With Ivan Shiek and Glenda Badger on Continuity of the Church

With Ivan Shiek on Continuity of Church and Accusations against the Catholic one (Ten Commandments and Accusation ag. Papacy) · With Ivan Shiek and Glenda Badger on Continuity of the Church · Continuing with Ivan Shiek · Ending with Ivan Shiek and Timothy Bradley

Under the general thread starting in previous post. Giving these subthreads numbers II and III.

II

Ivan Shiek

John 12:48-50 Those who reject me and don’t accept what I say have a judge — the word which I have spoken will judge them on the Last Day. For I have not spoken on my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has given me a command, namely, what to say and how to say it. And I know that his command is eternal life. So what I say is simply what the Father has told me to say.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

One of the things he said was, there would be a Church between 401 and 500 AD (assuming the world didn't end first, which it didn't) and that it would be visible.

Ivan Shiek

False, the Church of God is not a place, it is a people.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Where exactly did I call the Church of God "a place"?

As to people, it would be a visible people. [Matthew 5:14]

Ivan Shiek

Hans-Georg Lundahl, "One of the things he said was, there would be a Church between 401 and 500 AD (assuming the world didn't end first, which it didn't) and that it would be visible."

Visible means physical, so no, the Church is not visible but spiritual.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew 5:14 means it is visible.

A Church which is "spiritual" only is not to be found in NT.

Ivan Shiek

Hans-Georg Lundahl, if that is true, then this verse is also visible:

In the same way, let your light shine before people, so that they may see the good things you do and praise your Father in heaven. Matthew 5:16

If that light is visible, then how do we not see a light from people?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Indeed, it is.

It need not be visible in every Catholic, but it must be visible:

* in lots of Catholic saints (as per canonised and also not canonised)
* in the known social mores of Catholics as compared with other denominations and religions.

The saints must be documentable people, their acts documentable acts, and the social mores, like freeing slaves, must be documentable social mores.

Ivan Shiek

Hans-Georg Lundahl, it is talking about a metaphor not a literal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Cannot be hidden" is not metaphoric.

"built on a rock" is same metaphor as in Matthew 16:18.

Ivan Shiek

Can you hide joy? Yet people see that you are happy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, document people between Jan 1 401 and Dec 31 500 who were joyful - the people I cited were.

Ivan Shiek

The light Jesus speaks of is the joy of having salvation from hell. You cannot contain that joy, it is from our Father in Heaven.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not speaking of men "containing" the joy, I am speaking of men recorded in history SHOWING it.

Hint : among the 7000 in Israel, you can cite at least two names : Elijah and Elisha.

Ivan Shiek

We are to proclaim it on the rooftops that we are saved from hell. That proclamation will make others envious for sure.
It is the beautiful robe given to Jacob that made his other brothers envious.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, who exactly was proclaiming from rooftops between 1 Jan 401 and 31 Dec 500?

I gave my names - you give yours.

[It seems a comment with a list of saints from 5th C. was deleted. - Nope, it was on subthread I, here is subthread II]

Ivan Shiek

No idea, it was a message to all believers. If someone did as God instructed, then glory to God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl, you are giving glory to men by mentioning them, as if they mean something. The only one that deserves glory is God our Father in Heaven, Jesus Christ.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"No idea, it was a message to all believers. If someone did as God instructed, then glory to God."

Indeed glory to God, but also historic memory to these men.

You can't have men shouting from rooftops and then asking other men, like the Camel in an Arab proverb, who climbed into the Minaret "please don't look at me, I am hidden!"

Also, it was not directly to all believers, since He did not adress it to all, but to His chosen clergy among them, "the twelve" or right back then "the eleven".

"you are giving glory to men by mentioning them, as if they mean something."

OK, take a g o o d look at the title of the group we are in, first of all.

"Kent Hovind, Evolutionist's Nemesis"



Is some admin giving "glory to men"? Or, are we perhaps dealing with the fact Kent Hovind argued good for some things on behalf of Christ. In that case one might perhaps also mention the men who did so in the 5th C. AD.

You want Kent Hovind for fulfilling the promise in late XXth and early XXIst C.? OK.

You want Spurgeon to do so for XIXth C.? OK.

Whom do you take for early XVIth? Luther, Zwingli or Münzer? Or all three, despite them being in disagreement on why the Catholic Church was wrong? Fine, if you insist.

And back in XIIIth, perhaps you take Dante because he was a fine poet who put a Pope in Hell in his poem? Or Nogaret who arrested same Pope? I mean, you have no nproblem with taking Shaun Willcock as a Christian now, have you?

O ... K ...

But I am asking about Vth C. And you seem too cringy to answer the simple question. You seem intent on proving first of all that whoever in Vth C. was the fulfilment of Christ's promise, it can't have been the Catholics, and apart from that it doesn't matter who it was ...

No, that is not OK anymore, that is cowardice. You are acting like a hypocrite caught redhanded in lying and equivocating.

Ivan Shiek

Never heard Spurgeon's sermons. I did listen to Paul Washer though. Though I regard them both as my equals.

I consider Dante's work to be fiction and in the same category as the Greek gods; a myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Whether you consider Spurgeon as your equal after he - on your view - already made it to Heaven, or not is not the point.

The point is, on your view, Spurgeon is someone you can name for XIXth C. as on your view a Christian.

Whom are you considering from Vth C. as a Christian, and what was the group he "enjoyed" outside the commandment "breaking" Catholics?

" I consider Dante's work to be fiction"

Divina Commedia is theological sci fi.

But the point is some were ready to take his word about why Pope Boniface VIII deserved to go to Hell.

I don't consider that as fiction, I consider that as, possibly, Dante misunderstanding Pope Boniface.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And, whom are you naming as Christians of the XIII and XIV C.?

Ivan Shiek

Hans-Georg Lundahl, I do not know who lived in that time period.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, but how can you know Catholic Church was "corrupt" if you don't know who lived then?

Ivan Shiek

Hans-Georg Lundahl, I only know about the Crusades back then. That is corruption.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, it is not.

Ivan Shiek

Christ's directive was to spread the Word of God through patience and longsuffering, not murdering anyone who didn't listen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, you don't care of history, how come you care for one version of what happened - and the wrong one?

Ivan Shiek

Very well, God will judge on the Last Day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Indeed. He will judge if your ignorance excuses you or if it is feigned.

The deletion of two of my comments - one with a list of people I consider Christian in Vth C and one with a directory to what Pope Pius XI REALLY said (with dates not including 30 April 1922) seems to indicate someone is being less than candid.

Ivan Shiek

Hans-Georg Lundahl, do the Popes claim to be the vicar of Christ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The vicar of Christ, yes.

They do not continue and add "which means I am God on earth".

Ivan Shiek

Hans-Georg Lundahl,

"the original notion a vicar is of 'earthly representative of Christ'" - Wikipedia.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, representative of, not Himself.

Ivan Shiek

If the Popes say it means something else, then that is what one would call "turning the truth into a lie".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The liar is the one who is putting non-genuine words in the mouth of a Pope.

Btw, one of my comments was apparently not deleted, just not exactly where I was looking for it.

Ivan Shiek

Hans-Georg Lundahl, are the Popes claiming divinity or are they saying they are like Christ and only follow His way?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

They are neither.

They are claiming to be sent by Christ.

Ivan Shiek

Were they sent from Heaven?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, from Ascension Day and Pentecost Day, through unbroken continuity.

When Christ was last walking on Earth, when the Holy Spirit descended in tongues of flame.

Ivan Shiek

Hans-Georg Lundahl, all of Christ's followers claim the same. That we are chosen by God to do His work.

We claim to be the sons of God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

But you do not have a clergy with Apostolic Succession, and also, you can produce none you consider as yours for some earlier centuries, as you admitted, so your claim is very moot, or rather spurious.

Ivan Shiek

Our claim comes from our Father in Heaven. Having repented our sins to God, Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. We proclaim with our lips and bondage to Him, that He is our Lord and Savior. Only Him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

He proclaimed He was staying with his Apostles, which includes their successors.

Where the bishop is, there is the Church, and where the Church is, there is Christ and where Christ is, there is eternal life.

Epilogue?

Added next day, St Thomas Apostle, 21.XII.2017

Ivan Shiek

Hans-Georg Lundahl, so you put God in your box?

How convenient to pull Him out only when you need Him, then put Him back in.

Hans-Georg Lundahl, there will be nothing left of your churches. Not even a stone on the ground by the time He returns.

Hans-Georg Lundahl, let me give you an analogy of what you just described to me by your comment: "Where the bishop is, there is the Church, and where the Church is, there is Christ and where Christ is, there is eternal life."

Let's say my insects got the idea to shove me in their building, would I let them or squish them?

Hans-Georg Lundahl,

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1 Corinthians 3:16-19

This is to all believers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You know, God put Himself "in our box" as you like to call it.

Your outburst reminds me of "the wrath of Tash falls from above" ...

Our Faith is not tied to a specific building.

But there is a prophecy you may be able to take away the daily sacrifice for - was it 3 and a half years, or sth? Or was it 2300 days before the sanctuary was cleaned?

That is, if you are Assyrian enough. Otherwise, perhaps someone else will do what you called out for.

Yes, we know WE are the temple of God, we Catholics are.

Even briefer

Epilogue on December 22:

Ivan Shiek

Hans-Georg Lundahl, I do not put faith in man, only God. Your comment about Assyria, was that related to my statement about your churches being destroyed? I couldn't understand that fully. Who are the Assyrians?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[Daniel 11:31]

[+ linked to this and previous post]

Ivan Shiek

To answer your blog, it is not only joy that we are commanded to show, but truth and love also.
I do not say love in the modern sense of sexual nature, but family love. Family love also does correction and discipline to those who do wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Indeed, and Leo X showed Luther than kind of love.

I am a bit confused about "to answer my blog" - the blog is our debate from here.

And the question at hand is not whether it was enough for St Genevieve to have joy, the question is whether if I point to her as an example, you are pointing to someone else at the time as being a fulfilment, visibly, of Christ's promise in Matthew 28.

Continued from here

on:

Continuing with Ivan Shiek

III

Glenda Badger

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'd like to know when and for what he is supposed to have massacred the population of Palestrina.

Glenda Badger

Hans-Georg Lundahl GOOGLE IT

Glenda Badger

Hans-Georg Lundahl It should be borne in mind that one Pope (Innocent III), in just one day, murdered more Christians than all the Roman Caesars put together. http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/79/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look, I'd really hope the internet is not all that littered with this that it is very easy to find.

So, what is your source?

Glenda Badger

Hans-Georg Lundahl History books - it's a well known fact bro

Hans-Georg Lundahl Research the inquisition ...

[gif : literaly the stuff of nightmares]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not where I come from.

I had a 5 - when the grades system was 1-5 - in ten subjects, one of which was history.

No massacre of Palestrina [see image] mentioned there.

Also, looks like a military thing, not a clerical one.

Also, I very much did look up the inquisition and you are wrong.

I mean, if you mean the Inquisitions of the Catholic Church, not the modern counterparts (psychiatry, KGB and CIA, CPS).

Glenda Badger

Hans-Georg Lundahl Tell me what the inquisition was about, who was involved and what happened.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Short? Very short?

I'll take two examples of stats.

In one stat, the number of "condemned" varies from 200 down per locality in Southern France (not sure if they were all burnings, but could be, those were the hotter days of Inquisition - but actually I think number includes those who recanted and were given penances or who were held in prison).

The thing about it is, Albigensians outnumbered Waldensians. Now, you might consider Waldensians as fully Christian, I do not. You might consider them as your counterpart, fairly possible (as long as you are not Anglicans and Lutherans).

But Albigensians who believed in "two principles" and in two opposed creators?

No.

Other stat, Bernard Guy in Toulouse judged in 930 cases, of which 45 led someone to the bonfire and 45 someone's effigy to it. 300 or so were imprisonments - he was giving them a chance to become Catholics. 145 or so were his freeing people from prison.

Other cases involved imposition of penances (including pilgrimages and crusades) or destruction of property.

Citing both from memory, but the cases of Bernard Guy (which Charles Henry Lea cites only the condemnatory of) are cited several works and a few places on the internet.

The first stat I was looking up by accident in Charles Henry Lea while looking for something else. I have memorised it less well and not seen it outside Lea.

In all these cases, whereever someone was burnt, the Catholic Church reasoned that if he had sinned against the faith and failed to repent:

* he deserved it as per OT laws on stoning and their correspondence to natural law (our first duty is to God, heresy is worse than murder)
* he had been given time to repent and adequate admonition
* it was a kind of emergency in which heretics inimical to Catholicism (as Albigensians highly were) were threatening to get the upper hand if not checked in time (and had gotten it locally)
* heresy prefigures the Antichrist, so, by burning them, one was post-poning the coming of Antichrist a bit - through keeping society Catholic.

This last is actually so important that I consider the times are too late for reintroducing it.

So, out of 930 judged over several years in Toulouse, 45 made it to the fire. Does not sound like the working of a Church where someone would massacre - as a clergyman - whole villages for heresy or things.

Now, back to massacre of Palestrina.

I found a reference:

"In his Inferno, Dante portrayed Boniface VIII as destined for hell, where simony is punished, although Boniface was still alive at the fictional date of the poem's story. Boniface's eventual destiny is revealed to Dante by Pope Nicholas III, whom he meets. A bit later in the Inferno, Dante reminds of the pontiff's feud with the Colonna family, which led him to demolish the city of Palestrina, killing 6,000 citizens and destroying both the home of Julius Caesar and a shrine to Mary. Boniface's ultimate fate is confirmed by Beatrice when Dante visits Heaven. It is notable that he does not adopt Guillaume de Nogaret's aspersion that Boniface VIII was a 'sodomite', however, and does not assign him to that circle of hell (although simony was placed in the eighth circle of fraud, below sodomy, in the seventh circle of violence, designating it as a worse offense and taking precedence above activities of sodomy)."

It seems, Nogaret had his reasons for calling Boniface VIII a sodomite, he was captruing the Pope to humiliate the papacy.

As to the massacre in Palestrina - if not a partisan lie or exaggeration by Dante who was pro-Empire and anti-Pope partisan, is described as a feud.

This would mean it was sth Boniface VIII was involved in as political leader of Papal States, not as Pope of the Church.

It could also have been made up by Nogaret ... or not ...

But it is definitely not in a normal history book in Sweden.

Here is one Catholic take on Palestrina affair:

"Boniface made the mistake of developing enemies among the Colonnas, a noble and important Roman family with extensive land holdings and powerful influence within the Church. Boniface became involved in a dispute over Colonna family property in which the younger brothers accused Cardinal Jacopo Colonna of misappropriating their inheritance. The pope's intervention was resented by all of the brothers and the dispute developed into a two year confrontation which included robbery, murder, a small war that Boniface called a "crusade," and the wholesale destruction of the town of Palestrina. In July of 1297, during the course of this disturbance, the Colonna cardinals Jacopo and Pietro issued formal decrees blaming Boniface for the illegal (so they claimed) resignation of Celestine V, and holding Boniface to be an anti-pope. It fit Philip's purposes well to have two cardinals of the Roman Church calling for an ecumenical council to depose Boniface and warning all concerned not to "obey or heed . . . this man who does not possess the authority of the supreme pontiff."[51] Boniface had been elected with the cooperation of the Colonnas; they would prove to be powerful enemies."

Not exactly [anything linking] Boniface to the destruction of the city.

[Fixed a garbled text.]

http://www.rosarychurch.net/history/boniface_8.html

As to Catholic encyclopedia, it says nothing about Palestrina, but gives some indication of his indirect involvement (and probably involuntary one) in a ruthless management of Florence:

"The efforts made by Boniface VIII to restore order in Florence and Tuscany proved equally futile. During the closing years of the thirteenth century the great Guelph city was torn asunder by the violent dissensions of the Bianchi and the Neri. The Bianchi or Whites, of Ghibelline tendencies, represented the popular party and contained some of the most distinguished men in Florence--Dante Alighieri, Guido Cavalcanti, and Dino Compagni. The Neri or Blacks, professing the old Guelph principles, represented the nobles or aristocracy of the city. Each party as it gained the ascendancy sent its opponents into exile. After a vain attempt to reconcile the leaders of the two parties, Vieri dei Cerchi and Corso Donati, the pope sent Cardinal Matteo d'Acquasparta as papal legate to mediate and establish peace at Florence. The legate met with no success and soon returned to Rome leaving the city under an interdict. Towards the end of 1300, Boniface VIII summoned to his aid Charles of Valois, brother of Philip the Fair. Appointed Captain-General of Church and invested with the governorship of Tuscany (in consequence of the vacancy of the empire), the French prince was given full powers to effect the pacification of the city. Valois arrived at Florence on 1 November, 1301. But instead of acting as the official peacemaker of the pope, he conducted himself as a ruthless destroyer. After five months of his partisan administration, the Neri were supreme and many of the Bianchi exiled and ruined--among them Dante Alighieri. Beyond drawing on himself and the pope the bitter hatred of the Florentine people, Charles had accomplished nothing. (Levi, Bonifazio VIII e le sue relazioni col commune di Firenze, in Archiv. Soc. Rom. di Storia Patria, 1882, V, 365-474. Cf. Franchetti, Nuova Antologia, 1883, 23-38.) It may be noted here that many scholars of repute seriously question Dante's famous embassy to Boniface VIII in the latter part of 1301. The only contemporary evidence to support the poet's mission is a passage in Dino Compagni, and even that is looked upon by some as a later interpolation."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02662a.htm

Sounds as if Dante could have had a motive for crediting Boniface with ruthless management of cities - and not one actually proving Boniface guilty.

Ivan Shiek

Any murder, no matter if they are "clergy" or not, is punishable by death. Have any of them repented to God for their sins?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ivan Shiek, the point was not whether there were sinners back then. There were. The point is not whether people went clearly to Hell back then. Some did.

The point is, whether Boniface VIII, as Pope a clear authority for the Catholic Church, was one of these or if he stayed clear of that.

The laymen who were appointed to end a civil war in Florence and abused positions where Boniface VIII had made the mistake to trust them are NOT authority figures in the Catholic Church. Kennedy was a President of US who was a Catholic. JF, I mean. But he was a layman, he has not been canonised as Saint, he is not in any way an authority figure for Catholicism.

Ivan Shiek if you considered the Inquisition as murderers, for what?

For death penalty being applied on their judgements?

You just mentioned death penalty yourself. The OT "inquisition" applied death penalty by stoning for the crime of blasphemy.

Or for their victims being innocent? Some were, certainly St Joan of Arc, possibly Savonarola (St Filippo Neri thought so - Savonarola had a great Marian devotion, btw).

But before you declare whole swathes of Albigensians and Waldensians as innocent, who were the Albigensians or Waldensians of the 5th C.? If they were the real Church of Christ, why are they absent from the 5th C.?

Ivan Shiek

I have no clue who those groups were. That is not important, the Lord Jesus Christ chooses His people. He is not a Pope. He is God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You have no clue in what Church Christ fulfilled his promises between January 1 401 and December 31 500? [Back in the other more general discussion]

If that is not important, why do you single out one answer, with much history for it, as being excluded?

Ivan Shiek

A simple reason, was the Holy Spirit in it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am definitely saying yes, the Holy Spirit was in the Catholic Church and is so to this day (excepting certain modernists).

So, if you disagree with my answer, don't tell me just where the Holy Spirit, on your view "wasn't", but tell me where He w a s!

Ivan Shiek

Hans-Georg Lundahl, that would be a lie. The Holy Spirit is not present where there is corruption. Amend the corruption, throw out the ones responsible to be killed by nonbelievers, only then will the blemish be corrected.

And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1 Corinthians 5:2-8 KJV

No, Paul is not talking about the past for the Holy Spirit is present today and desires you to be without blemish.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The Holy Spirit is not present where there is corruption."

Not in the soul of a corrupt person, but sometimes in societies where some persons are corrupt.

"Amend the corruption, throw out the ones responsible to be killed by nonbelievers, only then will the blemish be corrected."

One can amend corruption in less drastic ways than that, right?

"No, Paul is not talking about the past for the Holy Spirit is present today and desires you to be without blemish."

What was future in the time of St Paul is partly past now.

Also, St Paul did care that in the then already past the Holy Spirit had spoken through prophets, and not through for instance Pharao's magicians.

Your position about the Vth C. is as if in the time of Exodus you could name Jammes and Mambres, but not Moses and Aaron, the evil prophets of Baal, but not Elijah and Elisha.

Ivan Shiek

Hans-Georg Lundahl, I do not answer because I have no clue what you are talking about, I have not studied Catholic history. I only study the Bible and apply it to my daily life.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You only study the Bible and you still know of Spurgeon, who is not named in it?

You pretend the promise of Christ was kept in Vth C. outside Catholic Church - and you refrain from speaking of Vth C. because it is "Catholic History"?

You are aware that there is a mathematical reason why XIXth C. (with Spurgeon) is called "nineteenth" and not for instance "second"?

There do come a few centuries between the first century when NT was written (but not yet definitely collected as to which books were included) and our own.

The promise of Christ in Matthew 28 applies to these centuries too.

Catholic History? Maybe - if the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ!

Ivan Shiek

History does not matter to me, I do not study it. All I know is that they existed in our timeline.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, history matters to me, and I want to know who "existed in our timeline".

[Seems at the rest Shiek wants to goof:]

Ivan Shiek

I also know the Great Flood ended in 01/01/601 B.C. because Noah wrote it (or Moses wrote it of Noah).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"601 BC"?

Ivan Shiek

Yes, it will take a while to dig up that passage but it is there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

More like 2957 BC.

Moses wrote down the testimony of Noah, which had been left orally or in writing, along with others, similarily left there before him.

This means, Moses cared about history.

Ivan Shiek

I posted my find on my wall back in 2015 or 2016.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hmmm ... interesting.

Probably a wrong find, but still interesting.

Ivan Shiek

I'll try to find the passage again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not running away.

Ivan Shiek

Hans-Georg Lundahl,
And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
Genesis 7:6

...

And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year (601), in the first month, the first day of the month (01/01/601), the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground (local area) was dry.
And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month (02/27/601), was the earth (global) dried.
Genesis 8:13-14

Hans-Georg Lundahl

This means that Flood occurred in 601 age of Noah, not in 601 BC.