In Portugal, the Dogma of the Faith Shall Not Be Lost

Creation vs. Evolution: In Portugal, the Dogma of the Faith Shall Not Be Lost · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Another Reason to Believe Novus Ordos are NOT All Apostates

The title is a prediction about the country in which Fátima is located, in the diocese of Ourém. The city is named for an Moorish princess called that after Mohammed's daughter, who converted and married a Christian.

It is the place of a Marian Apparition (or series of them, to be precise) in 1917, the last apparition being the day before the last day on which the Czar was celebrating (still freely) the Protection of the Theotokos.

And the apparitions contained the prediction.

As Portuguese Protestants lack pretty many dogmas of the faith, and as Portuguese Catholics seemed to me totally sold out on believing Evolution, I was starting to have misgivings about Fátima.

Now, look at this map:

Credit: Eupedia.
Shared by Ceres Science.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=832473265548499&set=a.488532063275956

20 to 24 % pf the Portuguese would be far more than the Protestant minority.

This means, Portugal still has Catholics who correctly believe that God created Adam without biological ancestry.

The dogma of the faith is NOT lost. Vivat Lusitania!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Vigil of St. Andrew
29.XI.2023

Vigilia sancti Andreae Apostoli.

PS, it can be added that Austria is more prone to Creationism than Germany. Thank God for Austria! Ein zweites aber besseres Deutsches Land./HGL

Ah, Griffith and White Provided the Source Too

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

An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel
Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White
VIEWPOINT || JOURNAL OF CREATION 35(2) 2021
https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p149/c14992/j35_2_69-79.pdf

The tablet known as ABC 20 “The Chronicle of Early Kings”32 relates Sargon’s last campaign of conquest to Subartu as follows:

“Afterwards, Subartu attacked Sargon in full
force and called him to arms.
Sargon set an ambush and completely defeated them.
He overpowered their extensive army
and sent their possessions into Akkad.
He dug up the dirt of the pit of Babylon and
made a counterpart of Babylon next to Agade.”

...

However, we see a different solution to the puzzle. The Chronicle of Early Kings relates that Sargon dug dirt from Babylon and built a new Babylon near Akkad in the section describing how he looted and humiliated Subartu after defeating them.

32. Grayson, A.K. (Ed.), Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Texts from Cuneiform Sources), Eisenbrauns, Ann Arbor, MI, 2000.

I also find that, like me, they know of Anne Habermehl:

Anne Habermehl5 proposed that Babel and the other three cities of Nimrod were located in the Khabur Triangle of Syria adjacent to the Sinjar Mountains.

...

The fact that the PPNA is known to be older than the Halaf culture of the Khabur Triangle, by Habermehl’s standard, suggests that the PPNA is where Babel should be found. No PPNA sites have been found in the Khabur Triangle.

5 probably 6. Habermehl, A., Where in the world is the Tower of Babel? ARJ 4:25–53, 2011.

I'd like to know if Göbekli Tepe is included in Subartu, as it certainly is in PPNA (Pre-Pottery Neolithic A), as well as in PPNB. In fact, the identity of Subartu is, according to wiki, disputed.

Obviously, their three candidates for Babel are further east than Göbekli Tepe:

a. Small structure under lava flow: 37°40’27.62”N, 40°2’13.81”E
b. 600 x 1000 m rectangle canted 23° east of north: 37°44’57.88”N, 40° 6’30.17”E
c. Tel along old river terrace: 37°47’48.84”N, 40°22’45.39”E.

Göbekli Tepe is 37°13′25″N 38°55′18″E — a bit longer than one degree further West than each of the candidates. I think it's bigger than all three of them, and since I place the time period of the Babel building into between 350 and 401 after the Flood, I can so to speak "afford more workers" than they can. Not that either they or I would be eager to give workers to Nimrod.

I could not find any dates for any of these, carbon dates that is, but for C I found two sources, one being the pdf already linked to and another being a book from Cambridge University Press — which has the title 6000 BC.

Obviously, titles like that can be misleading, but if this one isn't, I think Göbekli Tepe trumps it in age, as per the carbon dates of charcoal layers.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou Library
Sts Basil, Auxilius and Saturnine
Martyrs of Antioch
27.XI.2023

Antiochiae sanctorum Martyrum Basilei Episcopi, Auxilii et Saturnini.

Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White considered Judi, but not Göbekli Tepe

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

Candidate site for Noah’s Ark, altar, and tomb
by Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White | This article is from
Journal of Creation 35(3):50–63, December 2021
https://creation.com/karaca-dag

We analyzed the traditions of the church fathers, Midrash, Book of Jubilees, and other historical sources for the Ark, with gratitude to Bill Crouse9 who did an excellent job compiling those sources in order to justify Mt Judi as the Ark site. For this comparison we used the following pairings of Ark and Babel sites: Ararat-Babylon, Durupinar-Babylon, Judi-Tel Brak, Karacadag-Çınar. Table 1 compares proposed Ark sites using these criteria. For each of 35 claimed facts, one point was awarded for a strong positive, one half point for a weak positive, and zero points for a negative.

Ararat-Babylon,
Durupinar-Babylon,
Judi-Tel Brak,
Karacadag-Çınar.

No comparisons for Judi-Göbekli Tepe ...

Also no comparisons about claims in or around Genesis 11 in the Bible itself.

It may be mentioned that some features on top Karacadag are pretty sound candidates as possible archaeological objects. Since Karacadag is in the Siverek district of the Urfa province and Göbekli Tepe is 15 km from Urfa itself, SSW of Siverek, it is arguable that Karacadag as well as Judi are compatible with "them" removing from the landing place as from the East to where they came. Especially if they had first descended a slope Southward before then turning West./HGL

PS, Yes, Karaca Dağ is further East than Göbekli Tepe:

Karaca Dağ
37°40′12″N 39°49′48″E
Göbekli Tepe
37°13′25″N 38°55′18″E

PPS, Karahan Tepe is further West than Karaca Dağ, further East than Göbekli Tepe.

Karahan Tepe
37°05′33″N 39°18′13″E

Unlike Karaca Dağ, it is also about the same parallel as Göbekli Tepe, even a bit further South.

And when they removed from the east,

could refer to leaving Karahan Tepe for the Harran Plain and Göbekli Tepe. Karahan Tepe is not in the plain, but in the Tek Tek Mountains./HGL

Is Spanish Military Starting to Persecute Creationism?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Béa Tremblay Blocked Me After Responding · EN LENGUA ROMANCE EN ANTIMODERNISM Y DE MIS CAMINACIONES: Eso es fanatismo anticristiano, Béa ...

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Fake News sobre los Testigos ...

¿Que es el Creacionismo? · La datación carbónica—¿en conflito con la cronología bíblica? · Denisova en Atapuerca y otras cosas · ¿Y las dudas sobre los faraones eligidos? · Babel y Göbekli Tepe

Misinformation on St. Robert Bellarmine, I'd Say

Creation vs. Evolution: Misinformation on St. Robert Bellarmine, I'd Say · New blog on the kid: How would my solution to why Earth stays in place work out, physically? · First Approximation of Improving the Calculation · Second Approximation

A man from Regina in Saskatchewan wrote:

According to the popular version of this story, the Church taught that the sun orbited the earth because Scripture says it does and Galileo proved otherwise. The Church imprisoned Galileo for teaching this heretical doctrine and is still wiping egg of its face all these centuries later.

Almost none of this is true.

In fact, St. Robert Bellarmine, the head of the Holy Office of the Inquisition during the Galileo case agreed with Galileo that, if the science demonstrated it, certain passages of Scripture that seem to indicate that the sun orbits the earth would have to be reinterpreted! He was sure that faith and science could not contradict one another, and he also knew that having the sun as the center of the solar system was not an essential truth of the faith. The question for Bellarmine was not how to stop Galileo, but whether or not Galileo had proved his hypothesis.

It is easy to forget that the idea that the sun orbited the earth was not a religious doctrine, but rather the state of the question in astronomy that pre-existed the Church. The Ptolemaic system was the best available explanation of the movement of heavenly bodies as yet discovered and would need significant refuting to be overthrown.

Can Catholics Believe in Evolution?
Admin for the site of the Archdiocese of Regina / Brett Salkeld
https://archregina.sk.ca/blog_ministry/can-catholics-believe-evolution/

So, let's get through this. Bit by bit.

• According to the popular version of this story, the Church taught that the sun orbited the earth because Scripture says it does
  
  The Book of Joshua, chapter 10, and comments in the book of Habacuc, and exegesis of Church Fathers all agree that it was Sun and Moon that normally moved, and that it was these that stopped moving on Joshua's orders, not the Earth that stopped rotating.
  
  
• and Galileo proved otherwise.
  
  I'm glad Brett Salkeld agrees that Galileo hadn't proved otherwise. Neither has anyone else since then.
  
  
• The Church imprisoned Galileo for teaching this heretical doctrine
  
  In fact, for having taught it. He abjured and even after that remained a prisoner (in gentle home arrest, and visitors severely culled) for the rest of his life for this fact. Pretending this happened purely for a concern for science, is pretending the Church back then sacralised it as much as Communists and similarly minded Atheists sacralise it now.
  
  
• and is still wiping egg of its face all these centuries later.
  
  Unfortunately, Brett Salkeld looks like he is intent on "wiping eff of the face of the Church" by denying the obvious.
  
  
• In fact, St. Robert Bellarmine, the head of the Holy Office of the Inquisition during the Galileo case agreed with Galileo that, if the science demonstrated it, certain passages of Scripture that seem to indicate that the sun orbits the earth would have to be reinterpreted!
  
  As far as I recall, St. Robert first expressed that in a hypothetical, and then immediately added "but I do not think it so can be proven" — and the question was not really even of "reinterpreting certain passages" but of for the future (as some seem to be doing in the service of evolution) looking for every possible way of letting a Bible passage anywhere off the hook of its obvious and traditional interpretation. He was less grudgingly admitting (for such a hypothetic case) the need to reinterpret those passages, than complaining (again, for such a hypothetic case) the loss of exegetic innocence and ease.
  
  For reference for the next parts, he was only head of the Holy Office during the first Galileo case, the one in the 1610's, which condemned his book The Assayer.
  
  
• He was sure that faith and science could not contradict one another, and he also knew that having the sun as the center of the solar system was not an essential truth of the faith.
  
  He was sure that the faith and proven fact cannot contradict one another. Let's recall, his precise words are about proven fact. The problem is, the modern usage of the word science is taking this to be the corpus of output of a special caste of people known as scientists, or at least positions typical of the majority output of them. Obviously, insofar as any such body existed in St. Robert's day, it was one of Geocentrics.
  
  
• The question for Bellarmine was not how to stop Galileo, but whether or not Galileo had proved his hypothesis.
  
  He was theoretically willing to give The Assayer a pass, if Galileo could actually prove his hypothesis. But in the second trial, Galileo's personal freedom was basically already forfeited for relapsing into this position. However, the Church had no discipline and still has no discipline, at least officially, of gaoling people for stating things they haven't proven. It's not an equivalent to the English "law of libel" — as for instance the Achilli trial judges censoring John Henry Newman:
  
  

  Following the first edition, a number of paragraphs were removed following the Achilli trial as "they were decided by a jury to constitute a libel, June 24, 1852."

  
  
  While stating sth bad about a person in English law has to be proven or removed, the Church had no such policy about the reputation of science. If you in 1700 in any work stated that William Harvey's discovery was bunk, while it was certainly accepted by all medical doctors at that point, no one in the Church would have dreamed of gaoling you for disagreeing with science, or for making a statement that not only you hadn't proven, but never could prove.
  
  The Church's one and only gaoling policy in intellectual affairs was about heresy, in some cases even repented heresy.
  
  
• It is easy to forget that the idea that the sun orbited the earth was not a religious doctrine, but rather the state of the question in astronomy that pre-existed the Church.
  
  Given no Heliocentric had had any direct trouble with the Church just for being so prior to a Dominican noticing what Galileo did in exegesis, which is precisely a religious question, this is incorrect.
  
  By the way, the term "sun orbits the earth" is chosing terms that are rich in misunderstanding.
  
  
  • In modern physics, "X orbits Y" tends to refer to a Newtonian process, by which X and Y in diverse measure orbit a central point, and the wording X orbits Y refers to the case when the central point is either inside Y or very close to Y, but very far from X, which Newtonian process can only happen in the case of Y being more massive than X. However, no Newtonian physics entered the discussion, and a modern Geocentric would not say that Earth is more massive or that the Sun is directed partly by its inertia and partly by the inward pull of Earth, but rather that Earth's stability is due to some fact stronger than such factors (if either God or an angel for each day causes the Sun to pull graviationally on Earth from all sides, the pull it exerts at 3 am will be neutralised by the pull it exerts at 3 pm (of a given time zone). Or the pull it exerts on Sao Paolo at noon in Sao Paolo, will be neutralised by the pull it exerts on Honshu at noon in Honshu. The Sun will not to us anymore than to Sts Aquinas and Bellarmine be moving daily around earth because of any stronger pull that Earth is exerting on it, but due to other actors.
  • In Riccioli's astronomy, it would be correct to state that an angel is taking the Sun on kind of a daily orbit around earth, so that its longer orbit around the zodiac each year is incidental on this daily orbit lagging behind the daily orbits of stars in the zodiac. But in St. Thomas view, the angel would only be taking the Sun on a yearly orbit around the zodiac, and another one be taking the Moon on a monthly one around the zodiac, while the daily turn was God turning all of the heavens below the Empyrean one around earth, and orbits happen inside that turn.
  
  
  
• The Ptolemaic system was the best available explanation of the movement of heavenly bodies as yet discovered and would need significant refuting to be overthrown.
  
  Two problems with this one:
  
  
  • There was no scientific community, there was no obligation to have a good or "the best" explanation, society at large and the Church too was not bound in a tielock to astronomy;
  • In fact, St. Robert agreed that Galileo very much had disproven parts of the Ptolemaic system. Just that the Ptolemaic system wasn't the only option for Geocentrism, and Galileo was far from having refuted the position of Tycho Brahe. So are people after his time, the one argument I keep hearing is from Newtonian physics taken as not just a factor that exists, but as the only factor that can affect anything as large and not bound onto a bigger flat surface as Earth or "other" heavenly bodies.

The upshot of this being, no, Galileo was not primarily tried for scientific bad methodology, but for religious bad ideas.

The Church was indeed not "against science" in the Galileo episode, but neither was She acting primarily for science. Galileo really was obliged to abjure what amounted, and still amounts, to bad theology.
/Hans Georg Lundahl

Doxxed in the Bank for Being Creationist?

It seems so.

First, doxxed in the bank.

While waiting for my turn, I noticed a man behind me. He then took a seat across from the desk, where he had a very good view on my interaction with the bank clerk.

He then came to probably depose money in the same automat where I was withdrawing. He was less than a metre behind and could see exactly what I was doing.

Does this seem like doxxing to you? You decide. Does this seem like doxxing to me? Yes.

Second, for being a Creationist.

I am in France, more precisely in Paris. St. Nicolas du Chardonnet (formerly my parish) is also in Paris. I sent a letter yesterday evening with paper copies of these three essays:

J'écris ceci lundi 30 octobre ... · St. Nicolas du Chardonnet : cordial mais imprécis · Pour préciser ...

The first involves a résumé of my letter to the parish. The second my reaction to the short and ambiguous or evasive answer I got. The third involves four clarifications so as to avoid being ambiguous back. It was written yesterday. Today I finished the so far last of this series in Spanish:

¿Que es el Creacionismo? · La datación carbónica—¿en conflito con la cronología bíblica? · Denisova en Atapuerca y otras cosas · ¿Y las dudas sobre los faraones eligidos? · Babel y Göbekli Tepe

But I left the cyber where I did that very little before the (to me at least) apparent doxxing happened.

So, supposing this is doxxing. Who? Someone close to FSSPX (St. Nicolas du Chardonnet)? Someone less close to them, directly, part of their nationalist friends or perhaps friends of those? Or totally opposite, some Commie who wonders how I got involved with St. Nicolas du Chardonnet? I don't know. But considering how unsupportive they were when it came to printing my stuff even back when I regularly went to their masses and confessed to mostly one of their priests (sometimes to other ones, when he wasn't there), I can't totally rule out the former either. Third options would exist, not sure how much I should say of those./HGL

PS, maybe relevant (for those who speak French), here:

"On a tous été trompés par Vladimir Poutine" selon le journaliste Elie Guckert
LCI, 16 nov. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPI7TynsIWs

Do you Feel I Should Have Used the Ussher Timeline Instead?

Creation vs. Evolution: Do you Feel I Should Have Used the Ussher Timeline Instead? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Age of the Earth ...

I used the timeline of the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day.

For Genesis 5 and 11, it follows LXX without the Second Cainan. If you prefer a Masoretic timeline and think Ussher did a good job, here are a few key nodes for the Ussher timeline, if you agree on my identification of the relevant archaeology:

Flood

37 000 BC* - 2349 BC = 34 651 extra years 1.512 pmC

End of Babel

8600 BC** - 2204 BC = 6396 extra years 46.13 pmC

Genesis 14

3500 BC*** - 1912 BC = 1588 extra years 82.523 pmC

Jericho Falls

1550 BC° - 1451 BC = 99 extra years 98.81 pmC

What would the carbon rise be between Flood and End of Babel?

2349 - 2204 = 145 years. 98.261 % of original content.
100 - 98.261 = 1.739 pmC points = normal replenish.

1.512 pmC * 98.261 % / 100 = 1.486 pmC
46.13 - 1.486 = 44.644 pmC actual replenish.
44.644 / 1.739 = 25.672 times the speed of normal carbon 14 production. I make it with 10 ~ 11 times.°°

So, once you have settled on your Biblical timeline, you do the curves between the nodes. I have omitted the beginning of Babel, as unverifiable in Ussher chronology, and I have omitted Sesostris III at birth of Moses, and Djoser dying late in Joseph's carreere, since I know these are not accepted by some Egyptologists on CMI — or Thinkers' Updates/

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Charles Borromeo
4.XI.2023

Sancti Caroli Borromaei Cardinalis, Episcopi Mediolanensis et Confessoris, qui migravit in caelum pridie hujus diei. [3 Nov. Mediolani natalis sancti Caroli Borromaei Cardinalis, Episcopi Mediolanensis et Confessoris, quem, sanctitate conspicuum et miraculis clarum, Paulus Papa Quintus in sanctorum numerum retulit. Ipsius tamen festivitas sequenti die celebratur.]

* Based on 39 000 BP, supervulcano eruption of Campi Flegrei, carbon dated by tephra (volcanic ash, vegetation and other burned by the lava flow and spread and then deposed);
** Based on 8600 BC, charcoals of a fire on the topmost layer of Göbekli Tepe;
*** Based on 3500 BC, reed mats from evacuation of Chalcolithic En Geddi;
° Kenyon's Date for abandonment of Bronze Age Jericho is 1550 BC, I take the 2200 BC date of the walls to indicate they were built from older rubble.
°° See my post:
Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html