Thursday, September 25, 2014

Chronologies Comparés sur le Progrès Post-Diluvien

Je base cet essai sur deux sources. Une source française pour les chronologies conventionnelles des gens parmi les scientifiques qui renient le catastrophe du Déluge et qui renient les basculements drastiques du niveau de carbone quatorze. Elle s'appelle, série 1000 infos, titre L'Histoire du Monde Ancien. L'autre source est un diagramme par Tas Walker. Il se trouve sur ce message ci:

BiblicalGeology blog : A preliminary age calibration for the post-glacial-maximum period
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/preliminary-age-calibration-for-post-glacial-maximum-period/


Et il s'agit du troisième diagramme.

Avant de se plaindre qu'il y a des conséquences peut-être même absurdes, à savoir de poser la domination celte de l'Europe du Nord plus que 200 ans plus tard (après 400 av. J. Chr. au lieu des communément acceptés 650 av. J. Chr.), faut aller à sa propre admission là-dessus:

This is a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation provides an initial estimate for the sorts of corrections that need to be made, but we would need to consult more reliable sources and obtain other information in order to refine and test the curve.


Il n'a donc pas essayé de donner une correction complête, mais de donner un estime initial du genre de corrections qu'on devrait faire aux calculations d'âge des uniformitariens. Pour le début de cette chronologie, que je tire de l'Histoire du Monde Ancien, je ne donne pas ses corrections, car pour les CMI un âge carbonique de 20.000 - 50.000 ans avant le présent correspond assez bien aux temps du Déluge de Noé. Tellement moins de carbone quatorze y avait-il à cette époque là.

  • Chauvet 62.000/60.000 av. J. Chr.
  • Arnhem Land 50.000+/50.000 av. J. Chr.
  • Lascaux 31.000/29.000 av. J. Chr.
  • Patates douces selon traces d’amidon, Papouasie 30.000 / 28.000 av. J. Chr.
  • Les Vénus (Villanova etc.) 25.000/23.000 av. J. Chr.


20.000 avant présent selon les uniformitariens = 4000 avant le présent, 2000 av. J. Chr. Selon la récalibration de Tas Walker. C'est là que débute son diagramme. Dans le suivant, je donne donc les chiffres un peu péniblement tirés par moi du diagramme en parenthèse à côté:

  • Pergouset 14.000/12.000 av. J. Chr. (3950 / 1950 av. J. Chr.)
  • Mésolithique débute 14.000/12.000 av. J. Chr. (3950 / 1950 av. J. Chr.)
  • Châtaignes d’eau et haricots au nord du Viêtnam 13.000 – 9500 / 11.000 – 7500 av. J. Chr. (3925 – 3850 / 1925 – 1850 av. J. Chr.)
  • Jéricho 11.000 / 9000 av. J. Chr. (3875 / 1875 av. J. Chr.)
  • Néolithique au Proche-Orient, blé rouge et orge 10.000/8000 av. J. Chr. (3850 / 1850 av. J. Chr.)
  • Çatal Höyük 9000 – 7500 / 7000 – 5500 av. J. Chr. (3825 – 3625 / 1825 – 1625 av. J. Chr.)
  • Charrue tirés par des bœufs et arrivée des Sumériens en Mésopotamie 7000 / 5000 av. J. Chr. (3800 / 1800 av. J. Chr.)
  • Temple d’Éridou 6900 / 4900 av. J. Chr. (3800 / 1800 av. J. Chr.)
  • Granges souterraines de Ban-Po, Chine, 6800 / 4800 av. J. Chr. (3800 / 1800 av. J. Chr.)
  • Canaux d’irrigation Samarra/Choga Mami, Irak frontière d’Iran 7500 – 6750 / 5500 – 4750 av. J. Chr. (3790 – 3750 / 1790 – 1750 av. J. Chr.)
  • Cuivre/Or en joilleries etc. Turquie/Iran 6000/4000 av. J. Chr. (3750 / 1750 av. J. Chr.)
  • Hache bois/cuivre Balkan ?/Iran 6000/4000 av. J. Chr. (3750 / 1750 av. J. Chr.)
  • Mégalithes 6000 – 3500 / 4000 – 1500 av. J. Chr. (3750 – 3100 / 1750 – 1100 av. J. Chr.)
  • Mésopotamie, les premiers cités p. ex. Uruk 5500/3500 av. J. Chr. (3600 / 1600 av. J. Chr.)
  • Charettes avec des roues solides en bois, Sumer, 5200 / 3200 av. J. Chr. (3600 / 1600 av. J. Chr.)
  • L’âge de bronze en Proche-Orient/Balkans/Asie de Sud-Est 5500 – 5000/3500 – 3000 av. J. Chr. (3725 – 3700 / 1725 – 1700 av. J. Chr.)
  • Chine, Indus, l’Égypte, Babylone ont des vastes systèmes d’irrigation et l’Indus une civilisation simultanément en 5000 / 3000 av. J. Chr. (3600 / 1600 av. J. Chr. – ou 3700 / 1700 av. J. Chr. – moi et la lecture des diagrammes ! )
  • Stonehenge 4950 – 3600 / 2950 – 1600 av. J. Chr. (3600 – 3200 / 1600 – 1200 av. J. Chr.)
  • Révolution césarienne des lugals en Mésopotamie 4900 / 2900 av. J. Chr. (3600 / 1600 av. J. Chr.)
  • Ur atteint une population de 250.000 habitants, Mohenjo-Daro et Harappa chacune 35.000 simultanément en 4500 / 2500 av. J. Chr. (3550 / 1550 av. J. Chr.)
  • Sargon d’Akkad invahit la Sumérie 4350 / 2350 av. J. Chr. (3500 / 1500 av. J. Chr.)
  • Rétablissement du pouvoir sumérien à Ur 4150 / 2150 av. J. Chr. (3450 / 1450 av. J. Chr.)
  • La civilisation de l’Indus décline pour faire place aux Aryens 3750 – 3500 / 1750 – 1500 av. J. Chr. (3250 – 3125 / 1250 – 1125 av. J. Chr.)
  • Bronze en toute Europe et Asie 3500/1500 av. J. Chr. (3125/1125 av. J. Chr.)
  • Hittites utilisent le fer 3500 – 3200/1500 – 1200 av. J. Chr. (3125 – 2950 / 1125 – 950 av. J. Chr.)
  • Celtes dominent l’Europe de Nord 2650/650 av. J. Chr. (moins qu’il y a 2400 ans … probablement une erreur, ça donnerait plus tard que 400 av. J. Chr.)
  • Fer en Chine 2600/600 av. J. Chr.
  • Noks en Afrique font le fer 2400/400 av. J. Chr.


J'ai supposé que la domination des Celtes se laisse dater d'avant 400 av. J. Chr. par des sources litéraires. Peut-être que j'ai tort et qu'Hérodote (etc.) ne confirme pas cette vue conventionnelle, dans ce cas, ça se pourrait que la correction de Tas Walker tienne. Mais là j'ai cessé de marquer pour les dernier trois la correction d'après le diagramme de Tas Walker.

Le livre L'Histoire du Monde Ancien a aussi des dates évolutionnistes pour les présumés ancêtres des hommes, et fait appel à la méthode de potassium-argone. Une méthode pour laquelle Tas Walker a donné une réfutation assez complète ailleurs. Je n'ai donc pas trouvé la peine de corriger péniblement d'autres dates que celles que j'ai considérées comme calculées à partir de la méthode carbone quatorze.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Cleophas of Emmaus
25-IX-2014

Saturday, September 20, 2014

What did Cornelius a Lapide REALLY write about the work of the Fourth Day?

New blog on the kid : 1) Inanimate Balls of Fire are Not Fighting, 2) With Angelic Movers, No Need for ETs, 3) HGL's F.B. writings : Me and Sungenis Answering Same Q, 4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : What did Cornelius a Lapide REALLY write about the work of the Fourth Day?

I am now perusing the pages of an 1891 edition of Comentaria in scripturam sacram / Cornelii a Lapide.* Now, there is a problem with the access of the original text here. The work of Cornelius a Lapide seems to have been used as a wiki. You see, Cornelius lived 18 December 1567 – 12 March 1637, and Schelling lived 27 January 1775 – 20 August 1854. Cornelius, like myself, was not claiming to be a prophet, just erudite. However, as we go to his commentary on the work of the Fourth Day, we find:

Nostro certe tempore intelligentias motrices non cogitabat ille philosophus (Schelling), qui, quum astra appellavit animalia rationabilia, animalia beata, Deosque immortales stultitiae profecto, non vero sapientiae amicum se ostendit.

In our time that philosopher (Schelling) did not think there were intelligences moving [the celestial bodies], who, when he called the stars rational animals, blessed animals and immortal Gods, in fact showed himself the friend of folly and not of wisdom.


Be it noted, that the previous lines have stated that the position of St Thomas - angels move heavenly bodies but are not their souls, and the text actually compares the angels moving stars to an auriga driving the cars, the biga, the two horse drawn cars - was always tolerated by the Church.

Be it noted that whoever in 1891 added a comment on Schelling to the text of Cornelius thought that Schelling should have preferred to consider stars driven by angels to considering them as blessed rational immortal animals which one could call Gods. And, I agree of course.

That said, the exact text of Cornelius a Lapide is not extant in the 1891 edition. Someone has been editing it as a wiki with added lines of text. I am very sure Cornelius was not writing about Schelling.

In the previous sections we have also learned that the position of Schelling was - excepting the qualification "Deos immortales" that of Philo Judaeus, Maimonides, Origen, St Jerome, and there is a discussion whether this position of Origen was or was not condemned by the Vth Council. What is certain is that it is regarded as a different position than the one of St Thomas. Which was always tolerated by the Church - i e never condemned.

If I hit a living body, its soul feels pain. If I hit a car its driver feels no pain - that is how different "animated stars" are from "stars driven by angels".** And it is only the "animated stars position" which has received censorship in the Catholic Church. By Vth Ecumenical Council perhaps, and certainly by Stephen Tempier bishop of Paris in Laetare Sunday of late 1276 (past December into start of March) or early 1277 (according to our later custom of saying it started already January 1:st).

Meanwhile, as Catholics are telling me I am taking a very unlikely option and a very unthomistic one, and naturalism must remain the philosophy of science and the astronomic method must be atheistic and anangelistic in order to remain science, one Krauss seems to be very close to embracing the position of Schelling. You know that guy who said "a star had to die, so that you could live" - meaning sulphur and iron and other necessary elements larger than hydrogen and helium wouldn't be in your body unless there had been a supernova earlier on.

And they think that it is I who am a threat to orthodoxy? Who dey kiddin?

Since the time when that writer who continued the commentary of Cornelius a Lapide as if it were a wiki said that many theologers were taking the angelic movers option as it seemed necessary for the philosophy of that time, but now the movements of all celestial objects "optime explicentur" (are explained very well) "simplicibus legis a Deo impositis" (by simple laws imposed by God), this overestimation of the intellectual superiority of gravitational explanations has been rocked by more recent discoveries. And, actually, I think that writer - quite distinct from Cornelius a Lapide, of course, though his text is found intermingled with the older Jesuit - was deeming it explained very well by two reasons: he was being sloppy in the assessment of how well or ill proven the modern explanation was, and he was feeling a social stigma if he were to defend the older doctrine. You see, in a previous session he had spoken about "rotationem terrenam" - rotation of Earth - and he was publishing his work in the Paris of the Third Republic where the Foucault Pendulum had given a false sign and wonder about Earth rotating. Parisiis means "in Paris" and 1891 in Paris is that particular context. One in which Heliocentric and astro-mere-corporal freemasons dominated the scene.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Ember Saturday
after Elevation of the Cross
20-IX-2014

PS, in Judges V, where the text of Cornelius has not been tampered with, he endorses angels moving the stars. Even in the Paris 1891 edition. I checked. See Tome III. The comments to that verse would to a modern literary sensibility evoke "fantasy novels". As I said elsewhere, these are more realistic than science fiction. None of the comments are coherent with stars being simply what modern astronomers tell you and not even angelic movers to them.

* Content list for tome I, each link making a pdf download:

Comentaria in scripturam sacram / Cornelii A. Lapide.
Tomo I Tabla de Contenido
http://cdigital.dgb.uanl.mx/la/1080014741_C/1080014741_T1/1080014741_T1.html


And here is the overall link:

Comentaria in scripturam sacram / Cornelii A. Lapide.
Parisiis: Apum Ludovicum Vives, Bibliupolam Editorem, 1891.
http://cdigital.dgb.uanl.mx/la/1080014741_C/1080014741_C.html


The Internet version is graciously provided by Universidad Autónoma de Nueva León. (Non hay dos nombres o apellidos A. Lapide, peró "a Lapide" quiere decir "de la piedra", como "de la Barca" constituye un solo apellido.)

** The text - by Cornelius a Lapide or someone later - gives this precise example as a criticism of how St Thomas deals with Platonics and their claim stars have souls. St Thomas had argued they meant no more than they had movers.

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Sonnet 18 - Shakspear's Hail Mary (or one of them)

Sonnet 18 set to lovely music
September 5, 2014 by Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/09/sonnet-18-set-to-lovely-music.html


"But thy eternal summer shall not fade" ... Indeed, the Blessed Virgin was called to Heaven after decades of living when Her Son was gone. Nunc hiems ... (Nam enim hiems transiit) imber abiit et recessit. Surge amica mea at veni. Her eternity and resurrection and glory is already ongoing and never ending.

"So long as men can breathe or eyes can see" ... ecce enim ex hoc beatam me dicent omnes generationes, ... all generations must praise Mary as Blessed (Luke 1:48), just as all generations must give Glory to God (Ephesians 3:21).

"So long lives this," - not the sonnet as uncautious readers might think, but an Ave (of which the sonnet is a translation).

"and this gives life to thee." - Indeed, "Ave Maria" must have sounded about the same in Hebrew as in Latin and the Hebrew meaning of it is "life to thee Mary".

Just a little confirmation of a thesis not my own discovery, that Shakspear was a secret Catholic.* They also say he painted his famous portrait over an icon of Our Lady, to protect it from vandalism.

Mark Shea was asking a good question, though an ignorant one. Or rather the question was good because it was an ignorant and therefore innocent one:

"I wonder why somebody hasn’t attempted to set all the sonnets to music? Seems like a natural."

But one did! Sonnets and madrigals back in the Renaissance were given standard musical melodies. Writing a sonnet back then was not just a question of writing in such and such a form, but also of writing to a preset tune, at least in some parts of the Italian music life.

And according to the thesis I read, Shakspear had actually been in Italy.

However, I do not know if there was a set melody for sonnets in English music life. Nor if Shakspear's sonnets were actually sung to such a melody.

Maybe David Gilmour knows?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Zacharias the Prophet
and my own 46:th birthday
6-IX-2014

* When I read it in a mail distributed magazine of German SSPX, I got the impression the research had been done by a woman. Here it seems it was done by a Jesuit:

Shakespeare's Secret Faith (by Joan Frawley Desmond)
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/shakespeares-secret-faith


"Father Peter Milward, the author who began researching this subject a half century ago."