Friday, August 23, 2013

... on Angels and Men in Hugh Ross Context

Hugh Ross series:

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Angels and Men in Hugh Ross Context , 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hugh Ross' take on Day Four, 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Ice Cores with Lava Dust (a k a Tephra Layers), 4 ... on Moses, Church Fathers, Oxygen and Hydrogen (featuring Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross, separate videos)

I video commented on:
GeneralHanSolo : Hugh Ross vs Danny Faulkner - How Old Is The Universe?
my comment (two comboxes):
3:45:35 - anything is model dependent, even if one does not even notice one is using a model, simpler model one has accounting for all the data, better chance one has of being right, but also "statistics tell us by how much we can be wrong" ... but that supposes the model was all right!

Now Geocentrism with angelic movers is a simpler model than totality of modern cosmology. It accounts for data, maybe all, as well and as *not specifically predicting* as a hand accounts for movement of a pen.

It leaves room for a very great error, way beyond statistic error margin assessments, as to stellar distances.

It leaves room for sufficient error to get "distant light problem" for young universe creationism out of the way.

Angelic either external movers or souls of stars are supported by Scripture Baruch 3:34-35 as well as Job 38:7 (which was of course used by JRRT when he wrote Akallabêth, but also accords with Anar/Isil model of solar and lunar movement, which I generalise).

[Same video followed up - responding to Hugh Ross - in part three of this series and in the message:

Creation vs Evolution : Carnivores in Eden

Added next day, St Bartholomew's Feast:
Danny Faulkner quite correctly said that phases of Venus killed Ptolemaic model but not Tychonian.

Who and what killed Tychonian?

You could say Newton gave a physical explanation of Keplerian model that would not work for Tychonian. However, as Newton was an occultist, he did not necessarily believe that was all there was to it.

Nor did Bessel's phenomenon of 1838 kill Tychonian model, except on Newtonian assumptions of purely natural and physical causality. It was out, not disproven.

The trigonometry of heliocentrism is not operational science.

What you see in a microscope you can squeeze between two pieces of glass and then turn them around to see it from the other side.

What you see in a telescope is as mysterious as remnants of a past historically not dated.

You are not flying to any point eight light years away to see if alpha Centauri looks four lightyears away from there too. You do not check from a solid edge around heaven that earth is moving and sun is not.
Addition directed at the basically last words of Pamela, Hugh and Danny:
Finally about revelation.

Catechism of Pope St Pius X says in shorter words basically same thing as your quote here from Belgic confession. In Qs on 1st Article of the creed we find:

2) Q. How do we know that there is a God?

A. We know that there is a God because reason proves it and faith confirms it.

And reason proves it from nature.

And faith comes from Bible and Tradition.

Now, Genesis was NOT written to children, but rather to chiefs of Israel and Priests and Levites, and on top of that, when I was a child I was told about Mendel's laws.

And modern science has NOT put us in a position to previous generations as adults to children.

That is a position analogous to Reformers pretending to give Protestant faithful a position towards Catholic Medieval ancestors like adults to children.

It is an unwarranted claim.

As to Day of the Lord in Zachariah, where exactly do we find a long period of time?

I have skimmed through. I have in vain searched reasons d o t org, search word Zachariah.

If Hebrew has no univocal word for "longer but finite period of time", is it so sure even yôm is ever used that way?

Except of course when it refers to a near millennial day of pre-flood human lifespan.

Is the concept with its English synonyms as useful as we think?

De Descriptione Temporum, CSL, comes to mind.

commenting on II:
OppSchools : Hugh Ross: Advice for Adults with Asperger's Syndrome
my comment:
If you are better off as a goldsmith or a scientist than as a football player or a bricklayer, that is pretty much one basic thing about the Asperger diagnosis.

The probelm with making this a diagnosis is that goldsmiths and scientists are not less healthy than football players and bricklayers.

The other diagnostic aspects (lack of empathy, a tendency to bury the essential in details) are so much rubber diagnostic, the diagnosis is as such worthless.

If the advice HR essentially got was to be rather a scientist or a goldsmith than a bricklayer or a football player, I quite agree with such "medical advice", I only think he figured that one out for himself before he took the tests. I e one does not have to have a degree in psychiatry to figure that one out.

Kent Hovind would never be diagnosed as Asperger, but rather as ADHD.

The other one in fifty who does not fit as a pupil in a classroom. He could have been an excellent fb player or teacher and indeed he was a teacher.

He can do the show in front of a class of hundreds or thousands, I could hardly even get fifteen pupils together.

Now, let us first of all before any debate on anything forget about discrediting anyone's arguments due to his diagnosis, shall we.

commenting on III:
GeneralHanSolo : How Christian Men Should Treat Women
my comment:
"and younger women like sisters, with absolute purity. (1 Timothy 5:1-2)"

You may have noticed, intro to the speech, that Timothy "was trying to be some kind of leader" ... right on, it- was actually a task St Paul laid on him, and the kind of leader he was would one generation later be called "bishops". In the epistle, the word "bishop" is used for another kind, what we now call "priest" interchangeably with the word "presbyter".

Now, that duty of treating younger women like sisters in all probability applies to him precisely because he is a celibate bishop, like St Paul was a celibate.

It does not apply to each and every unmarried man who as yet hopes to marry.

And, since it seems some have been praying for me to hear this, I might add that I am not a priest, not a bishop, not a monk, not a Pope, I am a writer and I still hope to get married.

Hoping this explains why the "absolute purity" part applies to certain men but not others & me included in these others.

Links about the personal things involved in II and III:
Creation vs. Evolution : Why I have a Personal Grudge against Kenotic Heresy

In other words, I don't believe a diagnosis like Asperger's says anything of value about sickness or health of a mind.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Misunderstanding Begging (Some Cultural History of, Blog Theme Obliging) and This Beggar

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : A very relevant quote from the wusti blog

HGL's F.B. writings : Be my Unwin or Hooper if you like.

In other words, I am a writer, a layman, not part of a ministry.

Link about angelic movers:
HGL's F.B. writings : Creationism and Geocentrism are sometimes used as metaphors for "outdated because disproven inexact science"

No comments: