Did Pentecost Reverse Babel?

• If it comes to repentance reversing sin, yes.
• But understanding of tongues does not reverse creation of them.

Town, Not Temple

Some would perhaps argue as one discrepancy between Göbekli Tepe and the Biblical criteria for the Babel of Genesis 10 and 11 that GT was a temple, Babel was a city. Watch this still from Curious Being:

Link: Göbekli Tepe and its “Handbags”: Latest Excavation Results Reveal a Whole New Story
Curious Being, 12 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5sGNc99JoQ

Two more clips:

"13000 YEARS OF BEER HISTORY" - Not Really

2666 B. Chr.

35.4608 pmC, so dated as 11 216 B. Chr.

"11000 B.C." DISCOVERY OF BEER

Natufian Hunters Gatherers (Israel) settle to grow grain, brew beer and create the first civilizations. This is Neolithic time.

2644 B. Chr.

38.0408 pmC, so dated as 10 644 B. Chr.

2621 B. Chr.

40.6138 pmC, so dated as 10 071 B. Chr.

"10000 B.C."

First production of bread.

2607 B. Chr.

42.8224 pmC, so dated as 9607 B. Chr.

2041 B. Chr.

76.6964 pmC, so dated as 4241 B. Chr.

"4100 B.C."

Discovery of wine.

2019 B. Chr.

77.8962 pmC, so dated as 4069 B. Chr.

1996 B. Chr.

79.0927 pmC, so dated as 3946 B. Chr.

"3900 B.C." THE HYMN TO NINKASI

The world's oldest known beer recipe comes from a poem (Mesopotamia).

1974 B. Chr.

80.2859 pmC, so dated as 3774 B. Chr.

1566 B. Chr.

97.441 pmC, so dated as 1776 B. Chr.

"1754 B.C." HAMMURABI'S CODE

The oldest law code defines rules concerning growing, harvesting and selling grain and brewing beer!

1543 B. Chr.

97.813 pmC, so dated as 1723 B. Chr.

So, c. 2655 BC + 2023 AD = c. 4678 years of history.

The "discovery of wine" is too late in archaeology, we will probably somewhere in West Armenia find Noah's vineyeard, before 2607 BC, i e before "9600 BC" carbon dated./HGL

Could Pius XII claim assent of opinion to "the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid" in § 36?

Carl Wieland Used Two Bad Arguments · How Close is the Jimmy Akin Model to the Urantia Book? · Could Pius XII claim assent of opinion to "the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid" in § 36?

Here is* § 20:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

So, that's a scope in which encyclicals can claim assent.

• expounding a doctrine already taught traditionally
• deciding on a doctrine previously debated.

Does § 36 do that ?

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

• Pius XII is not expounding one doctrine, but leaving two options kind of open
• one of them ("Adam's body had biological ancestry") is not traditionally taught
• the options had not been debated for long, and quite a few had already been condemned or risked being it for saying that "Adam's body had biological ancestry" or even leaving the option open
  
  
  • St. George Mivart had been condemned
  • John Augustine Zahm could have had his book condemned but pulled back.

Here is wiki on Fr. Zahm:

Between 1891-96, he published multiple books and articles on the topic, culminating with Evolution and Dogma in 1896.[7]

In this text, as in his others, Zahm argued that Roman Catholicism could fully accept an evolutionary view of biological systems, as long as this view was not centered around Darwin's theory of natural selection. After the Vatican decided to censure the book in 1898, Zahm fully accepted this rebuttal and pulled away from any writing concerning the relationship of theology and science.[4]

In other words, as Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange OP had argued, since he drafted the encyclical, the question was already decided, and was no longer a question open to discussion among theologians. So, when Trads of any stripe say one need not obey post-Vatican II Popes, on a certain issue, because they are going against or encouraging by licences subjects to go against what was already decided, whether the conclusion is, they are no longer Popes or had never been Popes, or the conclusion is, the papacy can right now not be relied on, Pius XII is open to the same criticism.

There is also another reason why the leaving of two options open cannot oblige, namely, this is what Pope Honorius did, forbidding polemics between the two positions, therefore criticism of the Monothelite one. But this is exactly what his successor Pope St. Leo II condemned him for.

An act which is infallibly condemned as bad cannot be an act which was obliging just before it was condemned. But if you reply that Pope St. Leo II condemned the act only 50 years later, when experience had shown the will to peace which on some level probably prompted it just would not work, I think a similar answer can be given about Humani Generis. It was 73 years ago, or 72 and some, it has been replaced by a fairly great hostility against the traditional position starting 30 years ago, by "John Paul II" misreading what was said as a definite definition of theological licitness, and those holding the traditional position risk being taken to task via mental health operations approved by the ecclesial adherents of the new position. That's about as far from the open or half open debate proposed in the words of Pius XII that one can get.

So, should one desire to use the criterium of assent needed even for non-definitive papal teaching, as the Introibo blogger exposes it against Feeneyism** in order to absolutify the very relative and intermediate acceptance Pius XII extended to the Evolutionist view, one should first ask, whether a mere acceptance can be an enunciation, and then if the certainly disciplinary measure can not be a culpable one, and one already proven wrong by its bad fruits. Today, Catholics are not united on who is the correct Pope.

He gives a paragraph deserving of further analysis, beyond the scope of accepting Deep Time:

The day may come when an opinion of this kind needs to be modified. The Church Herself allows for this possibility by not proclaiming it as definitive and binding for all time. The holding of this opinion will possibly be seen as no longer necessary for the purity of the faith. The labors of the approved theologians will, in large part, be responsible for this development.

I think this - the part of "approved theologians" - is partly echoing his idea that only approved theologians may make judgements, by syllogising from known Catholic doctrine, laymen just shouldn't. However, I do not find this part in Humani Generis. However, by "in large part" he is at least not denying the possibility of engaged laymen being involved. If submitting theological material to the Pope and not getting it condemned for error is an approval, and if Pope Michael was Pope, I could count as both.

The modifications of these declarations, when and if such modification ever comes, in no way violates the infallibility or Indefectibility of the Church since the doctrine in question was never presented as infallible and irreformable teaching.

For those claiming the Catholic Church contradicts itself by belief in the Immaculate Conception, which was generally (very barely) denied in the West up to the time of St. Thomas, it can be noted these denials did not come from Popes, as far as I can tell. It is possible Duns Scotus had it from a school in Paris, starting out when a French king is married to a princess from Kiev. The East was more strongly for the Immaculate Conception.

From another paragraph:

The Church also cannot impose evil disciplines, and thereby prescribe something evil to the faithful, making it sinful to observe; nor can the Church give anything which would constitute an incentive to impiety.

This should be enough for those who pretend the discipline of the centuries long former 14 / 12 limit was objectively disordered as to marital age.***

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Octave of Ascension
25.V.2023

Notes:

* Vatican : ENCYCLICAL HUMANI GENERIS
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

** This is where I learn that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange drafted Humani Generis:

Introibo Ad Altare Dei : "But It's Not Infallible:" Another Feeneyite Folly
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/05/but-its-not-infallible-another.html

*** As I have myself argued here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : I Still Advocate for a Lowering of Marriageable Age, Cases in Point, the Blessed Virgin and the mother of St. Francis of Sales
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/05/i-still-advocate-for-lowering-of.html

How Close is the "Jimmy Akin Model" to the Urantia Book?

Carl Wieland Used Two Bad Arguments · How Close is the Jimmy Akin Model to the Urantia Book? · Could Pius XII claim assent of opinion to "the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid" in § 36?

I am sorry, I did not "read his paper" but heard him on a video, so I took the last view he presented, and he spent a bit more time on it than on others, as I recall the subjective feel, as that opinion being his own. It is possible I misjudged him on that one, he could simply not be intending to spell out his own view, here is a discussion of it, linking back to his video: Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: A Discussion on one of the subjects of Glossa Ordinaria "Mary is the New Eve" https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-discussion-on-one-of-subjects-of.html Can Catholics Believe Theistic Evolution? - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World Jimmy Akin | 29 March 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBssnELtE94

To Jimmy Akin, a convert to Catholicism from Calvinism, and professing at least on some level to not have forsaken the faith since, Adam and Eve were possibly ancestral to all who live now, but far from our only ancestors alive in roughly speaking "their generation" there were in fact at least 10 000 pairs or individuals, as this is considered the minimum viable population or minimum population for genetic viability.

But if so, their sin affected the rest, as they were their "federal head" - with them not being our only ancestors in their generation, they cannot be the ancestral head of all mankind, as the traditional doctrine posits.

Now, look at this from the Urantia Foundation:

Far from the simplistic fable from the Bible, the story of Adam and Eve is a complicated one, and not well-understood by most of the world as yet. In The Urantia Book, we are given a complete picture of this amazing series of events—the mission of Adam and Eve was actually the third of five epochal revelations to our planet…

The human descendents of Adam and Eve sprang partially from the two children that were conceived as a result of default—Cain and Sansa.

Cain was, in reality, the son of Eve and Cano, and Sansa was the daughter of Adam and Laotta. Both Cano and Laotta were human beings—not members of the Violet race to which Adam and Eve belonged. If you have read this story (in the link above), you may recall that the liaison of Eve with Cano meant the default of the Adamic mission. When Adam realized what Eve had done, he “sought out Laotta, the brilliant Nodite woman who was head of the western schools of the Garden, and with premeditation committed the folly of Eve.” And these were the acts which effectively defaulted their mission and doomed both Adam and Eve to their degradation to mortal status.

If all had gone according to the divine plan, Adam and Eve would have procreated between themselves, and then their children would have procreated with each other (this was safe for them, and standard practice, as they were a pure-line race) until their numbers had reached one million. Following this milestone, the pure-line children of Adam and Eve would have begun procreating with the higher races of humanity then living on the earth. In this way the Material Sons and Daughters upstep the biological systems of the races, both physically and spiritually, through their life plasm. And this is the mission of an Adam and Eve to an evolutionary planet such as ours. Theirs is a mission of physical, intellectual, and spiritual upliftment to the evolutionary races of mankind. They are sent from celestial government as a revelation from God, and as biologic uplifters.

Their FAQ, Q: How could there be be descendants from Adam and Eve, if there were only 2 sons mentioned, and if there were sisters, how could they multiply within the same family?

Parallels with Jimmy Akin:

• already a biologically human population on earth before them
• produced by some kind of evolution
• with Adam and Eve enjoying a very special position among age peers
• the Biblical story being a simplification to the point of not being historically truthful as we see historically truthful

But there are also differences, like Jimmy Akin having:

• no affirmation of racism*
• no pretense of getting this from a special post-Biblical revelation by an UFO.

Given that the Urantia book is denying the identity of Jesus with God the Son, we can be glad for Jimmy Akin not getting his cue from that source.

But if Satan can masquerade as an angel of light, is it only through false revelations, and can it never be through intellectual heresies?

Here are some differences of the Bible from the Urantia Book, where Jimmy Akin falls on the Biblical side:

• no affirmation of racism
• no pretense of getting this from a special post-Biblical revelation by an UFO.

And here are some differences of the Bible (taken in the obvious sense and with obvious implications) both from Jimmy Akin and from the Urantia book, in its affirmations about Adam and Eve:

• no biologically human populations on earth before them
• human population from them who in turn were created directly as morphological adults
• they had only descendants, no generation peers
• the Biblical story being partly by them and historically truthful

What if the theory of genetic viability depending on so many is wrong, and even more wrong if applied to our first parents, created without any genetic defects? What if a man writing 4000 pages in a trance whether controlled by Satan or left to one's own prejudices was not much worse than the "science" Jimmy Akin relies on? And if some should cease asking** where I have adherence to the Biblical story as factual from, and start asking where they have an adherence to it being not strictly factual from?
/Hans Georg Lundahl

* See phrases like "the races, while biologically fit, had never been purged of their retarded and defective strains." Pretty close to eugenic prejudice prevalent among Darwinists at the time. ** If they are asking that.

Carl Wieland Used Two Bad Arguments

Carl Wieland Used Two Bad Arguments · How Close is the Jimmy Akin Model to the Urantia Book? · Could Pius XII claim assent of opinion to "the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid" in § 36?

Here is his article, it's reposted "today" on CMI (actually tomorrow's date, but it's already tomorrow's date in Australia), here:

Has an ape learned to talk?
by Carl Wieland | This article is from
Creation 25(3):52–53, June 2003
https://creation.com/has-an-ape-learned-to-talk

Here is bad argument 1:

An ape’s larynx simply does not have that capability. For example, it can’t make the fundamental vowels (a, o, i, etc.) of the human language.

The reason this is irrelevant for capacity for language, as such, rather than for a specific* language, is, languages have different sound palettes. The sound that apes most audibly make would count as vowels. Not differentiated, fundamental vowels, but nevertheless vowels. One human language seems to have only two phonematically different vowels (though lots of versions made pertinent as per stress and surrounding consonants), so, having only one is not an obstacle to human language as such, only to human languages that we have.

But it can be completed into a fairly good argument against apes learning language anyway. Here is how.

Human language has three basic levels. The full sentense, usually breaks down into more than one morpheme. The morpheme, usually breaks down into more than one phoneme. And finally the phoneme. The full sentence or phrase makes the complete sense of a message. The morpheme by itself makes the incomplete sense of a message component like a concept or metaconcept. The phoneme by itself makes no sense, but differentiates morphemes that make different sense. But this means, the phonemes have to be a repertoir.

Now, differentiating vowels is out for the reason that Carl Wieland mentioned.

Differentiating consonants is also out for another reason, the ape's ear captures so low frequencies that hearing certain consonants is impossible.

Now, bad argument 2:

When many deaf children in Nicaragua were raised together in an environment without any spoken language input, they spontaneously developed their own highly complex sign language, complete with rules of grammar and syntax.

This is Communist fake news.

In fact, they had all had some input of at least improvised sign language from their homes, meaning they had been exposed to language input.

What they did was only equallising this into a common language.

The fake news foregoes the fact that children growing up without any human language input at all, during the relevant years, will grow bodily, but will not later be able to catch up with learning human language. If the growing up with beasts occurs after language acquisition has already taken place, the child will recover language if taken to human environments. But if the language acquisition had not yet taken place ...

Meet the 8-year-old girl raised by monkeys
By Gabrielle Fonrouge, April 6, 2017 10:33am
https://nypost.com/2017/04/06/meet-the-8-year-old-girl-raised-by-monkeys/

Two of these had already learned language, apparently the ten year old boy who had been with goats only two years, certainly the first, who didn't come in with capuchin monkeys before five, and one may have been rescured just in time, but for the other three it looks bleak in these cases:

The Week : 6 cases of children being raised by animals
https://theweek.com/articles/471164/6-cases-children-being-raised-by-animals

huck : 'FERAL CHILDREN': ABANDONED BY PARENTS AND RAISED BY ANIMALS
Friday 10 March, 2017, Text by Michael Segalov, Photography by Julia Fullerton-Batten
https://www.huckmag.com/article/stories-feral-children-abandoned-nature-raised-animals

If human babies could develop real language on their own, then Chomsky's atheist** view on human development would be viable. Once mutations had developed the human brain into a certain direction, that brain could, via toddlers creating their talk together, create human language.

This is not so. Barring miracles, and God creating a full grown Adam with a full grown not just language capacity, but even language mastery, that counts as a miracle, the only way for a human baby to acquire human language is via surroundings already having such, and this at very specific times in the baby's development, the transition, basically from baby to toddler. And this is precisely what mutations cannot provide. The human brain already has what's necessary, and feral children still don't learn language when rescued, unless they get rescued a short while after getting feral, or they got into this situation when already toddlers and having some speech. This is a nail in the coffin, not just for Atheistic Evolution, as it is impossible, but for Theistic Evolution too, as it would have made God cruel to His image Adam, before he sinned.

But some medical doctors have a certain degree of professionally conditioned Dunning Kruger about certain subjects outside medicine proper.
/Hans Georg

* It would be relevant for specific languages, but researchers could try to create vowel-poor dialects of these.
** While Chomsky is himself agnostic, while his view has been labelled as "creationist" by fellow Evolution believers, his view on how men became men is an atheistic view insofar as if God existed, on this view, He would be irrelevant.

"thy dwelling place" 3 Kings 8:30

Where Did Jesus Go? · "thy dwelling place" 3 Kings 8:30

That thou mayest hearken to the supplication of thy servant and of thy people Israel, whatsoever they shall pray for in this place, and hear them in the place of thy dwelling in heaven; and when thou hearest, shew them mercy.

Someone writing CMI, a D. S. from Brazil, states this is uncreated:

since 1 Kings* 8:30 says it’s God’s dwelling place and, therefore, eternal, not created.

What does the Bible mean by “heaven of heavens”?
Feedback archive → Feedback 2023
https://creation.com/heaven-of-heavens

I am here not going into the response of Keaton Halley, but simply stating, this is wrong.

God in and of His eternal nature cannot need a dwelling place. He is perfectly corporeal. His dwelling place is where He sits as in a throne room. In the Old Testament, God resided as in a theophany. He was adored by angels, right there, the pearly gates being closed to men, since Adam sinned. In the New Testament, since Ascension, Christ in His human nature is present on this throne. He is adored by the Blessed Virgin Mary, risen like Her Son, by angels, by the souls of faithful awaiting to be present also in body, once they are resurrected.

Hence, the dwelling place of which 3 Kings 8:30 speaks is not just created, but material and in three dimensional space./HGL

* A certain text mass was by the Jews divided into Samuel and Kings, two books, then by Christians into four books, first to fourth Kings. Since first and second Kings are what the Jews called Samuel, the Protestants call them first and second Samuel, and renumber the remainder as "first and second" instead of third and fourth Kings.