Summations Only

Rather, we derive "spirit" from the Latin, not from the Greek (Merriam-Webster):

quote:

---

Middle English, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French, espirit, spirit, from Latin spiritus, literally, breath, from spirare to blow, breathe

---

I had falsely remembered "spiro" (Lat. "I breathe") as being the same in Greek, but could not find it in the New Testament (Greek-English dictionary). In Modern Greek (as per my phone app), "I breathe" translates as αναπνεω, which seems to incorporate a root related to your "pneuma".Breath has great religious importance. Hinduism's concept of something like "soul" is Atman which is derived from a Sanskrit word for "essense, breath". A related word is found in German: atmen "to breathe".There is a strong identification of the breath being the animating force:

• In Genesis, "the Gods" ("Elohim", which is plural) performed his/their Golem spell to create Adam by introducing that breath of life into his dust form.
• As I understand the practice, in Judaism a baby is not a person until it has drawn its first breath. Hence the government creating a law which bestows personhood on a fetus, embryo, or even just a zygote is a violation of Jews' First Amendment rights (there's a lawsuit pending in Florida on just those grounds).
• Similarly (again, as I understand the practice), in Catholicism certain last rites that could be performed on a baby who dies after birth (ie, after having drawn its first breath) cannot be performed on a stillborn child, let alone on a fetus. Despite all the empty rhetoric of "life begins at conception", in practice the distinction between a person and non-person remains that first breath.

Similarly, the use of "spirits" for alcohol stems from the idea that distillation extracts the "spirit" of the water such that it was known in Latin as "aqua vitae" ("Water of Life") -- everyone is amazed at the wisdom of the Scots and Irish that "whisky" comes for the Gaelic term, "water of life" ("uisce beatha"), but they got it from Latin.In German, the word for spirit is Geist, to which our word "ghost" is related. Yes, "Holy Spirit" does translate as "Heiliger Geist." Though when a co-worker brought in some Obstwasser (a form of Schnapps made by distilling fermented fruit or berry must -- not to be confused with that American abomination which is nothing more than flavored syrup mixed with grain alcohol), he emphasized the importance of resealing the bottle, "Sonst fliegt der Geist ab!" ("Otherwise the spirit/ghost will fly away."; ie, the alcohol will evaporate).I even once looked up "Holy Spirit" in a Russian bible. In the word for "Spirit" I recognized the Russian word for "smoke" (my Russian was much better half a century ago), so I personally read that as "Holy Smoke." I freely admit to having taken some liberties with that at the time. Also check my own reply to Phat to be posted in a few minutes.

indeed, though not in the sense of your question.As I've mentioned elsewhere on this forum, I started my college career as a foreign language major (BA German) before moving on into non-human languages (BS Computer Science, BA Applied Math).Just as I am curious what the non-scientific think of how the sun burns (Kent Hovind seems to think it's by combustion on the surface instead of by hydrogen fusion in the core), I am curious what monoglots think is involved in translating from one language to another.I'm certain that they are aware that other languages have different words for English words, but I don't know whether they're aware that languages are also structured differently from each other, often requiring strikingly different ways of thinking about things. I suspect that they think that translation is just substituting their words for things for ours (in which case machine translation would be a breeze), but reality is far more complicated.Rather, in order to translate from one language to another, one must first understand what's being said in the source language and then compose something in the target language which contains the same information and expresses the same ideas. Sometimes it's simple and straightforward almost to the point of just substituting words ("Was ist das?" ("What is that?") "Das ist ein Bleistift." ("What is a pencil.")). Sometimes it's different but not overly so: ("Do you like it?" -> "Gefällt es dir?" ("Does it please you?")).Another example would be when the source language has features which the target does not. For example, there was a French rom-com where a confirmed bachelor in a female-dominated family tries to escape constant haranguing to get married by letting a woman needing a place to live stay with him but posing as his fiancée (no fringe benefits even implied) just to keep his family off his back. In front of his family, they use the familiar (tu) while alone they revert back to the polite (vous). OK, it's a rom-com, so they do end up falling in love, but there was a scene along that rocky path. They have become more comfortable with each other and he prepares dinner for them. In their conversation they slip into the familiar and then as they start to disagree he reverts back to the familiar to which she reacts ("Oh, so now it's vous again, is it?") -- (as I was taught, there's a specific ceremony, le tutoiment (similar to the German Bruderschaft depicted in Die Fledermaus with the song "Brüderlein, Brüderlein und Schwesterlein"), which they had not performed so that part of their relationship was hazy). I forget how the subtitles handled it since I was following the French more at that point, but try to explain an entire aspect of language-driven French culture to an American audience and do it in subtitles.Actually on that last, it has been done. In München 1973 I watched Cabaret again. The dialogue was dubbed as is common in Germany (though it was odd how Sally answered the door in very halting German and then is suddenly completely fluent when she asks for a cigarette), but the songs were the original audio with subtitles (though the line "that's what comes from too much pills and liquor" became "zu viele Pillen und Ficken"). On the student charter flight back home, a guy who had done the backpacking through Europe thing (I had a summer job in W. Germany, so more limited traveling) had been in East Berlin. While there, he watched the movie, "West Side Story" (1961). Again, the dialogue was dubbed into German and the songs were the original audio. But this time instead of translating the lyrics, it was a commentary: "She is decrying the oppression of the minorities by the capitalists!"And other times it's very different, even to the point where source contains more information or the target requires the translator to fabricate information (examples are more difficult. In a German TV movie about the von Stauffenberg plot to assassinate Hitler (eg, Tom Cruise's movie, Valkyrie) -- English does not have a simple way to answer a negative question or statement ) there's a family conversation at the dinner table. Questions and answers in one or two words which any German speaker could follow easily, but requiring whole sentences in English (my condolences to the subscript writers having to deal with that).One example of how a different language can structure thought differently comes from my own personal experience. In spatial reasoning, I tend to be visual, basically picturing in my mind where things are in relation to each other (mainly in map reading and how machinery works), all on a pre-verbal level. One day in the carpentry shop, my father presented me with a construction problem to solve. I thought it through and tried to give him my answer, but my tongue started tripping over itself. I had to stop and, realizing that I was thinking in German by trying to explain it in English, gathered my thoughts and presented my solution in English. We foreign language students had a conceit that language structures thought, but that was my first personal evidence of it.In a similar vein, here is a YouTube video by an American ex-pat in Germany, NALF, "If English Was Spoken Like German": Anyone with a background in German can appreciate that. For others, it shows that going from one language to another (even German to English considering that English is a West Germanic language just as German is so that transition shouldn't be abrupt) involves so much more than simple word substitution. Yoda has nothing on us!A joke based on the German tendency to place infinitives and past participles at the end of sentences, including placing the conjugated verb at the end of a subordinate clause:

quote:

---

Two friends are touring Germany. One of them speaks German, the other not, so the German speaker translates everything for his friend. They are on a but tour and the guide keeps talking and talking. The non-German speaker is getting impatient and asks his friend what the guide is saying. "I don't know yet.
He hasn't reached the end of the sentence yet."

---

Oh yeah, German tends to pack a lot more information into a single sentence that English does. Which may help explain my writing style. At this point I will spare you of the German "extended adjective" in which an entire relative clause is just stuck in front of the noun it modifies (eg, "the by so many viewers watched and loved sitcom") -- yes, that does happen in German.  The ultimate point to be made here is that my foreign language training makes it impossible for me to ever be a biblical literalist. I simply know too much.It seems that most biblical literalists are monoglots or at most merely dabbled in the meanings of individual Greek or Hebrew words while never having actually tried to learn those languages themselves. Over the decades, I have seen so many of them making very stupid interpretive mistakes because they are mired in English instead of being able to work with any of the original languages. They tend to base everything on how it works out in English.For example:

• Circa 1970, my initial time with the Jesus Freaks, one of them expounded on how atonement (as in Yom Kippur, "Day of Atonement") actually meant "at-one-ment" with God! But you can only make that one work in English and, to my knowledge or imagination, in no other language.
  ​
• Local YEC praised a young girl for such brilliant insight. A Christian college professor offered an ad-hoc way to explain away the Resurrection by positing that Jesus had a twin. (See FOOTNOTE for a discussion of why Christians think they have to explain away miracles, articles of faith, etc) This 9-year-old girl stated "The Bible says that Mary was with child, not with children. That YEC thought she was so much wiser than a college professor, but:
  ​
  1. First, the English expression "with child" does not specify how many embryos/feti there are in that uterus, but rather refers solely to the general condition of pregnancy. To insist on an expression "with children" would be a gross violation of the English language.
     ​
  2. Second, THAT IS NOT EVEN WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS! I looked it up in my Greek New Testament and the text says (please allow for simplifying the verb tense) "εχε εν γαστρι" ("has in belly"). No kind of number being specified, nor even any explicit mention what just what she's supposed to have in her belly.
     ​
     IOW, what the English is talking about has absolutely nothing to do with what the Bible is talking about.

The lesson is that if you want to know what Scripture actually says, then you must read it in the original language and with the ability to think in that original language..If you cannot do any of that, then you are doomed to always fuck it all up.  

quote:

---

FOOTNOTE:

This whole idea of Christian scholars and some apologists and some laity think they have to explain away miracles, articles of faith, etc. Why? They should be trying to figure out how to make those stories more believable rather than to try to explain that they aren't really miraculous after all. It's almost as if they're taking on the role of the detractors. It doesn't make any sense to me for them to be doing that.

​

Of course, my own take on the entire question is: "Dude! It's all a story! You cannot explain away a story!".

​

For example, we have a burning continuity question about Mjölnir in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), one which I have yet to see address (but then I deign to frequent those nether regions myself). Chronologically (in MCU-time):

1. In Thor: Ragnarok, Mjönir is destroyed by Hela, shattered into bits.
2. In Avengers: Infinity War, which very obviously follows Ragnarok (it starts with Thanos raiding the Asgardian ship fleeing the destruction of Asgard) there is no Mjönir so Thor must forge a new hammer.
3. In the next chronological progression, Avengers: Endgame, Mjönir suddenly shows up again in the final battle just to show that Captain America is worthy after all. Wherefrom? How? No explanation.
4. Following that is Thor: Love and Thunder, with a plot point of Mjönir still being reduced to shards and on display at New Asgard, but Jane Foster who has a mystical connection with Mjönir is able to have it reassemble itself and to wield it as another Thor.

​

 

​

The simple solution to that entire MCU discontinuity dilemma over Mjönir is simply:

​

quote:

---

It's all a story, dude! Don't take it so fucking seriously!

---

​

A simple lesson that you idiots have never learned!

---

Now a bit closer to home. Entschudigungen.What exactly is the proposed purpose of this "Holy Spirit" supposed to be?We have already worked through some of the myriad problems with translation. I have repeatedly been assured that the Holy Spirit guided all such translations and interpretation (knowing now that every act of translation is also an act of interpretation).So what has been the result of that? Matthew 7:20 yet again, what have been the fruits of the Holy Spirit's efforts?Well, to start with, there are about 45,000 denominations and sects of Christianity. If there's just One True Message, having about 45,000 different versions of it would be a bit much, wouldn't you think?So why couldn't the Holy Spirit have been able to keep straight one single story? Why is it instead that each and every single different denomination and sect each got a different story of the same "single and eternal truth"?45,000 of them?

Or you could continue to push claims about your religion that are blatantly and obviously not true, thus discrediting yourself at every turn. Oh, and then have the unmitigated gall to act surprised when others reject your obviously false religion.In the meantime, fire the Holy Spirit and replace it with something that can actually do the job.

I didn't say to chuck the whole thing, though many have found that to be the right choice.There's "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But the other side of that coin is: "If it don't work, don't use it."If you have something that doesn't work, you could still keep it, but you would be very foolish to rely on it. Keep it if you want to, but keep in mind that it's useless.Remember, relying on the Holy Spirit to lead Christians into the proper interpretation of Scripture led to there being about 45,000 different Christian denominations and sects because of differences in interpretation. Differences that shouldn't exist if the Holy Spirit had done its job, which it obviously didn't!The Holy Spirit is broke, so you cannot depend on it! 45,000 denominations and sects can't be wrong!Which one? A, B, or C?ABE: Comment -- Why didn't Phat declare Alpha Centauri to be a Trinity?

Edited by dwise1, : ABE

Look at any system. Short-term, there are a lot of fluctuations. But long-term we can see definite trends.For example, there's the stock market. Relying on conventional wisdom here, day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute, there is a lot of fluctuation. But conventional wisdom tells us that overall the market will climb, so one should not react to immediate fluctuations.And yet those wanting to game the system (*) try to rely on those immediate fluctuations to gain some kind of immediate advantage.I never got to that level of engineering theory. You have a system. That system has some optimal norm. You react to changes in that system away from that norm, which causes changes whose results deviate wildly in the opposite direction from that norm, which causes corrective actions that swing even more wildly in the opposite direction. Which results in oscillations that make a mess of everything.That's the result of positive feedback. Negative feedback works better, but it also has its problems. It is complicated.A paper I was given to read was based on PID: Proportional, Integrative, Derivate. Your initial response should be proportional, but then you also look at how the changes are adding up (integrative), while also looking at the rate at which they are changing (derivative).These systems are not simple and anyone who tells you that they are is lying to you.

Yes, "Yom Rishon" ("First Day" -- sorry for transliterating rather than futzing with HTML entity codes for Hebrew). And everybody knows which day is Yom Shabbath even if they prefer to use the Sun's Day (early Catholic missionaries were infamous for assimilating the pagan religions -- both their sites and their gods). No, Sunday worship was already well established before the Holy Roman Empire formed out of the divisions circa 900 CE of Charles the Great's (AKA Charlemagne) Carolingian Empire formed in 800 CE (basing that on the date of his coronation as Emperor). BTW, that was the First Reich (800 - 1806, hence Hitler's conceit that his Third Reich would last 1000 years), the Second Reich was created at the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 (and ended with defeat in WWI), and we all should know about the Third Reich.The damage had already been done long before the Holy Roman Empire. 
BTW, condolences on your Great Disappointment.

You post so much superfluous BS!The Jesus Freaks were also obsessed with that nonsense. I became an atheist by reading the Bible and realizing I couldn't believe that stuff. The Jesus Freaks only confirmed how unbelievable their nonsense is, thus fully immunizing me. Creationism (especially YEC, though OEC and ID are just the same thing while avoiding the weakest part of YEC which are the YE claims) and creationist made my immunization good for the rest of my life.You're just an extra booster.Thank you for your zealous support and contributions to the growth and spread of atheism.

So far so good, though I'd have to check on your purported "Assyrian" connection -- I'm more familiar with the later stages of the Völkerwanderung though there's evidence of Gaelic settlement early on in Turkey (eg, Galatia).Does your SDAism also claim that American Indians are descendents of the ten Lost Tribes of Israel or is that more of a Mormon thing? It is so difficult for normals to keep track of all the bizarre beliefs in all the thousands of Christian sects. Kind of like trying to keep straight all the story lines in all the soap operas (both daytime and primetime) or all the story arcs over the years in even just one of the major lines of comic books (including all the retconnings).
​ And there it is! You suddenly veer hard left (read "sinistra") and spin out of control into the weeds. We know the history of the Holy Roman Empire, so we can plainly see the falsehoods in your attempt to change history! If everything you say that we can check turns out to be false (if not outright lies), then how could you ever expect us to accept those things you say that we cannot check (eg, your pronouncements about the supernatural)?Justinian in Byzantium had no role in the founding of the Holy Roman Empire, which was formed in Western Europe (relating it to modern-day geography, starting in the North of France and spreading through France and into Germany and Northern Italy) by one of the Germanic tribes which had flooded into the Roman Empire leading to its collapse (the attack on and sacking of Rome was more of a coup de grâce).Although Rome and the Western Empire fell, the Eastern Empire (AKA Byzantium) survived with its capital at Constantinople. Christianity was already splitting between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox with Roman Catholic being spread in Western Europe and Eastern Orthodox being spread to the East especially among the Russ -- the Cyrillic alphabet, which incorporated Greek letters, shows the influence of those Orthodox missionaries.By the 10th Century CE Byzantium came under attack by the Turks, leading to them later appealing to the West for military support which started with the first crusade around 1095. In 1453 Constantinople fell to the Turks.Out of that history came a religious and cultural teaching among the Russians about the shifting seat of "true Christianity". First there was Rome, but then it fell and Constantinople became the "Second Rome". And when the "Second Rome" fell, then Moscow became the "Third Rome".So if you want to look for the "restoration of Rome to glory", then you would do far better to look to Moscow and the Russian Empire instead of to the Holy Roman Empire.Like I keep trying to tell you (but you choose to remain willfully stupid about): we know the history! I've noticed that "true Christians" seem to have a very broken sense of the linear progression of time from past to present such that they keep mixing up the order in very egregious ways.Revelation was written centuries before the formation of the Holy Roman Empire and even longer before the Holy Roman Empire even got that name. Therefore, it could not have been written with the Holy Roman Empire in mind.Yet again, we know the history of that, so please stop trying to muck it all up. First you lied about evolution and we checked your claims and exposed them to be lies.Then you lied about the radiocarbon dating method and we checked your claims and exposed them to be lies.Then you spread right wingnut conspiracy theories which we checked and exposed to be lies.And now you make false statements about history which we have checked and exposed to be false.Everything you've said that can be checked has been checked and proven to be false.You also blather on about things that cannot be checked, namely about the supernatural. Why would you expect us to believe you about that and how could you possibly expect us to believe you about the supernatural when everything else you've posted has turned out to be false?

Wow! You really have no clue what atheism is nor what atheists think or believe! You are such an idiot!Who cares about the gods? At most, they are just a sidebar, not worth wasting much time on. Whereas you theists may see your god as all-important as some All-Father, for atheists gods are just gods, a dime a dozen.While there's no one single atheist viewpoint (we're not Catholics after all!), I think that my viewpoint would speak for most.It's never been about any rejection of a particular god (you theists do that all the time) or even gods in general (that next step you don't take), but rather it's about rejection of religion and religious dogma. There are no beliefs about gods without religion, nor any gods for that matter. Religion is the bathwater that we're throwing out the window and gods are just one tiny soap bubble in that bathwater.Reading the Bible informed me that I could not believe what religions based on it would require me to believe. If you don't believe that stuff and cannot believe it, then why stick around? For the coffee?Please pull your head out of the scum you suck in while bottom-feeding, and try to finally get a clue.

There is a very good reason for not having said that in the first place: THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID!To start with, I went back to my message that you "quoted" me from and I never said that there! Just exactly where did you pull that "quote" from? If you didn't, then do not falsely claim that you are quoting me! If you want to describe what I said without directly quoting me, then quote me indirectly! -- it's so simple to do in English, unlike in German where you have to use the subjunctive (I think one of the uses for the subjunctive by the Romance language also includes indirect quotes). Also, when I want to use quotation mechanisms without actually quoting, I always try to be sure to say "paraphrasing" or "quoting from memory". But if you're going to quote, then quote; if you aren't, then don't!I took to reading the Bible in order to learn what I was supposed to believe -- admittedly, I was proceeding with a naïve assumption of bibilical literalism. I found that I simply could not believe what I was reading. If being a Christian required me to believe stuff that I simply could not believe, then how could I be one?A "Christian God" (which is what you mean, though there are so many different versions) is part and parcel of Christianity. How could one reject Christianity and yet still keep parts of it like Communion or the Ten Commandments (I replaced those with the Boy Scout Oath and Law, recognizing those as rather good moral guidelines -- Lord Baden-Powell wrote that the Oath and Law are actually better guidelines then the Ten Commandments because instead of a lot of "thou shalt not!" they tell you what to do (eg, in breaking a bad habit you will almost surely fail if you keep thinking "don't do it!" than if instead you think "I'll do this positive thing instead." ) ).The only thing that a "Christian God" is good for is within Christianity. Leave Christianity, why drag that dead weight along with you? Besides, all most Christians use "God" for is to justify the bad things that they do, so, again, who needs that? Which god? We have created about 188,000 gods. Which one are you talking about? Why that particular one?Yeah, that can happen. It's called self-delusion and it is considered to be pathological (ie, a sickness).Someone could hand me a magic feather and tell me that if I hold it I can fly. I know that that would not work, so why would I believe it? I mean, I want to be able to fly, but I know that that will not accomplish that goal. Worse, if I decided that I really wanted to believe it so I decided to believe it, then I would be suffering from a mental illness.Outside of suffering from mental illness (even just a mild case), we cannot decide to believe or not believe. Either we believe or we don't. You should read some atheists' deconversion testimonials; I would recommend Dan Barker's in his book, "godless".As a Christian, especially a fanatic like a life-long fundamentalist, goes through the process of deconversion, he almost never does so voluntarily. He never decided to stop believing, but rather, he found that none of it adds up anymore and he just cannot continue to believe. He finds that things he used to believe turn out to just not be true anymore. Knowing those things to not be true, he finds it difficult to continue believing them, especially if he wants to remain honest. He finds himself sliding inexorably to deconversion solely because that is what honesty demands regardless of what he wants. And in almost all testimonials, they describe that process of deconversion as excruciatingly painful and they wished so hard that it wasn't happening. But once you have seen the light, how can you go back to the darkness?BTW, I believe that that explains why creationists are so incredibly dishonest. True, they are forced to use lies since they are denying reality so there's nothing else for them to use to support creationism except for lies. And they mustRead some deconversion testimonials. Search for site like ex-christians.net (typing from memory, so Google). And please do not troll them. You cannot save them, because they are already saved (from Christianity).  ADVICE AND NOTE ON dBCodes and HTML codes: 

Yes, it should be glaringly obvious to anyone with at least two neurons to rub togethter. So why didn't YOU know that?No wonder your brain is broken. You keep clogging it up with such BS nonsense. Do you think that radiocarbon dating is flawed? Then why don't you present those flaws? You have not done that yet that I can tell. Why not?Besides your lie that you do understand radiocarbon dating (which you very obviously did not and undoubtedly still do not), all you mentioned was finding trace amounts of C14 in coal and in diamonds where they had been created recently from nearby radiation sources deep underground. Those trace amounts have nothing whatsoever to do with radiocarbon dating!I will explain it to you YET AGAIN (which you wlll yet again ignore whining that your phone screen is too small (So read it on your computer, idiot!)) The only C14 that plays any role in radiocarbon dating is the C14 that has been incorporated into plant tissue, from which it can pass to animal tissue through the eating of the plants or of the plant-eaters. That means that the only C14 in radiocarbon dating is atmospheric C14, not subterranean C14. If you honestly and truly (two words foreign to creationists) believe that enough of those subterranean traces of C14 are getting into the plants and hence into the food chain, then tell us how!That should be as glaringly obvious as Revelation having been written long before the Holy Roman Empire ever existed. Especially to anyone who actually does know something about radiocarbon dating, which you just as glaringly obviously do not!If you know of any actual flaws in radiocarbon dating, then present them and we can discuss them (assuming you don't stay true to your MO and run away from it). So what's keeping you back? Of course not, because that has never been my intent! Not even once in the four decades that I've been studying "creation science" (AKA creationism, not to be confused with belief in actual Creation).Rather, I oppose "creation science" for being nothing but a pack of lies which has led believers to lose their faith. And I don't have to cast doubt on it because just exposing its lies should be enough if creationists were honest or the least bit interested in the truth (which sadly they are not, but rather go ever deeper into denial and self-delusion).Rather, it is creationism that works to cast doubt on Creation. Creationism, and especially YEC, denies the Creation in all of its claims and even teaches that if the Creation is actually as we find it, then that somehow disproves God. Basically, that's spiritual suicide that you are promoting and many have taken that bullet.But in addition, creationism and its glaringly false claims make Christianity look stupid, so much so that it drives many away from ever even beginning to consider becoming a Christian.By destroying its followers' faith and warning other away from converting, creationism does truly contribute to the growth and spread of atheism.You're doing a good job of it! Yep, burrowing even deeper into denial and self-delusion in a desperate attempt to hide from the truth.

That last line is puzzling. Are you saying that there is that kind of connect to Sunday? So why don't you tell us what that connection is?Or was that a typo that left out the word "no" and you actually meant to say, "There is no such connection to Sunday." I find that more likely since it at least makes sense as English whereas what you had posted just sounds weird.In that case, then you are most definitely wrong: In most Germanic languages, Sunday is the day of the sun, which is to say the Sun God (in general, the days of the week are named for pagan gods as they also are in Romance languages. Indeed, city clocks would display the day of the week with an image of that day's god (eg, the Gros Horloge in Rouen, France).So what are you talking about? Absolutely wrong.The names of the days of the week in Hebrew (transliterated): The days of the week in Greek are also numbered, except for the first day, Sunday, which is Κυριακη from Κυριος ("Lord"). What the hell are you talking about? That is complete and utter nonsense!The Holy Roman Empire ceased to exist 6 August 1806 when it was dissolved by Holy Roman Emperor Francis II. Austria was at war with Napoleon and was certain to lose, so Francis II, not wanting Napoleon to be Holy Roman Emperor, dissolved the empire and abdicated.The Holy Roman Empire is history and will not come back. Its former lands are now part of well-established countries including Germany and Italy. It's never going to come back.But yet again, what are you talking about? And do you have anything to contribute that isn't utter nonsense?

Yes, we do know about radiometric dating methods, but you do not! How do we know that you don't know what you're talking about? Because we have seen you repeatedly post utter nonsense on the subject. IF YOU HAVE A CLAIM TO MAKE, THEN MAKE IT!If you know of any actual flaws, then present them and include the reasoning behind presenting them as flaws. IOW, you need to demonstrate enough knowledge of those "flaws" to be able to discuss them and to support your contention that they present some kind of problem. IOW, stop playing your game of the willfully ignorant (your handlers) leading the willfully stupid (you).

No, the Holy Roman Empire was a distinct political entity that existed JUST ONCE (as do all distinct political entities) in the period from about 800 CE to 6 August 1806. Jessica H. Christ, man! Pull your head out and LEARN SOME HISTORY!Yet again, how could you ever expect to trust what you say when you talk about things that we cannot verify when everything you say that we CAN verify all turn out to be either wrong or downright false?  PSSo still unable to present any of your "flaws of radiocarbon dating"? Why am I not surprised?