Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl: July 2018

Friday, 13 July 2018

Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do) (Update to XXXIX)

Creation vs. Evolution : How Much was Shinar Devastated by the Flood? · You Find a Fossil Whale Here, a Fossil Pterosaur There ... · Answering Carter and Cosner on Eden · Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X · Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded? · Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do)

You know that law which says, as arguments go longer, the probability of a reductio ad Hitlerum approaches 1? Well, as my arguments with Mackey grow longer, the probability of a conflict over Trojan War approaches 1 ...

Back to

main line of exchange:

XXI

Damien Mackey to me

7/9/2018 at 5:56 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

Then find me a proper archaeology for the Solonian era at Athens.

That is one thing German with which I agree, gruendlich, from the ground upwards.

At your rate you will never "get there", get there to a history that has a stratigraphical foundation to it.

I'd rather build upon solid foundations, gruendlich (rausch, achtung).

In the following

I give two exchanges in parallel, in order of sending of mails:

XXII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/9/2018 at 2:13 PM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

There is proper archaeology for Troy.

I thought you did not believe the Trojan War.

My principle is, I believe archaeology (what actually is there to see), and I believe history even more.

Your principle seems to be, you believe history less than archaeology, and history only when supported by archaeology - and yet you don't believe all there is in archaeology either.

Sounds like sth very close to radical scepsis and absolutely incompatible with Christianity, if carried out.

Archaeology is not the foundation of history, they are two different disciplines.

History is on the one hand more easy to fake in a sense, but on the other hand clearer.

Also, the sense in which history is easier to fake is marginal, and does not totally concern narrative history as a whole, more like special pleading types of history.

If you are content with "there must have been Protestants in 597 AD, even if I can't find any" or with "there must have been a secret tradition before 1717, going all the way back to Nimrod and to Adam, since Adam was a Freemason" - well, then history is easy to fake TO YOU.

But the documentation I would like PM to give for Protestants in 597 AD is not an archaeological, but a narrative one. One is NOT the foundation of the other, they go hand in hand, and history being more complete is also less supported by the other, without therefore being historically illsupported.

Solon has left writings to Athenians, therefore he existed. Homer has left songs (later written down) to Ionians and later Athenians. Therefore, he too existed.

Your criterium is the equivalent of requiring Moses' autograph for each book of the Torah, duly carbon dated to whenever he would have existed before believing Mosaic authorship.

You may be fine with making dogma an exception to your general theory of knowledge, I am very much not.

I like to say to Atheists "Moses wrote the Pentateuch, since he is credited with so having written it" - and universally credited by Hebrews, like Solon was universally credited by Athenians. Perhaps your professor taught you another approach, but in Medieval Paris professors taught it was a fault to "iurare in verba magistri".

XXIII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/9/2018 at 2:28 PM

"What exactly is Creation Science?"

[Refers to a paper of Damien's]

Six km of sedimentary mud under Eden ...

Your problem with "local Flood" and a few more problems of Creation Science is twofold:

you are prepared to take an opinion (even a popular one) among Creation Science adherents as if it were an absolute corrollary of Creation Science as such.

Canopy theory is ... scientifically perhaps a bit shady.

Four Rivers "generic names" ... is un-Biblical.

But, neither is as such a consequence of Creation Science.
while you exact a certain "gruendlichkeit" from narrative history, you do not exact it for your own archaeology - it is the groundwork by definition (ain't it in the ground after all?) and so anything stated by it is by definition gruendlich.

Not.

I have my gruendlichkeit in narrative history too - like wondering how many camp survivors of certain camps have seen a certain type of execution, which to doubt in France might put me in conflict with "loi Gayssot". I like my blogs to remain legal, and I intend to republish this on blogs, so ...

In archaeology, the counterpart would be : would the six km of mud actually be under Eden, and not over it or over where it was?

Are there problems in dating?

Ah, yes, this is a topic where some Gruendlichkeit would do you good, but carbon dating bores you .... well, if relevant subjects bore you, why make a general pronouncement at all on the matter? Why not stick to topics where you are not too bored to take in the viewpoints of both sides?

XXIV

Damien Mackey to me

7/10/2018 at 1:46 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

Moses is never credited with having written the Book of Genesis. Show me where.

Nor did he write the account of his own death in Deuteronomy 34 (from memory).

He was the primary, but not the only, EDITOR, of Genesis.

And some of the rest of the Pentateuch belongs to the Temple era, way later than Moses.

The Church says only that he was the "substantial", not sole, author.

You'll get there - I'll be long dead, though.

XXV

Damien Mackey to me

7/10/2018 at 1:55 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

You can be like the pharaoh who wanted a wise sage to build him a castle in the air.

AND when the king of Egypt had made sure that Haiqâr was slain, he arose straightway and wrote a letter to king Sennacherib, reminding him in it 'of the peace and the health and the might and the honour which we wish specially for thee, my beloved brother, king Sennacherib.

2 I have been desiring to build a castle between the heaven and the earth, and I want thee to send me a wise, clever man from thyself to build it for me, and to answer me all my questions, and that I may have the taxes and the custom duties of Assyria for three years.'

This "Haiqar" (Ahikar) is quite fictitious and not at all gruendlich.

But my Ahikar, biblical nephew of Tobit (and cousin of his son, Job), has a whole neo-Assyrian archaeology under his feet.

Any "castle" that he might have built would have been on solid historico-archaeological ground, and not, as in your system, suspended precariously between heaven and earth.

XXVI

Me to Damien Mackey

7/10/2018 at 9:42 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

I am not saying he got the story of Adam's fall by a vision, he got it from Hebrew TRADITION.

Final chapter of Deuteronomy, on his order, was written by Joshua, like final chapter of Joshua, on his order, was written by someone else.

Moses was the FINAL editor of Genesis, and made it his own book by adding the chapter one account of the six days, which he had from God on Sinai.

Also, arguably, where Genesis has Adonai, it is possible that Moses replaced Elohim with Adonai in those places, also a work by a final editor making Genesis his own work. Why? From memory, in some places Genesis has Adonai, but Exodus says God had not revealed that name to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Putting anything of the Pentateuch into the Temple era, as to first authorship, is simply heresy.

One can imagine updates in spelling and even onomastic updates were continuously being made. Obviously vocalisation started out as by memory and neither the dots nor the matres lectionis consonants were original parts of the text. One could extend this to names, to comments on Joshua's stones, to points of grammar.

In Sweden we do that quite a lot to our Classics (except the inserting comments or onomastic changes part, there we have footnotes).

Take a look at this stanza:

Den ena som en ek sköt fram,
och som en lans är hennes stam;
men kronan, som i vinden skälfver,
liksom en hjelm sin rundel hvälfver.

You probably get zilch. But the point is, while "open E" sound as short tonic vowel could be ä if the word had a in other forms, it was normally e (especially after j).

Fast forward to 1870's (after it was written). Now you could get a reedition in which you instead had ä for nearly all "open E", the short as well as the long, it would if so have looked like this:

Den ena som en ek sköt fram,
och som en lans är hennes stam;
men kronan, som i vinden skälfver,
liksom en hjälm sin rundel hvälfver.

Comes the dire year of 1906. The Academy gives the Nobel Prize of Literature to Inno a Satana (it means what you think it means) by Carducci. More to the point (just giving the spiritual background to it), certain consonants which had alternative spellings now get only one (but sh/wh - it's a sound between the two, except in Finland where it is sh) and yod which had more spellings than any other retain them.

The result now looks like this, and this is how I read it in an abridged edition:

Den ena som en ek sköt fram,
och som en lans är hennes stam;
men kronan, som i vinden skälver,
liksom en hjälm sin rundel välver.

And if it had been prose, perhaps the archaic word "rundel" would have been replaced by some more easily comprehensible word, like "klot" or "cirkel" (globe or circle, I think "rundel" is a very exact rendering of khug in that famous Isaiah 40:22).

THIS is the limit of the reediting which can have happened during either first or second Temple.

If you argue "such and such a form in Pentateuch is younger than a form in the Psalms of David, therefore cannot be by Moses, and so the text is not" you are basically arguing that - had we only had the redacted copy with "välver" today - the text cannot be by Tegnér, because "välver" doesn't exist before 1906 (or only very sporadically, not sure which), and Tegnér died 1848 and is credited by tradition with having written the poem in 1825. By the way, my memory failed slightly, he died in 1846.

Other example of the poem, first original, then introducing changes which would have been there in a prose rendering:

Hur gladtigt sam han i sin slup
med henne öfver mörkblå djup!
Hur hjertligt, när han seglen vänder,
hon klappar i små hvita händer!

Hur glatt simmade han i sin slup
med henne öfver* mörkblå djup!
Hur hjärtligt, när han seglen vänder,
hon klappar i små vita händer!

This too, changing the rhythm, but immaterial outside poetry is a kind of change which could easily have happened during the temple era.

In English, replacing "swam" with "swimmed" would be incorrect, but in Swedish, not replacing "sam" with "simmade" would be and was already in Tegnér"s time, archaic.

A comment about "Kiryat-Arba" as "Kiryat-Arba which is Hebron" is really the utmost limit of what the temple era could have changed.

The law was made for oral reading (to be read in public once every seven years) and a footnote in the margin of the text, not pronounced, would not have been any use to the audience.

You asked where I find this?

In Tradition. Church Fathers and Scholastics say nothing about this or that or sundry being added during the temple era. They credit Moses as virtually sole author.

I also credit him with having been the substantial author - since changing "swam" to "swimmed" (should that happen to English) or "Kiryat Arba" to "Kiryat Arba which is Hebron" (change probably under Joshua or at least before King David) is not a substantial change. Adding narrative which was not there is.

How about Moses having inherited most of Genesis from earlier? Since he a u t h o r i s e d the story, he is literally a u t h o r of it. If Pacelli penned and Pope Pius XI signed an encyclical, its author in the literal Latin sense of this term is Pius XI.

Is there ANY kind of argument for your little heresy about "some of the rest of the Pentateuch belongs to the Temple era, way later than Moses" which I have not dealt with in this response?

Oh, by the way, if you have it from your bishop, do feel free, even urged to pass on to him that I consider his position as very gravely heretical in a man of his position, since as a bishop he is required to know all of the faith and has no excuse for being a badly instructed Catholic, like you may have.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Note

*öfver - actually it should have been changed to över, 1906 again, but I missed this item from fatigue.

XXVII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/10/2018 at 9:50 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Taking narrative even without archaeology as a reliable source is not something suspended between heaven and earth, but - outside certain Academic and also heretical cliques - normal procedure.

Note, I said "a reliable" not an "always infallible or inerrant" source.

When Ulysses came back to Ithaca, it caused an upheaval on Ithaca. His archery may have been boosted by magic or may have been boosted by hidden archers who did not get the credit, but the suitors of his presumed widow did find the news of his démise highly exaggerated.

When Ulysses tells Nausicaa of how he dealt with Polypheme ... well, since Ulysses was alone, Nausicaa only had his word for it. Homer wisely left it inside Ulysses' narrative to Nausicaa - not in his own words.

So, I'll not be dogmatic on whether Polypheme existed or not, but I am about his return.

Troy being sacked by the Greeks was good enough for St. Augustine on the basis of the narrative of Virgil, based on earlier ones.

You might say we have imporved* methods now?

My point is, I don't think they are at all an improvement. They are a deterioration for reasons stated in the earlier mails./HGL

Note

* imporved should be improved, of course, fatigue.

From here

only the latter titale is continued:

XXVIII

Damien Mackey to me

7/11/2018 at 2:28 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

You believe in Troy?

How come it has never been found? You have as much chance of finding a so-called Troy as finding a Cyclops.

XXIX

Me to Damien Mackey

7/11/2018 at 9:10 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Archaeological Site of Troy
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/849

XXX

Damien Mackey to me

7/12/2018 at 1:28 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Oh, Hissarlik. I've long heard of it.

And one day, perhaps long after I'm gone, they might even find an ancient stele there on the site of Hissarlik telling: "This is the site of Homer's Troy". "And here you can see a piece of Achilles' heel".

Keep living between earth and sky, H-G L.

XXXI

Me to Damien Mackey

7/12/2018 at 2:09 PM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Schliemann and the local priest put up a sign saying "this is where Christ appeared to King Priam".

Eagles tend to live between earth and sky, beasts from the earth tend not to ...

Seriously, if you have SO much trouble with trusting simple tradition on simple fact (here was a war, the people involved were named so and so ...) even when parts of it have been confirmed (Paris was also known as Alexander, and this name for Tarwusha / Wilusha region has been confirmed by ancient diplomacy, he could have been the diplomat of his father ... or to extreme sceptics, the real ruler of Troy, but that I won't buy ...). If you have SO much trouble with that, why do you trust archaeology on anything either?

After all, you were not there at most digs!

There is a dig outside ancient hills of Hissarlik, where archaeologists and military have found traces of a military encampment ... but since the tradition of this dig comes via youtube and me, trusting it would obviously be too much of a life of the eagles' young for your taste!

XXXII

Damien Mackey to me

7/13/2018 at 2:02 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Schliemann was nuts as well.

Archaeology : Behind the Mask of Agamemnon
Volume 52 Number 4, July/August 1999
https://archive.archaeology.org/9907/etc/calder.html

"For 25 years I have researched the life of Heinrich Schliemann. I have learned to be skeptical, particularly of the more dramatic events in Schliemann's life: a White House reception; his heroic acts during the burning of San Francisco; his gaining American citizenship on July 4, 1850, in California; his portrayal of his wife, Sophia, as an enthusiastic archaeologist; the discovery of ancient Greek inscriptions in his backyard; the discovery of the bust of Cleopatra in a trench in Alexandria; his unearthing of an enormous cache of gold and silver objects at Troy, known as Priam's Treasure. Thanks to the research of archaeologist George Korres of the University of Athens, the German art historian Wolfgang Schindler, and historians of scholarship David A. Traill and myself, we know that Schliemann made up these stories, once universally accepted by uncritical biographers. These fictions cause me to wonder whether the Mask of Agamemnon might be a further hoax. Here are nine reasons to believe it may be ...".

"Paris" would have been another biblical appropriation, likely Perez (of Judah).

Unless you think that Paris is in France, and somewhere between earth and sky.

XXXIII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/13/2018 at 10:30 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Let's distinguish "Paris" as in Paris, Paridos, Paridi, Parida, Paris (son of Priam) from Lutetia Parisiorum, also known as Parisius in scholastic Latin, shall we?

"a White House reception; his heroic acts during the burning of San Francisco; his gaining American citizenship on July 4, 1850, in California"

Never heard of those parts.

"his portrayal of his wife, Sophia, as an enthusiastic archaeologist"

Let's put it like this, he "married" her because she was Greek, because she knew Homer. She would have been somewhat ... incongenial in her role ... if she had not at least humoured her husband's main interest.

In her case especially as it was an adultery, Schliemann was a divorcee when marrying her.

As to Priam's treasure and death mask, it is now fairly agreed among archaeologists, they are the wrong level of Troy for being close to Trojan War. They are "Troy II" while Trojan War would be one of the levels like "Troy VI" or "Troy VII".

As to Schliemann being fraudulent on many items, that doesn't detract from his discovery.

Indeed, just as he agreed a fake with the local priest about "this is the place where Christ appeared to King Priam", exactly so, he may have made up lots of other stuff in order to have enough prestige in what was then (and still is) Turkey to be allowed to dig.

As I supposed, you were not enough involved in correct keeping of VIII commandment to believe tradition by me that later archaeologists have found a war camp outside the Hissarlik ancient city, confirming Trojan War, so, here is a BBC story:

The Truth of Troy - transcript
First broadcast: BBC Two, Thursday 25 March 2004
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/troytrans.shtml

Or do you think Eric Cline and Manfred Korfmann are dishonest people just because Schliemann more or less had to be, when doing things among Turks who see so much on personal prestige?

Update:

XXXIV

Damien Mackey to me

7/14/2018 at 2:02 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Yeah they're on the wrong level, on the wrong page, in the wrong place, probably on the wrong planet.

XXXV

Me to Damien Mackey

7/16/2018 at 9:49 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

You want that as your final word on this series of posts?

Creation vs. Evolution : How Much was Shinar Devastated by the Flood? · You Find a Fossil Whale Here, a Fossil Pterosaur There ... · Answering Carter and Cosner on Eden · Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X · Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded? · Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do)

XXXVI

Damien Mackey to me

7/17/2018 at 1:36 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

You have a nice rest, H-G.

XXXVII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/17/2018 at 4:19 PM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

If you thought debating you was stressful, you are wrong.

XXXVIII

Damien Mackey to me

7/18/2018 at 2:09 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Like I said before, you have more points than a porcupine.

Arch. Fulton Sheen had the right idea, KISS - Keep It Short, Stoopid.
No offence intended.

XXXIX

Me to Damien Mackey

7/18/2018 at 2:08 PM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Oh - you need a rest? Fine.

Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded?

XI
Damien Mackey to me: 7/5/2018 at 1:30 AM
Re: Gehon: In Sirach 24, the Nile is mentioned separately from the four rivers of Genesis 2, those of Adam's and Noah's time.

So you can't identify them.

It overflows, like the Pishon, with wisdom,
and like the Tigris at the time of the first fruits.
26 It runs over, like the Euphrates, with understanding,
and like the Jordan at harvest time.
27 It pours forth instruction like the Nile,[a]
like the Gihon at the time of vintage.
XII
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/5/2018 at 1:48 PM
Re: Gehon: Vintage?

That would perhaps indicate another river than the Nile ...

Well, this was one ex temporary model.

Thing is, Church Fathers have assigned diverse rivers, but are consistent on mentioning Euphrates as Frat and Tigris as Hiddekel.

Most I looked at also mentioned Nile as either Pishon or Gihon.

Ganges and Danube are mentioned as Pishon and Gihon - hence my earlier model taking that more literally.

The pure fact that Nile and Gihon are named in parallel is in itself not impossible to square with identity.

However, Gihon in time of vintage seems to go better with Blue Nile than with White Nile (supposing Ethiopians made wine before they went to farm coffee - Ethiopians in our sense, that is).

That would perhaps make some kind of hay out of my attempt to reassign Pishon and Gihon as both Niles and Danube and Ganges as prolongations of pre-Flood counterparts of Euphrates and Tigris.

If so, Gihon could instead actually be "Ister" i e Danube - at least they do have vintages there.

What Bible or article quoting Bible is the text from and what does footnote a say?
XIII
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/5/2018 at 2:30 PM
Re: Gehon - Haydock comment: Ver. 35. Phison. Or Phase of Colchis, which rises in Armenia, like the Tigris and Euphrates, all which overflow their banks at the beginning of summer, on account of the snow melting.

(37...) Gehon. Or Araxes, which descends from Armenia into the Caspian sea, though some erroneously take it to be the Nile, (C.) which overflows at the same time as the Euphrates. Pliny xviii. 18. Solon xlvi.
XIV
Damien Mackey to me: 7/6/2018 at 1:37 AM
Re: Gehon - Haydock comment: Solon was not an historical character, but a Greek appropriation of Solomon.

See my "Solomon and Sheba" at Academia.
XV
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/6/2018 at 7:08 AM
Re: Gehon - Haydock comment: Ouch, since he is a writer your reconstruction supports ideas like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John not being real Gospellers.

Obviously, for 2000 years, the Church has not agreed with this idea - either of Gospels or even of Solon.

Also, I am not sure the politics of Solomon and Solon are identical, old Israel was less democratic and more age based aristocratic than Athens.

If you say some Athenian adapted sentiments of Solomon (or of any Egyptian for that matter), well, could his name possibly have been ... Solon?

If you deny one did, how do you explain books rewriting themselves in thin air?
XVI
Damien Mackey to me: 7/7/2018 at 1:35 AM
Re: Gehon - Haydock comment: Good point about Solon.

Though he is substantially a Greek appropriation of Solon, he is - like all of his appropriated ilk - a composite character.

His laws are reminiscent of Nehemiah's, as scholars have shown, e.g.:

Yamauchi's “Two reformers compared: Solon of Athens and Nehemiah of Jerusalem” (Bible world. New York: KTAV, 1980).

Don't worry, you'll get there.
XVII
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/7/2018 at 11:15 AM
Re: Gehon - Haydock comment: My dear, the problem is not whether Solon reused Solomon or Nehemiah, that is entirely possible - though a priori a bit improbable, and due to the existence of natural law not necessary.

The problem is your insistence on making historical characters fictional. No, I'll not get there.
Going back: a bit for a parallel line of mails:
XVIII
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/6/2018 at 3:19 PM
saw two papers: I agree Teilhard was .... I think "silly" is too good a word for it.

C S Lewis once seems to have said on Teilhard's "before life, there was pre-life" that before you light a lamp there is of course "pre-light" but sensible people call that darkness.

Have you included that reference yet?

It seems one commentator you referenced considered Gihon as "Nubian Nile" - would that be Blue Nile?
XIX
Damien Mackey to me: 7/7/2018 at 2:51 AM
Re: saw two papers: Yes, Blue Nile is the Ethiopian (Nubian) one.

Very good quote re 'Try hard' de Chardin - had not previously known of it.

Now included at: The Sheer Silliness of Teilhard de Chardin
Part Six (b): Reader’s comment on Teilhard’s ‘silliness’
Damien Mackey
https://www.academia.edu/36996226/The_Sheer_Silliness_of_Teilhard_de_Chardin._Part_Six_b_Reader_s_comment_on_Teilhard_s_silliness_
XX
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/7/2018 at 11:21 AM
Re: saw two papers: Well, if so, the Sirach problem is solved.

Nile meaning Nile between (probably) Khartoum and Delta, Gihon meaning Blue Nile - that is entirely possible and accounts for a lot of Church Fathers counting Nile as either Gihon or Phison.

Perhaps most common set of "four rivers" being Euphrates, Tigris, Nile and Ganges, another one (seen in a sermon not held but approved by St John Chrysostom, if I recall correctly) being Euphrates, Tigris, Nile and Danube.

I think this would also involve Nile switching roles between Gihon and Phison and if one of them is Blue and other White Nile, it comes clear.

In that case pre-Flood version of Blue Nile flowing South would have turned east and also flowed out by Ganges, pre-Flood version of White Nile West and flowed on by ... I'd take Niger Congo over Danube if so.

And Danube, Araxes and Phasis and the Daria rivers would be continuing either Euphrates or Tigris to North West or North East.

With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X

Four Rivers: Maps shown here, together, instead of lower, in each email.
Frat
Hiddekel
Phison
Gehon
Correspondence: starts here:
I
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/1/2018 at 6:04 PM
remember "reverse Danube"?: Here is a comment:

Creation vs. Evolution : Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/07/trying-to-break-down-reverse-danube-or.html
II
Damien Mackey to me: 7/2/2018 at 1:31 AM
Re: remember "reverse Danube"?: H-GL
I'd love to see a simple map of your proposal. That would make it very easy for all of us to digest.

Best wishes,
Damien.
III
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/2/2018 at 9:35 AM
Re: remember "reverse Danube"?: Hmmmm ... I'll see what I can do ...

Here is my proposal for Frat:

[Frat, see above]
IV
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/2/2018 at 9:39 AM
Here is Hiddekel: [Hiddekel, see above]
V
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/2/2018 at 9:45 AM
Phison: [Phison, see above]
VI
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/2/2018 at 9:50 AM
Gehon: Note that I deleted part of Atlantic in Google map screen shot, to approach Amazonas river to Niger Congo and White Nile:

[Gehon, see above]
VII
Damien Mackey to me: 7/3/2018 at 1:46 AM
Re: Gehon: You did a very good job. And so quickly.

Looks a bit too vast for the antediluvian world for my liking, but well done nonetheless.
VIII
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/3/2018 at 11:15 AM
Re: Gehon: Why would the antediluvian world have been smaller?

There is nothing in either Bible or rational conclusions from it saying that the globe was extended during the Flood.
IX
Damien Mackey to me: 7/4/2018 at 2:37 AM
Re: Gehon: You have only to read the size of the "world" (earth) when the people from all under heaven heard the Apostles.

Even that late in time, the world ranged from, say, Persia to Ethiopia only.

My Tasmania does not get a look in. And I am sure than Noah never went anywhere near Hobart.

The Queen of Sheba came from the ends of the world (earth), not from Tasmania, or South America, or New Zealand, but just down the road from Israel.

You do not need to impose modern concepts upon ancient texts. That's Fundamentalism - which ain't all that fundamental.
X
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/4/2018 at 12:25 PM
Re: Gehon: The world was split up in the days of Peleg.

This "small world" you talk of is a result of this split. China, though heard of, is really an other world, India also.

This break up happened at carbon date 8600 BC and real date 2562 BC, six years before birth of Peleg in 2556 BC.

Also, when you say "Ethiopia" I suspect you mean the country of the Blue Nile, the country of Axoum, Addis Abbeba, something which is already ended where Somalia or Horn of African begins.

To a Greek or Roman "Ethiopia" means "aithi-op-eia" land of burnt faces, that is, all of Black Africa.

That is why Moses, who was inerrantly inspired, said that Gehon - not using the name Nile! - encompassed all of Kush (ancestor of men with black faces), which LXX translates as Aithiopeia.

Of the Nile only, it would have been inadequate, but Nile with Niger and Kongo rivers taken together, that is another matter.

So, my hypothesis is, the words of Moses about Gehon apply equally to the riverbeds of Nile, Niger and Kongo rivers taken together.

Even you must be aware American Clovis points show suspicious similarities to Solutrean points ... not explicable if there was no contact.

And yes, in my recalibration of carbon dates to Biblical chronology, Solutrean and Clovis styles are post-Flood but pre-Babel.

Tuesday, 10 July 2018

Debating Manners and Priorities with a Psychology Minded Person

1 (FB blog) Carbon Dated Egyptology? Coffin Club didn't want to tell How Much! 2 Coffin Club as Mute as a Grave on my Question 3 Third time over? 4 (correspondence blog) Debating Manners and Priorities with a Psychology Minded Person

FB informs

You and Melissa McIntosh aren't connected on Facebook
Website Manager at 21 Triangles
Lives in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

From HGL to MMcI

Tue 1:16pm

Full story:

Carbon Dated Egyptology? Coffin Club didn't want to tell How Much!
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2017/07/carbon-dated-egyptology-coffin-club.html

Coffin Club as Mute as a Grave on my Question
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2017/07/coffin-club-as-mute-as-grave-on-my.html

Third time over?
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2017/07/third-time-over.html

FB informs

3:34am

Melissa McIntosh accepted your request.

From MMcI to HGL

Mate, I'm honestly not trying to be rude but I'm really not all that interested. I have a degree in archaeology (which includes the evolution of early hominids and the eventual evolution of modern humans) and ancient history. You're really messaging the wrong person about creationism. If that's your belief, cool, I'm not one of those people whose going to throw a fit and try to convince you otherwise, people can believe what they want.

But yeah. Sorry man, I just really am not the slightest bit interested in creationism and it's deceitful to falsify data to support a hypothesis. Not having a dig at you, just the people you're citing.

For the future, this sort of thing is probably best left to creationist groups, otherwise all you're going to have is people saying you're wrong and it will just cause arguments. Again, you do you, more power to you, but it's better to avoid things that will only serve to upset you.

From HGL to MMcI

11:33am

The things that DO serve to upset me are people sabotaging debate or simply information seeking.

You did that on a thread.

Some admin here has made it impossible to blue and then copy paste the entirety of your comment in order for me to give a detailed response.

You have a degree in archaeology, and you are doing something else.

This means, what archaeology builds its data on is not in your fresh memory.

That something else that you are doing on 21 Circles is what bothers me, and what you are doing once again on the paragraph "for the future".

Hope to later here or elsewhere be able to blue and copypaste all of above and reblog this too.

While you are AT investigating my "getting upset" it is bad tactics of me to actually get upset.

But someone has here been making the bluing and therefore copy pasting impossible, and that kind of underhand tactics DOES upset me.

I was not the least upset by anyone saying I was wrong. I was not the least upset by anyone arguing I was wrong.

I was ONLY more and more upset by first Volokhine and then Luca and then an admin arguing that because I was wrong, I should not have a straight answer on a straight question.

if THIS story does not interest you sufficiently to look through and see this is what happened, well, you are being a cheat and a liar for people like Youri Volokhine and Luca Miatello, who, once again, did not upset me in the least by telling me I was wrong, but ONLY by interfering unduly with my interaction with others.

You have given a dishonest argument for Volokhine's initial dictum on July 1:st, and you are doing so due to registering me as "upset" (which I have been on occasion) supposedly for being contradicted. But my very first question has never been answered, it was already July 11 when you came in, and if you had been for every time you saw a group where you had posed a question seeing:

1) no answers to your question
2) rude answers to why you posed your questions
3) people saying you should stop arguing (when someone had a bit more politely argued about the why of my question and I had argued back)
4) people actively STOPPING anyone from answering initial question;

THEN I think you would have been somewhat upset too, whatever you pretend here to me!

Tried to blue again, and the blue disappears as soon as I lift finger from mouse. Not how bluing should function, and not what I need it to function like in order to give a phrase by phrase answer, as I intended.

As to your supposed practical suggestion, the specific information I wanted from Yvonne Buskens might not be available in a Creationist group. It was available in The Coffin Club, she withheld it (no doubt due to my being a creationist, and asking question for a creationist agenda, which was her right). BUT some people decided I should be out of the group before she or someone else with similar expertise would change their mind and start being on topic!

And, just in case you should feel like doubting that the bluing was deliberately made impossible for my by an admin, I did blue and copy past one phrase which I also answered, I only discovered the problem after next try:

"but I'm really not all that interested."

Sure, that is obviously why you came to the thread in the first place.

Valid both for thread and for this correspondence.

Ah, bluing refunctions!

From MMcI to HGL

It just showed up on my feed dude, I didn't go specifically looking for it. The random capitalised words got my attention and I wanted to see what the drama was about, I'd completely forgotten about it five minutes later. I really don't understand why you're messaging me 😂

It doesn't matter, my guy

From HGL to MMcI

"I have a degree in archaeology (which includes the evolution of early hominids and the eventual evolution of modern humans) and ancient history."

As a little side kick. I suppose you did take some course on how carbon 14 works, how the dating method

"You're really messaging the wrong person about creationism."

I wasn't messaging you about creationism. I was messaging you about the behaviour of the Coffin Club towards a creationist - a behaviour in which your participated just before I was thrown out.

"If that's your belief, cool, I'm not one of those people whose going to throw a fit and try to convince you otherwise, people can believe what they want."

Oh, how detached. But you are one of two people who were reading my third status on group and concluding - totally without reason - that I was trying to discuss creationism with you when I was simply telling the group why it was a bad idea to ask me to take my question to a Creationist group. The expertise I was looking for isn't there.

"But yeah. Sorry man, I just really am not the slightest bit interested in creationism"

Nice. Once again, if you have no issue with it, why were you interested in answering my status in the first place?

"and it's deceitful to falsify data to support a hypothesis."

Falsifying data is one thing. I wanted the data - the raw data (pmc level in sample) or their interpretation according to "original carbon 14 near 100pmc" (Libby date or Cambridge date), in order to calibrate my reinterpretation of raw data.

What is deceitful about that?

"Not having a dig at you, just the people you're citing."

What people I was citing? David Grohl and Daniel McKey? I was only mentioning they were in a different pursuit than I, they were not in the C-14 business!

And I suppose you are not considering Katherine Kenyon as dishonest, since her 1550 BC date for Garstang's City IV has by herself and others been used to debunk Garstang's support for the Bible account!

I am in the business of recalibrating C-14 - whenever I can find an archaeologically dated object with carbon date and with a fairly certain date or dating spectrum in Biblical chronology, I use that to reinterpret the C-14 level in the atmosphere back then.

Djoser gives c. 900 years older than Biblical dates for Joseph in Egypt (see Hunger stele for why I consider Joseph is recalled as Imhotep)? Fine, that means the C14 level then was as in the objects we now date to c. 900 years old.

Hence my intense interest in carbon dates related to ancient Egypt.

And, as mentioned on the status you commented with very little relevance, it is NOT "elsewhere" in a Creationist group I am likely to find those - so far, at least!

Matter or not, I bothered to answer, so I am posting it.

From MMcI to HGL

Why are you letting this bother you so much? (And you can't really say it's not with the multiple walls of text you've sent me)

I protested about a particularly graphic video of a mouse being bitten in half by a snapping turtle in a reptile group once (I own snakes) and I was removed, being kicked out of a Facebook group for little reason really doesn't matter, dude. You won't remember this in a month.

From HGL to MMcI

In that case, you have a much more submissive behaviour to group admins than I have.

I dislike getting my attention called to sth which interests me (like this) and to get a kind of lecture about psychology.

And in fact, walls of text are per se (without caps, and without my saying I am upset) no indication I am upset. I happen to like - in much better circumstances than these, so it's a habit - to copy paste the whole thing I get, divide it in portions and answer each one of them.

I am also irritated when this is denied me, as just now the bluing dysfunctioned again.

From MMcI to HGL

I don't argue because it doesn't matter, who cares if some stranger you'll never meet is rude to you over the net? Will it have any effect on your life? No, so why bother dwelling on it?

That's all, it's just healthier if you don't let yourself be bothered by things that ultimately don't matter.

From HGL to MMcI

"some stranger I'll never meet"

That is the majority of people I actually meet.

It does have an effect on my life, since that is both my work situation, as internet writer, and major social situation.

My other work, keeping me alive, is begging on the streets. I get enough rudeness doing that by people not appreciating writing is work, even if it's not yet printed, it's there on the web if they care, without having to get insulted over the web too.

Also, once again, what I am writing, and I am spending hours on doing it, is creationism, specifically recalibration of C14. If The Coffin Club had been kind of unique, that is one thing. But I have similar reactions from individual learned men I am contacting on other occasions, and its spreadking to a group is hampering my work as a creationist writer.

Let's take a part of it you did not study. Biostratigraphy of Cretaceous to Palaeocene is not your study. Most fossil finds of Cretaceous involve no Palaeocene, and vice versa. A very rare exception is Yacoriate in Argentina.

Now, in Yacoraite, you don't find a Ceratopsian in the Cretaceous and a Uintatherium in the Palaeocene (ok, perhaps Uintatheria are a bit more "recent" on that scale). You find Creataceous slugs and you find Palaeocene slugs that look pretty much the same. And you find the K-T boundary, that famous iridium later. So, I wanted to know, where the slugs divided into Cretaceous and Palaeocene ones just because they were under and over the iridium layer?

I wrote to the University which would apply there:

Yacoraite
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2013/11/yacoraite.html

Close to four years, still no answer.

You say it doesn't matter, but it is actually hampering a work I am trying to both do and get a living off.

It is really not healthy for me to on top of that be exposed to people trying to tell me what should matter in my life.

It is ALSO not healthy for me to be randomly exposed on where I access internet to disabled bluing of what I'd like to copy.

But with little or no money except what I get begging, a library card at Nanterre University Library is a real asset, even if my (evolutionist, communist, psychology and psychiatry minded) hosts sometimes abuse the sitation over the top - right in the right moment for you to be involved.

From MMcI to HGL

Mate, this really isn't good for you. I'm not going to argue with you. All I'm saying is being removed from a Facebook group doesn't matter at all, you have more important things to worry about. That's all. I'm just trying to help, man. I'm clearly not so I'll show myself out.

From HGL to MMcI

You know what is really not good for me : people telling me what is good for me.

And telling me what matters to me.

And telling me what I have to worry about.

And you know what would really be helpful?

Your getting in touch with the admin so I could get some carbon data from Egypt which would be very useful in my work.

But THERE of course, you have your conscience of this work being tantamount to fixing data in a dishonest way ... well, if that is the best you can do? OK.

Pages

Friday, 13 July 2018

Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do) (Update to XXXIX)

Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded?

With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X

Tuesday, 10 July 2018

Debating Manners and Priorities with a Psychology Minded Person