All Nations Are One Blood: From Adam and Eve, to Shem, Ham and Japhet, To the Present -104 - 9 of 10
KentHovindCSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDSY8mcIsSM
Comments option disactivated. I sent my comments to the channel as mail. On the part concerned with title subject.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl to KentHovindCSE
- 6-IV-2014
- What was known of cosmology in Genesis 11
- Noah would certainly have known a tower could not reach Heaven by sheer height of building. Nimrod and the guys may have ignored it and thought he was wrong or even not consulted him.
Other theory. More sophistication. Tower of Babel was original Cape Canaveral.
"a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven:"
Was the top of the tower supposed to stay on the tower or supposed to lift off?
Of course, Jonathan Sarfati has argued the pre-Flood technology cannot have been all that high, the times were violent and so technological progress was impossible.
OK, how does he feel about the XXth C? Was it technological stasis because it was violent? Was it peaceful, as shown by its technological progress? It was very violent and very progressive. So, this could have been the case with pre-Flood technology too.
I do not think there was plastic, but you do not need plastic to build atomic bombs (if Mahabharata shows traces of Uranium and reflects, despite Theological Errors of the worst kind, conditions in Nod among Lamech's grandsons). Or to contemplate spacecraft. Perhaps not for genetic manipulation either. Genesis can have left out things so as not to encourage the sad researches seen in the past century.
A wild theory, but something to think about.
Or, if we get to next part of verse:
"and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands."
They may have wanted to build an Eiffel Tower or World Trade Centre AS AN UNITED human population.
Here is Haydock:
Ver. 4. Famous before; Hebrew lest, &c.; as if they intended to prevent that event. (Haydock) --- Their motive appears to have been pride, which raised the indignation of God. Nemrod, the chief instigator, might have designed the tower for a retreat, whence he might sally out and maintain his tyranny. (Menochius)
- Hans-Georg Lundahl to KentHovindCSE
- 6-IV-2014
- Habsburgs, royalty, Habsburg chin
- 1) Royalty had to marry royalty ...
a) only if wanting to stay in line for the throne. Our present King in Sweden had the law changed after his accession since Silvia Sommarlath was not a noble. His uncle went out of royalty to marry a bourgeois.
George IV made a secret marriage to a Catholic who was bourgeois. If he had stayed faithful to her, he could not have become George IV. Common rule against marriage with non-nobles, PLUS Test Act still in effect. He was not faithful.
b) however, if we see the consequences, it is a Masonic and Liberal lie to say they married sisters or first cousins.
Under the German King and Roman Emperor (or Roman Emperor Elect, since many were not crowned Emperors in Rome by the Pope) there were about 400 Reichsunmittelbar Princes - some of which were collectives, like Cities or Monasteries or Sees - but most of which were small states with a cute castle.
c) Roman Catholicism forbids marrying first cousins
- Hans-Georg Lundahl to KentHovindCSE
- 6-IV-2014
- Habsburgs, contd/end - the chin
- Since the Duchy Austria ceased to have Babenbergs and started having Habsburgs for Dukes (with Ottokar of Bohemia as an Interlude), terrirtorial growth started, BUT usually by tactical marriages.
A Countess heiress of Tyrolea was nicknamed Maultasch - bagmouth or "mouth like a suitcase" - because of her big chin. The Duke or heir to the Duchy in Austria married her.
Hence the saying "let others make wars, happy Austria marry!" - and I suppose marrying an ugly woman is a happier way of gaining territory than starting a war or inviting neghbouring princes to a banquet to kill them, with their heirs, like the last Odinid in Uppsala, Ingjald did.
LOTS of Habsburgs inherited her chin. But marrying first cousins has nothing to do with it. It is true, Habsburg territories were at one time divided in two branches, and then these reunited through marriage. But it was not between first cousins, as said the Catholic Church forbids that close marriages:
Home > Summa Theologica > Supplement > Question 54
Question 54. The impediment of consanguinity
Article 4. Whether the degrees of consanguinity that are an impediment to marriage could be fixed by the Church?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5054.htm#article4
- Hans-Georg Lundahl to KentHovindCSE
- 6-IV-2014
- Hamites = Black People? No.
- Hamites > Black People.
Black People + ... + ... = Hamites.
There is an open question with Mizraim is ONE or several sons of Ham. But he is/they are brother(s) of Chanaan.
Another brother of them, another son of Cham is Kush.
Now, Kush is the land you see south of Egypt.
This means that Kush, neither Mizraim nor Chanaan but just Kush, is the main ancestor of the Black People, the main peopler of Great Ethiopia, including today's Ethiopia, Sudan, in fact ultimately all [Black/Subsaharan] Africa.
Chanaan is ancestor of:
a) Lebanese (Phenicians)
b) some population subsumed under Hebrews in Holy Land and Jordan
c) Tunisians and Maltese (Carthaginians=Phenicians).
Since Phenicians had read hair, often enough, we may presume Chanaanite blood is present (though not main patrilinear ancestor) in Irish, Brits, Scandinavians, especially since we know Phenician traders went to the Tin Isles = British Isles, were you have Tin Mines. And some people from there have helped peopling Scandinavia. Irish were taken as slaves by Vikings and brought home to the North.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl to KentHovindCSE
- 6-IV-2014
- Chanaanites red heads? But wasn't King David ....
- ... he sure was either blond or ginger depending on what ever is the correct translation. It says in Holy Bible.
He also was as a Hebrew ritually certainly pure, but not quite "genetically pure bred."
He descends from Ruth. Ruth was a Moabite. Moabites were a non-Israelite but Hebrew tribe, descending from Lot's son Moab. They were idolaters and they mixed with the population of the land of Chanaan.
See my point?
Moabites had a lot of ancestry from Chanaan. Therefore so had Ruth. Therefore so had King David. [OK, less than Ruth, of course.]
If you like, therefore so has Our Lord.
I wonder if the ultimate fulfilment of the curse on Chanaan was not Our Lord washing the feet of his disciples and telling them - was it before that occasion? - Matthew 23:[11] He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant.
A curse turned into a blessing, as with "whatever is hung on a tree."
- Hans-Georg Lundahl to KentHovindCSE
- 6-IV-2014
- reading extract from Beowulf manuscript
- Tha wæs on burgum Beowulf ....
(f without crossbar = long s, and w was written with a letter looking slightly like a y, but not open on top)
... Scyldinga (abbreviation over "leo")
Leod Cyning longe thrage folcum gefreo
Ge Faeder ellor hwaerf aldor of ear de-
oth th. him eft on woc heah healp dene heold
Then was in the castle Beowulf, .... "leo" (?) of the Scyldings
People's King a long time ? free to folks (?)
Ye Father ? sand dune age of ? ?
? ? him again, in/on high ? held help to the Dane
- Hans-Georg Lundahl to KentHovindCSE
- 6-IV-2014
- napkin / serviette
- I was going to confront the notoriously not into Latin Mass Bergoglio "Pope" with "Tinto con Bocadillo". In Spain that means "red wine and sandwich". In Argentina that means "black coffee and pastry".
But napkin meaning diaper in Australia will do very fine to illustrate same point (serviette is the French word used for napkin in both German and Swedish, though in France it means towel).
Early Christians in Rome celebrated liturgy in Greek. Koiné Greek was a fixed language, the same as it had been since Alexander the Great. Then people stopped using it in Rome. One changed to Latin. I thought this was on order of Pope St Damasus, but it was before his time.
Then Latin started to change. THAT was when it was decided that Litrugy would be in the fixed Latin language. Not in a language you had to update every three years.
And using Anglo-Saxon or Irish at the start of the missions would have made as much sense as reading from a Bible printed in Swahili just after getting in touch with Bantus. SO Liturgy was in Latin in St Patrick's and St Augustine of Canterbury's missions too.
THAT is the true story of Latin Liturgy, not any supposed need of keeping the Bible hidden from the people.
Speaking of St Augustine*:
http://ppt.li/l8
A short link will work in the adress bar. Not in the google search bar, which will only give you the url burner.
*
En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : And His Word Went Marching On
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2014/03/and-his-word-went-marching-on.html
