Monday, May 25, 2026

Pope Leo recalls the Tower of Babel, and Nehemiah, for his first encyclical

 



“The highly anticipated text, signed by the pope on May 15 and released May 25,

invokes the wisdom of the Church’s social teaching as a framework for shaping AI

amid rapid technological advances, a fractured global landscape and

accelerating threats to human life and dignity”.

 

Gina Christian

 

 

 

https://www.osvnews.com/babel-nehemiah-and-algorithms-a-guide-to-key-terms-in-pope-leos-new-encyclical-on-ai/

 

Babel, Nehemiah and algorithms: A guide to key terms in Pope Leo’s new encyclical on AI

 

written by Gina Christian 5:31 AM May 25, 2026

 

(OSV News) — What do the Tower of Babel, the biblical figure Nehemiah, algorithms and realpolitik have in common?

 

They’re all discussed — along with integral human development, the technocratic paradigm and Catholic social teaching — in Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence.”

 

This is Pieter Bruegel’s 1563 painting of the "Tower of Babel." In "Magnifica Humanitas," Pope Leo XIV writes that humanity "is today facing a pivotal choice: either to construct

a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together."

(OSV News photo/courtesy Kunsthistorisches Museum)

 

The highly anticipated text, signed by the pope on May 15 and released May 25, invokes the wisdom of the Church’s social teaching as a framework for shaping AI amid rapid technological advances, a fractured global landscape and accelerating threats to human life and dignity.

 

Here’s a guide to some of the terms discussed in the document.

 

  • Artificial intelligence: An umbrella term for technology that emulates human intelligence. The ability to learn from data, recognize patterns, solve problems, make decisions and generate original content from human prompts are all features of AI. 


In “Magnifica Humanitas,” Pope Leo writes that “it is not possible to provide a single, comprehensive definition of AI.”

“What can be stated, however, is that we must avoid the misconception of equating this type of ‘intelligence’ with that of human beings,” he continued.

 

“These systems merely imitate certain functions of human intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass human intelligence in speed and computational capacity, offering tangible benefits across many fields. Yet this power remains entirely tied to data processing.”  

AI is programmed in several computer languages, among them Python, C++, Java and R. Everyday examples of AI in action include various types of chatbots such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude, online product recommendations and virtual personal assistants like Amazon’s Alexa and Apple’s Siri. AI has a range of business applications across almost all market sectors, including healthcare, education, energy and security.

  • Algorithm: In essence, a routine, step-by-step process for accomplishing a task. AI algorithms, which are more complex, are designed to cover multiple “what ifs?” in a given situation, and to learn from data on which they are trained. Pope Leo cautions in his encyclical that AI algorithms can be used to exert dominance over the vulnerable and over humanity itself, while eroding responsibility and empathy.

    “From this follows a simple but compelling consequence: we cannot consider AI to be morally neutral,” he writes. “In reality, every technical tool embodies choices and priorities through what it measures, ignores and optimizes, and how it classifies people and situations.”

  • Alignment: In AI development, the process of ensuring the technology squares with human values, so that AI models safely serve human interests. “Emergent misalignment,” where AI deviates from such norms and behaves detrimentally, is a growing concern among AI ethicists and theologians. Pope Leo insists that alignment come with a further condition: “the possibility of openly discussing the ethical frameworks involved and subjecting them to shared standards of social justice.

Otherwise, those who control AI will impose their own moral vision, which will become the invisible infrastructure of these systems.”

  • Babel, Tower of Babel: Described in Genesis 11:1-9, the city and tower built by the nations of the earth in the valley of Shinar, after Noah and his family survived the flood. Because the nations, which spoke the same language, undertook the project in human pride, the Lord confused their speech, leading to division and dispersion across the earth. In section seven of his encyclical, Pope Leo uses this example to show “the limits of any effort that, however grandiose, arises from self-affirmation, sacrifices human dignity for efficiency, and aspires to reach heaven without God’s blessing.”

  • Catholic social teaching (social doctrine): The Church’s teaching — which draws on papal, conciliar and Church documents — on the means of building a just society and living out holiness in modern life. As Pope Leo explains in his encyclical, the term was coined by Pope Pius XII in 1950, but owes its development to “a long tradition of ecclesial reflection on life in society, rooted in Sacred Scripture, the Church Fathers and the theological and legal developments of the Middle Ages and modern era.”  Pope Leo also notes that his “beloved predecessor” Pope Leo XIII propelled that tradition toward modern applications in his 1891 encyclical “Rerum Novarum.”

    Key principles of Catholic social teaching are the common good; the universal destination of goods, which holds that the goods of creation are meant for all (even when private property is justly acquired); subsidiarity, which stresses that society’s larger institutions, including the state, should not overwhelm or interfere with smaller ones (including families and Church communities); solidarity, which holds that humanity, even with its differences, is a family; and justice, which the Catechism of the Catholic Church says “consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor.”

    In his encyclical, Pope Leo stresses that AI and its attendant power must be assessed against the principals of Catholic social teaching.

  • City of God, city of man: Symbols, respectively, of faith in God and unbelief. The two are contrasted by St. Augustine in his work best known as “The City of God.”

 

In his encyclical, Pope Leo (a member of the Order of St. Augustine who regularly invokes the saint’s thought) cites the image and quotes St. Augustine’s observation that “two loves have built two cities: the earthly city, the love of self even to the contempt of God; the heavenly city, the love of God even to the contempt of self.” Pope Leo then reflects, “As throughout history, these two loves continue to contend for dominance in our hearts today. The age of AI is no exception: the construction of Babel or the rebuilding of Jerusalem begins within each one of us.”

§   Ecology of communication: A model for understanding the dynamic between communications and the social order. The concept, sometimes called “media ecology,” traces its roots to communications scholarship from the 1960s. In his encyclical, Pope Leo uses the term in calling for, among other things, transparency in Church communications, personal data protection and content selection; digital and media literacy; serious journalism; information verification; and the enhancement of critical thinking skills. Pope Leo notes that such actions reflect “the fundamental principle” that “truth is a common good and not the property of those with power and influence.”

 

§   Integral human development: A term found in St. Paul VI’s 1967 encyclical “Populorum Progressio” that views the flourishing of individuals and peoples holistically — taking into account spiritual, cultural, moral and relational concerns, with an eye not only to present but future generations.

 

The concept is central to Catholic social teaching (see above), with Pope Francis establishing the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development in 2016. In his encyclical, Pope Leo describes integral human development as “the framework through which we can interpret the changes of our time, including those brought about by the digital revolution.”

  • Large language model: A type of AI model capable of being trained to understand and generate language in a human-like way, with context and nuance.

  • Multilateralism: In international relations, the concept of cooperation among diverse nations. Originally a geometry term for “many-sided,” multilateralism is central to entities such as the United Nations, and to international agreements on a rules-based order that safeguards human life and dignity. In his encyclical, Pope Leo points to a crisis in the current multilateral system, not only due to “structural limitations” but to “a frequent lack of shared will to support and reform them, or to recognize their moral authority.” 
    He observes that the economic globalization following the collapse of Europe’s communist regimes in 1989 is far from “genuine multilateralism.” Instead, he writes globalization’s “almost blind faith in markets” has “provoked fundamentalist, identity-based and nationalistic reactions” and devolved into “a disorderly and conflict-ridden multipolarism with a prevailing sense of mistrust.” Shared efforts for a common good are further imperiled by reemerging attempts to “forge a collective identity in opposition to an enemy,” with each side claiming itself to be “a victim entitled to retribution” and replacing international law with the claim that “might makes right.” As a result, warns Pope Leo, power politics are sidelining peacebuilding initiatives and compromising “the achievements of humanitarian law,” with protections for civilians and “especially children” amid conflict “regarded as naïve relics of the past.”

 

  • Nehemiah: Both the name of the governor of Judah and the book found in the Bible. In about 444 B.C., Nehemiah was granted permission from Persian King Artaxerxes I to return to Jerusalem — where some Jews, following the sixth-century B.C. Babylonian exile, had begun to resettle — in order to rally and direct the people in a shared restoration of their ancient city. Unlike Babel, said Pope Leo in his encyclical, this effort under Nehemiah (and later under Ezra) placed “God at the center” and prioritized “communion” and “rebuilding relationships” over “uniformity.”

  • Political realism, realpolitik: Political realism is a political theory that prioritizes power over morals and ethics, effectively holding that “might makes right.” In international relations, realpolitik (a term first popularized in the 19th century) also privileges power, as well as national interest, over other principles and considerations, framing it as pragmatic politics. In his encyclical, Pope Leo warns that both philosophies — the latter of which he condemns as “truly irresponsible” — work to present war as inevitable, thereby precluding genuine peace based on justice and charity.

  • Technocratic paradigm: A term also used by Pope Francis in his 2015 encyclical “Laudato Si'” to describe a worldview in which humanity employs technology with the guiding aim of “possession, mastery and transformation,” rather than the humble, grateful stewardship of God’s abundant gifts.

 

Pope Leo writes that this “pervasive technocratic paradigm … amplified by the digital revolution and AI, threatens to normalize an anti-human vision. In that vision, the fullness of life is equated with having more, reducing weakness, eliminating uncertainty and exerting total control.

 

When efficiency becomes the ultimate measure of value, human beings are tempted to see themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as persons called to relationship and communion.”

  • Transhumanist, posthumanist: Transhumanism holds that humans can transcend their limitations particularly through scientific advances such as computer technology, cryonic preservation, biomedicine and other technological interventions. Posthumanism counters the view that humans are central, with some posthumanists advocating a hybridization of humans, machines and the environment.

    “Even when such ideas remain largely speculative, they gain relevance by altering the collective imagination and thereby influence social, economic and political choices,” Pope Leo writes in his encyclical.

He contrasts these views with the Christian understanding of humanity as created by God, noting that human limitations are vital opportunities to “recognize the inviolable dignity of every person,” live with compassion and “encounter the presence of the Lord.”

 

Gina Christian is a multimedia reporter for OSV News.

 

Thursday, February 5, 2026

More on the Egyptology of Ron Wyatt and Mary Nell

 

 


by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

 

“When Mary Nell in the book and Video says that Ron

“was told all this by God” ….

It is a Cop out and a Coverup of the Truth”.

  

 

An Australian reader has commented regarding my article:

 

Reflecting on the biblical Egyptology of Ron Wyatt’s wife, Mary Nell (Lee)

 

(3) Reflecting on the biblical Egyptology of Ron Wyatt’s wife, Mary Nell (Lee)

 

According to Mary Nell, Ron believed that he had been able to work out

the complexities of Egyptian dynastic history in relation to the Bible only because

God had enabled him to do so. Otherwise, it would have been impossible

considering the intricacies of the subject.

 

The correspondents writes:

 

As a Former Seventh Day Adventist [In Australia] I cannot but agree your Conclusions regarding the Egyptian Chronology of Ron Wyatt and Mary Nell Wyatt. I Have Read the book the “Battle for the First Born” twice over. It is written very Cunningly and Convincingly in a way that gullible people would think it is the Truth.

 

When Mary Nell in the book and Video says that Ron “was told all this by God” …. It is a Cop out and a Coverup of the Truth. From what I have Researched on Ark Discovery and Ron Wyatt sites, his Egyptian Chronology theory in the Book “Battle for the First Born” was formed on a single piece of Evidence.

 

In 1978 Wyatt claimed to have found Chariot Wheels at the Biblical Pi-Hiroth, now Nuiweba in Egypt. He took one of the Wheels to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. An Egyptologist told him it came from the 18th Dynasty. Ron then formed the Theory in his and Mary Nell’s book on that piece of Evidence. God had nothing to do with it. Mary Nell is Lying about the Truth about how this Theory came about.

 

Thursday, December 11, 2025

Joseph and Asenath


                                                                                    by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

“No one like Joseph has ever been born …”.

(Sirach 49:15)

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

The Third Dynasty of ancient Egypt’s Old Kingdom has proven to be something of a rich goldmine for discovering historical proof of the reality of Joseph and the Famine, as recorded late in the Book of Genesis (esp. Chapters 41-43).

 

Joseph as the celebrated vizier, Imhotep, the pious sage serving Horus Netjerikhet, had saved Egypt from a seven-year Famine.

 

This is famously recorded in a late (Ptolemaïc) document, the Sehel Famine Stela.

 

But there may now have been identified much earlier, apparent originals of this Ptolemaïc inscription. On this, see my article:

 

Was this the original ‘Famine Stela’?

 

(6) Was this the original 'Famine Stela'?

 

Imhotep was the quasi-pharaonic Khasekhemwy-Hetep-Imef (= Im-hotep), who built huge enclosures (storage facilities) at Nekhen, at Abydos (known as Shunet ez Zebib), and the massive Gisr el-Mudir at Saqqara – all in preparation for the Famine.

He was also the like-named (to Khasekhemwy) Sekhemkhet-Djoser-ti (see below). Thus Imhotep was Djoser (Zoser).

And Horus Netjerikhet, thought to have been Djoser, was not.

 

https://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/early-dynastic-period/2nd-dynasty/horus-seth-khasekhemwi/great-enclosure-at-saqqara.html

 

Great Enclosure at Saqqara

 

To the west of the unfinished pyramid of Sekhemkhet, a large rectangular structure was discovered composed mainly of a gigantic enclosure wall.

 

With its 600 by 300 metres, this enclosure encompasses an area that is even considerably larger than Netjerikhet’s neighbouring complex.

 

It as long been assumed -without any substantial examination of this structure- that this wall, known as the ‘Great Enclosure‘ or by its Arab name ‘Gisr el-Mudir‘ (wall of the director), was part of an unfinished mortuary complex of an unidentified 3rd Dynasty king. There is, however, no trace of a step pyramid inside this wall. Furthermore, this wall seems to have been completed, which would make the building of a pyramid within its compounds quite impossible.
Recent research by the EES has shown that Gisr el-Mudir may at least be one generation older than the Horus Netjerikhet, thus dating to the 2nd Dynasty.

 

Traces of other such enclosures have also been found: one to the immediate west of Netjerikhet’s complex and one apparently between Sekhemkhet’s pyramid and the ‘Great Enclosure’.

 

It has been suggested that these enclosures bear a striking resemblance to similar structures found near Umm el-Qa’ab. The largest of these enclosures, named Shunet ez-Zebib, has been identified as having belonged to Khasekhemwi. It is believed that this structure was intended as a simulacrum of the royal palace [sic], a copy that the king would take with him to the hereafter. If indeed these palace-copies are similar to the Saqqara enclosures, then it is likely that the Saqqara enclosures were related to the 2nd Dynasty tombs which were located in the vicinity.

 

If the enclosures at Saqqara are indeed of 2nd Dynasty date and not, as was assumed in the past, of the 3rd Dynasty, then the ‘Great Enclosure’ is to be considered the oldest known building constructed, at least partially, in stone!

 

[End of quote]

 

These were ‘gigantic enclosures’ built for storing vast quantities of grain.

They were not, as wrongly thought, mortuary complexes, or copies of palaces.

 

This was all Joseph-Imhotep’s divinely inspired work.

Absolutely amazing to think that all of this infrastructure was built in anticipation of a great and protracted Famine, as foretold to Pharaoh by the prescient Joseph.

 

Whenever, before, or even after, has the like of this been done!

 

“No one like Joseph has ever been born …”.

(Sirach 49:15)

 

Waterways and canals were also constructed by Joseph the water bringer, along with large dams. One immediately thinks of the Bahr Yusef canal, named after Joseph.

 

Much of this infrastructure was erected hastily, without the usual Egyptian decoration, purpose-built to serve for only a specified period of time.

Then it fell into disuse – or was appropriated and enhanced by the mighty Pyramid building oppressor-pharaohs of the subsequent Fourth Dynasty: the era of Moses. 

 

With a necessary folding of Egypt’s Old Kingdom into its so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom, which simply duplicates the Old Kingdom, we encounter all over again the Famine era, including, among other things, mention of “seven empty years” (Heqanakht papyri).

 

For Horus Netjerikhet of Egypt’s Third Dynasty was the same king as the powerful Netjerihedjet (Mentuhotep II) of the Eleventh Dynasty – the Famine Pharaoh. 

 

 

Having come to these twin conclusions some time ago now, that the biblical Famine belonged historically to the Old Kingdom, but is duplicated with the ‘Middle’ Kingdom, I never expected to find a ‘third’ manifestation of it all, back in Egypt’s Archaïc Period.

 

Archaic Period: Dynasties 1-2;

Old Kingdom: Dynasties 3-6;

First Intermediate Period: Dynasties 7-11 (part of);

Middle Kingdom: Dynasties 11-12.

 

First Dynasty biblical scenario

 

Although Egypt’s First Dynasty is conventionally set out like this:

http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn01/dyn01.html

 

Menes
Djer
Merneith
Djet
Den
Anedjib
Semerkhet
Qa'a
Sneferka

 

the listing, I would strongly suggest, is in need of a major overhaul.

 

While the famous Menes, the first mentioned king in this list, traditionally belongs to the time of Abram (Abraham), with which syncretism I would agree (see my article):

 

Dr. W.F. Albright’s game-changing chronological shift

 

(6) Dr. W.F. Albright's game-changing chronological shift

 

the next four listed personages, Djer, Merneith, Djet and Den, all belong to - as we are going to find out - the era of Joseph (c. 1700 BC), which era is, roughly speaking, two centuries later than that of Abram (Abraham) (c. 1900 BC).

 

Perhaps that yawning gap in the First Dynasty list is filled out by the Second Dynasty that we read earlier to be potentially causing complications with the First Dynasty: “Recent research by the EES has shown that Gisr el-Mudir may at least be one generation older than the Horus Netjerikhet, thus dating to the 2nd Dynasty”.

 

But, then again, perhaps not!

http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn02/dyn02.html

 

 

There immediately appear to be some obstacles to such a suggestion, with the first listed ruler, Hetepsekhemwy, being, yet once again, I would suggest, Joseph-Imhotep himself, as Hotep-Im (= Hetep-Imef) Khasekhemwy, who, it needs to be noted, emerges again at the end of this Second Dynasty list.

 

Here, I do not intend to become bogged down with the Second Dynasty, which, to date, I have not studied at any great length.

 

However, I would just like to suggest, tentatively, that I think a case could be mounted also for Ninetjer (Nynetjer) in this list to be the same ruler as Djer (Nine-tjer) in the First Dynasty list, a contemporary of Joseph as I shall be arguing – for Ninetjer, too, may have experienced a great famine (see 1. below).

 

And, intriguingly, Peribsen in the list was once thought (the idea is not popular today) to have introduced monotheism to Egypt (as could perhaps be expected from Joseph) along the lines of Akhnaton at a much later date. On this last, see e.g. my article:

 

Akhnaton’s Theophany

 

(11) Akhnaton's Theophany

 

Whilst, in the lengthy Phouka king list above, a full five regal names separate Ninetjer (potential Famine Pharaoh) from Seth-Peribsen (most tentatively, Joseph), Peribsen immediately follows Ninetjer in the (roughly) half as long list here at Higher Intellect:

https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/other/crystalinks/dynasty2.html

 

Hotepsekhemwy - 'Pleasing in Powers'

Reneb - Re is the Lord

Ninetjer - Godlike

Peribsen - Sekhemib - 'Powerful in Heart'

Khasekhemwy - "The Two Powerful Ones Appear"

 

Could it be that more than half (8 out of 14) of the names listed for these supposedly two distinct dynasties – {here following the shortened version of the Second Dynasty} - pertain to the era of the biblical Joseph?

 

There could well be much more to be said about all of this!

 

1.    Famine Pharaoh: Archaïc Period


Returning to the First Dynasty list, to
Djer, Merneith, Djet and Den, about all of whom I wrote above that they belonged to the era of the biblical Joseph, we can put aside Merneith, a female, who obviously could not have been Joseph’s Pharaoh.

 

Den (Udimu) was, I have already concluded most emphatically, Joseph himself:

 

Joseph also as Den, ‘he who brings water’

 

(6) Joseph also as Den, 'he who brings water'

 

Djer and Djet I would consider to be two manifestations of just the one Pharaoh - paralleling the already discussed Third Dynasty and Eleventh Dynasty syncretism - respectively, Horus Netjerikhet as Djer, and Mentuhotep Netjerihedjet as Djet.

For an easy explanation of this, see my article:

 

Symmetrical dynastic links for Famine Pharaoh and Joseph

 

(6) Symmetrical dynastic links for Famine Pharaoh and Joseph

 

Above, I tentatively included the long-reigning Second Dynasty ruler, Ninetjer (-djer). 

 

Djet and Ninetjer had in common long reigns and celebration of the Heb Sed festival, which (supposedly occurring every 30 years) was probably far less common in those early times as may be thought, but which may have become duplicated (or more) due to an inaccurate, repetitive Egyptology.

 

Not only did Djet and Ninetjer, in common, enjoy a Heb Sed festival, however, but Djet, certainly, and Ninetjer, potentially, experienced a severe Famine.

 

Regarding pharaoh Djet and the Famine, see e.g. my article (revised, with Imhotep now intended as Djoser):

 

Taking a Djet to Djoser’s Famine

 

(6) Taking a Djet to Djoser's Famine

 

And, regarding a possible lengthy famine at the time of Ninetjer, we read as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nynetjer

“Egyptologists such as Barbara Bell believe that an economic catastrophe such as a famine or a long lasting drought affected Egypt around this time. Therefore, to address the problem of feeding the Egyptian population, Nynetjer split the realm into two and his successors ruled two independent states until the famine came to an end. Bell points to the inscriptions of the Palermo stone, where, in her opinion, the records of the annual Nile floods show constantly low levels during this period”.

 

Likewise, Miroslav Bárta has written in his article:

 

Journey to the West The world of the Old Kingdom tombs in Ancient Egypt. Prague 2012

 

https://www.academia.edu/23316703/Journey_to_the_West_The_world_of_the_Old_Kingdom_tombs_in_Ancient_Egypt_Prague_2012

 

that: “… probably at the end of the First and start of the Second Dynasty, a time marked by internal conflicts connected with low levels of flooding and failed harvests …”:

 

“… low levels of flooding and failed harvests …” the perfect mix of ingredients for Famine in ancient Egypt.

 

 

2.   Joseph and Asenath: Archaïc Period

 

No need to repeat here what I have already written (in my “Joseph also as Den …” article above) about Den (Udimu) as Joseph-Imhotep.

While the name Den, “he who brings water”, so fitting of Joseph, may have been posthumously assigned, it, and his other names, especially Usafais (Manetho) - clearly Joseph (Usaf-) - and Khasti, “the one of the desert”, or “foreigner”, mark him as:

 

Joseph;

foreigner from the desert;

the one who brings water.

 

I have further identified Joseph with the famous Chancellor of this time:

 

Joseph as Chancellor of Egypt, Hemaka

 

https://www.academia.edu/121954546/Joseph_as_Chancellor_of_Egypt_Hemaka

 

More recently, I believe that I may have found evidence for Joseph’s wife, Asenath:

 

A possible identification of Asenath, the wife of Joseph

 

(4) A possible identification of Asenath, the wife of Joseph

 

The name is obviously an Egyptian one, whose later element, - nath, pertains to the goddess Neith.

 

The woman in question is the highly important, Ahaneith (wikipedia.org):

 

“Ahaneith was an ancient Egyptian woman, who lived during the

First Dynasty of Egypt. She was named after the goddess Neith”.

 

The name Ahaneith is essentially the same name as Asenath, bar one consonantal variation.

And she lived at the right Archaïc period for my revised Asenath.

 

Whether or not Merneith of the First Dynasty was also Joseph’s wife, Asenath, under a variant name form, I would not be able to determine at this stage.

 

What is apparent, though, is that scholars cannot decide between whether Merneith was the wife of Djet or the mother of Den (impossible if Den was Joseph as I am claiming him to have been): https://www.livius.org/articles/person/merneith/

 

“Queen Merneith lived during Egypt’s Early Dynastic Period and was presumably the great wife of King Djet and mother of King Den. She is named in one of Egypt’s earliest known King Lists, which has led scholars to believe that Merneith may have been a pharaoh in her own right”.