Skeleton Bias

@DanDavisHistory
Where Are All The Prehistoric Women?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gHJ6VMZRE6Q

One reason is independent of how they died or were buried, if they got buried.

Bones decay, and thinner bones decay quicker, and adult men have denser and thicker bones.

The video does suggest a bias about burial too, as if the bias from bones weren't sufficient.

Now, as a Young Earth Creationist, as adhering to the Biblical Chronology, I do have some input to give.

In the pre-Flood world, as in Lower Palaeolithic and up to "40 000 years ago" there were cities, but we don't find them.

What we do find from that time is a bit like finding Chingachgook and possibly Natty Bumppo, but strictly only in the settings of Chingachgook, never in the kind of city-scape or country-side that Natty Bumppo was arguably from.

And it is possible that such people of "palaeolithic habits" (in a world that had cities, bronze and iron, cf Genesis 4 verses 17 and 22) were not populations, but more like clubs, specifically sometimes men's clubs. In the cases of deliberate burial, we would perhaps be likelier to find important men buried outside the cities, like Attila's and Genghis Khan's tombs are said to have been hidden in nature and those constructing them killed. People receiving that kind of treatment would more probably be men than women or children.

But when it comes to the Upper Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic, there is another part to this.

Noah died at the very end of the Upper Palaeolithic or perhaps in his region already Mesolithic, 350 years after the Flood. That's carbon dated to c. 9500 BC. Anything between then and back to 37 000 BC = 39 000 BP would have been people dying prematurely.

So, what about the Mesolithic? Actually, for the Middle East, 20 000 to 10 000 BP are already Mesolithic, so no, I must admit I was wrong. As I look it up. But for Europe, the Mesolithic is 15 000 to 5000 BP. How much of it is passed when Shem dies, or Arphaxad?

Carbon Dated

13 000 BC

2691 BC

Eber born

2686 BC

24.08 pmC, dated as 14,456 BC

2391 BC

Arphaxad died

2373 BC

61.194 pmC, dated as 6433 BC

1793 BC

Ishmael died

1779 BC

85.963 pmC, dated as 3029 BC

Carbon Dated

5000 BC

So, in terms of real years, the time from birth of Eber to death of Arphaxad is the smaller part, 300 years, while death of Arphaxad to death of Ishmael is the larger part, 600 years.

However, in terms of carbon years, the time from the birth of Eber to the death of Arphaxad is the larger part, 8023 carbon years, while the death of Arphaxad to the death of Ishmael is the smaller part 3404 years.

In the larger part of the carbon years prior to Arphaxad's death, and even beginning the next period, those dying prematurely will have outnumbered those who died at mature old age.

This is also why skeleta have a tendency to be anatomically age 40, since a man dying at 100 in the generation of Eber would have been physiologically closer to 40 than to 80.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen
24.IV.2026

Sevisii, in Rhaetia, sancti Fidelis a Sigmaringa, Sacerdotis ex Ordine Minorum Capuccinorum et Martyris; qui, illuc ad praedicandam catholicam fidem missus, ibidem, ab haereticis interemptus, martyrium consummavit; et a Benedicto Decimo quarto, Pontifice Maximo, inter sanctos Martyres relatus est.

I gave excerpts from tables on Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt.

Some People Think Administrators Don't Lie, Religious People Do

Vindicated! · Some People Think Administrators Don't Lie, Religious People Do

Here is a video on Gilgamesh's palace.

Note, I agree Gilgamesh existed. He's one of my candidates for Nimrod, as arguably for Mr. Rohl or the now deceased Mr. Skiba. Well, for Skiba, I don't have to guess, I read him.

The Buried Palace of Gilgamesh Was Finally Opened — What Was Hidden Inside...
Creature Decoder | Origin Decoder | 15 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMewC2zKtQs

I don't know if the info on Gilgamesh's palace in the video is good or bad. I haven't seen all of it. I stopped it because of a faulty principle being expressed.

The list is not a religious text. It is an administrative record and administrative records do not include fictional entries alongside verified ones without that distinction being noted somewhere. It is not noted.

Oops ... so presumably Adolf Hitler and Martin Ludwig Bormann were more reliable people than Clemens August Count von Galen, the bishop of Munster?

That's the kind of error that led National Socialism rather than Zentrum to power in Germany.

It's also the kind of error that helped to make National Socialism bad./HGL

PS, there is some bad in the video, further on, where the Gilgamesh Epic is credited with helping to shape Genesis. It doesn't contain a vessel that would have been seaworthy in a global Flood, and Genesis 6 through 8 does./HGL

PPS, obviously, the Gilgamesh Epic would be more accurate on a tomb in the outskirts of Uruk. It seems the oldest layer of Uruk is carbon dated to 4500 BC, like that of Laish, later Tell Dan. For the real date and how to find it being somewhat before 2097 BC, see the previous post./HGL

Vindicated!

Vindicated! · Some People Think Administrators Don't Lie, Religious People Do

When I clicked on this video, I was telling myself a second: "I'm fried. I'm proven wrong. My argument is in ashes."

I thought Abraham's tomb had been found in a setting that carbon dates to 2000 BC, from misunderstanding the title:

This 4,000-Year-Old Gate Has a Biblical Secret
Artefactum | 9 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJMUlWQIQlE

I have maintained that Genesis 14, actually happening in (according to the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day, it's chronology) around 1935 BC*, must fit an archaeological setting of carbon dated 3500 BC. Because of verse 7, which we know with an alternative name as En-Geddi, there is a carbon date of 3500 BC pretty firmly attached to the Amorrhites evacuating En-Geddi, presumably because of the Genesis 14 events. And this evacuation was permanent up to the Iron Age.

Now, here is the verse the video deals with:

Which when Abram had heard, to wit, that his brother Lot was taken, he numbered of the servants born in his house, three hundred and eighteen well appointed: and pursued them to Dan
[Genesis 14:14]

Presumably the name was back then still Laish, but Cohanim later updated the text after the city was renamed Tel Dan. Now, if a specific item clearly tied to Abraham in person had been found carbon dated to 2000 BC, I'd have been wrong. But it isn't. The gate can have been attached to the memory of Abraham after replacing an earlier one, which he actually saw. How far back does Laish or Dan reach into Archaeology? This is my real test.

Founded

c. 4500 BC

Abandoned

c. 733 BC

Periods

Neolithic period, Bronze Age, Iron Age

Cultures

Neolithic, Canaanite, Israelite

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_(ancient_city)

OK. Laish is founded in carbon dated 4500 BC, a thousand carbon years before carbon dated 3500 BC, when Genesis 14 happened. That's all I need.

Here we check how old Laish actually was when Abraham came:

2097 BC

74.949 pmC, dated as 4481 BC

2088 BC

Reu died

2086 BC

Terah born

2074 BC

76.074 pmC, dated as 4335 BC

2051 BC

77.1968 pmC, dated as 4191 BC

2028 BC

78.316 pmC, dated as 4048 BC

2016 BC

Abraham born

...

1936 BC

82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC

Source:

Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

So, founded around 2100 BC, in 1935 BC it isn't 1000 years old, but about 165 + years old. It had seen the transition from Neolithic to maybe Chalcolithic, already. In Genesis, the last thing we hear of "iron" is in chapter 4, a pre-Flood chapter, so, while Abraham arguably knew from pre-Flood tradition, he also knew no one knew where to get it right then in his time.

Probably, in Moses' day, the text said "Laish" and later, perhaps just in or after Joshua's, it was renamed "Dan" or "Tel Dan".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Easter Friday
10.IV.2026

* Abraham is born 2015 BC, or more correctly 2016 (Jesus is born in 2015 after Abraham's birth and 752 after Rome's founding, but Rome is founded in 753 BC), and this occurs after he was 75 in chapter 12 and before he was 86 in chapter 16. 2015 - 80 = 1935 BC.

---

A Dispensation is Usually Not an Obligation

Creation vs. Evolution: A Dispensation is Usually Not an Obligation · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Holy Hill and Keaton Halley Discuss Jesus' Words About Adam and Eve at the Beginning of the Created World

In the sections of the Catholic world which consider "John XXIII" through "Leo XIV" as legitimate Popes (the first has said Muslims and we worship the same God, the last has before his "election" participated in a rite of Pachamama worship with other clergy doing "inculturation"), there was a dispensation given (if so) by Pope (if so) "Paul VI" allowing to take Communion in the naked own hand, when you receive it.

Some have treated this dispensation (if such) as an obligation. Lots of people who are traditionally minded in the ones who accept "Paul VI" will say this was a clear overreach and pastoral abuse. We want to receive communion in the mouth, not in the hand, as we approach the altar rail (on which we want to kneel while receiving).

Where am I going with this?

Well, Paris when Vigouroux was teaching the Seminarians here or Rome 1909. Romans 8:22 is by some seen as concerning only human creation. Here is the passage verses 19 to 23, with the Haydock comment:

For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him, that made it subject in hope: Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that every creature groaneth, and is in labour even till now. And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the first-fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body.
Romans 8:19—23

Before citing the Haydock comment, I note that verse 23 seems to imply the rest has to be about non-human creatures. Because the restoration of the human nature is given as a parallel to this expected restoration of creation. But here is the Haydock comment, I'm replacing dashes between commenters with spaced lines:

Ver. 19. The expectation[2] of the creature. He speaks of the corporal creation, made for the use and service of man; and, by occasion of his sin made subject to vanity, that is, to a perpetual instability, tending to corruption and other defects; so that by a figure of speech, it is here said to groan and be in labour, and to long for its deliverance, which is then to come, when sin shall reign no more; and God shall raise the bodies, and united them to their souls, never more to separate, and to be in everlasting happiness in heaven. (Challoner)

Waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. That is, for the time after this life, when it shall be made manifest that they are the sons of God, and heirs of the kingdom of his glory. Several interpreters understand all creatures whatsoever, even irrational and inanimate creatures of this world, which are represented as if they had a knowledge and sense of a more happy condition, of a new unchangeable state of perfection, which they are to receive at the end of the world. See 2 Peter i. 13; Apocalypse xxi. 1. Now every insensible creature is figuratively brought in groaning like a woman in labour, waiting, and wishing for that new and happy state; but in the mean time unwillingly made subject to vanity, i.e. to these changeable imperfections of generations and corruptions, which then they shall be delivered from. (Witham)

The creature, &c. The creatures expect with impatience, and hope with confidence, to see a happy change in their condition; they flatter themselves that they will be delivered from the captivity of sin, to which man has reduced them, and enter into the liberty of the glory of the sons of God. Not that the inanimate creation will really participate the happiness and glory of the elect; although in some sense they may be said to have part in it, since they will enter into a pure, incorruptible and perfect state to the end of ages. They will no longer be subject to those changes and vicissitudes which sin has brought upon them; nor will sinful man any longer abuse their beauty and goodness in offending the Creator of all. St. Ambrose and St. Jerome teach that the sun, moon, and stars will be then much more brilliant and beautiful than at present, no longer subject to those changes they at present suffer. Philo and Tertullian teach that the beasts of prey will then lay aside their ferocity, and venomous serpents their poisonous qualities. (Calmet)

Other, by the creature or creatures, understand men only, and Christians, who groan under miseries and temptations in this mortal life, amidst the vanities of this world, under the slavery of corruption; who having already (ver. 23.) received the first-fruits of the Spirit,[3] the grace of God in baptism, have been made the children of God, and now, with expectation and great earnestness, wait and long for a more perfect adoption of the sons of God: for the redemption of their bodies, when the bodies, as well as the souls of the elect, shall rise to an immortal life, and complete happiness in heaven. (Witham)

So, both Challoner and Calmet directly teach that insensible creatures (I could add their angels) and Witham is at least open to insensible creatures being the ones that receive this mutation of what is now vanity. How so "at least open"? Well, his first citation takes it directly into account and his second or last which reduces to man does so on the "others say" mode, not on "I say" or "this is true".

The visible Sun and Moon are presumably insensible creatures, at least this is the view of the Medieval diocese (later archdiocese) of Paris, as expressed in an Anti-Averroist condemnation by Bishop Tempier, 749 years and some ago, this is number 92 of his condemned theses:

Quod corpora celestia mouentur a principio intrinseco, quod est anima ; et quod mouentur per animam et per uirtutem appetitiuam, sicut animal. Sicut enim animal appetens mouetur, ita et celum.*

That the celestial bodies are moved by an intrinsic principle, that is a soul, and that they are moved by the soul and by the power of desire, like an animal. Because like the animal moves by desiring, so also heaven. [my translation]

So, Sun and Moon as we can see them presumably aren't very glorified corporeal living creatures. But they are bodies moved by angels. That wasn't condemned by Tempier. And their angels can and do long to see them celebrate (by greater splendour) the Resurrection of the Just with Glorified Bodies. Cattle don't have individual guardian angels, but they do have angels. See Numbers 22:

And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said: What have I done to thee? why strikest thou me, lo, now this third time?
Numbers 22:28

Here I cite only the beginning:

Ver. 28. Opened the mouth, &c. The angel moved the tongue of the ass, to utter these speeches, to rebuke, by the mouth of a brute beast, the brutal fury and folly of Balaam. (Challoner)

St. Thomas Aquinas (ii. 2. q. 105**) says, an angel spoke by the mouth of the ass, in like manner as the devil did by that of the serpent, Genesis iii. ...

So, we are in a sense allowed to believe the passage concerns only man. But we are absolutely not obliged to. Just as even those who consider "Paul VI" was Pope are not obliged to take Communion in the hand. And just as the dispensation doesn't make it illicit to argue against Communion in the hand, so also the quasi-dispensation mentioned by Witham (a number of scholars holding a position without being condemned is the equivalent of the position being at least allowed, at least by dispensation), absolutely doesn't mean we cannot argue for the passage concerning more than just man, especially as there is Patristic support for it.

I presume Vigouroux was saying that Romans 8:22 only concerns man. I tried to look it up. What I'm certain of is, he believed in beasts before people, ice ages before man, dinosaurs well before Adam, and so logically imagined suffering had been along since before Adam sinned. He was in Paris allowed to teach this.

In Rome, in 1909, he was given a very brief question, as judge, and judged in his own favour. But the question was very limited. It didn't cover a Flood other than fully global. It didn't cover suffering before sin. Not even in animals. It didn't involve saying "the Flood never covered the Pyrenees, not to mention Alps or Andes or Himalaya". It was only the bare question of Day-Age, and he judged, under Pius X, yes, you can discuss it. But that same holy Pope that same year canonised Clemens Maria Hofbauer.

I'm not sure if you've heard how Catholic Heliocentrics, when commenting on the Galileo affair, mention "Cardinal Baronius in this context stated that 'the Bible doesn't teach us how the Heavens go, but how to go to Heaven'" but Cardinal Baronius, while not a canonised saint, was a close disciple of one, namely of St. Philip Neri ("Third Apostle of Rome" after Peter and Paul, according to people who obviously agree that Rome was a Pagan city when Luther came to visit).

This is, even more than the simple fact he was a cardinal, a reason to consider with reverence the position of Baronius. However, we have no credible source whatsoever for Baronius stating this sentiment. Some say Galileo cited him in his letter to Grand Duchess Cristina, but Galileo never stated whom he was citing. It could have been someone very different from Baronius, and if it was Baronius, it was not in the context of the Galileo affair, since he died before it broke out.

Now, these Catholics do very rightly understand that the friend of a saint is probably of a similar mind to the saint himself, and therefore should be put pretty high as a theological authority. As said, this doesn't make Baronius*** a good support for the Heliocentric position, but ...

... in 1909, as I just mentioned, Clemens Maria Hofbauer was canonised. Not by Vigouroux, but by the Pope himself. And Hofbauer had a friend called Veith. And Veith wrote in defense of a recent creation and a global Flood.° We will presume Johannes Veith was faithful to the mind of the saint when he wrote the book.

But the problems don't stop here. Even supposing you accepted suffering before sin for non-human creatures, even supposing you somehow pretended Neanderthals and Denisovans aren't human despite us having genes from them in different populations, even then. Homo sapiens sapiens, the variety of us that has dominated since the Flood, can be traced back to, if you accept Deep Time at all and its dating methods, 100 000 + years ago (300 000 according to one find).

If you suppose Adam lived 300 000 years ago, that doesn't make Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies "genealogies with gaps", but "more gaps than genealogy" ... not a Swiss cheese genealogy, but a genealogy with more holes than cheese. Some have pretended the Genesis 5 genealogy was based on the Sumerian King List. What I find on wikipedia doesn't agree with that, I'm adding a division by a factor of 60 to the original info:

Alulim, 28 800 / 60 = 480
Alalngar, 36 000 / 60 = 600
En-men-lu-ana, 43 200 / 60 = 720
En-men-gal-ana, 28 800 / 60 = 480
Dumuzid, 36 000 / 60 = 600
En-sipad-zid-ana, 28 800 / 60 = 480
En-men-dur-ana, 21 000 / 60 = 350
Ubara-Tutu, 18 600 / 60 = 310

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List#Rulers_in_the_Sumerian_King_List

So, suppose the genealogies of 300 000 years were so badly preserved as to have only 22 generations, even if they were unusually long ones?

We would not be able to trust Genesis 3 as historic transmission, both because the timespan for oral transmission is too long, too many intermediaries, and because if this were the case, one would need to suppose adaptation of stories to cultural changes (many of them) for Genesis 4 (if Adam lived 300 000 years ago, his two first sons would not have been a pastoralist and a farmer), and also because the transmission would have failed for the genealogies themselves.

If on the other hand Adam was much more recent than the first man, this totally upsets the Catholic world view and is illicit in and of itself.

Some have, in favour of the theory of pre-Adamite Homo sapiens, argued that a human population created in the image of God cannot spend more than 100 000 years without inventing agriculture.

There are three problems with this position.

• It does not follow, unless the dating methods stand firm.°°
• It involves people with not only human anatomy but also certainly speech being soulless, a major blow to normal anthropological metaphysics as seen by St. Thomas Aquinas.
• It leaves the transition from simili-human to real human populations entirely in the dark, especially as many genetic lines now existing separately from each other go back to before settled agriculture.

So, the argument doesn't allow for circumventing the ban on pre-Adamites.

Suppose instead Adam was created 6—7000+ years ago. All men, not just Homo sapiens sapiens come from him and Biblical genealogies hold.

• The overlapping of generations makes the tradition about Genesis 2 and 3 reliable.°°°
• The genealogies themselves are reliable.
• No dating of a man older than this, whether of a pre-Flood man (as I suppose the cannibals of Atapuerca were, like their victim) older than creation, or a post-Flood man older than Flood, can be firmly established, either on documentary or on physical dating methods.
• Cannibalism would have been part of the pre-Flood moral decay, as described in Genesis 6. We start to see a reason for the Flood.

Everything argues that the dispensation even before the Council to believe older times than Biblical chronology should not be used any more, as it has in the meantime shown itself to lead to conclusions harmful to the Faith.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Easter Tuesday
7.IV.2026

* Capitulum XII, Errores de celo et stellis
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/capitulum-xii.html

Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html

** If the reference is to the Summa Theologiae, it seems muddled, or he had another edition. I looked up both the Prima Secundae and Secunda Secundae for Q 105. After the full stop, the paragraph continues and is credited with Maimonides, but that would concern only the sentence after the Thomasic comparison to Genesis 3.

*** Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Was it Baronius and Did Galileo Recall His Words Accurately?
Thursday, November 7, 2024 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 2:56 PM
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2024/11/was-it-baronius-and-did-galileo-recall.html

° J. E. Veith, Die Anfänge der Menschenwelt, Vienna, 1865; enumerated among Catholic predecessors of Henry Morris:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Les Prédécesseurs catholiques de Henry Morris (jusqu'à 1920)
Friday, November 15, 2019 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 7:26 AM
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/11/les-predecesseurs-catholiques-de-henry.html

Why 1920? My source is an encyclopedian article from that year, "Hexaméron", Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, VI-II, Ghezzi - Hizler, 1920, Paris.

°° See these two posts: Neolithic Agrarian to Industrial Revolutions : Uniformitarian vs Creationist · Palaeolithic to Neolithic Era : Uniformitarian vs Creationist

°°° See Haydock on Genesis 3:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

On my LXX based view of the chronology, this is not quite correct, but there are six "minimal overlaps" up to Abraham, and from Genesis 12 we already get more prolix reporting, suggesting that from Abraham's call, things were written down. That would have started with most of Genesis 1—11, and

Parallax and Heliocentrism

Creation vs. Evolution: I Hope, For Galileo's Sake, He Did Retract · Parallax and Heliocentrism · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: What's the Nature of Theism and the Pagan Alternative to Theism in Romans 1? · The Introibo Blogger Repeats A Blunder by Henry Drummond

Here is part of an essay written or promoted by Damien Mackey:

The idea that the Ancients cited an apparent absence of parallax shift in the nearest stars due to Earth’s hypothesised orbit about the Sun, that they favoured geocentrism in part because of this, and that Copernicus hedged against this criticism, is a complete falsehood that is almost universally accepted at present.

it leads to anachronistic misreadings of both Ptolemy and Copernicus, when we fail to realise the notion of a parallax shift in nearby stars relative to those further away never could have crossed their minds

Here it is on Academia:

Claim that Copernicus knew of Aristarchus
https://www.academia.edu/165256445/Claim_that_Copernicus_knew_of_Aristarchus

It seems to be identic to or rather an excerpt from:

Setting the Record Straight: How Copernicus Concealed His Debt to Aristarchus—and Claimed an Intellectual Priority He Knew Wasn’t His
CosmiCave | Daryl Janzen | Jul 30.2025
https://cosmicave.org/2025/07/30/setting-the-record-straight-how-copernicus-concealed-his-debt-to-aristarchus-and-claimed-an-intellectual-priority-he-knew-wasnt-his/

Now, this is actually more like an equivocation than a complete falsehood.

The "parallax shift in the nearest stars" is an idea that didn't cross their minds, because they (Ptolemy and Copernicus alike, with Galileo) didn't believe there were near or far stars, but all stars were equally far.

However, "parallax shift in the stars" did cross their minds. If Virgo and Pisces* are equally far from the centre of the universe, and that centre is not Earth, but the Sun, then they would be shifting in distance from Earth. In early March, Virgo would be the biggest, and in early September, Pisces would be the biggest. Inversely, in early March, Pisces is either way hidden by the Sun and in early September Virgo is either way hidden by the Sun. However, either side of the timeslot when it's invisible, either sign would be the smallest.

This is probably what Tycho meant where the reference is given in Spanish wiki:

por ejemplo, una de las principales objeciones de Tycho al heliocentrismo copernicano era que para ser compatible con la ausencia de paralaje estelar observable, debería existir un gigantesco y sumamente improbable vacío entre la órbita de Saturno y la octava esfera (la de las estrellas fijas).

For example, one of the main objections Tycho had to Copernican Heliocentrism was that, to be compatible with the absence of observable stellar parallax, there should exist a gigantic and highly improbable void between the orbit of Saturnus and the Eighth Sphere (that of the fix stars).

The only observable parallax that's possible if all fix stars, all non-planet-stars are on the same sphere is the one given about smaller or bigger views of star signs. He cannot have been speaking about differential parallax in the Galilean and modern sense.

The footnote 4 is given as:

See p.51 in The reception of Copernicus' heliocentric theory: proceedings of a symposium organized by the Nicolas Copernicus Committee of the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science, Torun, Poland, 1973, ed. Jerzy Dobrzycki, International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science. Nicolas Copernicus Committee; ISBN 90-277-0311-6, ISBN 978-90-277-0311-8

While this Symposium was held was under Communist Poland, I'll presume they were not putting words into the mouth (or pen) of Tycho Brahe. And actually, Daryl Janzen credits the objection to Tycho and credits him with being the first to make it. And obviously, as Tycho also held to fix stars being in a sphere, the parallax he was talking of was not one star moving "in front of" another more distant one, wasn't differential parallax.

Now, since then, a phenomenon has been observed which is identified with Galileo's differential parallax. Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel in 1838. Before that, another astronomer had looked for it, Bradley, but what he found in 1728—29 was incompatible with parallax.

Calculation showed that if there had been any appreciable motion due to parallax, then the star should have reached its most southerly apparent position in December, and its most northerly apparent position in June. What Bradley found instead was an apparent motion that reached its most southerly point in March, and its most northerly point in September; and that could not be accounted for by parallax: the cause of a motion with the pattern actually seen was at first obscure.

Well, with a mechanistic world view, you are stuck with aberration of starlight and then differential parallax is observed against the background of that.

With a Christian world view, the whole movement of any star, as observed through telescope, both the part analysed as aberration and the part analysed as parallax, can be what the angel does in a kind of dance, to honour God.

As soon as Tychonian parallax is unobserved, there is no actual proof possible that the Earth is moving.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
First Passion Lord's Day
22.III.2026

* My own and granny's and my mother's signs are opposite, so I don't need to verify any other couples that are opposite. I wouldn't like to become an expert in astrology. And please note, astrology signs on the zodiac are still better known than their synonym the "ecliptic plane" ...

Wikis consulted:

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralaje_estelar

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

Suppose Someone Wanted to Accuse Me of Sola Scriptura

On Sunday 9 March 2008, I wrote, on the then site Antimodernism, a piece where the title needs to be restated:

Sola Scriptura or Tota Scriptura?*
https://antimodernisminmemoriam.blogspot.com/2012/10/sola-scriptura-or-tota-scriptura.html

Do I believe the Bible ALONE is infallible?

No, I believe Apostolic Tradition and Universal Immemorial Church Tradition and definitions of Councils and Popes and consistency of the ordinary magsiterium are infallible too.

Do I believe that ALL OF the Bible is inerrant?

Yes, I do. Including Genesis 5 and 11. Adam really was 130 or 230 years old (depending on text version) when Seth was born appointed to replace the killer Cain and the killed Abel. Peleg really was born when the Tower project of Nimrod, whatever it was, had failed or was just failing by God confusing the single language into a melting pot of languages foreign to each other. You could understand your wife and children, you could no longer understand your coworker or taskmaster, nor could he understand you.

Including also Joshua 10, and before you point to the possibility of verse 13 being phenomenological language, in verse 12 Sun and Moon are what Joshua miraculously orders to stand still. If it was Earth that stopped and started rotating, as Heliocentrics want, this would be the one and only occasion where a miracle worker ordered sth other to change behaviour than what needed to. When Jesus ordered demons out of people, he didn't expel endogenous malfunctions within the human person, and mislabel this as expelling one or more non-human persons because of misunderstanding. When Joshua ordered Sun and Moon to stand still, it wasn't Earth he made stand still.

These things are directly in the Bible, not just by allusion. These things can be read, not just understood because the Church underlines how the allusion was one of those that Jesus spoke about, for instance on the road to Emmaus. They are the minimum, but we need to believe the totality, what the Church defines, even if it's not openly apparent to every reader (especially to those who ignore what is being alluded to).**

Now, there is one more thing. Some Catholics are confused about what we should object to in "sola scriptura".

Should we object to someone saying this or that can be understood without explicit reference to Church doctrine? No. We would need to object only in the moment when we know something is against Church doctrine, like when someone tries to prove "only Jesus is sinless, Mary isn't" (totally false proposition) from Romans 3:23 or Romans 5:12, when Jesus being an exception is not explicitly stated in either verse, and when Jesus being different as Redeemer, as defeater of the Devil, argues for Mary being sinless, because the Bible by allusion shows Mary defeated the Devil even before Her pregnancy.***

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
I LD of the Passion
21—22.III.2026

* The reposting on MSN Group Antimodernism in memoriam was in 2012, but that was not the origin of the text.
** Classic example: Mary is co-defeater of the Devil and has done Her part as defeating him already before Christ was born of Her or even in Her, because "blessed among women" alludes to Jael and Judith and if you add "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" the allusion to Genesis 3:15 should be very clear, meaning it was the Devil She had been defeating. Hence Her sinlessness, as this was the only defeat possible for a non-divine human person and was a reversal of the Devil's victory in Genesis 3, over Adam and Eve.
*** The first "blessed among women" is pronounced in Luke 1:28. In verse 31 the angel says "thou shalt conceive" meaning Our Lady was not yet pregnant.

Steppe People in Alternative Calibrations

Chronology of wikipedian articles:

"core Yamnaya culture"

= Mikhaylivka I

c. 3600–3400 BC

Yamnaya culture

3300–2600

Corded Ware culture

c. 3000 BC – 2350 BC

Bell Beaker culture

(Central Western Europe)

2800-2300 BC

(Britain)

2450-1800 BC

Tajo: cultura arqueológica de Vila Nova de São Pedro

2900 al 2500 a. C.

On one carbon dated timeline:

Mikhaylivka I begins

3600 BC

Mikhaylivka I ends

3400 BC

Yamnaya begins

3300 BC

Corded ware begins

3000 BC

VN de SP begins

2900 BC

CW-E BB begins

2800 BC

Yamnaya ends

2600 BC

VN de SP ends

2500 BC

Br BB begins

2450 BC

Corded ware ends

2350 BC

CW-E BB ends

2300 BC

Br BB ends

1800 BC

It's superimposed on my current* tables:

1982 BC

80.546 pmC, dated as 3770 BC

1965 BC

Serug died

1959 BC

81.656 pmC, dated as 3634 BC

Mikhaylivka I begins

3600 BC

1957 BC

Nahor died

1936 BC

82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC

1930

Ishmael born

1916 BC

Isaac born.

83.166 pmC, dated as 3440 BC

Mikhaylivka I ends

3400 BC

1897 BC

83.568 pmC, dated as 3381 BC

1881 BC

Terah died

1877 BC

83.97 pmC, dated as 3321 BC

Yamnaya begins

3300 BC

1857 BC

84.371 pmC, dated as 3262 BC

1856 BC

Jacob and Esau born

1841 BC

Abraham died

1838 BC

84.77 pmC, dated as 3204 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

1797 BC

Joseph born

1796 BC

Jacob leaves Laban

1793 BC

Ishmael died

1779 BC

85.963 pmC, dated as 3029 BC

Corded ware begins

3000 BC

1759 BC

86.359 pmC, dated as 2971 BC

1739 BC

86.754 pmC, dated as 2914 BC

VN de SP begins

2900 BC

1736 BC

Isaac died

1726 BC

Jacob came to Egypt.

1720 BC

87.148 pmC, dated as 2857 BC

1709 BC

Jacob died.

1700 BC

87.541 pmC, dated as 2800 BC

CW-E BB begins

2800 BC

1687

Joseph dies.

1678 BC

89.449 pmC, dated as 2600 BC

Yamnaya ends

2600 BC

VN de SP ends

2500 BC

Br BB begins

2450 BC

1656 BC

91.353 pmC, dated as 2404 BC

Corded ware ends

2350 BC

CW-E BB ends

2300 BC

1634 BC

93.251 pmC, dated as 2212 BC

1612 BC

95.145 pmC, dated as 2023 BC

1590 BC

97.033 pmC, dated as 1839 BC

Br BB ends

1800 BC

1574 BC

97.392 pmC, dated as 1793 BC

Superimposed on my proposal for improvement after initial interaction with Petrovich.**

1982 1882 BC

80.546 pmC, dated as 3770 BC

Mikhaylivka I begins

3600 BC

1830 BC

81.708 pmC, so dated 3500 BC.

Mikhaylivka I ends

3400 BC

Yamnaya begins

3300 BC

Corded ware begins

3000 BC

1724 BC

86.369 pmC, so dated 2935 BC.

VN de SP begins

2900 BC

CW-E BB begins

2800 BC

Yamnaya ends

2600 BC

VN de SP ends

2500 BC

Br BB begins

2450 BC

1618 BC

90.971 pmC, so dated 2400 BC

Corded ware ends

2350 BC

CW-E BB ends

2300 BC

1512 BC

95.515 pmC, so dated 1891 BC

Br BB ends

1800 BC

1459 BC

97.764 pmC, so dated 1646 BC

And on the one after the further*** interaction:

Mikhaylivka I begins

3600 BC

1870 BC

82.104 pmC, so dated as 3500 BC

Mikhaylivka I ends

3400 BC

Yamnaya begins

3300 BC

1831 BC

84.652 pmC, so dated as 3208 BC

Corded ware begins

3000 BC

1792 BC

87.187 pmC, so dated as 2925 BC

VN de SP begins

2900 BC

CW-E BB begins

2800 BC

1753 BC

89.71 pmC, so dated as 2651 BC

Yamnaya ends

2600 BC

VN de SP ends

2500 BC

Br BB begins

2450 BC

Corded ware ends

2350 BC

1714 BC

92.222 pmC, so dated as 2383 BC

CW-E BB ends

2300 BC

1675 BC

94.721 pmC, so dated as 2123 BC

1636 BC

97.562 pmC, so dated as 1840 BC

Br BB ends

1800 BC

1598 BC

97.703 pmC, so dated as 1790 BC

So, what would each of my recalibrations do to the duration of the process? From start of Mikhaylivka I to Bell Beakers ending in Britain.

Uniformitarian calibration: 3600 to 1800 BC, 1800 years.
My current: 1959 to 1574 BC, 385 years.
My first alternative proposal: c. 1860 to 1486 BC, 374 years.
My second alternative proposal: c. 1890 to 1598 BC, 292 years.

Only the spread part, now. From start of Mikhaylivka I to Bell Beakers beginning in Britain.

Uniformitarian calibration: 3600 to 2450 BC, 1150 years
My current: 1959 to 1656 BC, 303 years (less)
My first alternative proposal: c. 1860 to 1618 BC, 242 years
My second alternative proposal: c. 1890 to 1714 BC, 176 years

For the total span of cultures, 4.675, 4.813 or 6.164 times quicker. For the spread from Mikhaylivka to Britain, 3.795, 4.752 or 6.534 times quicker.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Benedict of Nursia
21.III.2026

In monte Cassino natalis sancti Benedicti Abbatis, qui in Occidente fere collapsam Monachorum disciplinam restituit ac mirifice propagavit; cujus vitam, virtutibus et miraculis gloriosam, beatus Gregorius Papa conscripsit.

PS. Notice, I said "Steppe People" and not "Indo-Europeans" ... I'm quite open to Indo-European being a Sprachbund, and I don't think the Steppe People were necessarily or even probably speakers of Indo-European./HGL

---

* Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt, marginally table III—IV, all of table IV—V, Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy, all of table V—VI, marginally table VI—VI/VII.

** Suppose I were Wrong on Chronological Matches Related to Egypt?

*** If I Got Douglas Petrovich Right, Sesostris III was Pharao when Joseph Received his Family