I have cited Carmignac here before. This time, it will be in a better light.

Here is a reference to his uncharitable reference to "fundamentalist", in French:

Pour répondre à l'Abbé Carmignac (post humum)
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/07/pour-repondre-labbe-carmignac-post-humum.html

He was of course totally wrong to presume Catholic and Funamentalist contradict each other as terms go. Or perhaps it has since back in 1982 become lots commoner for inerrantist (which means orthodox) Catholics to be described as Fundamentalists and for the Protestant Fundamentalists or sometimes even Jewish ones to a more relaxed attitude to Catholicism, at least those of us who are inerrantists.

He had a better side, as I learned today.

Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early
https://www.academia.edu/30807628/Fr_Jean_Carmignac_dates_Gospels_early

The copying of following extract involved some edits, since letters showed a grammatically correct way but were exchanged when copied. I have left edits which make overkill. The figure 3 was coded by capital B and I left 3s for original and correct b's too. Same with 8 coded as D and left when replacing original d's which were correct too. I should have clicked "respecter la case" and so only B and not b, only D and not d would have been affected.

Carmignac, a 8ea8 Sea Scrolls translator an8 an expert in the He3rew in use at the time of Christ, reache8 conclusions similar to Ro3inson's, 3ut he came at the pro3lem from a 8ifferent angle.

He translate8 the synoptic Gospels "3ackwar8s," from Greek into He3rew, an8 he was astonishe8 at what he foun8.

"I wante8 to 3egin with the Gospel of Mark. In or8er to facilitate the comparison 3etween our Greek Gospels an8 the He3rew text of Qumran, I trie8, for my own personal use, to see what Mark woul8 yiel8 when translate8 3ack into the He3rew of Qumran.

"I ha8 imagine8 that this translation woul8 3e 8ifficult 3ecause of consi8era3le 8ifferences 3etween Semitic thought an8 Greek thought, 3ut I was a3solutely 8um3foun8e8 to 8iscover that this translation was, on the contrary, extremely easy.

"Aroun8 the mi88le of April 1963, after only one 8ay of work, I was convince8 that the Greek text of Mark coul8 not have 3een re8acte8 8irectly in Greek an8 that it was in reality only the Greek translation of an original He3rew."

Carmignac, who 8ie8 recently, ha8 planne8 for enormous 8ifficulties, 3ut they 8i8n't arise. He 8iscovere8 the Greek translator of Mark ha8 slavishly kept to the He3rew wor8 or8er an8 grammar.

...

Consi8er just one example. (Carmignac gives many, 3ut his short 3ook isn't weighe8 8own with them.) The 3ene8ictus, the song of Zachary, is given in Luke 1:68-79. In Greek, as in English, the 3ene8ictus, as poetry, seems unexceptional. There is no evi8ence of clever composition. But, when it is translate8 into He3rew, a little marvel appears.

In the phrase "to show mercy to our fathers," the expression "to show mercy" is the He3rew ver3 hanan, which is the root of the name Yohanan (John).

In "he remem3ers his holy covenant," "he remem3ers" is the ver3 zakar, which is the root of the name Zakaryah (Zachary).

In "the oath which he swore to our father A3raham" is foun8, for "to take an oath," the ver3 shaba, which is the root of the name Elishaba (Eliza3eth).

"Is it 3y chance," asks Carmignac, "that the secon8 strophe of this poem 3egins 3y a triple allusion to the names of the three protagonists: John, Zachary, Eliza3eth? But this allusion only exists in He3rew; the Greek or English translation 8oes not preserve it."

So far Carmignac. An achievement which I think some Fundamentalists will appreciate./HGL

One Isaiah, Not Two, Not Three

Q

Was the Book of Isaiah (Bible) written by one person?
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Book-of-Isaiah-Bible-written-by-one-person

Own answer

There are two answers.

Hebrew (both Jewish and Christian, but not Samaritan) tradition says, yes, all of Isaiah was written by the prophet known by that name.

The other answer is, "no, differences of content and style indicate there were really two authors".

Exit common sense and enter a discussion on what parts of Isaiah are Isaiah and what parts are Deutero-Isaiah.

Robert Edward Lewis,

Relatively knowledgable about theology and Church history

Written Fri · Upvoted by Will Fox

Even the usually conservative/traditional Roman Catholic church has agreed with modern scholarship that there are several different persons responsible for the content of the book of Isaiah.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/isaiah/0

“The complete Book of Isaiah is an anthology of poems composed chiefly by the great prophet, but also by disciples, some of whom came many years after Isaiah. In 1–39 most of the oracles come from Isaiah and reflect the situation in eighth-century Judah. Sections such as the Apocalypse of Isaiah (24–27), the oracles against Babylon (13–14), and probably the poems of 34–35 were written by followers deeply influenced by the prophet, in some cases reusing earlier Isaianic material; cf., e.g., 27:2–8 with 5:1–7.

Chapters 40–55 (Second Isaiah, or Deutero-Isaiah) are generally attributed to an anonymous poet who prophesied toward the end of the Babylonian exile. From this section come the great oracles known as the Servant Songs, which are reflected in the New Testament understanding of the passion and glorification of Christ. Chapters 56–66 (Third Isaiah, or Trito-Isaiah) contain oracles from the postexilic period and were composed by writers imbued with the spirit of Isaiah who continued his work.”

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are linking to a page by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

They are NOT conservative.

Will Fox

Do you think it's at all possible that his disciples changed some of his writings minorly?

Robert Edward Lewis

The person believed to be 1 Isaiah lived about 400 years before his work was merged with other writings into what is currently known as the Book of Isaiah. Tradition and sayings and writing were handed down over centuries. Probably some things were changed. But the stuff commonly attributed to 2nd and 3rd Isaiah is very different from the first part.

It is like attributing to Abraham Lincoln an essay on why America should send a man to the moon. Is it possible that Abraham would have been interested in the moon? Yes. Would he have written about space exploration, years before the airplane was invented and a century before space flight became a real possibility? No.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But the stuff commonly attributed to 2nd and 3rd Isaiah is very different from the first part."

Very possible.

"It is like attributing to Abraham Lincoln an essay on why America should send a man to the moon."

Not really.

"Is it possible that Abraham would have been interested in the moon? Yes."

Not a real parallel, since ....

"Would he have written about space exploration, years before the airplane was invented and a century before space flight became a real possibility? No."

The difference is, Isaiah was a prophet, Abraham Lincoln was not.

Can St John, on Patmos, have written about air planes or helicopters near two millennia before they were invented (for the former perhaps reinvented)? Well, it seems locusts with faces like men are a fairly visual description of choppers.

Can he have written about ASCII binary numeric values of letters, near two millennia before computers were invented? Well, ASCII fits Domitian very much better than either Greek or (as far as I knonw) Hebrew gematria.

DOMITIANE = 68+79+77 ...

Since Isaiah was a prophet, all of your argument boils down to prophecy not being a realistic option, to all prophecies being ex eventu.

Robert Edward Lewis

you totally misunderstand the role of a prophet in historic Judah/Israel. They are not future tellers, they are people who dream possibilities. No one knows the details of the future, not even God. But people with gifts and intuition can point to such things. Martin Luther King was a prophet. But did he talk abut iPhones and Tesla cars???… no. Neither did Isaiah 1 talk about the destruction of the Temple and its restoration, of exile and deliverance. That prophet talked about things that were happening in his world and the consequences of injustice.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"They are not future tellers, they are people who dream possibilities."

For exactly one scenario, you are nearly right : if God foretells a conditional punishment and the prophet gives the culprits a chance of repentance. Even so, should they clearly not repent and should they not be punished in foretold way either, we would be dealing with a false prophet.

The Torah does say that prophets are foretelling things, since it gives an inerrant fulfilment of what the prophet foretells as one criterium for telling a true prophet from a false one.

"No one knows the details of the future, not even God."

False. God is not in time, therefore God knows the "future" (what is such or once was such to us) as we know the present which is before us here and now.

"Martin Luther King was a prophet. But did he talk abut iPhones and Tesla cars???… no."

Martin Luther King was not a prophet.

He was an intellectual, he famously had a dream, but he was not a prophet.

"Neither did Isaiah 1 talk about the destruction of the Temple and its restoration, of exile and deliverance."

There was one Isaiah. Your reason for posing a II and a III possibly too, is denial of what prophecy means.

"That prophet talked about things that were happening in his world and the consequences of injustice."

He also talked about things that were GOING to happen, like Cyrus, and of future consequences of prolonged injustice.

Part of Catholic Response

The story of this controversy centres almost wholly round the pontificate of Pius X, in which its acute phases occurred, but its origins stretch far back into the nineteenth century. The rapid progress made by the natural sciences in that epoch,- together with a more critical study of ancient documents, had set in train many new speculations. There were those who proclaimed that the freshly acquired knowledge, both historical and scientific, had undermined the foundations of Christianity, if not of all religion ; others affirmed that the new knowledge was either not knowledge at all, or, if it was real knowledge, was reconcilable with orthodox religion. A third party asserted that, while the essentials of Christianity were untouched, modifications of Christian dogma had become imperative. This was a relatively easy position for a Protestant to take up, since the Protestant denominations disclaimed doctrinal infallibility. No Catholic could seriously maintain it. For a man who held that one Catholic dogma was untenable was as much outside the Church as another who said that all must be rejected.

Source

Meeting the Higher Criticism By HUMPHREY J. T. JOHNSON
The Tablet of 29th May 1954, Page 11
http://archive.thetablet.co.uk/issue/29th-may-1954/11/8568

[While Johnson accurately tells us why Catholics rejected Modernism, he doesn't quite stick to it.]

Citing Pontifical Bible Commission 1908 with Explanations

Regarding prophecy, it is one hallmark of modernist biblical interpretation that no prophecy is acknowledged to be truly supernatural in character: if Daniel predicts something that did in fact happen in the future, the only "rational" explanation is that Daniel must have been written after the fact to give the appearance of prophecy. This anti-supernaturalism is usually taken for granted and not explicitly stated. In Reply I, the PBC condemns the following proposition:

"That the predicitions read in the Book of Isaiah-and throughout the Scriptures-are not predictions properly so called, but either narrations put together after the event, or, if anything has to be acknowledged as foretold before the event, that the prophet foretold it not in accordance with a supernatural revelation of God who foreknows future events, but by conjectures formed...and shrewdly by natural sharpness of mind..."

Reply II upholds the eschatological and Messianic interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies against an over-exuberant preterism (the belief that prophecies were fulfilled not long after they were made and were always for the prophet's own time only and have no future fufilment). The following proposition in condemned:

"Isaiah and the other prophets did not put forth predicitions except about events that were to happen in the immediate future or after no long space of time..."

The remaining three replies all deal with the argument that Isaiah had multiple authors. This is a very common assumption nowadays, one even made by otherwise conservative and orthodox persons (although some still cast doubt on the multiple-authorship theory, as does Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J., in his book Inside the Bible, where the multiple-authorship theory is mentioned but not endorsed). The main argument for the multiple authorship of Isaiah comes from the fact that chapters 40-66 seem to speak to post-Exilic Jews. Taking the presupposition that Isaiah could not have known or written about events two centuries in the future, it is presumed that another author wrote chapters 40-66. As evidence for this, modernists will point out that had Isaiah actually prophesied about these events so far in advance, his contemporaries would not have known what he was talking about!

Reply III condemns the idea that a prophet must be understood by his contemporaries. Reply IV condemns the idea that a philological or textual critique of Isaiah turns up any evidence of mutliple authorship. Reply V deals with the possibility that many of these arguments taken altogether could cast doubt on the single-authorship and lead us to believe that the book was attributed "not to Isaiah alone, but to two or even several authors." Like the previous assertions, this one is condemned as well. While the idea of multiple authorship itself is not condemned, the Replies condemnt the notion that there is any textual evidence of multiple-authorship. Thus, the PBC is saying, "If you believe in mutiple-authorship, know that there is no good reason to do so."

Source

Unam Sanctam Catholicam : Revisiting the Pontifical Biblical Commission (part 1)
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.fr/2008/05/revisiting-pontifical-biblical.html

[Blog owner is known as Boniface X, a Papal claimant, though not the one I support. As per 23.I.2017]

Old and Original Languages (from Quora)

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : 1) Old and Original Languages (from Quora) · Creation vs. Evolution : 2) Origin of Language (from Quora, Debating with Barry Hampe)

How did people first figure out what words in foreign languages mean?

I wonder how people first learned the meaning of words in a different language, especially for those with abstract or complicated meanings.

Own answer:

In history, most regions have been in contact for so long that one way of learning a foreign language is most often available, which is asking a previous bilingual.

Now, you are asking about situations in which language acquisition needs to start all over.

This is not quite just a historical question, it is also about situations which occur today. A missionary or an ethnologist finds a new people in Amazonas or New Guinea. They have to start all over.

Now, the thing is missionaries and ethnologists are usually good linguists, so they know how to arrange for systematic study.

Presumably the first time it happened was just after Babel, and they weren’t very good linguists back then.

So, presumably they did it like ethnologists or missionaries do - Jan Miś gave an example for concrete words - and sometimes fail.

I recall trying that method when starting to learn English.

I already knew that “blomma” was “flower”. I wanted to know how to say stem or stalk and pointed to one, and the boys I was with thought I pointed to the flower and told me “flower”.

Who was the earliest human whose name we know?

Asking this just out of curiosity.

xkcd Airplane Message says that Iry Hor was the earliest human whose name we know. But Wiki entry for Iry-Hor says that he is the earliest ruler of Egypt known by name. Is there any other person from maybe outside Egypt or non-ruler that we know to be the earliest person whose name we know?

Own answer:

If Adam was the earliest man of all, and we know his name, it was Adam.

If not, how can any early man’s name in any other ancient culture than the Hebrew be guaranteed to be not “mythical”?

How did the earliest humans communicate without a language system?

Own answer:

As far as the Bible tells us, there never ever was any such situation.

Adam was created with full linguistic not just potential but also competence in the Adamic language which arguably was Hebrew.

As far as evolutionism goes, there would be different guesses.

I don’t think any of them is convincing.

[other answer]

Michael DeBusk

Armchair linguist, and not an expensive fancy armchair either

Written Nov 22

No one knows, but we can assume by watching our fellow apes. They vocalize, use gestures and postures, and have very expressive faces, just as we do.

Ape Communication

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That guess is one of the major issues which seriously alienated me from Evolutionism.

The problem is : how do you develop anything like a human language from such a situation?

How were languages made by humans?

Own answer:

Do you mean "language" or "languageS"?

If you mean language as such, Bible says humans didn't invent it, God gave it. Evolutionists keep guessing otherwise, but can't get together a concrete how.

If you mean languageS, one very common process is being sloppy about details in the language you learned from your parents. Or even doing a variation on purpose because it sounds cool. Some of these changes catch on so well they become only option for future generations. When many of these have piled up, you have a new language. At least in speech. When it comes to writing, the diversity of spoken language can continue to be bridged by a common written one, until for some reason there is a break.

A less common one is to be confronted with having very many different languages, and trying to bridge. I personally think the earliest attempt at Indo-European would have been an attempt at a bridging language. Perhaps it only got as far as vocabulary items and case endings and personal endings on verbs (shared with Fenno-Ugric, mostly) catching on, while they otherwise kept their languages as previously. One late example which hasn't caught on is of course Esperanto.

If you mean languages invented just for fun, take a look at how Tolkien did it. Fauskanger on his site has gathered some of the info available from various hints of that author. And Tolkien need not have been the first conlanger.

What were the earliest human languages like, and how do we know?

Own answer:

There are two views on this one.

The Catholic view is that the first human language was probably Hebrew and certainly a language with full range of expression, given by God to Adam, except that Adam got to name the animals.

How we know? From the Bible.

The Evolutionist view is the first human languages were more limited in expression, intermediate in range between the human languages we know and the voice signals made by animals.

How they know?

From the comic book Rahan showing a situation in which personal pronouns were avoided? From the Jungle language in Tarzan being shared both between "great apes" and "men of Opar"? No, these are fiction.

From assessing the brain capacity and concluding from there that such and such a hominid could not yet have spoken a fully human language? No, since it is not clear that Australopithecus Africanus ever spoke any language, nor that Homo Erectus could not have spoken languages as we know, from studying their brains - or rather skull cavities where the brains once were. And from the genome of Neanderthals which has been sequenced, we know they were genetically as capable as we of having a normal language.

So, only from assuming that early humans evolved from non-human ancestors, that is how.

No human population alive today speaks a language which could reasonably by a linguist be characterised as belonging to subhuman and pre-human hominids. Unlike what certain colonials and non-linguists thought that the linguists would find.

[other answer]

Baggio Wong,

studied at West Island School

Written 7h ago

Tim Doner gives an interesting talk about language origins, and if memory serves, talks about reconstructing (potentially) how old languages sound. It’s worth a listen if you have time.

Tim Doner - Family Matters: A Look at the Indo-European Languages
Polyglot Conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAPQEx3tgDQ

Essentially, again, this is from memory, there’s no way of knowing how old languages sound.

But we can guess.

By comparing similar words in related languages, it’s possible to deduce how certain syllables are constructed and pronounced.

But I’m by no means knowledgeable - the video presents the topic in a really interesting way.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You have a problem.

If the Bible is true, Proto-Indo-European can’t have been spoken in 4000 BC (a modern Creationist would consider that finds dated to 4000 BC are misdated due to a lower carbon 14 content back then). Unless PIE were the language given by God to Adam, but theologically, Hebrew is lots likelier.

If on the other hand Evolution is true, you haven’t answered the question, as there is no chance Proto-Indo-European can have been spoken by the earliest humans about 100 000 years or 200 000 years earlier than Proto-Indo-European in 4000 BC.

Baggio Wong

Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah, that seems like very specialized knowledge on the topic. I didn’t know. Thanks for the addendum. And, no, I don’t have an answer the the question, I don’t really know myself, so I can’t definitively answer per se, I’m just pointing to a video I watched a long time that might be interesting. :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you very much, if it is the video I think it is, I liked it too.

It is just that it is about a language group which started out much more recently than the earliest humans.

I am just watching another one, on a related topic.

J'aime le chloka

Ce matin, je suis allé chez des gens qui ont un cyber, et la musique n'était pas celle d'ordinaire d'en Inde, c'était beaucoup plus rhythmé, sérieux et ... harmonieux, quoique belliqueux.

J'ai demandé, et on vient de me confirmer que c'était du Mahabharata.

Disons, le chloka est un bon moyen d'éviter l'oubli des mots par méprise. Une fois qu'on apprend un poème avec son mètre, il est un peu plus ancré que si c'était de la prose, car il est ancré par le sens et par le son.

Donc, les erreurs qui se trouvent dans le Mahabharata ne sont pas question d'ineptitude de transmission une fois fait le poème. Plutôt la transmission entre idolâtres avant le poème, peut-être aussi des ajouts ou délésions décidées délibérément, mais dscrètement. Mais pas le simple oubli.

D'ailleurs, je viens de faire un petit effort en latin, et de contenu chrétien, en chloka:

Qui vult et amat animo

Pervenerit in omne quod

Proposuit sibi faci

Mali vel boni et intime :

Effectus autem in alios

Aliasque et iam intra res

Aliquando prohibitur

A rebus quae ad extra sunt.

On utilise les élisions comme dans la versification antique "boni et intime" a cinq syllabes, pas six, "iam intra res" en a trois (bogne ète ine-ti-mé ... yine-tra réce).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy
St Paul le Premier Hermite
10.I.2017 Peut-être pas très bien, à la fois en latin, en chloka et en théologie morale, mais c'est aussi un premier pour le chloka.

I analysed the phonetics of seven phrases

I

Seul artiste à avoir affiché complet pendant deux ans, plus d'un mois à l'avance, au Point Virgule, Fary revient dans les huit salles qui ont marqué sa fulgurante ascension.

II

I have just mentioned a distinction between the industrial revolution and the scientific revolution. The distinction is not clear-edged, but a useful one, and I ought to try to define it now.

III

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolant Belgae, alteram Aquitani, tertiam qui eorum lingua Celti nostra autem Galli vocantur.

IV

Et ëarello utúlien ... Ambarmetta.

[Sorry, JRRT-fans, it is more than ten years since I finished the trilogy last time, and I no longer know the oath of Elendil by heart!]

V

Va piensero, sull'ali dorate ...

[And yes, my grasp on the text of this most known choral from Nabucco is similarily deficient!]

VI

De' va' en lørda'saften, jeg sad o' vente' deg.

[De bogstæver der ikke har tilsvarende lyd i min udtale er blevne erstattete med apostrof.]

VII

En un pequeño pueblo de la Mancha, de cuyo nombre no deseo recordarme ...

[Los hispanizantes tienen que perdonarme, si el texto es erroneo aquí, es una retraducción del sueco.]

And here are the results, counting Nasals and Liquids as one group and unifying clusives, fricatives and affricates as "Obstruents" (also some wavering whether yod is to count as a vowel in Spanish or as a Liquid in Danish).

	Vowels	Obstruents	Liquids & Nasals	Records
English	44%	36.3%	19.8%
French	45%	36%	18.9%	Low for L/N
Latin	48.2%	29.4%	22.3%
Quenya	50%	19.2%	30.8%	H for V, L/N, L for O
Italian	47.6%	28.5%	23.8%
Danish	43.3%	36.6%	20%	L for V, H for O
Spanish	48.1%	24%	27.7%

Now, French being lowest on Liquids and Nasals might surprise, but Nasals here means Nasal Consonsonants. Remembre that French eliminates so many Nasal Consonants and turns previous Vowel into a Nasal Vowel instead. And Nasal Vowels (for French and for endings in Latin, as per restored pronunciation) count as vowels.

So here are the lists, from lowest to highest:

Vowels

Danish, English, French, Italian, Latin, Quenya

Obstruents

Quenya, Spanish, Italian, Latin, French, English, Danish

Liquids and Nasals

French, English, Danish, Latin, Italian, Spanish, Quenya

Quenya is outstanding, but remember, I have not done any Greek or Finnish here, so overall Quenya is probably not that outstanding. Probably Hawaian has fewer obstruents and more liquids and nasals and vowels than even Quenya./HGL

PS, the phrase in Middle High German here has some properties which are noteworthy:

Uns ist in alten mæren/wunders vil geseit/von heleden lobebæren/von grôzer arebeit...

It had 39.39% vowels (record low), but also obstruents equal to nasals and liquids, 30.3% each. Highest liquid/nasal contant second to only Quenya./HGL

Quesnel - non merci!

Même certains protestants auraient leurs difficultés avec lui.

Dom Guéranger a beau être un liturgiste, il n'est pas si bon historien des protestantismes (au pluriel!) que Bossuet.

Le Protestantisme dont la théorie de grâce et de prédestination correspond le plus à Jansenius et Quesnel (et encore Michel de Bai, un proto-janséniste de Melun - certains pages de l'édition léonine de la Somme donne en notes en bas de page les références aux erreurs condamnées qu'avaient embrassées Bai, Jaanssen et Quesnel), ça correspond au courant du protestantisme autour de Luther et Calvin. Ils furent heureusement contredits par Arminius. Comparer Calvin et Arminius est comme de comparer Quesnel au jésuite Molina. Bien que l'arminianisme fut minoritaire dans son siècle parmi les Protestants, il convient de savoir que les Baptistes, en majorité, sont Arminiens et non Calvinistes. On se trompe donc beaucoup sur les Évangélistes si on les compare à ce genre là de Protestantisme que représentent Luther et Calvin. On se trouve également en erreur de fait si on croit qu'un Catholique ayant qqc en commun avec eux - par exemple le créationnisme qui est plus commun parmi les Évangélistes américains que parmi les Calvinistes français - aurait forcément une quelleconque connivance avec les "errores Baii Jansenii et Quesnelli" que l'édition léonine cite si souvent en bas de page. Surtout sur le chapitre de la grâce et prédestination.

Bible en français ... bon, il y avait eu 14 éditions en Haut-Allemand et 4 en Bas-Allemand avant l'édition hérétique par Luther. Il y avait eu une édition castillane de la Bible par un des cardinaux Cisneros ou Ximenes, si ma mémoire ne me trompe pas. Belloc affirme que ce qu'on prend pour l'édition condamnée de Wycliff est en réalité une autre édition catholique de la Bible en anglais.

Une traduction de la Bible en langue vernaculaire peut être une occasion magnifique pour les hérétiques de répendre leurs erreurs avec des mots traduits à travers (par exemple traduire "assemblée, surveillant, ancien, serviteur" au lieu de transcriber "église, évêque, prêtre, diâcre", ou affaiblir la salutation angélique, ou ajouter un "solus" ou un "sola" dans un endroit où St Paul ne l'a pas mis sous prétexte de sauvegarder le génie nationale de la langue allemande - les deux exemples là sont à propos l'édition erronnée de Luther et sur des points où il a défendu sa traduction erronnée dans une lettre ouverte encore préservée appelée "Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen", dont la lecture m'a avisé de sa malhonnêteté), mais ça peut également être l'occasion et parfois une occasion nécessaire de mettre de l'orthodoxie catholique dans les mains des fidèles. Tel est par exemple le cas des Bibles Douay-Rheims (notez la vieille orthographe des deux villes françaises) et son commentaire rédigé par Haydock (dont un prôche avait été martyrisé sous Élisabeth), qui souvent fait appel à des commentateurs de catholicité irréprochable. Pour le Nouveau Testament je cite volontier Worthington et Witham, deux évêques in partibus qui depuis le collège de Douai ont organisé la mission catholique en Angleterre, Écosse et Irlande pour les âmes demeurées ou redevenues fidèles.

Notez que le commentaire Haydock auquel je fais souvent référence est tout aussi "bibliciste", c'est à dire tout aussi inerrantiste à propos la Sainte Bible que les Young Earth Creationists dans le camp protestant. J'ai trouvé Kent Hovind en accord avec Duhamel à propos les guerroyers et les chars des Syriens ("dix guerroyers par char", ce que Hovind explique par le fait qu'ils prenaient des relèves).

Mais avoir une Bible en vernaculaire n'implique pas qu'on doive l'écouter en verniculaire dans la Sainte Messe. Et encore moins les mots qui sont l'Ordo plutôt que Temporale et Sanctorale.

Inversement, vouloir la Messe Tridentine n'a normalement pas comme corrollaire de vouloir manquer à l'inerrantisme quand à la Sainte Écriture. Surtout pas de nos jours quand celle-ci est tellement attaquée à causes des prétendues erreurs. On a le droit de ne pas avoir lu dans la Bible ce qui s'oppose à la théorie de l'Évolution, mais une fois qu'on l'a lu - et les évolutionnistes eux-mêmes s'empressent à mettre les passages à la disposition des élèves, ne fût-ce que pour mieux faire éclater le génie de Darwin, on est obligé de croire ces passages. On n'a pas le droit de leur préférer la théorie de l'évolution, et si on aurait théoriquement le droit de chercher une harmonisation, on ne doit pas le pousser à l'absurde, et encore moins prétendre que les Catholiques qui s'y opposent soient des Protestants.

Quesnel a un autre côté. Il pose, non seulement le Concile au-dessus du Pape mais aussi le synode diocésain au-dessus de l'évêque. Un Orthodoxe pourrait être en accord avec l'un*, mais il ne pourrait jamais être en accord avec le démocratisme de vouloir mettre une synode diocésaine au-dessus de l'évêque. Vous savez, un autre "Défenseur de l'Orthodoxie", Grégoire Palamas, non seulement était d'accord avec les Catholiques en ce qui concerne le Péché Originel et l'Immaculée Conception, comme aiment rappeler les Uniates, il était aussi convaincu des privilèges de St Pierre autant que le Pape Innocent III à la nuance près que pour lui chaque évêque ordinaire est successeur St Pierre. Ce qui permet assez directement de défendre la Tradition même au cas qu'on trouve la Papauté contemporaine apostate. Ce que font certains Catholiques Traditionnels. Sans de mettre les autres évêques de la même diocèse, les chorévêques ou évêques auxiliaires, successeurs des 12 apôtres, ni les simples curés, successeurs des 72 apôtres, sur le même pied que leur évêque. Donc, un Orthodoxe qui essayerait de condamner la Mouvance des Catholiques Traditionnels serait en désaccord avec Grégoire Palamas là-dessus.

Je ne connais pas exactement l'endroit où un défenseur de l'infallibilité papale prétend qu'une lacune entre papes pourrait se produire jusqu'à vingt ou trente ans avant l'élection valide d'un nouveau, je sais qu'un texte comme ça existe, mais je ne suis pas sûr de l'auteur, si c'était Cardinal Pie ou Merry del Val ou un autre, ni sur la date de sa rédaction, avant ou après les définitions sur entre autres choses "perpetuos successores".

Et ensuite, je retrouve ce texte après tellement de temps, que j'ai oublié contre quoi c'est que j'argumentais.** Par contre, je clos ici.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Étienne Proto-Martyr
26.XII.2016

* Ma mémoire doit être erronée, ou encore le récit que j'ai lu l'était. Pape St Zacharie, c'était avant - même une siècle avant. D'où le fait que j'ai mis la parenthèse entre signes de citation et que je la redonne ici: ("quoique Photius lui-même, qu'ils vénèrent comme Défenseur de l'Orthodoxie, posait le Pape Zacharie au-dessus du Concile de Constantinople en 869") ** En partie probablement contre une reproche que mon attirance pour certains baptistes en tant que crétionnistes le serait pour une théologie à la Quesnel - ce qui n'est pas le cas.

What does Newgrange Suggest to me? Was Lugos a Celtic Pharao?

Here is first a link to Barry Cunliffe's St Patrick Day lecture on Celts

Barry Cunliffe: Who Were the Celts?
BYU Department of Anthropology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8FM9nMFbfI&t=3986s

And then one to my comments on it:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Barry Cunliffe's St Patrick Day's Lecture on Celts
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/12/on-barry-cunliffes-st-patrick-days.html

Where I state the following:

52:54

The great megalithic tombs ...

4500 BC
3500 BC

According to my Fibonacci modelling of C14 rise, this looks like this:

2420 av. J.-Chr. 76,66562 % + 2200 ans, 4620 av. J.-Chr.
2241 av. J.-Chr. 86,26541 % + 1200 ans, 3441 av. J.-Chr.

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html

So, 2420 BC to 2241 BC is the period you are talking about, and I wonder, does that affect your model significantly? 

57:25

You mentioned 6000 BC.

Here is my recalibration for c. 6500:

2599 av. J.-Chr. 62,75068 % + 3850 ans, 6449 av. J.-Chr.

(same link)

Here is the thing. 2599, 2420, 2241 BC are not long after Babel.

On the other hand, a 2241 misdated as 3500 BC is still shortly before Early Dynastic Egypt as usually dated. Limit is 3100 BC.

And since 3100 BC is between 3441 BC and 2792 BC, this would, if 3100 BC was carbon dated, be like this:

"2241 av. J.-Chr."

"86,26541 % + 1200 ans, 3441 av. J.-Chr."

Mid point 2151 BC

related to mid point 3116 BC

"2062 av. J.-Chr."

"91,58056 % + 730 ans, 2792 av. J.-Chr."

So, 3500 BC to 3100 BC is a lapse of 400 years.

But 2241 BC to 2151 BC is a lapse of only 100 years. Could the Pharaonic dynasties of Egypt have started with sth Celtic or pre-Celtic related to Newgrange?

A hint is here : Egyptian paganism and Celtic paganism alike are sunworshippers. And where Newgrange is, is Ireland, where Ireland is, you have Lugh Lamh Fáda as a sungod and one of the Túatha* Dé Danann, the people of the goddess Dana.

Even more funny, the Tuatha Dé Danann are said to be connected to Newgrange:

"During the medieval period, Newgrange and the wider Brú na Bóinne Neolithic complex gained various attributes in local folklore, which was often connected to figures from wider Irish mythology. The monuments of the Brú were thought of by some as being the abode of the supernatural Tuatha De Danann, whilst others considered them to be the burial mounds of the ancient kings of Tara."

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

What if the folklore was right on both accounts?

Since it happens that men are "made into gods", but also that more powerful rules peter out into less powerful either dynasties or power centres, it is possible that some powerful ruler of a sungod-relative (roughly Inka or Pharao type) settled here soon after Babel, and then was deified, while the kingship of Tara and the traditions about gods continued independently, both related to Newgrange.

And since Egypt started being dynastic and pharaonic only after this time, it is possible that this is where David Rohl's Falcon Tribe was rehearsing the take over they later did in Egypt.

So, suppose kings like Dagda and Lugos were in their time or soon after worshipped as gods, but also left a power centre in Tara, and then left for Egypt.

One implication to solidify it would be linguistic influence.

It seems Irish is a VSO language like Coptic and sometimes Hebrew - but are there words also linkable? I don't know.

Another implication might be genetic similarities - and some have dated a certain Y-chromosome phylum from Tutankhamon and included lots of Irish in it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Ember Friday of Advent
and Sts Ananias, Azarias and Misael
16.XII.2016

* It is funny that there are three language groups which have the tuath gloss : Celtic or at least the Irish branch, as witness the word, Germanic with Norse þioð, and Baltic, with Lithuanian Tautas.