mardi 16 janvier 2018

"Introibo" makes an ass of himself - unless his priest is abusing him


Let us quote:

Moses*, who wrote the Book of Genesis, used the Hebrew word "yom"--which means a time period of unspecified length as it was used at the time. It was translated as "day."


It means day. Like day it can in some contexts mean sth other than 12 hours that are light or 24 consecutive hours shared outside polar regions between light and dark. If Pius XII - whom "Introibo" you later bring on - thought anything else, he was misled. He can have chosen to be misled.

"Whether in the designation and distinction of six days with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word 'DAY' can be assumed either in its proper sense of a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among the exegetes?"

On June 30, 1909, the Commission (with full approval from His Holiness Pope St. Pius X) responded:

"IN THE AFFIRMATIVE"


So far, fine.

Are you quoting the rest?

This also comports with the Commission's decision of June 23, 1905 (also approved by Pope St. Pius X) that Scripture gives historical accounts except "...where without opposing the sense of the Church and preserving its judgement, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly so-called, but to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words."


Yes, and as there are really and truly no such indications of Moses meaning sth else than giving history, the decision of 1905 clearly means that Genesis 1 to 11 is history, not fable, history, not allegorical fable (I am not saying there is no allegory in history!).

Key word PROVEN.

"In my opinion (and consistent with the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission approved by Pope St. Pius X), Moses meant to convey that man was God's special creation, so the Earth (our planet) takes place of pride over the other celestial bodies."


No, Sir.

You stated it as your OPINION that Moses meant to convey sth other than a strictly historical account of not only what God did but how God did it.

Your OPINION is not PROVEN fact.

Therefore you are violating the decision of 1905 by deviating from Genesis 1 to 11 as history.

Next question?

Oh, yes, Humani Generis by the maybe Pope Pius XII.

"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that ..."


Taste these words a little.

Catholics are allowed to remarry if they become widows or widowers, unless the widowers have first been ordained and unless widows or widowers have after loss of conjoint entered a monastery and made eternal vows.

No Pope could ever formulate this as "the pastoral authority of the church does not at present forbid widows and widowers to remarry, pending future modifications from research by psychiologists" or anything like that.

And the words corresponding to "at present" and "pending future" etc. while not in the line I just quoted are paralleled definitely all along the rest of the quote from Humani Generis. In other words, Humani Generis does not mean we can believe Evolution if we feel like it (the wording does not discuss what we are at liberty to believe in our hearts even) like definitions immemorable mean we are free to eat meat (unless it is a day when the Church forbids that).

You are also missing that you may not be an expert of both Biblical exegesis and natural sciences, I am probably more so than you on both accounts.

You proceed to complain of any Catholic disagreeing with you on holding Old Earth to be licit like a widower remarrying is definitely licit in a way totally disagreeing with the conditions posed by Pius XII, your darling:

"However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith."


Note, you are socially treating those differing from your way to a traditional way like heretics disputing the freedoms of Catholics. That is definitely incompatible with the condition here given.

Note also, Pacelli was a lawyer before he maybe became a Pope. He does not specify the decision of the Church has to be a future one. He is hiding, but not daring to deny it could well be that the decision is already given.

Church Fathers. Trent. 1905. 1909.

Here is a theologian from 1955, Sagues:

"It is assumed that the hypothesis is not certainly directly or indirectly opposed to revelation, since otherwise it would be totally rejected; it is assumed it can, since the Church does not forbid it, be freely discussed in the present-day context of theology and natural science (this does not include everyone), but only by experts in both camps"


I am in the anti-Evolution camp and after 15 years of debate, sorry, 16, an amateur expert (note, the Latin expertes does not involve the connotation of University accredited expertise that the translation has!) of both Biblical and Scientifical evidence relevant to the matter. I can therefore on these terms discuss it. Even assuming Pius XII was a true Pope, even assuming he was giving a charitable rather than an iniquitous judgement (being careful not to taint his infallibility by any direct favouring of the theory he seems by then to have favoured, to the detriment of his faith), even assuming I am schismatic for not recognising his authority, even assuming all this, I am not violating in fact his conditions.**

You are. Repeating his words to shut down the debate by those who have more definite reasons against Evolution than you have and even by those who would like to favour Evolution by argument more direct than merely "canonic", that is the very opposite of even his ruling. You are violating it.

Learn to read before you start to write.

Learn justice before you start judging.

The exact age of the earth in terms of how many centuries more or less, is not and probably cannot be infallibly defined.

We have Vulgate which can be read as 6000 years (which is why Haydock commentary on its translation Douay Rheims gives Ussher years for OT events).

We have LXX, the standard text of which can easily be read as the 7500 years of Syncellus or its near equivalent Byzantine martyrology (September 1 in their case, perhaps?).

We have the calculation of St Jerome, based on what seems to be a non-standard LXX version, perhaps a LXX tradition without the Second Cainan. In this sense, we were 7199 in 2000 AD. It is used in the Roman Martyrology for December 25.

There is an excellent reason why the Church is not deciding between these and defining one of these at the cost of the other ones. No one of these can claim exclusive rights to defending Biblical literal inerrantism on Genesis early history.

All of them do.

None of the at least first and last can be seen as violating Trent, or both do.

You define 6000 years, you ditch Roman Martyrology and therefore violate Trentine defense of Traditional Mass Liturgy.

You define 7200 years, you ditch the Vulgate reading and thereofore violate a rigorist at least reading of the "as contained in the Vulgate" clause of canonic books. Also a requirement of Trent.

But not deciding between 6000 and 7200 years is very far from not deciding between 6000 and 4.5 billion years. You are off by orders of magnitude between the latitude Catholicism actually allows.

Perhaps the days before creation of the Sun were not 24 hours long, but only 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds? The first light God created could have been rotating (see book I of De Genesis ad Litteram, read it through in a Loeb edition, not just the quote you love quotemining) at same speed as the aether which is presumably rotating around earth at full circle that time. Creation of Sun slowed the day down a bit.

Or, the Church has not condemned the Augustinian position which Palmar de Troya dared to dogmatise : "in one moment" (taken from a discussion from same work, but books 5 and 6*** - a discussion St Augustine ends by noting a one moment creation is not a compulsory feat of mental gymnastics, it is fine for beginners at least to stick with the actual six days).

In other words, the question has its shades - and evades certain nuances like directly asking on long ages - and the answer is as rough and ready as I was asked to yesterday by a believer in OSAS.°

This does not directly make the answer applicable as an affirmative to a specific version of the "not 24 hours".

The question was not posed as involving long ages as one such alternative to strictly 24 hours. There may have been an attempt to do so, and it may have been sent back unpublished with comments (not from Pope St Pius X, certainly) "on these terms I can give no wiggle room : you want wiggle room, be less specific". Presumably more direct wiggle room could have been given with Rampolla as Pope - and Pacelli was, I seem to recall, close to Rampolla at this or some close time.

In sum, you have done a nice work of quotemining and discussing glibly documents of Church Authority which you seem incapable of totally grasping the implications of, you have shown yourself as an ass (donkey) in the process of being the other kind of ass towards the kind of Traditional Catholics you don't happen to like. Because they take social risks you don't feel prepared to take and you feel implied even in their taking this.

Meanwhile, since the actual terms of Pius XII involved a weighing of evidence, it is noteworthy that the evidence which has come up since then on the Creationist side is being ignored and also purposefully ignored, but it is there.

And it is momentous, since a Creationist timeline of Göbekli Tepe would probably make it Babel, and that means wheat is post-Flood, and that means Cain when sacrificing "fruits of the earth" was not sacrificing wheat.

And non-Catholics - both Protestant and Jews - are contributing to showing it. Are we seeing the children of the kingdom (that is, of the Catholic Church) about to be thrown out and strangers about to be invited?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Marcellus I°°
16.I.2018

PS The addition in the title refers to the possibility that the laymen called "Introibo" on the web, since anonymously or pseudonymously writing the blog "Introibo ad altare Dei" could be handing on what he had from a priest who, in this fashion, is not attacked himself by those responding to it./HGL

PPS, here are references to fuller text of Bible commission 1909 and 1905: 1905 & 1909 - when I accuse someone of quotemining, I had better not ask everyone else to just take my word for it, let alone himself.

PPPS, spotted a "psychiologists" which should obviously be shorter by an i.

* "Introibo" : Monkey Business About Creation
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.fr/2017/02/monkey-business-about-creation.html


** Note : when I started, or a little after that, I was Palmarian. I was therefore believing the Church had already given a definition subsequent to Humani Generis, since that is what Gregorio XVII did (he went for 6000 years, not 7200, see below for details). But more importantly, I already knew that the Church had really defined the question by its being there in all Church Fathers treating on it as per Trent.

*** I think St Augustine may also have discussed his one moment creation briefly in Confessiones, since the six days had prevented his conversion from Gnostic or Manichaean as in "why would God need so much time".

° Catholic magisterium has some in common with Evangelical street preachers (though this one was over internet) and I am not writing magisterially. The commission of St Pius X was.

°° Romae, via Salaria, natalis sancti Marcelli Primi, Papae et Martyris; qui, ob catholicae fidei confessionem, jubente Maxentio tyranno, primo caesus est fustibus, deinde ad servitium animalium cum custodia publica deputatus, et ibidem, serviendo indutus amictu cilicino, defunctus est.

dimanche 14 janvier 2018

Cain Did Not Sacrifice Wheat


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Origin of Wheat? · Creation vs. Evolution : Cain Did Not Sacrifice Wheat

There is a simple reason for this.

Domesticated, that is cultivable, wheat is from a post-Flood mutation, from near Göbekli Tepe.

Wild wheat is structured so that each grain, as it ripens, falls off the plant and could possibly even fly some distance by itself. The grain is attached by a layer of cells which is detroyed when the grain ripens.

In normal wheat, by a mutation, the layer of cells does not autodestruct, but the grains stay together on the plant - bad for self sowing or sowing by birds, but ideal for harvesting by man and sowing after harvest by man.

The wild wheat is still there about 30 km from Göbekli Tepe.

Now, this means, cultivation of wheat, like cultivation of wine - both of them elements of the Holy Eucharist - is a post-Flood thing.

This of course means, Cain was offering something else. I checked the Bible does not say wheat in Genesis 4.

Look at this text, by Leanne Guenther:

Cain thought his little brother was a bit silly for giving up his best lamb. "Good grief," he thought. "We need that lamb, God doesn't. I'm sure He'd be just as happy if we sacrificed the runt of the litter. In fact, why does it need to be a lamb at all? I'm a farmer and it's been a great year for my wheat crop -- I can't use everything I've grown. Why don't I just burn some of the extra straw I have. That way, I won't be wasting any."


I think rather, he sacrificed from a plant other than wheat.

The displeasure of God foreshadows the displeasure of God in the last times, when some Catholic or perhaps more properly ex-Catholic priests have, after Vatican II and Liturgic reform, tried to consecrate maize bread or rice bread instead of unleavened wheat bread. Burning straw would not have been likely to occur even to Cain, he was hardly that stupid. But whether it did or not, God did not show displeasure at a sacrifice in wheat. It cannot have been in wheat, since wheat could not yet be cultivated.

Perhaps it was maize, and he tried offering God some pop-corn - and God was not feeling like going to a cinema. To use some understatement. I am very much reminded of how Reverend Bryan Houghton had to tell a junior priest at a point between Vatican II and the final liturgic reform "no, you cannot consecrate coke and potato crisps" (or whatever it was).

Now, this involves a bit of a quandary about the New Offertory.

As those who studied the Liturgic Reform know, the new offertory is from the Seder meal which for the blessing of bread and wine is identic to the Sabbath meal on Friday evening.

I was wondering whether the Sabbath meal involved some kind of attempt at a slur against the Holy Mass by implying sacrifice of wheat bread is somehow Cainite, we should just bless and not sacrifice it. No, not quite:

Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who brings forth bread from the earth. (Amen)


But here is the corresponding passage in New Offertory (quite different from the old one!):

Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the bread (and wine) we offer you: fruit of the earth and work of hymn [human] hands, it will become for us the bread of life.


Similar for the offering of wine. Hence my striking out of (and wine).

(Forma Ordinaria - a word used on that forum question - means New Liturgy, since in 2007 or earlier "Benedict XVI" made the Traditional Liturgy licit as "Forma Extraordinaria" - sth to use on special conditions).

This means, New Offertory is fairly alone in using specifically for wheat bread (at the moment of the offertory it is still bread, though from then on it belongs to God, it will a few minutes later become the Body of Christ) the words used about Cain's sacrifice - a sacrifice which from now on we know cannot have been made in wheat. Because wheat is post-Flood.

For my part, I am the kind of Catholic who won't call the Traditional Rite "forma Extraordinaria" and who no longer goes to New Rite on Sundays.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre
II Sunday after Epiphany
14.I.2018

jeudi 4 janvier 2018

Question for Madagascar ...


I am looking up Madagascar on the google site Palaeocritti.

Brief review of what periods mean. Upper is more recent than lower of each. And middle comes in between.

The named labels are from less to more recent : Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous.

This means that a creature from "Upper Jurassic" should be older than any creature from Cretaceous, upper or lower, and more recent than any from Lower Jurassic, any Triassic or any Permian.

Now, I am looking - or was a moment ago and will again - at a specific creature from Upper Jurassic.

Brachypterygius

As it is an ichthyosaur, it lived in water.

This any creationist as much as any evolutionist will admit.

Brachypterygius extremus (which is one of them) has an age and distribution of :

Horizon:
Kimmeridge Clay (Kimmeridgian, Upper Jurassic)

Locality:
Smallmouth Sands, Dorset, UK; Wiltshire and Cambridgeshire, UK; Volga and Saratov regions, Russia; Madagascar.


And sure enough, the page for Madagascar is - no, wait, it is simply listing genus. I'll look at the page to see if some other species is also from Madagascar.

Brachypterygius mordax - no.

Brachypterygius cantabrigiensis - no.

So, it is actually just Brachypterygius extremus which is from Madagascar too.

This means, some place on Madagascar is labelled as Kimmeridgian, Upper Jurassic and you found Brachypterygius extremus there.

All the other creatures listed for Madagascar are - it would seem - land animals.

Rahonavis ostromi
- Horizon:
Upper Cretaceous (?Campanian) Maevarano Formation

Type Locality:
Mahajanga Basin, northwestern Madagascar


Question part 1 : was the Brachopterygius found below any Rahonavis ostromi or was the Rahonavis ostromi found above any Brachopterygius?

Any Cretaceous is supposed to be more recent than Upper Jurassic.

Majungasaurus crenatissimus:

Horizon:
Anembalemba Member, the uppermost white sandstone stratum of the Maevarano Formation, Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian)

Locality:
Mahajanga, Madagascar


OK, found along the Rahonavis. Not sure how close or how far.

Question part 2 : was the Brachopterygius found under any Majungasaurus? Or was the Majungasaurus found above any Brachopterygius?

Question part 3 : if you plot the space between Rahonavis and Majungasaurus on a map, or between more than one of each (Majungasaurus has more than one cranium, so more than one specimen) (Rahonavis was just one skeleton), was there any Brachopterygius found in between these, either physically lower in the ground, or in such a place as to indicate present surface was physically lower?

The questions 2 and 3 multiply if you add the several specimens of Masiakasaurus knopfleri (UA 8680, FMNH PR 2108–2182, UA 8681–8696) (Locality: Mahajanga Basin, near the village of Berivotra, northwestern Madagascar), and of the somewhat fewer Behemoths of Rapetosaurus krausei label. (We deal with : UA 8698 as holotype and then the referred specimina FMNH PR 2184-2192, 2194, 2196, 2197, 2209, 2210, UCB 92829). (Mahajanga basin, northwestern Madagascar.)

They multiply just a bit more, if you add Simosuchus clarki (Crocodylomorpha Notosuchia Chimaerasuchidae) and Araripesuchus tsangatsangana (Crocodylomorpha Notosuchia), who, poor crocs, have no separate pages (let's suppose they could shed crocodile tears for that!).

But all so far, except the Brachypterygius, are from Maevarano Formation, Mahajanga, Madagascar, Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian).

We also have four types of Eosuchia - sounds like crocs, early or dawning crocs - from Madagascar, Upper Permian (Wuchiapingian), outside and inside Lower Sakamena Formation. As well as from Middle Sakamena Formation, Madagascar, Lower Triassic (Induan). At least three places or "layers" with crocs.

Now, recall, these are supposed to be earlier than Upper Jurassic.

Question part 4 : is Brachopterygius found above any of these or is any of these found below a Brachopterygius? Is there a place between either where it is physically closer to present ground level or as close to present ground level in which there is a clear physical indication of this having been closer to surfaces since then eroded?

Middle Jurassic is also supposed to be earlier than Upper Jurassic. So where does Isalo III Formation, Madagascar, Middle Jurassic (Bathonian) get us?

We have an Archosaur and two Sauropoda (Behemoths, on Kent Hovind's view). Razanandrongobe sakalavae (Archosauria), Archaeodontosaurus descouensi (Sauropoda), Lapparentosaurus madagascariensis (Sauropoda Macronaria Brachiosauridae).

Question part 5 : is Brachopterygius found above any of these at least three specimina?

Because, if all parts of the question can be summed up as "no", I think where Brachopterygius was found was pre-Flood sea, where the other creatures were found was pre-Flood land.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of Holy Innocents
4.I.2018

samedi 30 décembre 2017

More Evidence Linking Rest of World to Göbekli Tepe Area - or Babel (brief link)


Urfa Man: The 11,000 year old Balikligöl Statue Found Near Göbekli Tepe
MegalithomaniaUK | Ajoutée le 11 avr. 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhmNhUh2JGo


"Shanliurfa" - mentions of Abraham's birthplace - in some traditions, Urfa = Ur of Chaldees. Not saying I either agree or disagree./HGL

PS - if you didn't get that you were supposed to watch the video, there is a man sized statue in it which looks a very similar style to one in South America./HGL

jeudi 21 décembre 2017

Living Stones


Contrary to a prejudice from Protestants, when we refer to "visible Church" we do not mean buildings of minerals, or for that matter, in Norway, often of lignine, we refer to the people whom St Paul calls "living stones" being visible people.

Now, the analogy between stones of a temple and people is probably an ancient one.

Nevalı Çori: The 10,400 year old Megalithic Temple near Göbekli Tepe
MegalithomaniaUK | Ajoutée le 30 juil. 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q0dRicL5eY


10,400 years old = from 8400 BC. Note, I don't believe this date is accurate, but I believe this date, given by archaeologists, is a carbon date, where part of the present content of 28.42 percent modern carbon being lower than 100 is due to the time spent with decay of original content, but part of this lower content being also an originally lower content.

This means, while the 8400 BC is not in itself accurate, it indirectly reflects sth which is.

If Göbekli Tepe's thousand years 9600 - 8600 BC were the forty years of Babel, then Nevalı Çori would be one of the earliest post-Babel constructions. In it you find "anthropomorphic pillars". That is, some of the pillars are made to look as if they were people. We don't know if, like Babel, it was run by Nimrodians - or I don't, I haven't seen all of the video yet - or by the pre-Abrahamic faithful (those with Masoretic timeline, if accepting my identification of Göbekli Tepe would involve Abraham too, I say pre-Abrahamic as per LXX timeline).

Could St Paul know about this, naturally speaking, in Corinthians, or, perhaps even more directly, St Peter in I Peter 2:5?

No, if they ever had a vision of Nevalı Çori, it was a supernatural one. The site was buried long before they were around and was dug up very recently. But, while in a way Nevalı Çori's anthropomorphic pillars might look like men turned to stone, St Peter was speaking to "stones" who had been turned to men, to children of Abraham. Grafted branches, but live branches, in another parable.

I was asking who these living stones were for 5th C. of a Protestant. I mentioned St Patrick. For 7th C. I give you St Winifrede:

Saint Winifred and Her Well
de Mary's Dowry Productions PRO le 18 décembre 2017
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/winifred


On a live rock, that stone was built, and the gate of Hell shall not prevail against her./HGL

vendredi 15 décembre 2017

Neanderthals - Related to Michael Oard's and Anne Habermehl's Work (post-Flood Boundary and Babel Builders)


On today's article, Michael Oard enumerates three schools about Flood / post-Flood boundary. I am citing a minimum to show what they have in common:

  • "The first believes that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is generally in the late Paleozoic"

  • "The second school of thought believes the Flood/post-Flood boundary is near the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary."

  • "The third school of thought believes the Flood/post-Flood boundary is near the end of the Cenozoic."


All of above seem to say a "defined Geologic period" is either from the Flood or from post-Flood, anywhere on earth. That Cretaceous and Jurassic could be a biotope type which was recreated after the Flood too doesn't occur to him. Or biotope types which were. To me a Hadrosaurus date by Armitage suggests that.

CMI : Defining the Flood/post-Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks
by Michael J. Oard
https://creation.com/defining-the-flood-post-flood-boundary-in-sedimentary-rocks


Of course, some geologic layers, like "recent humus soil" on top of all rocks and clay, are automatically post-Flood. No one would dispute that.

I would add some back onto that list : Younger Dryas is Post-Flood, since just before Babel, if my theory of Babel = Göbekli Tepe is correct.

Upper Palaeolithic in archaeology - or the parts carbon dated to after carbon date of last fully Neanderthal skeleton in Europe - is post-Flood. I take this to be 40 000 YA, but some have argued that Neanderthals "could have survived to 28 000 BP", which I think is based on charcoals in a cave in Gibraltar, the charcoals being from 28 000 YA, the cave including previous Neanderthal occupation.

Gibraltar 1 skull - undated.
Gibraltar 2 skull - dated to "between 30 000 and 50 000 BP"

"The original find was done in a time where the palaeontological dating was still in its infancy, and no stratigraphic information was supplied with the skull, making dating at best guesswork. Another specimen from a different locale on Gibraltar (Gibraltar 2) has however been dated to between 30 thousand to 50 thousand years old."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_1

Giving reference 4:

Smith, T. M.; Tafforeau, P.; Reid, D. J.; Pouech, J.; Lazzari, V.; Zermeno, J. P.; Guatelli-Steinberg, D.; Olejniczak, A. J.; Hoffman, A.; Radovcic, J.; Makaremi, M.; Toussaint, M.; Stringer, C.; Hublin, J.-J. (15 November 2010). "Dental evidence for ontogenetic differences between modern humans and Neanderthals". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (49): 20923–20928. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010906107. PMC 3000267 Freely accessible. PMID 21078988.

Not finding the reference for Gibraltar 1 / Gibraltar 2.

The reason is excellent. I had used a wikipedian article in another shape than the present one.

Here is from my article:

Creation vs. Evolution : Neanderthal Pre-or Post-Flood?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/02/neanderthal-pre-or-post-flood.html


Common name
Gibraltar Woman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_1

Species
Homo(sapien) neanderthalensis

Age
30,000 to 40,000 years

Place discovered
Forbes' Quarry, Gibraltar

Date discovered
1848

Discovered by
Edmund Flint


Now, same article on wiki has age as "unknown". Revision as of 01:49, 8 November 2016 - it was there. Revision as of 18:54, 28 April 2017 - it goes, replaced by "unknown", courtesy of wikipedian user Nicolas Perrault III.

Now, anyway, my point is, if her skeleton was in terms of carbon dates so much older than the charcoal at Gorham Cave, then she could be pre-Flood, the charcoal early post-Flood (of same cave).

Apart from charcoal at Gorham cave, I don't know anything which would put Neanderthals as recent, in carbon terms, as 28 000 BP.

I suppose all cave paintings to be post-Flood, not from a creationist karstological view point that caves "perhaps only formed during and after Flood", but more in terms of water of the Flood would have washed away or severely smudged the colours.

In Neanderthal caves we don't find paintings, we have found a hashtag. In Cro Magnon caves, we do find paintings ... meaning, on my view, Cro Magnon is the race which came out of the Ark.

This detail about Neanderthals will also be relavant to a point about Habermehl's theory of the "ziggurat of Babel".

AiG : Where in the World Is the Tower of Babel?
by Anne Habermehl on March 23, 2011
https://answersingenesis.org/tower-of-babel/where-in-the-world-is-the-tower-of-babel/


I am nearly totally agreed with her on the geographic sites:

Agreed
and I am relying on her effort:

36°50′24″N 40°4′7″E
Calneh (Tell Fekheriye)
37°3′29″N 40°53′44″E
Erech (Tell Aqab)
36°40′03.42″N 41°03′31.12″E
Akkad (Tell Brak)

Disgreed

37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E
Babel - HGL (Göbekli Tepe)
36.5117°N 40.7422°E - 36°51′01″N 40°04′14″E
Babel - Habermehl (Khabur triangle)


I am disagreeing with her on other topics, and this shows in her rejection of Göbekli Tepe as Babel:

"It is widely believed that the Tower of Babel was a ziggurat, also called a stepped pyramid; a quick search on the internet will bring up any number of sites that state this (for example, Livingstone 2008). There is good reason to believe this, because the many ziggurats that are known around the world20 clearly point back to a time when there was an original ziggurat, the knowledge of which traveled with people as they spread out to populate the earth. For creationists, who believe the Bible story in Genesis 11 literally, this original ziggurat has to be the Tower of Babel."


Not necessarily. To Babel in Shinar one came from the East. And there seems to be a ziggurat carbon dated in parts to 20 000 BC (pre-Babel on my view) very far indeed in the East - if Graham Hancock is right about Gunang Padang. Here is my reference between Josephus / Comestor and Gunang Padang:

Now, let's reason a bit about this. Ethann, Helioschora ... could it be Gunung Padang?

  • 1) It is clearly further East than Göbekli Tepe;
  • 2) If Younger Dryas involved some gigantic Floods (though inferior to Flood of Noah), this would explain the shyness of getting onto a plain (and would explain a preference for a plain where it is fairly high, like GT, now 760 meters above sea level, over a lower plain, like 34 m (100 feet) above present sea level;
  • 3) Gunung Padang flourished (or started to get built) 20 000 BP, 18 000 BC, carbon dates, if Hancock is right about drill holes. This would be before Younger Dryas - and Younger Dryas is very evocative of "But they were so ill instructed that they did not obey God; for which reason they fell into calamities, and were made sensible, by experience, of what sin they had been guilty:"


My article:

Creation vs. Evolution : Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 4
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/07/is-graham-hancock-right-on-gobekli-tepe_18.html


Referring to a Hancock interview here:

Ancient Extinction Revealed: Atlantis, Göbekli Tepe & Mysteries of the Gods with Graham Hancock
TheLipTV2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62EkJlZE3jY


I therefore submit, earliest ziggurat was not Babel, but before it, in the east.

"We also do not know how many able-bodied men were available to do the building work; estimates of the total population at the time of the dispersion have varied greatly, from under a thousand (Morris 1966) to 65,000 (Tower of Babel 2010), to name two. Whatever the number was, this author takes the view that the long-lived people at Babel were Neanderthals, and thus known to be physically very strong (Cuozzo 1998; Habermehl 2010; Trinkaus 1978); they would have been able to do much harder physical work than humans today."


I disagree with Habermehl on this one.

Neanderthals are not long lived post-Flood men, they are another pre-Flood race. On the Ark, no full Neanderthal was on board, but one daughter in law of Noah (at least) would have been half Neanderthal, or less. This is why no strict Neanderthal race survives today, but some races have more Neanderthal traits than others.

That is why I set Flood / Post-Flood limit in carbon dates as last carbon date of a Neanderthal skeleton. As said above, in connection with Michael Oard.

"According to Genesis 11:3, the Tower was built of “burnt” brick—that is, kiln-baked brick. This is a very durable material, and because of this, remnants of the Tower may well have survived the ages."


You know, I heard some rocket engineers at NASA are using basically same material = ceramics = burnt brick as shields for heat or against radiation.

This obviously has to do with what I think the tower was (or was meant to be, not claiming it would have been functional) : a three step rocket at takeoff looks like a tower and only the top section actually makes it to deep space.

Also, technically, the text does not say that both tower or city or either of them was burnt brick, just that they had invented the technique.

"Remote Sensing: What Are the Chances That We Will Ever Find the Tower and City of Babel?"


Göbekli Tepe : city found, three step rocket not yet found. Perhaps not even left in place.

You see, the narration says they ceased to build on the city.

This is arguably true for Göbekli Tepe, it was even covered in sand, deliberately.

It does not say they ceased to build on the Tower. If it was a rocket prototype, one of the groups would have been able to take it away. I suppose to China, where I suppose gunpowder was invented to replace Uranium as Nimrod's planned (and very ill planned, fortunately not tried) rocket fuel. Meaning China in one way continued to build the "tower" - each Chinese forework rocket being a miniature of it. Others in other ways, like ziggurats (recall the Gunang Padang one?) and stone circles (Stonehenge and a few more).

Since it is a few months back at least that I argued about Nimrod was probably going to use Uranium as rocket fuel, and that is part of why God "stopped the Babel building," (not totally, but the immediate concerted effort, delaying millennia to Cape Canaveral and Bajkonur, so a safer fuel was discovered, H2+O2), Nimrod would have known Uranium from the probably pre-Flood times described in Mahabharata : part of the Ghita resembles an atomic exposion and was cited by Oppenheimer, and other parts reflect radioactive contamination properties). For those who consider Mahabharata matters as post-Flood, Nimrod would have known Uranium at first hand, and have been even more stupid to want to try it. I consider he knew it from hearsay (a bit less reflected than that in the later poem Mahabharata) and that the ice age as part goal from God's side, was to prevent Nimrod's getting Uranium from Canada.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of the Immaculate
Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
15.XII.2017

vendredi 8 décembre 2017

Is there an Urban Legend that Grendel and His Mother were Dinosaurs Among Creationists?


I recall some years ago a Kent Hovind theory in which Kent Hovind seemed to take not just the final monster, the wyrm, a dragon with wings, or the monsters on the swimming tour of Kattegatt, the nicor, but also Grendel and his mother for reptiles.

I now saw an article* on CMI, where Russell Grigg is enumerating all monsters in Beowulf, presumably including Grendel, in dinosaur kinds:

The epic Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf tells how Beowulf (c. AD 495–583) of Scandinavia killed a monster named Grendel, and its supposed mother, as well as several sea-reptiles,11 but eventually lost his life at the age of 88 in the process of killing a flying reptile. The Saxon description of this creature fits that of a giant Pteranodon—it was ‘fifty feet in length (or possibly wingspan)’. The monster called Grendel, which Beowulf killed many years previously, is described as follows. He was apparently a youngster (having been known for only 12 years), man-like in stance (i.e. bipedal), and he had two small forelimbs that the Saxons call eorms (arms), one of which Beowulf tore off. He was a muthbona—one who slew with his mouth or jaws—and his skin was impervious to swordblows.


The sea-reptiles, nicor, on the swim over Kattegatt, OK. The final dragon being a pteranodon (or perhaps the poet mixing tradtitions between pteranodontes and dimetrodontes, the sail of the latter could be taken from a distance as a wing), OK.

But when Russell Grigg says Grendel's forelimbs were just called eorms, it looks as if he thought they were not arms.

That Neanderthals belong to the human kind is obviously true. But whether they do so as true and full men or more like monstruous Nephelim is another matter.

Now, the description of Grendel is the description of a "post-Flood nephelim". The poet explicitly calls him "Caines cynne" - kinsman of Cain.

Here are two interpretations of Neanderthals:

 
 
UNiesert - Eigenes Werk, Neues Model eines Neandertalers (Mann und Frau) im Neanderthal-Museum, Mettmann, Deutschland, CC BY-SA 3.0 File:Neandertala homo, modelo en Neand-muzeo.JPG Erstellt: 8. April 2009  Copyright: themandus.org ***


The one to the right may or may not be correct about the Neanderthal fossils, but it is certainly fairly much what Grendel is described as.

It is from the site Them+Us**. The text under the picture is With their more robust skeletons and heavier musculature, it’s estimated Neanderthals were six times stronger than humans. Other texts are : An illustration (above) from ‘Them and Us’ reveals that the the skull of a Neanderthal fits perfectly into the profile of a chimpanzee, suggesting the appearance of Neanderthals (at least in profile) more closely resembled non-human primates than a modern humans. And : Vendramini demonstrates that the optical orbits (eye sockets) of Neanderthals were considerably larger than humans. He theorizes Neanderthals evolved these extra large eyes because, like most mammalian predators, they were nocturnal hunters.

Nocturnal hunters? Fits Grendel and his mother perfectly.

Now, look at this:

If you’re disturbed by these images, there’s a good reason for it. Like other prey species, humans have an innate capacity to recognize our natural predator. What Neanderthals ‘felt’ like is hardwired into our genes. Neanderthal predation was so traumatic that even 28,000 years after the last Neanderthal disappeared, they can still push our buttons.


Sounds very much like descriptions of the pre-Flood world and like the indication there may have been a kind of "return of the Nephilim" after the Flood in the verse Genesis 6:4.

KJV : There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

DRBO differs : Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.

Probably "and also after that" and "for after" translate the same Hebrew phrase. It is the former translation which indicates a possible return of nephelim after the Flood.

Now, Neanderthals probably had language, they do have the human version of the FOXP2 gene. They had tools. They were not simply animals. But they can have been monstruous perversions of mankind.

And, as said, by Rob Skiba, if giants returned after the Flood, one explanation is, while Noah and his wife were pure human, not perverted by nephelim, not all of his daughters in law were genetically untainted by them.

Danny Vendramini might possibly agree that tales of trolls could be related to experience of Neanderthals (if his reconstruction is correct), and if so, I would be disagreeing with him (with the reservation mentioned) only about the time scale. 28 000 years ago is not a valid date - it is derived from false interpretations of carbon 14 levels, as if derived from original levels in samples being close to 100 percent modern carbon.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Feast of the Immaculate Conception
of the Blessed Virgin Mary
8.XII.2017

* Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends
by Russell Grigg
https://creation.com/dinosaurs-and-dragons-stamping-on-the-legends


** THEM+US: DANNY VENDRAMINI : The real Neanderthals
What neanderthals really looked like
http://themandus.org/gallery/


*** I will have to ask the webmaster on whether the fact of including the image here makes an exception to my own terms of reuse or not. If you try, at least do not use it on the front cover or back cover, that is explicitly excluded.