Neanderthals as Elves and Trolls and as Pre-Flood

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Neanderthal's Language · Creation vs. Evolution : Neanderthal - speculations and certainty · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Neanderthal Pre- or Post-Flood? Me and Roger Pearlman ... · Neanderthal Flute · Neanderthals as Elves and Trolls and as Pre-Flood · Elves, Trolls, Pre-Flood - Continued

The premiss in the following that Neanderthals sounded as talking with speech handicaps, I did change my mind on. I think Neanderthals may well have sounded fairly normal. They were certainly capable of normal purposeful behaviour.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

July 21 at 10:24 AM

Supposing Neanderthals in pre-Flood era were the real both elves and orcs, and suppose they had a very high larynx and therefore high voices, and a reduced palet of vowels, and supposing they spoke a version of Hebrew - any hebraist who'd like to work out a Neanderthal Hebrew for pre-Flood times?

I would not be able to appreciate it, since I can't speak or read Hebrew, but I suppose some I know who do, would.

Thomas Harris

Just a bit of curiosity... mainly because the Elflang I'm working with also has Hebraic influences along the southern migratory route... In your elflang, what is the reasoning behind Hebraic languages influencing your tongue?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• 1) It is not my elflang, it is a proposal to make one;
• 2) Neanderthals were pre-Flood and probable relations to Mrs Japheth, therefore if they were BOTH elves AND trolls/goblins/orcs, the memory of them could have continued in her descendants;
• 3) Before Babel, Hebrew was the only language, and its phonematic structure is such that an articulatory handocap attributed to Neanderthals would not have made total havoc of phonematic distinctions with much payoff.

[link to previous parts, except Neanderthal Flute]

I

Eric Bowman

High larynx & high voices? Now you have me picturing Neanderthal sounding like Elmo.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Especially with his high central rounded Swedish Norwegian vowels ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, I thought you meant the Swedish cook.

II

Anthony Docimo

got some bad news for you regarding the Flood

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Anthony Docimo - such as it killed a lot of people?

I know.

Anthony Docimo

Hans-Georg Lundahl it killed nobody.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It killed off all pure Neanderthals, we have no one around with Neanderthal Y chromosome or Neanderthal mitochondria.

Dito for Heildebergians / Antecessors / Denisovans who seem to have been all the same race.

Anthony Docimo

Hans-Georg Lundahl how would you know? given we don't know what their X and Y chromosomes looklike

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Neanderthal Y chromosome genome has been sequenced by Svante Pääbo.

So has their mitochondrial DNA.

Anthony Docimo

Hans-Georg Lundahl so, we have one Y chromosome? great start... (unless all neandertals were so massively inbred they only had one Y...which the fossil record does not support)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don't think you get the point. Our Y chromosome varies within certain parameters that exclude the Y chromosome (or Y chromosome genome) found by Svante Pääbo in the Neanderthal genome.

They do not descend from "Y chromosome Adam" - that is from Noah.

Anthony Docimo

Hans-Georg Lundahl why isn't Adam our Adam?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Have you any clue of human genetics and how mutations pile up in diverse lineages, of which the Y chromosome is purely male, as the mitochondrial is purely female?

Women don't have Y chromosomes.

Men do have mitochondria, but only get them from mother, never from father.

Now, there is a concept of "Y chromosome Adam" and "mitochondrial Eve" (not identic to Biblical Adam and Eve, in my view.

It is the last man who all living males get their Y chromosome from, and the last woman who all people get their mitochondria from. By defintion, this is before the first mutation dividing modern populations.

AND the Y chromosome and mitochondria of Neanderthals were before those / beside those.

It's a bit like isoglosses. Those of Nordic languages do not support them descending from Proto-West-Germanic (if that existed) since they did not lose the final -z but turned it to -R.

III

Thomas Harris

The Great Flood is a common mythological theme. I would point out that, even modernly, Hebrew has evolved as a language. It is part of a while set of Afro-Semitic languages. That doesn't detract from the mythod of your language, however. The concept of a Neanderthal phonology in language is fascinating, too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" is a common mythological theme"

In other words, some likelihood of being true.

Thomas Harris

Some likelihood of most cultures encountering floods at some point or another.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How great is the likelihood of each encourntering a different global one?

Thomas Harris

For ancient humans, a "global" flood would likely be one experienced over a large region. When they later compared takes with other people, the story probably grew as they encountered what we're originally separate tales, without regard to time frame. The logical question would be is that, with us currently having 2/3 of the planet covered in water, if the planet has at one time been covered to the last mountaintop with a flood, what happened to the water that would have had to have receded?

Anthony Docimo

Thomas Harris Nat.Geo.Channel tried making a disaster special series, and one episode asked how people would handle a world-covering flood in the next few centuries...which required figuring out how to get enough water to actually cover everything (hint: even melting every bit of ice and snow on the planet didn't help enough)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"For ancient humans, a "global" flood would likely be one experienced over a large region."

Any large region would have had borders of land around it.

Hence, it would not have seemed as a global one.

"When they later compared takes with other people, the story probably grew as they encountered what we're originally separate tales, without regard to time frame."

While chronology is among the first victims of a garbled tradition, we are dealing with centuries or millennia - not with the probable (on uniformitarian views) time distance between two large regional floods.

" The logical question would be is that, with us currently having 2/3 of the planet covered in water, if the planet has at one time been covered to the last mountaintop with a flood, what happened to the water that would have had to have receded?"

If you hadn't checked, Creationists, we do have an answer.

Mountains were less high, seas less deep, after the Flood the water receded into deeper seas from higher land of which our mountains are the bulges.

"which required figuring out how to get enough water to actually cover everything (hint: even melting every bit of ice and snow on the planet didn't help enough)"

See, God is never more destroying THE WHOLE EARTH by water.

Apart from rainbow, there are Alps, Andes, Himalayas and several somwhat lower regions which cannot be actually flooded.

Thomas Harris

You are going to believe, however the science as we have it is at a variance with the science as we have it. There is correspondingly no explanation as to where so much water may have drained. That being said, there is a morality lesson, actually several, behind the flood myths. Those reasons are ready why the Flood narrative is perennial, and will continue to be.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There is correspondingly no explanation as to where so much water may have drained."

Didn't you read?

• A) there wasn't so much water during Flood, since mountains were flatter and seas shallower;
• B) at end of Flood, tectonic movements deepened seas and raised up mountains and that is why the water went into the now deeper seas.

Of course, if you imagine Mt Everest and Mariana Trench as same height and depth as pre-Flood, you won't have a theory, but that is not how we Creationists do it ...

"That being said, there is a morality lesson, actually several, behind the flood myths."

Actually, the largest difference between Genesis and some Sumerian and Akkadian versions is in opposed morality.

Anthony Docimo

Hans-Georg Lundahl of course God can't destroy the whole world by water -- flooding the surface of the Earth, no matter how high the mountains are, is like painting an onion: it only touches one or two thin layers of the whole.

also, what drove the mountains to abruptly become higher post-Flood? (or did they? one of your posts says they did, another post says they didn't)

>opposed morality wha? nope, the Noah figure in the Sumerian and Akkadian versions also was favored by a god.

Hans-Georg Lundahl >Any large region would have had borders of land around it.
>Hence, it would not have seemed as a global one.
if I live in Broze Age Central Europe or Mesopotamia, and my kingdom floods, as do my neighboring kingdoms...do you honestly think I'm going to say "well, I'd better see if Norway and India are submerged as well?" or do you think I'll say "yep, this is the drowning of all the world"?

or are you pissed at the Roman and Greek writers for saying that Caesar or Alexander conquered the world - yet went nowhere near the Americas or subSaharan Africa?

Thomas Harris

By what we know of the life of mountains, they do not start low-lying, but younger mountains tend to be larger, higher, steeper like the Himalayas and Rockies and become shorter as erosion occurs... And none of them rising and falling will be uniform with others. Again, what we understand of geology doesn't match your theory. The story isn't present for science, however, but for ethical teaching.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Anthony Docimo which of my posts said mountains did NOT become higher after Flood?

Being a man who is favoured by Enki who wants to save men from his angry brother Enlil with a headache is totally different from being favoured by the same God who judges evil as evil and favours one because he is good.

"if I live in Broze Age Central Europe or Mesopotamia, and my kingdom floods, as do my neighboring kingdoms...do you honestly think I'm going to say "well, I'd better see if Norway and India are submerged as well?" or do you think I'll say "yep, this is the drowning of all the world"?"

If you don't reach an edge which is NOT flooded, how do you survive to tell the story?

A Classic in the context would be the Black Sea Flood - some evolutionists consider it the real life model for the Flood.

So, all of what is now Black Sea was a deep valley and it got flooded. Water obviously ended somewhere and if anyone lived in the valley, they got to the edges - and could see the Flood was not over all of the Earth.

I've heard carbon date for Black Sea Flood is 6000 BC, which puts it after Babel, perhaps still in the days of Peleg and part of what divided the whole earth (I suppose he could have lived to see both confusion of tongues when very small, sinking of Atlantis and cutting off of Americas when somewhat bigger and Black Sea Flood when old).

Thomas Harris "they do not start low-lying, but younger mountains tend to be larger, higher, steeper like the Himalayas and Rockies and become shorter as erosion occurs..."

As far as we know, Himalayas and Rockies and everything like that can be a post-Flood feature.

God either does a new act or reuses one of those leading to Flood to do some serious tectonic wrinkling.

Bonus, the wet ground gets more vertical, meaning it drains off and dries out faster.

Your other observations are about current theories of how and when diverse mountains formed, which theories do not take the Bible into account.

Thomas Harris

You are correct, they do not take the Bible into account.

Anthony Docimo

Hans-Georg Lundahl if I don't survive and reach the unflooded lands of India and Norway, how do I transmit the story? (that is what you asked, yes?)...simple: same way as Noah: I wait for the flooding to receede...same as the Katrina victims in the US or flood victims anywhere else in the world today.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look, Katrina victims could watch landmarks.

They could watch ground through the waters.

They did not think just bc New Orleans was flooded that Appalachians or Rockies were too.

Black Sea Flood did not recede, there is still the Black Sea, and that is one I was talking about.

Thomas Harris

So your theory is solely about the flooding of the area now occupied by the Black Sea? I've heard that they before.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The other type of Floods would be too shallow.

Black Sea Flood you reach a shore, Katrina type too shallow, leaves world wide.

Anthony Docimo

Hans-Georg Lundahl assuming you were *trying* to reach a shore during a massive flood...boats back then were circular coracles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look here. In a massive Flood remaining in place, as Black Sea flood, whether you try to reach shore or not, the only survival is actually reaching it.

In a Katrina type Flood, you see land through the fairly shallow water and you see landmarks.

Anthony Docimo

Hans-Georg Lundahl there are plenty of valleys in the US, Britain, and elsewhere, where entire cities and towns have been flooded (and haven't unflooded)...and you can't see the landmarks or buildings from the water surface.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In a flooded valley, you can see surrounding mountains during Flood.

And when the thing hasn't unflooded, you need to get to shore, outside flood area to survive;

Anthony Docimo

Hans-Georg Lundahl really? because I've been in a lot of valleys that were big enough that nobody could see the surrounding mountains.

and if you don't know where shore is, how do you get there? (and if you genuinely believe everything is flooded, why do you bother paddling?)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, would you like to share where, so I can check?

And, one more, would you like to state where in the Old World such a scenario could apply, esp. near Ancient Middle East?

And if the valley was too big to see surrounding mountains, how did it get flooded?

Anthony Docimo

Hans-Georg Lundahl how did it get flooded? IT RAINED.

Hans-Georg Lundahl of the top of my head, I know it happened in England, Turkey, Egypt...and in a region as flood-prone as the Fertile Cresent...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Of the top of your head : where and when in England, Turkey, Egypt and Fertile Crescent?

I mean, Fertile Crescent as a whole is a bit too wide to contain a regional Flood.

The problem is not how the water came to a broad valley, the problem is, if the valley was not narrow, how come it didn't drain off before becoming a Flood (with the criteria you stated that landmarks on the ground are under water and mountains surrounding valey too far off to see)?

Anthony Docimo

Hans-Georg Lundahl if the Fertile Cresent doesn't count as a region, then please define "regional".

also, the Nasser Dam, Egypt; almost any Turkish and English dam that required the evacuation of villages and cities.

and not all valleys are narrow...yet they do not stop being valleys capable of being overwhelmed by water.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My problem is not whether Fertile Crescent is a region.

My problem is how you get walls around a whole valley in all of it so the valley can be Flooded?

As far as I know Fertile Crescent is not bounded on all sides by mountain.

"and not all valleys are narrow"

Less narrow, less chance of valley being bounded on all sides.

You still have no exact examples.

And the Black Sea Flood (in my view a post-Flood regional Flood) was flooded, sure enough, but the Flood was never receding. Anyone caught in it EITHER reached the shore OR died.

Anthony Docimo

oh for f sake...low-lying ground doesn't always need mountains per se - just higher ground. for someone who wants us to consider Neandertals one of the Adamic Races, its strange that you're having difficulty on comprehension.

I cited Lake Nasser, as well as mentioned the multiple damed-ed up valleys of England, Turkey, and the USA.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Anthony Docimo ".low-lying ground doesn't always need mountains per se - just higher ground"

I have no problem with that.

Except, if the higher ground all around is LESS pointed than mountains, the Flood is not likely to end - see Black Sea - which means in order to survive and tell a story, you need a shore to get to.

Forgot Nasser dam ... but isn't it manmade and therefore one of the higher "grounds" around it a deliberate construction?

"almost any Turkish and English dam that required the evacuation of villages and cities."

Or Spanish, I have seen the one at Jaca.

Now, again, the "higher ground" at one end is a dam.

And, it is NOT so big you can't see landmarks from middle of the dam.

"for someone who wants us to consider Neandertals one of the Adamic Races, its strange that you're having difficulty on comprehension."

You are free to your opinion, I have stated mine.

You are free to call Neanderthal and Cro Magnon children "hybrids" and I'll stick to half caste.

You have not so far cited one single flooding which could realistically have:

• BOTH been so big a coracle floating above it couldn't see shores or landmarks beyond
• AND so temporary one could survive on top until it abated
• AND NOT made by other men who could have told the story of the dam.

Anthony Docimo

if the water isn't likely to go away, then how do the Flooded Forests of the Amazon only have fish in the branches for *half* the year? and how do Katrina and other flooded cities and farmlands manage to not be waterlogged forever and ever, once they get hit with too much water once?

the dam itself at Lake Nasser is artificial, the rest is not. (and the higher ground at one end is a dam in the easy to remember examples, not in the only examples)

please stop moving the goalposts -- you asked for instances of valleys that flooded, then for valleys that had no visible edges or bottoms, and now you're asking for temporary ones and nonmanmade ones.

just admit that you're pleading special circumstance, or I'll have to ask you for references and citations proving this Great Flood Over All The World you're claiming. (and the Bible doesn't count)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"if the water isn't likely to go away, then how do the Flooded Forests of the Amazon only have fish in the branches for *half* the year?"

Flooded Forests are likely to have landmarks visible. = NOT your scenario.

"and how do Katrina and other flooded cities and farmlands manage to not be waterlogged forever and ever, once they get hit with too much water once?"

New Orleans under Katrina had landmarks visible = NOT your scenario.

I am not moving the goalposts. I am keeping together the criteria which you need together for someone to suffer a Flood which was not universal and to think (after surviving it) that it was.

You keep shuffling between one criterium and the other, always forgetting your last one while answering the problem with it by some other example.

"the dam itself at Lake Nasser is artificial, the rest is not"

Each time that a dam is built (you mentioned more than just Lake Nasser) it is manmade.

"references and citations proving this Great Flood Over All The World you're claiming. (and the Bible doesn't count)"

So, the Bible doesn't count for non-Christians.

I'd say EVERY Flood legend around the world does count.

As a reference, if not in each case an infallible one.

If "a reference" is all you want, the Genesis account should be as fine as Deucalion and Pyrrha or Norse myth or Peruvian or Siberian myths.

If Bible is even lower than these, you are biassed against the Bible.

Also, in fact, at least somewhat, against universal human tradition, even outside the Bible.

Thomas Harris

Just a note, you're still dealing with biblical mythology. I'd like to hear more about the language you are theorising about.

Anthony Docimo

Hans-Georg Lundahl every dam is manmade? boy are the beavers going to be pissed.

I'm answering your questions and the questions you dodge - as below. (also, not all the flooded cities in the US and elsewhere needed a dam - just plenty of water)

you asked how the water level could possibly drop -- so I mentioned the Flooded Forests....landmarks don't matter as to whether or not a place can drain the water.

you're engaged in whats called Special Pleading - you ask for an answer about how your scenario deals with one thing, but then say that it isn't applicable because the answer doesn't apply to a different aspect of the scenario. (by which logic, your Flood scenario is moot because the ark was supposed to be circular)

I'm not biased against the Bible - I'm asking you for outside references, so yes I should have said none of the references could be any mythical source.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thomas Harris If you noted my status, you'd know that, so would I.

Quoting self:

// any hebraist who'd like to work out a Neanderthal Hebrew for pre-Flood times?

I would not be able to appreciate it, since I can't speak or read Hebrew, but I suppose some I know who do, would. //

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Anthony Docimo "you asked how the water level could possibly drop -- so I mentioned the Flooded Forests....landmarks don't matter as to whether or not a place can drain the water."

The problem is you are at each moment pleading for ONE of the criteria you need being possible.

I am asking you to provide a scenario for ALL you need.

Beaver dams were not the issue, and they are damming too little water to matter. In THIS context.

Why do you need *huge* areas flooded? Otherwise landmarks around will be visible, no way to imagine the flood was universal.

Why do you need water to *drain* ? Otherwise you need to get to the coast to tell the story, no way for survivors to imagine the flood was universal.

Why are *both* (outside manmade dams) difficult? Because the wider area flooded, the wider obstacles for the water you need. In Amazonas, I suppose the trees are the obstacles providing half year floods - also very visible landmarks, also no way for a survivor to take the flood as world wide.

Why are *manmade* dams out of play? Whoever made and drained the dam would be mightier and better placed to impose the story than whoever survided the dam flooding.

You are pleading, in reality for a difficult combination, but you are each time pleading only for one of the things in it.

Anthony Docimo "yes I should have said none of the references could be any mythical source."

Texts you don't count as mythical start with Ebla tablets.

Long texts, not protoliterate, that is.

And in my recalibration of carbon 14, Ebla tablets are less than 2000 years BC when starting. A bit after Joseph.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thomas Harris Could we take this in a separate subthread? [see VI on next part]

Anthony Docimo

why do the Elba Tablets not count as mythical?

>You are pleading, in reality for a difficult combination, but you are each time pleading only for one of the things in it.

No, I am answering *your* fecking questions, *as*you*ask*them*.

you asked "but how can a valley fill up if it isn't narrow?" So I answered that.

You asked "but how can water drain out of a place?" implying that water, once arrived in a place, can never leave. So I answered that.

So I'm going to play by your rules now: The Great Biblical Flood never happened - the Bible itself says so, in that it gives two accounts of what happened. Also, it contradicts other Flood Myths.

ps: beavers have been known to dam up lakes that can be seen from space - if you're on a boat in the middle of *taht*, you're not going to see land in any direction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl this is a separate subthread.

Hans-Georg Lundahl there used to be a question on exams, that went like this: "Define 'universe' and give two examples." (or "define platypus...") That is, in essense, what you are doing -- you are shooting down examples and things that match one or two aspects of a Great Flood (shot on the basis that they don't match every aspect), and in the process, you are making me *less* inclined to believe in a Great Flood, because you are convincing me that the only way to believe in a Great Flood is to be in a Great Flood...that a person cannot mentally conceptualize what a Great Flood is (lake nasser + amazon flooded forest + etc = Flood) because nothing short of a Great Flood is like a Great Flood in any way, you're saying.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"No, I am answering *your* fecking questions, *as*you*ask*them*."

And in each answer forgetting to include how what your previous answer stated applies to the new answer.

Anthony Docimo "the Bible itself says so, in that it gives two accounts of what happened."

Nice, how about stating how the accounts contradict, if they do?

Anthony Docimo "You asked "but how can water drain out of a place?" implying that water, once arrived in a place, can never leave. So I answered that."

In context the question was applicable to when water was flooding so widely that the ramparts around are fairly solid.

Amazonas could have counted if the obstacle - semi-porous - had not been trees, therefore visible landmark.

You have a great ingenuity for each problem separately, but so far no scenario meeting all problems together.

Oh, wait ... "beavers have been known to dam up lakes that can be seen from space - if you're on a boat in the middle of *taht*, you're not going to see land in any direction."

Could be an item ... provide a link to story?

Anthony Docimo As to "this is a separate subthread," I was adressing Harris who wanted to discuss my language proposal in OP. This subthread has now been pretty much dedicated to your debunking of mythical accounts as evidence for universal Flood, and more precisely, because a large Flood would have sufficed.

Beavers built a dam, lake was visible from space (if there had been rockets or to angels), someone caught in the middle thought all the world was flooded, beavers' dam broke so he survived without reaching the shore, former lake bottom was muddy for how long? How did a wind quickly dry it, if it was not a miracle?

And, WHERE could this have happened so that the story could have spread in the Old World from there?

Also, how are beavers' dams sufficiently deep to make lake bottom invisible from surface?

I don't think beavers build much more than 30 or 60 feet high ... and if it was deeper somewhere in the middle, it must have been a lake independently of beavers' dam before and after flood.

No, that scenario is also not very good.

Anthony Docimo "because you are convincing me that the only way to believe in a Great Flood is to be in a Great Flood...that a person cannot mentally conceptualize what a Great Flood is (lake nasser + amazon flooded forest + etc = Flood) because nothing short of a Great Flood is like a Great Flood in any way, you're saying."

I am saying any less than world wide Flood would have been

• EITHER physically impossible
• OR impossible to go on taking for world wide once you had survived it and done a little basic fact checking.

You have given scenarii which are not physically impossible, but where someone surviving would not have taken the past experience for a world wide Flood - as we see in so many Flood legends.

And you have outlined conditions for taking a non-world wide Flood as world wide which do not correspond to these physically possible scenarii, and in so far as you have given any scenarii, they seem to me to imply the physically IMpossible.

Anthony Docimo "why do the Elba Tablets not count as mythical?"

They are diplomacy from the days when Amorrheans were mighty.

King so and so of Ebla invites the new king of Babylon (which Amorrheans founded some way further East) for a dinner party to discuss who is vassal of who and who will marry whose daughter.

THAT sort of thing.

Sure, they are narrative references which will NOT include the Flood as worldwide, for the simple reason they were post-Flood.

Unless you BOTH take the Flood as 2400 BC (as Kent Hovind does) and carbon dates for Ebla tablets (not the clay, but some surrounding stuff) as accurately reflecting they started in 2400 BC (as uniformitarians do).

I do neither, I take Flood as 2957 BC (carbon date 40 000 BP, as per Neanderthal démise) and the carbon date 2400 BC as reflecting a real date of later than 1700 BC.

Anthony Docimo

Hans-Georg Lundahl "if they do" contradict? off the top of my head:

• length of time it was raining, vs how long the world was flooded.
• number of each animal (one account said a single number for everything, the other account said two numbers - one for clean and one for unclean)

Hans-Georg Lundahl actually, not all of the trees are the same height, so some naturalists and show hosts (like Jack Hanna if you need a name) have run motorboats through parts of the Flooded Forest, without seeing any trees or anything other than the backs of dolphins and manatees.

could I provide a link...to what, half of PBS's and the BBC's documentaries? :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl "You have given scenarii which are not physically impossible, but where someone surviving would not have taken the past experience for a world wide Flood - as we see in so many Flood legends."

except for two problems:

• 1. pretty much all the Flood legends don't actually say "global flood"...they say "flood" or "great flood"
• 2. look at the people who were called the rulers of the world - "I am Assurnassurpal, Lord of the Four Corners" (aka ruler of all the world)...though you wouldn't say he ruled every continent.
  
  .....or Alexander The Great, credited with conquering the world.

Hans-Georg Lundahl "I am saying any less than world wide Flood would have been
"* EITHER physically impossible "

....which makes an actually worldwide Flood physically impossible.

"* OR impossible to go on taking for world wide once you had survived it and done a little basic fact checking."

Fact-checking?? and exactly how do you do that IN THE BRONZE AGE? they couldn't call up someone in the other side of the world - or even someone on the other end of their continent - and ask them "hey, dude, did you just have a flood?"

>"They are diplomacy from the days when Amorrheans were mighty."

the who?

and the Neandertals were still around and kicking in the 30,000-35,000 year range, so your Flood is oddly placed. (is it like those species that survived the Permian Extinction, yet failed to make it all the way to the Jurassic?)

>You have a great ingenuity for each problem separately, but so far no scenario meeting all problems together."

because all of them together would be A Great Flood...and God promised not to do that again. I thought that was obvious. :)

"Beavers built a dam, lake was visible from space (if there had been rockets or to angels),"

I'm beginning to think you're trolling. you asked for artificial non-manmade lakes that were big enough to not see the sides...I replied that some were big enough to be seen from space........NOT because you have to see them from there, but because YOU CAN'T SEE THE EDGES ANYWHERE WHEN YOU'RE AFLOAT!

>"And in each answer forgetting to include how what your previous answer stated applies to the new answer."

normally, in human and neandertal conversation, new questions want answers that apply to the new question. if I ask you "can mammals lay eggs?" and my follow-up question is "what birds are flightless?" you might try to answer the second with an answer that applies to both...but thats not what I'm asking for.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"length of time it was raining,"

chapter 7 : 40 days
chapter 8 : flood gates of heaven were shut up and the rain was restrained

solution : initial rain for 40 days, later more rains keeping up the water level, chapter 8 speaks of when they were stopped

"vs how long the world was flooded."

And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.
And the waters returned from off the earth going and coming: and they began to be abated after a hundred and fifty days.

Not a contradiction, but identity. Waters prevailing and waters beginning to be abated are two different stages.

"number of each animal"

One can solve it by one account stating initial arrival of animals and another including an extra arrival of clean ones.

Or one can solve it by first account meaning "at least two".

"not all of the trees are the same height, so some naturalists and show hosts (like Jack Hanna if you need a name) have run motorboats through parts of the Flooded Forest"

I wonder how many places in the Old World could look the same.

"pretty much all the Flood legends don't actually say "global flood"...they say "flood" or "great flood""

Apart from Chinese one, I don't think so. "Global" is not a word much used in old sources, before it was settled knowledge the earth was round.

"look at the people who were called the rulers of the world - "I am Assurnassurpal, Lord of the Four Corners" (aka ruler of all the world)...though you wouldn't say he ruled every continent. .....or Alexander The Great, credited with conquering the world."

Great point - if you can show me a scenario in which Assurnassurpal's or Alexander's Empires could have been temporarily flooded.

Because that wide land can be called the "world" doesn't mean a narrow valley in the Alps can.

"which makes an actually worldwide Flood physically impossible."

No. Flooding all of the globe is the ONLY way in which you could Flood all of Assurnassurpal's or all of Alexander's Empire.

"Fact-checking?? and exactly how do you do that IN THE BRONZE AGE?"

You come down with a boat after a local Flood resides. You step over mud for hours and days - and come to a somewhat higher place which is not muddy. THEN you meet some other people who were not themselves flooded.

If they caused the flood by building a dam, they meet you and won't be impressed with your believing the world was flooded when they were standing at the other side of the dam.

Easy as pie. Any physically possible and non-global Flood would have left fact checking a very local business, before you came out of the Flooded zone.

"the who?"

Wikipedia : Amorites
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorites

Amorrhéens in French made me think it was Amorrheans in English. Some did the opposite error, translating "Amorrhites" in French.

"and the Neandertals were still around and kicking in the 30,000-35,000 year range, so your Flood is oddly placed."

When is the latest Neanderthal carbon dated to?

Either way, a carbon level at 2957 BC which will misdate to 35 000 BP is not very far from one which will misdate to 40 000 BP. Both are very low levels.

"is it like those species that survived the Permian Extinction, yet failed to make it all the way to the Jurassic?"

These aren't carbon dated. There is no real proof that the Permian was earlier than the Jurassic, both can have been ecosystems of diverse types.

"normally, in human and neandertal conversation, new questions want answers that apply to the new question."

Normally, when two questions belong together, one requires first answer to stay applicable to second answer.

Anthony Docimo

Hans-Georg Lundahl the Permian and Jurassic aren't carbon-dated? fossils from them ARE ALWAYS carbon-dated. thats how we know the Permian came first.

(but then, I suppose you and your grandfather had your boyhoods at the same time as well)

Hans-Georg Lundahl >"You come down with a boat after a local Flood resides. You step over mud for hours and days - and come to a somewhat higher place which is not muddy. THEN you meet some other people who were not themselves flooded."

so, rather than build a new home, keep your family from starving, dying from thirst or exposure...you'd just go wandering until you ran out of land to walk on? (and probably die of thirst or starvation or exposure in the process)

>"Great point - if you can show me a scenario in which Assurnassurpal's or Alexander's Empires could have been temporarily flooded." Sure I can WHEN YOU FINALLY START LISTENING.

>"Or one can solve it by first account meaning "at least two"."

Well of course "two of all animals" means "at least two"....thats why when your doctor tells you to take two pills, and you take at least two pills....oh wait, thats called an overdose.

>"initial rain for 40 days, later more rains keeping up the water level,"

so, in other words, when it says it rained for 40 days, it lied?

>"And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days."

nope, thats not 40.

Hans-Georg Lundahl >"I wonder how many places in the Old World could look the same."

And I'm wondering how you found out about the Flood or the Neandertals, given your utter terror at looking things up with libraries, google, or any other method. Seriously, not even thirty seconds on Google showed me "The Wet" in Australia, and the Okovango in Africa - imagine what you could find IF YOU FECKING TRIED!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"so, rather than build a new home, keep your family from starving, dying from thirst or exposure...you'd just go wandering until you ran out of land to walk on? (and probably die of thirst or starvation or exposure in the process)"

Come on, some context.

Flood just resided, no miraculous wind drying land in your scenario, the boat is on mud, it's where you are that is dangerous.

"Well of course "two of all animals" means "at least two"....thats why when your doctor tells you to take two pills, and you take at least two pills....oh wait, thats called an overdose."

All texts are not medical prescriptions. Also, there can have been "new arrangements" after Noah asked "wait a minute, I'd like to sacrifice a livestock afterwards, and if there are just two on the ark, I'd make the kind go extinct" - and God replying "OK, take seven (individuals or couples) of the pure ones, here are five/twelve more". You cherrypicked the interpretation which would imply inexactitude.

"so, in other words, when it says it rained for 40 days, it lied?"

No, the 40 days were continuous rain.

"nope, thats not 40."

The 150 days come after the 40.

"And I'm wondering how you found out about the Flood or the Neandertals, given your utter terror at looking things up with libraries, google, or any other method."

Thanks for adding seriously, next sentence. It was a joke, right?

"Seriously, not even thirty seconds on Google showed me "The Wet" in Australia, and the Okovango in Africa - imagine what you could find IF YOU FECKING TRIED!"

What was the search?

I'll look up The Wet and Okovango, of course.

"the Permian and Jurassic aren't carbon-dated?"

Not routinely, no.

"fossils from them ARE ALWAYS carbon-dated."

Make it hardly ever. Only creationists, as in Young Earth Creationists bother to carbon date Permian or Jurassic fossils.

"thats how we know the Permian came first."

No, we don't know it, and that's not how your scientists argue to think they know it either.

Make a google search on "geologic column".

Anthony Docimo

Hans-Georg Lundahl >" Also, there can have been "new arrangements" after Noah asked "wait a minute, I'd like to sacrifice a livestock afterwards, and if there are just two on the ark, I'd make the kind go extinct" - and God replying "OK, take seven (individuals or couples) of the pure ones, here are five/twelve more". You cherrypicked the interpretation which would imply inexactitude."

*snickers* you fool - thats why there are no more unicorns...its not that they missed the ark, but that they were the sacrifice. (its not unheard of: the Coat Of Many Colors was one of the only two Leviathans)

>"Only creationists, as in Young Earth Creationists bother to carbon date Permian or Jurassic fossils."

alllllright then, I'll ask you what I asked the last person who claimed that sort of thing: how many centuries have your children been dead?

I'm not going to use an adult website, because that might have words of too great a difficulty for you...so here's a simpler explanation:

DETERMINING AGE OF ROCKS AND FOSSILS
FRANK K. MCKINNEY
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/McKinney.html

>"What was the search?"

It doesn't matter, because I found answers EVERY TIME I TRIED.

>"Come on, some context.
>"Flood just resided, no miraculous wind drying land in your scenario, the boat is on mud, it's where you are that is dangerous."

nope. the Flood just ended, so there is no food except what you have in your Ark. why are you going to abandon your family and your ark and the animals and plants that GOD ENTRUSTED TO YOU...to go slogging through untold miles and kilometers of mud??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"*snickers* you fool - thats why there are no more unicorns...its not that they missed the ark, but that they were the sacrifice. (its not unheard of: the Coat Of Many Colors was one of the only two Leviathans)"

Triceratops horridus may or may not have chewed the cud, but had too many digits per foot to be pure. That's the unicorn and the monster in what is now Tarascon may have been a Triceratops or a Stegosaurus.

Leviathan would have been a mega croc.

"alllllright then, I'll ask you what I asked the last person who claimed that sort of thing: how many centuries have your children been dead?"

None. I don't have any yet. I do not know how this is relevant to Permian and Jurassic not being (conventionally) carbon dated.

Permian and Jurassic are thought to be more than 100 000 years ago, conventionally.

On Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

I put in 100 000 in years, push calculate and get Carbon 14 left = NaN percent

Confer 100 years, 1000 years, 10 000 years: 98.798, 88.606, 29.829 percent carbon 14 left.

Permian 299–252 million years ago (rounding).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian
Jurassic 201–145 million years ago (also rounding)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic

145 million > 100 000. NOT carbon dated.

Only creationists, who think Permian and Jurassic are from the Flood are likely to carbon date Permian and Jurassic fossils.

"I'm not going to use an adult website, because that might have words of too great a difficulty for you..."

Thanks for that one ...

"so here's a simpler explanation"

Have you searched the page for phrases "carbon 14", "carbon dating" or "carbon dated"? They are NOT THERE.

I copy pasted entire text to a note pad and did a search. I did find by eyesight U(some isotope) and Pb(some isotope). That method is not carbon dating and cannot be checked for relative accuracy against history for very recent dates, unlike carbon dating.

"It doesn't matter, because I found answers EVERY TIME I TRIED."

Look, I was asking you what was the search. If I search "Galileo and Lepanto" I bet I will not find it.

" the Flood just ended, so there is no food except what you have in your Ark. why are you going to abandon your family and your ark and the animals and plants that GOD ENTRUSTED TO YOU...to go slogging through untold miles and kilometers of mud??"

I was not talking about the Biblical scenario, but about the scenario you propose instead.

If there was just a natural flood, if it ended so the one on a for instance coracle came to what had been covered by water, there would have been little food left and walking across mud would have been the way (if any at all) to survive.

Not to mention that sooner or later they would be meeting people from outside the flooded area.

Neanderthal Flute

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Neanderthal's Language · Creation vs. Evolution : Neanderthal - speculations and certainty · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Neanderthal Pre- or Post-Flood? Me and Roger Pearlman ... · Neanderthal Flute · Neanderthals as Elves and Trolls and as Pre-Flood · Elves, Trolls, Pre-Flood - Continued

Hans-Georg Lundahl

July 11 at 7:59 PM

How great or small is the probability that Divje Babe bone flute was made by Neanderthals?

AC

I would say that the chances of the Divje Babe "flute" being a Neandertal instrument are slim to none. Francesco d'Errico and April Nowell published a paper where they studied this artifact taphonomically and found that the holes in the bone are actually carnivore punctures. Unfortunately, we do not have any evidence of Neandertals creating instruments in the same way that Upper Paleolithic Modern Humans did. I'm not saying it's impossible or that they were incapable, but it's more like that Neandertals either expressed their musical interests vocally or with other form of noise-making (such as drumming on perishable items or on skin), which may not have left traces in the archaeological record.

RT

The Slovenian team have done lots of work since then and it looks like there might well be Neanderthal working marks as well as hyena chewing. There’s no solid proof it was used as a flute but it might have been. We will probably never know for sure.

AC

Do you have a citation for some of the work you are referring to? I’d be interested in seeing what they have to say. So far, I’m inclined to believe that at the very least, it is not a flute, but I am interested to see what kind of markings might also be present! 🙂 Thank you in advance.

RT

At the ICTM Study Group on Music Archaeology conference in Slovenia in 2017 many papers covered the bone. When reconstructed it can be played as a flute. Whether it was or not is another matter. I suggest you could start with the conference programme here:

Glazba v kameni dobi / Music in the Stone Age
https://iza2.zrc-sazu.si/sites/default/files/glasba-v-kameni-dobi-knjizica.pdf

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How do they say in Slovenian, RT? Hvala?

In English, it is thanks!

RT and AC will have names disclosed if they so wish.

Neanderthal Pre- or Post-Flood? Me and Roger Pearlman ...

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Neanderthal's Language · Creation vs. Evolution : Neanderthal - speculations and certainty · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Neanderthal Pre- or Post-Flood? Me and Roger Pearlman ... · Neanderthal Flute · Neanderthals as Elves and Trolls and as Pre-Flood · Elves, Trolls, Pre-Flood - Continued

Hans Georg Lundahl

[shared Neanderthal's Language]

Roger Pearlman

[Liked]

Nice. Per RCCF framework, the Neanderthal associated with The ice age lived post Mabul global flood year, but may have shared features w/ pre-diluvial man.

Most of the cave formation was not prior to that 1656 anno mundi impacts year.year.

The ice ages ending about 1996 340 post Mabul impacts year that caused The ice age to set in,

Either way most born re 1996 anno mundi confusion of the languages so optimal design was for Hebrew and Aramaic.

reminds me how most were lactose intolerant pre Mabul as the vegetation more nutritious pre start of radiation build.

also we were bigger framed as matured slower, lived longer.. so wisdom teeth problems now are due to degraded atmosphere and devolution..

Hans Georg Lundahl

The reason why Neanderthal is pre-Flood is this.

Imagine you had a person with curly hair, brown skin, except palms, dark hair- and eye-colours, thick lips and broad, short nose.

Imagine that person had NO Black African Y-chromosome and NO Black African mitochondrial DNA.

What would that person be?

Well, a woman (who has no Y-chromosome at all) whose father was Black African and whose mother was NOT so, but for instance White European and who therefore had White European some type of mitochrondrial DNA would do.

Such a person is of course less typical than a person who is either purely White European or purely Black African.

In what situatio would such an untypical DNA setup be generalised?

In a bottleneck.

Now, the Ark was the most bottle-neck bottle-neck there was and we have in post-Flood world some Neanderthal alleles going around, but NO Neanderthal Y chromosomes and NO Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA.

Ergo, our Neanderthal alleles come via a daughter in law of Noah whose father was Neanderthal, but whose mother was as Cro-Magnon as Noah.

Roger Pearlman

That could be and the Neanderthal washed up in the caves, that were mostly non-existent till the mabul and Ice Ages that followed.

It could also be they are a breed /s of Grandchild/grandchildren of Noach . also many of their features may just be due to lower entropy rates during the mabul.

the joke is on those who claim we are 98% similar to apes but 4% similar to Neanderthal.

when we measure the 4% it is based on ____ it may be that is the average we share w/ other dead lines from grandchildren of Noach in relation to us. But those that dd not die out had more chances to mix back into our lines.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"That could be and the Neanderthal washed up in the caves, that were mostly non-existent till the mabul and Ice Ages that followed."

We don't know caves were non-extant previous to Flood.

Also, according to Josephus, there was a smaller Flood before Noah's Flood and it left the Mediterranean behind, so if caves are Flood products, they could be from the earlier Flood.

Or Noah could have gone around burying Neanderthals in caves ...

The problem with having Neanderthal's as dead lines after Noah is not just that the Y chromosome and mitochondria of El Sidrón are gone, don't exist anywhere, as said, but also that mainly all grandchildren of Noah left extant lines (these are not all the nations, but many nations later were founded by splitting off or by mixing)

Hans Georg Lundahl

[Share Neanderthals - speculation and certainty]

Roger Pearlman

[Liked]

Prayers that Repeat, For the Dead and Matthew 28 - with PM

Status

Skipping

some to get down to this following subthread:

PM

HGL

What translation is that?

PM

KJV

HGL

Burn it.

Here is Douay Rheims:

[7] And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.

PM

HGL yeah, I've heard about that rheims version. The KJV is much better

HGL

In this verse, it is mistranslating.

Multiloquium and battologein don't mean repetition or repeat.

PM

HGL

HGL

In the Bible, battologein is a hapax.

This means that the meaning given (in Strong?) is more or less his guess, and that guess might be influenced by his KJV or Protestant bias.

PM

HGL you would be wise to trust the KJV

[Psalm 12:6, 7 - text of his Bible references, see below.]

HGL

There is nothing in that word which points to KJV over Catholic Church.

PM

HGL unfortunately the Catholic Church listens to fallible priests who constantly change their minds rather than Gods eternal word.

HGL

The Catholic Church precisely refused to do so with a fallible priest called Martin Luther.

PM

HGL Martin Luther regarded Gods word the way one should. He didn't buy into man made doctrines like purgatory.

HGL

II Maccabees 12 says there are people who need some kind of redemption from sins after death.

Assume this is not inspired, nevertheless it was at least an opinion in Second Temple Judaism (it is also prevalent in Rabbinic Judaism).

Therefore, if it had been wrong, Christ would have warned against it.

So, you cannot argue from your opinion on purgatory that Luther was right and therefore neither from Luther being right to KJV being right rather than the Catholic Church.

PM

HGL and that's a great reason Macabees isn't scripture. No one can ever pay a ransom to redeem a persons soul. Neither does such a place exist

[Psalm 49:7 - 9]

HGL

Supposing you were right on interpreting this psalm, the Maccabee era priests would have done a mistake, and since no one else were correcting them (except Sadducees going to far by denying resurrection altogether), Jesus should have done so.

This is equally true if Maccabees is not scripture.

Unless you are willing to pretend it is also fake history.

As I look up the psalm with Challoner comments, the ransom here alluded to would be:

• a ransom to not have to die (good reason against Rob Skiba's idea Nimrod and Mark of the Beast mean physical immortality)
• or a ransom for the damned

As Catholics agree there is no ransom for this, it seems the psalm in question is not a good proof text against purgatory, and definitely not as good as II Maccabees (even if non-Scripture) is for it.

Also, you have a Matthew 28-problem.

Roman Catholics pray for the dead (not for the damned collectively or openly for someone who has very reasonable credentials for individually being so, like dying an apostate or even non-Catholic), Greek and Russian etc Orthodox do so (divided on whether prayers are for "airy toll houses" - a one size fits all purgatory - or for judgement after soul sleep or for graces God would have given before he died on prayers said after he died), Copts, Armenians and Nestorians also do so.

Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists and derivatives have no claim at all to go back to Apostolic age, not even a wrong one, and Baptist continuity theory is not a historically reasonable claim.

PM

HGL unfortunately many twist this passage by calling it an allegory and denying it. The sad fact is that there is no holding place for anyone who dies. It's either the presence of Christ or the flames

[Luke 16:22 - 24]

HGL

I am sorry, but purgatory is in the chasm, on the side of Lazarus and Abraham, but not visible to either Abraham and Lazarus or to the Rich.

I have really and truly no need of denying Heaven and Hell, during OT validity Abraham's Bosom in Sheol and Hell, to affirm there is a Purgatory between them. Like Abraham's bosom it was inaccessible to the rich man. Unlike Hell, it was accessible to Abraham and Lazarus.

Perhaps even just before the conversation, Lazarus had just given a cup of water to a soul in Purgatory.

So, change "not visible to either" to "not necessarily visible, or perhaps ignored by both that moment".

PM

HGL absolutely not. There is nothing anywhere in scripture that ever even mentions purgatory. Nowhere. That's made up by the Catholic Church.

HGL

If you mean the technical term "purgatory" agreed, true for "Holy Trinity" too, as you may have discovered in debates with JW.

If you mean the thing, I think I have as much a reason to out line a Luke 16 case for purgatory as you have to make a very bad Luke 16 case against it.

Purgatory does NOT mean "escape clause from Hell". It does not mean "damned can get saved after death".

It means some saved have a waiting room before Abraham's bosom in OT times or Heaven now, which may also be termed Abraham's bosom but is no longer in the Limbus.

Lazarus was not one of them since he had had his purgatory on earth.

Proof texts, well, we take Maccabees and Tobit as Scripture AND 1 Corinthians 3:15, and Matthew 12:31-32.

[32] "Nor in the world to come": From these words St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, lib. 21, c. 13) and St. Gregory (Dialog., 4, c. 39) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and, consequently, that there is a purgatory or a middle place.

It doesn't mean someone who died in mortal sin and got damned can be saved by such forgiveness, so it must mean forgiveness of remaining temporal punishment.

Also, your negative criterium goes against condemning purgatory, since it was a current Jewish thought even if (as you shouldn't) you dismiss II Maccabees and Tobit from canon.

PM

HGL the bosom of Abraham is no longer in use. It was a place in Sheol that the righteous stayed. When Christ arose he emptied it. Now believers go straight to him. Anything else is unbiblical.

[II Cor 5:8]

HGL

I agree the bosom of Abraham in Sheol is emptied.

I do not agree there was no purgatory for anyone then, I do not agree there is not now.

"anything else is unbiblical" - not proven by II Cor 5, since Paul could be talking about his and similar saints who were already having their purgatory on earth - and because purgatory is also not anything like total absence from the Lord.

It's a waiting room to when one is fit to appear before His full glory.

You also still have not adressed your Matthew 28 problem, it is not going away.

___________

The testimony of the early liturgies is in harmony with that of the monuments. Without touching the subject of the various liturgies we possess, without even enumerating and citing them singly, it is enough to say here that all without exception -- Nestorian and Monophysite as well as Catholic, those in Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic as well as those in Greek and Latin -- contain the commemoration of the faithful departed in the Mass, with a prayer for peace, light, refreshment and the like, and in many cases expressly for the remission of sins and the effacement of sinful stains. The following, from the Syriac Liturgy of S.t James, may be quoted as a typical example: "we commemorate all the faithful dead who have died in the true faith...We ask, we entreat, we pray Christ our God, who took their souls and spirits to Himself, that by His many compassions He will make them worthy of the pardon of their faults and the remission of their sins" (Syr. Lit. S. Jacobi, ed. Hammond, p. 75).

_____________

Cited from:

Catholicity : Prayers for the Dead
https://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/d/dead,prayers_for.html

You'd need a Church visibly surviving from Apostles to our day (we cannot check beyond our days to end of the world) which doesn't - and you don't have one.

PM

HGL there is no problem in any of Gods word. Including Matthew 28

HGL

I did not say there is a problem for Christians in Matthew 28, I am saying there is one for Protestants (of all stripes, Lutheran, Baptist or Mormon or any similar).

PM

HGL show me

HGL

You forgot this one? Quoting self from earlier (click see more, if needed):

Also, you have a Matthew 28-problem.

Roman Catholics pray for the dead (not for the damned collectively or openly for someone who has very reasonable credentials for individually being so, like dying an apostate or even non-Catholic), Greek and Russian etc Orthodox do so (divided on whether prayers are for "airy toll houses" - a one size fits all purgatory - or for judgement after soul sleep or for graces God would have given before he died on prayers said after he died), Copts, Armenians and Nestorians also do so.

Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists and derivatives have no claim at all to go back to Apostolic age, not even a wrong one, and Baptist continuity theory is not a historically reasonable claim.

PM

HGL I'm still waiting for you to show me which verse in Matthew 28 is the problem

HGL

Last one. He cannot have said "I am with you LUTHERANS every day (from now on) to the end of time".

And so on for other sects which have risen centuries or more than a millennium after His words.

The "from now on" is implied in present tense rather than future.

[Of His "I am" in the Greek text: Greek and Latin don't say "I have been since" but "I am since" and don't say "I will be from now on to" but "I am on to".]

If you claim Baptist continuity, less theological difficulty directly, but a total disaster in history.

HGL He has to be saying He is with the Church He founded, with one of the churches claiming (with some reason) continuity from that day on to now.

This means, if all of them agree on prayers for the dead, prayers for the dead are a Christian thing.

PM

HGL no offense, but that's one of the poorest points I ever heard. Christ is with each one of his children constantly through the Holy Spirit. No problem there at all.

HGL

"constantly" - even while there were only Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians and Nestorians (or undivided ancestral to each of these) and no one around to dispute prayers for the dead?

Because if yes, you just admitted that prayers for the dead doesn't make you anything other than a Christian.

If no, you have on the other hand admitted some centuries worth of exception to that "constantly" and that is a problem with the verse.

PM

HGL there was never " a time that there was only Catholics" because the apostles themselves never held to catholic doctrine. None of this proves anything

HGL

I know very well that you deny Apostles held Catholic doctrine, that they held Catholic practises (like praying psalms every 150 week, or perhaps as Copts every day even).

So, you simply conclude, so to speak, theologically, a Church like yours must have existed all the time.

Nice, but less easy to document it.

Where was YOUR Church when England was converted by one Augustine who was sent by Pope Gregory, both honoured as Saints?

You see, the Church also cannot exist invisibly all over the world for centuries, especially not while a fake Church is usurping its place in the lives of ignorant Christians.

PM

HGL wrong. The apostles never taught that church leaders should abstain from marriage as the catholic priests do. It's a man made doctrine

[I Tim 4:1 - 3]

HGL

You have not answered the question.

It was not "do you believe the Apostles were Catholics", I obviously know you don't believe that, but IF THE ORIGINAL CHURCH WAS YOURS WHERE WAS IT IN THE TIME OF ST. GREGORY AND ST. AUGUSTINE OF CANTERBURY?

I am sorry I only have caps, I have no means to make it big, so do try to get a good pair of goggles before next time you answer.

I think opticians are open on Saturday unless you happen to live in Holy Land outside Palestinian Authority?

[I can do better on blogger than on FB:]

IF THE ORIGINAL CHURCH WAS YOURS WHERE WAS IT IN THE TIME OF ST. GREGORY AND ST. AUGUSTINE OF CANTERBURY?

PM

HGL unfortunately that's where you're mistaken. The first church was never the organized churches you see now. The original churches began in people's houses

[I Cor 16:19]

HGL

I am very sorry that you seem to be unable to stay on a subject.

No Catholic is denying these house churches.

They were a necessity in times of persecution, since a Cathedral would have been an easy target.

They are also no proof that there was no wider organisation.

They ARE proof that priests can celebrate mass in other areas than cathedrals or parish churches, and that chaplains are a licit thing.

And, this whole question is NOT an answer to where YOUR type of Church was in 597 when St Augustine of Canterbury, ordered by Pope St Gregory the Great, arrived at Thanet.

Or were there no days back then? Or are you a Mormon claiming the true Church survived in Americas, because Jesus had preached there too? Oh, wait ... no, you just tried to twist I Cor 16:19 to a denial of wider organisation.

So, can you identify any man in 597 who would have refused to go to Mass with Pope Gregory or with bishop Augustine but who would have prayed to Christ in his home, without praying for the dead and a few more of the things you object to?

Reminder, the text doesn't say "every one of those days when you guys are around", it says "every day" meaning Christ cannot be absent any single of the 365 days of 597.

PM

HGL very interesting. But unfortunately all this vain chatter doesn't really amount to much. The bottom line is that the Catholic Church never was the first church. Nor does it adhere to Gods Holy word. Rather, it follows made up traditions of fallible men.

HGL

Well, I'll give my bottom line. You prove 500 discrepancies between first Church and Catholicism, if you cannot show a non-Catholic Church the day when St Augustine of Canterbury arrived in Thanet, that disproves Christianity.

Not prove Protestantism of any form.

[Unless you count rejection of Christianity as a form of it. Which it is, of course. But I meant what he meant when he used the word. Unfortunately for his clarity of thought, he does not call Atheists of the modern type Protestants.]

PM

HGL too many discrepancies in the Catholic Church to name. Such as praying to Mary.

[Acts 4:12]

HGL

Supposing you were right - where were the Christians not praying to Mary in 597, when St Augustine of Canterbury landed on Thanet?

Nestorians and Monophysites (perhaps already divided into Copts and Armenians, who are two different confessions), and Chalcedonians, not yet divided into Roman Catholic vs Eastern Orthodox, but both of these claim St Gregory and St Augustine of Canterbury as their saints - all of these obviously WERE praying to Mary, not seeing any conflict between that and Acts 4:12.

Oh, note : your "Christians not praying to Mary" would need to be Christians on other accounts too on your view. Manichaeans rejecting all of Old Testament do not count.

I already said, even if you could prove 500 discrepancies, as long as you can't prove a Church without these for 597 AD, well, you have proven Matthew 28 wrong rather than Protestantism right.

There is no pure hasard in the fact that Hume and a few more like that were from very overwhelmingly Protestant British Isles (outside Irish, Yorkshire, Highlander and Hebride Catholics).

It's not a real pure chance if the man who minted the list of ancient authors not mentioning Jesus (a fairly dishonest one, I have looked at it) came from equally overwhelmingly Protestant US. It is more or less a plagiarism on "where do you find that in the Bible".

Nor is it totally surprising that Atheism and other forms of Antichristianity started in Freemasonry, which, once again, started in Protestantism.

Dealing with each of the 500 supposed discrepancies singly does very much NOT deal with this overwhelmingly obvious argument.

And by "praying to Mary" I mean saluting Her, praising Her as blessed and as blessed among women, and asking Her intercession - NOT adoring as if She were a goddess.

Bible References from KJV

except that first mistranslated one which got a screenshot instead.

[Psalm 12:6, 7]

6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

[Psalm 49:7 - 9]

7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)

9 That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption.

[Luke 16:22 - 24]

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

[II Cor 5:8]

8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

[I Tim 4:1 - 3]

4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

[I Cor 16:19]

19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

[Acts 4:12]

12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Below, too

Since he (PM) continues to believe quoting Bible is more important than understanding what it says:

[Matthew 16:18]

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

[Hebrews 4:12]

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

II Thess 2:15

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

II Tim 3:15-17

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

[Acts 17:11]

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

[Acts 2:41-42]

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

In these,

unlike Matthew 6:7, the problem is not any false translation, like translating battologein with "vain repetitions", but simply how these verses are put in the wrong place of context to argue against sth which they do not argue against. Also, see below, unlike Matthew 28:20, where pasas tas hemeras is mistranslated always.

After this I add a notification:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nearly forgot to notify - if you prefer full name, I will comply: [link to this post]

Update

or updates, with more debate:

PM

HGL wrong. There's never even a need to address Mary in any kind of a prayer. That's reserved for God only. Just another example of made up traditions that have been unbiblical for centuries

HGL

"traditions that have been unbiblical for centuries"

My challenge to you was precisely : find me in those centuries Christians whose traditions were yours. Not ours.

Three options:

• Catholicism (large sense, could be Copts even) is Christianity
• a clearly non-Catholic Christianity survived to AD 597 (not shown despite my challenging several times)
• or Christianity as originally conceived ENDED before Doomsday, contrary to Matthew 28 (and it doesn't matter if it began again or not, its not being there one single day equates Christianity is wrong, Christ not God or God a Liar).

PM

HGL I already showed you how inaccurate catholic doctrine is. Priests not allowed to marry and teaching people to abstain from meats on Friday for example. It doesn't matter how long the churches have practiced anything. What matters is whether they adhere to Gods word

[I Tim 4:2,3]

HGL

Any priest was allowed to marry before he became priest and in some disciplines to become priest while still married.

Any man abstaining from meat on a Friday is allowed to eat it on Sunday.

These examples cannot be what St Paul alludes to, therefore.

A radical vegan religion, like Albigensians and Manichaeans could be (a very good reason not to point to Manichaeans when pointing to "real Christians" if Sts Gregory and Augustine were fake ones in 597 AD).

A radically antimarriage religion (also these two, but also modern feminism and a few more) would also be so.

Eugenicism is so, it has told certain people to get a cut in genital regions - which is forbidding them the first good of marriage which is offspring.

After Hitler told half breed Jews they cannot marry, after a little earlier than 1933 even some states in US and Canada got people sterilised by force for being black and a culprit, for being Amerindians, for being Esquimeau, in one state even for being French Canadian, it is ludicrous to consider that verses as applying to clerical celibacy.

BUT YOU HAVE STILL NOT ANSWERED WHO WERE CHRISTIANS IN AD 597!

Not even a tiny attempt.

I am reminded of that Polish King whom Charles XII replaced for August of Saxony, whom he had defeated : on a history test I said "his name was never famous" and my history teacher wrote in red "can't you remember it, Hans?"

No, I could not remember Stanislas Leszczynski, but at least he existed. He was also grandfather to Louis XVI of France or sth.

Your Christians in 597 who were not Catholic, who were not Copts or Armenians, who were not Nestorians and who had no celibate clergy or no fasting ... well, considering the chances you've had so far, they seem not even to have existed.

If in 597 no Christians existed, either God is a liar or Christ is not God, as per Matthew 28. If God is truthful, Christ is God and Matthew 28 is Scripture inspired by the Holy Ghost, Christians DID exist every day of 597.

Can you name any? Unlike me on history tests, you have had occasion to look them up, if there were any ...

"It doesn't matter how long the churches have practiced anything. What matters is whether they adhere to Gods word"

As per Matthew 28, a Church adhering to God's word is precisely required every day between Ascension day and the present, as well as obviously beyond to Doomsday.

Therefore, a practise which definitely has no antiquity cannot be an obligatory practise of the Church and a practise which has undisputed antiquity all over the field, Chalcedonians, Monophysites, Monothelites (if they existed as a separate sect then), Nestorians all of them agreeing on it in 597, it is certainly at least licit and highly probably obligatory.

Why? Christ had not only stated he was being with the 11 Apostles all days to the end of time, but also just before that told them to teach men to do ALL He had commanded.

He gave them a task, He gave them the means, by being with them all days, and you try to tell me they can have failed for whole centuries? Gimme a break!

Note on Louis

Marie Leszczynska was his paternal grandmother, so Stanislas Leszczynski his paternal-maternal great-grandfather. See 5 and 10 on his genealogy.

PM

HGL sorry pal but all those long sentences don't amount to anything. The Catholic Church chooses the instructions of priests that contradict each other rather than Gods word

HGL

So, which exact Church did NOT in 597?

He said "all days" and I believe all days means all days.

PM

HGL sorry pal, but this is no reference to any denomination, but all who have the Holy Spirit dwelling within.

[Matthew 16:18]

HGL

Well, name one.

For 597 AD. As you just claimed Sts Gregory and Augustine couldn't have the Holy Spirit indwelling, due to anti-Biblical practises, name one WITH the Holy Spirit indwelling for 597 AD who was NOT into for instance praying for the dead.

Also, an isolated individual is no good, unless you can make a case he belonged to a Church teaching that.

As to "no reference to any denomination" - false, since contradicting visibility of the Church.

How is the Church, Biblically, visible?

Matthew 28 says it teaches nations. A parable says a city built on a mountain cannot remain hidden, and another that God has not lit a lamp to put it under a bushel, AND in Timothy (same chapter and verse but other epistle as "all Scripture is useful") the Church (not the Bible, not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in an individual) is claimed as pillar and ground of truth.

Also the Church can impose penances and penalties, as is evident from one of the epistles to Corinthians.

So, show a Church in action of doing these things, extant in 597 AD and not identic with Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox Church, nor sharing the practises you object to (as Nestorians, Monophysites and Monothelites were doing), BUT also not deviating from what you call Christian in other respects, for instance, you cannot point to Manichaeans, a sect clearly forbidden meat and to marry and unlike Our Lord rejecting Old Testament.

PM

HGL a bit incoherent. The cold hard truth is that it's all about Gods word. Not the Catholic Church

HGL

I'm sorry, the incoherence is on your side, even if I got much noise around me the evening when I tried to speak. [Sleep, yes, I am tired.]

You try to make it about me being "it's about the [Roman] Catholic Church". It's in fact about God's word in Matthew 28:20 being precise about a Church with the characteristic of indefectibility. I already know you refuse to identify Catholic Church with this, and you have STILL not shown up any other Church for 597 AD.

The evening = last night (yes, I am tired, but my argument is not incoherent for that).

PM

HGL wrong. It's all about Gods word. Not the Catholic Church

[Hebrews 4:12]

HGL

You know, the "word of God" is not limited to Bible, but includes Bible and Tradition - which is even in the Bible.

One of the main users of the Bible in its above capacities was also a bishop of the Church - Timothy.

So, your idea of "Matthew 28:20 doesn't matter, it would place one thing nearly on par with the Bible" is no good, something, according to the Bible itself actually IS more or less on par with it.

II Thess 2:15, II Tim 3:15-17.

PM

HGL I'm extremely confused how this proves that the Catholic Church has validity over the Bible.

HGL

Who said "has validity OVER the Bible"?

Who said "the Catholic Church" and absolutely none other?

I speak of validity within the Bible, and my observation is negative : if a Church did NOT exist and teach correctly in 597 AD, it cannot have validity according to that verse.

For 597 your *options* include Catholic / Orthodox, Monothelite (but since then all of them became Catholics, they are known as Maronites), Monophysite, Nestorian.

Unfortunately for you, they all use prayers that repeat, they all pray for the dead, they all honour Mary and believe she is soul and body in Heaven ... and I am still waiting for you to show one Christian body in 597 AD which did NOT do these things.

Your options are not "Church OVER Bible" nor "Bible OVER universal tradition". They are either "Church's universal tradition WITH Bible" or "NEITHER Church NOR New Testament".

Oh, I saw you have a wrong translation of that verse.

It doesn't say "always" it says "all days" in a real Bible.

I did not learn Greek to total fluency, and lost much of what I learned, but I know that "pasas tas hemeras" is "all days".

As for "always", it is "aei" and you do find that in St Paul.



Nestle-Aland, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft : ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ 28
http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/text/bibeltext/lesen/stelle/50/280001/289999/

Sorry for a mistake in above. It seems Monothelites did not yet exist separately from Catholics in 597, as they also do no longer now.

PM

HGL sorry pal, but the KJV is far more accurate and Matthew 28:20 is no fuel for your argument at all. It all boils down to not following the Catholic Church or any denomination, but searching the scriptures for yourself. It's that simple.

[Acts 17:11]

HGL

You know what the Bereans did after that?

Joined the Apostolic Church, which back in that day clearly existed.

The Bereans did NOT search the Scriptures as you say "for themselves" without reference to a Church, Sts Paul and Silas, from the Church, were there talking to them.

So, Acts 17 does not contradict Matthew 28:20 like your non-take on AD 597 does.

And my point is still not, in this debate, at this stage, with this prooftext "Catholic Church" it is ANY Church which claims with some realism Apostolic succession.

You are saying that KJV is more accurate than the Greek text?

PM

HGL well first, my initial statement was simply a Bible quote of Christ saying not to pray with vain repetitions. Of which, I'm not sure what part of that you disagreed with.

Secondly, it's true that the Bereans did join the body of Christ. They also abided in the apostles doctrine. Not the traditions of the Catholic Church.

[Acts 2:41-42]

HGL

"Of which, I'm not sure what part of that you disagreed with."

Translating "battologein" as repetitions.

"Secondly, it's true that the Bereans did join the body of Christ. They also abided in the apostles doctrine."

A doctrine visibly present in a visible Church.

In other words, they did not check the OT "for themselves" to see what they could get out of it, they checked a specific, ecclesiastic body of doctrine against those Scriptures.

"Not the traditions of the Catholic Church."

You claim so.

Where was the ecclesiastic body the Bereans joined a few centuries later in 597 AD?

According to Matthew 28:20, it still had to be around, as it still has to be around today and will be around to Doomsday.

Because, you see, the Greek text of Matthew 28:20 says "pasas tas hemeras" not just always, but more specifically "all days".

Btw, in Acts 2 you are a few chapters and years before the Bereans, and the Church in Jerusalem was fairly clearly not just house Churches.

Added by HGL

Let us break this down even better, so you don't miss it yet another time.

Let's skip the remaining days in 33 and the previous days this year and stick to full years (I'll be a few days off, but not more than the skipped parts include).

2017
0033
1984

365.2425 * 1984

365242.5 1000
365242.5
730485.00 2000
036524.25
693960.75 1900

No, even better ...

01 0365.2425
02 0730.485
04 1460.97
08 2921.94
16 5843.98

730485.00 2000
005843.98 - 16
724642.02 1984

724,642 days and the Church Christ founded around on Earth each of them.

One day when St Augustine of Canterbury landed on Thanet in 597 AD is among these.

Matthew 28:20 says Christ was preserving His Church all of these days.

YOU claim St Augustine of Canterbury and his Pope St Gregory the Great were NOT of that Church.

SO, a simple follow up question, if you really believe Matthew 28:20:

WHERE WAS THE REAL CHURCH THAT DAY?

Is this simple enough?

PM

HGL unfortunately none of all that means anything. But to answer your question, Matthew 28 in no way proves Catholic doctrine true. Basically, you need to prove Catholic doctrine legitimate before your claims can be true. Please show me, the perpetual virginity of Mary, purgatory, abstaining from meat on Friday, celibacy of church leaders in Gods word. Prove it.

HGL

I am sorry, but you seem to have decided not to let words mean what they mean.

"unfortunately none of all that means anything."

How many hypno sessions did you take for that?

"But to answer your question, Matthew 28 in no way proves Catholic doctrine true."

You are NOT answering my question, I did not state in the immediate that Matthew 28 proves Catholic doctrine on named matters true, as a proof text does.

My question still is, where is the Church whose doctrine YOU believe in back in 597 AD?

And it's soon two weeks you have been shirking that one.

What Matthew 28:20 does prove is that there needs to be one, if your take is right and Christianity is true.

What I have therefore said is : Matthew 28:20 proves Protestantism false. All stripes. Your Church cannot be documented from for instance 597 AD.