Wednesday, January 17, 2018

How Are Russians Reading my English by Google, if so? And What About Tower of Babel?

When I used google translate to translate a passage of the Coran - one I happen not to find objectionable, unlike much else in it - the French result of Arabic input was more or less gibberish.

I think this could explain why someone using Google Translate for Arabic output could also find the resulting Arabic gibberish. But I also said, this could happen with Russian or Ukrainean too. So, let's test it.

First, I verify, is Russian or Ukrainean really relevant, do I have readers there? Yes : 10 Jan 2018 10:00 – 17 Jan 2018 09:00 : Italy 144 United States 98 Ukraine 47 France 41 Russia 21 China 10 United Kingdom 9 Indonesia 8 Algeria 7 South Korea 7. (This blog).

Next, let's chose a text which will not blaspheme if translated very badly (even if a machine translation translating badly can't blaspheme the Bible, just show the limits of the machine):

Genesis 11:1-9
Douay Rheims
And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech.
And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.
And each one said to his neighbour: Come, let us make brick, and bake them with fire. And they had brick instead of stones, and slime instead of mortar.
And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.
And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.
And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed.
Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech.
And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city.
And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries.

Russian Synodal Version
На всей земле был один язык и одно наречие.
Двинувшись с востока, они нашли в земле Сеннаар равнину и поселились там.
И сказали друг другу: наделаем кирпичей и обожжем огнем. И стали у них кирпичи вместо камней, а земляная смола вместо извести.
И сказали они: построим себе город и башню, высотою до небес, и сделаем себе имя, прежде нежели рассеемся по лицу всей земли.
И сошел Господь посмотреть город и башню, которые строили сыны человеческие.
И сказал Господь: вот, один народ, и один у всех язык; и вот что начали они делать, и не отстанут они от того, что задумали делать;
сойдем же и смешаем там язык их, так чтобы один не понимал речи другого.
И рассеял их Господь оттуда по всей земле; и они перестали строить город.
Посему дано ему имя: Вавилон, ибо там смешал Господь язык всей земли, и оттуда рассеял их Господь по всей земле.

Google Translate
English from Russian
All over the earth there was one language and one dialect.
Moving from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.
And they said one to another, Let us make bricks and burn them with fire. And they began to have bricks instead of stones, and earth resin instead of lime.
And they said, Let us build ourselves a city and a tower, which is high up to the heavens, and make ourselves a name, before we are scattered about the face of the whole earth.
And the LORD went down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men built.
And the LORD said, Behold, one people, and one tongue all; and that's what they began to do, and they will not leave behind what they planned to do;
Let us go down and mix their language there, so that one does not understand the speech of the other.
And the Lord scattered them from thence throughout all the earth; and they stopped building the city.
Therefore the name is given to him: Babylon, for there the Lord confused the language of all the earth, and from there the Lord scattered them throughout all the earth.

Note well, the Russian synodal version mistranslates verse 4. The google translate to English was not a mistranslation by machine.

The LXX, which would seem to be the original for Synodal version, does not make the same fault, it has καὶ πύργον οὗ ἡ κεφαλὴ ἔσται ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ - and a tower, of which the top is into the heaven. This is consistent with the tower being a rocket and the top being step 3. The Russian Synodal translation does not translate these words literally, and its choice of interpretation is basically a "skyscraper" or possibly a skyline - which connects to two patristic interpretations of what the object was, but disconnects from the at least Augustinian (as well as Hebrew) interpretation of what it was for.

As to verse 9, I don't think Babylon need be considered a mistranslation.

Nimrod can have named Göbekli Tepe Bab-Ilu - gate of gods - just as successors of his named a city further south so. If Nimrod meant Babel as a quest to get to heaven by local motion in our mortal bodies, I think rockets make more sense than skyscrapers, even back then. And Bab-Ilu would have been a fitting name.

The point is, he would have succeeded with a rocket as badly as Leonardo if he had tried his own prototype airplanes. But Uranium as rocket fuel is not such a joke as one man falling from a tall house in a heavy box of wood with useless wings.

God preserved him from even trying, by making him incapable of communicating with his workforce. Imagine Putin at Sotchi and him asking a question and getting an answer like "yo no comprendo" because the other guy has by divine fiat started speaking Spanish instead of Russian. That is what happened to Nimrod, happily enough.

Why does the Bible translate so much better on google translate than the Coran? It is very simple syntax, very unrhetorical.

Not laden with figures of speech that don't correspond when translated (that said, where the Bible has a figure of speech, it is probably part of the culture of English or French already, unlike those in the Coran).

I might hope my prose translates better than the Coran, but I think it probably translates worse than the Bible. It is more rhetoric and more complex, therefore more sensitive to bungling translations.

This is one reason why I think Russians have been thinking my English is bad (even here, while it is understandable, the English is clumsier than Douay Rheims, like a foreigner retelling parts in children's language - especially "mix their language", though probably or at least possibly one method God could have used : mixing the Hebrew already there with a "sound change applier" or sth, and also mixing word meanings. But probably not the only one, though that could explain the existance of Semitic or Afro-Asiatic language family.

By the way, let's see if Ukrainean translates verse 4 better?

І сказали вони: Тож місто збудуймо собі, та башту, а вершина її аж до неба. І вчинімо для себе ймення, щоб ми не розпорошилися по поверхні всієї землі.

And they said: "Let us build a city for us, and a tower, and its summit up to heaven." And we shall make a name for ourselves, that we may not be scattered on the surface of all the earth.

Ah, yes, it does. "and its summit up to heaven". Step 3 is the summit of a three step rocket.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Anthony the Great

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Did Popes Claim to Be God? No.

A just possibly correct Latin text, to the left, a false English translation to the right:

Credere autem Dominum Deum nostrum Papam-conditorem dictae decratelis, et istius, sinc non potuisse statuere, prout statuit, haereticum censeretur.

Quoted in John Treat, The Catholic Faith, or, Doctrines of the Church of Rome contrary to Scripture (1888) : 536.

His translation is:

"but to believe that our Lord God the Pope, the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree as he did decree, should be accounted heretical."

A better translation (if the reference is genuine) is:

But to believe that our Lord God could not so constitute the Pope - author of said decretal and the other one - as he did constitute him, would be accounted heretical.

I am a Latinist.

I can tell you that the translator simply fucked up which accusative should be the subject one in accusative and infinitive clause and which one was only object in the clause and would have been in accusative whatever kind of clause it was.

This is one of the cases where Latin has some ambiguity, and some people are either incompetent at Latin or jumping to the reading which would damn papacy as papolatry./HGL

PS. See also:

Beati mundo corde : The truth about the anti-Catholic charge of “Lord God the Pope”

I found it after publishing above. I copy the conclusions:

  • i) The interpolated (possibly forged?)statement does not appear in the original, but only in copies dated many years (in the case of the Paris edition, over 350 years (1325 till 1685) after the original was written.
  • ii) As glosses of their very nature deal with commentaries on canon law, they are unrelated to doctrine or doctrinal pronouncements and are not issued by the pope. Hence this inserted text could not be used (even if present in the original) as proof the pope was teaching falsehood.
  • iii) The insertion of a forger of these words at a later date do not in any way affect the truth of the divine institution of the papacy, any more than insertion of words into a copy of the Bible changes the Bible’s authenticity.
  • iv) The statement of one Father A. Pereira (see below) is invalid for the same reason mentioned in iii)

In other words, possibly even the quote by John Treat is a fake, possibly the Paris edition inserted sth meaning sth else, like what I translated. If it is a fake, 1685 is a year in which Protestants, Gallicans and Jansenists were already around and eager to smudge the Papal supremacy in the Church for diverse reasons (heresy in Protestants, patriotism of exaggerated and misplaced type in Gallicans, heretic opinion verging on and leading later to schism in Jansenists). So, there is nothing totally improbable in it being a fake./HGL

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Which one is from Codex Vaticanus?

I found the first one on a video about 666 trying to link it to Muslims.

I found the second one on a wikipedian article on Codex Vaticanus.

It is very possible that Codex Vaticanus is a very early one, and is from 350 AD, it is according to wikipedian article from 4th C.

It is NOT very probable that Chi - Xi - Stigma look as above version in it, since the type of letters only came around much later, Codex Vaticanus being an Uncial Codex and the above version being a minuscule lettering and the succession of Greek writings being, as for Latin, Majuscule, Uncial and Minuscule.

How exactly do Chi and Xi look in Uncial?

Found in Antiquity : How to write Greek Uncial
Posted on March 31, 2014 by Carla Schodde

In the video, there are no ligatures, just the alphabet. Stigma is lacking.

However, since Omicron is directly after Xi and Omega after Chi and Psi, here are the Greek letters for 60 and for 600:

Especially the Uncial Xi is not very like the Minuscule which can be turned around for relooking like Arabic letters, is it?

And the Minuscule is not from Late Antiquity, but from Middle Ages./HGL

PS, found Uncial version of Stigma on French wiki:

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

David Vincent parle d'un Jean pas fils de Zébédée

Son* texte source est en partie ceci:

«Nous célébrons donc avec exactitude le Jour, sans ajouter ni retrancher. En effet, c’est en Asie que se sont couchés de grands astres, qui ressusciteront au jour de l’avènement du Seigneur, quand il viendra du Ciel avec gloire et qu’il recherchera tous les saints : Philippe, l’un des douze apôtres, repose à Hiérapolis avec ses deux filles qui ont vieilli dans la virginité ; son autre fille, qui a vécu dans le Saint-Esprit, repose à Ephèse ; et encore Jean, qui a reposé sur la poitrine du Seigneur, et qui est devenu prêtre portant la lame d’or, témoin et docteur de la foi ; celui-ci repose à Ephèse ; Polycarpe de Smyrne, évêque et martyr ; et Thraséas d’Euménie, évêque et martyr ; il repose à Smyrne. »

Les mots saillants sont:

et encore Jean, qui a reposé sur la poitrine du Seigneur, et qui est devenu prêtre portant la lame d’or, témoin et docteur de la foi ; celui-ci repose à Ephèse

La conclusion qu'en tire David Vincent, signalons qu'il est protestant, est, que Jean était un Cohen, "prêtre portant la lame d'or". Il n'arrive pas à l'esprit qu'un prêtre du nouveau testament, un apôtre ou un de ses successeurs, pourrait être décrit ainsi.

Il veut avoir une confirmation de ceci, en partie, d'une ressemblance de Papias, cité après Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire Ecclésiastique, III, 39, 4.

Arrivons à cette référence, excusez l'anglais:

Church History (Book III)

Chapter 39. The Writings of Papias.

4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders— what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.

5. It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.

6. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John's. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John.

Dans d'autres termes, Eusèbe lui-même préfère léguer l'Apocalypse à "Jean le presbytre". Ou en connaît qui le préfèrent, au moins, et leur montre de la sympathie. Et, il le fait en donnant une conjecture.

Notons, il n'est pas notre meilleur ami dans le jugement.

Il omet toute référence à la découverte de Ste Hélène, celle de la Sainte Croix (voir dessus Stephan Borgehammar, How the Holy Cross was Found). Par contre, Eusèbe n'ose même pas dire que tel ou tel autre aurait voulu attribuer l'évangile à l'autre Jean.

En partie, David Vincent suit des gens comme Cullman:

Ainsi Oscar Cullman, après avoir minutieusement étudié l’évangile conclut que le disciple bien aimé, ne peut pas être Jean l’Apôtre. Mais il le laisse dans l’anonymat.

De mon côté, tout en partageant ses observations et ses conclusions, je pense que l’on peut aller plus loin et identifier ce disciple à Jean le Presbytre, comme l’ont fait avant moi Jean Colson, Jacqueline Genot-Bismuth. « Portrait robot » du disciple bien-aimé

Tout d’abord, il faut noter que l’auteur du quatrième évangile a une très bonne connaissance de Jérusalem, aussi bien de la topographie que des habitudes. En revanche, il ne semble pas du tout connaître la Galilée.

Par ailleurs, ce disciple est aussi en relation avec les milieux sacerdotaux :

« Simon Pierre, avec un autre disciple, suivait Jésus. Ce disciple était connu du souverain sacrificateur, et il entra avec Jésus dans la cour du souverain sacrificateur; mais Pierre resta dehors près de la porte. L’autre disciple, qui était connu du souverain sacrificateur, sortit, parla à la portière, et fit entrer Pierre. » (Jean 18 : 15-16).

On peut aussi signaler qu’il donne le nom du serviteur blessé par Pierre, Malchus (Jean 18 : 10), qu’il rapporte les entretiens secrets entre Jésus et Nicodème (Jean 3), et qu’il semble être au courant des délibérations qui ont lieu parmi les responsables religieux (Jean 7). La mention récurrente de Nicodème (Jean 3, 7 et 19) pourrait être un indice témoignant du fait que ce disciple connaissait bien Nicodème. Si mon hypothèse est juste, il se trouvait d’ailleurs dans une situation semblable, puisque comme Nicodème, il croyait à Jésus, mais dissimulait cela à ses proches.

Là, Cullman et David Vincent raisonnent en partie sur une supposée invraisemblance que les sacerdoces aaroniques auraient connu le fils de Zébédée.

De là, David Vincent est prêt à faire un petit fan fiction sur l'identité du disciple bien aimé. Il aurait été un prêtre aaronique excommunié par le temple et reçu par les disciples. Un indice pour ceci est qu'il a connu Nicodème, ce que la tradition explique par la conversion ouverte plus tard de celui-ci.

J'ai fait moi-même un fan fiction, mais dans un autre sens.

Zébédée était connu des suédois comme Thorr (ou à l'époque plutôt Thounorz). Son père était connu des suédois comme Odin (ou à l'époque plutôt Vodenz). Cet Odin était aussi connu des prêtres juives et des rabbins, car on le retrouve, confondu avec Théodas et avec Notre Seigneur, dans le Talmud et dans l'infame Tolédot Yéchou.

Si j'ai raison, les sacerdoces devaient très bien connaître cette famille.

Quel indice est-ce que trouve dans l'évangile que Zébédée était Thorr?

Boanerges ne veut pas linguistiquement dire "fils de tonnerre", donc, la phrase ajouté après Boanerges, "c'est à dire fils de tonnerre" était un explication autre que linguistique du mot.

Thorr était effectivement "la tonnerre" pour les païens. Et le Yéchou évoqué comme mauvais disciple d'un rabbin, comme coureur de jupes (au moins en désirs, selon les mots de son maître), celui qui (si c'est dans le Talmud ou dans la littérature talmudique plus large) apprit la magie en Égypte, il est, comme Simon Magus, un bon candidat pour Odin historique, le séducteur des suédois.

Et quand à Simon Magus il vit trop tard, puisque l'arrière-petit-fils adoptif d'Odin est contemporain avec César Auguste (selon Snorre, pas selon Saxo). Autrement son profile moral assez tard, selon les Actes de St Pierre, et le même que pour Odin.

Ma théorie sur Zébédée est donc, il avait suivi son père dans l'idolatrie et l'exile, il était revenu pour faire pénitence, et on lui l'a accordé. Il ne pouvait plus devenir rabbin, comme l'avait voulu une fois son père, mais il pouvait vivre comme pêcheur.

Que les sources nordique l'appelle "fils de Jord/Jórð" - de la Terre - a bien pu être un malentendu d'une phrase hébreue comme "ben ha-eretz" - fils du pays (référence à soit son lieu de naissance, soit son allégiance pour la Terre Sainte).

Si ma théorie ne vaut pas les pères de l'église, elle vaut largement Cullman et ce genre de Protestant libéraux. Un roman de fan fic vaut bien un autre.

Pour revenir à l'argument donnée par rapport à Polycrate, cité à partir d'Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique, V, 24, 2-4.

2. We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.

Il n'arrive pas à l'esprit que l'épiscopat chrétien ait pu s'approprier assez tôt les marques des cohanim, en certain particuliers, comme, il me semble ici, l'éphode?

Quant à la désignation "présbytre" qui en terminologie courante de l'église désigne un simple sacerdote, qui ne peut transmettre le sacerdoce par la chéirotonie, un converti de l'anglicanisme a considéré que dans la génération du nouveau testament les termes "présbytre" et "épiscope" avaient les valeurs inverses qu'après. Et "sacerdotal plate", "lame d'or", regardons le grec:

ἔτι δὲ καὶ Ἰωάννης  ὁ  ἐπὶ  τὸ  στῆθος  τοῦ  κυρίου  ἀναπεσών,  ὃς  ἐγενήθη  ἱερεὺς  τὸ  πέταλον  πεφορεκὼς  καὶ μάρτυς  καὶ  διδάσκαλος·  οὗτος  ἐν  Ἐφέσῳ  κεκοίμηται,  ἔτι  δὲ  καὶ  Πολύκαρπος  ἐν  Σμύρν

Richard Bauckham** comments:

According to Polycrates, John was “a priest, wearing the highpriestly frontlet (to petalon).” We must give some attention to the word petalon, which I have translated here as “the high-priestly frontlet.” The Jewish high priest in the Jerusalem Temple wore an elaborate headdress, which is carefully described by Josephus (Ant.

En d'autres mots, il pourrait s'agir d'une forme de chapeau plutôt que d'un éphode. Dans ce cas, ce lieu serait une attestation "tôtive" des chapeaux des prêtres dans les rites orientaux.

Mais jouons un peu le jeu de David Vincent. Accordons un moment - pour cette discussion - que l'auteur des écrits johanniques, le disciple bien-aimé, était un vieux cohen expulsé du temple et accueilli parmi les disciples de Jésus. Ceci ne change rien en ce qui concerne l'inerrance des écrits johanniques. Dieu utilise qui Il veut, et les cohanim étaient assez souvent les instruments de Dieu dans l'Ancien Testament. Ils étaient l'autorité qui désignait tel ou tel livre comme partie du canon. Il paraît deux fois, une fois par Ezra, une deuxième fois, après l'exile, par un prêtre maccabéen - ce qui explique que le canon des LXX contient davantage que les 22 livres d'Ezra. En plus, qu'il était cohen et qu'il connaissait le temple très bien ne change aussi rien à ce qui concerne le contenu à l'époque surtout futuriste de l'Apocalypse : le temple avait une fonction prophétique. La seule chose qui changerait - et pour ça je n'accepte pas cette théorie - est que la tradition à propos le texte serait moins fiable. Je n'ai pas de raison à croire ceci.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St Jean l'Apôtre

* Les citations sont à partir de:

Didascale : L’auteur et le but de l’Apocalypse

**Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony

Friday, December 22, 2017

What Date is the Birth of Christ?

I saw this article supporting the usual date among Christians:

The date can be derived historically from the dating of Zechariah’s entry into the temple to burn incense. It can also be derived theologically from the ancient tradition that a great prophet entered and left the world on the same calendar day. Thus, the Annunciation was determined to have occurred on the same day as the crucifixion, March 25. December 25 naturally follows nine months later. They are good arguments, held to strict standards of historical research and logic, within their own fields.

Biological evidence that Jesus actually was born in December
Rebecca Salazar | Dec 10, 2017

Now, to this can be added, the Awassi sheep she mentions.

But here is one more, and it has some theological bearing on whether we should celebrate a birthday in the case of Christ or not.

I find it very probable that on the exact date of Christ's being 30 years old, He rejected Satan's birthday presents - and, being exhausted physically after so doing, accepted those of a good angel.

There is a Hebrew tradition of not celebrating birthdays. It is not breaking a Mosaic law, but it is breaking a Pharisaic tradition to celebrate a birthday. This tradition has been kept up by Catholics, through the Middle Ages and even beyond in some conservative regions : you celebrate your baptismal date, not your birthdate.

There is a theological reason why only 3 birthdays are Church holidays : the Blessed Virgin and Our Lord were born without original sin and also conceived without it, St John the Baptist was conceived with but born without original sin (delivered from it when the Blessed Virgin visited St Elisabeth). There are perhaps two more birthdays (Isaiah and Jeremiah) which the Church could celebrate for a similar reason.

But there was also a pragmatic reason in preparing our salvation in the late OT aversion against Birthdays : Satan's offer was so to speak a "birthday present". And it is the kind of thing Christians do not give each other for either Christmas or birthday presents, normally : power.

The angel came and gave Christ unexpected, indeed "miraculous" (as when the raven fed Elijah) food. And food is a Christmas present and birthday present which is acceptable. Even, food and drink - probably wine (whiskey was not invented and besides wine better fits the Holy Land). Water, He probably had drunk, so his survival for forty days was not in that sense miraculous.

How do I figure out this is indeed the date, probably?

Baptism of Christ, before fasting and temptation:

"Luke 3:[23] And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years;"

Marriage at Cana: Our Lord was probably some days past thirty, since the Pharisaic tradition allowed for a party after the thirtieth birthday (according to a reference I am not now finding) - or other important birthday - where someone is acknowledged as being of age.

This brings us to the question whether January 6 was the actual date of baptism, or of marriage at Cana - it is celebrated as both, as well as visit of the Magi (and in some traditions in the place of Christmas too).

Now, since marriage at Cana was about 40 days after baptism, or perhaps a bit more, celebrating both events on same day means you are actually taking one of them away from actual date. I propose January 6 is "more like" marriage of Cana, and Our Lord was then baptised before November 27th.*

And, this is a space in which December 25th falls near the end. Between that day and January 6th, Christ had the opportunity to gather some disciples, as the situation of the marriage at Cana implies.

I checked on Jewish Holidays for 1999 to 2050. The earliest dates for first day of Hanukkah are just after that day : 28, 29, 30 November. Either Christ's baptism was on an early Hanukkah (fitting enough, since His body is among human bodies the primary Temple of the Holy Ghost) or He celebrated Hanukkah in the desert; fasting, preparing the rededication which was greater than that in 164 BC.

It is possible for Hanukkah to fall as late as December 25 or even a few days later.

But this said, the other enumeration of reasons, cited, is good too, and more precise, and now read Rebecca Salazar's evidence on the sheep specific to the region. The Awassi sheep.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Holy Thirty Martyrs
of Via Lavicana, between two Laurels**

* 6.I="37.XII"="67.XI", 67 - 40 = 27. ** Romae, via Lavicana, inter duas Lauros, natalis sanctorum triginta Martyrum, qui omnes una die, in persecutione Diocletiani, martyrio coronati sunt.

Rydberg, Chesterton and Tolkien

As a Swede, I have several Christmasses been hearing and some of them singing Victor Rydberg's star of Bethlehem poem, and will quote one line, which in light of the following suggests either Chesterton knew Swedish (though I have no other indications thereof) or that true minds think alike (a saying sometimes misattributed as about "great minds").

Stjärnan från Betlehem leder ej bort, men hem.

The star from Bethlehem leads, not away (from home), but home.

So thought Chesterton:

For men are homesick in their homes,
And strangers under the sun,
And they lay on their heads in a foreign land
Whenever the day is done.
Here we have battle and blazing eyes,
And chance and honour and high surprise,
But our homes are under miraculous skies
Where the yule tale was begun.

But the same poem also has a Tolkien connection:

This world is wild as an old wives’ tale,
And strange the plain things are,
The earth is enough and the air is enough
For our wonder and our war;
But our rest is as far as the fire-drake swings
And our peace is put in impossible things
Where clashed and thundered unthinkable wings
Round an incredible star.

You recall a dialogue between Eomer and Aragorn? I do.

“Do we walk in legends or on the green earth in the daylight?'

A man may do both,' said Aragorn. 'For not we but those who come after will make the legends of our time. The green earth, say you? That is a mighty matter of legend, though you tread it under the light of day!”

J.R.R. Tolkien > Quotes > Quotable Quote / J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers

There is another connection between Rydberg and Tolkien : trying to search "leder ej bort, men hem" on wiki, I came across Swedish translations of The Hobbit.

This is obviously an excuse for a triple recommendation:

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Holy Martyr and ex-Prefect
St Flavian, husband of
St Dafrosa, parents of virgins Sts Bibiana and
Demetria, all of these also martyrs*

PS, I had nearly forgotten who composed the poem to music - but it is Alice Tegnér. Very famous in Sweden.

* Item Romae sancti Flaviani Expraefecti, viri beatae Martyris Dafrosae atque patris beatarum Virginum et Martyrum Bibianae ac Demetriae; qui, sub Juliano Apostata, pro Christo inscriptione damnatus, et ad Aquas Taurinas, in Etruria, in exsilium missus, illic in oratione spiritum Deo reddidit.

Saturday, December 16, 2017

Poor Reason of Attributing Sth to Sth More Than Human

Let us say Stonehenge is partly attributed to three stones bouught by the Devil from a woman on Ireland, and partly to some other stones conjured there by Merlin. You may have difficulties in fitting these with some of the evidence, but the difficulties could be gotten around.

But you would have a reason which was at least as solid as "this is an old story, I have not made it up and I don't know of anyone who can certainly be considered as having made it up" (I was cheating, I combined two stories, both of which are in this case, but their combination is made up by me, as a reconstruction reconciling the two stories*).

Or again, Erich von Däniken might provide a list of works suggesting a roughly speaking supernatural - on his personal view that would mean space ships, Ancient Astronauts from Elsewhere - origin for Stonehenge about as tightly as Dan Brown (or actually, behind him, Bagent) connects the Grail Legend to a Dynasty Originating with Jesus' supposed marriage to St Mary Magdalene (and these documents and the interpretation about Stonehenge would have the gigantic advantage over Bagent's interpretations of that other material not to contradict Christian dogma).

But here I come across a very poor reason of attributing sth to sn else than the obvious most probable maker:

Ancient Egyptians DID NOT build THIS...The Osirion & Lost Ancient Technology
Bright Insight | added on 7th Dec. 2017

(Not linking, but you can look it up).

0:14 - 0:23

because - make no mistake - the people living in Egypt a few thousand years ago also known as the Ancient Egyptians could not have constructed this site : in fact there is zero physical or scientific evidence to even suggest that they did ...

Evidence x is standing amid a country formerly inhabited by people y and not attributable to any subsequent inhabitant is evidence it was made by people y, if there is no clear discrepancy in style to other things known to have been made by people y, and especially if there is some kind of religious clear affiliation (as it is, with an Osireion to Egyptians).

Also, narrative trumps physical evidence. It is usually from narratives we know who built what or who wrote what.

And assessing people y could not have constructed x presupposes the one so assessing had been living among the engineers of people y - which Mr "Bright Side" obviously has not in relation to Ancient Egyptians.

I feel tempted to ask "tell me when Mr Bright Side has learned some logic, and I might return to his channel", but I would be making the same fault with him, as he with Ancient Egyptians. I have seen a performance in him which I judge less compatible with good logic; he has seen performances by Ancient Egyptians which he judges incompatible with the technological level required for Osireion. But what if an engineer gave more technical considerations to the Osireion than to his bed and pillow? And what if "Bright Side" woke up on his dark side the morning before making the video?/HGL

PS, it seems one commenter** has even given the method./HGL

* You can find them here:
and here:

** The probable method and given as in by the link here:

Cutting granite with bronze or iron tools?
A new method by Franz Löhner

Now, prove Löhner's method impossible, you start having an argument ...