Tuesday, 19 December 2017

Peut-on demander sur le roman "en moyenne" sans d'abord répondre sur "roman en moyenne de qui ?" - ou ne le peut-on pas ?


Suggestion de modification
sur quora. D'une de mes réponses:



[Visiblement est visée la seule et entière phrase "Le roman moyen de qui?" et non pour l'espace qui manquait avant le point d'interrogation.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Il y a 4 heures
Les mots “le roman moyen de qui ?” étaient pertinents.

Il n’y a pas de “roman moyen” pour tous les auteurs, ou s’il y a, il est invérifiable.

Donc “le roman moyen de qui ?” ou “le roman moyen de quel romancier ?” était une question à poser.

Sihem Soibinet-Fekih
Il y a 42 minutes
Hans,

Merci pour votre message et votre explication. Toutefois, le roman moyen n’etait pas le sens de la question.

Le roman moyen* ne veut d’ailleurs pas dire grand chose en soi. On dit d’un roman qu’ il est moyen, seulement lorsqu’on le considère médiocre en français.

Par contre, on utilisera l’expression “en moyenne” dans le cas présent puisque la question porte sur le nombre de mot par chapitre, donc sur un nombre quantifiable. Comme on ne peut pas quantifier un roman, on ne peut donc pas parler de roman moyen autre que pour exprimer une qualité, en l’occurenxe médiocre.

J'espère que cette analyse vous aura été utile. Je reste à votre disposition pour d’autres questions.

Cordialement,

Sihem

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Il y a 37 minutes
Le problème est, ce qui n’est pas quantifiable est, combien de romans ont 1000 et combien ont 2000 mots par chapitre.

D’où “le roman en moyenne de qui ?” si vous allez suggérer cette correction.

Les romans de CSL ou de lui et Tolkien ensemble, ça, oui, c’est quantifiable.

Et quant à l’impossibilité de dire “le roman moyen” en sens quantifiable, c’est possible, comme synecdoque à partir du “roman en moyenne”.

Sihem Soibinet-Fekih
Il y a 15 minutes
On est d’accord qu’il n’y avait pas de nom d’auteur dans la question?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Il y a 1 minute
Parfaitement.

C’est exactement la faute de la question comme formulée.

Combien de mots par chapitre en moyenne est fort bien quantifiable pour les romans d’un-tel ou d’un-tel, ou pour les romans publiés par un-tel ou un-tel, mais ce n’est pas quantifiable du tout pour “les romans” en général.

C’est quantifiable pour “romans publiés en France la dernière décade d’années”, mais ça aussi renvoie à un “les romans de qui ?”

Vous venez de comprendre?

Roman, ce n’est pas une espèce d’animal pour lequel on peut compter le nombre approximatif de cheveux sur le corps. C’est un genre d’oeuvre d’art, et les “recettes” ou “l’ADN” est par conséquent totalement malléable selon les périodes. Ou goûts individuels.


* Personnellement, il ne me semble pas que "le roman moyen" pourrait être pris comme forme défini du jugement critique "c'était un roman moyen". Surtout pas quand après "moyen" j'ajoute une indice sur la sélection pertinente pour une statistique. En occurrence, l'indice que cet indice manquait dans la question comme elle m'avait été posé et que je cherchais une clarification dessus.

Thursday, 23 November 2017

Other Check on Carbon Buildup


Who is Peter Vajda?
I saw his name here, on this article on CMI:

The spatial inverse problem in Earth sciences
Published: 20 October 2017 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/spatial-inverse-problem-in-earth-sciences


Note that 10 hours before Greenwhich mean time ... I actually am not sure how I saw this so early, see letter 1.

Could be a preview of publication or .... ah, here it is, it had alrady become 20.X while it was still 19.X here!

I

Me to Peter Vajda
10/19/17 at 5:30 PM
What is the proportionality between cosmic radiation and production of new carbon 14?
1 Linear graph? 1:1, 2:2, 3:3, 4:4?
2 Squares? 1:1, 2:4, 3:9, 4:16?
3 Square roots? 1:1, 4:2, 9:3, 16:4?

Bonus : is the above true only for Becquerel coming from cosmos, or also true with regards to the normal cosmic radiation doses on Earth, as in medium 0.39 milliSievert per year?

Yours truly,
Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Peter Vajda to me
10/20/17 at 7:44 AM
RE: What is the proportionality between cosmic radiation and production of new carbon 14?
Radiocarbon is not my specialization. I cannot answer this specific question.
Regards, PV

III

Me to Peter Vajda
10/20/17 at 7:47 AM
Re: RE: What is the proportionality between cosmic radiation and production of new carbon 14?
Do you have a colleague you could refer me to?/HGL

IV

Peter Vajda to me
10/20/17 at 8:31 AM
contacts
Not personally, but you can try to contact researchers from the Department of Nuclear Physics (oddelenie jadrovej fyziky) of the Comenius Uni in Bratislava

https://fmph.uniba.sk/pracoviska/katedra-jadrovej-fyziky-a-biofyziky/

such as Prof.Dr. Masarik or the other six contacts listed under the department.

Regards, PV

V

Me to Peter Vajda
10/20/17 at 11:46 AM
Re: contacts
Thank you very much!

Best wishes!/HGL

PS, enjoyed your "inverse problem" today, I suppose we can't rule out the centre of Earth is where Hell is, after all!

VI

Me to Professor Masarik
10/20/17 at 11:55 AM
Good day, Professor Masarik! A problem on Carbon 14 and Cosmic radition?
If you find it beneath your worth, it seems you have colleagues you can confide it to, but it might even interest you. Here it is:

A) In normal cosmic radition, medium radiation dose on places on Earth (increasing with height) from cosmic radition alone is, I have gathered, 0.39 milliSivert per year.
B) Also in normal cosmic radition, the speed of production of carbon 14 is such that in ten years, the descent of atmosphere's 100 pmc to a theoretic 99.879 pmc is compensated, since carbon level stays roughly the same.

Now, there is obviously a connection between the levels, since carbon 14 is produced mainly by cosmic radiation hitting N14 high in the atmosphere (or so I have gathered).

But the problem is whether the connection is like a straight line graph (1:1, 2:2, 3:3, 4:4) or squared (1:1, 2:4, 3:9, 4:16) or inverse squared (1:1, 4:2, 9:3, 16:4).

Or for that matter any other dimension (cubed or inverse cubed?)?

I spontaneously think the first is likely : if the cosmic radiation dose is doubled, the speed of carbon 14 production is also doubled.

But suppose I am wrong, I'd like to know.

Hope this may interest you and be worth your time,
sincerely,
Hans Georg Lundahl

Ten days
up to next letter here, and no answer from Professor Masarik, I'll assume he lost interest or had none in the first place. How I hear of the following, see my answer to him.

VII

Me to Ilya Usoskin
10/30/17 at 9:14 AM
Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Q
I have asked a question which seems more complicated than I thought.

I was given this paper as an answer, and will read it too:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.6974.pdf

But I saw a summary by the man who gave me the reference.

He said that up to 1 Gev, the relation between energy of cosmic radiation to production of C14 is linear, but above 1 Gev, the relation becomes more like:

energy:production = n:sqrt(n)

This makes me wonder, what level of milliSievert per year is 1 Gev, and what carbon 14 production corresponds to it?

I suppose it is an observed level, but is it medium of the normal production, higher or lower?

VIII

Ilya Usoskin to me
10/30/17 at 9:27 AM
Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Q
Dear Has-Georg,

Thank you for your interest!

However, I cannot understand you question.

I don't know who is the man who told you that
"up to 1 Gev, the relation between energy of cosmic radiation to production of C14 is linear, but above 1 Gev, the relation becomes more like: energy:production = n:sqrt(n)"
but it doesn't sound clear for me.

Neither do I understand how radiation dose is related to 14C production in your mail.

Could you please formulate it in a clearer way?

For your information, the most recent 14C production model is available here:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/isotopes_JGR.pdf

Best regards,
Ilya

Of his contact
I am giving this:

Ilya Usoskin
Professor, Head of Oulu Cosmic Ray Station
Vice-director, ReSoLVE National Center of Excellence
Space Climate Research Group and Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory
FIN-90014 University of Oulu, Finland

Also omitting it in the following.

IX

Me to Ilya Usoskin
10/30/17 at 11:18 AM
Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Q
It's Hans-Georg, no doubt you typed in haste.

Well, I will try to clarify.

Here is a man who gave me the link, he also gave me the resumé:

Bruno Doussau
Professeur d'informatique chez Tyumen University

In other words, if he got it wrong, the man is not in your specialty, that is why I am writing you.

He had, as best as he could, tried to answer the question:

La production du nouveau carbone 14 ayant un rapport avec la force de la radiation cosmique, est-il proportionnel directement, au carré ou inversement au carré (détail en commentaire) ?
https://fr.quora.com/La-production-du-nouveau-carbone-14-ayant-un-rapport-avec-la-force-de-la-radiation-cosmique-est-il-proportionnel-directement-au-carr%C3%A9-ou-inversement-au-carr%C3%A9-d%C3%A9tail-en-commentaire


He had also linked to you, so I could read the material myself or check with you.

Obviously, more cosmic radiation equals faster production of C14.

I am less concerned with the energy as measured from cosmos than with how it reflects as radiation doses on earth.

Like, if at a point in time C14 was (not on the calibrations you are using, but on an alternative one) forming 11 times faster than now, and if the normal cosmic radiation on earth is now 0.39 milliSievert per year, would at such an occasion the radiation dose be 11 * 0.39 milliSievert per year, less, or even 121 * 0.39 milliSievert per year?

It makes a certain difference as to how realistic the alternative calibration is, since a radiation dose which kills off all life is not possible to have had in the past.

Thank you for taking your time!
Hans Georg Lundahl

X

Ilya Usoskin to me
10/30/17 at 11:32 AM
Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Q
Dear Hans-Georg (sorry for misspelling your name earlier),

Thanks for the clarification. I think I start understanding your question.

Although indeed, more 14C corresponds to higher radiation dose at Earth, there is no one-to-one relation between 14C production and cosmic radiation dose at the surface.

Exact relation should be calculated using detailed models which do exist but I am not aware of a precise calculation of what you ask.

The problem is that 14C is produced globally, in the entire atmosphere, while radiation is local and at the surface. Their exact relation may depend on many factors, most important being the energy spectrum of cosmic rays (the solar modulation) and the Earth's magnetic field which vary independently of each other. Therefore, the same amount of 14C produced in the atmosphere may correspond to different doses at a given location.

Best regards,
Ilya

XI

Me to Ilya Usoskin
10/30/17 at 11:51 AM
Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Q
So, for a production 11 times faster (over an extended period), what would be the maximum and minimum of radiation dose at a height* where today the one coming from cosmos is 0.39 milliSievert per year?

Or one for typical solar spectrum?

Or, could you link to some of these models?

Note
* As I have read, the medium dose from cosmos is 0.39 mSv (? abbreviation?) and it depends on height.

XII

Me to Ilya Usoskin
10/30/17 at 3:10 PM
The 0.39 mSv per year relate to normal C14 production how?
I mean, at medium height, the normal exposure to cosmic rays is 0.39 mSv, at sea level it is 0.27 mSv.

Suppose now the cosmic rays changed so that the speed of carbon 14 production were 2, 3 or even 11 times as fast, would the exposure at normal height / sea level be:

0.39 mSv / 0.27 mSv per year * 2, 3, 11?
0.39 mSv / 0.27 mSv per year * 4, 9, 121?
0.39 mSv / 0.27 mSv per year * 1.414, 1.732, 3.317?

Best wishes,
Hans Georg Lundahl

XIII

Me to Ilya Usoskin
10/31/17 at 2:47 PM
Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Modelling Q
Good day!

Let's suppose all other parameters equal, but following parameters unequal to now, three scenarii:

1) solar activity and galactic radiation 2 times as strong, twice as many incoming particles, Earth magnetic field half as strong;
2) solar activity and galactic radiation 3 times as strong, three times as many incoming particles, Earth magnetic field a third as strong;
3) solar activity and galactic radiation 4 times as strong, 4 times as many incoming particles, Earth magnetic field a quarter of the strength.

In each case, prolong over many years and take it as medium.

In each case, how much faster is C14 produced compared to now, and how much more milliSievert per year would normally be coming from cosmos, as compared to the 0.39 per year at presently known?

I would have thought, spontaneously, the answers would be:

1) 4 times faster, 4*0.39 mSv per year;
2) 9 times faster, 9*0.39 mSv per year;
3) 16 times faster, 16*0.39 mSv per year.

The "11 times faster" being therefore between cases 2 and 3.

If I am wrong, I'd like to know, and you are in a position to tell, as far as I know.

Best wishes,
Hans Georg Lundahl
Mairie du III
Vigil of All Saints
31.X.2017

XIV

Ilya Usoskin to me
10/31/17 at 3:48 PM
Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Modelling Q
Dear Hans-Georg,

I am sorry, I am very busy now and cannot make your exercises.

Moreover, your questions are still imprecise.

> 1) solar activity and galactic radiation 2 times as strong, twice as many incoming particles, Earth magnetic field half as strong;

For example, this sentence does not make sense. "Twice as many incoming particles" in what energy range?
You probably wanted to say that twice as much 14C was produced?

[No, I did not ...]

In order to answer your question, someone needs to run a model with a precise selection of parameters. I don't have time now for that, and I still don't understand your question.

Best regards and sorry for brevity,
Ilya

XV

Me to Ilya Usoskin
10/31/17 at 6:09 PM
Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Modelling Q
"twice as strong" = twice the normal energy range
AND "twice as many particles"
AND "half as strong a magnetic field"

"You probably wanted to say that twice as much 14C was produced?"

No, I already said I guessed 4 times as much C14 would have been produced, but you know better.

Take your time, whenever you get it.

Above explicitates for 1, with 2 each factor is muliplied by three, with 3 each is multiplied by four.

ALL other parameters equal to normal ones at present.

No hurt feelings, best regards,
Hans Georg Lundahl

XVI

Me, forwarding to Dr Seiler
11/1/17 at 3:44 PM
Fw: Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Modelling Q
Mr. Seiler, just in case Ilya Usoskin really has no time at all ... blessed feast of All Saints!

XVII

Me to Hugh Owen
11/1/2017 10:25 AM
Subject: This might interest you
Message Body:
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/10/things-could-get-bit-complicated-with.html

http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/2017/10/sipapuni-origin-myths.html

http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/2017/10/the-gospel-truth-william-p-lazarus-part_31.html

Best wishes for All Saints and the week of All Souls!

--
This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Welcome to the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation (http://kolbecenter.org)

XVIII

Hugh Owen to me
11/2/17 at 11:32 AM
Re: This might interest you
Thank you and God bless you!

In Domino,
Hugh

XIX

Me to Hugh Owen
11/2/17 at 1:48 PM
Re: This might interest you
You are welcome!

Blessed All Souls!

XX

Thomas Seiler to me
11/4/17 at 9:05 PM
Aw: Fw: Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Modelling Q
Dear Mr. Lundahl,

thanks for your wishes! I have not been involved in your discussion with Mr. Usoskin. Possibly, I missed an email. Otherwise, could you please tell me what precisely is your question?

With best regards!

Thomas Seiler

XXI

Me to Thomas Seiler
(CC Usoskin?)
11/6/17 at 9:30 AM
Re: Aw: Fw: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Modelling Q
Well, I thought the question was clear from the emails already sent below this, but once again:

He has the latest model of how variations in cosmic radiation affect production of C14, Na22 (?), Be7, Be10 and other cosmogenic isotopes.

I thought I had detected a problem in his model (a MONTECARLO simulation programme) for my own model of carbon rise in the atmosphere (a necessity for Young Earth Creationism).

Now, from certain words in our previous exchange (the one I forwarded was the second one), I had gathered it was less straightforward than I thought.

So, I asked him to model first for 2, 3, 4 times as much carbon, then he answered that this was not straightforward as different combinations of parameters could do this.

This provoked a refined (and quantitatively changed) modelling request:

Cosmic radiation (both galactic and solar) : 2, 3, 4 times as many particles coming with 2, 3, 4 times as much energy. Earth magnetic field : 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 present strength.

This I figured would give parameters for Carbon production 4 (or 8), 9 (or 27), 16 (or 64) times as fast as at present in medium. But since it was more complex, as he said, I could be very wrong here.

The other result parameter I would want is, how does this translate in milliSievert per year on a normal height on Earth (at present, with 1*1*1/1 it is 0.27 at sea level and 0.39 at medium height for localities on land/on Earth).

My concern is this : on my model of carbon rise, I would need carbon production to be 11 times as fast as at present during the Babel event (40 years of Babel project correspoinding to 1000 carbon dated years of Göbekli Tepe), as to the rest, my highest C14 production values (for St Jerome's chronology, presuming it has 401 years between Flood and birth of Peleg) are 5-6 times faster at between Joseph in Egypt (supposing he is Imhotep under Pharao Djoser) and fall of Jericho (supposing the Kenyon date of 1550 BC is the one we need for 1470 BC), and a little more than 5 times faster in medium between Flood and Babel.

Here is the latest model involving Usoskin:

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/isotopes_JGR.pdf

XXII

Me to Ilya Usoskin
CC Thomas Seiler
11/8/17 at 3:26 PM
I think I owe you this notification
I might have got you wrong, but it seems you gave up, hence the words in this link:

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/11/on-question-whether-creationists-are.html

Bruce Doran
13m ago
If you’ve had a paper espousing creationist views accepted in Nature or Cell recently, I humbly defer.
Otherwise I think you’d find raw exposure to a group of people equipped with the education I describe to be an enlightening experience.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
Oh, you meant educated so as to be brain washed to accept scientific articles only from Evolutionist publications?
In that case I don’t pick your version of “educated”.
It is more like Evolution biassed scientists are shunning too much exposure to me.
I was asking Ilya Usoskin to test my model (not saying it was mine and not giving exact details, but frame work for diverse quantities on three parameters) on carbon 14 build up, and he had no time.
He is a physicist at Oulu University in Finland, presumably partly Russian and partly Finnish.
End cited,
back to letter:
If my guess about part Finnish ancestry was bad in relation to name "Usoskin", I'll be happy to rectify.

Equally, if I got your motivation wrong.

Yes, the scenario with 11 times faster C14 production is my own, it is a YEC one.

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/07/how-fast-was-carbon-14-forming-during.html

The reason I want to check with either you or sn else is, as Richard Carrier says:

" a more general error: Not trying to prove your thesis false, before asserting it’s true. "

If 11 times faster carbon production is = milliSievert per year impossible to survive, then my scenario is proven wrong.

I had got this challenge a few years ago, at Nanterre University campus, after working in the library, but my solution had so far been assuming the incoming cosmic radiation is linear graph proportional to the production of new carbon.

So, I assumed, you are not interested in helping me check, because you figured out I am Young Earth Creationist, and because you have some prejudice against the position.

Even so, others have a stronger one, some have on other issues not even answered a first time. Or even on this one.

Thanks, and feel welcome to ask for a correction in the mention, if you like!

Hans Georg Lundahl

XXIII

Ilya Usoskin to me
11/8/17 at 4:04 PM
Re: I think I owe you this notification
Dear Hans-Georg,

As I said, I am very busy now and unfortunately have no time for your exercises.

Still, the problem was posed unambiguously. A direct comparison between 14C (which is global) and radiation dose (local) does not make sense unless the exact location is specified. There are some other unclear moments, but this is the main one. The dose at equator and polar regions would behave differently in relation 14C global production.

You are free to write whatever you want in your blog, but I don't think I gave you any reason to accuse me in any "prejudice".

I am not interested in your believes and aims, I am a scientist and more interested in facts than in believes.

My nationality is irrelevant in this discussion.

Best regards,
Ilya

XXIV

Me to Ilya Usoskin
CC Thomas Seiler
11/8/17 at 5:09 PM
Re: I think I owe you this notification
"Still, the problem was posed unambiguously. A direct comparison between 14C (which is global) and radiation dose (local) does not make sense unless the exact location is specified."

OK, I ditched the "go from C14 production" in response to what you said and instead I gave certain parameters :

  • I cosmic radiation both galactic and solar a) 2*particles and 2*energy per particle, b) 3* etc, c) 4* etc
  • II earth's magnetic field a) 1/2 as strong, b) 1/3 as strong, c) 1/4 as strong.


In each case, compared to medium value now.

I asked what would be speed of carbon production (global, as you may guess) and what would be the (global, I thought) effect in radiation dose.
I now correct this to :
I asked what would be speed of carbon production (global, as you may guess) and what would be the effect in radiation dose, both for equator and for pole.

How long could it take to program this into the monte-carlo model?

If you have no time, could you delegate it to a student, please?

"I don't think I gave you any reason to accuse me in any 'prejudice'."

Without prejudice, why:
  • do you persist in relating to my initial request instead of to my corrections of it?
  • do you state you are not interested in my beliefs, when I was asking a question pertaining to (modelled) fact?


"My nationality is irrelevant in this discussion."

Perhaps it might remain so, I wanted to give you a chance to correct, if you thought appropriate.

Hans Georg Lundahl

15 days later
still no answer.

Perhaps Seiler or Usoskin or both are preparing a Christmas present?

Tuesday, 17 October 2017

Me and Damien Mackey on Historicity of Iliad and Odyssey


Me to Damien Mackey
"On 13 October 2017 at 01:56"
(Australian timezone)
Iliad and Odyssey = Biblical characters?
Er ... no.

Iliad and Odyssey = events of Iliad and Odyssey + tradition fairly well preserved but mixing details (anything to do directly with Hittes "reedited" to suit a historiography without them) + Homer formulating this into two poems + tradition after Homer identifying these poems as real events of the real past of these peoples.

In the case of Deucalion, I have to say he is based on Noah (at least as far as world wideness of Flood is concerned) and probably also Abraham and Lot : the real stories of these are not only there, but there is a very good reason for each of these both to be somewhat known to early Greeks, but also to be misconstrued more than usual in history.

In the case of Iliad and Odyssey there is no such reason.

There is however, if they are taken as literal and (mostly) factual history of events (mostly) geographically and temporally set where they are set two good lessons:

* Ulysses, Penelope, Suitors : the situation of Christ, Church and Antichrist up to and in Harmageddon, prophecy granted to Pagan stories;
* Agamemnon having defeated Trojan troops one day wanted to enroll the aid of Sun in totally routing them before they could get back into Troy : he failed, but he could very well have heard about the solar miracle of Joshua.

The now known Greek story about a solar miracle one generation before Agamemnon could be conflated with observations of Sun going back twenty or ten or whatever lines for a King of Judah. And obviously, appropriation for family matters of Agamemnon's family would perhaps be due to Agamemnon being as much of a single ruler of Greece (except Athens and Thebes, basically) as Stalin was of Soviet Union.

Traditionally, both George Syncellus and Peter Comestor place time of Trojan War when Eli was judging Israel.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Damien Mackey to me
10/12/17 at 11:18 PM
Iliad and Odyssey = Biblical characters?
Agamemnon could have hear about the miracle of Joshua if Agamemnon had really existed.

Me to Damien Mackey
10/13/17 at 9:11 AM
Iliad and Odyssey = Biblical characters?
You are very eager to deny historical existence of characters outside the Bible, and by doing so, you denigrate the general reliability of tradition : which makes reliability of Bible a miracle ONLY to be put down to divine inerrancy.

By doing so, you are excluding historic facts of the Bible from the motiva credibilitatis.

Yes, Agamemnon existed and so did Ulysses.

BECAUSE (to us Christians) so did Joseph and Moses.

Yes, Trojan War occurred, and so did Ulysses' homecoming.

BECAUSE so did Exodus and the Resurrection.

Damien Mackey to me
10/14/17 at 1:13 AM
Iliad and Odyssey = Biblical characters?
Yeah, you're probably right, Odysseus (Ulysses) would almost certainly have encountered a giant Cyclops, and a witch, Circe, and Poseidon god of the sea, and would have seen his sailors turned into animals, and so on.
How could I have missed all of this solid history?

D.M.

Me to Damien Mackey
10/16/17 at 10:10 AM
Iliad and Odyssey = Biblical characters?
From the story of Theseus and Hippolytus, I gather Poseidon is a demon.

Before studying Greek, I was unaware of the demonic and very obviously so in Greek and Roman myth. Poseidon (but that is more for Hippolytus' story) can be historical because he can be a demon. So is obviously Delphic Apollo : the kind of demon which St Paul is known to have exorcised.

Circe and Cyclops are, certainly, not the most solidly backed parts of the story. Considering they are part of what there is one witness only to, that witness being Ulysses, one could even conjecture Ulysses had lied about them. Note, conjecture. Because unlike Poseidon as "god of the sea", like Poseidon and Apollo as demons, they are within the realms of what a Christian can consider possible. Not indeed Circe turning any man into swine, but she could have pretended to and changed looks and behaviour. That is within capabilities both of the demonic and even the hypnotic - if strong enough.

And Callypso being a goddess was fairly handy as an excuse before Penelope.

Returning to incidents as witnessed by more than one man, and not just Ulysses, and not just set on Mount Olympus or otherwise behind the scenes (as "theological" interpretation), they are not incredible. I am trying to figure out a way in which a witch or make up artist could have helped Ulysses ... probably he would have been in the know, if it was a priestess to Athena, he would perhaps have anonymised that as calling her Athena in person.

I also wonder how you could have missed solid history which is accepted by the Church, or mostly, thoughout history.

I mean, as mentioned, Peter Comestor and George Syncellus are a clear reflection of Church historiography of early second and mid first millennium. They set Trojan War into the time when Eli was judging Israel.

Incidentia.
In diebus Heli fuit tertius rex Latinorum Silvius posthumius filius Aeneae, et Laviniae, a quo deinceps Latini reges Silvii denominati sunt. Hunc Ascanius haeredem reliquit adhuc parvulo filio suo Julio, a quo Juliorum familia et originem traxit et nomen. Hectoris filii Ilium receperunt, expulsis posteris Nestoris.

https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Historia_Scholastica/I_Kings#Incidentia.

And here I give two of the famous boring carbon levels, but look at what Syncellus puts into the years between them:

XIII 1190 BC
96.376 pmc, + 310 years, 1500 BC
1189 BC
Agamemnon becomes king of Mycenae and of Argives
1172 BC
Syncellus' date for taking of Troy.
1166 BC
Orestes becomes king of Mycenae and of Argives
1161 BC
Aeneas becomes king of Latins
1158 BC
... and three years later Ascanius follows him
1151 BC
Eli is Judge
1128 BC
Samuel is Judge
1112 BC
Syncellus places the election of Saul
1072 BC
King David
1032 BC
King Solomon
XIV 1017 BC
97.486 pmc, + 210 years, 1227 BC

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/03/about-5300-years-ago-there-was-world.html

Exactly, Syncellus puts Agamamnon, taking of Troy, Orestes and Aeneas and Ascanius in the years before Eli becomes judge of Israel.

So, how could you have missed all this solid history?

As I don't know the exact answer, how about you reflect on it a bit yourself?

And if I gave my own blog as reference, it is because the reference to Syncellus is to a whole book which a Catholic priest wrote about Syncellus' chronography, including all the tables, if you wish to consult it, here it is:

https://ia801406.us.archive.org/1/items/chronographia01syncgoog/chronographia01syncgoog.pdf

But I have seriously forgotten which page it was for 1189 BC and so on.

Cheers!

Damien Mackey to me
10/16/17 at 11:51 PM
Iliad and Odyssey = Biblical characters?
Like with just about everything, the Greeks pinched their ideas from the Hebrews, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Mesopotamians.
And so their god, Poseidon, is a coastal Phoenician god of the sea, Poseidon meaning "He of Sidon".

Me to Damien Mackey
10/17/17 at 10:33 AM
Iliad and Odyssey = Biblical characters?
Little correction.

Mykenean Greek for Poseidon is Potei Daon*. Potei is dative case of a word meaning "lord", "master" or "husband".

So, since Daon is suspiciously like Dagon, I translate Poseidon as "Lord Dagon", possibly even "Baal Dagon", depending in what your expertise in Hebrew considers apt or less apt to equate above definitition of potis with Baal.

Now, for the main argument : yes, Poseidon as usually worshipped by Greeks was pinched from Phoenicians.

This does not mean that the theophany** of Poseidon to "his son" Theseus at Troizen and the later theophany when Theseus required as the wish granted at Troizen the killing of his own son, nor that the killing of Hippolytus by horses after this second theophany are events pinched from Phoenicians.

As to Poseidon in Odyssey, he plays a much less human role, more like personification of the elements of the sea. Meaning, Ulysses who was the generation after Theseus and also worshipped "Lord Dagon" erroneously imagined that "Lord Dagon" was after him.

This does not in any way shape or form imply that the exposure of Ulysses to the elements was also imaginary.

If I for instance imagine my prolonged poverty is kind of due to some Illuminati deal with Rosicrucians imposed on Catholics via their Jewish and Muslim ecumenic contacts, this may, theoretically, be an error on my part, an only imagined intrigue, but this does not mean I don't exist or that I have not been impoverished despite writing for 13 years after second or third interruption of my studies.

I do exist, I am impoverished, whether the Illuminati intrigue exists or not. Ulysses arguably did exist and was on several trips between Troy and Ithaca exposed to waves and even to shipwreck - like later St Paul on Malta.

Your kind of "X resembles Y, but Y is a myth, therefore X is a myth" can be taken one step further, and claim St Paul in Acts was a myth too, plagiarised from Ulysses' lore. And early part of Acts could be considered as part plagiarism of Iliad, part plagiarism of Socrates, if you like that kind of game.

Therefore, I obviously as a Christian do NOT like that kind of game.

Hence my little impatience with your revisionism about historic existence of Agamemnon./HGL

* You tend to pronounce it po-SEY-don, but it is in Classical Greek more like po-sey-DAWN or even po-see-DAWN. The last syllable being a contraction of Daon.

** Note with regards to such theophanies, that St Paul had an apt word about them in II Corinthians 11.

Update:

Damien Mackey to me
10/18/17 at 1:29 AM
Iliad and Odyssey = Biblical characters?
I think Pa Sidon sounds much more like the name of the god, Poseidon, than does Potty Dagon.

Me to Damien Mackey
10/18/17 at 11:11 AM
Iliad and Odyssey = Biblical characters?
Sorry, doesn't cut it.

Potei Daon is an attested form from Linear B Greek.

Also, Sidon does not explain the diphthong.

Σιδῶνα - Genesis 10:15 in LXX.

Ποσειδώνας ( καθ. Ποσειδῶν ) - checking wiki for that false god and καθ. = katharévousa.

You clearly have an ei. Unexplained by Σιδῶνα as mentioned. Note, last -α is an accusative ending. In nominative, the Chanaanite tribe and the city is Σιδῶν.

Also, name Poseidon (Doric Poteidan) - the Doric name keeps the t./HGL

PS, you might want to check out this:

[linking here :)
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/2017/10/me-and-damien-mackey-on-historicity-of.html

Damien Mackey to me
10/19/17 at 4:37 AM
Iliad and Odyssey = Biblical characters?
Now you're dipping into Doric Greek. That's impressive!
You may be right, then, that Pa Sidon is not adequate.

Me to Damien Mackey
10/19/17 at 12:05 PM
Iliad and Odyssey = Biblical characters?
Nevertheless, it seems to have sometimes been an accepted etymology, I had a reference from 1777 - by one less good in Doric and unaware of Mycenean Greek.

In French, in his time, the standard form was "Posidon".

Damien Mackey to me
10/19/17 at 11:24 PM
Iliad and Odyssey = Biblical characters?
That doesn't make Odysseus real, however, much of "The Odyssey" having been pinched from Tobit-Job.

And, for stunning further Greek (Homeric) appropriations of the Bible (Agamemnon's "Deceiving Dream" from King Ahab's Lying Spirit), see attached.

[Attachment momentarily unavailable in this library. Can't be opened in that format]

Me to Damien Mackey
10/20/17 at 9:04 AM
Iliad and Odyssey = Biblical characters?
Attachment will not open in this library.

If you play the "piched from" game, how do you prove Acts was not pinched from a combination of:

  • Iliad
  • Odyssey
  • Aeneid
  • and both beginning and end, Socrates
  • all served with a little sauce of local Hebrew culture and prophecy?


If you answer : the Church recalls otherwise, then I answer, thye Greeks recall otherwise than you suggest.

I have suggested that Deucalion is a mix of stories we find in the Bible, but Deucalion is proto-history, not history of the period Greek heroic legend.

Also, real story of Flood precludes polytheism, and if Josephus is correct, also the Greek penchant (since poor old Hercules, I suppose) for sodomy. Stories of Abraham and Sarah, Lot and his daughters are even more reprehending against the vice probably committted by Hercules with Iolaus. They also involve the divine actually being on the side of ordinary fertility : Abraham and Sarah don't have to throw stones behind shoulders to get Isaac.

And the stones being "bones of mother earth" refers doubly to Lot's daughters leaving their mother behind as a pile of a type of earth and to Adam being told "of earth thou art, to earth thou shalt return".

The point is, we have a serious Greek difficulty with accepting the full story, and the world wide Flood happened only once.

However, after Adam's sin, a man having a claim to be called polytlas (having borne much [suffering]) is not so unique that Job and Odyssey, Tobit anbd Odyssey could not both be true.

Same goes for a young man in a hopeless situation at home and gaining through a voyage (Telemach and young Tobit). If Telemach stories are all or most copied from Tobit, how come not most stories in Grimm and Afanasiev (or some of the most memorable ones) are also all copied from Tobit?

And Ivan Czarevich went on his horse and rode through 29 kingdoms and 30 countries (sounds, geographically, like Satrapies of Persia). Every single time just because of young Tobit? Never any other person who lived such a life?

I'd like a theological rationale for that one!

Now, Ivan and Hans and a few more are admittedly fairy tales, i e, unlike heroic legend, not attached to known historic timelines (or even semiknown ones). But supposing each Märchen we have is influenced by Tobit (or about half of those in Grimm and Afanasiev) supposes the peasants had often enough heard of Tobit in Church - and maybe they had in Christian countries like Germany or Russia (as it was under the Czars).

But the Greeks were not hearing Tobit read in Church, unless you want to argue they are part of the ten lost tribes. So, with Odyssey, it is clearly less likely.

Damien Mackey to me
10/21/17 at 12:45 AM
Iliad and Odyssey = Biblical characters?
See:

"Bible Illuminates History & Philosophy. Part Twenty Four: Fiery Prophet Elijah (iv): Death of King Ahab (continued)"
https://www.academia.edu/34894894/Bible_Illuminates_History_and_Philosophy._Part_Twenty_Four_Fiery_Prophet_Elijah_iv_Death_of_King_Ahab_continued_

and also

"'Homeric' borrowings from life of King Saul"
https://www.academia.edu/34902603/Homeric_borrowings_from_life_of_King_Saul?campaign=upload_email

Me to Damien Mackey
10/21/17 at 12:23 PM
Iliad and Odyssey = Biblical characters?
Will have a look.

After taking
a look, I made a new reply:

Me to Damien Mackey
10/21/17 at 12:27 PM
Iliad and Odyssey = Biblical characters?
The Global Flood happened only once.

Even so, Deucalion can be from a later local one in Thessaly, as many Catholic authors have mentioned, as well as Ogyges from a local one. But what parallels Noah too closely are memories of Noah - not necessarily through Bible tex[t]!

Enticing dreams and lying spirits can certainly have happened to both Agamemnon and Ahab.

This means the parallel is no proof of "two accounts of same event" nor of one indebted to the other.

First check on C14 question, no answer


Me to Anthony at Voxpopnews
who claims to have a past as physics teacher
10/16/17 at 10:21 AM
with 0.39 milliSievert per year, atmosphere gets 1.441 % of present atmospheric C14 ratio renewed in 120 years, right?
If at a certain time in the past - before reaching present ratio of C14 to C12 - the production of C14 (supposing now same amount of C12) was twice as fast, like producing C14 at 2.882 % of present C14 in 120 years, was the cosmic radiation:

  • 0.78 milliSievert per year?
  • 1.56 milliSievert per year?
  • 0.55 milliSievet per year?
  • depends on total background radiation at ground level as well, not just cosmic one for atmospheric higher strata?


The reason I ask is, I have all along my research into the matter* been presuming, 2.882 % of present carbon being produced in 120 years take double doze of cosmic radiation - not square doubled or root doubled, but doubled. And that background radiation at ground, while a health issue for us, is negligible as to what happens where C14 is in the main produced.

I just noted, you have been teaching physics.

What are you saying about this?

Hans Georg Lundahl

* Not this matter I am asking you, but whether a carbon rise from very low at Flood to 100 % present level by 500 BC would involve so much radiation life could not have survived.

A week later
no answer

Monday, 11 September 2017

St. Nicolas du Chardonnet et PRÉSENT, en panne d'honnêteté?


Mes courriels numérotés I - VII, mes constats "numérotés" A - C.

I
Moi à la paroisse St Nicolas du Chardonnet
6/29/17 at 11:17 AM
M. l'Abbé Puga là?
Devinez quelle paroisse je vise dans les mots à John Horvath II, je présume que votre anglais est au niveau:

http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2017/06/is-john-horvath-just-about-young.html

A
29.VIII.2017
donc, deux mois après, je suis devant St Nicolas du Chardonnet.

M. l'Abbé Puga me dit bonjour, je réponds, poliment, imaginant avec une certaine naïveté qu'il va me répondre.

Quelques jours plus tard, quand ceci n'est pas fait:

II
Moi à la paroisse St Nicolas du Chardonnet
8/31/17 at 11:34 AM
vous pensez que j'ai tort sur St Thomas d'Aquin, ici?
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/08/on-metaphysics-of-saint-thomas-aquinas.html

III
Moi à la paroisse St Nicolas du Chardonnet
9/2/17 at 4:17 PM
chesterton - et moi?
Ce que je viens de dire sur votre exellent projet - et en marge, sur ma propre situation:

http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/2017/09/chesterton-linstitut-saint-pie-x.html

B
6.IX.2017
mon anniversaire, j'ai encore une chose à dire, voudrais plutôt avoir un autre témoin, et puisque le thème est connexe à la journalistique, genre vérification des faits, je me tourne aussi à un journaliste de PRÉSENT qui m'avait, quelques fois, appelé "ami".

IV
Moi à Alain Sanders et à la paroisse St Nicolas du Chardonnet
9/6/17 at 2:17 PM
vous seriez d'accord avec moi ou avec "Introibo" sur ce thème?
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.fr/2017/07/una-cum.html

Non, pas exactement l'article dans le lien, mais une chose abordée dans les commentaires, ici débute un fil de discussion:

Anonymous
July 14, 2017 at 2:54 AM

Just curious as to who it was that initially came up with the idea of sedevacantism?

Introibo Ad Altare Dei
July 14, 2017 at 7:46 AM

The idea is basically as old as the Church Herself. The idea of a pope falling into heresy and losing his authority is taught by all theologians and even by Pope Paul IV in the 16th century.

The period between popes was called "sedevacate" meaning the "seat is vacant." One of the first people to apply the term to our situation was Fr Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga, who wrote the book "The New Montinian (meaning "of Montini"--"Pope " Paul VI) Church"

Fr Arriaga was using the term in the late 1960s!!

---Introibo


Anonymous
July 14, 2017 at 10:22 AM

Introibo - According to the following article the first proponent of Sedevacantism was Francis Schuckardt and later followed by Fr. Arriaga. wikipedia>wiki>sedevacantism
...


Non, le thème dont je parle n'est pas non plus la priorité entre Schuckardt et Arriaga.

...

Introibo Ad Altare Dei
July 14, 2017 at 12:59 PM

Thank you for the information! We all know Wikipedia is not reliable but it could very well be true in this case. Shuckardt was indeed one of the very first sedevacantists. He may very well have preceded Fr Arriaga. We may never know with complete certainty, but those two are at the forefront. ...


...

Comme dit, le thème dont je parle n'est pas la priorité entre Schuckardt et Arriaga, mais un autre, et ici je saute à mon propre commentaire qui l'aborde, à travers la fin de ce commentaire là et un ou deux autres.

Hans Georg Lundahl
September 5, 2017 at 1:28 AM


"We all know Wikipedia is not reliable"

Wikipedia is not totally reliable, nor are any other works of reference.

A work of encyclopaedic reference is not a papal dogmatic bull, nor, usually, a passage from Holy Scriptures, and therefore not totally reliable, but humanly fallible.

Why would wikipedia be worse than the rest?

Introibo Ad Altare Dei
September 5, 2017 at 6:56 PM
Because anyone can edit it, unlike hard copies of peer-reviewed literature. ---Introibo

___________


Voici le thème. Me vois-je boycotté comme écrivain par le fait que j'ai davantage de confiance dans la wikipédie en général que certains d'autres gens, dont, bien entendu "Introibo", un homme qui cache son vrai nom derrière un nom de plume emprunté à la liturgie?

J'ai écrit une réponse, pouvez-vous, avant qu'il l'a publie, éventuellement, deviner laquelle?

Et, encore une fois, partagez-vous SON attitude envers la wikipédie?

Hans Georg Lundahl

V
Moi à Alain Sanders et à la paroisse St Nicolas du Chardonnet
9/7/17 at 11:30 AM
bon, ma réponse fut publiée
Le bon Introibo me fait davantage de grâce que les éditions Ateliers Fo'l'fer ou Via Romana. La voici:

That cuts two ways.

I can't edit the correct facts in thousands of copies on paper by a click, and make them less reliable.

But I cannot edit the incorrect facts to make them more reliable either.

Wikipedians correcting each other is a form of peer review, if you like, and in my view superior to pre-publication review.

Except during the period in which such was required for theological books, because God was giving the censors behind nihil obstats a special grace.

No such special grace protects the peer reviewer accepting an evolutionist or rejecting a creationist article proposal on Science or Nature.

Obviously, on that ideological scale, wikipedia is no real help, since any wikipedian article tends to reflect the general culture of its linguistic area.

In German, you can get good wiki articles about Austrofascism, in English you can't as much and in French you can't at all. Reflecting the fact that Dollfuss and Schuschnigg are better known in German than in English or let alone French.

But when it comes to a single writer making a blunder, wiki is superior on getting that blunder corrected.

So, wikipedia would normally not be worse than the rest.


Hier, je viens d'entendre une vidéo sur le sujet. Ou deux:

Faut-il croire Wikipédia - Partie1 - Envoyé Spécial
Maxime Duquesnoy
Ajoutée le 1 févr. 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZApXqG_BkI


Faut-il croire Wikipédia - Partie2 - Envoyé Spécial
Maxime Duquesnoy
Ajoutée le 1 févr. 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m44lrBdVjsA


À la fin, il y a la femme qui dit avoir répéré les erreurs semées sur deux articles des semaines après, tandis que deux autres étaient corrigées immédiatement quasiment.

Les deux articles sur lesquels elle avait réussie a faire une erreur pas corrigé pendant deux semaines ou davantage, c'étaient des choses assez peu connues. Pour les matières qui sont bien connues par le public, elle renseigne bien.

Pour les autres, on peut vérifier dans les articles dans les autres langues, vue que chaque article en soi, pas identique quoique homologue entre deux langues, est rédigée séparément.

Donc, comme écrivain, je ne fait pas de faute en méthodologie de recherche en me fiant avec méfiance modérée et occasionelle, à cette encyclopédie.

Par contre, j'ai dû corriger un article moi-même, récemment.

Cet article ci contient une citation d'un état avant ma correction en haut, et finit par l'état après ma correction:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Champollion et le Zodiaque de Denderah
http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/2017/08/champollion-et-le-zodiaque-de-denderah.html


Est-ce que je pourrai pour le futur espérer un peu davantage de publié, ou plutôt républié, dans les éditions en question?

Hans Georg Lundahl

VI
Moi à Alain Sanders et à la paroisse St Nicolas du Chardonnet
9/8/17 at 12:36 PM
Ou serait-ce un cas de cet "il est gentil, mais il a besoin d'une petite leçon"?
Il y a des gens qui n'ont pas honte de s'informer à travers des lettres confidentielles.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : l'article "Lettre confidentielle" - primo-édition sur la wikipédie
http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/2013/06/larticle-lettre-confidentielle-primo.html


Et si l'article avait encore été sur la wikipédie, les fautes éventuelles de grammaire faites dedans auraient été vite corrigées.

Un administrateur l'a supprimé, et ses propres articles (donc non-supprimés) étaient sur des questions d'automobile sportif.

Parmi des gens qui n'ont pas honte de trouver leurs faits et factoïdes et mots d'ordre dans les lettres confidentielles, certains néanmoins ont l'hypocrisie de frogner sur les wikipédies et sur les blogues, ou en d'autres mots sur les wikipédistes et les bloggueurs, en fin de compte, sur la notion d'expertise informelle.

Répliques Assorties : Était-ce une attaque contre "expertise informelle", cette question?
http://repliquesassorties.blogspot.fr/2017/09/etait-ce-une-attaque-contre-expertise.html


Vous ne seriez pas par hazard parmi ces gens là?

Dans ce cas, vous ne pouvez pas être des très grands amis du Pape Pie XI qui décora Chesterton et Belloc. Qui chantaient les louanges des amateurs qui n'étaient pas vendus aux média officielles des académies.

Ou serait-ce à propos les meurs personelles que certains voudraient me donner une leçon?

New blog on the kid : Il semble qu'il y a eu une confusion entre deux sites suédois
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2017/09/il-semble-quil-y-eu-une-confusion-entre.html


Oui. J'ai été sur helgon.net. Non, je n'y étais pas sur darkside.se.

Non, les Musulmans qui disent que si j'étais sur helgon.net alors forcement j'étais un pervers, ils ne sont pas fiables. Même pas s'ils sont des harkis, même pas si leur information sur moi vous était parvenue par une lettre confidentielle.

Et la routine très systématique avec laquelle chaque propos de ma part d'avoir une partie de mes articles imprimée commercialement ou une partie de mes compositions jouée commercialement de façon que j'aurais eu un revenu, me paraît digne du soupçon d'être le résultat d'une lettre confidentielle ou quelque chose pareillement honteuse. Au moins en temps de paix.

Et si vous vous considérez comme en France même sur un terrain de guerre, ça aurait été honnête de m'informer si vous aviez l'intention de me faire payer les frais d'une guerre que je n'ai pas commencée ni déclarée ni commise en actes.

Ceci est dit parce que, comme à la fois la paroisse est riche en activités culturelles et le journal et ce journaliste, les occasions de m'améliorer ma situation n'auraient pas manqué avec de la bonne volonté.

Sur mon blog général il y a des voeux à propos le jour sacré. Avant de vous les dire, j'aurais voulu une réponse.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VII
Moi à Alain Sanders et à la paroisse St Nicolas du Chardonnet
9/9/17 at 1:58 PM
Je me pose une question sur un Thierry Bouzard
Normalement, j'aurais des choses en commun avec lui.

Je suis contre l'avortement. Je suis pour la musique - et moi-même compositeur, à mes heures.

J'arrivai à St Nicolas une première courte fois en 2005 (quelques semaines en avril, quittant Paris le 1 mai en recherche vaine de travail dans les fraises de Dordogne), je retourne en 2009, entre Ste Anne et l'Assomption.

Et en 2010, il se passe une chose avec Thierry Bouzard. Il devient officiellement en quelque façon Poutiniste.

D'où cette information?

"Après ces tribulations radiophoniques, Bouzard continue son petit bonhomme de chemin. On le retrouve ainsi en 2010 dans l’association pro-Poutine France-Russie d’André Chanclu, avec lequel il est toujours en contact, puisque Bouzard est présent lors de la petite sauterie organisée pour le nouvel an russe de cette année organisée par Novopole, la nouvelle création de Chanclu, un mouvement confidentiel créé en 2013 qui s’inspire de la pensée du russe Alexandre Douguine, qui propose une « quatrième voie », en opposition au capitalisme, au communisme et au fascisme : tout un programme !"


Fas est et ab hoste doceri:
http://lahorde.samizdat.net/2017/03/03/qui-est-thierry-bouzard-le-monsieur-anti-ivg-de-civitas/

Contrairement, peut-être, à certains, je donne l'occasion d'une réponse quand j'accuse ou soupçonne.

En 2010, je n'étais pas clairement anti-Poutine. Mais c'est possible que Poutine était déjà anti-Lundahl, donc aussi ses potes en France, à partir de Bouzard.

D'où ça?

J'ai été à un village nommé Sysslebäck (ce qui se prononce comme des oiseaux qui se "sucent les becs") pendant un temps quand Poutine était politicien de basse intensité à St Pétersbourg, donc, il avait le temps d'absenter, de faire des contacts, etc.

Et des gens que je reconnais de Clarelfdalen - la vallée ou l'ex-commune se trouve - ont été en échanges sportives à St Pétersbourg.

Eux, ils avaient leur vue sur ma vie, mon charactère. Ils peuvent l'avoir transmis à Poutine - et donc aussi à des Poutinistes.

Le soupçon, est-il un peu cohérent avec des faits sûs par vous, ou non?

Hans Georg Lundahl

C
11.IX.2017
Pas de réponse.

Ni de St. Nicolas, ni d'Alain Sanders. Et il ne s'agit probablement pas de mauvaises adresses de courriel non plus.

Et, Thierry Bouzard, lui non plus il ne m'a pas répondu.

Saturday, 10 June 2017

âge du monde avec Gabriel Audisio


Répliques Assorties : Formation de la terre (quora) · Croyez vous dans la théorie de l'évolution? (moi, non, quora) · gm b1 lou : Je viens de lire Darwin, par Christian CLOT et Fabio BONO · Correspondance de Hans Georg Lundahl : âge du monde avec Gabriel Audisio

HGL cherchant Gabriel Audisio
par Revue Françase de Généalogie et l'Academie de Nîmes
2/13/17 at 10:50 AM
renvoyé 2/16/17 at 11:36 AM
à la notice de Gabriel Audisio, paléographe et historien : L'âge du monde, RFG n°224
Bonjour, sans doute quelqu'un d'autre vient déjà de vous notifier de votre gaffe dans cet article.

J'aimerais pourtant savoir en quel numéro vous avez publié votre rectification.

Il s'agit de ceci:

"La surprise nous attend car, suivant les indications bibliques de la longévité de chaque patriarche, la durée allant de la création jusqu'au déluge est de 8 225 ans, tandis que Claude Bonet en donne seulement 1956 ... D'évidence notre homme n'a pas utilisé la Bible comme base de ses calculs. Reste à savoir quel ouvrage de référence il a utilisé, ce que nous ignorons."

J'aimerais savoir si vous avez utilisé cette méthode ci:

0930 Adam à sa mort
0912 Seth à sa mort
0905 Enos à sa mort
0910 Cainan à sa mort
0895 Malaleel à sa mort
0962 Jared à sa mort
0365 Hénoch à son assomption
0969 Mathusela à sa mort
0777 Lamech à sa mort
0600 Noé au déluge
_______________
7800 les centaines
0390 les dixaines
0035 les unités
_______________
8225 la somme. = la vôtre.

J'aimerais aussi savoir comment, si vous avez vous-même ouvert la Bible, ça se fait que vous n'avez pas découvert que cette méthode était erronée.

0130 Adam à la naissance de Seth
0105 Seth à la naissance d'Enos
0090 Enos à la naissance de Cainan
0070 Cainan à la naissance de Malaleel
0065 Malaleel à la naissance de Jared
0162 Jared à la naissance de Hénoch
0065 Hénoch à la naissance de Mathusela
0187 Mathusela à la naissance de Lamech
0182 Lamech à la naissance de Noé
0600 Noé au déluge
______________________
1100 les centaines
0530 les dixaines
0026 les unités
______________________
1656 la somme, ceci selon Vulgate, Douay Rheims.

La LXX a d'autres âges à la naissance du fils pertinent pour la généalogie. St Jérôme ayant fait un calcul l'a légué au Martyrologue Romain, qui précise que Notre Seigneur est né:

  • Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono;
  • a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo;
  • a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo;
  • a Moyse et egressu populi Israel de Aegypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo;
  • ab unctione David in Regem, anno millesimo trigesimo secundo;
  • Hebdomada sexagesima quinta, juxta Danielis prophetiam;
  • Olympiade centesima nonagesima quarta;
  • ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo;
  • anno Imperii Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo, toto Orbe in pace composito, sexta mundi aetate,


Ce qui donne entre création et déluge pas 1656 mais 2242 ans. Bonet se trouve donc entre les deux textes.

Il me semble qu'il ait pu oublier de noter une des périodes, et c'est fort possible qu'il ait fait comme je pense que vous l'avez fait, demandé l'aide à quelqu'un d'autre avant de juste faire la somme.

C'est aussi possible (sur l'excerpte que vous offrez, quitte à d'autres partie de son discours de le refuter) qu'il ait cherché de trouver pourquoi les juifs en AD 1528 n'avaient que l'an du monde 5288 (dans ce cas, il a dû constater qu'ils étaient 236 ans courts quand même).

De toute manière, je vais me renseigner sur quelles bases fumeuses Benoît de Maillet ait estimé l'âge de la terre à 2 milliards d'années. Si vous êtes plus calé ès Maillet qu'ès le texte biblique, vous pourriez me le dire, peut-être.

Et, surtout, en quel numéro avez-vous apporté votre correction? RFG 224, c'est il y a un demi-an, vous devriez déjà avoir eu un propos là-dessus.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Universitaire
de Nanterre Paris-X
St Agabe, prophète
13.II.2017

rfg à HGL
2/13/17 at 10:50 AM
et 2/16/17 at 11:36 AM
à la notice de Gabriel Audisio, paléographe et historien : L'âge du monde, RFG n°224
Bonjour,

La rédaction est actuellement fermée.
Votre message sera pris en compte à partir du lundi 20 février 2017.

Pour vos commandes et abonnements, ou en cas d'urgence, contactez le standard au 03.29.70.56.33 ou contact@rfgenealogie.com

L'actualité généalogique continue sur www.rfgenealogie.com

Bien cordialement,
Charles Hervis.


___________________________________________________

Ce message a été vérifié par l'antivirus de MDaemon 5 .

Par précaution, n'ouvrez pas de pièces jointes de correspondants inconnus.
___________________________________________________

Gabriel Audisio à HGL
2/16/17 at 4:25 PM
âge du monde
Monsieur,

votre courriel a fini par me parvenir. Je vous remercie de l'intérêt que vous portez à la Revue et de votre attention à mon article.

Ordinairement les lecteurs écrivent à la Revue, qui me fait suivre.

En l'occurrence je n'ai reçu aucune réaction à l'article en question, hormis la vôtre.

Le numéro ayant paru fin mai 2016, tout cela est loin pour moi et j'avoue ne pas trop avoir le temps de m'y replonger maintenant. Je vous prie de bien vouloir m'en excuser.

Je peux seulement vous dire que j'ai bien ouvert la Bible et compté les années telles qu'elles y sont données, comme chacun peut le faire. Rien de plus.

Vous m'apprenez que cette méthode de simple arithmétique serait erronée. Dont acte. Ce qui, par ailleurs ne change pas grand chose : le but de la rubrique étant la paléographie comme vous l'avez certainement remarqué.

Il n'y a eu aucun correctif. Si vous souhaitez en rédiger un bref, compréhensible et sous votre signature, après vérification je le proposerai volontiers à la Revue pour publication.

Avec mes remerciements. Bien cordialement,

Gabriel Audisio

HGL à Gabriel Audisio
2/16/17 at 7:00 PM
Re: âge du monde
Simple arithmétique, bonne chose.

Par contre, si vous êtes généalogue, je ne vous apprends assez peu (sauf pour la chose concernée) que la bonne démarche n'est pas d'ajouter les âges de père en fils en arrière-petit-fils à leurs décès, mais à la naissance du fils concerné, plutôt.

C'est tout.

Hans Georg Lundahl

HGL à Gabriel Audisio
2/16/17 at 8:10 PM
Re: âge du monde / arithmétique simple
Un petit exemple d'arithmétique simple, cher monsieur le professeur:

Henri engendra Louis dans la 48-ème année de sa vie, après il vécut presque neuf ans, tous les ans de la vie d'Henri étaient 57 et même un peu moins.

Louis engendra Louis dans la 37-ème année de sa vie, après il vécut presque cinq ans, tous les ans de la vie de Louis étaient 42 et même un peu moins.

Louis engendra Louis dans la 24-ème année de sa vie, après il vécut presque 54 ans, tous les ans de la vie de Louis étaient 77 ans et même un peu moins.

Louis engendra Louis dans la 21-ème année de sa vie, après il vécut presque 29 ans, tous les ans de la vie de Louis étaient de 50 ans et même un peu moins.

Louis engendra Louis dans la 29-ème année de sa vie, après il vécut deux ans, tous les ans de la vie de Louis étaient de 30 ans et même un peu moins.

Louis engendra Louis dans la 20-ème année de sa vie, après il vécut presque 45 ans, tous les ans de la vie de Louis étaient 65 ans et même un peu moins.

Louis engendra Louis dans la 35-ème année de sa vie, après il vécut onze ans et un peu plus, tous les ans de la vie de Louis étaient 46 ans et un peu plus.

Louis engendra Louis dans la 31-ème année de sa vie, et il vit la prise de la Bastille dans la 35-ème année de sa vie.

Entre la naissance d'Henri IV et la prise de la Bastille, faut-il prendre:

A : 57 + 42 + 77 + 50 + 30 + 65 + 46 + 35 = 402 ans?
B : 48 + 37 + 24 + 21 + 29 + 20 + 35 + 35 = 249 ans?

1789 - 1553 = 236 ans.

Vous êtes sûr qu'il faut utiliser la méthode qui donne 402 ans?

C'est celle-là que vous avez utilisé pour les patriarches!

Hans Georg Lundahl

Et il se trouve
que j'avais ignoré quasi volontairement, par envie de me débattre, l'offerte qu'il venait de faire sur ...

"Il n'y a eu aucun correctif. Si vous souhaitez en rédiger un bref, compréhensible et sous votre signature, après vérification je le proposerai volontiers à la Revue pour publication."

Et alors peut-être que c'est pour ça qu'il n'a pas publié un correctif lui-même dans la revue?

Bon, je vais lui faire une petite excuse ... et voir pour le numéro de juillet, s'il y a quelque publication./HGL

Et il se trouve encore
que j'avais envoyé une petite explication, et pourtant il n'y a pas eu de correctif. Constaté, Samedi de Quatretemps d'Été (de Pentécôte), 10.VI.2017/HGL

Wednesday, 5 April 2017

Notification to Mike Licona (not answered)


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : With jpholding/tektontv on Inerrancy · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I Failed J P Holding's Test - But Let's Look at his Criteria · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Notification to Mike Licona (not answered)

Me to Mike Licona
via contact form on his site
risenjesus.com
18:53 Paris time, St Matthias' Day
24.II.2017
I heard through the Geisler/Holding dispute of your dispute with Geisler.
I seriously think you are both wrong, he in his "text only" approach to meaning, and you in not taking literal inerrancy of a historical text, on pretence that author's intent were* sth other than a historical text.

Here are some links in literal inerrancy:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Quorans on Conflict between Pope and Bible, Hypothetical Question
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/02/quorans-on-conflict-between-pope-and.html


Creation vs. Evolution : Can a Medical Doctor or a Catholic Religious or Cleric Reconcile Creationism with "Science"?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/02/can-medical-doctor-or-catholic.html


AND my mirror of a debate on JPHoldings "secret" forum on theologyweb:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : With jpholding/tektontv on Inerrancy
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/02/with-jpholdingtektontv-on-inerrancy.html


This is where you get mentioned.

Seriously if you know Latin feel free to point out something I missed, but as I read the Church Fathers on the OT prophets and just rising on Good Friday, their concern was NOT "was it a historic or an apocalyptic text", it was "did they rise for good, as the rest of us will on Doomsday, or did they die again like Lazarus or the daughter of Jairus?" and arguing for the former "was it really on Good Friday they rose or was it actually on Easter Sunday?"

No single one of them, as far as my Latin could reach, argued for "Matthew did not intend this as history". Not a single one of them.

What got you to feel diffident about straight historical literally inerrant text in the first place?

Feel warned in advance : any answer to this mail will be published with perhaps ensuing correspondence on a blog of mine.

_____________________

* Grammarly - installed on computers of Nanterre University Library - underlined "were" in red, saying "incorrect verb form with singular subject". Seems difficult to make a machine understand the difference between a plural "were" and a subjunctive "were". Can it even get "as it were" correct? Yes, that phrase was presumably programmed as an exception.

Update
5.IV.2017
Answers?
So for there haven't been any. Perhaps Mike Licona is a bit afraid of having his answers on my blog - but I would not stop him of mirroring the debate of course!