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

Why Young Earth Creationists Should Consider the Sprachbund Theory (Indo-European, Uralic, Other)

I) Before Indo-European (The Indo-Uralic Hypothesis) Part TWO
Learn Hittite | 29 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHOmEB51YrA

So, if the common parent language is supposed to cover not just anything from Irish to Hindi, but also Finnish, Turkish, Japanese, how would the post-Babel time be enough for such divergence.

On the other hand, if similarities are due to Sprachbund phenomena, the extension of some outside Indo-European would be explainable.

II) The Germanic Substrate Theory
Tidsdjupet | 9 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Pa5Zo__js

The rise in Indo-European vocabulary for Germanic is due to a change in method of counting.

Method of Sigmund Feist, Bruno Lieblich, more or less proves "PIE" origin of a word, its presence in more than one "branch". This is what I am trying to test on PIE vs Sprachbund Project Newer method, Guus Kroonen, wants non-IE origin to be positively proven by presence of non-IE phonotactics. Like a word that's borrowed from another language typically remains in the phonotactic patterns of its language of origin?

I would say that Presley and Disney are two names showing very English phonotactics. But Presley (the famous Elvis) descends from someone in Munster bearing the name "Preslaar" which means he came (perhaps indirectly over generations) from Breslau. Disney (the famous Walt) descends from a Norman from ("de") a place called "Isigny" ...

The method of Guus Kroonen seen from this angle (the video might be oversimplifying and I have not checked Guus Kronen's original work, this is the first or maybe second time I hear of him) would be requiring absence of any possible Indo-European sound shape (like Presley is a possible English, but not a possible Finnish sound shape), something standing out as much from pre-Germanic as "déjà-vue" (when pronounced in French) stands out from English. Anything else is Indo-European, unless it has a known non-IE origin. Himmel (heaven or sky in German, Dutch and Scandinavian) must go back to a *kemelon or *kemelos or sth, even if debesīs, beheşt, ouranos, caelum, neamh, svarg, suggest that neither heaven nor the sky was called that in a language ancestral to Germanic, Baltic, Iranian, Greek, Italic, Celtic, Indic, while Slavic sides with Celtic, Albanian with Italic, and Armenian drakht gives yet another shade to the cloudscape. Just because *kemelon or *kemelos clearly does fit Indo-European phonotactics.

From Feist and Lieblich estimating to my Greek professor giving the news, the non-IE content of Germanic vocabulary, as my memory serves me, had risen from 30 to 80 %. By the method of Kroonen, it has sunk to 4 to 5 %. For the examples given in the video, I would probably tend to grant that "kuni-ngaz" can be attached to a compound the first part of which is cognate with "gens" or "genos" in an O-grade version of the stem, but when it comes to "hand" being from "hinna" according to a certainly IE-style Ablaut scheme, why would borrowed words not follow indigenous sound patterns? In Maltese, the word "inch" is "insh" but the plural is "unush" ... because nouns with the form CiCC can have plurals like CuCuC (initial vowel sound counts as silent consonant in Semitic).

So, Guus Kroonen's method seems, as portrayed in the video by my countryman, to ignore phonotactic levelling or productivity of Ablaut./HGL

PS, my countryman's video contains a diagramme for the population overturns in South Scandinavia:

The calibrated limits between the periods, whatever the exact meaning is (I think each period has a colour and to the right a genetic mapping, but I could be wrong), would in Biblical chronology reduce to:

11,700 BP = 9700 BC = between 2621 BC and 2608 BC
5,900 BP = 3,900 BC = 2005 BC
5,800 BP = 3,800 BC = before 1982 BC
4,800 BP = 2,800 BC = 1700 BC
4,600 BP = 2,600 BC = 1678 BC
3000 BP = 1000 BC = 1000 BC

The last one being beyond my recalibration tables. Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy./HGL

Sharing Dr. Sarfati's Observation on Australian Rabbits

Lessons from Australia’s rabbit plague
by Jonathan Sarfati
https://creation.com/australias-rabbit-plague-lessons

Contains answers to:

• How can we be so many if we descend from only 8 people?
• How could we avoid dangerous inbreeding if we descend from only 8 people?
• How did animals get to Australia from the Ararat Mountains?
• What did John Malthus get wrong?

I wish I had written it, but as it is, I can just warmly recommend it!
/HGL

PS, I can improve on one thing, making the links to Dr. Carter's podcasts on Biblical Genetics clickable:

Biblical Bottlenecks are not Bad
May 27, 2020 | Uncategorized
https://biblicalgenetics.com/biblical-bottlenecks-are-not-bad/

Evolutionary Bottlenecks are Disastrous
Jun 2, 2020 | Uncategorized
https://biblicalgenetics.com/evolutionary-bottlenecks-are-disastrous/

PPS, this one's also excellent:

Could humans take down mammoths with spears?
by Michael J. Oard | This article is from
Journal of Creation 37(3):13–15, December 2023
https://creation.com/humans-spear-mammoths

CMI really does far more good in the area of Creation Science than one could fear in terms of harm by Protestantism. Otherwise, I wouldn't promote it./HGL

Outside the Scope of My Carbon Tables

I heard on a video about the Manot Cave being "35 000 years old" and what the article was:

Early human collective practices and symbolism in the Early Upper Paleolithic of Southwest Asia
Omry Barzilai, Ofer Marder, José-Miguel Tejero, +22, and Israel Hershkovitz
December 9, 2024 | 121 (51) e2404632121
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2404632121

Why so? 35 000 BP = 33 000 BC, and that's on my tables?

Well, it's still outside the scope, because there is no apparent carbon date. Carbon 14, that is.

Isotopic analysis of calcite crusts on the boulder’s grooves revealed alignment with values found in speleothems from the cave dated to ~37 to 35 ka BP.

...

To further refine the dating of the anthropogenic engravings, we compared the isotopic composition (δ¹⁸O and δ¹³C) of the calcite crust samples taken from the boulder to the ones obtained for well-dated speleothems deposited in other parts of the cave (SI Appendix, 9). The isotopic values for the crust within the grooves (postengravings) on the boulder ranged between −4 and −5‰ for δ¹⁸O and from −8 to −10‰ for δ¹³C (SI Appendix, Fig. S14D). These values closely matched those of the speleothems deposited in Manot Cave approximately between ~ 37 to 35 ka (SI Appendix, Fig. S14C) (48).

Unlike carbon dated material, I do not here propose to give a real age, beyond the fact that 35000 years ago is a non-extant date, "before Creation" and therefore inflated./HGL

Homo erectus Hyoid Bone

Coll Antropol. 2008 Dec;32(4):1007-11.
A Homo erectus hyoid bone: possible implications for the origin of the human capability for speech
Luigi Capasso, Elisabetta Michetti, Ruggero D'Anastasio
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19149203/

Unlike the hyoid of the Neanderthal from Kebara, this one is not a fully human and functional one. B U T, it is also certainly not an ape hyoid. I'll cite the abstract of the paper a few times:

The hyoid bone body shows the bar-shaped morphology characteristic of Homo, in contrast to the bulla-shaped body morphology of African apes and Australopithecus.

Creationist conclusion, Homo erectus was human.

The almost total absence of muscular impressions on the body's ventral surface suggests a reduced capability for elevating this hyoid bone and modulating the length of the vocal tract in Homo erectus.

Creationist conclusion, this Homo erectus or Homo erectus in general, had a handicap.

The shield-shaped body, the probable small size of the greater horns and the radiographic image appear to be archaic characteristics; they reveal some similarities to non-humans and pre-human genera, suggesting that the morphological basis for human speech didn't arise in Homo erectus.

Conclusion of this Creationist: Stalin had a pre-Flood, more successful predecessor.

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

So, Stalin failed, thank God. Someone in pre-Flood times seems to have asked demons to use CRISPR to insert ape genes to create supersoldiers, and a side effect was the speech handicap. Orc breeding. Or, this is what happened naturally, when fallen angels tried to do what human fathers do, as a punishment.

Either way, such things would have been one of the things contributing to violence and injustice on earth, and one of the reasons for the Flood of Noah.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Epiphania Domini
6.I.2025

PS, the Hyoid bones in Sima de Huesos were human:

J Hum Evol. 2008 Jan;54(1):118-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.07.006. Epub 2007 Sep 5.
Human hyoid bones from the middle Pleistocene site of the Sima de los Huesos (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain)
I Martínez, J L Arsuaga, R Quam, J M Carretero, A Gracia, L Rodríguez
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17804038/

The Atapuerca SH hyoids are humanlike in both their morphology and dimensions, and they clearly differ from the hyoid bones of chimpanzees and Australopithecus afarensis. Their comparison with the Neandertal specimens Kebara 2 and SDR-034 makes it possible to begin to approach the question of temporal variation and sexual dimorphism in this bone in fossil humans. The results presented here show that the degree of metric and anatomical variation in the fossil sample was similar in magnitude and kind to living humans.

Written By Ancient Sheepherders ... (aka Shepherds)

Well, King David actually was one. Moses, part time, was some kind of herder in Madian (between ages 40 and 80, after an education at the Egyptian court).

It is not untrue, technically, especially if you ignore the NT and think the books of Moses and the Psalms are the best content of the OT.

Are shepherds bad authors? Or bad politicians?

Amanda Owen, Seymour Stedman, Mills O. Burnham, Badea Cârțan, Jacques Inaudi ... they don't seem to be unintelligent. I don't think shepherding causes brain rot. Some would say cell phones do, I don't know, but please don't read this on a cell phone anyway, it shows badly, try to get at it on a real PC (like I do when writing it).

But people who make this comment about the Bible might maintain they had a poor education level. Hmmm ... not before shepherding became a distinctly underclass thing, which it became by being less well paid than farming. But people used to that might have a prejudice, and they might go after prejudice, just like people pretending I can't be a writer go by a prejudice about the homeless, which I currently am. I did however spend 7 years at university and do five years and a week worth of exams before becoming homeless. Since half time of the last integral term was Polish, people think I should be able to converse in Polish. But i returned The Magician's Nephew in Polish translation and the Polish dictionary to a library in 2004 and since then I have not been around occasions to practise Polish much. When Polish homeless criticise me when I hold up a URL at begging, I can however pick out if they say "ten sam list" (the same "leaf" or cardboard), and was actually surprised to recall that much. Listening to lively concersations at homeless shelters about subjects that bore me (like looking for building work or how many other places for homeless there are) is however not a practise inducing me to pay attention and get my Polish going.

However, even if your education level was "zero" (at least as far as booklearning is concerned), being taught by God is not a bad education. He created the mind, and having perfect omniscience, He knows whatever it will be that the shepherd (or royalty or priest or fisherman or tentmaker or whatever) will need to know and whatever his audience will have need for up to the end of time, within the scope of what He can reveal to this shepherd or that adoptive son of a Pharao or such and such a king ... not to mention the full time prophets.

I'm not going to be ashamed of a shepherd author if he was taught by God. Neither should you.
/Hans Georg Lundahl