What are Criteria of Accepting Divinity in a Revelation?

I met this on a site* dedicated to Ahmadiyas. I think they are a false religion, they are not Catholic. But have a look at their criteria, it is even so interesting:

Ahmad even offered a prize of 10,000 rupees to anyone who could refute the book’s arguments and give even one-fifth of these proofs in favour of their own position – a prize that was never collected. In fact, the book even won the praise of Maulvi Muhammad Husain Batalvi – a man who would become Ahmad’s most bitter enemy. Of the book, Batalvi exclaimed,

“It is well known that Satanic suggestions are mostly false but not one of the revelations received by the author of Braheen e Ahmadiyya have been proved false up to this day. These cannot therefore be considered Satanic suggestions. Can any Muslim follower of the Quran believe that Satan can be given knowledge, like the Prophets and the angels, of that which is hidden so that none of his disclosures should lack truth”

(Ishaat-us Sunnah Vol. VII no. 6 June/August 1884 pp. 169-170)?

I suppose this is also one of the arguments used by followers of a French doctor who became a Muslim in Egypt. I e, before Maurice Buccaille and Ahmad, this was already a commonplace among Muslims.

There is a problem. Satan is a fallen angel. He was not ignorant more than all other angels before he fell. He has gained knowledge since then:

• By what he has been able to observe himself.
• By what God has revealed to him.
• By what he is told by the demons under him.
• By what he is told by lost souls going down to him in Hell.
• By being a good mathematician and logician.

A strict foreknowledge or future contingents he has not in himself, only from the Lord he rebelled against, from God.

Therefore a prophecy about future events if stated as categorically going to be true and yet concerned with contingents, not with when the moon shall rise on such a date if no miracle intervenes, but like who shall live and who shall die, what side will win, and a few more like that, Satan does not know, and if it be hundred percent true, if it be sufficiently specific, so as to rule out guesses from probabilities masquerading as prophecy, if it contains no doctrinal error against previously revealed Divine Doctrine, then one must conclude it is from God and not from Satan.

But this is not the case with the prophecies of Apollo. Satan did not know beforehand that Oedipus would kill his father and for years live in a false, incestuous, but still tragically fertile "marriage" to his mother. But he knew how to tempt Oedipus to these things, and step one was making him ignorant of his real parents. That he could only accomplish by tempting them, which he did by false prophecy. Then he made sure the prophecy should come true, by further temptations to him.

He could probably from signs know something about Oedipus' genetic setup, as he had also observed the characters of Acrisius and Iocaste. So he could make a guess about the hastiness with which Oedipus would respond to certain temptations. And it worked.

Now, Buccaille seems to think, if the Qoran showed where the corpse of the Pharao had sunk in the Red Sea, it must be from the true god. No, such knowledge is certainly within Satan's capability.

Or if Muhammad knew before anyone else that the earth was round as a globe or before very recent astronomy that the Sun has an orbit around itself, that must be from the true god. No, every angel knows the true cosmology. Not every angel wants to show it correctly. And the part of earth being round as a globe was not miraculous knowledge in Muhammad's time, if the word even means that, since it was known by Greeks and remained knowledge among Christians - not all but some - that the earth was round as a globe. Plus a globe is hardly egg shaped, the earth is rather shaped like an orange. But bourtiqalii would of course reefer to the colour.

And the orbits of Sun and Moon, there is no detail given, and it can very well have been referring to their orbits around earth. Which as a Tychonian Geocentric I accept, on reasoning about main probability and about the supposed proofs for the contrary, but which would not have been beyond Satan's power to know about. So, whether that detail was about the one or the other, Satan would have known them.

It is absolute rubbish to claim “It is well known that Satanic suggestions are mostly false". On the contrary, they are often very much true, except for one little detail or two that gives away the falsity of the whole - and of the parts that one has no knowledge to test as yet.

In Evolution and Heliocentrism, there is so much wrong, that though it was Satan's plan these should be believed, he must have left a lot of room to mere human clumsiness in their elaboration - no need at all for them to be in every detail inspired by him.

The parents of Cyrus did not know about the prophecy of Isaiah, made centuries earlier, since they were not Jews it is not very likely they had knowledge of the prophecy, there is no evidence it was available in Persian. And the prophecy of Emmanuel, St Joseph could theoretically have manipulated it by calling the Son of God precisely Emmanuel, but he obeyed a voice that seemed to falsify it, adn called him Jesus. But still, Jesus, which is a correct Greek transcription of Yehshua, does mean everything that Emmanuel means. El means Yah, means the Lord God. Shua means helps, and that is implied in Emmanu, which literally means among us.

And in Isaiah 11, Isaiah foretold what would be made by the Messiah, once his tomb had become glorious through his resurrection: union of Judah and Ephraim - realised as the Church of Samaria was the first suffragan Church to the Church of Jerusalem. Conquest of Edom; Moab and Ammon - realised as the Church converted the peoples of Jordan. Conquest (in somewhat clouded words) of Mesopotamia and Egypt - well, you do have the Copts of Egypt and the Assyrian Christians of Mesopotamia belonging or having beloed to the Christian Church - and some of them still, correctly so, in union with Rome.**

But such really miraculous foreknowledge is lacking in the Qoran.

However, Buccaille claimed the Bible contained some falseness, giving it away as not from God. This is mainly on three items:

• He claims Holy Bible considered the Earth as flat, which is disproven. Now, Holy Scripture does not give that word as a description of Earth. It does give a description of circles in Isaiah, and of four corners. These taken together go well with the fact that the main landmass, called variously "Old World" or "Eurasia with Africa" does have four corners and these are on a globe.
• He claims Holy Bible considers the Earth as stationary, and he considers this disproven. Here I do agree the Bible has passages with this implication and even directly describing it, but then I do not agree Geocentrism were disproven.
• He claims Holy Bible gives a precise timeframe, excluding the Evolution, which he thinks is proven. I do agree the Bible does give such a time frame, but I do not at all agree it has been disproven by evolution.

In each of these cases I think God showed foreknowledge about what our present culture would be falsely thinking. He gave the Bible as a cure, to the specifically modern errors as to any others, and as Buccaille shows, the Qoran does not contain this valuable medicine. He even showed a difference in dosation. Flat earth would not be believed in vicious contexts, but it would be believed that the Bible taught it. The real text is such that the conclusion is avoidable. Heliocentrism and Evolution would be believed in very wicked and vicious contexts - from Giordano Bruno to the Communists. Hence, the Bible directly teaches the contrary.***

To return from Buccaille to Ahmad, let it be noted that the reward was given in rupees, and that this would not have interested very many Christians around the world. It was probably not known except to Muslims in India. And these, perhaps even Muslims anywhere, were not able to refute it. But a Christian would have been. So far, I have not read it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Mary Magdalen
22-VII-2014

*- See more at: Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
http://www.muslimsforpeace.org/hazrat-mirza-ghulam-ahmad/#sthash.U0Brjz2B.dpuf

** Perhaps not with the right Pope, though.

*** It also directly teaches the forgiveness of the adulteress - on condition she sin no more. As reproof against Muslims who think every adultery must be punished, as reproof against laxists who think one can commit and continue knowingly throughout life an adulterous relation and still not even risk going to Hell.

Pourquoi n'y a-t-il pas un Évangile écrit par Jésus-Christ, Lui-même?

Très simple. L'Évangile est le récit des actions de Jésus.

Or, il y a eu des rois séculiers qui ont décrit leurs propres actions. César Auguste, sur le Monument d'Ankara décrit sa carrière, chose biensûr su par Notre Seigneur. Il y a un autre monument par un roi Chanaanéen, où le roi se vante de la fainéance des autres, et du fait que lui-même a commencé à faire des choses. Cet orgueil de la vantardise sur les monuments doit avoir été un peu dégoûtant pour Dieu, et pour Notre Seigneur, parce qu'Il est Dieu. Donc, dans sa forme humaine Il ne se vante pas.

Donc, Il a dû laisser à d'autres le souci d'écrire son Évangile./HGL

Mark Shea Somewhat Off on Muslims

1) deretour : Good Arthur was a Christian King, 2) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Mark Shea Somewhat Off on Muslims, 3) New blog on the kid : Why we Christians do not Punish Raped Women as Adulteresses

Simcha Fisher on the Odious Pewsitter Site
July 15, 2014 By Mark Shea http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/07/simcha-fisher-on-the-odious-pewsitter-site.html

In parts of the Islamic world, women can get horsewhipped and killed for the “crime” of getting raped. That’s because, in certain barbarous parts of the world, all that matters is that the female organism underwent the act of coitus, forced or consensual, to incur ritual guilt with very real penalties. It’s a mindset that comes from the Stone Age. Even by the time of the Patriarchs (particularly Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar) some dim sense that the male in the relationship might have some teensy weensy bit of responsibility to bear in the maltreatment of women.

I am, of course, very far from recommending this Muslim mindset.

Or this part-of-the-Muslims' mindset.

However, the attack on stone age as responsible for it is really unwarranted. Part of the stone age peoples are famous and rightly so, for good paintings. Part of them are famous or rather infamous for having cracked open bones of other men and sucked their marrow. Neither exploit is very likely to be repeated soon by Muslims. Ask anyone in France about Cro-Magnon and Néanderthal.

None of their either recorded (none, perhaps,) or even reconstructed histories suggests that they stoned women for adultery. Some of their reconstructed histories claim their women lived in permanent adultery, so it was not a stoning offense. Otherwise, stones would not exactly have lacked, particularly flint stones. However, so far no stone age woman has been found covered in stones or surrounded from stones from waist upward on skeleton.

And, as the stone age theory about this mindset of some Muslims is wrong, I suppose some other explanation is right.

For instance this one:

• Sharia Rule : a woman getting raped is stoned.
  • Because she is supposed to have learned from very early fights with her brother how to resist.
  • Because Muslim men have been taught not to rape when woman resists.
  • Because therefore a woman having been raped is supposed not to have properly resisted. A bit like in Old Testament rape victims not crying out when in the city were stoned for being culpable for adultery or for playing the harlot in her father's house.
• Sharia Misrule per se : this rule is applied where reasons for it very clearly do not apply:
  • When the woman has not been taught how to defend herself,
  • When she tried to defend herself but her strength was inadequate.
  • When the rapist did not show the usual Muslim upbringing of desisting from rape if resisted. Including, but not limited to the case when rapists were many.
• Their defense of Sharia Misrule (as I can reconstruct it):
  • A Raped Woman has no honour : why believe a dishonoured person about anything, including what is supposed to be their defense - or especially what is supposed to be their defense?
  • Sharia Rules are divine, even when there are human reasons for them not applying (what an idea of God is this?)
  • Rules must follow the most common case, not the exception (the most common case being, in their experience, that a woman who really does not want to be raped is not raped).
  • Judges must follow the rule and the facts, they are there to judge the guilt according to the law, not to judge the law (even, apparently, when it is inadequate, or there is a case not foreseen in it).

That is the kind of real explanation for some Muslims stoning raped women that I can find, but the "Stone Age mentality surviving" is, I regret to observe, totally spurious.

And the "Stone Age mentality regrettably surviving" explanation helps to demonise Muslims as "the other", while taking any kind of analysis of this other explanation which is obviously more complex and which I suppose to be more real, would perhaps lead a few of their critics to want to rid Western administration of the kind of tares that I here attribute to some Muslims, but on many points not at all exclusively to Muslims. Some of the items can be found in Kant, and as the Kantian Hannah Arendt was shocked to find out, Eichmann was a Kantian. Some of the things found in Kant go further back than that in Prussia. And some of that might even go back to Crusaders coming from Holy Land, having had contact with Muslims, and meeting Prussians (in the original sense of the word). You know the Teutonic Order that beat the Prussians and tried to beat already Christian Poles, and already partly Christian Lithuanians, and who failed in Tannenberg, Grunwald, Žalgiris.*

So far I have not read what Simcha Fisher has had to say about the matter. But since Mark Shea had read him and could come up with the Stone Age theory, I do suspect Simcha Fisher was not far from the Stone Age theory either. As said, it is spurious.

With all this in mind, this kind of Muslim attitude really does harm, it really is opposed to the Gospel of Christ, and when some Muslims claim the Gospel had been forged, they would point to the forgiven adulteress.

Of course, they are very wrong.

I think Christ writing on the sand was the third time God wrote the commandments on rock. The divine finger on more solid rock, twice in the time of Moses, the human finger in sand, same text, 1500 years later. Some exegetes have said that Christ wrote the sins of those about to stone her. I think that even the mention of the commandments - where "thou shalt not commit adultery" is not first - one after another, as well as the words about him "who is without sin," were enough to make quite a few of the accusers realise themselves they could not stone her, and the rest to get away after seeing their more respected elders had not dared.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Our Lady of Mount Carmel
16-VII-2014

* Yesterday was 604 anniversary of that battle:

Lietuviška Vikipedija : Žalgirio mūšis
http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BDalgirio_m%C5%AB%C5%A1is

Polska Wikipedia : Bitwa pod Grunwaldem
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_pod_Grunwaldem

Deutsche Wikipädie : Erste Schlacht bei Tannenberg
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlacht_bei_Tannenberg_(1410)

English Wikipædia : Battle of Grunwald
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald

And that is when Mark Shea's article is from.

Tip for any fan fiction writers on Susan Pevensie after Last Battle

Janice Hardy's Fiction University : 5 Essential Questions to Ask When Writing Your Protagonist
http://blog.janicehardy.com/2014/07/5-essential-questions-to-ask-when.html

5. What has been the most significant event in my protagonist's life up to now?

Well, anyone telling what happened to Susan after Last Battle would have to include - not necessarily agreeing on order - the items:

• Being to Narnia
• Denying Narnia
• Losing those not denying Narnia in a train accident.

If the most interesting story is in the past, you are telling the wrong story.

This is of course not advice totally directed to people who have already told that story or who are building - as fan fiction writers - on a story already written.

In our case (I am just one of many writing the continuation of Last Battle) we can hope to make our story AS interesting as those items, but we cannot write those items, since they were already written by C. S. Lewis. We can of course tell how, in England, she reacted to the loss, which is not told in The Last Battle./HGL

Dating History (with Some Help from AronRa)

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Dating History (with Some Help from AronRa), 2) Creation vs. Evolution : Well, how about Mark Isaak? Too lazy to do his homework?, 3) Challenge for Fellow Young Earth Creationists, 4) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on AronRa's very poetic An Archaeological Moment in Time (plus something on "credentialism")

That Caesar died 44 B Chr, Ides of March, is not hard to figure out.

Ides of March was noted, which year ab Urbe Condita was noted.

Some Christians have quarrelled over the year in which Christ was born, but if 753 ab Urbe Condita is not totally unanimously accepted, it is within a decade spanning that year that Christ was born.

Now, AronRa has tried to get to another date. And on this particular day, Sunday, October 23rd, 4004 BC ...

An Archaeological Moment in Time
http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/OneDayinArchaeology.html

If his Atheistic community had had its roots among Orthodox or Catholics as opposed to Protestants, he might have taken instead Sunday 20th of March, 5199 BC. That being a fairly traditional Catholic date of Creation of Light on Earth. You see: he has a particular agenda for doing so: ... no one alive would have believed that this was the first day, or that the Earth had just been created that morning.

Which he would obviously have said even with 5199 BC, though he would have taken other examples.

But even the examples he did take, the date given would be pre-Flood and his examples usually post-Flood. This means that even with the examples given, he would be misdating things. Which brings us to how his examples are dated.

I

On this particular day, the Kurgan were already an ancient people. They were a Proto-Indo European culture, a link between the Dravidians, the Aryans, and the Barbarians of Europe. ... On this day, they live in several fortified towns in the steppes of what would later become Russia. ...

Or Ukraine. Whichever. Either way, it is very well to note they were not an EARLY Indoeuropean culture, but a or the PROTO-Indo-European one. Why is this important? Because, in Indo-European studies, PROTO-Indo-European is the language which has not been attested. Nobody has heard it spoken by native speakers, unlike French or English. Nobody has read texts written by native speakers who wrote, as Caesar wrote Latin or Alfred wrote West Saxon. It is reconstructed.

Its relation to the Kurgan culture is also reconstructed. As there are no writings in PROTO-Indo-European, the fact that Kurgan culture is supposed to be PROTO-Indo-European means they did not write. Or we have found no writings identified as written by them.

This means that the Kurgan culture cannot be historically dated the normal way.

A Christian could of course say as I do: it is likely to be post-Flood, it is certain to be pre-Russian, so it was somewhere between probably 2957 BC and certainly the times of Rurik who died 879 Anno Domini. It could be narrowed down especially on the latter end. But perhaps not much by the purely historical method. When we say Kurgans were not inhabited by Huns or Alans a few centuries before Rurik, we are presuming thereby also it was earlier than them. But we have too few historical informations about them to be able to make either assertion on historical grounds.

So, we are left with radiometric dating. But there may be a limit to such.

A Creationist, as I am, will hold that the Flood was 2957 BC. He will also hold that both Mammoths, probably, and most Fossils, therefore also most Dinosaur Fossils, are from the Flood. This would mean that if radiometric dating were correct, for an age so close to Creation (this is precisely, as I will try to show, where a doubt is reasonable for the main method), most Fossils were 5000 Before Present. No. With Mammoths it is often 20.000 or 40.000, sometimes only 10.000 BP. And Dinosaur bones are usually not carbon dated, BUT when they are carbon dated against this prejudice against carbon dating them, they are often 20.000 to 50.000 years old.

"Carbon age" 20.000 - 50.000 years thus equals real age 5000 years ago. What is wrong?

The main Creationist theory on why carbon dates are off is that the relevant isotope of carbon was scarcer in the very early atmosphere, 7200 years ago, or even not yet present at all. There is not one factor which keeps the Carbon 14 content in the atmosphere stable, unlike for non-radioactive gasses like Nitrogen. There are two different factors, opposed. Cosmic radiation augments carbon 14. Radioactive decay of Carbon 14 diminishes Carbon 14. Those processes are often thought to be equal by now (or roughly so) and to have been so for millions and billions of years before the origin of organic remains datable by carbon 14. But this is an assumption. We Christians, due to inerrancy of the Bible, cannot go along with it. If we are right, there may well have been a time when the radio-carbon content was building up, and was thus RADICALLY less than in present atmosphere, but the scientific calculations of ages still depart from assumption it was basically equal to now, which gives RADICALLY way too old ages.

And this is then how Kurgan culture ends up as being in place in 4004 BC.

If any remains - say a skin or a woven fabric - are from there dated to 6000 years ago, seeing that even 5000 years ago date as "20.000 - 50.000 years ago", we must expect the samples dated as "6000 years ago" to be very much younger. Before this essay in refutation of AronRa's essay ends, he will have given us, and I will have unlocked for Christians, a valuable clue as to how much.

II

On this same day, people already in Ireland were building great, megalithic tombs which now populate the Irish countryside. They also constructed cliffside fortresses, and they had brewers serving beer. Even in the "new stone age", beer and wine were already commercially available in most of the known world.

BUT they did not write. So, once again, the dating of their society is as much, for the modern scholars, a question of the Carbon 14 fallacy as the Kurgans.

Obviously I have no beef with beer and wine being there in the new stone age, since it was post-Flood (some centuries of technological loss after Tower of Babel) and hence after Noah's discovery of wine. By then, the idea of doing something similar with grain or porridge or bread would have been tempting. As my grandfather was a distiller, I have no moral beef with this either.

This was also the time when those who would become Druids began to devise plans for even bigger, more impressive structures.

• Problem one: AronRa does not know if the Callanish and Stone Henge structures were by the religion later known as Druids.
  
  
• Problem two, merely about clarity: does he mean these megaliths were built then (and what carbon dating procedure would indicate that, seeing that stones have no carbon in them), or that "proto-Druids" as he imagines them to be were making as yet not realised plans for later (same problem) megaliths?
  
  
• Problem three: indeed, in absense of proven dating for the megaliths - but that is a point I could take correction on - how do we know they were not pre-Flood?

III

Obviously, Ireland and Russia/Ukraine are both speaking Indo-European languages now. There is a real linguistic unity between them, which can be attested from the at present available texts (including talk) when analysing word by word and meaning by meaning how many correspondences there are.

According to AronRa's theory (which is not his but pretty standard) or Gimbutas' theory (which is where it coes from), Kurgans were the Urheimat or part of it, of the Indo-European languages, and Ireland only got its Indo-European language much later.

This is not attested by texts from the date we are talking about.

One could imagine:

• either Ireland or Russia or some place in between or even India or Scandinavia or the Baltic was the Urheimat, from which the language spread, as much as English around the globe has spread from England,
  
  
• or Ireland and Russia and places in between etc. were speaking different languages which later became parts of Indo-European language unity by mutual smoothing out,
  
  
• or Ireland and Russia both spoke each their own language and a common tongue devised to accommodate for translaters, from which situation various Indo-European language families may have emerged EITHER as common tongue strongly influenced by local ones, OR as a local one or a set of local ones (I might be especially suspecting of Germanic and Celtic here) heavily influenced by the common one.

Unlike the language history of British Isles after Latin alphabet and Ogham were available to document (and Runes too), which makes this type of guesses fairly educated about English and Welsh sharing the word "tad/dad" because of neighbourhood, or English and Irish sharing the word "aithir/father" due to Indo-European unity before recorded writing, we have no such documentation about the linguistic situation in the years leading up to this situation, including the archaeological age here discussed, though given a false date.

By the way, one favourite of mine to cast in the role of common tongue is Nesili. It is also known as Hittite. Not to be confused with Hattic, which was spoken in Hattusha before it was destroyed and later rebuilt by speakers of Nesili, and which in Nesili is called Hattili. As the Cuneiform spelling was phonetically imprecise (Alexandros given as A-lak-san-du, Apollyonos - genitive - as A-pu-li-a-na-ash), it could even in Empire have covered a variety of pronunciations, and these may later have augmented. And as it was an Imperial language, it may have sucked up lots of vocabulary from provincial languages. On the other hand, CMI or some there would rather follow the usual path, accept Kurgans as Urheimat and identify them, like the later Medes and Persians, also horsetamers, with the posterity of Madan. But the pre-Greek language of presumably Iavan - Greece - seems to have been related to Vedic and Avestic. Which is also Indo-European, like Greek itself.

Dravidian is not an Indo-European language. But AronRa does not really say it either, and the Aryans who - presumedly so - invaded their land in the North were speaking or have by now come to speak Indo-European languages.

IV

By this time, modern men had already been living in Europe for tens of thousands of years,

Misdating both post-Babel spread of humanity and creation very grossly, thanks to the carbon 14 fallacy.

ever since those known as Cro-Magnon replaced the Neandertals.

We do not know if a group really replaced another one. We know that pureblooded Neanderthals are hard to come by, if the statistical analyses of their genome is correct, which has however been disputed, so really we do not know that one either. We do know that on the theory just given there is still 4% of genome in certain Europeans which can only be traced to Neanderthals.

Now they themselves have themselves have also been replaced, divided and absorbed into the new cultures of the area.

Ah, what if part of this process was simply mixing with the people identified as Neanderthals?

But they left their ancient wooden huts behind for archaeologists to find, as well as all their monuments, and their wonderful cave paintings rendered so very long before.

If we Christians are right it was NOT so very long before. Wooden huts would of course in principle be datable by carbon 14 dating, but due to old age of samples, we may well be talking of the carbon 14 fallacy alluded to more than once as previously explained.

But that the - clearly post-Creation and probably post-Flood - paintings are wonderful, this I will not dispute.

If AronRa is totally off on theory of knowledge in questions like these, this does not mean he lacks taste.

V

The great bears and other terrible beasts have all been driven off or killed in the dozens of centuries since. Times have changed dramatically in the last few thousand years.

Ha, I knew he would have offered something different if he had talked about what he supposes Sunday 20th of March 5199 BC was like!

Life in Europe is very different now. Its more secure, and centered around farming where the height of technology at the moment are hand plows crafted in hard wood.

Unlike the geological ages Jurassic and Permian which were simply simultaneous during the Flood in different habitats later getting these different labels, for carbon datable chronologies we resort to squeezing of the time frame.

VI

And on this day, there are people everywhere, some still living in caves in Italy and in Greece, but not living like "cave-men" Hercules and the witch since they're already farming, and making beautiful ceramics, and already developing unique, colorful societies.

I suppose the colourful societies may well have been contemporaneous. If this is so even according to carbon 14 fallacious dating, how much more so will this have been the case once we squeeze the time frame?

By this time, there were also long-houses and lodges erected from Poland through Scandinavia, and the British Isles.

Thoroughly likeable architecture. Wish I had one. With a not too far off library to blog from.

There are even religious temples like this mysterious and already ancient underground necropolis on the island of Malta.

A necropolis is not necessarily a temple. And since Ninus erected paganism to the norm, I will not dispute the claim that there were temples, on the other hand.

VII

Far to the west, in the Americas, most of the native tribesmen still live exactly as their ancestors had for hundreds of generations,

I very much doubt even AronRa would claim direct evidence for hundreds of generations. He is obviously comparing according to the carbon 14 fallacy - but what exactly is he comparing?

American archaeology atrributed to this period is not my forte, and I am not sure it is anyone's, though I might be mistaken.

But having been cut off from the rest of the world for the last 4,000 years or so, their technological development will consequently be a bit behind that of many other nations.

I am glad AronRa is not calling them another humanity, but agrees they were once united to the rest of mankind before thir isolation, as they are now after Coumbus ended it (if not even some before). Now, one part of the idea of getting to the new place might even have been some Amish like misgivings about living in more technointensive and perhaps also more slavery intensive areas.

In Mexico for example, already accomplished farmers have bred a new species of Maize, corn, which will still be a staple thousands of years into the future.

Have grains been dated, or are we speaking of extrapolation from that future much of which is now past?

To the south [of an island still holding mammoths], Japanese craftsmen have already been making their beautiful Jomon pottery for 6,000 years, inspired by the original Chinese craftsmen who've been doing it even longer. These cultures are closely related to the ancestors of the American tribesmen.

We have the pottery, but the 6000 years of Jomon pottery should of course be squeezed radically.

But the ways of the old world have exceeded those of the new, largely because of the early adoption of agriculture and of course international trade.

Sure, unless it was early Americans who wanted to "lag behind". As Amish compared to Modernity.

VIII

The Pithecanthropus people of southern Asia were completely forgotten ages ago, either driven to extinction, or absorbed into a new, and rapidly growing family of men.

How many non-copy full skulls do you even have of Pithecanthropus?

Other races, like the island "hobbits" of Indonesia may be gone by now too, and are perhaps only barely remembered in a dwindling few legends.

Now, here I hear an echo of Robert E. Howard. Legends dwindling? Does not sound like very medieval language, but very much the concept world of late 19th and early 20th Victorian age academia, and academia conscious pop culture. I am not sure that even the great Tolkien may not have used such a phrase. He was not a full scholastic of Paris 1277.

India's legends however will stand the tests of time. ... now they are also composing and rehearsing the first drafts of the legendary oral traditions that will be forever known as the Rig Veda, the foundation of Hinduism, the world’s oldest extant religion.

Rig Veda legendary? C'mon, it is more like ritual and hymns. And "first drafts"? How many such were there? If they were discarded "first drafts" how do you know they existed? And how do you propose to date them?

If Mahabharata had been mentioned, I think the material might already have been transmitted - mostly from pre-Flood memories of wars between Nephelim destroying Nod. And Nod may even geographically be India, or part of it.

IX

[Africa:] Some of whom are already using multi-oared barges to ship their goods to market in the town of Naqada where there is an official form of government. There men are ruled not by tribal chieftans, but by kings.

Egypt.

This brings us to the early calibration of the carbon 14 method. Here I am quoting CMI:

Carbon dating began in the late 1940s and some of the first things to be carbon dated were Egyptian artefacts, including the coffin of Pharaoh Djoser. The date of this pharaoh’s death was already considered to be accurately established, at 2750 BC. We know this date is incorrect because Egypt is a post-Flood civilization and this date precedes the Flood by several hundred years.

CMI : Carbon dating into the future
Letter from Franky P, answer by Andrew Lamb
Published: 24 March 2007 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/carbon-dating-into-the-future

Now, as a Catholic I disagree that 2750 would predate the Flood, on the contrary, it would be about 200 years after the Flood (207 years).

But the theoretical problem stays the same, if he was misdated independently of and previous to carbon dates:

• a) the dating was that of a near halflife, and it is not likely that a correct decay rate can be established without getting at least half the time of a half life by artefact or skeleton having lived at a known date
• b) in Djoser's time carbon 14 may still have been lower than in ours, so that the resulting content in Djoser's coffin was both from decay and from lower carbon 14 content
• c) resulting in a false calibration and false early datings for Egypt and for the whole time period.

X

In Syria, they operate the first large-scale commercial bakeries. And far out in Arabian pastures, the Ubaidis, a Semitic people are establishing a settlement that will become the city of Ur. Here there are complex political systems and city-states forming along the banks of the Tigris / Euphrates. And these people have already set about building the most amazing cities of the ancient world, complete with enormous towers in honor of the elder gods, like Marduk and Inanna.

If so, we are talking about a time after Ninus, and therefore after Abraham lived or close to when he lived. He was born 2015 BC. That is clear from the Bible based Roman Martyrology. Then "Peter the Eater" (Petrus Comestor) adds some dates too about all of this:

In the eleventh year of Abraham, Ninus died, the wife of which Semiramis, in order to rule after him, wedded her own son, whom she had received from Ninus, and bore of him a son, who also amplified Babylonia. In the seventyfifth year of Abraham, he received the promise. In his eightysixth year, Hismael [Ishmael] was born to him. In his hundredth year Isaac was born to him. In his hundred thirtieth year, Sarah died.

[this blog:] What is a Nation? part I [with my selected translations of passages from the Genesis part of Biblia Scholastica.] http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-is-nation-part-i.html

So, gratulations, AronRa has given us a few clues as to extent of modern misdating!

If a bird or a tree or a man lived in the times of Abraham, according to St Jerome's chronology, or even a bit later, perhaps, he or it is likely to be misdated by modern scholars as having been alive at the Creation of Adam, Ussher's chronology. Nice to know. Thank you for the effort, it was partly mistaken but not totally wasted!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Day of St Zenon of Rome,
Martyr along with 10.203 others
9-VII-2014

What is a Nation? part I

Summa Theologica > Supplement of the III Part
Question 41. The sacrament of Matrimony as directed to an office of nature
Article 1. Whether matrimony is of natural law?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5041.htm#article1

Objection 2. Further, that which is of natural law is found in all men with regard to their every state. But matrimony was not in every state of man, for as Tully says (De Inv. Rhet.), "at the beginning men were savages and then no man knew his own children, nor was he bound by any marriage tie," wherein matrimony consists. Therefore it is not natural.

...

Reply to Objection 2. The assertion of Tully may be true of some particular nation, provided we understand it as referring to the proximate beginning of that nation when it became a nation distinct from others; for that to which natural reason inclines is not realized in all things, and this statement is not universally true, since Holy Writ states that there has been matrimony from the beginning of the human race.

So, some nations were living as savages at the start of their existence. But not mankind as a whole. Herein St Thomas Aquinas is totally in agreement with Creation Ministries International. Evolutionists however agree with Tully - Marcus Tullius Cicero. Let us look at one particular word of St Thomas:

referring to the proximate beginning of that nation when it became a nation distinct from others

This notion is very broad. In 1776 the Thirteen Colonies asked (weapons in hand) to be thenceforth considered another nation than the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland. The third of the population that disagreed were often treated badly and had, for instance, to flee to Québec. Much as non-revolutionary French could be fleeing to Belgium about a decade or two later.

But the point is, St Thomas is not saying every nation and language we see today came into existence immediately after Babel. Nor is he denying that nations did come into existence in the days of Peleg. Neither for that matter is the Bible doing so. Hebrews are named after the father of Peleg and Ioctan, but not only do the Jemenites branch off as early as Ioctan, also later you get nations diversifying around Abraham and Lot and their sons. Meanwhile, same thing is happening to Pagan Nations.

Here is one older contemporary of St Thomas writing, Petrus Comestor meaning something like Peter the Eater, and he has quite a lt to say about the main Pagan nations, often incidentally to the Old Testament story:

De dispersione filiorum Noe, et Nemrod.		On the Dispersion of the Sons of Noah, and Nemrod
Redit Moyses ad principium genealogiae Noe dicens: Hae sunt generationes filiorum Noe (Gen. X), et incipit a Japhet minori, ut ultimo loco ponatur Sem, cujus successionem texere intendit. Texuntur autem ex eis septuaginta duae generationes, quindecim de Japhet, triginta de Cham, viginti septem de Sem. Hi tres disseminati sunt in tribus partibus orbis secundum Alcuinum. Sem Asiam, Cham Africam, Japheth Europam sortitus est. Vel expressius dicitur secundum Josephum: Filii Japhet tenuerunt septentrionalem regionem, a Tauro et Amano montibus Ciliciae et Syriae, usque ad fluvium Tanaim, in Europa vero, usque ad Gadira. Filii vero Cham a provincia Syria, et Amano et Libano montibus cunctas terras obtinuerunt, quaecunque ad mare sunt positae, apprehendentes etiam eas, quae usque ad Oceanum sunt, et proprias facientes appellationes. Filii vero Sem usque ad Oceanum seorsum habitant Asiam, ab Euphrate facientes initium.		Moses goes back to the beginning of the Genealogy of Noah, saying: These are the generations of the Sons of Noah (Genesis X), and starts from Japheth, the youngest, so that he can put Shem last, the succession of which he intends to braid. But out of them are braided [or woven] 72 generations, 15 of Japheth, 30 of Cham, 27 of Shem. These three have been disseminated into the three parts of the world, according to Alcuin. Shem got Asia, Cham Africa and Japheth Europe. Or it is more clearly expressed according to Josephus: the sons of Japheth held the Northern region, from mounts Taurs and Amanusin Cilicia and Syria, all the way to the River Don, but in Europe all the way to Gadira [Cadiz?]. But the sons of Cham from the province Syria, and mounts Amanus and Lebanus, got all the lands that are towards the Sea [The Mediterranean], taking also the ones that are towards the [Atlantic] Ocean, and making their own appelations. But the sons of Shem inhabit Asia seperately all the way to the [Indian] Ocean, starting out at the Euphrates.
[Note that Petrus Comestor is identifying the author of Genesis with "Moyses" - in English Moses. Scholastics were as Philosophic as the Enlightenment, but whereas Enlightenment was a Philosophy of scoffing at traditional history, Scholasticism was one of certainty about it. Note also that all of this is in the Old World and even not all of it, so that East Asiatics, Americans, Oceanics, excepting perhaps Papua to Australia are NEWER nations. I consider it possible that "Emperor Jimmu" of the Japanese was none other than Aeneas. At least the Japanese are far newer. But here we are talking of the Old World and of the division of its three parts. And of the oldest parts inhabited by man after the Flood.]
Generationi Sem insistemus, alias transeuntes, hoc tamen addentes, quod Chus dicitur filius Cham, et filius Chus Nemrod, qui coepit primus potens esse in terra, et robustus venator hominum coram Domino, id est exstinctor, et oppressor amore dominandi, et cogebat homines ignem adorare; ab hoc exiit proverbium, ad dicendum de aliquo, quod fortis sit et malus: Quasi Nemrod robustus venator coram Domino. Hoc ideo diximus, quia Methodius dicit hunc fuisse de filiis Hirom filii Sem.		We insist on the "generation" of Shem, passing by the others, but we add this, that Chush is the name of the son of Cham, and the son of Chush is called Nemrod, who first started out to be mighty on earth and a stout hunter of men before the Lord, that is an extinguisher, and an oppressor by love of domination, and he forced men to adore fire; from him stems the byword, to say of someone he is strong and evil: "like Nemrod, a stout hunter before the Lord". We have said this because of this that Methodius says he was of the sons of Hirom the son of Shem.
[Not sure which one is meant by "Hirom." The Latin Vulgate has - now, in the Clementine edition: Filii Sem: Aelam, et Assur, et Arphaxad, et Lud, et Aram. It could be either Aelam or Aram, I think. In the following Petrus Comestor is probably still referring to Methodius, with less distance, but perhaps still some scepticism:]
Quare vero primus coeperit dominari ostendit, agens de quodam filio Noe, de quo non egit Moyses, sic dicens: Centesimo anno tertiae chiliadis natus est Noe filius in similitudinem ejus, et dixit eum Jonithum . Trecentesimo anno dedit Noe donationes filio suo Jonitho, et dimisit eum in terram Ethan, et intravit eam Jonithus usque ad mare orientis, quod dicitur Elioschora, id est solis regio, hic accepit a Domino donum sapientiae, et invenit astronomiam.		But he shows why at first he started to dominate, speaking of a certain son of Noah not mentioned by Moses, saying so: in the hundredth year of the third millennium [after the Flood?] a son was born to Noah in similitude of himself, and he called him Jonithus [Jonathan?] In the threehundredth year Noah gave gifts to his son Jonithus, and sent him into the land Ethann and Jonithus entered into it all the way unto the sea of the East, which is called Helioschora, which is Region of the Sun, he received of the Lord the gift of wisdom and invented astronomy.
Ad quem veniens Nemrod, Gigas decem cubitorum, eruditus est ab eo, et accepit ab eo consilium, in quibus locis regnare coepisset. Jonithus iste futuros quosdam eventus praevidit, et maxime de ortu quatuor regnorum, et occasu eorum per successionem. Quam etiam plane prophetavit Daniel. Et praedixit discipulo suo Nemrod, quod primi regnarent de Cham, de quo Belus descendit, post de Sem Medi, et Persae, et Graeci, post, de Japheth Romani. A quo rediens Nemrod accensus amore dominandi, sollicitavit genus suum de Sem, ut imperaret aliis, quasi primogenitus, sed noluerunt; et ideo transivit ad Cham, qui acquievit, et regnavit inter eos in Babylone, et exinde dictus est de filiis Cham.		To him came Nemrod, a Ten Cubit Giant, was taught by him, and received from him Counsil in which locations he was to start reigning. This Jonithus foresaw some future events, and most of all of the beginning of the four kingdoms and the fall of them in succession. Which succession also Daniel clearly prophesied? And he foretold to his student Nemrod, that the first were to rule of Cham, of whom descends Belus, then of Shem, Medes, Persians, Greeks, then, of Japheth, Romans. From whom Nemrod came back inflamed with love of lording over others, asked for the help of his own of Shem, in order to command others, as he was firstborn, but they would not; and therefore he went over to Cham, who acquiesced, and ruled among them in Babylon, and therefore he is said to be of the sons of Cham.
Sed si vere fuit de filiis Cham, tunc nulla est quaestio quare inter eos regnaverit; hujus exemplo coepit regnare Jectam, vel Jetram, vel Uram super filios Sem, Suphene, vel Sustene super filios Japheth. Narrat autem Philo Judaeus, vel ut alii volunt Gentilis philosophus, in libro Quaestionum super Genesim, quod ex tribus filiis Noe adhuc ipso vivente sunt nati viginti quatuor millia virorum et centum, extra mulieres et parvulos, habentes tres super se duces, quos praediximus.		But if he really was of the sons of Cham, then there is no question at all why it would be among them that he ruled; following his example Jectam, or Jetram, or Uram started to rule over the Sons of Shem, Suphene or Sustene over the Sons if Japheth. But Philo Judaeus tells us, or according to others it is a Pagan Philosopher, in the Book of Questions over Genesis, that of the three sons of Noah, while he was still alive, were born 24100 men, not counting women and as yet small ones, having the three dukes or leaders which we mentioned.
De turre Babylon.		On the Tower of Babel
Post obitum vero Noe, moventes pedes suos ab Oriente, convenerunt duces in unum, in campum Sennaar, et timentes diluvium, consilio Nemrod volentis regnare, coeperunt aedificare turrim, quae pertingeret usque ad coelos, habentes lateres pro saxis, et bitumen pro caemento. Descendit autem Dominus, ut videret turrim (Gen. XI), animadvertit, ut puniret, et ait ad angelos: Venite, et confundamus linguam eorum, ut non intelligat quisque vocem proximi sui. In hac divisione nihil non fecit Deus, quia voces eaedem sunt apud omnes gentes, sed dicendi modos, et formas diversis generibus divisit.		After the Death of Noah, moving their feet from the East, the leaders convened in one place, in the field of Shinear, and fearing [another] Deluge, on the counsel of Nemrod who wanted to rule, started making a Tower, which would reach into the skies, having brick instead of stones and "slime" - asphalt - instead of mortar. But the Lord want down to see the Tower (Genesis XI), took heed to punish and told the angels: come let us confound their tongue, so that each one may not understand the speach of his neighbour. In this divison all was done by God, since the speach is the same in all nations, but the ways of saying things and the forms He divided in diverse kinds.
[Petrus Comestor seems to agree with the book called now Book of Jasher - which is of disputed genuinity even among Jews and not Canonic among Christians - that God was speaking to angels, BUT, unlike that book, he thinks, as is proper that God alone took power over the linguistic faculties of the brains so as to change grammar. He also notes that the Bible uses the words "voces" as speach as in concretely the speach in the language it is put, but when he says "speach is the same in all nations" he uses speach as meaning the faculty common to all men. And the specific language he identifies, like Chomsky, as grammatic system, more precisely as "forms and ways of saying [things]" or morphology and vocabulary - or morphology with vocabulary and syntax. Or, perhaps even, morphology and the broadest range of phraseology, from vocabulary to syntax. A note on the beginning - where had the chiefs of men been living before they came to Sumer? It is said here they came from the East, and that is in the Bible too!]
De hac turri dicit Josephus, quia latitudo erat ita fortissima, ut prope eam aspicientibus longitudo videretur in minus. Dii vero ventos immittentes everterunt turrim, et vocem propriam unicuique partiti sunt. Propterea Babyloniam contigit vocari civitatem. Babel enim Hebraei confusionem appellant. De hac turri meminit sibylla dicens: Cum omnes homines existerent unius vocis, quidam turrim aedificaverunt excelsam, tanquam per eam ascensuri in coelum.		Of this Tower Josephus says, that its breadth was so overly great, that to those looking beside it the length [tallness] was seen into the lesser [as lesser than the breadth?]. But the Gods (!) by sending in winds overthrew the tower, and dealt out to each his own speach. For this sake it happened for the "City" to be called Babylonia. For the Hebrews call confusion Babel. This Tower the Sibyl recalled saying "When all men were of one speach, some erected a high Tower, as if going to ascend into Heaven."
[Proposed emendation:]
De hac turri dicit Josephus, quia latitudo erat ita fortissima, ut prope eam aspicientibus longitudo videretur in minus. Propterea Babyloniam contigit vocari civitatem. Babel enim Hebraei confusionem appellant. De hac turri meminit sibylla dicens: Cum omnes homines existerent unius vocis, quidam turrim aedificaverunt excelsam, tanquam per eam ascensuri in coelum. Dii vero ventos immittentes everterunt turrim, et vocem propriam unicuique partiti sunt.
Of this Tower Josephus says, that its breadth was so overly great, that to those looking beside it the length [tallness] was seen into the lesser [as lesser than the breadth?]. For this sake it happened for the "City" to be called Babylonia. For the Hebrews call confusion Babel. This Tower the Sibyl recalled saying "When all men were of one speach, some erected a high Tower, as if going to ascend into Heaven. But the gods by sending in winds overthrew the tower, and dealt out to each his own speach."
[Explanation: Josephus was no polytheist. He can have spoken of Elohim as if it meant "God and the Angels" or the text here can be corrupt and need an emendation - either due to manuscript (though I suppose there were many such around while the work was used and ought to be many still) or due to bad reading of an abbreviation as if meaning two ii rather than -us, thought that doesn't explain the plural verbform, or even due to a sabotage on wikisource. If someone has the text in print could he please either correct wikisource, or send me a message in the guesbook about why this reading is correct! Of course, Josephus could also be retelling a Pagan story with the proper transition to it being lost. Or the text pieace belongs to the part about the Sibyl's words rather than the part about Josephus' and was misplaced. Thus passage emendable as: This Tower the Sibyl recalled saying "When all men were of one speach, some erected a high Tower, as if going to ascend into Heaven. But the gods by sending in winds overthrew the tower, and dealt out to each his own speach." But in absense of written on paper text, I am not judging. Babylonia for Babylon is quite acceptable if "City" (civitas) is taken as the whole State rather than "intra muros" area. Here is one passage from Josephus himself: ... The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, confusion. The Sibyl also makes mention of this tower, and of the confusion of the language, when she says thus: "When all men were of one language, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby ascend up to heaven, but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language; and for this reason it was that the city was called Babylon." But as to the plan of Shinar, in the country of Babylonia, Hestiaeus mentions it, when he says thus: "Such of the priests as were saved, took the sacred vessels of Jupiter Enyalius, and came to Shinar of Babylonia." Antiquites, Book I, chapter 4 http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-1/chapter-4.html AFTER this they were dispersed abroad, on account of their languages, and went out by colonies every where; and each colony took possession of that land which they light upon, and unto which God led them; so that the whole continent was filled with them, both the inland and the maritime countries ... Ibid. Ch. 5 http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-1/chapter-5.html I wonder if Hesychius in the following is not really a mistake for Hestiaeus, or whether it was Hesychius or someone quoting him who jumbled the story of Hestiaeus, as follows:]
De campo vero Sennaar in regione Babylonis meminit Esicius dicens: Qui de sacerdotibus sunt erepti: Jovis sacra sumentes, in Sennaar Babylonis venerunt, divisique sunt post haec, diversitate linguarum migrationes agentes, apprehendentes mediterranea simul, et maritima. Nec praetereundum puto quod Moyses dicit Regma, filium Chus, duos habuisse filios Saba, et Dodam.		From the field of Shinear in the region of Babylon, Hesychius [of Miletus] makes mention saying: Who of the priests were escaping: taking the holy things of Jove, came to Shinear of Babylonia, were divided after this, undertaking migrations due to diversity of languge, reaching at the same time [or both] midlands and seashores. Nor do I think one should pass by that Moses said that Regma, son of Kush, had two sons, Saba and Dodam.
Josephus dicit Saba, et Judam, quorum Judas Aegyptiacam gentem Hesperiorum inhabitans, Judaeis cognomen suum reliquit. Quod autem dicitur, de terra Sennaar egressus est Assur, intelligendum est, quia Nemrod expulit eum vi a terra illa, et turre, quae ejus erat jure haereditario. Vel intelligendum non est Assur filius Sem, qui invenit purpuram, et unguenta crinium, vel corporum a quo Chaldaea , et Assyria dicta est, sed Assur, id est regnum Assyriorum, inde egressum est, quod tempore Sarug, proavi Abrahae, factum est. Regnum quidem Babylonii habuerunt, qui de semine Nemrod fuerunt, usque ad quartam chiliadem, et ultimum cusmidem.		Josephus says Saba and "Judas", of whom "Judas" left the "Jews" his surname, inhabiting an Egyptian people of the West. As to what is said that Assur went for from the land of Shinear, it is to be understood, since Nimrod expelled him with violence from that land, and from the tower, which was his by right of inheritance. Or it is to be understood that Assur is not the Son of Shem, who invented purple and hair ointments and body ointmens of whom Chaldea is also called Assyria, but Assur, that is the reign of Assyrians, went out from there [seceeded?], which happened in the time of Sarug, the greatgrandfather of Abraham. But the reign of Babylon was held by those of the seed of Nemrod, until the fourth Millennium [of the world] and the last ?? [cusmis?].
[Here one can add that some have identified Assur here mentioned with precisely Nimrod. They have even gone so far as to identifiy Ninus with Nimrod. However, it seems they have followed the chronology of rabbis rather than of Septuagint in doing so. Rob Skiba II is one of them, I do not know the first of them, so I do not know whom else to metion than the one I read first. Actual quote from Josephus does not quite support his son Ragmus having as two sons Saba and Judas: The children of these [four] were these: Sabas, who founded the Sabeans; Evilas, who founded the Evileans, who are called Getuli; Sabathes founded the Sabathens, they are now called by the Greeks Astaborans; Sabactas settled the Sabactens; and Ragmus the Ragmeans; and he had two sons, the one of whom, Judadas, settled the Judadeans, a nation of the western Ethiopians, and left them his name; as did Sabas to the Sabeans: Someone thought that Saba who left his name to Sabeans was brother of Judadas who left his to Judadeans, but Josephus does not say that Judadas' brother left his name to anyone, he is comparing Judadas and Judadeans to his uncle Sabas and the Sabeans, as far as both being eponyms. And of course, Judadeans were Western Ethippians, not Western Egyptians.]
Primum incidens.		Incidental to the Biblical Storyline, First Item
Interim vero obtinuerunt Aegyptios et Assyrios ita: In diebus Sarug Belus Nerothides rex Babylonis, quia fuit alter Belus rex Graeciae, intravit Assyriam, sed parum obtinuit in ea. Quo mortuo filius ejus Ninus totam obtinuit Assyriam, et civitatem, in qua caput regni erat, itinere trium dierum ampliavit, et a suo nomine Ninivem dixit.		Meanwhile they obtained Egyptians and Assyrians this: In the days of Sarug, Belus the Nerothid [=?=Nemrothid, with a missed nasal stroke?] the king of Babylon, because there was another Belus, king of Greece, entered Assyria, but obtained too little therein. When he died, his son Ninus obtained all Assyria, and amplified the city in which the head of the kingdom was by the day's march of three days, and called it Ninive after his name.
[Note that it is not said that Ninus, who is not a Biblical character, founded Ninive, only that he amplified it and renamed it. Holy Writ says - if Assur is a person and perhaps identic to the son of Shem - that Assur did, Genesis 10:11. The scenario here is that Assur if so gave it another name, then Belus - probably Son of Nemroth/Nimrod - tried to conquer Assyria and failed, then his son Ninus succeeded, and celebrated the victory by dooming the earlier name and size of Ninive to oblivion, by enlarging and renaming it.]
Inde est quod quaedam historiae dicunt regnum Assyriorum coepisse ab antiquo Belo: quod verum est quantum ad initium. Alii dicunt coepisse a Nino, quod verum est etiam, quantum ad regni ampliationem. Ninus vicit Cham, qui adhuc vivebat, et regnabat in Thracia, et dicebatur Zoroastres inventor magicae artis, qui et septem liberales artes, in quatuordecim columnis scripsit, septem aeneis, et septem lateritiis, contra utrumque judicium. Ninus vero libros ejus combussit. Ab eisdem orta sunt idola sic.		This is why some histories say that the kingdom of Assyrians started with old Belus: which is true as far as the beginning is concerned. Others say it started with Ninus, which is also true, as far as the enlargement of the kingdom. Ninus defeated Cham [!] who was still alive and ruled in Thracia, and was called Zoroaster, inventor of magic arts, who also inscirbed the seven liberal arts in fourteen columns, seven of bronze and seven of tiles, against either doom (?). But Ninus burned his books. From these the same, idols were thus begun:
[Note that magic arts and seven liberal arts are distinct accomplishments of Zoroaster, alias Cham. And how awful if Ninus defeated his own ancestor!]
De morte Beli, et ortu idolorum.		On the Death os Belus and the Beginning of Idols
Mortuo Belo, Ninus in solatium doloris, imaginem patris sibi fecit, cui tantam exhibebat reverentiam, ut quibuslibet reis qui ad eam confugissent parceret. Proinde homines de regno ejus divinos honores imagini ejus coeperunt impendere; hujus exemplo plurimi claris suis mortuis imagines dedicarunt, et sicut ab idolo Beli caetera traxerunt originem, sic ab ejus nomine generale nomen idolorum traxerunt. Sicut enim dictus est Belus ab Assyriis, sic et aliae nationes secundum idiomata linguae suae dixerunt, aliae Bel, aliae Beel, aliae Baal, aliae Baalim. Imo, et nomina specificaverunt, aliae Beelphegor, aliae Beelzebub dicentes. Sed tandem seriem genealogiae Sem prosequamur.		When Belus was dead, Ninus, in consolation of the grief, made himself an image of the father, to which he showed such reverence, that he spared all criminals who took refuge to it. Accordingly people of his reign started to impend divine honours in the image; by example hereof many dedicated images to their celebrated dead ones, and as from the idol of Belus the others took their origin, so of his name they took the general name of idols. As he was called Belus by Assyrians, so also other nations according to the idiom of their tongues, named some of the Bel, some Beel, some Baal, some Baalim. Even more, they specified names, some saying Beelphegor, some saying Beelzebub. But at last let us pursue the genealogical series of Shem.
[Belus was not the real Assyrian name, but Bel was. Belos in Greek and Belus in Latin just add the -os/-us ending which is necessitated by the case grammar of these languages. And Baalim is not another language for Baal, it is plural and singular of same language - Chanaanean and Biblical Hebrew being two very close dialects of it. Beelphegor and Beelzebub were two different Baalim among the Chanaaneans.]
...
De ortu regnorum.		On the Beginning of Kingdoms
Anno undecimo Abrahae mortuus est Ninus, cujus uxor Semiramis, ut post eum regnare posset, proprio filio, quem susceperat ex Nino, nupsit, et ex eo filium genuit, qui et Babyloniam ampliavit. Anno Abrahae septuagesimo quinto facta est ei repromissio. Anno ejus octogesimo sexto natus est ei Hismael. Anno ejus centesimo natus est ei Isaac: Anno ejus centesimo trigesimo septimo mortua est Sara.		In the eleventh year of Abraham, Ninus died, the wife of which Semiramis, in order to rule after him, wedded her own son, whom she had received from Ninus, and bore of him a son, who also amplified Babylonia. In the seventyfifth year of Abraham, he received the promise. In his eightysixth year, Hismael [Ishmael] was born to him. In his hundredth year Isaac was born to him. In his hundred thirtieth year, Sarah died.
Aliud incidens.		Incidental to the Biblical Storyline, other item
Exortum est regnum Assyriorum anno vicesimo quinto Saruch, proavi Abrahae sub Belo, et cucurrit, ad annum septimum Oziae regis Judae, per annos mille et trecentos; alii quadringentos et duos: per reges triginta septem usque ad Sardanapalum, qui primus pulvinaria adinvenit. Post quem translatum est regnum ad Medos. Regnum autem Sicyoniorum ab anno vigesimo quarto Nachor, avi Abrahae, exortum est, sub Eugialo, alias Egialo, et cucurrit, usque ad annum decimum septimum Heli sacerdotis, et judicis Israel, per annos [Col.1109B] noningentos septuaginta et unum et per reges triginta et unum usque ad Zeusippum post quem judicaverunt Sicyoniam Sacerdotes Charmi. Sicyonia autem est regio, quae prius Apia, post Peloponensis dicta est.		The Kingdom of Assyrians began in the twentyfifth year of Saruch, the greatgrandfather of Abraham, under Bel, and ran on, into the seventh year of Ozias King of Judah, for one thousand and thirty years: through thirtyseven kings onto Sardanapalus, who first invented pillows. After whom the rule was transferred to the Medes. But the Kingdom of the Sicyonians [the Kingdom Sicyon] began from the twentyfourth year of Nachor, the grandfather of Abraham, under Eugialus, also known as Egialus [Aegialeus], and ran on, into the seventeenth year of the Priest Heli, Judge of Israel, for ninehundred and seventyone years up to Zeusippus [Zeuxippus] after whom priests of Charmus judged Sicyonia. But Sicyonia is the region which earlier was called/said to be Apia(n) and later Peloponesus(Pelopponesian).
[Aegialeus was by the Pagans thought to be autochthonous, i e to have sprung up from the ground in Sicyon. He was supposed to be so to speak the Adam of Sicyon. This is of course not accepted by Christians, including Petrus Comestor. Aegialeus descends from Adam as much as any other man. And from Noah as much as any other post-Flood man. Pagans were wrong about him being autochthonous. Another Pagan tradition was he was son of the rivergod (!) Inachus (or Inachus the founder of Argos) and the Seanymph (!) Melia. This does not mean he did not exist or was not the first king of Sicyon. No need whatsoever to say Pagans were wrong on that too. Even if some got him and some possibly his mother wrong. Greek wiki has 32 sovereigns of Sicyon, and Zeuxippus was only 28. The priests which afterwards - perhaps after him rather than the last Regnidas - judged Sicyonia were not "sacerdotes Charmi" but "sacerdotes Charnii" - Charnian Priests.]
Usque ad Abraham vero jam fuerant in Aegypto quindecim dynastiae. Dynastiam summam potestatem Aegyptii dicunt ; a nativitate Abrahae, dynastiam sexdecim obtinuerunt Thebaei, septemdecim Pastores, Reges sic vocati, octodecim Thebaei, vel Thiopolitani, qui et Pharaones, per Reges septemdecim. Variatae quoque sunt dynastiae de generibus quorumdam regum ad alia saepe transeuntes, usque ad Cambysem filium Cyri, sub quo primo per se imperaverunt Aegypto.		Up to the time of Abraham there had been fifteen dynasties in Egypt. The Egyptians call the highest [political] power "dynasty"; from the birth of Abraham sixteen Thebans obtained the dynasty, seventeen Shepherd Kings, eighteen Thebans or Thiopolitans, also known as Pharaos, through a sequence of seventeen kings. Also dynasties were changed from the kinsmen of certain kings often getting on to others, up to Cambyses son of Cyrus, under whom first they ruled Egypt by themselves.
[Kingship getting from kinsmen of one king to those of another - not related - is what dynasty means, each set of relatives all ruling being such a one. Petrus Comestor thinks "dynasty" is name of the title and "Pharao" only a name during one of these. Does not mean he was wrong about Egyptian dynasties predating Abraham or Shepherd Kings coming after his time.]

In order not to make this post too long, and also in order to provide what I already translated about Pagan History up to the time of Rebecca's giving birth (where next part will start), I here cut this message and pronounce it part I, with part II or perhaps even further ones, II and III or even more, upcoming, depending on how long I find the remainder./HGL