What About "Development of Doctrine"?

Two More Reasons Wes Huff Should Be Catholic — The Mass & Development of Doctrine
Catholic Bible Highlights | 3 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrDHoVs4GkA

18:24 As it is carried out by some, I don't like it either.

Matthieu Lavagna described an answer to Rennes, 1830 (Dz 2272—74) as a "key moment in the development of doctrine".

It was a local decision, only later made accessible to the Church universal, as I comprehend, and the key in the question was that someone who wanted to take interest was supposed to promise to abide by a future decision by the Pope on the matter.

To Matthieu Lavagna, this means taking interest is in and of itself licit, now.

He also cited a part of the code of 1917 where those taking care of ecclesiastic property are told to place investments in low risk and licit placements. To me that doesn't sound like a bank account with interest, but as buying shares in a low risk company.

1950 has been described as a key moment in the development of doctrine as well, while Pope Pius XII simply refused to decide on whether it was licit to say Adam had biological ancestry.

Even more absurd is describing 1822 as allowing Catholics to believe Heliocentrism.

19:13 Exsurge Domine versus Dignitatis Humanae.

Probably not Wes' fav example, since he probably prefers religious freedom.

19:54 Apologia played a role in mine.

I'm glad I didn't come across Essay at this point.

As to enthusiasts for this work, I like to remind that this is not his Catholic viewpoint as already received in the Church and having received instruction, it's his motivation from an Anglican standpoint on why to quit Anglicanism for Rome.

Loads of things that are very well attested in early tradition would have been inaccessible to him at Littlemore (I think his last Anglican abode was) and so he would have made sense of them by supposing "development of doctrine" even if this was not the case.

20:16 I have since 2001 built my writing on debating, first on forums and later on quora and under youtubes, as one main staple.

You are free to respond, unless I get delays in viewing the answers, the responses and my responses to them will usually get into the blog post.

Nobody wants serious debate anymore?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE-Z9r5Fa3k

[This is the whole film My Name is Nobody, but my answer to the rhetorical question was simply the title. I very much like the film, though!]

20:48 I'll give at least one proof text of Trent disagreeing with the as yet Anglican Newman's thesis.

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

What is key in forbidden exegesis?

Relying on his own skill?
Interpreting without asking the Church first?

No, coming to contradict:

• the sense that the Church hath held and doth hold
• the unanimous consent of the Fathers

This presumes that a sense that the Church doth hold normally is one She hath held and that the Fathers typically consent.

21:05 Going to Armstrong:

Did they believe that God really has a material palace in the sky and that He received His Son in a decorated state chair placed a little to the right of His own? — or did they not?

Quoted from CSL.

Very obviously, if Jesus remains true Man after the Resurrection, if it makes any sense to speak of Him having a body (which can "bilocate" — using the term losely — to altars and communicants) or Him still being the Son of Mary, as some radical Protestants deny, I've actually come across that, He is in a material place, presumably a palace with a decorated state chair.

Whether God the Father is also visible in some kind of theophany is another question.

But God the Son became Man, and therefore He is now in the kind of tabernacles He would have eaten in while walking on Earth, and not just the tabernacles in the churches (with valid apostolic succession). That means, Heaven is not another dimension.

"The Church knew the answer (that God has no body and therefore couldn’t sit in a chair) as soon as it knew the question."

False. God as God has no body, but is still capable of theophany and can therefore sit in a chair just as much as He can dine with Abraham in Mamre. God the Son as Man very clearly has a body and therefore very habitually can sit in a chair or take a walk on streets of gold.

21:23 Maybe, just maybe, St. Pius X was, like me, preferring Apologia or Arians of the IV C. over Essay?

22:46 "as Cardinal Newman formulated it"

In 1845, when writing the book, Newman was not a Cardinal, he was a celebrity convert on OCIA (or equivalent) asked to sum up why, as an up to then Anglican he had decided to Pope. (Or, if you prefer, to Cross the Tiber).

24:09 As an ex-Lutheran I find it disheartening to see Bergoglio with a chocolate statue of ML. Yes, the man from the WWW cities ...

24:29 Lutherans did kill Catholics in Sweden and Denmark (to which respectively Finland and Norway-Iceland belonged).

It was somewhat less common than in England on Tyburn, but it was not all that rare either.

24:57 I'm historically in favour of killing for obstinate heresy.

I e, I hold it was one of the ways in which "ho katekhon" did his job.

I also hold, "ho katekhon" as in the Roman Emperor was taken out of the way in 1918. In 2004, when I was on El Camino de Santiago, I was told Spain was introducing gay marriage. So much for saving a Catholic society in Spain by bringing back the Inquisition. Can't be done any more.

St. Thomas clearly stated that one main reason for killing heretics was to delay the advent of the Antichrist, his precursor was the one taking Nicolas II out of the way, i e Lenin. The Inquisition has become pointless and in 2004 I learned this was even the case in La Hispanidad.

26:01 Luther was in a hopeless muddle.

If Catholicism had no poison, why establish something outside it?
If it lacked salvific truth, where was the Church in ... 1401 (I'd have said 1516 if I didn't know Luther credited John Hus with full truth)? And if the answer was "nowhere" what did that make of Matthew 28:16—20?

He had to want to have it both ways.

26:31 "all the mainline denominations are pro-abortion"

Sadly true of CoS.

Do we see some lion mouth and leopard head, somewhere?

He Thought He Has Refuted YEC, Well, Not My Version

Explaining Simple Calculations VERY SLOWLY For Creationists (One Creationist In Particular)
Creation Myths | 24 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnuhi-Te0ZI

6:42 I am YEC and heavily disagree.

1) The carbon date for the Flood is 39 000 BP, the youngest dated Neanderthal is 42 000 BP, meaning the Neanderthals date as pre-Flood
2) The parts of the Neanderthal genome we have exclude Y-chromosomes and mitochondriae and the Ark is the ideal bottleneck to have sapiens sapiens get exclusivity.

10:29 Added speed in Neanderthal variation: partly due to Nephelim.

Not to be accounted for in normal mutation rates.

Added speed in post-Flood variation.

The time after the Flood includes, on my model:

1) the Ice Age (and somewhat quicker than other YEC's would say, over before Babel)
2) reduced lifespans (here I agree with other YEC's)
3) and a speed up in production of carbon 14.

To explain the last point. The atmosphere at the Flood had 1.629 pmC. We now have around 100. The Flood was 5000 years ago.

Of the original 1.629 pmC, we would now have 0.89 left.

At normal speed of production, you add 45.384 to that, so 46.274 pmC. That's so obviously not what we have. Therefore at some point in time, carbon 14 was produced faster.

One factor which produces carbon 14 faster is more radiation.

This also results in reduced lifespans by faster mutations.

Thank you for making a point for me!

No, I'm Actually Not a Norse Pagan, But Perhaps a Beardo

Ignorance in Full Display: Pete Hegseth Banning Norse Pagans
Bjorn Andreas Bull-Hansen // Bjorn Talks | 18 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmM_NG_iMVY

4:27 While not a Norse Pagan, I believe Odin was a real person.

Meaning the one who came to Gylfi and fooled him into believing he was a god or even one of three creator gods.

In objective favour of my position, Jackson Crawford (though he didn't refer to it) verified that the Deyr fé stanza in Havamal, which resembles Ecclesiastes closely (Praekeren in Norwegian) would have been metric even if reconstructed as Proto-Norse, around the time when Odin would have come.

I am also a bearded man whom some consider a weirdo. However, you show some ignorance of US slang, the wiktionary entry on "beardo" starts in 2006.*

So, I kind of feel a bit targetted ... indirectly.

7:41 I must say, I'm thankful that Christianity allows me to be a Critic of Science, for instance ditch Evolution (like on the scale of microbes to trees or the radicality of ape to man).

You do you of course, but one day God will call you out for not being a Geocentric and concluding He exists, turning the universe around us, like St. Paul says in Romans 1.

8:48 "it doesn't become extreme, it doesn't infringe on other people's rights"

Somewhat rich from a person who just called himself a science believer.

Between 1934 and 1977, a total of slightly less than 44,000 sterilization procedures were performed in Norway under the 1934 act.

Now, I'm citing one who claims that those who were targetted involuntarily were only c. 2000, but even 2000 is 2000 too many, in the name of science.**

10:29 "a fundamentalist attitude towards other people"

What is that supposed to mean, even?

Fundamentalism is normally used of an attitude to one's religious texts. If one has any.

But you sound as if meaning a brutal attitude against someone because he has a different religion, guess what, killing monks is pretty brutal, whether it's done by Norse Pagans or by Lutherans or Calvinists, and doing it because Gregorian is regarded as seiðr or because shaving the beard is regarded as unmanly is hardly a motivation that excludes some high degree of religious exclusivism. Perhaps this wasn't done all through the Viking age, but at least a part of it.

And a motivation involving the cutting down of Irminsul in Saxony sounds pretty much like solid Fundamentalism about Norse and Saxon hallows ...

11:36 Nah, cruel and evil are not always synonymous.

Franco was cruel, my grandpa argued, in 1975 when he died, because he used the vile garrote.***

Franco was good, my ma argued in 1984, when stopping me from joining De Molays, because he had abortion banned in Spain.

I don't see any totally irreconcilable thing between the two.

Besides, if cruel were evil, where does that leave Gudrun's revenge or Ivar Boneless' revenge and so on? I don't think St. Olaf went as far as to "rista blodsörn"

---

* https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=beardo&action=history

** https://www.eurozine.com/sterilization-in-norway-a-dark-chapter/

Citing further:

Free will was the guiding principle in the act. Physical coercion was not allowed. The person in question had to apply for or consent to the procedure him or herself – if he or she were able to do so – before the sterilization could be carried out. However, the act did open up for sterilization without consent of the “insane” and of persons of “deficient mental development and/or permanently impaired mental capacity”9 , but in these cases the procedure could not be carried out without the prior written consent of the person’s legal guardian or, if the legal guardian was incompetent, a person appointed to act on his or her behalf.

Mental institutions have a way of faking consent by extortion and things ... "dat don't impressin' me much" ... and in some cases the legal guardians could be foster parents aligned with the system rather than the patient.

*** Never the cruelty of forced sterilisation, though! In Badajoz, there was a case of castrations, but that was by ill disciplined troops, not on Franco's orders (and I'm not a fan of Yagüe under whose orders it happened, at all).

In Defense of Apostolic Succession

On Apostolic Succession
Dr. Jordan B Cooper | 30 Jan. 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xRwwCswp1I

4:20 Would you agree to two things:

a) while changing Sabbath to Sunday is reflected in a hinting way in Acts, the change itself is not in any NT Book, and not in any OT book either?
b) even so, sanctifying Sunday is obliging on us, up to Doomsday?

Bc if you do, how are you not defending tradition as infallible outside the purely theoretic framework of sola scriptura?

One commenter

has gone invisible.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Tom-q9x2v "But when assessing the gravity or degree of difficulties of such a thing, this must be, in the end, a not-infallible judgment."

It can't, due to Matthew 28:20 saying "all days".

You probably get Sola Scriptura from a comment in St Athanasius whose point was that Arius was using, not tradition, but things totally extraneous to either Bible or Tradition.

Your first difficulty with Sacred Tradition is answered.

If you read up in St Paul's three epistles to Timothy and Titus, you see bishops are being trained as guardians of tradition.

While this includes all NT as well as OT books of the Bible, some points are not directly found in it.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tom-q9x2v I'd have to ask you (or if you prefer someone else to answer, not forcing you but I take this as public debate, not a private conversation with you):

1) does Malachi 1:11 indicate Mass is a sacrifice?
2) does the citation in Hebrews of "tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedec" in light of Genesis 14:18 indicate it?
3) supposing Mass were not instituted as a sacrifice, where was the Church not having it in 7th C AD?

Not just the one not directly stating it, but one stating or showing for them Mass was no sacrifice, and which can otherwise be defended, from the Bible, i e nothing like Gnostics, Manichaeans, Iconoclastic Emperors of Byzantine Empire, Paulicians etc. - was there one?

Matthew 28:20 says "all days". I don't believe in Sola Scriptura, I do believe in Tota Scriptura.

For good wishes, same to you. I am not an Inquisitor.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tom-q9x2v "The Bible's Letter to the Hebrews specifically rules out this possibility."

Only if you suppose the sacrifice of the Mass to be another sacrifice and not the same as that of Calvary.

We actually consider it the same.

Two Masses are not two separate sacrifices, they are the sacrifice of Calvary made present in two times and locations often outside Palestine and often after AD 33.

IV

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tom-q9x2v "Sola Scriptura as found in the New Testament,"

Sola Scriptura is specifically ruled out by the New Testament and nowhere found in it.

A

Josse

@josse9867

Hans-Georg Lundahl Sola Scriptura doesn’t deny tradition, it just denies counter biblical teachings, so Sola Scriptura doesn’t conflict with the changing of sabbath

Hans-Georg Lundahl

what, @josse9867 ?

"Sola Scriptura doesn’t deny tradition, it just denies counter biblical teachings"

Well, so does Catholicism!

B

Soteriology 400

@soteriology400

@hglundahl Acts 17:10—12.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, @soteriology400 ... how is that supposed to relate either way to whether the Sabbath was changed or not?

Soteriology 400

@hglundahl The point I was making, we see an example of sola scriptura, so it is not ruled out which is the comment I was responding too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

But, @soteriology400 , we do not see an example of sola scriptura at all.

We see Jews testing the NT against the Scriptures of the OT. The NT is far beyond "the OT only" the thing we see is a verification that the pretended truth from God actually can be such, because it does not contradict Scripture.

That's how you should go about with testing Catholic claims too, by the way, seeing they contradict neither OT nor NT Scripture!

JoshVanV

@joshvanv5281

@hglundahl but the only reason one would be Protestant is to believe the Catholic Church DOES contradict scripture. This is why Martin Luther protested, not because he didn’t want to accept tradition. He simply could not with good conscience accept the practices contrary to scripture that the church was forcing him to agree with. Sola scriptura is a practical rule, because if the church can be in error, there needs to be something outside of it to norm it, and that is scripture

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joshvanv5281 "if the church can be in error,"

For the Church Universal, can it?

Matthew 28:16—20.

What was the task Christ gave His Church and did it involve not being in error?

What was the help offered the Church, and does it involve divine omnipotence?

A justified man can, but an elect cannot finally lose salvation. Note, being justified doesn't mean you know you are elect, here on earth you usually don't. So also a partical Church can, but the Church universal cannot lose truth which is salvific for the believers.

---

4:54 "aren't talking about sacramental authority"

Why would they when it is for one thing clear from the Bible (words of institution say "do this" to the twelve, John 20:21-23 promises the same body the power of forgiving or withholding forgiveness on God's behalf, St Paul to St Titus or more probably St Timothy says to recall the power given through his laying on of hands), and for another thing dangerous to reveal in an as yet Pagan world?

Gustav Wasa knew very well what a bishop and a non-bishop could do, so he forced one elderly Catholic bishop to lay hands on Laurentius Petri. This doesn't mean Laurentius Petri handed on the apostolic succession, has to do with verifiable intention.

5:15 "the way it develops later"

For reasons stated. And I object very strongly to "develops later" terminology, you pronounce it as if it were later a novum.

5:30 "it comes out of this idea of"

Ideas a and b are both stated in NT Bible books.

In Fathers, idea a is stated earlier than idea b.

Of the options:

1) Fathers had reason to mention a before they had reason to mention b
2) Fathers forgot b was in the Bible books and developed b independently from a, even if it logically doesn't follow

which one makes more sense in a Church given the promise "every day" in Matthew 28:20?

---

6:27 Obviously, with a broken link in some place, that place will have no valid bishops, priests or sacraments beyond those that laymen can confer at least in cases of necessity without a priest, that being baptism and matrimony (if a couple otherwise having the right to marry cannot find a priest willing to marry them within two months, they would make valid marriage vows even without a priest to bless them).

You cannot have any general anguish on "what if", since the Church has made sure to avoid broken links (up to changes after Vatican II, but that is in a Protestantising anti-Church, and doesn't affect all Catholic clergy, since some rejected these changes in time, like Catholics rejected changes of Protestant Reformations even when pretending to be episcopal).

---

7:14 It can be added, some consider Apostles were never Baptised either.

Therefore, that the laying of hands was not how they received orders doesn't mean it is not strictly necessary after them.

The character is there for three sacraments : Baptism, Confirmation and Deaconal or Sacerdotal Ordination / Episcopal Consecration.

That this is not explicitly treated of in Bible or very early Church Fathers doesn't change that that is tradition.

7:40 You are also confusing "call" with character.

A man can be called to priesthood, but as long as not ordained, he cannot be living that call.

The call is God's preference for your life, the ordination gives power to transsubstantiate, offer sacrifice of Mass, absolve.

---

I think I'll break off watching here, since subtitles are automatic and clearly garbled, and resume the refutation when I have a computer with headphones and sound. Feel free to answer before that happens, should you have occasion.

Robert Sarah is Wrong

What are the Two Apocalyptic Beasts Devouring Europe?
17.VII.2026 | Dr Taylor Marshall
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qrciVBhhfk8

Why do I think "Cardinal" Sarah is wrong?

Because, Islam, and mainly adapted Islam (Fundies are a minority) is part of a four headed leopard, and Sarah is not adressing the three other heads.

Because gender ideology is part of Communism, which as a whole is the fourth beast of a terrible aspect.

In Africa, notably Nigeria, an openly Fundamentalist Islam is the most horrible thing for Christians, since it easily gets weapons.

In Europe, adapted Islam is more horrible, since it easily gets influence and positions from which to persecute some singled out Christians.

Another Failed Attempt at Denying Genesis 5 and 11's Obvious Chronological Implications

Is It Even Our Math? What Biblical History Tells Us About Genesis
BLK SHP Bible Talk | 17 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfdxxeeecBM

The Bible isn't divided into things that tell plain facts and call for deeper consideration.

Each passage, not one exception, does both jobs.

Do you want to know the real theological value of Genesis 5 and 11, beyond the face value?

Luke 3:22—38
https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=3&l=22-38#x

Don't miss that Jesus was 72nd from Adam.

But that doesn't take away the face. And if you want to reexamine the life spans, but still admit Jesus is 72nd from Adam, that leaves an even shorter timespan for Earth.

If you pretend Jesus was 720th or 7200th from Adam, that changes God's covenant fidelity just as radically as if Antichrist got 1260 rather than 3 1/2 solar years.

2:50 What did you just say about camels?

Rebecca also, when she saw Isaac, lighted off the camel,
[Genesis 24:64]

3:08 I'm not sure Ur Kasdim is Woolley's Ur in South East Mesopotamia.

Ur basically means "city" and you find it in Ur, Uruk, to the best of my knowledge perhaps even Nipp-ur, so why not Ur-fa ... also known as Edessa, North West Mesopotamia, modern Turkey near the Syrian border. Modern name "venerable Urfa" or in Turkish: Şanlıurfa.

I am however pretty sure Genesis 14 carbon dates to 3500 BC. This means that we have no cuneiform texts (perhaps just inscriptions like "5 geese for temple of ..." and "this belongs to so and so" perhaps not even that). Which explains why the kings in that chapter are tricky to identify. I'd say Woolley's Ur was founded when Abram was very young, like a child of seven or perhaps newborn (carbon dating to 4000 BC).

3:34 If that Amorrhite migration came in carbon dated 2200 BC to 1800 BC, that would have been during the sojourn in Egypt. And yes, the 400 years would telescope into a shorter period. The 2200 BC date is misdated by more than the 1800 BC date.

So, no, Abraham came before that migration.

However, there were Amorrhites in Canaan in an on and off city called En Geddi, or back in that day Asason Tamar. Genesis 14 is presumably when their chalcolithic occupation thereof ended. If not, that would mean the carbon date of Genesis 14 would be even further back than 3500 BC.

5:04 1950 BC is not all bad. The Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day says Christ was born 5199 after Creation, 2957 after Flood and ... 2015 after the birth of Abraham.

The problem is, 2015 BC wouldn't line up with carbon dated 2000 BC, but with carbon dated 4000 BC.

5:17 I disagree. If Ur Kasdim really was Woolley's Ur, Abram left it in a stage of build-up.

Just as at 75 / 76, Abraham arrived in an Egypt in a build-up stage. The carbon date would have been 3500 BC, but like Abraham, so also the pharao would have died decades later which would carbon date to centuries later:

1916 BC

Isaac born.

83.166 pmC, dated as 3440 BC

1897 BC

83.568 pmC, dated as 3381 BC

1881 BC

Terah died

1877 BC

83.97 pmC, dated as 3321 BC

1857 BC

84.371 pmC, dated as 3262 BC

1856 BC

Jacob and Esau born

1841 BC

Abraham died

1838 BC

84.77 pmC, dated as 3204 BC

[Creation vs. Evolution: Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-flood-to-joseph-in-egypt.html]

5:47 What we know as the Sumerian King List may have been totally unknown to Abraham:

The Sumerian King List (abbreviated SKL) or Chronicle of the One Monarchy is an ancient literary composition written in Sumerian that was likely created and redacted to legitimize the claims to power of various city-states and kingdoms in southern Mesopotamia during the late third and early second millennium BC.[2][3][4] It does so by repetitively listing Sumerian cities, the kings that ruled there, and the lengths of their reigns. Especially in the early part of the list, these reigns often span thousands of years. In the oldest known version, dated to the Ur III period (c. 2112 – c. 2004 BC) but probably based on Akkadian source material, the SKL reflected a more linear transition of power from Kish, the first city to receive kingship, to Akkad.

Ur III was during the sojourn in Egypt.

5:55 "this was scribal school material, popular literature in Abram's youth"

Scribes were a very restricted élite by the time we get to the king's list.

It would apart from that kind of functionary also have included monarchs, so, Egypt functioned on a similar basis, Moses had the knowledge of Egyptian scribes. However supposing such scribes even existed back when Abram was young, nothing says he would himself have been involved with them.

8:43 Yes, the SKL does have a number of pre-Flood kings corresponding to Genesis 5 minus Adam and Noah.

That's also Genesis 4 plus one king after Lamech.

12:05 So, your point is basically, if a pair of stories in the Bible are related in a literary genre sort of way, they need to have at least one unliteral?

Did Eve not listen to the serpent? Or did Mary not listen to the word of God through Gabriel?

For me, obviously both literally did so, even if that makes them a literary pair and one which Medieval theology made very famous.

16:18 Thank you for not holding to pre-Adamism.

The Catholic Church condemned it.

18:09 "Already speaking different languages."

Does not follow.

I'd say that "and their languages" is here used proleptically, and the section ends in Genesis 11:1. In order to note that this division of languages hinted at hadn't happened yet.

Then the narrative starts in Genesis 11:2 with a subject given as "masculine plural" translated as an unspecified "they" which need not refer to mankind, unlike the previous verse.

20:17 In Matthew one, at least three of four omitted kings can be seen as omitted for a reason: the three cursed generations after Athaliah.

If there is an actual parallel in Genesis 5 or 11, it would probably be:

And Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Sale
[Genesis 11:12]

Where the LXX has:

12 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan. 13 And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala; and Cainan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.

Now see this:

It is remarkable that, notwithstanding the omission of the name of Cainan from the Hebrew text, and the consequent general rejection of him by historians, there are more traditions preserved of him than of his son Salah. "The Alexandrine Chronicle derives the Samaritans from Cainan; Eustachius Antiochenus, the Saggodians; George Syncellus, the Gaspheni; Epiphanius the Cajani. Besides the particulars already mentioned, it is said Cainan was the first after the flood who invented astronomy, and that his sons made a god of him, and worshiped his image after his death. The founding of the city of Harran in Mesopotamia is also attributed to him; which, it is pretended, is so called from a son he had of that name." – Anc. Univ. Hist., vol. i, p. 96, note.

Quoted from The Patriarchal Age: or, the History and Religion of Mankind (1854), George Smith

Sounds like a good reason to omit him, if he existed.

21:00 Babel fits into the timeline if Peleg was born 401 or 531 after the Flood.

LXX without the second Cainan, as per Roman Martyrology, or standard LXX with him.

Archaeologically, Babel is carbon dated to 9500 to 8000 BC. For c. 40 years, though it covers 51 in my tables.

Yes, Babel is in Shinar, also known as Mesopotamia. Yes, Babel is the same name as Nebuchadnezzar's city.

This is a city sharing the name of a tea party famed one:

At the Dissolution of the Monasteries by Henry VIII during the English Reformation, Boston's Dominican, Franciscan, Carmelite, and Augustinian friaries—erected during the boom years of the 13th and 14th centuries—were all expropriated.

As you can imagine, this didn't involve offering fish more than just one cups of tea. But it also isn't the same place, even. There is an Atlantic between them.

21:16 "would have shown up clearly in the historical record"

Exactly what historical record?

Btw, Göbekli Tepe does show up in a cataclysm, starting the Neolithic / Agricultural revolution.

So, on that account clearly fits the bill. But as Göbekli Tepe was pre-preserved and deciphered writing, so was Nimrod's Babel. Just like the founding of Boston's friar convents was before the printing press. And before Publick Occurrences Both Forreign and Domestick in the other Boston.

22:01 David begat Solomon.

This is the normal meaning.

22:23 No ... 1) Adam didn't cease to head the covenant people at age 130 or 230. 2) Henoch never became head of the covenant people, since he was lifted up before his father died.

But, also, 3) even if you were right, that wouldn't prolong the timeline.

22:42 130 or 230 adds up with 105 or 205, regardless of whether it ends the times before Adam fathered Seth and Seth fathered Enosh, or it ends the time of Adam's covenant responsibility and than that of Seth's covenant responsibility.

As there has always been a covenant people, there are no gaps between these.

This is where your solution fails to accomodate standard dates from archaeology.

I'm usually for the Mass of Pope St. Pius V, not that said to be of "Pope Paul VI" but I have worshipped within the latter too, and I know by heart one line in Swedish:

"genom alla tider samlar du åt dig ett folk"
"Through all ages thou gatherest to thyself a people"

Unlike Islam or Mormonism, there is no time for a people of God to lapse before another is raised, but all generations from Abel to John on Patmos are included in the line that goes up to the New Covenant, to the Catholic Church.

Therefore there cannot be any gap between the 130 / 230 and the ensuing 105 / 205 years.

23:10 They do record biological birth.

500 years old reflects the iniquity Noah had to bear, either being deprived of earlier sons or being barred for unusually long from marrying.

Jesus said the last days would look like the days of Noah and St. Paul says the last days would include evil people who forbade (presumably not all, but the righteous) to marry.

I'm 57 and going on 58. I am unmarried and think we are in the last days.

[The following two comments have disappeared]

23:59 "same time, different cities"

Sumerian ideology believed in the unity of mankind. A reaction against Babel's cataclysm. A unity under one monarch (a bit like our world is likely to sadly see for 3 1/2 years). That's why, if they couldn't deny either of two parallel dynasties, they serialised them.

Egypt did the same, which gives sufficient room for cramming regnal years of Old and Mid Kingdoms to fit my carbon dates revision.

24:06 The Sumerian list maker was lying.

Instead of admitting that Nioppur and Lagash for instance were independent of each other, they pretended one had ruled the other before the other had ruled the one.

A horrible idea to put this move into the interpretation of Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.

[Taking a pause now, before perhaps commenting more tomorrow]

24:18 "this was simply not what the SKL was trying to do"

Speculation.

We are not sure they weren't trying to overwhelm with a huge past.

Answering Turek, WLC, Lennox (not the author of the video, who also included Ken Ham in it)

Young Earth VS Old Earth | Christians DEBATE the Age of the Earth
True Faith | 12 July 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e6y0z2IVRU

0:54 If the speed of light hasn't changed, and the universe is very much less big*, the constant speed of light has no bearing on the Biblical chronology.

2:42 The initial creation happened before the light of day 1.

3:39 You are making the assumption trees grew, that's about as much of an unwarranted assumption as Adam having been a baby.

13:42 And if Lennox had asked Lundahl, "amanuensis Lundahl, what do you think of Galileo" ... I think I'd have answered what I should.

He was wrong.

14:21 No, the fixed earthers have not all disappeared.*

I'm still here. So is Sungenis.

Solange Herz was a bit earlier, and so was Crombette.

Pope Michael II is now, and Pope Michael I was to 2022.

* Fixed earth and universe not being all that big go together, via the "parallax" angle, which on Heliocentric views enter into a trigonometrically relevant triangle with 2AU.