Saturday, April 30, 2016

Plato and Christianity

Quoting CMI:*

However, there are also important differences. For instance, Christianity is a form of monotheism—the belief that there is one supreme being who is the beneficent source and sovereign of all things. While Plato certainly believed in some sort of ultimate beneficent reality, so that many of his ideas are easily conformable to monotheism, he’s not really clear on the precise nature of that ultimate reality. He had two notions that he never really systematized into a single coherent worldview—his Form of the Good, and his Demiurge. The Form of the Good was the ultimate form for Plato, from which every other form derived its goodness, but it was impersonal. The Demiurge was the ‘craftsman’ who gave shape to the material universe by moulding the matter (which Plato believed to be eternal, which the Bible rejects) after the pattern of the forms. However, his Demiurge was in a real sense ‘subordinate’ to the realm of the forms. Later thinkers identified Plato’s form of the Good with God, and located the other forms in His mind as divine ideas (many early church fathers were champions of this modification of Plato), and others identified the Form of the Good with the ultimate good god, and the Demiurge with a bad, subordinate god who made the physical universe (as the ultimate good god wouldn’t sully himself by using or creating matter)—this was Gnosticism.

Moreover, Plato believed that souls are indestructible, which the New Testament rejects. We are God’s creatures, soul and body, and God has the power to annihilate our souls.

In Timaeus**, the Demiurge need not have been as subordinate as is here thought.

Some writers have said that in Timaeus Moses was retelling Genesis in Greek.

It is noteworthy that, though Gnostics were rejected as a very vile heresy, Christian thinkers did not blame Plato for the Gnostics.

Rather, in Boethius, the "house of Wisdom" includes Plato and Aristotle, has Stoics just outside the door and has Epicureans very far off.

And Boethius was of course a Catholic Christian, suspected by the Arian and Gothic King (Theoderic the Great) of not quite sympathising with his all tolerant state, and therefore executed by the said. He wrote De Consolatione Philosophiae while waiting for execution in prison.

I think St Paul is very likely to have agreed.

Plato and Aristotle by philosophy had discovered monotheism so to speak independently of Hebrews. Therefore they were without excuse for nevertheless bowing down to spirits they knew to be inferior to the one God. (Romans 1). On the other hand, Epicureans believed in a world view where everything is definable in terms of the atoms making it up - the stoicheia, elements "of the world" (Colossians 2:8). Hence St Paul warns us not to be deceived by that kind of philosophy. This view being the traditional one, the opposite view, St Paul warning against not the personal example of Plato and Aristotle as idolaters despite philosophic monotheism, but against their philosophy, was defended by an as yet still Christian (Protestant) student who made a thesis in philophy. Karl Marx, whose later very much further errors are known and abhorred by Christians was already then friendly to the Materialism which he later made totally his own.

That said, Plato was only an independent witness to monotheism, not the origin of Jewish and Christian such.

On the final point of the quote:

Has God the power to destroy our souls? Yes, He has called them from nothingness into being, from no material, and He has the power to destroy, if He would have wanted to.

Are souls indestructible? Yes, in the sense that no reality less than God has the power to annihilate a soul. So, Plato was right.

He was however wrong in believing in transmigration of souls. So are some Jews to this day.

If Plato was wrong anywhere in Timaeus, it was in coordinating Ananke with the Demiurge as co-producer of Universe - but since I have not read the dialogue, I am not sure this is meant in a worse sense than when C. S. Lewis said "if God decides to create beings having free will, it is necessary that it involves the freedom of putting self before God or before other created selves, i e the freedom of going wrong."

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy St Christophe
St Catherine of Siena

* CMI : Plato and Christianity
Published: 30 April 2016

** Which as yet I have not read myself.

Chesterton was Right, Of Course!

A quote from History vs the Historians:

A boy cannot see the importance of Latin simply by learning Latin. But he might see it by learning the history of the Latins. Nobody can possibly see any sense in learning geography or in learning arithmetic – both studies are obviously nonsense. But on the eager eve of Austerlitz, where Napoleon was fighting a superior force in a foreign country, one might see the need for Napoleon knowing a little geography and a little arithmetic. I have thought that if people would only learn history, they would learn to learn everything else.

I did learn history, and I learned to learn everything else.

Including Latin.

To put it in its curtest form, my proposal is this: That we should not read historians, but history. Let us read the actual text of the times. Let us, for a year, or a month, or a fortnight, refuse to read anything about Oliver Cromwell except what was written while he was alive.

If you want to do this on the Middle Ages, you are very wise to know some Medieval Latin!

Now Dickens and Rossetti and Macaulay were very great men, and though none of them knew very much about the Middle Ages, their views on that time are bound to be interesting. But there is another humble class of men who might be allowed to tell us something about the Middle Ages. I mean the men who lived in the Middle Ages. There are in existence medieval memoirs – which are nearly as amusing as Pepys, and much more truthful. In England they are almost entirely unknown.

Now, if I cannot reliably do this with the Trojan War, some people saying that Darius the Phrygian's contemporary account was a later fake, if I cannot reliably do this with pre-Flood Wars, Genesis glossing over them and Mahabharata obviously written in a not just post-Flood, but post-Babel setting where Sanskrit had come into being, I can at least do the next best : NOT to look at them through the kind of moderns we are used to, but from the earliest epoch which had some record of them - that being Homer, perhaps 400 years after the Trojan War and he glosses over the fact of the Hittites, and Vyasa, perhaps rather more than 1000 years from the events he recalls, and he glosses over that a Flood had happened between Nod and India.

Third best is looking at how a later generation but not yet modern looked at things.

If St Augustine mentions Romulus, it is not to say "oh, look, these Pagans faked their own history or bungled the separation of facts from fiction" as a modern would, it is in order to say "the Pagans who loved Romulus thought he was a god because they loved him, but the disciples who were with Christ loved Him because He is God. And another Church Father mentions Hercules also not trying to stamp his Twelve labours (at least not all of them) as fiction, but in order to say "sure he was a strong man, but he was not a god".

In other words, the earliest Christians who thought about these matters did not say Pagans got history wrong, they only said Pagans got the theology wrong.

So do Pagans like Atheists to this day. Zola will get the theology of Lourdes wrong. A Marxist will get the Sun miracle at Fátima wrong. A Yugoslav Communist, whether Atheist or Serbian Orthodox is likely to get the character of Cardinal Stepinac wrong.

But Zola did not deny Lourdes had a rumour of miraculous healings. A Marxist will not deny the Fátima revelation "was purported to have happened" at same time nearly as Russian Revolution, the one known as October Revolution because it was during first thirteen days of Gregorian November that year. And a Yugoslav Communist will not deny that after the war, on 17 May 1945, Stepinac was arrested. He was released again 3 June. And: On September 1946 the Yugoslav authorities indicted Stepinac on multiple counts of war crimes and collaboration with the enemy during wartime. On October 11, 1946, the court found Stepinac guilty of high treason and war crimes. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison. He served five years in the prison at Lepoglava until he was released in a conciliatory gesture by Tito, on condition that he either retire to Rome or be confined to his home parish of Krašić. He chose to stay in Krašić, saying he would never leave "unless they put me on a plane by force and take me over the frontier."

Even if they get some things wrong about history - making Stepinac basically an abettor of Ustaše crimes - they do not bungle all the facts.

Neither need we suppose more civilised Pagans in the time of Romulus or Trojan War bungled all the facts. Neither did early Christian authors suppose they had done so.

By the way, if you want to read more about Chesterton's view (I'll go back and enjoy that article presently), here is the link:

History Versus the Historians
by G.K. Chesterton
on The American Chesterton Society

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy St Christophe
St Catherine of Siena

Hat tip to Stephanie Mann for linking to the article: here.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Mahabharata and Pre-Flood, Revisited

Resuming genealogies from Mahabharata article:

Vichitravirya and Ambikā are parents of Dhritarāshtra, Dhritarāshtra and Gāndhāri of the Kauravas.

Vichitravirya and Ambālikā are parents of Pāndu, who is father of the Pandavas. Kunti is mother of Yudhishthira, Bhima and Arjuna, Mādri is mother of Nakula and Sahadeva.

Now two quotes, about Pāndu and about Dhritarāshtra:

Pāndu was an excellent archer and Maharathi.

After Vichitravirya's death, his mother Satyavati sent for her first born, Ved Vyas. According to his mother's wishes, he visited both the wives of Vichitravirya to grant them a son When Vyasa visited Ambika, she saw his dreadful and forbidding appearance with burning eyes. In her frightened state, she closed her eyes and dared not open them. Hence her son, Dhritarāshtra, was born blind.

Dhritarāshtra blind and Pāndu archer? How about a blind archer anywhere? We have one in Norse mythology, but foremost this, Tubal-Cain is in some traditions said to have induced a blind archer into unwittingly killing his ancestor Kain:

The Talmud and Midrash present an extensive legend, told, for example, by Rashi, in which Lamech first loses his sight from age, and had to be led by Tubal-Cain, the seventh generation from Cain. Tubal-Cain saw in the distance something that he first took for an animal, but it was actually Cain (still alive, due to the extensive life span of the antediluvians) whom Lamech had accidentally killed with an arrow. When they discovered who it was, Lamech, in sorrow, clapped his hands together, which (for an unclear reason) kills Tubal-Cain. In consequence, Lamech's wives desert him.

But more, there is also a set of two half brothers in the descent of Cain:

Genesis 4:[18] And Henoch begot Irad, and Irad begot Maviael, and Maviael begot Mathusael, and Mathusael begot Lamech: [19] Who took two wives: the name of the one was Ada, and the name of the other Sella. [20] And Ada brought forth Jabel: who was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of herdsmen. [21] And his brother' s name was Jubal; he was the father of them that play upon the harp and the organs. [22] Sella also brought forth Tubalcain, who was a hammerer and artificer in every work of brass and iron. And the sister of Tubalcain was Noema. [23] And Lamech said to his wives Ada and Sella: Hear my voice, ye wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech: for I have slain a man to the wounding of myself, and a stripling to my own bruising. [24] Sevenfold vengeance shall be taken for Cain: but for Lamech seventy times sevenfold.

This situation of two sets of half brothers could have led in pre-Flood times to exactly the scenario which Mahabhrata describes.

And what happens to Draupadi is so evil, and so are a lot of other things, that it could be resumed like this:

Genesis 6:[5] And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, [6] It repented him that he had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart, [7] He said: I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them.

As to the family situation of Draupadi, Our Lord indirectly commented on it, because the woman at the well in Sichar had the "same" situation:

John 4:[16] Jesus saith to her: Go, call thy husband, and come hither. [17] The woman answered, and said: I have no husband. Jesus said to her: Thou hast said well, I have no husband: [18] For thou hast had five husbands: and he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband. This thou hast said truly.

But other things may be even worse. Suppose some details show the Kurukshetra war (if pre-Flood) involved the use of Uranium, both as bomb and as poisonous radioactivity, would it have been wise of the precursors of Moses to write details in the Genesis?

It was far wiser to resume this with words like "the wickedness of men was great on the earth".

However, all descendants of Noah were not equally wise. These details were retold in a tradition which is first known as Bharata (a poem of 24,000 shlokas), then as Maha-Bharata (extended version of previous, the longest verse epic on earth known today).

This will have inspired the making of the atomic bomb.

Julius Robert Oppenheimer is among those who are called the "father of the atomic bomb" for their role in the Manhattan Project, the World War II project that developed the first nuclear weapons used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The first atomic bomb was detonated on July 16, 1945, in the Trinity test in New Mexico; Oppenheimer remarked later that it brought to mind words from the Bhagavad Gita: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

So, Oppenheimer was aware of Hindoo lore.

I think it does reflect genuine memories of the pre-Flood world, and I think the hero Krishna, whose divinity is a matter of dream, and some dreams are deceptive, and of Bhagavad Gita, but that could be a polytheist post-Flood addition, but whose heroism in noble choices is rather well documented, could have lived when the Hindoo tradition says he lived, namely dying 3102 BC - 145 years before the Flood.

My personal reconstruction of how Hindoos remodelled memories from pre-Flood is this: a hero called Kush (which is Hebrew for Krishna), is a noble participant of wars in the Nodian civilisation. His descendant, or perhaps Arjuna's, is the woman who marries Ham. After Flood, but before Babel, she names her son Kush after the Kurukshetra War hero. His son Regma is called Rama by Hindoos, and he called his sons Lova and Kusha ... but already forgetting it means "the black one". And who would Hanuman be? My tip is, he might have been Nemrod, in his youth, while he was still a goodie. Here is how his early carreer is described in Jasher 7:

[Update : the sequence I am posing contradicts temporal sequence of Hindoo tradition, see disuccion in comment section. 1:st Sunday of Advent, Church Year 2017, Civil Year 2016.]

27 And in their going out, Ham stole those garments from Noah his father, and he took them and hid them from his brothers.

28 And when Ham begat his first born Cush, he gave him the garments in secret, and they were with Cush many days.

29 And Cush also concealed them from his sons and brothers, and when Cush had begotten Nimrod, he gave him those garments through his love for him, and Nimrod grew up, and when he was twenty years old he put on those garments.

30 And Nimrod became strong when he put on the garments, and God gave him might and strength, and he was a mighty hunter in the earth, yea, he was a mighty hunter in the field, and he hunted the animals and he built altars, and he offered upon them the animals before the Lord.

31 And Nimrod strengthened himself, and he rose up from amongst his brethren, and he fought the battles of his brethren against all their enemies round about.

32 And the Lord delivered all the enemies of his brethren in his hands, and God prospered him from time to time in his battles, and he reigned upon earth.

No doubt Regma, like Nimrod, was a son of Kush, and no doubt Hanuman helped Rama ... I think this willingness to help out at length came with too great a price, he "began to be a giant". Here is how Josephus describes his works a little later on:

1. Now the sons of Noah were three, - Shem, Japhet, and Ham, born one hundred years before the Deluge. These first of all descended from the mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the flood, and so were very loath to come down from the higher places, to venture to follow their examples. Now the plain in which they first dwelt was called Shinar. God also commanded them to send colonies abroad, for the thorough peopling of the earth, that they might not raise seditions among themselves, but might cultivate a great part of the earth, and enjoy its fruits after a plentiful manner. But they were so ill instructed that they did not obey God; for which reason they fell into calamities, and were made sensible, by experience, of what sin they had been guilty: for when they flourished with a numerous youth, God admonished them again to send out colonies; but they, imagining the prosperity they enjoyed was not derived from the favor of God, but supposing that their own power was the proper cause of the plentiful condition they were in, did not obey him. Nay, they added to this their disobedience to the Divine will, the suspicion that they were therefore ordered to send out separate colonies, that, being divided asunder, they might the more easily be Oppressed.

2. Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers !

3. Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, ...

My reconstruction : Nimrod wanted to build a space ramp, like Cape Canaveral, and he still knew of Uranium, he wanted to propel the space rocket (a kind of non-divine Ark, as space rockets have since then been depicted in futuristic space operas, like Aniara) with it, which would have been disastrous.

While main portion of humanity was huddling together around him, he sent out expeditions to find Uranium, but God sent the Ice Age* to foil the attempt and of the expeditions we find some fragmentary remains, called by archaeologists the Palaeolithic. They did not represent the best of human know how, they were very rudimentary expeditions, instead of the colonies which would have been agricultural and would have been free peoples and which God would have wanted.

Only later, after the Tower breaks down in an abortive attempt, do these really separate and start making the peoples we know.

Meanwhile, though Hindoos had done some collaboration with Nimrod and were therefore struck by confusion of tongues, nevertheless they had some distaste for what came next, in Assyria, and some nostalgia for earlier things, both pre-Flood ones, as recorded in Mahabharata, and post-Flood ones, as recorded in Ramayana. They broke off to cultivate memories and one first measure was to try to suppress the memory of the Flood, and therefore count years from death of the earlier Kush - now called Krishna by them, after confusion of tongues - instead of from Flood. Part of this effort was also the attempt of the Kuru tribe to portray themselves as pretty direct descendants of Arjuna. Totally suppressing the memory of the Flood proved impossible, but then they moved the Flood story backward, to before the times of "Krishna" as they now called him.

And as the stories became more and more detailed, one started needing a new way of doing mnemonics, just learning a short piece of prose by heart would not do any more, as it had been suffificient for Sethite handling of early Genesis chapters or for Christian laymen learning the Creed by heart. They invented the Shloka. While this is per se a good measure against inadvertent changing of a line (as is the Greek hexameter), it cannot totally prevent forgetting of entire lines or deliberate adding of them. Both by reconstruction and by forgery.

Therefore, not all of Mahabharata need be exactly what happened in pre-Flood times, some characters may have behaved worse in reality and some better, than how Mahabharata shows them. Some may be composite and some may be split.

Bharat seems to have been a confusion of the two Henochs, the Cainite King and the Sethite prophet.

Meanwhile, Hebrews kept pre-Flood history in a shorter and less detailed, but more accurate and more discreet form, which Moses as final hagiographer of Genesis validated. And did not turn any pre-Flood heros, nor Regma, nor Nimrod into false gods.

And when Tower of Babel was abandoned, Ice Age started abating. Biblical age, some time 529 - 868 after the Flood (which was 2957 BC). Carbon dated as 10,000 BC.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Feast of Pope St Cletus
second of those after St Peter
martyred under Domitian

* This might also have involved raising C14 level to present stable level, see these articles on CMI [] : Are cosmic rays affecting high-latitude winter cyclones? [by Jake Hebert] · Two possible mechanisms linking cosmic rays to weather and climate [idem] · Apparent difficulties with a CMAS cosmic ray–weather/climate link [idem] · God’s global warming worked just fine [by Russ Humphreys] · Solar activity, cold European winters, and the Little Ice Age [J. H. again, 29.IV.2016]

Shloka meters

° ° ° °|˘ ¯ ¯ °||° ° ° °|˘ ¯ ˘ ° Pathya 1
° ¯ ˘ ¯|˘ ˘ ˘ °||° ° ° °|˘ ¯ ˘ ° Vipula 2a
° ˘ ¯ ¯|˘ ˘ ˘ °||° ° ° °|˘ ¯ ˘ ° Vipula 2b
° ¯ ˘ ¯|¯ ˘ ˘ °||° ° ° °|˘ ¯ ˘ ° Vipula 3
° ¯ ˘ ¯|¯' ¯ ¯ °||° ° ° °|˘ ¯ ˘ ° Vipula 4

° = long or short, ¯ = long, ˘ = short

Pathya means normal, Vipula means extended. These are half lines.

Here is the full wikipedian article:

And macrons and breves for showing verse forms are functioning on the html!

Friday, April 22, 2016

Is Hinduism Older than Judaism and Christianity?

In a sense, I was tempted to say, yes.

Judaism and Christianity are both New Testament era religions. The New Testament and the Fathers on the one hand and the Mishna and Gemara on the other hand are rival and pretty contemporary claimants to being true heir of the Old Testament Temple religion. Judaism claims to be its heir and continuation "on the backburner", but this time for about 2000 years since latest destruction of temple, unlike the only 70 between one destruction and the rebuilding through Ezra. Christianity claims to be its eternal true meaning, and the Body of Christ is the true temple of which the old one was only a symbol. Christianity does not claim to be "on the backburner" in that sense.

Samarian religion is older, it became a rival of Old Testament Temple religion a thousand years earlier.

But if that is so, so is Hinduism, right?

Well, that is as superficial as to exactitude of historic knowledge as saying Judaism is older than Christianity.

Buddhism and Hinduism had separated half a millennium earlier, but a few centuries in between, Emperor Ashoka makes Buddhism official and imposes ahimsa on Hindoos, thereby ending their major temple sacrifice - before Ashoka, Hindoos had been sacrificing animals, like horses, much like what was being done centuries later up to Christianity in Scandinavia. Ashoka forbade it and Hindooism adapted.

Another adaptation might have been the reverse, Hindooism being generally more optimistic than Buddhism and more optimistic versions OF Buddhism (usually more Theistic as well) might have been the Hindoo impact on Buddhism - which influenced China and Tibet. His equal treatment of Jainist, Buddhist and Hindoo "clergy" (monks vs brahmins) may have started a cultural merger between them, much like the one between Buddhism and Confucianism in China or Zen Buddhism and Shintoism in Japan. These mergers may be roughly contemporary.

And that means Christ came with the sword which divided the Hebrews (but on the Christian side of the divide united Jewish and Samarian such with Galilaean such) around the same time that the world came with its peace.

All our religions, such as are still openly practised in civilised countries, are roughly speaking two thousand years old.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Soter, Pope and Martyr

Thursday, April 7, 2016

Selinsgrove or Selin's Grove? 1776, anyway! (Link) (or not? other link)

OSN : Selinsgrove or old town Selin’s Grove?
By Hilde Kate Lysiak

Or not? Wiki has:

Selinsgrove was founded in 1787 by Captain Anthony Selin, who fought in the American Revolution.

Gives reference:

Steve Collward. "The Military Career of Capt. Anthony Selin" (PDF). Retrieved November 7, 2014.

Which says:

Selin came to America on December 5, 1776 and on December 10, was commissioned a Captain in VonOttendorff’s Corps. which was being formed at Great Plains, New York under General Washington’s immediate command. The Pennsylvania Archives lists Selin as Captain of Company No. 2, which records two lieutenants (Lawrence Myers, Christian Froelich) and 47 men. (see appendix I)

And later:

In 1785, Selin founded Selinsgrove, Pa., (Snyder Co.) and he and his wife lived on a farm adjoining the northern part of the town. Selin and his wife had two children, a son, Anthony Charles (who served in the War of 1812 as a Major), and a daughter, Agnes. In 1788, Selin was comissioned a Lt. Colonel of the 5th Battalion of the Northumberland County Militia, which by 1789 consisted of 292 men.43 Selin died on February 3, 1792 and is buried in the Snyder family plot at the Trinity Luthern [sic!] Church on Spruce St., Selinsgrove, Pa.

Appendix I is a muster held by Selin. Note 43 says:

William M. Schnure, Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania Chronology, (Vol. 1, 1700-1850, 1918), 84.

So, the work has at least 2, perhaps more volumes, first one appeared back in 1918 and was about the years 1700 to 1850. And the writer was arguably Pennsylvania Dutch, he was William M. Schnure./HGL

Saturday, April 2, 2016

Four Corners Revisited

1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Sungenis Countering Flat Earthers - with Some Lacks in his Argument · 3) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Four Corners Revisited

As my readers will be aware, I do not consider the Four Corners passages as proof of a Flat Earth.

On the contrary, I usually think they can be ascribed to corners of continents which give a four cornered shape much better on a Globe Earth.

My alternatives are:

I British Isles Japan Australia Cape of Good Hope
II Alaska Japan Australia Cape Horn
III British Isles Newfoundland Cape Horn Cape of Good Hope.

In the case the passages do state that Earth has "four" (namely continental) "corner", these three would be main options for placing them.

Option I sticks to Old World (with Oz), no big Inland Sea, options II and III involve Americas and have respectively Atlantic and Pacific as Inland Seas.

But there is another possibility.

Already under Sargon the traditional title “King of Kish” came to mean “king of the world,” using the similarity of the name of the city of Kish and the Akkadian term for “the entire inhabited world,” kishshatum. Naram-Sin took such self-glorification to an extreme. First, he introduced a new title, “king of the four corners (of the universe).”

A History of the Ancient Near East. Ca. 3000-323 BC, Blackwell, 2004, pp. 64-65
quoted in Dr. W.F. Albright’s Game - Changing Chronological Shift
by Damien F. Mackey

This would perhaps mean that "four corners" refer to what and whereever the successor of Naram-Sin is ruling over.

Though an angel on each of them (Apocalypse 7:1) would seem to point more to physical geography. Unless one were to consider it as referring to political capitals like Washington DC, Ottawa, Moscow and Beijing.

I cannot quite rule out the phrase being used with some irony over Pagan self worship (people who think they have the universe in their little square box).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Saturday of Easter Week

Friday, April 1, 2016

Quando latín y castellano era el mismo idioma

1) Quand latin et français était la même langue · 2) Quando latín y castellano era el mismo idioma

Scribitur  es pronuntsiado
Servus Servorum Dei est lingua docta pro/per "el servos de los servos de Dio."  "Servos Servoro Dei" es lengua doycha por el servos de los servos de Dio.
Per quid scribitur s e r u u s et non s e r u o s?  Por kedh escribe-se s e r u u s é nõ s e r u o s?
Scribitur s e r u u s, quia antiqui dicebant serv-U-s.  Escribitor s e r u u s, ke li(?) antig(?) deseian serv-U-s.
Et papa decaedit de sola disciplina aut et de fide?  Edh el papa decide de la sola distsiplina odh é de la fedh?
Decaedit et de fide, exempli gratia condemnando eos qui negant Adam casum fuisse per peccatum proprium.  Decide é de fedh, por eishemplo condeñando ellos ki niegan Adam fu caso por pecadho propio.