Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Lita Sanders. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Lita Sanders. Afficher tous les articles

lundi 31 juillet 2023

Augustine and Origen each give us "two birds with one stone"


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Gary Bates' Egyptian Matches Bungle the Carbon Rise · Creation vs. Evolution: Egyptian Chronology Calibrated · Augustine and Origen each give us "two birds with one stone" · Carbon 14 and Egyptian Chronology, a Reply to Gary Bates

A) They show that the Church Fathers (even those not believing in six literal days) were Young Earth Creationists.
B) They confirm that the Egyptians conflated their chronologies.

Origen, Contra Celsum, Book I
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm


Chapter 19

After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated. For, maintaining that there have been, from all eternity, many conflagrations and many deluges, and that the flood which lately took place in the time of Deucalion is comparatively modern, he clearly demonstrates to those who are able to understand him, that, in his opinion, the world was uncreated. But let this assailant of the Christian faith tell us by what arguments he was compelled to accept the statement that there have been many conflagrations and many cataclysms, and that the flood which occurred in the time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in that of Phæthon, were more recent than any others. And if he should put forward the dialogues of Plato (as evidence) on these subjects, we shall say to him that it is allowable for us also to believe that there resided in the pure and pious soul of Moses, who ascended above all created things, and united himself to the Creator of the universe, and who made known divine things with far greater clearness than Plato, or those other wise men (who lived) among the Greeks and Romans, a spirit which was divine. And if he demands of us our reasons for such a belief, let him first give grounds for his own unsupported assertions, and then we shall show that this view of ours is the correct one.

Chapter 20

And yet, against his will, Celsus is entangled into testifying that the world is comparatively modern, and not yet ten thousand years old, when he says that the Greeks consider those things as ancient, because, owing to the deluges and conflagrations, they have not beheld or received any memorials of older events. But let Celsus have, as his authorities for the myth regarding the conflagrations and inundations, those persons who, in his opinion, are the most learned of the Egyptians, traces of whose wisdom are to be found in the worship of irrational animals, and in arguments which prove that such a worship of God is in conformity with reason, and of a secret and mysterious character. The Egyptians, then, when they boastfully give their own account of the divinity of animals, are to be considered wise; but if any Jew, who has signified his adherence to the law and the lawgiver, refer everything to the Creator of the universe, and the only God, he is, in the opinion of Celsus and those like him, deemed inferior to him who degrades the Divinity not only to the level of rational and mortal animals, but even to that of irrational also!— a view which goes far beyond the mythical doctrine of transmigration, according to which the soul falls down from the summit of heaven, and enters into the body of brute beasts, both tame and savage! And if the Egyptians related fables of this kind, they are believed to convey a philosophical meaning by their enigmas and mysteries; but if Moses compose and leave behind him histories and laws for an entire nation, they are to be considered as empty fables, the language of which admits of no allegorical meaning!


Augustine, City of God, Book XII
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120112.htm


Chapter 10.— Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World's Past.
Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been. Thus Apuleius says when he is describing our race, Individually they are mortal, but collectively, and as a race, they are immortal. And when they are asked, how, if the human race has always been, they vindicate the truth of their history, which narrates who were the inventors, and what they invented, and who first instituted the liberal studies and the other arts, and who first inhabited this or that region, and this or that island? They reply, that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and from these, again, the population was restored to its former numbers, and that thus there was at intervals a new beginning made, and though those things which had been interrupted and checked by the severe devastations were only renewed, yet they seemed to be originated then; but that man could not exist at all save as produced by man. But they say what they think, not what they know.

They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. And, not to spend many words in exposing the baselessness of these documents, in which so many thousands of years are accounted for, nor in proving that their authorities are totally inadequate, let me cite only that letter which Alexander the Great wrote to his mother Olympias, giving her the narrative he had from an Egyptian priest, which he had extracted from their sacred archives, and which gave an account of kingdoms mentioned also by the Greek historians. In this letter of Alexander's a term of upwards of 5000 years is assigned to the kingdom of Assyria; while in the Greek history only 1300 years are reckoned from the reign of Bel himself, whom both Greek and Egyptian agree in counting the first king of Assyria. Then to the empire of the Persians and Macedonians this Egyptian assigned more than 8000 years, counting to the time of Alexander, to whom he was speaking; while among the Greeks, 485 years are assigned to the Macedonians down to the death of Alexander, and to the Persians 233 years, reckoning to the termination of his conquests. Thus these give a much smaller number of years than the Egyptians; and indeed, though multiplied three times, the Greek chronology would still be shorter. For the Egyptians are said to have formerly reckoned only four months to their year; so that one year, according to the fuller and truer computation now in use among them as well as among ourselves, would comprehend three of their old years. But not even thus, as I said, does the Greek history correspond with the Egyptian in its chronology. And therefore the former must receive the greater credit, because it does not exceed the true account of the duration of the world as it is given by our documents, which are truly sacred. Further, if this letter of Alexander, which has become so famous, differs widely in this matter of chronology from the probable credible account, how much less can we believe these documents which, though full of fabulous and fictitious antiquities, they would fain oppose to the authority of our well-known and divine books, which predicted that the whole world would believe them, and which the whole world accordingly has believed; which proved, too, that it had truly narrated past events by its prediction of future events, which have so exactly come to pass!


Credits are due to Jonathan Sarfati for giving a short quote from each passage, and if he lacked the reference for St. Augustine, it was supplied by Lita Sanders earlier on.

vendredi 20 janvier 2023

Some People Seem Too Willing to See me as Someone Else's Dupe


Example somewhat current in Paris.

Kent Hovind is a Young Earth Creationist. I am a Young Earth Creationist. Ergo, I became a Young Earth Creationist because Kent Hovind had charisma and I had insecurity ...

Kent Hovind also is on record or was on record as stating the Catholic Church had started Islam, because Alberto Rivera heard that in a secret briefing. He also is on record as stating Christ made no fermented wine in Cana and used no fermented wine on the Last Supper. See how I react to those things before you consider me Kent Hovind's dupe ...

Other example.

Graham Hancock believes the Younger Dryas and Göbekli Tepe are intimately connected to the history of mankind and civilisation. And Göbekli Tepe built on a previous and lost culture which was in the main not being expressed in the Palaeolithic culture of the post-Flood Ice Age.

While the hint about Younger Dryas and Göbekli Tepe actually reached me by reading Graham Hancock, and I cite him - wait a second on how we each tease out the details.

First, CMI which never directly responded to my stuff is responding in a very condescending way, not to Graham Hancock (who never reached out to them), but about him:

Ancient Apocalypse ‘hooey’
CMI : Feedback 2023, Gavin Cox responding
https://creation.com/ancient-hancock-hooey


Some of this is actually a useful resource about Graham Hancock.

Importantly, Hancock rejects using Scripture as the only way to interpret historical data. His is a hybrid approach, which discounts the (evolutionary) idea that humans were ‘primitive’ prior to and during the Ice Age and adds the (pseudo-biblical) idea that an advanced culture was destroyed by a cataclysm during a period called the ‘Younger Dryas’ (YD), supposedly around 12,900–11,700 years BP (before present). The YD represented a return to glacial conditions, which reversed the initial warming that happened after the Last Glacial Maximum, supposedly, c. 27,000–20,000 years BP. If you are interested on reading up on the YD see: Ice core oscillations and abrupt climate changes: part 1—Greenland ice cores, and scroll down to the sub-heading “The special Younger Dryas event”.


The reference they give discusses the mechanism.

Now, my view is that Younger Dryas was a few years just prior to the death of Noah. It involved some coastal floodings, and this may have been what gave Nimrod the idea that God wasn't keeping His promise, so men had to get to heaven to avoid the next Flood.

In Göbekli Tepe, Nimrod didn't meet any Ancient Alien Astronauts unlike what Hancock suggested in Chariots of the Gods, but was himself an Ancient Aspiring Astronaut.

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.

Why "the top of which" or "the top whereof may reach to heaven"? If the building was going to stay on the ground and only reach heaven by being very tall, why not "a tower which may reach to heaven"?

On the other hand, if Moses knew Nimrod planned and Kennedy and Khrushchev were going to succeed with three step rockets, one sees why "the top whereof" is used. At takeoff a threestep rocket looks like a tower - but steps one and two fall into the sea or burn when falling down the atmosphere, so only the top actually reaches the moon.

Hebrew English interlinear tells me that the relevant words in Hebrew are "weroshow bashamayim" (and the top [is] in the heavens). I click on wə·rō·šōw and find 7 occurrences, two translated "top" (Genesis 11 and 28, the tower and the ladder) and five translated "head" (Leviticus 13, Joshua 2, Job 20, Ps 7, Ezechiel 33). So, it is not the "height" but the actual material top of it that reaches into heaven.

This explains why there is no very high tower or ruins of such in Göbekli Tepe. If (as I think) my identification is correct. Nimrod having very inadequate access to pre-Flood science and technology was not helping him really achieve the goal. God actually helped the project by then and there stopping it. By letting human research get from Nimrod to Wernher von Braun.

But not just what happened socially I differ from Graham Hancock, not just the connexion to Younger Dryas, but equally obviously how he and I date these things.

As I see Göbekli Tepe as Babel, specifically city of Babel, I go to the Biblical dates for Babel, between 350 and 401 after the Flood, between the death of Noah and the birth of Peleg (yes, I know it doesn't work out that way in Masoretic chronology and I know the Vulgate has Masoretic chronology, but the Catholic Church also has a text read at Christmasses which has another chronology, a version of the LXX as to Genesis 5 and 11). This means that Göbekli Tepe's earliest carbon date, charcoal below the actual buildings, dated to 9600 BC, has to match some year close to 350 after the Flood or 2607 BC, and Göbekli Tepe's latest carbon date, a charcoal layer on top, dated to 8600 BC, has to match some year close to 401 after the Flood, or 2556 BC. This is very much not what Graham Hancock is doing, as he is taking the carbon dates as they stand.

As some may know, I use this equation for my New Tables, as two of the nodes between archaeology and Biblical chronology.

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html


The entries here show how I deal with it:

2607 B. Chr.
0.428224 pmC/100, so dated as 9607 B. Chr.
...
2556 B. Chr.
0.481415 pmC/100, so dated as 8606 B. Chr.


Let me fix some deviations from conventions. In a tired moment, I regretted that English BC is less specific than French av. J. Chr. so I used B. Chr. The other one is, I found normal fractions easier to count with than percentages. Here is how it normally should look:

2607 BC
42.8224 pmC, so dated as 9607 BC
...
2556 BC
48.1415 pmC, so dated as 8606 BC


Now the thing is, feed 42.8224 pmC into a carbon 14 calculator, you get ... 7000 years. 2607 + 7000 = 9607 BC. The carbon date is the sum of the real date and the "instant carbon date" or "phantom age" produced by the lower initial pmC in the charcoal sample.

Same for 48.1415 pmC, gives 6050 years, 6050 + 2556 = 8606 BC.

And obviously, my rationale for the carbon levels I searched for was, as with the other nodes, they must be calculated from the amount of extra years. 9600 - 2607 = 6993 or roughly 7000 extra years. 8600 - 2556 = 6044 or roughly 6050 extra years. Put that into a carbon 14 calculator, and you get:

7000 -> 42.879 pmC
6050 -> 48.101 pmC

But why 42.8224 pmC instead of 42.879 pmC? Why 48.1415 pmC instead of 48.101 pmC?

I actually calculated successive C14 levels on paper, without a C14 calculator. I used decimal fractions obtained by multiple square roots of 0.5, multiplied by each other. This is because I did that work during the first confinement, to correct the Genesis 14 node from estimated carbon date c. 3200 BC to the actual test result 3500 BC, obtained from reed mats evacuated with temple treasures from En-Gedi by the Amorrhaeans. Osgood hadn't given a date, I only found it later.

Here are basically the fractions I used:

Creation vs. Evolution : Bases of C14
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/bases-of-c14.html


So, with this in mind, how do I date the glacial maximum and the Younger Dryas Cooling event?

12,900–11,700 years BP = 10,900 - 9,700 BC.

In New tables, I find it here:

2666 BC
35.4608 pmC, so dated as 11 216 BC
2644 BC
38.0408 pmC, so dated as 10 644 BC
2621 BC
40.6138 pmC, so dated as 10 071 BC
2599 BC
43.1708 pmC, so dated as 9549 BC


In other words, during the Younger Dryas, carbon 14 levels rose from 35.4 / 38 pmC to 40.6 / 43.1 pmC. It began in some year between 2666 and 2644 BC, and it ended some time between 2621 and 2599 BC. Let's make rough estimates by going to the medium values, from 2655 BC to 2610 BC. Far from lasting 1000 years, the Younger Dryas lasted only something like 45 years. That's why it was survived.

My theory is not proposed previously by other Young Earth Creationists, because they have neglected Göbekli Tepe. Lita Sanders and Robert Carter in 2011 answered on Göbekli Tepe without mentioning Babel.

My theory is also not proposed previously by Graham Hancock. He takes the carbon dates at face value, and believes the samples started out with c. 100 pmC.

Creationists believe I am a New Ager and a dupe of Graham Hancock. Graham Hancock believes I'm a religious fanatic and a dupe of Creation Ministries International or Kent Hovind.

Result - neither of them looks at what I do. Neither of them credits what I do. My study debt so far remains mostly unpaid, at below 400,000 SEK, below 38 819,18 USD, below 31 371,40 GBP, below 35 827,42 €.

Other result - neither of them needs to take my data into account for possibly reinterpreting his own.

But before I end, I'll be helpful about the Glacial Maximum as well ...

Last Glacial Maximum, supposedly, c. 27,000–20,000 years BP


2935 BC
3.9541 pmC, so dated as 29 635 BC
2912 BC
6.6161 pmC, so dated as 25 362 BC
...
2867 BC
11.9246 pmC/100, so dated as 20 467 BC


How do I obtain these levels? I obviously have no Biblical historic artefact corresponding to Glacial Maximum, so how?

Well, this is calculating a growth curve from the level needed to get 2957 BC (the Flood) as "40 000 BP" (Neanderthal démise, now corrected to "39 000 BP") up to the level for getting 2607 BC as 9600 BC.

I then put the levels of the different years into carbon 14 dating calculators, get the extra years, insert the carbon dates that correspond to the real ones.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Fabian of Rome
Pope and Martyr
20.I.2023

Romae natalis sancti Fabiani, Papae et Martyris, qui, Decii tempore, martyrium passus est, atque in coemeterio Callisti sepultus.

PS, I forgot to make the average between the real dates surrounding the carbon date 27000 BP ... oops, not necessary, since 27000 BP = 25000 BC, one of the values, 2912 BC. However, same mistake further down, I need 18 000 BC as carbon date, and when 2845 carbon dates as 18 745 and 2823 as 17 373, the carbon date 18 000 BC or 20 000 BP would be c. 2834 BC./HGL

mercredi 11 mai 2022

Science texbook, no, history, yes - CMI makes a key statement


“The Bible is not a science book!”
by Gary Bates and Lita Sanders
First appeared in CMI-US Update, November 2021.
https://creation.com/bible-not-science-book


One quibble:

But the Bible is unique in that it contains accurate predictive prophecy.


While John Henry Newman agreed that the Bible does this ("it is a historic fact Antichrist will rule, as it is a historic fact Nero has ruled" - quoted from memory, Idea of a Catholic University), he might not and I do not agree the Bible is totally unique herein.

St. Paul says "prophecy will vanish" but he doesn't say when. We Catholics do NOT presume it vanished after the last Apostle died, only that prophets after that cannot add to revealed dogmas.

We would say that for instance the prophecies of St. Bridget probably also record what was in her time as yet future. Antichrist would be born of an apostate bishop (Russian Orthodox bishops in the Soviet Union have been towting evolution, and comparing early chapters of Genesis to the Iliad - while misunderstanding the historicity thereof) and of a false virgin of Jewish ancestry (Russia is sometimes referred to as Sviataya Rus', holy mother Russia, apostasised in 1917, due to in many cases people of Jewish origin - like quarter Jewish Lenin or fully Jewish (ethnically, not in halakhic behaviour) Trotsky). He would also defeat armies before the age of twelve with his brothers. Would that refer to a boy doing Judo and defeating other teams together with the team mates of his team?/HGL