jeudi 20 juillet 2017

On Bible Canon (and Some Other Inbetween)


Great Bishop of Geneva! : Do Maccabees Disclaim Divine Inspiration? · HGL's F.B. writings : On Bible Canon (and Some Other Inbetween)

Cody Rieger
12 juillet, 17:01
Who decided what books to add or leave out of the bible? Do we believe this group if people to be infallible? Is it possible that there are other books not in the Bible that are the word of God? Or even some in the Bible that aren't the word of God?

Omitting
some

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Both Ezra and the Maccabees were successors of Aaron and had the power to make collections of Holy Writings, that of Ezra corresponds to Jewish Bible and Protestant OT, I consider it possible that that of the Maccabees (or one of them being a priest) was including more books like the LXX, the Greek Christian OT.

THEN bishops and Popes of Rome were deciding about what books were involved in NT, as successors of Apostles.

Michel Snoeck
Personally I find it seriously suspect that the chosen 66 books were picked by man and decided upon in the 4th Century, and then destroying/banning all the rest? Wouldn't the Devil be obliged to support such a thing? 🤔 The Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hamadi finds add a whole different reality on matters that we didn't know about before. Of course because of the hunting down and destruction of these books, we are not likely to find completely original versions of these books. They would have been interfered with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
But the "66 books" were not decided any time before Luther, and the Catholic Church decided for 73 books "all these 72 books, or 73 if Baruch be counted separately from Jeremiah".

Also, the Catholic Church has not banned book of Henoch, III and IV Maccabees, the book which in Byzantium is called I Ezra (not to be confused with Catholic I Ezra = Ezra, with Nehemiah = Catholic II Ezra and Byzantine III Ezra).

She has banned and also destroyed copies of clearly heretical books like Gospel of Thomas and so on.

"Of course because of the hunting down and destruction of these books, we are not likely to find completely original versions of these books. They would have been interfered with."

Are you saying God could have:

  • 1) allowed all Christians to reject a book of His word;
  • 2) allowed all Christians knowing about it to persecute it;
  • 3) AND allowed whoever was preserving it to alter it?


Frank Waggoner
cody, what book needs to be added, second the books if the nt were accepted in the chrurches the first century, it was not a fouth centrury descision

Davor Slema Masle
The Bible has failed fair, impartial, and universally applicable tests in multiple fields of science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It was a fourth C decision for the whole list.

The Bible has failed no test.

Ivan Shiek
It is not men that decide what stays or what goes, but the Holy Spirit that leads.

You see men moving but you do not see the Creator's strings.

Ryan M Jason
If God wanted to give you a message no one could stop him.No one could snatch you from his hand.Apocrypha is unconfirmed

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Depends on what you consider apocrypha.

Seven books protestants call so are canonic, and the Catholic Church is making God's message certainly remain.

Ryan M Jason
[showing what interception means in a gif or sth]
media.tenor.co

God's word can not be intercepted

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Exactly - that is why I believe the Catholic canon and the Catholic Church.

For a "66 book canon" there would have been an interception between Primitive Church and Reformation.

Precisely why I reject the Reformation and adher to the canon of 72 books "or 73 if Baruch is counted separately from Jeremiah" as per council of Trent!

Ryan M Jason
Yeah I used to be a catholic.Did not even know what it was.They added to the bible.I don't agree with it

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you say they added to the Bible, you are claiming - not I, but you - that the word of God was intercepted.

OR you show a Church which all the time existed beside Catholics and had the 66 books.

Ryan M Jason
Did not say the Catholic bible was the word of God.Its not.Its apocrypha.Get you a King James.I got a king James that's not even a King James.So becareful

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Why would KJV be the word of God, when it has a number of books considered canonic which is nowhere explicitly mentioned before Reformation, and when it has also "14 apocrypha" = 7 Catholic canon, 7 more considered not canonic by Catholics?

You said yourself the word of God cannot be intercepted.

This should show all through history.

Btw, if you have a KJV with ONLY 66 books, that is not properly speaking a KJ Bible.

Ryan M Jason
Apocrypha that's why I don't read the Catholic bible.You believe the hand of God can be stopped?Who is your God?Name him?

[showing two explicit gifs about Satan and one about magic/sorcery]
media.tenor.co

[showing text of Apocalypse 22:16-21, here substituting Haydock / Douay Rheims for his meme:]

16 I, Jesus, have sent my Angel, to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and stock of David, the bright and morning star.

17 And the Spirit and the bride say: Come. And he that heareth, let him say: Come. And he that thirsteth, let him come: *and he that will, let him take the water of life, gratis.

[His meme has "freely" instead of "gratis" - both mean "for free", or "without paying money"]

18 For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book.

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things which are written in this book.

20 He that giveth testimony of these things, saith: Surely, I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id308.html

It says freely not secretly

Who is your God?25 minutes to pick one?I thought you did your research?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Who is your God?Name him?"

God the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

You still don't get, with the historic evidence we have it is your believing II Maccabees is apocrypha which implies God's hand was stopped.

And your quote from Apocalypse is very interesting for the Protestants who are cutting 7 books and 3 chapters away from the Bible.

As to "freely not secretly" what is your problem?

Catholicism is NOT a secret society.

And my answer taking time is because I was logged out and am answering other points too.

Ryan M Jason
Emanuel God with us.Who is your God?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Jesus Christ is indeed Emanuel, and remaining with us - that is why I chose a Church which remained under Him on Earth, not one which went into the clouds for centuries.

Ryan M Jason
So your Pope is your Father?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Under Christ, yes.

Ryan M Jason
I think praying to the Virgen is bad changing the Sabbath is worse.They have lots of pagan beliefs.Lots of secrets.They with the Masons

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I'll take above one by one, with due consideration.

Ryan M Jason
Repetitious prayer

Graven Images

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Added to list.

Ryan M Jason
What do you think is the biggest thing one can miss from not reading the Catholic bible?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Here comes my answer to a whole list of comments:

"I think praying to the Virgen is bad"

Why did She say the opposite in the praises of God before Elisabeth?

Henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

That is what we are doing in each Hail Mary.

"changing the Sabbath is worse."

Except God Himself changed it. By resting in the Grave on Saturday and rising on Sunday.

"They have lots of pagan beliefs."

According to certain people who think if a pagan calls 2+2=4, a good Christian must call 2+2=5?

"Lots of secrets.They with the Masons"

No. There is no secret doctrine which you could not have accessed in your very early days of adolescent Catholic (supposing you were one) by looking into one or other Catechism (meaning a traditional one) or work of theology.

The Summa Theologica by St Thomas Aquinas is available in English and online, and laymen are not forbidden to read it:

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Home
http://newadvent.com/summa/


Also, here is Haydock Bible commentary from 1859, also online, in English and not forbidden reading for laymen:

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/


"Repetitious prayer"

Never condemned anywhere. Not if by "repetitious" you mean repeating words or phrases.

"Graven Images"

Which were under Old Covenant generally speaking forbidden, before God could be depicted since Incarnation.

"What do you think is the biggest thing one can miss from not reading the Catholic bible?"

One thing is prayers for the faithful departed, recommended in II Maccabees and in Tobit.

Btw, if you take time, how about checking what you condemn in Catholicism and your supposed proof texts against it, with what Catholics can study in the Haydock Bible?


Ryan gave a few memes:



It took me longer to answer them than for him to post them. I start out trying to answer:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ryan M Jason If a person dies in Christ, he certainly goes to Heaven sooner or later. Often later via Purgatory.

Also, for many persons we don't know which way they went, God didn't tell us by any miracle, so we can also pray for his having died in Christ.

Ryan M Jason "No change in one's spiritual condition" is overinterpretation.

No change as to damnation or salvation, yes, but the saved ones can be transferred from Purgatory to Heaven, and for many they also need prayers for what God did before we prayed, but did not tell us what He did before we prayed, when judging that soul.

So, praying after someone's death is NOT praying that a damned person should be saved.

Ryan M Jason
Apocrypha it contradicts.Now they pray to the Virgen they repetitious prayer.They have graven Images they call another man Father religiously.They pray to the virgen? 3-3=0

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ryan M Jason We certainly do believe II Maccabees 12 (46?) is a valid proof text.

You also have no historic proof for a 66 book canon existing in any Church firmly before Protestants invented it.

But there are other perhaps less direct proof texts, like Onesiphorus.

Ryan M Jason
Pray to God he will give you closure it took me three years before I got an answer it rolled off my tongue when I woke up.My mind was unusually blank when it happend

The good in a person you will see again.If you go to heaven.Anything good was of God.Even a snake loves its babys.Can you identify that verse and explain the meaning to me please??

The verse is.Even a snake loves its babys.New testament

[Still have not found it, suspect he made it up to check my Bible knowledge and judge me ignorant for not dismissing it offhand like when Kent Hovind quotes "II Opinions" in one speech - anyone knowing the Bible knows that is not there.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Double posted,
did not show first time:
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him: Amen, I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

This does not teach no one goes to Purgatory, but that Saint Dismas didn't.

Phil. 1:23 But I am straitened between two; having a desire to be dissolved, and to be with Christ, being by much the better:

Does not teach that every saved person goes straight to heaven, but possibly that St Paul counted on doing so.

II Cor 5:6 Therefore, having always confidence, knowing that, while we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

7 (For we walk by faith, and not by sight)

8 We are confident, and have a good will to be absent rather from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Does NOT teach that every Christian who dies in Christ goes to Heaven immediately.

"Apocrypha it contradicts."

It contradicts your interpretation, but not the Bible.

"Now they pray to the Virgen they repetitious prayer.They have graven Images they call another man Father religiously.They pray to the virgen? 3-3=0"

So, so, so, so?

Already answered those points, you think repeating them will prove your bad logic?

"Pray to God he will give you closure it took me three years before I got an answer it rolled off my tongue when I woke up.My mind was unusually blank when it happend"

I did my praying when converting to Catholicism and a few times within it.

"The good in a person you will see again.If you go to heaven.Anything good was of God.Even a snake loves its babys.Can you identify that verse and explain the meaning to me please?? The verse is.Even a snake loves its babys.New testament"

No, I can't.

And if you happen to know a Bible text I don't know, good for you, but doesn't prove you right on interpretation of the rest or even on that one. Where, what book chapter and verse?

Ryan M Jason
The only intercessor

[showing text of John 14:4-13, same procedure as above:]

4 And whither I go you know, and the way you know.

5 Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

7 If you had known me, you would surely have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him.

8 Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us.

9 Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me, seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father?

10 Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.

11 Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?

12 Otherwise believe for the works themselves. Amen, amen, I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he shall do also, and greater than these shall he do: because I go to the Father.

13 *And whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

[showing text of 14, basically the rest up to 26, same procedure:]

14 If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do.

15 If you love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever,

17 The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you orphans: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while: and the world seeth me no more. But you see me: because I live, and you shall live.

20 In that day, you shall know, that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them: he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith to him, not the Iscariot, Lord, how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world?

23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him:

24 He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard is not mine: but the Father's who sent me.

25 These things have I spoken to you, remaining with you.

26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id107.html

Before going on with debate
please note there are words in the quoted chapter reminding us Christ is ALWAYS with the Apostles and presumably therefore their successors, and that means with a Church containing such. The Paraclete was going to remind the apostles of all things Christ had said (meaning more than just what was contained in Gospel!) and He was going to do so ALWAYS. Not just the lifetime of the Apostles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, and where do you get it from we are NOT using Christ as intercessor?

Or that we are NOT keeping His commandments?

Ryan M Jason
[showing text of a great part of Matthew 23, probably referring to verse nine, same procedure:]

9 *And call none your father upon earth: for one is your Father, who is in heaven.

[Yes, this is shorter than what his meme was, I'll be longer than it in a while!]

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id41.html

And bring all things to your remeberance.He shall teach you all things

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Call no man father?

Haydock hereon (see link already given):

Ver. 9-10. Call none your father ... Neither be ye called masters, &c. The meaning is, that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master is to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, (1 Corinthians iv. 15,) and for our masters and teachers. (Challoner)

This name was a title of dignity: the presidents of the assembly of twenty-three judges where so called; the second judge of the sanhedrim, &c. (Bible de Vence)

Nothing is here forbidden but the contentious divisions, and self-assumed authority, of such as make themselves leaders and favourers of schisms and sects; as Donatus, Arius, Luther, Calvin, and innumerable others of very modern date. But by no means the title of father, attributed by the faith, piety, and confidence of good people, to their directors; for, St. Paul tells the Corinthians, that he is their only spiritual Father: If you have 10,000 instructors in Christ, yet not many Fathers. (1 Corinthians iv. 15.)


And bring all things to your remeberance.He shall teach you all things

Yes, that promise was given by Christ, about the Holy Ghost TO - not you and me but - the first Catholic bishops.

Ryan M Jason
[showing text of Matthew 19:11, same procedure as above:]

11 He said to them: All receive not this word, but they to whom it is given.

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id37.html

[showing text of Matthew 10:19-40, with some verses omitted which I give, same procedure as above:]

19 But when they shall deliver you up, *be not thoughtful how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak.

20 For it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.

21 The brother also shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the son: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and shall put them to death.

22 And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.

23 And when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another. Amen I say to you, you shall not finish all the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come.

24 *The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household?

26 Therefore fear them not: *for there is nothing hid, that shall not be revealed: nor secret that shall not be known.

27 That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the house-tops.

28 And fear not them that kill the body, and cannot kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.

29 *Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing: and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father.

30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

31 Fear not therefore: you are of more value than many sparrows.

32 *Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father, who is in heaven.

33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father, who is in heaven.

34 *Do not think that I am come to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

36 *And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household.

37 *He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.

38 *And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: *and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.

40 *He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id24.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In quoting Matthew 19:11 you are quoting the very rationale for celibacy. Or did you conveniently forget the context?

As to the second quote, I am NOT delivering you, we are talking freely, you are free to respond as you entered the debate, and take whatever care you need to do so.

Ryan M Jason
[showing text of I Corinthians 4:17-18, same procedure as above:]

17 For this cause have I sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son, and faithful in the Lord: who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus, as I teach every where in every church.

18 Some are so puffed up, as though I would not come to you.

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id165.html

Call no man Father but yet you do?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Did you read the Haydock comment I quoted on that verse, or are you just responding by link after link without looking what I have to say?

Ryan M Jason
Has this saying been given to you Mathew 19:11

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not here delivered, so I am free to study as much as I like.

[Here responding as if he was speaking of Matthew 10:19, then noticing he was speaking of Matthew 19:11:]

Oh, if I am called to celibacy?

None of YOUR business, I think. I hope not.

What you have missed is that Matthew 11:40 and I Cor 4:17 are telling is something about APOSTOLIC succession.

How does YOUR pastor trace his succession back to the apostles?

Ryan M Jason


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, but none of this shows there is NOT a distinction between Apostolic and non-Apostolic, there is.

And THAT distinction involves whom we should trust on the canon too.

Ryan M Jason
No partiality it says

Hans-Georg Lundahl
A distinction is not the same thing as partiality.

Titus and Timotheus were equally distinguished, but one Jew, one Gentile, without the partialities mentioned.

Both were in the exact distinguished position that the Catholic bishops have continued into this century.

Both were in the exact distinguished position you are NOT in.

[Nor am I, but I am obeying some who is or are, like Pope Michael. And for those who say "he's a layman", he was sacramentally speaking still not ordained and consecrated either before or immediately after his election, but his status changed in 2011, Gaudete weekend. I congratulated him while not yet acknowledging him as Pope. We had known each other before over internet, back since I was Palmarian.]

Ryan M Jason
No partiality

[showing text of a great part of Matthew 23, probably referring still to verse nine, but I now quote full passage, 1-14, sorry, 15, same procedure:]

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitude and to his disciples,

2 Saying: *The Scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.

3 All therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not: for they say and do not.

4 *For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens: and lay them on men's shoulders: but with a finger of their own they will not move them.

5 And all their works they do to be seen by men: *For they make their phylacteries broad and enlarge their fringes.

6 *And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues,

7 And salutations in the market-place, and to be called by men, Rabbi.

8 *But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master, and all you are brethren.

9 *And call none your father upon earth: for one is your Father, who is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, Christ.

11 He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant.

12 *And whosoever shall exalt himself, shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself, shall be exalted.

13 But wo to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for you go not in yourselves: and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.

14 Wo to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: *because you devour the houses of widows, making long prayers: therefore you shall receive the greater judgment.

15 Wo to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you go round about the sea and land to make one proselyte: and when he is made, you make him the child of hell two-fold more than yourselves.

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id41.html

[I added last verse to the quote, because I think some people are trying to do that with me.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You have just quoted a proof text for us having to obey bishops even if they are sinners : they sit on the chairs of the Apostles, like the scribes of old sat on that of Moses.

Ryan M Jason
[gif with "to support a practise like partial birth abortion", probably showing a politician given communion by a bishop who should have excommunicated him.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I don't think a man giving a supporter of partial birth abortion communion is a Catholic, and therefore not a formal bishop.

Ryan M Jason
[gif with very clear "NOOO"]
media.tenor.co

I don't think Jesus was being partial when he said call no man Father religously in context

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The actual words were to call no man father.

Not "religiously". If you even say "David was the father of Solomon" you have called David father of someone and therefore broken the actual wording, if nothing is to be understood behind it.

If something IS to be understood behind it, look up the Corinthians reference I already quoted Haydock comment as giving!

But I note you are drifting away and away from the topics of both prayers for the dead and canon of OT.

Accusing the Catholic Church need not prove your Church is right. If accusation were right, Christianity would perhaps be wrong instead.

I don't believe that, so I am a Catholic.

You have heard my answer to Cody Rieger : the OT was compiled by successors of Aaron. The NT was compiled and OT confirmed (in Catholic form) by successors of the Apostles.

Your "no partiality" makes you need to answer the question : what man or what group of men first with lips of flesh and blood or hand on ink and pen and paper said or wrote St Matthew is a canonic Gospel, St Thomas' Gospel is not, St John's Apocalypse is the canonic NT Apocalypse, and St Peter's Apocalypse is not canonic.

Your position makes a real answer very hard.

More
added afterwards:

Ryan M Jason
Rabi he said also he was speaking religously

Upon seeing the wealth of the Catholic Church.I would assume that would be like going thru the eye of a needle.But he must have been speaking partially once again



I don't think partially was the word you wanted

Meme
Treated as previously:
1 And the word of the Lord came to me, *saying:

2 And thou son of man, dost thou not judge, dost thou not judge the city of blood?

3 And thou shalt shew her all her abominations, and shalt say: Thus saith the Lord God: This is the city that sheddeth blood in the midst of her, that her time may come: and that hath made idols against herself, to defile herself.

4 Thou art become guilty in thy blood which thou hast shed: and thou art defiled in thy idols which thou hast made: and thou hast made thy days to draw near, and hast brought on the time of thy years: therefore have I made thee a reproach to the Gentiles, and a mockery to all countries.

5 Those that are near, and those that are far from thee, shall triumph over thee: thou filthy one, infamous, great in destruction.

6 Behold the princes of Israel, every one hath employed his arm in thee, to shed blood.

7 They have abused father and mother in thee; they have oppressed the stranger in the midst of thee; they have grieved the fatherless and widow in thee.

8 Thou hast despised my sanctuaries, and profaned my sabbaths.

9 Slanderers have been in thee to shed blood, and they have eaten upon the mountains in thee, they have committed wickedness in the midst of thee.

10 They have discovered the nakedness of their father in thee, they have humbled the uncleanness of the menstruous woman in thee.

11 *And every one hath committed abomination with his neighbour's wife, and the father-in-law hath wickedly defiled his daughter-in-law, the brother hath oppressed his sister, the daughter of his father, in thee.

12 They have taken gifts in thee to shed blood; thou hast taken usury and increase, and hast covetously oppressed thy neighbours; and thou hast forgotten me, saith the Lord God.

[link see next meme]

Ryan M Jason
Even the house of David will answer to God

Meme
Treated as previously:
[continued from previous, same chapter]

25 There is a conspiracy of prophets in the midst thereof: like a lion that roareth and catcheth the prey, they have devoured souls; they have taken riches and hire, they have made many widows in the midst thereof.

26 Her priests have despised my law, and have defiled my sanctuaries: they have put no difference between holy and profane: nor have distinguished between the polluted and the clean: and they have turned away their eyes from my sabbaths, and I was profaned in the midst of them.

27 *Her princes in the midst of her, are like wolves ravening the prey to shed blood, and to destroy souls, and to run after gains, through covetousness.

28 And her prophets have daubed them without tempering the mortar, seeing vain things, and divining lies unto them, saying: Thus saith the Lord God: when the Lord hath not spoken.

29 The people of the land have used oppression, and committed robbery: they afflicted the needy and poor, and they oppressed the stranger by calumny without judgment.

30 And I sought among them for a man that might set up a hedge, and stand in the gap before me in favour of the land, that I might not destroy it: and I found none.

31 And I poured out my indignation upon them; in the fire of my wrath I consumed them: I have rendered their way upon their own head, saith the Lord God.

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id1375.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ryan M Jason " the wealth of the Catholic Church.I would assume that would be like going thru the eye of a needle."

The Church is not a man, and the men of it are not wealthy, they only handly wealth for the common good.

Before going into more, you might want to know you have more of an audience than just me:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Do Maccabees Disclaim Divine Inspiration?
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2017/07/do-maccabees-disclaim-divine-inspiration.html


That one was on Bible canon with another guy, Sarfati, who said few words which I answered briefly, but here is part two, mainly with you:

HGL's F.B. writings : On Bible Canon (and Some Other Inbetween)
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2017/07/on-bible-canon-and-some-other-inbetween.html


"Rabi he said also he was speaking religously"

So you mean doctors and professors in any other matter than religion are scot free?

Is it not rather that rabbis made themselves candidates for being regarded so and won the award?

"I don't think partially was the word you wanted"

You are forgetting the meaning "in a partial way" or "in a manner of partiality". I suppose that one exists in English too.

The rest of your memes (this time) are concerned with abuses by OT distinctions (prophets, priests and royalty) and are warning against abusing distinctions, not against receiving them from the Church and dealing with them faithfully.

Note, having a rich temple adornment is NOT part of the abuses, since that was part of the original ordering of the Temple under King Solomon.

Christ drove cattle-mongers out of the Temple, He never tried to purify the walls of vessels of gold or silver.

Nor to attack the vestments of Aaronic priesthood.

And I see your own consistent answer on where the canon is from is still lacking.

Are you not given an answer, or is this not a situation where you are delivered, so you are free to study? In the latter case, use that freedom to some studying.

My own recommendations (for what they might be worth to you) would be reading the Haydock comment on each Bible verse you have cited so far.

Ryan M Jason
Meme
Treated as previously:
II Kings (!) 12:21 And his servants said to him: What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive: but after the child was dead, thou didst rise up and eat bread.

22 And he said: While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept for him: for I said: Who knoweth whether the Lord may not give him to me, and the child may live?

23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Shall I be able to bring him back any more? I shall go to him rather: but he shall not return to me.

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id654.html

It includes Bible chapters and books you don't acknowledge, but lacks none you do acknowledge or did cite.

Adding more
here starting with Luke Lefebvre's original answer to Cody Rieger:

Luke Lefebvre
The Protestant movement concluding with the work of the TR under the translation of the King James version of the Bible has brought together all the evidence available proving that the word of God is definitely in fallible and has never changed one bit...Voir plus

Hans-Georg Lundahl
" The Protestant movement concluding with the work of the TR under the translation of the King James version of the Bible has brought together all the evidence available proving that the word of God is definitely in fallible and has never changed one bit."

Funny your saying so, when the Protestant movement changed it itself!

Luke Lefebvre
The Protestant movement was a developing movement. People are not going to agree and get along but I can assure you the King James version of the Bible lead the way for the Protestant movement for 400 years. No protestant Bibles like to Geneva Bible or the chain Bible is in common use today. Clearly the King James has pressed all of those translation and provides in fallible textual evidence

There is not a verse or a word in the King James version of the Bible that cannot be substantiated with preserved in fallible textual evidence

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I can assure you the King James version of the Bible lead the way for the Protestant movement for 400 years"

Among English speakers.

"No protestant Bibles like to Geneva Bible or the chain Bible is in common use today."

Among English speakers.

A French speaking Protestant is likely to use Geneva Bible or version Louis Segond.

The latter includes research more recent than KJV.

A German Protestant would either use Luther Bible or one including more recent research than KJV.

A Spanish speaking Protestant uses Reina Valera, which includes research more recent than KJV.

But even if the claim were true, even if KJV led the way totally without reserve for Louis Segond, Reina Valera, 1917 års översättning, and before that Bible of Charles XII, and after or beside Folkbibeln, which I don't think is true, that would not prove the KJV infallible. Since the Protestant movement is NOT the Church.

"There is not a verse or a word in the King James version of the Bible that cannot be substantiated with preserved in fallible textual evidence"

I wonder about that one ... especially choices of translation.

Does KJV have bishop, priest, deacon, church or overseer, elder, servant/minister, assembly?

While both choices can in some sense be substantiated in episkopos, presbyteros, diakonos, ekklesia, the latter ones are deliberately overlooking the traditional meanings of the words in order to presume to dig up another one.

Luke Lefebvre
Now if you're going to make translations of the Bible into Chinese for example it'll be a whole lot easier to do it from that English translation. Because even if you make translation errors you can always go back to the creek text to correct them. But if you're using the wrong group text like many modern versions do y'all have boatloads of missing versus now why is that? Why are all the verses of many modern translations found in the footnotes?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And perhaps your edition of KJV even lacks the seven books which Catholics consider canonic and Protestants apocryphic?

That is what I meant.

An Englishman going as missionary to China will perhaps use KJV or NIV.

A Swede going as missionary to Tanzania will perhaps rather use Swedish Bibles.

"Why are all the verses of many modern translations found in the footnotes?"

Because Protestantism is a developing movement.

It started throwing out Maccabees I and II because their new research could not find that and now there are Protestant Bibles which only have Christ pardoning adulteress in footnotes because even newer research could not find that to their satisfaction.

Joseph D. Mc Bride
The Holy Bible is Perfect. Only perfect thing I know of!!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Joseph D. Mc Bride Only?

God is not perfect? The Church He founded is not perfect? Heaven is not perfect? We will not be perfect when we get there? The sacraments are not perfect?

mardi 11 juillet 2017

Third time over?


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Some, recently including also admins, seem to have taken the position that EVERYTHING touching Creationism and Biblical chronology and recalibrations of Carbon 14 dating in a Biblical chronology friendly calibration is STRICTLY off topic to this group.

So, as a Creationist I can get this vicious circle:

[elsewhere]

- Carbon levels were rising, and Abraham (c. 2000 BC) was contemporary probably with very earliest Pharaos (Narmer, Hor Aha, Den, or someone), because carbon 14 levels back then would account for over 1000 years extra.
- But if you are right, you should be able to give some support from Egyptology?

[turning here]

- What Pharaos (or other historically well known or potentially such) have been actually carbon dated (you see, I need the info for a Creationist project)?
- Creationism is wrong!
- Creationism is off topic to this group!

[back elsewhere]

- It seems some Egyptologist are unwilling to discuss the subject.

The first to take the latter attitude here was Youri Volokhine, whose comments and my reply to them were erased from my first debate.

Volokhine (basically) : "Creationism is off topic to this group!"
Me : "so? what I actually asked is not off topic to this group!"

This is the undocumented part of this first dialogue here, and his attitude has in his absence been clearly potent with whatever admin turned the second time I asked short here :

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


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


[3 Third time over?
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2017/07/third-time-over.html
]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Jim Liddell?@Luca Miatello? Timothy Reid?@Yvonne Buskens? Julie Morgan?

Holly Eardley
If you would like to discuss creationism and egyptology I'm sure there are plenty of groups to do so. Why discuss it here when you've already been told it's off topic?





Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have already told YOU that what I am asking here is NOT the discussion of creationism, BUT what coffins (on topic) are carbon dated.

I suppose you are not an Asperger case but are more like very empathetic to everyone here except to my text, and are voicing the general collective Asperger not getting it of what I actually ASKED.

There are NOT plenty of groups where Egyptologist specifically attend and furnish creationists with facts on what mummies and coffins and masks and papyri and wooden statues are carbon dated.

THAT specific knowledge which I was asking about in the previous two posts, specifying in the second I was NOT asking for a discussion on creationism, even if that seemed in the first to have excited Jim Liddell more than answering my actual question, THAT specific knowledge is HERE.

That is why I came specifically HERE.

Now, let me ask YOU a question.

I asked one question on topic here. I also gave (out of politeness, not as asking anything myself) an information on why I wanted to know what I asked.

Then no one responded to what I asked (Luca Miatello gave a link which he claimed contained lots of answers, but it contained two only). Several responded to WHY I asked it, which I had informed on.

Do YOU think that questions related to expertise HERE can only be asked HERE if everything behind the question is ALSO related to the general atmosphere here?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yvonne Buskens - you could answer the question about carbon dating or not so of the masks you presented. Holly Eardley claims I should have asked that specific question in a group dedicated to discussing Creationism and Egyptology - how many SUCH groups do YOU frequent?

Melissa McIntosh
Calm down, dude, we just prefer actual science. You can't just calibrate c14 dates to whatever supports your argument, it's a set thing. But since neither side is ever going to change their mind all it's ever going to result in is an argument That's probably why it's not really allowed, nothing constructive will come of it and people will just get upset.

Holly Eardley
Hans-Georg, I certainly don't want to make you feel unwelcome, and I do feel empathy towards you. However, this is a controversial topic and you are likely to be met with hostility when you discuss it in conventional egyptology groups. That was why I suggested that you use a group specifically for discussing egyptology and creationism, so people will be more prepared to discuss this with you, and you will face less hostility. Have you considered setting up such a group? You've certainly got some interesting topics, and I think you'd have very useful discussions there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
(could not post)
@Melissa McIntosh :

"Calm down, dude, we just prefer actual science"

Nice, so do I. Btw, you are once again discussing my reason for asking rather than giving any speficic answer to my question.

"You can't just calibrate c14 dates to whatever supports your argument, it's a set thing."

I think I understand the mathematics of C14 dating a little better than you, and I am well aware I can't calibrate to just ANYTHING. But calibrating to reducing Egyptian pre-Persian history to half, I think that is feasible. The original carbon 14 content is NOT per se a set thing, it is presumed to be 100 pmc or around that. This cannot be directly tested.

But this can be tested on dated items where Creationists would disagree with your historic dating and which we would have an idea of when it was.

"But since neither side is ever going to change their mind all it's ever going to result in is an argument"

I was, once again, NOT asking for a debate on my positions. I was asking for specific information which perhaps you could provide - provided you are Egyptologist and not sth else - and which you have (if so) chosen not to provide, and instead provide a discussion I was not actually asking for.

I am NOT foisting creationism on YOU. If Yvonne Buskens - who is an Egyptologist in Liverpool - is totally uninterested in my agenda, but polite enough to answer my actual question, that is all I was asking for, first time, second time, and, by implication about the quandry for creationist research I gave, this time too.

"That's probably why it's not really allowed, nothing constructive will come of it and people will just get upset."

I am getting upset by:

  • people not answering my question
  • people answering info I gave along with my question
  • people stopping me from getting an answer to the actual question I did ask
  • people reasoning about my behaviour instead of answering the actual question I did ask.

    AND this thing on top of that done by someone engaged in "21 Triangles" = behavioural management!


[here is what happened when I tried to post it:]



The reason I could not post is I am excluded from the group.

Probably on advise from Holly and Melissa.

I was going to answer Holly's claim she had empathy for ME by saying I never denied that. I said she had empathy with everyone except MY TEXT. Now, my text and me, that are not the same substance. She certainly had empathy with me as a person, she showed no empathy whatsoever with what I was actually asking. Namely that I should be able to ask a question related to the group, even if the reason I asked it was foreign to other members of the group.

I ought to have added that as to preferring actual science, the kind of thing Holly was trying at and Melissa was professional at simply is no such thing. Psychology and psychiatry are not scientific knowledge about other persons.

To make things crystal clear.

If anyone in the group thought I needed psychiatric attention and it is foisted on me, I am in my rights to resist that kind of bandits.

And this is once again a proof of what I was saying, that certain people do NOT want Creationism seriouslmy diuscussed with people who actually do know some details about it.

Not posted:
Holly Eardley, I saw you work at NHS.

That is not Egyptological. It is also not a kind of network in which members are readily encouraged to join groups dedicated to discussing Creationism and Egyptology. It is a network highly biassed against Creationism.

I also saw you are a HP fan (at least enough to take a test on what house of Hogwarts you would be in, supposing the house and characteristics were given by a test rather than chosen by you) and proud of not being racist. The culture where those traits are prominent is even more biassed against Creationism than medical profession in general.

Coffin Club as Mute as a Grave on my Question


1 Carbon Dated Egyptology? Coffin Club didn't want to tell How Much! 2 Coffin Club as Mute as a Grave on my Question 3 Third time over?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Reformulating my previous question with examples of what kind of answers I was looking for.

Timothy Reid linked here:

Egyptians : Classic: Intact Old Kingdom Tomb
https://tim-theegyptians.blogspot.fr/2017/04/classic-intact-old-kingdom-tomb.html


Now, the diagnostic Old Kingdom is not specific to what Pharao, but it can at least be identified as Old Kingdom. I am fully prepared to believe Egyptologists know that difference, just as myself I could tell a warrior from Vendel epoch from the plate armour in the time of St Joan of Arc. So, I am fully ready to accept this is "Old Kingdom".

Here is why this is interesting. Some Creationists have claimed that Exodus (1510 BC according to St Jerome / Roman Martyrology) ended Old Kingdom, others that Exodus was right before the Hyksos. Especially in the first perspective : when is the latest carbon date for anything identifiable as Old Kingdom?

Is there any carbon date for this one?

Yvonne Buskens added this album:

Photographs of some of our coffins and a 17th Dynasty/early 18th Dynasty cartonnage mummy mask
(Liverpool)
https://www.facebook.com/pg/LiverpoolAncientEgypt/photos/?tab=album&album_id=12482198903


The picture displayed has this description:

"Rishi style mummy mask made of cartonnage.
"Early 18th Dynasty (about 1550 BC)
"Gift of Joseph Mayer (ex Joseph Sams collection)
"No. M11020."


To a Creationist and Bible believer in general, 1550 BC is a very interesting date : it is carbon date for Kenyon's dating of Garstang's City IV at Jericho excavations.

On the other hand, in Chronology of St Jerome (recited every Christmas in Latin Rite Catholic Liturgy, where it is still Catholic), Exodus is 1510 BC, which puts taking of Jericho in 1470 BC.

So, obvious question : was the mummy mask or attached mummy or coffin carbon dated? Or is it assigned "about 1550 BC" because it is "early 18th Dynasty"?

I am not doing the work of David Grohl, it is he and Damien McKey who are into how dynasties fold up into identical in the purely historical dating of Egyptian history. I am however also for other reasons very interested in the carbon dating aspect.

Someone else showed the mummy of Nefertiti - whom Damien McKey identifies with Queen Jezebel (yes, making Akhenaton = Ahab son of Omri). So, while I hope archaeologists were a bit too delicate to carbon date herself, is perhaps her coffin carbon dated?

Etc. THAT is the kind of answers I would have liked when I posed the question which led to a dispute which some would consider turned ugly:

[Link to previous post.]

Julie Morgan
Just a reminder to keep this post relevant to the group and to be respectful of others. Many thanks.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think my own initial contribution on both posts was good enough, so I thank for this reminder to others.

An admin
turned off commenting for this post.

lundi 10 juillet 2017

Carbon Dated Egyptology? Coffin Club didn't want to tell How Much!


1 Carbon Dated Egyptology? Coffin Club didn't want to tell How Much! 2 Coffin Club as Mute as a Grave on my Question 3 Third time over?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
July 1 at 11:26am
I am thankful for being let in.

I am here to ask a question, intending to republish interesting answers on blog, namely, what Pharaos or other Egyptians or materials connected to such have been carbon dated and what were the raw (not adjusted) carbon dates?

I know Narmer and Djoser were dated by Libby, and the dates were (at least for Narmer) somewhat adjusted. Anything else is news to me, and perhaps some aspects of these too.

[I seem to have been wrong about Narmer, see below.]

I might as well reveal my agenda : I am a YEC and am making tables for what carbon years correspond to what real and Biblical years. I am for instance considering Narmer as contemporary to Abraham and Djoser as being Joseph's Pharao.

Youri Volokhine
1 juillet, 11:38
I think that your agenda has nothing to do with egyptology, or with serious science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1 juillet, 12:19
My question is directly related to Egyptology, irrespective of what my agenda may be.

Youri Volokhine
1 juillet, 13:16
i think that your question depends directly of your agenda.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1 juillet, 20:43
Which does not change that is it relevant to this group.

Note on update
The above exchange with Youri Volokhine was recovered in an update to the blog on 12.VII.2017. When I was writing the original post, I could not find him or the comments on the thread. I supposed hastily they had been deleted, he had left FB or sth. It was easier than that - he had blocked my account and I could not find him on all of that one.

He did not count on group being open and me having another account (with French settings, as you can see from "juillet" instead of "July")./HGL

Jim Liddell
Sorry. I'm Christian, definately NOT a YEC, and can confirm that C14 dating broadly confirms the accepted chronology of Egypt. Not only that, thermoluminesence dating of pottery confirms the pre-existing cultures which eventually made up a united Egypt had inhabited the Nile valley for several thousand years. We therefore have an uninterupted timeline going back further than 5000 BC into the realms pof the Palaeolithic period. As this is the Coffin Club, we have a clear pattern of burial customs evolving from the Naqqada and Badarian times into the 'coffined' period which dates from predynastic times onward - uninterrupted. Incidentally, in part we have (Christian) Flinders Petrie to thank for this excellent timeline.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"and can confirm that C14 dating broadly confirms the accepted chronology of Egypt."

Have you looked into buld up of carbon levels in atmosphere?

+ this was not he question.

I was asking : what Pharaos have been carbon dated (mummies, sarcophagi, items beside these, manuscripts on papyrus probably dating from their or later times). That is all. You did not give one to add to the Narmer and Djoser couple I already was aware of.

Jim Liddell
Yes. Atmospheric c14 dioes not affect the carbon locked in, for example, organic material found in Netjerikhet (Djoser)'s step pyramid, This material was independemntly examined and dated by two independent sources in both the UK and Australia - and confirms the accepted chronoloogy, give or take a very few years. If you have a problem with this, take it up with the universities of Cambridge and Sydney.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am for one thing not so stupid as to take up problems with ONLY the universities who did original datings, since they would hardly have a super great interest in publishing my problems, and for another, the problems I am supposed to have with the carbon dates are not the question I posed.

I was only asking for MORE carbon dates from Egypt than Narmer and Djoser, if there is such - and then I am applying my so called problems from there on.

I mean atmospheric carbon 14 at the time when the organic material is FROM.

Jim Liddell
Since much of the material scanned by the latest techniques was not exposed to the atmosphere, then your point is lost on me. By the way, can you please relate to 'The Coffin club' group. I know evolution's a nasty word in some quarters, but you might ponder the unbroken evolution of funerary practice over five millennia in the Nile Valley.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What do you mean "was not exposed to the atmosphere"?

There is no organic material whatsoever which is not either directly or indirectly exposed to the atmosphere while alive!

The point is, if the atmosphere in which the trees grew from which Narmer's and Djoser's coffins or sarcophagi were made were significantly lower in C14, this means they had a significant "carbon age" for free.

THIS in turn means that they are carbon dated older than they really are.

I am not disputing these coffins exist, I am not saying that the carbon datings were not made, I am saying that the carbon 14 content back in the then atmospheres was LOWER, meaning that when you calculate how much has decayed and part from a supposed near 100 pmc carbon 14 level, you are giving original values, therefore also decay, and therefore also age a HIGHER value than correct.

Now, this is where my question comes in.

I have been able no problem to loo, up what Narmer's and what Djoser's coffins were dated to, I have been able to convert from Libby halflife to Cambridge halflife, now I want to know how many other coffins are carbon dated, so I can perhaps get a little more food for my tables of rising carbon levels.

I really and truly do not see how the rest of your palaver relates either to the question or to the general topic.

Jim Liddell
Narmer's coffin?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Was it his mummy?

I have now seen a shift in available material on carbon dating over internet.

"The date commonly given for the beginning of Narmer’s reign is ca. 3,100 BC.[2][3] Other mainstream estimatings, using both the historical method and Radiocarbon dating, are in the range ca. 3273–2987 BC. Establishing absolute dating for Ancient Egypt relies on two different methods, each of which is problematic. As a starting point, the Historical Method, makes use of astronomical events that are recorded in Ancient Egyptian texts, which establishes a starting point in which an event in Egyptian history is given an unambiguous absolute date. “Dead reckoning” – adding or subtracting the length of each king’s reign (based primarily on Manetho, the Turin King List, and the Palermo Stone) is then used until one gets to the reign of the king in question. Of course, there is uncertainty about the length of reigns, especially in the Archaic Period and the Intermediate Periods. Two astrological events are available to anchor these estimates, one in the Middle Kingdom and one in the New Kingdom[4]. Two estimates based on this method are: Hayes 1970, p. 174, who gives the beginning of the reign of Narmer/Menes as 3114 BC, which he rounds to 3100 BC; and, Krauss & Warburton 2006, p. 487 who places the ascent of Narmer to the throne of Egypt as c. 2950 BC."

Unclear on whether there was a carbon date for Narmer.

"Radiocarbon Dating has unfortunately its own problems: According to Hendrickx 2006, p. 90, “the calibration curves for the (second half) of the 4th millennium BC show important fluctuations with long possible data ranges as a consequence. It is generally considered a ‘bad period’ for Radiocarbon dating.” Using a statistical approach, including all available carbon 14 dates for the Archaic Period, reduces, but does not eliminate, these inherent problems. Dee & et al., uses this approach, and derive a 65% confidence interval estimate for the beginning of the First Dynasty of c. 3211 – 3045 BC. However, they define the beginning of the First Dynasty as the beginning of the reign of Hor-Aha. There are no radiocarbon dates for Narmer, so to translate this to the beginning of Narmer’s reign one must again adjust for the length of Narmer’s reign of 62 years, which gives a range of c. 3273-3107 BC for the beginning of Narmer’s reign. This is reassuringly close to the range of mainstream Egyptologists using the Historical Method of c. 3114 - 2987 BC. Thus, combining the results of two different methodologies allows to place the accession of Narmer to c. 3273 - 2987 BC."

Seems like a direct denial of Narmer having been carbon dated.

But could mean simply that a carbon date was made and later rejected - due to this being now considered a bad period for carbon dating.

My point is, I'd like to know more about which pharaos, queens, papyri, other artefacts etc are carbon dated.

I had earlier seen a notice that Narmer's coffin (unless it was mummy) was one of the first things carbon dating was tested on.

Wait, I found a little list ...

Jim Liddell
There is no certain identification of Narmer's mummy. No serious Egyptologist would claim with certainty, given the upheavals at the necropolis, that human remains in sny dyn I or II can be atributted with certainty.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I may have seen a bad news, or Libby may have been wrong about certain things.

I cannot exclude totally having mixed up things myself.

There is however a recent dating which does a bit of identification, namely with Hor Aha.

Luca Miatello
Here you will find a recent freely available article on Radiocarbon dating in Egyptology, mentioning also a large number of samples, with large bibliography:

Radiocarbon Dating and Egyptian Chronology—From the “Curve of Knowns” to Bayesian Modeling
Felix Höflmayer
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935413.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935413-e-64


I would say, however, that if you wanted to know on Radiocarbon dating, you could have asked without revealing your "agenda", which is not of interest in this group.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Wonderful.

Thank you!

Yes, I could have, but perhaps people knowing what you do but having an attitude like Youri Volokhine would have been disappointed after I had revealed what I had done with the info later.

Luca Miatello
I posted the link to that article because the subject of radiocarbon dating can be of interest to anyone. Maybe reading the literature you will change your mind, but in any case this is a free world (or at least it should be), and anyone can formulate any hypotheses, even the most absurd ones.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I actually found another article with a list.

As to absurd, here's a little on the maths involved in my idea:

Creation vs Evolution : Feynman approach to YEC concepts?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/07/feynman-approach-to-yec-concepts.html


Luca Miatello
You are using this group for aims that have nothing to do with the aim of this group. Please read the rules: off-topic posts should be removed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The post as such is NOT off topic.

I was given off topic responses and responded to them.

So, I make an ON topic post, you are among the guys who give OFF topic (both to group and to my post) responses, and if I don't keep just shut up in face of that, you suggest that my post should be removed!

I am using YOUR remarks as a provocation for the remarks I am adressing in reply to YOUR remarks.

ALSO, I just now noted this:

"I would say, however, that if you wanted to know on Radiocarbon dating, you could have asked without revealing your "agenda", which is not of interest in this group."

My question was not "about carbon dating" or "wanting to know about carbon dating".

My question WAS what carbon dated pharaos (or otherwise historically dated persons, or objects connected to) there are, and what the carbon dates are.

I only found it courteous to tell you what I intended to do with the info.

Luca Miatello
Dear sir. I have been very kind with you, and now you are even insulting me. In this post you say that you know little or nothing about radiocarbon dating in Egyptology, and I suggested you a link to a free article, inviting you of not talking of "creationism" in this group, which is off topic. You responded that another person of this group had a "bad attitude" and if you had not revealed your "agenda" people with that attitude "would have been disappointed" later, knowing what you "had done with the info". What does it mean? I refused to comment your absurdities about the bible, etc. You are free to formulate your hypotheses on the bible, but NOT HERE, PLEASE.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I have been very kind with you, and now you are even insulting me."

No, you have insulted me, that is not being kind.

" In this post you say that you know little or nothing about radiocarbon dating in Egyptology, "

No, that is not my exact words.

My exact words are to the effect that I do not know much about WHAT or WHO or WHOSE TOMBS or COFFINS have been carbon dated.

Your link was NOT extremely helpful, I found another one myself which is very much more to the point.

"and I suggested you a link to a free article, inviting you of not talking of "creationism" in this group, which is off topic."

The link to your article was off topic to my question.

The info I wanted is on topic to this group. That I wanted it for purposes related to creationism is a side issue to my question. I got more than one comment (including from a Youri Volokhine who seems to have been excluded and his comments deleted so I can no longer document them) related to this side issue, and you are asking me to back down on it?

Your attitude is exactly Volokhine's!

I made one question related to this group + one remark on why I made the question. I got NO replies - including from you - which adress my question, and you are the third group member (unless you are an admin) who "kindly" informs me about the side issue and then you take offense on my not backing down on it!

"What does it mean?"

I meant that if I had gotten a link really to the topic I was asking about from someone like YOU, and had given a hat tip to YOU on my creationist article, someone like YOU could have taken offense like that, as much as Youri Volokhine did, especially since so far your attitude has been worse than his.

So, I spared you the chore of cringing at the hat tip I could have given if YOU had given this or that or sundry article which said Hor Aha has a Libby date so and so BP, Djoser has a Libby date so and so BP, or rather different labs have these different dates.

Instead you will be on my blog for your bad attitude.

Sakkara tomb 16 and Tell el Daba are not exactly a large number of samples, as you proposed, perhaps you could see more of the article than I, but that is what my - unpaid - view of the article gave. A longer discussion about each, thank you, but NOT a great number of examples of carbon dated material.

As to "absurdities about the Bible", it is not I who am insulting your religion, it is you who are insulting mine!

It seems
someone (Luca?) is typing a comment on the thread, if he gets it ready, I'll update!

Note:
Luca Miatello is not an admin, which needs to be said to the honour of those who are!

Luca Miatello
Dear sir, there is no indication in the Bible of when Abraham and Djoser lived, and no religion proposes a date. I ask you for the last time: PLEASE talk of COFFINS or leave this group.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Dear sir, there is no indication in the Bible of when Abraham and Djoser lived,"

1) When Abraham lived? There certainly are, though diverse from text to text (I am using LXX), and from calculator to calculator (on LXX we can't use Ussher, he's in Masoretic, but we can use St Jerome of George Syncellus for LXX).

2) When Djoser lived? There are if he is Joseph's Pharao, which the Hungere Stele clearly suggests.

"and no religion proposes a date."

Roman Martyrology is not religious?

Roman Martyrology for Christmas day includes the specifications that Christ was born :

5199 after Creation
2957 after Flood
2015 after Birth of Abraham

It is based on St Jerome calculating. Byzantine liturgy is closer to Syncellus (differs 8 years from Syncellus).

You are promoting a factoid.

"I ask you for the last time: PLEASE talk of COFFINS or leave this group."

I was talking of coffins. You are also apparently not an admin, so you have no authority to tell me what to do.

One more update
After two more comments, not by me, this thread was turned off.

Jim Liddell
This is not a group which is set out to discuss the relevence of Scripture in the chronology of Egypt. Can I suggest you find another of the many groups which are based on theology and its relation to history (I write as a committed Christian)

Julie Morgan
(unlike Luca, she is an admin)
Hans-Georg Lundahl - whilst I acknowledge a common interest in this particular topic, I don't think it is relevant to the group. Might it be possible for you to find a more suitable forum for this discussion? I also politely ask that you refrain from commenting further and to be more respectful towards other members. Many thanks.

My Answer Here
(not on thread)
I was asking a service of information which being right in theology - i e a dedicated Young Earth Creationist - does not automatically qualify you to know, and which the precise expertise of this group IS qualified to know!

I was not - except in response to others starting to do so - discussing relevance of Bible and chronology of Egypt, I was simply asking how much of chronology of Egypt is carbon dated by ... coffins./HGL

mercredi 14 juin 2017

Emmerde sur FB - ou sur l'ordi


Les notifications inaccessibles:



J'ai eu le temps de faire l'image, et les notifications, c'est encore comme ça! 24 notifications, mais inaccessibles./HGL

Assumptions involved in Carbon dating


Bill Ludlow


See that "National Center for Science Education" thing?

Status in group
I'm seeing a pattern in this group with the use of the word "assumptions." Whenever a creationist here can't explain something in accordance with their worldview they toss out that word as a kind of safety net or end all comment.

Radiometric dating? "Assumptions"

Sedimentary layers form in different environments? "Assumptions"

Millions of years? "Assumptions"

Transitional species? "Assumptions"

If you expect to be taken seriously by anyone with a scientific background you had better be prepared to list those assumptions and answer why the assumptions are invalid, otherwise you will be seen as someone who just brushes off solid evidence by repeating a catch phrase and hand waving. Sometimes what people call "assumptions" are actually inferences based on logical deductions. An assumption is an implicit or unstated premise. Assumptions don't stand on their own. When combined with facts, valid assumptions lead to valid inferences.

[Skipping image, for now.]

Skipping
some, down to my answer:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Radiometric dating? "Assumptions"
_______________________
With C14, once you date anything to 40 000 BP, you cannot calibrate that against historical texts dated historically to 40 000 year ago, you need to assume that the carbon 14 level throughout atmosphere and living things was much the same as it is today.

If it was in fact more like 1.5 percent of what it is today, you get instead ... that it took less than 5730 years to get from 1.5 percent to the 0.792 percent modern carbon we date as 40 000 BP.

The point is : some evolutionists think this is not an assumption at all, but a basical natural fact, that other evening i was hearing some guy call the carbon 14 level in the atmosphere and in still living things "a constant" which it is not.

NEXT question is which assumption is best warranted : a) constancy of carbon 14 level in atmosphere? or : b) reliability of the biblical chronology?

The first of these has as a consequence unreliability of biblical chronology and therefore of Bible as history.

The second of these has a consequence that carbon 14 level has risen (and that drastically, by faster additions than the ones we see now, since we are already in an equilibrial state in atmosphere).

So, to a normal, unbiassed philosopher, the discussion goes : which consequence is most unacceptable? or : which assumption is best warranted?

To one such who is agnostic, there is a really good test : first ears of cultivated wheat found 19 000 BP, first systematic trace of what about 10 000 BP. Right, man cultivated some ears of wheat for fun, didn't find it tasty, went back to hunting and gathering, and ten thousand years later only started going farmer?

Or the carbon chronology is messed up due to rising carbon levels? In that case there may have been a few generations or a century or two between oldest ancient wheat and second oldest wheat we have today. This sounds reasonable.

"Un administrateur
a désactivé les commentaires pour cette publication."

[No more comments possible on this status! It was an admin who did it.]

BUT before this happened, Bill Ludlow had given some answers, and so has Ken Hansen, which I will need to adress on blog:

Bill Ludlow
Scientific Laws backed by mathematical calculations are not assumptions, sorry.

Radioactive decay and exponential laws
By Ian Garbett
https://plus.maths.org/content/radioactive-decay-and-exponential-laws


Answered here
There is no scientific law which states that the carbon 14 level in atmosphere needs to remain all eternity around 100 percent modern carbon [or pmc for short].

That is the ONE divergence between me and conventional carbon dating, and it involves NO divergence about what radioactive decay nor of what exponential laws of mathematics are.

In fact, it very totally builds on them.

You see, suppose the level were rising from 90 pmc to 100 pmc. The beginning of the period of rise would have only* 870 extra years, the end of it none. So, the period is only lengthened by 870 years.

Suppose instead we were looking at the rise from 20 to 30 pmc.

Beginning the period we get the extra years* at 13 300 and ending it we get 9950

13300
09950
03350

The period is now lengthened by 3350 years. More than half of a halflife, not just 870 years.

If instead we were looking at the change from 10 to 20 pmc, we get a doubling. Can you guess what the period will be lengthened by?

I would say a halflife.

Shall we test?

Beginning the period, we have* 19050 extra years and ending it we have 13300 of them.

19050
13300
05750

5750 is not far from the expected 5730. So the period is lengthened by a halflife. So is the period going from 5 to 10 or from 2.5 to 5 pmc : 24750 to 19050 gets a 5700 years lengthening, 30500 to 24750 is lengthened by 5750.

24750
19050
05700

30500
24750
05750

Due to the exponential laws precisely, at the beginning of a rise of carbon 14 levels - and no natural law cited as such precludes this - the small changes (compared to at present) of carbon 14 levels will give big lengthenings of time scales.

Also, due to exponentiality working same fashion of decay at same times whatever value one starts with, the extra years at the beginning - what would be detected as the age by scientists getting back in a time machine and dating recently felled trees or recently fallen twigs - remains an extra to whatever age supervenes in real years with lower carbon levels in object due to decay rather than due to timing in a theoretically possible carbon 14 rise.

* In all examples I am using the same "carbon 14 dating calculator" which I have used so often before and which is put online by evolutionists :

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

Your turn now : you test for the rise from 1.25 to 2.5 pmc. Try to guess how much the period will be lengthened? You have fewer extra years at the end and you subtract these from the more extra years at the beginning.

Ken Hansen
The ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide molecules is about 1.3×10-12, and this value is ASSUMED constant for the main part of archaeological history since the formation of the earth's atmosphere.

Bill Ludlow
"since the formation of the earth's atmosphere."

Nope, only for about the last 55,000 years since that is all the method is good for using standard counting techniques, and there are known fluctuations figured in. How far off would the assumptions have to be to make something that dates to 50,000 years fit into the YEC timeline?

Answered here
I have been working on that exact question for more than a year, since 2015 in october/november.

I have placed now the year of the Flood (2957 BC according to St Jerome and 3358 BC according to Syncellus) at carbon dated 40 000 BC. This means that sth dating 40 000 BP has 35026 extra years according to St Jerome.

2017
2957
4974

40000
04974
35026

35026 extra years means the carbon level was at 1.445 pmc. Which is about 69 times lower than the assumed c. 100 pmc.

Let's suppose the level was rising in the years between Creation and Flood too, this means the limit is this thing being dated to 5199 BC, but that is very unrealistic, we will still deal with it as a limit here:

2017
5199
7216

50000
07216
42784 extra years

42784 extra years = a carbon level of 0.565 pmc, or c. 177 times lower carbon 14 level in atmosphere than expected by evolutionist assumptions.

Ken Hansen
That is an excerpt from the article you linked

Bill Ludlow
Okay, well "archaeological history" only goes back 2.5 million years with the discovery of the first tools, but we still are only talking about the atmospheric conditions within the last 55,000 years.

Answered here
Actually, the 2.5 million years are by a totally different dating method, namely mainly by K-Ar (potassium 40 to argon 40, reliability depends on there being no excess argon, which apparently sometimes there is, as said by evolutionists themselves about K-Ar datings of Mount St Helens)

We cannot say as per datings whether a K-Ar dated object from "2.5 million years ago" is less or more recent than a carbon dated one from "50 000 BP"

Ken Hansen
If C14 started being produced 6000 years ago, it would make a huge difference in the age calculations. From what I've read, the rate of decay and the rate of production of C14 is still out of equilibrium. This fits in with 6000 years but not 55000.

Bill Ludlow
Why?

How could we possibly date something at 40,000 years if the rate of decay only fits a 6,000 year old earth?

Answered here
Ken, you are wrong, if the equilibrium were not already reached, we could not get a consistent half life for otherwise very well attested and very consistent last 2500 years.

Bill, you are wrong because you think we are talkuing about a different rate of decay, we are talking about a different level of initial C14.

Neither of you could probably have guessed that the buildup in order to fit an equilibrium reached 2500 years ago needs to involve an initially way faster production of C14 than now. One of my tables gave 20 times as fast as now, this means that the cosmic radiation would have been 20 times as great (supposing proportionality is direct and a "linear graph" between levels of the two).

A cosmic radiation 20 times higher in the year of the Flood as to now sounds much, but it is still not very much higher than the present total background radiation at Princeton. It's like going from 6 to 8 milliSieverts per year or less.

Ken Hansen
Because the rates should equalize within 30000 years

If there was little or no C14 6000 years ago, it would look pretty old if equilibrium is assumed.

Bill Ludlow
What evidence do you have there was no C 14 6000 years ago?

More assumptions?

Ken Hansen
Yep. You have yours, I have mine.

Answered here
Here I must agree with Ken : we are differing from Bill on what assumptions are MOST reasonable and what consequences of an assumption are LEAST acceptable.

The problem is, Bill and his fellows have been taught as if their case did not even need untested and untestable assumptions. It does.

Other problem, there seems to be some recent conspiracy around to "read" or "understand" creationists arguing about this, as if they were arguing about the rate of radioactive decay. Some few are, most of us are arguing about some kind of buildup of carbon 14 levels in the atmosphere. And this is being constantly ignored, despite this explanation having been around for decades, since Henry Morris, since Edgar Andrews and it has been restated recently by Kent Hovind as well.

I have a hard time seeing how intelligent atheists (and other evolutionists whom I consider syncretistic with the religious system called atheism, most times the word is used) could so systematically miss this without conspiring in some way to ignore the obvious.

If Bill Ludlow had taken the time to actually read what I wrote (the first thing I wrote, marked Hans-Georg Lundahl, not the rest marked "Answered here"), he would have known I was not challenging the exponential mathematics, I was not challenging the decay rate of C14 either, because I was instead challenging something else. Namely stability of carbon 14 level.

Then Ken Hansen brings it up again:

"The ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide molecules is about 1.3×10-12, and this value is ASSUMED constant for the main part of archaeological history since the formation of the earth's atmosphere."

And Bill Ludlow again gasses on, after a few takes about

"How could we possibly date something at 40,000 years if THE RATE OF DECAY only fits a 6,000 year old earth?"

I don't think he is generally retarded, I think he is acting on this particular matter!

Signing my answers and for quotes from Bill and Ken being by copy-paste:

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Basil's inthronisation
as bishop of Neo-Caesaraea
14.VI.2017




It seems I misunderstood him, he was blocking me. I tested on the other profile I have./HGL

dimanche 11 juin 2017

Some guys tried to make her ridiculous instead of responding intelligently


Here is a FB publication on FreakOutNation:

Christian woman explains why Dinosaurs are fake. Lol!
FreakOutNation 24 mai, 00:14 ·
https://www.facebook.com/FreakOutNation/videos/1367445840015479/?fref=mentions


It was shared on a group with Kent Hovind affiliation that I am in, and this with the following comment:

CB
What YEC here thinks that she's right??

Skipping
some and going to my own responses:

Q at -1:54
Was about whether fossils weren't just come up with after the concept of dinosaurs was invented.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Q at -1:54, no, the first fossil classified as such was come up with by Steno:

"In 1667 Nicholas Steno wrote a paper about a shark head he had dissected. He compared the teeth of the shark with the common fossil objects known as tongue stones. He concluded that the fossils must have been shark teeth."

He was a Young Earth Creationist like most other guys back then in Christendom:

"Steno who, like almost all 17th century natural philosophers, believed that the earth was only a few thousand years old, resorted to the Biblical flood as a possible explanation for fossils of marine organisms that were far from the sea."

He also converted from Lutheran to Catholic and died in the service of the Lord, ministering to diaspora Catholics in Lutheran territories like Hamburg (less totalitarian Lutheran than Denmark and Sweden, I guess).

More fossils before dinosaurs:

"In his 1778 work Epochs of Nature Georges Buffon referred to fossils, in particular the discovery of fossils of tropical species such as elephants and rhinoceros in northern Europe, as evidence for the theory that the earth had started out much warmer than it currently was and had been gradually cooling.

"In 1796 Georges Cuvier presented a paper on living and fossil elephants comparing skeletal remains of Indian and African elephants to fossils of mammoths and of an animal he would later name mastodon utilizing comparative anatomy. He established for the first time that Indian and African elephants were different species, and that mammoths differed from both and must be extinct. He further concluded that the mastodon was another extinct species that also differed from Indian or African elephants, more so than mammoths."

THEN come the dinosaurs :

"In 1808, Cuvier identified a fossil found in Maastricht as a giant marine reptile that would later be named Mosasaurus. He also identified, from a drawing, another fossil found in Bavaria as a flying reptile and named it Pterodactylus. He speculated, based on the strata in which these fossils were found, that large reptiles had lived prior to what he was calling "the age of mammals"."

Note, Cuvier, who remained a Lutheran, was not loyal to Biblical timeline, but still a catastrophist.

Enter two Anglicans [I was wrong, Mantell was a Methodist], still well before Darwin:

"In 1824, Buckland found and described a lower jaw from Jurassic deposits from Stonesfield. He determined that the bone belonged to a carnivorous land-dwelling reptile he called Megalosaurus. That same year Gideon Mantell realized that some large teeth he had found in 1822, in Cretaceous rocks from Tilgate, belonged to a giant herbivorous land-dwelling reptile. He called it Iguanodon, because the teeth resembled those of an iguana. All of this led Mantell to publish an influential paper in 1831 entitled "The Age of Reptiles" in which he summarized the evidence for there having been an extended time during which the earth had teemed with large reptiles, and he divided that era, based in what rock strata different types of reptiles first appeared, into three intervals that anticipated the modern periods of the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous"

And a little more about Buckland:

"Buckland was a proponent of the Gap Theory that interpreted the biblical account of Genesis as referring to two separate episodes of creation separated by a lengthy period; it emerged in the late 18th and early 19th centuries as a way to reconcile the scriptural account with discoveries in geology that suggested the earth was very old. Early in his career he believed that he had found geological evidence of the biblical flood, but later became convinced that the glaciation theory of Louis Agassiz provided a better explanation, and he played an important role in promoting that theory in Great Britain."

And about Mantell:

"The Mantell children could not study at local grammar schools because the elder Mantell was a follower of the Methodist church and the 12 free schools were reserved for children who had been brought up in the Anglican faith."

Source
which I missed to credit in above response:

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

I now added it in an extra comment.

A[t] - 1:11
she gives a lot of crumbled flakes of plaster and asks us to reconstitute it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
A[t] - 1:11 There are indeed fossils which are found in that state ("turn it into what it is supposed to be").

Some fossil species are known only from a skull, or worse, from a hip bone, which could perhaps as easily come from a nephelim giant.

But other ones are also found in a fairly complete state.

-0:30
[as cited below:]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
-0:30 "If you want to keep your job, you come up with a brachiosaurus skull."

Sure, there are some fossils which are found in such a state. NOT all.

Brachiosaurus altithorax
Holotype (FMNH P25107): postcranial skeleton
Referred specimens: Partial skeletons

Brachiosaurus altithorax
on Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals
https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/by-group/dinosauria/sauropoda/macronaria/brachiosauridae/brachiosaurus


"Most images and reconstructions of Brachiosaurus are based on the specimen displayed in the Berlin Natural History Museum. The specimen was originally identified as an african species of Brachiosaurus however the specimen has now been identified as the dinosaur Giraffatitan."

"Giraffatitan was originally described as Brachiosaurus brancai in 1914 based from a partial skeleton discovered in Tanzania, until a revaluation of the specimen in 1988 by Greg Paul determined the specimen differed from other Brachiosaurus material and warranted a separate genus. The specimen in question is on display in the Berlin Naturkundemuseum (Museum of Natural History). As this specimen was once considered the most complete Brachiosaurus known, most artist reconstructions of Brachiosaurus are based on the Berlin specimen thus they are actually Giraffatitan!"

Partial skeletons and complete & partial skulls

So, you do have complete skulls of Giraffatitan, a k a Brachiosaurus brancai.

Giraffatitan
on Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals
https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/by-group/dinosauria/sauropoda/macronaria/brachiosauridae/giraffatitan


However, they have a supposed relative, which is described here:

Uberabatitan ribeiroi
on Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals
https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/by-group/dinosauria/sauropoda/macronaria/uberabatitan


Three specimina, no skull, only fragments. In my view it could be remains of a human like giant.


Now, if the guys on FreakOutNation had really heard of these facts, they might have given a similar intelligent response (minus the gigantic nephelistic suspicion on Uberabatitan ribeiroi) instead of just gaping and laughing at the idea of anyone being stupid enough to challenge scientists. They seem to be in a cult.