Does Andrew Sibley Know Geography?

New theory about Indo-European language origin
by Andrew Sibley | This article is from
Creation 46(3):45, July 2024
https://creation.com/indo-euro-language-theory

First, he doesn't know linguistics.

No PIE writings are known; rather, PIE has been reconstructed from comparing its known descendants, especially old languages like Latin, Sanskrit, and Ancient Greek. PIE must have had a very complex grammar.

Latin, Sanskrit and Ancient Greek don't have a "very complex grammar." They have a rich verb morphology, which alleviates the need for complexities in syntax. In Latin (which I know better than Greek), the sentence "si me vocavisses, venissem" means "if you had called me, I would have come" ... so, "venissem" corresponds to "I would have come" (in this context). One could say that "I would have come" is just morphology, like "venissem" but let's negate: "etsi me vocavisses, non venissem" = "even if you had called me, I wouldn't have come" ... is adding the negation after would, as a clitic, still morphology or is it syntax? I think most would say it is syntax. The negation is in English added after the verb form that is both "finite" (that is, in relation to Latin terminology not quite applicable to English, defined as to which of the three persons) and an "auxiliary" (a verb that modally or temporally defines the main verb, which is then a non-finite, often the infinitive). We can take the past as statements. "Cum me vocaveris, veni" = "when you called me, I came" and now take the negated form "cum me vocaveris, non veni" ... how do you say this in English? If the negation is added after any finite verb, as in other Germanic languages, it's "when you called me, I came not" ... this is understandable, but it's Biblical or Shakespearean, in current English, only auxiliaries can take the question inversion or the negation, so, "when you called me, I didn't come" ...

When you speak English, all of this is obvious, and you don't think of it as complex syntax, but it really is. In Swedish or German, the last sentence would have a finite main verb, but also use the V-2 rule, and consider the subsidiary temporal clause as "word/phrase" 1 in the main clause, another complexity of syntax: "när du kallade mig, kom jag intet" or "als du mich ruftest, kam ich nicht" ... the apparent inversion between subject and predicate, reminiscent of the question inversion is actually explained by positions within the main clause: 1) när du kallade mig 2) kom 3) jag 4) intet / 1) als du mich ruftest 2) kam 3) ich 4) nicht. Non-English Germanic languages, and I think Anglo-Saxon too, have this rule, called the V-2 rule. Note also, here the negation doesn't immediately follow the verb, but the subject (even if it is a noun) is interposed between finite verb and the negation. If the finite verb is an auxiliary in German, the main but non-finite verb comes very last: 1) als du mich ruftest 2) bin 3) ich 4) nicht 5) gekommen.

I think you will agree, Germanic languages overall, even English, have a quirky and "over regulated" syntax in compensation for simplicity of morphology. But there is more. Since Bopp, some have taken Hittite into account when reconstructing Proto-Indo-European.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_grammar#Verb_conjugation

When compared with other early-attested Indo-European languages, such as Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, the verb system is Hittite is morphologically relatively uncomplicated. There are two general verbal classes according to which verbs are inflected, the mi-conjugation and the ḫi-conjugation. The names are drawn by the ending of the first person singular in the present tense.

And Hittite is not only much older, but also less related to Greek and Latin than they are to each other (not sure if this would be the case with Celtic as well, Old Irish has similar verb prefixes to Hittite), so it is presumed to to have split off earlier than the rest from each other. This would suggest to people buying into this theory, that Hittite reflects an older version of the Indo-European verb system (Greek and Latin declinsions in -o are considered by linguist to correspond to Hittite declinsion in -ḫi, and obviously the Hittite declinsion in -mi corresponds to the Greek declinsion in -mi and in Latin mainly the verb sum). And this would suggest that the oldest Proto-Indo-European had a much simpler verb system than Latin, Greek, and especially Sanskrit. In other words, verb systems have become more complex (has also happened in English, which has 16 tenses, compared with 8 for the other Germanic languages). Don't worry. Doesn't mean development or evolution adds information, it is clearly a case of intelligent design ... yes, from time to time people intelligently re-design their own language.

"I like beer." — "Me too." — "Me three"

Reinterpreting "me too" as "me two" = "myself the second in the category you introduced" which allows for "me three" is obviously an intelligent redesign of English syntax. It's not a mutation.

But, the title of this essay asked about geography, how good Sibley is at that.

The new proposed location is about 1,000 km (600 miles) from Mesopotamia, some 500 km (300 miles) closer than Anatolia (2), previously the closest suggested origin location of PIE.

Anatolia and Mesopotamia overlap. Anatolia basically means "rising sun" so "east" and in context "east of Asia Minor within the modern state of Turkey as well as its predecessor Ottoman and possibly Byzantine Empires" or perhaps rather "Eastern parts of Asia Minor, with coast line to the Black Sea, but none to the Mediterranean" ... and this divides into, West to East, and starting in the Southern part for now: 1) Cilicia inside the coastal region, 2) Mesopotamia, 3) Armenia. If you follow the Black Sea coast, indeed there is no Mesopotamia up there, since Mesopotamia means "between Tigris and Euphrates", since these two rivers flow South and since NO rivers start from the Sea and flow inland. So, the parts of Turkey with Mesopotamia go, from North to South: 1) Black Sea, 2) Taurus Mountains, 3) Mesopotamia, which latter continues into Syria and Iraq.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_Mountains#Southeastern_Taurus

The Southeastern Taurus Mountains form the northern boundary of the Southeastern Anatolia Region and North Mesopotamia. They include the Nurhak Mountains, Malatya Mountains, Maden Mountains, Genç Mountains, and Bitlis Mountains. They are in the watershed of the Euphrates River and Tigris River.

Meaning, South-East Anatolia, and North Mesopotamia, overlap. Now, if Nimrod's Babel was in this region, as I believe and as some already reputed Creationists have supported, though not specifically my take of Göbekli Tepe, which is in this region, this would make Anatolia a pretty ideal origin for Indo-European, whether it was a family or a Sprachbund. Let's pursue this too, for good measure:

PIE was one of several (perhaps several dozen) ‘stem’ languages created at that time.

I would certainly agree stem languages were created at the time. But more like exactly 72. Exactly matching names in the Table of Nations. And I would argue, several of them came to influence each other, in a Sprachbund, in Anatolia West of Babel. Hittite and Celtic would originate in the territory of Gomer, then part of Gomer (Celtic) would go West and get modified by other languages. West of (original place of) Gomer, you had Javan in Greece, and between Javan and Gomer you had the Semitic Lud in Western Asia Minor.

The genetic origins from Yamnaya or Caucasus became relevant for the peopling of Europe, but linguistically they were outside the original Indo-European Sprachbund — just as languages influencing West-Gomeric to become Celtic were. If you agree all of Iberia spoke languages related to Basque in pre-Celtic and pre-Roman periods of Spain, the Basque-Iberic language coincides with the input from Bell Beaker genetics, apart from in Basque country itself where it mixed with Western Hunter Gatherers. In a ratio as dominant for Bell Beaker genetics as Yamnaya is for Bell Beaker. These guys certainly contributed something to Indo-European languages, but not all of it, and they contributed more to Basque, which explains Basque and Caucasus cognates (or related words). I'll let you read this one:

The Anthropological Context of Euskaro-Caucasian
Bengtson, J. D. | Santa Fe Institute, 2017
https://santafe.edu/research/results/papers/6557-the-anthropological-context-of-euskaro-caucas

The article was written before the more recent research linking Yamnaya to Basque-Iberian.

Origins and spread of Indo-European languages: an alternative view
8th December 2024 | by Alberto
https://adnaera.com/2024/12/08/origins-and-spread-of-indo-european-languages-an-alternative-view/

By the time they reached Central Europe around 2800 BC*, the CWH** people had around 30% admixture from the Neolithic farmers. Quite a significant amount, but not surprising given how fast a small population can change genetically when they start incorporating “foreign” genes into their pool.

And

On their way to the Iberian peninsula and in the peninsula itself, however, they did find some surviving Neolithic communities as again we see further admixture coming from the “foreign” females they were incorporating into their own communities. By the time they had settled the Iberian peninsula, this admixture had increased to around 70%. .... What all the process described in the above paragraphs basically means is that Northern and Western Europe were completely (re)populated by people who came from the steppe. By communities, clans, of people that came from the steppe. This was not a 50% replacement of the previous Neolithic population. It was a 100% replacement.

This means, it was the whole Iberian Peninsula, peopled mainly by Steppe communities, that spoke Ibero-Basque, so, the Steppe communities spoke Ibero-Basque too.

The same learned team, for which Alberto González is a spokesman along with a Robert, argues that the actual Indo-European languages spread later over this repeopled Europe, but also the South East which was outside the current and kept more Early European Farmers, from the Balkans or the South-East.

Which fits neatly with my view on a Sprachbund between Anatolia and Greece being the starting point.

By carbon dated 1400 to 1200 BC*** we have a Mycenaean Greek influx into the Terramare Culture of North Italy, and it's trading all the way up to the Baltic, making for conditions for other combinations of languages influencing each other, in which Mycenaean Greek would already start out as Indo-European and other languages become so by adopting Indo-European traits.

In other words, a PIE unity is not absolutely vital to explaining the IE unifiers, both vocabulary and grammar.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Maurilius of Angers
13.IX.2025

Andegavi, in Gallia, sancti Maurilii Episcopi, qui innumeris miraculis claruit.

PS, if some say that Basques as to Basques, not the rest of Iberian Peninsula, have unique DNA, yes, but, the thing is if Basque is identic to Iberian back in the day, Iberian outside the Basque country presumably didn't get their Basque like language from the small Basque minority./HGL

* Carbon dated 2800 BC = c. 1700 BC, death of Joseph's pharao who would be Djoser, in my tables, see Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt Carbon dated 2500 BC, also mentioned in the text, sounds like 300 years later, but is between 1678 and 1656 BC according to Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy
** Chorded Ware Horizon
*** 1395 to 1210 would really be 1349 to 1203 BC, according to Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy

Flood to End of Babel, Demographics

I'll presume (unlike some adherrents of Ussher) that Babel ended when Peleg was born.

So, Peleg was born 101, 401 or 531 after the Flood.

I'll presume Noah had no extra son born on the Ark, or after it. I'll also have an annual population increase of 2, 3, 4 or 5 %. Starting with 8 people.

8 * 1.02101 = 59		8 * 1.03101 = 158		8 * 1.04101 = 420		8 * 1.05101 = 1105
8 * 1.02401 = 22 478		8 * 1.03401 = 1 124 131		8 * 1.04401 = 54 132 620		8 * 1.05401 = 2 511 880 150
8 * 1.02531 = 294 972		8 * 1.03531 = 52 439 230		8 * 1.04531 = 8 867 335 788		8 * 1.05531 = 1 427 604 121 610

I think there is a reason why people holding to a Masoretic chronology tend to say Babel and the Confusion of tongues could have been later on in Peleg's life. According to Andrew Sibley,* this happened very early, since the author or authors of Seder Olam Rabbah were constrained to Masoretic chronology:

But at what point in Peleg’s life do the events occur? Answering this question is important because it will help us understand the timeframe of post-Flood climatic changes and human migration. A number of present-day Christians who hold to a literal reading of Genesis consider that the reference to Peleg is linked to his birth, combined with acceptance of the MT. This suggests the Babel incident occurred as early as 101 years after the Noahic Flood, although with some flexibility of several decades (figure 1).

...

But in addition to this consideration, the first-century commentary of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, follows the longer timeframe of the Septuagint (LXX) and Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and places the events at Peleg’s birth. While early commentaries on the MT, for instance the Seder Olam Rabbah, place the events at a later stage in Peleg’s life, namely at his death. But both early approaches require at least several hundred years from the Flood to the Babel event, and this length of time is supported by the Book of Jubilees. This evidence constrains the time of the Babel scattering to several centuries post-Flood.

Well, how about taking this as a reason to accept the view of Antiquities, namely that Peleg was born later than 101 after the Flood?

I would say, another consideration than the one brought up by Andrew Sibley, Joctan's tribes, tends to exclude the birth of Peleg as early as 101 after the Flood. We'll have a look at the population growth if instead we have 6 or 7 % ...

8 * 1.06¹⁰¹ = 2877, 8 * 1.07¹⁰¹ = 7427

At 7 % annual population increase, it just could work, even with a geographical spread. At 5 %, one would need to have all of mankind huddling together at Babel.

However, at 401 years, 2 or 3 % would do just fine, 4 would start to be excessive. At 531 years, 2 % would be OK, 3 % would approach excessive.

This brings us to the next point, was Babel before or after the geographic spread of mankind over much if not necessarily every nook and cranny of our globe?

As readers of my blog will be aware, it was after some very considerable spread, if you ask me. This is often contested in the form "but they precisely refused to spread", so, let's look at the text:

And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands
[Genesis 11:4]

I would say, this was not said by every living human person (except small children), it was said by a specific élite which still had the habit of coming together regularly, which already had a notion of "all lands" (and which had therefore already experienced geographic spread), and the point was not disobeying God's command of spreading, but of resisting its consequence, the élites becoming local chieftains without international contacts. They were the proverbial they, and they wanted to remain an international élite.

I'll propose a reading of the narratives, in which the Babel narrative actually starts in verse 2, first mention of "they" ... so, what does verse 1 belong to? It comes at the end of "table of nations" ...

... These are the families of Noe, according to their peoples and nations. By these were the nations divided on the earth after the flood. And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech.
[Genesis 10:32—11:1]

So, the verses in ending each of the three sons' genealogies, they mention "tongues" as an edit added after the Babel event.

By these were divided the islands of the Gentiles in their lands, every one according to his tongue and their families in their nations ... These are the children of Cham in their kindreds, and tongues, and generations, and lands, and nations ... These are the children of Sem according to their kindreds and tongues, and countries in their nations ...
[Genesis 10:5, 10:20, 10:31]

The account is redacted, perhaps by Noah before he died, and after Babel, a re-edit adds "languages" or "tongues" and also adds chapter 11 verse 1 so as to indicate this was proleptic. Another edit would be the inclusion of Peleg and of Joctan, and then, further on, the posterity of Joctan. However, the Babel narrative as such starts with chapter 11, verse 2.

"They" is in Hebrew the grammatical form of 3mp, third person, masculine, plural. It does not grammatically refer back to "the earth" which is feminine singular. And if we assume it can mean something less than all of the human population on earth, we can have a geographic spread before Babel, and Babel starting with a displacement of the global élite, from East of Tigris, presumably the landing place in Armenia, to West of Tigris, whereever Babel was, and this presumably also in purely travelling directions from East to West, i e to for instance Göbekli Tepe, with the Harran plain directly mentioned:

And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it
[Genesis 11:2]

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Sosthenes
28.XI.2024

Apud Corinthum natalis sancti Sosthenis, ex beati Pauli Apostoli discipulis; cujus mentionem facit idem Apostolus Corinthiis scribens. Ipse autem Sosthenes, ex principe Synagogae conversus ad Christum, fidei suae primordia, ante Gallionem Proconsulem acriter verberatus, praeclaro initio consecravit.

* Dating the Tower of Babel events with reference to Peleg and Joktan.

Haydock Bible, and Catholic Young Earth Creationism

When Protestant Young Earthers are asked to explain why so many have heard of Old Earth Creationism, they pick out Darby and the Scofield Bible.

The influence of John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), and the Scofield Reference Bible (1909, 1917), led many members of the Plymouth Brethren movement to adopt belief in old-earth creation, as opposed to young-earth creation, or theistic evolution. The preferred old-earth view was the gap theory, with less willingness to accept belief in pre-Adamic races, or the day-age position.

John Nelson Darby, the Scofield Reference Bible, and the rise of old-earth creationism
by Andrew Sibley | This article is from
Journal of Creation 36(3):123–128, December 2022
https://creation.com/darby-and-scofield-bible

Catholics in France were on the bridge between Day-Age (Fulcran Vigouroux) and Young Earth (P. Laurent and A. Saignet).

Catholics in England between Gap Theory (Cardinal Wiseman) and Young Earth (see below).

Catholics in Germany and Austria has pretty equal preferences for Young Earth (C. F. Keil, J. E. Veith, A. Bosizio, A. Trissl, G. J. Burg) and he other too.

I think this extended into Italy, unless it was a more pure Young Earth preference (V. M. Gatti).

Those deviating from Young Earth were pretty much in the same area as the episcopates which at Vatican II pressed for changes. Here's* a little list:

Ulm, Lemgo, Edinburgh, Paris, London, Petit-Montrouge, Brunswick, Leipzig, Vienna, Mainz, Munich, Regensburg, Trier, Quedlinburg, Louvain, Kœnigsberg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Frankfurt am Main, Lyon, Rouen, Rodez, Clermont-Ferrant, Ghent, Brussels, Madrid (twice), Munster, New York (once), Florence (once), Rome (once), Siena (once), Valladolid (once), Brixen, Barcelona (once ), Steyl, Alessandria (once), Paderborn, Bonn, Linz, Friborg (Switzerland), Geneva, Graz, Cologne, Stuttgart, Berlin, Profnitz.

Whichever the solution, 19th C. Roman Catholic orthodoxy felt like the Haydock Bible that genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 and therefore the spectrum of Biblical chronologies deserved at least quasi-integrity from the Creation of Adam on.

Both United Kingdom (back then extending over Ireland too) with Commonwealth and the US used an edition of Douay Rheims (NT published 1582, OT published 1609–1610) in a revision by Bishop Challoner (Revised in 1749, 1750, and 1752 by Richard Challoner (DRC)). One very famous edition of it was probably the model of the Scofield Bible. I mean of course the Haydock Bible.

As a sample of how it would** have looked, I'll give you first and last verses of Genesis 3, and after that footnotes, which are actually below the Bible text, as are, when given, the Ussher years.

Ver. 1. Why hath God? Hebrew, "Indeed hath God, &c." as if the serpent had overheard Eve arguing with herself, about God's prohibition, with a sort of displeasure and presumption. St. Augustine thinks, she had given some entrance to these passions, and the love of her own power, and hence gave credit to the words of the serpent, de Gen. ad lit. xi. 30.		1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?
She might not know or reflect that the serpent could not reason thus, naturally; and she had as yet, no idea or dread of the devil. (Lombard, 2 Dist. 21.) This old serpent entered into the most subtle of creatures, and either by very expressive signs, or by the motion of the serpent's tongue, held this delusive dialogue with Eve. Moses relates what happened exteriorily; but from many expressions, and from the curse, ver. 15, he sufficiently indicates, that an evil spirit was the latent actor. (Haydock) --- Of every tree. Satan perverts the word of God, giving it an ambiguous turn: in doing which, he has set heretics a pattern, which they follow. (Menochius)
Ver. 24. Cherubims. Angels of the highest order, and of a very complex figure, unlike any one living creature. Theodoret supposes that God forced Adam to retire from that once charming abode, by the apparition of hideous spectres. The devils were also hindered from coming hither, lest they should pluck the fruit of the tree of life, and by promising immortality, should attract men to their service.		24 And he cast out Adam: and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
The flaming sword, might be a fire rising out of the earth, of which Grotius thinks the pits, near Babylon, are still vestiges. These dreadful indications of the divine wrath would probably disappear, when Paradise had lost its superior beauty, and became confounded with the surrounding countries --- Thus we have seen how rapidly Moses describes the creation of all things, the fall of man, and the promised redemption. But in these few lines, we discover a solution of the many difficulties which have perplexed the learned, respecting these most important subjects. We know that the world is not the effect of chance, but created and governed by divine Providence. We are no longer at a loss to explain the surprising contrast of good and evil, observable in the same man. When we have attentively considered the Old Adam and the New[New Adam, Jesus Christ], we find a clue to lead us through all the labyrinths of our Holy Religion. We could wish, perhaps, for a greater detail in Moses, but he left the rest to be supplied by tradition. He has thrown light enough upon the subjects, to guide the well-disposed, and has left sufficient darkness to humble and to confound the self-conceited and wicked, who love darkness rather than the light. (Calmet) --- 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)
4: 2 Corinthians xi. 3. 6: Ecclesiasticus xxv. 33.; 1 Timothy ii. 14. 14: Isaias lxv. 25.; Micheas vii. 17.; Isaias xlix. 23.; Psalm lxxii. 9.		15: Apocalypse xii.; Genesis xlix. 17.; 1 Corinthians xiv. 34. 19: Genesis xviii. 27. 20: Psalms cii. 14. and xxii.[xxi.?] 16.; Ecclesiastes vii. 12.[xii. 7.?]

So, it would be ridiculous if a Catholic, having failed to link my Young Earth Creationism to the Watchtower Society (who are Day-Agers, basically) tried to link it now to Darby.

We Catholics have no reason to tell Protestants (even as gentle ones as Andrew Sibley) that Young Earth Creationism is theirs.

Our English reference Bible is clearly more Young Earth than their Scofield, if you go to GENESIS - Chapter 1 and see for yourself that neither verse 2 nor "first day" and so on are marked out in any Old Earth manner. It may of course have helped that George Leo Haydock commented and his brother Thomas got re-published in 1859, fifty years before the Scofield Bible (1909). Thomas first published in 1811—1823.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Andrew, Apostle and Martyr
30.XI.2023

Apud Patras, in Achaja, natalis sancti Andreae Apostoli, qui in Thracia et Scythia sacrum Christi Evangelium praedicavit. Is, ab Aegea Proconsule comprehensus, primum in carcere clausus est, deinde gravissime caesus, ad ultimum suspensus in cruce, in ea populum docens biduo supervixit; et, rogato Domino ne eum sineret de cruce deponi, circumdatus est magno splendore de caelo, et, abscedente postmodum lumine, emisit spiritum.

* Previously (as the list of Young Earth authors) given in:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Les Prédécesseurs catholiques de Henry Morris (jusqu'à 1920)
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/11/les-predecesseurs-catholiques-de-henry.html

** I had to change the html, so it is no longer two columns all through, but the left hand column is on this page extended to full page width below the right hand column Bible verse. Otherwise, the table would have looked hopelessly narrow on the far right with the actual Bible text.

Quick One on CMI

Jesuit accommodation in relation to biblical chronology and Chinese history
by Andrew Sibley, This article is from
Journal of Creation 36(1):53–56, April 2022
https://creation.com/jesuit-accommodation-and-biblical-chronology

The Jesuit missionaries developed a policy of accommodation in relation to Chinese religious and cultural practices in the 17th century. The Order further received permission in AD 1637 to use the Septuagint, instead of the Latin Vulgate, to try and harmonize the biblical chronology with Chinese history.

The Roman Martyrology (for Dec 25) actually has a Septuagint based chronology, since Creation to Flood is 2242 years LXX for Genesis 5, and Flood to birth of Abraham is 942 years, LXX without the Second Cainan, for Genesis 11./HGL

PS, next day, two more quotes. With comments. First:

Without getting into a discussion over whether the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint provide the better chronology, the Jesuit motivation for preferring the Septuagint was not entirely pure, being based upon an accommodation to non-Christian beliefs.

We are dealing with:

• non-Christian beliefs about history and chronology;
• which unlike Egyptian and Sumerian king lists do not flatly contradict the Bible.

We do not deal with:

• non-Christian beliefs about the universe;
• which (unlike spirit beings moving stars) contradict Christian beliefs about the universe.

Why is the distinction an important one? Because for one, anything contradicting the Bible, as such, all text versions and therefore the original autograph of the hagiographer, is clearly in and of itself by that fact alone false. For another, history and chronology tend to be pretty easy to verify, even by non-Christians (and so are some of the items of cosmology, geocentrism being true and spirits moving celestial bodies, or the soul being immaterial and therefore immortal).

Second:

The China missionaries had gained permission from the Vatican in AD 1637 to use the longer chronology of the Greek Septuagint (LXX), instead of the Latin Vulgate that is based upon the Rabbinical Masoretic Text.

Actually, the Masoretic text is from AD 1000 and the Vulgate from AD c. 400. It is a matter of opinian whether St. Jerome had access to the Hebrew text as in being able to read it, or whether he was using Aquila of Sinope. However, it is very clear that the two earliest translations into Greek are the Septuagint and Aquila. The Septuagint was made by people who were waiting for Christ. Aquila made himself a disciple of rabbi Akiba who represented a Judaism which had already rejected the true promised one.

Now, two or three more things, without quotes.

• With all adaptations that Jesuits made to Chinese rituals, they kept the Catholic belief pure.
• The main harm done by Chinese Rites was by people hearing the one describe it (as does Sibley) as a concession to Pagan and erroneous beliefs, and seeing the other, a Jesuit, as a better friend. People started adapting to, not what the Jesuits did, but what their accusers thought they did.
• Their "adaptation" clearly allowed them to make all of Chinese history post-Flood, if not post-Babel (and "they" who "removed from the East" were arguably not all of mankind, but a global élite, keeping in touch with relatives ranging from Thogorma's to Regma's tribes and Jectan's too. The ones concluding against a global Flood were arguably more likely to come from people sharing the esteem for Chinese historiography and also not sharing the Septuagint solution.
• The secular learned men who were here cited as deviating from Biblical history, namely Vossius, Isaac La Peyrère, Giordano Bruno, were none of them Catholics in good standing with their written works too:
  
  
  • Vossius was a Protestant;
  • Isaac La Peyrère was a Jew, who shilly-shallied about converting to Protestantism or Catholicism, and his book was condemned, even if he was saving his soul, dying among Oratorian fathers in Aubervilliers;
  • Giordano Bruno was a Dominican lapsing from the faith who ended up on the stake in 1600, and Protestants and Freemasons have contributed much more than Catholics or specifically Jesuits to give him an undue influence.

PPS, as Sibley is attacking the fact of believing Pagan beliefs about their history, he is in fact attacking the basis for believing Christian history, including existence of Jesus or authorship of the Gospels or founding of a Church that recognised that authorship and the life of Her Founder, at once Divine and Human.

Because, beliefs about the public or otherwise accessible past is the bread and butter of how history is tested. I'll link to previous writings on diverse of the topics touched on in the comment or comments.
/HGL

What Did Origen Really Say?

What Did Origen Really Say? · What Shall we Say on Origen?

Here is a little remark on the text : the translation for the first 23 chapters of book IV (De Principiis) are different from Latin and from Greek.

Here is a text, as translated from Greek:

16. It was not only, however, with the (Scriptures composed) before the advent (of Christ) that the Spirit thus dealt; but as being the same Spirit, and (proceeding) from the one God, He did the same thing both with the evangelists and the apostles — as even these do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur. Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him. And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place? Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; e.g., the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body— which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen — the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men? And the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted.

...

... All these statements have been made by us, in order to show that the design of that divine power which gave us the sacred Scriptures is, that we should not receive what is presented by the letter alone (such things being sometimes not true in their literal acceptation, but absurd and impossible), but that certain things have been introduced into the actual history and into the legislation that are useful in their literal sense.

19. But that no one may suppose that we assert respecting the whole that no history is real because a certain one is not; and that no law is to be literally observed, because a certain one, (understood) according to the letter, is absurd or impossible; or that the statements regarding the Saviour are not true in a manner perceptible to the senses; or that no commandment and precept of His ought to be obeyed — we have to answer that, with regard to certain things, it is perfectly clear to us that the historical account is true; as that Abraham was buried in the double cave at Hebron, as also Isaac and Jacob, and the wives of each of them; and that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph; and that Jerusalem is the metropolis of Judea, in which the temple of God was built by Solomon; and innumerable other statements. For the passages that are true in their historical meaning are much more numerous than those which are interspersed with a purely spiritual signification. And again, who would not say that the command which enjoins to honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, is useful, apart from all allegorical meaning, and ought to be observed, the Apostle Paul also having employed these very same words? And what need is there to speak of the (prohibitions), You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness? And again, there are commandments contained in the Gospel which admit of no doubt whether they are to be observed according to the letter or not; e.g., that which says, But I say unto you, Whoever is angry with his brother, and so on. And again, But I say unto you, Swear not at all. And in the writings of the apostle the literal sense is to be retained: Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient towards all men; although it is possible for those ambitious of a deeper meaning to retain the profundities of the wisdom of God, without setting aside the commandment in its literal meaning. The careful (reader), however, will be in doubt as to certain points, being unable to show without long investigation whether this history so deemed literally occurred or not, and whether the literal meaning of this law is to be observed or not. And therefore the exact reader must, in obedience to the Saviour's injunction to search the Scriptures, carefully ascertain in how far the literal meaning is true, and in how far impossible; and so far as he can, trace out, by means of similar statements, the meaning everywhere scattered through Scripture of that which cannot be understood in a literal signification.

And from Latin:

16. Nor was it only with regard to those Scriptures which were composed down to the advent of Christ that the Holy Spirit thus dealt; but as being one and the same Spirit, and proceeding from one God, He dealt in the same way with the evangelists and apostles. For even those narratives which He inspired them to write were not composed without the aid of that wisdom of His, the nature of which we have above explained. Whence also in them were intermingled not a few things by which, the historical order of the narrative being interrupted and broken up, the attention of the reader might be recalled, by the impossibility of the case, to an examination of the inner meaning. But, that our meaning may be ascertained by the facts themselves, let us examine the passages of Scripture. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars — the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how anyone can go out from it. But not to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.

...

... The object of all these statements on our part, is to show that it was the design of the Holy Spirit, who deigned to bestow upon us the sacred Scriptures, to show that we were not to be edified by the letter alone, or by everything in it — a thing which we see to be frequently impossible and inconsistent; for in that way not only absurdities, but impossibilities, would be the result; but that we are to understand that certain occurrences were interwoven in this visible history, which, when considered and understood in their inner meaning, give forth a law which is advantageous to men and worthy of God.

19. Let no one, however, entertain the suspicion that we do not believe any history in Scripture to be real, because we suspect certain events related in it not to have taken place; or that no precepts of the law are to be taken literally, because we consider certain of them, in which either the nature or possibility of the case so requires, incapable of being observed; or that we do not believe those predictions which were written of the Saviour to have been fulfilled in a manner palpable to the senses; or that His commandments are not to be literally obeyed. We have therefore to state in answer, since we are manifestly so of opinion, that the truth of the history may and ought to be preserved in the majority of instances. For who can deny that Abraham was buried in the double cave at Hebron, as well as Isaac and Jacob, and each of their wives? Or who doubts that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph? or that Jerusalem is the metropolis of Judea, on which the temple of God was built by Solomon? — and countless other statements. For the passages which hold good in their historical acceptation are much more numerous than those which contain a purely spiritual meaning. Then, again, who would not maintain that the command to honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, is sufficient of itself without any spiritual meaning, and necessary for those who observe it? Especially when Paul also has confirmed the command by repeating it in the same words. And what need is there to speak of the prohibitions, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, and others of the same kind? And with respect to the precepts enjoined in the Gospels, no doubt can be entertained that very many of these are to be literally observed, as, e.g., when our Lord says, But I say unto you, Swear not at all; and when He says, Whosoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart; the admonitions also which are found in the writings of the Apostle Paul, Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient towards all men, and very many others. And yet I have no doubt that an attentive reader will, in numerous instances, hesitate whether this or that history can be considered to be literally true or not; or whether this or that precept ought to be observed according to the letter or no. And therefore great pains and labour are to be employed, until every reader reverentially understand that he is dealing with divine and not human words inserted in the sacred books.

NewAdvent : Origen : De Principiis (Book IV)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm

On 31.III.2022 (a day on which I was robbed), a John Hunt had said:

There are hundred, thousands of Bronze Age creation myths, sure. But they’re impossible to take literally today (it was tough enough in the third century AD, as one of the key Early Church Fathers, Origen, said -And who is so stupid as to imagine that God planted a garden in Eden eastward, and put in it a tree of life, which could be seen and felt?)

He refused to give a reference, and so could gloss over that Origen mainly thought Biblical history historic*. But "history" may also be a category not just on a lean cure as in Origen, but actually lacking from the vocabulary of Kirill of Moscow, on this issue:

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Russia believes science and religion do not contradict each other, as they respond to different questions, and there is no sense in searching an answer to spiritual questions in works on Physics or Biology.

BIO-ORTHODOXY : Patriarch Kirill of Russia: "It is naive to read Genesis as the texbook on anthropogenesis"
http://www.bio-orthodoxy.com/2016/08/patriarch-kirill-of-russia-it-is-naive.html

In the article he is quoted mentioning "anthropogenesis", "physics", "biology", "spiritual questions" as well as "textbook" - but he never mentioned either "history" or "chronicle". I am here not concerned with his arguably believing Adam had physical ancestry and arguably dodging the question how this relates to Adam growing up with or without language, and how that affects spiritual questions**, but with the probability that, as at least nominally Eastern Orthodox (about as much as Bergoglio is Roman Catholic, Tony Palmer was Anglican) he probably thinks or hopes or pretends (to himself as to others) that he has patristic support for this. A little hint, the late Stephen J. Gould was a Jew, not a Christian. And (as is very often the case with them), a nominal one with little regard for actually setting out to believe what his ancestors or predecessors in the religion believed. He was also not a Church Father.

Now, the wording of Kirill, "it is naive" reminds a bit of Origen's (depending on what it is translated from) words in chapter 16 of book IV.

And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east,

And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east,

Because you see, I don't think John Hunt was the first man to quotemine this, I have seen it quotemined again, with a little more context and actual reference, that's how I found the reference, and now, I intend to prove both that this was quotemining and that Origen is perhaps not the most representative of Church Fathers.

First, it is quotemining in omitting that Origen does believe in such a thing as Biblical history - it is just a bit peppered or has cherries on the cake with non-literal episodes. Taking this as "you can't take Genesis literally" is - I won't say "literally", I resist this temptation of a pun - cherry-picking.

Second, it is quotemining in omitting that Origen applies this to the New Testament as well, for instance the episode in Luke 4 and Matthew 4, as he mentioned it:

the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body— which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen — the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men?

as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men?

Third, this leads up to a test on how representative Origen is of the Church Fathers. You see, we can quote a lot of different Church Fathers on both Matthew 4 and Luke 4, taken together in conspectus, namely in a magnificent work by St. Thomas Aquinas, whom Kirill is of course not admitting either patristic orthodoxy or personal canonisable sainthood of. Actually, Matthew 4 makes Origen himself more reasonable than above quote.

Let us first see the verses 8 to 11 in the Bible:

Matthew 4 : [8] Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, [9] And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. [10] Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve. [11] Then the devil left him; and behold angels came and ministered to him.

And here come the Fathers:

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. The Devil, left in uncertainty by this second reply, passes to a third temptation. Christ had broken the nets of appetite, had passed over those of ambition, he now spreads for Him those of covetousness; He taketh him up into a very high mountain, such as in going round about the earth he had noticed rising above the rest. The higher the mountain, the wider the view from it. He shews Him not so as that they truly saw the very kingdoms, cities, nations, their silver and their gold; but the quarters of the earth where each kingdom and city lay. As suppose from some high ground I were to point out to you, see there lies Rome, there Alexandria; you are not supposed to see the towns themselves, but the quarter in which they lie. Thus the Devil might point out the several quarters with his finger, and recount in words the greatness of each kingdom and its condition; for that is said to be shewn whch is in any way presented to the understanding.

ORIGEN. (in Luc. Hom. 30.) We are not to suppose that when he shewed Him the kingdoms of the world, he presented before Him the kingdom of Persia, for instance, or India; but he shewed his own kingdom, how he reigns in the world, that is, how some are governed by fornication, some by avarice.

REMIGIUS. By their glory, is meant, their gold and silver, precious stones and temporal goods.

RABANUS. The Devil shews all this to the Lord, not as though he had power to extend his vision or shew Him any thing unknown. But setting forth in speech as excellent and pleasant, that vain worldly pomp wherein himself delighted, he thought by suggestion of it, to create in Christ a love of it.

GLOSS. (ord.) He saw not, as we see, with the eye of lust, but as a physician looks on disease without receiving any hurt.

JEROME. An arrogant and vain vaunt; for he hath not the power to bestow all kingdoms, since many of the saints have, we know, been made kings by God.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. But such things as are gotten by iniquity in this world, as riches, for instance, gained by fraud or perjury, these the Devil bestows. The Devil therefore cannot give riches to whom he will, but to those only who are willing to receive them of him.

REMIGIUS. Wonderful infatuation in the Devil! To promise earthly kingdoms to Him who gives heavenly kingdoms to His faithful people, and the glory of earth to Him who is Lord of the glory of heaven!

AMBROSE. (in Luc. c. iv. 11.) Ambition has its dangers at home; that it may govern, it is first others’ slave; it bows in flattery that it may rule in honour; and while it would be exalted, it is made to stoop.

GLOSS. (non occ.) See the Devil’s pride as of old. In the beginning he sought to make himself equal with God, now he seeks to usurp the honours due to God, saying, If thou wilt fall down and worship me. Who then worships the Devil must first fall down.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. With these words He puts an end to the temptations of the Devil, that they should proceed no further.

JEROME. The Devil and Peter are not, as many suppose, condemned to the same sentence. To Peter it is said, Get thee behind me, Satan; i. e. follow thou behind Me who art contrary to My will. But here it is, Go, Satan, and is not added ‘behind Me,’ that we may understand into the fire prepared for thee and thy angels.

REMIGIUS. Other copies read, Get thee behind me; i. e. remember thee in what glory thou wast created, and into what misery thou hast fallen.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. Observe how Christ when Himself suffered wrong at the hands of the Devil, being tempted of him, saying, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, yet was not moved to chide the Devil. But now when the Devil usurps the honour of God, he is wroth, and drives him away, saying, Go thy way, Satan; that we may learn by His example to bear injuries to ourselves with magnanimity, but wrongs to God, to endure not so much as to hear; for to be patient under our own wrongs is praiseworthy, to dissemble when God is wronged is impiety.

JEROME. When the Devil says to the Saviour, If thou wilt fall down and worship me, he is answered by the contrary declaration, that it more becomes him to worship Jesus as his Lord and God.

AUGUSTINE. (cont. Serm. Arian. 29.) The one Lord our God is the Holy Trinity, to which alone we justly owe the service of piety.

AUGUSTINE. (De Civ. Dei, x. 1.) By service is to be understood the honour due to God; as our version renders the Greek word ‘latria,’ wherever it occurs in Scripture, by ‘service’ (servitus), but that service which is due to men (as where the Apostle bids slaves be subject to their masters) is in Greek called ‘dulia;’ while ‘latria,’ always, or so often that we say always, is used of that worship which belongs to God.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. The Devil, we may fairly suppose, did not depart in obedience to the command, but the Divine nature of Christ, and the Holy Spirit which was in Him drove him thence, and then the Devil left him. Which also serves for our consolation, to see that the Devil does not tempt the men of God so long as he wills, but so long as Christ suffers. And though He may suffer him to tempt for a short time, yet in the end He drives him away because of the weakness of our nature.

AUGUSTINE. (De Civ. Dei, ix. 21.) After the temptation the Holy Angels, to be dreaded of all unclean spirits, ministered to the Lord, by which it was made yet more manifest to the dæmons how great was His power.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. He says not ‘Angels descended from heaven,’ that it may be known that they were ever on the earth to minister to Him, but had now by the Lord’s command departed from Him, to give opportunity for the Devil to approach, who perhaps when he saw Him surrounded by Angels would not have come near Him. But in what matters they ministered to Him, we cannot know, whether in the healing diseases, or purifying souls, or casting out dæmons; for all these things He does by the ministration of Angels, so that what they do, Himself appears to do. However it is manifest, that they did not now minister to Him because His weakness needed it, but for the honour of His power; for it is not said that they ‘succoured Him,’ but that they ministered to Him.

GREGORY. (non occ. vid. in Ezek. 1:8. n. 24. in 1 Reg. 1:1. n. 1. 2.) In these things is shewn the twofold nature in one person; it is the man whom the Devil tempts; the same is God to whom Angels minister.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. Now let us shortly review what is signified by Christ’s temptations. The fasting is abstinence from things evil, hunger is the desire of evil, bread is the gratification of the desire. He who indulges himself in any evil thing, turns stones into bread. Let him answer to the Devil’s persuasions that man does not live by the indulgence of desire alone, but by keeping the commands of God. When any is puffed up as though he were holy he is led to the temple, and when he esteems himself to have reached the summit of holiness he is set on a pinnacle of the temple. And this temptation follows the first, because victory over temptation begets conceit. But observe that Christ had voluntarily undertaken the fasting; but was led to the temple by the Devil; therefore do you voluntarily use praiseworthy abstinence, but suffer yourself not to be exalted to the summit of sanctity; fly high-mindedness, and you will not suffer a fall. The ascent of the mountain is the going forward to great riches, and the glory of this world which springs from pride of heart. When you desire to become rich, that is, to ascend the mountain, you begin to think of the ways of gaining wealth and honours, then the prince of this world is shewing you the glory of his kingdom. In the third place He provides you reasons, that if you seek to obtain all these things, you should serve him, and neglect the righteousness of God.

HILARY. When we have overcome the Devil and bruised his head, we see that Angels’ ministry and the offices of heavenly virtues will not be wanting to us.

AUGUSTINE. (De Cons. Ev. ii. 16.) Luke has not given the temptations in the same order as Matthew; so that we do not know whether the pinnacle of the temple, or the ascent of the mountain, was first in the action; but it is of no importance, so long as it is only clear that all of them were truly done.

GLOSS. (ap. Anselm.) Though Luke’s order seems the more historical; Matthew relates the temptations as they were done to Adam.

e-Catholic 2000 : Catena Aurea by St. Thomas Aguinas : [Matthew] CHAP. 4
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/catena/untitled-11.shtml#_Toc384506911

So, the other Church Fathers (and even Origen, here) differ on how the Devil showed Our Lord the kingdoms, but none of the scepticism of Origen was quoted, St. Augustine contradicted him - "we do not know whether the pinnacle of the temple, or the ascent of the mountain, was first in the action; but it is of no importance, so long as it is only clear that all of them were truly done," and the consensus clearly seems to be with St. Augustine. It is literally historic. The author who gives most spiritual lessons is also the one who gives a fairly "naive" explanation on how the showing was "truly done" - it is whoever, either St. John Chrysostom or someone else, wrote a book I do not know the title of, but which was formerly attributed to St. John Chrysostom and is by modern scholarship no longer attributed to him. In the original text of St. Thomas, it says "Chrysostomus super Matth." and only the translation into English adds any "pseudo" to this.

So, we would perhaps do well to consider following all of the Church Fathers or all except on occasions Origen, rather than Origen against all the rest - and if we see this choice made imperative in the Catena Aurea, we may from above quote from De Principiis giving the context on the remarks against literality of parts of Genesis 2 conclude that probably the other Church Fathers would not agree on that one either.

It is 50 minutes past midnight on Easter Sunday, Christ is Risen, Glorify Him, and now I am cutting off this part here, I will make another post referring to the same quotes and answering Origen's difficulties to literality.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Easter Sunday
17.IV.2022

* According to Andrew Sibley, CMI, he specifically rejected long aeons in his Contra Celsum:

Origen, origins, and allegory
by Andrew Sibley | This article is from
Journal of Creation 32(2):110–117, August 2018
https://creation.com/origen-origins-and-allegory

And you can check that claim here:

NewAdvent : Contra Celsum (Origen)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0416.htm

** A post with short résumés in French on my main blog also indexes the actual full length articles in English on this blog, on this matter, I need not repeat each argument separately for Kirill as well, it's enough to remind him:

New blog on the kid : Une série de posts sur mon blog créationniste-jeune-terre
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/03/une-serie-de-posts-sur-mon-blog.html

No, Sibley, and thank you!

Over to CMI:

Deep time in 18th-century France—part 1: a developing belief
by Andrew Sibley | This article is from
Journal of Creation 33(1):85–92, April 2019
https://creation.com/deep-time-in-18th-century-france-part-1

Fontenelle, who was trained by Jesuits at the Collège de Bourbon, wrote a book in 1686 that was arguably a work of science fiction, entitled Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds (Entretiens sur la Pluralité des Mondes). This was in the form of a dialogue between two people and discussed space travel and the possibility of life on the moon and other planets. It also introduced consideration of developments over long periods of time, and, as Stott suggests, opened up the French imagination and ideas for a century thereafter. The purpose was officially concerned with the education of ordinary people by expounding the latest ideas of science, particularly in terms of heliocentrism. Through the dialogue he spoke of nature effecting changes very gradually over very long periods of time.

No, Fontenelle's book is no more science fiction than the Dialogo featuring Salviati, Sagredo and Simplicio*.

No, it is not very relevant that Fontenelle was high school educated by Jesuits**. It is far more to the point that Jesuits refuted Galileo (whose work, as said, is very related to Fontenelle's).

And thank you, very much, you have just provided another example of how speculations about aliens were the most popular "argument" against Geocentrism back when it lost its popularity, as I had done with Euler's arguments to a Prussian princess.***

Thank you again, you have done so while on top of that showing another link between Heliocentric ideology and ... Old Age.

Now, I'll go on and read the rest, but wanted to get this off the chest first!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Second Friday of Pentecost Novena
29.V.2020

PS, he also seems to be behind the modern / (even more) Enlightenment fad of dismissing the Iliad:

While being careful to not fully dismiss Scripture, probably out of fear of religious authority and an unwillingness to make enemies, his approach cast doubt on other ancient texts, which he thought offered myths and not facts. For instance, he wrote Of the Origin of Fables (probably written in 1684, published 1724), in which he commented on the “ignorance of the first men”.

I have another - Christian - approach to Apollo's role in Iliad book I. Apollo = Apollyon, a demon, and Greek and Trojan worshippers of Apollo were worshipping a demon, who had more playroom before Christ's redeeming death and resurrection than now. He is even called "god of the flies" = roughly Beelzebub./HGL

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Gematria of Apollyon / Apollon
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2020/05/gematria-of-apollyon-apollon.html

* Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems by Galileo.

** The collège de Bourbon mentioned is now Lycée Pierre Corneille. - and Lycée is senior high school or high school, not anything like University.

*** AUF DEUTSCH (AUF ANTIMODERNISM UND SPÄTER) : Euler als "Astronom"
https://aufdeutschaufantimodernism.blogspot.com/2017/12/euler-als-astronom.html

Emil Silvestru on Radioactive Decay Rates

If natural nuclear fission reactors existed deep inside the earth, in the core or/and in the mantle, there is no particular reason why they could not have a pulsating character, periodic or random. It is conceivable that during pulses, massive neutrino fluxes were produced which could have then affected radioactive decay rates of all radioisotopes on the planet.

This is from one of four articles on radioactive decay rate variations I was reading with great interest on CMI.

I will first list them:

• Variable radioactive decay rates and the changes in solar activity
  by Andrew Sibley
  http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rates-and-solar-activity
• Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment
  by Tas Walker
  http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemical-environment
• Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory
  by John Woodmorappe
  http://creation.com/billion-fold-acceleration-of-radioactivity-demonstrated-in-laboratory
• Neutrinos—the not-so-neutral particles
  by Emil Silvestru
  http://creation.com/neutrinos-not-so-neutral

What exactly was I saying about atomic warfare in the Nodian pre-Flood society, a few months or perhaps even a year ago? I was saying for instance such bombs may have accelerated decay rates very substantially for pre-Flood radioactive samples.

Whence my interest in Mahabharata poem as having possibly sth to do with warfare when Kali Yuga is supposed to have begun, i e 155 years before the Flood (if we date it by Roman Martyrology).

In other words, Hindoo Mahabharata freaks if succeeding in proving atom bombs existed and were used thousands of years ago, would be doing Young Earth Creationism a big favour. Perhaps not a necessary one, but still a big one.

For the reason stated by Emil Silvestru in the quote above.

Of course, there is this other take on very old ages by very long half lives - that they have not been tested as to the Geiger measurer ticking rate per se and calculated half life from there but rather calibrated half lives from old samples. I am not speaking as an expert here, but I am noting that something like that was done when a mummy supposed to have been historically dated was used to calibrate C14. As already noted on the three parts of the fifth part of a series that also includes messages here:

• 5) New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term
• 5b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering Bill Nye, the Science Guy on a few points
• 5c) New blog on the kid : Phil Provaznik/Dalrymple on Potassium-Argon and on Principle, more on Fission Track and Isochrons (a debunking of...)

Take it as a suggestion. I have found consistent or near such mutism towards non-specialists among specialists of today, when adressing the essays to them and challenging for refutations if they have such. So I cannot claim to know for a fact exactly how it is claculated, but these are my musings on the matter.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Sabbas, Abbot
5-XII-2014