With Habermehl 2017, I

With Habermehl 2017, I · With Habermehl 2017, II

I

Me to Habermehl

"On 1/25/2017 9:08"

Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

Neanderthals, first:

1.) I think Flood year organic things date to c. 55,000 to 30,000 BP.

Anything thought to be "Flood" fossil but say 22,000 BP is post-Flood, including dinos.

This would mean that La Ferrassie II is a pre-Flood remnant. Her dates are "68-74 k-years BP".

2.) Genetic "non-humanity" of Neanderthals concerns Y-chromosome and mitochondrial.

I think the pre-Flood Neanderthals are related to us by one woman whose father was Neanderthal but whose mother was Sethite or Cainite, probably Sethite (I consider that Japheth married a Neanderthal or half Neanderthal who was so by her father only, thus missing out on mitochrondrial, but whose brothers if any drowned, thus missing out on the Y too; while Ham married a Cainite).*

3.) That would mean that Homo erectus if human was probably also pre-Flood. I would say, yes, human.

Shinar and Tower of Babel:

Shinar would probably mean Mesopotamia, any piece of land between two rivers Euphrates and Tigris.

Parts of Eastern Turkey are geographically included.

I tentatively identify Tower of Babel with Göbekli Tepe, and consider that Urfa/Edessa close by was the Ur of the Chaldees.

This means that T o B was c. 11,000 BP / 9000 BC as to carbon dates, which mean late Palaeolithic is between Flood and Babel.

Glad to hear** you are not inimical to LXX, since this fits better with a LXX timeline.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Paul's Conversion
25.I.2017

* You might enjoy : Creation vs. Evolution : Damien Mackey & The Flood
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/01/damien-mackey-flood.html

** Or rather read, here : Anne Habermehl: Let Creationists Think!
http://www.youngearth.org/index.php/safaris/icalrepeat.detail/2014/12/12/28/-/anne-habermehl-let-creationists-think

II

Habermehl to me

1/26/2017 at 5:28 PM

Re: Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

Hi, Hans-Georg!

It's nice to hear from you. I am always glad to hear that someone is reading my papers and thinking about them!

Neanderthals:

1. My first point is that there are two timelines.There is the biblical timeline that goes back to Creation about 7500 years ago maximum (the Septuagint gives this date). This puts the Flood about 3300 years ago, maximum. Then there is the evolutionary timeline that goes back to the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago. They don't have a date for the Flood because their ice ages start about 4600 million years ago. (The Flood was before the Ice Age that creationists recognize.) This means that 55,000 years ago is a secular timeline date, and lies within the Ice Age.

I believe that all fossils believed to be Flood fossils are post-Flood, and date in the Ice Age. Re Neanderthals: all Neanderthal fossils that we have all have to be post Flood.

2. As you know from my paper, I believe that Jack Cuozzo has scientifically proven that the Neanderthals were the long-lived ancient people of the Bible. All the earliest post-Flood people were Neanderthals. They died out because people no longer lived long enough to develop Neanderthal characteristics. The more recent sequencing of the genome actually supports Cuozzo on this. I also am skeptical that DNA has survived the years well enough to be sure of the sequencing results because DNA deteriorates rapidly in a fairly small number of years.. Their tests give them answers, sure -- but we have no control sample for comparison, and we have no idea how close modern geneticists are to the real Neanderthal DNA. I consider it possible that their DNA results are largely an illusion.

3. Homo Erectus have to be superior early extinct apes. They show monkey characteristics. Cuozzo shows this.

Shinar/Tower of Babel:

On the biblical timeline, the Tower of Babel had to have been built long, long before the end of the Ice Age, which is when Gobekli Tepe was built. Besides, there is no resemblance to a tower at GT.

LXX: Yes, I am very friendly to the LXX! Jesus and the early church used it. I believe that history shows that the MT was produced shortly after the time of Christ by Jews who hated the Christians and hated their scripture, the LXX.

Have you read my papers on the Neanderthals, Tower of Babel and Ice Age? They are on my web site: www.creationsixdays.net. Or google up my name and those words. The papers are online.

Best wishes! Thanks for writing!

Anne Habermehl

III

Me to Habermehl

1/27/2017 at 11:19 AM

Re: Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

Neanderthals:

"1. My first point is that there are two timelines."

Correct. Or rather, three. Biblical, carbon dated and evolutionist.

A certain dinosaur would be Flood or perhaps post-Flood (in the case I think of post-Flood) for Biblical.

It would be 22,000 before present carbon dated.

It would be at least 65 million years before present per evolutionist time line, the one based on biostratigraphy, since dinosaurs are in this model dated as "triassic, jurassic or cretaceous", which three divisions of evolutionary time are currently dated to 252 to 65 million years ago.

"There is the biblical timeline that goes back to Creation about 7500 years ago maximum (the Septuagint gives this date). This puts the Flood about 3300 years ago, maximum."

Two liturgically used timelines agree in setting Flood at anno mundi 2242, the Roman and the Byzantine martyrologies. They disagree on Creation BC and Flood BC.

Roman : Christ was born 5199 after the Beginning in which God created Heaven and Earth, 2957 BC. That is, btw, about 5000 years ago.
Byzantine : Creation given as 5508 BC, which puts Flood in 3266 BC (same LXX timeline between Creation and Flood as Roman).

"Then there is the evolutionary timeline that goes back to the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago."

More than one of them, which the evolutionists try to harmonise (inter alia by suppressing genuine carbon dates and crying "fraud" when Creationists submit dinosaurs to carbon dating and get results).

The one I think merits a little more consideration than the rest is the carbon one.

Biostratigraphy is based on the diverse faunas being results of diverse stages of evolution, I think they were rather diverse immediately pre-Flood (usually) biotopes.

The 13.8 billion years are based on distant starlight problem where some stars are supposed to be "proven" 13.8 billion LIGHT years from us, which by a constant speed of light gives 13.8 billion YEARS since these emitted the light we see now.

I think the distances are spurious and all "stars" (they used to be called "fix stars") in a shell one light day above us.

That way there is no distant starlight problem. And this I base on the first and closest distances "known" to stars being based on the spurious parallax measures, which I consider spurious not just because "it's a very skinny triangle" (as Kent Hovind said) but also because I am a geocentric and believe the "parallactic" and "aberrational" movements of stars are really proper movements, made by dancing angels.

"They don't have a date for the Flood because their ice ages start about 4600 million years ago. (The Flood was before the Ice Age that creationists recognize.) This means that 55,000 years ago is a secular timeline date, and lies within the Ice Age."

Wait a minute. You are treating secular datings as one unit. They are not. 4600 million years is not carbon dated. 55,000 years usually is carbon dated.

If they identified an organic trace of "first ice age" 4600 million years ago, it could probably be carbon dated to very much less than that, either to Flood or to post-Flood ice age.

"I believe that all fossils believed to be Flood fossils are post-Flood, and date in the Ice Age."

If so, what exact traces did the Flood leave?

If so, why is there an Ice Age and post-Flood sea shore in what is now the Alps? It makes much more sense to say the seashore is a pre-Flood one.

Why does there have to be a seashore at all in the Alps? Because a fossil whale was found in Linz, the city where Hitler spent his youth, and a fossil seal was found in Nussdorf, a vineyard area outside Vienna.

These seals and whales are obviously, as being mammals and as not found together with any dinos, dated as Tertiary. I believe they are immediately pre-Flood, and if a splinter of bone were carbon dated, it would show the typical dates for Flood fossils. Which contradict the evolutionary timeline much more than the Biblical "common" one.

"Re Neanderthals: all Neanderthal fossils that we have all have to be post Flood."

I respectfully disagree. Between Mousterian and Aurignacian or Aurignacian and Gravettian there is a shift in the population of Europe. Before, Neanderthals dominate, if not to exclusion to Cro-Magnon. After, the genetics basically match those of the Europeans up to now.

With a Flood between the population types, there is no problem with the population shift.

Carbon dates seem to set the carbon dated timeline for the shift around 37,000 BP.

This matches the carbon dates for most fossils believed to be from Flood, though not the one I just talked about as dated 22,000 BP.

"2. As you know from my paper, I believe that Jack Cuozzo has scientifically proven that the Neanderthals were the long-lived ancient people of the Bible."

One little disagreement. The word "the". I think his proof they were long lived is probably right, and that skeleta now considered as belonging to people who died in their thirties or forties may belong to people who either lived up to 950 or 1000 (as the Sethite line) or to 500 (as many early post-Flood) or to above hundred.

This does not mean all pre-Flood long livers had the genetics of Neanderthals or even the general shape of Neanderthals. Cuozzo has proven that Neanderthals were some post- or pre-Flood men, living long, not that they were all of them.

"All the earliest post-Flood people were Neanderthals. They died out because people no longer lived long enough to develop Neanderthal characteristics. The more recent sequencing of the genome actually supports Cuozzo on this."

The recent sequencing indeed confirms they were human, and that some people today (notably Europeans) have more Neanderthal genes than others, but as per last time I checked, also mitochondrial DNA not found in our post-Flood population, which however does seem to have mitochondrial DNA from three daughters in law of Noah, whereas they also lack certain characteristics of our Y-chromosomes.

Hence my idea that the Neanderthal DNA we do have in Europe came via either a man marrying a Sethite woman and his daughter marrying Japheth, or else the connection would be a Neanderthal woman married a Sethite man, her son had a daughter who married Japheth.

"I also am skeptical that DNA has survived the years well enough to be sure of the sequencing results because DNA deteriorates rapidly in a fairly small number of years.."

Svante Pääbo has thought of that. Even though the fool has said in his heart what SP says openly, that there is no God, doesn't mean he must be a fool in his own job.

I think deterioration of a certain mitochondrial or Y-chromosome genome is random, and that the mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome differences he did publish are the systematic ones, when random deterioration has been discounted from the material.

[In general terms of base pairs : deterioration of a base will not yield a different base so gene is read like a different gene.]

"Their tests give them answers, sure -- but we have no control sample for comparison, and we have no idea how close modern geneticists are to the real Neanderthal DNA."

Overall, no. As far as I can see, there is a Neanderthal genome accessible in fragments, but not a complete map.

However, this could be just suspicion, and they could have a fairly complete map. But identifying mitochondrial and Y-chromosomewise differences does not take a complete map.

"I consider it possible that their DNA results are largely an illusion."

Not sufficiently to make me say all post-Flood men were Neanderthals, as if the characteristics were just a matter of gene expression and not of genes.

"3. Homo Erectus have to be superior early extinct apes. They show monkey characteristics. Cuozzo shows this."

Which ones of them?

Certainly not the Homo Heidelbergensis or Homo Antecessor ones. As to Peking man or Java man, they could have been diseased.

Shinar/Tower of Babel:

"On the biblical timeline, the Tower of Babel had to have been built long, long before the end of the Ice Age, which is when Gobekli Tepe was built."

Why exactly? Because ice age men have a geographical spread which you identify with post-Babel scattering?

Just pre-Babel men were wandering, when they came to Shinar, they had arguably just been over to India.

This means the ice age geographical spread can be a pre-Babel trace of wandering and of expeditions (and in Biblical Hebrew, an expedition would probably have been described as "wandering", especially if engaged in geographic exploration, looking for copper and tin mines, perhaps also for Uranium : see my next).

"Besides, there is no resemblance to a tower at GT."

I wonder if the tower would have looked very much as a tower previous to a few days before take off.

In our days, at Cape Canaveral, take-offs imply that what looks like a tower is placed on the launching ramp. Now, of this tower, lowest first and second steps are dropped and only third step goes into space.

Re-read the verse. It does not say "a tower so high that its top reaches heaven", it says "a tower, whereof the top may reach heaven".

GT has been compared to a launching ramp, perhaps it was in a video by Trey Smith that I heard the comparison.

I think Nimrod planned to make a rocket, fuelled by Uranium and of making it in baked bricks. Let's be happy he failed before even trying a take off, if so!

LXX: "Yes, I am very friendly to the LXX! Jesus and the early church used it. I believe that history shows that the MT was produced shortly after the time of Christ by Jews who hated the Christians and hated their scripture, the LXX."

I agree. I think the timeline of Masoretic and even pre-Vulgate Hebrew texts was taken over from erroneous Samaritan version, in part. Which version had been produced in hatred of Judah, by Samarians.

"Have you read my papers on the Neanderthals, Tower of Babel and Ice Age?"

I think I read all three, if not, it is Ice Age which is missing. But I read them on Answers in Genesis.

"They are on my web site: www.creationsixdays.net. Or google up my name and those words. The papers are online."

Thank you, I'll check if I missed your work on the Ice Age.

Hans Georg Lundahl

III bis

Me to Habermehl again

1/27/2017 at 12:20 PM

Papers + Ancient Instruments

The pdfs on Answers in Genesis do not open in this University library.

They have been blocked "par une stratégie de groupe". Not sure if blocked key word is pdf or answersingenesis, but either is possible.

The one essay which is in a html page on your own site can be viewed, however.

I think it was a mistake to keep both timelines chronological.

The evolutionary timeline involving Huronian and things certainly needs to be reconsidered as geographical spread rather than chronological timeline./HGL

IV

Skipping forward to later

with another title, I am reading some on Göbekli Tepe, by me first of them at XIV.

V

Me to Habermehl

1/27/2017 at 5:49 PM

dating music

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Where my dating of music differs from Habermehl's
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2017/01/where-my-dating-of-music-differs-from.html

VI

Habermehl to me

1/27/2017 at 9:26 PM

Re: Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

You right -- three. The in-house fight between the secular scholars and carbon-date enthusiasts goes on! I point out that the carbon dating timeline is not absolute, because it is based on the number of carbon 14 molecules counted. This still has to be correlated to a carbon date.

Carbon dating is not reasonably useful for more than about 5,000 years back. After that, the percentage of inaccuracy gets very large. Sure, you can get carbon date numbers for just about anything back to about 50,000 years, but those numbers don't mean much. The dates back further than that are basically figures made up by evolutionists to make their timeline work.

So what traces did the Flood actually leave? Essentially none on the surface of the earth. Just about everything claimed to be from the Flood is from post-Flood events. It is not understood just how major the Ice Age was, and what happened when the ice melted. All shorelines on earth today have to be post Flood. One in Iraq has to be post Flood, but it is pre Ice Age. This I show in my Tower of Babel paper, with calculations. If all the ice on earth today melted, it would put the seashore at the level of that ancient shoreline.

Yes, I most certainly do equate human scattering around the earth with the Babel dispersion. That's because I believe what the Bible says about it. I take Genesis 6 literally. It clearly says that all the men stayed together (and the Tower was intended to keep them together) until God came down and scattered them. There is some discussion as to whether the Ice Age had started to come on gradually before the Babel scattering or not. However, that does not affect the argument. Where exactly the descendants of Noah went between leaving the Ark and setting up in Shinar I cannot say. That is pure speculation. But I consider it strange to say that they went as far as India. In any case, by the time the Ice Age really developed, clearly the Babel dispersion had taken place.

Mind you, wherever men went, they built ziggurats. I've written an unpublished paper on this. I would actually look for a ziggurat somewhere in the area of Gobekli Tepe, but probably not right at the GT site. Anyway, they have done remote sensing, and although there are more rings of stones under the ground, they haven't found any kind of construction like a ziggurat so far. I have been to GT, and I assure you that the notion of its being a launching ramp is ludicrous. (And I know Trey Smith, who is a friend of mine, and who calls me to consult on his videos. Too bad that he did that one before we met! I would have set him straight.)

Anne

VII bis

Habermehl to me

1/27/2017 at 9:31 PM

Re: Papers + Ancient Instruments

Hi!

I got permission from the society to put my ICC papers online (it is not an Answers in Genesis paper). The one on the Ice Age is here: 2013 ICC, Habermehl, Ancient Egypt
http://www.creationsixdays.net/2013_ICC_Habermehl_AncientEgypt.pdf

I don't understand what you mean about the secular ice ages not being chronological.Those scholars most certainly think that they are. And it's their timeline. They get to say this!
Anne

VIII

Me to Habermehl

1/28/2017 at 3:24 PM

Re: Papers + Ancient Instruments

It is their timeline in their fantasy, but a succession of ice ages is not really born out by the evidence, as far as Creationists are concerned.

This means that we must ask what the timelines are built on. Human population arriving after Ice Age and carbon datable, fine. We just have to adjust the carbon table. Correlation with a certain period dated only by speculation on when the fauna developed or so - which is the case with Huronian - we are free to consider their "chronology" as synchronic rather than diachronic, as geographic rather than chronological.

The latter is the case with Huronian glaciation. It is identified as "after atmosphere was mostly methane" (sth which was not the case any period) or as having only bacterial fauna. So, some methane was around during Flood and some places were only inhabited by bacteria.

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, nearly forgot to thank for the look at your paper. Wonderful. If I don't reply at once to the other letter, I am studying that one./HGL

VIII bis

Me to Habermehl

1/28/2017 at 5:27 PM

Re: Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

" It clearly says that all the men stayed together "

Does it?

[1] And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech. [2] And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it. [3] And each one said to his neighbour: Come, let us make brick, and bake them with fire. And they had brick instead of stones, and slime instead of mortar. [4] And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands. [5] And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.

Could not a few expeditions of Solutrean culture and Gomeric descent in France have been part of the agreement while not actually staying close to the building of Edessa?

Could not a few expeditions to Jericho and other places (somewhat later) have been providing wheat for the builders at Babel?

Even so, the men (except the just patriarchs in the line from Noah to Abraham) would have been part of the same people (all obeying the same laws, those of Nimrod), and of the same tongue (Hebrew like the patriarchs, until when the patriarchs were the only ones left with it, as reward for refusing to build), and parts of very same agreement?

If GT was ToB, it took 45 years of continuous effort - on my view directed at preparing a launching ramp, as revealed also in Isaiah, where Satan as "King of Babylon" is not just the one inspiring the then present king but also the former king of Sinear, Nimrod, and inspiring his ambition of space voyage to Empyrean Heaven (which he probably considered closer than beyond one light day away).

A man may walk GT to some place in France more than once back and forth in 45 years. Let's check the km.

The distance between Sanliurfa and Les Eyzies de Tayac-Sireuil is given as 4,125.2 km. Add 18 between Sanliurfa and GT.

4143 km.

Let's say one can easily walk 15 km a day, that is 276 and a third days marches. Less than a year.

In absence of borders and of linguistic barriers, that would not daunt the Babel builders, if expeditions were thought of as useful.

Remember too, I consider the Neanderthal spread as a pre-Flood one.

Remember furthermore that the expeditions would be a smaller part of the population, most of which kept together and walked together.

And that corresponds for finds from latter half of Upper Palaeolithic.

When the Gomerites AT Babel (close to GT, there are still some, since Kappadocians are Gomerites too) were unable to understand the rest there, they went out to join their few relatives already in France, and to start agriculture there, and as they had counted on understanding each other, but not the rest, they had come to the same new language (or in their erroneous view perhaps retained the same old one) as the Gomerites already in France.

So, shift of population "37,000 BC" = Flood. Spread of agriculture to diverse areas of Europe (Gomerites for France) = post-Babel actual scattering.

[8] And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. [9] And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries.

Of course, the stone age populations in France are more scattered than those after neolithic. But on my view, that earlier scattering would have been exceptional.

And in some cases, the post-Flood Palaeolithic finds would not be about scattering, but about people left behind when they all walked together.

Les Eyzies de Tayac is large enough to have accomodated a population of perhaps 80 years after the Flood.

This means, the men found there need not have been part of the scattering, they can have been part of the roaming.

Hans Georg Lundahl

IX

Habermehl to me

1/28/2017 at 8:08 PM

Re: Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

I do not speculate in order to support pet theories. According to the Bible, there was no dispersion of any kind before the Babel dispersion. And the Tower of Babel was built in Northern Mesopotamia, because the south was under water at that time.

Because the Flood destroyed everything, the Neanderthal fossils that we have are all post Flood.

We do not agree on these things.

Anne

X

Me to Habermehl

1/29/2017 at 11:22 PM

Re: Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

" According to the Bible, there was no dispersion of any kind before the Babel dispersion."

Proof text?

Plus prove Upper Palaeolithic was a dispersion rather than a walking together?

" And the Tower of Babel was built in Northern Mesopotamia, because the south was under water at that time. "

Edessa and Göbekli Tepe are as far North as you can get in Mesopotamia without getting up into the mountains. Since it is East of Euphrates, it is Mesopotamia.

" Because the Flood destroyed everything, the Neanderthal fossils that we have are all post Flood."

Exact verse?/HGL

XI

Habermehl to me

1/30/2017 at 12:00 AM

Re: Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

The Bible clearly says that all the people were together at Shinar.

Yes, of course! I have difficulty remembering that you think that GT is the Tower of Babel because it is such a really weird idea.

The Bible says that the Flood destroyed everything. Everything.

Anne

XII

Me to Habermehl

1/30/2017 at 9:43 AM

Re: Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

• 1) I don't think per se GT was or is the Tower of Babel.
  
  I think it was meant for the LAUNCHING ramp of the Tower of Babel. GT is like Cape Canaveral. ToB like Apollo 11.
  
  Difference one :
  
  at Cape Canaveral, the fuel was not an atomic bomb.
  
  God could let it happen without having all or most of mankind destroyed by another atomic explosion (I think the Mahabharata records such in pre-Flood Nodian wars).
  
  Difference two :
  
  at Cape Canaveral, it could be brought about without involving a totalitarian all man kind solidarity of collaboration.
  
  God could let it happen without immediately letting Nimrod come off as a huge success.
  
  " The Bible clearly says that all the people were together at Shinar."
  
  Not all the time from Flood to project.
  
  But what about the time itself:
  
  [1] And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech. [2] And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it. [3] And each one said to his neighbour: Come, let us make brick, and bake them with fire. And they had brick instead of stones, and slime instead of mortar. [4] And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands. [5] And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building. [6] And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed.
  
  They were one people (except the Hebrews who opted out).
  
  They moved from the East. Is there any late Upper Palaeolithic finds in Persia or India or Afghanistan which could be where they were before they came to Shinar?
  
  They - it would seem - all dwelt in the plain. Does not mean there were no other sites than the great city they were building and does not mean there were no expeditions elsewhere.
  
  They clearly thought they were going to or risked being scattered in all lands. Were they thinking of older relatives during upper palaeolithic? Perhaps they thought they were all dead, but were wrong.
  
  It could be that the oikoumene was in Shinar while various barbarians were in fact scattered - more or less, on and off.
  
  The result of the confusion of tongues was a scattering of the oikoumene itself, into civilisation which had not heard of each other, and permanently. We are still scattered in this sense.
  
  I admit that the text as such seems to suggest a skyscraper or a skyline more than a rocket for the tower. But if so, why would God say "now nothing will be impossible for them", since we know that building a skyscraper "into heaven" is impossible. Sending up rockets, of which step one and two do not get into space, but step three does, that is possible.
  
  After Babel there was a technology loss, which you will admit yourself, if you think agriculture was temporarily lost after Babel rather than recovered after temporary disruption before it, and so the Bible expresses the thing in ways which would not trigger the curiosity of rocketry.
  
  
• 2) The Bible really does not say that nothing even left traces, like bones. LXX kataphtheiro is used of destroying armies, among other things. A destroyed army is sth other than a vanished army. A vanished army can be vanished without trace, and then reappear. A destroyed army stays visibly destroyed, at least for a time.
  
  You may be thinking of II Peter 3 ...
  
  [3] Knowing this first, that in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts, [4] Saying: Where is his promise or his coming? for since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
  
  They have a Jewish sense of humour, they don't believe either return of Christ nor even advent of another Messiah, they continue the Sabbath as if Calvary and Resurrection of Our Lord had not changed the world even more drastically than the Flood.
  
  [5] For this they are wilfully ignorant of, that the heavens were before, and the earth out of water, and through water, consisting by the word of God.
  
  The sky must have been different.
  
  [6] Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
  
  The world perished. It does not say that every single thing in it did. Unless you say the Ark was a TARDIS or a wardrobe, and the pre-Flood world was a universe destroyed like the world of Charn (which by the way has some similarity to pre-Flood Nod).
  
  But that would hardly fit the fact that four rivers from before the Flood were partially preserved after it.
  
  I do not take Frat and Hiddekel as identical from source to Persian Gulf with Euphrates and Tigris. These two don't come from a same other single river.
  
  But they are preserved in Euphrates and Tigris, and that means at least part of the riverbeds must be the same.

Hans Georg

Carrier carries on the obtusity on a key point ...

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Richard Carrier · Carrier carries on the obtusity on a key point ... · somewhere else : Two Observations, Carrier! What if logically necessary means God? · Various Responses to Carrier · A Fault in Carrier's Logic Perception

Me to Carrier

as in previous

btw, see you tomorrow, time is close to up in the library

Carrier to me

You do realize that this doesn't work right? That if you start with a premise "maybe x," you only get a conclusion "maybe y" not a conclusion "y"? And maybe "y" isn't anywhere near "probably y" and if you don;'t have "probably y" you have no reason to believe y. This is true of every possible y. Every God. Every sorcerer. Every statement being false. Every statement being true. Even "maybe we are on the back of a giant turtle and aliens are hiding it from us" and "maybe we are in The Matrix" and "maybe solipsism is true and only you exist" and so on. Maybe is not an argument. It proves everything and consequently justifies nothing. That's why no one needs to respond to it.

I have a logical demonstration. You do not. That's the difference between us. It's the same difference between someone who claims "maybe 1+1=3" and someone who claims it's been formally proven that 1+1=2.

Me to Carrier

mar 20:04

// You do realize that this doesn't work right? That if you start with a premise "maybe x," you only get a conclusion "maybe y" not a conclusion "y"? //

Would you mind rereading and informing me when you have done so, Mr. Strawman?

You were trying to demonstrate, a hypothetic nothing would produce lots of universes without God.

BUT you weakened "nothing" to "nothing except what is logically necessary".

If that is even "maybe God" you can't have a certainty "nothing" would produce universes without God, since you cannot exclude that "nothing except what is logically necessary" actually means God.

Now, re-read, admit that is what I was saying, and adapt your answer to THAT, not to the strawman you like to replace for it!

Carrier to me

Wow. I can't believe you are this dense. "Gravity explains the motion of the planets." "Maybe it doesn't, because angels do it. It's possible! Therefore you cannot conclude gravity causes it." "We have logically demonstrated that 1+1=2." "Maybe some hypothetical future logical demonstration will prove 1+1 doesn't = 2. It's possible! Therefore you cannot conclude it has been logically demonstrated or even that it's true that 1+1=2!" "Fermat's Last Theorem has been formally proven." "Maybe there is an error in the proof, some logically necessary fact we don't yet know about that entails the theorem is false. It's possible! Therefore Fermat's Last Theorem has not been formally proven and we shouldn't believe it's true." And on and on. This is how you are arguing. It's the stupidest argument on the planet. Because it entails you should deny all knowledge, because "maybe" some unknown fact refutes it. It displays total ignorance of how logic works, how probability works, how knowledge works, and how sanity works.

Me to Carrier

mer 10:37

I am sorry, but you WERE trying to respond to "ex nihilo nihil fit" -> there is a necessary existence -> which we call God.

Now, in responding, you are first weakening "nihil" to "nihil praeter quod logice necessarie", and you have not excluded God from being that. That is what I pointed out and what you need responding to.

Bc if you don't, you have simply provided no such atheist solution as you were pretending to.

It seems the density is not really on my side, if there is any density which would be dangerous in swimming. It could of course be just a let's pretend on your side.

Carrier to me

mer 20:08

I haven't excluded Dr. Who or a magical rabbit from necessary beings either. Or literally every other thing. Because everything "could be" logically necessary. It is useless to thus propose it. You can't challenge a logical demonstration by just saying it "could be" wrong. You have to prove it wrong. Otherwise, it stands as proved. That's how logic works.

Me to Carrier

mer 22:02

I am not challenging the demonstration.

I am only saying it has a side you did not count on.

The PURPOSE of the demonstration, as you made it was to show a possibility of nothing leading to everything without God.

With literally nothing, as in nothing, not even the logically necessary, that would automatically have excluded God.

But with the logically necessary NOT excluded, you have indeed shown a way in which "nothing" (of sorts) could lead to everything, but you have not shown what you intended to, that it could happen without God.

Carrier to me

"I am only saying it has a side you did not count on." And that's a useless statement. I also "didn't count on" Dr. Who being a necessary being. Or a magical rabbit being a necessary being. Or a pair of rollerskates being a necessary being. Or Krauss's physical quantum singularity being a necessary being. And so on. This is a useless observation. Because you can't rebut any logical proof, by merely saying "maybe" someday we will find a refutation of it.

And yes, I DO prove the outcome happens without God! Show where God MUST be in any premise, for the conclusion to arise. Not could be. MUST be. Otherwise, you have no argument.

Me to Carrier

Doctor Who not being counted on would have been relevant in case your argument had been to prove non-necessity of Dr Who existing.

In order to prove it happens without God, it is you who have to show God is NOT there incognito in the starting point.

And THAT was the exact and only thing I pointed out in my article.

Carrier to me

No. I show that given the numbered premises, the conclusion follows. You have NOT shown that God is REQUIRED for that conclusion. Therefore I have proved that ON PRESENT KNOWLEDGE God is not required. You can speculate as to future knowledge; but speculations aren't facts, and can't trump logically demonstrated conclusions.

Me to Carrier

"I show that given the numbered premises, the conclusion follows."

I did not contest your conclusion.

Your conclusion is not atheistic.

THAT is what I showed.

Carrier to me

No. You didn't.

You said "maybe the conclusion is wrong." That's not a refutation. It's just an undemonstrated possibility. That refutes all knowledge, and therefore cannot be a valid principle of forming knowledge.

Me to Carrier

You're about as dense as a falt earther saying the claim Flood covered all earth proves Earth was flat - since water always gets to a flat level.

If water instead actually gets to a level which is a fraction of a globe surface with the radius 4000 miles or 6000 km and some more down, the claim he makes doesn't prove earth flat.

In other words, his conclusion is faultless, except he misunderstands one of the premisses. To be a perfect parallel to you, he would of course have to leave unstated that water always gets to a flat level and leave unstated that the conclusion he envisages involves earth being flat.

// You said "maybe the conclusion is wrong." That's not a refutation. //

I checked both my articles and I did not say that the conclusion, as in proposition 8, was wrong.

Learn to read, before you argue against sth you misread.

Carrier to me

Holy crap man. We can only disprove the flat earther's point because we can actually prove something. We don't just say "well, maybe there is some way unknown to us that water isn't always level in that sense." We actually KNOW the way, and can prove it. You are not doing that. You have NO PROOF that God is a necessary being or is at all needed to read my conclusion.

You are literally acting like someone who says "well, maybe we are deceived in this and water actually can't act any other way than the flat earther says, therefore we should believe the earth is flat."

In short: "Maybe" is simply NOT an argument. For anything.

Me to Carrier

No, I am not acting like that, you are acting like someone who cannot read - even your own article.

Your proposition 8 reads:

"Proposition 8: If every logically possible thing that can happen to Nothing has an equal probability of occurring, then every logically possible number of universes that can appear has an equal probability of occurring."

Not one trace of showing that any universe or the nothing before the universes which is "nothing except what is logically necessary" actually is without the monotheistic God.

Carrier to me

Sigh. No, you are the one not listening. YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN that Prop 8 includes God. Therefore, YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT. Claiming "maybe it includes God, we don't know; therefore the conclusion is wrong" is IDENTICAL to claiming "maybe water actually can't act any other way than the flat earther says; therefore our conclusion the earth is round is wrong."

Me to Carrier

You were the one making a claim, you are the one who needs to show propositions 1 to 8 do NOT include God under the alias "what is logically necessary".

Also, you have forgotten that even your conclusion, proposition 8, is not atheistic.

// Claiming "maybe it includes God, we don't know; therefore the conclusion is wrong" //

Not what I claimed.

// is IDENTICAL //

I'll deal with identical to what I actually claimed.

// to claiming "maybe water actually can't act any other way than the flat earther says; therefore our conclusion the earth is round is wrong." //

That would be the case if I had reached the conclusion of earth being round only by dealing with water surface during the Flood. I obviously have other arguments for why the Earth is round.

Carrier to me

All you have ever said is that it is "possible" (that means, "maybe") God is a necessary being. But as you have never shown that to be true, the possibility is irrelevant. As irrelevant as the possibility the flat earther is right about water.

Bottom line: you can NEVER---not ever, ever, ever---refute ANY logical demonstration, by claiming "maybe" there is some as-yet unproven fact that contradicts it.

Me to Carrier

And you can never debunk anyone by not reading what he claims to have done.

I never claimed to have REFUTED you, I claimed your 8 propositions are ALL of them, including conclusion, fully compatible with Theism.

Carrier to me

Which is a vacuous statement.

Me to Carrier

If all observations result without a god, the mere possibility there could yet still be a god, is useless. Because we still have no evidence there is a god, but all the evidence we need that everything can be explained without a god.

you did not show ANY of them resulted without the monotheistic God.

Carrier to me

YES I DID.

The logical demonstration follows with LOGICAL NECESSITY from the premises, and NONE of the premises REQUIRE God to exist.

That's how logical demonstration works.

We don't need god. Period. Proved.

And you have no disproof.

Me to Carrier

None of the premisses shows God not to be involved in its terms.

Carrier to me

Yes, all of them lack any reference to God. You would have to prove one entails God. Otherwise, no God is required. Period.

You can't argue "maybe one entails God, but I have no knowledge it does because I have no proof it does, therefore I can assume one does." Invalid.

That's formally called a non seqitur.

Logic.

Learn it.

Live it.

Me to Carrier

"And you have no disproof."

What I have or not is not on the topic here. My topic right now is whether you can read your own argument and my comment on it or you persist in misreading both.

"Yes, all of them lack any reference to God."

On the contrary, each involves what could very clearly be a reference to God.

Hence, none of them shows and the conclusion, while correct (!) also doesn't show God's being absent from the result.

Before you can do logic, you need to do grammar.

Carrier to me

"could be" is just a synonym of "maybe." Maybe is not an argument. No argument can be refuted with a maybe. It's a non-argument. Hence requires no reply. That's the issue here.

Until you show God IS in the result, I HAVE shown God is absent in the result. Because NONE of the premises require a god in them to get the result. Proved. You cannot claim they "cannot" have done this, because they just did. And you cannot claim they can "only" have done this if God is in them, because you have ZERO EVIDENCE that's true. "Maybe he could be in there somewhere" is not evidence he is. It's therefore a non argument. You have proved nothing. I have proved what I proved. Same as all logical proofs of anything ever.

Me to Carrier

"Until you show God IS in the result, I HAVE shown God is absent in the result. Because NONE of the premises require a god in them to get the result."

Distinguo.

None of the premisses or results require the monotheistic God identified as such.

All of them may very well require Him as "what is logically necessary" or "what cannot not exist" - sth which you all along admitted was required.

Carrier to me

Which is not an argument against anything I demonstrated. Thus requires no response.

Me to Carrier

jeu 08:16

If you think your demonstration is all there is to it and has no context like your supposing it supports atheism ...

Carrier to me

jeu 15:23

That sentence is unintelligible.

Me to Carrier

jeu 16:58

If it is an independent sentence, rather than a clause completing yours.

Carrier to me

jeu 20:42

It's still unintelligible.

Me to Carrier

ven 11:48

I am sorry, but you seem to have reading disabilities, somewhat.

Never mind, people say the King of Sweden shares that condition ...

Now, for a more serious proposal.

Here are your 8 propositions as you stated them, as I copied them onto my blog post:

* Proposition 1: That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen. * Proposition 2: The most nothingly state of nothing that can ever obtain, is a state of affairs of zero size lacking all properties and contents, except that which is logically necessary. * Proposition 3: If there was ever Nothing, then nothing governs or dictates what will become of that Nothing, other than what is logically necessary. * Proposition 4: If nothing governs or dictates what will become of Nothing (other than what is logically necessary), then nothing (other than what is logically necessary) prevents anything from happening to that Nothing. * Proposition 5: Every separate thing that can logically possibly happen when there is Nothing (other than Nothing remaining nothing) entails the appearance of a universe. * Proposition 6: If there is Nothing, then there is nothing to limit the number of universes that can logically possibly appear. * Proposition 7: If nothing (except logical necessity) prevents anything from happening to Nothing, then every logically possible thing that can happen to Nothing has an equal probability of occurring. * Proposition 8: If every logically possible thing that can happen to Nothing has an equal probability of occurring, then every logically possible number of universes that can appear has an equal probability of occurring.

I maintain that they are ambiguous as to inclusion or exclusion of God from being identical to "logical necessity".

Would you mind restating them in such a way as to remove that ambiguity?

Bc, I would, after dealing with the 8 propositions as you stated them and giving one interpretation of them, also like to deal with them as you understand them yourself, specifically as to exclusion of God from identity with "logical necessity".

That would, contrary to previous exchanges involve an obligation on my part to defend that God is indeed not just logically necessary, but THE logical necessity.

Carrier to me

ven 18:57

You still don’t get it. All you are saying is “maybe.” That argues nothing. So far as we know, my conclusion follows. Saying “maybe there’s something we don’t know” does not change the conclusion. Because the conclusion is “so far as we know.” And that remains the case. Thus you have no argument other than ignorance.

Me to Carrier

10:18

No, the 8 propositions are NOT "as far as we know without God".

The point is, whether the necessary being is or is not God (but something else) is a disputed question.

And this question is on your part left unresolved at the start and therefore also at the end.

I was asking you, since you pretend this to be an argument for atheism, to restate the 8 propositions in such a way as to make it clear that in the hypothesis God is excluded.

Me to Carrier, again

16:03

Oh, btw, I am here repairing an omission in previous exchange:

somewhere else : A Fault in Carrier's Logic Perception
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-fault-in-carriers-logic-perception.html

With Richard Carrier

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Richard Carrier · Carrier carries on the obtusity on a key point ... · somewhere else : Two Observations, Carrier! What if logically necessary means God? · Various Responses to Carrier · A Fault in Carrier's Logic Perception

I

Me to Carrier

05/07/2016 13:13

If you do not want to give your home adress, fine, in your situation it is understandable.

I'd like to get an adress to which I could snail-mail a copy of my self printed booklet "Can We Reasonably Trust the Gospels - YES!"

It includes refutations to points you have made over internet, e g I think a video I saw with you.

So you should be notified.

If you do not want the booklet, fine, I can send you links instead.

I like your "equal non-exclusive rights" clause.

When I write own essays, (even when quoting and refuting someone), my own coonditions for anyone wanting to reuse material (including commercially) is non-exclusive general licence.

When I debate, and mirror debate on my blogs, I obviously presuppose my opponent shall have exactly the same right as I to mirror debate on his blog.

I don't do "public" as in oral debates, so any debate over internet between us would fall outside the scope of your other conditions.

Carrier (to me)

05/07/2016 14:58

Richard Carrier a accepté votre demande.

II

Me to Carrier

20/09/2016 12:06

Notification of refutation:

Fact Check Alert, Mr Carrier! Fact Check Alert!
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2016/09/fact-check-alert-mr-carrier-fact-check.html

III

Me to Carrier

jeu 15:36 *

Answering your curiosity from 15 hours ago:

Two Observations, Carrier! What if logically necessary means God?
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2018/08/two-observations-carrier-what-if.html

Carrier to me

jeu 18:09

Is that just another ontological argument for an ultra complex disembodied super mind? Really? You didn’t read my article or any of its links on that, did you? You know those ontological arguments never work, right? They always commit the existential fallacy somewhere in their machinery. Everyone knows this.

Me to Carrier

ven 09:13

What is "ultra complex" about mind?

As for reading your article, I did not read all of it, but copied the 8 propositions.

You may be free to expose on what "'existential fallacy is".

As for "everyone knows this" - that is an appeal to snobbery, therefore in philosophy a fallacy.

Carrier to me

ven 17:52

No, "everyone knows this" is shown by every standard reference on the Ontological Argument: e.g. Stanford Encyclopedia: "Any reading of any ontological argument which has been produced so far which is sufficiently clearly stated to admit of evaluation yields a result which is invalid, or possesses a set of premises which it is clear in advance that no reasonable, reflective, well-informed, etc. non-theists will accept, or has a benign conclusion which has no religious significance, or else falls prey to more than one of the above failings."

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy : Ontological Arguments
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

In fact I've filled out my response here:

Richard Carrier August 31, 2018, 12:01 pm
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14486#comment-26558

[I missed this latter point]

Me to Carrier

sam 17:44

OK, you do philosophical arguments by Stanford?

Btw, "ontological" - isn't that Pascal and Descartes?

Carrier to me

I don't know what either of those questions mean.

Me to Carrier

dim 19:20

Question a means, do you let Stanford dictionary decide philosophical questions for you? That would be a bit like a Protestant using Strong to determine battologein means "say with repetitions" in Matthew 6:7.

Question b means, isn't ontological rather the argument that the most perfect thing would lack the perfection of being and therefore not be the most perfect thing if there was no most perfec thing? As Pascal and Descartes put it.

Bc this is not what I argued.

Carrier to me

You asked how I know philosophers others agree the ontological argument is a failure. I quoted you a mainstream reference that established the fact because that’s what you asked for. I don’t have to rely on the source myself because I have already by myself checked and directly confirmed the fact that all onto args are fallacious. And if you would actually read the source i pointed you to it would answer your question b. Your question only exposes your ignorance in this matter. You clearly haven’t studied it.

Me to Carrier

lun 10:55

"You asked how I know philosophers others agree the ontological argument is a failure."

No, I asked how you could say such a thing as "everyone knows this".

"I quoted you a mainstream reference that established the fact because that’s what you asked for."

Not quite, no. I weigh my words on gold balances, feel free to do so too.

In fact, it seems you confirmed what I thought about question B.

You actually did reduce my argument to sth equivalent to: "God is a being which has every perfection. (This is true as a matter of definition.) Existence is a perfection. Hence God exists."

Now, the problem is, you did not read my actual argument, if you think the dismissal of ontological argument answers it.

I gave TWO observations, one for Pagans like you :

• 1) supposing nothing really had given rise to any number of universes - how can you exclude us living in a theistic or polytheistic one? One where the "big bang" moment was the emergence of a god from that nothing?
  
  
• 2) supposing "necessarily existing" involves God?

Now, I had not given any specific argument as to how I could argue that God = necessarily existing and necessarily existing = God. I had not specified an Anselmian argument as per your link as my reason for that.

In fact, I had as not giving any reason simply challenged you how you could exclude this from being true.

"The necessary existence necessarily exists. The necessary existence is God. Therefore God necessarily exists"

It is at least as plausible as

"The necessary existence necessarily exists. The necessary existence is spacetime and particles. Therefore spacetime and particles necessarily exist."

"Fin de la discussion"

jeu - lun = Thursday to Monday, 30.VIII - 3.IX.2018

IV

Update(s)

Me to Carrier

15:33 (4.IX.2018)

Notification:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Richard Carrier
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/09/with-richard-carrier.html

and

somewhere else : Various Responses to Carrier
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2018/09/various-responses-to-carrier.html

Carrier to me

Dude. Read the source I pointed you to. Not every ontological argument takes that form, nor comes from the people you name, and "everyone knows" is a fair description of what is reported in standard references in a field anyone who claims to know what they're talking about should be familiar with. And there is no such thing as "at least as plausible" being a logical demonstration that necessarily something is so. Hence you don't know how to logically demonstrate something. You can't even tell the difference between conditionals ("if we grant x, then y satisfies x") and direct statements of fact ("not possibly, but actually, x is a necessary being"), and don't even know that a possibility is not a probability, or how to get a probability out of a possibility. In short, you are wildly ignorant here, and you need to learn a lot of things before you can do anything useful in the domain of logic. Much less theology.

Me to Carrier

// "everyone knows" is a fair description of what is reported in standard references //

Unless the standard references are in fact biassed due to a bias in today's culture.

To me, St Thomas Aquinas is a standard reference.

// And there is no such thing as "at least as plausible" being a logical demonstration that necessarily something is so. //

• 1) X is necessarily existent;
• 2) A is at least as plausible as B as identification of X.

I did not pretend to logically demonstrate A is necessarily existent, that is beyond the scope of my post.

I challenged you with a "what if".

// Hence you don't know how to logically demonstrate something. //

Dixit strawmannus maximus ...

// You can't even tell the difference between conditionals ("if we grant x, then y satisfies x") and direct statements of fact ("not possibly, but actually, x is a necessary being"), //

I most certainly can, except you seem to have a momentary difficulty in reading ... it is momentary, right?

// don't even know that a possibility is not a probability, or how to get a probability out of a possibility. //

A zero probability is an impossibility.

A possibility therefore involves a non-zero probability.

I suppose you follow some system by-passing this somehow ...

// In short, you are wildly ignorant here //

I'm more or less as ignorant about your atheistic system as you are about Thomism ... perhaps rather less.

// and you need to learn a lot of things before you can do anything useful in the domain of logic. Much less theology. //

I've seen this attitude before. I don't like it.

But I do like the occasion of showing you deal with me with attitude rather than good logic.

Carrier to me

OMG. 😅 You really do suck at philosophy if you think standard references in philosophy are biased and prefer obsolete Medieval superstitious nutcases whose nearly every declaration has been proved false since. That tells us all we need to know about you.

Me to Carrier

OK, you just branded yourself as a Barbarian.

Carrier to me

And my point is, a "what if" does not challenge the argument of my article. Because my article is about probabilities and conditionals. That you don't know this, and still don't get it, testifies to how badly you suck at this.

Actually, you are closer to barbarians. You trust Medieval claptrap over the entirety of modern science and philosophy.

Which just confirms what I said: you don't know what you are talking about here. You are unfamiliar with the state of the field on all the questions you raise.

Me to Carrier

// And my point is, a "what if" does not challenge the argument of my article. //

Was I challenging your argument?

No, I was challenging what you thought it implied.

// Actually, you are closer to barbarians. //

Not by ignorance of civilisation, at least.

// You trust Medieval claptrap over the entirety of modern science and philosophy. //

Misusing "entirety" as much as previously you were misusing "everyone", thank you.

// You are unfamiliar with the state of the field on all the questions you raise. //

A "state of the field" brought about by people unfamiliar with the state of the field as per after St Thomas Aquinas, and a few more ... partly.

But I am waiting for a reasoned response, not for more semi-abuse. Perhaps I shouldn't hold my breath, though ...

In fact, after reading through Stanford article, which I did not do till now, it does not stamp either my article or Tertia Via as an ontological argument.

Carrier to me

That you don't know the difference between implied and demonstrated, and don't know how to actually correctly challenge a logical demonstration, is why you don't know what you are doing. Your challenge does not challenge the argument at all. And that you don't understand that, still now, just further demonstrates your incompetence.

And indeed that you didn't grasp the basic point that any argument claiming God is logically necessary IS an ontological argument, and that if you can't demonstrate it, it has no weight against a conditional starting with Nothing, is more and more proof of your incompetence.

Me to Carrier

"and don't know how to actually correctly challenge a logical demonstration,"

Apart from your abusive tone, one challenge on your article is the oblique one : showing your forgot an angle.

Which is what I did.

You have so far given no refutation of my points in the article, but a lot of abuse.

"the basic point that any argument claiming God is logically necessary IS an ontological argument,"

That is not what your own reference actually said.

You have just shown your incompetence in reading.

Or perhaps your competence in tactics : you prefer proving my incompetence over proving my argument wrong.

I think that classifies as an ad hominem.

Carrier to me

Dude, you have not challenged the truth of any premise (any numbered proposition) nor any step from one to the other. You have not therefore shown any flaw in my argument. Until you do, there is nothing in your article I ever need reply to. It's just embarrassing that you don't even understand this!

Me to Carrier

"Dude, you have not challenged the truth of any premise (any numbered proposition)"

I did not need to.

You forgot that each numbered proposition could have a Theistic interpretation, and I pointed that out.

Now YOU need to exclude this one.

"You have not therefore shown any flaw in my argument."

I don't think your argument is flawed. I think it is brilliant - it is just more Theistic than you thought (at least potentially at least until you have proven that "God is in fact the necessary existance" is a false proposition).

"Until you do, there is nothing in your article I ever need reply to."

Of course, you don't actually NEED to reply to the fact that your whole argument leaves a whole side open for Theism ... it is up to you.

Carrier to me

Um. Dude. That's not how logic works. 😅

The premises are either false or true. There is no "interpretation." That entails a fallacy, if you interpret them differently from one step to the next. So if you see an interpretation that makes a premise ambiguous, it identifies a fallacy in my argument. So tell me which numbered proposition is ambiguous enough to create a fallacy in my argument.

Me to Carrier

"That entails a fallacy, if you interpret them differently from one step to the next."

No, it is not a Quaternio Terminorum to CONSISTENTLY interpret the term "what is impossible not to exist" as God.

"So tell me which numbered proposition is ambiguous enough to create a fallacy in my argument."

Except as an argument for atheism, there is no fallacy in your argument.

As to it being an argument for atheism, each of them, starting with the first one.

You have consistently considered as self-evident that "necessary existance" or "that which would be logically contradictory not to exist" is not just verbally, but realiter, in the things considered, distinct from God.

Carrier to me

Which numbered proposition. Call it. Pick one. Which one "allows" theism through some reinterpretation without creating a fallacy? Identify by number the proposition, and explain how it is ambiguous as you claim. Or GTFO.

Me to Carrier

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8.

As you told me to pick one, 1.

"That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen." = "Nevertheless, the very notion that logically necessary things necessarily exist, necessarily entails logically impossible things never exist."

You forgot the possibility that, realiter, independently of your status in investigation, God could be a logically necessary thing.

In other words, you dismissed the possibility as "a version of the ontological argument" which Stanford doesn't.

Carrier to me

The possibility is irrelevant. If you can't demonstrate God IS a necessary being, the possibility has no effect on the argument. Because that's how logic works you dumbass. You can't refute all mathematics by claiming it's "possible" it's all contradictory. Even 1+1=2 "it's possible it's a contradiction, therefore we should conclude it's false" is simply NOT how logic works. For that or anything else. To refute a logical demonstration, you need to present A LOGICAL DEMONSTRATION. Until you do, we have a logical demonstration and you do not. That's how logic works.

Me to Carrier

"If you can't demonstrate God IS a necessary being, the possibility has no effect on the argument"

False.

I was NOT pretending to refuse any of your propositions. I was simply asking "what if God IS not a but THE necessary being" and concluding that given that all of your propositions are fully Orthodox.

Now it is up to you to show why this identification doesn't work.

If you challenge me to show the reverse, well, you were making a claim, so you have a "burden of proof" (on your rules). But also, St Thomas aquinas already did so. Third way in I, Q 2, A3 AND a lot of subsequent articles showing the five ways actually do point to a personal God.

As long as you have not "cleared this", the possibility has a huge effect on your argument.

"You can't refute all mathematics by claiming it's "possible" it's all contradictory."

I wasn't attempting to refute all mathematics, and I was not claiming it was possible mathematics were contradictory.

I was mentioning it is possible absence of God could be a contradiction - a possibility outlined as a necessity by others, in fact, not just a very wild what if.

So, your parallel is a non-parallel. You still merit the sobriquet Strawmannus Maximus.

"To refute a logical demonstration, you need to present A LOGICAL DEMONSTRATION."

Yes, but I was precisely not trying to refute the part which was a logical demonstration. I was just reminding of the thing you were NOT demonstrating, but taking for granted.

You have a logical demonstration, but you have so far not shown it is one of atheism.

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

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

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

Back to

main line of exchange:

XXI

Damien Mackey to me

7/9/2018 at 5:56 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

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

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

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

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

In the following

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

XXII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/9/2018 at 2:13 PM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

There is proper archaeology for Troy.

I thought you did not believe the Trojan War.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XXIII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/9/2018 at 2:28 PM

"What exactly is Creation Science?"

[Refers to a paper of Damien's]

Six km of sedimentary mud under Eden ...

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

• you are prepared to take an opinion (even a popular one) among Creation Science adherents as if it were an absolute corrollary of Creation Science as such.
  
  Canopy theory is ... scientifically perhaps a bit shady.
  
  Four Rivers "generic names" ... is un-Biblical.
  
  But, neither is as such a consequence of Creation Science.
  
  
• while you exact a certain "gruendlichkeit" from narrative history, you do not exact it for your own archaeology - it is the groundwork by definition (ain't it in the ground after all?) and so anything stated by it is by definition gruendlich.
  
  Not.
  
  I have my gruendlichkeit in narrative history too - like wondering how many camp survivors of certain camps have seen a certain type of execution, which to doubt in France might put me in conflict with "loi Gayssot". I like my blogs to remain legal, and I intend to republish this on blogs, so ...
  
  In archaeology, the counterpart would be : would the six km of mud actually be under Eden, and not over it or over where it was?
  
  Are there problems in dating?
  
  Ah, yes, this is a topic where some Gruendlichkeit would do you good, but carbon dating bores you .... well, if relevant subjects bore you, why make a general pronouncement at all on the matter? Why not stick to topics where you are not too bored to take in the viewpoints of both sides?

XXIV

Damien Mackey to me

7/10/2018 at 1:46 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

XXV

Damien Mackey to me

7/10/2018 at 1:55 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

XXVI

Me to Damien Mackey

7/10/2018 at 9:42 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take a look at this stanza:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You asked where I find this?

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

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

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

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

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

Hans Georg Lundahl

Note

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

XXVII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/10/2018 at 9:50 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

You might say we have imporved* methods now?

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

Note

* imporved should be improved, of course, fatigue.

From here

only the latter titale is continued:

XXVIII

Damien Mackey to me

7/11/2018 at 2:28 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

You believe in Troy?

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

XXIX

Me to Damien Mackey

7/11/2018 at 9:10 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

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

XXX

Damien Mackey to me

7/12/2018 at 1:28 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

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

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

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

XXXI

Me to Damien Mackey

7/12/2018 at 2:09 PM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

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

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

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

After all, you were not there at most digs!

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

XXXII

Damien Mackey to me

7/13/2018 at 2:02 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Schliemann was nuts as well.

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

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

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

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

XXXIII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/13/2018 at 10:30 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

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

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

Never heard of those parts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update:

XXXIV

Damien Mackey to me

7/14/2018 at 2:02 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

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

XXXV

Me to Damien Mackey

7/16/2018 at 9:49 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

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

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

XXXVI

Damien Mackey to me

7/17/2018 at 1:36 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

You have a nice rest, H-G.

XXXVII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/17/2018 at 4:19 PM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

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

XXXVIII

Damien Mackey to me

7/18/2018 at 2:09 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

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

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

XXXIX

Me to Damien Mackey

7/18/2018 at 2:08 PM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Oh - you need a rest? Fine.

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

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

XI

Damien Mackey to me

7/5/2018 at 1:30 AM

Re: Gehon

In Sirach 24, the Nile is mentioned separately from the four rivers of Genesis 2, those of Adam's and Noah's time.

So you can't identify them.

It overflows, like the Pishon, with wisdom,
and like the Tigris at the time of the first fruits.
26 It runs over, like the Euphrates, with understanding,
and like the Jordan at harvest time.
27 It pours forth instruction like the Nile,[a]
like the Gihon at the time of vintage.

XII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/5/2018 at 1:48 PM

Re: Gehon

Vintage?

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

Well, this was one ex temporary model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Bible or article quoting Bible is the text from and what does footnote a say?

XIII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/5/2018 at 2:30 PM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

Ver. 35. Phison. Or Phase of Colchis, which rises in Armenia, like the Tigris and Euphrates, all which overflow their banks at the beginning of summer, on account of the snow melting.

(37...) Gehon. Or Araxes, which descends from Armenia into the Caspian sea, though some erroneously take it to be the Nile, (C.) which overflows at the same time as the Euphrates. Pliny xviii. 18. Solon xlvi.

XIV

Damien Mackey to me

7/6/2018 at 1:37 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

Solon was not an historical character, but a Greek appropriation of Solomon.

See my "Solomon and Sheba" at Academia.

XV

Me to Damien Mackey

7/6/2018 at 7:08 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

Ouch, since he is a writer your reconstruction supports ideas like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John not being real Gospellers.

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

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

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

If you deny one did, how do you explain books rewriting themselves in thin air?

XVI

Damien Mackey to me

7/7/2018 at 1:35 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

Good point about Solon.

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

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

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

Don't worry, you'll get there.

XVII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/7/2018 at 11:15 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

My dear, the problem is not whether Solon reused Solomon or Nehemiah, that is entirely possible - though a priori a bit improbable, and due to the existence of natural law not necessary.

The problem is your insistence on making historical characters fictional. No, I'll not get there.

Going back

a bit for a parallel line of mails:

XVIII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/6/2018 at 3:19 PM

saw two papers

I agree Teilhard was .... I think "silly" is too good a word for it.

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

Have you included that reference yet?

It seems one commentator you referenced considered Gihon as "Nubian Nile" - would that be Blue Nile?

XIX

Damien Mackey to me

7/7/2018 at 2:51 AM

Re: saw two papers

Yes, Blue Nile is the Ethiopian (Nubian) one.

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

Now included at: The Sheer Silliness of Teilhard de Chardin
Part Six (b): Reader’s comment on Teilhard’s ‘silliness’
Damien Mackey
https://www.academia.edu/36996226/The_Sheer_Silliness_of_Teilhard_de_Chardin._Part_Six_b_Reader_s_comment_on_Teilhard_s_silliness_

XX

Me to Damien Mackey

7/7/2018 at 11:21 AM

Re: saw two papers

Well, if so, the Sirach problem is solved.

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

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

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

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

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