Continued Correspondence with Kevin : XV - XXVIII

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Gutsick Gibbon on Cross Disciplinarity Outlawed in Academia, Heat Problem, Gate-Keeping · Gutsick Gibbon's Five Points Answered, I, Heat Problem and Extra on Absence of Solutions As Criterium · Gutsick Gibbon on Overturning Paradigms and Castile Formation · Geologic Column : Absent from Land Vertebrate Palaeontology · Continuing with Kevin · Creation vs. Evolution : Could Guy Berthault Conduct a New Experiment, Please? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Correspondence with Gutsick Gibbon (Erika) and with Kevin R. Henke · Continued Correspondence with Kevin : XV - XXVIII

XV

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/18/2022 at 1:29 AM

Re: Here is, first, the debate

No, Hans, you've going off on pedantic trivia that is totally irrelevant and totally missing the important lesson. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever if any of Gilbert's, Hoffmann's, Spaulding's great, .... great grandchildren, nieces, nephews, 3rd cousins twice removed or other relatives became Mormons are not. The point is that a con-man and false prophet named Joseph Smith took works of fiction, speculatory histories about the Native Americans and just made up stories about fictional characters, battles and entire cities that supposedly existed thousands of years ago in the Americas and convinced a lot of people, including illiterate people that did not know anything about Spaulding, etc. that the stories were true. Then, there are millions more that are just born into Mormonism. They believe the lies because their parents did. Today millions believe these lies in the Mormon churches and spread them through their evangelism projects. In other cases, people like Reagan confused movie plots and novels and thought that they were history, and there's a lot of Americans that still admire Reagan and believe what is in his speeches. There are millions of Americans that actually believe that Columbus proved that the Earth was round and that he landed in what is now the United States. There are people that believe that "The Force" exists. They knew nothing about Eastern religions until they saw Star Wars. We have millions of Americans that believe that false prophets like Kat Kerr regularly go to Heaven and see Jesus and theme parks there. There is a large portion of the population that are gullible and believe almost anything. Our societies are full of urban myths and disinformation, and it's always been that way. People tell stories and some of the gullible believe they're real and the lies spread. People don't need to know anything about ancient American history to become a Mormon by birth or through the actions of a charismatic con-artist like Joseph Smith. Not surprisingly, con-artists always manage to find and exploit the gullible.

In the comment section of Erika's video, I said that Romulus was probably a legend. It's possible that someone named Romulus was a founder of Rome, but it's not necessarily true. It could be a total fiction made up by a Roman leader or priest either for entertainment or power. We don't know, but once people were born into the story or were educated to believe it, it was believed. People always want to think that the founding of their cities and nations were special.

There are partial copies of Genesis in the Dead Sea scrolls, but the bottom line is that we don't know who wrote Genesis 3 or when. It's very possible that the writer sincerely thought that Genesis 3 was an inspiration from God about events that occurred thousands of years ago from the author's time. However, that does not make it history any more than the ramblings of Joseph Smith about supposed events that occurred in the Americas thousands of years ago before him or the delusions or lies of Kat Kerr about "Christmas Town" in Heaven. It does not take very long for a charismatic con-man to form a religion and get millions to believe fiction and half-truths - Mohammad or Joseph Smith. Any blood relationships of Mormons to 18th and 19th century novelists doesn't matter at all. The point is that there are millions of people believing that fiction was actually ancient history.

Best,

Kevin

XVI

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/18/2022 at 1:37 PM

Re: Here is, first, the debate

Mormonism doesn't qualify, because all Mormons know perfectly well that this "true" history isn't part of their normal historic collective memory as Europeans, nor a heritage from actually speaking to Indians, but a revelation or "lost manuscript refound". This is not "pedantic trivia" but absolutely essential to my case.

"There are millions of Americans that actually believe that Columbus proved that the Earth was round and that he landed in what is now the United States."

Which is not about non-events, just a distorted account of actual events.

He and Magellan did prove you could sail around the Earth, against people who predicted that too far West storms would make that impossible, or that they could not sail all the way from Spain to Japan on provisions a caravell could take along and didn't know there was a landmass in between. And he did come to the Americas, there is just a confusion between the Americas and the US which is colloquially named "America".

"There are people that believe that "The Force" exists. They knew nothing about Eastern religions until they saw Star Wars."

They don't take Luke Skywalker's childhood on Tatooine as history, which is a case in my point. There is a vast difference between changing outlook due to a work of fiction and believing the work of fiction as history.

"We have millions of Americans that believe that false prophets like Kat Kerr regularly go to Heaven and see Jesus and theme parks there."

That is not properly speaking historical. It's allegedly prophetical. I have no clue who Kat Kerr is and therefore not whether he is a true or false prophet, but suspect the latter. Please note, the one series of events in Genesis we have from prophecy rather than history is the Six Day account.

"There is a large portion of the population that are gullible and believe almost anything."

Yeah, like Evolution. But even you don't believe the latter part of Homo erectus kept track when Neanderthals and Denisovans and Homo sapiens appeared and left us with an account. Scientific reconstruction is exactly the same level of non-historicity as prophecy - it's believing something about the past because of other factors than accounts left from the past.

"Our societies are full of urban myths and disinformation, and it's always been that way. People tell stories and some of the gullible believe they're real and the lies spread."

It's not a question between "told story" and believing sth "real" it is a question between made up entertainment and believing it is historic. It is also not a question about lies about history and believing the lies are true, it's, once again, between made up fictions and believing they are actual history. And the sample of urban legends I saw don't qualify as historic statements. Whether true or false.

"In the comment section of Erika's video, I said that Romulus was probably a legend. It's possible that someone named Romulus was a founder of Rome, but it's not necessarily true. It could be a total fiction made up by a Roman leader or priest either for entertainment or power"

No, it couldn't. Romulus' father was not "son of Jove and god of war" and Romulus was not received among the gods when disappearing. But neither of these are historic statements anyway, they are metahistoric.

The problem is, why would Rome forget its real founder? What you are saying is about as credible (apart from the real history being more recent and therefore better documented) as pretending Cuomo found virgin terrain in what is now New York City and Adriaen Block and Cornelis Jacobsz a fiction invented by some Calvinist pastor who wanted to get some Calvinist connexion with the city he settled in.

"We don't know, but once people were born into the story or were educated to believe it, it was believed. People always want to think that the founding of their cities and nations were special."

A founding of a city or a nation always is special. It's special enough to recall who did it and therefore to not replace him with characters of fiction.

"There are partial copies of Genesis in the Dead Sea scrolls, but the bottom line is that we don't know who wrote Genesis 3 or when."

There is a Xth C. manuscript of Caesar in Carolingian France. Are you saying we don't know Caesar wrote the Commentarii de Bello Gallico? This is exactly where I as a Classicist can give you the context you lack of what comparative evidence is needed in comparative cases. You said you have studied YEC for 40 + years. But I have studied a lot of other things, which have helped to prepare me for that debate during the same 40 + years.

"It's very possible that the writer sincerely thought that Genesis 3 was an inspiration from God about events that occurred thousands of years ago from the author's time."

Not the least. What he sincerely thought about Genesis 3 is what he sincerely thought about Genesis 50 : that it was part of a history handed down to him. That's the kind of fake you don't make with con-men. Sure "past history" is a thing they can and do fake, as freemasons and Joseph Smith prove. But no Mormon grows up thinking II Nephi was a chronicle Joseph Smith came across at the local library. The "information bottleneck" shows. Namely, by his belief that this "history" was first lost and then recovered by an angelic being showing Joseph Smith some golden plates with a funny writing on them.

What has traditionally been ascribed to "revelation" was the Six Days account, which is tradionally ascribed to Moses receiving it on Mount Sinai. The rest is history. As history, not revealed by vision or audition from heaven.

You are handicapped in this field, because you concentrated on YEC controversy and you explain "we don't have independent accounts for Genesis 3" without asking how many independent accounts we have for Hannibal, "we don't have a contemporary text" without asking how much contemporary text there is left for Hannibal, "we don't have a manuscript by Moses, since Dead Sea scrolls is more than 1000 years later" without asking why we accept Caesar, whose writings also are in a manuscript 1000 years after he wrote it.

Get an idea of what is acceptable evidence in Ancient History before you pretend to judge the one for Genesis 3 inacceptable.

I have the Classical Education that you so far sorely lack.

Hans Georg Lundahl

XVII

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/19/2022 at 2:06 AM

Re: Here is, first, the debate

Hi Hans,

Again, your statements are totally irrelevant and don't support your invalid case to move the Talking Snake from the group of myths along with the Cyclops, Tiamat, and the sirens and into the history group with President Abraham Lincoln and Alexander the Great. You're not doing history, but instead you're trying to make an illegitimate exception for a Talking Snake story simply because you want to believe it and not because you actually have any evidence. Who cares what the "normal historic collective memory as Europeans" is? The only important issue is that Joseph Smith took ideas from early 19th century American society and deceived millions into believing that his stories were history. L. Ron Hubbard made similar myths in Scientology. Mohammad as well. Religious con-artists were common over history and that make up stories and gullible people believed it. As for Caesar, Hannibal and evolution, you'll have to wait. I'll deal with that later.

Best,

Kevin

XVIII

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/19/2022 at 3:23 PM

Re: Here is, first, the debate

You show a total incompetence in figuring out what is relevant when it comes to history.

Here is what we agree on : Joseph Smith was a con-man, and somehow (we disagree on how) we know Caesar and Hannibal were historic.

What we disagree on is where on these issues two other things are best sorted : 1) Genesis 2 - 14? - 50? with Snorre / Saxo and Livy book I; 2) Millions and billions of years "geology".

If you want to wait discussing on how we know Hannibal crossed the Alps, we can wait with the rest as well. Because how we know is crucial.

"Who cares what the "normal historic collective memory as Europeans" is?"

Apparently you do insofar as you are prepared to defend Hannibal's existence. I certainly do, because II Nephi is not normal historic collective memory of Mormons, it is paranormally reconstructed and recovered collective memory of a population only known of by the exact same paranormal recovery of it. Every Mormon who believes II Nephi ipso facto also believes Joseph Smith recovered this lost book on golden plates. In other words, while it is to him accepted as "historic fact" it is still not "normal historic collective memory" to him.

" to move the Talking Snake from the group of myths along with the Cyclops, Tiamat, and the sirens"

You have no Classic Education. Hence, you do not know why you place the sirens and the cyclops in "the same group" as Tiamat. Oh, if it's only because of paranormal and perhaps supernatural biology, that's not what myths are traditionally defined by.

Before we can fruitfully discuss where to place an item, we must discuss what constitutes the limit between the two groups.

Since 12 I have known a historically existant "mythology" (Babylonian, Greek, Celtic, Norse) can be dissected into two categories : "divine myths" (Tiamat, Kronos puking up the five offpsring he had swallowed, Lugos being god of the sun, Odin with two brothers treating Ymer as Enlil treated Tiamat); vs "heroic legend" (Gilgamesh and Sargon of Akkad, Hercules killing the Nemean lion with bare hands, Cuchullain killing his own son come to visit him with the Gae Bolg, Sigurd / Siegfried getting killed with complicity of his brother in law Gunnar / Günther before he in turn gets killed by his second brother in law Attila the Hun).

And since I studied Latin and Greek Epics and Tragedies at university, but also Livy, I have known that "heroic legend" has far closer ties to "history" than to "divine myths".

You seem unwilling to discuss this, you seem to take your own division between two groups for granted. As I said, you don't have a Classic Education, and it is sorely showing.

So, as you are so concentrated on con-men, I'll pose you two questions:

1) how do we know NYC started out as Nieuw Amsterdam in the 17th C. with Adriaen Block and Cornelis Jacobsz, that this story is not made up by a con-man?
2) if only one account and that one not contemporary survived and no artefacts survived in accessible form, would we still know it, or would it ipso facto become more reasonable to consider Adriaen Block and Cornelis Jacobsz as come from the composite imaginations of some conman?

Hans Georg Lundahl

XIX

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/20/2022 at 1:09 AM

Re: Here is, first, the debate

Hi Hans

Again, I know exactly what you're trying to do and you're totally failing to convert the Talking Snake myth into history. You can put Tiamat, the Cyclops, Thor and the Talking Snake into any academic categories you want. They're all from the imaginations of human beings without any supporting historical evidence. Your diversions and tangents don't work. You need to spend more time on science and real history rather than Norse, Roman, Greek and Hebrew mythology.

People lie and make up stories all the time. According to these stories, Joseph Smith saw magical beings. Eve supposedly saw a magic being too, a Talking Snake. Supposedly, both Joseph Smith and Eve saw God. At least the 1830 U.S. Federal census and contemporary tax records show that Joseph Smith and other Mormons were real people. There's no evidence that Eve ever existed.

You seem to think that the accounts in Genesis 3 amazingly came down through totally unaltered oral and/or written traditions from Adam to Moses. Others might speculate that Moses saw Genesis 3 in a vision. Neither of you have a shred of evidence for your speculations - None. Now, the Mormons claim to have a number of eyewitnesses that saw the golden plates. I think that they're all liars. But at least the Mormons claim to have something that the Talking Snake story doesn't have; namely actual human beings with a supposed chain of custody. Joseph Smith and other Mormons are easily found in the 1830 U.S. Federal census and their tax records are available. Of course, the Mormons are big on tracing their ancestries. I'll deal more with the Talking Snake story when I discuss Alexander the Great in March.

Now you want to add yet another diversion away from the Talking Snake story and discuss the history of New Amsterdam., Fine. Add that to the list for 2023 and I'll discuss the evidence for some of my Dutch ancestors having been born and lived there.

Best,

Kevin

XX

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/20/2022 at 1:34 PM

Re: Here is, first, the debate

You are very eloquent as why you deny historicity to Genesis 3 or the Odyssey. Mormons believe II Nephi is historically true.

You are far less eloquent on why you believe Hannibal, Caesar, Alexander. After all, a few more people, but still people, believe these historically true.

You are also getting quite offensive with your "You need to spend more time" ... plus it's badly argued.

... "on science" - is irrelevant for history ... "and real history" - is my expertise, not yours ... "rather than Norse, Roman, Greek and Hebrew mythology" - and I have better expertise than you to know the difference. Or similarity.

You have so far shown prejudice and ignorance, and nothing but that./HGL

XXI

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/20/2022 at 1:45 PM

Missed your Dutch Ancestry

You consider they were born in Nieuw Amsterdam, some of them.

Moses considered Adam as ancestry, as per Genesis 5, 11, patriarchal genealogies from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob to Levi, Caath, Amram and himself.

How come you know your ancestry better than he knew his?

Knowing science confers some kind of superman status on you?/HGL

XXII

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/20/2022 at 1:51 PM

And I missed the 1830 Tax Record

You are sabotaging the debate by using language calculated to make me angry, for nothing.

Here is another argument I missed in my haste:

"Joseph Smith and other Mormons are easily found in the 1830 U.S. Federal census and their tax records are available."

Good luck showing similmar records for Caesar, Alexander or Hannibal.

Yeah, that's exactly where Weibull is tolerably great for recent, but totally useless for ancient history./HGL

XXIII

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/21/2022 at 1:03 AM

Re: And I missed the 1830 Tax Record

Hi Hans

Wow. Three emails in 16 minutes full of diversions and tangents. Despite your claims of expertise, you still have not given me a shred of evidence for a Talking Snake. Nevertheless, I really do appreciate your enthusiasm. But you need to show some discipline and patience. When you raise new unsolicited topics, like New Amsterdam, you show your frustration and indicate that you really can't defend Genesis 3. So, you attempt to defend Genesis 3 by trying to demonstrate that other topics in actual history, such as Hannibal or New Amsterdam, supposedly have no better support or also have great uncertainties. This is the illegitimate "your claims are just as bad as mine" defense. That won't work. You remind me of the young-Earth creationist that I debated by email from 2007-2017;. He was a nice individual, but he kept moving from topic to topic once he was unable to answer my questions. So, just keep a list and in time (maybe during 2022-2026) we'll get to the various topics that you and I have brought up. I really do like you. You're brilliant, but you need to show more self-discipline and patience.

Nevertheless, I'll briefly respond to what you have said in the past three emails. If you have more arguments dealing directly with the Talking Snake, feel free to email me at any time. Otherwise, I want to concentrate on Alexander the Great and not deal with more diversions and distractions from you. You can then respond to Alexander the Great in March and we'll go from there.

No. I don't expect to find the tax or census records for Caesar, Alexander or Hannibal. The type of available contemporary evidence will obviously vary with the culture, the century and the technology. But, you should know that a great variety of contemporary evidence could exist for powerful people in the past that supplement or support much later written histories as I have mentioned. Rather than tax and census records for the ancient Greeks and Romans, there are clay tablets, inscriptions, various public records, etc. So depending on when and where the individual lived from the present to thousands of years ago that evidence might range from Hawaian birth records for President Obama, Joseph Smith's tax records to artifacts mentioning Alexander the Great. Certainly, not every person in history will have one from each category of the available types of contemporary evidence, but the key is to find as much contemporary evidence as possible to confirm any later written histories that may exist. We'll talk more about that with Alexander the Great.

You talk as though Moses and Adam actually existed and have valid genealogies. You'll eventually have to provide the evidence for that as well. Perhaps in 2025 or so. Add that to your list. Unlike Moses, I have DNA analyses from a total of 20,000+ 1st-8th cousins to supplement the claims from our family trees, birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates, tax records, tombstones, real estate records, wills, census records, etc. So, contrary to your beliefs, science is very relevant for verifying history. Certainly, there are huge gaps in my Dad's ancestry and my mom's ancestry can only be traced back so far. Also self-contradicting and groundless genealogies exist at genealogy websites and are not limited to the Bible. The ages in these internet genealogies, especially for individuals living 200 to 1000 years ago, are sometimes so ridiculous that parents were supposedly born after children or individuals had kids at very old ages or people lived well over 120 years. These genealogies have to be carefully checked for consistency and accuracy with diverse and independent public records and DNA evidence (science!). Nevertheless, it turns out that the records for my mom's Dutch ancestry going back to New Amsterdam are very complete and confirmed with diverse evidence. My cousins and I on this limb of our family trees have traced and documented our ancestors generation by generation back to New Amsterdam and I'll discuss that in more detail later. So, the science of DNA can either confirm or fail to support the various links in our family trees. The DNA of my relevant Dutch ancestors are located on my #2, 4 and 12 chromosomes. Moses, if he even existed, obviously never had access to this kind of information .More later. So, add the existence of New Amsterdam and the genealogy of Adam to Moses to your list.

So, unless you have some new evidence for the Talking Snake, please let me concentrate on my research on Alexander the Great. In time, we can get to the other topics that concern you.

Best as always

Kevin

XXIV

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/21/2022 at 12:35 PM

Re: And I missed the 1830 Tax Record

I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Or not.

Meanwhile, your claim to lead both what I can come along with and what you can come along with and your inability to get anywhere near fairness in the process is definitely annoying.

XXV

Me to Gutsick Gibbon (Erika)

2/21/2022 at 12:44 PM

Fw: Re: And I missed the 1830 Tax Record - Henke is seriously "pénible" - awkward

He can't see the prolegomenon as a prolegomenon, he wants to jump straight at the question he's not ready for and he takes any attempt to prepare him for it as "diversions".

Once when I was 12, 13, perhaps even 14, I asked my French teacher why "bok" is "livre" when Latin has "fagus" - she told me "fagus" is the tree (beech) and not the artefact (book) and I refused to believe her, because I had a hard time getting around that not all languages have the same or very similar (das Buch, die Buche) for beech and book.

That is about Henke's level in the ToK of history./HGL

XXVI

Me to Kevin R. Henke

to Gutsick Gibbon (Erika)

Cc David Phillips: Ph.D., Classical Studies, University of Michigan, 2000.

2/21/2022 at 1:34 PM

a proposal : get in a qualified person in the field of Ancient History

My own field was primarily Latin, after that Greek, not AH per se at all.

And I haven't got a MA, I studied up to phil. cand. level in Latin, never took the final exam, and continued to spread out.

Here is by contrast a really qualified guy:

David Phillips: Ph.D., Classical Studies, University of Michigan, 2000.

Shall we ask him to make the dialogue a trialogue (yeah, word doesn't exist, I know) either with him or with one of his present wellqualified students?

Hans Georg Lundahl

XXVII

Me to Kevin R. Henke

to Gutsick Gibbon (Erika)

Cc David Phillips: Ph.D., Classical Studies, University of Michigan, 2000.

2/21/2022 at 2:53 PM

a proposal 2 : withdraw Hannibal from my case, I was unaware of Polybius

I am somewhat confused to my studies history right now, why I have (as per my Academic papers in 2003 and following) "50 p." (Swedish system), namely 1 year and half of one term, when I was back at Classical Institution the years 90 - 91, 91 - 92 and part of 92 - 93 (half of Autumn term 92), and studied Greek and took just one year and half a term Greek. I certainly took German as well, but that was parallel to first year Greek, and if in second year I had only taken 10 points, I would have not gained access to study loan for the beginning third year. Perhaps simply so much remaining Latin exams to catch up on ... or perhaps, some exams were validated during second year and later withdrawn after I had lost the study loan in 93.

But the fact is, the course which would have included Polybius was not among those I took.

It is an excuse, but absolutely no justification of my previous statement that our first source for Hannibal is Livy.

A better case would be Pyrrhus or Brennus. Our first source to Pyrrhic war but also Battle of Allia is Polybius. He can't have become aware of Roman history prior to 171 BC and the battle of Allia was in 390 BC. 219 years is as if I were right now writing down the first history preserved to some hypothetic future about events in the Napoleonic wars, like in 1803.

By contrast, if I counted correctly, Polybius was 17 when Hannibal died, purportedly at least by suicide.

Hans Georg Lundahl

XXVIII

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/21/2022 at 3:44 PM

Re: And I missed the 1830 Tax Record

You do not teach discipline and patience to a man who has got too much sugar before going to bed, woke up before 4:20, did not catch up sufficient sleep before 8:30. You stop saying things that annoy the person, like being over patronising. And by misrepresenting the logic of things.

"So, you attempt to defend Genesis 3 by trying to demonstrate that other topics in actual history, such as Hannibal or New Amsterdam, supposedly have no better support or also have great uncertainties."

Not what I actually said, as to great uncertainties.

"This is the illegitimate 'your claims are just as bad as mine' defense."

No, it's not. First, I take New Amsterdam (now with Hannibal) and - no longer Hannibal, but Pyrrhus or Brennus - as a thing we reasonably are certain of. Then I state two more things:

1) this certainty depends on things which we have more of now than we would have if the history were ancient; and even now on narrative from sources we can no longer cross examine - in this case dead relatives of yours;
2) and to some examples, this narrows down to only narrative by non-contemporaries, as said, Hannibal struck from this specific list, replaced by Pyrrhus and Brennus, and Alexander still there.

My point is, even so the reasonable certainty is still there.

"He was a nice individual, but he kept moving from topic to topic once he was unable to answer my questions."

He did not keep a record of your exchange, neither did you, at least not shown on your site. I suspect he tried to give parallel cases to some of the questionings of his case that you brought up.

"No. I don't expect to find the tax or census records for Caesar, Alexander or Hannibal. The type of available contemporary evidence will obviously vary with the culture, the century and the technology."

And for some, the evidence that is contemporary survives only in copies and citations and resumés that are later. P R E C I S E L Y my point.

"artifacts mentioning Alexander the Great."

Coins are contemporary (as far as I checked), but coins are not specific enough in narrative to even evaluate whether it was a man or a fake god. As they overlap in his case (as reasonably known) I should formulate the opposition as a man or just a fake god.

The statue we have is a marble copy from c. 100 BC (from not so fresh memory) and the mosaic (from memory directly to our debate) is from c. 100 BC.

This leaves us with the narrative, and this narrative as it survives to us being second hand and in a text that is not contemporary (Diodorus Siculus, since narratives by his generals are stated as lost).

And here is the parallel. We have no free standing text by Adam, and yet that is the arguable source for Moses, via Abraham. Moses, like Diodorus for Alexander, like Polybius for Brennus, like Homer for Troy and return of Ulysses, is giving the earliest version surviving to us.

"You talk as though Moses and Adam actually existed and have valid genealogies. You'll eventually have to provide the evidence for that as well"

The earliest known audience did not take them for fiction.

That is the characteristic differentiating them from The Golden Ass, Satyricon, Menaechmi. Or Spiderman.

It is also about things which, if true, could have been handed down, and had no even purported need for a special revelation to get known. That distinguishes them from Tiamat (or for that matter the Six Days) and from II Nephi, where the historic continuity is clearly broken between Book of Moroni ... "the last of the books that make up the Book of Mormon. According to the text it was written by the prophet Moroni sometime between 400 and 421." ... and the purported or for all I care even real (but if so demonic) golden plates.

"Certainly, there are huge gaps in my Dad's ancestry and my mom's ancestry can only be traced back so far."

But the idea that one of his ancestors not only was born in what is now New York but also while this was New Amsterdam is based on narrative from back then, and unless you took a look at parish records or such (which is technically possibly since Early Modern times in European countries and dependences, you could have done that), depends on lore in your family.

Like Polybius depended on Roman families for Pyrrhic war and even more for Brennus.

"Nevertheless, it turns out that the records for my mom's Dutch ancestry going back to New Amsterdam are very complete and confirmed with diverse evidence. My cousins and I on this limb of our family trees have traced and documented our ancestors generation by generation back to New Amsterdam and I'll discuss that in more detail later."

Fine. Probably by records of the named type. Not available for Ancient History.

"So, the science of DNA can either confirm or fail to support the various links in our family trees. The DNA of my relevant Dutch ancestors are located on my #2, 4 and 12 chromosomes. Moses, if he even existed, obviously never had access to this kind of information"

Dutch genes exist independently on whether New Amsterdam existed or not. Your genealogy was known before your chromosomes were.

"The ages in these internet genealogies, especially for individuals living 200 to 1000 years ago, are sometimes so ridiculous that parents were supposedly born after children or individuals had kids at very old ages or people lived well over 120 years."

I'm not sure where you find them - perhaps on Mormon's site, since they place Odin at c. 200 AD. Adding "of Asgard" - he should be placed in 1st C. BC as per Snorre. But if one goes to wikipedian articles of historic people, they are usually accurate in genealogic information as far as I have so far found.

The observation doesn't make genealogy a non-certainty up to the existence of modern means.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Correspondence with Gutsick Gibbon (Erika) and with Kevin R. Henke

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Gutsick Gibbon on Cross Disciplinarity Outlawed in Academia, Heat Problem, Gate-Keeping · Gutsick Gibbon's Five Points Answered, I, Heat Problem and Extra on Absence of Solutions As Criterium · Gutsick Gibbon on Overturning Paradigms and Castile Formation · Geologic Column : Absent from Land Vertebrate Palaeontology · Continuing with Kevin · Creation vs. Evolution : Could Guy Berthault Conduct a New Experiment, Please? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Correspondence with Gutsick Gibbon (Erika) and with Kevin R. Henke · Continued Correspondence with Kevin : XV - XXVIII

I

Me to Erika (Gutsick Gibbon)

2/6/2022 at 4:01 PM

Dear Gibbon - an Amateur YEC here

You can guess what video I was watching, but here it is:

(BETTER AUDIO) Online Young Earth Creationists VS Their Guests
2 Febr. 2022 | Gutsick Gibbon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76FBqjwriVo

Here are answers up to time sign 25:25 in my post (and under your video):

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/02/gutsick-gibbon-on-cross-disciplinarity.html

Enjoy!

I referenced my amateur research on Himalays, see here:

Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Me to Erika (Gutsick Gibbon)

with CC to creditors

2/9/2022 at 1:44 PM

Dear Gibbon, Some Updates (CC Nils Ström, 435550-39092-202)

1) There are now three posts for two of your videos, the first two on heat problem, and now the third on Castile and Green River - with the debates with Henke included. Please do tell him, and also that it would be more neat to have the discussion per mail.
2) A fourth post in same series is my own OHKO, One Hit Knock Out, against the basic idea of "geologic column" as applied to faunal succession.

3) When I try to use the contact form on the site of Guy Berthault, my mail "hgl@dr.com" is rejected, another not mine "hgl@qq.com" is suggested, and when I refuse to change, the form doesn't work - would you contact Guy for me?

https://sedimentology.fr/

Scroll down to near bottom.

4) The post series is now four parts, tell Berthault, I'm going to add a fifth, on another blog but linked to the series, with the specifications for the experiment I want:

Gutsick Gibbon on Cross Disciplinarity Outlawed in Academia, Heat Problem, Gate-Keeping · Gutsick Gibbon's Five Points Answered, I, Heat Problem and Extra on Absence of Solutions As Criterium · Gutsick Gibbon on Overturning Paradigms and Castile Formation · Geologic Column : Absent from Land Vertebrate Palaeontology

5) I have a publication project. These posts could be republished with appropriate extracts from your videos in transscript (or all of those I commented on, if you like) and of Kevin R. Henke gave permission for republishing the dialogues commercially.

My own conditions are here:

A little note on further use conditions

Obviously, you would be sending my part of royalties to the account specified by CSN or on their behalf by Mr. Nils Ström, not to my usual Donativo account (If it's still visible).

My taking account of your copyright is here:

Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright

This obviously does not mean I would sue someone republishing this for you, you'd have to sue him yourselves. And if you try to sue me for the publication on my blog, it's for free, I'm not defrauding Henke of his royalties as there aren't any on the online version, not even monetised, and I consider this has journalistic interest.

Mr. Nils Ström, do you begin to see some kind of interest for CSN that they did not reckon with before your previous reply?

You already got this link, but I'm sending it to Gutsick Gibbon (Erika NN) too:

https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/02/not-interesting-to-csn.html

Hans Georg Lundahl

III

Me to Erika (Gutsick Gibbon)

2/10/2022 at 11:54 AM

The question to Guy Berthault is posed, but his contact form doesn't take my email

Here is his site:
https://sedimentology.fr/

Here is the challenge I would like forwarded to him:
Could Guy Berthault Conduct a New Experiment, Please?

Here is the reason I don't contact him myself: on his form, when I put "hgl@dr.com" into the email slit, I get "did you mean 'hgl@qq.com'?" which I didn't, and when I don't change, the form doesn't work.

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

Me to Erika (Gutsick Gibbon)

2/11/2022 at 11:39 AM

Henke asked me to ask you for the email adress, forward mine to him as well

Here is our exchange on youtube, in the third part:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Gutsick Gibbon on Cross Disciplinarity Outlawed in Academia, Heat Problem, Gate-Keeping · Gutsick Gibbon's Five Points Answered, I, Heat Problem and Extra on Absence of Solutions As Criterium · (3) Gutsick Gibbon on Overturning Paradigms and Castile Formation · Geologic Column : Absent from Land Vertebrate Palaeontology · Creation vs. Evolution : Could Guy Berthault Conduct a New Experiment, Please?

I'd be happy to continue the discussion in email format and put next post on this blog:

• Home
• Huius autoris bloggi sunt pro Christo et Maria
• Visiteurs le 29-VIII-2013
• Praat ik Nederlandsch? Niet heel veel, nee.
• If you wish to correspond with me

(I tried to copy just the last of these page links, but the mouseclick is bad here)

Hans Georg Lundahl

V

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/13/2022 at 12:44 PM

Here is, first, the debate

Meaning here, and a few more are upcoming:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Gutsick Gibbon on Cross Disciplinarity Outlawed in Academia, Heat Problem, Gate-Keeping · Gutsick Gibbon's Five Points Answered, I, Heat Problem and Extra on Absence of Solutions As Criterium · Gutsick Gibbon on Overturning Paradigms and Castile Formation · Geologic Column : Absent from Land Vertebrate Palaeontology · Creation vs. Evolution : Could Guy Berthault Conduct a New Experiment, Please?

Second, everything I said about how history in general is known is clear and pertinent.

You may or you may not get someone in a peer reviewed journal on history agree with me, but you will not get anyone pretend for instance that we have texts by Alexander's generals - or that coins of non-human entities or fictions don't exist - or that the artefacts of Alexander outside coins (statue and mozaic) are contemporary to him.

We have the narrative about Alexander from sources written down centuries after he lived. Exactly as with Hannibal. And when it comes to slight attempts to battle-field archaeology, these would have been as inadequate for these two as with Waterloo. In case you didn't notice, the fact that "Waterloo teeth" come from the battle field cannot be proven by dentistry, it can only be proven by the narrative the dentists were offering and are offering now.

I offer exactly one basic criterium on how to divide narrative that is historic fact from narrative meant as fiction : how the earliest known audience of the narrative took it.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VI

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/14/2022 at 5:24 AM

Re: Here is, first, the debate

Hi Hans.

Thanks for emailing me and I hope that you have a good Valentine's Day (an unofficial holiday in the US). You are quite right. Erika emailed me and found your two emails in her spam folder. She was surprised because that had not happened to her before. Nevertheless, I apologize for doubting you and I noted that in the comments section of Erika's video.

My requirements for any debate are listed here:

https://sites.google.com/site/respondingtocreationism/debates

Probably like you, I'm very busy, but I'll try to respond to your emails as time permits. That probably won't be more than once per day and it may be only a few times per week depending on how much research is needed and what else I'm doing. I was once in an email debate with an individual that lasted for 10 years. We'll see if we break that record! 😀

You tend to trust "the earliest known audience of the narrative that took it." This is a flawed policy. People lie and make up stories about past events all the time. Eyewitnesses often misinterpret events, especially if they're superstitious. To determine if a past event is likely (I recognize that nothing is ever absolutely proven), you need multiple and diverse sources of contemporary independent evidence and conformation, If numerous and independent eyewitnesses on different continents reported seeing a comet passing through certain constellations in a particular year, then the comet was probably there. We could further confirm this by trying to find it, calculate its orbit and past near-passes with the Earth. As I indicated earlier, I will certainly accept statements by Livy, Josephus and other ancient historians writing long after the events IF their claims could be confirmed by archeology and other contemporary evidence. Nevertheless, often we cannot confirm what the ancients wrote and we just have to remain skeptical until adequate evidence comes forward to support their claims, if ever. I think that there's enough evidence through contemporary coins, statues and records to state that Alexander the Great existed and was a powerful military leader. The Roman historians were right, at least about that much. You stated in your previous posts that this archeological evidence is not contemporary and unreliable. Then, produce your archeological references to support your claims once we finish with Genesis 3 and I'll also do so at that time.

Now, give me the articles, links to internet essays and any other sources that have evidence that Genesis 3 is history and not just a made up story. The fall of Adam and Eve is a critical foundational issue in Christianity and you need to stop ignoring the serious controversies over its historicity. That's the bottom line. Once we have dealt with Genesis 3, then we can discuss Alexander the Great, Waterloo dentures, etc. I recognize that you have already admitted that you are not an expert on geology, but I might raise additional objections to your earlier comments on this and dinosaurs in the future. If you have no historical evidence for Genesis 3, just admit it and stop procrastinating and wasting our time. You either have evidence of Genesis 3 or you don't and simply believe in it because you want to. After that, you could then try to convince me that the historical data on Alexander the Great, Waterloo, etc. are no better than Genesis 3 if that's your plan. Yet, I don't see how anyone could rationally believe that the evidence for Alexander the Great is no better than a Talking Snake or magic fruit trees. Whatever you say, you will need to provide evidence and thoroughly reliable references to back up your claims. I'll do the same.

Best

Kevin

VII

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/14/2022 at 1:27 PM

Re: Here is, first, the debate

I'll answer, in great detail, your argument:

"You tend to trust "the earliest known audience of the narrative that took it." "

I tend to take genre assignment (historic vs made up) according to how earliest known audience took it. Accounts that are undoubtedly historical include mistakes and lies. Oradour sur Glane was destroyed, one account says by German occupant, one account says Resistance blew up dynamite by bad handling and blamed the Germans. ONE of these accounts MUST be wrong.

In the case of Legio Fulminatrix, the prayers of Christian legionaries and those of an Egyptian magician could be combined into one account (leaving at least one of the prayers outside the explanation), but not with great probability. A legion entirely made up of Christian legionaries would not likely have tolerated a magician, Egyptian or otherwise. However, for instance a Christian priest could have been misinterpreted by Pagans as a magician, and if he was Coptic, we have Egyptian too. On the other side, an Egyptian magician with an entirely un-Christian legion could have worked the prodigy and some Christian might have wanted to cash in on it - as a Christian, I find this less likely. You know the story from Carrier, right?

"This is a flawed policy. People lie and make up stories about past events all the time."

Not quite so often as to make history a desperate pursuit. But often enough for one to have to decide (subjectively) which of two conflicting accounts is the most likely. See above. Making up for fun tends to be preserved in the genre "made up for fun"

"Eyewitnesses often misinterpret events,"

Sometimes, and obviously when it comes to the strength of Hercules, I consider paternity by Jove is a very major misinterpretation.

"especially if they're superstitious."

In mouths of Atheists and (by extension, since culturally similar) Agnostics, "superstitious" tends to mean "believing the supernatural" which I obviously disagree with, both as a definition and when it comes to determining whether misunderstanding is likelier than taking the account straight off. Btw, a misunderstanding doesn't belie the event as external event, it's usually concerned with explanations. Tiryns being wrong on why Hercules was strong doesn't belie he killed a lion with his hands.

"To determine if a past event is likely (I recognize that nothing is ever absolutely proven), you need multiple and diverse sources of contemporary independent evidence and conformation,"

They are a plus, but you do not need them. Their absence only belies the event if the presence would be expected. As I was just discussing, with events in Antiquity, these plusses are usually lacking.

The school of history you refer to was founded in Sweden arguably at my own alma mater, Lund, by one Weibull. It works, as said, tolerably well for recent history, but is very bad for earlier history. It was arguably calculated from a desire to stamp things like Book I in Livy or Ynglinga Saga as myths, at least for the earlier parts.

I saw a video stating "Vikings" from the Vendel era had been found in Estonia, 40 of them in a mass grave. This fits very well with Adils (thought mythical by Weibull) starting the Swedish presence in Finland. Swedes back then would not have distinguished Finns and Estonians as two different peoples, so the only misunderstanding would have been in relation to later nation boundaries.

"If numerous and independent eyewitnesses on different continents reported seeing a comet passing through certain constellations in a particular year, then the comet was probably there."

Great way of assessing 19th, 20th, 21st C. comets. Perhaps you could find a Chinese or Hindu witness to Halley's comet in 1066, but we didn't wait for those before believing it.

"We could further confirm this by trying to find it, calculate its orbit and past near-passes with the Earth."

Here we have history needing further support from natural laws determining a phenomenon ... it seems, history is simply not your thing.

"As I indicated earlier, I will certainly accept statements by Livy, Josephus and other ancient historians writing long after the events IF their claims could be confirmed by archeology and other contemporary evidence."

Livy's Romulus counted as infirmed a few decades ago, since earliest townscape was carbon dated to 550 BC. However, we know from Minze Stuiver and Berndt Becker that most years from 750 (the nearabouts of Romulus) to 450 (into the Republic) carbon date as 550 BC, it's called the Hallstadt plateau and has been proven by dendrochronology. Even if I were sceptical on finding an absolute dating by dendro this far back, I'd accept this as the outer limits have carbon dates I accept. Here is the work:

High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC
Minze Stuiver (a1) and Bernd Becker (a2)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/highprecision-decadal-calibration-of-the-radiocarbon-time-scale-ad-19506000-bc/F1AB60097B0184501418D3EAEAD2EA90

In other words, Romulus (son of Mars according to Pagans, but not all ancients who accepted his historicity) is now weakly confirmed rather than strongly infirmed. It was a mistake to ditch him in the first place.

"Nevertheless, often we cannot confirm what the ancients wrote and we just have to remain skeptical until adequate evidence comes forward to support their claims, if ever."

No. That's not how one certifies Ancient History. It's not how my strongly Atheist Latin teacher would have confirmed Hannibal.

"I think that there's enough evidence through contemporary coins, statues and records to state that Alexander the Great existed and was a powerful military leader. The Roman historians were right, at least about that much."

It so happens, they did not bother to prove it your way.

To them, ancient narrative was enough, especially if given by prestigious Greeks. And for that matter about matters like Trojan War or more recent, since events before the Trojan War were counted as myths - meaning both that the stories are lifting, and that the cultural distance would make verification less stringent. Nevertheless, Plutarch considered Theseus and Romulus fairly comparable.

Coins don't prove a story that's not already credible otherwise.

Harry Potter Coins and Medals | Monnaie de Paris

"You stated in your previous posts that this archeological evidence is not contemporary and unreliable."

I stated coins are not reliable, and the other archaeological evidence is not contemporary. And I also stated, this does not matter in the presence of a narrative from earlier generations that's not contested by an alternative one.

"Then, produce your archeological references to support your claims once we finish with Genesis 3 and I'll also do so at that time."

I don't think you need any. That was my exact point. You have some, but they are far less decisive than the narrative from the ancients.

"Now, give me the articles, links to internet essays and any other sources that have evidence that Genesis 3 is history and not just a made up story."

I gave you Haydock's comment for a brief overlook over the question. Genesis 3 is unlikey to be archaeologically evidenced as earthly paradise before the Flood can hardly be dug up. However, there is some evidence of the four rivers going outward to the corners of Earth's landmasses, if we look at directions of rivers.

Creation vs. Evolution : Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/07/trying-to-break-down-reverse-danube-or.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/07/with-damien-mackey-on-four-rivers-and.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded?
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/07/continuing-previous-xi-to-xx-are-nile.html

"The fall of Adam and Eve is a critical foundational issue in Christianity and you need to stop ignoring the serious controversies over its historicity. That's the bottom line."

I'm not ignoring them, I'm answering them.

"Once we have dealt with Genesis 3, then we can discuss Alexander the Great, Waterloo dentures, etc."

On the contrary. You ditch Genesis 3 because it is just ancient narrative, and thereby you show you are badly equipped to discuss Alexander the Great.

"I recognize that you have already admitted that you are not an expert on geology, but I might raise additional objections to your earlier comments on this and dinosaurs in the future. If you have no historical evidence for Genesis 3, just admit it and stop procrastinating and wasting our time."

I have precisely the kind of evidence that you wrongly have decided to consider dismissable : ancient narrative.

"You either have evidence of Genesis 3 or you don't and simply believe in it because you want to."

You either take ancient narrative as evidence, or you believe Alexander the Great on the wrong basis.

"After that, you could then try to convince me that the historical data on Alexander the Great, Waterloo, etc. are no better than Genesis 3 if that's your plan."

* Adam told Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahaleel; Seth told Enosh, Cainan, Mahaleel, Jared, Enoch; and so on, until we have the account of Moses.
* Scipio Africanus told his children and his adoptive grandson Scipio Aemilianus, and so on, until we have the account of Livy.
* Alexander's generals made accounts that we don't have, Diodorus Siculus had access to them and used them for his extant account.

"Yet, I don't see how anyone could rationally believe that the evidence for Alexander the Great is no better than a Talking Snake or magic fruit trees."

You have a problem in using the miraculous parts as evidence against historicity.

Rule of Nero is historical? Nero killing Agrippina (his mother) is at least credible as conspiracy theory?

Well, Tacitus used as confirmation of his guilt that a woman at that moment gave birth to a snake. 23 March AD 59 is not far off from Tacitus' writing the Annals before the end of 120 AD (when he died).

As for Tacitus having access to Acta Senatus, it is probable, on the same basis as Haydock's theory about how Adam's account reached Moses : as a theory showing the transmission of historic material is possible as such.

Modern scholars believe that as a Roman senator, Tacitus had access to Acta Senatus—the Roman senate's records—which provided a solid basis for his work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(Tacitus)
[4] The annals by Cornelius Tacitus, Anthony John Woodman 2004 ISBN 0-87220-558-4 pages x to xx

Modern scholars themselves do not have access to Acta Senatus and cannot verify how much or little Tacitus depends on these.

"Whatever you say, you will need to provide evidence and thoroughly reliable references to back up your claims. I'll do the same."

What I am discussing is your inability to see what constitutes such when it comes to ancient history.

I'll give you one example more, against Weibull. He obviously did not believe that Odin had come to the Uppsala region. However, if Odin had that, it would have been while Proto-Norse was spoken. He could not be author of a poem in Old Norse as to that linguistic trapping. However, in oral transmission of poetry, language can change. Jackson Crawford had a friend who reconstructed the Proto-Norse version of a stanza of Havamal (one which has links to Qoheleth) ... and the Proto-Norse version, while not exactly the same in metre, is still metrical.

In disciplines outside the Bible, you get old "myths" and "semi-mythic legends" more and more confirmed, starting when Schliemann dug up Troy. It's just Bible scholarship that lags behind.

You have another problem, when you say the foundational nature of Genesis 3 is apt to through reasonable doubts in it. I don't doubt the Muslim accounts of Mohammed or Mormon ones of Joseph Smith as to their history (confer the distinction about Hercules : the Nemean lion may have argued him son of Zeus to those believing in Zeus, but it is definitely worth believing even without believing in Zeus). That is also a bad move when attacking historicity of Genesis 3.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VIII

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/14/2022 at 3:04 PM

Re: Here is, first, the debate

No, Hans. You didn't answer my question. I'll make it easy for you. Which of the following actually existed?

A. President Abraham Lincoln B. The Talking Snake of Genesis C. Warner Brothers' Marvin the Martian D. A and B only.

After you answer this question, I'll deal with the rest of your claims in your email and your earlier statements.

Be open about what you believe and stop dancing around the edges.

Kevin

IX

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/15/2022 at 12:27 PM

Re: Here is, first, the debate

A and B only.

Warner Brothers' is by first known audience considered to be made up entertainment.

Abraham Lincoln and Genesis 3 aren't.

Now, there are a lot of things Weibull school of history could show on Lincoln, which it can't for Genesis 3 - but much of it would be lacking for Alexander and Hannibal, as already explained. Do you get it this time?

I wasn't dancing about the edges, I was answering point after point.

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, so far you have N O T answered my challenge : show one example where one generation invented stuff for entertainment and the next or their descendants believed it as fact. Not one single example shown./HGL

X

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/15/2022 at 1:09 PM

As I have already mentioned Weibull ...

Here is the article in English and then in Swedish:

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

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Weibull

And here is the paragraph we are concerned with.

His most important and acclaimed work is a criticism regarding the interpretation and the ahistoricism of the Gesta Danorum by the 12th century Danish historian Saxo Grammaticus. This piece was named: Saxo. Kritiska undersökningar i Danmarks historia från Sven Estridsens död till Canute VI (Saxo. Critical studies in Denmark's history from Sven Estriden's death to Canute VI), and was rather controversial at the time, as it revealed the vague basis of Denmark's older history of the time.

While the Swedish article is more detailed:

Under åren 1915 till 1921 framlade han ett antal mycket kritiska uppsatser, som angrep den svenska historieskrivningen runt 1000-talet för tradering, det vill säga att den byggde på uppgifter som överförts i flera led och förvanskats över tid. Han menade att historieskrivare som Snorre Sturlasson och Saxo Grammaticus i alltför hög utsträckning hade använt isländskt sagomaterial baserade på muntliga källor, i förhållande till användningen av källor som runinskrifter, Vita Anskarii, Adam av Bremens Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum, samt norsk-isländska skaldedikter. En av de händelser där han visar på motsägelser i de olika källorna är beskrivningen av Slaget vid Svolder.

This translates as:

During the years 1915 to 1921 he proposed a series of very critical essays, which attacked the Swedish historiography around XIth C. because of the phenomenon of "traditing" - meaning it built on facts that had been tradited over many intermediates and had been distorted over time. He considered that historiographers like Snorre Sturluson and Saxo Grammaticus too much used Icelandic - saga material / tale material - based on oral sources, as against sources like Rune inscriptions, Vita Anskarii, the Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum by Adam of Bremen, and Norwegian-Icelandic scaldic poetry. One of the events where he shows contradictions in the diverse sources is how the Battle at Svolder is described.

My point being of course, like Livy, Saxo and Snorre were using orally transmitted material and that he was wrong to ditch this.

Rune inscriptions are very short, therefore very unspecific as to historical concatenations of events.

Vita Anskarii and Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum are the pov by foreign missionaries - very unconcerned with events largely prior to missionaries arriving. And their descriptions of contemporary events and institutions are largely limited to areas where they had missionaries sent. Scaldic poetry is by definition flattering court poetry and always intends to flatter one particular man.

And there are with totally Weibull compatible dissing of oral sources also contradictions between accounts of battles way later on.

Now, the point I am making is, Snorre and Saxo were using material as old as the arrival of Odin in Sweden, with his stepson's son's Fyolner drowning in a vat of mead at the court of Frotho Haddingson. They differ on whether ...

a) Snorre, Frotho Haddingson = Peace-Frotho, contemporary of Augustus
or b) Frotho Haddingson, to Saxo = Frotho I, while Peace-Frotho = Frotho II, centuries later.

This means, we deal with historians who wrote down things that had been orally transmitted for over 1000 years.

With pre-Flood and early-post-Flood longer lifespans, the account which Moses certainly, Abraham (in my view probably) before him wrote down is closer to the space dividing Trojan War from Homer than to that dividing Odin from Saxo or Snorre.

And yes, to me, unlike Curt Weibull, this is enough for at least basic historic credibility, if not infallibility of each detail.

Hans Georg Lundahl

XI

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/16/2022 at 2:03 AM

Re: Here is, first, the debate

Hi Hans

I hope you are doing well. Thanks for finally answering my question. We can now continue.

You asked me: "show one example where one generation invented stuff for entertainment and the next or their descendants believed it as fact. Not one single example shown." I think that the Book of Mormon is an example. Although I don't think the Spaulding Manuscript Hypothesis is convincing, I think that Joseph Smith plagiarized one or more entertaining novels that were written at that time, where members of the 10 lost tribes of Israel sailed to the Americas. The Mormons came to believe that story as history. Skeptic and magician James Randi used to complain that people thought that his entertaining magic shows involved real supernatural powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi . In the US about 40% of Americans believe that some people have psychic or other supernatural powers despite the legal claims that the psychics have to give that their work is for entertainment only. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/01/new-age-beliefs-common-among-both-religious-and-nonreligious-americans/ It's not unusual for people to be deceived into thinking that entertainment, hoaxes or practical jokes are real. This includes scientists and other trained professionals that should know better. People also often take novels very seriously. Although "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was a work of fiction, it proved to be a powerful work for Abolitionists. I think that too many people take Ayn Rand's philosophical novels too seriously. In the US we have numerous "urban legends", which are false information derived from misinterpretations derived from novels, misinterpretations, hoaxes and practical jokes that are widely believed as fact in the US. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_legends In the 1980s, photographs and films from the Gulf Breeze UFO hoaxes even fooled physicist Bruce Maccabee, who is an expert on interpreting hoaxes in photos and films. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Breeze_UFO_incident

Next, I'll send you a reply on the historical evidence for Alexander the Great. I'll explain why I think it's reasonable to conclude that he lived and was a powerful military leader. I'll then compare that with the Talking Snake of Genesis 3. I'll deal with the other issues that you've raised: Carl Weibull, dinosaurs, Waterloo, Hannible, etc. one by one in the upcoming months to years. I only want to concentrate on one issue at a time. Considering that I'm very busy with other projects, I'll get back to you on my views on Alexander the Great probably sometime in March. It might be sooner, depending on everything I find. I want to do a thorough job and not be rushed.

Thanks for your patience

Kevin

XII

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/16/2022 at 12:47 PM

Re: Here is, first, the debate

"I think that the Book of Mormon is an example. Although I don't think the Spaulding Manuscript Hypothesis is convincing, I think that Joseph Smith plagiarized one or more entertaining novels that were written at that time, where members of the 10 lost tribes of Israel sailed to the Americas. The Mormons came to believe that story as history."

Obviously, if you are right about the matter, we here have one man actually deceiving (unless he was deceived by demons) - and equally obviously, the content was changed to be rendered less identifiable and to suit specifics of Mormon belief. Once this deception is done, we are not dealing with entertainment but with deception.

We do not have descendants of the novelists directly taking the novels as history.

And I'd like to know the titles of this or of these entertaining novels.

"Skeptic and magician James Randi used to complain that people thought that his entertaining magic shows involved real supernatural powers"

But here we don't have a story, we have an enactment ... and the complaint would be real good publicity, so a thing he would be likely to invent. The Dimond Brothers are obviously right that some preternatural and demonic things point to the reality of the Gospel indirectly (as against Atheism), but I think they are wrong to assume Bian lian is done by demons.

By the way, all the things I have so far seen attributed to Odin (at his visit to Sweden) are compatible with what a good (but highly abusive) hypnotist could achieve for a few well conditioned subjects (which would have been strategically chosen among the previous rulers).

"In the US about 40% of Americans believe that some people have psychic or other supernatural powers despite the legal claims that the psychics have to give that their work is for entertainment only."

I don't think the legal claims are always sincere, and we are not dealing with a story of events, but with an explanation. I would also consider the practising psychics would not necessarily coincide with those who have the "psychic powers".

"It's not unusual for people to be deceived into thinking that entertainment, hoaxes or practical jokes are real."

In cases like men who hold weights they shouldn't been able to lift and things like that - less likely to happen about an event in your community's past. Or totally unlikely. Again, deliberate deception, as from Odin or Joseph Smith, is another matter. But even that has to be out of sight of the deceived community's immediate memory. Odin could fool Swedes he had created the world, but not that the Swedes had been created by him as he arrived. Joseph Smith could fool Americans about pre-Columbian history, but was not pretending to be attending a service by Ten Tribes Pre-Columbians at a regular basis in Harmony PA. Mohammed's Coran could be inaccurate about relation between Aaron and Our Lord's Blessed Mother, but not about the Ethiopian attempted invasion around his birth time to Mecca.

"People also often take novels very seriously. Although "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was a work of fiction, it proved to be a powerful work for Abolitionists."

How many tried to fund Arthur Shelby's rebuying the farm? Fiction should be taken seriously on the moral level.

"I think that too many people take Ayn Rand's philosophical novels too seriously."

Phew ... then you aren't the crew who says that about LotR! You know the saying "if you read one of Atlas Shrugged and Lord of the Rings in your teens and take it seriously, one is likely to leave you emotionally stunted and incapable of dealing with real life - and the other one of course involves orcs" (quoting from memory and haven't the citation ready, sorry).

Same thing for Isaac Asimov's Foundation. It's taken too seriously.

Re : urban legends.
// Bloody Mary is a folklore legend consisting of a ghost or spirit conjured to reveal the future. She is said to appear in a mirror when her name is called multiple times. The Bloody Mary apparition may be benign or malevolent, depending on historic variations of the legend. The Bloody Mary appearances are mostly "witnessed" in group participation game /// Baby Train is an urban legend which claims that a small town had an unusually high birth rate because a train would pass through the town at 5:00 am and blow its whistle, waking up all the residents. Since it was too late to go back to sleep and too early to get up, couples would have sex. This resulted in the mini baby-boom. //

This is the kind of things people will say about the universe they live in, but neither of them is a historical statement about unique events in the community's past as they recall it.

I am not going into whether Gulf Breeze actually was a hoax or not, if rather the debunking was a hoax. While I don't believe in aliens, I do believe in, for instance, demons showing themselves in various shapes. But the question was not about hoaxes, but about things deliberately shared for fun and originally taken as entertainment. How do they, if at all, change into false historic past?

"Next, I'll send you a reply on the historical evidence for Alexander the Great. I'll explain why I think it's reasonable to conclude that he lived and was a powerful military leader. I'll then compare that with the Talking Snake of Genesis 3."

Do.

"I want to do a thorough job and not be rushed."

Don't get rushed.

"I'll deal with the other issues that you've raised: Carl Weibull, dinosaurs, Waterloo, Hannible, etc. one by one in the upcoming months to years. I only want to concentrate on one issue at a time."

Less appreciated - Carl Weibull and Hannibal are part of the same issue as Alexander the Great : namely on the past being known mainly by narrative and not always even contemporary one. I'd prefer one principled reasoning and threshing that out.

But obviously, if you deny both Alexander and Hannibal being examples, you could reason each one of them as you presume it to be a counterexample.

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, reasonably fine for a homeless man ... reasonably./HGL

XIII

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/17/2022 at 1:36 AM

Re: Here is, first, the debate

Hi Hans

Here are some possible sources that Joseph Smith used for the Book of Mormon:

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

It's certainly possible that some of the descendants of Solomon Spalding, E.T.A. Hoffmann and Gilbert J. Hunt are Mormons. I don't know. Nevertheless, the point is that Joseph Smith and others have taken ideas and phrases from works of fiction, included them in their works and then passed them off as historical fact.

President Ronald Reagan was getting somewhat senile during his last term in office. He would sometimes confuse movie plots with history. For example, at the annual ceremony for the Congressional Medal of Honor in October 1983, he cited a fictitious event either from the 1944 movie "A wing and a Prayer" or a 1944 Reader's Digest article as an example of courage during WWII. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2000/10/12/reagans-whoppers/7e548625-b462-4b75-852d-b49a2f439393/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars-Erik_Nelson My grandmothers in the last years of their lives would also think that their delusions were real. So, people are frequently tricked by crooks (like Joseph Smith or Nigerian Princes) or mistaken by leaders into believing that fictional events are real. I don't believe that demons are involved in any of this. It's just that people are often gullible and unwise and crooks know how to exploit that.

Best

Kevin

XIV

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/17/2022 at 12:55 PM

Re: Here is, first, the debate

The point is, while Spalding, Hoffmann, Hunt were used as sources for the book of Mormon, possibly, and some of their descendants (improbably with Hoffmann, he died of syphilis at 46 bc a celibate) may have been Mormons, that's not what we are looking for.

The point is, Hunt's descendants (if any) didn't come to think that the book ... I looked it up and didn't find any Hunt.

I actually found no novelist ... wait, I did find the Hunt reference.

The point is, "The Late War between the United States and Great Britain" contributed nothing to events in Book of Mormon. It also is not a novel. It is a contemporary account (1816 in relation to 1812) of a real event which no one doubts. The one thing Hunt did for the book of Mormon (if we are right to suppose a human and fraudulent authorship) was showing it was possible to write a narrative in the style of the King James Bible.

The Golden Pot (by Hoffmann) is instructive:

• Anselmus encounters Archivarius Lindhorst, the last archivist of Atlantis
• Archivarius Lindhorst is a guardian of ancient treasures (like Moroni)
• Significant events occur on the fall equinox
• Anselmus receives a gold record with writing and is asked to decipher it

And obviously, the entertainment fiction to this day has found no community of believers. Lindhorst remains to Hoffmann readers, as Red Book of Westmarch to Tolkien readers, a charming way to show an illusion of documentary, but Hoffmann readers and Tolkien readers don't take it for actual documentary evidence to this day.

When the fraud by Joseph Smith takes place, he can't fool people into believing something that they had not known and believing they had knewn it all along, that it is their normal historic memory, on the contrary, he uses sth which they had long suspected (in diverse learned comment from Throwgood and Penn to Worsley) and confirms it with a para-normal way of "knowing history".

This can be compared to how Edgar Cayce as a kind of psychic confirms the "Atlantic and pre-Atlantic" theories of Churchyard (Mu and Lemuria) as per his visions having actually taken place.

And similarily, in 1717, some people get convinced that King Solomon and Hiram Abbiff had founded a secret society to explain to a few select enlightened people that different religions all mean the same thing ... but they did not get convinced of having read it in the Bible, or in Biblical history, or in Livy, but of this having been kept alive by a secret society - another paranormal way of "knowing history".

You still have no single example of made up entertainment becoming believed as normally known history, as a war taking place so many decades or centuries before that other event, known very baldly (without supporting epics or tragedies) as "return of the Heraclids" or as a founder of the city you knew and the history of which you knew.

Let's say you live in NYC. How likely is it Adriaen Block and Cornelis Jacobsz are made up fictions? Or you live in Philadelphia, is William Penn taken from a novel by Tolkien or Hoffmann? As this is fairly recent history, you may have documents and artefacts from the time to back it up, but if this were lost, would this make Block, Jacobsz and Penn into mythology? That's what you need to consider when you take into account Romulus in Livy. Yeah, I know you want to beginning of March to get to him, but I'm going a bit in advance ...

Hans Georg Lundahl

From letter XV on, I'm starting a new post. You'll have to wait a little, until it has some substance./HGL

Éditions Critias arrête vite de répondre ...

I

Moi à Éditions Critias

12/6/2021 at 12:15 PM

Bonjour, j'ai compris que vos éditions visent la philosophie ...

Dans les échanges sur le blog Répliques assorties, il y a d'autres ayants-droit, mais vous pourriez les contacter?

Voici une thématique:

Répliques Assorties : Science et Culture - Après 2000 · Marc Robidoux avide de me juger comme mégalomane ... · Est-il encore possible de croire au géocentrisme ? - Mes commentaires sous une réponse d'un autre · Si l'acentrisme rélativiste choque le bon sens, il reste à prouver ... · New blog on the kid : Hume & Locke vs. Décartes? Non, St. Thomas contre les trois

Et voici les conditions de ma part:

hglwrites : Conditions d’utilisations ultérieures …
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/conditions-dutilisations-ulterieures/

II

Éditions Critias à moi

12/7/2021 at 9:48 AM

Re: Bonjour, j'ai compris que vos éditions visent la philosophie ...

Cher Monsieur,

Merci pour votre message.

Nous allons jeter un oeil aux liens que vous nous avez gentiment envoyés, puis nous reviendrons vers vous en fin de semaine.

Bien cordialement,

Valentin, responsable des Éditions Critias

III

Moi à Éditions Critias

12/9/2021 at 4:47 PM

Re: Bonjour, j'ai compris que vos éditions visent la philosophie ...

merci, et en avance, si ça vous intéresse, il y a ici les contacts pour Marc Robidoux et pour BernardO sur Quora en français:

https://fr.quora.com/profile/Marc-Robidoux

https://fr.quora.com/profile/BernardO-5

salutations,
Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

Moi à Éditions Critias

12/11/2021 at 7:14 PM

Re: Bonjour, j'ai compris que vos éditions visent la philosophie ...

Je viens de constater un manque de réponse.

Si le problème serait que vous n'êtes pas intéressé par des dialogues (un peu un comble vu votre nom) ou que vous n'avez pas pu joindre les autres ayant-droit ... j'ai d'autres posts qui sont mes essais et qui dépendent donc de mes droits d'auteur, ceux-ci, comme dit:

hglwrites : Conditions d’utilisations ultérieures …
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/conditions-dutilisations-ulterieures/

et qui sont sur le même thème:

• Les français te prennent pour un T. d. J. si tu es créationniste?*
• (bon, ce premier est un autre thème ...)
• Pape Urbain VIII "héliocentrique lui-même"? Non, mais à part ça admirateur de Galilée
  • Les moteurs des corps célestes.
    
  • Une Certaine Honnêteté chez Laplace
  • Un certain manque de logique chez Laplace
  • Une Certaine Adulation de Laplace - Chez Nous.
  • Newton et Lemaître devant St Thomas d'Aquin
  • Pour Expliciter, à propos de Newton/Lemaître
  • Quelle physique voulons-nous?
  • Quand l'Élite Change les Idées
  • Avec la Sonde sur Mars, on Croit l'Héliocentrisme, Non? (Et les Pieds-Noirs de l'Applaudir)
• Frédéric Chaberlot n'est pas musicologue
  • Les fameux (et pas toujours fumeux) paradigmes en science et philosophie
  • Et le paradigme héliocentrique, est-il fumeux?
  • Frédéric Chaberlot dans l'éthique
  • Fr. Chaberlot sur le paradigme héliocentrique - avec mes critiques
• En lisant La Voie lactée par Chaberlot : en guise de Proesme
  • Les définitions de Chaberlot
  • Inégalité des mythes payens - ou prétendument tels
  • Chemin des oiseaux migrateurs
  • Roemer n'était pas Jésuite
  • Wright, cosmologue héliocentrique de l'infini
  • La cosmologie moderne, repose-t-elle sur spéculation non vérifiée ou non?

* Est-ce que la charité exige que ce premier était lié à un lien abrégé qui ne fonctionne plus? Si le manque de réponse vient de là, ça voudrait dire que Valentin aurait essayé celui-ci et ensuite laissé tomber tous les autres, sans de regarder?

V

Moi à Éditions Critias

CC Rivarol, Présent

1/20/2022 at 3:31 PM

Cher éditeur de Critias ...

Vous sembliez un peu désintéressé de mes écrits à propos le géocentrisme.

Peut-être que vous redoutez que dans un débat je me planque immanquablement ... regardez dans le double débat ici* (sous les deux lignes

9:06 153 millions de km au Soleil ... n'y a-t-il rien qui fait l'économie des lois de Kepler?
et
10:19 Utiliser l'orbite de la Terre autour du Soleil pour la parallaxe, ça suppose qu'il y ait un tel orbite, ça présuppose donc l'héliocentrisme.)

qui est-ce qui se planque. Il propose que les voyage interplanétaires des sondes auraient déprouvé le géocentrisme, y compris donc tychonien, et loupe de me fournir les détails qui auraient différé selon lui s'il était vrai, et il doit recourir à la négation des anges et à prétendre que les seuls preuves sont celles utilisées par la communauté scientifique.*

Notez aussi, ceci a son importance pour l'âge de l'univers, les 7221 ans à partir de la création** seraient légèrement difficiles à soutenir si l'univers avait un rayon autour de la terre de 13,8 ou quelque milliards d'années-lumière. Sans d'oublier que le lieu*** du Ciel en tant que démeure des bienheureux, anges et âmes sauvés, et au moins Jésus et Marie corps et âme devient davantage répérable comme lieu si on pose que le rayon de l'univers est fini simplement./HGL

* https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2022/01/lunivers-non-mesure.html
** Le 25 décembre énumère 5199 à partir du commencement quand Dieu créa le Ciel et la Terre dans le martyrologe
*** https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2021/12/debating-place-or-no-place-of-heaven.html

Stefan Claesemann tries to take it in private with me

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Somewhat Sectarian Style, Semel · Somewhat Sectarian Style, bis · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: No Answer from Dr. Liebi, So Far? · Stefan Claesemann tries to take it in private with me · Creation vs. Evolution : Let's Carbon Test Stefan Claesemann's Chronology · Correcting the Test

Friday 28.I to Tuesday 1.II.2022

Stefan Clasemann

ven 12:12

Martyrologium AD 1584:

1584)

1. In the year 5199 since the creation of the world, when God created heaven and earth in the beginning,
2. in the year 2957 since the Flood,
3. in 2015 since Abraham's birth,
4. in the year 1510 since Moses and the exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt,
5. in the year 1032 since the anointing of David as king,

1. Over a millennium too early
2. Half a millennium too early
3. Only 4! years earlier! bull's eye!!!
4. Just 1 Century Later! Well!
5. Only 24 years later! Almost hit!!!

Martyrologium 2004:

1. Unproven evolutionary hypothesis theory as modern dogma forces apostasy and leads to refusal to estimate.
2. Unproven evolutionary hypothesis theory as modern dogma forces apostasy and leads to refusal to estimate.
3. Only the century is mentioned, therefore a deterioration by about half a century later Bible forger Ramses time dogmas
4. Deterioration by more than 3 centuries: Bible completely falsifying by Jericho long since refuted Ramses time dogma that schizophrenically dogmatically maintained by the refutators in order to allegedly prove the Bible as a book of fairy tales
5. Deterioration from 24 to 56 years of deviation

I have become traditional catholic and get bloody eyes reading the 2004 Martyrologium as proving evidence for the by Paul prophecised fall away from faith by my church in the end times.

I love the Latin Mass and know that the old Martyrologium is partly very near to the unfalsified biblical dates. All former biblical chronologists admit that they had to „change“ = falsify the biblical time data to make their chronologies work. Even the rabbinical old testament chronology admits to have taken bible external time data and thus changed what the Word of God originally says: Your catholic chronology is built on this Seder Olam Chronology, You could have studied all this already in the time you waste with „debating“ & „teaching“!

But I invest now my time to give You a last chance to understand: Even Holy Hyronimus failed in discovering a chronology in the Word with all biblical time data working out fine, he admitted it. Every jew or christian failed and admitted it. They all had to change the figures to make their chronologies work. You have to know things like that to understand it’s not about who is manipulating the biblical figures the best way wil win. It’s about the one who does use ALL the Word‘s time figures without changing one single one is the only one who follows a 100% the Word of God. And this has successfully happened now in the End Times. AND it reveals 10 times more archeological evidence and 10 times less contradiction or ignorance of the Word than ANY other Chronology. You HAVE to study my work in order to reach the necessary knowledge level to be able to understand & realize this!

ven 12:36 (continued)

The only time I started a debate within a public post instead of via messenger like You always do was with David Rohl, who discovered the past first location of Paradise on earth and the palace and one sculpture of Joseph: But I certainly did BEFOREHAND study his complete book intensively!!! In order to ensure an ADEQUATE level of discussion!!!

As long as You refuse to study beforehand Your „debate“ partner the readers of him are bored & annoyed about this embarrassing ignorance!!!

And as long as You refuse to deeply study the background history of the Martyrologium in order to understand where & when & by whom @ and why biblical time figures had been ignored or changed by nonbiblical reinterpretations, inadmissible nonbiblical parallizing of kings‘ reign times etc. etc.

You will never realize that the History of Bible Chronologisation is a history of small faith biblical scholars ALL admiting they had to change or ignore literal biblical time fogures to make their chronologies work!!! They all admit it!!! They don’t call it what it is (falsifications) but they admit that they changed & ignored literal biblical time data!!! Your clueless way of debating angers me!!!

But I somehow like You despite this so my heart maybe right that You‘re simply unaware of all this and that You’re are simply a true traditional catholic like me captured in the hope that my old church was a 100% right in its beliefs regarding chronological questions. That would be OK and even very likeable to me …

Or are simply one of these 1000‘s of Exodus Dating Theories Lobbyists fighting for their „theory“ like different football team fan clubs? I don’t waste my time with these clueless nuts …

ven 13:55

❣️🙋🏻‍♂️🙏
Oh Mary conceived without sin pray for us both, preserve us today from confusion and sin❣️

ven 14:22

„Why do You call me ‘Lord! Lord!’ but not do what I say?”

"Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." 1Thess5:21
"Test the spirits to see whether they are from God" 1John4:2

Just f…… -
finally do it man!
God bless Your truthseeker‘s way 🙏

HGL

sam 14:28

The ones who were actually tweaking figures were Jews in the lifetime of Josephus.

He gives the total of 292 between Flood and Birth of Abraham, but he enumerates a series of generations that adds up to close to the total of St. Jerome (Hieronymus in English as in French). So, he would have learned the Bible as a young child with the longer chronology of r Genesis 11.

mar

14:20 (HGL cont.)

Here is the quote:

Serug at one hundred and thirty; at the same age also Phaleg had Ragau; Heber begat Phaleg in his hundred and thirty-fourth year; he himself being begotten by Sala when he was a hundred and thirty years old, whom Arphaxad had for his son at the hundred and thirty-fifth year of his age. Arphaxad was the son of Shem, and born twelve years after the deluge. Now Abram had two brethren, Nahor and Haran: of these Haran left a son, Lot; as also Sarai and Milcha his daughters; and died among the Chaldeans, in a city of the Chaldeans, called Ur; and his monument is shown to this day. These married their nieces. Nabor married Milcha, and Abram married Sarai. Now Terah hating Chaldea, on account of his mourning for Ilaran, they all removed to Haran of Mesopotamia, where Terah died, and was buried, when he had lived to be two hundred and five years old; for the life of man was already, by degrees, diminished, and became shorter than before, till the birth of Moses; after whom the term of human life was one hundred and twenty years, God determining it to the length that Moses happened to live. Now Nahor had eight sons by Milcha; Uz and Buz, Kemuel, Chesed, Azau, Pheldas, Jadelph, and Bethuel. These were all the genuine sons of Nahor; for Teba, and Gaam, and Tachas, and Maaca, were born of Reuma his concubine: but Bethuel had a daughter, Rebecca, and a son, Laban.

Total given as per Masoretic, not a Bible quote. Details given largely LXX and part Bible quotes from the Genesis 11 he learned as a child.

Stefan Clasemann

You still don’t listen, learn, investigate, study and THEN teach: The Martyrologium builds partly on the rabbinical Seder Olam Chronology of the 2nd century:

Many changes of biblical time figures are based on the Bible external Second Century Rabba Seder Olam which is also cited in the Jewish Talmud: The Seder Olam ads Bible Tanakh external time estimations into its chronology and does change the meaning of biblical time figures by reinterpretation based on rabbinical Bible external traditions to make its Chronology work. These Bible figures changing time estimations and reinterpretations have been misused up until today by Leading "Biblical" Archeology to prove the Bible/Tanakh being a compendium of politically motivated lies of the first millennium BC based on "contemporary reflections"

I can’t waste more time on You Hans, You‘ve decided to stay a learning resistant clueless teach instead of turning around to an intelligent critical truthseeker never giving up to "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." 1Thess5:21
"Test the spirits to see whether they are from God" 1John4:2
Search attention and love for Your teaching somewhere else.
May HE show You the WAY to THE TRUTH 🙋🏻‍♂️🙏

HGL

18:50

Who taught you that YOU are the one who should teach ME?

Who taught you that Seder Olam being identic to LXX or to LXX without the second Cainan, if so, is the innovation?

And if you "can't waste more time on me" why tf are you wasting so much time on using depreciating language about me?

The one rabbinic teaching that IS an innovation is the idea that Melchisedec was Shem.

And this is what the Masoretic and Vulgate chronology allow and what the chronology of the RM as well as the words of St. Paul to the Hebrews disallows.

You even allow yourself to say the RM is correct with four years difference for Abraham's birth, when on your view for the timing of the Exodus you should say 104 years. Or 101.

1609 + 505 = 2114.

Abraham got a promise at age 75 and Exodus was, according to your own patron saint, 430 years from that promise. 430 + 75 = 505.

But Biblical chronology is perhaps not your worst sin in academia on this issue.

You claim to respect all of the Biblical chronology.

Fine - what do you do with a carbon date like 40 000 BP for a Neanderthal in El Sidrón? You need to reduce it, right?

Well, you seem to assume you can reduce C14 dates by cramming as if all were chaotic as to atmospheric C14 content, wildly vaccillating between 0 and 50 pmC, and then of a sudden, you get a situation with 100 pmC, so the carbon date for Sesostris III coinciding with the date of Joseph in Egypt (on your view) "proves" Sesostris III is Joseph's pharao.

What if, in Joseph's time, C14 had a lower level, still rising from the near zero, though laready closer to 100 pmC, and therefore the date of Joseph needs some centuries addition, before you get to the carbon date of Joseph's pharao?

That's my take, and I take Djoser to be Joseph's pharao. And Imhotep to be one - vizier or retroactive legendary - name for Joseph.

19:15 (cont.)

By the way, I am well aware of the background history of the martyrology.

One late 15th C version of Usuard introduced it from Historia Scholastica, who took it from St. Jerome, who got the earlier parts from Julius Africanus - who used, not Vulgate, but Vetus Latina.

On your view, early Christians prior to St. Jerome were misled by Seder Olam - if only as to chronology.

19:16

You also speak about my "debating" and "teaching" - for debating, you can cut the citation marks, for teaching, you can cut the word altogether.

19:22

Rabba Seder Olam is btw contemporary to Julius Africanus, he does not depend on it as far as we can see.

19:25

And my tables have so far not given any obvious mismatch with archaeology - only with its accepted dates (which I know a way around and a rational one).

Next day, Candlemass, I posted the next part to him.