Me and Roger Pearlman on Genesis 11:3

28 SEP 2019 À 11:23

Me to Roger

[Ce message a été supprimé car il contient un lien qui est contraire à nos Standards de la communauté.]

29 SEP 2019 À 05:41

Roger to me

what is the Hebrew word? Melabain (Brick). or book and verse.
but GBT not site of MIgdal tower of Bavel..
I am highly confident.
the furnace we have a tradition Nimrod cast Abraham into was a brick oven per our take and was in the plains of Shinar we have in Mesopotamia Ur

29 SEP 2019 À 15:34

Me to Roger

"in the plains of Shinar we have in Mesopotamia Ur"

In the Bible it does not say "in the plains of Shinar" but "found a plain in the land of Shinar".

If Shinar is, as is likely, Mesopotamia, the plain around Harran on Turkish Syrian border on the edge of which you have GbT, is a plain that can be found within the land of Shinar.

The plain where Woolley's Ur is, is however a plain which encompasses Mesopotamia on both sides that far south.

Nimrod casting Abraham into a furnace is not in the Bible.
Actually, Nimrod even meeting Abraham is also not in the Bible.

In the text versions I follow as to chronology, the Flood was 2957 BC and Abraham was born 2015 BC. Peleg must have been born 401 after the Flood, that is 2556 BC. Nimrod was around when Peleg was born, arguably no longer when Abraham was.

Or if, he was very old:

Sem - Ham 600 years lifespan
Arphaxad - Kush 338 / 565 years lifespan
Sale (or II Cainaan) - Nimrod ben Kush 433 / 360 years lifespan (460)

29 SEP 2019 À 19:50

Roger to me

TY, yes I stand corrected, as you said: a plain in the land/s of Shinar
Yes out of the text but a possible explicit reference where G-d saved Avraham from 'Ur Ksdim' book___ chapter and verse _:__ ?
Ur also being a flame
while not explicit in scripture there are traditions of same. Medrash Rabbah..

Yes we disagree (respectfully I hope) on the scriptural chronology.
Which based on the Sedr Olam understanding of the oldest Hebrew scrolls (dead sea?)
1656 anno mundi 'Mabul' global flood
1948 Abraham birth
1996 Peleg passing and start dispersion from Bavel
2006 Passing of Noach

subtract 3760 from the anno mundi to get the year BCE before Christian era.

30 SEP 2019 À 09:31

Me to Roger

As you said what you base your chronology on, here is my basis:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Background to Christmas Martyrology
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/02/background-to-christmas-martyrology.html

As to respect, I hope it doesn't exclude arguing about who's right.

But as to locations - did you know that Urfa or Edessa very close to GbT has been identified by some Jewish traditions (those of the area, for instance) as well as Muslim ones as the Ur Kasdim?

However, these would agree with you on chronology, Abraham meeting Nimrod over there (and as Shish Kebab is popular there, they say Abraham invented it).

2 OCT 2019 À 06:20

Roger to me

[thumbs up, I recall]

3 OCT 2019 À 13:21

Me to Roger

"Melabain"

What is the root of that word? Is there any verb associated?

How similar or dissimilar is it to anything you would use to term "rammed earth"?

Specifically if the rammed earth was solidified by mixing with bitumen (whatever that is in Hebrew text) before the action of ramming it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rammed_earth

And dito for "bake with fire".

I have also considered, while bricks and stones and mortar, unlike bitumen other than for isolation, is normally associated with building materials, could a battery of ceramic with asphalt covering (as they had in ancient times) have been considered as a "brick with bitumen for mortar" as the text does not specify this was how they built?

I missed on wishing the best for your 5780, but I do wish you the best for that time.

3 OCT 2019 À 17:44

Roger to me

melabane -brick
lavan is white
you may want to post the q on the FB Biblical etymology group, if unable advise and I will try
Thank you and a Shannah Tova for you also
Biblical Hebrew Etymology נפלאות שפת הקודש
4 208 membres

4 OCT 2019 À 11:31

Me to Roger

ok, one word out of the three is a bit meagre

4 OCT 2019 À 17:12

Roger to me

aside from Melabain are the other two words rammed earth?
rammed earth reminds me of making a sand castle at the beach using a pail..

4 OCT 2019 À 18:27

Me to Roger

I counted "rammed earth" as one, and the third was "burn". Meaning, if "ramming" the earth and "burning" ... bricks? ... could refer to same action.

Roger to me

ok looking at Gen 11:3

Me to Roger

:)

Roger to me

one thing I notice is how brick is similar to build milabane - boneh

[omitting some "diagram"]

Homer (morter) is similar to Hamor (male donkey)

Me to Roger

bitumen for donkeys sounds like a modern thing

Roger to me

per Rashi: bricks as not much stone in that plain by Bavel
that motive is same for both bricks and rammed earth

Rashi on in this translation 'burn them thoroughly' the doub;le language nsrapha lisrapha: in this manner they made bricks, they burn (bake?) them in a furnace.
nsrapha or lisrapha - anything close to how you would describe ramming of earth?

Chomer - morter and or plaster
Srapha is normally burning. for example perhaps by Joshua burning the city of Aiy poision burns one from the inside thus a Nachash is a 'serphant' related to the punishment for a bas Cohein who commits adultery. srapha.
Exodus 32:20 Moses burnt (srapha) the golden calf

Me to Roger

ok, would mean some fire or corrosive substance is used, clearly
"burn them with fire" - is fire specfically mentioned as a word in Hebrew?

Roger to me

I think the male donkey thing has to do w/ their attribute
Aish is fire so I do not see that in that verse.
Ur may be a flame as Ner - candle
Oore - Light (Aleph vav Reish)

Me to Roger

you do not see that in the verse either?
δεῦτε πλινθεύσωμεν πλίνθους καὶ ὀπτήσωμεν αὐτὰς πυρί

Roger to me

aish - fire is aleph Shin.
the word seraipha (burn..) has a shin (with the accent sounds like the s in sin.) so perhaps a subroot of seripha is fire/aish

5 OCT 2019 À 10:07

Me to Roger

but the actual noun "fire" does not appear?

so it could theoretically be a chemical process rather than fire?

because there are rammed earth houses that are made more solid by chemical processes of chalk ...

[I am talking of what in Swedish is called "stöphus"]

6 OCT 2019 À 05:10

Roger to me

while in Torah Discovery Chronology we assume furnace baked bricks, we conclude lead was added to make the bricks more durable and were the agent G-d used to confuse the speech.. via neurological damage to the participants.

6 OCT 2019 À 10:24

Me to Roger

But the words translated "bricks baked with fire" and "furnace baked bricks" in Hebrew really are to "burn bricks with burning"?

6 OCT 2019 À 21:11

Roger to me

the translation I am using has 'let us make bricks' (double usage of Lbane),
and burn them thoroughly (double usage of srapha) .
so maybe boneh - build and brick, roots related
while the srepha double is double bake them in fire?
the second translation I am looking at 'and burn them in fire'

7 OCT 2019 À 13:56

Me to Roger

You do not know the actual Hebrew?

Bc if so, the double usage of srapha could mean a chemical process. And it so happens, pisé houses in Sweden (have been a thing since 18th C.) come in two versions, one of which has chalk as "skeleton" for the rammed earth.

I'm still not sure we actually found bricks in the rammed earth houses, but if it is possible, things make sense.

At Babel (Genesis 11 is acc. to v. 8 arguably another locality than the Babylon Daniel was in), metallurgy had not yet been recovered after the Flood, and uncut stones are not a building material that is easy to use, and to cut it you need metal tools, iron or steel.

7 OCT 2019 À 17:07

Roger to me

the whole point was by the tower of Bavel they made 'bricks' because they did not use stones
we already had metal tech prior to the Mabul flood by Moach (Tubal cain) so at least some knew of about
for example the copper mace/septre by Otzi the iceman was likely produced at Ur
either way I did not say your alt. location and definition of burn and brick are not valid alt.
I just am not convinced to the extent to change from my current understanding.

7 OCT 2019 À 19:01

Me to Roger

Otzi is after Babel.

I do not deny Tubal-Cain had metallurgy before the Flood, but immediately after, it would have been hard to identify mines.

So, during Noah's lifetime and a bit later, no metallurgy.

Last up to and including Babel and a bit longer.
Göbekli Tepe is in the NNW edge of precisely a plain, in Mesopotamia.

It's dated to "9600 to 8600 BC" by carbon, and Ötzi is from "3300 BC" which is in Abraham's lifetime.
Obviously Abraham was rather born 2015 BC, but "3300 BC" is a carbon date rather close to Genesis 13 and 14.

Roger to me

I have Abraham birth 1948 anno mundi -3760 = 1812 before Christian era.
GBT founded shortly after the 1656 anno mundi Mabul (so early The ice ages that lasted 340 years 1657-1996 anno mundi) and UR founded 140 prior to the end of The ice ages.
So (if I am right) secular consensus does not even have the relative dating right.

7 OCT 2019 À 20:32

Me to Roger

I don't think that works, since carbon dates depend on rise of carbon 14 and this rise makes sure the dates, while too long, come in the right order, for instane c:a 40 years of Babel come out as c:a 1000 years of GT, but end obviously after beginning, in carbon dates as in actual fact.

Roger to me

how do you know what they test are from when GBT and or Ur were founded? rather than form something left at GBT about the end of The ice ages ie by when we started dispersing from Bavel at GBT in which case 10k-12k YA consensus calibrates to 1996 anno mundi and after the start of the dispersion from Ur say 2100 aligns w/ about 5k YA.
also how do you know whoever is controlling the carbon dating is not cherry picking what aligns w/ their narrative, and discarding what does not as 'contaminated' or the like.

8 OCT 2019 À 08:02

Me to Roger

"The third millennium BC is generally described as the Early Bronze Age of Mesopotamia, which ends approximately after the demise of the Third Dynasty of Ur in the 21st century BC."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur#Sumerian_occupation_of_the_4th_millennium

"Some of the floors in this, the oldest, layer are made of terrazzo (burnt lime); others are bedrock from which pedestals to hold the large pair of central pillars were carved in high relief.[25] Radiocarbon dating places the construction of these early circles in the range of 9600 to 8800 BCE. Carbon dating suggests that (for reasons unknown) the enclosures were backfilled during the Stone Age."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#Plateau

"The site was deliberately backfilled sometime after 8000 BCE: the buildings were buried under debris, mostly flint gravel, stone tools, and animal bones."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#Layer_I

This gives the carbon dates, and this means GbT is clearly older than Ur.

Now, both are too much documented to receive the criticism levelled at dinosaurs that are carbon dated. I am not depending on an ideology that is claiming a dino carbon dated to 28 000 BP has been contaminated, I am just refusing to level such accusations back on uniformitarians for equally tactic reasons.

8 OCT 2019 À 17:10

Roger to me

OK initial consensus settlement at UR starting to 9600+2019= 11,019 YA is much closer to my understanding of starting 140 years prior to the approx. 1996 anno mundi end of the ice ages.

if some of the dinos that carbon date 30k YA died during 1656 anno mundi Mabul global flood epoch and others in the same strata date over 60k (off the scale) yet clearly died at the same flood event/s year, it shows how even after calibration for the gradual radiation build that began that year and did not level off for almost a thousand years, how large a +/- we must assign to any carbon dates over 3,000 years ago. Especially those from during and just after The ice ages.

8 OCT 2019 À 19:26

Me to Roger

What do you mean "in the same strata"?

Do you find any dinos next to each other that have both been carbon dated and one 30 000 years, one 60 000 years?

Or do you mean the places where they are found are both places with their stratum labelled same thing, like "Bajocian"? (Part of "Mid Jurassic")
And supposing this were so, why would Flood era inconsistencies mean later times than the Flood cannot be identified by carbon dates (with due deflation of timeline) either?

Roger to me

same strata laid down by the same epoch like a flood or .. not a long era (even if interpreted so by deep-time doctrine. so, same deep time epoch?

Me to Roger

you are aware that deep time epochs beyond most recent parts of quaternary are mainly identified by fossils, not by dating, and that therefore one Bajocian fossil find may be from the Flood, one from a pre-Flood dino hunt, one from a post-Flood mud slide, and they would still all be labelled Bajocian due to the fossils in it?

Roger to me

it shows the wide variation by (just before) about the start of The ice ages , so if one holds the end of The ice ages was just 340 years and not 25M or 200k years later it would be good cause to suspect during The ice ages a wide variation in carbon dating results can be expected from things that we can date that were even from the same year.

Me to Roger

I'd say if it dates 40 000 BP, it's Flood.

50 000 - 60 000 BP = pre-Flood.

30 000 BP = clearly post-Flood, in Noah's lifetime.
It so happens, GbT and Otzi are both after end of ice age.

Roger to me

that variation would gradualy decrease until we get to the 'modern' radiation levels about the Exodus I place 2448 anno mundi so 800 years rounded post flood 5780-2448 = 3332 YA
That is why any cherry picking by deep-time dogmatics w/o proper disclosure can really leave those who rely on them in the dark.

Me to Roger

I would tend to disagree.

I don't look at radiation levels, I don't know them, though with 10 times higher carbon 14 production (a bit less before, a bit more during GbT on my timeline), they would have been higher.

I go by successive C14 levels.

I see no particular reason why a high level of C14 production would mean a wide variation in atmospheres exact same time.

Roger to me

well two dead dinos near each other one may date 30K YA the other over 60k (if not enough isotopes.). when we know they are no more than 6k rounded years old (the age of the universe),.
we know lower entropy rates pre-flood as longer life spans and dinos that grew their whole life could get so big so long life, so low radiation / low entropy, thus if we carbon dated a dino that died one year prior to the flood of Noach it might date from 30k or even 60k + years ago even if it died the prior day.

Me to Roger

// well two dead dinos near each other one may date 30K YA the other over 60k (if not enough isotopes.). //

What exact place did this happen?

I don't even know any single dino dated to 60 000 BP or even to 40 000 BP.

You give me a source, I see you as guessing and am obviously not taking that guess (if such) on your authority.

Roger to me

so there were fewer isotopes to start, it takes a while for radiation levels to build to modern levels (1k rounded years) once the modern radiation penetration rate begins by the degradation to the atmosphere during the 1656 anno mundi Mabul year.

Me to Roger

// when we know they are no more than 6k rounded years old (the age of the universe),. //

Not the point, we agree either carbon date is inflated.

I don't know any object (offhand at least) carbon dated 60 000 BP, unless perhaps some pre-Flood men (Neanderthals or Denisovans or so ... wait, Homo Luzonensis)

I don't know any dino carbon dated to more than 38 000 - unless it was 32 000 or 28 000 years ago, and to me, they would be post-Flood. Unless nuked in pre-Flood times. I most definitely do NOT know any place where one dino is 30 000 BP and another 60 000 BP. So, IF you know one, you show, you give a source, you don't just talk about it.
Also, I don't agree on your explanation for old carbon dates, it's not about level of entropy, it's about how much C14 has built up in the atmosphere (very little pre-Flood).

Roger to me

by 60k + I mean it does not carbon date as not enough isotopes remain (if they were ever therein) to date

Me to Roger

1) if it's not a carbon date, it doesn't affect range of carbon dates;
2) by now 60 000 BP can be, though insecurely, dated with C14
Check

Roger to me

60k is a popular cap on how far things can carbon date in theory based on deep-time uniformitarian assumptions.
what rounded to the nearest 10k do you use based on such assumptions?

Me to Roger

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html
A carbon date of 60 000 BP just means it is 0.7 pmC left.
0.07

Also, I don't agree on your explanation for old carbon dates, it's not about level of entropy, it's about how much C14 has built up in the atmosphere (very little pre-Flood).

Roger to me

yes, and thus it does relate to entropy as increase the radiation exposure increase the entropy.

Me to Roger

no, the entropy - i e half life of decay - remains the same

Roger to me

why would the longer life spans. then their gradual decline that kept halving during and for a while after The ice ages, not relate to radiation permeation and the effect of that on DNA..

no I am not talking about the isotope decay rate

Me to Roger

the decline in life spans is due to high radiation levels

Roger to me

I am talking about maturation rate and life spans of humans and animals
the decline in life spans is due to high radiation levels - yes we are in agreement

Me to Roger

on this one, yes

my point is, this does not affect that carbon levels in atmosphere have a rise, a very slow pre-Flood rise, corresponding to small C14 production, not like now, a very steep post-Flood to past Exodus rise then

Roger to me

now do you hold the radiation build began at creation and leveled off _ when?
or do you hold like RCCF framework where low radiation penetration until 1656 Mabul year at which time radiation penetration increased, and radiation saturation took about 1k rounded years. so not a uniform penetration re pre and post global flood.

Me to Roger

Build up from Creation or later is very slow to Flood, very steep from Flood to Babel, still steep past that to Abraham, a little less steep from Abraham to Moses and levelled out c. time of King David, unless even there was a rise past present level, so that timbers from King Solomon's temple date younger than they are.

Roger to me

I suspect a lot of our alt. view has to do with how many years ago we hold creation (I hold 5780) we agree the flood was 1656 anno mundi but I hold that was 5780-1656 where you hold 6.xk -1656. also how long The ice ages and start of the dispersion from Bavel were, I hold about 340 years and in 1996 anno mundi so 5780-1996 = the YA

how old do the original timbers in Holy Temple I carbon date?
I put start of construction at 5780-2928= 2852 YA

Me to Roger

I suspect that while they are dated c. 900 BC, they are more like from 1032 BC (Syncellus chronology, plus consentaneous with some aspects of Roman Martyrology).

As to how long ago, it affects speed of the buildup, like between Flood and Babel, I take production of C14 as nearly ten times the present, than 11-12 during Babel, then slowing down to 6 times present.

For you it might be like 25 times faster from Flood to Babel, at least I calculated that for other Masoretic timeliners, who were Protestants.

Then again, it depends on what carbon date or range of carbon dates you identify with the time of the Flood.

Roger to me

OK the 900 is not that far off my 2852-2019= 833 before Christian era.
I assumed the radiation was saturated to modern levels (that fluctuate) by about 5780-2448= 3332 YA when I place the Exodus by the approx. end of old kingdom Egypt, but am open to your understanding that it took another 500 +./- years so a bit past Holy Temple I 2448+480=2928 anno mundi start,

9 OCT 2019 À 10:16

Me to Roger

As I said, I don't do radiation levels, I do do carbon 14 levels.

By Exodus, unless Syncellus has the right chronology, level was below ours, so 1590 BC (birth of Moses 80 years before Exodus) just before the death of Sesostris III is dated to 1839 BC by historians or by calibrating carbon dates for wiggles, but the carbon date of his coffin seems to have been 1713 BC. = C14 level 98.523 pmC, as in a coffin 123 years old now.

However, if Syncellus is right, 1032 BC was not anointing of King David, but dedication of the Temple, while 1082 BC was anointing of King David. (Roman martyrology has anointing of King David at 1032 BC), and if the timbers carbon date to 900 BC, that's 132 years young. A level as high as 101.61 pmC.

If we go strictly by Roman martyrology, though, anointing of King David was 1032 BC, and therefore temple in 982 BC. If I recalled the carbon date 900 BC correctly, that would be a level of 100.997 pmC.

So, the carbon dates are still too old at Exodus (barring Syncellus), but they are about present date levels of carbon for King David and later.

So, between Exodus and
(I began a paragraph and then rebegan it without noticing it went down to bottom, sorry)

10 OCT 2019 À 05:51

Roger to me

[thumbs up]

Mairie d'Osny

-----Message d'origine-----

De : M. Lundahl Hans Georg M E

[mailto:postmaster@osny.fr]

Envoyé : samedi 5 octobre 2019 17:24

À : mairie; BEHR Frédérique

Objet : La police municipale, hier

Message à l'attention de Le Maire envoyé via le site de la commune

Envoyé par : M. Lundahl Hans Georg M E

Sujet : La police municipale, hier

Message :

Hier matin, vers dix heures, je me trouvais devant les portes de votre médiatèque.

Que la police municipale (deux agents femmes) m'ont demandé d'en partir, peu surprenant.

Qu'elles n'ont pas voulu attendre la fin de mon petit-déj - pire.

Ensuite, ça ne leur a pas suffi que je parte de la porte, il m'a fallu me rendre à un endroit qui me laissait hors vue.

ET ensuite, avant de m'indiquer les directions de la gare, elles ont prétendu que la manche était interdite - sous entendu : totalement.

Une loi de 1993 VOUS met hors la loi si l'interdit de mendicité n'est pas limité en espace et en temps. P ex vous pouvez très légalement interdire mendicité devant la bibliothèque aux heures d'ouverture, mais pas en même temps le reste de la ville, ni là 24/24.

Des explications, peut-être?

WEPPE Sylvie à moi

et à Cc: "S.G", "LEFEBVRE Véronique", "CHAUGNY Sandrine", "ROUSSEL Thomas", "MATHON Claude"

10/9/2019 at 12:18 PM

votre courriel

Bonjour Monsieur,

Pour répondre à votre courriel, l'intervention des agents de police municipale le vendredi 6/10/2019 devant la médiathèque est tout à fait justifiée et légitime et ne souffre d'aucune ambiguïté.

Cette intervention fait suite à plusieurs doléances d'administrés inquiets par votre présence à cet endroit.

Je vous informe que l'utilisation du domaine public pour cette activité impose à l'autorité publique de veiller à ce que les usagers puissent accéder librement à tout équipement public où vous entraviez par votre présence l'accès à la structure.

Vous avez déclaré aux agents intervenants être sur le territoire national depuis quelques années tout en étant dans l'incapacité de justifier de quelque document administratif que ce soit.

Concernant la Loi de 1993 dont vous faites mention qui, selon vous interdit la mendicité sous certaines conditions, sachez que toute personne doit être en mesure de justifier de son identité.

Par conséquent, eu égard à la posture du plan VIGIPIRATE toujours placé au plus haut degré à savoir "Sécurité renforcée risque Attentat", il m'apparait tout à fait logique que les agents vous ait demandé de quitter les lieux. Votre présence à cet endroit était contraire aux règles de sécurité imposées autour des bâtiments publics.

Cordialement.

WEPPE Sylvie
Chef de Service
Police Municipale d’OSNY
Tél : 0134.25.42.19
Port : 06.84.41.73.94

moi à WEPPE Sylvie

10/9/2019 at 1:28 PM

Re: votre courriel

"Je vous informe que l'utilisation du domaine public pour cette activité impose à l'autorité publique de veiller à ce que les usagers puissent accéder librement à tout équipement public où vous entraviez par votre présence l'accès à la structure."

On était 10 h.

La bibliothèque allait ouvrir 14.

Et quand à l'entrée de service, j'avais déjà, suite à demande déplacé mes jambes et sac de couchage de manière de ne pas bloquer ce qu'il fallait.

Sans d'oublier que j'allais assez bientôt finir le thé pour me déplacer encore après.

Sans d'oublier que la demande que je me place à un endroit caché ressemble fortement aux politiques anti-sdf sous Vincent Auriol.

Sans d'oublier que votre agente n'avait pas invoqué mon manque d'identification pour interdire la mendicité, et le rapport avec une exception à la loi de 1993 semble peu évident.

Sans d'oublier qu'elle n'a nullement invoqué le protocole vigipirate en ma présence.

Ce que je fais sur le territoire, c'est écrire.

https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/10/28viii-4ix2019.html

Assez assidument, même.

moi à d'autres

Cc: "S.G", "LEFEBVRE Véronique", "CHAUGNY Sandrine", "ROUSSEL Thomas", "MATHON Claude"

10/10/2019 at 5:36 PM

Fw: Re: votre courriel

[j'ai envoyé la même chose aux autres]

With Ármann Jakobsson on Rydberg, Tolkien and Some More

FB:

stated following

Ármann Jakobsson

Chat Conversation Start

You and Ármann aren't connected on Facebook

Writer at Writer and Professor in mediaeval Icelandic at University of Iceland

AUG 28, 2019, 7:31 PM

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

Good day, I am just hearing Noah Tetzner interviewing you.

I suppose you know the Fädernes gudasaga by Rydberg, do you think Tolkien may have taken hints on elves from Rydberg's view of elves (Mimir, Volund, Egil and Svipdag!) as "nature smiths"?

By the way, would you agree that Rydberg's reconstruction was about as much more romanced as objectively academic, as Tolkien's own work?

Btw, would you mind if the correspondence, supposing you respond, comes to a blog of mine?

AUG 28, 2019, 8:58 PM

Ármann Jakobsson to me

I am not sure I have enough to say for that.

FB:

You can now call each other and see information like Active Status and when you've read messages.

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Rydberg was very much a 19th c scholar and far less objective than scholars later aspired to.

Also source criticism in Norse is less evolved then than later.

It could be argued that in his scholarship, Tolkien is far more modern.

He would have known Rydberg but I do not see him as much influenced by him. It could even be said that they use the same material to go into very different directions.

AUG 29, 2019, 9:35 PM

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

I was thinking specifically on parallels like Fëanor and Volund and Eärendil and Svipdag.

In the normal (as far as I can tell) tale of Volund, he is not a rebel against the gods.

AUG 29, 2019, 11:28 PM

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Yes there is far more influence in The Silmarillion itself

I did not remember that Rydberg interprets Volund as a rebel against the gods.

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

He did. In the usual version, his Mimer is not the wisdom before which even Odin bows down, and he is in fact revenging an unjust captivity, in Rydberg he's captive because the gods demand it to save the world from the giants and from chaos (forgot the details).

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Yes Rydberg is a very liberal interpreter

I had forgotten

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

He even bases traits of Svipdag on identifying a mysterious Od with him, like going to his mother Groas grave ... I think the methodology is a bit common with Tolkien, except Tolkien is perfectly aware this is not leading to Norse mythology per se, but to a possible and very tentative something "older" ...

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Yes that is true

Tolkien is much clearer that what he is doing is fiction

though he also sees it as 'true'

but fictional truth

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

I think in part he was seeking a reconstruction ... like Quenya and Sindarin of pre-IE NW European languages.

Laketown could for instance be based on settlements in Alps of Switzerland (currently dated to 5000 BC), with supplement from stave buildings like those in Trondheim.

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Yes possibly but he is not disciplined in this in The Hobbit.

As he tried to be later.

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

"not disciplined"?

how do you mean?

Ármann Jakobsson to me

I think Tolkien gradually came to see his work as a reconstruction of an older reality

He is answering questions from readers about this in the 1950s and the 1960s

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

I think he did so from the beginning, but wrote more to children in The Hobbit - or thought, perhaps I misread those letters, and you have them at hand?

Does he say he didn't think so when writing The Hobbit?

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Some of them are printed in The Letters.

I think it is very clear that there is a lot of afterthought in his whole creation.

As can be seen in the development of the Silmarillion.

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

Bc, precisely Esgaroth would be very ideal as a reconstruction of an older reality:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Laketown, but not Esgaroth
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/01/laketown-but-not-esgaroth.html

I'm aware of these by memory, The Letters, but while lots of things came as afterthoughts, I didn't think this approach came so?

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Well I would not know how consciously this was done

But it is quite possible.

Do you have a text clue?

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

Did he say "I gradually came to see" etc?

Ármann Jakobsson to me

His whole creation is gradual.

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

Yes, this is very true, but would be as true for sth which started out as reconstruction.

The PIE of Schleicher is very different frm the PIE (nearly Hittite) of Jouna Pyysala.
Pyssalo

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Well yes he is thinking as a philologist the whole time

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

Pyysalo
Precisely

Ármann Jakobsson to me

but I think he is experimenting and changing his mind and going back and forth

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

as do philologists when reconstructing

Ármann Jakobsson to me

And I think some of the elements especially in The Hobbit are slightly random

Like the word goblins

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

that is probable, but as to goblins, any reader of George MacDonald would have seen some likeness between his goblins and the urqui

Ármann Jakobsson to me

His elves are not as clearly demarcated as later

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

in some ways in fact closer to those of popular legends he recontructs from?

Ármann Jakobsson to me

I see him working with various medieval traditions

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

obvious

Ármann Jakobsson to me

which he also works with in 'Farmer Giles of Ham'

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

in a very playful way - as the Medievals did themselves and as he complained of Chesterton doing in Ballad of the White Horse

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Yes and medieval traditions are usually evolving and a great deal of diversity

ah yes, he must have set his teeth into some more detail which he found inspiring

You can see also in the appendices how he is continually thinking about his creation.

And refining it.

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

he is for world building what Wagner is for a very different type of Allkunstwerk

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Yes that is a good analogy
👍

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

(not that he liked Wagner's treatment of Niblungs)

What is common to Flying Dutchman and Ring and Parzifal is an attempt to make medieval and otherwise pre-enlightenment works speak again to a modern public.

What is common to Hobbit and Ring is an attempt to make them do so after far better philological research than Wagner's, plus hiding identity of originals to hide liberties he took.

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Yes the two men are first and foremost fantastic creators

who bring their own original interpretations to their material

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

As was Rydberg

Ármann Jakobsson to me

and Tolkien does so in two very different ways in The Silmarillion and The LOR

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

Sure, especially as Akallabeth and LotR do kind of double job as meditation on Apocalypse.

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Yes and he experiments so much with point of view

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

True. He gives both Gollum's and Eöl's more than some other give of their baddies.

Plus, uses hobbits as a standin, somewhat "in too big shoes" of modern readers, I think some noted?

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Yes he very cleverly presents the world from the point of view of those who know it the least

and leaves many things unrevealed which is not so common

because he knew he had the Silmarillion to explain further

and this enables him to contain himself from drowning the reader in tedious explanation

and keep an aura of mystery

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

which now, thankfully, can be pierced by the curious : appendices, Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales

Karl May used chapter beginnings for tedious explanations, but this is part of what makes picking him up first time a little challenge.

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Yes, it both allows LOR to retain its magic

and draws people to the other works

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

and allowed himself some liberty of further revision, if Wagner wrote far less "complete works" (namely operas counting as one each), it is only partly bc his operas are longer than Mozart's, he also takes revisions one further than even Beethoven, and Tolkien takes it one further than Wagner, or two or three further, even

Ármann Jakobsson to me

And both essentially create or at least popularise a new form.

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

In some sense, yes.

But fantasy was fairly popular before any of the Inklings, look at George MacDonald and Lord Dunsany.

Some of both Tolkien and CSL is basically a more Christian take on certain concepts in The King of Elfland's Daughter.

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Yes fantasy existed before Tolkien but he changed it.

He makes fantasy as serious as the historical novel.

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

His fantasy is more serious than Walter Scott - I think you wait to Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose before you get historical novels as serious as Tolkien.

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Yes he managed to make it even more serious.

I shall have to look again at Rydberg.

Thanks for drawing my attention to it.

Me to Ármann Jakobsson

Tolkien or Eco, do so, you are welcome!
Good night!

Ármann Jakobsson to me

Good night.

With The Turbo Dad on a Video with James Randi

I found the email to "The Turbo Dad" (as his signature is) on the video by the Randi Foundation.

Ia

Me to The Turbo Dad

7/11/2019 at 2:50 PM

Question the Bible but not James Randi, hey?

[see next]

Ib

Me to The Turbo Dad

7/11/2019 at 2:56 PM

Question the Bible but not James Randi, hey? (updated)

Item 1, link to his video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1zKesU&t=1s
[not linking, you can copy-paste if you care]

Item 2:

"Les commentaires ont été désactivés pour cette vidéo."

If I had ever wanted Bible non-believers uniliterally preaching their unbelief to me without opportunity for debate, I got my fair share of that and some more in Swedish schools.

______________

On top of that, when he wants to make the point Nazareth and Seppora are not identic and Nazareth was not inhabited in early 1st C, he mistakes two things:

1) Nazareth being birthplace of Christ in ANY Gospel
2) John 1 being a chapter mentioning the birth of Christ.

In other words, comments seem to have been disabled because James Randi showed very early on in the video he didn't know what he was talking about and this was being pointed out to his very well deserved discredit.

II

The Turbo Dad to me

7/11/2019 at 9:13 PM

Re: Question the Bible but not James Randi, hey? (updated)

No one cares.

Richard

III

Me to The Turbo Dad

7/12/2019 at 1:03 PM

Re: Question the Bible but not James Randi, hey? (updated)

OK, if no one cares about the ineptitudes of James Randi, what about telling him to take the video down?

Hans

IV

The Turbo Dad to me

7/12/2019 at 8:02 PM

Re: Question the Bible but not James Randi, hey? (updated)

No one cares what you have to say. Its youtube close the video and move on with your life.

Richard

V

Me to The Turbo Dad

7/13/2019 at 10:35 AM

Re: Question the Bible but not James Randi, hey? (updated)

Oh, so to you a Christian is so much less important than a fraudulent medium, that to us Randi can behave like a fraudulent medium?

Is that it?

Writing is precisely moving on with my life, and calling out dishonesty like that of Randi is precisely part of my writing business, like his' involves demasking fruadulent spiritualist mediums.

And telling me who cares and doesn't care what I have to say kind of is moot when I can look at viewer stats.

Btw, I already closed the video and now I'm adressing you.

And you avoided answering whether comments were allowed until too many pointed out the blatant errors of fact, two in one sentence, before he reached 25 seconds. I haven't checked how many more there were.

VI

The Turbo Dad to me

7/13/2019 at 11:01 AM

Re: Question the Bible but not James Randi, hey? (updated)

You really must not have much of an interesting life if you spend so much time watching YouTube videos and getting upset. That video I believe is 10 years old. Randi must be in his mid 80s by now.

AGAIN, NO ONE CARES. YouTube viewer stats do not mean anything in the real world. Stop wasting my time with these silly emails. I do not work with Randi since 2009. I have not seen Randi since 2010.

Go annoy someone else with your silly religious beliefs.

Richard

VII

Me to The Turbo Dad

7/13/2019 at 11:14 AM

Re: Question the Bible but not James Randi, hey? (updated)

Just one more:

between 2009 and 2019, before he came to mid 80's was no one telling him to take that stupid video down? even you were with him up to 2010, year after it, no one contacted you about his blatant errors then?

Comment

15.VII.2019 no answer to that one.

It is noted how overbearing he is to a Christian.

• 1) "No one cares what you have to say" - because I am Christian;
• 2) An attempt to correct errors which an atheist could spot out with any literacy about Christianity (sth which James Randi lacks) is put down to my Christian beliefs.

With Steven Taylor on Lorentz Transformations, Speed of Light, Distant Starlight Problem, Creation Week, Miracles

Creation vs. Evolution : Responding to Dystopian Science · Part II of Dystopian Science, my answer part A · Part II, part B - CMI on Deeper Waters · HGL's F.B. writings : Carter's Tactics · Back to Creation vs. Evolution : Part III : On Bradley and Bessel · New blog on the kid : Do Lorentz Transformations Prove a Universal Inconditional Speed Limit? · Back to Creation vs. Evolution : John Hartnett Pleads Operational Science · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Steven Taylor on Lorentz Transformations, Speed of Light, Distant Starlight Problem, Creation Week, Miracles

I

Me to Steve Taylor

4/11/2019 at 12:28 PM

You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations

Here is the deal.

I am Young Earth Creationist. Back in 2001, August 23, I came across the Distant Starlight Problem.

As you know, soh-cah-toa or trigonometry gives an answer about distance only when there is a distance given in the question.

For a Heliocentric, that distance is Earth to Earth. The problem with that distance is - of Earth stands still, we would know the distance from Sun to Sun (along the zodiac = E to E on Heliocentric view), but we would not know that the distance star to star equals S to S.

So, since August 24 2001, I am Geocentric, takes neatly care of the Distant Starlight problem.

Now, if the stars are one light day away (and there are even so very good reasons why they cannot be just 8 light minutes away, unless you count S as a star rather than as a planet), they are each day performing a circle with the radius 1 ld, the diameter 2 ld and the circumference 6.28 ... light days.

This means, they are going 6.28 ... times faster than the speed of light.

Here is where you come in.

I came across this video:

The Speed of Light is NOT About Light
PBS Space Time | 7.X.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo

And I made this comment, basically on what it was saying:

New blog on the kid : Do Lorentz Transformations Prove a Universal Inconditional Speed Limit?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/04/do-lorentz-transformations-prove.html

As you are into electronics, you would know much more about Lorentz transformations than I do, and that means, if you can at one go refute one or more of my solutions, right off the bat, do so.

Rest assured that your answer or answers (if I reply) won't be wasted, I intend to post the correspondence to this blog:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : If you wish to correspond with me
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html

Have a great day and looking forward to hearing from you soon!
Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Steve Taylor to me

4/12/2019 at 8:07 AM

Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations

Hello
I’ve just left the UK for a week. Will look at this when I return. In the meantime can you say whether you believe the days of Genesis 1 to be 24 hours in duration?
Regards
Steve Taylor

Sent from my iPhone

III

Me to Steve Taylor

4/12/2019 at 10:15 AM

Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations

" In the meantime can you say whether you believe the days of Genesis 1 to be 24 hours in duration? "

Roughly speaking definitely, with a possible hesitation on whether the days in Henochs day and up to Flood were a few minutes longer, so that solar year of same length then was 364 and now is 365.2425 days.

Exactly 24 hours, well, with above reservation, plus day 1 could be some hours shorter. Did light appear at 6am or 9am? Was the world created a few minutes before, or was it created 6pm Saturday evening in modern terms?

This means, for star light to arrive to Earth on day five, when birds were created, without starlight created in transit or even more exotic stuff, the stars created on day four would have been at least then one light day and no more above.

Now they could be somewhat further away and that would mean their local movement around us each stellar day is more than 6.28 times the speed of light, which is what brings us to the questions on the Lorentz transformations, as mentioned.

Have a pleasant journey whereever you went!
Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

Steve Taylor to me

5/23/2019 at 12:58 PM

Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations

Dear Hans-Georg,

Firstly, apologies for taking so long to get back to you. I do not think I have the time to enter a long correspondence, but I would like to make two points:

• 1) I am interested in your response to the case made against geocentrism by Carter and Sarfati:
  
  Why the Universe does not revolve around the Earth
  Refuting absolute geocentrism
  by Robert Carter and Jonathan Sarfati
  Published 12 February 2015; last update 24 April 2019
  https://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism
  
  
• 2) In Genesis 1 we are in the territory of the miraculous. The Bible on its first page is inviting us to believe in an omnipotent, benevolent, eternal, creator God who calls things into being from nothing by His Word. If this is true then for the creation week the commonly accepted laws of Physics based on our current observations do not apply: they are contravened each time God speaks and creates ex-nihilo or fashions miraculously. Arguments based on the application of physical laws and measurements that we now observe may therefore be invalid because the such laws do not apply to miraculous situations.

Yours sincerely
Steve Taylor

V

Me to Steve Taylor

5/23/2019 at 2:16 PM

Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations

Better late than never!

• 1) I already answered it here:
  
  New blog on the kid : And CMI also felt a need to "refute Geocentrism" ...
  http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/02/and-cmi-also-felt-need-to-refute.html
  
  
• 2) "If this is true"
  
  It is.
  
  "then for the creation week the commonly accepted laws of Physics based on our current observations do not apply:"
  
  False, each starts to apply as soon as God puts it in place, as with laws of biology.
  
  "they are contravened each time God speaks and creates ex-nihilo or fashions miraculously."
  
  Also false, miracles do not contravene what natural laws state about outcomes of such and such a causality, they only provide causalities not provided themselves as outcomes by natural laws.
  
  "Arguments based on the application of physical laws and measurements that we now observe may therefore be invalid because the such laws do not apply to miraculous situations."
  
  Distant starlight paradox actually does not just apply to Creation week, but continues to apply.
  
  Suppose we see a nova that is supposed to be 100 000 light years away, and we have a problem now, not just back in creation week : why would a light source shine light to us in a maximum of 7500 years (or whatever the Biblical age of Heaven and Earth) if that light should take 100 000 years?
  
  Hence, my observation, it shouldn't.
  
  However, while I am accepting speed of light as observed for the journey of light, I am also allowing each body to rotate with the aether (note that it would only be disproven by Michelson Morley in a non-geocentric setting) at what is locally if not vectorially a speed higher than that of light.
  
  My rationale is, speed of light applies to light spreading through aether, not to aether itself or anything (including fix stars).
  
  Hence my question to you about Lorentz Transformations.

Sincerly,
Hans Georg Lundahl

Branching out

branches a and b will deal with different things, but came simultaneously on each exchange, or nearly so. Steve waited and skipped one occasion on the one branch, so like VIII a is not simultaneous with VIII b, but with X b.

Branch a)

VI a

Steve Taylor to me

5/23/2019 at 4:27 PM

RE: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations

<<"then for the creation week the commonly accepted laws of Physics based on our current observations do not apply:">>

False, each starts to apply as soon as God puts it in place, as with laws of biology.

So not completely false then ?

VII a

Me to Steve Taylor

5/24/2019 at 1:18 PM

Re: RE: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations

Speed of light did not apply when darkness was on the face of the deep, but started applying when God created visible light.

Rotation of universe (inside the sphere of God's throne room) around around Earth started applying at least for light source from when God separated night and day.

Probably "firmament" created next day is a rotating and limited sphere of aether, moving around earth and its daily movement (full circle 23 h 55 min or so) started applying from when it was created.

Luminaries having a movement west along the aether and their own movement east (except fix stars) around zodiac started applying from day 4.

Biogenesis of plants started applying on day 3, of fish and birds on day 5, of beasts of earth and of men on day 6.

Your statement again:

<<"then for the creation week the commonly accepted laws of Physics based on our current observations do not apply:">>

= Each and all only start applying after creation week, when God withdraws the miraculous stuff.

That is how I read your statement and that is what I call false.

VIII a

Steve Taylor to me

5/24/2019 at 1:33 PM

Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations

Your idea that the normal laws of physics (whatever they are) kick in as soon as an entity is created is plausible. (I am not sure you are right but don’t say that you are wrong).

My issue is, for example, with the laws of thermodynamics.

Considering the Universe as a closed physical system I cannot see how conservation of mass and energy can apply at all until after day 6 when creative activity ceases ( can you?).

If the first law of thermodynamics is not in operation, we are not in a ‘normal’ physical system or situation. Consequently great caution (at least) is needed in invoking or applying other physical laws if fundamental ones are not in operation (at least for those periods of creative activity).

This is why I am cautious of entering the argument with the assumption that we can use the physics and chemistry that we teach at University in 2019 and which may superseded anyway if mankind is still here in 100 years time….

IX a

Me to Steve Taylor

5/24/2019 at 1:55 PM

Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations

" conservation of mass and energy "

Do NOT apply the way you think, the universe has not been a closed physical system ever, but always open to God, angels, devils, human souls, and it is doubtful to claim even animal souls (not image of God, not immortal) are fully physical.

They probably DO apply to real physical closed systems though - if any. Anywhere.

I meant things like speed of light where and however it applies, Ohm's law, Watt's law, Coulombe's law, etc. Aristotle's, Newton's or Einstein's version of gravity, whichever be true.

In other words, clearly observed regularities.

Branch b)

VI b

Steve Taylor to me

5/23/2019 at 4:30 PM

RE: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations

"they are contravened each time God speaks and creates ex-nihilo or fashions miraculously."

Also false, miracles do not contravene what natural laws state about outcomes of such and such a causality, they only provide causalities not provided themselves as outcomes by natural laws.

Let me understand your position here.

Are you saying that when the Lord Jesus Christ walked upon the sea of Galilee the natural law that we term the law of gravitational attraction applied or not?

VII b

Me to Steve Taylor

5/24/2019 at 1:12 PM

Re: RE: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations

Gravitation applied to all natural non-glorious bodies.

One explanation is, the properties of the glorious resurrection body were displayed in advance of resurrection, and the non-glorious everyday appearance was a result of His miraculously inhibiting those properties.

Subtlety (walking through walls / Virgin birth)
Brightness (appearance to Saul / on mount Tabor)
Lightness (ascending to Heaven / walking on water).

Another explanation, less likely to me, is, God provided a causality which was stronger than gravitation.

You are aware gravitation applies when a soccer ball is kicked across the football field, just that the propulsion from the kick applies even more?

You are aware gravitation applies when your pen lies on the table, even if it is 6000 km and some more above centre of Earth, just stabilities of table, floor, ground, tektonic plates and mantle apply even more?

There you have it, God's omnipotence / properties of glorious bodies, whichever, apply even more.

VIII b

Steve Taylor to me

5/24/2019 at 1:18 PM

Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations

<< Gravitation applied to all natural non-glorious bodies.>>

• (i) The body of the Lord Jesus Christ was a fully human body
  
  
• (ii) Peter also walked on water (Matthew 14:29)

It seems to me that gravitation did not apply in these two miraculous situations

IX b

Me to Steve Taylor

5/24/2019 at 1:23 PM

Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations

• i) the glorious resurrection body is a fully human body, identic in identity but changed in qualities in relation to the human body
• ii) St Peter had a foretaste of his resurrection.

So, gravity did apply and gloriousness of bodies (fully there, though hidden in Jesus, partially there by foretaste in St Peter) applied even more.

X b

Steve Taylor to me

5/24/2019 at 1:39 PM

Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations

<< i) the glorious resurrection body is a fully human body, identic in identity but changed in qualities in relation to the human body>>

Pls read 1 Corinthians 15 – the resurrection body is said to be a ‘spiritual body’. Personality is preserved but its properties are altered. It is not subject to death for example

<

This is speculation on your part. You have no way of knowing what you say is true

XI b

Me to Steve Taylor

5/24/2019 at 2:06 PM

Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations

1 Cor 15 says nothing of resurrection body being non-identic, it only states it is changed, i e non-similar on some points.

It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption. [43] It is sown in dishonour, it shall rise in glory. It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power. [44] It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body. If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, as it is written: [45] The first man Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit.

It ... it = both it in each pair refer to same object, i e same body. The resurrection body of Christ was identic to his pre-Crucifixion body, since He showed the wounds acquired in the Crucifixion. It had other properties, but was not another body.

" This is speculation on your part "

On Our Lord's body prior to Crucifixion, it is sound Catholic theology, not personal speculation. I know it is true, even if you don't (as a non-Catholic), and that latter is why I gave an alternative in God's omnipotence, and the general relation between natural and omnipotent causation in miraculous events is the one outlined by C. S. Lewis in the book Miracles.

The only thing which is speculation on my part (unless it's half-memory) is St Peter having a foretaste of his resurrection.

But Moses had, since his face was shining, other property of resurrection bodies, so it seems reasonable.

And the shining part, shown to St Paul and on Patmos to St John was also hidden most events after Resurrection. This being Biblical support of the Catholic doctrine (probably inferior in certainty than dogma, but still doctrine) that Christ was hiding the resurrection properties of His Body prior to Resurrection.

Other Biblical support : "I am the resurrection and the life" said before raising of St Lazarus the Four Days Dead, i e before He rose Himself. Applies a bit better if His Body already had resurrection properties, through hypostatic union, and they were hidden, than if He was still waiting for them. But we are waiting for them.

Med Yvonne Maria Werner ang. hennes raderande

HGL's F.B. writings : YMW länkade till Åkesons dumhet · På Svenska og på Dansk på Antimodernism : Brukade ha fler läsare i Ryssland och Ukraina än i Sverige · Hans Georg Lundahls Correspondence : Med Yvonne Maria Werner ang. hennes raderande

16 avr 2019 à 19:43

I

Jag till YMW

Hvad anser du om denna censur?

Nästa meddelande kommer en länk - om den kommer fram.

Men i länken ger jag vissa besked om FB's censur:

II

Jag till YMW

Gick ej.

Googla HGL's F.B. writings med FB Censors Links

Notera

ofvan var ett tag sedan, 16:e april. Det är skildt från nedan, med början igår.

dim 17:24

III

Jag till YMW

Här är den débat från en tid sedan, har äfven frågat Marie Louise om den personliga détaillen skall med.

HGL's F.B. writings : YMW länkade till Åkesons dumhet
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2019/05/ymw-lankade-till-akesons-dumhet.html

dim 18:44

IV

YMW till mig

Vad menar du med att FB idkar censur i det här aktuella fallet?

idag

09:55

V

Jag till YMW

Jag vet intet hvar du menar att jag skulle ha sagt att FB gjorde det.

Tänkte du på:

"Ngn verkade sudda ut den synpuncten?"

Jag vet intet om det var du (din mur), FB, eller stället der jag hade tillgång till internet, men ngn suddade ut mina länkar till wiki-artiklar om hennes famille, m a o, med de menniskor hon har i den har hon PR "i blodet".

Jag anser att det var relevant i förh. till att ngn talade om PR-bureauer.

Jag hade äfven nämnt att en hel del vi anse som sjelfklart ärligt, t ex C S Ls författare-carrière, började med goda PR-campagner, t ex hans förläggare till ngn af böckerna från krigstiden satte annoncen för hans bok rakt under en dyrare annonce för en generals bok om militära dryftemål på strategisk niveau, så att en hel del patrioter som intet hade råd med den kunde se honom som ett billigare alternativ (han höll uppenbarligen krigsmoralen uppe, annars hade han intet haft "radio talks" på radion) och dermed lockas att köpa honom.

Äfven detta bevis på ett allmänt behof af god PR (belagdt i mina tittar i Times, via microfilm på Georges Pompidou) suddades ut.

Och äfven detta är relevant, ur synpuncten om hon nu hade god draghjelp af en PR-bureau, so what? Hvem har intet det (om man lyckas komma fram ur media-skuggan)?

Om du menade tidigare [se ofvan, verkar så], verkar det ha slutat nu.

VI

YMW till mig

Jag tog bort dessa inlägg, eftersom de innehöll otillbörliga angrepp på andra debattörer - och jag brukar också ta bort de av dina inlägg på min FB-sida som jag ser som inadekvata eller upprepande.

VII

Jag till YMW

Jag anser intet att jag angrep ngn i person, bara till otillbörliga argumenter.

Och som jag nu sade, mitt ordval var "Ngn verkade sudda ut den synpuncten?" och angrep intet FB eller ngn annan.

"som jag ser som inadekvata"

Tack för den du, jag är intet din seminarist.

" eller upprepande."

Vissa behöfva höra ett och annat 2 ggr innan myntet trillar ned.

VIII

YMW till mig

Det faktum att du använder ett eget stavsätt gör att dina inlägg ofta är närmast obegripliga och ofta också gör ett galet intryck. Längre inlägg av detta slag raderar jag konsekvent, eftersom de avhåller andra från att ge sig in i debatten. Om du inte kan använda gängse svenskt skriftspråk, är det bättre att du skriver på något annat språk, där du håller dig till gängse regelverk!

12:34

IX

Jag till YMW

"Det faktum att du använder ett eget stavsätt"

Bojkottar stafningsreformerna 1870-tal, 1906, 1950.

Caesar non supra grammaticam. (1906, 1950)
Caesar supra grammaticos.
Ergo, grammatici non supra grammaticam. (1870-tal, amerikanska reformer)

"gör att dina inlägg ofta är närmast obegripliga"

För en bildad svenska som förmodats ha öppnat en bok från 1800-talet?

Det fans tonåringar på helgon-net som hade noll problem med min stafning, medan "Nicolas Flamel" (sv-k "prest" -> anglic. "prest") och hans vän David Heith-Stade (som jag betraktar som en personlig fiende) häfdade den dyngan.

"och ofta också gör ett galet intryck."

På hvem?

"Längre inlägg av detta slag raderar jag konsekvent, eftersom de avhåller andra från att ge sig in i debatten."

Hvilka andra? Folk som Stade?

Folk som "Flamel" (vet ej hans verkliga namn)?

"Om du inte kan använda gängse svenskt skriftspråk,"

Kan resp. vill. Jag vill verkligen intet sälla mig till barbarerna som vilja afskära 1900-talets sednare hälft från så nyliga tider som Upplysningstiden.

"är det bättre att du skriver på något annat språk, där du håller dig till gängse regelverk!"

Amerikaner häfda (för att jag likaså bojkottar Noah Webster's "center", "color" 1806, och "color labeled ax" hundraårsjubileet, 1906) detsamma om min engelska. Gängse engelsk som i brittisk stafning är jemngammal med min svenska.

Det är barockt att ha en situation i ett europeiskt språk der 150 år gamla texter skola klassas som "obegripliga" p g a parlamentarisk (1950) eller äfven kunglig (1906) vandalism.

Och om en text från 1869 och en vanlig text från 2019 äro begripliga, torde äfven en text som ligger deremellan, d v s min, vara begriplig.

X

YMW till mig

Mitt stavsätt ligger inom ramen för tillåtna variationer. Ditt utgör ett eget påhitt, en blandning mellan äldre former och egna tillägg, vilket gör dina inlägg mer eller mindre obegripliga.

XI

Jag till YMW

"Mitt stavsätt ligger inom ramen för tillåtna variationer."

Tillåtna efter 1950? En regering med riksdag kunna olagliggöra bruket af tidigare gängse former?

Synsättet är totalitärt.

"Ditt utgör ett eget påhitt,"

Det var "Flamels" lögn, bortsedt från att han factiskt talade om mitt språk (globalt), blandande ett talspråk från vår tid med en skriftspråksdrägt från anno dazumal.

Om min stafning (punctuelt) är det en lögn.

"en blandning mellan äldre former"

Nej, en conseqventast möjliga bojkott af vissa reformer.

"och egna tillägg,"

Exempel?

"vilket gör dina inlägg mer eller mindre obegripliga."

Som sagdt, tonåringar och tjugisar på helgon net voro mindre handicappade.

Deremot har google translate svårt att "öfversätta" det till ryska och ukrainska, eftersom dess algorithm baseras på svenska FN-texter mest efter 1950.

Det kanske är der skon verkligen klämmer.

(Och ja, af ngn anledning har jag fler läsare der än i Sverige)

Rättare, hade:

På Svenska og på Dansk på Antimodernism : Brukade ha fler läsare i Ryssland och Ukraina än i Sverige
https://danskantimodernism.blogspot.com/2019/05/brukade-ha-fler-lasare-i-ryssland-och.html

With Tim Stables from Catholic Answers, on Noah

11/03/2016 19:54

I

Me to Tim Staples

Sound off when watching this video:

How do we know Adam and Eve existed?
Catholic Answers | 10.III.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8N3uL_6NKM

Is your answer that of Haydock?

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

06/02/2017 18:22

II

Me to Tim Staples

Here I was again sound off ...

were you doubting Noah was a real person here ? :

VIDEO: Was Noah a Real Person? with Tim Staples
Catholic Answers on FB
https://www.facebook.com/catholicanswers/videos/10154771358191006/

III

dito, but:

Ce message a été supprimé car il contient un lien qui est contraire à nos Standards de la communauté.

11 mai 2019 à 03:18

IV

Tim Staples to me

No. Noah was and is a real person.

Vous pouvez maintenant vous appeler et voir les informations concernant le statut En ligne et la lecture des messages.

11 mai 2019 à 13:38

V

Me to Tim Staples

OK, where and when do you consider his Flood occurred?

(btw, it seems one link is being censored - did you see it before it was too late, I even forgot what link it was).

Oh, one more : when does this seem to be to archaeologists?

15 mai 2019 à 09:59

I mean, I suppose you gave the matter some thought and were not just trying to assuage me?

Would you for instance agree Noah lived from 600 before to 350 after 2957 BC?

mer 22:16

VI

Tim Staples to me

We don't know when Noah lived. It is not revealed in Scripture. The genealogies are not strictly literal. And I don't believe the flood was necessarily universal in nature. That is, it did not necessarily cover what is now North America. It would have been an enormous flood that would have covered the "world" as Noah understood it.

jeu 13:34

VII

Me to Tim Staples

"We don't know when Noah lived."

We have a few alternatives, right?

Masoretic, Samaritan and LXX genealogies are given only so many alternatives about how long after Adam's creation, how long before Abraham was born, right?

" It is not revealed in Scripture."

There are genealogies in Scripture, up to Abraham, and from then on somewhat more complex time indicators ... right?

"The genealogies are not strictly literal"

I don't know what "not strictly literal" means.

If you mean "literally taken, not strictly true" I do know what that means. But the quadriga Cassiani does not exactly allow halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths and so on between "literal" and "allegoric".

The genealogy in Genesis 5 obviously has an allegoric sense too - recently discovered or rediscovered by the late Chuck Missler. "Man appointed mortal sorrow, the blessed God shall descend (with the) teaching (that) His death shall bring the afflicted comfort."

You could make a Christmas carol of it.* It is the strictly allegoric sense of Genesis 5. Now, Genesis 5 has a strictly literal, a strictly allegoric, a strictly moral and a strictly anagogic sense. Since the quadriga Cassiani refers to four distinct senses, each of them is strictly itself. 4 - 3 is exactly 1, not 1.414 or 1.618 or 0.707 or 0.618. Arithmetic does not refer to the infinitely divisible.

So, were you saying the genealogies in their literal sense are not strictly true? That would mean they don't indicate time in any meaningful way, but it would also be against what Trent said about Scripture.

"And I don't believe the flood was necessarily universal in nature. That is, it did not necessarily cover what is now North America."

Fr Fulcran Vigoroux agreed with you. He considered the Flood as very large, though, and he used boulders transported hundreds of kilometers from lithic source as proof. Meanwhile, that has been discovered in North America too (see Creation Ministries International).

His disqualification of universal Flood is based on a calculation of room in the Ark matching species fixism rather than baraminology as to each kind.

He also thought that Biblical chronological indications and history could be taken as literally true at least if one took the LXX timeline ... so, certain mussels in Paris basin could have (on his view) been from creation days extending some large periods before Adam (he had not thought of the Mark 10:6 objection), but any man descends from Adam.

Will you agree Kennewick man, builders of Göbekli Tepe, Neanderthals of El Sidrón and Homo praedecessor in Atapuerca descended from Adam and would, on Fr Vigoroux's view, have had to fit within the 5500 years from Adam's creation to birth of Our Lord?

"It would have been an enormous flood that would have covered the "world" as Noah understood it."

And how much of the world as it is would that have been, and why?

Would you agree that on Fr Vigoroux's view, Kennewick man could be pre-Flood, could be post-Flood in a never-flooded area, could therefore have not descended from Noah, but needs to have descended from Adam and Eve?

And would you agree with the species fixism which put restraints on Fr Vigoroux's Ark room? Did the alpaca and the camel never have a common ancestor? Were the emu and the ostrich separate creations? Are mammoths in the genetic sense unrelated to elephants?

* I checked later : "man appointed mortal sorrow" differs from "hark the herald angels sing" only in bisyllabic versus monosyllabic ending. So, when humming the list of name translations as a sentence, the melody I heard at the beginning would have been close to that of "hark the herald angels sing".

Correspondence with Ginzburg on Menocchio's Death

I

Me to Carlo Ginzburg

4/23/2019 at 12:20 PM

Good day, when in 1599 was Domenico Scandella called Menocchio burned?

And how do we know it?

I mean, when I had recently converted to the Catholic Church, I was discussing your book with a then history student, now history professor in Lund.

She - Yvonne Maria Werner - among other things criticised your book for concluding he was finally burned on pure probabilities without a document on that.

I don't think my memory of back then (your book was fairly new in Swedish translation) is too faulty. I don't think she would have concluded to your presenting a burning on pure probabilities without document if she had not thoroughly looked for one and found one lacking.

Has there come to light any document since then?

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Carlo Ginzburg to me

4/23/2019 at 1:09 PM

RE: Good day, when in 1599 was Domenico Scandella called Menocchio burned?

You may go back to my book. See also

Domenico Scandella known as Menocchio : his trials before the Inquisition (1583-1599) / [edited] by Andrea Del Col ; translated by John & Anne C. Tedeschi, Binghamton 1996.
Carlo Ginzburg

III

Me to Carlo Ginzburg

4/23/2019 at 1:44 PM

Re: RE: Good day, when in 1599 was Domenico Scandella called Menocchio burned?

Grazie.

IV

Me to Carlo Ginzburg

4/25/2019 at 1:23 PM

Re: RE: Good day, when in 1599 was Domenico Scandella called Menocchio burned?

Could not find the second book, did look at the end of yours.

5.IX1599 a letter to Rome is sent from Frioul, which is lost.
Letters 30.X.1599 and 13.XI.1599 refer back to its content which was obviously already known to the inquisitors in Frioul.

Its content is not known to us.

26.I.1600 Menocchio has heirs.
6.VII.1601 a man appearing before the tribunal deposits having heard from a landlady of some inn that Scandella had been executed by the Holy Office.

Certainly, it seems very probable that he was indeed executed to death, but not the only option.

• 1) Scandella was 64. To a man of good health, this was perhaps no age, but he was a miller. They have a hard job and often eat much. So, he could have died a natural death by heartstroke, I knew a baker who died at 55, and the justice in question (30.X.1599) could be about burning his corpse after it came out he had relapsed between last time in inquisition and a burial in a normal churchyard, it could be about his not polluting the churchyard by heresy;
• 2) he could have committed suicide, similar observations about a normal burial being unjust to the Christians corpses who would hopefully rise to glory and might not want to have a damned suicide beside them when they woke up on Doomsday;
• 3) he could have heirs because juridically dead, and the execution by the Holy Office could be like a sentence in contumaciam, the burning in effigie.

I would admit the first two options are somewhat less likely than his being executed, since execution is what the gossip of the landlady was hinting at, but with a burning in effigie, the symbolic act could have been routinely referred to as an execution. It would definitely have involved a civic death so he could have heirs.

I am reminded that a few centuries earlier, Bernard Guy in 930(?) processes (of which the relative majority were incarcerations), had burned about 1/10, but only about 1/20 in person, and the other about 1/20 only in effigie.

As I could not find the book by Andrea Del Col here, do you know if some discovery of his after your work has cleared up that he was indeed burned to death or immediately after being strangled to death?

A note, you noted that you were correcting one P. Paschini who claimed that only one had been executed by the Inquisition in Frioul, a smith in 1568, so that makes, if you are right, two. And it seems the dossier was running in processes 449 to 546, and this would mean that in 546 processes one or two men were executed for heresy. Am I missing something?

Hans Georg Lundahl
at Nanterre UL
Fifth Day of Easter, 25.IV.2019

V

Carlo Ginzburg to me

4/25/2019 at 6:02 PM

RE: RE: Good day, when in 1599 was Domenico Scandella called Menocchio burned?

Your speculations about Domenica Scandella's death are frivolous. The evidence about his death on the stake can be disproven, in principle, only on the basis on some conflicting, and more reliable evidence. I am not aware of it.
How many men and women were tortured and/or put to death, for centuries, by the Inquisition? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? We'll never kow. The historical judgement about the institution does not depend from those figures.
A pope (John Paul II) publicly asked forgiveness for the Church's mistakes – belatedly and too vaguely.
This exchange, as far as I am concerned, is over.
Carlo Ginzburg

VI

Me to Carlo Ginzburg

4/27/2019 at 11:36 AM

Re: RE: RE: Good day, when in 1599 was Domenico Scandella called Menocchio burned?

The evidence for his dying on the stake is on the contrary ambiguious. An execution can refer to a burning in effigie.

The fact Rome wrote twice may imply Inquisitors in Frioul were "buying time" - so Scandella could escape. Or dienaturally.

The wording in the letters from Rome certainly may refer to punishing a living Scandella most severely, that is by burning, but could also refer to punishing a dead Scandella by exhumation from an undue Christian burial. Or to punishing some lynchmob who had taken the matter in its own hands for killing him after Inquisitors were more or less satisfied with his future at least token Orthodoxy.

I do not say each of these possibilities is as likely as his being burned, but it is sufficiently likely to be a not frivolous doubt.

"How many men and women were tortured and/or put to death, for centuries, by the Inquisition? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? We'll never kow."

I suppose you mean "know".

In other words, you have shown a bias towards accusing Inquisitors of killing many.

I must confess to the opposite bias.

"The historical judgement about the institution does not depend from those figures."

In the balance between Bernard Guy burning 930 and Bernard Guy burning 42 or 45 among 930, it does. Hence my question if in over 500 processes in Frioul, only two (including) or - if my doubts are taken into account - only one certainly and another one dubiously were actually burned.

It is not the difference between killing or not killing over faith. But it is the difference between "damned as soon as accused" and "a fairly high security of rights (relative to a system which killed over faith)."

"A pope (John Paul II) publicly asked forgiveness for the Church's mistakes – belatedly and too vaguely."

A non-Pope, Antipope Wojtyla, also scandalous against Catholic orthodoxy on other occasions, like twice over 1986.

"This exchange, as far as I am concerned, is over."

Your choice.

Hans Georg Lundahl

News Correspondence after Christchurch

New blog on the kid : Should NZ Have Exiled the Christchurch Mosque and Attending Members? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : News Correspondence after Christchurch

Me to Mosque in NZ (Al Noor?)

3/27/2019 at 12:11 PM

Good day, I hope mourning is over and your dead are buried

One question.

It seems two NZ citizens (definitely English heritage occidentals) attending your mosque Masjid Al Noor in Christchurch some years ago became Muslim terrorists.

Christopher Havard and Daryl Jones - a k a Abu Suhaib Australi and Abu Salma Australi.

The imam from back in or somewhat before 2013, is he still around or has he been exchanged?

Hans Georg Lundahl

Me to Mosque in NZ (Al Noor?)

3/28/2019 at 8:38 PM

Good day, I hope mourning is over and your dead are buried - Correction?

Previously sent below:
__________________________________
One question.

It seems two NZ citizens (definitely English heritage occidentals) attending your mosque Masjid Al Noor in Christchurch some years ago became Muslim terrorists.

Christopher Havard and Daryl Jones - a k a Abu Suhaib Australi and Abu Salma Australi.

The imam from back in or somewhat before 2013, is he still around or has he been exchanged?

Hans Georg Lundahl
_________________________________

It seems two Mosques were attacked, were the two terrorists from the Linwood Mosque?/HGL

What disappeared from my mail?

The letters about two articles in Vice News.

This article is still there:

Vice News : New Zealand's Gun Laws Are Already Changing After the Christchurch Attacks
Christchurch shooting|by Zoe Madden-Smith|Mar 18 2019, 10:35pm
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjqk8v/new-zealands-gun-laws-are-already-changing-after-the-christchurch-attacks

Another one, in Florida, was about an Imam in Baton Rouge who considered arming people in the Mosque.

I can't find it. As I can't find the letters, one to Vice News asking if they are a satire site and one to that Mosque in Baton Rouge asking if the news was correct.

Since I have elsewhere confirmed that Vice News was stating a fact about NZ changing gun laws, that was no sature news, I must conclude the news about the imam of Baton Rouge is also correct.

What did not disappear from my mail?

The answers from the Mosques in Christchurch. As far as I have seen so far, there has been no reply./HGL

With Mackey on Haman and on Babel

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Does my Interpretation of Mahabharata and Ramayana Offend Hindoos? · If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project, Why was it Called a Tower? · If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project - What Else Can We Expect? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Sin of Babel - Two Views · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica again: In case anyone missed this · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Mackey on Haman and on Babel · Creation vs. Evolution : Bricks at Göbekli Tepe or Close? · How My View of Babel Ties in with "Defending Biblical Inerrancy" · Ten Keys to my Idea of Göbekli Tepe as Babel and its Tower as a Rocket · Geographic Spread Before Babel?

A

I

Me to Damien Mackey

2/13/2019 at 10:49 AM

Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

Et ut manifestius quod dicimus, intelligatis, Aman filius Amadathi, et animo et gente Macedo, alienusque a Persarum sanguine, et pietatem nostram sua crudelitate commaculans, peregrinus a nobis susceptus est :

Now that you may more plainly understand what we say, I Aman the son of Amadathi, a Macedonian both in mind and country, and having nothing of the Persian blood, but with his cruelty staining our goodness, was received being a stranger by us:

("I Aman the son of Amadathi," is bad translation for "Aman the son of Amadathus," the site has probably been tampered with).

Esther 16:10

II

Damien Mackey to me

2/13/2019 at 11:06 PM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

Elsewhere he is called a "Bougaean". What the hell is that?

III

Me to Damien Mackey

2/14/2019 at 11:58 AM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

A google gave this:

https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/bougaean

And obviously other possibilities exist too.

Haydock for Esther 12:6 is here:

Ver. 6. Bugite, may refer to some town of Macedon. C. iii. 1. --- Honour. Yet he might be still more exalted, after the conspiracy was detected; (Houbig.) as the king little suspected that he was concerned in it. H. --- Death. It is thought that they wished to place Aman, or some Macedonian, on the throne. C. xvi. 12. 14. C. --- This reason for the malevolence of Aman, might be unknown to Mardochai. C. xiii. 12. Houbigant. --- The former was either a favourer of traitors, or perhaps of the same conspiracy. W.

C = Challoner, an 18th C bishop for English Catholics.

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-524.shtml#navPoint_525

IV

Damien Mackey to me

2/14/2019 at 11:34 PM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

Haman (Aman) is king Amon of Judah.

Your Haman is probably a Boogeyman, sorry Bougaean.

V

Me to Damien Mackey

2/15/2019 at 10:20 AM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

"Josephus thinks that Esther was the queen of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who was a great friend of the Jews. D."

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-512.shtml#navPoint_513

Which Artaxerxes was that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artaxerxes_I_of_Persia

Reign 465–424 BC

Amon of Judah

"Amon is most remembered for his idolatrous practices while king, which led to a revolt against him and eventually his assassination in c. 641 BC."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amon_of_Judah

Type of end - assassination vs execution - doesn't match.

And 641 BC was not in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus or Artaxerxes I.

Offense also doesn't match, idolatry being a different one from trying to annihilate Jews for not bowing down to men.

IV Kings 22 / II Paralipomenon 33 vs Book of Esther, which account is on your view garbled?

Either way, you are withdrawing "qui loquutus est per prophetas" from historical books.

VI

Damien Mackey to me

2/16/2019 at 2:32 AM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

If you'd read my Esther articles over the years you would know that it is Darius the Mede/Cyrus.

He was a friend of the Jews.

Don't confuse your Boogeyman with Longimanus or Longshanks.

VII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/16/2019 at 10:23 AM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

Saying Haman and Ahasuerus need to be contemporaries is not confusing them.

Darius the Mede is mentioned in the Book of Daniel as king of Babylon between Belshazzar and Cyrus the Great, but he is not known to history, and no additional king can be placed between the known figures of Belshazzar and Cyrus.[1] Most scholars view him as a literary fiction, but some have tried to harmonise the Book of Daniel with history by identifying him with various known figures, notably Cyrus or Ugbaru, the general who was first to enter Babylon when it fell to the Persians in 539 BCE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_the_Mede

One century too much difference.

VIII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/16/2019 at 10:24 AM

Re: Hello, etc? Clarification on previous

I cited the wiki for the years, not for " Most scholars view him as a literary fiction, " which I obviously don't attribute to Daniel.

IX

Damien Mackey to me

2/17/2019 at 1:58 AM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

Josephus got one right.

He said that Artaxerxes Longpants (Longimanus) was also called Cyrus.

I add that he was also Darius the Mede.

X

Me to Damien Mackey

2/17/2019 at 6:18 PM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

Possible, but even so, he is too late to have ordered killing Amon of Judah.

XI

Damien Mackey to me

2/17/2019 at 11:08 PM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

Whatever you say, H-G.

B

I

Me to Damien Mackey

2/21/2019 at 6:37 PM

palaeolithics 1 - 3

https://www.academia.edu/38355575/So-called_Paleolithic_man_was_not_dumb._Part_One_Long_cultural_tradition_of_sky_watching

"French paleo-astronomer Chantal Jegues-Wolkiewiez insists there was a long cultural tradition of skywatching among the people of the Cro-Magnon Age of Europe (30,000-10,000 BCE)."

I would say, carbon dated (this is usually the case with this kind of dates) 30 - 10 000 BC = post-Flood to about death of Noah.

Meaning the 8 on the ark were teaching some astronomy before there was any occasion to teach metallurgy in practise.

"She proposes that the famous cave paintings of Lascaux in France record the constellations of a prehistoric version of the zodiac which included solstice points and major stars. Her theory is based on the discovery of numerous dots and tracings superimposed on the paintings of bulls, aurochs and horses on the walls of Lascaux. She claims these correspond to the patterns of constellations – most notably the constellations ofTaurusand Pleiades and the stars Aldeberan and Antares. She proposes most of the constellations are represented by paintings of animals, accurately depicting their coloring and coats during the corresponding seasons of the year."

Very probable.

That was the good part.

Now for two bad parts:

https://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age

Osgood thought Acheulian and Mousterian Canaanean. I think them pre-Flood. I obviously also think Aurignacian is from before Noah died, as per previous remark. And post-Flood.

More directly you, since you might not share this error by Osgood : comparison to "palaeolithic" populations today.

I think some of the remaining palaeolithics were shirking the building of Babel (however, aboriginal Australians share a symbol found on Göbekli Tepe, the horizontal oval with an inner field divided in three, if I recall details correctly, and Polynesians share the birdman motive with GT).

But once they were away from Nimrod, they could have started developing agriculture, they didn't. Bad move. Cultural heresy, if you want.

The one good thing, if ever the Church is saved in what is even now a wilderness, if people like they are around, they may greatly help survival chances. Anyway, either way, identity of material tools (on a very rough approximation at least) does not mean identity of overall culture. Therefore, however stupid a modern palaeolithic were in some respect, it wouldn't stop the early palaeolithics from being much smarter than we and simply separated from a pre-Flood culture buried under mud, probably as high as Mount Everest.

However, I am not into stamping modern palaeolithics as dumb, and I appreciate your Ehrenrettung!

https://www.academia.edu/38355624/So-called_Paleolithic_man_was_not_dumb._Part_Two_Australian_Aboriginal_Astronomy

https://www.academia.edu/38373387/So-called_Paleolithic_man_was_not_dumb._Part_Three_Skilled_Aboriginal_encoding_of_knowledge

The last piece, btw, is a great clue how history from Genesis 2-11 was preserved, before Abraham got a beduin tribe which could start stocking written records./HGL

II

Damien Mackey to me

2/21/2019 at 11:12 PM

Re: palaeolithics 1 - 3

"... aboriginal Australians share a symbol found on Göbekli Tepe, the horizontal oval with an inner field divided in three, if I recall details correctly, and Polynesians share the birdman motive with GT".

Now that I find interesting.

III

Me to Damien Mackey

2/22/2019 at 6:13 PM

Re: palaeolithics 1 - 3

http://ancientnews.net/2017/10/13/a-global-aboriginal-australian-culture-the-proof-at-gobekli-tepe/

For birdman, the funny thing is, it's more visible on pinterest than on the article it links to.

http://beforeitsnews.com/v3/blogging-citizen-journalism/2013/2448608.html

https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/392728029989417289/

IV

Me to Damien Mackey

2/22/2019 at 7:10 PM

palaeolitics 4

I saw you found it already ....

https://www.academia.edu/38411076/So-called_Paleolithic_man_was_not_dumb._Part_Four_Australian_Aboriginal_link_to_G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

How do you feel about Göbekli Tepe = Babel?

V

Damien Mackey to me

2/23/2019 at 1:00 AM

Re: palaeolitics 4

I feel nothing about it.

Isaiah (Septuagint) clearly locates the Tower in the vicinity of Calneh and Carchemish. The true land of Shinar (as opposed to Sumer), as I believe.

G.T. in Turkey is none of these.

VI

Me to Damien Mackey

2/23/2019 at 10:10 AM

Re: palaeolitics 4

Vicinity?

Not quite.

And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar

But if land of Shinar is all of Mesopotamia, which is very arguable, then easternmost parts of Turkey (where GT is) belong to it.

If "vicinity" is based on another verse, tell me which one.

[I had missed he mentioned Isaiah, and he did not respond about which other verse by citing Isaiah in LXX, however, his main point is geography of Carchemish.]

VII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/23/2019 at 10:15

Sumer / Shinar the connection

I'd consider Sumer is a Sumerian form of Shinar and means Sumerians were originally claiming some kind of superiority over northern neighbours, all over Shinar.

A bit like USA being called "America" has stuck despite Argentina or Chile or Newfoundland clearly being in Americas* but outside US.

Or like a very big island and a somewhat smaller one called Tasmania or van Diemen's land have taken the name "Australia" formerly equivalent to Oceania and meaning lands (that is islands) all over South (hence Australia) Pacific Ocean (hence Oceania).

It is extremely possible that Sumerian was originally one of the 72 languages originating way further NW in Shinar, that is in Göbekli Tepe./HGL

* One could arguably only defend the plural after Panama canal.

VIII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/23/2019 at 10:50 AM

vicinity, bis

36°49′47″N 38°00′54″E Carchemish (funny Greeks and Latins call the site Europus)
37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E Göbekli Tepe
1°36'24" N/S 0°54'27" E/W

48°51'24"N (Paris N/S)
-1°36'24"
47°15'N

Nantes 47°13′05″N 1°33′10″W
Montsoreau 47°13′02″N 0°03′28″E
Bourges 47°05′04″N 2°23′47″E

48°51'24"N (Paris for comparison, again)
+1°36'24"
49°87'48"
50°27'48"N

Lille 50°37′40″N 3°03′30″E
Charleroi 50°24′N 04°26′E

2°21'03"E (Paris E/W)
0°54'27"
2°75'30"
3°15'30"E

Montescourt-Lizerolles 49°44′21″N 3°15′30″

2°21'03"E (Paris E/W)
1°80'63"E
0°54'27"
1°26'36"E

Saumur 47° 15′ 36″ nord, 0° 04′ 37″ ouest
Villebernier 47° 15′ 14″ nord, 0° 01′ 46″ ouest
Besançon 47° 14′ 35″ nord, 6° 01′ 19″ est
Auxerre 47° 47′ 55″ nord, 3° 34′ 02″ est

I think Auxerre is about as far from Paris as Carchemish from GÖbekli Tepe.

169.3 km, with me walking 15 km per day, that would be 11 full days march and arriving on day 12.

In order NOT to have Carchemish close to Göbekli Tepe, you would need to think in terms of very small "empires."

IX

Me to Damien Mackey

2/23/2019 at 12:55 PM

identity of Sennaar

"I turned next back to Göbekli Tepe and Harran. The sites are apparently intervisible, just over 40 km apart. The difference in latitude from Harran to Göbekli Tepe equals precisely 1/1,000 of earth's circumference. This is where we enter a twilight zone in ancient astronomy. Of course, the opposite metaphor—"the dawn" of ancient astronomy, is the proper one regarding the implication. Göbekli Tepe features the oldest known room aligned north-south, evidence of astronomy in practice."

http://jqjacobs.net/blog/gobekli_tepe.html

Note, Harran is exactly border of Turkey-Syria, and GT is NW corner, Harran middle of a great plain, which is however limited by surrounding hill country to mountain country, and which, as between Euphrates and Tigris, is in Shinar=Mesopotamia.

"And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Arach, and Achad, and Chalanne in the land of Sennaar."
[Genesis 10:10] LXX has 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Orech, and Archad, and Chalanne, in the land of Senaar.

"And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it."
[Genesis 11:2] LXX has 2 And it came to pass as they moved from the east, they found a plain in the land of Senaar, and they dwelt there.

"And it came to pass at that time, that Amraphel king of Sennaar, and Arioch king of Pontus, and Chodorlahomor king of the Elamites, and Thadal king of nations,"
[Genesis 14:1] LXX has 14:1 And it came to pass in the reign of Amarphal king of Sennaar, and Arioch king of Ellasar, that Chodollogomor king of Elam, and Thargal king of nations,

"To wit, against Chodorlahomor king of the Elamites, and Thadal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Sennaar, and Arioch king of Pontus: four kings against five."
[Genesis 14:9] LXX has 9 against Chodollogomor king of Elam, and Thargal king of nations, and Amarphal king of Sennaar, and Arioch king of Ellasar, the four kings against the five.

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand the second time to possess the remnant of his people, which shall be left from the Assyrians, and from Egypt, and from Phetros, and from Ethiopia, and from Elam, and from Sennaar, and from Emath, and from the islands of the sea."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 11:11] LXX has 11 And it shall be in that day, [that] the Lord shall again shew his hand, to be zealous for the remnant that is left of the people, which shall be left by the Assyrians, and [that] from Egypt, and from the country of Babylon, and from Ethiopia, and from the Elamites, and from the rising of the sun, and out of Arabia.

"And the Lord delivered into his hands Joakim the king of Juda, and part of the vessels of the house of God: and he carried them away into the land of Sennaar, to the house of his god, and the vessels he brought into the treasure house of his god."
[Daniel 1:2] LXX has 2 And the Lord gave into his hand Joakim king of Juda, and part of the vessels of the house of God: and he brought them into the land of Sennaar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god.

"And he said to me: That a house may be built for it in the land of Sennaar, and that it may be established, and set there upon its own basis."
[Zacharias (Zechariah) 5:11] LXX has 11 And he said to me, To build it a house in the land of Babylon, and to prepare [a place for it]; and they shall set it there on its own base.

So, is Sennaar Sinjar, in Syria? Or is it Babylon, as per two translations in LXX and one context equation either text? Or is it both, as per both are between Euphrates and Tigris?

In this latter case, Göbekli Tepe is in Sennaar. Not outside.

And unlike the plain around the historic city Babylon, the plain near GT can be found, since it is delimited within a hill country.

The plain around historic Babylon cannot be found in the land, it is the land of Sennaar which can be found in that plain. Ergo, the plain around Harran with GT in a corner is a better match.

It is also a fact that you find the plain first, as you pass from the East from Mount Judi (in the mountainS of Ararat) to Göbekli Tepe. Mount Judi is in Cizre, Göbekli Tepe is near Şanlıurfa, a map between the two shows:



And both are within Shinar.

X

Damien Mackey to me

2/24/2019 at 3:04 AM

Re: vicinity, bis

You might find that Babel is actually in Paris.

Dan Brown would be interested to know that.

XI

Me to Damien Mackey

2/25/2019 at 11:32 AM

Re: vicinity, bis

You might find out that maths have applications .... I was comparing distance from Göbekli Tepe to Carchemish to distance from Paris to Auxerre.

Now, Paris and Auxerre are in same post-Babel (not immediately post-Babel, though) nation, France.

Therefore Carchemish and GT can have been so too.

XII

Damien Mackey to me

2/25/2019 at 11:20 PM

Re: vicinity, bis

Why do you want Gobbling Turkey (GT) to be Babel?

Where are the remnants of the Tower? - that would be a good start.

XIII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/26/2019 at 1:05 PM

Re: vicinity, bis

"Why do you want Gobbling Turkey (GT) to be Babel?"

• 1) Fits geographically, as in Mesopotamia
• 2) Fits geographically, as that part of Mesopotamia allows you to actively FIND a plain (the one stretching SE of GT)
• 3) Fits geographically, supposing Ark landed on Mount Judi, since that would imply removing precisely from the East
• 4) Fits geographically, since close to Carchemish (which you consider as Calneh).
• 5) Fits linguistically, since showing no written remains of a non-Hebrew language.
• 6) Fits temporally and linguistically, as all written records of non-Hebrew languages are posterior to it.
• 7) Fits temporally in carbon dating, since between démise of Neanderthals (my carbon date for Flood, 2957 BC) and the Chalcolithic (my carbon date for Genesis 14, 1935 BC).
• 8) Fits culturally, as cultural influences could have spread from there to anywhere (see Australian symbol, see bird man).
• 9) Fits culturally with Nimrod, as skulls perforated in vortex and persumably tied around a rope vertically have been found, which would be Nimrod's threat on how to deal with shirkers.

"Where are the remnants of the Tower? - that would be a good start."

• 1) Weaker alternative would be : Harran. However, it seems the carbon dates don't fit.
• 2) Stronger alternative : it left no remains, since it was no building.
  
  Or better : it left no material remains. It left cultural ones, climaxing at Cape Canaveral and Bajkonur. Nimrod wanted a rocket. He didn't get one in his lifetime, but he got quite a few with some millennia of delay.

Do you want to start pointing out problems, or shall I deal with the already known ones?

• 1) Culture wasn't sufficiently advanced? With no written remains, which means one cannot pronounce negatively against pieces of culture not being shown in remains. Later culture didn't show such an advance? Technology loss. Both actively mastered and only projected technologies can be lost.
• 2) If a rocket, why did Moses say "Tower" and not "Rocket"? Any invention is called after sth already existing, and "rocket" is called after firework rockets, usually, and these are called for different things, in English, German and Scandinavian languages an Italian word for bobbin is used, in French a word for sword hilt, in Greek fire-flute, in Chinese fire-arrow. What would you chose if you were dealing with a space rocket first? Tower would be on the list. Plus Moses would have not tried to enhance knowledge about lost technology.
• 3) If a rocket, what for? To make a name for oneself (see Bible) and to get into Heaven (see Bible) on the top floor of the tower (a k a last step of the rocket).

Perks with the idea?

• 1) A very pertinent answer to "if God took offense at a skyscraper, why did He allow rockets?" It was a rocket He stopped and later eventually also allowed. Difference is, now rocket engineers are not a drafted humanity, but a minority.
• 2) Ziggurats from Mesopotamia are all of them too recent, after there was a Sumerian language, therefore post-Babel.
• 3) If Nimrod, knowing the pre-Flood lore later formalised as Mahabharata (and it seems to have originally included warlike use of Uranium) was trying to use Uranium for rocket fuel, his rocket would have been a major safety hazard if he had gone through with project, meaning the theory if true means Nimrod was a bungler and God was stopping a major disaster from happening. Also, the safe rocket fuel now used is H2 + O2, the reaction gives water, and this contains an allegory on us needing "water" (baptism) to get to Heaven.
• 4) The remains are cultural ones : China men inventing firework rockets, Greeks and Amerindians dreaming of heros and diverse others thrown up into the stars. And, closer at hand, stone circles and ziggurats to get a better grasp on astronomy, if Nimrod too the defeat as a sign from God he was a bit off in astronomy (which he was if he hoped getting past planets and stars to God's abode before rocket became unbreathable and unable to sustain human life as to water and nutrition).

I actually forgot one of the "fits" (just waiting for your pun) : the post-Flood recovery of agriculture is starting "about a millennium" before GT (carbon date wise), and the area is North Syria with East Turkey. This fit is both temporal and geographic and cultural. Before you can start either an empire or a rocket project (however failed it might be) you need a basis in food supply.

https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/02/letter-of-ex-oriente-i-preliminary-to.html

http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/02/letter-of-ex-oriente-ii-continuing.html

http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/02/letter-of-ex-oriente-iii-explanation.html

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/11/advantages-of-shorter-carbon-14.html

Akarçay noted in agricultural part is in the province of Şanlıurfa which is also where GT is, and 'Ain Jammam is at the other end of Syria or Iraq, since close to Saudi Arabia:

‘Ain al-Jammam is situated high on a ridge overlooking the Hisma plateau that extends into Saudi Arabia. The site consists of two distinct sites: a Byzantine farmstead and a Neolithic village.

http://moses.creighton.edu/vr/Jammam/site.html

That's how vast Nimrod's empire was.