Mike Winger; What is a Child?

Mike Winger
This little girl... Islam did this
https://www.facebook.com/reel/968812972680235

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mr. Winger.

As the picture was shown, so also your statement indicated *she was pregnant.*

A person with a uterus is not a male. A person with another person in the uterus is not a child.

Shared

One of the biggest changes for me post retirement (which I hope doesnt mean I am turning into an alkie)🤣 is the desire and ability to enjoy a Guinness on any day. At work in the University I didn't drink during the day - contact with students and complex meetings precluded that). Now I do it when I choose, if I have walked the calories off beforehand and eat with it.

Responding to Culture Wars on Tolkien

Tolkien got the main symbols in The Hobbit from Richard Wagner’s Ring cycle,*

Like?

Obviously, omitting things that Wagner had in common with Norse sources that Tolkien could read directly without Wagner (and the actual Wagner fan CSL in addition to Wagner).

Dragon, hoard, dwarf, talking bird, do not count. These are all in the Norse sources as well.

---

* From "The West Has Failed: Tolkien, Traditionalism and Islamophobia" January 06, 2026/ E. Michael Jones, in Culture Wars

Jael and Mary

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9.X.2025

Totus Catholica doesn't go far enough:

Mary in Judges? This Verse Makes Protestant Scholars SWEAT
Totus Catholica | 9 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coSHNPkUwWg

---

[My original comments under the video are also copied to under above FB status, and when a debate or start of it says "youtube" it means the debate took place on youtube, under the video. If comments turn up under mine, I'll mark that "FB"]

---

2:19 The angel had already called Mary Blessed among women before She was pregnant.

The parallel between Mary and Jael is even closer. We must ask, "who is Mary's Sisera" and if we also see a parallel in Judith to this wording "who is Mary's Holophernes" ... this must be exactly what She wondered "what kind of greeting this might be" ...

Given Luke 1:42 adding "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" we have another echo clearing it up. Genesis 3:15. It wasn't a human person, but a serpent ... or fallen angel ... that She had "killed with a tent peg" ...

There is only one way for a human being to have basically killed Satan. Reversing the way in which Satan killed Adam and Eve. And that means, being without sin.

Youtube

arcadio jr. navarro

@arcadiojr.navarro8303

@hglundahl

In Genesis 3 God metes out various judgments against those who brought sin into His perfect world. Adam, Eve, and the serpent all hear of the consequences of their rebellion. To the serpent God says, in part, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15, KJV).

@hglundahl

Even in this judgment, there is mercy. God’s curse on the serpent, in particular, was laced with words of hope. The woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15 is Eve. The serpent, addressed directly, is the animal that Satan used to deceive the woman. Some of the curse was directed at the animal (verse 14); at the same time, the curse of God falls upon Satan, who had taken the serpent’s form or body in Eden (cf. the dragon in Revelation 12:9).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 "The woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15 is Eve."

No.

First, since all of the OT is about Christ, but not all of the OT has its Christological meaning stated in NT writings, we need the tradition of the Church to access what Jesus told the disciples of Emmaus in Luke 24. And the Church says Mary.

Second, "blessed among women" is in all of the Jewish-Protestant OT only said about Jael, and in the Catholic-Orthodox OT also about Judith. So, since the angel greeted Mary with these words, she wondered who Her Sisera and Holophernes was supposed to be. But when Elisabeth repeated and added "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" She saw the parallel to Genesis 3:15 and knew Her "Sisera and Holophernes" was Satan and She therefore had to be without sin, since that was the only move by which a man could defeat the fallen angel.

arcadio jr. navarro

@hglundahl

In Genesis 3 God metes out various judgments against those who brought sin into His perfect world. Adam, Eve, and the serpent all hear of the consequences of their rebellion. To the serpent God says, in part, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15, KJV).

@hglundahl

The woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15 is Eve. The serpent, addressed directly, is the animal that Satan used to deceive the woman. Some of the curse was directed at the animal (verse 14); at the same time, the curse of God falls upon Satan, who had taken the serpent’s form or body in Eden (cf. the dragon in Revelation 12:9).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 It seems the Hebrew has "complete enmity" which is more appropriate about a sinless person against Satan than about Eve and her far of children against snakes.

Also, the Blessed Virgin Mary recognised the allusion, once St. Elizabeth greeted Her.

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 Btw, KJV is not a Bible.

Use Douay Rheims instead. Just a tip.

arcadio jr. navarro

@hglundahl

The gifts of the apostles and prophets were foundational and necessary in the early days of the church, but their purpose has been completed. There are no apostles or prophets today. Once the Holy Spirit had fulfilled His ministry of guiding the disciples into all the truth (John 16:13) and inspiring prophecy (2 Peter 1:20–21), He began using evangelists and pastors and teachers to accomplish the next stage of the building.

@hglundahl

Douay-Rheims Version - Translation method

The Douay-Rheims Bible is a translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Vulgate quickly became the Bible universally used in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. In their preface, the translators of the 1582 DRV New Testament gave 10 reasons for using the Vulgate as their primary text, rather than the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, stating that the Latin Vulgate "is not only better than all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree."

@hglundahl

King James Version - Translation method

The King James translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. In 1769, the Oxford edition, which excluded the Apocrypha, became the standard text and is the text which is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 I'm sorry, but that's not how the NT portrays things.

Apostles insofar as having seen Jesus, and Prophets insofar as adding prophecy to Acts or Revelation (St. Paul being both), adding to the Deposit of faith, that no longer exists.

But they were also bishops, as you can see from Peter being able to lay hands on Simon Magus (and refusing) and Paul having been consecrated in this manner (Acts 13), consecrating St. Tim in this manner and telling him whom not to ordain priests and whom to ordain priests ... possibly even whom to consecrate bishop or not consecrate bishop (depending on whether 1st C terminology covers our own or not), shows there was a foreseen mechanism or strategy or plan to give successors to the Apostles in their capacity of bishops.

Matthew 28:16 to 20 shows the Eleven were meant to have successors to the end of time. You totally misrepresent the ecclesiology of the NT, you fail to account for typological questions existing as per Luke 24 and you pretend those following immediately after the Apostles for some reason got it wrong, but you or whoever more than a millennium and a half afterwards got it right. This is not even remotely credible.

The Holy Spirit certainly led the Apostles into all truth, meaning perhaps even things they had never understood while disciples, and this has ended, but they also got Him to remind them of all He had said, which the Holy Ghost is doing to this day and will continue doing to Doomsday.

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 As to Vulgate vs Manuscripts, unfortunately, KJV betrayed even manuscripts in Matthew 6:7 to fit Calvin's Geneva Bible and the Protestant disgust for Rosaries. Which is a very evil thing.

---

2:22 Not just the Church teaches that, but St. Luke in chapter 24.

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him
[Luke 24:27]

Did you note "all the prophets" and again "all the scriptures" ... exactly. Precisely all of the OT. Excellent proof text for tradition, since it's the Church that has the recollection of this typological teaching, only small bits of it are mentioned in the NT actual texts.

Youtube

arcadio jr. navarro

@hglundahl

Jesus shows up often in the Old Testament—not by that name, and not in the same form as we see Him in the New Testament, but He is there nonetheless. The theme of the entire Bible is Christ.

@hglundahl

Jesus Himself confirmed the fact that He is in the Old Testament. In John 5:46 He explained to some religious leaders who had challenged Him that the Old Testament was talking about Him: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.” According to Jesus, God’s work with man since time began all pointed to Him. Another time when Jesus showed that He is in the Old Testament was on the day of His resurrection. Jesus was walking with two of His disciples, and “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Earlier, before His crucifixion, Jesus had pointed to Isaiah 53:12 and said, “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 Indeed.

I had missed John 5:46 and Luke 22:37, but it's Luke 24:27 where it clearly says all the scriptures and prophets as well as Moses, i e all of the OT.

---

3:49 She had crushed the serpent even before the fiat mihi.

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women
[Luke 1:28]

That's verse 28. In verse 31, Mary's pregnancy is said to be a future event. In verse 38, only, Mary answers:

And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her
[Luke 1:38]

So, while she arguably RE-crushed the serpent by that yes, or rather that yes resumed every crushing of the serpent she had ever done, she had been crushing the serpent for a long time. And that means sinlessness.

Youtube

arcadio jr. navarro

[4 comments which I'm not sharing.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arcadiojr.navarro8303 Thank you, I think I'll leave it here.

You are just trying to promote the standard Protestant arguments against Catholic Mariology, without lifting one finger to deal with my arguments for Catholic Mariology.

I'm blocking you after this.

It Seems I Lost a Friend on FB

New blog on the kid: Did I Mention Trump Had Commie Tendencies? · HGL's F.B. writings: It Seems I Lost a Friend on FB

I'm not revealing Return to Tradition is called Anthony Stine, he says so on the patreon. I do however take care not to reveal his middle name initial and his face, which are not revealed on the youtube. Well, the face is revealed on some youtubes, but he may remove them or reboot them, so, I prefer discretion.

There the face of Belloc takes the place, and this I inserted instead of his photo on FB, so here is a photoshopped version of the dialogue, not changing the words, only the profile info of Anthony Stine:

Indeed, he removed me from his friends. He can however not remove Chesterton from my friends:

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WORLD
by G.K. Chesterton
https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=/Contemporary-EN/XCT.152.html

I'll cite the first paragraph of the first chapter:

A book of modern social inquiry has a shape that is somewhat sharply defined. It begins as a rule with an analysis, with statistics, tables of population, decrease of crime among Congregationalists, growth of hysteria among policemen, and similar ascertained facts; it ends with a chapter that is generally called "The Remedy." It is almost wholly due to this careful, solid, and scientific method that "The Remedy" is never found. For this scheme of medical question and answer is a blunder; the first great blunder of sociology. It is always called stating the disease before we find the cure. But it is the whole definition and dignity of man that in social matters we must actually find the cure before we find the disease .

I think you can see how the bill of Trump truly fits this description. So do actual Marxist policies in the countries where Marxism had a monopoly. Or a predominant place, like the French President Vincent Auriol, in whose time homeless were made as invisible, because as unfree, and therefore as "sheltered" from the public, as Trump is initiating.

To some, Marxism simply means solidarity with the poor. In that case, Franco was Marxist. He subsidised living accomodations with tax money and made it pretty hard for a landlord to get rid of a poor tenant. Now, another kind of solidarity with the poor, preached by Chesterton, is not to persecute a poor who no longer is a tenant and also does not own his home, but instead lives without one. The exact fault Mr. Trump is committing. There, as well as with taking interest, Marxism is one with Capitalistic bourgeoisie. Note the tone where Chesterton says "growth of hysteria among policemen" ... the kind of hysteria in which every quarrel between a homeless man and someone passing him by becomes a proof the homeless man is a menace, not that some of those passing him are a nuisance to him. Which even in France they are, as said some of them, and the United States, in many states, is much more Puritan./HGL

PS, the screenshot doesn't show (on your computer or some time in the future)? I'll copy the dialogue, here:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Marxist is about Trump's new Soviet policy about the homeless, right?

Anthony P Stine

Hans-Georg Lundahl no, I'm not retarded enough to believe something like that

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I thought you were a fan of Belloc and Chesterton.

Trump's policy remind me of 1910's England, what Chesterton fought against, Prussia, and their fulfilment, the Soviet Union.

His tax policy also mirrors Marxist Sweden.

Anthony P Stine

-Georg Lundahl I am. I'm also not gay enough to call his policies Marxist. I'm not politically or economically illiterate

I'm sorry, his studies in political science may have made him precisely that. And if he just called me gay, he's either voicing a very heavy prejudice against all and any Trump critics ... or relying on calumny.

If he has from priests in Paris that I'm gay, they are committing calumny (and that calumny could be a reason why they avoid me). If they pretend I cross dress, they rely on the poorer judgement of Muslims or Jews less familiar with European historic and geographic variation of the male costume./HGL

---

I tried to notify Anthony Stine via FB mail, on one of my accounts (they are two). About a month ago, I was obliged to change the password on the account, I did so quickly, and then forgot the exact password. As you know computers depend on exact passwords. This means, I was not able to reuse it. I tried to change it again, then I got in a loop about what computer I'm habitually using. For those who speak French, the post LH110 shows screenshots. I'm right now again in a loop of screenshot 5 and 6. Meaning, if he answered, I cannot access his answer./HGL

Let's Recall Our Own Girls, Oppressed by Delayed Marriage If in Certain Situations (Pregnant, In Love, or Otherwise 1 Cor. 7:9)

International Christian Concern

Read more: https://www.persecution.org/2025/06/13/underage-marriage-outlawed-in-islamabad/

[Pray with us. Praise God that underage marriage has been outlawed in Islamabad.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The bill addresses the growing concern of female children getting pregnant in their early teens before they can mature or pursue education. It also highlights the widespread issues many girls face, of being kidnapped, forced into marriage, and forced by their captors to convert to Islam. At least 1,000 girls are subject to this annually.

There are two sides to it.

On the one hand, some Christians are better protected, at least if they are in Islamabad.

Also some young teen Muslimas who were not wanting the marriage.

On the other hand the law as such is at least if it were generalised unjust.

In France, every year (my stats are from before the Covid) 1000 girls under 15 get pregnant and 772 of the pregnancies end in abortion. I think that was lower back before 2006, meaning abortion and than 772, when the marital age of girls was raised from 15 to 18.

Traditionally among Christians, 18 has not been the limit.

From Agnes of Sagan*, who married Ludwik I of Brieg to 6 generations later, for instance two daughters of James II of Scotland (not to be confused with James II of England who was James VII of Scotland), there were 32 married women with known ages, or tolerably known, and depending on whether you go with the higher or lower age of a person, the median was either 17 (both n. 16 and 17 were married at 17) or between 17 and 18 (n. 16 was married at 17, n. 17 at 18). The lower quartile similarily varied as either 14 (both 8 and 19 were married at 14), or between 14 and 15 (8 was married at 14, 9 at 15).**

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Seven Generations Women, Age at First Marriage
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2023/09/seven-generations-women-age-at-first.html

I am happy the law as such is not applicable outside Islamabad. I'd be even happier if they all converted from Islam, stopped forced marriages and the limit could be lowered to 16 for girls all over the country. Or even lower than 16.

The canonic minimum age for ladies was 12 and the youngest in the sample was 11 or 12 when married. In the Christian Middle Ages.

Notes:

* Henryk IV of Poland is also known as Henryk II of Żagań. Agnes or Agnieszka was his daughter.
** The oldest lady at her marriage was married at 33. 32 and 33 are two outliers, the oldest younger than that were married at 25. And it's questionable if they were two or just one, over 30.

What an Occasion to Make Clarifications on Fascism

I Have Seen Worse Things from the Late Bergoglio, Than Some of his Economic Advice ... · What an Occasion to Make Clarifications on Fascism · Tolkien: Neither Woke Nor "Based Conservative" ... More Like "Gentle Traditionalist"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is known I self describe as Fascist. Note, Fascist, not National Socialist.

Someone beside me in the cyber played a speech by you know who at a speech climax.

It's possibly unfair to a good painter.

It's also irrelevant for Fascism.

Here is a speech by Mussolini who thought they were safeguarding international peace:

Mussolini Close Ups And Speech In German (1927)
British Pathé | 13 April 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jgZijUobnY

The notice "1927" is obviously a typo, possibly for 1937. Not sure what year Mussolini visited Germany.

And here is one by Engelbert Dollfuss:

EXCLUSIVE ANNOUNCEMENT BY DOLLFUSS OF AUSTRIA - SOUND
British Movietone | 21 July 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yEXGxWcLnM

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[update]

Just in case some guys PERSIST to confuse Nazi and Fascist, here is a video on acceptance of versus discriminations against people with Downs:

How Were People With Down Syndrome Treated In History?
Disturban History | 25 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szQw2T8avRc

The Reich after Hitler's Machtübernahme is mentioned, so were states in the US, first of which Indiana, and every time I reflect on this, I'm so sad a certain guy didn't remain a painter and so happy for one change that Patton brought about.

In the Soviet Union, the project was studied under Lenin, but very fortunately cancelled by Stalin, however the mentality is widespread. In Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, there was no Patton. Eugenics ended in the 1970's there.

In Mussolini's Italy, there was no such thing, at least before 1938. I have not read the leggi raciali, I don't know if that changed.

In Dollfuss' Austria, there was no such thing.

In Franco's Spain, I think Valleja Najera tried to push for it, but didn't quite succeed, so he had to claim some version of Child Protective Services as "eugenics" ... (in a different context, namely considering revolutionary spirit as a hereditary disease), but even that was pushed back through the Catholic Church.

I am not sure how much of this got introduced by Alexis Carrell, a Protestant, when he became a minister in the Vichy régime. I used to say the régime of Pétain Darlan was OK, that of Pétain Laval wasn't ... but Alexis Carrell got hired before Laval, so, I am not positive about the entire time of Darlan as PM either.

This article explores a new dimension in fascist studies, eugenic studies, and the more mainstream history of Italy, Europe, and modernity. It asks scholars to reconsider the centrality of race and biology to the political programme of Italian fascism in power. Fascism’s ‘binomial theorem’ of optimum population change was characterized as a commitment both to increase the ‘quantity’ (number) and improve the ‘quality’ (biology) of the Italian ‘race’. These twin objectives came to fruition in the new scientific and political paradigm known to contemporaries as ‘biological politics’ and to scholars today as ‘biopolitics’. Fascism, this article contends, attempted to utilize the full force of the new ‘biopower’ of reproductive and biogenetic medicine and science in order to realize the aims of its biopolitical agenda for racial betterment through fertility increase. In Italy, fascism encouraged science to tamper with the processes of human reproduction and to extend genetic understanding of diseases which were seen as ‘conquerable’ without sterilization and euthanasia. It began a biotechnological ‘revolution’ that historians often attribute to twenty-first-century science. By exploring the technical innovations in assisted conception which Italian fascism promoted, this article challenges the assumption in much of the scholarship that there was a huge divide between the ‘old’ eugenics of the interwar period and the ‘new’ genetics of recent decades.

Racial ‘Sterility’ and ‘Hyperfecundity’ in Fascist Italy. Biological Politics of Sex and Reproduction
https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/1/2/article-p92_3.xml

About My Situation

HGL's F.B. writings: About My Situation · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: My situation, bis

ZM

So I watched Darby O'Gill and the Little People with the kids. They were absolutely terrified, which was a terrific surprise given the folklore's light-hearted portrayal. I was delighted at their natural intuition that Leprechauns can be evil creatures.

I used the moment to teach them to extend basic decency and respect even to the wicked, and not to seek the granting of wishes, but rather to petition the salvation of the soul.

HGL

sometimes the granting of wishes is necessary for the salvation of a soul

ZM

HGL no doubt. But let's not confuse ends. The leprechaun grants wishes without regard to end, or often enough, with a preference for a bad end.

It flirts with presumptuousness to make wishes. Rather, pray "thy will be done," and perhaps the wish will be granted, if it was a good wish.

HGL

there is also the possibility of going on a pilgrimage for one ... the pilgrimage I did to St. James was not for an indulgence

JSC

HGL and sometimes the refusal of a wish is necessary for the salvation of a soul, or of many souls, as in Gethsemane.

HGL

Well, I don't think the guys who think that about me are right.

As an alternative, I prayed for death (note, not for culpable death, like in suicide), and some who seem to have wanted to preserve me from my request have died, starting with Antipope Wojtyla.

ZM

HGL I understand you have gone through tremendous struggles in the times I have known you. How is life at the moment?

HGL

I don't know what "tremendous struggles" means.

I am a writer and (very part time) composer.

With an income from my production, which is a regular one, I could have a happy life pretty quickly. Without it, what are you even doing asking about my "tremendous struggles"?

One of my blights are people who pester me to ask how I am, as if they were presuming I mist be ill or a very anxious and weak person if I don't like them. Regularly, they are the least willing to put my texts into print or my sheet music into sound.

ZM

HGL well, you are coming on my page, telling me how you prayed for death, and I don't know what to do with this information. The last thing I want to do is contribute to any blight on your life

HGL

I prayed for death in 2004.

This does not equate to me going through tremendous struggles since then.

So, I still do not see what you mean by tremendous struggles.

I am going through a certain hardship, like in order to have a flat in Paris (and probably most surroundings), I need either two years' rent in advance or an income that's three times the monthly rent.

Starting to play my music (if you think it's good) could do that.

Starting to print my texts could do that.

Speculating on what tremendous hardships I'm going through could very much NOT do that.

I may add that my conditions are favourable to you, economically. You earn, you decide the rate of royalties.

It's not like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme where I control everything.

For anyone interested, here are some stats on page views:

12:27 Today, St. Gabriel, 24.III.2025 12 + 7 + 24 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 12 + 14 + 11 + 33 + 1 + 2 + 16 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 4 + 11 + 132 + 1 + 6 + 3 + 5 + 11 + 5 + 38 = 359		Yesterday, Oculi LD, 23.III.2025 80 + 7 + 20 + 1 + 8 + 7 + 9 + 5 + 1182 + 14 + 7 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 15 + 5 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 5 + 58 + 66 + 37 + 2 + 6 + 84 + 13 + 381 + 1 = 2023
The different numbers adding up are from different blogs, I have many specialised ones.
March 2025 by the 24th 6639 + 1450 + 11572 + 248 + 393 + 89 + 432 + 1016 + 4427 + 5354 + 106 + 114 + 27 + 456 + 1226 + 73 + 27 + 11 + 40 + 37 + 36 + 37 + 29 + 35 + 163 + 110 + 42 + 299 + 612 + 27791 + 333 + 47 + 853 + 554 + 951 + 821 + 32 + 1316 + 20 + 17 + 34 + 6040 = 73,909, or each day 3080		February 2025 10094 + 146 + 103 + 139 + 2688 + 123 + 3358 + 2659 + 983 + 2308 + 153 + 1540 + 19326 + 1629 + 568 + 162 + 220 + 160 + 116 + 173 + 162 + 185 + 190 + 159 + 75 + 114 + 127 + 3797 + 2025 + 63 + 402 + 386 + 7730 + 16205 + 2001 + 657 + 199 + 830 + 587 + 38900 + 2987 + 6022 = 130,451, or 4659 each day

And here are conditions:
Writings: Conditions, comment les imprimer/how to print them, Sheet music: What's the deal? C'est quoi ce truc?

With Alan Clifford on the Video and On My Disappearing Comments

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Rome is Right (Even if Exiled), Alan Clifford is Wrong · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: With Alan Clifford on the Video and On My Disappearing Comments

Alan Clifford

Dec. 3 [2024] at 3:14 PM

WHY ROME IS WRONG or NO PLACE LIKE ROME?
https://youtu.be/tBGuK9xVya4

With thanksgiving to Almighty God for the glorious Protestant Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Dr Clifford makes his case that:
1. The Pope’s religion is not the Christianity of Jesus Christ.
2. The Pope’s church is not the true Church of Jesus Christ.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sir, I made four comments in refutation of the video.

They are gone, invisible.

If they came to the spam filter, I'd appreciate if you had the courage to make them visible and engage with them.

If they aren't even there, I'll be happy to repost them, if you say so.

A post with your video, my responses, possibly interactions about the latter, is upcoming. Consequently, so are more comments, I'm only at 4 minutes and some into the video.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It seems the fourth comment was slightly garbled, some thoughts left unwritten by distraction.

It has been completed and reposted under your video, and so has a fifth comment.

I'll continue, but I'd appreciate if the comments were made visible.

Alan Clifford

Thank you. God bless you. I'm puzzled by disappearing comments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alan Clifford Even more, I tried reposting the three first ones, and they disappeared again.

You may find them if you look in a spam folder for comments. Ask some younger youtuber what that exactly entails.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alan Clifford Some that have disappeared were at least saved on my blog:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Rome is Right (Even if Exiled), Alan Clifford is Wrong
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/12/rome-is-right-even-if-exiled-alan.html

Death Threat?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not count the mentions of "die!" but if there had been no interruptions, by extra letters, there would have been 468 mentions in the first comment this morning, and there was one more.

Sternfield Thoughts: The US Election: what is more dangerous, a flawed character, or a flawed idea? A flawed idea.
https://sternfieldthoughts.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-us-election-what-is-more-dangerous.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(Sorry, the morning US time, somewhere, but like 5PM for Paris time)

Update

3.XI.2024, I return to the post and the comments, and the possible death threats are now deleted. I had made a report to the Police, same or next day, I have not heard of them.

Carbon Dating : A Creationist Expert, Myself

Pete F. Fiske

LD 21.IV.2024

What About Radioisotope Clocks?

Secularists claim that radioisotope ages “objectively and scientifically” confirm millions of years. But ICR scientists have carefully examined their claims and found flaws and holes in their processes. What do radioisotope clocks actually reveal about the age of rocks and, ultimately, the earth?

https://www.icr.org/article/what-about-radioisotope-clocks/

https://www.facebook.com/100076911390398/videos/963652068211482/

It can be mentioned

that the IRC professor's name is Dr. Timothy Clarey.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Principal contributeur

3:24 I believe accuracy can be pushed further back WITH a Biblical recalibration.

Genesis 14, Abraham was c. 80 (between his vocation in Genesis 12 at 75 and birth of Ishmael in Genesis 16, when he was 86).

So, whatever BC date you place his birth, deduct 80. For me that's 2015 - 80 = 1935. The thing is, he is contemporary to Amorrheans being attacked in En-Geddi, which is carbon dated to 3500 BC.

So, when you say "everyone is the same age" back in 1935 BC, everyone would have been 1565 years old. (3500 - 1935 = 1565).

This one is the absolutely clearest node that can be used to carbon date with a Biblical recalibration. I would say, the nodes apart from this that are "second cledarest" would be Kenyon carbon dating Jericho's fall to 1550 BC, compared to whatever date you allow for Exodus and then 40 years more recent. For me that would be 1550 - 1470 = 80.

Göbekli Tepe as candidate for Nimrod's original Babel is by now pretty solid, I've answered objection after objection over the years. The hardest one is bricks and bitumen for stones and mortar. You do find pavements in Jericho from this time (so, not everyone was in the Babel area) that include sth like broken ceramic bricks in a kind of mortar. You could also argue that the Hebrew terms from the etymology could describe sth else. If burned chalk is found inside the stomped earth, that would confirm that idea. 9500 to 8000 BC are then the carbon dates for beginning and end of Babel. To me, that's forty years within the 51 between Noah's death and Peleg's birth (LXX without the II Cainan), 350 and 401 after the Flood in 2957 BC, so, 9500 - 2607 = 6893 extra years, 8000 - 2556 = 5444 extra years. I have made previous tables where Göbekli Tepe lasts from 9600 to 8600 instead, depends on what online sources I access, a recent article gave 9500 to 8000 BC.

Finally, I take Joseph as Imhotep, so his pharao as Djoser, and Moses as temporarily Amenemhet IV (following David Down) so born under Senusret III. These two are very much disputed by many creationists who want an Exodus during the New Kingdom and the Israelites as Hyksos. But I think that would make a trainwreck of the carbon 14 rise from Genesis 14 to the fall of Jericho.

And Fall of Troy = carbon date = historic date, depends on what exact level of Troy you identify with the Trojan War.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Principal contributeur

4:21 I would say that the pre-Flood world ends in roughly 39 000 BP or 37 000 BC carbon date.

Tephra of Campi Flegrei.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Principal contributeur

4:41 Not just that. But if "floodgates of heaven were opened" describes a Brown's gas mixture of lower atmosphere Oxygen meeting higher atmosphere Hydrogen, then there was lots more Oxygen in the atmosphere too, which is now in the water cycle instead. This would mean that the Nitrogen was scarcer, so the Nitrogen 14 atoms that were hit by cosmic radiation were further apart, so, less Carbon 14 was being produced.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Principal contributeur

9:53 Quoting from AiG:

Yet diamonds have been tested and shown to contain radiocarbon equivalent to an “age” of 55,000 years. These results have been confirmed by other investigators.

Perfectly consistent with my carbon date of 39000 BP for the Flood, if the diamonds were from organisms with a few decades old carbon in medium.

This would mean a dino carbon dated to 20 000 BP would either have Carbon 12 turning into Carbon 14 by radioactive contamination. And Hell Creek and Morrisson Formations are Uranium territory. Or, they would be post-Flood, come from landslides.

The Quote

is from:

Answers in Genesis : Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds
An Evolution Dilemma
by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling Featured in Answers Magazine
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/carbon-14-in-fossils-and-diamonds/

Footnotes 14, 15 and 16 are:

J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630.

D. B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 45–62.

R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Principal contributeur

10:26 Here I sign off. The other dating methods are my non-expertise. One should know one's limits.

Ken Wolgemuth Understood the Argument

Creation vs. Evolution: Why is Carbon Dating More Important than Potassium Argon? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Argon, Carbon, Magnetic Field · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Ken Wolgemuth Understood the Argument · If Ken Wolgemuth Avoids Answering Me Directly, What Does That Say of Him? Update : he did some answering · He did some answering, though, to others ... · Ken Wolgemuth part IV

James Young

Admin

20 January 05:26 AM

No matter how many words the OEC world throws at this, it will remain an embarrassment for them.

These test that were done have successfully debunked the claim that radiometer dated is accurate .

Ken Wolgemuth

Principal contributor

James Young,
You seem to think that these types of results discredit all radiometric dating. These methods of age dating igneous rocks have been around for 70 years, with increasing accuracy in successive decades. For several decades, young earth creationists have compiled tables of results that are false, because the criteria necessary to obtain credible ages are violated. Since you lack an education in geology and geochemistry, you don't know the method has not been applied properly. IMO, you want to hear of false results, because you've already joined the religious/science sect of YECism. As a geochemist, I see through the smoke and mirrors in a few minutes.

The sad issue is that unbelieving scientists observe this dishonesty, and Christianity is discredited. In this case, the YECs are a stumbling block, not because of Jesus, but because of your brazen abuse of his profession.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth "These methods of age dating igneous rocks" .... seem to be sensitive to cold water.

Like a volcano on Hawaii, part of which went down into the water, nearby "1 million years old" and further out (in deeper and colder water) "2 million years old".

According to the Bible, a specific year in the life of Noah was very wet.

Ken Wolgemuth

Principal contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl, Those are evidence that for this lava that chilled so quickly and it retained non-radiogenic Ar-40. The timer had never been set to zero, so no radiometric dating age is possible. Reporting one as an age is fake science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The point is, this happened during the Deluge too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The guys who did the dates were not claiming the lava was 2 million years old out in the sea.

They gave the date it would have in order to show this sometimes happens.

That's not fake science even if it's non-standard procedure.

Ah, He's Back!

I Had Hoped to Show a Dialogue I Had on Morals the Other Day · Ah, He's Back!

Zachary Miller

3 d a

Here's an interesting one that people are disagreeing about: if you're in McDonald's drive thru and pay for the next persons food at the first window, then, upon presenting both receipts, proceed to take both meals at the second window, and you do this maliciously because the next person beeped at you or something, I say you have committed theft. When you tendered payment for the meal as a gift, the next person owned the meal, and you took it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For my part, I'd also consider it theft, unless you were a diabetic and had a very urgent blood sugar drop, and needed more than you had paid for for yourself.

But on a somewhat different ground.

What one steals in that way is not money, not even so much money's value in strictly economic terms, as the goods paid for. What one steals is time and confidence.

One robs the other of a carefree occasion to eat a nice meal. He's behind you, he has already left his place in the queue to someones behind him, and if he wants a meal the same place and him paying for it as originally planned, you have robbed him of the time he had originally, and made sure he's angrier and hungrier when he arrives in the queue, or he could have been forced to continue without the meal and buy sth more sugar and less consistent somewhere where it's faster.

If it's done once, simply because one regrets the generosity, that's probably still venial, though depends on the size of the meal. In stealing, a day's wage is the limit between venial and mortal, I've been told, and just one meal is usually not the full usage of a days' wage, but it's a pretty substantial part of it.

If people make sure to do so and similar things more often, it's systematically robbing someone of peace, it is manstealing, such people deserve the death penalty according to Exodus 21:16.

Please arrange for his compositions to be played, someone!

If you like to do the same for me, I'd appreciate./HGL

A Creationist More or Less Friend Goes Anti-Catholic, Again + Update on Rick DeLano

Kukoleck Adam

“Not only is Rome the source and center of Fascism, but it has been the seat of a Pope [Pius XII], who, as we shall show, has been an open ally of the Nazi-Fascist-Shinto Axis since his enthronement. He has never raised his voice against that Axis, he has never denounced the abominable aggressions, murder and cruelties they have inflicted upon mankind, and the pleas he is now making for peace and forgiveness are manifestly designed to assist the escape of these criminals, so that they may launch a fresh assault upon all that is decent in humanity." H.G. Wells "Crux Ansata, An Indictment of the Roman Catholic Church." Chapter 1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

This lie by the Marxist Wells is rebuked by the correspondence between Pius XII and Truman, during the war.

"the pleas he is now making for peace and forgiveness are manifestly designed to assist the escape of these criminals"

I'm noting that Wells was eager to make high demands for hangings and war reparations, and would have been as eager to lay even more of Germany waste in 1945. He is - like his near master Lenin - a liar and a killer.

[As a Fabian, Wells did not have Lenin totally as master, especially not in economic things.]

I

Kukoleck Adam

I don’t see it. Criticism of the pope may be wrong but it’s never misplaced

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If it is wrong, it's misplaced because it is wrong.

Kukoleck Adam

Hans-Georg Lundahl I don’t know that it’s wrong

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I do.

Peter Godman, Hitler et le Vatican, Paris, Perrin, 2010, 368 pages, 23 €

https://www.piexii.com/20100215hitler-et-le-vatican/

My accusations against the possible apostate in 50-51 is opposite : he gave orders for Montini and Roncalli (both future antipopes) to succour the Jews. He hid a lot of them in the Vatican (from which German occupants of Italy were excluded) and all three got close to them, and they were already Evolution accepters and modernist apostates.

But the antisemitic criminal is ludicrous. Later research has shown he had previously not been fond of Jews, but he did more than most to save their lives.

Other instance : The Assisi Underground. By Alexander Ramati. Bishop of Assisi and Fascist mayor of Assisi hid Jews.

Kukoleck Adam

Hans-Georg Lundahlante pavelich?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Like when did Christians get a duty to help vindictive prosecution?

Tito may have been OK about farmers (unlike Stalin), but he was already massacring people (including Croat refuges in Austrian Bleiburg).

It was obvious Ante Pavelic had no chance of a fair trial.

Are you a fan of the Jewish Massonic liar who was promoted by Chick tracts and described himself as a "hereditary knight of Malta" which is not sth that exists?

Kukoleck Adam

Hans-Georg Lundahl Jewish Masonic liar? Who? Are you saying it was right to hide him because he couldn’t receive a fair trial?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It was right to help people flee from unfair trials, including both Ustashi and Nazis.

It is a Christian act of mercy.

Recall the role of the altar in the OT?

Who? One often cited by Serbs with anti-Catholic accusations.

Kukoleck Adam

John Wilkes booth was hid and buried at the Vatican. Why?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

John Wilkes Booth never left US. You brought up one of his helpers, he was extradicted.

Btw, I meant Avro Manhattan.

Kukoleck Adam

Hans-Georg LundahlI think Mussolini couldn’t get a fair trial but he got what was coming

Oh I’m a fan. Not because I believe everything he said was true but because he was one person that believed in telling both sides of the story about the pope. The msm doesnt

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If Mussolini had appealed to the Catholic Church, they would have been obliged to give him shelter against for instance partisans.

"And among the cities, which you shall give to the Levites, six shall be separated for refuge to fugitives, that he who hath shed blood may flee to them: and besides these there shall be other forty-two cities,"
[Numbers 35:6]

And when did Avro Manhattan ever tell the pro-Catholic side of any part of the papacy?

When was he even moderately honest about the anti-Catholic stuff?

What is "msm"?

Kukoleck Adam

Hans-Georg Lundahl mainstream media

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, they are not wrong on everything, and they are catching up after - in English speaking countries - being too Avro Manhattan.

Kukoleck Adam

Hans-Georg Lundahlhow’s Rick Delano george?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, he is as far as I know not attacking Pius XII for participation in the NS persecution of Jews.

We are divided about details in Geocentric cosmology, like whether angels move celestial bodies (me, yes, he, no) and whether the phenomenon classified as parallax really is that and tells us about stellar distances (he, yes, me, no).

I don't know what he is even doing in this discussion.

Update

Kukoleck Adam

Hans-Georg LundahlI see no I was curious about his health I believe I had heard he had several different health issues from time to time and I haven’t heard from them lately travel in different circles so

Not to be evasive at all this my time is pretty limited these days but I appreciate your reference and it’s Sunday I happen to acquire the means to to get that I may well really believe it but I wouldn’t have any opinion at all if I Change it every time somebody came along with a contradictory reference

Ron Eclavea

Kukoleck Adam
Sadly ...he passed away a few days ago. 🙏🏻⛪️⛪️⛪️

Kukoleck Adam

I had no idea . Just seemed he had been sick on and off. Do you know what from?

Ron Eclavea

Kukoleck Adam

Sorry ...not a few days ago.

He passed on Sunday morning, January 23.

He had been ill for some time.

I found out on a Facebook chat on one of Sungenis Facebook podcast

Sungenis also commented a bit on his time with Rick 🙏🏻

Kukoleck Adam

That’s a loss for us. He knew his stuff. So good at presenting it.

Ron Eclavea

Kukoleck Adam

True! He will be greatly missed.

Animated and very passionate, articulate and smart.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ron Eclavea Thank you for telling. RIP

II

Kukoleck Adam

Did the Vatican not assist anti-Pavelich to escape justice and hide him in continents did they not assist do assassin of Lincoln and hide him in the Vatican how many World War II enemies were hidden by the ratlines and the Vatican. Does the Vatican have money from the Jews and others does that not make them complicit in murder and stealing

[already answered on Ante Pavelich above.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Kukoleck Adam I already answered, no, the assassin's indirect helper was certainly in the Papal States, but not known to authorities there to have been such, and they helped extradict him.

III

Kukoleck Adam

What is the pope wrong about George what is the Vatican wrong about

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Kukoleck Adam If you mean the historic Vatican - nothing.

If you mean the Vatican in Exile - at utmost Pope Michael's social ethics are too bourgeois and capitalistic.

Perhaps, at worst, amounting to Puritan.

If you mean "Pope Francis" - his Vatican is not Catholic. But it is also very far from Antisemitic.

Who? One often cited by Serbs with anti-Catholic accusations.

Shaun Doyle's and My (Rare) Interaction

Shaun Doyle

10th August (2021)

Religion and spirituality isn't fundamentally about what works for you. It never was, and it never will be. It's about what's true or false. Real or fake. Whether God exists or not isn't dependent on what works for you. Whether Muhammad was a true prophet or not doesn't depend on what works for you.

If your religion or spirituality is about what works for you, you've fundamentally missed the point of religion and spirituality. Even if you feel it works for you, it can still be false.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

There are levels where spirituality is about what works for you, like chosing the celibate or married life, though. Obviously this is way beyond the fundamental question of what is truth (but one argument for Catholicism is, it usually leaves celibate or marriage up to you, corresponding to the 100-fold/60-fold and 30-fold fruit of a certain parable).

Note, my celibate is not about what works for me, it is about what was foisted on me. In a non-definitive, and yet non-ending way.

Shaun Doyle

Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm clearly talking about what religion/spirituality somebody chooses, not optional spiritual practices within a religion/spirituality.

Besides, all Christian traditions leave the choice of marriage or celibacy up to the individual. But, contra Catholicism, most strands of Protestantism are both freer and in line with Scripture for more people, since we don't refuse marriage to clergy (1 Tim. 4:3). Indeed, Paul says 'presbyteroi' should be 'one woman men' (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6). Whatever the precise implications of that phrase (some say elders should ALWAYS be married, but Paul almost certainly didn't mean to exclude himself from possibly being an elder), Paul clearly allowed married men to be clergy.

Blocked combox

Shaun Doyle a limité qui peut commenter cette publication.

Tried other account

Shaun Doyle limited who can comment on this post.

So, the following cannot be written back to Shaun Doyle in context. First some Apologetics, for Catholicism:

• Pope Michael has restored married clergy in the Latin rite (it has been abolished c. AD 1000 by Pope Gregory IX), and the first priest he ordained is a married one, father Francis Dominic;
• For those not accepting David Bawden's emergency conclave and the outcome at which he became Pope Michael, Eastern Rite Catholics never lost that, since their conditions for reuniting with the Pope were very often to not become involved in the Gregorian Reform;
• I am thankful Shaun Doyle sees - as some Protestants do not see - that St. Paul recommending celibacy and living it did not intend (or at the very least sees he did not necessarily intend) to make "elders" always married (the reference to his own life need not be correct, since he could have considered himself an episkopos rather than a presbyteros, for one);
• "one woman men" is intended as a maximum - under Eastern Rite or under Pope Michael (I presume), a man married once to a woman who is also married to her first man may become priest, but a man remarried after widowhood or married to a widow can't;
• the reference to Scripture in Church discipline is moot - does Shaun Doyle think every woman entering a Church needs to have her head covered (1 Corinthians 11:10) or every woman, man or child who is in the Church (rather than still outside the community of believers) needs to abstain from black pudding (Acts 15:20)? In a similar way as headscarves and abstinence from black pudding are over the Church universal now optional but still obliging in local Churches where the tradition was kept up (view of St. Thomas Aquinas) - the Church was free to change other disciplinary rules mentioned in the Bible, like freedom for married men to be priests and by now has done so twice in the Latin Church, restricting in the time of Gregory IX and rstoring the freedom in the time of Pope Michael and leaving Eastern Rite Catholics outside the changes, and now more in line with the Latin rite of Pope Michael than with that of "Pope Francis"

Since I hadn't counted on his blocking further communication, at least on this topic, I'll say what I had intended to say if he had challenged me on the reference to my own situation.

In Catholic Church law (at least 1983, perhaps 1917 too), a marriage is licit only if the couple has a place to live. A house will do. An apartment in a larger house will do. A gypsy living van will do. A tent will not do. It will not provide the privacy a couple needs to pay the marital debt. This doesn't necessarily mean a couple isn't validly married if they manage to get around this, I think they are and need to search out places of privacy (even if it were in the wild), but it makes it harder to get married if you live in the street.

There are two categories of apolegetics communities that have, so far, boycotted my work. CMI, AiG, and a few more, are seemingly saying they can't use my Young Earth Creationist apologetics as long as I am Catholic (if they think "Pope Francis" has a stance which would put my conscience in internal conflict, let them observe whom I called Pope and capable of changing Church discipline and whom I didn't call so, and yes, Pope Michael is Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric, Palmarian claimants from Clemente Domínguez y Gómez (whom I no longer call "Pope Gregory XVII") to Joseph Odermatt (whom I do not call "Pope Peter III") are Young Earth Creationists with the specification of accepting Masoretic / Vulgate chronology and rejecting literal six days in favour of a one moment creation, basically believing with obligation, what St. Augustine (who didn't use the Vulgate timeline) believed as the better interpretation, but leaving the other option free. I left them after hearing they consider the universe has (at least) 8 dimensions and then they are probably not Geocentric either. But back when I was Palmarian, my Catholicism was also not in any objective conflict with Young Earth Creationism.

The other one are Catholics like Trent Horn, Matt Fradd, Jimmy Aikin, Mark P. Shea, Peter Kreeft, they do great work on the Catholic and general Christian apologetics side (I saw a bad thing by Trent the other day, on evidences for Jesus he would not use, the one where he finally said the right thing was TF), but boycott me because I am Young Earth Creationis and Geocentric and accept Pope Michael.

Both teams seem fine with using C. S. Lewis, though, while he was mostly (up to relatively late, that is) not Young Earth Creationist and in The Problem of Pain directly contradicted that position, and while he was also not even on his death bed in at least visible communion with the Church of Rome (unless there is a covered up story not yet published).

I am actually most shocked by the de facto boycott (not a boycott in principle, though) by Pope Michael on the ground I need to learn to work. I do work, I write./HGL

How Sly is the Pope?

status

JB

Ah, yeah, the pope would never lie, right?

HGL

JB, Look, the level of fakes necessary to make Church Father after Church Father seem Catholic, including very early ones, is a level of fraud incompatible with trusting the New Testament either.

HGL

JB, Plus, suppose a Protestant were given a faked catechism to lure him in, how would that avoid risking those already Catholic getting a "more Protestant" doctrine by reading that catechism?

If I when converting was told "we don't adore Mary, but we venerate Her, more than other Saints" in a catechism, where would the Popes go to, to make those already Catholic actually adore Her? Especially as, there is a sect in Poland, where Catholics were in fact trying to make Her a fourth person of the Trinity or Incarnation of the Holy Ghost (forgot which) and who were condemned for that.

Very sly way to hide adoring Mary, but less sly when coming to make Catholics adore Her - if that had been the goal.

JB

HGL, I hate all deception, no matter where it may be found. Check out this fraud:

HGL

I think making a fake meme or faking a "would" is fairly easy.

Where exactly do YOU think Gilbert Joseph was taken in by lies about what Catholic teaching is, pronouned by Popes?

How easy would THAT fake have really been?

What Creationism Believes about Evolutionists (and vice versa)

BC

There's a certain amount of irony in claiming that the mere perception of what de facto *is* a conspiracy theory.

Don't forget Hans-Georg, a basic premise of Creationism us that large numbers of scientists are coordinating to try and undermine Creationism by publishing papers full of lies (and not letting Creationists publish simply because they're Creationists, speaking at seminars, in interviews and in documentaries, and setting and maintaining museum displays.

How one cannot consider that a conspiracy theory is beyond me.

HGL

"a basic premise of Creationism us that large numbers of scientists are coordinating to try and undermine Creationism by publishing papers full of lies"

No, it's not.

We do NOT think it is necessarily a question of dishonesty, more like incompetence. If you ask me.

"and not letting Creationists publish simply because they're Creationists"

That part is fairly well shown up by facts (unless it's extended to not letting them publish anything unconnected with creationism either).

While BC was wrong on how I perceive Evolution believers, I think he speaks for himself on how Evolution believers, of a certain type, perceive Young Earth Creationists.

JH thereon precisely totally ignores what I just said:

JH

Hans-Georg Lundahl creationism, in particular YEC is animated by subjective absolutes that cannot be mitigated by objective evidence, FACTS. The loyslity oaths the creationist groups demand solidify them as religious, and not scientific groups, then they complain they are not included? They are religious institutions, therefore as such are included . Claiming "persecution"- is inane

Hans-Georg Lundahl the INDEPENDENT scientific methodologies be they paleontology, botney, geology, etc. are all in a secret cabal , meeting together to get creationists, " Soviet style" -? Such a allacious analogy is too inane to respond to .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"the INDEPENDENT scientific methodologies be they paleontology, botney, geology, etc. are all in a secret cabal , meeting together to get creationists, " Soviet style" -?"

Sorry, your links* were not to palaeontologists, botanists, geologists, but to shrinks.

I very much did not pretend that the bona fide scientists (as opposed to shrinks) were in a cabal.

But neither do I pretend they are all strictly outside one. Since 80 or 90 something, shrinks have gone into discounselling debates on palaeontology, botany and geology related to Creation / Evolution, and some have turned to shrinks instead of turning to their best evidences, that is NOT being strictly outside the cabal either.

The other rant is precisely hypocritic, since the paleontologists, botanists and geologists and a few more very often do have subjective absolutes that cannot be mitigated by objective facts

As I said, incompetence, not cabal. Or conspiracy.

* On to Panda's Thumb and two to The Conversation.

Drew Gasaway Attacking QAnon - and Himself

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Drew Gasaway Attacking QAnon - and Himself · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Art of Interpretation

Drew Gasaway

I had to delete a political video oddly posted by a church.

I hope you people know that Qanon is politics. It is also such a badly produced hoax that no matter what side you're on it sounds like a kids cartoon.
Q is a Department of Energy clearance and your "Q" started it on 4chan stating it was a Department of Defense clearance. That clearance mostly pertains to nuclear reactor information and has limited nuclear weapons applications. I had a Q certificate and you know it is DOE, not DOD.

People are so gullible believing what they want to these days that they don't even Google basic words and terms before believing in them. They don't research platforms something was put on or the background of the people who them. This goes for both sides in the US and to people around the world.
Our churches are like this church A will say church B is the good guys but B is the bad guys. It won't matter if one said is right on the issue tribalism will lead them to back it. We see this in the history posts in the group. Some spend all their time attacking the other group instead of being productive.
Jesus warned about people who spend all their time accusing people and at one point spoke about them have a log in their own eye. Nothing is perfect and at this point everyone sucks. They all accuse the other side of doing what they do or plan to do.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It is also so such a badly produced hoax that no matter what side you're on it sounds like a kids cartoon."

Ah?

"Q is a Department of Energy clearance and your "Q" started it on 4chan stating it was Department of Defense clearance. That clearance mostly pertains to nuclear reactor information and has limited nuclear weapons applications."

Sure that was hoax rather than tongue in cheek?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl I just got up but the whole hoax is rather to build a persona around being a part of the CIA. Overtime the spin has reduced to nonsense, not just lies. So many predictions like setting a point and time when someone was going to be arrested and it never took place. I think this was designed to hurt the person they think it backs just like all the other activist stuff.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

QAnon pretended to be part of CIA?

I have not been on 4chan, I have only seen William Tapley give QAnon credits ...

What if, ironically, he was and was an agent to lead conservatives on into ridiculous positions (about my assessment of John Todd)?

(Like, whatever credit one may give to John Todd's general description of Illuminati, pretending ALL record companies by the fact of being so are dependent on Druids or that JT had time to give payments to CSL before the latter died fairly clearly is ridiculous).

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl Q sold itself as a senior national security official. The NSA doesn't some of the stuff they talked about but honestly, none of it matched how things worked. I would be shocked if it was an American or even one person.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Q sold itself as a senior national security official."

You have that from exactly where?

"I would be shocked if it was an American or even one person."

What about an American teen or tween out of work, or in studies, and with parents as conservative but less into internet than he?

William Tapley appreciated Q Anon, so, if Q Anon had (at least consistently) made such a claim, I think William Tapley would have known.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl it was on 4chan and then on FB. I saw but I believe it has been removed. The content of the posts still sell the idea mentioned.
The style of posts in Qanon is the kind fed by a government to cause issues. Governments do use proxies as they did with PACs and in the lockdown, protests to stir people up. Boy they went silent after the election fast the cash all stopped coming in. They wanted to defeat the person they that was being helped by making them like bad.

Qanon folks don't share all of it but there are different phases and there is a lot of inconsistency.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wasn't his general style posing questions?

Was he ever affirming with full stop rather than asking with Q[uestion] M[ark]?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl that is not all he did. He made a lot of predictions like he promised that Hillary was going to be arrested for running a pedo ring and set a date. That never occurred. Q also said that COVID 19 was a hoax and there was no virus. Note that since the polls closed in the US our misinformation ceased. Some of these things were run through a Russian money train in Europe. I think they liked the orange one's ideas but wanted to use his implosion to their advantage. They want chaos either way after the election and for their movement to believe the "deep state" robbed them. Hitler used this kind of tactic first by burning down parliament and then stage fake crimes that his brown shirts came to the rescue for.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A bit like Guy Fawkes' background.

" I had a Q certificate and you know it is DOE, not DOD. "

I suppose this was before getting into theology?

You have just basically admitted that your competence in theology is that of an amateur (to which I count also those doing a new line of study when already settled adults).

Plus, D and E are close on a keyboard and DOD could be a typo.

"Some of these things were run through a Russian money train in Europe."

Possible - but do you have evidence, or do you like throwing around allegations about as much as QAnon did?

"They want chaos either way after the election and for their movement to believe the "deep state" robbed them."

I saw allegations that sacks of mail had not been opened strategically as they came from "circumscriptions" (not sure English uses this word) previously clearly pro-Trump - can that be traced to him?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl I was in the military for a couple of years. I have a blacked-out DD214 if you if you would like to see it. I went to undergraduate school and after college, I went into the military but didn't do ROTC. I then went back to school toward the end and finished after. I got tired of doing adjunct bible college classes and went back to school. I was sick of lying for a living.

Hans-Georg Lundahl if just want to argue okay but he said Department of Defense. Q has nothing to do with the stuff they talks about.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, in other words, you are not a competent theologian.

Intro to Raqia debate with Drew Gasaway
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2020/01/intro-to-raqia-debate-with-drew-gasaway.html

Your opinion on raqia is in fact as little worth as anyone else's, you are an amateur.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl a theologian is someone who has a doctorate in theology and has made a new contribution to the field. However, your own tribalism from a traditionalist point of view has jaded your perspective on this. There is no ancient source to justify your position and it can only be reasoned using anachronistic thinking. It like most things from its sphere is a product of polarization. My view is the consensus of mainstream academic thought. That by itself is a fallacy but with the support we have is well-founded.

Hans-Georg Lundahl I should note that your position on "raqia" began with people who basically have no education in either science or Hebrew. Their arguments formed mainly out of it the whole it can't be and then developed from there eventually getting some traction from ideologues.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not claim I was an expert myself.

"There is no ancient source to justify your position"

Neither one that actually justifies yours, as pointed out.

Science education is in fact not a requisite for giving a witness on the tradition on what translations of raqia mean.

It is however a rival in attention to paying attention to fine shades in written and therefore languaged sources.

The point I am now making is, you have paid so much attention to this rival, your position on original meaning of raqia is not worth more than mine, rather somewhat less. I did not do Hebrew, but I did do some other ancient languages, like Latin and Greek.

LIke Latin and GReek = actually only those ...

If by "your position" you mean my full position, namely raqia being aether, this is in part making a harmonisation between my view on science and my respect for the text (like "waters above the raqia" = H2 throughout the universe, including in stars going toward He by way of D, by now, since day 4).

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl the Septuagint doesn't actually help but if you want to go there it is a translation and no text today is perfect. As for the Latin most modern Catholic theologians don't claim the Vulgate is perfect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl why didn't he say that it was a universe? This is double talk God gave perfect science in one sense and another he didn't. Remember that Philo who Jerome often revered said the firmament was a hard surface in Greek texts that qouted the LXX>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My point is, regardless of your arguments, you have forfeited authority of expert status in the question.

You are a military, not a theologian, and the tone you sometimes took was more appropriate to a recrute than to a discussion partner on an internet forum.

If you want to resume the discussion, I'm fine with that, but in that case I'd like you to invite someone, if he has time. He will be soon, if nothing unexpected happens, "dekan" - I think dean is not just same Latin word but also used same way - of the Faculty of Theology at Lund University.

He definitely did contribute, not just to theology in general, but to Christian History and in some sense even archaeology. He made an assessment of antiquity of now preserved texts about St. Helen's archaeology on Calvary.

Would you like?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl theologians study God. Linguistics is a side issue. However, I do have an MDiv. and I have studied Greek since I was in middle school and Hebrew since I was in High School. You really have no argument here other than the feelings from my background convict me. Philo was an ancient Jew who read both the Greek and the Hebrew.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yeah and Philo lived c. 1500 years after Moses.

In fact, his comment in itself doesn't support you.

He was content with raqia being a threedimensional body to call it firm.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl wrong! Philo of Alexandria said, "The incorporeal world then was already completed, having its seat in the Divine Reason; and the world, perceptible by the external senses, was made on the model of it; and the first portion of it, being also the most excellent of all made by the Creator, was the heaven, which he truly called the firmament, as being corporeal; for the body is by nature firm, inasmuch as it is divisible into three parts; and what other idea of solidity and of body can there be, except that it is something which may be measured in every direction? therefore he, very naturally contrasting that which was perceptible to the external senses, and corporeal with that which was perceptible only by the intellect and incorporeal, called this the firmament." (On The Creation, chapter 10 [A.D. 50])

Hans-Georg Lundahl the fact is all we have is Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud to understand Hebrew here. Not a shred of evidence there supports your idea.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You really don't like parsing sentences, do you?

"which he truly called the firmament, as being corporeal;"

Opposite : pure spirit.

"for the body is by nature firm, inasmuch as it is divisible into three parts;"

He clearly means three dimensions. To his view here, water and air are "firm" since bodies and such since threedimensional.

Since my aether is threedimensional (a globe, stretching up to the stars one light day up and involving them), he would count it as a body and hence firm.

"and what other idea of solidity and of body can there be, except that it is something which may be measured in every direction?"

Where he confirms what I just attributed to him.

Linguistics may be a sideline, but it gives more important methodological habits than dealing with nuclear stuff. Especially the linguistics of old languages known by old texts, the one called philology.

"all we have is Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud to understand Hebrew here."

Philo, Josephus and their contemporaries were c. 1500 years after Moses, contemporary to NT writings and c. 500 years before completion of Talmud - why would they be our only clue to exclusion of Christian Fathers?

Even if they could read the word "raqia" - what does that change? Words can change meaning over time.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl okay who do you have writing from then to demonstrate the language then? We don't even have the text in the style it is in. In the DSS alone there are 3 versions of Genesis. We know Hebrew solely because of the sources mentioned. You just don't seem to know how this works or care it is all "we are right" or war. It is people like you who make anachronisms commonplace and your investment in them. Culture and language change greatly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl the mix of proto-sinaitic and Hebrew in our current texts shows they were updated to Hebrew just like parts in the Hebrew were Aramaic. This language bridge is kind of a myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My point is, from back then you do NOT have any extra-Biblical sources like Philo.

The fact that you know (if so) the language to be a mix of Proto-Sinaic and Hebrew in our current sense, the fact you know language was updated, fine, I can buy that. B U T it does not give you one single extra-Biblical text from back in Moses' time to prove raqia means a solid object.

Once you get extra-Biblical writers like Josephus (influenced by Ptolemy's solid spheres) and Philo, you also get, well before Talmud, early Church Fathers.

Why exclude them, and why impose the least probable reading possible on Philo?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl okay I guess we don't have a Bible then because we can't read it with any certainty. However, we do have related languages like Ugaritic Hittite and we know all the views of civilizations around the Israelites to the said word.

The use of extra-Biblical sources is how we can read a single word in the Bible or know what things even were. This is one of many reasons why the Bible alone is an indefensible position. Unless you concede so kind of extra-Biblical source even your English reading is invalid.

This is the most probable reading because there is no source until you get very late otherwise. The original sources with your view were the least learned sources on Hebrew. You can show many examples beyond their background in their writings of mistakes in this area.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"okay I guess we don't have a Bible then because we can't read it with any certainty."

You omit the Catholic criterium of certainty. Tradition.

"However, we do have related languages like Ugaritic Hittite"

First, Hittite is normally used for Nesili, like Hattic for Hattili, while these parts of Syria spoke yet another language, under Hittite rule, so you would be better off to say Ugaritic in Hittite empire. Then we have when it is from:

"xve au xiie siècle av. J.-C."
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ougaritique

Probably spoken by some not yet enemies of Israel who lived by modern car routes 648 km north of, not Jerusalem, but Dan (I took Lattakie to Tel Aviv, since Lattakie is 11 km from Ras Shamra).

Note, these centuries are probably carbon dated, and carbon date for XVth C. carbon dated is probably still inflated.

In other words, Ugaritic is after Moses wrote Genesis around and Exodus starting with 1510 BC, the real time date for the Exodus from Egypt.

"and we know all the views of civilizations around the Israelites to the said word."

Probably not. You can know what Danes, Swedes, Germans, Russians, Poles, Italians, Spaniards of 19th C. meant by "civilisation" (the cognate exists in all of these languages), but you have a L O T more literature from Danes and Poles, Italians and Germans of the 19th C. left than you have of Ras Shamra speakers of Ugaritic or Pharaonic speakers of "very early Coptic" or indigenous speakers of eme-g̃ir (aka Sumerian). Also, I very much doubt you have any straight off cosmological works in Ugaritic, and Baal Cyclus in Ugaritic would typically make only passing mention of anything like "raqia" if it occurs at all. Unless Baal - like Hercules according to his bragging on eleventh and also twelfth work - is supposed to have held heaven like a physical burden on his shoulder, you cannot prove Ugaritic writers considered it as a solid.

But supposing you did, this does not mean you know the Hebrew meaning - as encyclopedic, not just roughly lexical meaning - from sources outside the tradition. Note very well, I consider Church Fathers to represent the tradition better, not less, than Talmud.

"The use of extra-Biblical sources is how we can read a single word in the Bible or know what things even were."

Not universally, unless by extra-Biblical you mean simple lexica or grammars.

You want to know what exactly a word means in LXX OT or in NT? Perhaps you go to Suidas. Now, the problem is, Suidas might consider that "artos" means leavened bread and that unleavened things are called "azymoi" without any other qualification, least of all bread. That is at least what Michael Caerularius considered about 1 Corinthians 11:23. He may have had encylopedic support in entries of Suidas, who lived before his time. In other words, unless you go to sources of the tradition - the Latin part of which is very solidly pro-azymite - and go just to any sources outside both Bible and tradition, simply secular, you can be wrong on what the full understandable meaning of a word is. But using Suidas for NT is a thousand times better than using Baal Cyclus of Ugarit for raqia.

The thing is, neither Hebrew, nor Aramaic, nor Koiné Greek were ever lost. The kind of check you mean (and it is not a simple check with your teacher in Greek or Hebrew and the grammar) is NOT how we learn these languages in the first place. You are wrong about methodology.

It is true that double checks with such indirect methods have their uses, but it is definitely a thing which is a side issue to understanding either words or meaning of the Bible.

"This is one of many reasons why the Bible alone is an indefensible position."

We have opposite reasons to reject it. I stand with Bible, Tradition, Magisterium.

"Unless you concede so kind of extra-Biblical source even your English reading is invalid."

Yes, some kind of. But this does not mean I look up in New York Times what "mankind" means in relation to 1 Corinthians 6:10. "Liers with mankind? You mean only bestiality is allowed or you mean the guys who have sex with all 7 billions alive - how do you do that?" Any priest or even Protestant clergy can tell you from TRADITION that "mankind" in this context means sth else, namely the male gender, and "lier" is (obviously not liar or lyre) in the Greek in the masculine, so it means someone committing the sin of sodomy. And I think that's a fair parallel for going to Ras Shamra Baal Cycle instead of to Patristic tradition to look up what raqia means ...

"This is the most probable reading because there is no source until you get very late otherwise."

It's a very improbable reading, since it makes the text a lie about the physical world. Sure, God did not intend to make lessons about the physical world, but neither did he allow hagiographers to lie about it by a slip of the tongue. Just as a definition of Nicaea cannot lie about the metaphysics of Trinity and Christology. Or those of Trent about the metaphysics of the Eucharist and some other subjects.

I don't mind getting late within tradition. I feel no need to get a confirmation as early as possible even outside tradition. Why? Bc I don't think God would allow the tradition of revealed truth to die out. Check Matthew 28:16-20 on that issue. And use the Greek : "pasais tais hemerais" or "pasas tas hemeras" (forget if it is accusative or dative of time) is not a vague "always" since that is "aei".

"The original sources with your view were the least learned sources on Hebrew."

Do you take that from the Tamud or from a normal Hebrew lexicon?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl that is the description in my textbooks but it is actually Amorite.

Hans-Georg Lundahl the patristics were not experts on the ancient near east or science they were experts on spirituality. All the patristics agreed that the periodic table was just earth, air, fire, and water. Do we see those as a dogma?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"All the patristics agreed that the periodic table was just earth, air, fire, and water."

Do they?

All nations? Not just Greek and Latin but also Syriac and Coptic?

More to the point : are they all actively using this in exposing the Bible?

Bc some Father may have agreed with your assessment (not sure it is really all that correct a rendering of "four elements") in private but may have thought it totally irrelevant to exposing for instance Genesis 1 - or Genesis 2:7.

My point is, we don't have all fathers agreeing the firmament is a solid body. Indeed, Philo as being pre-Talmudic is sometimes counted with Josephus as honorary father, and you don't get to tie down Philo to "solid body" notion, unless three dimensions are enough for solidity.

Point on your textbook / wiki, noted.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl that is a dumb argument against mine. You're asking a lot citations. A textbook in the sense of what you want wouldn't be valid since they can't source that many in one book. This is how the world was seen and is alluded to in my places.

Hans-Georg Lundahl we show it over and over with Basil and others. Even Luther using the common Catholic belief then said it was in his day. Telescopes changed this thought.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I note you did not say "Basil and ALL others".

"This is how the world was seen and is alluded to in m[an]y places."

It is how the world was seen by some.

Among Church Fathers it seems many (including St. Basil) were round earth but not all.

St. Basil indeed endorsed Ptolemaic chrystalline spheres astronomy - the standard in Greek / Western up to Tycho Brahe. As you mention, observations changed this, not sure if Tycho needed a telescope to verify that the comet was indeed passing through where a chrystalline sphere would otherwise presumably have blocked it.

However, not being obliged to chrystalline spheres, I thank Fathers of a less Western / Hellenistic bent. This means, whether Round Earth, chrystalline spheres, solid-body-nature of raqia, some views were common but not universal. Your citing Philo shows a clear reserve with directly and without qualification calling raqia a solid. "Yes ... it definitely is f i r m, since f i r m doesn't mean anything else than it being measurable in three dimensions". But as you are a military and not a theologian in your basic outline of thought and method, you miss it.

Luther is highly irrelevant.

Your overall view is too bent on seing past views of nature as being equally uniform as you would like heliocentrism and evolutionism to be. Back in those days, there was no compulsory school to push single views to the masses.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl there were few people who didn't see the earth as having a hard dome above. It was how the world looked and it is how the authors of the Bible saw it. Basil didn't think it was a sphere btw. A number of the fathers were flat earthers because they saw Greek philosophy in some areas diminishing God. The fathers didn't know all things. The timeline in the fathers for the return of Christ would have already occurred.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"there were few people who didn't see the earth as having a hard dome above."

You get your Gallup polls from back then from?

"Basil didn't think it was a sphere btw"

I seem to recall a passage where he says he didn't care less. He was not a flat earther either.

"A number of the fathers were flat earthers because they saw Greek philosophy in some areas diminishing God."

Exactly, so they didn't believe Ptolemy's chrystalline spheres. Prove *those* specific fathers believed the raqia to be strictly a solid!

"The timeline in the fathers for the return of Christ would have already occurred."

I think St. Augustine entered an escape clause in commenting on Apocalypse 20 in De Civitate ...

Interaction with John Baumgardner

Creation vs. Evolution : Article and Details, Please? · Baumgardner Gave the Title, I Found the Link · My Tables End In Real Year 1032 (1028) BC, Dated As 940 · And What About the Lowering of Carbon 14 Level? · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Interaction with John Baumgardner

Before first reading of the Cambridge article:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

on own wall

Article and Details, Please?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/09/article-and-details-please.html

John Baumgardner - can you help out, please?

added below

[800 - 400 BC is right the period where I am or was putting the evening out to 100 pmC.]

John Baumgardner

As a point of clarification, that quote referring to the Hallstat Disaster is _not_ from my RATE chapter on C-14.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, do you know where it _is_ from?

John Baumgardner

In a quick Internet search, I found the term 'Hallstatt radiocarbon plateau' first mentioned in a 2003 review article in Quaternary Science Reviews by Zolitschka et al. This term refers to a 400 year long interval from about 800 to 400 BC during which global C-14 levels were more or less constant. That period had already been named by the archeological community the "Hallstatt Period" for the early European Iron Age. The name is from that of the village of Hallstatt in Austria famous for its salt mines even before that period. High-precision decadal calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, AD 1950-6000 BC.

A 1993 paper in the journal Radiocarbon by Stuvier and Becker entitled "High-precision decadal calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, AD 1950-6000 BC" had shown that radiocarbon levels during that interval coinciding with the Hallstatt Period had been almost constant. That meant that the use of C-14 for events during that time period had unacceptably large uncertainties for most archeologists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, ok. I'll try to find a link.

Here?

High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC
Minze Stuiver (a1) and Bernd Becker (a2) +
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2016
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/highprecision-decadal-calibration-of-the-radiocarbon-time-scale-ad-19506000-bc/F1AB60097B0184501418D3EAEAD2EA90

What if archaeologists are wrong on what the real years should be?

John Baumgardner

In dealing with European history, archeologists largely rely on radiocarbon for what they assume are close to actual dates for the successions of occupations, for example, that they study. The mounting complexities with radiocarbon, for example, the 'Hallstatt Plateau' and the increasing discrepancies between C-14 dates and historically datable sites in the Middle East as one goes further and further back in time, are causing considerable consternation in the archeological community.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, OK, but the problem is, the other dating reasons they use could also be wrong.

After some reading and rereading of it, with calculations leading to a discrepancy between (purported?) historic dates 665 and 595 BC:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

on Baumgardner's wall

Baumgardner Gave the Title, I Found the Link
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/10/baumgardner-gave-title-i-found-link.html

[technically first comment under I:] Would you mind taking a look on the problem?

My Tables End In Real Year 1032 (1028) BC, Dated As 940
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/10/my-tables-end-in-real-year-1032-1028-bc.html

And What About the Lowering of Carbon 14 Level?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/10/and-what-about-lowering-of-carbon-14.html

I

John Baumgardner

Hans-Georg, To me it seems clear that something unusual is going on during that interval. My conjecture is that it has to do with the atmospheric C-14 production rate, that it was for some reason higher than average early in the interval and then decreased back toward the average value, say, averaged over the past 2500 years. What might have been responsible for a higher flux of high-energy particles entering the atmosphere during that time? I do not have any firm ideas as to the answer to that question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The problem is not the overall scheme in the interval (760 - 450 BC), to me it is a question of pmC sinking by normal decay not compensated by any new production reaching down that low in the atmosphere.

The problem is where the level drops (and the radiocarbon years peak) faster than the atmospheric sample would decay between 665 and 595 BC.

It seems you are confusing production rate and level, whenever a production rate gets normal, it takes time for the level to sink down. Why did it sink faster?

Can 70 years be a question of simple mixture fluctuations?

As to where I think you go wrong in general terms, I think you are comparing 100 pmC to a "stable equilibrium point" to which everything automatically returns as quickly as possible as soon as contrary influences are done away with. For definition of the term:

Gömböc—The Shape That Shouldn't Exist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvVF5QWSYF4

But 100 pmC is the unstable result of two in and of themselves opposed "forces", with no fixed value either of them.

The one pushing down is "decay" and you have not answered why pmC sank quicker than decay speed.

Have any idea particularly on that one?

John Baumgardner

Just as 11 years of atmospheric thermonuclear testing caused a jump in the atmospheric C-14 level, which then began to decay away, something like a relatively nearby supernova would do something similar and would yield what would appear to be anomalously younger C-14 ages in the organisms that died after that event, with the anomaly decreasing with time afterward. Let me emphasize that this supernova explanation is rank speculation on my part, but it serves to illustrate the sort of cause which seems to be needed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"a jump in the atmospheric C-14 level, which then began to decay away,"

But was the decay rate normal or accelerated?

How the pcM gets up quickly (with radiocarbon years going down) is not the problem. I am most fully aware extra radioactivity can get it up. The problem is, can it decay faster?

John Baumgardner

I was assuming a decay rate like we measure for C-14 today. Why would it need to be faster?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If we go from 102.016 pmC to 100.061 it is a decay as from 100 to 98.084.

If we go from 101.113 pmC to 99.142 it is a decay rate as from 100 to 98.051.

BUT in 70 we would normally go from 100 to 99.157.

So, going "from 100 to 98.084 / 98.051" is faster than normal.

It means like going from 100 to 20.5 in 5730 years.

What caused the more than double speed of decay?

The two different versions are due to my hesitation if "years bp" was expressed in Cambridge halflife or still in a Libby halflife needing to recalculate the numbers by 1.03 for Cambridge.

Either way, the stretch from 665 to 595 BC averages a decay twice as fast as normal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I can see three main solutions.

• a) faster decay - but adding radioactivity should also make lots of new carbon 14 isotopes, see the article "Carbon dating into the future", right? Net phenomenon would be more C14, not less.
• b) mixture phenomenon - while all of the period 760 to 450 averages a decay with no compensating production, 665 to 595 you get admixture from parts of the air which have been decaying their C14 for longer without receiving new production - but can air parts be that separate from each other in the atmosphere for 95 years or more?
• c) while the tested objects have the carbon dates they have, some of their real dates could be somewhat misassigned.
  
  Even for back in Our Lord's time, when Rome was vaster and better organised, Our Lord's nativity was in 1498 assigned to "Hebdomada sexagesima tertia, juxta Danielis prophetiam, scilicet anno quadringentesimo quadragesimo vel circa." (63:rd week of Daniel) and now it is 65th week of Daniel.
  
  And Daniel's weeks start just after this period.
  
  
• d) - a subset of b : natural gas leaked or petrol was used very massively in oil lamps over the period.

You did get how I had calculated it, right? It was stated in the text in the second link on this thread?

II

Brian James Kyle*

Perhaps nuclear decay on the earth could be a source for increased C14?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The problem was not INCREASED C14, but DECREASED, more rapidly than normal decay rate.

If you didn't see how I calculated a decrease more than normal decay rate, read my links again, please.

Esp. this one:

And What About the Lowering of Carbon 14 Level?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/10/and-what-about-lowering-of-carbon-14.html

* not shortening name, since his page says

Canadian Economic Security & Stimulus Initiative
Founder & Chief Visionary Officer · Décembre 2016 à aujourd’hui · Victoria (Colombie-Britannique)
http://www.briankyle.ca/

In other words, a known person.