Ending Slavery

Link in my status:

Harriet Tubman: She Never Lost A Passenger
Friday, May 1, 2015 | Lawrence W. Reed
https://fee.org/articles/risking-life-and-limb-for-liberty/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Partly wrong history:

"Slavery was once ubiquitous in the world — and even intellectually respectable. That began to change in the late 18th century, first in Britain, which ended its slave trade in 1807 and liberated the enslaved throughout its jurisdiction in 1834. Before the 13th Amendment abolished slavery in America in 1865, American blacks risked everything attempting to escape from their masters, who sometimes pursued them all the way to the Canadian border."

No, it was not ubiquitous in the world, nor intellectually respected by all.

Non-colonial countries did not have it.

In France, your slave could claim his freedom as soon as he set foot on the soil of European France, and probably Québec too.

In Spain, slave traders were not well respected in the colonies, where slavery was allowed (notably in Cuba), but slave markets had to take place outside cities in order to not scandalise the good Christians.

Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony and the rest of Germany, that is of Holy Roman Empire, had no colonies and no slaves.

Sweden and Denmark only had them short periods.

Mil Sneler

Hans-Georg Lundahl On the 27th of January 1416, Dubrovnik, then an autonomous republic (Ragusa) formally abolished slavery, the transportation of slaves and the idea of one person being able to own another, becoming one of the very first in Europe to do so after Venice in 960.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Actually, if it was 1416, it was one of the last.

Sweden, Denmark, England, all of Francia went before.

But it is obvously before England re-abolished slavery 1834.

Mil Sneler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Sweden made the slave trade illegal in 1813,

Hans-Georg Lundahl The Danish ban on the transatlantic slave trade in 1792 marked the beginning of the end of slavery. Fifty years later, in 1847, the state of Denmark ruled that slavery be phased out over a 12 year period, beginning with all new-born babies of enslaved women.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Slavery was first abolished by the French Republic in 1794, but Napoleon revoked that decree in 1802. In 1815, the Republic abolished the slave trade but the decree did not come into effect until 1826. France re-abolished slavery in her colonies in 1848 with a general and unconditional emancipation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Sweden made the slave trade illegal in 1813,"

That refers to the colonial slavery. In Sweden the white slavery had been abolished in 1341.

"The Danish ban on the transatlantic slave trade in 1792 marked the beginning of the end of slavery."

Also about colonial conditions.

"Slavery was first abolished by the French Republic in 1794, but Napoleon revoked that decree in 1802."

That is a slavery that only applied in Louisiana and the islands. Mainland France and Québec had no slavery. A slave who set his foot in mainland France could claim his freedom by just saying so.

Asteroid, Göbekli Tepe, Carbon Dating

Johnny Proctor

shared a link

10 mars, 19:33

How do any of these fantastical fictions even merit a 'news report'? This is 100% speculation with no facts, no evidence, no witnesses, just guys who believe in myths and models who try to shoehorn their pet theories into geological tables. And this is one of the more tame reports.

Giant asteroid apocalypse 13K years ago was witnessed by ancient humans, experts believe
By Chris Ciaccia | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/science/giant-asteroid-apocalypse-witnessed-by-ancient-humans

JA

Gobekli Tepe: check that out as it was a controversial find with alleged drawings of a comet impacting- supposedly linked to mass extinction of Mega fauna such as mammoths and an alleged unknown civilization

Johnny Proctor

I have no confidence in their dating methods. Its 10% science and 90% speculation and computer modeling. Its a priori theses looking for evidence to support them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I date Göbekli Tepe as ending 401 years after the Flood, when Peleg is born.

Like other LXX reading would make it 529 after the Flood.

"I have no confidence in their dating methods"

Carbon 14 can be used on samples with historically known age and be confirmed by that.

In other words, we should have confidence in the residues and in the halflife.

However, the problem is, what was the original ratio in the atmosphere back at a given time.

With a growth of C14 ratio rapidly after Flood and still through Babel / Göbekli Tepe, slowing down between Abraham and Joseph, between Joseph and Exodus and reaching stable at least by the time of King David (unless his time had even above present level), we can recalibrate the carbon dates.

I have made several tables, each tentative per se, but apart from a recalibration with Genesis 14 as carbon dated 3500 BC, I'd see no problem with using the tables as such, give and take a little due to that problem (I had guessed 3200 BC would be a good guess for its carbon date, as per proto-dynastic Egypt in Genesis 12).

Johnny Proctor

But all these estimates studiously ensure they exceed the biblical record of 6,000 years of human civilization, begging the question whether the Bible is reliable history or not. And that is the point: their claims exist to oppose the biblical record even if only by a few thousand years. Unless we discern the endgame here, we can uncritically accept their assertions in good faith when they are not acting in good faith but against faith.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My tables do NOT exceed 7220 years.

A carbon date like 9600 BC is only partially an estimate.

It is estimating an original C14 ratio of 100 pmC, but it is reading a remaining ratio of 24.58 pmC.

So, my tables are about how much the real original pmC was, namely in this case c. 42 pmC.

Now, 24.58 pmC / 42 pmC = 58.524 % and the point of reading present pmC is getting percentage of original ratio.

Let's then treat 58.524 as a pmC value, and we get: 4450 years.

2430 BC is actually a bit later than what I place Babel's beginning in, but I just took up 42 pmC off the bat.

More like 2607 BC.

9600 BC in carbon date - 2607 BC in real date = 6993 extra years.

6993 extra years = 42.916 pmC.

24.58 pmC / 42.916 pmC = 57.275 %

57.275 pmC = 4600 years

2580 BC, fairly close to 2607 BC, which I consider the real date for Babel beginning or within few years of it.

"Unless we discern the endgame here, we can uncritically accept their assertions in good faith when they are not acting in good faith but against faith."

Thousands of learned men are using C14 about much more recent objects which have nothing to do with opposing the faith. Rembrandt ceased painting 351 years ago.

This means a painting where organic material in the paint is over 95.843 pmC is a fake.

This is a much more typical use of C14 than what you think of, and it works.

Johnny Proctor

Hans, you know what I mean. When people suggest that they have reliable dating for artifacts over 100,000 years old (they say), I just roll my eyes. Without corroboration of other dating metrics such as your Rembrandt example, they speculate based on decay rates that have proven very unreliable.

Ever since my pilrimage to Geocentrism (which is really a pilgrimage to the Church Fathers) I have learned to never doubt the claims of Scripture that are opposed by emprical science. I understand your endorsement of the scientific method within the time span of the biblical record, but I can't follow you a minute outside of those well-established parameters.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not going outside the Biblical chronology.

Learn to read.

A carbon date of 9600 BC = (or comes little after) a real date of 2607 BC = death of Noah, 350 after the Flood. I do not say 9600 BC is a reliable or an unreliable date, I say it is an erroneous date obtained by a part reliable (half life, measure of present carbon) and part unreliable (assumption of original 100 pmC) method, and I then proceed to eliminate the unreliable part, so that carbon dates like 9600 BC shall be translated to real dates of 2607 BC.

Or carbon dates of 3500 BC to real dates like 1935 BC.

The article as such was for carbon date 13 000 YA = 11 000 BC. Within end of or just after Noah's post-Flood lifespan. I e, a real date around 2607 BC.

Johnny Proctor

I don't think we're in disagreement. My forte is theology, not geology or paleontology. I approach these topics from a theological perspective. And I do appreciate your efforts to align the most reliable radiological dating methods with the biblical record. But as I shared above, when I made this (unsought) pilgrimage to Geocentrism and through it was brought to the realization that I had been deceived by the secular sciences and even those Catholics beholden to them, I made a decision to always give revelation the benefit of the doubt.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are not even in any conflict here.

I have very cearly said I accept Biblical chronology as the correct one. There is no correct date before 5199 BC (or some would go as far as 5509 BC).

It's not the Bible's chronology I'm reinterpreting, it's the carbon dating calibration.

Is Anticapitalism a Condemned Socialist Heresy?

New blog on the kid : Are Some Conservatives Trying to Tell me "Socialism Doesn't Work"? · I came across Edwin Benson's lampooning of Panera Cares again · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Is Anticapitalism a Condemned Socialist Heresy?

Michael D. Greaney

shared a link

11th March, 12:57

50. ARE CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIALISM THE SAME?

If you’re tempted to trot out the (alleged) “endorsement” of socialism by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, be advised that is addressed in a future posting, already written. . . .

The Just Third Way : Did C.S. Lewis Approve of Socialism?
https://just3rdway.blogspot.com/2020/03/did-cs-lewis-approve-of-socialism.html

RSCW

Practicing Christians would use tax and spend policies to benefit their priorities if elected into office, non Christians would not.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// “Usury” is not all interest, but interest on a loan of money not used for a productive purpose, i.e., taking a share of profits when no profit is due. //

You have taken this from a Calvinistic redefinition of usury.

To St. Thomas, there is a possibility of getting more back on a loan to a producer as producer - but only if the producer makes a profit. If he makes a deficit, on the same token you actually get less back than you had lent. EITHER you have a fixed sum OR a fixed percentage of the producer's gains or losses.

And C. S. Lewis fully knew this. He knew the Middle Ages better than you do.

As to the socialism condemned by Gregory XVI:

// Before the term socialism was coined in 1832 by the Saint-Simonian Pierre Leroux, socialism was known as “the Democratic Religion.” Various forms went by different names, such as “the New Christianity” (Henri de Saint-Simon) and Neo-Catholicism” (Felicite de Lamennais), but all (as de Tocqueville observed) shared a common principle: the shift of sovereignty from the human person created by God, to some form of the collective created by man. As Fulton Sheen observed in his doctoral thesis in 1925, God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy (1925), this demotes God to being the servant of man, and elevates collective man to the status of God. All of the “new things” (socialism, modernism, and the New Age) were condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832 and 1834, //

Not a trace of the main Christian Socialists, namely de la Tour de Pin and Bonald.

Note, there disciples have at times been called Fascists, and the Austrofascists have indeed changed the label from "Christian Socialist" to "Christian Social" because of deference to this usage of the word "Socialism". I think they did so as far back as the founder Karl Lüeger.

Michael D. Greaney

Then Hilaire Belloc is a Calvinist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hilaire Belloc was educated in IIIrd Republic, which owed sth to Calvin.

However, I think you are actually misrepresenting his position, he attributes what I attribute to same Calvin.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// Investment is the last thing that involves usury . . . unless the lender doesn’t assume part of the risk, in which case, yes, it’s usury. Otherwise, it’s a rightful share of the profits.//

Taking part of the risk = accepting less back if the producer loses.

You lend 100 €. Either you are owed 100 € whether the producer wins or loses his venture, or you are owed 90 € if he loses 10% and 110 € if he wins 10 %, or you divide the sum, so you get 95 or 105 (50+45 / 50+55) with same gains or losses.

Taking interest, namely getting more than 100 € and that more decided in advance whether he wins or loses = not taking part of the risk = usury.

Michael D. Greaney

You assume the Currency Principle based on past savings. You omit the Banking Principle based on past and future savings, i.e., both mortgages and bills of exchange.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Assuming the what you call currency principle is what St. Thomas did too.

I don't see how you can base anything on a future, i e not yet extant saving.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832 and 1834"

• 2. Cum primum On Civil Obedience 9 June 1832
• 3. Mirari vos On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism 15 August 1832
• 5. Singulari Nos On The Errors Of Lammenais 25 June 1834

Will look up.

For 1832, 3:
Mirari Vos - Papal Encyclicals
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm

Seems to be little about property or workers or such ...

Mirari Vos condemns the idea that Liberty of Religion is due, or that liberty of non-Catholic religions is more than a strategy for peace rather than expression of justice.

And Singulari Nos is not much more help in rejecting "Christian Socialism" since it is there to reject a new philosophical system:

Singulari Nos - Papal Encyclicals
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16singu.htm

Michael D. Greaney

You need to read more carefully and know the historical context.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What exact § mentions property structures?

The Socialist Idea most vehemently condemned by the Pope was the separation of Church and State, and the second most condemned one was the right to rebellion.

Plus, he was condemning an ideology with its own philosophy which would be the one later crystallised as Marxism, like Engels' view of human society emerging or things like that.

Michael D. Greaney

My upcoming books explain this in detail.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

R i g h t ... I am reminded of how Roger M Pearlman will avoid a question now and then by referring to books in the Moshe Emes series ... instead of giving a straight answer.

IV

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[Linked to this post "Is Anticapitalism a Condemned Socialist Heresy?"]

Michael D. Greaney

Hans-Georg Lundahl, you are attempting to use the same tactic G. B. Shaw used against Chesterton to good effect . . . until Chesterton caught on to him and learned how to handle the chief spokesman for Fabian socialism. Shaw’s tactic (which he also used against W.H. Mallock to dodge Mallock’s critique of georgism — Mallock’s critique being so effective that Henry George himself admitted that it was the only one worth listening to) was to focus on a particular application of principle or even a single word, isolate it, and then create a series of straw man arguments, demolishing them as he raised them, ridiculing his opponent in the process in as condescending a manner as possible for being so stupid as not to agree with Shaw.

After being bested (or so popular opinion supposed) by Shaw a couple of times in this way, Chesterton simply stated his principle(s) in terms as broad as possible, leaving Shaw with nothing specific to attack except Chesterton himself. Chesterton being congenitally jovial and refusing to quarrel, this left Shaw with nothing with which to attack, except to complain that Chesterton was avoiding quarreling and was therefore a liar and a coward. Typically, Shaw would make a few more sallies in as insulting a manner as possible, Chesterton would refuse to rise to the bait, and Shaw would become enraged to the point of incoherence.

For example, take the ending to an informal debate that took place in the summer of 1923 soon after Chesterton’s conversion to Catholicism (which enraged Shaw, as did most everything). As recorded by Hesketh Pearson who was by chance present, and published in Louis Biancolli, ed., The Book of Great Conversations. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1948, Shaw accused Chesterton of contradicting himself, of trying to be two halves of a whole at one and the same time —

“You are just like Don Quixote; and though your lunacy on some occasions makes his seem pale by comparison, you yet contrive in some mysterious manner to be your own Sancho Panza.”

Chesterton amiably agreed, treating it as a compliment. As he responded, further infuriating Shaw,

“Exactly; and anybody but you could see that the combination of these two extremes forms the Catholic standpoint. You might almost have been quoting me when you said that the Catholic standpoint is that there is no standpoint. . . . The Catholic is not so pragmatical as the atheist or the Puritan. His Faith is built on Belief, not on Knowledge — falsely so-called. He is consequently able to appreciate and sympathize with every form of human activity. He takes the whole world to his heart.”

Having brought Shaw very nicely to the boil, Chesterton emphasized that unlike socialists and other fantastic creatures, “We Catholics do not pretend to a knowledge we have not got. . . . [Y]ou can hardly expect us to accept your verdict . . . that man was not made to enjoy himself but to read Fabian tracts and listen to University Extension lectures.”

Shaw, however, refused to see the point, or at least pretended he did not — although the latter is unlikely. Having Shaw hooked and landed, Chesterton triumphantly proceeded to gaff him. He agreed with Shaw that he was not making sense, knowing full well he was making perfect sense if Shaw could only have dropped his prejudices and looked beyond his limited, materialistic worldview.

Having been tried past endurance, Shaw accused Chesterton of wanting to have his cake and eat it, too, attacking an opponent and running away from him at the same time. As he fulminated, “I see. Heads you win, tails he loses, all the way.”

CHESTERTON: Precisely.

SHAW: Thank you. I am wasting my time. Good evening.

(Rapid exit of Shaw.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"you are attempting to use the same tactic G. B. Shaw used against Chesterton"

Would you mind citing what I said which you take as a straw man or absurd application of a principle reduced to verbatim statement rather than thought?

Claiming I paralleled Shaw doesn't make me a parallel to him.

As Chesterton called him a Calvinist, and he conceded, as CSL denounced him as a life force worshipper, I am not very happy about being compared to George Bernard.

Also, I'd like to have the reference for the piece of biography ...

Let's take one idea some US Conservatives are denouncing as "Socialism". Minimal wages.

Rerum Novarum § 20 has:

// Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages are fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this — that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven. “Behold, the hire of the laborers . . . which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabbath.”[6] Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen’s earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred. //

Rerum Novarum §§ 37 and 39 are:

// 37. Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.
...
39. When work people have recourse to a strike and become voluntarily idle, it is frequently because the hours of labor are too long, or the work too hard, or because they consider their wages insufficient. The grave inconvenience of this not uncommon occurrence should be obviated by public remedial measures; for such paralyzing of labor not only affects the masters and their work people alike, but is extremely injurious to trade and to the general interests of the public; moreover, on such occasions, violence and disorder are generally not far distant, and thus it frequently happens that the public peace is imperiled. The laws should forestall and prevent such troubles from arising; they should lend their influence and authority to the removal in good time of the causes which lead to conflicts between employers and employed. //

E R G O, Leo XIII has specifically said that Government has a licit stake in guaranteeing wage earners get just wages.

King St. Louis IX considered he also had a licit stake in protecting borrowers from usury.

One thing is considered "Socialist" and the other "Anticapitalist".

But neither is uncatholic.

Now, this is how I meant you should illustrate how Gregory XVI condemned Socialist ideas about economy.

Source for quotes:

Rerum Novarum - Papal Encyclicals
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13rerum.htm

Michael D. Greaney

Thank you for that absolutely PERFECT example of Shaw's tactics. Have you ever considered the stage? You and Chuck Chalberg together would be a hoot.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'd take a debate with him if you'll introduce us, but over internet.

Supposing our views are sufficiently different for a debate.

On stage wouldn't do, people like you misrepresenting me as Shavian, Materialist etc have denied me a livelihood as Novus Gilbert Keith Chesterton (the essayist) for so long, my teeth have gone bad over the life in the street. When you have slept little in too little warmth, you do tend to gobble sugar and not care about (or have possibility to) brush your teeth just after.

This excludes stage, school, priesthood from possible livelihoods.

I see you comparing me gratuitously to Shaw again, but I still see no real tertium comparationis.

I very much see none between yourself and Chesterton, since he would have been witty instead of making me weary with an evasiveness that is really evasive : giving an allegation and refusing to back it up.

Plus, you are still behind on the info where exactly this piece of biography comes from.

"After being bested (or so popular opinion supposed) by Shaw a couple of times in this way, Chesterton simply stated his principle(s) in terms as broad as possible, leaving Shaw with nothing specific to attack except Chesterton himself."

I am not sure Chesterton would have agreed.

I am sure your comparing me to Shaw without backing it up is what is here attributed to Shaw.

Michael D. Greaney

Damn, but you're good. All you need is a long white beard.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

We are both good, if you look up the link.

[new link to:]
Is Anticapitalism a Condemned Socialist Heresy?

[the old I doubled with a new for the update, so here is on the new link.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, I found a post by you, where you are giving these summaries from "Biancolli, Great Conversations" How did Biancolli get his assessment?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// At the prospect of a clash between England’s most famous — or at least most popular — literary figures, the group gathered ’round like idlers in the street anticipating a cat and dog fight, as actor, director, and writer Edward Hesketh Gibbons Pearson (1887-1964), who was present, described it. //

What if Edward's assessment of Chesterton's behaviour was wrong?

Chesterton and Shaw: The Lost Debate
https://just3rdway.blogspot.com/2019/05/chesterton-and-shaw-lost-debate.html

Michael D. Greaney

[posted a little earlier

but here's where I saw it:]

You're going to love my book . . . if only to supply pipe lights, unless like Shaw you abstain from tobacco. And alcohol, meat, and other insufficiently Puritanical practices.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Michael D. Greaney I suppose your book may be lovely.

What I disagree with is your refusing to give the argument outside the book.

I no longer smoke, since it damages my voice.

If you had the goodness to publish a few essays of mine and send me money, I might have the pleasure to drink to your health without getting overly bothered by Muslims providing sugar to "cure me of alcoholism" ...

Michael D. Greaney

But I love your imitation of Shaw! You have his technique down to a T!😘

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sure, continue to impoverish me so you can continue enjoying it.

Lying about my character and making sure to deprive me of Catholic and Chestertonian readers may still do the trick!

Seriously, if Chesterton did not do what you did, if either Edward Hesketh misrepresented him or you misrepresent his representation, even if I were to a T as you put it doing the exact same material response as Shaw, it wouldn't be the same formal one, since not to the same provocation.

But in fact, the clarification Shaw insisted on was "are you A or B" when Chesterton had clearly said "neither" and the clarification I would like is, where do you pin me down to that behaviour?

Time for some real Chesterton, from his own pen, not from Edward Hesketh's:

For such reasons, among others, Dickens was angry with America. But if America was angry with Dickens, there were also reasons for it. I do not think that the rage against his copyright speeches was, as he supposed, merely national insolence and self-satisfaction. America is a mystery to any good Englishman; but I think Dickens managed somehow to touch it on a queer nerve. There is one thing, at any rate, that must strike all Englishmen who have the good fortune to have American friends; that is, that while there is no materialism so crude or so material as American materialism, there is also no idealism so crude or so ideal as American idealism. America will always affect an Englishman as being soft in the wrong place and hard in the wrong place; coarse exactly where all civilised men are delicate, delicate exactly where all grown-up men are coarse. Some beautiful ideal runs through this people, but it runs aslant. The only existing picture in which the thing I mean has been embodied is in Stevenson's "Wrecker," in the blundering delicacy of Jim Pinkerton. America has a new delicacy, a coarse, rank refinement. But there is another way of embodying the idea, and that is to say this -- that nothing is more likely than that the Americans thought it very shocking in Dickens, the divine author, to talk about being done out of money. Nothing would be more American than to expect a genius to be too high-toned for trade. It is certain that they deplored his selfishness in the matter; it is probable that they deplored his indelicacy. A beautiful young dreamer, with flowing brown hair, ought not to be even conscious of his copyrights. For it is quite unjust to say that the Americans worship the dollar. They really do worship intellect -- another of the passing superstitions of our time.

If America had then this Pinkertonian propriety, this new, raw sensibility, Dickens was the man to rasp it. He was its precise opposite in every way. The decencies he did respect were old-fashioned and fundamental. On top of these he had that lounging liberty and comfort which can only be had on the basis of very old conventions, like the carelessness of gentlemen and the deliberation of rustics. He had no fancy for being strung up to that taut and quivering ideality demanded by American patriots and public speakers. And there was something else also, connected especially with the question of copyright and his own pecuniary claims. Dickens was not in the least desirous of being thought too "high-souled" to want his wages, nor was he in the least ashamed of asking for them. Deep in him (whether the modern reader likes the quality or no) was a sense very strong in the old Radicals -- very strong especially in the old English Radical -- a sense of personal rights, one's own rights included, as something not merely useful but sacred. He did not think a claim any less just and solemn because it happened to be selfish; he did not divide claims into selfish and unselfish, but into right and wrong. It is significant that when he asked for his money, he never asked for it with that shamefaced cynicism, that sort of embarrassed brutality, with which the modern man of the world mutters something about business being business or looking after number one. He asked for his money in a valiant and ringing voice, like a man asking for his honour. While his American critics were moaning and sneering at his interested motives as a disqualification, he brandished his interested motives like a banner. "It is nothing to them," he cries in astonishment, "that, of all men living, I am the greatest loser by it" (the Copyright Law). "It is nothing that I have a claim to speak and be heard." The thing they set up as a barrier he actually presents as a passport. They think that he, of all men, ought not to speak because he is interested. He thinks that he, of all men, ought to speak because he is wronged.

Let me repeat the last sentences:

The thing they set up as a barrier he actually presents as a passport. They think that he, of all men, ought not to speak because he is interested. He thinks that he, of all men, ought to speak because he is wronged.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton : Charles Dickens
CHAPTER VI DICKENS AND AMERICA
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/CD-1.html#VI

And before he goes off claiming I wrong his copyright by copying the debate, here is how I see copyright questions on posts with shared copyright since shared authorship:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/p/copyright-issues-on-blogposts-with.html

Babel - Brain Damage or Divine Creator-Only Intervention?

Kukoleck Adam

shared a link

Admin

4 March 2020, 23:06

Irving Finkel | The Ark Before Noah: A Great Adventure
The Oriental Institute | 20.VII.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_fkpZSnz2I

Kukoleck Adam

Guy is a character. Posted because it has to do with Noah's ark etc. Good story teller.

Roger M Pearlman

If related to the 1656 anno-mundi Mabul it is a distorted account, via some brain damaged survivor of the 1996 dispersion from Bavel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not brain damaged. A revisionist about real actors, since in denial of the one true God.

Roger M Pearlman

I hold actual brain damage, if we define brain damage to include the effects of sustained exposure to high levels of lead positioning that far exceed the EPA reline.

This would have been going on from the start of when we all (except Abraham, Shem, Ever, Noach..) began baking the lead reinforced bricks, for Migdal Bavel, that could have spanned decades until the 1996 anno-mundi start of the dispersion.

reference the YeC Moshe Emes series and framework for understanding science Volume I.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

why "lead reinforced?

Roger M Pearlman

w/ lead additive increases the load bearing rating by over 50% from what I understand, plus longer durability, think of the lead paint they used to use, that lasted about 4x longer on average, than unleaded paint.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was not asking about why one would use it, but what leads you to believe it was used in Babel.

If archaeology, from what area?

If words in Genesis 11 (or elsewhere), which ones?

Roger M Pearlman

I may have seen a program that suggested many years ago.

if so they may have had evidence, such as lead residue at one of the suspected sites for the tower.

and/or I may have got the idea from the lead paint and lead removal from gasoline.

as I do not recall any specific evidence being presented, it is a speculative hypothesis, about how G-d may have done it. (confused the languages).

BA

Roger M Pearlman, is G-d not, God? Or are you referencing some other god? Just curious.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Roger M Pearlman "if so they may have had evidence, such as lead residue at one of the suspected sites for the tower."

I am for my part suspecting that one of their suspected sites is way too late, and clearly post-Babel.

I think they looked at Classic Mesopotamian (from when Sumerian Cuneiform starts) rather than at Neolithic as they should have, and obviously also South-East rather than North-West Mesopotamia, as identifying Shinar with only Sumer rather than with all Mesopotamia.

"it is a speculative hypothesis, about how G-d may have done it."

Lead poinsoning causes depression. It is mercury poisoning that causes symptoms reminiscent of schizophrenia.

And it's the sham diagnosis "schizophrenia" that involves in some cases states where language breaks down.

These are two very different types of brain damage.

Also, we do not see a breakdown of language, as much as a confusion of languages.

If you had had the kind of diversification you could expect from a common language suffering in two strands of the population a language breakdown, you don't get Sumerian and Old Egyptian just centuries after that.

The Evolutionists who think Sumerian and Old Egyptian maybe come from same human proto-language place that one in emergence of Homo erectus a million years ago, emergence of Homo saiens 100 000 to 300 000 years ago or, even later, 50 000 years ago.

That's way more time for diversifying than your scenario leaves. Meaning, we would need a more strictly supernatural explanation of the language confusion. Like God resetting or allowing evil spirits to reset (I would say the former, some Jews would have preferred the latter) the settings in the language competence of the non-Hebrew speakers.

Roger M Pearlman

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK mercury poisonings could be the agent rather than led.

Most often G-d uses His laws /forces of nature to perform miracles, not that we fully understand those forces/laws.

If those 70 base founding family groups w/ brain damage that lost a % of language capacity moved into isolation from one another than rebuilt their language over the next few generations, why should it have taken more than a hundred years or so, to get from where we all understood each other, to where we had 70 +/- languages? just like w/ in a hundred years we may have gone from a founding animal kind on the ark of Noach to 70 breeds w/in a hundred or so years as the offspring filled different habitats w/ different diets and stresses..

Roger M Pearlman

BA I do not like to spell out the holy name, I prefer to use the title 'Hashem' which means 'The Name' as you never know where someone is going to take it. Certainly not suited in a bathroom.. or garbage dump.. I assume we both worship The One designer/creator, aka G-d of Abraham.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Roger M Pearlman "Most often G-d uses His laws /forces of nature to perform miracles, not that we fully understand those forces/laws."

There is a difference between miracle and providential coincidence.

Among created forces, we have not just those of material objects living or dead as material, but also those of angelic beings.

But when resetting completely the settings of one language competence, we are beyond what I would credit angels with performing even on God's behalf.

"If those 70 base founding family groups w/ brain damage that lost a % of language capacity moved into isolation from one another than rebuilt their language over the next few generations"

A functional language is not built by inheriting a dysfunctional from a braindamaged person - except if he is little damaged and the language is little dysfunctional. The result will be only little different from original before brain damage.

By the time of Babel, the 72 groups would not have been able to maintain cohesion if very brain damaged.

"why should it have taken more than a hundred years or so, to get from where we all understood each other, to where we had 70 +/- languages?"

I think the real result of your scenario would have been things like Scots and Indian English, or less different. Sufficient to block communication? Yes. But not sufficient to actually make Sumerian and Old Egyptian look that different to a linguist. That's a very different thing.

"just like w/ in a hundred years we may have gone from a founding animal kind on the ark of Noach to 70 breeds w/in a hundred or so years as the offspring filled different habitats w/ different diets and stresses.."

Look, hedgehogs come in 16 species, now, and I don't think all of these existed 100 years after the Ark. I also think hedgehogs are very much closer to each other, despite not mating, than hedgehogs are to dogs. Similarily, dialects of English, even if incomprehensible to each other, like Ozark and Kenya English, are to a linguist very much closer than Sumerian to Old Egyptian to Elamite.

Guest Post and Comment on Medieval Bible, Catholicism and Heresy

A guest post by Drew Gasaway. A FB status, but great as a standalone. I'll add my two cents below it.

Drew Gasaway Admin · 18 h There is lots of revisionism in Protestant books about there history. For example their books will claim the Lollard's and Hussite's had the same objections as Luther Zwingli and Calvin. In the case of both the groups purgatory and paid indulgences weren't in existence (they were not sold in Hussite areas) when they began. The Fourth Lantern Council addressed paid indulgences and abuses but didn't go as far as Trent did and allowed lower clergy to grant them which was the problem. There is misunderstanding what "dedication is about in the Fourth Lantern Council and people read basilica and think it is St. Peter's but this was about churches in general and might be talking about then Lateran Basilica. The Lollard's were anti-clerical and their basis was Wycliffite principle that the laity should restrict and restrain the power of the clergy believing each layperson was a leader in the Church of their own. Lollard's remained members of the Catholic Church and Wycliff was a professor who was fired and remained in communion afterwards. The main issue of the Hussite's was communion under both kinds started by Jacob of Mies 1414 which their understanding was a denial of real presence or it as a sacrament both groups embraced the save sacraments. The Church had already rejected the practice of communion under both kinds in in the 13th century because Fathers of the Church taught another kind of communion. The Hussites who put killed over indulgences weren't opposing paid indulgences but were in opposition to certain people with mortal sins being forgiven. It is true that some Catholic clergy testified in Jan Hus's trial but was run by he government not the Church and heresy was considered treason and was put to death by he state in 1415. Most of the people who became Hussite's were Beghards and they were Saxon's not ethnically indigenous people. Just before King Wenceslaus IV died he so these people as a foreign insurrection rebelling against the institutions of his society. His brother the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund took over for him the same year. The Hussite's then revolted adopting the Wycliffite principle. As Holy Roman Emperor he had the armies of most of Europe at his disposal. The pope didn't have to call for a crusade and that isn't what happened. After the war was underway Pope Martin V issued a Bull stating that Christians should defend a Christian country. One of the Hussite top generals Sigismund Korybut was negotiating with the pope the whole time and was caught and temporarily jailed for it but was later let go. He died almost year after the battle of the Hussite's total defeat in 1434 at the Battle of Lipany. In 1435 the Hussite's signed a treaty with Rome agreeing to enter communion with the Church but were given permission to use communion of both kinds in the country. The Polish Hussite's were defeated by Polish royal forces in the Battle of Grotniki in 1439. The other false claim is that they were trying to translate the Bible in their language and the Church opposed this. The authorities mainly just had rules about translating a Bible to insure it was accurate because of cult bibles in the past you had Saxon bibles and early French Bibles and there were many early German translations that were Catholic like the Mentelin-Bibel (1466) Eggestein-Bibel (1470), Zainer-Bibel (1475), Pflanzmann-Bibel (1475) Sensenschmidt-Bibel 1476–78, Zainer-Bibel (1477), Sorg-Bibel (1477), Kolner Bibeln (1478/79), Sorg-Bibel (1480), Koberger-Bibel (1483), Gruninger-Bibel (1485), Schonsperger-Bibel (1487), Schonsperger-Bibel second version (1490), Lübecker Bibel (1494) and the Otmar-Bibel (1507). You can see thee was no shortage Bibles not in Latin. The issue was until after the Dark Ages most people who could read did it Latin.

And here is my commentary thereon:

First, "purgatory and paid indulgences".

They are not the same. Purgatory implies some kind of indulgences, as it implies some kind of intercession for the dead. We find that in Maccabees (which as historical even to most not accepting it as canonic would imply that the idea would have been sth Jesus would have known and rejected if it was wrong) and in Tobit.

The Greeks to this day use the Tobit book indulgence for hosting poor to agapes, if these poor are just. But hosting implies expense of money, and the other OT example was Maccabees, a sacrifice, also implies some expense of money.

Purgatory definitely was taught very widely even in areas and times when indulgences were not for direct money gifts. Hus would have known it and he did not poor out the main brunt of his objections there.

Second point is last sentence:

"The issue was until after the Dark Ages most people who could read did it Latin."

Until 813 and even further, a Romance speaker in Francia would if reading and writing been doing that in Latin, since Latin was the one accepted spelling of his Romance vernacular. Early probable exceptions, priests from 813 putting together the vernacular version or paraphrase or explanation of the Gospel, since the new Alcuinian pronunciation was not understood. However, some people would have spoken Germanic or Celtic languages, and would have been able to occasionally at least read or write those. King Alfred specifically ordered or himself made an Anglo-Saxon translation of 50 psalms, and the audience were nobles who would arguably not all be good at Latin, but who definitely would have read Anglo-Saxon.

When it comes to the limit 1500, we are not speaking of "Dark Ages" in any historically acceptable meaning of the phrase, it would just be a faulty nickname of the Middle Ages, and the statement would be untrue. Shadiversity made an estimate about Late Medieval England according to which at least one in every household could read.

It's rather that, if you didn't read Latin, you could read five other languages and still be considered illiteratus. Apart from that, excellent résumé. I am very happy that you confirm the statement I had from Konvertiten-Katechismus on 14 High German Bible translations authorised by the "Roman" Catholic Church prior to Luther. If challenged before reading you, I could of course have stated that Luther himself referred to them in a polemic way in his "Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen". But still, I highly value seeing a list like "the Mentelin-Bibel (1466) Eggestein-Bibel (1470), Zainer-Bibel (1475), Pflanzmann-Bibel (1475) Sensenschmidt-Bibel 1476–78, Zainer-Bibel (1477), Sorg-Bibel (1477), Kolner Bibeln (1478/79), Sorg-Bibel (1480), Koberger-Bibel (1483), Gruninger-Bibel (1485), Schonsperger-Bibel (1487), Schonsperger-Bibel second version (1490), Lübecker Bibel (1494) and the Otmar-Bibel (1507)"

"There is lots of revisionism in Protestant books about there history."

You can say that again.

Debate ensued:

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl there was no heaven for us anyway at the time of the Maccabees that was talking about purification while awaiting judgment in Sheol.

Making restitution is different then indulgences and there is a difference between indulgences and paid ones. Luther in the 95 Theses even supported normative indulgences. The Dark Ages which were 476 AD to 1453 AD according to most history books. This time period is right around the time things began to change. People read Latin more than their spoken language until after the Dark Ages.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Purgatory is purgatory, it's a portion of Sheol between Abraham's bosom and Hell of the damned.

Meaning, someone who got out of Purgatory in the OT period got to Abraham's bosom.

"The Dark Ages which were 476 AD to 1453 AD according to most history books."

No, that is what most history books called the MIDDLE AGES.

In normal history books the Dark Ages is a rare term, but if used, it is more like Early Middle Ages. Like from 476 to 1066 or sth.

That was a military darkness of attacks from Goth here, Huns there, Hungarians here and Vikings there. As 1066 is the end of the Viking Age, it is the end of what could with remote possibility be called Dark Ages.

By 1453 reading abilities were very well spread even among people not reading Latin, but 1453 is half a millennium past any "Dark Ages" anyway, while it is one caindidate for when Middle Ages ended (1492, 1517, 1520 being other ones).

"Luther in the 95 Theses even supported normative indulgences."

Luther in the 95 Theses was more a Jansenist than a Lutheran.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl in Hebrews christ permanently ended Sheol. My history books show a different timeline for the Dark Ages there were the later Dark Ages. You had other groups after the date you mentioned. Literacy was 5% in Roman antiquity and even got lower in the Dark Ages. They didn't just magically all learn how to read overnight after the Dark Ages that occurred in about a 200 year period to get to 30% literacy after 1440 when the printing press was invented.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Luther supported normative indulgences but the reason Luther differed on Purgatory was Trent and Florence developed different concepts. It was developing in his lifetime.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Drew Gasaway "My history books"

Sure they actually used the word "Dark Ages"?

"in Hebrews christ permanently ended Sheol."

Christ ended the abiding in the part of Sheol called Abraham's bosom. Meaning, those who were there are now in Heaven.

"You had other groups after the date you mentioned."

Groups of what? I mentioned where? There is a reason that I cite what I reply to, even if it's not as nice paragraphs.

"Literacy was 5% in Roman antiquity and even got lower in the Dark Ages."

I don't know what that is based on. It is certainly not based on let's say archaeology.

"They didn't just magically all learn how to read overnight after the Dark Ages that occurred in about a 200 year period to get to 30% literacy after 1440 when the printing press was invented."

It so happens, literacy rates were definitely far higher in 1300 than in 1100 - BOTH dates before the printing press. And unfortunately, you made the blooper of calling 1100, 1300 Dark Ages while claiming - it seems on your wording now - these had a literacy rate of 5 %.

Shadiversity who is much better than you at Middle Ages (and remember these were a very important part of my university studies, unlike yours, so I can tell) actually estimates at least 15th C. England (which was mostly before William Caxton) to 50 %. Unless he swallows final n of 15% at 13:27 or just before in this video:

Medieval Misconceptions: EDUCATION and LITERACY
13.II.2020 | Shadiversity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-abyQLl8mPI

"Luther supported normative indulgences"

For a short while, in 95 Sentences.

"but the reason Luther differed on Purgatory was Trent and Florence developed different concepts."

Luther rejected Purgatory way before Trent.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl it depends on when the history book was written in what term they might use. Older books used the other term. Your YouTube video is revisionist. There is a reason that there was no Greek New Testament in the west before the council of Florence. The Barbarians from the north and later the Muslims and others mostly from the south destroyed documents when they raided places along with most other culturally significant items. They also tied off the more educated class when they took power because it was easier to conquer them and control them when they started doing occupations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Older books used the other term"

Older books use Dark Ages, newer ones use Middle Ages.

"Your YouTube video is revisionist."

Not the least. You are avoiding modern updates on history of Middle Ages.

"There is a reason that there was no Greek New Testament in the west before the council of Florence."

What has that got to do with literacy in Latin, Provençal, French and non-French vernaculars? Greek was indeed a specialist's domaine in the Middle Ages (Moerbeke read and Aquinas didn't read Greek, so Aquinas depended on Moerbeke's translation of Aristotle).

"The Barbarians from the north and later the Muslims and others mostly from the south destroyed documents when they raided places along with most other culturally significant items."

Describes the time period I would call "dark ages" except I don't think Barbarians of the North destroyed much documents. They were too greedy to get Roman culture.

"They also tied off the more educated class when they took power because it was easier to conquer them and control them when they started doing occupations."

Totally idiotic. Do you get this thrash from Romanides and Metallinos?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl no their assertions aren't entirely accurate and demonstrably so.

The earlier Latin works disappeared/were destroyed mostly as well. They just were better able to keep Latin than Greek. Monks memorized whole works as copying often had to be done that way.

A handful of works surviving through memorization and hiding them doesn't make them a normative thing.

Your last response lacks understanding of how ancient invaders operated. They wanted a weaker opposing society. An educated and culturally affluent people are more likely to raise an army and do a counteroffensive. If you salt the fields foes can't come back. The Hittites and Assyrians did this. Pope Boniface VIII had this done when he defeated Palestrina saying it was practiced by the Carthaginians. They always tried to cripple a civilization indefinitely.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I will be picking this apart:

"no their assertions aren't entirely accurate and demonstrably so."

Waiting for your "demonstration" ...

"The earlier Latin works disappeared/were destroyed mostly as well."

Dito for most of the Greek works. Even so, not just a digest, but a real ... in Swedish you say "brick" of thick books ... like Macrobius was preserved.

Note well, right now we are talking, not of 476 to 1453, but of 476 or even some decades earlier to 800. Not to 1500, just to 800.

From 800 and taking more speed from 1100, you have a reversal of the process and a production of both written culture and literacy/

"They just were better able to keep Latin than Greek."

Indeed, just as the Greek speaking East was, outside the court, much better at keeping Greek than Latin.

"Monks memorized whole works as copying often had to be done that way."

What exactly are you talking about?

Monks memorised the whole breviary because they sung the breviary once every week. Still do, except the Novus Ordo in the Vatican II sect makes it once in two weeks instead.

There is a joke about a Benedictine, a Dominican, a Carmelite and a Jesuit who were singing the hours together (realistically, this could happen if they all were on a journey, like to a Eucharistic congress, like in a Hotel). The light bulb goes out. The Benedictine goes on chanting, because he knows the breviary by heart. The Dominican takes the rosary from the belt. The Carmelite switches to inner prayer. And the Jesuit changes the light bulb.

Now, what did the Benedictine, the actual monk, do in this joke? Continued praying because he knew the breviary by heart.

"A handful of works surviving through memorization and hiding them doesn't make them a normative thing."

If your source for this statement is a history text book, I can tell you it's about as accurate as A Connecticut Yankee and Washington Irving's novel about Christopher Columbus.

I will now quote your so far stated credentials:

"RB I have an MDiv from Yale and a bachelor's in Biblical Studies from Wheaton and I also have a degree in biology. I also took courses at Hebrew University in Hebrew and courses in the near east at UCLA and other places. I have seen lectures on Genesis and Enuma Elish from scholars at Oxford, Harvard, and Yale when we covered Genesis."

NONE of this has any bearing on literacy in the Middle Ages. MY STUDIES most definitely have. It's ME, not YOU who is relatively the academic expert on this field. And you are NOT content to point out faults in reasoning, you pretend to give lectures on things where the facts depend on documentation, where your point depends on having access to actual documentation.

"Your last response lacks understanding of how ancient invaders operated."

I am sorry, but were you taught in a madhouse?

"They wanted a weaker opposing society."

Who says Romans were opposing them?

"An educated and culturally affluent people are more likely to raise an army and do a counteroffensive."

Why would the Romans even have been suspected of doing this? You are reading into them a patriotism like in the days when they opposed Brennus - the only real example would be Arthur's opposition to Saxons, unless that was simply an opposition to Pagans. But it could be Celtic patriotism. In the case of Syagrius and St. Genevieve and St. Remigius temporarily opposing the onbursts of Huns and then Franks, it was basically only in defense of the faith. As soon as Clovis was baptised and confirmed by St. Remigius, he was also anointed king by him.

And as opposed to Huns, the Germanic invaders (except perhaps Anglo-Saxons) all started out as auxiliarii. They were not like "we have an Empire that the gods should favour more than Roman Empire" they were more like "we know the Roman Empire is fine, but we would be even finer with it if we ruled it, if not as Caesars, at least nearly so".

If Rome had held them in their troops for 100 years at least before the conflict, how could you even imagine them as parallels to Anitta invading Hattusha or Cyrus invading Babylon? Or the Khans invading China?

By the way, by the time of Kublai Khan, the Mongol Khans were as fine with being Chinese (as long as they were the top dogs in China) and with China preserving its culture (which they, as top dogs could enjoy) as the Germanic invaders were with being, basically, Romans.

"If you salt the fields foes can't come back."

Anitta from Nesha had a definite rivalry with an Empire speaking Hattic.

"The Hittites and Assyrians did this."

Yeah, I just stated Anitta, I think you can provide the Assyrian for me.

HOWEVER the Germanic invaders didn't come from a rival Empire in the North, they came via infiltration of Roman troops. BIG difference in type of invasion.

"Pope Boniface VIII had this done when he defeated Palestrina saying it was practiced by the Carthaginians."

According to some chronicler who arguably was his foe, and who was favoured by some of the guys who let him die in prison. If YOU try to tell ME I should take your word for Boniface VIII doing this, you ilustrate a point made by Dunning and Kruger.

"They always tried to cripple a civilization indefinitely."

That's the point Romanides and Metallinos were making about the Germanic invaders. They have even theorised that French Revolution was the Romans getting on top of the Franks, again.

I am sorry, but as historians of the Middle Ages in the West, these two semi-modernist theologians of the Eastern Schismatics are totally worthless. Their point is political : a) they do welcome the Latin West as more or less nearly become as of very late some kind of heirs of Rome, b) they insist, in order to be fully Roman, we have to take lessons from Byzantines. As to their statements on facts, they are worthless. Romanides is definitely more accurate when he states that Aeneas and Latinus spoke, but in that respect he is not original, he is trying to make the point they must have spoken Greek, but in that respect he is forgetting that they could have spoken Hittite or Carthaginian or Etruscan as well as Mycenaean Greek, and also that Mycenaean Greek in Rome's beginnings would not have resulted in good Attic-Ionic Koiné in Caesar's time.

But when it comes to the Germanic invasions, he is frankly (!) worthless. And so is whoever else you have got this from.

You said "demonstrably so" - where was your demonstration, again?

By the way, your statement about Pope Boniface VIII, whether from real quote or from calumny, clearly means in his time - he died 11 October 1303, I just checked - Medievals (himself or his calumniator) were educated enough to have read Livy.

So, part of your supporting evidence, as parallel on invader behaviour, turns out to contradict your main point.

You WILL concede 1303 is before 1453, right?

Raqia debate : Genesis Day 4

Intro to Raqia debate with Drew Gasaway · Midrash part of Debate with Drew · Raqia : debate on 3 Baruch 3:5-8 · Raqia debate : Josephus (and Philo) · Raqia debate : Hezekiel 1:22 · Raqia debate : Psalm 148 · Raqia debate : Genesis Day 4

Below was part

of original status:

Drew Gasaway

Now let's look at Genesis again so you can see the impossible description

Genesis 1:15-17
""15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,."

Genesis 1:6 "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

From the Sumerian myth, Enuma Elish which says, "The Great Abode, Esharra, which he made as the firmament. Anu, Enlil, and Ea he made occupy their places. Marduk puts the heavens in order, establishing the zodiac and telling the moon how to shine."

The picture below is from ancient Eygpt so this was a common theme in the ancient near east mythology. This doesn't mean Genesis or the message of the rest of the Old Testament isn't true. It just means we have to look at things in the ancient near east before Herodotus differently.

[Picture given of heaven goddess holding hands and feet to earth god in Egyptian mytho-theology.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Now let's look at Genesis again so you can see the impossible description Genesis 1:15-17"

Not impossible, computer time is short, I'll be back for another comment.

Comment by Biblical Spotlight

came before Drew posted below as a separate thread.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl in Genesis 1:15-17 having the stars, moon, and sun inside a hard dome above with an ocean behind is wrong from observation. There are probably a couple hundred sextillion alone most of which are many times the size of the earth and very hot and would have had to move away very fast. Then you have the issue of an ocean behind them. The creationist who think there was an ice canopy before a flood doesn't realize the belief was before the 1800s was that it still exists outside the astronomers before the 1500s.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"inside a hard dome above"

"Firm" and "strong" are in the text, "hard" is'nt (including parallels in the Bible).

"with an ocean behind" "Then you have the issue of an ocean behind them."

"Ocean" is not in the text, waters are.

"There are probably a couple hundred sextillion alone most of which are many times the size of the earth and very hot and would have had to move away very fast."

You omitted the word "stars" I presume?

Star sizes are determined from visual angle (apparent magnitude) and from distance. With geocentrism, there is really not any kind of proof for those distances.

Heat is partly determined from distance and size, partly from an equivalence with physics of the sun, which we have no proof for.

"The creationist who think there was an ice canopy before a flood"

Just because you might know I am a sometimes and now on and off fan of Kent Hovind doesn't mean you may safely conclude I share his ice canopy theory. I have told him a few years ago I don't believe it and that I have another solution for "waters above". Difference before the Flood? Well arguably some low H2 from "above" met some high O2 from atmosphere and some sparks did a reaction leading this H2 to our Oceanic Basins. But there is still observable H2 as well as H2O left (and perhaps some "dark water" too) which King David can tell (as to its movers) to praise the Lord.

"doesn't realize the belief was before the 1800s was that it still exists"

I do believe it still exists, as outlined.

"outside the astronomers before the 1500s."

Parse the correlation with rest of sentence, please!

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl clouds are mist not waters and the ancient people didn't know that they thought the clouds were like smoke and saw blue and believed there was a sea. You won't won't find any mists that don't rain or someone sprinkling someone in ancient literature because they didn't understand that. Again about the waters above the Psalm was after your flood timeline and everyone from the patristics to Martine Luther and John Calvin used to think the waters were still there. The interpretation has changed as have the meaning of words from how the authors intended in many ways based on the facts of science. In the 1500s to the 1700s space denial was the game in Christian fundamentalism and now it is creationism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are still missing, I am not a modern creationist, I am a scholastic. I also believe the waters are still there. So very probably did Riccioli.

The rest ... it so happens that the H2O and H2 we observe by spectrography is mostly more or less evenly dispersed.

This means, there would have been no overwhelming need to say "cloud" instead of "waters".

Explaing how "ancient people" thought is probably as imaginary as today (or 19th C.) explaining how "primitive people" think.

If 19th C. had a geographic tendency to racism, you have a historic one. From 19th C.

"In the 1500s to the 1700s space denial"

If you consider "geocentrism" as space denial, you have called me and Riccioli space denialists.

What ended geocentrism was not proof, but propaganda, like "think of where the Martians would visually observe the centre as being". A propaganda starting in the dialogus.

Biblical Spotlight

I'm sorry, but you guys sound like you're arguing as 8 year olds. You can't take what they saw as true to be, by folks who only had a naive perspective at best. The scriptures are not so much how imperfect they are, but more to how their faith was merely taking shape in the beginning. PLEASE!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What you think we sound like is not very important to me.

"The scriptures are not so much how imperfect they are,"

They aren't imperfect.

"but more to how their faith was merely taking shape in the beginning."

The Scriptures do not reflect a "faith taking shape" but inspiration by God for writers who wrote:

• what they saw and heard as people
• what they were told by other people
• what God told verbally by dictation ("God spoke to Moses and said")
• what God showed them in visions with sometimes physical immersion.

I reject your view of what the Scriptures are as heretical, condemned by both Trent Council and Vatican Council of 1869-70 (implictly even by the Dei Verbum of a pseudo-Council same place) and by Pope Leo XIII.

In obedience to the Church that Christ founded I find no room and in my human reason no temptation to agree with your view on what the Scriptures are.

As for "mental age" schmuck, it's a timid version of telling someone "thou fool" and could as per Matthew 5:22 risk you Gehenna if you really do that. If it was just a kind of bad habit, try to kick it.

Drew Gasaway

Biblical Spotlight I am not saying anything in scripture is untrue the message about God and living is 100% in the Old Testament but the genre isn't a fact-based narrative. Herodotus invented that in the 4th century BC.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"the genre isn't a fact-based narrative."

It is.

"Herodotus invented that in the 4th century BC."

He did not.

There are no sane humans nor ever were who did not have the genre fact based narrative.

Herodot's innovation was sth else and I think closely parallel to what Moses had done before him when preserving Job and collecting Genesis.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl Martin Luther just wasn't geocentrism there is no commentary on his globe views but he believed that the stars were inside a hard dome. He cold the astronomer's philosophers and refused to believe they saw stars saying Christians have to believe otherwise. He believed they were challenging the authority of scripture by anything there wasn't a dome above.

Hans-Georg Lundahl as far as understanding ancient people there are over 100,000 known tablets of just Akkadian works just in western collections. We know a great deal about them. There also a great deal of information about Egypt but not as much even though it gets more attention. There are lots of Canaanite writings in various languages they used. We have plenty of Assyrian works.

Hans-Georg Lundahl if you're Romans Catholic you should listen to the Vatican's views on Genesis as well as most mainstream Catholic theologians. There is no council or ex-cathedra statement concerning Genesis being literal. The Fathers are complicated many see it as a theological book and some seem to see it as a historical book until you read else where in the same series of books or in their writings that was not what they meant. Sometimes this narration sometimes this expressing symbolism. At extent, not everything they say is a dogma as they taught things that aren't theological correct, cosmological correct and scientifically like their Greek version of the periodic tables. To find Catholic leaders who are creationists you have to resort "sedevacantist" and "old Catholics" that belong to sects no in communion with the Vatican.

Hans-Georg Lundahl there are no fact-based narratives in literature before the 4th century BC.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"there is no commentary on his globe views but he believed that the stars were inside a hard dome."

Ptolemy's view as fix stars would be the outermost crystalline sphere, not refuted until Tycho's observation of a comet passing through supposed "crystalline spheres" after Luther died.

"He cold the astronomer's philosophers"

Context? Regiomontanus and Copernicus hardly were simply "astronomers".

"and refused to believe they saw stars"

I think you are garbling Luther's actual comment, precise quote please, even if he was a heretic, he was not a senile with Alzheimer. Astronomers certainly did see stars. They still do. Astronomers also certainly did not see earth move through stars, and they still don't. Heliocentrism was never an actual observation, it was always a conclusion.

"He believed they were challenging the authority of scripture by anything there wasn't a dome above."

OK, I get it, he was probably overdoing the singular and refused to believe the plural ... I'd still like the context though.

"as far as understanding ancient people there are over 100,000 known tablets of just Akkadian works just in western collections"

The Bible is not in Akkadian. You are behaving like a man purporting to study Esquimaux and claiming they believe in dream time and can't count to more than 4 because Australian aborigines show how "primitive peoples" think. There is no such thing as "primitive peoples" and there also is no such thing as "ancient people". There are peoples who are different and some have been lumped together as primitive, and there were peoples who were ancient and risk retrospectively getting lumped together in the equally chimeric "ancient peoples". You don't study Biblical cosmology by studying Akkadian or Sumerian cosmology, however well you do that.

"We know a great deal about them."

The anthropologist misrepresenting Esquimaux could claim he knew a great deal about Aborigines.

"There also a great deal of information about Egypt but not as much even though it gets more attention."

OK, fine, but this does not prove anything about the Bible. The world back then need not have been as uniform about cosmology as the modern (post-Christian) world is about Heliocentrism of solar system within a larger galaxy.

You find subterranean pillars shown as human-architectonic ones in Sumerian tablets (reminding me more of Yggdrasil than of anything in the Bible as to what it need mean), you don't find them in Egypt. Ergo, Egypt and Sumer are not equal, so why need Israel be equal to both? If A is B, C can either be or not be equal to A and to B, but if A is not B, C cannot be equal to both. You may think it is equal to the parts of A and B where they are equal, but as in some parts they aren't, you cannot know that.

"There are lots of Canaanite writings in various languages they used."

Epics, right? Mostly? From Ugaritic to Carthaginian, right?

I didn't know there were lots, but OK. If there are, a closer study will reveal discrepancies between D and A and between D and B, and therefore further show the possibility of C not being equal to A or B, without this meaning it has to equal D.

You are really unable to grasp an argument, you jumpt to my conclusion as proof I hadn't grasped yours and then repeat it with more detail.

"We have plenty of Assyrian works."

That falls under A - Akkadian and Sumerian. Or?

"if you're Romans Catholic you should listen to the Vatican's views on Genesis"

Yes, the Vatican in Exile has a view on Genesis Worth listening to. The exile of the pope is in Topeka. Wait, did you mean the usual location of the Vatican? [That's like saying:] "If you are of the diocese of Alexandria, you should listen to bishop George who says Arius was right".

"as well as most mainstream Catholic theologians"

It so happens, a falling away is predicted. People who follow Teilhard de Chardin are not fully Catholic and if in position of a bishop, they are apostates. In the 4th C. AD a real true Alexandrian followed the bishop in exile - St. Athanasius - not the bishop intrusive and abusive in place, that being George (by the way, with my name I think bishop is a carreer I should avoid, would that a certain Jorge had had similar caution!).

"There is no council or ex-cathedra statement concerning Genesis being literal"

Indirectly there is. Trent. Since there are plenty of Patristic statements Genesis is literally true. And believe me, both Academia and free time equip me lots better than you on this.

"The Fathers are complicated many see it as a theological book and some seem to see it as a historical book"

Both categories see them as both.

The difference is what aspect they are mentioning for the occasion.

"until you read else where in the same series of books or in their writings that was not what they meant."

You don't read that. You read that into them mentioning the other aspect.

"Sometimes this narration sometimes this expressing symbolism."

Sometimes / sometimes as to what they mention, always both as to what is true on their view.

"At extent, not everything they say is a dogma"

If directly said by all who touch a subject, yes it is according to Trent.

"as they taught things that aren't theological correct,"

If you mean in Catholic theology, that is only true for individual fathers, not for what all of them said.

"cosmological correct"

On your Heliocentric view.

"and scientifically like their Greek version of the periodic tables."

Are all who speak on creation or make up of man using the four elements? I think one would find exceptions. Did St. Hippolytus or St. Irenee mention them in a way showing clear approval?

"To find Catholic leaders who are creationists you have to resort "sedevacantist" and "old Catholics" that belong to sects no in communion with the Vatican."

You mean the occupied Vatican. You missed that that is precisely my position : except that "sedevacantist" is inadequate for "conclavist". If your stats are correct, that would mean a very rapid falling off, since Dei Verbum (albeit of an invalid Council) actually in paragraph three expressed itself as YEC.

"there are no fact-based narratives in literature before the 4th century BC."

That is a blatant lie on more than one plane.

It is circular proof : Genesis cannot be fact based narrative, since there were none before the 4th C BC, which we know because we cannot place Genesis, Exodus, Judges, four books of Kings as fact based, which we know since there were none before 4th C ... where do you presume to break the circle?

It is also obvious nonsense. People do not live without facts, people do not live without narratives and there is no urgent motive for strictly separating the two, many urgent practical motives for uniting the two, so it is a priori totally improbable.

Arguably it comes from a prejudice Iliad, Odyssey and Aeneid aren't fact based, and if you claim to find errors (apart from theological ones, immediately granted) so you find them in Herodotus. C. S. Lewis pointed out it is easier for God to send an angel with a plague than for mice to cooperate on nibbling precisely bow strings. Kings : Herodotus = 1:0.

Here is for the exact quote of the CSL alluded to by my final words in here:

"When the Old Testament says that Sennacherib's invasion was stopped by angels, and Herodotus says it was stopped by a lot of mice who came and ate up all the bowstrings of his army, an open-minded man will be on the side of the angels. Unless you start by begging the question, there is nothing intrinsically unlikely in the existence of angels or in the actions ascribed to them. But mice just don't do these things."

"Miracles" in God in the Dock p. 28 / p. 12 (depending on editions)

Thanks to the group Confirming C.S. Lewis Quotations

Raqia debate : Psalm 148

Intro to Raqia debate with Drew Gasaway · Midrash part of Debate with Drew · Raqia : debate on 3 Baruch 3:5-8 · Raqia debate : Josephus (and Philo) · Raqia debate : Hezekiel 1:22 · Raqia debate : Psalm 148 · Raqia debate : Genesis Day 4

Below was part

of original status:

Drew Gasaway

Now we have next a Psalm of David that mentions the sun, moon, and stars and then waters above.

Psalm 148:3-4
"3 Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you shining stars!
4 Praise him, you highest heavens,
and you waters above the heavens!"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Psalm 148:3-4
"3 Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars!"

In other words, the heavenly bodies either are or are represented each by some living creature, exempli gratia an angel.

"4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!"

Insofar as they are moved by angels around the earth each day, they can be said praising God when the angels moving them do so.

Waters "above the heavens" if not above all of them have been observed. Spectrography reveals interstellar matter as consisting of more H2 and H2O than any other molecules.

Comment by Biblical Spotlight

came before Drew posted below as a separate thread.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl there is no support in the text for your argument on Psalm 148:3-4 and the moon and sun aren't in the water which is a problem. The other things mentioned in that chapter are positioned differently.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A Bible text is not a bare statement from those times, some are (if inspired in the actual sense of the word, not "inspired" as good poetry or even edifying such) bound to take on more meaning as some things are more understood.

If St. John was a prophet, he arguably knew who was going to have a gematria of 666 and what the name was. As it happens, we know his readers did not. It probably came as a surprise to him that Domitian had been succeeded by one - you could call him "M.NEPOYA!" - who as it happens had that gematria but was not the guy.

I do not know which of my comments you consider as having no support in the text.

Both have.

Angelic movers have support in tradition (and I know that better than you seeing your qualifications, mine include Latin and reading St. Thomas), and, here is the thing with concepts taking on more understanding, we know there are both H2O and H2 far up, and we know Moses had no separate word for Hydrogen and neither did King David. So, what word in Biblical Hebrew would designate Hydrogen? "Air" because it is a gas? Or "water" because if you mix it with oxygen and add a spark it shows it is instant water? Guess what "hydrogen" means in Greek?

There you have it. I do NOT have to prove that Hydrogen was present in the first readings and interplay between hagiographers and their earliest readers or listeners.

"and the moon and sun aren't in the water which is a problem."

You have no support in that text for calling it a problem.

"The other things mentioned in that chapter are positioned differently."

Mind giving an example, and telling why "positioning" would matter?