Monday, July 23, 2018

If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project - What Else Can We Expect?


Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Does my Interpretation of Mahabharata and Ramayana Offend Hindoos? · If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project, Why was it Called a Tower? · If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project - What Else Can We Expect? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Sin of Babel - Two Views · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica again: In case anyone missed this · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Mackey on Haman and on Babel · Creation vs. Evolution : Bricks at Göbekli Tepe or Close? · How My View of Babel Ties in with "Defending Biblical Inerrancy" · Ten Keys to my Idea of Göbekli Tepe as Babel and its Tower as a Rocket

One for whatever and whereever Tower of Babel was, first : all linguistic traces if any at all before its end would be in Hebrew. It seems both St Augustine and (I think) Targum Ionathas have it, the pre-Babel language was Hebrew and Hebrews kept it by not participating.

As it so happens, most even undeciphered traces of old writing are from after Göbekli Tepe. And some little trace of what could be pure symbol writing (about as linguistic as traffic signs all over the game) or what could involve abbreviated initial letters of words, which is older than Göbekli Tepe, namely from Palaeolithic, has not been deciphered and if linguistic could be Hebrew. Even if pre-Babel language was other than Hebrew, we do not find traces of linguistic diversity previous to Göbekli Tepe.

We could further expect that there is a site in Shinar, that is Mesopotamia, in or near a plain. And Göbekli Tepe is near a plain (and there is a tower on the plain) in an otherwise hilly part of Shinar or Mesopotamia.

"How so, 'Mesopotamia' - that's Iraq and Göbekli Tepe is Turkey!"

Mesopotamia means between the two rivers. Euphrates and Tigris. Literally "mid river land", but it refers to those two rivers. South East Mesopotamia was ancient Babylonia (in itself subdivided into Sumer and Akkad, South and North) and it is about mid Iraq. North West Mesopotamia was ancient Assyria, and it straddles, much like modern concept of Kurdistan, the countries Iraq, Turkey and Syria. Göbekli Tepe is in Turkey in the NW corner of a plain which is mostly in Syria - and on which you find a tower at Harran, just at the frontier, on the Turkish side. I do not know if Harran is archaeologically speaking as old as Göbekli Tepe, though.

We would exspect that the account of the project as such was hushed up, involving to the public technology loss. We would expect the Biblical description could read as something else but also now we have rockets in hindsight be compatible with rocketry:

and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: (from Genesis 11:4)

A skyrocket and a tower are physically alike, insofar as both have more than one level and the total added height of all levels outdoes the breadth of any level. A skyrocket is in that sense closer to a classical tower than a ziggurat is (not to mention all ziggurats in Iraq are too late, related to post-Hebrew languages like Sumerian). And they are unlike insofar as the reaching is a movement, and only the top level gets into space, of a rocket. And the Bible only mentioned the top as planned to go into heaven (there are bad translations, but Greek akmé and Latin culmen mean top).

We would expect civilisations to keep the astronomic preparatory work for it, which civilisation after civilisation does, even in Stonehenge and Nabta Playa.

We would expect at least one to experiment in rocket fuels, which China did for firework rockets, on a safer level.

We would expect, if Trent says when all Church Fathers agree, they are right, that a story of a static tower of skyscraper type would not be uniting all of them. We would also expect that some versions (even if with such a skyscraper), do tell of a project to conquer heaven.

And if the project had any likeness to Roddenberry's fantasy Star Trek, we might expect to see a warning signal about Star Trek - as we do. Respell it in Welsh, STARTREC = 616 in ASCII Code (it could have been worse, it was not 666).

We would expect at least one civilisation to dream of heros taken up to the stars - as the Greeks did. The one part of the Perseus legend that Justin martyr condemned as a diabolic lie was Perseus and Andromeda being taken up to become stars in Heaven.

We could expect some guilt after the adverse judgement of Heaven in the dispersion to come through, even if projected. If Nimrod had become a giant (whatever that means) why not project it on giants? Which, again : the Greeks, we find in Gigantomachia about giants piling Ossa and Pelion (a two storey tower) to conquer Mount Olympus.

If Nimrod had a certain rocket fuel in mind, be it even a very bad one, like Uranium, we might expect a hint of Uranium to show up in some old culture, as Mahabharata includes references to "like the light of a thousand suns" (quoted by Oppenheimer at the atomic explosion he arranged) or like the mice carrying nuclear pollution leading to loss of hair and bleeding from nails. (I take this is from a pre-Flood war including nukes, thus of Nod, not of India, though the coordinates may be similar or same).

I may of course have missed implications of my theory, and they may of course be implications contradicted by some fact. So, feel free to point out any.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris XI
St. Apollinaris of Ravenna
23.VII.2018

Ravennae natalis sancti Apollinaris Episcopi, qui, ab Apostolo Petro Romae ordinatus et Ravennam missus, pro fide Christi diversas et multiplices poenas perpessus est; postea, Evangelium in Aemilia praedicans, plurimos ab idolorum cultu revocavit; tandem, Ravennam reversus, gloriosum martyrium, sub Vespasiano Caesare, complevit.

[Svenskar kunna notera att det äfven är Sancta Birgittas dödsdag, men ej hennes fest.]

PS : If Babel of Genesis 11 had the double name Bab-El for adherents and Babel for opponents, we can expect some kind of connection to later city or cities so doubly named. If not identity (Göbekli Tepe is 37°13′23″N by 38°55′21″E, while archaeological site of Babylon is 32°32′11″N by 44°25′15″E, so not the same), at least a fittingness (Babylon is nearly due SE of Göbekli Tepe, each direction more than 5° and less than 6° removed)./HGL

Saturday, July 21, 2018

If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project, Why was it Called a Tower?


Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Does my Interpretation of Mahabharata and Ramayana Offend Hindoos? · If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project, Why was it Called a Tower? · If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project - What Else Can We Expect? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Sin of Babel - Two Views · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica again: In case anyone missed this · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Mackey on Haman and on Babel · Creation vs. Evolution : Bricks at Göbekli Tepe or Close? · How My View of Babel Ties in with "Defending Biblical Inerrancy" · Ten Keys to my Idea of Göbekli Tepe as Babel and its Tower as a Rocket

To a non-philologist, it makes a lot sense to ask ... for these verses:

Genesis 11:[4] And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands. [5] And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.

... this question : "hey, Hans, you say it was a rocket, they tried to build (yeah, we know you don't think it would have worked, they didn't have Oxygen Hydrogen fuelling), but why does the Bible say "tower" and not "rocket"?

Well, the answer is, if it was a rocket, what would it have been called?

"Rocket"

No language I know of has an own word meaning primarily rocket.

English has rocket which means primarily rocket - as a loan word in English. But it is a loan from Italian, where the primary meaning is distaff.

OK, you may not believe me just like that, it takes some explanation.

First, rocket is from an Italian word relating to textile production:

A rocket (from Italian rocchetto "bobbin")[nb 1][1] is a missile, spacecraft, aircraft or other vehicle that obtains thrust from a rocket engine.


I thought it was distaff, not bobbin, because the related German and Swedish words or second halves of words (Spinnrocken, spinnrock) are the same root as rochetto.

Here is the further explanation from wiki's note:

English rocket, first attested in 1566 (OED), adopted from the Italian term, given due to the similarity in shape to the bobbin or spool used to hold the thread to be fed to a spinning wheel. The modern Italian term is razzo.


Ah, ok, then it's the kind of bobbin that belongs to a spinning wheel, not unrelated to the distaff. Fine, explanation basically as I thought. You stick a firework rocket into the ground, what you stick into the ground is a stick attached to the rocket, of which lowest part remains free and has a fuse attached - looks like the wool on the spool.

Italian "razzo" comes from Latin "radius" = ray. A radius on a circle has centre like a light source, rays all directions, a ray in this sense has the rays going one way.

French calls the thing fusée, which first of all means a kind of swordhilt. You have the blade, the pommel, the crossbar, and around all their union you have a thicker hilt made by welding, or fusing, hence the idea of calling a swordhilt "fusée". The firework rocket (which is what modern European languages start with, before space craft) looks a bit like a swordhilt - especially as it also can stand up in the air if you stick sth - this time the blade - into the ground.

And Greek has, for rocket, "pyravlos" which means "fire-flute".

Now, the primary reference for all these are the firework rocket, and the space rocket only gets the same name because it looks a bit like a much larger version of same form and especially has the same propulsion principle.

But what if the earliest attempt at building a rocket was a space rocket? What would you call it? I'd perhaps go for tower, and especially, if someone else did, I would not be shocked. A spacerocket at takeoff looks like a tower.

And the pre-Babel Hebrew, unlike the English from 1566, had no Italian or other other language to borrow a word for in the meaning rocket.

Gentlemen, this is why philology is so interesting. And while I enjoy philosophy too, it annoys me no matter when people confuse philology with it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris XI
San Lorenzo di Brindisi
21.VII.2018

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Missing Part of It, Akin!


Did Arnobius Deny that Celestial Bodies are Alive? · Missing Part of It, Akin!

Are There UFOs in Religious Art? (And More Weird Questions!)
Jimmy Akin | 25.V.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdRlhawSvPY


Important extract:



Now, the point is, the tradition was not just an artistic one and Sun and Moon are not just depicted as witnesses. The angels who are moving the celestial bodies are actually, like all other angels, witnesses.

Sun, because he made his celestial body go dark, Moon, because he knew his celestial body cannot have been hiding that of the Sun at Fullmoon.

The Catholic Bible (unlike, I think, KJV, which has a shorter Daniel ch 3), actually has this adress to angels and to Sun and Moon:

[58] O ye angels of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. ... [61] O all ye powers of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [62] O ye sun and moon, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [63] O ye stars of heaven, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

In other words, yes, some of the angels created presumably all before day Four, on day Four got assigned heavenly bodies to be moving and these were active at the miracle of the Sun going dark. Precisely as also on the miracle of Joshua's long day.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Pius I, Martyr
11.VII.2018

Romae sancti Pii Primi, Papae et Martyris; qui martyrio coronatus est in persecutione Marci Aurelii Antonini. Bergomi sancti Joannis Episcopi, qui, ob tuendam catholicam fidem, ab Arianis occisus est. ...

Neanderthal's Language


Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Neanderthal's Language · Creation vs. Evolution : Neanderthal - speculations and certainty · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Neanderthal Pre- or Post-Flood? Me and Roger Pearlman ... · Neanderthal Flute · Neanderthals as Elves and Trolls and as Pre-Flood · Elves, Trolls, Pre-Flood - Continued

Dr. Jeffery Laitman, at Mt Sinai school of medicine, in a video argues about as follows:

"the central part of the base is flat" (4:40 in Homo Sapiens vs Neanderthals | The Evolution of Language*) - > so Neanderthals probably had the larynx high up in the throat (like children** and like apes) - > "according to some linguists, they probably coundl't make certain of what we call the quantum vowel sounds ... the sounds in boot, father or feet" (8:11 or so ...)

Now, there is a class of languages where this is less important.

You see they depend mainly on consonants. However, most consonants are not that much affected by size of resonance box or by position of larynx.

This means, any language from this class could be better off as a pre-Flood language than, say, Homeric Greek, which depended on very full vowels. Hawaian is also out.

Now, if the Neanderthals could not get an oo from boot totally distinct from an ee from feet, well, perhaps also the consonants w as in woe and y as in yore were hard to distinguish?

There is one Semitic language (one of the families in the class depending mainly on consonants, there is also a Caucasian family with the trait) where w and y are somewhat interchangeable.

It is, as my mother's language books from back then taught me, so that "waw-yod" confusion in mid radical was one of the features which scared me away from learning Hebrew, well, it is Hebrew.

So, if the general pre-Flood language was Hebrew and if Neanderthals lived pre-Flood, what Jeffery Laitman says of Neanderthal anatomy supports this.

He goes on in the video to argue their brains didn't function as ours, no symbolic behaviour ... well, they don't cave paintings - but those could be from one single genial artist post-Flood, some close kin of Noah, and they could have made some where colours were washed off during Flood. It seems "they invented the hashtag".

They are also arguably behind the bone flute from Divje Babe in Slovenia.

They also buried their dead, it would seem.

They knew how to impregnate wood with a substance so it ignited faster - and you don't get advanced technology without symbolic behaviour.

To a Young Earth Creationist, knowing they had our FoxP2 gene, our Broca's and Wernicke's areas, and that we share in some but not all cases more of their genes or less of their genes, it is obvious they descended from Adam and Eve and could speak.

And what Jeffery Laitman says of their anatomy argues, what they spoke could have been Hebrew.

More, perhaps, tomorrow, on them, today I am a bit tired.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Pius I, Martyr***
11.VII.2018

* Homo Sapiens vs Neanderthals | The Evolution of Language
Epic History | 3.I.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9KnOjsc0g4


** He speaks of a "trace of Neanderthal" in all of us, but we are not now considered as evolved from Neanderthals.

*** Romae sancti Pii Primi, Papae et Martyris; qui martyrio coronatus est in persecutione Marci Aurelii Antonini.

Très brièvement sur Deux Aspects de Tito


Je passe de côté les aspects de partisan et de révolutionnaire en 1945 (y compris donc le massacre à Bleiburg), et me concentre sur deux aspects de sa politique.

  • le bon aspect est de prolonger le moment assez bref pro-Koulak de Staline : Tito était toujours plus ou moins pro-Koulak (au-delà d'une certaine grandeur d'exploitation, la coopérative était obligatoire, mais des petits Koulaks, ça a toujours existé - et les produits de Agro-Union ont fait saliver jusqu'en Suède);
  • le mauvais aspect est de prolonger certains moments des aspects culturels et législatifs de mœurs du Léninisme, de prôner Alexandra Kollontaï, l'avortement, la contraception (sans oublier un certain anticléricalisme, beaucoup moins prononcé qu'en Soviétique, mais qui aussi a préféré des Chrétiens sans "querelles doctrinales" ou créationnisme jeune-terre).


Avant de reprocher à Carlos Ugo de s'être prononcé pour le premier aspect, faudrait vérifier s'il était aussi pour le second./HGL

Saturday, July 7, 2018

Newman sur l'avant le Concile de Nicée - et le pendant et l'après


Le converti et cardinal John Henry Newman, avant de devenir catholique, était Anglican.

Déjà pendant cette période, il va écrire un livre qui va préparer sa conversion:

Arians of the Fourth Century
John Henry Newman
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/index.html


Amazon : The Arians of the Fourth Century
Paperback – September 12, 2013 by John Henry Newman (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Arians-Fourth-Century-Henry-Newman/dp/1230240667


Je pourrais revérifier un peu, car c'est avant de quitter la Suède que je l'ai lu. Et ça fait 14 ans que je ne suis pas allé en Suède.

Ce dont je me souviens, sans problème, c'est la ligne générale:

  • l'église primitive continue bien-sûr après les Apôtres (en cessant d'être qualifiable strictu sensu de "primitive"), ayant sa doctrine par les livres de la Bible et par la succession des évêques,
  • se voit confronté avec une novation simplificatrice, la négation de la distinction réelle entre les trois personnes
  • ce qui est prêché par un Sabellius que l'église condamne bien avant Nicée
  • et la condamnation de Sabellius est reprise en forme exagérée par un Paul de Samosate, aussi condamné avant Nicée
  • et l'église devient légale en Empire romain
  • et en Alexandria, l'évêque Alexandre et son alors Diacre Athanase se voient confrontés avec un Arius, qui reprend la doctrine déjà condamnée de Paul de Samosate
  • Constantin convoque un concile par tout l'empire qui condamne donc en forme un peu plus solennelle qu'avant les erreurs de Paul de Samosate et d'Arius
  • et pour l'instant, l'orthodoxie a gagné, mais ...
  • Constantin meurt, ses fils sont mécontents, pas seulement l'arianisme est relégalisé, mais l'orthodoxie est délégalisé, sous prétexte de fanatisme, et St. Athanase, devenu évêque après Alexandre, est remplacé par l'intrus Georges, doit continuer en clandestin, est exilé à Trèves (49° 45′ 35″ nord, 6° 38′ 38″ est, ville natale de Karl Marx, en Allemagne actuelle - ce qui prouve une romanité pour la nationalité germanique, dans ces région frontalières), divers d'autres reprennent la lutte contre l'arianisme aussi, dont certains sont aussi persécutés, certains diffèrent sur le combien on doit condamner en l'arianisme (Lucifer étant un hardliner et les homoïousiens étant considérés par St. Athanase comme voulant dire la même chose, par lui sont considérés comme Ariens - certains seront plus tard pères de l'église), certains d'autres cèdent à la pression (pape Libère, Hosius de Cordoue), malgré une orthodoxie personnelle,
  • et enfin après Julien l'Apostat et un nouvel Empereur catholique, les choses reviennent en ordre, dans le deuxième concile général, celui qui était le premier à Constantinople.


Après de vérifier un peu du texte en ligne, il semble que l'église d'Antioche (d'où était Paul de Samosate et d'où sera plus tard Nestorius) et les Juifs avaient de quoi à faire avec les erreurs pré-ariens et ariens. Et - ce que j'avais totalement oublié - le Montanisme et le Gnosticisme avec le Sabellianisme.

Il y a une histoire très bien documentée, on peut à la limite être en discorde avec tel ou tel détail, ou comment interpréter telle ou telle partie communément admise, et dans cette histoire, il n'y a pas de trace d'une certaine idiotie, selon laquelle le Christianisme aurait au début reconnu Jésus-Christ comme simple prophète, comme simplement un homme inspiré par Dieu et ensuite l'idée de sa divinité serait imposée par politique sur le concile de Nicée, venant de nulle part. Au contraire, les Ariens aussi reconnaissaient Jésus-Christ comme beaucoup plus qu'un simple prophète, comme la première créature, créé avant que Dieu crée tout le reste (avec lui, probablement).

Arius, très au contraire, ne semble pas avoir pleinement reconnu l'humanité de Notre Seigneur. St Thomas d'Aquin dit en III Pars, Q5, A3, début du corpus:

I answer that, As Augustine says (De Haeres. 69,55), it was first of all the opinion of Arius and then of Apollinaris that the Son of God assumed only flesh, without a soul, holding that the Word took the place of a soul to the body. And consequently it followed that there were not two natures in Christ, but only one; for from a soul and body one human nature is constituted. But this opinion cannot hold


Ou plutôt il dit:

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de haeresibus, opinio primo fuit Arii, et postea Apollinaris, quod filius Dei solam carnem assumpserit, absque anima, ponentes quod verbum fuerit carni loco animae. Ex quo sequebatur quod in Christo non fuerunt duae naturae, sed una tantum, ex anima enim et carne una natura humana constituitur. Sed haec positio stare non potest,


Ce que je pourrais traduire comme: je réponds qu'on doit dire que, comme le dit Augustine dans le livre sur les hérésies, l'opinion fut d'abord celle d'Arius et ensuite celle d'Apollinaire, que le Fils de Dieu prit seulement la chair, sans l'âme, posant que pour la chair le Verbe était en lieu d'âme. De quoi suivrait que dans le Christ il n'y avait pas deux natures, mais une seulement, car d'âme et de chair une nature humaine est constituée. Mais cette opinion ne peut pas rester debout ... Et ensuite, il donne trois raisons contre Arius. Le point est donc, Arius n'était absolument pas quelqu'un qui prenait le Christ comme un homme ayant une grâce spéciale de Dieu, il le prenait pour quelque chose comme la première créature. La conscience qui habitait le corps de Notre Seigneur n'aurait même pas compris une âme normale, mais été uniquement cet être "presque éternel" qu'Arius voulait au lieu d'un Fils parfaitement coéternel avec le Père.

Pour nous, cette personne comporte deux consciences, celle qu'Il a de toute éternité, celle qui débute dans le sein de la Vierge. En restant une même personne.

Franchement, la formule de Nicée n'ajoute pas sensiblement pour un lecteur très superficielle à ce qu'Arius disait, elle est plus compliqué, ce n'aurait pas été génial de l'inventer pour des raisons politiques, et de fait, la politique va l'opposer, d'abord sous Constantin II (Occident), Constant Ier (Centre), Constance II (Orient) qui favorisèrent l'Arianisme, ensuite par Julien qui favorisait un retour au paganisme (pas de bol, pour lui, la littérature païenne était Homère et Virgile, la philosophie par contre très différente de leurs croyances, ou réellement celles d'Homère ... et trop de gens étaient déjà Chrétiens) et encore une fois la politique des Visigoths, en moindre mesure aussi Ostrogoths et Burgondiens, en mesure acerbée la politique des Vandales va persécuter le Catholicisme. De ça, par contre, Newman ne traite pas, au-delà de Julien et du Concile de Constantinople.

Mais on espère que personne aurait sérieusement prétendu le contraire ... non?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy
Sts Cyrille et Méthode
7.VII.2018