.

Inventing language is a question of arithmetic changes. Which, as mentioned, do not allow for intermediates between the integers.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Holy Founders of the Servites
12.II.2025

Sanctorum septem Fundatorum Ordinis Servorum beatae Mariae Virginis, Confessorum, quorum depositio respectivis diebus recolitur. Quos autem in vita unus verae fraternitatis spiritus sociavit, et indivisa post obitum veneratio populi prosecuta est, eos Leo Decimus tertius, Pontifex Maximus, una pariter Sanctorum fastis accensuit.

Carefully hedged Question.

A teacher on FB posted the meme with a question, I'm skipping the red stuff and just doing the text:

Question Can a person accept Evolution and also believe: Holy Trinity—the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit Incarnation—God became man in the person of Jesus Christ Miracles of Jesus Jesus died on the Cross for our sins Physical Resurrection of Jesus Bible is the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God Inerrant Spirit Truths in the Bible Miraculous signs and wonders Final Judgement of every person Eternal Life for believers in God

Technically, yes. Some of above are ill formulated.

Eternal life is not for all believers, Ephesians 2:8 to 10 indicate a risk of losing justification, despite believing, if you don't do good works after justification.

God the Son is the person who became Man and as such is now called Jesus, and bears the office of Christ.

But back to the qustion. Consistently, not really.

But above all, what is the person posting the meme (Denis O. Lamoureux) NOT asking? In other words, is the question carefully hedged?

• Inerrant Biblical History
• Bodily resurrection of all men, either to eternal torment or to eternal glory
• Bible as humanly reliable historic record, even apart from the Inspiration (Moses for Genesis and Luke for the Gospel relied on information they hadn't observed)
• Adam tainted us with sin
• God was totally good to Adam before he sinned, and generally speaking, God is good.

Just as all of the questions on the list can be answered yes by a believer in the evil "God" of Calvinism, so also, all of them can be answered yes by a believer in the evil "God" of Evolutionism.

I'll give the items where belief in Evolution, when consistent, conflicts with above.

• Inerrant Biblical History — Genesis 5, Genesis 11.
• Bodily resurrection of all men, either to eternal torment or to eternal glory — C. S. Lewis admitted that with man around for a million or even just 100 000 years, there would be too many men for earthly matter to suffice for it. With 7000 + years of history, different story.
• Bible as humanly reliable historic record, even apart from the Inspiration (Moses for Genesis and Luke for the Gospel relied on information they hadn't observed) — If there were so many more years between Adam and Abraham than Genesis 5 and 11 suggest, then the history is very poorly recorded and preserved.
• Adam tainted us with sin — with Genesis 3 events 100,000 years back it's not history, and even then he would not be unique ancestor of all, and a collective fall means the God of Supralapsarian Calvinism, since collectives have no freewill.
• God was totally good to Adam before he sinned, and generally speaking, God is good. — if Adam is supposed to come from evolution and then become man, he either becomes man from start, and if so is raised by beasts in near human bodies and cannot acquire language, or God gives him language in a way that separates him from those dear to him, or God makes him human only after separating him, and then this either leaves Adam with shame for or memory loss of his life prior to being human. But shame and memory loss are things that the good God doesn't allow men to suffer apart from them already being in a state of sin.

And obviously, Global Flood and Young Earth go together, and the First Pope linked disbelief of the Global Flood to disbelief in the Coming Judgement.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Scholastica
10.II.2025

Apud montem Cassinum sanctae Scholasticae Virginis, sororis sancti Benedicti Abbatis, qui ejus animam, instar columbae, migrantem e corpore in caelum ascendere vidit.

What Would 220 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise?

I—I/II

Starts out 2958 BC,

1.6277 pmC, dated as 37 000 BC

2958-2738 = 220 years

10 * 22 years

3.611 times as fast

0.9973422400389199 * = decay

0.0026577599610801 = normal replacement

A) with 3.611 times as fast production, like on this view the correspondingly long period after the Flood?
B) with same production as now?
C) with ten times slower production than now (as generally pre-Flood)?

Note, "production" is here used for how the production is spread through the pre-Flood atmosphere. If it held more carbon, the same actual production would count less in relation to the overall carbon, and it is this "relative production" or "production of proportion" rather than absolute production of a quantity I'm counting.

3178 BC

x pmC

A) x * 0.9973422400389199 + 3.611 * 0.0026577599610801 = 0.016277

x * 0.9973422400389199 = 0.016277 - 3.611 * 0.0026577599610801

x = (0.016277 - 3.611 * 0.0026577599610801) / 0.9973422400389199 = 0.0066976294719845

5730 * log(0.0066976294719845) / log(0.5) + 3178 = 44 561 BC, 46 511 BP

B) x * 0.9973422400389199 + 0.0026577599610801 = 0.016277

x * 0.9973422400389199 = 0.016277 - 0.0026577599610801

x = (0.016277 - 0.0026577599610801) / 0.9973422400389199 = 0.0136555

5730 * log(0.0136555) / log(0.5) + 3178 = 38 672 BC, 40 622 BP

C) x * 0.9973422400389199 + 0.00026577599610801 = 0.016277

x * 0.9973422400389199 = 0.016277 - 0.00026577599610801

x = (0.016277 - 0.00026577599610801) / 0.9973422400389199 = 0.01605389

5730 * log(0.01605389) / log(0.5) + 3178 = 37 334 BC, 39 284 BP

So, these would per this calculation be equally valid guesses:

3178 BC

0.67 pmC, dated as 46 511 BP

3178 BC

1.366 pmC, dated as 40 622 BP

3178 BC

1.605 pmC, dated as 39 284 BP

Why can't I decide between them? Because, backwards* from the Flood, I have no anchor point where physical traces are identifiable to a Biblical event, like I have for Flood, Babel = Göbekli Tepe, En-Gedi in Genesis 14 and so on. When I say for a given point between end of Babel and Genesis 14:

2396 BC

60.027 pmC, dated 6615 BC

2391 BC

Arphaxad died

Then, the pmC value of 60.027 pmC for the year 2396 BC is based on this being an evenly spaced point between:

2557 BC

51.766 pmC, dated as 8000 BC

and: 1936 BC

82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC

I'm presupposing the whole atmosphere (with fairly minor variations) was at these levels and is applicable when contamination or bomb effect and old carbon or reservoir effect aren't. I'm also presupposing that the rise between the two levels was even. I am also modelling each interior stretch on the idea that the medium carbon replacement during the overall stretch can be applied to it, and that a good mathematical model is, multiply by a percentage for decay, add the replacement for addition, the new carbon level is decayed old carbon level plus addition. This cannot be done when the stretch has an open end backward, unless of course I presuppose an even rise in carbon 14 levels all the way back to Creation, in which case C would be my pick.

Please note, 220 years before the Flood was prior to God saying

... I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them
[Genesis 6:7]

A Neanderthal buried in 3178 BC, 220 years before the Flood, would not fall under this decree, even if the CMI were right in interpreting not just "no survivors" but even "no physical remains" which I don't grant. I think the Tautavel man is a real descendant of Adam and was caught in mud and lava in the Flood. And that the huge age of (from memory) 300,000 BP is due to excess argon, to argon trapped in a rapidly cooling lava, because the Flood waters cooled it rapidly. A process totally independent of the events relevant for carbon dating.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. John of Matha
8.II.2025

[17.XII] Romae natalis sancti Joannis de Matha, Presbyteri et Confessoris, qui Ordinis sanctissimae Trinitatis redemptionis captivorum Fundator exstitit. Ipsius tamen festivitas, ex dispositione Innocentii Papae Undecimi, agitur sexto Idus Februarii.
[8.II] Sancti Joannis de Matha, Presbyteri et Confessoris, qui Ordinis sanctissimae Trinitatis redemptionis captivorum fuit Institutor, et sextodecimo Kalendas Januarii obdormivit in Domino.

* It can be noted that a pre-Flood period of 2242 years, or 2262, is longer than the whole extension of my tables, since 2957 - 1179 = only 1778 years. Going backwards from the Flood to Creation would also be without subdivisions, unlike this shorter period up to the Fall of Troy.

Did Jean Aitchison Mean Double Articulation of Duality of Patterning?

Was Jean Aitchison Calling Bird-Song Doubly Articulated? · Did Jean Aitchison Mean Double Articulation of Duality of Patterning?

They are used interchangeably, but they are not the same.

Hjelmslev and Hocket speak of what is normally called Duality of Patterning, distinguishing TWO levels or planes.

Martinet speaks of Double Articulation, distinguishing THREE levels.

I think at least in Chomsky or somewhere (which I read in the 90's or early 2000's borrowing from a library I can now not access), because I did not read Martinet himself, it is THREE levels.

Obviously on order to have the word "come" equal a phrase, composed of more than one morpheme, one needs the zero-morpheme for imperative. This is however perfectly reasonable.

There is a difference between "come" as imperative, "come" as participle, "come" as infinitive, and "come" as indicative not third singular, and "come" with additions like "-s" for third singular or "short o => long a" for past. There is no human language where all phrases are made up of 1 morpheme + a zero-morpheme, which in that case would be highly just theoretical. The zero-morphemes in any language where they exist (not sure if some language has none, it is certain some do not have them where English would expect them, like "any nominative or accusative noun in the singular" which would not describe Latin or Polish) actually contrast with non-zero morphemes, like for "come" additions like 3 p sg -s (older -th), or change of root vowel in the past or other words like auxiliaries and non-3 p sg subjects.

So, I dissed her because she missed that double articulation = articulation of phrase into morphemes + of morphemes into phonemes.

Not lightly, since I highly respect her on "Language change: progress or decay" but still.

I would suggest, a) sorry for not knowing the phrasing of Hocket and Hjelmslev and hence being impolite, b) do take into account Martinet or his derivation in Chomsky (or others).

My criticism stands in substance, though I have to mitigate it in tone.

And no, I do not have access to the linguistics books I borrowed from Lund Municipal Library in the 90's or between 2000 and 2004. Perhaps it's even in her own Language change, which I read in 1993, same term as my grandmother died. So, I cannot give the reference.

The truth of the statement is however obvious. A one-word sentence does not mean a one-morpheme sentence apart from the special case of perfectly zero-morpheme after verb root = imperative. Pluit has plu-it. In Greenlandic, you can certainly say "I'm looking for [snow]/[material] to build an igloo" in one word, but it is not one morpheme, but a compound word, with "igdlu" as the lexical base and the rest (material, look for, present indicative non-perfect 1st person singular) as derivation endings and conjugation endings. Don't ask me how this is spelled or pronounced in Greenlandic, I just remember the fact.

And this fact means, Jean Aitchison, alas, your statement that birds have double articulation, in this sense, is still incorrect. They just have two levels in songs, double articulation in this sense has three.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Romuald
7.II.2025

Sancti Romualdi Abbatis, Monachorum Camaldulensium Patris, cujus dies natalis tertiodecimo Kalendas Julii recensetur, sed festivitas hac die, ob Translationem corporis ejus, potissimum celebratur.

German wiki has, correctly:

Ein Zeichensystem ist zweifach gegliedert, wenn eine darauf basierende Nachricht wie folgt strukturiert ist:

1. Die Nachricht besteht aus Ausdruckseinheiten, deren jede eine Bedeutung trägt. Eine solche Einheit heißt signifikativ („bedeutungstragend“). Dies ist die erste Gliederung.

2. Jede signifikative Einheit ist zusammengesetzt aus Ausdruckseinheiten, die keine Bedeutung tragen, sondern lediglich Bedeutung unterscheiden. Eine solche Einheit heißt distinktiv („bedeutungsunterscheidend“). Dies ist die zweite Gliederung.

In dem Satz Jan arbeitet treten drei signifikative Einheiten auf: Jan („Jan“), arbeit- („pflichtmäßig zum Broterwerb tätig sein“) und -et („3. Person Singular Präsens“). Die signifikative Einheit Jan ist aus drei distinktiven Einheiten zusammengesetzt: /j/, /a/, /n/.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweifache_Gliederung

CMI Don't Have an Office in Sweden, So, I Looked for One of AiG ... and Found Sth Else

Google search:

answers in genesis sweden

Hit:

Oldest Living Tree Located In Sweden
on April 19, 2008 | [someone on AiG]
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/oldest-living-tree-in-sweden/

It's about Old Tjikko. I've written about Old Tjikko previously, appropriately on my Swedish Blog:

På Svenska og på Dansk på Antimodernism: Huru gammal är Old Tjikko?
https://danskantimodernism.blogspot.com/2017/02/huru-gammal-ar-old-tjikko.html

Now, 9550 BP I got to somewhat after Babel, but with an old table. I'll recalibrate with my most recent one:

9550 - 1950 = 7600 BC

2511 BC

54.143 pmC, dated as 7583 BC

A very important part of the difference is, back in early 2017 I hadn't yet made the connection that if Jesus is born 2957 after the Flood and 2015 after the Birth of Abraham, as this means Abraham was born 942 after the Flood, it must also mean Peleg was born (and Babel ended) 401 after the Flood. It's Septuagint without the Second Cainan. And back in early February 2017, I hadn't figured that out. Hence the confusion on this old post:

If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...

Of which the above linked post on Old Tjikko depends.

However, let's go to my newest version, appropriately (considering what chronology I use) from Christmas:

Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

That's where you find above quote. The old post means Old Tjikko's oldest surviving root is somewhat after Babel. My new calibration means it is from 45 years after Babel.

Now, there is a real good takeaway from the AiG post:

Did you note that the variable wasn't ¹⁴C decay rate (as per Setterfield), but ¹⁴C production rate, which I agree with? Nice, as a sudoku solver says when solving and solving and solving ...

Some persons from Sweden need to get on board with (or leave me alone) that "total content of consensus science" does not equal "observed fact". Any school (including the ones that now carry near consensus among scientists) will produce results depending on observed fact, logic, some kind of world view or ideology. It follows that the results of any school can be wrong, not from insufficient observation, nor necessarily even from bad logic, but from badness of world view assumptions. And since world views don't necessarily improve as facts accumulate, that can equally be the case for the school which at present carries consensus.

Someone growing up in Sweden now will arguably know that Marco Polo knew of pasta even before visiting China. But he will have a scarier overall worldview than I had. The cure isn't to curb the flow of facts on the internet, it's to fight back on the world view issues, and that takes the internet to get things done, mostly these days. Though I'd prefer my writings were available in print as well, which could earn me money and make access less dependent on the whims of internet censors.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Augulus of ...?
7.II.2025

Augustae, cui nunc Londini nomen, in Britannia, natalis beati Auguli Episcopi, qui, aetitis cursu per martyrium expleto, aeterna praemia suscipere meruit.

CMI Promote a False View of Private Property

REV. PROF. F.N. LEE isn't a regular on their staff, these days, but his paper has nevertheless been presented on a pdf on their site. Perhaps he was when Ex Nihilo was published in that vol. 3 of 1988. He goes after St. Thomas Aquinas. Especially as they see the pre-Flood world.

Biblical Private Property Versus Socialistic Common Property
REV. PROF. F.N. LEE | EN Tech.J., vol.3, 1988, pp.16-22
https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p028/c02821/j03_1_016-022.pdf

Before the Fall

It is true that man owns nothing at all — over against God (Psalm 50:9-11)! Yet God gives what He wants to some men, while withholding what He wants from others (Romans 9:15,21). So man indeed owns many things, over against his fellow man (Matthew 20:15). For all men (as images of the Triune God) have different personalities from one another (Genesis 2:18,23 and 3:20). Here, when taken all together, men resemble the various Persons of the Triune God Himself within the Trinity (Genesis 1:26-27, 5:lff and 9:6). Each human personality is strengthened by his or her private ownership of property (Genesis 1:26, 2:24 and 4:4, and 1 Corinthians 7:4). For God's Trinity too is undergirded by the private property possessed by Each of the several Divine Persons "over against" the Others. Compare Genesis 1:1-3 and 1:26, John 1:1-18 and 17:1-5, and Hebrews 9:14 with Matthew 28:19.

It is very important to remember that God gave private property dominion to Adam as an individual, over against Satan, even before the creation of Eve (Genesis 1:26-27 and 2:15 cf. 3:1). Even initially, God revealed to man that private property was sacrosanct (Genesis 2:17 and 3:3,11). Internally, the law of God, including the principle of the commandment 'you must not steal' (which implies the existence of stealable property belonging to another) was stamped on Adam's heart (Ecclesiastes 7:29 cf. Romans 2:14-15). Externally, God revealed to the unfallen Adam that he may not steal from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which did not belong to him or to any other man, but which was indeed God's very own private property (Genesis 2:16-17 cf. 3:3-11). Adam possessed his own male sex (and his own farming tools) "over against" Eve, and Eve possessed her own female sex (and her own household utensils) even before the Fall. Compare Genesis 2:18's "kenegdo" or "opposite him". For the Triune God, Whose image man is, has always had His own private property held by Each Divine Person and maintained "over against" the Other Two Divine Persons (Genesis 1:26-27 and John 1:14,18 cf. l:l's "pros ton Theon" or "with God" and meaning "over against God the Father"). It is true that, on the creation of Eve, Adam entered into a community of marriage with her, which had property ramifications. But he entered into this community with one woman only, so that the two of them then possessed their private property over against all other human persons (Genesis 2:24, Malachi 2:14-16, and Matthew 19:4-5). All of Adam's descendants would do the same. For their property is and always would have been limited to one man and one woman alone over against all of the other marriages and their properties (cf. Genesis 2:24). Accordingly, the very influential view of the great Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas, that there was no private property but only common ownership among mankind before the human Fall, is radically unbiblical. Indeed, the pre-Fall life of Adam and Eve was anything but "monastic" (Genesis 1:26-28 cf. 2:24). The simple fact is this: precisely the theft of private property is what caused the Fall! (Genesis 2:17 cf. 3:2-7ff, 11).

First, the last point.

It is not clear that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was God's private property withheld from Adam. On the contrary:

And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done
[Genesis 1:28-30]

The tree of knowledge of good and evil was thus within the dominion mandate and therefore either Adam's private or mankind's communal property rather than God's private property.

However, God (who is higher authority than the human proprietor) withheld a use of that tree from the proprietor. So, the fall was not in theft, it was in unauthorised use of own property. Unauthorised use by a higher authority. The fact that I own a chair doesn't mean I can do absolutely anything I'd like with that chair. If I started swinging it around to threaten or hurt people, it would be taken away from me, and rightly so. If I took the chair as a way to stay up while holding my head in a noose attached to a hook for the lamp, and then kick away the chair, if I survived that, the chair and materials with which to hang myself, would be taken away from me and rightly so. If I tell someone I will lend him 10 chairs for an evening but for the service expect 11 chairs back, I'd be very rightly and properly told that this is an usurious practise, you cannot lend chairs that way, you expect 10 chairs back not 11. You may charge money, but you may not charge an extra chair. The state has the right to impose limitations on what one can do with one's property, to prevent damage and to prevent usury. And if the private property is a work place, to prevent overcharging hours or underpaying wages.

God never motivates the ban on eating the forbidden fruit by "because I reserve this one for my dominion, not for yours" Not in Genesis 2:17, not in Genesis 3:3, not in Genesis 3:11.

Given the passage I quoted, if you take that together with Genesis 2:17, it basically means "the tree of knowledge is yours, and one day you may eat of it, but not yet, only later when I tell you" or "the tree of knowledge is yours, you may lean on it or sit under its shadow but just not eat from it" or "you may not eat from the tree of knowledge, but your descendants will" ... Adam was not a thief, a non-proprietor taking someone else's property, he was a high-handed prorietor, who did not finally accept a limitation in his use of his own property.

Male and female sex are not our private property, to do with as we wish, we have for instance no right to change our sex, nor to abuse it by voluntary combinations of infertility with pleasures coming from it. Perhaps F. N. Lee would have regretted his words had he seen today's conditions, I suppose he has already died.

Similarily, Fatherhood, Sonship, Procession by Spiration are not private property of the three persons, they are propers, but in "private property", you presupposed the possibility to dispose of and relinquish. The Son did not relinquish being Son even when becoming Man, that would be a very extreme form of the Kenotic heresy. No Divine Person can relinquish His proper. Therefore it isn't private property.

Eve in Eden had no use of kitchen utensils, because all they were eating was fruit. If you say "glasses to drink water from" you forget that they weren't under a workmaster, weren't in a hurry, and had all the leisure in the world to cup their hands under a fountain. Once certain ground fruits or grains became a necessary supplementary food, after the garden, yes, they would need to cook. You don't get calories efficiently from wheat kernels that are neither ground nor baked nor cooked, if wheat was one of the post-Eden staples (it could have been a thing they got after the Flood, under Noah, like wine) and the same is true of potatoes. Nor did Adam need any farming utensils before the curse.

By entering the covenant of marriage, Adam and Eve had a property community of marriage, and while their children were small they would also be part of that community of property. There were no "men outside the garden" against which their property would be bordering. As Adam and Eve would be living on forever and forever capable of settling any minute hint of a dispute between them, the brothers and sisters who were also husbands and wives and sons and daughters of the first couple would not have needed any private property against each other. The only "private property" so to speak they would have had, would have been the own wife not shared with brothers, the own husband not shared with sisters.

Now, finally, the Protestant "theologian" says that pre-Fall Eden was anything but monastic. His supposed proof-texts for this are:

And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth
[Genesis 1:26-28]

Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh
[Genesis 2:24]

This is based on a complete nonsense idea of what monasticism actually is. The point of monasticism is not abstinence from sex, but abstinence from the distraction from God that follows from sex (I Cor. 7:32—34). Now, this distraction is a consequence of the Fall, so the unfallen would have been not distracted even with sex. Hence, the goal of prayer would be equally met in marriage before the fall as it is in celibacy after the Redemption. But also, the celibacy and the communal property are two different things, so that the one could have been the rule before the Fall while the other wasn't. Here too the post-Fall world is cursed with sth making the pre-Fall condition not quite similarily applicable. Aristotle notes, that everyone cares more for what belongs to himself than what he has in common with others. Hence, non-division of property has a tendency of people shoving work on each other rather than doing their part. This tendency also was absent before the Fall, so one could have had flourishing conditions even without any division of property.

Let no one conclude from this that I intend to be a monk, just because I admire monks. I don't intend to be a Ocean sailor just because I admire Ocean sailors. Let no one conclude from this that I intend to live without private property, nothing I've said this millennium would indicate that, and any plans I could have had prior to 5.II.1998 to enter monastery have been cancelled in my affection when I had to do the unmonastic job of defending myself, and in my conscience, when I checked with Le Barroux before release and got a no. But some people insist on pretending all I say (including praise of monasticism) is so autobiographical that it would follow, and they do this because they like to set a very expensive price tag on my remaining Catholic.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Joan of Valois
4.II.2025

A False View of Science

Gutsick Gibbon is reviewing the revised standards in Iowa's board of education.*

She's reviewing the one that's relevant for what they used to call Evolution.

She has without noticing shown a very real dedication for establishing in Iowa as in other states Science as a State religion. That's not the issue here.

She has also misunderstood what Creationists object to when speaking of Evolution as a modern fairy tale. They do not object to mutation, natural selection and other similar mechanisms, they say Evolution is a bad word for them, because it's also used to describe men and monkeys, mussels and microbes, mallows and mimosas all descending from Last Universal Common Ancestor. I know. Weird. That theory used to be called "Theory of Common Descent" and some weirdo seems to have repackaged that into "Theory of Evolution" while also calling the mechanisms I mentioned "Theory of Evolution." At least the Creationists claim so ... while Erica is so vocally proposing those mechanisms, never in a thousand years would she then switch over without notice to speak of the "Theory of Common Descent", would she?

Well, this is not my subject for this one.

It's the sentence in the image that she is NOT commenting on (at least up to 9 minutes 45 seconds). The one I've underlined in red.

Scientific knowledge assumes that natural laws operate today as they did in the past and they will continue to do so in the future

I have two quibbles with this sentence.

First, some would say all proper knowledge is "scientific knowledge" ... I disagree, philosophical knowledge is not scientific in this sense and neither is historic or interpersonal or personal.

Second, natural laws don't operate. They limit the operations of certain factors.

The three equations of Ohm's law limit the operations of electromagnetism as related to currents.

Ohm's law states that the electric current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the voltage across the two points. Introducing the constant of proportionality, the resistance,[1] one arrives at the three mathematical equations used to describe this relationship:

V = IR, I = V/R, R = V/I

where I is the current through the conductor, V is the voltage measured across the conductor and R is the resistance of the conductor. More specifically, Ohm's law states that the R in this relation is constant, independent of the current. If the resistance is not constant, the previous equation cannot be called Ohm's law, but it can still be used as a definition of static/DC resistance.

In other words, Ohm studied the realities of currents with a constant resistance of the conductor. The actual Ohm's law is interfered with whenever a conductor can chance resistance. Ohm's law is not operating, it's a partial only description of what is operating in reality, namely electricity, currents, conductors, and does not take into account how the equations get different results if the resistance changes.

Natural laws describe physical factors. They are not the physical factors and they neither say nor claim that physical factors are the only ones, they neither say nor claim that all apparently non-physical factors are ultimately physical (like grammar and thought supposedly being derived from the physics in human brains, as some would have it).

Not only does the 1947 book by C. S. Lewis contain a great proof of God, related to but much more step by step than Presuppositionalism, possibly the greatest, once you renounce the proof by Geocentrism (which by the way involves that some aspects of astronomy, and pretty big lines of it, have their correct explanation outside science as above defined). It also contains an excellent distinction of concepts between natural factors and natural laws. Whatever Anscombe technically disagreed on in the proof for God, she would certainly have agreed with what CSL said in that later chapter.

If we imagine, a) that natural laws have in and of themselves the power of causation, and b) that they are very regular, we could come to conclude, and a good deal of people in the last centuries in the West have concluded, that any irregularity, whether of events in human history or of explanations in astronomy would be some kind of breach in the natural laws. If God did that, God would on that view have dictated one law and then dispensed Himself from it.

If we realise that any natural law is a) just a description of how certain causes work, b) just describing one or some of several interlocking causes, which selection c) can be more or less relevant for the overall result depending on other factors, the whole sentence in Iowa's standards of Education falls apart. Obviously, if so, God is not breaking or dispensing Himself from any kind of law, He is just creatively interacting as Creator with factors He has Himself created and Himself not ever placed in the ultimate High Seat that certain science believers incorrectly place them in. Or in other words, "law" is a metaphor as applies to causalities, it only prescribes for a certain kind of description or calculation of them.**

If 1 Ampère * 1 Ohm equal 1 Volt, I cannot claim that 2 Ampère by 3 Ohm equal 7 Volt, it has to equal 6. If measured units insist on 2 Ampère, 3 Ohm, 7 Volt, I'm obliged to conclude that something other than normal electric current is taking place. I'm not obliged to conclude it didn't happen.

So, some people would like to pretend I'm a religious madman because I'm a Supranaturalist and refuse to share this false view of science? There is a name for people of that persuasion. Marxists. Unfortunately, like Evolution in the sense Theory of Common descent, it has another usage which is perfectly harmless, in this case Social Equity, Social Justice or Equity. That concept has been misused, and recently very heavily, in response to Marxist theories of who are the oppressors and the oppressed, but it has legitimate uses. A bit like denial of change over time has historically led to Old Earth Creationism with Racism as per Isaac La Peyrère, a Jew, converted to Catholicism, not very Orthodox, and often cited without acknowledgement by the Ku Klux Klan. Or, more benignly in the immediate theory, to the idea of a local or large regional Flood, a scenario which the Schooner Wyoming definitely disproved in the fairly shallow Nantucket Bay.***

Unfortunately, the Protestant mainstream back in 1924 (if not totally irreligious) was for total Species Fixism, was for a Local or Large Regional Flood, was for the Ark surviving for one year in that shallow water, so when Wyoming sank, 11th of March, many thought the Flood as such had been repudiated.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Blasius
3.II.2025

* Is Iowa Removing Evolution and Climate Change from their Education Standards?
Gutsick Gibbon | 2 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so8_A4LD2tw

** The conventional symbol for current is I, which originates from the French phrase intensité du courant, (current intensity). Current intensity is often referred to simply as current.

*** See: Was the Ark Too Long for a Wooden Ship? Local Flood—Yes. Global Flood—No.

Anyone Accusing Me of Being Part of Bible Societies?

In the Syllabus of errors, Section IV, Pope Pius IX condemned a few types of society, Communist, Freemasonic, Bible Societies (NSDAP was not yet in existence, so could not be as yet condemned, it was that later by German bishops, who in 1933 eased up for low ranking members, but not highranking ones, Steinerian Anthroposophy was also not yet in existence and got condemned in I think 1919, the same year that C. S. Lewis, as yet an Atheist, became friends with the Steinerian Owen Barfield, note, while Lewis never became a Catholic in this life, neither did he become a Steinerian).

But the syllabus doesn't list the actual errors of these, it refers to a few other documents. Of these, exactly two feature Bible Societies, and we will take a look on why:

14. This is the goal too of the crafty Bible Societies which renew the old skill of the heretics and ceaselessly force on people of all kinds, even the uneducated, gifts of the Bible. They issue these in large numbers and at great cost, in vernacular translations, which infringe the holy rules of the Church. The commentaries which are included often contain perverse explanations; so, having rejected divine tradition, the doctrine of the Fathers and the authority of the Catholic Church, they all interpret the words of the Lord by their own private judgment, thereby perverting their meaning. As a result, they fall into the greatest errors. Gregory XVI of happy memory, Our superior predecessor, followed the lead of his own predecessors in rejecting these societies in his apostolic letters.[16] It is Our will to condemn them likewise.

Qui Pluribus
On Faith and Religion | Pope Bl. Pius IX - 1846
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quiplu.htm

14. The crafty enemies of the Church and human society attempt to seduce the people in many ways. One of their chief methods is the misuse of the new technique of book-production. They are wholly absorbed in the ceaseless daily publication and proliferation of impious pamphlets, newspapers and leaflets which are full of lies, calumnies and seduction. Furthermore, under the protection of the Bible Societies which have long since been condemned by this Holy See,[7] they distribute to the faithful under the pretext of religion, the holy bible in vernacular translations. Since these infringe the Church’s rules,[8] they are consequently subverted and most daringly twisted to yield a vile meaning. So you realize very well what vigilant and careful efforts you must make to inspire in your faithful people an utter horror of reading these pestilential books. Remind them explicitly with regard to divine scripture that no man, relying on his own wisdom, is able to claim the privilege of rashly twisting the scriptures to his own meaning in opposition to the meaning which holy mother Church holds and has held. It was the Church alone that Christ commissioned to guard the deposit of the faith and to decide the true meaning and interpretation of the divine pronouncements.[9]

Nostis Et Nobiscum
On the Church in the Pontifical States | Pope Bl. Pius IX - 1849
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9nostis.htm

So, what exactly is being condemned in a Bible society. In each you will see that they distribute Bibles, or even foist them on people, for free, and that even to the uneducated.

Takeaway: the Catholic Church approves of reading the Bible if you are educated, not if you are uneducated.

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
[2 Peter 3:16]

Did you catch the part of "unlearned"?

So, in the encyclical concerning the Papal States (when they had still 21 years to go, they were only occupied by the Antichristian (back then) Kingdom of Italy in 1870, and this was in 1849, Pius IX says that Bible Societies are a front for ... basically people like Cavour and the other Secularist counsellors of Victor Emmanuel II, King of Sardinia and Duke of Savoy since a few months earlier.

Given that the Papal States were only allowing Catholicism and Judaism to be practised by permanent residents, the latter with some restrictions that in two cases or so came in conflict with what would otherwise be parental rights, cases that many Jews are still bitter about, the idea of spreading Protestantism inside them (see further) was tantamount to an appeal for sedition from Papal States and creating a "Fifth Column" (sorry for the actual Fifth Column in Madrid, which was martyred, the expression is unfair to them, but it is understood), and that for Victor Emmanuel II.

They are wholly absorbed in the ceaseless daily publication and proliferation of impious pamphlets, newspapers and leaflets which are full of lies, calumnies and seduction.

Obviously, the problem isn't daily publication, L'Osservatore Romano was a daily and weekly in Italian from 1861, the problem is lies, calumnies and seduction. Or in other words, promoting Protestantism and Victor Emmanuel II.

The Bibles distributed infringed on the Church's rules. One of them was, you need a priest's permission or encouragement to read the Bible. Which as it so happens I got. My second father confessor, at my Novus Ordo confirmation, gave me as a present the Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine. He was also my Docent in Latin and I had started university courses in Greek. So, I am absolutely not infringing on this rule.

Some of the others are:

• you cannot present a 66 book collection as a complete Bible
• you are not allowed to mistranslate (Matthew 6:7 should not use the phrase "repetitions" about what's more probably "empty phrases" or "multiple rephrasings" ... as if stuttering and never pronouncing the point)
• a Bible for laymen needs to have a Catholic theological commentary. It should not be uncommented, and should not be commented by unorthodox commenters.

I'm not infringing those rules either.

Remind them explicitly with regard to divine scripture that no man, relying on his own wisdom, is able to claim the privilege of rashly twisting the scriptures to his own meaning in opposition to the meaning which holy mother Church holds and has held. It was the Church alone that Christ commissioned to guard the deposit of the faith and to decide the true meaning and interpretation of the divine pronouncements.

The phrasing does not condemn individual creativity in fidelity to the Church, it condemns contradicting the meaning of the Church, and specifically its formal decisions or judgements and also its constancy of teaching, "holds and has held" ... something which I absolutely do not do. Creationism and Geocentrism contradict the judgements of no Pope at all, real or false, before "John Paul II" and no real Pope since Michael I (who was elected in 1990, before Wojtyla went publically astray in 1992).

The commentaries which are included often contain perverse explanations;

Like pretending Jesus had siblings in the fullest possible sense.

so, having rejected divine tradition, the doctrine of the Fathers and the authority of the Catholic Church, they all interpret the words of the Lord by their own private judgment, thereby perverting their meaning. As a result, they fall into the greatest errors.

The problem is not private judgement as a fact in itself, but when it flows from (here) or leads to (Trent Session IV) rejection of tradition. The ones who would pretend I'm doing that (yes, they exist) are lying or being lied to, and in the latter case too gullible. Or too casually acquainted with the principles here announced and in fact misunderstanding what they mean.

But what about CMI, which I am often promoting? While they understand themselves perhaps in a sense as heirs to the Bible societies, they usually abstain themselves from the faults here mentioned. Tomorrow's article Resolving the Archean Belts in the context of Noah’s Flood discusses what is likelier based on Bible and science that they were created Days 1 and 2 (Dickens and Snelling) or early in the Flood (authors of the paper). The walls of Jericho shows archaeology agreeing with Biblical history. Other recent articles, none of which promote Protestant errors or argue against the Papal States are: Is Luke mistaken about the census of Quirinius? / More evidence that the Gospel author is correct, The wonder of flying fish, Jericho after Joshua’s destruction / The match between the Bible and archaeology, Will a woolly mammoth be cloned and placed in Siberia?, Canaanite DNA disproves the Bible? / Or, Canaanite DNA disproves media’s ability to read the Bible, The non-evolution of the human liver, Variation and natural selection versus evolution / First published in Refuting Evolution, Chapter 2, The wonders of water all of them are about topics that a Catholic well could and in fact should agree on. And same is true for Answers in Genesis.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Martina
30.I.2025


1.I Romae passio sanctae Martinae, Virginis et Martyris; quae, sub Alexandro Imperatore, diversis tormentorum generibus cruciata, tandem, gladio percussa, martyrii palmam adepta est. Ipsius vero festum tertio Kalendas Februarii recolitur.
30.I Sanctae Martinae, Virginis et Martyris, cujus dies natalis Kalendis Januarii recolitur.

PS, if anyone were to pretend I'd be infringing the Syllabus section IV by being a Communist, that would be very ironic. The guys who make above type of accusation against me (and yes, there are some) are basically the minions of Lenin./HGL

Someone Has Decided My Apologetics Blogs Cannot Be Shared on FB Walls, own, a friend's or a group's.

Now, the censorship takes different forms.

One is, the URL for this blog infringes on Community Standards.

The next time, it was seen as "looks like spam" ...

Incidentally, and I hope this is really incidental, there are some positions in CMI and in AiG that I don't share, and I say so.

"Neanderthals can't be Nephelim because the Flood wiped all away" ...

God wiped away men who were on the face, i e above surface of the earth. A Neanderthal that's buried was already below earth's surface, so no longer on the face of the earth, when the Flood came. Therefore God didn't wipe those people out. He did wipe the people out who were still walking. Neanderthals, Denisovans, reg'lar post-Flood guys.

I'd probably agree Neanderthals per se aren't Nephelim, because Denisovan / Heidelbergian / Antecessor seems a better candidate. Homo erectus may be a kind of very ugly and stupid Nephelim, or a kind of ugly and stupid person bred to serve the Nephelim in brutality. I base the ugly part on cannibalism of Trinil. And also on the 1922 reconstruction (which however was based on a skull cap, so, the facial features were fantasy). I base the stupid part on the estimate that the average brain size of a Homo erectus was that of a ten year old child. Or an ear which is basically a human ear, but one with a slight tendency to an ape ear's greater thickness, so that a Homo erectus may have heard consonants like K and CH, but not the shriller consonants P and T. A dangerous combination with a more than normally human strength. And if they didn't have the difformity as a punishment to their angelic fathers, as in them being Nephelim, they may certainly have had it as a kind of deliberate breeding of supersoldiers by the Nephelim.

Now, CMI and AiG seem to put great stock on this idea that we have NO human bones from before the Flood, which I see as a misreading of Genesis 6:7, and this means, as long as they do this, they cannot afford to accept my recalibration of carbon dating. It says squarely that if a skeleton is dated to 40 000 BP or earlier, it is pre-Flood. As all Neanderthal skeleta and also Denny (Denisovan) are carbon dated to older* than 40 000 BP, this makes them pre-Flood. Hence, they need to put more doubts on carbon dating than really needed.

Connected to this is the idea, there was no spread of mankind before Babel. "They" in Genesis 11:2 = (according to them) "all the earth" in Genesis 11:1. No spread before Babel allowed, which means that a post-Babel Palaeolithic can be explained by technology loss when some of the groups splitting off from Babel hadn't been specialising in farming.

My view of Babel is, it is Göbekli Tepe and during the period or just after it, farming becomes commonplace. But this obviously means there is a geographic spread of mankind before Babel, which they wrongly think contradicts Genesis 11:1,2. Incidentally, they are Protestants, and Protestants generally misread Matthew 6:7, and incidentally, Luke 11:1,2 is a parallel passage.

Can I really hope they have not been meddling with links to this blog, by reporting it as spam or as against community standards? I'm not sure, but alas, there are other candidates. One could theoretically state that a Secularist, heavily allergic to everything Creation science did it, and I cannot disprove that. On the other hand, if it were the case, and if CMI / AiG were not into a kind of gate keeping (like Judaism about Isaias 53), well, why haven't they made any move to accept my offers of publication and why haven't they defended my freedom of speech at least? Including, in freedom of information, the freedom of others to find me on FB? Perhaps I haven't clearly enough asked for it, but now I do. I hope this is clear.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Conversion of St. Paul
25.I.2025

* The observation only applies to those that are carbon dated, which is not all of them.

J1-Haplogroup ...

Let's see how far I get, before this is published. In the ancient samples, there are 12 carbon dates. Starting Cathedra Petri, will be published one week later ...

Haplogroup J-M267
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267

Using my following tables:

Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.

Satsurblia
An ancient sample of J1 was found at Satsurblia Cave circa 11,000 BC, specifically belonging to the rare J1-FT34521 subclade.[27] The ancient individual from Satsurblia was male with black hair, brown eyes, and light skin.

In 2013, archaeologists found a temporal bone fragment of an ancient human in the cave. Direct AMS dating of the bone yielded an estimated date of 13,300 BP for the age of the bone. Researchers successfully extracted DNA from the petrous part of the temporal bone and managed to recover low coverage genomes.[8]

11,300 BC

Satsurblia temporal bone

2647 BC

33.784 pmC, dated as 11,618 BC

2634 BC

37.009 pmC, dated as 10,851 BC

(2647 + 2647 + 2647 + 2634 + 2634) / 5 = 2641.8

(33.784 + 33.784 + 33.784 + 37.009 + 37.009) / 5 = 35.074 pmC

5730 * log(0.35074) / log(0.5) + 2641.8 = 11,303 BC

2691 BC

Eber born, Noah, Shem, Arphaxad and Shela still alive as well

2647 BC

33.784 pmC, dated as 11,618 BC

2641 BC

35.074 pmC, dated as 11,303 BC

2634 BC

37.009 pmC, dated as 10,851 BC

Karelia
A member of haplogroup J1-M267 is found among eastern hunter-gatherers from Karelia, Northeast Europe living ~ 8.3 kya. This branch is absent in other ancient European hunter-gatherers. Unfortunately, it is not possible to put this sample in the context of the current haplogroup J1-M267 variation because of the poor quality of the DNA sequence.[3]

6300 BC

Karelian

2373 BC

61.194 pmC, dated as 6433 BC

2361 BC

Shelah died

2350 BC (!)

62.358 pmC, dated as 6254 BC

(2373 + 2350 + 2350) / 3 = 2358 BC

(61.194 + 62.358 + 62.358) / 3 = 61.97 pmC

5730 * log(0.6197) / log(0.5) + 2357.6666666666666667 = 6313 BC

2373 BC

61.194 pmC, dated as 6433 BC

2361 BC

Shelah died

2358 BC

61.97 pmC, dated as 6313 BC

2350 BC (!)

62.358 pmC, dated as 6254 BC

Sardinia
Olivieri et al. found a J1c3 haplotype in one of their ancient samples from Sardinia, dated to 6190–6000 calBP.[26]

4240 BC

2074 BC

76.074 pmC, dated as 4335 BC

2051 BC

77.1968 pmC, dated as 4191 BC

(2074 + 2051 + 2051) / 3 = 2058.6666666666666667

(76.074 + 77.1968 + 77.1968) / 3 = 76.8225333333333333

5730 * log(0.768225333333333333) / log(0.5) + 2058.6666666666666667 = 4238

3950 BC

2028 BC

78.316 pmC, dated as 4048 BC

2016 BC

Abraham born

2005 BC

79.432 pmC, dated as 3909 BC

(2028 + 2005 + 2005) / 3 = 2012.6666666666666667

(78.316 + 79.432 + 79.432) / 3 = 79.06

5730 * log(0.7906) / log(0.5) + 2012.6666666666666667 = 3955

2088 BC

Reu died

2086 BC

Terah born

2059 BC

76.8225333 pmC, dated as 4238 BC

2051 BC

77.1968 pmC, dated as 4191 BC

2028 BC

78.316 pmC, dated as 4048 BC

2016 BC

Abraham born

2013 BC

79.06 pmC, dated as 3955 BC

2005 BC

79.432 pmC, dated as 3909 BC

Tell Kurdu
One out of 4 male individuals from Tell Kurdu who lived circa 5706-5622 BC, belonged to J1-L620.[28][29]

2295 BC

Serug born

2281 BC

65.83 pmC, dated as 5737 BC

2258 BC

66.981 pmC, dated as 5571 BC

(2281 + 2281 + 2281 + 2281 + 2258) / 5 = 2276 BC

(65.83 + 65.83 + 65.83 + 65.83 + 66.981) / 5 = 66.0602 pmC

5730 * log(0.660602) / log(0.5) + 2276.4 = 5704 BC

(2281 + 2258 + 2258) / 3 = 2266 BC

(65.83 + 66.981 + 66.981) / 3 = 66.59733333333333333333 pmC

5730 * log(0.66.59733333333333333333) / log(0.5) + 2265.6666666666666667 = 5626 BC

2295 BC

Serug born

2281 BC

65.83 pmC, dated as 5737 BC

2276 BC

66.0602 pmC, dated as 5704 BC

2266 BC

66.597333 pmC, dated as 5626 BC

2258 BC

66.981 pmC, dated as 5571 BC

Arslantepe archaeological complex
One out of 18 male individuals from Arslantepe who lived c. 3491-3122 BC, belonged to haplogroup J1-Z1824.[22][23]

1936 BC

82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC

1930

Ishmael born

1916 BC

Isaac born.

83.166 pmC, dated as 3440 BC

(1936 + 1936 + 1936 + 1936 + 1916) / 5 = 1932 BC

(82.763 + 82.763 + 82.763 + 82.763 + 83.166) / 5 = 82.8436 pmC

5730 * log(0.828436) / log(0.5) + 1932 = 3488 BC

1818 BC

85.169 pmC, dated as 3145 BC

1816 BC

Esau is 40, Jacob goes to Laban

1798 BC

85.566 pmC, dated as 3087 BC

(1818 + 1798) / 2 = 1808 BC

(85.169 + 85.566) / 2 = 85.3675 pmC

5730 * log(0.853675) / log(0.5) + 1808 = 3116 BC

1936 BC

82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC

1932 BC

82.8436 pmC, dated as 3488 BC

1930

Ishmael born

1916 BC

Isaac born.

83.166 pmC, dated as 3440 BC

...

1818 BC

85.169 pmC, dated as 3145 BC

1816 BC

Esau is 40, Jacob goes to Laban

1808 BC

85.3675 pmC, dated as 3116 BC

1798 BC

85.566 pmC, dated as 3087 BC

Ancient city of Ebla
Three out of 6 individuals from Ebla who lived between 2565-1896 BC, belonged to J1-P58.[24][25] Ebla was an ancient East Semitic-speaking city and kingdom in Syria in the early Bronze age that was destroyed by the Akkadians.

Alalakh Amorite city-state
Five out 12 male individuals from Alalakh who lived between 1930-1325 BC, belonged to haplogroup J1-P58.[20][21]

2565 BC

1678 BC

89.449 pmC, dated as 2600 BC

1656 BC

91.353 pmC, dated as 2404 BC

(1678 + 1678 + 1678 + 1678 + 1656) / 5 = 1674 BC

(89.449 + 89.449 + 89.449 + 89.449 + 91.353) / 5 = 89.8298 pmC

5730 * log(0.898298) / log(0.5) + 1673.6 = 2560 BC

1930 BC

1896 BC

1612 BC

95.145 pmC, dated as 2023 BC

1590 BC

97.033 pmC, dated as 1839 BC

(1612 + 1590) / 2 = 1601 BC

(95.145 + 97.033) / 2 = 96.089 pmC

5730 * log(0.96089) / log(0.5) + 1601 = 1931 BC

(1612 + 1612 + 1590 + 1590 + 1590 + 1590 + 1590) / 7 = 1596 BC

(95.145 + 95.145 + 97.033 + 97.033 + 97.033 + 97.033 + 97.033) / 7 = 96.49357142857 pmC

5730 * log(0.9649357142857142857) / log(0.5) + 1596.2857142857142857 = 1891 BC

1325 BC

1301 BC

99.608 pmC, dated as 1333 BC

1276 BC

99.687 pmC, dated as 1302 BC

(1301 + 1301 + 1301 + 1276) / 4 = 1294.75

(99.608 + 99.608 + 99.608 + 99.687) / 4 = 99.62775

5730 * log(0.9962775) / log(0.5) + 1294.75 = 1326

The following is, from the old DNA samples above, the timeline of haplogroup J1:

2641 BC 35.074 pmC, dated as 11,303 BC ... 2361 BC Shelah died 2358 BC 61.97 pmC, dated as 6313 BC ... 2295 BC Serug born 2276 BC 66.0602 pmC, dated as 5704 BC 2266 BC 66.597333 pmC, dated as 5626 BC ... 2088 BC Reu died 2086 BC Terah born 2059 BC 76.8225333 pmC, dated as 4238 BC ... 2016 BC Abraham born 2013 BC 79.06 pmC, dated as 3955 BC ...

1932 BC 82.8436 pmC, dated as 3488 BC 1930 BC Ishmael born 1916 BC Isaac born. 83.166 pmC, dated as 3440 BC ... 1816 BC Esau is 40, Jacob goes to Laban 1808 BC 85.3675 pmC, dated as 3116 BC 1726 BC—1511 BC Soujourn 1674 BC 89.8298 pmC, dated as 2560 BC ... 1601 BC 96.089 pmC, dated as 1931 BC ... 1596 BC 96.493571428 pmC, dated as 1891 BC 1471 BCC—1033 BC Judges period to anointing of King David 1295 BC 99.62775 pmC, dated as 1326 BC

Mackey's Sense of History

Catholics (those tending to be of the conservative variety) who have followed Creationism over the years would be well aware that mainstream Catholic scholars have shown virtually no interest whatsoever in its teachings, and that official Catholic documents never seem to support Creation Science.

1) I contest that documents from after the 80's from the Vatican are Catholic.
2) I highly suggest that Humani Generis wanted a discussion, with Creation Science as a partner.
3) I suggest that the proper scope of Humani Generis was among scholars, but part of the content was leaked in a distorted way for pastoral reasons with some canon law tweaking.

But mostly, I would suggest that before Henry Morris, partly with same arguments, and starting before Ellen G. White, Roman Catholics were doing Creation Science. The Day-Ager Vigouroux did so on a amateur and failed way. Others did so on less failed ways, like the ones mentioned (with dissent) by Fr. Mangenot in his 1920 article. One of them was Veith, a man who converted from Judaism, was friend and doctor to St. Clement Maria Hofbauer, who later became a priest. In 1909, when Pope St. Pius X allowed Vigouroux to allow discussion of the Day-Age view, he also canonised the Saint who was apostle to Vienna, Fr. Hofbauer.

Some traditions, even those of very long standing, may need correcting. The conservative friends of Job had to be awoken from their dogmatic slumber and traditional views about the Divine and retribution. So was the case with the Apostles in regard to the blind man (John 9:3).

Who says either Apostles or the comforters of Job had long tradition in the people of the faithful behind them? Most people would say Job was an Edomite. A nation that started out as faithful as Isaac's son Esau or Edom, but which was going to apostatise more or less deeply before the time of Moses.

As we shall see, the methodology is artificial because the approach is entirely ‘Procrustean’, forcing all the data to conform to the a priori concept. It is exactly like the approach to reality of the highly theoretical physical scientists, many of whom are not believers.

I don't think it's forced to say:

For a remainder of 25 pmC (apart from untypical, though recurrent cases) we have the options starting with 100 pmC and reduced by twice a halflife decay process (5730 + 5730 = 11 460 years) or starting out with 50 pmC and reducing by one halflife (only 5730 years ago) or starting out with less and being even younger. For a remainder of 80 pmC, now, the material we have is on other, namely historic, grounds, tied to c. 2000 years ago.*

Or:

Polystrate fossils prove the strates were soft at the same time.

Or:

Seafaring proves, the Ark would have been very likely to sink in a local Flood, but much safer in a global one, with very much deeper water.

He's obviously welcome to forward whatever case he wants or objections on these two or three to show his "Procrustean" really is such. But he has made no such specifications, just this generalisation, in the paper I'm quoting.

Oh, one exception, courtesy of Carol A. Hill:

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol%201.pdf

One of the basic tenants of many biblical literalists (creation scientists) is that Noah s Flood was a universal phenomenon that is, flood waters covered the entire planet Earth up to at least the height of Mount Ararat, which is ~17,000 feet (5000 m) in elevation. Corollary to this view is the position held by flood geologists that most of the Earth's sedimentary rocks and fossils were deposited during the deluge of Noah as described in Genesis 6-8.

I'm not sure how fair this was even back in 2002. By now this reads like a strawman.

• she misses the distinction between deposition and folding or other raising
• that Ararat is a volcano
• and that (at least since her time) Flood geologists have come to favour, among other candidates, Mount Judi, which is lower, 2,089 m (6,854 ft).

She also pokes a hole at the canopy theory, which happens to be fairly abandoned among Flood geologists. Perhaps not by Mr. Hovind, but by plenty in the CMI.

She goes on to say that in Genesis 41:56 (she mis-cites as 41:46) not all the globe was starving, and then that the language is similar in Genesis 6 to 8. Sure. But famines can be devastating apart from imports from elsewhere without being global. Waters cannot cover the highest mountains of any place without being that height globally. Whether the water height was Judi or Ararat, it could not have covered that high without flowing down to the Mediterranean or Black Sea or sth, unless it was also that high over the Black Sea, and how come it didn't fall down through the Dardanelles or the whole Mediterranean, and how come it didn't fall down in the Straights of Gibraltar? Similarity of language doesn't always translate to similarity of application, the situation has some importance as well. She cites Woolley as arguing the Flood covered Mesopotamia ... but Mount Judi is East of Tigris so outside Mesopotamia. Cizre below Mount Judi is just 377 meters high above the sea, and considerably less over the slope of Mesopotamia which reached the sea only 1000 km further SE. If Mesopotamia was flooded outside in from the rivers, it wouldn't have reached much higher than the riverbanks, i e the height of Cizre, and not the height of Mt. Judi. Neither Woolley nor herself were sailors. Even 377 m. water depth would have been too little to allow for relative calm, the Ark would have been in a situation not far from Schooner Wyoming. It may be added, the meme that the Ark took off from Mesopotamia, it comes from Woolley's idea that the Flood only covered Mesopotamia. The Bible doesn't say where the Ark took off. Mesopotamia would have had mountains looming higher than itself to the North and the East along most of its length.

Were the flood waters fifteen cubits above the highest mountains of planet Earth; were they fifteen cubits above the hill country of Mesopotamia (located in the northern, Assyrian part); were they fifteen cubits above the tops of ziggurat temple mounds (mountains) in southern Mesopotamia, thus dooming all the people who ran to the high temples for safety; or were they only fifteen cubits above the Mesopotamian alluvial plain? Or, as suggested by Ramm, does the fifteen cubits upward refer to the draft (draught) of the ark; i.e., how deep its 30 cubit depth (Gen. 6:15) was submerged in the water when the ark was loaded?22

Another difficulty with Gen. 7:20 is: How did Noah measure the depth of the flood at fifteen cubits?

I think Noah knew the draft, planning for a half submerged vessel, which is pretty normal, and built the Ark on the actually highest mountain. So, she half answered her rhetoric question in the previous sentence.

Modern geologists, hydrologists, paleontologists, and geophysicists know exactly how the different types of sedimentary rock form, how fossils form and what they represent,

In fact, I don't think Carol A. Hill had the opportunity to learn of the experiments of Guy Berthault, back in 2002. She also misses out on all logistics answers that have been given, including but not limited to Baraminology.**

But why is Damien Mackey citing a 22~23 year old paper as refutation of Flood geology and Creation Science, if he is interested in the debate and knows that Creation Science is still around? He also cites Tim Martin, Beyond Creation Science. The book came out in 2007.

Check if you see any other outward reference in his:

What exactly is Creation Science?
Part One: An obsession with ‘Science’
by Damien F. Mackey (reissued) 19.I.2025
https://www.academia.edu/35676906/What_exactly_is_Creation_Science_Part_One_Our_Western_obsession_with_Science

I don't mean P. J. Wiseman, the relevant idea of which is about the authorship of Genesis, (Wiseman, P.J., Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis, 1985), but the ones directed against Creation science.

For my own part, I have a preference to immerse myself in the debate, and be up to date about what I pretend to refute. And to be aware of as much of the earlier history of ideas as possible, as with the Catholic predecessors of Henry Morris. For Damien's work, I'd say a more exact title would be "What was Creation Science by 2002 and ignoring Catholic Contributions Prior to 1920?"
/Hans Georg Lundahl

* The pmC values in my tables are not about the now measured pmC, they are my alternative views against the assumption "starting close to 100 pmC" ...

** She gives dates for Mesopotamian archaeology, often carbon dates in the measuring, in Table 1. Archaeological Periods in Mesopotamia, I'll insert from my calibration for the limits:

2258 BC 66.981 pmC, dated as 5571 BC 2235 BC 68.129 pmC, dated as 5407 BC ~5500—3800 BC Ubaid 2005 BC 79.432 pmC, dated as 3909 BC 1982 BC 80.546 pmC, dated as 3770 BC ~3800—3100 BC Uruk 1818 BC 85.169 pmC, dated as 3145 BC 1816 BC Esau is 40, Jacob goes to Laban 1798 BC 85.566 pmC, dated as 3087 BC ~3100—2900 BC Jemdet Nasr 1739 BC 86.754 pmC, dated as 2914 BC ~2900—2750 BC Early Dynastic I 1700 BC 87.541 pmC, dated as 2800 BC 1687 BC Joseph dies.

1687 BC Joseph dies. 1678 BC 89.449 pmC, dated as 2600 BC ~2750—2600 BC Early Dynastic II 1678 BC 89.449 pmC, dated as 2600 BC ~2600—2350 BC Early Dynastic III 1656 BC 91.353 pmC, dated as 2404 BC 1634 BC 93.251 pmC, dated as 2212 BC ~2350—2150 BC Dynasty of Akkad 1634 BC 93.251 pmC, dated as 2212 BC 1612 BC 95.145 pmC, dated as 2023 BC ~2150—2000 BC 3rd Dynasty of Ur 1612 BC 95.145 pmC, dated as 2023 BC ~2000—1600 BC Old Babylonian 1511 BC 98.822 pmC, dated as 1609 BC

"Catholic" (or in-Church, but not of-Church) Antibiblicism

• Everyone knows about Teilhard de Chardin who made a theological verging on theosophical system out of Evolution.
• I've advanced more than once that in 1920, in Paris (same archdiocese and Jesuit Institute as Teilhard) a certain Mangenot was no longer content with even Day-Age or Gap Theories, which had been previous attempts to comment on Genesis one while accepting Deep Time. He had good reasons to reject these, but a very inadequate reason to reject YEC.
• Now, he seems to have had an older precursor in Jerusalem. Dominican Father Marie-Joseph Lagrange. With École Biblique. With Revue biblique.

Damien Mackey, while he then goes off a tangent (or two or three) and while he's not himself a YEC, at least makes a decent intro (partly based on Dr. Dominique Tassot) to this Dominican Lagrange. Not to be confused with the Dominican Garrigou-Lagrange.

Père M-J. Lagrange’s exegetical blancmange
Damien Mackey, 18.I.2025
https://www.academia.edu/127096580/P%C3%A8re_M_J_Lagrange_s_exegetical_blancmange

I'd actually, come to think of it, refer back to Dr. Tassot's paper on the Kolbe Center:

The Influence of Geology on Catholic Exegesis
October 9, 2009, by Dr. Dominique Tassot
https://kolbecenter.org/the-influence-of-geology-on-catholic-exegesis/

A little reminder of who Lagrange is, he coined the term Concordist, but in another (much more restricted) usage than I have spoken of previously.* Lagrange specifically had in mind the Day-Age view.

On June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission granted liberty to Catholic exegetes to consider the word “yom” either in its proper meaning or in a broader meaning (sensu improprio) of indeterminate duration (DS 2128). In 1896, Fr Lagrange (who had founded Jerusalem’s Biblical College in 1893) rejected “concordism,” considering that the hexameron days and geological periods did not correspond.

The shaping of the Earth went on a long time after the appearance of life; plants and animals developed in parallel. But remains established the fact that the Earth took a considerable time to form. We renounced forever the historic precise duration of six 24 hours days.7

Now, that Concordism I also reject. There is no one to one between Geologic Periods and Creation Days. There is however a one to one between Bone Beds classed as in those Periods and the the Faunas of the Pre-Flood world. The Periods are then a phantom mirage from misinterpreting the Bone Beds from a Modern and Pagan Mythology called Succession of Faunas.**

For any creationist saying "no, you presuppose the animals were buried in situ, but we know boulders were carried as far away as 500 km ..." ... well, a boulder may still be a recognisable boulder after getting transported that far by the Flood, but a skeleton isn't a recognisable skeleton that far from the origin. I said bone beds, not indistinct bone shards.

As Dr. Tassot mentions, Garrigou devised three methods to avoid taking the Bible at face value:

• legendary primitive history
• "historic appearances" (in analogy with Providentissimus Deus, supposedly about the Galileo affair, the Bible speaking "according to the appearances")
• genres (some genres don't give categorical affirmations).

Dr. Tassot sums it up in an excellent way:

It is obvious that an intelligent use of these three methods is sufficient to get rid of any difficult passage of the Bible. But the authority of the Sacred Writings disappears at the same time, divine inspiration and inerrancy being inseparable!

However, he did fail insofar as he was asserting that Providentissimus Deus was adressing the Galileo affair.

Another such concept is that of “historical appearances.” Here Lagrange tried to transpose to history what Leo XIIIth said in Providentissimus Deus about astronomy (the Galileo affair!), that the Bible speaks “according to appearances.”

From a Thomistic perspective, our senses give a true path to knowledge. But in the Kantian perspective of that time, “appearance” meant the opposite of reality. In 1919, Lagrange abandoned his theory of “historical appearances,” but the idea remained that the Bible had to be confined to the sphere of religion, and this was indeed the most secure way to prevent any conflict with science.

Two observations:

• The Kantian idea of appearances being on the opposite end of actual reality as such, comes partly from Geocentrism being the appearance, while Kant presumed Heliocentrism to be the reality.
• Pope Leo XIII does not mention Galileo, does not mention astronomy, does not mention Sun, Moon, stars, planets, or Earth in that Encyclical. It's a "secret de polichinelle" — an "open secret" that this is what he had in mind. And obviously that Heliocentrism is how he saw the reality of astronomy. But he never actually said it. Far from magisterially settling whether Heliocentrism is acceptable in exegesis, he made a general framwork for discussing what is acceptable as exegesis. Invoking Providentissimus Deus for saying the Church "decided in favour of Heliocentrism" is like invoking Humani Generis for saying the Church "decided in favour of Evolution" ... or 1909 for saying the Church "decided against six literal days being true." In each of the cases, the Church actually decided on top level in favour of a structured discussion between experts, and in each of the cases, on ground level, cowards who were better as canon lawyers and as pastors than at discussing, both decided on their own against the discussion and for the misquoting in support of the new idea. They, not Pope Leo, was behind this "open secret" ...

Otherwise, I'm very happy with how Dr. Tassot sums it up. His observation on how Father Emery of the Sulpicians asked the Calvinist Deluc for permission to translate his “Letters to Blumenbach” into French, and the motivation is worth gold:

for such an apologetic, the difference of creeds between Catholics and a Calvinist could be set aside.

Exactly the example I follow when quoting probable Baptists, Calvinists, Anglicans at work on the Creation Ministries International. Thankful to Dr. Dominique Tassot for setting the record straight!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Pompidolian Library, Paris
Chair of St. Peter in Rome
18.I.2025

* Creation vs. Evolution: "Concordism" - a Pointless Concept in France and Madagascar
LD 10 September 2023 | published by Hans Georg Lundahl at 09:28
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/09/concordism-pointless-concept-in-france.html

** I gave an index to the whole series, dedicated to my work on this, when confronted with a bad comparison by Eberhard Zangger, otherwise quite decent as archaeologist:

Creation vs. Evolution: Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology
Saturday 4 June 2016 | published by Hans Georg Lundahl at 02:39
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html