mercredi 13 décembre 2017

[Can I Discuss in Portuguese? No, But I do it Anyway] O milagre de Josué e a exegese de todos os sigos ..

Bajo una video
que poco importa per la discusión fuero el hecho que menciona la terra como centro del universo como un factoido de la ciencia erronea y pasada.

Desde - a
"December 8 at 2:23pm - December 13 at 5:01 pm"

Hans-Georg Lundahl
A terra é o centro do universo, é a verdade ... Josue 10:12,13.

do Miguel de Jesus (por emoticon)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Miguel de Jesus, que pense Vocé sobre o feito que Josue diou o ordem ao sol e aa luna, e nao aa terra?

Miguel de Jesus
Hans-Georg Lundahl, penso que Josué se deixou iludir pelo movimento aparente do sol, como acontecia até à pouco tempo. Hoje a ciência já provou o inverso.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
mais em um milagro nao sao as aparencias a que o ordem milagroso se dereita, sao as realdades

e como a ciencia "provou o inverso"?

Miguel de Jesus
Coloco outra questão: qual é a prova que Josué apresenta para defender essa ideia?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Jesús da ordens aos ventos cuando os ventos tenem que calmarse, aos demonios cuando os demonions tenem que irse ao inferno.

Admeter o que admetes pelo libro de Josue da um peligroso ... uma peligrosa Jurisprudência pelos evangelios.

Miguel de Jesus
Hans-Georg Lundahl, Josué não é Jesus. Além do mais, o contexto do relato não parece referir um milagre.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
O contexto nao parece referir um milagre? Explique isso!

"Josué não é Jesus"

Pessoalmente, nao.

O rei Ezequias nao mais.

Mais, Ezequias tiveu a linea davidica e Josué o nome do Jesus (Jesus = Iehoshua = Josué, os LXX lo chaman "Jesus Nave").

Por isso, o sol obedeceu a Ezequias e a Josué, como senhalou a crucifixao pela obscuraçao e como dançou pela Virgem em Fatima.

Miguel de Jesus
Nem todos os relatos bíblicos são factuais. É o caso das Bodas de Caná. É um episódio meramente catequético.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nem = "nao" (mais o menos)?

O sacerdote parece um apostata ...

Miguel de Jesus
Não = Non; Nem = nec.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
O sacerdote do quem prendes catequismo e apostata ... "Nem todos os relatos bíblicos são factuais" e um proposto de apostata.

Miguel de Jesus
Hans-Georg Lundahl, estude mais exegese bíblica.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
estude a boa, nem a exegese de apostatas ...

do Miguel de Jesus

Miguel de Jesus
Qual é a boa, a do séc XII?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
A de toudos os sigos ... cada vez que o sigo XII e o sigo XIII e o sigo XIV concurrem no mismo, e a boa.

Miguel de Jesus
Por isso, a actual também.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Entonces só issa actual que concurre com o sigo XII ou com sigo XIV ... nem a outra que difere dos toudos sigos.

Miguel de Jesus
Errado. A exegese actual, difere e bastante da antiga.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nao e "a exegese actual". E uma exegese actual e nao a boa.

Miguel de Jesus
Depende da perspectiva. Eu acho que o senhor está errado, o senhor acha que eu estou errado. É palavra contra palavra, com a diferença que minha está certa, porque concorda com o que está no site do Vaticano.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Depende da perspectiva."

Issa do San Vincente de Lerinos, issa do Conselho do Trento ... dogmatizada.

"com a diferença que minha está certa, porque concorda com o que está no site do Vaticano."

Es proba que o sito do Vaticano nao tem o verdadeiro papa.

do Miguel de Jesus

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ries tres minudos?

E bom pola saudade ... [es bueno per la salud]

Miguel de Jesus

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Desde 4 minudos só o riso baijo (?) o meu comentario, nem continua vocé o argumento ...

Rir e bom pola saudade, mais só reir nao e bom pola logica ..

Espeiro que nao sao os hispanismos ou castilhanismos que dao deudos sobre o que digo ....?

lundi 4 décembre 2017

Could St James Write His Epistle? Yes!

Vikrant Menon
shared a link: : How Bad Was the Apostle James’s Greek?
November 28, 2017 | Todd Scacewater

David Cole
Jewish boys were required to go to the synagogue during week days to learn how to read and write and memorize scripture and prayers. They were all well educated. James and Jude came from a fairly well to do home and probably had good education but whether he penned the letter himself or whether he had a scribe pen it while he dictated it is unknown. Paul used a scribe when he wrote his.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Jewish boys were required to go to the synagogue during week days to learn how to read and write and memorize scripture and prayers."


That came with Joshua Ben Gamla - after Hannas and Kaiphas.

Vikrant Menon
Perhaps Brian Wright's new book sheds some light

Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus: A Window into Early Christian Reading Practices
Author: Brian J. Wright (Author)
Editor: Fortress Press

David Cole
Education In Jesus' Time

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I said collectivity as requirement came with Joshua ben Gamla (which was during 1st C!).

I did not say it had not been customary before.

A legal or religiously legal requirement is sth else than a custom usually observed but not thought of as inflexible.

David Cole
And do you feel that's a valid excuse to dismiss the authorship of James?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, absolutely not.

I am just considering it as a valid ground for distinguishing between a customary education he had and which legally then could still have been home schooling, and a compulsory education Judaism invented just after that, outlawing home schooling for boys.

From Quora

Was James younger or older than Jesus?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Self Employed at Writer and Composer
Answered just now
Agreeing with Jack Wallace.

St James was the youngest son of St Joseph’s first wife, who died, and when St Joseph was widower, he remarried, the Blessed Virgin.

Therefore, while St James the lesser was perhaps younger than St James the greater (the son of Zebedee), certainly shorter, he was older than Our Lord.

EDIT : if you mean St James the son of Zebedee, he might have been either, though his brother St John was arguably younger than Our Lord, since the youngest.

lundi 13 novembre 2017

On the Buzz Word "Pedophilia" and the Confusion it Causes

In Kent Hovind group
shared a link:

Paedophilia a 'sexual orientation - like being straight or gay'
Ian Johnston @montaukian Sunday 3 April 2016 18:02 BST

some responses out.

= Hans-Georg Lundahl, me
Has it occurred to anyone that the word, having at least three different meanings, is meaningless?

[anonymised, for now]
Wtf?! Next they're going to tell us being a pedophile is hardwired I honour DNA & that ppl are born with it.. Being a child predator is not genetic, it's a choice & it's disgusting..

Child predator, however, has one meaning, it should not be watered down to "pedophile".

You know, some shrinks consider "pedophile" to mean a certain propensity, not a certain act. And after all, it is they who invented the word.

I still think their word is meaningless, since the "certain" propensity is one for three different kinds of act, one of which is neither predating on children, nor on adolescent boys and not necessarily on adolescent girls, that depends on how marital legislation is (if you marry a girl, you are not a predator).

Seems like you had more of a comment that got cut out..

"Cut out"?

Maybe not. I thought maybe you posted only part of your comment & maybe another part got cut out for some reason.

I care not for semantics. Looking upon a child with lust is immoral & acting upon a lustful thought should be a capital offense. Pedophiles & child predators should be castrated or killed

"Looking upon a child with lust"

What is a child in this context?

Below puberty, below legal age of consent or below legal age of marriage in your jurisdiction?

Does intention to (if possible) marry count as "looking with lust"?

"acting upon a lustful thought should be a capital offense"

OK, hardliner, I see ... in several Christian jurisdictions this has not been so.

Even in the OT some rapes were punished by rapist being obliged to marry the victim.

"Pedophiles & child predators should be castrated or killed"

I was going to ask you if by pedophiles you meant child predators, apparently not.

Why should a "pedophile" - whatever you mean by the term - who has not acted criminally on his propensity be subjected to such gross treatment?

We all know what a child is. Semantics will not help you here. Intent to marry implies a sexual & intellectual attraction. Adults cannot be foolishly swayed in the way children can. Also, the bible never condones rape with marrying the oppresser. What you probably have read is the NIV translation of Deuteronomy 22:28, which is what that particular translation says. However that translation is corrupt, among others. It also contradicts itself because in the verse directly before it (verses 25 & 26) it also states that a raped woman shall suffer no penalty & the rapist stoned. The kjv translates the verse in Deuteronomy 22 verse 28 accurately in that a virgin woman, unbetrothed (not engaged) is found laying with a man, they must marry & dude is to pay her father. The NIV translates this verse as meaning 'raped' when it clearly does not. It says 'lay hold of' which is a sexual expression much like the phrase 'knew her' means having sexual relations such as when the virgin Mary got pregnant of the holy spirit & the text reads that Joseph ' 'knew her not'. Meaning they hadn't had sex yet, in cultural context. Anyways, the NIV got the translation wrong & the kjv has the correct translation of the verse you brought up. Read the differences for yourself. This was the verse that lead to me to question certain translations of the bible. Some are inaccurate. The kjv is closest to the original text & has a majority of manuscripts backing up it's translation. I've digressed but i felt it was important to touch on the mistranslstion of deut 22:28 in the NIV because it does basically insinuate God condones rape. However the KJV has the correct translation of said verse & it reads quite the opposite.

Pedophiles are child predators by definition. They seek to have sexual relations with small children for their own pleasure. I never said ppl should be punished for thoughts. I said that lustful thoughts an a child is immoral & acting upon those thoughts should be a capital offense. When you engage in sexual relations with a small child, your actions do absolutely no good for them as it's purely for the pleasure of the one acting.

"We all know what a child is."

Apparently not.

To me a child is someone who is not yet in puberty. At least when puberty is not extremely early.

I have been accused of pedophile intentions because of a girl definitely puber, but not yet of legal age of consent.

I would have, at least thought so, up to her age of consent, one year's delay, have met her at openly seen places and with her parents and so, up to when she could have asked authorities to get a dispensation to marry me.

That she rejected me was one thing. But that the whole village more or less pushed her to go on rejecting me due to me being, apparently, "pedophile" means, they had a different view on what constitutes a child than I had or have.

"They seek to have sexual relations with small children for their own pleasure"

With SMALL children, thank you, your definition of pedophile is relatively sound, unfortunately not share by that village.

Age of consent is up to the society. Idk what it is where you are. In America, it's below the age of 18.. of course parents can give consent at an earlier age. I'd define someone as a child until the age of ab 14 or 15. Even then someone of that age doesn't really know the repercussions of their actions or give it much thought. What makes a child differ from an adult is more mental maturity than it is physical development, although it certainly still plays a role in discerning. Why did you wanna marry this young woman? If she rejected you, she obviously wasn't showing you her feelings were anymore than platonic. Seems you tried rushing the idea of marriage before the relationship was foundational & mutual. I wasn't there, but it seems the case from your description.

Ah, I'd agree with 14 for boys, 12 for girls.

In Sweden, I got stamped as pedophile because in love with a girl under 15, declaring it a few days before her 14th BD.

"What makes a child differ from an adult is more mental maturity than it is physical development,"

There is a brain development which is basic for any kind of "mental maturity", which is physical and surer to go by than subjective evaluations of the mental.

Apart from that there are also physical developments connected to sex hormones.

That's technically pedophilia. Keep in mind guys don't really reach mental maturity till they're almost 30. Women perhaps around 25, if I remember right. Maybe stick to women around your own age. 12, 14, or even 18 is still pretty young, mentally. These ppl (guys & girls) are still pretty foolish & naive at such a young age. Stick to around your own age as a limit, man. My niece is 12. If any dude tried marrying her, I'd be going to jail.. That's not happening.

"Keep in mind guys don't really reach mental maturity till they're almost 30. Women perhaps around 25, if I remember right."

30 or even 25 is rather late to marry, for a woman.

I am sorry, but you are wrong.

You seriously do NOT know what a child is. You are part of a modern pseudoculture.

As was the father of that gal. Too bad, I thought he was conservative.

"Maybe stick to women around your own age."

An old maid 49 is too old to marry. A divorcee, in the eyes of God, is married to someone else. And widows, I don't want to speculate in someone else's death.

Perhaps she thought an old man as too old to marry.. you're a pedophile. You should seek help before you end up hurting someone who doesn't share your views..

Look here, I was 28 on the occasion.

And, no, I am not "seeking help" the way you put it.

Your view of what a pedophile is, is worthless blabla, has nothing to do with what is inherently right or wrong, unlike for instance detesting homosexuality.

YOUR'S is the view which is making Europe childless and greying and a prey to immigration.

Here is some history:

James V of Scotland James V (10 April 1512 – 14 December 1542)
1) Madeleine of Valois (1537)
Madeleine of Valois (10 August 1520 – 7 July 1537) was a French princess who became Queen of Scots as the first spouse of King James V. (She was 16, and died that year)
2) Mary of Guise (1538–42)
Mary of Guise (French: Marie de Guise; 22 November 1515 – 11 June 1560) was Queen of Scots from 1538 to 1542 as the second wife of King James V. (She was married twice, her first spouse)
Louis II, Duke of Longueville
(m. 1534; d. 1537) (She was 19 when marrying first spouse)

James V's
Father James IV, King of Scots
Mother Margaret Tudor

James IV (17 March 1473 – 9 September 1513) was the King of Scotland from 11 June 1488 to his death. He assumed the throne following the death of his father, King James III, (1451/52–1488, reigned 1460–1488) in the Battle of Sauchieburn, a rebellion in which the younger James played an indirect role.

Margaret Tudor (28 November 1489 – 18 October 1541) was Queen of Scots from 1503 until 1513 by marriage to James IV of Scotland and then, after her husband died fighting the English, she became regent for their son James V of Scotland.

Margaret Tudor was 13 to 14 when she married James IV. Was he a pedophile? You have just spit on a large part of your own ancestry.

[He was also 16 years older]

Always seeking to justify your sin.. Just like the bible says ppl would. I don't understand why a mature 28 year old would seek courtship with a 14 year old. Go for someone your own age. Plenty of women your age are looking for mates. Leave children alone, Jesus warns that those who offend children, will suffer great torment on judgment day.

Sexuality is sacred, along with ethnicity. That's why Christians get uptight when racism is committed & homosexuality. Ethnicity & sexuality is a gift of God & is very sacred. Homosexuality is abomination to the sacred nature of sexuality granted to us by God. So, it seems that you are then one who has no moral foundation on which to base right or wrong actions. Pedophilia is a sexual predator of young children. Its not natural. You should seek a mate your own age & maturity level.

"Always seeking to justify your sin.. "

My sin? It would have been a sin not to try to marry.

I Cor 7:9

"I don't understand why a mature 28 year old would seek courtship with a 14 year old."

I said it was in a village, right?

I had ran out of prospects about my age, including two Catholic young ladies (that is my confession) a bit older than I. Both had been teaching what I had taught, German and Swedish.

She was, in my eyes, if not the, at least one of the most mature among my ex pupils. Note, ex, I tried nothing like that as long as I actually was a teacher. Also, I was not going for someone I thought less mature.

"Go for someone your own age. Plenty of women your age are looking for mates."

1) I had no one more there.
2) I am 49 now. An old maid of 49 is not very fertile. And I don't go for divorcees, respecting Mark 10:6 (a Bible verse which should be known on this forum) in its context. I don't want to speculate in other men's death, even if widows are licit.

"Leave children alone, Jesus warns that those who offend children, will suffer great torment on judgment day."

Oh, definitely. But she was 14, no longer a child. If you say she was a child, you do NOT know what the word means.

You are accusing God, our Creator, of tempting children, since clearly most girls of 14 like most boys of 16 can have sexual desires (and I mean vastly, the traditional limits of 14 / 12 are for about 50/50 statistics).

"Homosexuality is abomination to the sacred nature of sexuality granted to us by God."

So is masturbation, and your support of bad laws is helping these push young adults to masturbation and damn themselves.

"So, it seems that you are then one who has no moral foundation on which to base right or wrong actions."

Woah, no homosexuality here!

You are mixing oranges and very rotten apples here! Just because one thing called "pedophilia" is what used to be called pederasty, and is a homosexual predating, doesn't mean that anything you can label as "technically pedophilia" is homosexual too!

Just as both of these things, the good and the bad one, are not equal to the Satanic rituals involving babies!

"Pedophilia is a sexual predator of young children. Its not natural."

Marriage is not sexual predatorship. Marriage is natural.

" You should seek a mate your own age & maturity level."

I don't do "maturity level" on gliding scales. Either one is, or one is not mature enough to marry. Nearly all boys of 16, nearly all girls of 14, naturally are!

And I have just explained why "my own age" has by now become a no no.

KG, I missed to comment on this one:

"Age of consent is up to the society."

That is a Lutheran heresy, just as Luther imagined "society" (in his words rather "the prince") is able to legalise divorce and remarrige or even bigamy, contrary to Mark 10:6 (at least in the case of a society of state type sovereignty in majority inhabited by baptised Catholics).

No, there are limits the state has no right to touch.

mardi 31 octobre 2017

Stray comments on an article from Mises

Here is a link to the article:

Mises : Messianic Communism in the Protestant Reformation
10/30/2017 · Murray N. Rothbard

My comments after a friend posted the text on my wall:

Obviously, Munzer was a heretic as much as Luther.

Also, technically, this is not Medieval, but Early Modern Age (except by some fringe settings of limit).

[My friend had spoken about "Medieval Communism"]

"Most Anabaptists, like the Mennonites or Amish, became virtual anarchists. They tried to separate themselves as much as possible from a necessarily sinful state and society, and engaged in nonviolent resistance to the state’s decrees. The other route, taken by another wing of Anabaptists, was to try to seize power in the state and to shape up the majority by extreme coercion: in short, ultratheocracy."

Münzer came a few decades before Menno, precisely as the violent followers of Ziska came before the Moravian Brethren.

Pacifism and withdrawal were reactings to failure of revolution (as with Mormons who had a Califat like state in Utah, before it was beaten).

Kudos to Rothbart for citing Mgr Knox! [Later on]

"Müntzer was converted by the weaver and adept Niklas Storch, who had been in Bohemia, to the old Taborite doctrine that had flourished in Bohemia a century earlier."

Did not know this connection.

Taborites = followers of Ziska.

So Hus is not just responsible for Moravians and Methodists, but also for Mennonites and Amish - did not know.

"Furthermore, marriage was to be prohibited, and each man was to be able to have any woman at his will."

Reminds me both of feminism (which rules in Sweden) and of 1 Tim 4:1-3!

jeudi 12 octobre 2017

Leif Eriksson's Predecessors in Americas

Aristibule Adams
7 octobre, 20:37 ·
Monday is Leif Erikson Day.

some, even if fun.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Obviously some descendants of Noah came quite a while before Leif ...

(Not that I am not partial to Leif, Islands thusund ár and all that)

Aristibule Adams
They didn't hold the True Faith, but had fallen into idolatry.

Maximos Elisha Williams

Aristibule Adams
The descendants of Noah who preceded Leif here (sons of Shem, Nimrod, and Japheth as far as we can tell.)

Maximos Elisha Williams

Aristibule Adams
Which is whom Olaf the King commissioned him to bring the Gospel to.

John Gordy
Noah? Billionzz of yearzz, remember.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Aristibule Adams We do not know whether the first arrivals after Flood had already fallen into idolatry or not.

American Aboriginal religions involves both monotheism and idolatrous adoration of spirits.

It could have started as Nimrodian idolatry, but more arguably not. Aztec and similar ones with human sacrifice could be from a later arrival, like Phenicians.

"The descendants of Noah who preceded Leif here (sons of Shem, Nimrod, and Japheth as far as we can tell.)"

Do you pretend that all descendants of Cham are descended from Nimrod? Do you pretend that none else are?

"They didn't hold the True Faith,"

Palaeoindians are carbon dated to earlier than Göbekli Tepe, i e, on my view, earlier than Babel. This means, if I am correct in the identififcation, they arrived speaking Hebrew, believing in the true God, and recalling Genesis 1-9 and at least parts of Genesis 10.

Aristibule Adams
No - just that Nimrod's descendants fled north from Babel and became the Tartar (Mongol) peoples - and some American Indian bands and tribes are descended from that same population: the Dene, Apache, Athabascan, Tlingit, Haida,etc. A minority in North America. This population has C3 predominating as a male haplogroup - just as in Mongolia.

The majority of American Indians are descended from Turkic tribes though - sons of Japheth. Q, Q1, and Q3 in most of the Americas just like Selkup Turks, Turkmen, and Yeniseian tribes, and a small minority of R1b of a type normally only found in Central Asia & Siberia up in the northeast among Algonquin and Iroquoian peoples. Otherwise R1b is the most common among Western, Northern, and Central Europeans - but found as far east as the Bashkirs, who were originally Uralic. Maybe there were proto-Uralic people among the NE Woodland Indians. But interesting in that the 'Indo-Europeans' and most American Indians were of the closest relation among the sons of Noah. (So the German fascination with American Indians isn't so odd after all.)

But yes, by the time of Leif it was in idolatry - hence the negative reactions to the missionaries. The mission to the Skraelings didn't go well. Somewhere in the Atlantic provinces was the grave of the Irish or Saxon monk Jon, who they slew - and the Vinlanders buried him and set up a carving of a cross of a rock - calling the place Crossness. The location still has never been identified. We don't know if the rock was defaced, or if it has ever been discovered.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
" just that Nimrod's descendants fled north from Babel and became the Tartar (Mongol) peoples"

Ancient source?

"But interesting in that the 'Indo-Europeans' and most American Indians were of the closest relation among the sons of Noah."

That is presuming IE are either one single name in table of nations or names of brothers.

In fact, Anatolia would arguably in the East have had Chanaanean (Chamite) children of Het (first born of Chanaan) who would probably have been speaking at first Hattili, before they were conquered.

Lydians and Luwians are from Lud in Sem's line.

West of Aegean we have Javan, further west we have Thiraz, both of Japheth, and both Anatolia (Cappadocia) and Gaul we find Gomer : but south of if we have Caphthorim on Crete who could very well be earliest speakers of Aryan languages, there was one attempt to decipher Linear A, and it involved Cretan before Greek was spoken as being Aryan. Mount Ida is in this view named for "Indra" - appropriate about whoever became thundergod in both India and on Crete.

So, IE unity comprises an early at least divergence of Caphthorim, Gomer, Javan, Thiraz and Semitic Lud.

Some have considered Madan would be auhor of first IE language, but this places Aryan first - and Elamite is somewhat different, and Aryan priority within IE is a bit old fashioned linguistics. Hittite is probably older.

One of them could be next of kin to Scythians, not all of them.

So, that is why I go by idea that IE was rather starting out as a Sprachbund - or an Esperanto attempt which failed.

(Hattili is possibly Ural-Altaic, certainly agglutinative, like Sumerian : Hittite is rather called Nesili, and is probably from Cappadocia, a land of Gomer, not of Heth : first Nesili document actually treats Hattusha as Joshua treated Jericho, though later it became the capital).

(Just checked : Nesha / Kanesh, etymon for Nesili, is same centre of Anatolia as Cappadocia)

Salvatore Sberna
Hans I'd love to see the sources for this. Fascinating.

Aristibule Adams
Indo-European was spread by R haplogroup Y-chromosome speakers from Central Asia - who are most closely related to Q haplogroup. The spread of IE by that genetic group is well understood now. Most who speak those languages are still majority R haplogroups - Central Asians, South Asians, Eurasians, Europeans.

I think we've already pointed out before that the first Europeans were sons of Shem, and then more sons of Shem moved in, as well as sons of Ham (specifically sons of Phut). Sons of Japheth came to Europe quite late as his 'lot' was the greater part of Asia. In either case, we Europeans are mixed of Noah's sons - most thoroughly in the Balkans (the oldest settled part of Europe.)

Christopher Cline
The North American continent also featured a large civilization of some sorts before the Native tribes as we know them existed.

Aristibule Adams
Yes - European settlement came only after a major collapse happened. The first settlers of Virginia and New England had entered a Continent that had already collapsed due to rampant epidemic disease, fall of a major civilization, and endemic warfare. As our Iroquois elders said "every man if he met another tried to kill him." It was a Mad Max like post-apocalyptic landscape. Some areas were still that bad, and some had made a limited recovery (ie, such as those influenced by Hiawatha and Deganawida - about 1450.) It also explains the big disparity between bands: some had preserved the old civilization in part (such as the Natchez) and others had fallen into a much meaner way of life.

I think things were very different when Leif came, but the tales mostly tell of contact with the Skraelings (Inuit ancestors.)

Mississippian culture - Wikipedia

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Later events, no disagreement.

Earlier ones:

"Indo-European was spread by R haplogroup Y-chromosome speakers from Central Asia"

According to one theory, which is not substantiated by solid proof.

"The spread of IE by that genetic group is well understood now."

Well understood - or well publicised. An earlier time, a few decades ago, IE was spread by Scandinavians.

"I think we've already pointed out before that the first Europeans were sons of Shem"

Which one?

"Sons of Japheth came to Europe quite late as his 'lot' was the greater part of Asia."

I would have considered his lot as being generally "the North", with South divided as Cham to West and Shem to East.

Salvatore Sberna sources for which part of what I said?

I am giving a synthesis the parts of which are from somewhat different sources.

Which shall I take first?

Salvatore Sberna
Hans-Georg Lundahl post-deluge people movements

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Bible History : The Table of Nations in Genesis 10

Probably based on Josephus.

Giving one link at random, since not having the sources I originally used at hand.

I think there was a good one over at CMI too.

Aristibule Adams
Sons of Shem will have closer relation on y-DNA. Same with sons of Japeth, etc. You can't have closer relation to someone on y-DNA than your own father or brothers.

Those maps by Protestants often don't place the lots of the sons of Noah in the correct place either. Though they do have Ashkenaz in the right place (abouts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You can't have closer relation to someone on y-DNA than your own father or brothers."

Probably right, but does not account for how many of the peoples have had admixture by immigrating males later on.

Actually, not a single nation I know of has its all members belonging to a single haplogroup, unless Samarians with only 777 members in two locations do so.

The haplogroup of Yamnaya is now BEST represented in Scandinavia (Sweden and Norway) and LEAST (but still some) in Sardinia. (Credits to the neo-Pagan Survive the Jive).

"Those maps by Protestants often don't place the lots of the sons of Noah in the correct place either."

I am myself not happy with "Gomer and Iavan" in the North. The map per se is not my source, since I mislaid it, it is a source which I offered.

However, the part with Anatolia including Semite Lud around Lydian, Phrygian and Lykian homelands makes perfect sense, and is supported by an ancient authority named Josephus.

Gomer being in Anatolia is supported by St Hippolytus, since he was the one who said Cappadocia hails from Gomer. He or Josephus tells us that Gomer is patriarch of Gaul as well.

Caphthorim being on Crete and coming from Cham is uncontroversial. It is also sure that the Linguist who lately claimed to have deciphered Linear A as an Aryan language was a Frenchman : his page is down, he withdrew the claim, no doubt due to pressure from other Linguists in France. Iavan being Greeks on South Balkan is uncontroversial, since Doric invasion is after Greek began to be spoken among Ionians. As to Heth in the East of Anatolia, their first language was not the IE Hittite (Nesili), but the non-IE, possibly Fenno-Ugrian Hattic (Hattili). The Hittite language takes its Hittite name, Nesili, from Kanesh, in Cappadocia - that is the original speakers of Hittite, the men who destroyed Hattusha like Joshua did with Jericho (on very similar terms of curse) were descendants of Gomer.

So, you must still count on earliest IE nations known in history coming from two peninsulas around the Aegean, and an island too : and you must count on them being from different Noahide (if I may say so without confusion with a certain religion) tribes : Chamite Caphthorim, Semite Ludites and Japhethite Gomerites and Iavanites. Add Madan as a later documented nation. Add Heth's children abandoning Hattili for Nesili.

This means, IE is not a single tribe as far as nations go and therefore probably not as far as languages go either. It's like Balkans. Languages not intelligible to each other get more intelligible by exchanging words and by exchanging grammatical traits.

As to CMI, I said "there was a good one", but I know there was also a bad attempt, trying to pretend IE was originally the language of Madan (why not Magog, while they are at "expansive").

I searched and found the CMI references:

Here we have the good one:

CMI : The sixteen grandsons of Noah
by Harold Hunt with Russell Grigg

Here, I was looking for the bad one, but found this which is rather good, though mistaken in equating IE with Japhetic:

The Early History of Man: Part 1. The Table of Nations
BILL COOPER, EN Tech. J., vol. 4, 1990, pp. 67–92

Here is the one which I was looking for, bad in equating IE with Madai (I had misrecalled Madan), and also in misassigning carbon dates:

The origin of languages: a synthesis
Thomas C. Curtis , CEN Technical Journal 12 (3) 1998

Carbon date of 9000 BC is not the first settlement after Flood, whether locality of Shanidar is so or not.

Carbon date for Flood is more like 40 000 BP. Neanderthals being arguably a pre-Flood race, Cro Magnon contemporary with Neanderthals in "40 000 BP" being arguably more related to Noah, the Cro Magnon settlement being arguably post-Flood, from carbon date 35 000 BP or a little earlier on.

After this
I have seen no more answers on the subthread, attention has gone on to another one where red hair (Leif and especially his father Eric were known red heads, his father was even nicknamed Eric the Red) was claimed to be a Germanic trait. I answered that in the North it is more of an Irish one after what I have heard, a Celtic one. In Sweden and Norway, red heads consider they have Celtic ancestry and what with Viking slave hunt on Ireland, it is rather well possible. But that regards his predecessors in his own ancestry, not his predecessors on American soil.

mardi 10 octobre 2017

And a Controversial One at That, Sometimes

HGL's F.B. writings : But I AM a Latinist · And a Controversial One at That, Sometimes · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Latin Spoken to When? Quora

3 octobre

Pau Amaro-Seoane
Why is it "deinon" in this sentence and not "deiná" ("terrible things"), in plural... which I would expect... "The storms do terrible things". Am I wrong?

Samuel Kaldas
I think δεινόν (masc. acc. sg.) is modifying χειμῶνα (masc. acc. sg. of χειμῶν). So it's something like "the winds produce [make] a terrible storm"

Pau Amaro-Seoane
that would be deinoos (written with omega), Brian

Brian Kelly
Correct. kai ... kai .. here gives us 'both ... and ...' - need better glasses and more coffee.

Diane Warne Anderson
Samuel has said it, χειμώνα is masc. acc. sing. also. (Sorry for the modern Greek accents)

Pau Amaro-Seoane
τόν χειμῶνα... yes, right... for some reason I thought it was n. and not m. and believed it was an accusative plural... everything clear now... thanks to everyone! It's nice to know that I can get my questions replied so quickly.

Bert McCollum
We are aware that's not Latin,,,,right?

Abran Serge

Oneida Musa
Nonis latinius? Ummmm....confusinitus erat Greekasbus. or....scribbelious!

Bert McCollum
At least no one has had the temerity to say, "It's all Greek to me!"

Brian Kelly
Rome, Athens, Constantinople - it was all the Roman Empire (and after AD 476 those eastern bits *were the Roman Empire) - and the Greeks insisted they were Romans! The Greeks had a word for it too: Romiosine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
(and after AD 476 those eastern bits *were the Roman Empire)

Hmmm ... no. Francia was from close after 476 to 800 auxiliarii, and its kings started off with patricia dignitas conferred by Constantinople.

Meaning that from 800 Aachen is as Roman as Constantinople.

Brian Kelly
Didn't deny that! But my point was that the Greek-speaking emperors and their circle insisted that they were ROMANS - a point not often appreciated by west Europeans.

[If I had taken it as if he had denied it, it was his use of "were THE Romans", and I did not have time to formulate a sensible answer before closing time of library.]

Pau Amaro-Seoane
Dialects of the same language, anyway...

Brian Kelly
.... although it is interesting that a lot of Greek words don't appear to be Indo-European (at least that's how it seems to me) - indications of the pre-Indo-Europeans of Greece?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Indications of IE unity being of Balkan type rather than of Romance type?

Abran Serge

Brian Kelly
A lot of common and important words have been identified as 'Pre-Greek' loan words:

Pre-Greek substrate - Wikipedia

Abran Serge
Like "labyrinthos"....

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Brian Kelly, that is according to the theory that Greek developed from Proto-Indo-European.

Brian Kelly
Do you doubt that, Hans-Georg? It looks certain to me on comparative grounds (which is what historical linguisitcs is all about).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Comparative grounds speak for there being cognates.

But cognates are possible both on Balkan model and on Romance model, both Sprachbund and Proto-Language.

I do not doubt for a minute that water and Swedish vatten are related to the Hittite words.

I also do not doubt for a moment that pater / father is the same word with a real common proto-form in :

  • Greek, Latin, Sanskrit
  • Germanic
  • possibly Celtic (but athir could be a conflation between pater gloss and attas gloss, and triggering, when perceived as cognate of pater, the other losses of initial p or h).

I also do not doubt that pater, pater, frater all originated in the same language as the -teros ending for comparatives and in Latin esp binary choices.

But pater and water could in theory be from two different languages, neighbouring each other in the same area for sufficient long to exchange words - like the three sides of the Aegean, Asia Minor, Bulgaria and Greece, Balkans, extending east perhaps as far as - shall was say "Babel" or "Göbekli Tepe"?

In neighbouring languages, some syllables will yield instant cognates as soon as a word is borrowed. Any French word in té will yield an English one in ty, an Italian one in tà.

lundi 25 septembre 2017

But I AM a Latinist

HGL's F.B. writings : But I AM a Latinist · And a Controversial One at That, Sometimes · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Latin Spoken to When? Quora

Gabriel Svoboda
I have a few questions about what the 3rd declension looked like in Archaic Latin – namely whether it was more regular in the past than it looks today. I have a theory that 3rd declension nouns originally had only one stem (for example leg-) and the irregular singular nominatives are a result of later phonological or orthographical interactions between the stem and the nominative singular ending -s or -is (for example leg- + -s --> lex).

I understand ius/iuris was originally ius/iusis (then the s-->r change happened between vowels).

Was corpus/corporis originaly corpus/corpusis, or corpos/corposis, or none of the above?

Was curator/curatoris originally curatos/curatosis?

Was carcer/carceris originally carces/carcesis?

Was sermo/sermonis originally sermon/sermonis (then the n nasalized the preceding o and disappeared)?

What did origo/originis look like in Archaic Latin? Was it origin/originis (and then the word-final -in somehow managed to become -o)?

Was veritas/veritatis originally veritats/veritatis (then the t was assimilated by the following s)?

Was virtus/virtutis originally virtuts/virtutis?

Was miles/militis originally milits/militis, or milets/miletis, or none of the above?

Was gens/gentis originally gents/gentis?

Was fraus/fraudis originally frauds/fraudis?

Was sanguis/sanguinis originally sanguins/sanguinis?

Was crimen/criminis originally crimin/criminis, or crimen/crimenis, or none of the above?

Was opus/operis originally opus/opusis, or opes/opesis, or none of the above?

Was cinis/cineris originally cinis/cinisis, or cines/cinesis, or none of the above?

Was vulpes/vulpis originally vulpis/vulpis?

What about iter/itineris?

What about senex/senis?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I understand ius/iuris was originally ius/iusis" Yes.

"Was corpus/corporis originaly corpus/corpusis, or corpos/corposis, or none of the above?"

Corpos, corposis, then r shift and last o > u when not before r, I think. Perhaps rather corpos, corposes, since -es > -is arguably at same time as -os > -us.

"Was curator/curatoris originally curatos/curatosis?
Was carcer/carceris originally carces/carcesis?"

No, these two words have r from start.

"Was sermo/sermonis originally sermon/sermonis (then the n nasalized the preceding o and disappeared)?"

Sermo would have been sermon, yes, but probably before any recorded Latin, the Greek has Platon, Platonos, where Latin has Plato Platonis.

"What did origo/originis look like in Archaic Latin? Was it origin/originis (and then the word-final -in somehow managed to become -o)?"

Probably something like origo (long II o) *origones (short II o), where later *origones became originis. o > i because a vowel in short internal syllable not before r or labial, e > i because e and o when short in final syllables get closed to i and u.

I am not sure if what comes before woul have been orig- or perhaps oreig-.

"Was veritas/veritatis originally veritats/veritatis (then the t was assimilated by the following s)?"

Possibly, but possibly avoidance of -ts group was longstanding, so that it changed well before both Latin and Greek : both languages have III declinsion dental stems with nominative -s, not -ts.

Same for miles, gens, fraus, except that gens may have been nominative gentis, an -i-stem, since having gentium as genitive plural. I think we are dealing with gentis, genteis becoming gens, gentis.

"Was sanguis/sanguinis originally sanguins/sanguinis?"

Do not know.

"Was crimen/criminis originally crimin/criminis, or crimen/crimenis, or none of the above?"

Crimen, crimenis, then e > i, like all vowels in short medial syllables, not before r or labial.

"Was opus/operis originally opus/opusis, or opes/opesis, or none of the above?"

Probably opos, oposes, possibly opos, opeses. Medial short vowels become e before r, unless, sometimes, they stay o (corporis). I think opos oposes and corpos corposes were same declinsion type exactly, but the "sound law" vaccillated on the resulting internal vowel.

"Was cinis/cineris originally cinis/cinisis, or cines/cinesis, or none of the above?"

Could have been either. Cines would have become cinis because short e and o in final vowels close, unless before r. Cinisis would have become cineris, because short internal vowels before r become e (or sporaidically o, if originally o or u).

"Was vulpes/vulpis originally vulpis/vulpis?"

Not sure.

"What about iter/itineris?"

Originally iter itinis. If water had not been aqua, it would arguably have been **uater, uatinis, with a nominative close to English and German forms, an oblique stem close to Swedish and Icelandic forms : you probably find that in Hittite, if not in Latin.

Then itinis became itineris, contaminated with the r from nominative, like iecur, iecinoris.

"What about senex/senis?"

Two different word formations taking turns around a paradigm.

I am Also NOT a Pagan, But Some Take me for That Too

Luke Lefebvre
[material equivalent to these two links:

What Are the Unicorns and Satyrs Mentioned in the Bible?
by Wayne Jackson

The Myth That the Bible is Just a Myth
by Robin Schumacher

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"All pagan religions have these mythical creatures that they believed in that never were real and God’s going to bring those ideas to an end."

I do not consider satyrs clearly non-extant.

When St Anthony the Great went to visit St Paul the First Hermit, he met a faun crying over his probably going to be damned, because pagans were worshipping him.

A wise satyr, I'd say.

Luke Lefebvre
Apology is not the same thing as history and just because God mentions mythological creatures it doesn’t mean he believes the existed. He demonstrates that with the Babylonians believed about the mythical creatures will come to an end

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Does he? It does not say so very clearly.

Either way on St Anthony's visit, I am here not citing the faun, but the Centaur:

Creation vs. Evolution : Was St. Jerome Calling Genesis a Myth, and if so in what sense?

Luke Lefebvre
This mythical creatures don’t exist and just because the Bible mentions the Babylonian mythical creatures they believe in doesn’t mean it’s true

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"This mythical creatures don’t exist"

How do you know?

Some have seen them. Including some Christians, like St Anthony the Great.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
As for Zeus, well, it seems he banished his father to Italy where he became ancestor to Lavinia, and therefore to Julius Ceasar.

Doesn't mean he is a god, still less the highest god, but he seems to have existed.

Luke Lefebvre
No it simply means that Zeus didn’t exist and it definitely demonstrates that the Babylonian concept of a half man half goat doesn’t exist either and God one day will do away with all of it

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"No it simply means that Zeus didn’t exist"

Christians have thought otherwise.

As to "the Babylonian concept", it has been witnessed by non-Babylonians, and the words in Isaiah do not exactly mean "will be done away with". Dancing means normally something else.

Luke Lefebvre
Christians were completely wrong because there’s a difference between a Bible believing Christian and a religious Christian. A religious Christian thinks he has a good chance of going to heaven because he’s really not that bad a biblical Christian knows that he doesn’t deserve to go to heaven but the Saviour saved him and what he did for the senior allows him to go there. That’s the bottom line difference

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Christians were completely wrong because there’s a difference between a Bible believing Christian and a religious Christian"

How many "Bible believing Christians" of your type do you find back in the times of the Church Fathers and of St Anthony the Great?

Luke Lefebvre
I can attest to the five new the apostles. Clement of Rome Ignatius of Antioch Polycarp Papius etc

Tertullian I’m sure he did so did Justin martyr Hippolytus etc. lots of the second century pastors believe God’s word literally

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Good, I'd agree they believed the Bible.

[Answered before he brought in Tertullian, who died a Montanist]

I'd also say they were what you call religious Christians.

And I'd definitely remind you they were a few centuries before either St Anthony or the Church Fathers who commented extensively on Pagan Epic myths.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Tertullian was definitely a "works justice".

Luke Lefebvre
Well he was a lawyer and he believed God’s word

Hans-Georg Lundahl
He was certainly not a Protestant.

Luke Lefebvre
We don’t need a priest to tell us what God’s Word says. God said to Moses that he spoke in plain language this is not a hard concept

[page with his work - not attributed to elsewhere]

Luke Lefebvre
What’s your point here exactly? Tell me you’re not trying to tell me that these mythological ideas were actually true?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am sorry, but "allegory" and "dark speech" is not the same.

Also, priests have other functions than telling us what the Bible mean.

Yes, I believe Pagan mythological ideas were true observed phenomena or historic memories - to a degree. NOT to the degree of involving Pagan theology being true. Ulysses came back to Penelope, and may have seen a Cyclops on the way, but it was not because Zeus and Athena spoke about it on Olympus.

Subthread A

Luke Lefebvre
Well prove it to me. Prove to me that Sue’s actually existed outside of just belief?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Saturn was exiled from Crete to Italy, father of Picus, grandfather of Latinus, greatgrandfather of Lavinia who married Aeneas.

We have a genealogy from Aeneas to Romulus and fairly prosy historic events part of the way.

Saturn's other son in Crete was Zeus or Jove.

Luke Lefebvre
Various cultures using the various concepts of these mythological ideas and believing it is not the same thing as proving it. Romulus was a real person we know that from history

All these various cultures that believe these deities by different names because of their culture only points to what they believed in Mesopotamia at the Tower of Babel. That’s why these various names are attributed to these various mythological ideas that are not true but share similar concept under different names. Tower of Babel

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Then so was his [Romulus'] ancestor Saturn, and therefore also this man's other son, Zeus.

Luke Lefebvre
Prove to me that the Greek god Zeus exist

So you say prove it to me

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did.

But I neither claimed, nor proved he was a god.

Luke Lefebvre
How did you you told me about it how did you

You didn’t prove it to me you told me what that’s with the people believed. Prove to me that he did prove to me that he turned into an ox and came to Europia and defiled her and then killed her I’ll wait

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I never said he turned into an ox.

It is however possible that by witchcraft he got the looks of an ox and that by witchcraft Europe thought she was a cow.

Luke Lefebvre
I know you didn’t but I know for a fact that’s the story. I want you to prove to me that Zeus is an actual being. Don’t tell me that’s what they said prove it to me

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What we know he did, he was a king on Crete, he banished his father to Italy, and that is why Saturn was there.

We know history because of tradition, that is a constant, whether the tradition is pre-Jewish (as Genesis) or Christian or Pagan.

As for still existing, he is an actual human soul, probably damned in Hell.

Note also, the person why by witchcraft defiled Europa need not be the same person who banned his father to Italy and whose cousin several generations removed is Julius Caesar. He could be, but they could also be two different actual sinners.

Or Europa could have been defiled by a demon, not a man.

Luke Lefebvre
None of that story is true and you can’t prove that story even happen physically. Just because people believe it doesn’t mean it’s true. We have physical evidence of the crucifixion of Christ

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"None of that story is true"

That is more than you know.

"and you can’t prove that story even happen physically."

Most stories and therefore most of history cannot be proven physically.

"Just because people believe it doesn’t mean it’s true."

It does, unless there is a reason to think they could or even would have been mistaken.

"We have physical evidence of the crucifixion of Christ"

Yes, the Holy Cross found by St Helen and the Syndone of Turin. Both of which are relics that Protestants have historically contested as Catholic forgeries and fake stories.

End of subthread A

Luke Lefebvre
Mystery’s etc. got made himself plain and simple and we don’t need anybody telling us what the Bible says. We can read the Bible and understand its literal meaning

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, for one thing, its literal meaning in Isaiah seems to be satyrs exist, if we don't need some professor telling us what it says.

Luke Lefebvre
No it’s literal meaning is that they believe they existed but not the Jewish people the Babylonians. No prove to me that Zeus actually existed

Clearly it’s called Greek mythology for a reason the Bible is not called mythology Jesus is not a mythological person

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Greek mythology" is a very fluid concept.

Some parts are clearly false, like most things that are involved in Theogony, some parts are clearly true, like Trojan War or Ulysses getting home.

Luke Lefebvre
Prove to me that Zeus exists

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did on the other thread [=subthread A].

Meaning, he now exists as a probably damned soul in Hell.

Luke Lefebvre
You didn’t prove it to me. Give me some physical evidence other than what people believed it

Hans-Georg Lundahl
There is his tomb on Crete.

But generally, history is by stories told, not by physical evidence outside stories.

lundi 11 septembre 2017

I am NOT a National Socialist, But Some Take me For That

I have, for social justice reasons, sympathies for Fascism or Corporativism.

Meaning, Unions should have the power to impede Employers treating Employees like dirt, but not have the power to allow Employer to run his company within reasonable limits.

State and even non-parliamentarian state is sometimes required to step in.

Since I have Jewish roots as to my family, I am however a bit picky about which Fascism I go with.

I believe Jews are entitled to life, liberty and property, as long as not forfeiting these by acts of their own. This means a promotion of whatever was done to Jews in 1933 to 1945 by the Hitler régime against these just limits, whatever was not meant to stop unfair Jewish business practises and left at that, is out.

I am not a National Socialist, nor will I be so. I have other Fascisms I prefer, and as for Mussolini, I prefer him as to before 1938, I am not a Racialist. Carta della Razza was not a hit with me, unlike at least salient parts of Carta del Lavoro.

Alas, this A. O. shows that some Jews are unable to grasp these distinctions calmly./HGL

mercredi 6 septembre 2017

Debating Bas Verschoor on Göbekli Tepe : Noah's Altar or Nimrod's Babel?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on One Real Stake with Creationism (quora) · HGL's F.B. writings : Debating Bas Verschoor on Göbekli Tepe : Noah's Altar or Nimrod's Babel? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Tower of Babel Against a Preaching Atheist

Bas Verschoor
a partagé un lien/shared a link.
Hier/yesterday, à 03:03 AM
Genesis 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I don't think GT is Noah's altar, I think rather it is Nimrod's work and we might find preparations for a three step rocket if digging on, that being the actual Tower of Genesis 11.

Bas Verschoor
Even if its not Noahs altar the bible made a prediction that the oldest building would be an altar for animal sacrifice, which is what this is even including depictions of animals and a huge amount of bone remains. Also it was made when there were no other settlements, thus confirming the idea of Noah having made an altar prior to a house. I dont see how this fits better with Nimrod but either way it certainly is an interesting part of our history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"the bible made a prediction that the oldest building would be an altar for animal sacrifice"

Where so?

"I dont see how this fits better with Nimrod"

Because carbon dates.

If 40 000 BP can reduce to a Flood 2957 BC, there is some time after the Flood before you get to sth carbon dated as 11 600 to 10 600 BP.

Like the centuries up to Babel.

Bas Verschoor
Hans-Georg Lundahl In the verse provided. After the flood everything was destroyed and the first thing Noah build was an altar for animal sacrifice. The location makes more sense to Noah then Nimrod and I dont trust carbon dates over 6k. Are you trying to say you have system for correcting the errors? Still I wouldnt accept it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do have a system.

A carbon error is due to assuming that original carbon content is like today's when it wasn't.

But the carbon content has come to today's, arguably 2500 years ago, at least, and that gradually.

Also, location doesn't fit Nimrod how?

Bas Verschoor
I agree with that. But I wouldn't consider it a system. During the time of Nimrod this would have been early Hayastan. Nimrod lived more to the east.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
" In the verse provided. After the flood everything was destroyed and the first thing Noah build was an altar for animal sacrifice."

Who says we have found it?

"During the time of Nimrod this would have been early Hayastan"

Even if Nimrod is carbon dated to 9600 - 8600 BC?

"Nimrod lived more to the east."

GT is east of Euphrates, so in Shinar.

" I agree with that. But I wouldnt conider it a system."

I have systematised it in certain tables.

Bas Verschoor
Hans-Georg Lundahl Im not saying we have found it. It could be lost for all we know. Im saying we might have found it if this is it.

You do know that river doesnt start in Turkey right? Multiple countries are on its east side. It doesnt say Noah build his altar on the west side of the river.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, but Euphrates is already Euphrates west of GT which is clearly further South than Ararat.

See a little about Hayk, founder of Hayastan:

Moses of Chorene gave Hayk's genealogy as Japhet, Gomer and Tiras, Torgom. Hayk's descendants are given as Amasya, Ara, Aram, Aramais, Armanak, Gegham, and Harma.[6] Hayk was also said to be the founder of the Haykazuni Dynasty. Some of the prominent Armenian royal houses such as the Arran, Bagratuni, Bznuni, Khorkhoruni, Manavazian, Syuni, and Vahevuni trace their genealogy to Hayk Nahapet.[citation needed] According to Juansher, Hayk "was prince of the seven brothers and stood in service to the giant Nimrod (Nebrovt') who first ruled the entire world as king.[7]"

In Moses of Chorene's account, Hayk son of Torgom had a child named Armanak while he was living in Babylon. After the arrogant Titanid Bel made himself king over all, Hayk emigrated to the region near Mount Ararat.[8]

Closer travel if the Babylon in question was Göbekli Tepe, right?

Bas Verschoor
mmm consiering this I would say it was first Nimrods land but after that it belonged to Hayk who started Hayastan and his sons may be responsible for its current name Armenia. But that still doesnt disprove that it couldnt have been Noahs altar.

But still if you rely on your system than you should understand that it is older than Nimrod.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, I think it is NOT older than Nimrod, and in a moment I will tell you why.

You say GT is from the Flood.

Nice and dandy, but - I suppose you are using the 2348 BC date for the Flood - this means the carbon date 9600 BC and the real BC date make a difference of 7252 extra years (I checked it out after leaving the internet session).

This 7252 extra years amonts to just a little more than 1 1/4 halflives, the Cambridge halflife. One half life corresponds to 50 %, one quarter halflife corresponds to fourth root of 50 %, i e 81.7 %. If you multiply 50 % by 81.7 % you get 40.85 % as the carbon level corresponding to the extra years.

And that means 40.85 % of present relative C14 content would have been the immediate post-Flood content (actually worse, it would have been a pre-Flood content too, since the organisms involved would have been breathing pre-Flood atmosphere and eating pre-Flood grown grass, but we'll leave that one out).

Now, Baumgardner says the Flood by drowning so much carbon - most of which is by far C12 - would have reduced the amount of C12 that the C14 is compared to. Let's say that this was immediate, which arguably it was not, and that it took away half the C12, doubling the C14 ratio, this means that the immediate pre-Flood ratio would have been at least 20.425 % of present content or ratio.

This is 2 1/4 halflives, i e the immediate pre-Flood extgra years would have been datable to two and a quarter halflives immediately if a modern scientist had been transmported back in a time machine.

That means 11,460 + 1432.5 extra years. That is 12,890 extra years for any organism living just before the Flood. 12,890+2348+1950=17,188 BP.

But the real pre-Flood, immediately such, ratio of carbon gives more extra years. Rather than 20 % of present ratio it has to be 2 - 4 % of present ratio. This we know by Creationists carbon dating coal, diamonds, petrol, dinosaur bones.

This means that the immediate post-Flood atmosphere was having at most 4 percent modern carbon, which means how many extra years?

100 - 50 = 5730 extra years
50 - 25 = 5730+5730
25 - 12.5 = 5730+5730+5730
12.5 - 6.25 = 5730+5730+5730+5730 extra years.

That is at least 22.920 extra years.

If Flood related specimens could date as recently as Göbekli Tepe, the coal, diamonds, dinosaurs would all be from pre-Flood times. This means that most remains would NOT be Flood remains.

So, with a more straightforward Flood Geology and Flood Palaeontology, Göbekli Tepe is far too young for Flood or immediately after.

There is another reason why GT is NOT it. There have been found 40 human skulls stringed up by holes through the cranium. That is very much NOT from Noah, but would fit Nimrod extremely well.

Furthermore, what exact dating ballpark would YOU give Nimrod and Tower of Babel? Ziggurat of Ur?

Sorry, but Ziggurat of Ur has a building master with a known name and a known language as being Sumerian, which is a post-Babel language. Therefore Ziggurat of Ur cannot be Tower of Babel.

Also, if you think the animal scultures in Göbekli Tepe represent the animals offered by Noah, what about sculptures representing foxes or vultures or apes?

Bible text specifies of every CLEAN beast and fowl.

Bas Verschoor
Hans-Georg Lundahl The depictions of animals are indeed those of unclean and clean ones, however they are just decorations. Most of the bones found are those of clean ones. But much more than the 7 Noah was supposed to have offered. The abundance of vultures is also strange. It doesnt have to be noahs altar for me to still make sense of the world but all those people that have studied GT say it was made by hunter gatherers, there were no crops in the year it was made and that doesnt seem to fit with Nimrod, though some of the other features do. It could actually be from neither and something else. Thank you for time and dedication. God bless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"all those people that have studied GT say it was made by hunter gatherers, there were no crops in the year it was made and that doesnt seem to fit with Nimrod"

The crops we have found are usually a bit younger, but one from Holy Land (wheat) is actually older.

If we accept their chronologies, there was about a 10 000 year long pause between that first and those later crops in same region.

If it is just a century or less, it is about chances of what was preserved and what wasn't.

Probably earliest crops in the places most known could have gone totally to workers in GT, and what we find are later ones, after their comes a surpplus not consumed by GT / Babel project.

That is how I would fit it with Nimrod.

But I think the modified crania definitely clinch it to Nimrod, not Noah:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Read Today About GT

with link to:

Modified human crania from Göbekli Tepe provide evidence for a new form of Neolithic skull cult

You are welcome.

jeudi 20 juillet 2017

On Bible Canon (and Some Other Inbetween)

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Do Maccabees Disclaim Divine Inspiration? · HGL's F.B. writings : On Bible Canon (and Some Other Inbetween)

Cody Rieger
12 juillet, 17:01
Who decided what books to add or leave out of the bible? Do we believe this group if people to be infallible? Is it possible that there are other books not in the Bible that are the word of God? Or even some in the Bible that aren't the word of God?


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Both Ezra and the Maccabees were successors of Aaron and had the power to make collections of Holy Writings, that of Ezra corresponds to Jewish Bible and Protestant OT, I consider it possible that that of the Maccabees (or one of them being a priest) was including more books like the LXX, the Greek Christian OT.

THEN bishops and Popes of Rome were deciding about what books were involved in NT, as successors of Apostles.

Michel Snoeck
Personally I find it seriously suspect that the chosen 66 books were picked by man and decided upon in the 4th Century, and then destroying/banning all the rest? Wouldn't the Devil be obliged to support such a thing? 🤔 The Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hamadi finds add a whole different reality on matters that we didn't know about before. Of course because of the hunting down and destruction of these books, we are not likely to find completely original versions of these books. They would have been interfered with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
But the "66 books" were not decided any time before Luther, and the Catholic Church decided for 73 books "all these 72 books, or 73 if Baruch be counted separately from Jeremiah".

Also, the Catholic Church has not banned book of Henoch, III and IV Maccabees, the book which in Byzantium is called I Ezra (not to be confused with Catholic I Ezra = Ezra, with Nehemiah = Catholic II Ezra and Byzantine III Ezra).

She has banned and also destroyed copies of clearly heretical books like Gospel of Thomas and so on.

"Of course because of the hunting down and destruction of these books, we are not likely to find completely original versions of these books. They would have been interfered with."

Are you saying God could have:

  • 1) allowed all Christians to reject a book of His word;
  • 2) allowed all Christians knowing about it to persecute it;
  • 3) AND allowed whoever was preserving it to alter it?

Frank Waggoner
cody, what book needs to be added, second the books if the nt were accepted in the chrurches the first century, it was not a fouth centrury descision

Davor Slema Masle
The Bible has failed fair, impartial, and universally applicable tests in multiple fields of science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It was a fourth C decision for the whole list.

The Bible has failed no test.

Ivan Shiek
It is not men that decide what stays or what goes, but the Holy Spirit that leads.

You see men moving but you do not see the Creator's strings.

Ryan M Jason
If God wanted to give you a message no one could stop him.No one could snatch you from his hand.Apocrypha is unconfirmed

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Depends on what you consider apocrypha.

Seven books protestants call so are canonic, and the Catholic Church is making God's message certainly remain.

Ryan M Jason
[showing what interception means in a gif or sth]

God's word can not be intercepted

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Exactly - that is why I believe the Catholic canon and the Catholic Church.

For a "66 book canon" there would have been an interception between Primitive Church and Reformation.

Precisely why I reject the Reformation and adher to the canon of 72 books "or 73 if Baruch is counted separately from Jeremiah" as per council of Trent!

Ryan M Jason
Yeah I used to be a catholic.Did not even know what it was.They added to the bible.I don't agree with it

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you say they added to the Bible, you are claiming - not I, but you - that the word of God was intercepted.

OR you show a Church which all the time existed beside Catholics and had the 66 books.

Ryan M Jason
Did not say the Catholic bible was the word of God.Its not.Its apocrypha.Get you a King James.I got a king James that's not even a King James.So becareful

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Why would KJV be the word of God, when it has a number of books considered canonic which is nowhere explicitly mentioned before Reformation, and when it has also "14 apocrypha" = 7 Catholic canon, 7 more considered not canonic by Catholics?

You said yourself the word of God cannot be intercepted.

This should show all through history.

Btw, if you have a KJV with ONLY 66 books, that is not properly speaking a KJ Bible.

Ryan M Jason
Apocrypha that's why I don't read the Catholic bible.You believe the hand of God can be stopped?Who is your God?Name him?

[showing two explicit gifs about Satan and one about magic/sorcery]

[showing text of Apocalypse 22:16-21, here substituting Haydock / Douay Rheims for his meme:]

16 I, Jesus, have sent my Angel, to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and stock of David, the bright and morning star.

17 And the Spirit and the bride say: Come. And he that heareth, let him say: Come. And he that thirsteth, let him come: *and he that will, let him take the water of life, gratis.

[His meme has "freely" instead of "gratis" - both mean "for free", or "without paying money"]

18 For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book.

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things which are written in this book.

20 He that giveth testimony of these things, saith: Surely, I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

It says freely not secretly

Who is your God?25 minutes to pick one?I thought you did your research?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Who is your God?Name him?"

God the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

You still don't get, with the historic evidence we have it is your believing II Maccabees is apocrypha which implies God's hand was stopped.

And your quote from Apocalypse is very interesting for the Protestants who are cutting 7 books and 3 chapters away from the Bible.

As to "freely not secretly" what is your problem?

Catholicism is NOT a secret society.

And my answer taking time is because I was logged out and am answering other points too.

Ryan M Jason
Emanuel God with us.Who is your God?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Jesus Christ is indeed Emanuel, and remaining with us - that is why I chose a Church which remained under Him on Earth, not one which went into the clouds for centuries.

Ryan M Jason
So your Pope is your Father?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Under Christ, yes.

Ryan M Jason
I think praying to the Virgen is bad changing the Sabbath is worse.They have lots of pagan beliefs.Lots of secrets.They with the Masons

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I'll take above one by one, with due consideration.

Ryan M Jason
Repetitious prayer

Graven Images

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Added to list.

Ryan M Jason
What do you think is the biggest thing one can miss from not reading the Catholic bible?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Here comes my answer to a whole list of comments:

"I think praying to the Virgen is bad"

Why did She say the opposite in the praises of God before Elisabeth?

Henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

That is what we are doing in each Hail Mary.

"changing the Sabbath is worse."

Except God Himself changed it. By resting in the Grave on Saturday and rising on Sunday.

"They have lots of pagan beliefs."

According to certain people who think if a pagan calls 2+2=4, a good Christian must call 2+2=5?

"Lots of secrets.They with the Masons"

No. There is no secret doctrine which you could not have accessed in your very early days of adolescent Catholic (supposing you were one) by looking into one or other Catechism (meaning a traditional one) or work of theology.

The Summa Theologica by St Thomas Aquinas is available in English and online, and laymen are not forbidden to read it:


Also, here is Haydock Bible commentary from 1859, also online, in English and not forbidden reading for laymen:

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.

"Repetitious prayer"

Never condemned anywhere. Not if by "repetitious" you mean repeating words or phrases.

"Graven Images"

Which were under Old Covenant generally speaking forbidden, before God could be depicted since Incarnation.

"What do you think is the biggest thing one can miss from not reading the Catholic bible?"

One thing is prayers for the faithful departed, recommended in II Maccabees and in Tobit.

Btw, if you take time, how about checking what you condemn in Catholicism and your supposed proof texts against it, with what Catholics can study in the Haydock Bible?

Ryan gave a few memes:

It took me longer to answer them than for him to post them. I start out trying to answer:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ryan M Jason If a person dies in Christ, he certainly goes to Heaven sooner or later. Often later via Purgatory.

Also, for many persons we don't know which way they went, God didn't tell us by any miracle, so we can also pray for his having died in Christ.

Ryan M Jason "No change in one's spiritual condition" is overinterpretation.

No change as to damnation or salvation, yes, but the saved ones can be transferred from Purgatory to Heaven, and for many they also need prayers for what God did before we prayed, but did not tell us what He did before we prayed, when judging that soul.

So, praying after someone's death is NOT praying that a damned person should be saved.

Ryan M Jason
Apocrypha it contradicts.Now they pray to the Virgen they repetitious prayer.They have graven Images they call another man Father religiously.They pray to the virgen? 3-3=0

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ryan M Jason We certainly do believe II Maccabees 12 (46?) is a valid proof text.

You also have no historic proof for a 66 book canon existing in any Church firmly before Protestants invented it.

But there are other perhaps less direct proof texts, like Onesiphorus.

Ryan M Jason
Pray to God he will give you closure it took me three years before I got an answer it rolled off my tongue when I woke up.My mind was unusually blank when it happend

The good in a person you will see again.If you go to heaven.Anything good was of God.Even a snake loves its babys.Can you identify that verse and explain the meaning to me please??

The verse is.Even a snake loves its babys.New testament

[Still have not found it, suspect he made it up to check my Bible knowledge and judge me ignorant for not dismissing it offhand like when Kent Hovind quotes "II Opinions" in one speech - anyone knowing the Bible knows that is not there.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Double posted,
did not show first time:
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him: Amen, I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

This does not teach no one goes to Purgatory, but that Saint Dismas didn't.

Phil. 1:23 But I am straitened between two; having a desire to be dissolved, and to be with Christ, being by much the better:

Does not teach that every saved person goes straight to heaven, but possibly that St Paul counted on doing so.

II Cor 5:6 Therefore, having always confidence, knowing that, while we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

7 (For we walk by faith, and not by sight)

8 We are confident, and have a good will to be absent rather from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Does NOT teach that every Christian who dies in Christ goes to Heaven immediately.

"Apocrypha it contradicts."

It contradicts your interpretation, but not the Bible.

"Now they pray to the Virgen they repetitious prayer.They have graven Images they call another man Father religiously.They pray to the virgen? 3-3=0"

So, so, so, so?

Already answered those points, you think repeating them will prove your bad logic?

"Pray to God he will give you closure it took me three years before I got an answer it rolled off my tongue when I woke up.My mind was unusually blank when it happend"

I did my praying when converting to Catholicism and a few times within it.

"The good in a person you will see again.If you go to heaven.Anything good was of God.Even a snake loves its babys.Can you identify that verse and explain the meaning to me please?? The verse is.Even a snake loves its babys.New testament"

No, I can't.

And if you happen to know a Bible text I don't know, good for you, but doesn't prove you right on interpretation of the rest or even on that one. Where, what book chapter and verse?

Ryan M Jason
The only intercessor

[showing text of John 14:4-13, same procedure as above:]

4 And whither I go you know, and the way you know.

5 Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

7 If you had known me, you would surely have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him.

8 Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us.

9 Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me, seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father?

10 Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.

11 Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?

12 Otherwise believe for the works themselves. Amen, amen, I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he shall do also, and greater than these shall he do: because I go to the Father.

13 *And whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

[showing text of 14, basically the rest up to 26, same procedure:]

14 If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do.

15 If you love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever,

17 The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you orphans: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while: and the world seeth me no more. But you see me: because I live, and you shall live.

20 In that day, you shall know, that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them: he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith to him, not the Iscariot, Lord, how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world?

23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him:

24 He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard is not mine: but the Father's who sent me.

25 These things have I spoken to you, remaining with you.

26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

Before going on with debate
please note there are words in the quoted chapter reminding us Christ is ALWAYS with the Apostles and presumably therefore their successors, and that means with a Church containing such. The Paraclete was going to remind the apostles of all things Christ had said (meaning more than just what was contained in Gospel!) and He was going to do so ALWAYS. Not just the lifetime of the Apostles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, and where do you get it from we are NOT using Christ as intercessor?

Or that we are NOT keeping His commandments?

Ryan M Jason
[showing text of a great part of Matthew 23, probably referring to verse nine, same procedure:]

9 *And call none your father upon earth: for one is your Father, who is in heaven.

[Yes, this is shorter than what his meme was, I'll be longer than it in a while!]

And bring all things to your remeberance.He shall teach you all things

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Call no man father?

Haydock hereon (see link already given):

Ver. 9-10. Call none your father ... Neither be ye called masters, &c. The meaning is, that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master is to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, (1 Corinthians iv. 15,) and for our masters and teachers. (Challoner)

This name was a title of dignity: the presidents of the assembly of twenty-three judges where so called; the second judge of the sanhedrim, &c. (Bible de Vence)

Nothing is here forbidden but the contentious divisions, and self-assumed authority, of such as make themselves leaders and favourers of schisms and sects; as Donatus, Arius, Luther, Calvin, and innumerable others of very modern date. But by no means the title of father, attributed by the faith, piety, and confidence of good people, to their directors; for, St. Paul tells the Corinthians, that he is their only spiritual Father: If you have 10,000 instructors in Christ, yet not many Fathers. (1 Corinthians iv. 15.)

And bring all things to your remeberance.He shall teach you all things

Yes, that promise was given by Christ, about the Holy Ghost TO - not you and me but - the first Catholic bishops.

Ryan M Jason
[showing text of Matthew 19:11, same procedure as above:]

11 He said to them: All receive not this word, but they to whom it is given.

[showing text of Matthew 10:19-40, with some verses omitted which I give, same procedure as above:]

19 But when they shall deliver you up, *be not thoughtful how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak.

20 For it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.

21 The brother also shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the son: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and shall put them to death.

22 And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.

23 And when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another. Amen I say to you, you shall not finish all the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come.

24 *The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household?

26 Therefore fear them not: *for there is nothing hid, that shall not be revealed: nor secret that shall not be known.

27 That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the house-tops.

28 And fear not them that kill the body, and cannot kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.

29 *Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing: and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father.

30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

31 Fear not therefore: you are of more value than many sparrows.

32 *Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father, who is in heaven.

33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father, who is in heaven.

34 *Do not think that I am come to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

36 *And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household.

37 *He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.

38 *And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: *and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.

40 *He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In quoting Matthew 19:11 you are quoting the very rationale for celibacy. Or did you conveniently forget the context?

As to the second quote, I am NOT delivering you, we are talking freely, you are free to respond as you entered the debate, and take whatever care you need to do so.

Ryan M Jason
[showing text of I Corinthians 4:17-18, same procedure as above:]

17 For this cause have I sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son, and faithful in the Lord: who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus, as I teach every where in every church.

18 Some are so puffed up, as though I would not come to you.

Call no man Father but yet you do?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Did you read the Haydock comment I quoted on that verse, or are you just responding by link after link without looking what I have to say?

Ryan M Jason
Has this saying been given to you Mathew 19:11

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not here delivered, so I am free to study as much as I like.

[Here responding as if he was speaking of Matthew 10:19, then noticing he was speaking of Matthew 19:11:]

Oh, if I am called to celibacy?

None of YOUR business, I think. I hope not.

What you have missed is that Matthew 11:40 and I Cor 4:17 are telling is something about APOSTOLIC succession.

How does YOUR pastor trace his succession back to the apostles?

Ryan M Jason

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, but none of this shows there is NOT a distinction between Apostolic and non-Apostolic, there is.

And THAT distinction involves whom we should trust on the canon too.

Ryan M Jason
No partiality it says

Hans-Georg Lundahl
A distinction is not the same thing as partiality.

Titus and Timotheus were equally distinguished, but one Jew, one Gentile, without the partialities mentioned.

Both were in the exact distinguished position that the Catholic bishops have continued into this century.

Both were in the exact distinguished position you are NOT in.

[Nor am I, but I am obeying some who is or are, like Pope Michael. And for those who say "he's a layman", he was sacramentally speaking still not ordained and consecrated either before or immediately after his election, but his status changed in 2011, Gaudete weekend. I congratulated him while not yet acknowledging him as Pope. We had known each other before over internet, back since I was Palmarian.]

Ryan M Jason
No partiality

[showing text of a great part of Matthew 23, probably referring still to verse nine, but I now quote full passage, 1-14, sorry, 15, same procedure:]

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitude and to his disciples,

2 Saying: *The Scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.

3 All therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not: for they say and do not.

4 *For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens: and lay them on men's shoulders: but with a finger of their own they will not move them.

5 And all their works they do to be seen by men: *For they make their phylacteries broad and enlarge their fringes.

6 *And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues,

7 And salutations in the market-place, and to be called by men, Rabbi.

8 *But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master, and all you are brethren.

9 *And call none your father upon earth: for one is your Father, who is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, Christ.

11 He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant.

12 *And whosoever shall exalt himself, shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself, shall be exalted.

13 But wo to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for you go not in yourselves: and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.

14 Wo to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: *because you devour the houses of widows, making long prayers: therefore you shall receive the greater judgment.

15 Wo to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you go round about the sea and land to make one proselyte: and when he is made, you make him the child of hell two-fold more than yourselves.

[I added last verse to the quote, because I think some people are trying to do that with me.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You have just quoted a proof text for us having to obey bishops even if they are sinners : they sit on the chairs of the Apostles, like the scribes of old sat on that of Moses.

Ryan M Jason
[gif with "to support a practise like partial birth abortion", probably showing a politician given communion by a bishop who should have excommunicated him.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I don't think a man giving a supporter of partial birth abortion communion is a Catholic, and therefore not a formal bishop.

Ryan M Jason
[gif with very clear "NOOO"]

I don't think Jesus was being partial when he said call no man Father religously in context

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The actual words were to call no man father.

Not "religiously". If you even say "David was the father of Solomon" you have called David father of someone and therefore broken the actual wording, if nothing is to be understood behind it.

If something IS to be understood behind it, look up the Corinthians reference I already quoted Haydock comment as giving!

But I note you are drifting away and away from the topics of both prayers for the dead and canon of OT.

Accusing the Catholic Church need not prove your Church is right. If accusation were right, Christianity would perhaps be wrong instead.

I don't believe that, so I am a Catholic.

You have heard my answer to Cody Rieger : the OT was compiled by successors of Aaron. The NT was compiled and OT confirmed (in Catholic form) by successors of the Apostles.

Your "no partiality" makes you need to answer the question : what man or what group of men first with lips of flesh and blood or hand on ink and pen and paper said or wrote St Matthew is a canonic Gospel, St Thomas' Gospel is not, St John's Apocalypse is the canonic NT Apocalypse, and St Peter's Apocalypse is not canonic.

Your position makes a real answer very hard.

added afterwards:

Ryan M Jason
Rabi he said also he was speaking religously

Upon seeing the wealth of the Catholic Church.I would assume that would be like going thru the eye of a needle.But he must have been speaking partially once again

I don't think partially was the word you wanted

Treated as previously:
1 And the word of the Lord came to me, *saying:

2 And thou son of man, dost thou not judge, dost thou not judge the city of blood?

3 And thou shalt shew her all her abominations, and shalt say: Thus saith the Lord God: This is the city that sheddeth blood in the midst of her, that her time may come: and that hath made idols against herself, to defile herself.

4 Thou art become guilty in thy blood which thou hast shed: and thou art defiled in thy idols which thou hast made: and thou hast made thy days to draw near, and hast brought on the time of thy years: therefore have I made thee a reproach to the Gentiles, and a mockery to all countries.

5 Those that are near, and those that are far from thee, shall triumph over thee: thou filthy one, infamous, great in destruction.

6 Behold the princes of Israel, every one hath employed his arm in thee, to shed blood.

7 They have abused father and mother in thee; they have oppressed the stranger in the midst of thee; they have grieved the fatherless and widow in thee.

8 Thou hast despised my sanctuaries, and profaned my sabbaths.

9 Slanderers have been in thee to shed blood, and they have eaten upon the mountains in thee, they have committed wickedness in the midst of thee.

10 They have discovered the nakedness of their father in thee, they have humbled the uncleanness of the menstruous woman in thee.

11 *And every one hath committed abomination with his neighbour's wife, and the father-in-law hath wickedly defiled his daughter-in-law, the brother hath oppressed his sister, the daughter of his father, in thee.

12 They have taken gifts in thee to shed blood; thou hast taken usury and increase, and hast covetously oppressed thy neighbours; and thou hast forgotten me, saith the Lord God.

[link see next meme]

Ryan M Jason
Even the house of David will answer to God

Treated as previously:
[continued from previous, same chapter]

25 There is a conspiracy of prophets in the midst thereof: like a lion that roareth and catcheth the prey, they have devoured souls; they have taken riches and hire, they have made many widows in the midst thereof.

26 Her priests have despised my law, and have defiled my sanctuaries: they have put no difference between holy and profane: nor have distinguished between the polluted and the clean: and they have turned away their eyes from my sabbaths, and I was profaned in the midst of them.

27 *Her princes in the midst of her, are like wolves ravening the prey to shed blood, and to destroy souls, and to run after gains, through covetousness.

28 And her prophets have daubed them without tempering the mortar, seeing vain things, and divining lies unto them, saying: Thus saith the Lord God: when the Lord hath not spoken.

29 The people of the land have used oppression, and committed robbery: they afflicted the needy and poor, and they oppressed the stranger by calumny without judgment.

30 And I sought among them for a man that might set up a hedge, and stand in the gap before me in favour of the land, that I might not destroy it: and I found none.

31 And I poured out my indignation upon them; in the fire of my wrath I consumed them: I have rendered their way upon their own head, saith the Lord God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ryan M Jason " the wealth of the Catholic Church.I would assume that would be like going thru the eye of a needle."

The Church is not a man, and the men of it are not wealthy, they only handly wealth for the common good.

Before going into more, you might want to know you have more of an audience than just me:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Do Maccabees Disclaim Divine Inspiration?

That one was on Bible canon with another guy, Sarfati, who said few words which I answered briefly, but here is part two, mainly with you:

HGL's F.B. writings : On Bible Canon (and Some Other Inbetween)

"Rabi he said also he was speaking religously"

So you mean doctors and professors in any other matter than religion are scot free?

Is it not rather that rabbis made themselves candidates for being regarded so and won the award?

"I don't think partially was the word you wanted"

You are forgetting the meaning "in a partial way" or "in a manner of partiality". I suppose that one exists in English too.

The rest of your memes (this time) are concerned with abuses by OT distinctions (prophets, priests and royalty) and are warning against abusing distinctions, not against receiving them from the Church and dealing with them faithfully.

Note, having a rich temple adornment is NOT part of the abuses, since that was part of the original ordering of the Temple under King Solomon.

Christ drove cattle-mongers out of the Temple, He never tried to purify the walls of vessels of gold or silver.

Nor to attack the vestments of Aaronic priesthood.

And I see your own consistent answer on where the canon is from is still lacking.

Are you not given an answer, or is this not a situation where you are delivered, so you are free to study? In the latter case, use that freedom to some studying.

My own recommendations (for what they might be worth to you) would be reading the Haydock comment on each Bible verse you have cited so far.

Ryan M Jason
Treated as previously:
II Kings (!) 12:21 And his servants said to him: What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive: but after the child was dead, thou didst rise up and eat bread.

22 And he said: While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept for him: for I said: Who knoweth whether the Lord may not give him to me, and the child may live?

23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Shall I be able to bring him back any more? I shall go to him rather: but he shall not return to me.

It includes Bible chapters and books you don't acknowledge, but lacks none you do acknowledge or did cite.

Adding more
here starting with Luke Lefebvre's original answer to Cody Rieger:

Luke Lefebvre
The Protestant movement concluding with the work of the TR under the translation of the King James version of the Bible has brought together all the evidence available proving that the word of God is definitely in fallible and has never changed one bit...Voir plus

Hans-Georg Lundahl
" The Protestant movement concluding with the work of the TR under the translation of the King James version of the Bible has brought together all the evidence available proving that the word of God is definitely in fallible and has never changed one bit."

Funny your saying so, when the Protestant movement changed it itself!

Luke Lefebvre
The Protestant movement was a developing movement. People are not going to agree and get along but I can assure you the King James version of the Bible lead the way for the Protestant movement for 400 years. No protestant Bibles like to Geneva Bible or the chain Bible is in common use today. Clearly the King James has pressed all of those translation and provides in fallible textual evidence

There is not a verse or a word in the King James version of the Bible that cannot be substantiated with preserved in fallible textual evidence

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I can assure you the King James version of the Bible lead the way for the Protestant movement for 400 years"

Among English speakers.

"No protestant Bibles like to Geneva Bible or the chain Bible is in common use today."

Among English speakers.

A French speaking Protestant is likely to use Geneva Bible or version Louis Segond.

The latter includes research more recent than KJV.

A German Protestant would either use Luther Bible or one including more recent research than KJV.

A Spanish speaking Protestant uses Reina Valera, which includes research more recent than KJV.

But even if the claim were true, even if KJV led the way totally without reserve for Louis Segond, Reina Valera, 1917 års översättning, and before that Bible of Charles XII, and after or beside Folkbibeln, which I don't think is true, that would not prove the KJV infallible. Since the Protestant movement is NOT the Church.

"There is not a verse or a word in the King James version of the Bible that cannot be substantiated with preserved in fallible textual evidence"

I wonder about that one ... especially choices of translation.

Does KJV have bishop, priest, deacon, church or overseer, elder, servant/minister, assembly?

While both choices can in some sense be substantiated in episkopos, presbyteros, diakonos, ekklesia, the latter ones are deliberately overlooking the traditional meanings of the words in order to presume to dig up another one.

Luke Lefebvre
Now if you're going to make translations of the Bible into Chinese for example it'll be a whole lot easier to do it from that English translation. Because even if you make translation errors you can always go back to the creek text to correct them. But if you're using the wrong group text like many modern versions do y'all have boatloads of missing versus now why is that? Why are all the verses of many modern translations found in the footnotes?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And perhaps your edition of KJV even lacks the seven books which Catholics consider canonic and Protestants apocryphic?

That is what I meant.

An Englishman going as missionary to China will perhaps use KJV or NIV.

A Swede going as missionary to Tanzania will perhaps rather use Swedish Bibles.

"Why are all the verses of many modern translations found in the footnotes?"

Because Protestantism is a developing movement.

It started throwing out Maccabees I and II because their new research could not find that and now there are Protestant Bibles which only have Christ pardoning adulteress in footnotes because even newer research could not find that to their satisfaction.

Joseph D. Mc Bride
The Holy Bible is Perfect. Only perfect thing I know of!!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Joseph D. Mc Bride Only?

God is not perfect? The Church He founded is not perfect? Heaven is not perfect? We will not be perfect when we get there? The sacraments are not perfect?