... continued comment on Kent Hovind's Q & A Seminar, touching Church and Bible matters and some other ones

Video commented on:

Talonman007 : Kent Hovind Questions and Answers (Seminar Part 7C)
[Actually C and D, and I stopped before getting to E which starts 1:49:00 something]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaJe3_p06G8

0:05:34, against identifying a rock found in Antarctica as Martian

Your physics about something hitting Mars and splitting off something which then hits Earth is of course common sense, and in all probability correct.

It is not Newtonian, though.

As soon as anything went out of "gravitational field" of Mars, it would continue in a straight line (according to this thinking) unless it happened to hit something that stopped it or went through a gravitational field that bent its trajectory.

But the main objection would of course be to ask oneself if one could tell the origin of the rock and the bacteria in the first place.

[And you have a point that if something was shot off from Mars, hitting precisely earth rather than getting any other way available would be very lucky.]

"Independent Baptist are right"? 0:15:00 ....

Well, Matthew 28 says the Church Christ founded was from then on up to beyond now (we are not the end of time yet) always with Christ on Earth.

Has Independent Baptist community always been on Earth since Ascension Day?

[No answer given so far, obviously they have not]

Catholicism and Sedisvacantism

0:23:00 John Paul II accepted Evolution. But was he Pope? And if he was, he certainly did not use the kind of pronouncement that would oblige all Catholics to follow his example. At least.

0:24:30 Graven image in our listing is not a separate commendment but an OT ritual explicitation of the first. Like SEVENTH day is for the III.

How do you tell where one commandment starts and where the next begins?

From the verses? No. Verses were introduced by a Catholic bishop who knew the Bible by heart and divided it into verses during a hunting trip. Only the Psalms had verses before that, they were not numbered, but there were new lines to help you know how to sing it.

So, St Augustine says graven images is part of first commandment and that there are two commandments against covetuousness, corresponding IX to VI about respect for neighbour's marriage and X to VII about respect of his property. But St John Chrysostom says there is one commandment against covetuousness, and that forbidding graven images is a separate commandment and Orthodox say there is to be no GRAVEN images, only PAINTED ones in Church, excepting the Crucifix. There is Christian art before these two which is clearly graven and of the Twelve Apostles, which I saw in Arles at the Museum.

25:00 "back in the fourteen hundreds, if you committed a sin, you could pay money to the priest to get absolved"

Not so. DO NOT TRUST HOVIND WHERE HE IS TRUSTING JACK CHICK & C. ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Not meaning John Paul II or the nun who disbelieved "the creation myth" of course. Those are in the papers, but the Inquisition lasting from 400 to Reformation (English Inquisition against Lollards started 1401, 1001 years after 400) or Indulgences being payments for absolution are not in the correct history books.

The "list of indulgences" given 25:07 is obviously phoney.

For one thing they were not yet paying anything in dollars and cents, plus Europe did not have a common currency. So if Leo X had even wanted this he would have been in trouble about which currency to choose and which exchange course to use for the rest of the currencies.

But for another thing, as I am a Catholic I have seen real Indulgence lists. They do not go like that.

Prayer x so many days indulgence, prayer y, so many days, a Rosary in Church plenary indulgence, if you have confessed and received communion within a week before or after praying it, especially the octave of All Saints (a time when Catholics try to get souls out of Purgatory up to Heaven), but if not it is so many days indulgence. There are two explanations of this, but neither is about a list of crimes. Not directly. One is, 400 days indulgence or 3 years indulgence shortens the time in Purgatory by so much time and gets a soul (including one's own, unless one dies in sin committed after winning the indulgence) up to Heaven by exactly so much quicker. The other is it is about how much time one would have been doing on earth as penance but that seems not so probable. 40 days penance is common, one year's penance is common. But 300 days or 400 days is not common. 3 years is what Orthodox requires a soldier to do penance if he has killed someone in battle (which I have not by the way), whereas Roman Catholics, also taking a hint from same passage in Scripture about staying outside the camp until clean, states that a soldier having killed must abstain from Communion up to next time he confesses to a priest. So, 400 days or 300 days would clearly not be referring to time spent in penance if one had done it on earth, it would be referring to time spent in Purgatory.

[Kent Hovind commenting on the phoney list:]

"what's the way to describe that? is stupid a way to describe it?"

Yes, it is stupid of you to believe this about Catholics even in 1400's, thank you for choosing the very right word.

It is error to say burning a candle pays for your sins? Candles are most usually burnt for prayers and for thanksgiving.

"God, if I get this ..." [Catholic naming the favour he wants] ... "I'll offer a candle under your blessed Mother's altar" - and if he gets the favour he does it. What has that to do with "paying for sins"?

It is however NOT error to get to a priest and say "Bless me Father, for I have sinned". It is warranted by the promise given by Christ to his Disciples on the evening of Resurrection Sunday. It is warranted by St James instructing "if someone has sinned, let him go to the priests of the Church". It is Biblical and hence no error.

"The Bible says the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin, nothing else" ... sorry, but the Bible does state how this cleansing is applied to each soul, namely by baptism, by penance (confession, contristion, absolution, doing the penance prescribed - which may include burning a candle and always includes saying prayers and often also fasting), by extreme unction (also Epistle of St James). If by "nothing else" you mean to exclude these things, then you are in error.

[Back to theme of Confession.]* It is not an error to call the priest Father in that context either. As he represents God. As he represents Christ.

It is even Biblical, since 1 Corinthians St Paul claims to be their father in Christ. Did he ignore the words "call no man father"? Did he flaunt them? Obviously neither. Both verses are fine, and the one of Our Lord did not prohibit calling St Paul father then or calling a priest you confess to father now.

*[was originally posted afer the following]

Sedisvacantism and Mahometanism

Now, I have no idea what the word "sedisvacantist" tells you. But to me it means a set of Catholics who from John Paul II kissing the Qoran concludes he was not Pope, but an impostor as to office, and from Lumen Gentium and CCC including such things conclude these were not promulgated by a true Council (Vatican II) or a true Pope (again, John Paul II).

Now, as to Khadidja's identity, you state she was a nun apostising from virginity (which Catholicism does not promote), I have elsewhere heard she was daughter of a rabbi.

As to myself, I think Muhammed was simply a case like Joseph Smith, at least when starting out. Deceived by a false apparition.

[But would he have stayed deceived if he had stayed innocent of self-deception and of deception? Would God have allowed a good man to continue to be deceived? Another matter.]

While you are at Sura 18 which deals with Zûl Qarnain ... would that version of Alexander the Great's exploits be more likely to come from a Catholic Nun or from a Rabbi's daughter? Is it closer to the Western Christian legends about Alexander the Great or to Jewish Babylonian Talmudic ones?

Let us take a look precisely at Cosmology. Christians were mostly, at least West of Nestorians, Round Earth. Jews were either mostly or exclusively - I talk about Judaism, not about Christians of Jewish origin - Flat Earth, like the Babylonians. Now, the original account of Alexander the Great said he went East, to India. Aristotle who was his scientific adjudant (or whatever the English word is) on the journey argues for a round earth because some account of seeing "Pillars of Hercules" across the Ganges. Now, the Straits of Gibraltar are not immediately East of Ganges, as Alexander would have found out if he had crossed it, but the original of the Alexander story at least implies a Round Earth Cosmology, as with Church Father Saint Augustine, as with St Isidore of Seville (unless he was neutral on the Q, like St Basil). By the time the story reaches the Quran (Sura 18) Alexander has become a champion against Gog and Magog - which are also mentioned in Daniel, you do not need Book of Revelation to have heard these names. And Earth has become flat.

Are Western Roman Catholics or are Babylonian or Yemenite Jews most likely to have introduced such changes? Think of that before claiming it was a Catholic [Apostate] Nun who set up Mohammed.

Of course, your own theory about Earth going around goes beyond Round Earth Geocentrism to Heliocentrism. Which was not supported by Catholics until reent centuries and which is overmore irrelevant when it comes to a text which is clearly "flat earth and close sun".

"All the Arabs come from Ishmael" ... no.

Mid Arabic Peninsula Arabs up to Muhammed's time come from Ishmael. West Arabic Peninsula and East Egypt Arabs came from Keturah's son with Abraham, Midian. But Midianites and Ishmaelites had already blended and Ishmaelites were dominant. Further South Yemenites come from Yoktan, who lived way before Abraham (Peleg's brother if both were sons of Heber, I think). North and up in East Mediterranian the two sides of Jordan river have Arabs descending from Jews, Samarians and Galileans in the West of Jordan, you call them Palestinians, and East of Jordan the ancestors are from South to North Edom (=Esau, brother of Israel and son of Isaac), Moab and Ammon (=sons and grandsons of Lot, you know the story). North of those you have Cananean ancestors of Lebanese.

Later on Muslims taught that the only "real" Arabs were Yoktanites and Ishmaelites while other Arabs were Mustariba = Arabized. And probably Palestinians spoke Aramaic rather than Qoranic or later Arabic up till the Conquest of Kaleef Omar, so in a linguistic sense they are right there was an original difference that evened out in favour of Ishmaelite dialects. But this does not warrant to think the Mustariba also were descendants from Ishmael, the whole point of distinguishing between Araba and Mustariba was that some did not do so.

List of Gentiles ... "Romans and Byzantines up to 638" ... to a Jew these are of course Goyim or rather Minim wa Goyim. But Romans and Byzantines up to 638 were from Emperor Constantine on often enough Christians and anyway seem to have included Bedooins who were - presumably - descendants of ... you have got it, the Christians among Jews, Samarians and Galileans. You see, these Bedooins were Christians up to Omar's time and then Omar forced some of these to become Muslims.

There is a fact that bears out that the list of Gentiles is a Jewish list. It does not enumerate the real Gentiles and Antichristians who:

• desecrated the Holy Cross
• encouraged apostasy to Judaism
• took Apostates to Judaism along when going back to Persia, after being chased by Heraclius.

The fact that apostasies to Judaism were done then and posed no ethnological problems to Rabbis bears out that the majority population in Palestine back then was, under Roman rule and Christian faith, a people with ethnical roots in the Hebrew ancestors of the Old Testament.

When will you guys read The Desert a City - I think it's about time for you guys to do it!

Ayatollah Khomeini thought non-Muslims were not people? I had not heard that story.

Sounds more like the Talmudic attitude to non-Jews than like any official Christian attitude to non-Christians, as far as Catholics are concerned.

Are you still sure it was from Catholicism rather than Judaism that Khadidja came?

Mormonism and Watchtower Cult

Lucy Mack Smith ... was she a Mormon? Wait ... Smith ... where her son ... she was the "prophet's" ma, right?

Now, if a demon gave her son superhero powers it would have been possible.

Just as it would have been possible to invent a language. God invented some seventy at Babel, but God is not the only one who can do that, Tolkien invented two pretty detailed ones for the novels (Quenya and Sindarin) and one for private amusement only (Naffarin), so God being God, Tolkien being a man, and angelic beings being between God and men in capabilities, demons coud have managed that too. Of course, if you can document there was a Baptist who tried to sell book of Mormon as a novel to a printer before this happened, that is fair enough too.

I have taken the approach to Mohammed and Joseph Smith they were deluded by demons (or the same demon) rather than frauds consciously, but that might not be tenable.

[See above, would a merely deceived but good man have remained deceived, and God not have undeceived the person?]

Either way, and that goes for Independent Baptist too, the communities that originate visibly centuries after Christ gave His Apostles a promise on Ascension Thursday, Matthew 28:18-20, are suspect.

Of course, since Joseph Smith had freemason background, if there was such a novel before he "transcribed and translated" Book of Mormon, the mystery is less how he got hold of it than how the original author lost it. That would have involved some masonic intrigues and giving it to Jo would have been one possible goal for such a move.

JW/Watchtower society ... you are right about them.

But if Charles Taze Russell and his predecessors the Russian Tolstoi (who was excommunicated from the Orthodx Church) and the Swede Rydberg (who was also a good novelist though less known outside his country and who was prosecuted for blasphemy, correctly so) were wrong, how can you be sure the guys like Wycleff or Luther, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Münzer (an Anabaptist who was also a violent Communist Revolutionary, Mennonites are Münzerites gone pacifist a generation later), Hus and his successors like Ziska (Moravians being Ziskaites gone pacifist), and the rest were right to get out of Catholicism? At the same time as Luther and Zwingli and Münzer you get the two Sozzini, same heresy as Charles Taze Russell as to denial of Trinity but far less respectuous of Bible as word of God, since their successors inluce the Transcendentals, like Emerson and the rest, who were no longer Christians in any sense at all.

Discussions

About that Humanist ... you said you were defeated.

At thirteen I was being homeschooled for a day by ma who was attending lectures in Hebrew.

Now Professor Mettinger has done some good since then, notably in refuting Acharya, but on that day he blundered and told the University class (which legitimately included my ma and occasionally that precise day me too) that Genesis and Job give a more or less Pharisaically redacted rehash of Babylonian creation myth.

He on his side had the fact that there are similarities and that references in Job to Tehôm (abyss) and to Behemoth and Leviathan (which are monsters) reflect a myth similar to that in which Marduk defeats Tiamath (a monster of the abyss) before creating earth out of her dead flesh.

Well, what if Genesis and Job reflect fact and Babylonian myth defelcts fact into polytheistic fiction? Mettinger did not exactly contradict me as being wrong, he only told me that as a Christian he agreed but as a university professor he had to give the science that was not tainted by religious bias ...

Defeating me in straight argument has not been the enemy's favourite plan for me ...

K Hovind does some exegesis on supposed anomalies, I support (mainly) from Haydock commentaries

0:52:47

3 Kings 4:26
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id880.html, verse:

And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of chariot horses, and twelve thousand for the saddle.

comment:

Forty: 2 Paralipomenon ix. 25., has four in the Hebrew. Septuagint read in both places 40,000 mares, for chariots, and 12,000 horses. (Calmet) --- The Alexandrian copy has 40 here, and 4000 in the latter place; where, instead of horses, it gives horsemen, with the Vulgate. These two words are often used as synonymous by the best authors. But it is more difficult to reconcile the number; (Calmet) as (2 Paralipomenon xiv.) we read again differently, he had 1400 chariots, and 12,000 horsemen. (Haydock) --- Forty might easily be mistaken for four, by only adding im at the end of arba. (Bochart) (Grotius) --- Instead of stalls, Calmet supposes stables to be understood, and in each he would place ten horses, which completes the number here assigned. If this be admitted, no change is necessary: but, as præsepe signifies "a stall," we may adhere to the Vulgate, which has 40,000 in both places; whereas the Hebrew varies, though the sense may be the same. The number of Solomon's chariots was 1400. As two horses were usually employed to draw them, 2800; or, allowing for accidents, changes, &c., 4000 horses would have been amply sufficient. It seems, therefore, that we should admit only so many horses or stalls. (Haydock) --- "Vignoles conjectures, that the Jews formerly used marks analogous to our common figures; as the Arabians have done for many hundred years. And, if so, the corruption" of hundreds for tens, &c., "may be easily accounted for, by the transcriber's carelessly adding or omitting a single cypher." (Kennicott, Diss. ii.) --- Yet, if 40,000 horses must be admitted, we may say that they were not all intended for the chariots of war, but some for draught-horses, to convey the stones and other materials for the numerous buildings, which Solomon carried on. This might serve to excuse him for having so many horses, (Haydock) contrary to the letter of the law, and the example of Josue and of David. His subjects were thus, perhaps, engaged in too much commerce with the Egyptians: and the king was forced to burden them with taxes, which at last proved so fatal. (Serarius) (Pineda) (Calmet) --- Yet some undertake his defence, by saying that he did not act against the spirit of the law; that many of the horses were imposed as a tribute, and Solomon did not place his trust in them, Proverbs xxi. 31., and 2 Paralipomenon ix. 24. (Tostat) (Bochart, B. ii. 9.) --- His empire was become more extensive, and his works more splendid; so that what might appear an useless parade in some, might be worthy of praise in Solomon. The law is not so precise. He shall not multiply horses to himself, nor lead back the people into Egypt, being lifted up with the number of his horsemen, Deuteronomy xvii. 16. There is a like prohibition of many wives and treasures.

2 Paralipomenon 9:25
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id964.html, verse:

And Solomon had forty thousand horses in the stables, and twelve thousand chariots, and horsemen, and he placed them in the cities of the chariots, and where the king was in Jerusalem.

comment:

Thousand. In 3 Kings, we read, 1400 chariots; and here Hebrew has, "4000 stables, (Calmet) or stalls for horses and chariots;" (Protestants) and the Septuagint, "4000 mares for the chariots, and 12,000 horsemen." (Haydock) --- There might be ten horses in each stable. (Du Hamel)

Now Hovind is going to say Du Hamel got it right. Which might not be wrong.

If I might venture a guess, 3 Kings speaks about situation just before he corresponded with Hiram and met the Queen of Sheba. 2 Paralipomenon has these earlier in the same chapter. What if the number of horses changed?

2 Kings 10:18
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id652.html

verse:

And the Syrians fled before Israel, and David slew of the Syrians the men of seven hundred chariots, and forty thousand horsemen: and smote Sobach, the captain of the army, who presently died.

comment:

Hundred. Paralipomenon, thousand, allowing ten men for each chariot. (Du Hamel; Menochius) --- The men is omitted in both texts. See chap. viii. 4. (Haydock) --- Horsemen. Paralipomenon reads, footmen, supplying what is here omitted, (Salien) so that 87,000 Syrians perished, unless there be a mistake of the transcribers. (Calmet) --- Smote, though not perhaps with his own hand, as he slew so many thousands by means of his army. (Menochius)

1 Paralipomenon 19:18
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id944.html

verse:

But the Syrian fled before Israel: and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and Sophach, the general of the army.

comment:

Chariots. Literally, "chariot." 2 Kings has only 700, and 40,000 horsemen. (Calmet) --- Ten men might be in each chariot. (Du Hamel)

Kent Hovind not only agrees with Du Hamel, but makes him understandable.

10 men at a time in one chariot? No. Ten men taking turns? Makes sense.

24,000 vs 23,000, by now I think if I look it up in Haydock I will see Du Hamel making the same observation as Hovind, 1000 died the next day (or the previous, possibly ... either first day was a slight warning or second day ended the plague quickly by a quick repentance after only 1000 died).

Hovind goes Evangelical and wrongheaded on Christian Feasts (I have known worse)

Easter was a Pagan feast in honour of Ishtar?

Think not.

The calculations used to get the date for Christian Easter (first Sunday - first day of the week - after Full Moon - fourteenth of any Hebrew month would have been Full Moon or close to it - after Vernal Equinox) were done so as to cut off the link with Jewish dating methods for Passover.

Quartodecimans were often Judaising in Theology.

[3] And seeing that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to take up Peter also. Now it was in the days of the Azymes. [4] And when he had apprehended him, he cast him into prison, delivering him to four files of soldiers to be kept, intending, after the pasch, to bring him forth to the people. [5] Peter therefore was kept in prison. But prayer was made without ceasing by the church unto God for him.

[3] Azymes: The festival of the unleavened bread, or the pasch, which answers to our Easter.

http://drbo.org/chapter/51012.htm

"The pagan festival of Astart or Ishtar (Easter) was always hedl late in April to celebrate the earth regenerating itself after winter - rabbits and eggs, symbols of fertility were used."

What exact ancient writers support that view? Have you found such a thing in Josephus, fine, tell me where in Josephus. Have you found something like that in Jamblichus, telle me where in Jamblichus (not an author I like, very much into Egyptian mysticism, but he would have been likely to know about this if true). And if Varro or ... OK, I think you see my point.

What you just stated is a thing floating around among Evangelicals. They are basically labelling the Christian feasts of "the Churches of Christendom" as Pagan Feasts. So are of course the Jews doing - since they label Christians, especially of Catholic and Orthodox type, as Pagans.

An Easter egg would not possibly by any chance be a symbol of Resurrection by any chance? I mean a chicken lies within that white shell as in a tomb, but the "tomb" will burst open and the chicken will hatch. That symbolism is how Ukrainean Catholics and Orthodox see the Easter Eggs.

Plus there are of course a lot of eggs around when you have not eaten any since the beginning of Lent. You know, Christ fasted Forty Days. Plus 36 days is the tenth part of a year, so fasting six days a week for six weeks (not fasting on Sundays) is of course giving God a tithe.* Now fasting means abstaining temporarily, for prayer, from things that are likely to raise testosterone levels: fat and proteine from eggs, from milk or dairy, or from meat. Also involves skipping breakfast and lunch, even if dinner is a bit earlier those days. I tend to use the permission to drink a cup of tea or coffee and take a biscuit, but then I am slack in my devotions.

Acts 12, Herod celebrating a Pagan festival? What does the Greek say?

Pascha as the loan word for "passover-with-feast-of-unleavened-bread"? Or anything connected with Ishtar whatsoever? Check the Greek text, if you do not trust the Douai Reims Catholic version which has "pasch".

Actually I did it for you:

"βουλόμενος μετὰ τὸ πάσχα ἀναγαγεῖν αὐτὸν τῷ λαῷ."

Meta to Pascha = after Pesach. Not after a Pagan festival like honouring Ishtar, but clearly after Pesach.

And it is nearly just English speakers (and their devoutest adherents in other groups) that make this mistake. Easter sounds a bit like Ishtar. Ostern sounds very much less than Ishtar. Swedish Påsk, French Pâcques, Spanish Pascuas Floridas all come from Pesach via Greek and Latin Pascha.

* Six days per week times six weeks is Western practise, has been completed by adding four days in previous week, hence Ash Wednesday rather than Monday after Quadragesima Sunday. In Eastern practise it is five days per week and eight weeks, to make forty. Plus fish is not allowed except on Thursdays and Sundays. Same with olive oil and beer, which can be taken Saturdays and Sundays during Lent.

Hovind discusses NIV and its defaults and Bible versions in general

As to your explanation of copyright involved in making it different ... are you sure you can even copyright a Bible or a Church Father?

1:09:16 OK, Christians labelled as heretics and burnt at the stake are copying the Bible. Somehow the Catholic Church which is persecuting them for 1000 years (sounds more like the timespan of the Millennium than the time span of Antichrist's persecution to me, but then I am a Catholic) still manages to keep up a show of itself copying the Bible, for instance in monasteries. And itself comparing copies from different regions, unlikely to have seen each other up to printing. And itself making a version based on most copies agreeing.

Plus the funny detail about "persecution lightening up" in the 1500's when for one thing states becoming Protestant like England or my own poor Sweden, not to mention Scotland or Geneva and parts of the Netherlands start killing Catholics. Plus the fact that in England the persecution of Lollards started 1401.

U R WRONG, SIR.

Plus, English translators were hardly searching Africa and China for Bible copies. France, that is another matter. And that means copies made by the Catholic Church.

Ethiopian copies were not of prime importance, since Gheez was neither Hebrew or Aramaic, neither Greek or Latin - it might even have been less important than Syriac. IF any scholars at all sought out Syriac and Gheez translations, these would not have been "Christians thankful the Catholic persecution was over" but Roman Catholics. Like Jesuits.

Do you start getting my drift?

The problem is, if you are in prison now, it is not because of these errors, since Craig A. Lampe is free and still called "Doctor", the reason you are in prison is for speaking up against Evolution and Malthusian élites. With the Global Warming scare.

You throw it away after 300 years active use? More likely you bury it decently! A Bible is a Sacramental, a Holy Object associated with the prayers of the Church. It can not be thrown as trash, it must be buried in holy ground.

The thousand copy after global persecution [by Catholic CHurch against the Bible!] are a historical event that never happened.

One way of telling is that you do not even know the names of the people who compared the thousand copies in your story. Plus you think there were Chinese ones involved in the King James Translation.

Clement and Origen were not leaders of a CULT called Alexandrians, as if they were separate from the Church, but of a school of theology called Alexandrian school, just as there was an Antiochean school and an African school. Origen has not been tied to not believing the Deity of Christ, though he has been afterwards accused of it. Some Antiocheans were in that position, like Paul of Samosata.

When Arius followed Paul of Samosata and other Antiocheans disbelieving the Deity of Christ, he was felt as an intruder by Traditional Alexandrians. Like his own bishop Athanasius. That was what led to the Council of Nicea, and then at the latest some errors of Origen became less interesting to Alexandrian Catholics.

What about reading History of the Arians of the IV Century by one John Henry Newman, who later converted to the Catholic Church? It gives a lot of background on Alexandrians and Antiochenes.

Searched Alexandria and Alexandrians (no hit for singular):

1 Acts Of Apostles 18:24 Now a certain Jew, named Apollo, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus, one mighty in the scriptures.

2 Acts Of Apostles 27:6 And there the centurion finding a ship of Alexandria sailing into Italy, removed us into it.

3 Acts Of Apostles 28:11 And after three months, we sailed in a ship of Alexandria, that had wintered in the island, whose sign was the Castors.

1 Acts Of Apostles 6:9 Now there arose some of that which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them that were of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen.

Now, has it occurred to you that the Alexandrians in Apostles 6:9 are Alexandrian JEWS, whereas Clement and even Origen were Alexandrian CHRISTIANS?

Here is the other mention of an Alexandrian, Acts 18:

[24] Now a certain Jew, named Apollo, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus, one mighty in the scriptures. [25] This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, spoke, and taught diligently the things that are of Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John.

[26] This man therefore began to speak boldly in the synagogue. Whom when Priscilla and Aquila had heard, they took him to them, and expounded to him the way of the Lord more diligently. [27] And whereas he was desirous to go to Achaia, the brethren exhorting, wrote to the disciples to receive him. Who, when he was come, helped them much who had believed. [28] For with much vigour he convinced the Jews openly, shewing by the scriptures, that Jesus is the Christ.

[Had posted a similar thing while not finding the first comment.]

And no, Latin Vulgate is NOT based on three scrolls, but on St Jerome's work of translation. NT from Greek. OT from Hebrew for the books where he found such a text. And with annotations where the translation fresh from Hebrew was different from the Septuagint. We know this because the correspondence between St Jerome and St Augustine has been preserved.

And it pretty well does agree with the three scrolls, Vaticanus, Alexandrius and Sinaiticus. It is clearly not a question of different Bibles.

Scribal error does occur, and we think it occurred more often by Jews who had rejected Christ than among Christians.

So, of course, Westcott and Hort are not behind the Bible either of Latin Vulgate or of Douai Reims.

They were wrong to try to bypass tradition by getting at the oldest possible manuscripts. Then it is another question whether you trust Greek or Latin tradition better.

Acts 8:37 DR:

[37] And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

So, Douai Reims and its original (or main such) the Latin Vulgate do not depend on Westcott and Hort and their mistake of bypassing tradition.

They did one good thing though, when taking away verse 37 they at least left verses after it at same numeration as previous.

Now, Sina is according to the Bible "in Arabia". In Saudi Arabia? In the Arabia of Ishmael? No. In the Arabia of Edom, Moab and Ammon, which includes the Sina peninsula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia_Petraea

Arabia Petraea, also called Provincia Arabia or simply Arabia, was a frontier province of the Roman Empire beginning in the 2nd century; it consisted of the former Nabataean kingdom in Transjordan, southern Syria, the Sinai Peninsula and northwestern Arabian peninsula. Its capital was Petra. It was bordered on the north by Syria, on the west by Iudaea (merged with Syria from 135 AD) and Aegyptus, and on the south and east by the rest of Arabia, known as Arabia Deserta and Arabia Felix.

So saying Sina cannot have been on Sinai peninsula is like saying Jonah cannot have been swallowed by a whale "because he was swallowed by a fish". Up to Linnaeus whales and dolphins counted as fish and up to WW-1 or so Arabia may have included Sinai Peninsula or at the very least up to Diocletian and beyond into 5th or 6th Century:

With Emperor Diocletian's restructuring of the empire in 284–305, Arabia province was enlarged to include parts of modern-day Israel. Arabia after Diocletian became a part of the Diocese of Oriens ("the East"), which was part of the Prefecture of Oriens.

During Byzantine rule

First as part of the Diocese of the East, Arabia turned a frontline of Byzantine-Sassanid Wars. In the 5th or 6th century it was transformed into Palaestina Salutaris.

1:16:00

"Late manuscripts insert verse 37" and "no no no guys, you've got it all wrong"

Indeed. And likewise there was no Alexandrian cult (except in the eyes of Jews thinking Christians a cult) later inserting books and chapters and passages into the Bible, there were Jews rejecting Christ who took these out.

Baruch as a whole. Daniel chapters 13 and 14 and a passage of chapter 3, the Song of the Three Young Men in the Furnace. And some more.

Hovind thinks NIV is wrong, and sometimes it is according to DR:

II Kings 21:19

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id663.html

And there was a third battle in Gob against the Philistines, in which Adeodatus, the son of the Forrest, an embroiderer of Bethlehem, slew Goliath, the Gethite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

Ver. 19. Adeodatus, the son of Forrest. So it is rendered in the Latin Vulgate, by giving the interpretation of the Hebrew names, which are Elhanan, the son of Jaare. (Challoner) --- We should translate all the proper names, or none; as the present mode is extremely perplexing. Adeodatus might therefore be rendered, "God given;" (Dieudonné, as the French have it, though they will not translate Saltus, but leave Jaare) or, if Adeodatus must remain, as it is sometimes a proper name, why may not Saltus? A mere English reader might suppose that Forrest was a Hebrew name, and, with Swift in jest, maintain the high antiquity of our language. (Haydock) --- Regularly proper names should be retained. (Calmet) --- But the learned have often chosen to give the import of foreign names, in the language in which they have been writing. See Du Thou's History. Thus Dubois is styled Sylvius; Newman, Neander; &c. --- An embroiderer. Protestants make this a part of the man's name, "Jaare-oregim." Septuagint, "the son of Ariorgeim." In 1 Paralipomenon xx, no notice is taken of his profession. (Haydock) --- That passage will evince that Elhanan is not the same with David, as some would infer from the mention of Goliath's death, but the son of Jair, uncle of Joab, (chap. xxxiii. 24.) who was born at Bethlehem, though the verse in Paralipomenon would insinuate less correctly, that the giant's name was Lechem, thus, "Elehanan....slew Lechem, the brother," &c., as the copyist had written ath instead of bith. (Calmet) --- Our version has not this mistake: "Adeodatus, the son of Saltus, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath, the Gethite," &c., 1 Paralipomenon xx. 5. (Haydock) --- "It would be difficult to find a passage more disfigured than the present; and, without the help of the Paralipomenon, it would be impossible to make it out." (Calmet) --- Kennicott makes a similar remark. (Diss. i. and ii.) But he believes that the Book of Chronicles, though the latest, and usually the most corrupt, of the Old Testament, is here perfectly correct; and that the passage before us is strangely corrupted, "Jaare Oregim, a Bethlehemite," being placed instead of , ..."Jaor slew Lahmi," as he thinks that oregim, "weavers," has been inserted from the line below, p. 79. Josephus ([Antiquities?] vii. 10.) relates this transaction as follows, "When the king had sent a fresh army against them, Nephan, his relation, displayed the greatest valour. For engaging in a single combat with the bravest man of the Philistines, and killing his antagonist, he caused the rest to turn their backs, and many of the enemy fell in that battle." Thus he evades all the difficulty, adding much out of his own head; and by Nephan, designating Elehanan, the son of his (Joab's) uncle, (chap. xxiii. 24.) or Dodo, a word which the Vulgate renders patrui ejus, "his paternal uncle," though it hath a wider signification, and denotes other relations. Hence, as Joab was the nephew of David, this brave man might be in the same degree, and born of one of the children of Isai; or, perhaps, Josephus infers that he was a kinsman of David, because he was of the same city. (Haydock) --- Goliath. He might have the same name as his brother, who had been slain by David forty-three years before; (Salien) or the title of brother may only signify, that this giant resembled the former in size and strength, Proverbs xviii. 9. --- Beam. See 1 Kings xvii. 7. (Calmet)

Osee 11:12

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id678.html

Ephraim hath compassed me about with denials, and the house of Israel with deceit: but Juda went down as a witness with God, and is faithful with the saints.

Ver. 12. Denials; refusing to adhere to my worship. (Haydock) --- They wished to unite it with that of idols, 3 Kings xviii. (Calmet) --- Saints. The priests and temple are preserved in Juda. Ezechias brought the people to serve God faithfully, while Israel was led captive. Septuagint, "the house of Israel and Juda with impiety. Now God hath known them lovingly, and it shall be called the holy people of God." Thus both kingdoms were criminal, and God exercised his mercy towards both. (Haydock) --- The Jews relate that when their ancestors were pursued by the Egyptians, and the people were desponding, Juda signalized his courage by entering the bed of the sea. (St. Jerome) --- These traditions are suspicious. (Calmet)

Genesis 27:38-40

38 And Esau said to him: Hast thou only one blessing, father? I beseech thee bless me also. And when he wept with a loud cry,

39 Isaac being moved, said to him: In the fat of the earth, and in the dew of heaven from above,

40 Shall thy blessing be. Thou shalt live by the sword, and shalt serve thy brother: and the time shall come, when thou shalt shake off and loose his yoke from thy neck.

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id354.html

Ver. 39. Moved; yet not so as to repent of what he had done; for Esau found no place of repentance in his father's breast, although with tears he had sought it, (Hebrews xii. 17.) desiring to obtain the blessing of the first-born. (Haydock) --- In the fat, &c. Idumea was a barren country; and hence some would translate the Hebrew, "far from the fat...shall thy dwelling be; but thou shalt live by the sword." Thus min often means from, as well as for in: my flesh is changed on account of the want of oil, Psalm cviii. 24. Hebrew, a pinguedine. (Calmet) --- But all the ancient versions agree with the Vulgate. So that we may say, the blessing of God made those barren regions supply the wants of the people abundantly; and as the Idumeans were to live by the sword, they would seize the rich habitations of their neighbours, (Haydock) and thus obtain a country rendered fertile without their labour. (Menochius)

Ver. 40. Thy brother, in the reign of David, 2 Kings viii. 14, and of the Machabees. (Josephus, Antiquities xiii. 17.) --- Yoke. When the house of Juda shall rebel against the Lord, in the days of Joram, then the Idumeans shall regain their liberty for a time; (4 Kings viii. 20.) to be subdued again after 800 years by John Hyrcan, the high priest. (Haydock) --- All the blessing of Esau, tends to confirm that already given to his brother; so that the apostle seems to have considered it unworthy of notice. (Calmet) --- Jacob, in the mean time, never asserted his dominion; but still called Esau his lord, (Chap. xxxii. 4.) and behaved to him with the greatest deference. (Haydock) --- Yet the Idumeans always hated the Jews, and assisted Titus to destroy Jerusalem. (Josephus) (Tirinus)

Proverbs 18:24

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id1112.html

A man amiable in society, shall be more friendly than a brother.

Ver. 24. Brother. The ties of nature are not so strong as those of friendship. (Calmet) --- Hebrew, "a man that hath friends must shew himself friendly; and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother." (Protestants) (Haydock) --- Ut ameris ama. (Martial)

I think the Protestant versions are a compromise between Jewish versions of Hebrew Bible and Catholic and Orthodox versions of its Greek translation.

[OK, Vulgate is mainly direct Hebrew translation to Latin but earlier than Masoretic version.]

The compromise would imply the truth had been lacking from all over earth for centuries unless it were somehow divided between conflicting traditions.

Reject it and reject the Masoretic version, you have a Catholic Bible. Reject it and reject the Catholic tradition, you get an NIV ...

Why would they change it to one day?

Now the Hebrew has what translates as "one day". So Vulgate has dies unus and DR one day.

One explanation I have heard is that "first" is in Hebrew expressed as "one", because when we have as yet only the first one is all we have, of anything.

Minor thing:

Tuesday for Thor's day?

Not quite. Tew was the one-armed god and Thor was not an invalid at all. Odin was one eyed. Reminds me a bit of a man who is both, and who also poses about being a divinity.

Eden:

Garden of Eden was possibly hidden from human sight ...

The thing is that rivers taking root from that sprung forth in Eden are identified.

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id328.html

10 And a river went out the place of pleasure to water paradise, which from thence is divided into four heads. 11 The name of the one is Phison: that is, it which compasseth all the land of Hevilath, where gold groweth. 12 And the gold of that land is very good: there is found bdellium, and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gehon: the same is it that compasseth all the land of Ethiopia 14 And the name of the third river is Tigris: the same passeth along by the Assyrians. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

Ver. 8. Of pleasure, Hebrew Eden, which may be either the name of a country, as chap. iv. 16, or it may signify pleasure, in which sense Symmachus and St. Jerome have taken it. --- From the beginning, or on the 3d day, when all plants were created, Hebrew mikedem, may also mean towards the east, as the Septuagint have understood it, though the other ancient interpreters agree with St. Jerome. Paradise lay probably to the east of Palestine, or of that country where Moses wrote. The precise situation cannot be ascertained. Calmet places it in Armenia, others near Babylon, &c. Some assert that this beautiful garden is still in being, the residence of Henoch and Elias. But God will not permit the curiosity of man to be gratified by the discovery of it, chap. iii. 24. How great might be its extent we do not know. If the sources of the Ganges, Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates, be not now changed, and if these be the rivers which sprung from the fountains of Paradise, (both which are points undecided) the garden must have comprised a great part of the world, (Haydock), as the Ganges rises in Judea [India?], and the Nile about the middle of Africa. (Tirinus)

Ver. 10. A river, &c. Moses gives many characteristics of Paradise, inviting us, as it were, to search for it; and still we cannot certainly discover where it is, or whether it exist at all at present, in a state of cultivation. We must therefore endeavour to find the mystic Paradise, Heaven and the true Church; the road to which, though more obvious, is too frequently mistaken. See St. Augustine, City of God xiii. 21.; Proverbs iii. 18. (Haydock)

Own comment: Jerusalem would have been West of Eden, since Adam and Eve were buried in Calvary. Where Christ was later crucified.

3:24 And he cast out Adam: and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id329.html

Ver. 24. Cherubims. Angels of the highest order, and of a very complex figure, unlike any one living creature. Theodoret supposes that God forced Adam to retire from that once charming abode, by the apparition of hideous spectres. The devils were also hindered from coming hither, lest they should pluck the fruit of the tree of life, and by promising immortality, should attract men to their service. The flaming sword, might be a fire rising out of the earth, of which Grotius thinks the pits, near Babylon, are still vestiges. These dreadful indications of the divine wrath would probably disappear, when Paradise had lost its superior beauty, and became confounded with the surrounding countries --- Thus we have seen how rapidly Moses describes the creation of all things, the fall of man, and the promised redemption. But in these few lines, we discover a solution of the many difficulties which have perplexed the learned, respecting these most important subjects. We know that the world is not the effect of chance, but created and governed by divine Providence. We are no longer at a loss to explain the surprising contrast of good and evil, observable in the same man. When we have attentively considered the Old Adam and the New [New Adam, Jesus Christ], we find a clue to lead us through all the labyrinths of our Holy Religion. We could wish, perhaps, for a greater detail in Moses, but he left the rest to be supplied by tradition. He has thrown light enough upon the subjects, to guide the well-disposed, and has left sufficient darkness to humble and to confound the self-conceited and wicked, who love darkness rather than the light. (Calmet) --- Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

... on Kent Hovind Q and A session, featuring Geocentrism on my part and probable evidence of his innocence

Talonman007 : Kent Hovind Questions and Answers (Seminar Part 7A & B)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhQS1emc5xY

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

0:06:57 .... try to use the law to silence ... hmm, where is Hovind now? Was he like a bit prophetic about it?

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

0:24:46 ... why would it be ludicrous that stars are all within a six thousand lightyear radius or even much smaller radius than that?

There are basically only two problems with that.

The one problem of parallax is dealt with if you accept that angels can move stars (unless the stars ARE a kind of angels), see Job 38, a chapter you know very well. Also in Baruch ch 3, if you look at the last verse you may guess why Jews decided Baruch was not canonical.

In that case parallax is not parallax. It gives no information of how far away the star is. If earth is moving and star not, sun not, we have a known distance and two known angles and can calculate the rest to the star. Otherwise sun is moving and so is star, but earth not, and though sun and star move in time we known nothing about the distance covered by the star's movement. If we have one angle and no known distance we can calculate zilch about distance to star from that. We only know they are outside planets (the distance to which we can calculate, presumably, at least if light is infinitely fast, which it maybe isn't, or if daily movement were that of earth which it isn't either) because these sometimes cover this star and sometimes that star and are never covered by any star.

The other problem is star size. The closer stars are, with exact same visible size, the smaller is their real size. And that is a problem to EVOLUTIONISTS, because to them stars self ignited and Jupiter is too small to self ignite or it would have, so all stars must minimum be greater than Jupiter.

Not.

If stars lit by God or each star by its angel cannot burn by say fusion lasting for 7200 years - you'd perhaps say 6000, Hovind, we might disagree about how old Adam was when Seth was born, 130 or 230 - then CERN trying to make much smaller aggregates of H in plasma state fuse to He in plasma state is wasting its time.

0:35:51 "if you have two observation points" ... thing is, if Geocentrism is true we have not. Instead of one known distance between earth and earth at opposite parts of the year and star in the same spot, we have no known distance between star and star at opposite parts of the year and earth (i e our observation point, one and only) in the same spot.

deretour : Trigonometry, principles, astronomic applications
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.fr/2008/05/trigonometry-principles-astronomic.html

III

nova and Spanish

Latin nova is in Italian nuova and in Spanish nueva

what means "does not go" is "no va"

IV

God does not need a place to live .... 0:33:01 .... He does since He took Flesh.

Where did He go after Ascension as witnessed by the Eleven? To the Heaven above the stars. There is also where He took His Blessed Mother after resurrecting Her. There is also where our bodies will go or have access after Judgement Day, for those of us who get a happy outcome on Judgement Day, that is.

And that is the one place He created before Earth, along with angels to people it. Angels are not omnipresent. No angel can be at two opposite ends of the universe at once and everywhere inbetween too. Their relation to space is maybe other than that of a body placed in it, but they have one and a limited one.

V

0:53:00 ... Red shift as Doppler effect ... in that case there is a Blue shift and a Red shift, right?

In Heliocentric theory we are always moving around the sun and at any given moment moving towards some stars and away from others.

Are those we are supposed to be moving away from red shifting more than otherwise? Are those we are supposed to be moving towards blue shifting, not shifting or at least red shifting less?

I wonder if Sungenis covers that in his upcoming film ...

VI

1) Holy Bible is not actually saying Universe is billions of light years across.

2) On redshift again, if Qasar red shifts more than galaxy it is in, either it is not due to Doppler effect, or it is moving away from us faster.

If it is moving away from us faster, if it is within that galaxy it is not staying within it, at least not same spot.

VII

In 1:24:21 for freshly killed seal found C14-dated 1300 yeas old a reference is given as Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct. 1971. Page 211.

Here is reference available:

Antarctic Journal of the United States

http://www.coldregions.org/ajus.htm

I go to 1971, volume 6 number 5 Sept-Oct 1971:

http://www.coldregions.org/AJUS_TOCS/AJUSvVIn5.htm

For page 211 I find this link:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/Antarctica/AJUS/AJUSvVIn5/AJUSvVIn5p210.pdf

Page 211 (the pdf is for two pages, 210 and 211), left column, last sentence of the last complete paragraph in the column.

"A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1300 years".

Title is "Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land", it is by:

Wakefield, Dort Jr
Department of Geology
The University of Kansas

as you find up if you scroll up to p. 210.

Just saying because he has been accused of making up his references.

His next reference is to the article of which this is the abstract:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/141/3581/634.abstract

Sorry, it was not his next reference but the one previous to the previous one, now I am rehearing next reference ...

Now, on 1:23:32 he cites a citation that has been contested:

http://evoanth.wordpress.com/in-brief/creationist-claims/radiocarbon-dating-has-given-two-different-dates-for-the-same-mammoth/

Contestation in a blog, which also gives complete reference.

Harold E. Anthony, “Natures Deep Freeze,” Natural History, Sept. 1949, p. 300

Problem is I find no archives for the magazine as I do the search. Is Natural History a magazine that never existed? Or is it hiding old issues because that one would support Kent Hovind's claim? I do not know. I guess the second.

Here is the rebuttal of the blog:

"2.The radiocarbon dates for the Fairbanks Creek mammoth were allegedly published in September, several months before the first ever radiocarbon resultswere published in December. As such they are unlikely to be true otherwise they would be acknowledged as the first ever radiocarbon results published. "

Would they? Or is that naive?

The blog links here:

http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html

Which links to:

http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/ (some problem with internet)

and which gives the reference for that site:

Much of the information presented in this section is based upon the Stuiver and Polach (1977) paper "Discussion: Reporting of C14 data". A copy of this paper may be found in the Radiocarbon Home Page

Now, I suggested that the publication might have been made up, if Hovind was a fraud (which I do not think he is anyway). The publication was not made up.

There is a dictionary called Encyclopedia Americana which is online, and it has an article called:

American Museum of Natural History*

That article has a section called

Education

And that section has a first paragraph that goes:

"The AMNH's ongoing research provides the foundation for one of its other central missions, education. Its extensive educational programs seek to increase the public's understanding of current scientific theory and research, address issues affecting our daily lives and the future of the planet, and provide a forum for exploring the world's cultural diversity. In addition, the museum publishes a number of publications, including Natural History magazine and several professional journals."

I repeat the last words: "including Natural History magazine and several professional journals."

So, the publication is not made up.

* Grolier Online http://ea.grolier.com/article?id=0012930-00 (accessed December 14, 2013).

... to League of Nerds and Realistic Opportunist on Hovind (part 1)

1) ... to League of Nerds and Realistic Opportunist on Hovind (part 1) · 2) ... continuing a Real Oldie For you! · 3) ... continuing with Shane Wilson : very short overview of Dating Methods + Flaws

video commented on (beginning of it)

#007- Kent Hovind- The League of Nerds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-lk7ZhZjXA

I

05:23 "But he must know he is so very wrong" ... He knows he is "so very wrong" in your yes, you are in his (and mine).

II

05:48 "can only synthesise up to iron, but after that where does it come from? God did that" plus your reaction "we know about stars that exploded, ow do you think Californium was discovered?"

My main point here: where does he get it from that stars can even synthesise UP TO iron all the way from H and He?

Californium has presumably sth to do with heavy elements kicking around particles from state of neutron to state of proton by loss of electron. But between He and Fe you do not get any radioactive elements, or perhaps just Radium (not sure where it is*).

If you have a complete list of elements forming in a neat chain from H and He to Fe and U, and how it is done, feel free to share the page.** Or create a wiki about it.

As to the other clearly improbable alternative, see my blog post on Thomism (be back in a moment).

Link as promised in lines you have to click to look at:

New blog on the kid : Proximate causes are not always secondary
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2013/12/proximate-causes-are-not-always.html

* Not sure where Radium is in the Periodic Table that is.

** Not meaning the Periodoc table, that is why I added words "and how it is done". I mean a page about each type of fusion. And preferrably what observed star light seems to indicate it is going on within the star.

III

Did he anywhere say the oxygen was higher in percentage as opposed to nitrogen or can he have meant the oxygen level per volume was greater?

If that would not have had same biological effect, I have another theory about waters above the heavens: hydrogen. It could be called either nothing or air or water in precemic language, and some of it combined with atmosperic oxygen to form he waters of the flood, meaning oxygen levels would in that case have been higher before oxygen was used up for making water with same hydrogen.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Moses, Church Fathers, Oxygen and Hydrogen (featuring Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross, separate videos)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/09/on-moses-church-fathers-oxygen-and.html

realisticoppurtunist

If there was that much hydrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere the first spark or bolt of lightning would have lit everything on fire. Like, literally everything. Not to mention the vastly increased air pressure that would exist if you had that much extra gas in the atmosphere. And how would it have just combined? Divine magic?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+realisticoppurtunist In my scenario:

• a) H2 would be above O2 and separated until the Flood (remember, H2 is lighter)
• b) the combining spark would not light anything or anything much since high up in the atmosphere, except the H2+O2 mixture itself, probably, and what would come down from it would not be fire but water
• c) Higher airpressure before the flood was one of Hovinds points about why people and animals lived longer and grew bigger. And had less diseases.

Whether the combination was an act directly of God or of angels serving him, it was an act of spirit ruling matter. Which is, on a Christian philosophic view, the most basic law of nature. Next to God ruling all creatures, material or spiritual.

[again] : Proximate causes are not always secondary causes as above

IV

Telomeres may have been shortened after Flood.

But actually he has a point: speed of telomere deletion may be linked to oxygen level, it is not like someone actually tried living in hyperbaric pressure and pure oxygen for years.

[remember, in my scenario some O2 was not so much released upward as used up to form Ocean Water - before that more of it was in the atmosphere, but Ni was not similarily used up, if my guess is right. So it would have been closer to living in pure oxygen.]

realisticoppurtunist

That makes no sense whatsoever. Telomere deletion has to do with the end replication problem and free radicals within the cell, not molecular O2 levels in the cell.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (modified for spelling correction)

+realisticoppurtunist I know very well the telomere deletion has to do with end replication problem. That is my argument against the PZMyers' scenario for centromere duplication and then split in the area between duplicated centromeres as "chromosome fission".

MY point - not Hovinds - is that God may have made the replication problems worse after the Flood, and that is why we live shorter lives.

As for HIS point, I am not sure you are right in presuming O2 levels have no counteraction against free radicals. I am pretty sure he may be right that increased exposure to cosmic radiation may increase free radicals too. Unless it hastens replication problems more directly.

realisticoppurtunist

"God may have made the replication problems worse"... the end-replication problem isn't some sort of divine mechanism. It will be the same so long as DNA is replicated in the same way. Hate to break it to you, but DNA Polymerase hasn't really changed all that much in the past couple of thousand years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+realisticoppurtunist Ah, you were around testing it five thousand years ago?

Seriously, I gave two or three different suggestions:

• 1) God made the telomeres simply shorter - less telomerase as to quantity - for the starting point
  
  
• 2) God changed its susceptibility to the shortening processes: shortening is in principle the same before Flood and now, but concretely simply faster now than then
  
  
• 3) God added to the shortening processes or detacted from such as delay shortening, like more X-rays and less O2 / Nitrogen and less air pressure.

God does not need any of these things to be "divine mechanisms" to be able to do that. The basic law of nature is "creature cannot oppose its Creator". Or in other words "I believe in God Father ALMIGHTY" etc.

V

Your point about quack is like a bit selfserving. As for scientific, science is pretty much guess work anyway, is guesses are as scientific as yours, since they are not completely without back up.

Yours are without back up ultimately insofar as they contradict the Holy Writ. Which he is careful not to do.

realisticoppurtunist

"science is pretty much guess work anyway". That is simply not true. We observe what the natural world does, there's no guessing involved. Hovind is not being scientific at all ever. He blindly assumes the bible to be literally true and then force-fits anything and everything that he can into that view, and ignores everything else.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+realisticoppurtunist Remember I have heard him, and that is not the impression I get. But I am not a fanatic science believer, though I have a scientific outlook through linguistics and private interest in, among other things, creationism. Forcefitting is not his fault, probably more like yours.

"We observe what the natural world does, there's no guessing involved."

On the accounts where he polemises against you, and where I polemise against you, there is no direct observation and plenty of guesswork on your side.

There is inference from observed to non-observed. That means guessing what parts of the reality we observe are parallelled in the parts we do not observe.

Note that on our view there is not this need to guess about non-observed when it comes to either outer space or beginning of earth and mankind. We believe there was always God observing His own creation.

The League of Nerds

+Hans-Georg Lundahl We amount evidence and form a theory we then test that theory with experimentation. Quacks get a theory then attempt to convince others of it so that they can make money, even when experimentation shows their theory to be flawed or just plain made up. It is true that there are things we can't not directly observe but that is why experimentation is important (among other reasons) by testing the theory we can directly compare it to nature.

Your statement that you believe God is always there is the same as saying that you 'Guess that God is always'.

I disagree with Hovind and you that we suffer from force-fitting, science starts from the position of what is the universe truly like and seeks evidence based on testing ideas, we discard those which fail to be testable or are test and shown to be wrong. Creationist start from we have the answer what can we find to support it and more importantly what do we have to try and disprove to protect it.

Further you're 'idea' regarding H2 would be wrong, H2 would just bleed off as hydrogen and helium do currently. Without constant miracles keeping this canopy in place the whole system would collapse and already have cooked the entire planet off. If you want to believe that there was a canopy kept aloft by God great, but do not try and rationalise it with science. A rule of thumb I'd use if it requires a miracle to work it's not science.

I think the point about everything catching fire is not to do with the O2 in the canopy but the increased pressure such a thing would cause, in much the same way a diesel engine works increasing the pressure would mean that combustion would happen more easily.

I've tried to be polite as possible in this post as you have yourself and I'd ask others reading this and your comments to continue to do so. -James

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+The league of Nerds "we discard those which fail to be testable or are test and shown to be wrong."

Creationists, we claim that honour for us, and consider those words in YOUR mouth bragging. Exposing that is what Hovind is about and what the Creationist movement in general is about.

As for politeness, seeing I am snarky myself - deservedly so - I can hardly apply for it. But I do not resent it either.

+The league of Nerds "Your statement that you believe God is always there is the same as saying that you 'Guess that God is always'."

Not quite, since God has proven himself quite a Historic entity. From talking to Adam and Eve to latest miracle in Lourdes.

+The league of Nerds "Further you're 'idea' regarding H2 would be wrong, H2 would just bleed off as hydrogen and helium do currently."

Here I take refuge in the magnetic field.

+The league of Nerds "I think the point about everything catching fire is not to do with the O2 in the canopy but the increased pressure such a thing would cause, in much the same way a diesel engine works increasing the pressure would mean that combustion would happen more easily. "

Since that did not appear from your pal's words - assuming realisticopportunist is such - I think you are polite to him. More than to me in this point.

OK, fires happened more easily before the flood, if such was the case, but does not mean everything got lost in fire.

I could have been wrong too, but I am so far not feeling forced to admit it.

What is the level of oxygen pressure at which everything would burn too easily?

Besides, some critters from back then seemed to enjoy coastlines and swamps. Like where water would be easily available if the wood caught fire.

+The league of Nerds "It is true that there are things we can't not directly observe but that is why experimentation is important (among other reasons) by testing the theory we can directly compare it to nature."

Millions of years are not testable as experiment. Millions of tons of stellar or planetary matter are not available either as lab equipment.

If it is far away or far back in time - supposedly before any observer (according to Atheists) - it is not testable. It is once again a guess which experiments are most relevant.

+The league of Nerds "A rule of thumb I'd use if it requires a miracle to work it's not science."

If it requires a miracle without a God to perform it, it is certainly no science. If it goes to the point where the secondary cause has for its own proximate cause not another secondary cause but God, it can be and often is science.

[Corrections on html as well as links to ocntinuation in 2016/HGL]

... on Historicity of Exodus

Video commented on:

Baryshx6 : The Hittites (Narration by Jeremy Irons)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq9FyI6D-xo

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1:39:00

Ramses II was into his twelfth year ... and Moses was supposedly ...

Ramses II may not have been Moses' Pharao at all:

CMI, David Down : Searching for Moses
http://creation.com/searching-for-moses

Bohewulf

Doesnt matter anyway. The bible is no history book and creationists are no historians.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And you are neither prejudiced nor bad at spelling Old Germanic names, I suppose?

feeling very ironic in a British way as I say this ...

Bohewulf

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
You suppose correctly. Dismissing invalid sources as information is no prejudicing and using non-common names is no misspelling.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Beowulf and Bohemund are not same name for one, and Genesis is true history for another (and so is Exodus).

Bohewulf

Are you really that ignorant? Of course these names are different, that's why they are spelled differently. Now guess what, there are more names with -wulf, -wolf, -mond, -mund than just those two.

But you seem to not care for what is true anyway if you consider "genesis" and "exodus" as "true history".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I certainly do care what is real history and what is not.

That is why I discount as unreal what is in conflict with the true history of the Bible.

For instance Ramses II (who has a burial in Egypt) being the Pharao of Moses (who was dronwed and buried in the Red Sea), or Proto-Indo-European being spoken before Adam was created going by the genealogies.

Bohemond is Norman French and Beowulf is English.

[Of course, he could have made that combination precisely because he is English, thus hailing from both, which I did not think of until it was too late.]

Blah b

Uhm, why look for answers when there are none? Moses is a made up figure, his history almost completely plagiarised from the story Sargon of Akkad had written down as being his background.

Pretty much that entire part of the bible is just Babylonian mythology, copied, and with some of the names changed. Noah's story for example is completely plagiarised from the story of Ut Napistim, with the only difference being a raven brought Ut Napistim the first branch after the global flooding the Babylonian gods caused to wipe out humanity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

An early part of Moses' story and an early part of Sargon's story coincide, the stories are not the same, and neither is made up

Noah was a real name, Utnapishtim a post-Babel name for the basically same person, but though the tablets are older than the Genesis by some, it is the Hebrew tradition which gets the story correct and not the Babylonian one.

Since you are into Acharya Sanning, I have answered some of her on this blog:

somewhere else [preaching to Atheists]
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/

Blah b

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Lol, should I even be so naive as to ask for sources? (vague blogs aren't sources)

For one thing, the 'hebrew story' of Noah can't 'get it correct' since it is a myth to start with, and it was copied entirely from Ut Napistim's story.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My blog is not vague, I sign the articles with my name, and the immediate source for any fact neither derived from my experience nor from common knowledge is usually noted.

In the Moses case I link to an Egyptologist who found a subset of the Pharaonic lists very well fitting with the Biblicalk account. As said, it was not Ramses II.

The Pharao he identified as having ordered the slaughter of Hebrew children was Amenemhet III, and Amenemhet IV was thus Moses followed by his "sister" or stepmother, the daughter of Amenemhet III. I do not recall her name or that of the other Pharao (next dynasty, tomb missing!) who the Christian Egyptologist identifed as Pharao of the Exodus.

Blah b

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
With source, I mean something which can be trusted to be true, something scientific.

You quoting the bible, and cherrypicking some vague stories which happen to suit your story, does not qualify.

For one thing, you'd first have to refute facts about the bible being copied, and then prove it's credibility, before you can stake any sort of claim on it.

And you're not going to manage to refute that the bible is copied and made up, the evidence is simply too strong for that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

There is evidence for one of three possibilities: Biblical story of Moses' childhood copied from Sargon story, Sargon story of his childhood copied from Biblical story of Moses, or both stories copied from something else, for instance fact (same about other earlier person or coinciding in details about each of these persons).

I can only exclude Sargon copying Moses' story on chronological grounds, and chronology is moot. No other possibility is excluded on a purely sceptic and agnostic inquiry. Therefore the Biblical story is not excluded either.

The stories of Charles XII, Napoleon and Hitler marching on Moscow (but Hitler not in person) are very similar. Which ones are mere copies?

Blah b

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
You've clearly not been paying attention: The Babylonian mythology is much older than the bible. It's impossible that they copied from the bible.

Also the wars with Russia are fact. The bible is myth. You can't compare the two.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am perhaps a bit nonchalant towards you, but first off Sargon is not what you usually call "mythological" and second even if he was older than Moses (which as I said would preclude one of the possibilities to explain the similarities of childhood stories) that does not preclude the childhood story of Moses being fact. So, I already noted the chronological argument you were giving. Perhaps you are a bit nonchalant?

And yes, you agree all three wars with Russia are fact. DESPITE SIMILARITIES. Therefore you CANNOT USE SIMILARITIES to prove Moses was what you mean by myth. That was the argument I was making.

Clearly Homer and Hesiod had another take on Zeus being son of Chronos and grandson of Sky and Earth than on Trojan War taking place.

And clearly King David's attitude to Exodus was closer to Homer's to the Trojan War, EXCEPT THAT Homer was telescoping old traditions into his account of a portion of it, while King David attributed the Exodus account to one of those there when events took place, i e to Moses.

IF he was wrong, when and how could his predecessors have started the mistake?

If you cannot pin that down, perhaps you can give a plausible scenario? If you cannot, your theory is down.

Blah b

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
You're several steps too far in already: I don't need to prove Moses is a myth. The story of Moses is a myth, since it's from a book of mythology with no evidence to it at all. That I can show much of it was plagiarised from the background story of Sargon of Akkad is just more nails in the coffin of the credibility of the bible.

For the same reason I don't get your empty claim based on Exodus. Why would I need to respond to another myth that never occured in reality?

You can't pile one myth on top of another myth and call it fact you know, that's not how it works.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The story of Moses is a myth, since it's from a book of mythology with no evidence to it at all."

That is not how the earlier receivers of Exodus took it.

Blah b

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, it makes sense that a bunch of superstitious desert barbarians take the mythology of their war god Yahweh rather seriously.

But I don't see the point behind saying that? Weren't you trying to argue the credibility of the bible before?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It makes sense that anyone takes seriously as history what has previously been regarded as history. Superstitious or desert barbarian are not really relevant factors.

It can be compared to Homer's account of Trojan War, but not to Hesiod's Theogony.

And lumping two very different categories together under the label "Mythology" shows your case depends on equivocation.

odean14

+Bohewulf evolutionists are?

[... historians, remember]

+Blah b listen how is it that you know that? were you there, so what if the story from one culture in the part had the same elements? for all we know it was the other way around. and im shore if you looked hard enough you'll find proof or to dis prove it comes back down to what you want to believe.

Bohewulf

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I certainly do care what is eral history and what is not. That is why I discount as unreal what is in conflict with the true history of the Bible." - that's the problem. You accept the bible as true and build your argumentation around that premiss without even taking into account that the bible could be wrong in some or all historical relevant parts.

Scientific research works differently.

+odean14
yes, obviously.

Blah b

+odean14
If you'd actually read the debate rather than fly into a spasm, you'd have seen that the Babylonian mythology is much older.

The bible writers only learned of these myths when the Babylonian empire overcame them and dominated the region.

Not just that, but the bible's plagiarised stories come from many aspects of Babylonian mythology, as well as others later on.

odean14

+Bohewulf lmao!!! dude really? evolution theory was crushed years ago lol where have you been? lol

if you believe in Darwinism and evolution then your no different that radical religious groups. lol

Blah b

+odean14
There is nothing to believe. Believe implies you're taking something false as being true.

There's so much evolution all around us that only the most foolish would deny it and back creationism. Ever seen a horse? Evolution. Ever seen a cow? Evolution. Ever seen a pig? Evolution.

Heck, there's several fossils from the Cretacious period sitting on a a board above my desk. To claim creationism is right, is to claim those objects don't exist.

odean14

okay go read up on the Cambrian period for example it was that discovery that disprove evolution.

Bohewulf

+odean14
You are funny. I nearly took you seriously. Yes, you are right. Creationism was crushed years ago. Too sad that many deluded weirdos still believe in it despite the evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You accept the bible as true and build your argumentation around that premiss without even taking into account that the bible could be wrong in some or all historical relevant parts."

NO work ever traditionally accepted by any people was wrong in ALL historical parts.

If the Bible were not recording real miracles, it would not just be plain wrong, but as historical books go MIRACULOUSLY WRONG. I refuse to buy that. I can believe in Miraculously Always Right, but not in Miraculously Always Wrong.

And the miracles recorded in the Bible are such that God must be there, meaning Miraculously Always Right is clearly possible.

Blah b

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
So basically what you just said is "I don't have any arguments, I'm too weak to accept the religion I've been indoctrinated with is wrong".

Obviously that's not a very good argument.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No. You are basically saying you have no arguments against mine, you are too weak to deal with real arguments and have to resume them as strawmen.

And you do not even know basic definitions of English words:

"Believe implies you're taking something false as being true."

No, that is what it implies to "be mistaken" or "believe the wrong thing", not what it means simply to "believe".

"Heck, there's several fossils from the Cretacious period sitting on a a board above my desk. To claim creationism is right, is to claim those objects don't exist."

Not at all, it means assuming they came from a Cretaceous type biotope at the Flood (dissimilar from contemporaneous Permian type biotopes) rather than from diverse epochs just happening to be divided conventiently into eras also, supposed to be thousand times earlier than the flood and more than that.

Blah b

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
An assumption? You don't even know where I dug them up, so you can't possibly know what research has been done on the ground there.

Conclusively proof you're just making stuff up and parroting things priests have told you.

[If I had been wrong here is where he would have said where he dug them up and I could have checked that Cretaceous ex-living fossils were found on top of Permian ones.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, neither parroting, nor making up.

I have a sample of fossil sites and each is from either one time label or two - three neighbouring ones with no really drastic change in fauna.

If the place where you dug it up has Permian fossils on a lower level, do tell me, I would be surprised!

Creation vs. Evolution : How do Fossils Superpose?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-do-fossils-superpose.html

Bohewulf (modified comment)

"NO work ever traditionally accepted by any people was wrong in ALL historical parts."

- That's irrelevant. Relevant is evidence and plausability in each specific case.

[problem is that it is totally implausible that any work traditionally accepted by any people as historic was wrong in all historical parts]

"And the miracles recorded in the Bible are such that God must be there"

- Again, you set a premiss and only accepts what fits into it. A scientific approach looks different, it needs to be open minded.

[problem is that he is doing so, by accepting as plausible a historical account wrong on every detail and he is not being it, since close minded to miracles]

Blah b

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you claim older fossils being deeper in the ground, underneath a younger layer, disproves evolution, than you've seriously not learned the very first thing.

Suppose we're in a sedimentation area on the lowering side of a geosyncinale (you need to google the meaning of these terms first), then we first get a Perm time period. Whatever is sedimented then is then covered by younger layers, such as those from the Cretacious period. So you obviously end up with several layers on top of eachother.

Limestone, from the Cretacious period, is nearly entirely made up of skeletons of fossil beings that have been compresed.

Find a layer a few metres thick, and you know you're dealing with a period of at the very least tens of thousands of years in that layer alone, conclusively destroying any chance of creationism being true. And there's limestone rocks that tower above you.

Also, stop spamming your blog. You just parrot a bullshit creationist site there. Not just that, but nobody who's not already a creationist is going to read it. Creationists are known to be liars who never say a sensible word. People ignore whatever they puke out as a result.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If you claim older fossils being deeper in the ground, underneath a younger layer, disproves evolution, than you've seriously not learned the very first thing."

You have not learned how to read.

I claimed that LACK OF older fossils being deeper down in the ground where the fossils are actually found refutes YOUR ARGUMENT for EVOLUTION.

Also, I am not echoing a Creationist site on my creationist blog. I sometimes link to them because they have studied a matter beyond my capacity, but sometimes to refute them and often I do not link to them at all.

The argument I am making here is for instance new to THEM.

Confer this article by Thomas Ross which presupposes you are half right and then my arguments below it:

CMI by Marcus R. Ross : Evaluating potential post-Flood boundaries with biostratigraphy—the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary
http://creation.com/biostratigraphy-post-flood-boundary

[They have now taken away my second comment along with the one by Tasman W I was answering - possibly because it was saying same things as my first one, possibly because Tasman W showed non-attention to that first one and I showed him an approach although he is Geologist and I am Amateur.]

Blah b

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Didn't I already tell you that creationists lie and say the stupidest things, always, at all times?

For example this guy assumes that biblical events actually took place, while they didn't. His story sinks before it even began.

I don't waste my time on that kind of trash. There's much better fiction out there to read.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, you did "tell" me "that creationists lie and say the stupidest things, always, at all times?"

Does it occur to you that it is a stupid thing to say to a Creationist age 45 who has been so since age 12 and, as former evolutionist, is very interested in the technical stuff?

"For example this guy assumes that biblical events actually took place, while they didn't."

Like you were there and saw something else happen?

Or like it happens very often that people are totally mistaken about their recent history? I mean, there was a time when to Israelites the events of Exodus were as recent as Eisenhower to us (just after Joshua took the land) and there was a time when they were as recent as George Washington is to us (like a bit closer to King David's time, perhaps in it.

And same observation is relevant if you would like to pretend Joshua never conquered or David never was King.

"There's much better fiction out there to read."

If it is fiction you want, do not read either Bible or even Homer as long as the fit lasts.

If any suspicion it may have happened may spoil your fun, keep to Star Wars or to Agent Spatiotemporel Valérian, or for that matter Superman and Doctor Who.

Cubious Blockus

+Hans-Georg Lundahl London is in the harry potter books, does that mean hogwarts is real?

Just because the bible has REAL locations and some things may have happened, it doesn't mean your book god exists.

Just like harry potter, he does things in real locations, but has a fantasy side to it, just like the bible.

Your just a part of the jesus/yahweh book club, you're nerds in every aspect.

Blah b

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
You're reversing the burden of evidence. There's no reason to assume the bible is correct. Untill someone proves otherwise it stays that way.

And yes, it works that way. You yourself also apply that model to every situation except your god.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You're reversing the burden of evidence. There's no reason to assume the bible is correct."

OK, let's play your game - according to the rules you really apply rather than those you think you apply. There is no reason to assume accounts about Napoleon are correct. THEN.

Cubious Blockus

There are more than 1 account for napolean.

The book god has 1, the bible.

Take that away, and your god never exists, no one would have ever heard of him.

The prussins knew of napolean, the brits, russians, mexicans, argentinians, blah blah blah.

There is PHYSICAL evidence for the existance and accounts of napolean.

NONE for the great flood, egypts plagues, pillars of salt......

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Just like harry potter, he does things in real locations, but has a fantasy side to it, just like the bible."

Your mistake. The problem with that parallel is that we do not have a civilisation mistaking Harry Potter for real history, nor will we ever have so.

"There are more than 1 account for napolean.

The book god has 1, the bible."

Bad parallel too since 1 the Bible is not just one account and 2 there are accounts outside the Bible.

There are accounts of the flood in most cultures, and the only way they are all twisted the same way by Christian standards - the rival accounts to Genesis, that is - is in not having the right God and sometimes not even having the same deity decide the flood and save the survivor (Babylonians notoriously attribute the one to Enlil and the other to Enki).

I have suspicions about other accounts of Exodus too - but in the model given by the article I linked to, there is no need for an Egyptian one. After Pharao's army was dronwded in Red Sea, there was no army to oppose the Hyksos invaders, presumably Amalekites.

Besides, the account in the Bible is preserved as a short version of several oral or written accounts double checked against each other under - for Exodus we would have Moses - before it was handed on.

That is how the account was taken later, as history not as made up fables.

You have a burden of explanation here: how could an account initially meant as fantasy and initially accepted as such have become accpted as literal history by the people possessing it? Not just once, but over and over again (remember, each historic Bible book is both an account and including miracles which is why atheists would on principle stamp them as fantasy, the Bible is just a redaction of what books belong to the history that is also divine revelation).

"Take that away, and your god never exists, no one would have ever heard of him."

Not true. Catholicism is not the religion of a book only. It cannot exist as itself if Bible is taken away, but it includes thousands of extra-Biblical accounts of saints living and of God working - up to our own days. And by God working I mean miracles, I mean conversions, I mean coincidences that are miraculously good.

"The prussins knew of napolean, the brits, russians"

These claimed to have fought him down yes.

Mexicans and Argentinians maybe claimed to have had exchange on diplomatic level.

Swedes were divided between a King abhorring him and a freemasonry admiring him.

Now, the God of Israel is not mentioned by name by the enemies of Israel, but some of his miracles were known to them.

• Some of his miracles were known to them, like staying the sun so that Joshua could destroy his enemies, which was known to Egyptian astronomers stating the sun had behaved very curiously as to movements four times (the Bible mentions one other time and Egyptians may have doubled the amount so as to make their chronology appear longer), and which was known to Agamemnon, who prayed for a similar miracle and was not heard.
  
  
• Some of his miracles were known to them, like the death of all Assyrian soldiers when they were threatening Israel. As CSL notes, Herodotus confirms there was an occasion when Assyrians had to give up an attempt to conquer Israel, but attributes it to mice nibbling all the bowstrings of the soldiers.
  
  A nice excuse for not admitting God (or some deity) doomed their army to die without battle, all soldiers none excepted, and not very accurate zoology about mice.
  
  As CSL noted, unless we are atheists we can accept the miraculous explanation as possible. It is just the naturalistic one that is totally impossible: mice don't behave that way.

"There is PHYSICAL evidence for the existance and accounts of napolean."

There is physical evidence for a battle occurring at Waterloo. If historians were incompetent they might try and deny Napoleon lost it*, and the soldier graves would not be evidence enough ton contradict them totally.

There is similarily physical evidence all over the world for the flood. Incompetent historians call it evidence for eras of faunas of very dissimilar type, like Cretaceous or Permian. No piece of evidence precludes both Permian and Cretaceous fossils from being exactly just from the Flood.

And as for Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt, it has been pointed out to people in the area.

*[Either saying he did not exist, or was just a general under Bourbon Kings, or denying he lost rather than won, claiming there was no Restauration - neither of these pervesions of history could be checked by the merely physical evidence from Waterloo battle field.]

Cubious Blockus

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You mean a geological formation?

how long does a pillar of salt stay as a pillar in the open elements?

look at how well worn the pyrimids are after 4000 years. I doubt a puny human size pillar would last 50-100 years, yet alone how ever long ago that "story" would have happened.

Salt was a commodity back then, merchants got rich selling it aswell.

[Look how Lot's wife was the one he choose to answer on.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I recently learned something about transporting salt back then.

From Kent Hovind, I think. Salt and clay were mixed and baked into a small "pillar" (about a yard or less). Then it was transported. [And then sold, obviously] When one wanted to salt something, one put broken pieces from it into water to extract the salt. The clay does (so I heard) not affect the taste.

Hence "if the salt loses its savour" (NaCl itself will not be lossing it, it is the savour of the salt pile).

I see two scenarios about the pillar that had been Lot's wife:

• a) its salt has been washed away, but other parts remain
  
  
• b) its salt has miraculously been retained in it (a miracle that would be noted, since rains would fall from time to time and would after some time have washed away the salt from a normal pillar of it

Either way, if everyone knew someone's wife had been turned into a pillar of salt, one would probably try to identify it so as not to be graverobbers even in the search for salt.

Of course you could argue the pillar pointed out were an actual natural geological formation and was later used to prove an originally fictitious story. That is the trouble with a preference of physical evidence, since such can be interpreted differently, according to different informations or lack of them and different convictions about the informations.

Cubious Blockus

Hans, that was the most coherent nonsense i have ever heards from a bible believer.

It actually made sense, and was logical.

I have found one flaw, but may have been over loooked by you.

Wind has caused the damage to the Pyrimids, which is why the lower half is the most destoyed. the sand particles smashing against it didn't reach the peak as often as it did the bottom.

It has lost several tonnes and metres off its base.

The pyrimid is made of limestone, a harder rock than saltstone. if the pyrimid is harder and taken so much damage.

It would be safe to assume that a softer rock of salt that is 1:10000 the size of the pyrimid would have eroded to nothing by now. considering that story happened supposedly before the pyrimids.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Has it occurred to you that Sodom area is not in sandy deserts but in rocky deserts? Jordan is not Egypt!

Btw, did you notice I mentioned miraculous preservation as an option too?