Sunday, August 18, 2013

... on History being Kent Hovind's Weaker Subject


1) Creation vs. Evolution : Can Evolutionists be a Laughing Stock?
2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Age of Earth video's by Kent Hovind
3) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Chaplains vs Councellors and on Creation vs Evolution (feat. Kent Hovind)
4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Hovind's Dissertation Not as Bad as its Critics on Rational Wiki Think
5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hovind - Ross Debate, for Four Videos
6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on History being Kent Hovind's Weaker Subject
7) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Kent Hovind's supposed failure in Carbon Dating Subject

Video commented on:
Trin80ty : Kent Hovind is Crazy #8: Catholics created Islam
Hans-Georg Lundahl
As for Cathechism of the Catholic Church what it says about Muslims, it is about what you say about confessions outside Independent Baptism:

"Climbing the mountain of truth" ...

My dear Hovind, when Muhammed started out, the Catholics had the Holy Land. [My blooper!]

Except for a brief spell of Persian invasion under one Chosroes. [Which invasion lasted 614 to 628, i e an era during which the Hejra happened in 620.] Under his invasion a lot of Catholic Palestinians reverted to Judaism and persecuted the Catholic Palestinians who remained Catholics.

Then Heraclius took the Holy Land back.

Those wishing to be Jews went off to Persia, those wishing to be Catholics stayed as Palestians, so far only Christian.

Kent, trusting Jack Chick was not too bright on this one.

Trusting Jack Chick is not too bright on any other topic on Catholics either.

[But if one is to take any heed of the idea Mohammed could have been launched as an agent against the Persians, it might be an idea to ask oneself if Byzantium was behind - my own idea is he was deluded by a devil masquerading as "Djibril", at least at first, and therefore at least at first honest - but I could be wrong.]

[Digression on Foxe:]

Trusting Foxe's Book of Martyrs is not a very good idea either. I am not a JW, but I do once in a while pick up their Wake Up! They had one article on Foxe.

Through it I know, or first came to know, I have confirmed it later, that Foxe started out tolarably accurate about the English Inquisition. It was decided in 1401 against the Lollards.

But that first edition of Book of Martyrs was thin, and his sources on Continent were glad to find a dupe, basically. Not their assessment [of later and always thicker editions], (JW's), [but] mine.

[Back to Mohammed issue:]

And, if it has not occurred to you, Khadidja was not a Catholic nun, she was a Jewess.

Can add, I have not full documentation on that one. On Khadidja's Jewish background.

I have however documentation in two academic books about what really happened in Holy Land between Constantine and Omar.

Stephan Borgehammar - How the Holy Cross was Found

Derwas Chitty - The Desert a City (mostly about Egyptian Monasticism, but last chapter deals with Palestinian, up to Omar's conquest - which also explains why certain Palestinians are Moslems and no longer Christians).

Coz their Church is full of graven images!

Now that is an interesting topic.

Orthodox Churches are full of painted images, and have a few graven ones, at least one Crucifix in the hand of the priest while he is blessing.

They do have as a separate commandment the prohibition of idolatrous images, and insist that the point of it is against idolatry, not against sculpture with clearly Christian themes.

Caths usually agree about that text and conclude it was not a separate word, but part of 1st [Commandment or Word].

I would like you to read the Haydock comment (it is online haydock 1859 d o t tripod d o t com) for Exodus 20, verse 4.*

For instance:

"Altars and sacrifice we reserve solely for God, as St. Augustine (contra Faust. xx. 21,) well observes. Other indifferent practices must be determined by the intention."

Creds to Kent Hovind for, when telling the story of the Polish salesman later to become John Paul II, he admits to having not yet full documentation.

I mean there are Serbian Orthodox who will believe basically all Avro Manhattan says and lies without question.

I quite agree Avro Manhattan is not full documentation.

Against "Trin80ty:"

Muslims killing "non-converts" from or "apostates" (real converts) to Christianity cannot be compared to 2 Chron 15 killing or swearing to kill (but it was a human decision, and temporal, not a divine command per se) those who would not seek the ways of the Lord, since these were then an there clearly people seeking Canaanean idolatry, a very abhominable thing.

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition. EXODUS - Chapter 20

Full quote for verse 4:

Ver. 4. A graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing, &c. All such images or likenesses, are forbidden by this commandment, as are made to be adored and served; according to that which immediately follows, thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. That is, all such as are designed for idols or image gods, or are worshipped with divine honour. But otherwise images, pictures, or representations, even in the house of God, and in the very sanctuary, so far from being forbidden are expressly authorized by the word of God. See Exodus xxv. 15, &c.; chap. xxxviii. 7; Numbers xxi. 8, 9; 1 Chronicles xxviii. 18, 19; 2 Chronicles iii. 10. (Challoner)

Protestants insidiously translate "any graven image," though pesel, eidolon, glupton, and sculptile, in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, denote a graven thing or idol. They will, however, hardly condemn his majesty for having his representation stamped upon the coin of the nation, nor so many of our wealthy noblemen, who adorn their rooms with the choicest efforts of painting and of sculpture. They know that the object of prohibition is the making and adoring of idols. But they probably wish to keep the ignorant under the stupid delusion of supposing, that Catholics are idolaters, because they have images, and that they themselves are not, though they have them likewise at home; and even in their churches admit the absurd figures of the lion and the unicorn, stretching their paws over the tables of the law, instead of the pious representations of Jesus expiring on the cross, &c., which were set up by their Catholic ancestors. Let them read, and adopt herein just weights and measures, proposed to them by Thorndike, one of their most discerning and moderate teachers. In the mean time, we will assure them, that we abhor all idols; both those made with hands, and those which are formed by the head of heretics, who set up their own fancies and delusions, to be adored instead of the true God. Our general councils of Nice and of Trent define what we ought to believe on this head; and the matter is so fully explained in our catechisms and books of instruction, as well as from our pulpits, that no person can well remain in ignorance. If we perform various actions of respect before pictures, which are also done in honour of God, can any man of sense infer, that we look upon both with equal respect? Do we not read of the people falling down to shew respect to the king, and supreme worship to God, by the same act of the body? (Haydock)

Altars and sacrifice we reserve solely for God, as St. Augustine (contra Faust. xx. 21,) well observes. Other indifferent practices must be determined by the intention.

Latria, or supreme worship, can be given to none but the Deity. But we shew our respect and veneration for his servants in glory, by an inferior service called Dulia, giving honour to whom honour is due. How profane and impious must the words of the first reformers appear, who, after saying most falsely, that "papists make the Virgin Mary a god, (Luther. postil.) and worship images in heathenish manner," (Melanct. Loc. com.) attribute various fictitious crimes to the blessed Virgin and other saints! (Centuriators of Magdeburg; Calvin, &c.) They knew that all the saints abhorred their impiety; and therefore, in revenge, they vilify the saints, and condemn all the doctors and fathers of the Church, since the death of the apostles, as guilty of superstition and idolatry. (Haydock)

"By this occasion, dead creatures, and bloodless half worm-eaten bones, began to be honoured, invocated, and worshipped with divine honour. All which the doctors of the Church not only winked at, but also set forward." (Centuriators of Magdeburg, C. vi.) What is then become of the promises of God, to teach all the truth by the mouths of his pastors? (Matthew xxviii, &c.) Let others judge, whether we ought to pay greater deference to Saints Jerome, Augustine, Gregory, &c., or to Luther, Calvin, and the Centuriators of Magdeburg. But some will even admit that images were commanded by God, chap. xxv. 18, &c. Hence they lay great stress upon the words to thyself; as if all images were forbidden that man should make, without the express sanction of God. So Parkhurst Lexic. But those who are conversant in Hebrew, know that these words have no such import; and if things were inseparable from idolatry, they could not be sanctioned by God. (Haydock)

No creature must be represented as a deity. But sovereign worship, both internal and external, must be given to the great Author of all good, while we abstain from every superstitious act, and from all dealings with the devil and false religions. (Calmet)

Protestants, therefore, who only forbid images, diminish God's law. Were not the idols of Chanaan, Chamos, &c., which represented nothing in nature, also condemned? ]

I got one comment from the user behind Kent Hovind is Crazy series. One reply. Not one single defense of his attacks on Hovind against my defenses, so far as I have seen, just one answer on this qualified appreciation, this appreciation of his not being too wrong even when pretty probably wrong:
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Creds to Kent Hovind for, when telling the story of the Polish salesman alter to become John Paul II he admits to having not yet full documentation.
You are blocked for spamming more than 15 messages on this one video.

It is reckless and defamatory to say things that are false and not supported by evidence. If Hovind doesn't have "documentation" then he shouldn't propagate story.
My comment not under video (since I am blocked for "spamming"):
As to the more than 15 messages, most are in answer to some previous message by me and if you click them you will find they are a few essay wise replies, one to yourself (the one you answered to) and the others to Hovind's mistakes.

It is not your duty to enforce the 500 characters limit by characterising such prolonged replies as spam.

It is of course your channel and you can do so. And you used it to get rid of one Catholic commenter who is as inerrantist about Genesis ch. 1 and 2 as Hovind, but does not share his Protestant prejudice.

As to your critique of Hovind's historiography, which I put a bit more charitably than you did, I consider Kent Hovind to be most probably a honest dupe in this context.

And he has the good sense, if not fully to avoid that topic, at least not to make it his major one.

If he had thought the allegations false, I do not think he would have made them. Trusting someone one should not have trusted (as Avro Manhattan or even Albert Pike via Jack Chick, who at least did himself some favour*) is neither insane nor criminal.

If you want to bash one who clearly is in for denigrating the Catholic Church, if not full time, at least more than half time, why not get at the pseudo-history of The Forbidden Book by one Craig Lampe.

I have gone against it:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Answers about "The Forbidden Book"

I have also notified him I did so and gotten a reply from him:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Good News about Protestants

You could have done the same.

You could for instance check out if Craig Lampe - whose Ph D is pretty certainly less well earned than Hovind's - has changed one jota of his lies and his hateful maligning of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. I mean, he has had a few months to do some checking up, by now.

But maybe it is easier for you to pick on someone who is in prison. And maybe you feel some devotion to the false religion of Evolutionism, as some Catholics nowadays are Teilhardist, and as some who even are not so are at least admirers (indiscretely so) of Georges Lemaître, the Jesuit who invented the Big Bang theory.

In that context, as well as in your Hovind bashing title, it seems you are yourself saying stories which you cannot document.

For if you have documentation that Kent Hovind used a Mammoth Baby's divergent Carbon Datings, which an atheist alleged was not well documented, that does not amount to documenting that Kent Hovind is, as you put it, crazy. See title of your video series, in case you forgot.

*I might want to check if Jack Chick did Kent Hovind a favour or not. I seem to recall either part of a video or comment under it in which he is called a friend of Kent Hovind. But as yet I have no full documentation on that one either.

No comments: