Funny Things in the Library

I wanted to check in on FB, partly to see if Deen Academy had posted any answer even just as a comment under mine with the link.

I could not log into FB in this library.

I checked on the video, no problem viewing it, viewing the channel (no new videos after this one) or viewing a prior video where Deen Academy attacks Original Sin.

By contrast.

BLK SHP Bible Talk, Something Might Be Off With Our 6,000 Year Timeline — no access.
Return to Tradition, APOSTASY! Vatican Publishes Document Denying That Satan Exists — no access.*
Answers in Geneis, DISMANTLING All the Top Reasons People Reject Noah's Flood — no access.

In France, as I learned from Rivarol, Muslims (Qataris) are in charge of FB.

As such, they aren't in charge of Paris Municipal libraries but I'd say they don't have much problems banding together with Secularists.

And for some reason, Biblical Christian Fundamentalism comes off as a bigger threat to some than a Muslim attacking Christianity, whether on Noah's Flood or on Original Sin.

I recall the day in 2011 when Breivik made an attack on Utøya.

At a lineup for a soup kitchen, I was told that it was bad to be a Christian Fundie, bc apparently Breivik was one.

So not.

I quickly found a link to a page on Johannislosjen Søjlerne (Freemasons) saying he was excluded. This page is now down, but it documented that he had been a freemason. His manifesto was also very clearly secularist, he believed in Norwegian Lutheranism because it wasn't actually Christian, not because of the small minority that actually was so. He wanted Muslims out because they were religious, not because they were another religion.

But the hoax (or gross misunderstanding) of the Norwegian police and media is still going strong in France, perhaps because Breivik senior, still a freemason, is in this country. And frankly, Muslims seem to have no problem with it. By the way, I think, by now, if corrections aren't upcoming, if the page on the Masonic lodge is down so as to make it impossible to conclusively prove he was a Mason, there are Norwegians who are not eager to correct the misunderstanding, but to prolong it, which makes it at least by now a hoax.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Abundius, priest and martyr
11.VII.2026

Cordubae, in Hispania, sancti Abundii Presbyteri, qui, in persecutione Arabica, cum in Mahumetis sectam inveheretur, martyrio coronatus est.

PS, just in case someone would like to pretend I'm too ill known to get their attention and blockings, have a look at stats from one day, yesterday:

9 + 4 + 4 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 2 + 7 + 6 = 51
51 + 66 + 27 + 92 + 91 + 12 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 98 + 12 = 485
485 + 172 + 114 + 276 + 221 + 260 + 659 + 542 + 112 + 188 + 181 + 195 + 439 = 3844
3844 + 2725 + 8662 + 2354 + 2809 = 20,394.

PPS, another video blocked:

Radio du Clocher, Évangélisez les Musulmans — no access.

PPPS, yet another one:

GotQuestions? Did Jesus Drink Wine or Alcohol? — no access.

PPPPS, yes we have France among readers (last 24 h by 14:54)
65 (this blog) + 100 + 206 + 5 + 15 + 1 + 1 + 6 + 6 + 2 + 1 + 15 + 61 = 484

---

* Elsewhere, I have access. It's not an official document of the Vatican, it's a paper published in Osservatore Romano.

Deen Academy Underlines that Biblical and Quranic Flood (As he sees it) are Not the Same

Creation vs. Evolution: Deen Academy Underlines that Biblical and Quranic Flood (As he sees it) are Not the Same · somewhere else: Deen Academy Tries to Pull a Quick One on John 17:3

How did Noah fit EVERY animal on the Ark? The Islamic Truth
Deen Academy | 1 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2tw12az6N4

5:22 — after 5:46

Regarding the story of Noah, unfortunately, some Muslims today think that the Islamic story of Noah is the same as the biblical one, which is absolutely not the case. They believe that somehow the flood of Noah was worldwide, and he literally gathered all of those 1.6m species of animals on one wooden boat. Guys, this story is from the Bible. There is zero, zero verses or hadith claiming that that ever happened.

...

6:28 — 6:50

And in our case today, the case of Noah, it actually contradicts what Allah said in Surah Al-A'raf. Those who drowned in the flood are those who disbelieved in the message of Noah. I want you to think about this exclusivity. Everyone who drowned initially met Noah, heard the message from him, understood it, and then purposely denied it, meaning the flood strictly affected those who lived in the area where Noah lived or maybe traveled.

If this is what Mohammed meant, he was not a sailor. Watch this:

Incredible story of boy swept away by Boxing Day tsunami who survived for 3 WEEKS alone
The Sun | 26 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnV9UwQKguQ

The boy survived for three weeks, because he was not near the coast, not where the water was shallow and waves sharp. The same is true of the table he floated on.

A Flood drowning two villages would destroy the Ark of the Bible. Only a global Flood could allow it to float.

If the sea floor is 9 meters below the surface, waves go around a radius of maximally 9 meters. If the sea floor is a km or two under a surface, waves go around a radius of maximally a km or two, probably not that much, but certainly bigger than nine meters. And that allows the surface to be fairly smooth even in very intense waves. The SS Wyoming didn't sink in the Atlantic, it sank in Nantucket Bay, where the medium depth is nine meters.

One can add, if one wants to quibble, that Deen Academy misrepresents the Bible. The text doesn't use a word for Linnean species, a concept that didn't exist. It does not even use the word "species" corresponding to Linnean species, but "genus" which verbally might correspond to genus. I don't think it usually does (except for genus homo = mankind), but it verbally corresponds.

However, I think the Ark had one pair of hedgehogs. That's not a species, there are 17 species of hedgehog. That's not even a genus, there are five species of hedgehogs. That's a whole subfamily (the other subfamily of the family being gymnures, which might also descend from that pair).

If one wants to really quibble, even on the level of species, it's a misrepresentation. Most of these species are insects and many of the rest are sealife. The Biblical story speaks of land animals and birds being passengers on the Ark, not of plants, fish or insects being so. Some may have been on the Ark as food, but none were so as passengers. We need birds, reptiles, possibly amphibians, and mammals.

11 000 / 17 = 647 pairs of birds
12 000 / 17 = 706 pairs of reptiles
6 640 / 17 = 391 pairs of mammals
possibly
8 000 / 17 = 471 pairs of amphibians

647 + 706 + 391 + 471 = 2215 pairs

Or families? I search F search on "family" in "list of Amphibian genera", dito reptile genera, bird genera. For mammals, I do sth different, no F search required:

Mammalia is a class of vertebrate animals. Members of this class are called mammals. It comprises 5,909 extant species, which are grouped into 163 families, themselves grouped into 27 orders in 3 major divisions.

From the article List of mammals.

Amphibians 129 pairs
Reptiles 95 pairs
Birds 262 pairs
Mammals 163 pairs

129 + 95 + 262 + 163 = 649 pairs

So, the Islamic answer (according to Deen Academy) is, in 120 years, Noah's message reached only two villages, when an entire world was in iniquity or violence or oppression. Hence, those that were outside the two villages were spared, Noah's Ark survived the water that drowned two villages, which is really a feat if it could even take in the species of animals of the region, which defies all probability of known behaviour of waves or ships.

Meanwhile the Biblical answer (if you ask me) involves, in 120 years, the whole Nodian civilisation would have heard of that trouble maker Noah who insisted on building a big box intended to float as if the world was going to drown, but even those who hadn't would have known cannibalism was wrong, like we have seen cannibalism in Atapuerca (and the dating being potassium argon tells me that it was buried beneath lava from the break up of the fountains of the deep, so it was before the Flood, and the same is true of the cannibalised skulls near Solo river), the Ark survived society for 120 years because people wanted to have sth to laugh about, and it survived the waves because the Ark took off from the highest pre-Flood mountain (possibly one that was sandpapered into the Meseta by the Flood) into a global Ocean, where the waves had a big radius and didn't pose a threat to the floating of the Ark.

And above mathematics shows, the Ark was adequate for the couples it was supposed to have as guests.

In 2004, a society which took men like Gabriel Matzneff as paying guests had forgotten the thing about the Ark. The boy survived to prove, a global Ocean was safer for the Ark than a flooding area flooding two villages.

Meanwhile, apart from a doubt in Islamic sources and a negative in Chinese accounts, mixing up the Flood account with an account of a China wide flooding, most sources among Pagans confirm the Bible. Norse myth places the Flood before creation, but it clearly means, even if earth is a disc above what was then, the Flood took all of Jotunheim except part of the rim, where Bergelmer survived. The Babylonian account says Ziusudra got into his giant coracle in Shuruppak, 9 metres above the Persian Gulf, and landed on Mount Nisir, identified as Pira Magrun with 2,588 m above sea level. How does a vessel of any kind, coracle, boat or huge box, float upwards to an elevation that is 2580 metres higher if only two villages are drowned, like Franco did near Jaca, to form the Yesa Reservoir? Greeks also say that the flood was sufficiently world spanning for the survivors to be peopling both Greece and Egypt. Again, doesn't sound like two villages to me.

Remember, if you prefer even a very large regional flood, not just two villages, but maybe two or three countries in a valley, like all of Mesopotamia, even then the water depth is too shallow for safe floating around of the Ark.

I wonder whether Deen Academy will dare to answer me ... or even to try.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Visitation of the Blessed Virgin to Elisabeth
2.VII.2026

Visitatio beatae Mariae Virginis ad Elisabeth.

PS, the man in the video doesn't tell the exact same story that I recall from the news back then. Suppose this is the correct version, this still leaves a solution for the global Ocean if we look at rafts across the Pacific, like Kon Tiki, and it still poses a two problems for a "two villages were drowned view", as in how could God allow the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami after the promise in Genesis 9, and how could the Ark survive such a shallow water?/HGL

Does Russia Check Up on a Young Earth Creationist to Ask Others Not To?

This blog, Creation vs. Evolution

2,72 k, last 24 h, Russia below last visible country, which had 28 views.

17,1 k, last week, Russia on top, with Russia, 5,37 k views.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

3,58 k, last 24 h, Russia is XII with 44 views.

58,4 k, last week, Russia is on top, with 5,69 k views.

France follows suit, last 24 h France is V with 85 views.

Last week, France was IV, with 2,49 k views.

Back to this blog, Creation vs. Evolution, last 24 h France is below last visible country which has 29 views.

Last week, France was V with 643 views.

One blog more, an old main blog of mine:

deretour

1,57 k, last 24 h, Russia and France both below 18, so not visible in stats (there may be some in "others").

6,43 k, last week, peak on 22, Russia on top with 1,05 k, France and Pakistan both give 96 views at shared XIV.

Now, this might be different.

Current main blog, New blog on the kid

16,4 k, last 24 h, France read 262, but Russia is below 157 (where we have Ukraine, btw).

62,3 k, last week, Russia on top with 15,2 k, and France is at VI with 1,38 k page views.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica

2,99 k, last 24 h, France and Uzbekistan share place XIV, 38 pv each, Russia is below 28.

20 k, last week, Russia on top with 5,62 k pv, France at V with 835./HGL

The "Jesuit" Spitzer Offers Fake Exegesis

Of Genesis 1—11, obviously, but also of Divino Afflante Spiritu.

Spitzer is basically presenting it as teaching Non Overlapping Magisteria, and here is Pius XII in so many words taking his distance from Non-Overlapping Magisteria:

When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.

Let me parse it.

Beginning of temporal clause:

When, subsequently,

its subject:

some Catholic writers,

a circumstance in a clause subsidiary to it:

in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever,

verb of the temporal clause:

ventured

what did they venture?

to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals,

what more did they venture?

and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith,

main clause being introduced by above

subject of main clause:

Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII

circumstance of exact reference of quote:

in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893,

predicate of main clause, verb and the rest:

justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.

Here is, if you care, "Fr" Spitzer, and he's misrepresenting Divino Afflante Spiritu a few seconds before four minutes in: Catholic Priest Releasing The ONLY Science Study Bible EVER/HGL

No Local or Regional Flood, and the Ark wasn't Built in a Valley

I'll resume watching the video after posting below. This blog is actually not the one for the format here, though the subject matches, see links below.

Flood Expert Explains the True Power of Noah’s Flood
Creation Ministries International | 11 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AouVa_zjFtE

12:47 Definition.

A Tsunami is coming in towards some kind of coastline, right?

If this is the case, the Ark never faced one. During 40 days, Tsunamis were reducing whatever land there was below that very high mountain as high or higher than any other on Earth, and when it hit it, all coastlines were gone, and the Tsunami violence had been replaced by underwater turbulence ... which didn't touch the Ark at all or at least for long, since that's when water mounted above the waterline of the Ark, 15 cubits up.

I don't think the Ark was built to face Tsunamis coming in, and that's a good reason to deny a regional Flood, since it was precisely the "global Ocean" that put loads of calmer water between the Ark and the turbulence from the moment the Ark started floating or not long after.

13:23 Ah, OK, Tsunamis in that sense, that don't break, these the Ark would have survived once it had been kept at bay from the breakers for the first 40 days.

---

More content in this format, link to video and comments, sometimes on side issues, on the blogs: Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere (ENG) Wherein the label Creation Ministries International. Répliques Assorties (FR) Antworten nach Sorte (DE)

Some Pretend the Ages of Patriarchs are Symbolic

For Genesis 5, one can state that the names have a symbolism.

Adam Seth Enosh Kenan — man appointed mortal sorrow
Mahalalel Jared — [but] Blessed-God [shall] come-down
Enoch — teaching [that/and]
Mathusela Lamech Noakh — his-death-shall-bring the afflicted comfort.

But I have not found any symbolism in their ages ... prior to today.

Nr	Patriarch	Age	Nr	Patriarch	Age	Nr	Patriarch	Age
1	Adam	930	10	Noah	950	19	Terah	205
2	Seth	912	11	Shem	600	20	Abraham	175
3	Enosh	905	12	Arpachshad	438	21	Isaac	180
4	Kenon	910	13	Shelah	433	22	Jacob	147
5	Mehalalel	895	14	Eber	464	23	Levi	137
6	Jared	962	15	Peleg	239	24	Kohath	133
7	Enoch	365	16	Reu	239	25	Amram	137
8	Methuselah	969	17	Serug	230	26	Moses	120
9	Lamech	777	18	Nahor	148	TOTAL 12,600

Horisontally from the table, rather than in order
930 + 950 + 205 + 912 + 600 + 175 + 905 + 438 + 180 + 910 + 433 + 147 + 895 + 464 + 137 + 962 + 239 + 133 + 365 + 239 + 137 + 969 + 230 + 120 + 777 + 148 = 12 600

So, the total, which seems to have some kind of Apocalyptic significance .... which it has:

And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 11:3]

And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days.
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 12:6]

So, some have pretended the ages of the patriarchs are symbolic.

The only three symbolisms detectable to us are 365, 777 and the total 12,600. Of these, 365 would not have been detectable as a symbolism in the day back then, at least not the same symbolism as it has to us. Then 777 is disputed between the text versions, like the LXX disagrees:

And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and fifty-three years, and he died.
καὶ ἐγένοντο πᾶσαι αἱ ἡμέραι Λάμεχ ἑπτακόσια καὶ πεντήκοντα τρία ἔτη, καὶ ἀπέθανε.

The total would also be affected by including the second Kenon whom most LXX manuscripts include. And the total would only be known to total geeks and not even all of them.

Confer the meanings of the names. The Genesis is clearly older than the New Testament, one can get that from Qumrân, from the scrolls there. We rightly presume it is way older than the Apocalyptic literature in question. However, there were in the Qumrân scrolls diverse versions, some agreeing with LXX readings in Genesis 5 or 11 or both. The choice Jews made of the reading of Vulgate and Masoretic may have been to get this total. But the choice was made after Christ came and they had rejected him, probably to counter an argument made by St. Paul by presenting Shem as identic to Melchisedec, which is chronologically impossible with a LXX reading for Genesis 11.

I'm not sure that a similar total cannot be reached by adding up LXX or near-LXX figures.

Now, the other symbolism, the names, clearly was unknown to the first redactors of the text. Or known only prophetically. Humanly speaking, the redactor cannot have known the match with Christian theology ...

The total of the ages may be symbolic and if so prophetic or implied in a wrongful text choice. But this still leaves no indication for individual lifespans of Patriarchs having been chosen for symbolic reasons. Anyone who says the six days in Genesis 1 are just symbolism is wrong, but he may have a kind of rhetoric point. Anyone who says that the ages of patriarchs in Genesis 5 and 11 are just symbolism, apart from making a frontal attack on the veracity of the text itself, lacks even an arithmetic point.

So, wikipedia doesn't give the whole context of Jeremy Northcote, "The lifespans of the patriarchs: Schematic orderings in the chrono-genealogy", Vetus Testamentum, pp. 243-257, esp. 245, 247. The following paragraphs, surrounding the table I just quoted, summarise this writing from 2007.

The following table lists all the ages of the patriarchs from Adam to Moses as listed in the Bible. These add up to 12,600.

[table as above]

The value of 12,600 is a variant of the symbolic value of 1,260 known from apocalyptic theology (although may derive from earlier traditions), only multiplied by ten. The patriarchal ages were selected in order to achieve this numerological total. Another example of the numerical schema of 12,600 can be found in the War Scroll discovered at Qumran, where "the Sons of Light shall fight against the Sons of Darkness in the final days for a period of 35 years. Employing the Jewish luni-solar calendar of the 360-day year, 35 years equals 12,600 days."

So, out of fifteen pages, the wikipedians cited mainly two, and condensed them to this. Also:

Variations of the three and a half years result in other numerological values. For example, three and a half years correspond to 42 months or 1,260 days. Thus, both 42 and 1,260 have numerological use in the Bible. The three and a half symbol as appearing in the Bible may derive from the Babylonian calendar.

and:

The apocalyptic numeral derived from the length of 42 months (=3.5 years) is seen in numerous contexts. Northcote writes "In Num xxxiii, forty-two stages are listed between Egypt and the Promised Land, and the LXX version of Josh v 6 states that the Israelites spent forty-two years wandering in the wilderness ... [and] according to Matt i 17, forty-two generations elapsed from Abraham to the birth of Jesus".

So, first, while the paragraphs around the table may suggest a wholesale fabrication of the genealogies for symbolic reasons, it's on Jeremy Northcote's presumable intention more like doing a rounding and then fitting the items to make the rounded total exact. I say this intention is presumable, because I have not actually read the fifteen pages, just the above extracts on the wikipedian article:

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

To which I got because some people in the shop presumably wanted to test me for hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia as related to the bar codes. I try to avoid scanning them myself. And before you speak of pathology in a man who simply renounces the merchandise and walks out when a cashier is not available, how about the swastikaphobes who have banded about that man, not because he's actually a National Socialist, but because he has some things in common with them, which to their taste has been too much. A camp survivor may take some kind of measures about the neighbourhood, along with younger folks, but the things I've seen look more like the neighbourhood (with those camp survivors) doing their private investigation on my "National Socialism" and deciding to censor me world wide for common readers, the kind that actually earn an author money.

Meanwhile, this is another fail for a certain NinjaMonkeyPrime or similar minded persons, the named person's youtube account being used to tell me "When observations of reality conflict with the mythology of scripture, an honest person would realize that the mythology wasn't intended to be taken literally." The ages of the patriarchs don't borrow themselves to be read any other way. And especially not as Deep Timers have two different beefs with them. They will both pretend that each patriarch lived, if at all, a much shorter time, and that the total of generations spans a much longer time. Those types of quibbles have as little place for a Catholic believer that the Bible is inerrant, as Methodist pilpuls have for a Catholic banner of contraception.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Margaret of Scotland
10.VI.2026

[16 Novembris] Edimburgi, in Scotia, natalis sanctae Margaritae Viduae, Scotorum Reginae, amore in pauperes et voluntaria paupertate celebris. Ipsius tamen festivitas quarto Idus Junii celebratur.
[10 Junii] Sanctae Margaritae Viduae, Scotorum Reginae, quae sextodecimo Kalendas Decembris obdormivit in Domino.

Before Babel

26 Scientists Re-analyzed the Younger Dryas Layer — What They Found Beneath It Ends the Debate
Lost Engineering | 6 juin 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOyuDKRaxfQ

12 800 BP to 11 600 BP = 10 851 BC to 9651 BC.

What does this mean? First in terms of real, Biblical chronology:

Beginning:

2634 BC

37.009 pmC, dated as 10,851 BC

End between:

2621 BC

40.229 pmC, dated as 10,148 BC

2608 BC

43.443 pmC, 9500 BC*

Weighted medium (3:1), here:

(2621 + 2608 + 2608 + 2608) / 4 = 2611.25

(40.229 + 43.443 + 43.443 + 43.443) / 4 = 42.6395

Carbon** year:

5730 * log(0.426395) / log(0.5) + 2611.25 = 9658 BC

So, 10 851 to 9658 BC in carbon years are in reality 2634 to 2611 BC, 23 years. I'm not sure about you, but to me this seems like a sudden impact.

As to the megafauna, Nimrod had already been hunting that. It hadn't had that long time since the Deluge to spread, 2957 to 2634 is 323 years. The impact and black mat could have been God's punishment for a sin of his, or one he made himself coresponsible of.

Let's cite Josephus, Antiquities, Book I, chapter 4, second paragraph:

Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers!

"He also said he would be revenged on God" ... not just revenged, perhaps ... "if he should have a mind to drown the world again;" ... words, I think, that may have sounded more credible and urgent after the Younger Dryas Impact.

I would say, Babel began as kind of a Civilisation of Love, but one cut off from God.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
II Lord's Day after Pentecost
7.VI.2026

* Table excerpts, near top:

Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt
Christmas Eve, 2024
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-flood-to-joseph-in-egypt.html

** Formula, near bottom:

Newer Tables, Preliminaries
Christmas Eve, 2024
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-preliminaries.html

Answering Shaun Doyle on Geocentrism

Today's article on CMI deals with Aliens.

I'm basically not in disagreement on that issue. However, it's a feedback, with questioner and Shaun taking up the issue of Geocentrism.

Aliens and the Bible
By Shaun Doyle | Published 29 Sep, 2018 | Updated 01 May, 2026
https://creation.com/en/articles/aliens-and-the-bible

Here is some sloppy history in the questioner:

The ancient Greeks invented the geocentric view of the universe centuries before Christ. Much later, while there was still no better scientific explanation yet available, the Church tried to interpret scripture in light of the geocentric view. ... However, when the heliocentric view became accepted, the marriage of scripture to the geocentric view became a problem. For those who believe and trust in the Lord, it was simply a matter of adjustment to biblical interpretation to account for new knowledge. ...

Here is the part of Shaun's answer that deals with this:

And on these potential conflicts between science and the Bible, each ‘conflict’ must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Geocentrism within the Bible was indeed an interpretive overreach, since the Scriptures underdetermine commitment to a geocentric cosmology. Many people think the conflict between Genesis and deep time is likewise merely apparent. We disagree. Why? Unlike the geocentrism issue, there is no other proper way to read the relevant biblical texts, and much of the Bible’s theology of redemption hangs on the historical chronology and event sequence of Genesis 1–11 (The Galileo excuse). We’re saying that the same applies to the existence of aliens. Indeed, many of the biblical theological themes that rule out pre-Adamic people (a major issue in the origins debate) also rule out the existence of sentient aliens for the same reasons. Salvation is in the last Adam, meaning that salvation only pertains to Adamites. That rules out both pre-Adamites and sentient aliens. Thus, it’s not that we regard aliens as “not worth considering”; it’s that we have considered them, and regard them as conflicting with Scripture.

Now, first, you are aware how crucial sentient and intelligent aliens are to the historical acceptance of Heliocentrism?

No?

Check out Kepler's Somnium (dream, in translation). He gives an astronomy that uses the Moon as inertial frame and takes that for absolute reality, then makes the point this is just an inertial frame, and therefore, so is geocentric astronomy.

The problem is, he forgot to prove Selenites actually exist. H. G. Wells provided that (or if it was for Martians) in The War of the Worlds. To imagination, that is. Not quite as much to solid reason, mind you. Since then, George Lucas reprovided it for, inter alia, Tatooinites. So, one thing I sometimes bring up is, if you can trace the story of Star Wars to a spaceship coming from Tatooine, you basically have a Magellan style proof for modern cosmology, including Heliocentrism in relation to all bodies of the solar system.

This didn't stop Euler from nearly reusing the argument in ... looking up Euler als "Astronom" on my German blog ... in "59:sten Brief, vom 17. Sept. 1760."

The closest fix star, as I have proven, is at least 400 000 times further away than the Sun is, and all of them, are like the sun made to have orbitting around them planets which, not unlike our earth, are no doubt all meant to be inhabited.

That one didn't age too well, did it?

4 light years = 37 842 113 600 000 000 m / AU = 149 597 870 700 m = 252 958.9 times, a bit more than half of 400 000. When I say the distance is only 173 times the AU, I'm referring to my own conclusion that the fix stars are one light day up.

But Euler actually gives another argument too. Physical necessity. Newton gives the two-body problem, Euler adds that the gravitation of the fix stars can be left unaccounted for, since too small, then says that there isn't really any many-body problem, since the Sun makes each planet involved in a two body problem which can leave out all of the other planets. In other words, the real argument is, Geocentrism wouldn't work, physically, as a result of gravitation and inertia.

The point is, I agree.

We observe Geocentrism, it wouldn't work as a result of gravitation and inertia alone, it's artistic and therefore needs an agent who can decide with comprehension, not just blind forces that can cause without deciding to do so.

This brings us to a point about the Biblical proof texts for Geocentrism. Did Shaun Doyle include these two? Here:

The man went his way, and told the Jews, that it was Jesus who had made him whole Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath But Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work
[John 5:15-17]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable
[Romans 1:18-20]

What exact work or act of God is indisputably done on a Sabbath? And what exact visible phenomenon can show both that God is Lord of the entire universe, not just locally, and that His power is inexhaustible?

Upholding the universe in existence? Some would argue God put existence into matter so it stays in existence over a Sabbath. And some would not attribute existence as such to God in the first place.

The code of DNA? Not visible to the naked eye since the beginning of creation. And as codes aren't switched every day within an organism, upholding it also doesn't show as done on a Sabbath.

The solar days is c. 5 minutes slower than the stellar day. 24 h precisely for the solar day (because the equinoctial hour is precisely 1/24 of it). 23 h. 56 min. 4. sth sec. ... that's the time between two occasions when Sirius or α Centauri or Vega or whatever are at zenit over a given location. It's not just the Sun and Moon that move, it's th stars way outside them too (plus a few more stars that aren't tied to the sidereal day, but which wander over the zodiac, they are, like Sun and Moon, called planets).

The exegetic solution that might fix Joshua 10:13 would backfire on these two items. And what about Joshua 10:12? Here we are not told what the Sun and Moon did, and would have looked like doing even if it was actually Earth that did the reverse. We are told what Sun and Moon were supposed to do, and we are not told that Earth was supposed to do anything. And as Joshua uttered the words after a prayer, we can presume God inspired him to these exact words.

Many Heliocentric supposed Catholics (some of them with real devotion and belief in all the mainly talked of dogmas, like all of Denzinger, who left out the 1633 decision, but they are not accepting Pope Michael II) will pretend that Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus defined that phenomenal language was the key to all Geocentric proof texts in the Bible. No, he didn't. He mentioned phenomenal language as a possible key in reconciling the Bible and science, but he definitely did not decide on what issues this was the good key.

Again, Benedict XV is reputed to have confirmed this "koshering" of Heliocentrism in Spiritus Paraclitus from 15th Sept. 1920. Again, he refrained from deciding what issues this applied to or what exegesis the Church had on Joshua 10:12 or John 5 or Romans 1. I've read both of the encyclicals and neither made such a decision. Or directly on Geocentrism or Heliocentrism.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Simon of Trier
1.VI.2026

Treviris sancti Simeonis Monachi, qui a Benedicto Papa Nono in Sanctorum numerum relatus est.

Flood or Floods, Missoula?

CMI poses, there was one Flood:

The Lake Missoula Flood
By Michael J. Oard | Published 13 Jul, 2015 | Updated 25 May, 2026
https://creation.com/en/articles/lake-missoula-flood

For forty years, secular geologists denied the Lake Missoula flood happened, despite hundreds of pieces of evidence. They thought it was too ‘biblical’ in scale. Although it is now accepted, most secular geologists believe forty or more separate floods have occurred.

I have nothing in principle against a "biblical" scale, but ...

Missoula floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_floods

Duration Between 15,000 and 13,000 years ago

So, 13,000 to 11,000 BC ... is that carbon dates?

2673 BC

27.32 pmC, dated as 13,399 BC

2634 BC

37.009 pmC, dated as 10,851 BC

If those dates are obtained from organic material, I would say, the span of the events range over somewhat less than the 39 years between 2673 and 2634 BC./HGL

Was the Book of Genesis Revealed to Moses from 1:1 to 50:25?

There might be some old commentaries that would lead to believe so.

However, recall the Hebrew name of the book is also the incipit of a passage.

Bereshit.

It means "to biblion tes Geneseos" but it also means "en arché" (Genesis 1:1)

ΕΝ ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν.

I hold that God revealed this to Moses on Sinai up to 2:4

Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὅτε ἐγένετο

But, as in Hebrew, this passage (pericope or parasha) has the same name as the entire book, some will, very erroneously, hold that either Moses knew nothing at all from simple oral tradition about Joseph in Egypt, or he didn't trust the traditional knowledge.

From 2:5 to 50:25, Moses accessed tradition from the participants. (The verses before Adam was created would have been revealed to him rather than to Moses, and while 1:28 to 30 ould have been part of this, this was doubled and superseded by God's granting Moses a vision).

Here is how Haydock figures this out:

— 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 basically all of Genesis 3, and probably Genesis 2, but added onto other comments on Genesis 3:24)*

As he used Ussher chronology and I use a LXX based, my own view of "minimally overlapping generations" is somewhat different in detail:

I have often cited Father George Leo Haydock's last comment on Genesis 3, which does not make this blunder, and I only disagree on the exact number of minimal overlaps of generations. On the other hand I think, Abraham received chapters 1 to 11 or 2 to 11 (if contrary to Hunter's view the creation days were revealed to Moses rather than Adam, or re-revealed to Moses after the tradition had lost them) and no more than that orally, but from chapter 12 on his scribes could write things that were preserved in the Beduin tribe from his day to the settling in Egypt, with appropriate copies whenever the tribe divided. And even with LXX chronology, Abraham is the sixth, which is even better than Moses being the eighth, in minimal overlaps.

Sylvester Joseph Hunter on Genesis, Henry Morris on 15 Cubits

So, unlike a certain physics teacher I've spoken with** (and who had the attitude of schooling me on each argument, despite winning only one, and that by a sleight of hand), George Leo Haydock and Sylvester Joseph Hunter were actual Catholic priests, were also not illiterate in humanities by being narrowly concentrated on "science" and still sharing its commonest overreaches into philosophy and such a clear humanities issue as reliability of oral tradition.

They were also experts on Catholic theology on this matter.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pentecost Lord's Day, 24.V.2026

---

* Genesis 4 involves information later than Adam's life, as is certainly the case with Genesis 5 and ensuing, so Genesis 3:24 was the latest practical place to set this comment.

** Our dialogue:

Entretient avec Hans-Georg Lundahl
Gamaliel | 13 mai 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbA12hcq6Q4

my correction of his sleight of hand:

New blog on the kid : Einstein aurait prouvé que ...
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2026/05/einstein-aurait-prouve-que.html

How Much Tectonic Movement Was There in the Flood?

New blog on the kid: Is there a Fifth Corner? · Creation vs. Evolution: How Much Tectonic Movement Was There in the Flood?

CMI and AiG are reputed to have a heat problem.

All tectonic stages from Pangaea to present configuration and all of this in the Flood.

I hold the original four corners of a presumable rectangle or trapezoid are still visible.

The Atlantic has been opened up, matter has been shoved up (mapreading as N = "up") to the Northern areas of Baffin Bay, i e those parts of Canada and all of Greenland.

The Indian Ocean has opened up when India was shoved up (making the Himalaya) and the Antarctic shoved down and Australia with Tasmania shoved East.

But, I don't hold that all of this was ready just after the Flood. No. The Himalayas were rising* to the degree of instability that the Siwalik hills only became inhabitable after Babel, several centuries after the Flood.** The same would be true for other movements, like South America moving away from Africa. The Pyrenees too have only post-Babel human remains, as they were also rising.

Obviously, the Flood did a lot of the job, but there was somemovement just after and it did for some centuries prevent spread of human habitation to some areas.

I think that is to be taken into account when assessing the tectonic movement of the Flood, and if correct, it solves the Heat Problem.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts. Nereus and Achilleus, Martyrs
12.V.2026

Romae, via Ardeatina, sanctorum Martyrum Nerei et Achillei fratrum, qui primo cum Flavia Domitilla, cujus erant eunuchi, in insula Pontia longum pro Christo duxerunt exsilium; postmodum gravissimis verberibus attrectati sunt; deinde, cum a Minutio Rufo, viro Consulari, equuleo et flammis ad immolandum compellerentur, dicerentque se, a beato Petro Apostolo baptizatos, nulla ratione posse idolis immolare, capite caesi sunt. Horum sacrae reliquiae, simulque Flaviae Domitillae, ex Diaconia sancti Hadriani in antiquum eorum Titulum, ubi asservabantur olim reconditae, denuo restauratum, solemniter translatae sunt pridie hujus diei, jussu Clementis Papae Octavi; qui exinde hodierna celebrandum die indixit etiam festum ipsius beatae Domitillae Virginis, cujus passio Nonis hujus mensis recensetur.

* Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked

** Gudrun Corvinus states in an addendum to her article:

The occupation of the Patu people then must have occurred before 7 000 B.P.

Let's say 5000 BC:

2189 BC

70.415 pmC, dated as 5089 BC

2187 BC

Eber died

2166 BC

71.553 pmC, dated as 4933 BC

2189—2166 BC, with Flood in 2958 BC = basically 800 years. Now, that was sloppy, since 7 000 BP is not usually calibrated to 5000 BC exactly. But if this means "cal BP" then that, being between 7050 and 6950 cal BP, is somewhere around 5050 BC. See the pdf on Minze Stuiver and Bernd Becker's High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC and scroll down to Fig. 20 on p. 55.

From Some Earlier Debates, I Know, Some Think Egyptian Documents Confirm Menes or Narmer, as c. 3100 BC in History As Well As in Carbon Dates

Vindicated! · Some People Think Administrators Don't Lie, Religious People Do · From Some Earlier Debates, I Know, Some Think Egyptian Documents Confirm Menes or Narmer, as c. 3100 BC in History As Well As in Carbon Dates

Diodorus Siculus, 1st C BC, thought, from Egyptian sources that Menes ruled 5000 years earlier.

The Search for the Earliest Kings of Egypt
World of Antiquity | 7 Oct. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4TeOQrbVjk

Manetho and Abydos King List would agree Menes was the first human ruler.

Palermo King List, which is earlier, doesn't.

we do get the names of some king that immediately preceded the first dynasty: 7:54 Seka, Khayu, Tiu, Thesh, Neheb, Wazner, Mekh. These names do not match the names of gods 8:03 or demigods or spirits of the dead mentioned in Manetho or Diodorus.

If carbon dates associated with Narmer or Menes give c. 3100 BC, I have two solutions possible, for how Abraham met him somewhat before carbon dated 3500 BC:

• like Abraham, he lived long after their meeting, and so his grave has a much later carbon date:
  
  

  1936 BC

  82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC
  
  

  ...
  
  

  1816 BC

  Esau is 40, Jacob goes to Laban

  1798 BC

  85.566 pmC, dated as 3087 BC

  
  
  Doesn't function very well with my current calibration.
  
  
• Abraham actually didn't meet Narmer or Menes, but an earlier, pre-unification, king. Like one of Seka, Khayu, Tiu, Thesh, Neheb, Wazner, Mekh.

But either way, a historiography which was able to place Menes variously 3100 BC or 5100 BC was obviously not sufficiently documented about at least these early times to actually calibrate carbon.

Unlike the historic date for the War of Troy:

1179 BC

100 pmC, dated as 1179 BC

Citing my own comment under that one:

VIII, The Fall of Troy

In a way this is the least original. History says (Eratosthenes and precursors of the Christmas Day reading) Troy fell 1179 BC. There is at Troy a destruction layer dated to 1180 BC. I take this as the first detected occurrence of 100 pmC in the atmosphere back then.

This refers to:

The fall of Troy		1184 BC
	interval of 80 years
The return of the Heraclidae		1104
	interval of 60 years
The settlement of Ionia		1044
	interval of 159 years
The regency of Lycurgus		885
	interval of 108 years
The year before the 1st Olympiad		777
The First Olympiad		776

THE CHRONOLOGY OF ERATOSTHENES
By Darrell Wolcott
http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org/id143.html

And the Olympiads actually function kind of as an epoch (like AD does).

Genesis 5 and 11 are a better documentation of time passing than old Egyptian sources, not a worse one.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Michael in Mount Gargano
8.V.2026

In monte Gargano Apparitio sancti Michaelis Archangeli, quem Pius Papa Duodecimus Radiologis et Radiumtherapeuticis Patronum et Protectorem constituit.

PS, it seems Dynasty 0 was in the South, so, Seka, Khayu, Tiu, Thesh, Neheb, Wazner, Mekh might have been too far South to meet Abraham./HGL

An Early Sprachbund Needs an Early Contact

Was Indo-European Group a Sprachbund? · An Early Sprachbund Needs an Early Contact

A few years ago, I wrote:

I think the trade routes we are dealing with would push bilinguals and polyglots to the forefront in these areas for centuries (the trade routes Dan Davis speak of are not springing into existence in 1550 BC to end in 1450 BC in isolation), and, as said, such people carry on habits from one of their languages into another.

Creation vs. Evolution: Was Indo-European Group a Sprachbund?
Wedn. 18 Jan. 2023 | Hans Georg Lundahl
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/01/was-indo-european-group-sprachbund.html

Now, I have a reason to maybe push this further back, depending on what the following calibrates to:

The rise of Mycenean culture during the same period was undoubtedly also linked to the formation and establishment of such a new ruling warrior aristocracy. The travelling specialists who accompanied the introduction of this new institution, whether through trade or conquest, were responsible for expanding the horse equipment and its highly elaborate decoration that was associated with this new institution. It explains why similarly decorated antler bits are found from Denmark to Greece during the formative years 1750-1500 BCE, and also explains why chariots are depicted in rock art in Scandinavia and on early Mycenaean grave stelae during the same period.

Middle Bronze Age Decorated Antler Horse Bits Linking Denmark, Hungary and Early Mycenean Greece
by Kristian Kristiansen | [from] Mediterranean Horizons / Archaeological Studies in Honour of Søren Dietz
https://www.academia.edu/166139657/Middle_Bronze_Age_Decorated_Antler_Horse_Bits_Linking_Denmark_Hungary_and_Early_Mycenean_Greece

Let's look up the years* ...

1558 BC

97.75 pmC, dated as 1746 BC

...

1471 BC

99.049 pmC, dated as 1550 BC

Nope, on my calibration from Christmas 2024, the years are the same ... roughly speaking./HGL

* Table VI—VI/VII and node VII in Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy

I'm Not Ron Wyatt

Before 45 minutes and 1 second to after 45 minutes and 42 seconds:

In one sense it doesn't matter at all. But my concern here is, you know, the reason I'm interested in it is that I don't want Christians to be misled into thinking that we have this powerful confirmation of the Bible that actually turns out to be bogus. You know, pointing to things in social media posts about, oh don't, you know, they've found chariot wheels in the Red Sea and they have the pillars of Solomon and there's a shallow sand bridge here when that turns out not to be true because you know, the danger is if a Christian maybe is convinced that this is proof of the Bible and they believe the Bible for this reason, what happens when somebody else comes along and points out, no, the evidence really doesn't align with this idea. It's based on the claims of Ron Wyatt and he's, you know, proven charlatan in many ways, is their faith going to be shipwrecked as a result?

Why This Red Sea Crossing Theory Doesn’t Hold Water
Creation Ministries International | 11 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neoYzTGLt0s

Now, Ron Wyatt claimed to have gone to excavations that other people have either criticised or found not really credible.

I'm not making such a claim.

When I refer to a fact, if I "discovered" it, it was by maths and logic, or by going to the Bible text, it was not by personal and ill documented exploits of an explorer.

Even Graham Hancock has looked on more material himself than I have, I'm far closer to him than to Ron Wyatt, except, I'm a Christian.

So, when I say "in 4500 BC, when Laish was founded, it was ..."

2097 BC

74.949 pmC, dated as 4481 BC

I'm referring to a post of mine:

Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

If you go over there, you find there are two other posts around, one from Joseph in Egypt to the Fall of Troy, and one called Preliminaries.

On Flood to Joseph in Egypt, that section is on table III—IV. On preliminaries, you will find III = end of Babel = Göbekli Tepe, birth of Peleg, 401 years after the Flood (II = beginning of Babel = Göbekli Tepe, death of Noah, 350 years after the Flood), and you may disagree with that. You may think Peleg was born 101 after the Flood or 530 after the Flood. You may disagree on Göbekli Tepe being Nimrod's Babel. If so, go to the post Preliminaries to see what I did.

You will also find IV is Genesis 14, real date 1935 BC, carbon date 3500 BC, from the reed mats when the Chalcolithic people of En-Geddi = Asason Tamar evacuated, corresponding to them being attacked in Genesis 14.

Under the nodes III and IV and all other nodes, you will find a date I think is the Biblical date and a carbon date I think is the archaeological item to the Biblical event. And you will find a decimal fraction, which, if converted to percentage fraction, translates as the pmC level of the atmosphere back then.

Under this enumeration of the nodes, you will find how I did the tables between the nodes.

So, if you agree with two consecutive nodes of mine (I/II and VI/VII have been inserted between a I and a II and between a VI and a VII already so identified in previous versions of my tables), you should, unless you insert a node in between them, agree with my table in principle.

But if you don't agree with a table, it should be because you either disagree on its two limiting nodes (Biblical date if you have another chronology or carbon date if you read another article, or identification, if you disagree with my assessment). You are perfectly free to use my method (I appreciate if you acknowledge I gave this cue) according to your own preferences, in an article of your own.

I'd like to see your results and be able to criticise them.

And I'd very much appreciate not to be compared to people who are just asking you to take their word.

Right now, I'm assessing whether I should revise my Exodus chronology to make it Amenophis II. Or Amenhotep II. The video I just cited would actually tell me, if not its author, that this is not the best choice, but I'm still on the fence. Why not? Because Keaton Halley argues that at this time no one was extending "Egypt" into Canaan, even as far as Sinai. From the promise to Abraham, his seed were 430 years in "Egypt" (Hebrew wording of Moses), or in "Egypt and Canaan" (Greek wording of LXX translators), meaning, when Jacob is in Bethel, this is within the 430 years "in Egypt" ... That is not a 19th Dynasty Situation.

I'm happy to get involved in debates on my other "claims" which are also not claims of discovery in the exploration sense, just claims of putting two and two together. From things already known, already published, already discussed in some cases.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
IIIrd LD after Easter
26.IV.2026

PS, obviously, the going after someone in his writings you acknowledge is a far less intrusive way than some to preserve Christians from falling away after trusting him too much or non-Christians from not converting when meeting Christians who still do. Making a deal to keep someone's writings a "secret" is obviously far likelier to bring financial trouble to the person concerned./HGL

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.

* As males are more wont to do, right?

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

Vindicated! · Some People Think Administrators Don't Lie, Religious People Do · From Some Earlier Debates, I Know, Some Think Egyptian Documents Confirm Menes or Narmer, as c. 3100 BC in History As Well As in Carbon Dates

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 · From Some Earlier Debates, I Know, Some Think Egyptian Documents Confirm Menes or Narmer, as c. 3100 BC in History As Well As in Carbon Dates

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